Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[Brennin]

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.


Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority. Why?

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20


A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.




The issue here is the mangled translation of the word arsenokoites to mean homosexual.
It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside…the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

So put all together "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

You keep repeating the same falsehoods despite being corrected numerous times. You do not know Greek; I do, and you are wrong. Quit while you are behind.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You keep repeating the same falsehoods despite being corrected numerous times. You do not know Greek; I do, and you are wrong. Quit while you are behind.

So, no discussion or information to back up your POV? Just a straight "I'm right, you're wrong"?

Thanks.

 

[Brennin]

So, no discussion or information to back up your POV? Just a straight "I'm right, you're wrong"?

Thanks.

How many times do I have to reply to the same cut-and-paste nonsense?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How many times do I have to reply to the same cut-and-paste nonsense?

Well, I'm yet to see any material that conclusively shows that "homosexual" in the modern context of "consenting, same sex oriented adult partners" is an accurate translation of "arsenokoites".

Is it, or is it not, a fact that the Bible is the only known useage of this word, where other terms were available to refer to homosexuals without the ambiguity?

Is it, or is it not, a fact that other significant Bible scholars (e.g. Martin Luther) have translated the term to mean other things (e.g. masturbation)?

 

[Dogbean]

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.


Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority. Why?

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20


A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.




The issue here is the mangled translation of the word arsenokoites to mean homosexual.
It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside…the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

So put all together "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

It seems you keep this post handy so you can just paste it in there every time you need it. Lazy. Unoriginal.

 

[RMDY]

Bump.

"That would be nice, except race is not genetic, since no gay gene exists."

You misquoted me. Check up on #472.

My quote said: "That would be nice, except homosexuality is not genetic, since no gay gene exists". And furthermore, I never said "race" was genetic, was applying eugenics. And in later posts I explained myself that people who have certain traits pass them on. And I also said it isn't rocket science that an asian will look like an asian if they are born to two asian parents for example, unless there is something to variate it, such as an ancestor who had different traits that were not common with "asians".

In fact, many studies seem to say that of many things that are undeniably genetic, things such as eye color, hair color, height, etc. there is only thing that occurs more consistently among identical twins raised apart than their orientation, and that is their eye color. So, in a sense, orientation is even more genetic than race.

Edited to add (concerning your "liar gene" contention): actually yes, we have be (take your pick) shaped by evolution/intellegently designed to seek what seems "good," and avoiding punishment seems good, so you could say that we have a "genetic predisposition" toward lying when it will help to avoid unpleasantness.

I was being sarcastic. I don't believe lying is exactly genetic at all, in terms of genes perhaps, but nonetheless I believe that the sin nature that we are born with was inherited from Adam.

The difference is that as we mature, we learn, through a more enlightened self-interest that all too often our lies will come back to us and the unpleasantness involved will only multiply. Then that same genetic predisposition becomes a basis for greater honesty. It is the same impulse for the same goal, it is our understanding that has changed. There is no way that any amount of preaching will change either the genetic impulse or the genetic goal of orientation.

The bible has one word for the nature of lying: sin-nature.





One can argue that somehow homosexuality is genetic. I used the lying example to point out sarcatically how it could be genetic too but we all know it really isn't. It is something that develops as a result of the social interactions around us. The explanation is that we are naturally selfish and evil, therefore, we seek our own motives and when we get into trouble, we act for ourselves, and that is a pattern kids develop. Jesus did not lie, but everyone from Adam does. Jesus was born of a women, so if lying were genetic, he would have inherited it, yet he didn't. Jesus wasn't a liar.

Satan was created without sin, yet he sinned and was found to be a liar, a murderer, and a whole bunch of other things. It is the result of what happened surrounding him. Perhaps it involved nothing at all and by chance he became a liar. Who knows. That is besides the point.

The point is lieing is something more sociological than genetic and that was what I was pointing out.




EnemyPartyII, I know you may have reputable sources to back up what you believe, but frankly, so do people who teach we evolved from monkey's. Yes, the evolutionists, the majority of schools, and athiests all teach we pretty much evolved from monkeys even though transitionary fossils don't exist.

Your welcome to show me your reputable sources if you'd like.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It seems you keep this post handy so you can just paste it in there every time you need it. Lazy. Unoriginal.

Nothing wrong with keeping an easily quaotable post handy to address the same arguments that get posted over and over again... it can get tiring to write out the same arguments over and over again

 

[EnemyPartyII]

My quote said: "That would be nice, except homosexuality is not genetic, since no gay gene exists".

Except that you are incorrect. Homosexuality demonstrably has a genetic component.

EnemyPartyII, I know you may have reputable sources to back up what you believe, but frankly, so do people who teach we evolved from monkey's. Yes, the evolutionists, the majority of schools, and athiests all teach we pretty much evolved from monkeys even though transitionary fossils don't exist.

No one reputeable claims we came from "monkeys". However, there are many, many transitional fossils between a great many of our postulated answers.

I'll side with the scientific consensus thanks.

Now, reputeable sources... you want ones supporting a homosexual genetic link, or ones supporting common ancestry?

 

[RMDY]

Yet you make elementary mistakes in your claims about genetics

Point them out to me.

Secondly, I recall that scientists first suspected a "gay gene" but came to the conclusion it is not exactly genetic but more sociological than genetic. Is this a wrong fact in your eyes?

this same tactic is and has been used by racists for generation. A racist will compare a person of color or being a person of color to a disese to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.

Yes, except I am not a racist. I have an asian girlfriend, my former room mate was black, and I have friends from India and palestine. By the way I love Jewish people and am not a xenophobe. Are you accusing me of being racist?

Secondly, I have had homosexual friends, especially at my work. I met my girlfriend through a homosexual friend at the time. Are you accusing me of being a homophobe who harms homosexuals?

Just like there is no black gene…so according to you race cannot be inborn

I didn't say, to my knowledge there was a "black" gene. I merely implied that genetic traits are transfered between people and children take on those traits from there parents. Are you accusing me of lying? By race I would consider myself mixed European, but then again, I am Canadian and consider myself Canadian, but nonethless, people perceive me to be a "white guy". I have european features and traits. Should I have traits that africans or asians have? I don't have small eyes. I don't have a certain type of facial bone structure like asians do. My nose looks a different way than africans or asians. So what is your point? I am merely making points here about the obvious, not because I support eugenics (which played a role in darwinism and the holocaust) but because I am trying to make a point, which you are missing. I have been trying to compare genetics and sociology.

To do so would be dishonest. I remind you that you are the one making claims abotu sexual orientation and genes

What have I been saying all along? I put my faith in what the "bible sayz". I put my faith that the "bible sayz" that homosexual is sexual immorality and defiles oneself. Infact, the apostles pretty much asserted that homosexuality hurts oneself rather than others and puts a wedge in their relationship with God. But who am I? I'm just letting you know what I believe.

Many of you however don't go by what the "bible sayz" but rather what the gentiles say. So I am going out of my "narrow-minded box" to discuss the issues with what knowledge I have.

Hey, I'd probably have a hard time scientifically proving how Jesus was born a virgin with no sperm, how Jesus is going to come on the clouds even though we know what is up there above the clouds; I will probably have a hard time explaining how Noah parted the water of the sea, how Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead, and how Jesus turned water into wine. Evolutionists claim they have reputable sources to back up their claims about evolution, a godless universe, and how we came from monkey's.

On the topic of honesty can you be honest enough to provide actual evidence that sexual orientation is not inborn?

1) "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project"

2) Perhaps it is a psychological reaction to experiences or a traumatic event. "
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread183071/pg1


Dr. Collins noted that environment--particularly childhood experiences--as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032003.html

[SIZE=+1]Homosexuality is not biologically determined - latest research.[/SIZE]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1160065/posts


Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf



Homosexuality Not Innate, Expert Says
http://takebackcanada.com/innate.html

Is Homosexuality Genetic?
http://www.dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm

Behind Male Homosexuality Could Be Explained By Sexually Antagonistic Selection​

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111843.php



"All indications are that homosexuality is a choice."
http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm



"The American Psychiatric Association reports "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology [cause or origin] for homosexuality." The APA further states "No specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."
http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm









Also consider this:
"Despite many theories and thousands of studies, we do not know the answer. Although it is possible that genetics in the form of DNA markers, or the organization of the brain, may underlie human sexual orientation, researchers have found no chemical, biological, or even psychological differences that distinguish homosexuals and heterosexuals (Hooker 1957, 1958; Masters and Johnson 1979; Paul et al., 1982; Hamer et al. 1993; LeVay 1993; Laumann et al. 1994).
http://www.ablongman.com/html/henslintour/henslinchapter/ahead4.html


"In addition, we would expect identical twins--who develop from a single fertilized egg and share 100 percent of their heredity--to always have the same sexual orientation. If sexual orientation is inherited, then if one twin is heterosexual (or homosexual) the other twin should have the same sexual orientation. In some pairs of identical twins, however, one twin may have a heterosexual orientation and the other a homosexual orientation (McConaghy and Blaszczynski 1980; Bailey and Pillard 1991; Satinover 1996).
With such findings, most sociologists take the social constructionist view and consider homosexuality to be the result of socialization (the environment), not genetics. No consistent patterns of socialization of homosexuals have been identified, however. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals come from a variety of family backgrounds. Consequently, unlike some psychoanalysts, sociologists do not view the cause of homosexuality to be a particular type of family relations, such as a "weak," aloof father and a close, "dominant" mother (Bieber 1976; Pillard 1990; Mallet and Apostolidis 1997).
As with other human behavior, sociologists do not rule out the possibility that genetics underlie homosexual and heterosexual orientations. If these genetic causes exist, however, they have yet to be demonstrated. Also, if they exist, the sexual orientation is likely due to an interplay between these genetic factors and the environment. At this point, however, no "gay gene" has been found."
http://www.ablongman.com/html/henslintour/henslinchapter/ahead4.html











Those are sources that suggest homosexuality isn't genetic and inherited. They even suggest that a person can change their sexual preference.

 

[RMDY]

Except that you are incorrect. Homosexuality demonstrably has a genetic component.

Your not born gay because you are not hard-wired that way (hey it rhyms).

No one reputeable claims we came from "monkeys".

Evolutionists teach it. Athiests mostly believe in it. The primape theories are taught in schools---or were when I was going to elementary and high school.

However, there are many, many transitional fossils between a great many of our postulated answers.

Such as?

I'll side with the scientific consensus thanks.

I'll take note of that. I can only pray that you will trust the God of Jacob more.

Now, reputeable sources... you want ones supporting a homosexual genetic link, or ones supporting common ancestry?

Give me both if you'd like.

 

[Brennin]

Well, I'm yet to see any material that conclusively shows that "homosexual" in the modern context of "consenting, same sex oriented adult partners" is an accurate translation of "arsenokoites".

People can't see with their eyes shut.

Is it, or is it not, a fact that the Bible is the only known useage of this word, where other terms were available to refer to homosexuals without the ambiguity?

No, it is not a fact. It appears in the so-called Sibylline Oracles as well as the writings of Early Church leaders.

Is it, or is it not, a fact that other significant Bible scholars (e.g. Martin Luther) have translated the term to mean other things (e.g. masturbation)?

I do not know how Martin Luther translated the word, nor do I care.

 

[Brennin]

It seems you keep this post handy so you can just paste it in there every time you need it. Lazy. Unoriginal.

It is also disingenuous when it has been previously refuted.

 

[RMDY]

3rddaymessanger, certain people in these forums admitted to trust secular science over the inspired words of God--even the Word of God himself and dismiss it all as the "bible sayz".

They put forth arguments on here a year or more ago suggesting they were "born" gay, therefore, they couldn't change their sexual orientation.

Some even argued a "gay gene" existed.

Guess what? There is no "gay gene" and homosexuals are not "hardwired" to be gay. Scientists tend to believe more that, although genetics could play some role, they do not know for sure if it does, and acknowledge that other factors affect a person instead, or a combination of both, but nonethless, scientists recognize that sexual orientation is changable because it is not exactly genetic and hardwired into the homosexual.

You and I can put our faith in the word of God and preach it, but certain people on here don't want to hear what "the bible sayz" and rather hear what secular scientists say.

 

[darkshadow]

So, biblical slavery is slightly less unjust than non-biblical slavery?

Since biblical slavery is not the same as slavery of the America's past, yes.
They are different that making them at different levels of any justification scale.

 

[3rddaymessenger]

JohnChapter14;

I appreciate your reply,but am not sure what you're trying to tell me. This, apparently is a "Christian forum" so I would expect that Quoting Scripture and writing Biblical explanations is the most effective thing to do "as Christians". I know no other language or method of communication.

Light dispells darkness. Truth rebukes and exposes perversion, while love and grace offer power to deliver. If they don't want that, then why would they even be on this forum? We are never going to let them feel comfortable in what they do. They may get the world and all governments sympathizing with them, but just one Christian is like one match lighting up a stadium! We carry the Truth.

I, for one, will speak the Truth even if I end up preaching it in jail. Would to God I would end up in Court where I could rebuke them for even having a Bible in their courtroom...giving licence to lies. While they sanction the filth which that Book calls abomination. I would be jailed for contempt of court in the first 10 minutes!

Let us follow the example of the early Book of Acts Christians! Lord, give us boldness to preach Thy Word, always and in all places. Amen.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Your not born gay because you are not hard-wired that way (hey it rhyms).

Its not a matter of being "born" homosexual... its probably like any other behavioural trait that onsets at puberty... There is a genetic component and a social component, and it is a spectrum condition. That is to say, at one end of the spectrum, there are some people who, no matter what social factors they are exposed to, will be utterly, 100% heterosexual, and at the other end, people who, no matter what conditioning, will be utterly homosexual. In between there are people who fall along the spectrum at different places, those who's sexuality could turn out either heterosexual or homosexual, depending on their conditioning and environment, and others who are orientated in such a way as to find both genders sexually attractive.

So no, its not a matter of there being a "gay gene", and those with it are gay, and those without it are straight. Its more like height... there are a number of genese effecting it, and it is effected by environment as well as the genetics you are born with, and although you are born with a certain potential, your environment effects the amount of that potential you reach. (potential not used as a value judgement)

Make sense?

Now, reputeable sources... you want ones supporting a homosexual genetic link, or ones supporting common ancestry?
​

Give me both if you'd like.

Homosexual genetic links...
http://borngay.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=6

Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG (March 2000). "Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample". J Pers Soc Psychol 78 (3): 524–36. PMID 10743878.

Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatucci AM (July 1993). "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation". Science (journal) 261 (5119): 321–7. doi:10.1126/science.8332896. PMID 8332896.

Swaab DF, Hofman MA (December 1990). "An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men". Brain Res. 537 (1-2): 141–8. PMID 2085769.

There are hundreds more...

Common ancestor links...
http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/primate.html

http://www.primates.com/pierolapithecus/index.html

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com...imates_and_humans_part_1_vitamin_c_pseudogene

There are THOUSANDS of these...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

3rddaymessanger, certain people in these forums admitted to trust secular science over the inspired words of God--even the Word of God himself and dismiss it all as the "bible sayz".

They put forth arguments on here a year or more ago suggesting they were "born" gay, therefore, they couldn't change their sexual orientation.

Some even argued a "gay gene" existed.

Guess what? There is no "gay gene" and homosexuals are not "hardwired" to be gay. Scientists tend to believe more that, although genetics could play some role, they do not know for sure if it does, and acknowledge that other factors affect a person instead, or a combination of both, but nonethless, scientists recognize that sexual orientation is changable because it is not exactly genetic and hardwired into the homosexual.

You and I can put our faith in the word of God and preach it, but certain people on here don't want to hear what "the bible sayz" and rather hear what secular scientists say.

Actually, scientists are quite sure tht genetics plays a very important roll in determining sexuality.

and I'm all for what the Bible says... when it makes sense. When it doesn't make sense, I question if it comes from God or humans. God gave you eyes to read the Bible, and a brain to work out which parts are true to his message. Condemnation of loving, consenting homosexual relationships is NOT part of His message.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

People can't see with their eyes shut.



No, it is not a fact. It appears in the so-called Sibylline Oracles as well as the writings of Early Church leaders.



I do not know how Martin Luther translated the word, nor do I care.

What are the Sibyline Oracles? How do they use the word?

were the Early Church Leaders merely quoting Paul? If so, that hardly counts.

 

[Andreusz]

scientists recognize that sexual orientation is changable because it is not exactly genetic and hardwired into the homosexual.

I'd be interested in reading any articles that come to this conclusion. Could you give me some references?

You and I can put our faith in the word of God and preach it, but certain people on here don't want to hear what "the bible sayz" and rather hear what secular scientists say.

You seem to be implying that there's something wrong with wanting to base your reasoning on evidence. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Kerwin]

So, biblical slavery is slightly less unjust than non-biblical slavery?

Why do you say slavery is unjust? Is it unjust for one person to employ another person? Is not an employment situation a contractual agreement? Slavery is basically an employment contract. The only injustice I saw is how slaves were mistreated. I have been mistreated by my government. Does that mean the government citizen contract is unjust or just my government in these cases. Scripture commands that the slave-owner treat his slaves with righteousness and fairness. Do we blame God for those who choose to disobey him?

1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Or does the attitude of believers to their authorities offend you as they are commanded.

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.