Transgender and the church

HaloHope said:

I repent of my sins daily, I sin as a flawed human being all the time. However, I will not repent of something that I do not believe for one moment is a sin. Incidentally my copy of the Bible doesn't say "homosexual offenders" in Corinthians, it says "sodomites". According to Ezikiel Sodoms sin was inhospitality so I easily reach the conclusion the translation "homosexual offenders" comes from someone with an agenda against gay people.

Click to expand...

One need not even refer to Sodom to explain your Bible's translation of sodomite. Corinthians uses the word arsenokoites (which Paul invented since it doesn't exist outside the Bible) that some recent translators have inaccurately claimed means homosexuals. However, from Martin Luther up until about 50 years ago, arsenokoites was universally translated as masturbators. And it's original meaning is believed to parallel the Hebrew Qadesh, which means temple prostitute. Qadesh in Deuteronomy 23 is translated as sodomite, which is where some modern verses get the word for Corinthians.

Sadly what we see here is the worst possible misrepresention of the Christian faith in the pro-gay approach.
Anyone could come here and say any sin isnt a sin.
They could say fraud is not a sin or they could say homosexuality is not a sin.
They could say they repent of all their sins and follow Christ.
They could say that in following Christ they make a lot of money stealing from people or they have blessed same sex relationships.

The evidence is this is all falsehood.
ie.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

They could say well those words thieves and homosexual offenders are mistranslated.

But the real problem is, if 1 Corinthians 6 is true, then it indicates believers washed and sanctified by Christ are no longer theives and homosexual offenders, which of course implies those cliaming there are, are not yet believers, a suggestion the CF rules does not tolerate.

Jase,

Nope, because there was no such thing as homosexuality when the Bible was written.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I cant accept this. Firstly you don’t know as you weren't there ;-)
Secondly the current dictionary definition (current because the pro-gay movement will get it changed if it doesn’t work for them) is homosexuality is same sex attraction and relationships.
Now we know from all history, not just Biblical history, that men committed same sex acts with other men. The only way your statement could work is if those men did that without having any sexual attraction.
What I think your statement is intended to mean, is they didn’t have the current concept or a ‘monogamous loving homosexual relationship’ But all that’s is, is a form of same sex relationship that is claimed to be loving and monogamous. Scripture however, the word of God, describes men with men instead of women being the error, so whatever form or type of homosexuality, including ‘monogamous loving homosexual relationships’ are error.

The concept didn't exist. Everyone in ancient times, even Greek and Roman days, were assumed to be heterosexual men and women,

Click to expand...

here is your first obvious blunder. If there was not even a concept of homosexuality then but they engaged in same sex acts, how come you think there was a concept of heterosexuality? Your argument is in la la land.

Phinehas2 said:

They could say well those words thieves and homosexual offenders are mistranslated.

Click to expand...

Phinehas. We know that the word arsenokoites does not mean homosexual offenders. It's a fake word, invented by Paul, and there was no such thing as homosexuality when the Bible was written. The concept didn't exist. Had Paul intended to convey the common same-sex behavior of Greek culture, he would have used the Greek paiderasste. Translators in the last 50 years have grossly interjected their bias to condemn gays into this verse so Bibles sell better. There is absolutely no cultural, contextual, or linguistic support for translating arsenokoites as homosexual. Not to mention, if Paul was trying to condemn homosexuality - why did he invent a word that only references male to male behavior, and has nothing to do with women? The only verse in the Bible that even mentions female same-sex activity is Romans, however, that verse is directed at heterosexuals doing that which is not in their nature, by engaging in same-sex behavior during pagan idol worship.

So explain to me why Paul only invented a word for men, not women homosexuals if homosexuality was his target?

I personally think the only reason conservatives are challenging this so hard, is because if it's true that these few "clobber" passages were poorly translated for financial and biased means, would mean you guys couldn't condemn your most hated sin anymore. And you say we have an agenda?

Phinehas2 said:

Jase,
Sorry but I cant accept this. Firstly you don’t know as you weren't there ;-)

Click to expand...

Actually I do know, since sexual orientation was not discovered until the late 19th Century. Everyone in ancient times was assumed to be heterosexuals, and some heterosexuals engaged in same-sex behavior with prostitutes, pagan rituals, or "boy love" as well known in such Greek culture as Sparta.

Secondly the current dictionary definition (current because the pro-gay movement will get it changed if it doesn’t work for them) is homosexuality is same sex attraction and relationships.

Click to expand...

Now we know from all history, not just Biblical history, that men committed same sex acts with other men. The only way your statement could work is if those men did that without having any sexual attraction.

Click to expand...

Once again, everyone was assumed to be heterosexual in ancient times. There was no such thing as orientation, so nobody knew that some people were born attracted to only members of the same-sex. Same-sex behavior was prevelant in Greek and Roman culture, but once again - it was never based on an orientation, nor was it usually consentual.

What I think your statement is intended to mean, is they didn’t have the current concept or a ‘monogamous loving homosexual relationship’ But all that’s is, is a form of same sex relationship that is claimed to be loving and monogamous. Scripture however, the word of God, describes men with men instead of women being the error, so whatever form or type of homosexuality, including ‘monogamous loving homosexual relationships’ are error.

Click to expand...

Not a single verse in the Bible says men with men is error, unless in the cases of rape, pagan prostitution, or sex slaves. You've been told this a million times, but I think your posts indicate you only wish to incite trouble instead of actually learn.

If there was not even a concept of homosexuality then but they engaged in same sex acts, how come you think there was a concept of heterosexuality? Your argument is in la la land.

Click to expand...

Only the knowledge that most of society engaged in opposite sex relationships existed back then. Heterosexual was not invented until the late 19th century and heterosexuality was not coined until 1900.

If you live in an age of no science and no understanding of biology or sociology - you are going to assume things based on observation. What did most people during those days observe? Over 95% of society (by historical statistics of orientation - it hasn't changed throughout time) would have engaged in opposite-sex behavior - therefore making opposite-sex behavior the assumed state of all humans. Some of humanity, also engaged in same-sex behavior for specific purposes - be it pagan orgies/rituals, or in the case of Greek and Roman society - "boy love", where men would sleep with women, but also have young Greek boys on the side. Thus the origin of the only terms in Greek referring to same-sex behavior - paiderasste and malakoi. Neither of which were consentual or virtuous.

Jase said:

Phinehas. We know that the word arsenokoites does not mean homosexual offenders. It's a fake word, invented by Paul, and there was no such thing as homosexuality when the Bible was written.

Click to expand...

Arsenokoitai is anything BUT a fake word. It is a neologism for sure. Paul lived in Greek cities and within Greek culture. Greeks were well versed in same gender sexuality. "Homosexuality" is same gender sexuailty. Paul with the usage of connecting arsen and koitai, literally highlighted men having sex with men. Arsen = men, koitai = sexual intercourse.

The concept didn't exist. Had Paul intended to convey the common same-sex behavior of Greek culture, he would have used the Greek paiderasste.

Click to expand...

Pederasty is adults with non-adults. It is an ancient and well-defined practice. Paul made sure to define same gender sex as a consentual sex act between men.

Translators in the last 50 years have grossly interjected their bias to condemn gays into this verse so Bibles sell better. There is absolutely no cultural, contextual, or linguistic support for translating arsenokoites as homosexual.

Click to expand...

I have just proven the error of the gay theological position on same gender sex acts being ONLY temple prostitution. Paul INVENTED, as you agree with, a new word to define consentual same gender sex acts.

Now onto the money charge. OBVIOUSLY it would bring billions of dollars into the Church to accept homosexuality and those willingly engaging in gay sex. (Gay, by the way is an invented word = neologism. It means same sex sexuality. Lesbian reaches back into time but does the same thing in our modern era.)

So the anti gay aspect being lucrative for the Church charge is struck down as well. And as anyone can see, the pro gay forces are trying to eliminate the Church from existing the way Jesus and the Apostles formed it. So, pro-gay would be a means of supposedly hypocritical Clergy to make LOTS of money.

I personally think the only reason conservatives are challenging this so hard, is because if it's true that these few "clobber" passages were poorly translated for financial and biased means, would mean you guys couldn't condemn your most hated sin anymore. And you say we have an agenda?

Click to expand...

Bible believing Christians oppose gay theology because it is an great and outright secular (worldy) attack on The Church Universal and Christians individually and corporately. As the proof of liberal, progressive and socialist political power shows is the case.

Jase said:

And how do you propose I do that when God never discusses the issue? Don't you think Jesus would have discussed this quite a bit if it were as evil as you claim it is?

Click to expand...

you have yet to respond


So your logic is that because it is not discussed then it is wrong(which I disagree with to being but let me humor you). How do you feel about child molestation? Under your theory it is perfectly fine? Correct. Based on the the fact that it isn't directly discussed in the Bible then it must be ok?

I need some different proof that doesn't work it is flawed reasoning even if your views on the english bible are correct(which they are not).

So what other proof do you have?

Avniel said:

you have yet to respond


So your logic is that because it is not discussed then it is wrong(which I disagree with to being but let me humor you). How do you feel about child molestation? Under your theory it is perfectly fine? Correct. Based on the the fact that it isn't directly discussed in the Bible then it must be ok?

I need some different proof that doesn't work it is flawed reasoning even if your views on the english bible are correct(which they are not).

So what other proof do you have?

Click to expand...

You seem to know for a fact that my views on the translation bias of the English Bible is wrong, so why should I continue to waste my time arguing with you over this?

savedfromdistruction said:

There is no need for opinion, just faith (believing what the bible says)

Click to expand...

Which bible? Hebrew, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant? KJV, NIV, NLT, NASB? They all have differences.

savedfromdistruction said:

Hello HaloHope,
I love you and I pray for you but the fact is that in the end what matters is what God says, not people. There is no one suggesting that you do not have something to wrestle with but we all do. One has one type of thing and another a different type of thing. However we do have a promise;

1Cor. 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

2Peter 2:9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

So you see no one can say that they have to sin. All sin is a choice. If we choose God in Christ through repentance and faith we will live as the Lord wants us to. If not then we will fall to the sin that our hearts love. We love the Lord we obey or we love sin we obey our flesh. The choice is ours, but so is the out come of our eternal state.

So are you in sin? YES! However you can come to the Lord in repentance and He will give you a new life that He wants for you. God bless.

1Cor. 6:9-11
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, [fn] nor sodomites,
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such WERE some of you.

Click to expand...

And that's the truth.

Jase said:

You're right, it is my issue. So if you would kindly stop condemning gays based on your misunderstanding of scripture I'd appreciate it.

Click to expand...

When you stop celebrating and encouraging homosexuality based on your misunderstanding of scripture.

Judge not or the same way you judge others you will be judge.

HaloHope said:

I repent of my sins daily, I sin as a flawed human being all the time. However, I will not repent of something that I do not believe for one moment is a sin. Incidentally my copy of the Bible doesn't say "homosexual offenders" in Corinthians, it says "sodomites". According to Ezikiel Sodoms sin was inhospitality so I easily reach the conclusion the translation "homosexual offenders" comes from someone with an agenda against gay people.

I consider ending my relationship (which is what led me to God in the first place, I was non-Christian before meeting my now partner) would be one of the most foolish and idiotic things to do in my life. I can't for one moment accept that God hates love.

I firmly believe if God is giving people the cross to bear of never being able to share their lives romantically with another human being he is a barbaric God. Fortunately I see nothing of the sort in the God of the Bible.

Click to expand...

If it feels good do it.

The fruit of secular humanism.

And Hollywood and Inner Cities all over the planet. The inappropriate content industry and of course the legalization of prostitution and drugs.

Jase said:

Which bible? Hebrew, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant? KJV, NIV, NLT, NASB? They all have differences.

Click to expand...

Show in these "different versions" where any of the core doctrines of Christianity is not there? There's no other Gospel in any of them.

Please show one place in the scriptures of these "different versions" where there is even so much as a hint of same gender marriage?

You're up!

onemorequestion said:

If it feels good do it.

The fruit of secular humanism.

And Hollywood and Inner Cities all over the planet. The inappropriate content industry and of course the legalization of prostitution and drugs.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. You can't compare committed relationships between adults to any of the things you just mentioned.


Oh wait, I forget you can because lots of Christians view homosexuals as sub-humans un-able of feeling the love hetrosexuals do. Gah silly me what ever was I thinking, guess I better get to back of the bus and blindly accept the fact im a lesser human being just like non-white people did in days gone by. Please continue to degrade me after all I deserve it for being me.

OK, bak on topic. My best mate who is married with 2 kids has just split from his wife on the grounds he is transgender..there is no homosexuality involved, but he put it to me like this: "Imagine, Mike, you woke up one morning and you found yourself inhabiting a woman's body, how would you feel?"
Is this sin? I struggle to see any, but he came to a crisis point and was even contemplating suicide as he tried to repress his feelings.

savedfromdistruction said:

In your case is makes no difference since you do not believe any of them.

Click to expand...

Snide remarks aside, answer my question - what Bible is correct, because they all have differences? I'm just going to base your response on the fact that you really have no idea what different translations say, and how they vary from the originals, and the only reason you believe what you do is because you were taught that way and haven't done any research on your own.

Jase said:

You seem to know for a fact that my views on the translation bias of the English Bible is wrong, so why should I continue to waste my time arguing with you over this?

Click to expand...

Do you feel that child molestation is correct? The bible makes no mention of those that have sex with children.

Therefore I am going to need other proof other then the English Bible is wrong. Im not arguing I am giving you an opportunity to prove you case to me

Avniel said:

Do you feel that child molestation is correct? The bible makes no mention of those that have sex with children.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. The Greek malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9 means boy sex slave.