An Interesting Question

[Itani]

Here is an interesting question for all anti-gay Christians:

Since there is no word in neither Greek nor Hebrew for the term "homosexual" (that is, homosexual in the sense that we think of it today being two people of the same gender in a loving, committed, emotional, and sexual relationship). In what way can it be condemned by the Bible if not even the concept existed in the literature? How can that which is not stated be condemned?

Paul, knowing Hebrew, fully intended to tell his Roman and Corinthian audiences that those who practiced sex with the same gender were abusing something that God designed, so they could do it for the purpose of their sinful pleasures.

You know, in India, there are people who are in a "loving, comitted, emotional, and sexual relationship" with their pet animals that leads them to get married with them. Perhaps we should change the church to allow them to do those things to, right, since it is popular over there with those villages.
No where in the bible does it say we can't do that, except for Moses Book of the Law and Jesus and Paul indications that we shouldn't live by the lusts of the flesh, as well as their indications that sex outside of marrage is wrong.

So, there you have it.
Just because homosexuals are in a "loving, comitted, emotional and sexual relationship" doesn't mean it is sinless and right.

2000 years of bible isn't going to change so it can please those who want to follow in the ways of the Flesh.

 

[gwdboi]

Paul, knowing Hebrew, fully intended to tell his Roman and Corinthian audiences that those who practiced sex with the same gender were abusing something that God designed, so they could do it for the purpose of their sinful pleasures.

You know, in India, there are people who are in a "loving, comitted, emotional, and sexual relationship" with their pet animals that leads them to get married with them. Perhaps we should change the church to allow them to do those things to, right, since it is popular over there with those villages.
No where in the bible does it say we can't do that, except for Moses Book of the Law and Jesus and Paul indications that we shouldn't live by the lusts of the flesh, as well as their indications that sex outside of marrage is wrong.

So, there you have it.
Just because homosexuals are in a "loving, comitted, emotional and sexual relationship" doesn't mean it is sinless and right.

2000 years of bible isn't going to change so it can please those who want to follow in the ways of the Flesh.

The greatest red herring: if gays marry then bestiality must be next. (completely illogical)

At any rate, who are you to say what "Paul intended"?

 

[gwdboi]

Not sure how you get this. What makes you think arsenokoitai (lying with a man) really means male prostitute? I haven't seen any evidence for that in Greek.

Malakoi can also mean effeminate in Greek which you did not include in your definition.

Read Strong's Lexicon, you'll see about arsenokoitai.

 

[gwdboi]

I knew you couldn't read Hebrew. Therefore you are not interpreting the scripture, just twisting English versions to fit you biases and assumptions.

Reading English translations of the words, seeing what all the words can mean and usually mean.

Please explain to me how you “place a passage in historical context” when you blow off all the historical documents which establish that context? What do you consider “historical context,” anything posted at GBLT-Я-us?

Pardon me, I don't rely on the Bible to establish historical context. More and more I see people making the Bible an idol, remember the Bible is not God it's just a representation of God; much like a picture of an apple is not an apple.

You missed the point, you said, “IF homosexuality is such an abomination as is upheld by close minded religious leaders THEN why is it not mentioned any more than twice in the OT,” If according to your logic the number of times something is stated in scripture determines whether it is important, or not, then God's name is not very important because he only states it once.

Correct, God's name is not very important. One can call God whatever one wants as long as the concept remains the same. (wow, I think I said that already)

Now you are going to dictate to God how he should have stated something in the O.T. And because it is not written in exactly the way you think it should be, then it doesn't say what it does say as clearly understood by God's people for the past 4000 years. Job tried that, this is God's answer.

Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof​

I'm not dictating anything to God, just interpreting what He's given us that reveals Himself to all of us.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

A particularly fine answer, and yet I cannot help but think that this is some kind of riddle.

Take this - Do homosexual people have consciences? Yes. And if their conscience tells them that leading a gay lifestyle is not sinful, your criteria necessarily means that it is not?

Conscience.
By the way homosexuality is viewed as an orientation... the "homosexual in the sense that we think of it today being two people of the same gender in a loving, committed, emotional, and sexual relationship" is what is called a gay lifestyle. Having a homosexual orientation in and of itself may not be sinful, but leading a gay lifestyle is.

 

[Time4AChange]

Interesting: since "the concept of who is in control is the root of this whole homosexual debate", may I make the observation that the gay Christians and some of their liberal supporters (and a few of the conservatives, too, to be fair!) have behaved in a more truly "Christian" manner than some of the self-professed "Christians".

There isn't a whole lot in these diatribes against gays which would make one want to become Christian — especially if that means emulating some of the self-righteous, judgmental and condemning attitudes which have been presented here.

I agree with you, alot of us in presenting our arguments against homosexuality have not gone about it in the right way....I myself, even though i've tried to go about it the way Christ would, have let my pride get the best of me many times...which brings this argument back to the main problem that we need to realize....we ALL are sinners. You pointing out that conservative Christians aren't acting in the most Christian way, doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is a sin....Just as me pointing out that homosexualtiy is a sin, doesn't change the fact that if i don't do it in the right way, I'M sinning against God myself.

I don't feel like i've been judgemental....I've hardly given my own personal opinion on the topic, most of what i post, i try to use Scripture so it wouldn't be what Time4aChange is saying, it'll be more what God is saying through His Word....With that bein said, i KNOW and i acknowledge that the way i went about it sometimes wasn't right, i let my pride get in the way, and "I" tried to win an argument instead of letting God be the focus....and i've asked God to forgive me for my mistakes...cuz i know i made alot of them.

I appreciate your post, because i feel the same way....us Christians haven't been as Christ like as we should be at times...But i feel that if you're going to point out our sins (which you're right, we have committed them at times, and i thank you for saying that cuz i believe that we are supposed to correct and rebuke one another in this Christian walk), then you need to accept your own sin, which is homosexuality. I know you can't say that God agrees with it after ALL the Scriptures that speak against it.

You have no right to point out our sins, after you adamantly and consistently deny your own of homosexuality....just like Christians have NO right to point out your sin of homosexuality if they are living a life of sin themselves. I know there are ALOT of Christian hypocrites, and i fear the most for them cuz i think they will be judged the hardest (just my opinion)....but at the same time, you're being hypocritical by point out our short comings, and not accepting and repenting of your own.

 

[Itani]

The greatest red herring: if gays marry then bestiality must be next. (completely illogical)

At any rate, who are you to say what "Paul intended"?

You ask "Who are you to say what 'Paul intended'":


Paul used to be a name called Saul who was a devoted Jew. As a devoted Jew he would have accepted the account of Genesis and scriptures.

Ask yourself, Did David have a wife or a husband?
What about Abraham? Noah maybe? Solomon?

What does Genesis define marriage to be?
For it says God created Man and women to be with man because he was lonely. Then they married.

Nowhere does the righteous people of the bible have a husband nor does any of them promote homosexuality. They all had wives.

If you doubt the account of Genesis, you should throw out the account of Abraham and Noah then.

As for beastiality, it will not happen in a country such as Canada or USA, but it does happen in India. In India, people are allowed to marry to animals as a result of teir religious beliefs. In some villages they do that and experience the same feelings that homosexuals do when they want to experience relations with their partner.

According to them, they may feel they aren't beastiality offenders, but beastiality lovers, who should have the same rights as normal hetro-sexual relationships.

Satan loves to confuse people. Oh how terrible society would be if we destroyed God's idea of marriage and replaced it with lusts of the Flesh.

Then we would become no different than Soddom.
God would cry out against us.

That is why we have Jesus. So we can fight these evils.

Did you know there is a Satanic bible? I read one verse from it and it makes me tingle at how wicked it is.
They focus on the Flesh and pleasing the Flesh, while Christ focuses on the Spirit.

Jesus loves you, that is why he died for us.

 

[Itani]

I agree with you, alot of us in presenting our arguments against homosexuality have not gone about it in the right way....I myself, even though i've tried to go about it the way Christ would, have let my pride get the best of me many times...which brings this argument back to the main problem that we need to realize....we ALL are sinners.

I had this same problem with people.

But the same people who shoot down your ideas against homosexual lifestyles have been confused by Satans works.

Take a man like Michael ingham. One may say he is of Christ because he preaches about love and accepting people in the church. I am sure he is a very nice guy in person who loves to go fishing and such.

But he is evil. His works are evil. He denied christ and said he was not the only way. He led the churches to follow him into violating God and bless homosexual marriages. He is trying to revisit the Church's beliefs that sexuality before marrage is wrong and have churches gain acceptance that sexuality before marrage is right and normal and should be accepted as a part of Christianity.

He contradicts Christ and what we stand for, and you know what, he is a use to be one of the leading people in the Church of Canada!

Christ told us to beware of the false Christians.

 

[Brieuse]

I had this same problem with people.

But the same people who shoot down your ideas against homosexual lifestyles have been confused by Satans works.

Take a man like Michael ingham. One may say he is of Christ because he preaches about love and accepting people in the church. I am sure he is a very nice guy in person who loves to go fishing and such.

But he is evil. His works are evil. He denied christ and said he was not the only way. He led the churches to follow him into violating God and bless homosexual marriages. He is trying to revisit the Church's beliefs that sexuality before marrage is wrong and have churches gain acceptance that sexuality before marrage is right and normal and should be accepted as a part of Christianity.

He contradicts Christ and what we stand for, and you know what, he is a use to be one of the leading people in the Church of Canada!

Christ told us to beware of the false Christians.

I wonder what he would think of what you're saying about him?

I wonder what Jesus thinks.

 

[Prawnik]

Here is an interesting question for all anti-gay Christians:

Since there is no word in neither Greek nor Hebrew for the term "homosexual" (that is, homosexual in the sense that we think of it today being two people of the same gender in a loving, committed, emotional, and sexual relationship). In what way can it be condemned by the Bible if not even the concept existed in the literature? How can that which is not stated be condemned?

The fact that there is no word in ancient Greek or Hebrew for something some claim is a natural expression of human sexuality should give one pause.

But, as a sinner myself, I will leave it for God to judge.

 

[gwdboi]

You ask "Who are you to say what 'Paul intended'":


Paul used to be a name called Saul who was a devoted Jew. As a devoted Jew he would have accepted the account of Genesis and scriptures.

Ask yourself, Did David have a wife or a husband?
What about Abraham? Noah maybe? Solomon?

Argumentum ad verecundiam

What does Genesis define marriage to be?
For it says God created Man and women to be with man because he was lonely. Then they married.

Nowhere do the righteous people of the bible have a husband nor does any of them promote homosexuality. They all had wives.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

If you doubt the account of Genesis, you should throw out the account of Abraham and Noah then.

Nobody is denying Genesis. But, if you think that Genesis accounts for the true example of marriage and sex then you must be pro-incest.

As for beastiality, it will not happen in a country such as Canada or USA, but it does happen in India. In India, people are allowed to marry to animals as a result of teir religious beliefs. In some villages they do that and experience the same feelings that homosexuals do when they want to experience relations with their partner.

According to them, they may feel they aren't beastiality offenders, but beastiality lovers, who should have the same rights as normal hetro-sexual relationships.

Strawman

Satan loves to confuse people. Oh how terrible society would be if we destroyed God's idea of marriage and replaced it with lusts of the Flesh.

Then we would become no different than Soddom.
God would cry out against us.

That is why we have Jesus. So we can fight these evils.

Did you know there is a Satanic bible? I read one verse from it and it makes me tingle at how wicked it is.
They focus on the Flesh and pleasing the Flesh, while Christ focuses on the Spirit.

Jesus loves you, that is why he died for us.

You must have a very shallow view of homosexuals. Do you think that we're GLBT just for sex? If so, you're quite mistaken. The psychological def. of homosexuality is anyone who seeks an emotional and physical relationship with someone of the same sex.

 

[Der Alte]

Argumentum ad verecundiam

Argumentum ad verecundiam

Strawman

Automatonic substitute for, and demonstration of inability to provide, cogent, relevant reply.