arsenokoités

[]RiSeN[]

All of what other evidence in the Bible? There are only two passages in the Bible that specifically address same-sex sexual activity (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) and only two other passages (1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11) that probably point back to those two. All other passages used to condemn homosexuality only do so if you bring into them a prior understanding that homosexuality is a sin.

The problem is that Leviticus does not call "man-lying" (mishkav zakur = arsenos koiten) immoral wickedness (zimmah), but only a ritual taboo (toevah). Both verses talking about it are in the middle of the Holiness Code commanding the Jews to be separate. The Holiness Code includes bans on eating certain foods, wearing certain garments, etc. All of which were never binding on even the "righteous Gentile" and from which Christians are specifically released in Acts 11 and Acts 15.

The point of concentrating on the word arsenokoitai in the letters in Paul is that he deliberately chose to use a new compound word rather than use a word that the Greeks would be familiar with. Our best guess is that Paul was referring back to Leviticus, but even the early Christians did not know that for sure.

None of the Church Fathers commenting on Paul's letters (not even those of Clement of Alexandria who was the main force in establishing the official Church "line" on the subjects of homosexuality and effeminancy) use the word. There are only six or eight documents that use the word, and they all only include it in lists of sins. So the only contextual clue as to the meaning is how the sins in the lists were grouped. In two of the documents, that grouping suggests that the authors may have associated the word with heterosexual prostitution.

Explain this please;

"That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." -Rom 1:24-27

Did God say this was a good thing?

"Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod′om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.” -Gen 19:4-5

A friendly god fearing gay welcome?

 

[Splayd]

The only posts that I think really offereanything close to evidence in this whole thread are OllieFranz'.

Interestingly, despite his apparent support for the OP, the evidence he provides actually makes a really strong case for the "homosexual" interpretation in my opinion. When one only focuses on the facts and not their personal bias it seems blatantly obvious to me that "homosexual" is the appropriate translation. Any other translation pretty much insists that noone knew what Paul meant even at the time of writing.

 

[lmnop9876]

Explain this please;

"That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." -Rom 1:24-27

Did God say this was a good thing?

"Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod′om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.” -Gen 19:4-5

A friendly god fearing gay welcome?

while the Romans passage does appear to condemn male homosexual intercourse, there are a number of other things that are mentioned here. the first is that the men are "leaving the natural use of the woman." homosexual men are not attracted to women, and for them the natural use is not of the woman, so how can they be leaving that natural use to puruse men? secondly, they were "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another" i don't know what kind of relationship that is, but i don't think it is the kind of feelings most homosexual men have towards other men. the passage also needs to be taken in the context of the general sexual immorality resulting from departing from God to serve idols.

these issues need to be dealt with adequately before we can use this passage as a wholesale condemnation of all same-sex sexual relationships.

 

[davedjy]

while the Romans passage does appear to condemn male homosexual intercourse, there are a number of other things that are mentioned here. the first is that the men are "leaving the natural use of the woman." homosexual men are not attracted to women, and for them the natural use is not of the woman, so how can they be leaving that natural use to puruse men? secondly, they were "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another" i don't know what kind of relationship that is, but i don't think it is the kind of feelings most homosexual men have towards other men. the passage also needs to be taken in the context of the general sexual immorality resulting from departing from God to serve idols.

these issues need to be dealt with adequately before we can use this passage as a wholesale condemnation of all same-sex sexual relationships.

Well said, PJW


The only thing condemned in Romans 1 is ACTUAL idolatry (verse 22) and lust! Although, later it says they were filled with EVERY kind of evil, and there is a huge list there.

The story of Sodom in Genesis is not a blanket condemnation of same sex sex, the sex act itself is not isolated in that verse,
at BEST it is condemning promiscuity. Many are not agreed upon what the men of Sodom wanted to do, and it has been interpreted to mean
that they wanted to rape the angelic visitors, anyways.

 

[OllieFranz]

Explain this please;

"That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." -Rom 1:24-27

Did God say this was a good thing?

But just what is Paul saying in Romans 1:18-32? And how does it relate to Chapter 2 and the rest of the letter? The issue really needs a separate thread. I may begin one this weekend, Deo volente.

In the meantime, just let me say that there are really two different First Chapters of the Letter to the Romans (at least in outline) One to the Jewish Christians mostly based on the Apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon, and one to the Gentile Christians Mostly based on the works of Plato, but also referencing some philosophy of the Stoics and some "pop philosophy" (analogous to our "pop psychology") based on Stoic terms, especially "para physis" and "kata physis," "against nature" and "according to nature."

"Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod′om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.” -Gen 19:4-5

A friendly god fearing gay welcome?

It would not be a "friendly god fearing straight welcome if Lot's visitors were women, either. Would that mean that condemnation of rape is the same thing as condemnation of loving, married sex?

Of course the actions in Genesis 19, and in Judges 19, and in 1 Chronicles 19 were wicked. But they were wicked because rape is wicked without regard to to sex of the victims.

The only reason anti-gays even try to make a connection between Sodom and homosexuality is that there is no example of real homosexuality presented and condemned the way that the rape of Dinah, and the attempted incestuous rape of Tamar are.

As I said, you need to approach these verses already convinced that they support a prior claim that homosexuality is wrong to get that message from them.

 

[]RiSeN[]

the first is that the men are "leaving the natural use of the woman." homosexual men are not attracted to women, and for them the natural use is not of the woman, so how can they be leaving that natural use to puruse men?

Why are you implying that Paul was speaking from a gay perspective? Because thats all you fallacy stands on is that Paul thought and spoke like a gay man.(Rom 1:23)

"In the begining" "the natural use" for pleasure and procreation, established by God for the man was with the woman. God created them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This is the problem, your looking and interpreting everything through the decomposing human mind, not through God's ways, will, and purpose.(Rom 1:20)

How true you have proved Paul's words to be:

"For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" -Rom 10:2-3

secondly, they were "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another" i don't know what kind of relationship that is, but i don't think it is the kind of feelings most homosexual men have towards other men.

the passage also needs to be taken in the context of the general sexual immorality resulting from departing from God to serve idols.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me?

They were "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another". Paul is speacking of the men. Men being "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another".

Gay sex involves no lust? Really? Its just pure mechanics? For procreation purposes only hmm?

All you used in that arguement was your opinion, which apparently speaks accurately for all gays and their relationships or lack thereof.

Useing "I don't think.." and "I don't know.." when supposedly propounding evidence does not help.



The claim to idolatry is a bogus red herring.

these issues need to be dealt with adequately before we can use this passage as a wholesale condemnation of all same-sex sexual relationships.

Your right. Take you bias out of your study of Scripture. Then, maybe you will see what God is saying to you, instead of what you want to say to Him.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Thank you for your post. Very good stuff here.

while the Romans passage does appear to condemn male homosexual intercourse, there are a number of other things that are mentioned here. the first is that the men are "leaving the natural use of the woman." homosexual men are not attracted to women, and for them the natural use is not of the woman, so how can they be leaving that natural use to puruse men?

Score a point! Women are my "girlfriends." We do stuff together: make music, go shopping, talk about our men. But there's nothing about them that arouses me sexually - even though a number of them are knockouts!

secondly, they were "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another" i don't know what kind of relationship that is, but i don't think it is the kind of feelings most homosexual men have towards other men. the passage also needs to be taken in the context of the general sexual immorality resulting from departing from God to serve idols.

Score another! I will back you up on this. If there was ANYTHING "violently inflamed in lust" about my partner I would drop him in a New York minute. Love is about a lot of things - but violence is most definitely NOT one of them!

these issues need to be dealt with adequately before we can use this passage as a wholesale condemnation of all same-sex sexual relationships.

Bingo. Thanks for your assessment. It's very thoughtful.

 

[lmnop9876]

Why are you implying that Paul was speaking from a gay perspective? Because thats all you fallacy stands on is that Paul thought and spoke like a gay man.(Rom 1:23)

i do not believe that Paul speaks from a gay perspective. i believe that paul speaks the message of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. given that God is truth, and He has shown us through nature and through humanity that a homosexual orientation is not something that a person chooses to have, i would presume that this passage is written on the basis of that fact. just because most people of the time and through the centuries have not had a concept of homosexual orientation when interpreting this passage, does not mean that it is not a fact that should be presumed to underly how we interpret passages such as this.

"In the begining" "the natural use" for pleasure and procreation, established by God for the man was with the woman. God created them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This is the problem, your looking and interpreting everything through the decomposing human mind, not through God's ways, will, and purpose.(Rom 1:20)

we know that there were only heterosexual humans, as they were needed to carry on the human race, but can you prove that there were not any homosexual animals before the fall?

among animals who do not have a reasonable soul, homosexual and bisexual animals naturally choose to participate in sexual activity with animals of the same gender. humans have a reasonable soul, therefore we must also take into account the moral, spiritual, and other consequences of our actions. hence the reasons for studying this topic, and constantly re-evaluating our own understandings in light of the message of God and what He has revealed to us of His nature, His relationship with us, and our relationships with others. we do not want to be wholesale condemning and judging millions of people on the basis of a potentially flawed interpretation of the Bible. on the same note, we don't want to be telling millions of people that committing certain acts is acceptable on the basis of a potentially flawed interpretation of the Bible. we must strive to achieve a balanced and accurate intepretation on the basis of all that God has revealed to us.

Are you kidding me?

They were "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another". Paul is speacking of the men. Men being "violently inflamed in their lust toward one another".

Gay sex involves no lust? Really? Its just pure mechanics? For procreation purposes only hmm?

All you used in that arguement was your opinion, which apparently speaks accurately for all gays and their relationships or lack thereof.

Useing "I don't think.." and "I don't know.." when supposedly propounding evidence does not help.



The claim to idolatry is a bogus red herring.

i'm sorry, but "they turned from the true God to serve idols, God gave them up to vile passions... the men gave up the natural use of the women and were violently inflamed with lust for one another" doesn't sound like your average Christian homosexual man to me. their story would be more like "they turned from idols to serve the true God, God is sanctifying them from vile passions, God is teaching them not to be inflamed with lust towards other human beings but to treat them with love as being made in the image of God, and they are struggling with the fact that they do not have a 'natural use of the female' and whether this means that the acts Paul speaks of are obscene and unnatural for them."

Your right. Take you bias out of your study of Scripture. Then, maybe you will see what God is saying to you, instead of what you want to say to Him.

i have no bias in my study of this topic; if anything, i have the slightly homophobic bias of my own upbringing. i am simply a believer in Christ trying to live my life in the grace of God and let Him teach me the truth through His Spirit, His word, and His church.

 

[OllieFranz]

poor attempt at ad hominem

It was not an ad hominem attack. It was a piece of advice. An ad hominem would be to say that your argument should be ignored because you are (insert derogation here). I said that If you don't read someone else's post before you you respond, you could make yourself look foolish by arguing against things the other poster did not claim.

Go on.....




Good.

The greek word pornos has more than one meaning. This is what you have purposefully fail to acknowledge . I have already quoted some of the meanings. The greek definitions or meanings are the same as the english definition.

The lexicographer for Strong's has often added meanings that are not part of the denotation of the word if a passage of the Bible uses it poetically with a broader connotation. (For example poetic verses where idolatry is called adultery -- the picture is presented of Isreal as God's wife, or the Church as the Bride of Christ) It is sometimes helpful to someone who does not know Greek. But he also adds definitions that advance his theology. That can be good or bad depending on how faithful it is to the actual usage of the word.

Greek4202. porneia, por-ni'-ah; from Grk4203; harlotry (includ. adultery and incest); fig. idolatry:-fornication.
Greek4203. porneuo, porn-yoo'-o; from Grk4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (lit.) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (fig.) practise idolatry:-commit (fornication).
Greek4204. porne, por'-nay; fem. of Grk4205; a strumpet; fig. an idolater:-harlot, harlot.
Greek4205. pornos, por'-nos; from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of Grk4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by anal.) a debauchee (libertine):-fornicator, whoremonger.

In the first of the four related words that you posted, the lexicographer did just that. Adultery and incest are not part of the definition of either the Greek word porneia, or the English words harlotry or prostitution. But because he believes that all sexual immorality is equally condemned in verses that mention harlotry, he added them to the definition. For the most part, this is harmless, because many verses condemn both harlotry and adultery, and adultery and incest are indeed condemned as immoral.

In any case, even the lexicographer did not try to stretch the definition to include homosexuality.

 

[davedjy]

The claim to idolatry is a bogus red herring.

Romans 1: 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Clearly idolatry, no red herring, just lack of Scriptural insight from you.

Gay sex involves no lust? Really? Its just pure mechanics? For procreation purposes only hmm?

Love and lust are two different things, even if the sex act is involved.

 

[MrPirate]

That homosexuality is not condemned in the bible as sinful

Again…that point of this thread is the fact that the claims made by those stating arsenokoites means homosexual are not being backed up.

and against nature

How can something that is natural be against nature?

and unlawful.

Why would I defend someone elses position? I havent said squat about "arsenokoités".

I know…. Why are you posting in a thread you seem unable to contribute to?

Where did I flame?

Have you even read the OP???

You , for avoiding the fact that homosexuality falls under fornication and is therefore an affront to God's perfect creation.

To paraphrase you: ”I’m rubber and your glue.” Scintillating rebuttal there.

 

[MrPirate]

Homosexuality isn't considered fornication in modern times either.

But having sex with someone of the same-sex was fornication and still is.

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself...right?

I don't have to prove it. God says it. It is what it is

That is the point of the OP. the bible apparently does not say this. and you are unable to provide evidence that it does

If you want to commit homosexual fornication, by all means do so. Just don't think that I'm here to convince you that it is a sin.

Good…because you are failing miserably at that particular task

The truth has been given. If you choose to reject it for whatever reason, oh well.

The truth being that you have not provide any actual evidence to support the translation of arsenlolites as homosexual…but no one is rejecting that truth….we are all agreeing that you haven’t provided any evidence to support your claims.

That's good because I don't debate God's Truth. It is what it is, so go debate with someone who thinks they have to convince you that what God says is sin is.

If you can’t back up your claims just say so.

I don't need credibility with folks who reject God's Word.

But the only one rejecting anything here…is you

 

[Cash80]

I don't understand how did Zaac contradict himself?

 

[MrPirate]

You have rejected God's Word in lieu of man's commentary. I'm a grown man. What you call dodging I call rejection of the false teachings of a false teacher.



Truth also does not equate to the biased commentary of a bunch of homosexuals who aren't looking for truth but rather affirmation of their sin.

Well then prove they are false. present us all with evidence that the word arsenokoites translates as homosexual.

 

[MrPirate]

Once again, your biased commentary and word studies from equally biased gay researchers and homosexual sympathizers does not carry any weight where God has spoken.

Referencing the OP:

And at the very very worst:

Flaming those posting the evidence (read any post for examples)
Flaming the historians, linguists, theologians and researchers (that person is the member of a minority…therefore he/she is biased and we can ignore anything they say.)

 

[MrPirate]

Explain this please;

"That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." -Rom 1:24-27

fails on several levels

The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not.

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not the modern one…the word did not mean passion or lust but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by the anthropologist Mircea Eliade. These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer, a Cathoolic using a rosery for example. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but as noted the non Christian process he was condemning, like so many other non-Christian traditions, found their way into Christianity.

The real problem of your attempted argument is the word “Natural” The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. The word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live or act as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live or act as heterosexuals.

Since ones sexuality and sexual oriention are natural to teh individual, what Paul is condemning is the sinfulness of going against one’s nature. In the verse God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

"Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod′om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.” -Gen 19:4-5


A friendly god fearing gay welcome?

If ALL the men of the city were gay…why did Lot offer up his daughters to them?

 

[davedjy]

I don't understand how did Zaac contradict himself?

Referencing the quote that he responded to me with:

Homosexuality isn't considered fornication in modern times either.

But having sex with someone of the same-sex was fornication and still is.

It seems as though he is admitting that it isn't considered fornication in the first part, and then saying it is fornication in the 2nd part.


Btw, Zaac, you are WRONG. The Lexicon was brought here on the definition of fornication of fornication (pornos), which never included homosexual acts, and I mean from the Biblical standpoint.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear MrPirate

Well that is the point of the OP isn’t it? to give those of you who claim to know that the word arsenokites translates as ‘homosexual’ an opportunity to provide evidence to back up this translation and to back up your interpretation of this verse.

No the Bible translates arsenokoites as homosexual offenders, sodomites and men abusers of men, we don’t need to prove what the Bible says. You on the other don’t believe all the Bible translations.

Without evidence to back hat translation up we have no choice but to reject your claims about what is “condemned”

if your Greek and Hebrew is better than the Bible translators then you can say why, otherwise you don’t have much credibility.

Don’t change the topic. We are here to discuss evidence (or lack thereof ) that arsenokites translates as ‘homosexual’.

I am quite prepared to do so if you have some equivalent NT Passages which countenance same-sex sex. As you haven’t I am not prepared to just listen to your disbelief.

And that is exactly what all those researchers, theologians, historians, linguists and the like have and are doing they are seeking the truth of God’s word by examining the word arsenokites.
Why do you not wish to know what God said?

<staff edit> The word means homosexual offenders or men abusers of men or sodomites as it says, according to researchers, theologians, historians and linguists.

And this is what you are doing. You are attempting to say, without any support, that arsenokites does not nor can it possibly translates as anything but &#8216;homosexual&#8217;

No this is what you are doing. I have shown you what the Bible says, you can open a Bible up and see what I am saying is true. <staff edit>

 

[]RiSeN[]

i do not believe that Paul speaks from a gay perspective. i believe that paul speaks the message of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. given that God is truth, and He has shown us through nature and through humanity that a homosexual orientation is not something that a person chooses to have, i would presume that this passage is written on the basis of that fact. just because most people of the time and through the centuries have not had a concept of homosexual orientation when interpreting this passage, does not mean that it is not a fact that should be presumed to underly how we interpret passages such as this.

Wow again, this is all, as you say yourself, only presumption on your part.

You completely contradict yourself on so many levels.
First you say Paul doesnt speak from the gay perspective, then you say he was inspired by God to speak from a perspective that only gays affirmation holds, that is that homosexuality is "natural", which you again presume he only just "of course" naturally knew, even though you then yourself admit that most of mankind through most of history, and especially christians, have not accepted that concept. Got any bible verses that support your claims?

Why pray tell has it taken the world thousands of years, as you point out, to finally see the" truth" about homosexual relationships?

we know that there were only heterosexual humans, as they were needed to carry on the human race,

And what was God's will for man in Eden?
"Further, God blessed them and God said to them: &#8220;Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.&#8221; -Gen 1:28

Kinda hard to do God's will if you can't procreate.

but can you prove that there were not any homosexual animals before the fall?

Can you prove that there were? No. Again your stance is supported only by biased pro-gay presumption and assumption. And they are ...ANIMALS!!!, with unreasoning animalistic desires. We on the other hand were made in God's image, according to His likeness, "male and female He created them".

A few verses on what the bible thinks of behaving like animals;

"But these [men], like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed, will, in the things of which they are ignorant and speak abusively, even suffer destruction in their own [course of] destruction, wronging themselves as a reward for wrongdoing." -2Peter 2:12-13

"Yet these [men] are speaking abusively of all the things they really do not know; but all the things that they do understand naturally like the unreasoning animals, in these things they go on corrupting themselves." -Jude 1:10

"This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is [the] earthly, animal, demonic." -James 3:15

"how they used to say to you: &#8220;In the last time there will be ridiculers, proceeding according to their own desires for ungodly things.&#8221; These are the ones that make separations, animalistic [men], not having spirituality." -Jude 1:18-19

What a coincidence hmm?

among animals who do not have a reasonable soul, homosexual and bisexual animals naturally choose to participate in sexual activity with animals of the same gender. humans have a reasonable soul, therefore we must also take into account the moral, spiritual, and other consequences of our actions. hence the reasons for studying this topic, and constantly re-evaluating our own understandings in light of the message of God and what He has revealed to us of His nature, His relationship with us, and our relationships with others. we do not want to be wholesale condemning and judging millions of people on the basis of a potentially flawed interpretation of the Bible. on the same note, we don't want to be telling millions of people that committing certain acts is acceptable on the basis of a potentially flawed interpretation of the Bible. we must strive to achieve a balanced and accurate intepretation on the basis of all that God has revealed to us.

Then let the bible speak so you can re-evaluate.

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God." -1Cor 11:3

"Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body. In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it." -Eph 5:22-25

"For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God&#8217;s image and glory; but the woman is man&#8217;s glory. For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels." -1Cor 11:7-10

Notice God's theocratic arrangement and decree of what constitutes proper relationship?
Can a same sex couple conform to this arrangement?
Which person is the "head" in a gay couple?
In accordance to the bible, one of the men in a male/male couple would need to assume the position of the woman, and viceversa with the female/female/ couple.
Would one not need to assume the role of the male and female, even if only for sexual acts?
Would not one of the persons be leaving their "natural" position as established by God?

"That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh" -Gen 2:24

&#8220;Did you not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, &#8216;For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh&#8217;? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart." -Matt 19:4-6

i'm sorry, but "they turned from the true God to serve idols, God gave them up to vile passions... the men gave up the natural use of the women and were violently inflamed with lust for one another" doesn't sound like your average Christian homosexual man to me. their story would be more like "they turned from idols to serve the true God, God is sanctifying them from vile passions, God is teaching them not to be inflamed with lust towards other human beings but to treat them with love as being made in the image of God, and they are struggling with the fact that they do not have a 'natural use of the female' and whether this means that the acts Paul speaks of are obscene and unnatural for them."

Again...this is only your biased opinion to which you have no scriptural backing.

i have no bias in my study of this topic; if anything, i have the slightly homophobic bias of my own upbringing. i am simply a believer in Christ trying to live my life in the grace of God and let Him teach me the truth through His Spirit, His word, and His church.

Its quite plain to see that you do. One simply has to look at the premise you give to every scripture and opinion you form.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear MrPirate,

fails on several levels

only if you can make the case.

The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul&#8217;s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one&#8217;s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not.

yes it was natural in Greek and Roman culture to practice same-sex sex, though Paul is speaking to Christian believers, who of course follow Jesus and not societies. Furthermore Paul continually teaches that as Christians we strive to go against our sinful nature.
Romans 8:9 &#8220;You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.&#8221;

In the original Greek, the phrase for &#8220;vile affliction&#8221; translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not the modern one&#8230;the word did not mean passion or lust but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by the anthropologist Mircea Eliade.

No it doesn&#8217;t.

The real problem of your attempted argument is the word &#8220;Natural&#8221; The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. The word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live or act as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live or act as heterosexuals.

That&#8217;s the poorest argument I have ever heard. If I were to apply that I could do all the other things in Romans 1 that I felt were natural to me. No the second part of Romans 1 shows us what is sinful including the same-sex sex and the start of Romans 2 shows us Paul is addressing the believers who know that.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

I see no mention of homosexuality in Romans 1, but I do see that same-sex sex is condemned along with murder, adultery and greed and malice and idolatry. It starts by describing all wickedness and ungodliness, and its says men with men is error.

"Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod&#8242;om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to

Lot and saying to him: &#8220;Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.&#8221; -Gen 19:4-5

That&#8217;s not arsenkoites. You are juts out to deny the Biblical condemnations of same-sex sex

A friendly god fearing gay welcome?

A gay god maybe.

If ALL the men of the city were gay&#8230;

who said they were gay? I though you said the Bible doesn&#8217;t mention anything about homosexuality?

why did

Lot offer up his daughters to them?

because Lot wanted to protect the vistors/angels. He could have suggested his sons or himself. ... you tell us why the daughters were offered? Seems because same -sex sex is worse.