Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As has been pointed out before, is it just possible that perhaps the problem was that the people of Sodom wanted to RAPE the angels, not that they wanted to have homosexual sex with them?
CARM is for serious lulz. I can't trust any website that says artificial insemination is adultery and that vasectomies, unless the wife has a life-threatening medical condition that would make pregnancy potentially fatal, are sinful.
I find it incomprehensible that one should become so passionate about the writings of men that they would discriminate so harshly against fellow human beings whose intent is not to harm anyone. John T, your posts are almost fanatical and I can't help but wonder what drives you so. I doubt that It's God, even though you and others with similar tone believe it to be. When are people going to acknowledge once and for all that the fulfilling of the 'Christian command' is simply 'to love one another.' Loving 'gay' people by accepting who they are despite their being different from the norm (why should you even CARE that not all people are carbon copies of you?) should not be difficult for a real Christian.
I believe that most of us have some form of 'psychological' issues if the truth be known. Bible fanaticism such as is displayed on this sub-forum is most decidedly a psychological issue. One only needs to check out the TONE of most of the anti-gay posters to recognize this. On the other hand, a number of anti anti-gays also display a similar tone. The difference here, however, is that they are attempting to defend themselves or others FROM the Bible fanatics. It's a no-win situation and will never be until all who claim to follow Jesus ACTUALLY DO SO.
The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent. WHAT DOES A PAGAN PHILOSOPHER HAVE TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE??? (((SHAKING MY HEAD)))
There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:26ff
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them. ASV26 δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν 27 ομοιως τε και οι αρρενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες 28 και καθως ουκ εδοκιμασαν τον θεον εχειν εν επιγνωσει παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις αδοκιμον νουν ποιειν τα μη καθηκοντα 29 πεπληρωμενους παση αδικια πορνεια πονηρια πλεονεξια κακια μεστους φθονου φονου εριδος δολου κακοηθειας ψιθυριστας 30 καταλαλους θεοστυγεις υβριστας υπερηφανους αλαζονας εφευρετας κακων γονευσιν απειθεις 31 ασυνετους ασυνθετους αστοργους ασπονδους ανελεημονας 32 οιτινες το δικαιωμα του θεου επιγνοντες οτι οι τα τοιαυτα πρασσοντες αξιοι θανατου εισιν ου μονον αυτα ποιουσιν αλλα και συνευδοκουσιν τοις πρασσουσιν Stephanus
Here is the original Greek followed by perhaps the most accurate American translation of Scripture.
Where did the experts go wrong??
4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'
ACTUALLY, THE HEBREW WORD IS TRANSLATED “KNOW” AND IT HAS AS A MEANING “KNOW SEXUALLY” THIS IS THEREFORE TOTALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE HEBREW; I CAN COPY FROM SEVERAL HEBREW LEXICONS ON THAT ONE.
AS TO THE SECOND SENTENCE, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, NOR ITS RELEVANCE. YOU SIMPLY FAIL TO REBUT THE CARM POSITION, AGAIN. (SIGH)
Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? et al...
____________________
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996).
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
========================================================
All we do is quote Scripture;
There may be some who believe that he/she has good rhetorical skills on your side; (I found none so far) who can state things clearly and reasonable, but do any of you think for one nanosecond that if you have the greatest skills in the world that you could convince a just, righteous and holy God to change his mind about what he wrote? Who are you to stand in the face of God and argue your case yourself?
Ultimately it is his judgment each of you will face, and I hope you do it as a humble Christian rather than as a PROUD homosexual.
Be careful about ad hominem attacks (see the bold) they may cause problems with the mods.
I am fanatical about having all come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, for he is the only way to heaven.
Now when you have something substantial to say, or REASONABLY try to refute something I posted, I will reply to you.
Meanwhile, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS
Blah blah blah ...
Sorry, but your whining is at odds with the facts.
WHAT DOES A PAGAN PHILOSOPHER HAVE TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE??? (((SHAKING MY HEAD)))
YOU SIMPLY FAIL TO REBUT THE CARM POSITION, AGAIN. (SIGH)
(emphasis mine)Honestly, you will be more fruitful by trying to obey the plain truth of what God said rather than trying to find sophomoric ways to evade the plain truth.
Howl and whine that we are unloving, etc
Ultimately it is his judgment each of you will face, and I hope you do it as a humble Christian rather than as a PROUD homosexual.
Be careful about ad hominem attacks (see the bold) they may cause problems with the mods.
I am fanatical about having all come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, for he is the only way to heaven.
Now when you have something substantial to say, or REASONABLY try to refute something I posted, I will reply to you.
Meanwhile, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS
I just spent over four hours composing a response to John T's reply, only to have it disappear into the void. It is so frustrating.
Not that he would have really read it anyway. He has only scanned some of my longer posts for phrases that he can respond to by pasting copyrighted commentaries that often do not address the same points that I made. This reply was a partial exception.
Still, some people do read whole posts, even the long ones. I am sure that I am not the only one who does. So it would have been worth it for them. I'll try again tomorrow, if I can dredge up the energy.
Lord Barthok, thanks for your post. It is not exactly what I wrote and lost, but there are a lot of good points
Thank you for yuour considerable work, Ollie Franz. In my experience the operators of CARM are not honorable persons so one would be mistaken to expect integrity from them. The fact they offer a "theology test" and then presume to tell you the "correct" answers was just the first clue they're dishonorable and play fast and loose with the truth.
The worldview of these folks generally consists of "we will use anything and everything against those we hate, and when empowered to do so we will whip them till they bleed and then fine them for bleeding.'
WHAT DOES A PAGAN PHILOSOPHER HAVE TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE??? (((SHAKING MY HEAD)))
CARM is conservative propoganda, plus they dislike everyone who doesn't agree with them...the site used to label Catholics and Adventists as cults.
We agree on that; it is universally and CONSISTENTLY condemned. Therefore God is not politically correct. Imagine that! God says what he means, and means what he says.The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.WHAT DOES A PAGAN PHILOSOPHER HAVE TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE???There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one....
If you noticed, I quoted from the American Standard Version (1901) and the Greek Texts, both before WW1. Therefore your objection is moot. Your connection between slavery and homosexuality is illogical balderdash.The experts didn't "go wrong" so much as "get influenced by the society they lived in". ...the argument between scholars claiming that pre- and post-world war 2 translations/interpretations disagree, in that some are pro-semetic (sic) and others anti-semetic, (sic) due to cultural influence.
Incidentally, how is your Greek? As a fluent speaker myself, I might point out that that your copy-pasted quote isn't the original text, but a translation into modern Greek written in 1550. I could see that even if I couldn't read Greek, because you forgot to delete the "Stephanus" off the end of your quote. A brief search will show that the Stephanus New Testament was written in 1550. Ooops.
Since would an Apostle, trained under Gamaliel ever stoop to allude to a PAGAN philosopher when he knew that his letters were Scripture?And Plato has everything to do with it, as Paul is alluding to Plato's writings...
If the issue was what I deem natural then the suggestion would be valid. However I do not stray from Scripture, and that, as you noted above is consistent.So before you claim what you deem "natural" or not, perhaps we should find out what the Greek philosophers meant by it?
You present an argument from silence, and that only proves silence. What you fail to take into consider is the many OT passages, as well as the other clear NT passagesAlso, in that passage, the Greek word for homosexual does not appear once. In the list of "sins" in Romans, there are several ambiguous words that have been translated in different ways due to cultural influence (such as malakoi, lit. "soft" translated as weak/effeminate/masturbators/etc). What you are losing in translation is the reiteration and emphasis on the sin being lust and passion, satisfying the flesh in the easiest way...
ACTUALLY, THE HEBREW WORD IS TRANSLATED KNOW AND IT HAS AS A MEANING KNOW SEXUALLY THIS IS THEREFORE TOTALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE HEBREW; I CAN COPY FROM SEVERAL HEBREW LEXICONS ON THAT ONE.
AS TO THE SECOND SENTENCE, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, NOR ITS RELEVANCE. YOU SIMPLY FAIL TO REBUT THE CARM POSITION, AGAIN. (SIGH)
[/quote]Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? et al...
We can agree that homosexual activity is evil.Compare this to, for example, sex/rape in prison. It isn't about love or desire, it's about being someone's b****!
You interpret too much, The issue for the city is not homosexuality per se, but righteousness. That includes sins of every sort.Also, go back a chapter where Abraham is arguing with God, and it gets to the point where God says that, if there are even 10 righteous people in the city, He will not destroy it. So if the sin is homosexuality, then in the whole city there were not even 10 people who weren't gay.
And your point here is what?Think about that. A whole city gay, in a time where widespread travel and communication was slow, unreliable, difficult, dangerous. Compared to today, with almost (sic) isntant (sic) communication, easy and affordable travel, and even the gayest city has more than 10 straight people there.
Does not compute. Does not compute. Arrgh.
Your annoyance is with CARMthey wrote it as well as the lexicons of the Greek Bible. DO you want me to quote from Arnt and Gingrich?This struck me as the most cleverly crafted, sinister part of the whole page. Very carefully worded. The first sentence, for example: What it should read, is that "the Greek word aρσενοκοίτης is translated as "homosexual" in the NASB." But instead it states the "word homosexual is the Greek word aρσενοκοίτης". Using language to subconsciously(sic) bias the reader's view.
.The whole section is crafted to lend authority to what they say; to make it sound like they've done research and know everything there is to know, therefore the reader can trust anything they say on biblical referencing without question or having to bother reading further themselves. People today prefer that. They don't want to think for themselves, so it's easy to reassure the average person with passage like that
That is the title of the reference. Sorry if you do not like it.On the webpage, it goes further, quoting that they get their definition from Strong's dictionary, "The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order." Wow. If that doesn't impress people, nothing will.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 6:9, try this out:Never mind the fact that aρσενοκοίτης doesn't appear anywhere else in the bible other than when Paul mentions it twice, isn't the Greek word for homosexual, isn't even a Greek word but a coined phrase, the meaning of which cannot be deciphered as the only other appearances in history are those writings alluding or referring to what Paul wrote.
So people take their cultural influence and use that to write what they think the word should mean.All we do is quote Scripture;
[/quote] You fail to mention common sense. That is taking the Bible as meaning what it says first, and clearlyThere may be some who believe that he/she has good rhetorical skills on your side; (I found none so far) who can state things clearly and reasonable, but do any of you think for one nanosecond that if you have the greatest skills in the world that you could convince a just, righteous and holy God to change his mind about what he wrote? Who are you to stand in the face of God and argue your case yourself?Right. That's more than half the problem. How about praying, thinking, using critical judgement,(sic) getting to know people, looking at the world?
This fails to understand the nature and transmission of Scripture.God wrote? Forgive me, but man wrote, inspired by God. At best, God wrote through man. I have several pages in my personal journal of the same thing; God speaking through me, in written words.
Think the bible we have today is infallible? What about the existence of the Jehovah's Witness Bible? How did that happen?
And who are you to assume you know without doubt or error God's will and opinions, or that we are trying to change them?
If we don't argue the case, who will? You?
By definition, you certainly are arguing with God; your post says, God did not mean what he wrote. BalderdashI'm not arguing with God; I'm arguing with people who think I'm evil/sin itself. I don't mean that as a personal slight; I don't know you. I'm thinking of all the people who have openly and honestly claimed outrageous things about homosexuals to my face, such as them being the devil's henchmen, bringing about the downfall of society.
I did not say that YOU are All I wrote was a generic description, but hey, if the shoe fitsUltimately it is his judgment each of you will face, and I hope you do it as a humble Christian rather than as a PROUD homosexual.Just FYI, I am not a proud homosexual. I'm merely an unashamed one. How can I be proud about something neither I nor anyone else has done? About a state of being, an element of my personal makeup/character?
Totally unnecessary commentThat's like being proud of the size of your penis. At the end of the day, it's just folly.
[Originally Posted by JohnT]Your connection between slavery and homosexuality is illogical balderdash.
Since would an Apostle, trained under Gamaliel ever stoop to allude to a PAGAN philosopher when he knew that his letters were Scripture?
We can agree that homosexual activity is evil.
you certainly are arguing with God; your post says, God did not mean what he wrote.
Totally unnecessary comment
Good for you. It definitely represents one of the farther shores of the American religio-political tradition. I have seen no other "Christian" message board where meanspiritedness on the part of the majority right-wing participants is so blatantly encouraged.
Leviticus 18:19 said:"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.
Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people. 30 Heed my charge, then, not to defile yourselves by observing the abominable customs that have been observed before you. I, the LORD, am your God."
It's the rw version of ~E~lsewhere.
I've never seen so many verbal bullies who are such physical wimps in one place
Do I agree that one group oppressing another is wrong? Yes.Oppression is always interconnected.
Go argue with Paul, for he wrote "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:1617)Your comment is uninformed for several reasons: as an intellectual Paul would never regard it as "stooping" as you sneeringly put it to discuss the wisdom of the ages from all sources. Paul had no knowledge that at some vague time in the future his letters would be considered "scripture". Also the assumption is illogical. Paul received his knowledge from the world he lived in and did not live in a vacuum.
That was a facetious remark. The point is that God calls homosexuality a sin in various places. In that he is consistent; no one is ever going to change the mind of God on that. He wrote what he wrote.Perhaps you and the other poster; not you and every other Christian.
All humankind is flawed, but that has no bearing on his writing of his Epistles.God did not write the Pauline epistles. A very flawed man, Paul, is attributed as having written them.
The mentioning of genitalia is INAPPROPRIATE on this PUBLIC board, especially considering the manner that it came. There was no context that would make it appropriate, and discussing the physical characteristics of any genitalia is not appropriate on this board.It was very appropriate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?