Debate help...why is homosexuality wrong?

[Timyone]

ive heard a school of thought that the thorn in his side or what ever was him being gay (paul)
i guess ive also heard that paul might have been married at one time too, so i guess those things are a bit like the davinci code hey

 

[Colabomb]

Doesn't bypass anything if one doesn't think that Paul was talking about all gay relationships, but only about straight people having gay sex in temples, as many of us folks who try to read the Bible in its historical context do.

sorry, try again

I do read the Bible in Context.

Show me the magic context please.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Paul also calls it "Contrary to sound teaching. This one is nowhere NEAR a mention of Prostitution or Idolatry.


1 Timothy 1:9-11 (New American Standard Bible)

9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to (J)sound teaching,
11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.



Romans 1:27 (New International Version)

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

[HunterRose]

I do read the Bible in Context.

Show me the magic context please.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Translation issues…..

Romans 1:27 (New International Version)

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, 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 as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. Which seems to apply to ex-gays more than anyone else.

 

[DeepThinker]

Translation issues…..


The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, 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 as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. Which seems to apply to ex-gays more than anyone else.

Hmm so in this you are saying that actually it would be a sin for a Homosexual to deny the fact that he was gay and sleep with a women instead?

 

[george78]

Show me the magic context please.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Paul also calls it "Contrary to sound teaching. This one is nowhere NEAR a mention of Prostitution or Idolatry.

There is no magic context or "translation issues" no matter how much people want to pretend that there is. You got it exactly right.

http://wordalone.org/pdf/dmartinexamined-short.pdf
http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2 Aut05.pdf
http://www.robgagnon.net/2Views/homoViaRejoinder.pdf

http://www.robgagnon.net/PowellRespSec123.htm
http://www.robgagnon.net/ChristianSexualityNotes.htm
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf


(Most of those links also address the pathetic attempts to rewrite Romans 1 as well.)

 

[HelloToAll]

There is no magic context or "translation issues" no matter how much people want to pretend that there is.

Exactly!

 

[HunterRose]

Hmm so in this you are saying that actually it would be a sin for a Homosexual to deny the fact that he was gay and sleep with a women instead?

According to Romans 1 it is.

 

[Proselyte]

According to Romans 1 it is.

Are you saying according to Romans 1 that a homosexual should not deny his tendencies and attempt to marry a woman? What passage?

 

[Proselyte]

Never mind, I read your other post. If this example was applied to say murderers, I don't think anyone would say it's a sin to deny "their nature" and to stop killing.

 

[SanctiSpiritus]

There is no magic context or "translation issues" no matter how much people want to pretend that there is. You got it exactly right.


(Most of those links also address the pathetic attempts to rewrite Romans 1 as well.)

Amen to that. The gays want to pick and choose which of Gods laws to abide by. Not unlike many other people. It's just more of the same.

 

[SanctiSpiritus]

And that is why it is immoral to cut your hair, to eat shellfish, to take pride in your achievements, to wear clothing made of different fabrics, and immoral to attend church while wearing glasses. And why it is perfectly moral to kill rape victims, stone your disobedient child, beat your slaves, and moral to make animal sacrifices.


To say otherwise is to pick and choose among scriptures

I'm sorry. A Christian lives by the NEW testament, not the OLD. Your foolish comparisons come from the OLD.

 

[artybloke]

Show me the magic context please.

homosexuals,

Well, that for starters. It's a matter of debate about what the Greek actually means, but "arsenokoites" probably does not mean "homosexuals". Especially as there wasn't a word for it till the end of the 19th century. That's a choice made by the translators in the 20th century.

Paul here is using a neologism: a word that didn't exist in writing until he used it here. What did it mean to the people who read it?

It could refer to the customers of ritual prostitutes in pagan temples ("malakois"? or catemites); it could refer to the Greek practice of "grooming" young boys; it could refer to procuring boys for the temples. What it doesn't refer to is "homosexuality", a concept which didn't exist in the 1st century. (not that there weren't "gay people" but the category didn't exist as a separate idea.)

 

[Sam Gamgee]

This website might give you some good articles to read regarding homosexuality and Christianity and how they can coexist.

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/christ.htm

If you want to know more about why it's ok to be a homosexual and a Christian, you can PM me... I'd post stuff here, but it just gets the thread locked.

 

[MapleLeaf]

I'm sorry. A Christian lives by the NEW testament, not the OLD. Your foolish comparisons come from the OLD.

Actually a Christian lives by both testaments, the New did not replace the Old... if it did, why is the old still part of the Canon?

If the Old does not apply, why do fundamentalist preachers use Leviticus as evidence of the evilness of homosexuals and why it is okay to deny them equality?

 

[Colabomb]

According to Romans 1 it is.

According to your interpretation of Romans 1, which stands against the Tradition of the Christian Church, the statements of the Pope you claim to be under and Plain reason.

 

[Colabomb]

Actually a Christian lives by both testaments, the New did not replace the Old... if it did, why is the old still part of the Canon?

If the Old does not apply, why do fundamentalist preachers use Leviticus as evidence of the evilness of homosexuals and why it is okay to deny them equality?

This is not an issue of Fundementalism.

I am not a fundementalist. I am a Conservative Anglican. And I stand with the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church.

And by the way, I have never denied a homosexual the equality he/she deserves as a human being.

Last I checked, Fred Phelps disgusts me.

 

[Proselyte]

This website might give you some good articles to read regarding homosexuality and Christianity and how they can coexist.

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/christ.htm

If you want to know more about why it's ok to be a homosexual and a Christian, you can PM me... I'd post stuff here, but it just gets the thread locked.

Out of curiousity, could your orientation be influencing your interpretation of scripture?

 

[artybloke]

Out of curiousity, could your orientation be influencing your interpretation of scripture?

Could yours?

 

[Colabomb]

Could yours?

Could your wishes and desires be getting in the way of yours?

 

[HunterRose]

Never mind, I read your other post. If this example was applied to say murderers, I don't think anyone would say it's a sin to deny "their nature" and to stop killing.

Aside from the obvious….your example ignores “thou shall not kill” it also ignores the commandment of Jesus himself "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35.

Ultimately Paul’s message seems to be about dishonesty or denying who one is. Just as murder causes untold harm so does lying about who you are. You asked should a gay man “not deny his tendencies and attempt to marry a woman?” Yet this would cause untold harm as all lies do. Harm to the woman he leis to and claims he loves, harm to any children that might come from such a sham marriage. Harm to their extended families. Harm to their friends harm to society….harm harm harm…all from lying. And ultimately there is spiritual harm in that (correct me if I am wrong) lying is also a sin and according to Proverbs 6:16-19, an abomination.


Further your comparison here dehumanizes an entire minority by defining them in this way. Would you compare all African Americans to murderers? All Jews to adulterers? All handicapped to liars? Would not any of these comparisons be denounced as hate? Can you explain why your comparison to gays and lesbians to murderers is not hate?