Debate help...why is homosexuality wrong?

[artybloke]

Countyfair, how about what I posted:

1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous[1] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.

Are you aware that there are actually two words translated by modern translators as "homosexual" here? And that many earlier translations couldn't have used the word because it (the word, that is) didn't exist until the end of the 19th century in English? Not that gay, lesbian and bisexual people didn't exist, but until someone invented the catch-all word, there was no concept to describe it.

Which means that this translation is a modern interpretation of two words, the contexts of which are still unclear (but they were probably to do with exploitative relationships: eg prostitution or even pederasty.)

Stop treating the Bible as if it were written in English yesterday. It wasn't.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Are you aware that there are actually two words translated by modern translators as "homosexual" here? And that many earlier translations couldn't have used the word because it (the word, that is) didn't exist until the end of the 19th century in English? Not that gay, lesbian and bisexual people didn't exist, but until someone invented the catch-all word, there was no concept to describe it.

Which means that this translation is a modern interpretation of two words, the contexts of which are still unclear (but they were probably to do with exploitative relationships: eg prostitution or even pederasty.)

Stop treating the Bible as if it were written in English yesterday. It wasn't.

You are wasting your energy here; I have pointed this out before but apparently opinions that do not agree with the conservative point of view are not accepted. And for the record, yes I can read Hebrew and look at the Bible and see huge translation differences between versions and languages.

 

[Colabomb]

You are wasting your energy here; I have pointed this out before but apparently opinions that do not agree with the conservative point of view are not accepted. And for the record, yes I can read Hebrew and look at the Bible and see huge translation differences between versions and languages.

The entire Christian Church until recently has interpreted "These two words" to mean homosexuality.

Paul in other places describes women giving up natural sex with men and sleeping with each other as unnatural and sinful.

Paul writes that men burned with lust for one another and that this was sinful as well.

 

[Colabomb]

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[Proselyte]

Wow, this thread is still going.

Thanks for your posts Colabomb and Harry.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

This thread makes me want to sing Linda Eder's redition of "I Am What I Am":

I am what I am
I am my own special creation
So come take a look
Give me the hook or the ovation
It's my world that I want to have a little pride in
My world, and it's not a place I have to hide in
Life's not worth a damn 'til you can say
Hey world, I am what I am!

I am what I am
I don't want praise
I don't want pity
I bang my own drum. Some think it's noise. I think it's pretty.
And so what if I love each sparkle and each bangle?
Why not try to see things from a different angle?
Your life is a sham 'til you can shout out loud: I am what I am!

I am what I am
And what I am needs no excuses
I deal my own deck
sometimes the ace, sometimes the deuces
There's one life and there's no return and no deposit
One life, so it's time to open up your closet!
Life's not worth a damn 'til you shout hey world I am what I am!

 

[HunterRose]

Proselyte-

I myself disapprove of homosexuality, as I also disapprove of fornication (sex before marriage) and adultery. Any form of sexual union outside the marriage bed as ordained by God is to be considered as sin.

As for arguments outside the realm of Scripture, there was a news special on one of the major networks a few years ago. This special took us inside the world of the homosexuals of San Francisco to see what it entailed. One of the leaders of the gay movement was the tour director for part of the report; for another part the news crew had to adopt a clandestine form in order to get the proper coverage.

One word could be used to describe their entire range of actions: narcissism. They had 'sex shops' there where 'partners' could frolic; the guide made a point of emphasizing that there were medical teams there to repair damage to the submissive. Some of the devices which he showed the news team and identified as 'toys' were used in torture chambers during the middle ages.

The news crew talked with two children who had recently been told by a group of strangers that they were no longer to 'trespass' into the municipal park which was located across the street from their home. They had played there since they were toddlers, and neither of them was yet teenagers.

A news crew tried to get into that park in broad daylight while carrying camera equipment, and were denied admittance by guards posted at the gates. Their technicians performed some 'magic' so that the camera equipment was still useful but entirely hidden. They requested of the guards that they merely be allowed to drive straight through the park and were granted permission. What they filmed and broadcast on their news special were blatantly licentious sexual acts taking place where children used to be able to play, and in full view of anyone who chose to be in that park at that time of day.

When we are dealing with these people we are not dealing with those who are admitting that they have a spiritual Achilles' heel. We are dealing instead with those who would take a Christian society and culture, rip it to shreds, and then replace it with their own societal culture.

I can find no more appropriate place for the following passage of Scripture:

"Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshipped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:14-15,NIV)

This is sort of like saying “I disapprove of marriage because I saw a news report on prostitutes in Berlin.”

 

[HunterRose]

The entire Christian Church until recently has interpreted "These two words" to mean homosexuality.

Actually….you are quite wrong about this. The interpretation of arsenokoites and malakos to mean “homosuexals” is relatively modern. The first biblical translation to do so was the Douai-Rheims version of 1582 "the liers vvith mankinde” and even then the words were not actually used to mean sexual orientation or its 16th century equivalent. What you are talking about is a curious shift in translation occurring in the eearly-twentieth century. Suddenly, the language of psychology and "normalcy" creeps into English versions. Although some still bible translations use archaic terms, like "sodomite" OB 1966, NAB 1970, NRSV 1989, several influential versions substitute more modem concepts like "sexual perverts" (RSV 1946, REB 1992) or terms that reflect the nineteenth century's invention of the category of the "homosexual," such as the NIV's (1973) "homosexual offenders." Some translations even go so far as to collapse arsenokoités and malakos together into one term: "homosexual perverts" or "homosexual perversion" (TEV 1966, NEB 1970).

Between the end of the nineteenth and the middle of the twentieth century, therefore, the translation of arsenokoités shifted from being the reference to an action that any man might well perform, regardless of orientation or disorientation, to refer to a "perversion," either an action or a propensity taken to be self-evidently abnormal and diseased. The shift in translation, that is, reflected the invention of the category of "homosexuality."

 

[HunterRose]

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

Interestingly enough historically Christianity has interpreted Romans 1:26 to refer to heterosexual sex acts, specifically heterosexual anal and heterosexual oral intercourse.
Miller, James E. (1995). "The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?" Novum Testamentum 35:1-11

 

[Proselyte]

Hunter, there are many other passages in the Bible that advocate against homosexuality. The text is clear, as in do not lie with another man, as in a woman. Or the passage from Leviticus. If you go back and read this one or the other thread, you will find them.

I am sorry if you happen to be gay, and this whole topic offends you. Can we do something to help you with it? There was a repentant ex-gay poster who gave his testimony. It was pretty amazing. Perhaps he can help you better than someone who is straight.

 

[HunterRose]

Hunter, there are many other passages in the Bible that advocate against homosexuality. The text is clear, as in do not lie with another man, as in a woman. Or the passage from Leviticus. If you go back and read this one or the other thread, you will find them.

Oh I am well aware of the eight biblical passages used to condemn gays and lesbians thank you.

The text is for the most part remarkably unclear. The only clear demulcent of homosexuality occurs in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Sadly this book also denounces cutting ones hair (Lev. 19:27) eating pork (Lev. 11:7) eating lobster, shrimp and or oysters(Lev. 11:10-12) wearing clothing made of different fabrics (Lev. 19:19) modern agriculture (Lev. 19:19) shaving (Lev. 19:27) contact with a woman during her period (Lev. 20:18) dining on escargot (Lev. 11:42) attending Church while wearing glasses (Lev 21:20) being handicapped (Lev 21:20) and approves of the killing of ones own child (Lev. 20:9)and slavery (Lev. 25:44-45)

I am sorry if you happen to be gay, and this whole topic offends you. Can we do something to help you with it?

And where did you come up with the idea that I am a homosexual?

Does one need to have to be black to oppose prejuddice and discrimination based on skin color?

There was a repentant ex-gay poster who gave his testimony. It was pretty amazing. Perhaps he can help you better than someone who is straight.

As I recall said poster has also stated that his sexual orientation has not changed

 

[Proselyte]

Yes, but that celibate individual has refrained from acting on those urges. He keeps the habitual sin in check. We all have urges, none of us are perfect. If we can control them through the grace of God and His divine living Word that is the Bible, we lift up the sacrifice Jesus made for us.

Let's not compare the Biblical support against gay lifestyle with racial prejudice.

Aren't you Catholic? Doesn't your own Church advocate against the practice of homosexuality?

 

[HunterRose]

Yes, but that celibate individual has refrained from acting on those urges. He keeps the habitual sin in check. We all have urges, none of us are perfect. If we can control them through the grace of God and His divine living Word that is the Bible, we lift up the sacrifice Jesus made for us.

Which means he is not “ex-gay” at all…just celibate.

Let's not compare the Biblical support against gay lifestyle with racial prejudice.

Why not?

Prejudice is prejudice and discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is directed against.



I strongly oppose discrimination based on skin color. Given that will you assume I am black?

 

[Proselyte]

If the Bible teaches against sinful behavior, and that Bible is our Word from God, it is prejudice against sin. Next you will be championing adultery, theft, fornication etc, etc, etc.

Are you going to answer the question about the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality?

 

[HunterRose]

If the Bible teaches against sinful behavior, and that Bible is our Word from God, it is prejudice against sin. Next you will be championing adultery, theft, fornication etc, etc, etc.

Are you going to answer the question about the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality?

I believe this is called a “Red Herring”

Will you answer my question…. Does one need to have to be black in order to oppose prejudice and discrimination based on skin color?

 

[Proselyte]

I believe this is called a “Red Herring”

Will you answer my question…. Does one need to have to be black in order to oppose prejudice and discrimination based on skin color?

No they don't. I am not black and I oppose racial injustice.
Homosexuality is not racial injustice. It is sinful behavior laid out in the Bible that has received its own social category, which now wants rights based on sexual orientation.

So you support gay lifestyles even though your own Catholic Church is opposed to it. Why do you remain affiliated?

 

[No Swansong]

Actually….you are quite wrong about this. The interpretation of arsenokoites and malakos to mean “homosuexals” is relatively modern. The first biblical translation to do so was the Douai-Rheims version of 1582 "the liers vvith mankinde” and even then the words were not actually used to mean sexual orientation or its 16th century equivalent. What you are talking about is a curious shift in translation occurring in the eearly-twentieth century. Suddenly, the language of psychology and "normalcy" creeps into English versions. Although some still bible translations use archaic terms, like "sodomite" OB 1966, NAB 1970, NRSV 1989, several influential versions substitute more modem concepts like "sexual perverts" (RSV 1946, REB 1992) or terms that reflect the nineteenth century's invention of the category of the "homosexual," such as the NIV's (1973) "homosexual offenders." Some translations even go so far as to collapse arsenokoités and malakos together into one term: "homosexual perverts" or "homosexual perversion" (TEV 1966, NEB 1970).

Between the end of the nineteenth and the middle of the twentieth century, therefore, the translation of arsenokoités shifted from being the reference to an action that any man might well perform, regardless of orientation or disorientation, to refer to a "perversion," either an action or a propensity taken to be self-evidently abnormal and diseased. The shift in translation, that is, reflected the invention of the category of "homosexuality."

You are correct about the use of the English word Homosexual however the Church has spoken on the sin involved in homosexual sex almost since its inception.

 

[Colabomb]

No they don't. I am not black and I oppose racial injustice.
Homosexuality is not racial injustice. It is sinful behavior laid out in the Bible that has received its own social category, which now wants rights based on sexual orientation.

So you support gay lifestyles even though your own Catholic Church is opposed to it. Why do you remain affiliated?

Hunter, he makes a point.

How do you reconcile your view of Homosexuality with your Claim to be a Roman Catholic?

 

[Colabomb]

Interestingly enough historically Christianity has interpreted Romans 1:26 to refer to heterosexual sex acts, specifically heterosexual anal and heterosexual oral intercourse.
Miller, James E. (1995). "The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?" Novum Testamentum 35:1-11

James E. Miller may, but I have yet to see evidence that this is the Teaching of the Church Catholic.

Secondly, you quoted only half of the passage I used.

The strength lies in the second half.

Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[ThyNeighbor]

As we have already seen, for every argument that you can provide to prove that homosexuality is a sin, someone else can provide just as convincing of an arguments that it is not.

I am a born again Christian who happens to be gay and I have researched this topic up one side and down the other. I was a member of an ex-gay ministry for many years. Two years ago, I lost all hope and decided to take my own life. I remember praying to God, as my life blood was seeping away, two prayers: “God please take me home” and “Your will be done”. Since you are reading this message you can infer that he answered the later and not the former.

After I was rescued and I was in the hospital I remember praying to God and asking Him where do I go from here? Before I made the attempt, I quit my job, sold all of earthly possessions, and gave away all of my money. But more than that, I wanted to kill myself because I couldn’t live with the doubt and uncertainty with regards to my faith and my sexual orientation? I’m not one of those Christians that says that God talks to them all the time. I can count on probably two hands the number of times that I have gotten a crystal clear message from the Lord. But that day in the hospital was one of them. God said to me, “My child, I am not going to give you the answer to this question. This burden is too heavy for you to hold. Trust in Me. Give this burden to Me and have faith.”

For me, finding the answer to the question of whether homosexuality is a sin or not became all consuming. It had become, in a way, an idol. It had caused a stumbling block to my relationship with God.

Today, I don’t question the rightness or the wrongness of homosexuality. God knows my heart and He knows my desire to have someone to share my life with and to love.

I have read what some of you have written: that you can’t be a Christian and a practicing homosexual. While I am not actually “practicing” and haven’t for many years, if God blesses me with someone I would be and I don’t believe He would condemn me for doing so. To those that would condemn me I would accuse them of being legalistic and hypocritical.

Mar 10:11 He (Jesus) told them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery against her.
Mar 10:12 And if a woman divorces her husband and remarries, she commits adultery."

Jesus clearly states here that if you are married and get divorced, then you are not to remarry. He considers the “new marriage” an adulterous affair. For each day that you live with that new spouse is unrepentant sin. The average divorce rate, even among Christians, is over 50 percent. Why do you allow these unrepentant “remarried” people in to your churches? If they leave their current spouse and join an ex-remarried ministry I guess it would be okay. After all, we hate the sin and love the sinner.


One last thought before I close, when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was He said it was first to love God with all your heart, mind and strength and secondly to love your neighbor as yourself. If you ask any Christian what it is that they value most, second to God, they aren’t going to tell you that it’s their car. They won’t say what they value most is their Rolex or their house. I’m fairly certain that most would say that their greatest treasure is their husband/wife and children. If that is true, how can you love your homosexual neighbor as yourself and yet demand that they deny themselves the one thing that you value above all else?