Does God actually find homosexual relations "abominable"?

[liars_paradox]

Hi, before people give me passages from the Romans, Corrinthians, Leviticus, Exodus or anywhere else, I want to point out that one issue with the word "abomination" appearing in our English-translated bibles.

The Hebrew word for "abomination" and "unclean" both come from the same Hebrew word, To'ebah. Likewise, the same word from which "homosexual offender" was translated from in 1 Cor. 6:9 appears again in 1 Timothy as "pervert".

Considering that it's possible that modern Christians take the words used out of context, due to mistranslation, how do you think God might view homosexuality today? Do you think God views homosexuality the same as eating with "unclean" hands or eating non-Kosher food?

Note: before responding, PLEASE read what I wrote about the translations. Don't just launch into reciting Scripture without at least considering my argument first. God blessed you with a mind and gave you the ability read and think for yourself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, if you can't then maybe consider my argument which is Romans 14:12,13
"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

 

[Jase]

Hi, before people give me passages from the Romans, Corrinthians, Leviticus, Exodus or anywhere else, I want to point out that one issue with the word "abomination" appearing in our English-translated bibles.

The Hebrew word for "abomination" and "unclean" both come from the same Hebrew word, To'ebah. Likewise, the same word from which "homosexual offender" was translated from in 1 Cor. 6:9 appears again in 1 Timothy as "pervert".

Considering that it's possible that modern Christians take the words used out of context, due to mistranslation, how do you think God might view homosexuality today? Do you think God views homosexuality the same as eating with "unclean" hands or eating non-Kosher food?

Note: before responding, PLEASE read what I wrote about the translations. Don't just launch into reciting Scripture without at least considering my argument first. God blessed you with a mind and gave you the ability read and think for yourself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, if you can't then maybe consider my argument which is Romans 14:12,13
"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

I don't see any reason why God would consider it such an abomination. Loving another person is certainly in God's list of greatest commandments. What difference does it make what anatomy they have? Love transcends the physical body, and as evident by the complexity of sexuality and gender identity, it isn't as black and white as the Bible authors understood it to be. There are many people who don't fit neatly into the male vs. female paradigm. They may be physically male, and mentally/emotionally female. They may be more masculine or feminine. They may have organs of both male and female. It's very very complicated. And aside from a few poorly interpreted, out of context verses from an ancient culture, I can't see a logical reason as to why God would oppose a loving, same-sex relationship. Especially if we accept that God made people with an attraction to members of the same-sex.

 

[timlamb]

Sounds like you only want responces from people who approve of homosexuality. I read what you said, I read most of it more than once trying to make sure I understood what you intended.

I don't think God put anything in His word by accident or without cause. If we were to ignore the sins of others and do what felt right that could have been said very easily. But God doesn't want us to have any doubt on certain things, I believe, therefore, this is what He instructed Paul to write for us:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

[wayseer]

Hi, before people give me passages from the Romans, Corrinthians, Leviticus, Exodus or anywhere else, I want to point out that one issue with the word "abomination" appearing in our English-translated bibles.

First of all you have to show me where God uses the word 'homosexual' in the Bible. When you do that I'll read what you have to say.

 

[timlamb]

First of all you have to show me where God uses the word 'homosexual' in the Bible. When you do that I'll read what you have to say.

Good point, but I find it definde very well in Romans 1. In fact Romans 1 is so specific it seems to make people uncomfortable, they don't respond well to it.

 

[OllieFranz]

Only five posts in, and already there are several separate issues here.

The OP focused on the translation of "toevah" as "abomination." When the scholars authorized by King James first translated it this way, the word abomination did not have quite as strong a connotation as it does now. Many more modern translations continue to use "abomination, even though it is no longer the best way to translate it. Some do it because the word has become familiar. Others because they have a (perhaps unconscious) bias. A far better translation would be "taboo." This word, borrowed from Polynesian, was not yet well known enough to be available to the Authorized translators. In general, "toevah" referred to a serious breech in ritual or social mores. Moral turpitude, on the other hand, was labbled "zimmah," "wicked."

The Bible includes literally hundred of examples of sexual sins, and sins with a sexual aspect involving persons of opposite sexes, and yet the sex itself is not the sin, it is the adultery or fornication, or the violent sin it is simply one aspect of. The Bible includes maybe as many as four examples of sexual sin or sin with a sexual aspect invoving persons of the same sex. All are clearly actions that would be equally heinous if the persons involved were of opposite sexes. Nowhere does it condemn a person simply because of who he is attracted to. Or give any other reason to condemn homosexuality in general.

Romans 1:26-27 is often quoted out of context, or in the abreviated context of only Romans 1:18-32, rather than in its full context, which would require including, at the very least, the first three veses of chapter 2. I would include all of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3.

Paul did not single out the actions in verses 26-27 as particularly heinous. He did include more detail, but only because he was referencing a well-known passage from Plato. Those in the Roman church who read Plato would recognize the passage and understand that the sin involved was not that it was same-sex, but that it was "Passion," a reckless hedonism that usually leads to addiction. To make sure that they understood the true focus, he did not quote Plato exactly, but added a few details to point away from same-sex and toward addiction. Plato described the addiction as a slavery to "pleasure"; Paul indicates (in three separate clauses) that the sinners were given up to their passions, and that they are (already and continuously) suffering the consequences of their actions. Paul changes the parallel clauses -- Plato contrasts the sinful Passionate sex to the proper Reasoned sex, but Paul compares the (now unnamed) sin of the women to the sexual addiction of the men. And Paul carefully inserts into the passage five words. These words are the five parts, or symptoms, of a sin of Passion. Paul wants to make sure that the focus is on addictive Passion, and not on the same-sex aspect that Plato included as a "dig" based on an ethnic steretype about the men of Crete.

 

[Emmy]

Dear liars paradox. We all know the 10 Commandments, which God gave us. Since God is LOVE, it stands to reason that the Commandments are given to us, because God loves us, and wants our very best. When Jesus came, He gave us 2 Commandments, which contain ALL 10 Commandments which God gave us. 1) Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds. God made us in His imagine, He wants us as His sons and daughters for all eternity. 2) Love our neighbour, (all others and each other) AS we love ourselves. That is straightforward, and all can understand the meaning of pure and selfless Love. God gave us free will, we can choose to follow His advice, or ignore it, or even go against it. We have Jesus to help and guide us, He paid the price which we could Not pay, He reconciled us to God. To follow Him and His words to us, give us life in abundance on Earth, and life eternal at the end of our earthly life. LOVE is the Key to Heaven, pure love is what our Heavenly Father wants from us. We decide what we do on Earth, and Jesus is the Way back to God, where we came from. ALL of us KNOW REAL LOVE, pure and with no strings attached. We will know what God wants of us, He does not want clever discussions, or excuses, God knows our hearts. He knows whether we try to follow His loving advice, or not. We have years to learn, we have a Saviour to lead us home, we have a wonderful and great God who forgives us when we fall or stumble. Jesus taught us to pray, " Father forgive us, as we forgive others." God will know how seriously we try to become as He wants us to be. I say this humbly and with love, liars paradox. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[timlamb]

Only five posts in, and already there are several separate issues here.

The OP focused on the translation of "toevah" as "abomination." When the scholars authorized by King James first translated it this way, the word abomination did not have quite as strong a connotation as it does now. Many more modern translations continue to use "abomination, even though it is no longer the best way to translate it. Some do it because the word has become familiar. Others because they have a (perhaps unconscious) bias. A far better translation would be "taboo." This word, borrowed from Polynesian, was not yet well known enough to be available to the Authorized translators. In general, "toevah" referred to a serious breech in ritual or social mores. Moral turpitude, on the other hand, was labbled "zimmah," "wicked."

The Bible includes literally hundred of examples of sexual sins, and sins with a sexual aspect involving persons of opposite sexes, and yet the sex itself is not the sin, it is the adultery or fornication, or the violent sin it is simply one aspect of. The Bible includes maybe as many as four examples of sexual sin or sin with a sexual aspect invoving persons of the same sex. All are clearly actions that would be equally heinous if the persons involved were of opposite sexes. Nowhere does it condemn a person simply because of who he is attracted to. Or give any other reason to condemn homosexuality in general.

Romans 1:26-27 is often quoted out of context, or in the abreviated context of only Romans 1:18-32, rather than in its full context, which would require including, at the very least, the first three veses of chapter 2. I would include all of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3.

Paul did not single out the actions in verses 26-27 as particularly heinous. He did include more detail, but only because he was referencing a well-known passage from Plato. Those in the Roman church who read Plato would recognize the passage and understand that the sin involved was not that it was same-sex, but that it was "Passion," a reckless hedonism that usually leads to addiction. To make sure that they understood the true focus, he did not quote Plato exactly, but added a few details to point away from same-sex and toward addiction. Plato described the addiction as a slavery to "pleasure"; Paul indicates (in three separate clauses) that the sinners were given up to their passions, and that they are (already and continuously) suffering the consequences of their actions. Paul changes the parallel clauses -- Plato contrasts the sinful Passionate sex to the proper Reasoned sex, but Paul compares the (now unnamed) sin of the women to the sexual addiction of the men. And Paul carefully inserts into the passage five words. These words are the five parts, or symptoms, of a sin of Passion. Paul wants to make sure that the focus is on addictive Passion, and not on the same-sex aspect that Plato included as a "dig" based on an ethnic steretype about the men of Crete.

Wow, you read alot more into the Op than I did. I could tell he wanted people to agree that abominable was to harsh a word for the act of homosex, and I don't know if I agree but with all the things God says could happen to those who engage in the act like stoning and being left out of the Book of Life, the harshness of the word should be the least of his worries.

As for your translation of Romans 1, it says the abandoned the natural use of their bodies to seek those of the same sex, but the point I get is they did it because God no longer offered a way out. they wanted it they got it. He let them go because they gave up on Him, the gave up on truth, and they desired impure things, so he allowed them to destroy themselves. That is what I get out of it and that is why people are so uncomfortable with it becasue it fits so well with today. People want to justify all that gives them pleasure, and He will give them over to it.

Your ranting means nothing because it trys to soften words but neglects the point, these actions seperate man from God, and He will not contend with them over it forever.

 

[OllieFranz]

Your ranting means nothing because it trys to soften words but neglects the point, these actions seperate man from God, and He will not contend with them over it forever.

It is you who neglect the point. Yes, these actions, any of the actions described in verses 18-32, do separate us from God, but once separated, no amount of good deeds can bring us back to Him again

The point is that however sinful you think the persons that Paul describes in chapter 1 and verses 18-32 are, you are no better. I am no better. All have sinned. The wages of sin is death. And nothing we can do can change that.

But Paul's message does not end at verse 32 of chapter 1, but continues into chapter 2: the Good News is that Jesus has provided for us. We can be redeemed by His Grace, undeserved. As long as we try to be "holy enough," keeping parts of the Law, we are doomed to failure. We are especially doomed when we look down on those who keep less of the Law than we do, since we are just as guilty.

But Grace frees us from the downward spiral of failing to follow the Law. Where our natural inclinations continue to lead us on the path to death, the Holy Spirit is at work, because of His grace, transforming us into the persons God chooses to call His saints.

When you stop reading Romans at the end of Chapter 1, you are preaching exactly the lesson Paul is teaching us to avoid.

 

[timlamb]

=OllieFranz;51982925]It is you who neglect the point.

Depends on which point you are trying to address. I am talking about the OP, you are carrying on about the book of Romans.

Yes, these actions, any of the actions described in verses 18-32, do separate us from God, but once separated, no amount of good deeds can bring us back to Him again

full agreement.

The point is that however sinful you think the persons that Paul describes in chapter 1 and verses 18-32 are, you are no better. I am no better. All have sinned. The wages of sin is death. And nothing we can do can change that.

That IS the point of Romans 2, yes.

But Paul's message does not end at verse 32 of chapter 1, but continues into chapter 2: the Good News is that Jesus has provided for us. We can be redeemed by His Grace, undeserved. As long as we try to be "holy enough," keeping parts of the Law, we are doomed to failure. We are especially doomed when we look down on those who keep less of the Law than we do, since we are just as guilty.

Pauls message is large and encompassing, Yes

But Grace frees us from the downward spiral of failing to follow the Law. Where our natural inclinations continue to lead us on the path to death, the Holy Spirit is at work, because of His grace, transforming us into the persons God chooses to call His saints.

Yes, praise God. Preach it Brother! (I am serious, that is good word)

When you stop reading Romans at the end of Chapter 1, you are preaching exactly the lesson Paul is teaching us to avoid.

That depends on what you are preaching. The op was concerned with the seriousness of Homosexuality. Chapter one explains just how serious it is, and even what it is. I was using chapter one to say, this is an alternate to the scriptures that use the word abominable. chapters 2 and 3 do teach us not to judge those who sin, but that even if you are under wrath there is hope, through grace.

My message to the OP was simple, whether an abomination or not, homosex is going to bring judgement on you without forgiveness. And forgiveness will require repentence and a desire for God in truth.

I know this is going to bring me the "Judging others" speach. Is there one among you who does not say, "man, that is sin, repent and be saved". John said, "repent and be baptised". Paul tells us what sin is so we can adentify it in our lives and we are not to be silent about the truth of what is sin. From my heart I say with love, "Dude, quit sinning and follow Jesus". I tell the good news first but and would love to talk to any homosexual or anyone about God's love and mercy and grace, but if they say, "Is my lifestyle a sin? The answer is YES, without a doubt, not for judgement but because it is truth.

 

[revrobor]

It's interesting how many homosexuals come to this and other Christian website to try to find justification for their lifestyle. They usually start out by saying the Bible was translated erroneously as does this one. Then when we disagree and stand by the (insert any translation here) Bible they call us "hatemongers".

What God condemns is homosexual sex. You know and have read the verses. I don't have to prove you wrong because you don't have to answer to me but God. The Bible is silent about same sex attractions.

 

[wayseer]

The Bible is silent about same sex attractions.

The Bible is 'silent' about many things.

 

[liars_paradox]

Only five posts in, and already there are several separate issues here.

The OP focused on the translation of "toevah" as "abomination." When the scholars authorized by King James first translated it this way, the word abomination did not have quite as strong a connotation as it does now. Many more modern translations continue to use "abomination, even though it is no longer the best way to translate it. Some do it because the word has become familiar. Others because they have a (perhaps unconscious) bias. A far better translation would be "taboo." This word, borrowed from Polynesian, was not yet well known enough to be available to the Authorized translators. In general, "toevah" referred to a serious breech in ritual or social mores. Moral turpitude, on the other hand, was labbled "zimmah," "wicked."

The Bible includes literally hundred of examples of sexual sins, and sins with a sexual aspect involving persons of opposite sexes, and yet the sex itself is not the sin, it is the adultery or fornication, or the violent sin it is simply one aspect of. The Bible includes maybe as many as four examples of sexual sin or sin with a sexual aspect invoving persons of the same sex. All are clearly actions that would be equally heinous if the persons involved were of opposite sexes. Nowhere does it condemn a person simply because of who he is attracted to. Or give any other reason to condemn homosexuality in general.

Romans 1:26-27 is often quoted out of context, or in the abreviated context of only Romans 1:18-32, rather than in its full context, which would require including, at the very least, the first three veses of chapter 2. I would include all of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3.

Paul did not single out the actions in verses 26-27 as particularly heinous. He did include more detail, but only because he was referencing a well-known passage from Plato. Those in the Roman church who read Plato would recognize the passage and understand that the sin involved was not that it was same-sex, but that it was "Passion," a reckless hedonism that usually leads to addiction. To make sure that they understood the true focus, he did not quote Plato exactly, but added a few details to point away from same-sex and toward addiction. Plato described the addiction as a slavery to "pleasure"; Paul indicates (in three separate clauses) that the sinners were given up to their passions, and that they are (already and continuously) suffering the consequences of their actions. Paul changes the parallel clauses -- Plato contrasts the sinful Passionate sex to the proper Reasoned sex, but Paul compares the (now unnamed) sin of the women to the sexual addiction of the men. And Paul carefully inserts into the passage five words. These words are the five parts, or symptoms, of a sin of Passion. Paul wants to make sure that the focus is on addictive Passion, and not on the same-sex aspect that Plato included as a "dig" based on an ethnic steretype about the men of Crete.

I looked at it as just referring to the kind of activities that members of the Northern Kingdom of Israel were engaging in before they were lost. A lot of what he listed were all religious practices engaged in by Baal worshipers at the time in which Israel had split and the Northern tribes had started to worship foreign gods.

But, a reference to Plato might've been more familiar to gentile readers at the time.

 

[liars_paradox]

It's interesting how many homosexuals come to this and other Christian website to try to find justification for their lifestyle. They usually start out by saying the Bible was translated erroneously as does this one. Then when we disagree and stand by the (insert any translation here) Bible they call us "hatemongers".

What God condemns is homosexual sex. You know and have read the verses. I don't have to prove you wrong because you don't have to answer to me but God. The Bible is silent about same sex attractions.

But, what was the context in which God condemned this? Can we say God views this any differently than any of the six-hundred something laws listed in the Old Testament? If God called homosexual sex "To'beh", which was the same word used to describe eating pork, then how does God feel about us doing that?

Thinking logically here, if you're using the Bible as evidence for argument (as am I), then how many of the 613 do yourself follow? Maybe just not the ones about diet? What about system of measurement, clothes, hair-cuts, shaving, etc.?

Or, do you go about using the New Testament as your justification? If so, you did read what I wrote about the appearance of the words "homosexual offender" or "effiminate"? Consider none of the New Testament writers were English speakers, can you be certain that this is what they meant about homosexuality?

But, you're right, I (btw, I'm not gay) and everyone else will have to answer to God.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

Romans 2:1-4.

When Paul wrote this, I don't believe that he was saying that we are still allowed to judge, so long as we don't do the same things as they do. The Pharisees weren't prostitutes, they weren't tax collectors, and they did do much to give a Righteous appearance. Likely, the things they judged others for were things they never did themselves, eventhough they weren't perfect.

The point is, that we all break the word of God. None of us do any good, and together we are worthless (see Romans 3:10-12). Even though homosexuality might not be something one should do, you can't say with any absolute certainty that it is something one has to avoid in order to be saved. And, by no means can any of us use the bible to justify forbidding gay marriage.

What one person does, I shouldn't control, so long as they act out of love for others and they obey the ten commandments. Since, the law shows us how imperfect we are, I think that one should follow the when they can as much as they can. This means I should try to abstain from sin as much as possible, because faith without acts are meaningless. However, I shouldn't try to control other people because they're not my concern. Only when they hurt others should something be done.

I mean, I could be wrong. And, I guess we'll all find out if one of us was correct or not. Hopefully, both of us will find out in a way we don't regret.

 

[wayseer]

The point is, that we all break the word of God. None of us do any good, and together we are worthless (see Romans 3:10-12).

Indeed. But we are not quite as 'worthless' as you would imagine. There was a cost.

 

[HuntingMan]

Homosexuality
Assembly Ministries Studies Homosexuality

1.0
"abusers of themselves with mankind"

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

It doesnt get any clearer than that. Regardless of what else is going on the ACT of men being with men sexually is 'shameful'.
For idolatry God gave them over to their perverse desires and vile affections, but vile these affections ARE REGARDLESS of how they came to be !

And also;

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(1Ti 1:10 KJV)

G733
(1Co 6:9 KJV)

G733
G733
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
Thayer Definition:
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G730 and G2845

which is from :


G2845
κοίτη
koitē
koy'-tay
From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive.


G730
ἄῤῥην, αρσην
arrhēn arsen
ar'-hrane, ar'-sane
Probably from G142; male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man.

The word speaks for itself. Its no wonder Strongs and Thayers both believe this word is about homosexuals...especially given the rest of scripture on the matter.


And here we have the Mosaic Law, GODS law, which forbids men having sex with men like one does a woman.

(Lev 18:22 KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(Lev 20:13 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Perfectly consistent...


2.0
Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26


Affections
G3806
πάθος
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathos&#8221, that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
πάθος
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.


Homosexuality is a sin and therefore the gay christian needs to abstain from that sin. To WILLFULLY continue in it would seem to lead one into the predicament mentioned in Hebrews 10.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10)

Obviously based on the context of the chapter and the entire book this isnt speaking about merely sinning otherwise we'd ALL be in this position, but very clearly there is some point where our WILLFULL sin shows that we have trampled the Son underfoot and spit in the face of the Spirit of Grace.


3.0

Same passage, different part.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

The context is clear enough that men gave up what was natural with the woman and turned to one another in their lusts.

As in my other thread we can easily conclude that while God DID turn them over to this sin seemingly for their idolatries, the ACTS themselves are shown as
-unclean
-dishonour
-vile
-unseemly
-error

Here are the definitions of these words (as shown above in red).
These show the overall TONE of the acts these are involved in;

unclean
G167
ἀκαθαρσία
akatharsia
ak-ath-ar-see'-ah
From G169; impurity (the quality), physically or morally: - uncleanness.

dishonor
G818
ἀτιμάζω
atimazō
at-im-ad'-zo
From G820; to render infamous, that is, (by implication) contemn or maltreat: - despise, dishonour, suffer shame, entreat shamefully.

vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

unseemly
G808
ἀσχημοσύνη
aschēmosunē
as-kay-mos-oo'-nay
From G809; an indecency; by implication the pudenda: - shame, that which is unseemly.

error
G4106
πλάνη
planē
plan'-ay
Feminine of G4108 (as abstraction); objectively fraudulence; subjectively a straying from orthodoxy or piety: - deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.

So we see in this part of the passage that God has given them up to this 'uncleaness'.

God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Regardless of whether they were involved in this act PRIOR to God turning them over to it or not it is quite CLEAR that these acts themselves are all of the things listed above else scripture is quite erroneous to begin with.
These acts being defined as men and woman leaving the natural and lusting after those of the same gender and carrying out those lusts into actions.

 

[Stinker]

Romans 1:18-32 (King James Version)



18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change 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 that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



True or False... Verses 18-23 are addressing pagan worship.


True or False... Verse 24 declares that these pagan's lust caused them to commit taboo, and to misuse their bodies in trying to satisfy this idol induced lust outside of God's instituted loving committed union.

True or False... Verse 25 declares that it is homosexual men and women who change the truth of God into a lie and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator.

True or False... Verses 26 & 27 declares that the 'vile affection' that the men and women were 'given up over to' by God, was the heterosexual-to-homosexual transformation.

True or False... Verses 28-32 identifies the moral character of homosexual men and women.

 

[JasperJackson]

We have known since Adam and Eve that sex is for marriage and marriage is for a man and women.
It is VERY simple.

 

[peace4ever]

Hi, before people give me passages from the Romans, Corrinthians, Leviticus, Exodus or anywhere else, I want to point out that one issue with the word "abomination" appearing in our English-translated bibles.

The Hebrew word for "abomination" and "unclean" both come from the same Hebrew word, To'ebah. Likewise, the same word from which "homosexual offender" was translated from in 1 Cor. 6:9 appears again in 1 Timothy as "pervert".

Considering that it's possible that modern Christians take the words used out of context, due to mistranslation, how do you think God might view homosexuality today? Do you think God views homosexuality the same as eating with "unclean" hands or eating non-Kosher food?

Note: before responding, PLEASE read what I wrote about the translations. Don't just launch into reciting Scripture without at least considering my argument first. God blessed you with a mind and gave you the ability read and think for yourself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, if you can't then maybe consider my argument which is Romans 14:12,13
"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

Satan's oldest and most obvious tool; Trying to redefine simple words by looking back to the Hebrew and Greek to make the bible say the opposite of what it says.

Sorry friend, but the bible is consistent all through that God hates homosexuality. So you'll have to go through the whole bible find all the verses and find different words to look up so you can try to make them say the opposite of what they says.

So why do that when the whole bible is consistent as it is? Obviously you want to justify sin. But it never works because human minds are fallible and will always miss something else in the bible when they try to change it. So you need to read the bible to see why God refers to Jerusalem and Judah as women, not men.

 

[Zaac]

Hi, before people give me passages from the Romans, Corrinthians, Leviticus, Exodus or anywhere else, I want to point out that one issue with the word "abomination" appearing in our English-translated bibles.

The Hebrew word for "abomination" and "unclean" both come from the same Hebrew word, To'ebah. Likewise, the same word from which "homosexual offender" was translated from in 1 Cor. 6:9 appears again in 1 Timothy as "pervert".

Considering that it's possible that modern Christians take the words used out of context, due to mistranslation, how do you think God might view homosexuality today? Do you think God views homosexuality the same as eating with "unclean" hands or eating non-Kosher food?

Note: before responding, PLEASE read what I wrote about the translations. Don't just launch into reciting Scripture without at least considering my argument first. God blessed you with a mind and gave you the ability read and think for yourself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, if you can't then maybe consider my argument which is Romans 14:12,13
"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

Homosexual sex is a sin. End of story. God says so. No word study changes this.