Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

Phinehas2 · Sep 20, 2007

Dear Davedjy,
With respect you havent really shown anything except a variation of opposites to what you are proposing.
For me malakoi is the difficult word to translate, arsenkoites is fairly easy. Nowhere else in the NT, Matt 11 and Luke 7 is malakoi = catamite. But of course even if it were the passive partner in a same-sex union it doesnt change arsenokoites man who lies with a man instead of with a woman. I think the gay argument asumes people will fall for that one and assume its just a form of pederasty.
The other point worth noting is that those who think the word malakoi is difficult to translate, only seem to think so in 1 Cor 6 and not in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25.
Its not because they want the revelation of God but rather because they dont.

djbcrawford · Sep 23, 2007

Wiccan_Child said:
So sex does have functions beyond mere procreation: it is used to bond the parents.

Which is my point, as parents produce children. It's all linked together.

Wiccan_Child said:
Yes: the latter does not force the woman.

So mugging someone to take their money is wrong, but conning someone out of money is okay as you haven't "forced" them?

djbcrawford · Sep 23, 2007

Aquamarine81 said:
That is your interpretation of what the Bible says -- doesn't mean it's right. God would not want us to change the way we are, and the way we feel.

Because something feels good or right, doesn't mean it is good or right. Even claiming love as a motivation doesn't make something good or right. How many have used this as an excuse to commit adultery?

MrPirate · Sep 23, 2007

djbcrawford said:
Because something feels good or right, doesn't mean it is good or right. Even claiming love as a motivation doesn't make something good or right. How many have used this as an excuse to commit adultery?

How many have used love to justify hatred and discrimination?

Ohioprof · Sep 24, 2007

djbcrawford said:
Because something feels good or right, doesn't mean it is good or right. Even claiming love as a motivation doesn't make something good or right. How many have used this as an excuse to commit adultery?

Adultery is dishonest and harms others. Being in a loving same-sex relationship harms no one; indeed, it does good.

Ohioprof · Sep 24, 2007

djbcrawford said:
Because something feels good or right, doesn't mean it is good or right. Even claiming love as a motivation doesn't make something good or right. How many have used this as an excuse to commit adultery?

Just because someone believes, on the basis of their religious beliefs, that something is bad does not mean it is bad. That's just some people's beliefs. Not everyone has the same beliefs.

naotmaa · Sep 24, 2007

djbcrawford said:
Because something feels good or right, doesn't mean it is good or right. Even claiming love as a motivation doesn't make something good or right. How many have used this as an excuse to commit adultery?

I think we all know that just because something may feel good does not make it right. Drugs would be a good example of this. Most are harmful to you and this is why they are not right. But homosexuality is not harmful.

And yes, sometimes love is used to justify wrong things like adultery. But adultery harms someone. Homosexuality does not.

Ohioprof · Sep 24, 2007

Phinehas2 said:

Since the poster who wrote the original post has said he did NOT intend to imply that other people are "idiots," that should put to rest the charge that this is what he meant. He said it is not what he meant.

This argument about what a poster implied demonstrates how different people can read the same Bible passages and come to such different interpretations of the same words. People hear implications in the language that may or may not have been intended by the writer.

davedjy · Sep 24, 2007

Phinehas2 said:
Dear Davedjy,
With respect you havent really shown anything except a variation of opposites to what you are proposing.
For me malakoi is the difficult word to translate, arsenkoites is fairly easy. Nowhere else in the NT, Matt 11 and Luke 7 is malakoi = catamite. But of course even if it were the passive partner in a same-sex union it doesnt change arsenokoites man who lies with a man instead of with a woman. I think the gay argument asumes people will fall for that one and assume its just a form of pederasty.
The other point worth noting is that those who think the word malakoi is difficult to translate, only seem to think so in 1 Cor 6 and not in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25.
Its not because they want the revelation of God but rather because they dont.

The meaning of arsenokoitai remains unknown, so you expect to understand it's meaning? Here are some very highly credible Scholar's takes on this:

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." -- Victor Paul Furnish, a Professor of New Testament from Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.

The Jerusalem Bible, German 1968, agrees with Scroggs, translating arsenokoitai as "child molesters". Of course, fundamentalists ignore that bible translation [as well as Phillips (1958), Jerusalem Bible (French -1955), The Latin Vulgate, (405), etc., of which reject the homosexual interpretation] while accepting the NIV (which is unclear since it has the translation "homosexual offenders").
Note: The Dutch NBG translation of 1951 uses the word "schandjongens" ("maleprostitutes" in English) for malakoi and "knapenschenders" ("boy-molesters" in English) for arsenokotai.

Rembert Truluck is a Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. He was a Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, and a Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, from1973 to 1981. Truluck is well learned in Hebrew and Greek. In his article "The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals", Dr. Truluck writes, "The Greek word [arsenokoitai] translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual! The word is obscure and uncertain."
Dr. Truluck personally wrote a letter to me, in responce to mine, in which he writes: ".... [arsenokoitai] was never translated as "homosexual" until 1946, and was a bad mistake then."
Jeramy Townsley says that "It seems clear that arsenokoites [arsenokoitai] does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships..." Learned in Greek and Hebrew, Jeramy received a MA. in philosophy/theology from Lincoln Christian College Seminary.
".... The term appears only in contexts dealing with greed, prostitution, adultery, idolatry, and lack of self control. Although it is a rare term, its use is probably best connected with those male prostitutes who are clearly condemned in the Old Testament, and who would fit in with those temptations which drew Paul's audience toward idolatry and greed, whether they were tempted to become such prostitutes or take advantage of their services.

"In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship. An attempt by some scholars to interpret I Cor 6:9 by taking malakos to mean the passive partner and arsenokoites the active partner is based on circular reasoning. The meaning of arsenokoites is problematic. There is no evidence that malakos was ever considered as a technical term for a passive partner. (There are other terms for passive and active partner in Greek. They never appear in the NT). Malakos' general meaning of effeminate is independent of sexual position or object. To define malakos arsenokoites is to define something already clear by something that is obscure." --- Deirdre Good, General Theological Seminary.[/B]

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm

OllieFranz · Sep 24, 2007

Phinehas2 said:
Dear Davedjy,
With respect you havent really shown anything except a variation of opposites to what you are proposing.
For me malakoi is the difficult word to translate, arsenkoites is fairly easy. Nowhere else in the NT, Matt 11 and Luke 7 is malakoi = catamite. But of course even if it were the passive partner in a same-sex union it doesnt change arsenokoites man who lies with a man instead of with a woman. I think the gay argument asumes people will fall for that one and assume its just a form of pederasty.
The other point worth noting is that those who think the word malakoi is difficult to translate, only seem to think so in 1 Cor 6 and not in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25.
Its not because they want the revelation of God but rather because they dont.

No one has claimed that malakos is difficult to translate, it means soft. The problem comes in the interpretation.

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is talking about soft clothing (silks, satins, close-weave cottons, would be the modern equivalent) that John the Baptizer was known not to wear.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and in Matthew 5:22 (where the Aramaic "raqa," cognate to the Hebrew raqaq "soft" is left untranslated) it refers to a character trait, and not a highly regarded one. But neither passage gives enough context to explain what the "softness" consisted of or why it was frowned upon.

Other examples from Middle-Eastern and Greek literature help us to understand how to interpret this "softness," but too many "Bible-Only" Christians prefer to interpret it without knowing the background, claiming to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth.

We can't go to the extra-Biblical literature with aresenokoitai, however, since the only other passages to use the word are clearly influnced by Paul's usage, and none of them provide any real context. Two of those derivative passages give the impression (by which categories of sins they are grouped with) that their authors were referring to procurers or pimps.

Wiccan_Child · Sep 24, 2007

djbcrawford said:
Which is my point, as parents produce children. It's all linked together.

My point was that sex has functions other than procreation, not just for procreating heterosexuals.

djbcrawford said:
So mugging someone to take their money is wrong, but conning someone out of money is okay as you haven't "forced" them?

You asked if there was a difference, and I said there was. How did you get from that to this?

Jerrell · Sep 24, 2007

Wiccan_Child said:
Nonsense. It is a sin in your interpretation. Biased translations by prejudiced men have enforced the homophobic culture of the time. Take the time to review the original text yourself; you may be surprised.

Pray tell, where in the Bible does God explicitly state, "Become heterosexual, or burn in Hell"?

It's quite pitiful that there are so many hypocrits and "wise" men in this world. You'd rather believer your own opinion than to repent of your sin and confess it before God and change. An adulterer ought to change, the theif ought to change, the fornicator oought to change, the liar ought to change, and yes, even the homosexual ought to change. As for me, I believe in accepting the whole word of God, not picking and choosing and making excuses as you have. I never said "be Heterosexual or burn in hell" you did, I merely am stating the fact that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so it's not a statement of become heterosexual or die, but accept Jesus Christ and repent of sin- or condemn your own self thourgh doubt.

Ohioprof · Sep 24, 2007

Jerrell said:
It's quite pitiful that there are so many hypocrits and "wise" men in this world. You'd rather believer your own opinion than to repent of your sin and confess it before God and change. An adulterer ought to change, the theif ought to change, the fornicator oought to change, the liar ought to change, and yes, even the homosexual ought to change. As for me, I believe in accepting the whole word of God, not picking and choosing and making excuses as you have. I never said "be Heterosexual or burn in hell" you did, I merely am stating the fact that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so it's not a statement of become heterosexual or die, but accept Jesus Christ and repent of sin- or condemn your own self thourgh doubt.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I simply disagree with you.

davedjy · Sep 24, 2007

Jerrell said:
I merely am stating the fact that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God

That isn't a fact, and as I have pointed out a gazillion times, the inconsistencies in translation. The Latin Vulgate and Jersualem Bibles both reject the homosexual translation in 1 Cor. 6:9. The best of scholars are unsure of what the word "arsenokoitai" means (the Greek word falsely translated out as "homosexual" in 1 Cor. 6:9).

Aquamarine81 · Sep 24, 2007

Jerrell said:
It's quite pitiful that there are so many hypocrits and "wise" men in this world. You'd rather believer your own opinion than to repent of your sin and confess it before God and change.

Isn't that what you are doing? Expressing your own opinion? And how can you expect a person to change their feelings, their attractions?

I never said "be Heterosexual or burn in hell" you did, I merely am stating the fact that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God,

What's the difference? Not inheriting the Kingdom of God means one is going to hell, right?

Jerrell · Sep 24, 2007

davedjy said:
That isn't a fact, and as I have pointed out a gazillion times, the inconsistencies in translation. The Latin Vulgate and Jersualem Bibles both reject the homosexual translation in 1 Cor. 6:9. The best of scholars are unsure of what the word "arsenokoitai" means (the Greek word falsely translated out as "homosexual" in 1 Cor. 6:9).

If you wish to refuse to repent based solely on your denial of scripture trnaslation, that's sad. Paul clearly had a good understanding of what the word meant, read the opening of Romans Chapter, and consider reading 2 Timothy when he says that Homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine. So you can make as many excuses as you want, but that doesn't change the fact of what the Bible reads.

[SIZE=+1]ajrsenokoivthß [/SIZE]Arsenokoites (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 733

one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

LunarPlexus · Sep 24, 2007

Jerrell said:
If you wish to refuse to repent based solely on your denial of scripture trnaslation, that's sad. Paul clearly had a good understanding of what the word meant, read the opening of Romans Chapter, and consider reading 2 Timothy when he says that Homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine. So you can make as many excuses as you want, but that doesn't change the fact of what the Bible reads.

[SIZE=+1]ajrsenokoivthß [/SIZE]Arsenokoites (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 733

one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

So it's ok to have gay sex as long as you aren't lying prone?
The bible isn't open to interpretation, remember? It must be taken literally.

Sorry...another example of me not being able to resist...

Jerrell · Sep 24, 2007

Aquamarine81 said:
Isn't that what you are doing? Expressing your own opinion? And how can you expect a person to change their feelings, their attractions?

What's the difference? Not inheriting the Kingdom of God means one is going to hell, right?

I don't expect people to change, a sinner loves his sin and doesn't want to stop sinning. Like Jesus said: "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." John 3:19,20.

God is the one that requires change not me, nothing is too hard for God- like Paul confessed in his writings, when he wrote to the Christians at Cornith: "Do not be decieved...homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God...Such were some of you, but you are washed..." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Jerrell · Sep 24, 2007

LunarPlexus said:
So it's ok to have gay sex as long as you aren't lying prone?
The bible isn't open to interpretation, remember? It must be taken literally.

Sorry...another example of me not being able to resist...

Gnat picking is not a good thing to do.

LunarPlexus · Sep 24, 2007

Jerrell said:
Gnat picking is not a good thing to do.

Sorry, should have refrained.

But tell me, do you take the bible literally?

Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

Phinehas2

Guest

Active Member

Active Member

MrPirate

Guest

Contributor

Contributor

me!

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Contributor

Minister of Christ

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Minister of Christ

Regular Member

Minister of Christ

Minister of Christ

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency