Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[Texas Lynn]

But He did quote Genesis to define what marriage is supposed to be.

No, he only addressed it at all to discuss divorce.

 

[davedjy]

But He did quote Genesis to define what marriage is supposed to be.

...still does not make it an attack against gay relationships.

 

[Dogbean]

...still does not make it an attack against gay relationships.

If you think about it and put the pieces together, it does.

God defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
God condemns fornication (sex not within the bounds of marriage)

Therefore, since God said men can only be married to women, then it follows that sex between men and men is condemned, and woman-woman sex is condemned as well, since these can never be within the bounds of marriage, and are thus examples of fornication.

To further emphasize the point, God condemns homosexual acts (sex) as sodomy in both the OT and the NT, if it wasn't clear enough already.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Sodomy is not the only homosexual act.

Or so I have been told.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If you think about it and put the pieces together, it does.

God defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
God condemns fornication (sex not within the bounds of marriage)

Biblically marriage is polygamous.

Most biblical marriage are polygamous. God certainly recognizes them and blesses them. God punishes men who fail in their marital duty to his second (or third or more) wife (wives)

 

[wayseer]

To further emphasize the point, God condemns homosexual acts (sex) as sodomy in both the OT and the NT, if it wasn't clear enough already.

Now where in the Bible is support for your statement? You might like to re-read the thread to pick up on what has already been discussed. If anything, the question of homosexuality is far from clear.

 

[Texas Lynn]

If you think about it and put the pieces together, it does.

Only by making a logical error like saying "Rex is a dog; Rex is a German Shepard; therefore all dogs are German Shepards.

God defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

He's not a lexicographer. Describing him as such seems to denigrate his works.

God condemns fornication (sex not within the bounds of marriage)

Precisely why among other reasons that marriage should be available to all. Thank you.

Therefore, since God said men can only be married to women, then it follows that sex between men and men is condemned, and woman-woman sex is condemned as well, since these can never be within the bounds of marriage, and are thus examples of fornication.

None of the supporting clauses are factual so the conclusion is merely an unsupportable assertion.

To further emphasize the point, God condemns homosexual acts (sex) as sodomy in both the OT and the NT, if it wasn't clear enough already.

God is neither a sexologist nor a lawyer either. "Sodomy" is another of those "gotcha" terms which are essentially meaningless except to mean the speaker is saying "I don't wike it".

 

[Texas Lynn]

Sodomy is not the only homosexual act.

Or so I have been told.

Sodomy is essentially a meaningless term, primarily used to mean anal sex, most of which is engaged in by heterosexuals.

 

[Dogbean]

Sodomy is essentially a meaningless term, primarily used to mean anal sex, most of which is engaged in by heterosexuals.

And God condemns sodomy whether it's by gays or by straight people. Heteros that do it are just as wrong as gays.

 

[Texas Lynn]

And God condemns sodomy whether it's by gays or by straight people. Heteros that do it are just as wrong as gays.

There's no basis for that at all in any passage of the Bible. In fact, in a "Christian sex manual" they wrote the evangelists Timothy and Beverly LaHaye [yes, he the coauthor of the fanciful "Left Behind" books] said precisely the opposite.

 

[Dogbean]

There's no basis for that at all in any passage of the Bible. In fact, in a "Christian sex manual" they wrote the evangelists Timothy and Beverly LaHaye [yes, he the coauthor of the fanciful "Left Behind" books] said precisely the opposite.

I'd like you to post that passage from the Tim LaHeye book please, telling us that God condones sodomy.

You cannot get around this passage.....

1 Cor 6:9-10 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 homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

If you can't understand this simple plain language passage from God's Word than I cannot help you. It's right there, plain as day, clear as crystal. And to eliminate all doubt, they even use the words "homosexuals" and "sodomites" so people would have no doubt in their minds that God does not approve of these practices. So show me now from Tim Lahey's book that this is incorrect. Frankly, when it comes down to the Bible or a book written by someone else, I'll take the Bible over that anyday.

Go ahead...I'm waiting.

 

[Jase]

You cannot get around this passage.....

Actually you can since a sodomite is not a homosexual, but one who is inhospitable and arrogant. The word sodomite had nothing to do with sexuality even up until the writing of the 17th Century KJV. You just think the modern day twist on the word somehow means it's meant that for the past 4,000 years ( you would be wrong if so.)

If you can't understand this simple plain language passage from God's Word than I cannot help you. It's right there, plain as day, clear as crystal. And to eliminate all doubt, they even use the words "homosexuals" and "sodomites" so people would have no doubt in their minds that God does not approve of these practices. So show me now from Tim Lahey's book that this is incorrect. Frankly, when it comes down to the Bible or a book written by someone else, I'll take the Bible over that anyday.

Um, the word homosexual didn't even exist when the Bible was written, so how can you claim that's "plain language"? And again, a sodomite is not a homosexual.

I think you need to get a little more intune with the idea that modern day interpretations of the Bible, are not always an accurate depiction of what the writers intended 4,000 years ago, nor do they necessarily apply to those of us in the 21st Century.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'd like you to post that passage from the Tim LaHeye book please, telling us that God condones sodomy.

You cannot get around this passage.....


If you can't understand this simple plain language passage from God's Word than I cannot help you. It's right there, plain as day, clear as crystal. And to eliminate all doubt, they even use the words "homosexuals" and "sodomites" so people would have no doubt in their minds that God does not approve of these practices. So show me now from Tim Lahey's book that this is incorrect. Frankly, when it comes down to the Bible or a book written by someone else, I'll take the Bible over that anyday.

Go ahead...I'm waiting.

This is based on the translation of an obscure Greek word arsenokoites. It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.
I wondered when someone would bring this up. The claim is a joke among linguists and etylogists. Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it.

The real trouble occurs when one looks at the what actually appears in the Septuagint.the phrase in the Septuagint "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin" is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

If you're going to use this justification to pretend that arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all dozens of other times arsen and koite appeared in Leviticus when referring to obvious heterosexual sexual acts

 

[Dogbean]

This is based on the translation of an obscure Greek word arsenokoites. It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.
I wondered when someone would bring this up. The claim is a joke among linguists and etylogists. Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it.

The real trouble occurs when one looks at the what actually appears in the Septuagint.the phrase in the Septuagint "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin" is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

If you're going to use this justification to pretend that arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all dozens of other times arsen and koite appeared in Leviticus when referring to obvious heterosexual sexual acts

I am proud of you, Bigbadwlf. You actually wrote a pretty long post without mentioning racism or a false connection between gay rights and civil rights. Good job!

 

[Archangelus]

wayseer provides a clear and consise arguement. but here we have what R.M.Hare would call a blik. A Blik is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable statement. To the Realists who interpret the bible litterally you will not be able to convice them they are wrong about homosexuality but in the same respect they can never varify thier claims. The only varification that there could possibly be is Eschatological Verification, meaning that only after we die will we find out who was right and who was wrong. That is assuming of course a Supreme Deity exists and ergo life after death.

I dont believe it is worth arguing over at the moment because they're are more pressing matters such as the middle east conflict, the persecution of not just Christians but Thiests everywhere from the plague of Atheism. Rather that ripping each other apart and the rest of the Christian Community why can't we tackle this.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'd like you to post that passage from the Tim LaHeye book please, telling us that God condones sodomy.

I don't know if it's online. IIRC it was in the context of married sex. You may be able to find it in some "Christian" bookstore but maybe not since laHaye's been so discredited as an extremist.

You cannot get around this passage.....

That says just as much about the religious right as it does about LGBTs or anyone else.

Frankly, when it comes down to the Bible or a book written by someone else, I'll take the Bible over that anyday.

As you interpret it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I am proud of you, Bigbadwlf. You actually wrote a pretty long post without mentioning racism or a false connection between gay rights and civil rights. Good job!

The "true connection" between gay rights and civil rights in both minority sexual orientation persons and racial minorities have been mistreated and that is all that is necessary.

 

[Texas Lynn]

wayseer provides a clear and consise arguement. but here we have what R.M.Hare would call a blik. A Blik is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable statement. To the Realists who interpret the bible litterally you will not be able to convice them they are wrong about homosexuality but in the same respect they can never varify thier claims. The only varification that there could possibly be is Eschatological Verification, meaning that only after we die will we find out who was right and who was wrong. That is assuming of course a Supreme Deity exists and ergo life after death.

I dont believe it is worth arguing over at the moment because they're are more pressing matters such as the middle east conflict, the persecution of not just Christians but Thiests everywhere from the plague of Atheism. Rather that ripping each other apart and the rest of the Christian Community why can't we tackle this.

That would be a valid point but right now LGBTs and their families are fighting for their lives against those who seek harm to them and the quest for relief from that oppression will not disappear because to some who speak from an enclave of safety it is unimportant.

 

[Dogbean]

The "true connection" between gay rights and civil rights in both minority sexual orientation persons and racial minorities have been mistreated and that is all that is necessary.

But gays are not a minority, and I'll post an article from my former pastor that shows you that.

 

[NaLuvena]

arsenokoites ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace from 730 and 2845; a sodomite:--abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

Just thought I'd add this.....