Infallibility of Scriptures Proves Gay is Sin according to the Scriptures

NewGuy101 said:

uh...

1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute

Click to expand...

Have you proven that homosexuality is unnatural lewdness? NO!

ROFL!!!!!

PinkTulip said:

No how does that prove me wrong... those are homosexual acts

Click to expand...

Not a credible debate point, and that doesn't include ALL homosexual acts.


Nice try, but you fail.

davedjy said:

All of the commandments are summed up by "love".

Slapping you wife is hurting someone, not exactly a valid comparison, is it?

Click to expand...

Again you are taking out context biblical love. If I love my dog so much does that mean I should marry it?

davedjy said:

This link proves YOU wrong!

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3120&Version=kjv

Click to expand...

Der Alter twisted that one writing from one of the ECF's to say it condemns ALL homosexual acts. All the author was saying from my understanding is that is was a sin for a man to shave because it made him less hairy, and less a man. To my understanding, the ECF author was referring back to malakos.

NewGuy101 said:

Again you are taking out context biblical love. If I love my dog so much does that mean I should marry it?

Click to expand...

Comparing bestiality to human love, isn't exactly the same is it?

Thank you for proving my point.

davedjy said:

Not a credible debate point, and that doesn't include ALL homosexual acts.


Nice try, but you fail.

Click to expand...

Actually you do since you have the burden of proof.

NewGuy101 said:

Actually you do since you have the burden of proof.

Click to expand...

Burden of proving what? you haven't proved that ALL homosexual acts are condemned by any even slight sense of the word.

1. The confusion of the translators
Translators were extremely confused as to what "arsenokoitai" meant. I have a real problem with translators who insist on translating the obscure word, "arsenokoitai", as "homosexuals" since there is such a lack of lexical data supporting that translation. Besides the word "homosexual" did not exist until the 20th century!
Before going any further let's look at what some scholars had to say:

"I believe it [arsenokoitai] explicitly relates to homosexuality." -- A. Mohler

"It [malakoi] can have a meaning that's not carnal. But the way it's used -- it's embedded in the same context with adultery -- it's pretty clear what the meaning is...A hallmark of Evangelicals is that we take a literal, normal, face-value interpretation of the Bible. Some people attempt to keep some form of Christianity and hold on to homosexuality, too. It leads to strange interpretations of the Bible."-- T. Crater

"In short, it is unclear whether the issue [the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi] is homosexuality alone..." -- Walter Wink

John Boswell ["Christianity, Soical Tolerance, and Homosexuality", pg. 334], who was a Greek & Hebrew language scholar and Historian from Yale University, felt that arsenokoitai may have meant "male prostitutes capable of the active role with either men or women"

"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.

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

Show us the bible translation that confirms your view, so that we all might read ALL of it and agree with you

Click to expand...

I posted the link that you didn't bother to read.

4. The meaning of "arsenokoites"
"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.

This is a mess, as is illustrated by the variety of translations of the word. So how do we find out what Paul meant? There are two ways to figure out what a word means. One is the etymological approach, which is a false method. The meaning of a word is not determined by its derivation, but by its usage. The meanings of words can change dramatically over short periods of time (even periods as short as 50 years!). Some contend that Paul coined the word from the Septuagint. I will discuss that later.
So the best thing to do would be to examine the uses of the word. It is found 73 times outside of Paul's letter.
In almost every one of these occurrences the word appears in a vice list so it is impossible to tell what they mean. The few times it does not appear in a vice list give us a better insight.
In the Apology of Arisites 13, Fragmenta 12,9-13.5.4 "arsenokoitai" refers to the sins of the Greek Gods. In the context it appears to be referring to the time Zeus abducted and raped a boy named Ganymede.
In Apology of Aristides, written 100 years after 1Corinthians, the word appears to be used for molestation of boys by men. Interestingly enough, Luther translated the word as "Knabenschaender" which meant "child abusers".

Another occurrence is in an ancient legend where the Snake in the Garden of Eden becomes a satanic being named Naas. Naas uses several tactics (including sexually pleasuring both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy Adam and Eve. Naas is said to have "had Adam like a boy". Naas' sins were called arsenokoitai. This suggests arsenoskoitai refers to a male using superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another.

There is simply no justification for translating arsenoskoitai as "homosexuals". Jeramy Townsley sums it up well by saying:
"... neither arsenokoitai nor malakoi are justifiably translated as "any homosexual behavior" (or more specifically, the active and passive partners in anal homosexual intercourse, as is the common interpration by contemporary Christian anti-gay writers) in any other Greek literature, which makes one question why they are translated that way here."

When early, Greek-speaking homophobic Christians (John Chrysostom and Clemet of Alexandria) condemned homosexuality, they did not use arsenokoitai, even when discussing Cor 6:9 and Tim. 1:10. Arguments from silence are generally weak, but had the word meant homosexuals, Chrysostom and Clemet would of most likely condemned homosexuals when they commented on Cor. 6:9 or Tim. 1:10. But they did not. This combined with the above discussion of the occurrences of the word, I feel, provide some serious problems for traditionalists.

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

savedandhappy1 said:

APA Newsletters

Fall 2000
Volume 00, Number 1

​

​

Newsletter on Philosophy and Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues​

Now What? The Latest Theory of Homosexuality​

Timothy F. Murphy
University of Illinois at Chicago
In 1999, a popular press magazine published the concerns of two scientists that many disorders go unrecognized as having an infectious origin. A paradigmatic example is the relatively recent discovery that many human stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium rather than by diet, stress, or environmental causes. These scientists also believe that homosexuality may be caused by a microbial infection. They say that the severe fitness problem of homosexuality "is a red flag that should not be ignored, and that an infectious process should not be ignored, and that an infectious process should at least be explored."1 These scientists believe that if homosexuality were heritable, the responsible genes would disappear quickly — because same-sex interactions do not lead to children. These scientists think that this challenge to reproductive fitness could not be overcome by random new genetic mutations that could, theoretically, re-introduce genes for homosexuality back into the gene pool. They believe there is more homosexuality than could be accounted for by new mutations. They think it is, therefore, a mistake to study homosexuality as if it were a genetic trait.

http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/newsletters/v00n1/lgbt/04.asp

Click to expand...

schwweeet, I'll go to the doc on Monday!

no wait, maybe he'll just give me same response he gave me when I told him I was gay. He's Jewish by the way. He said it was normal and all that other unfounded scientific rubbish.

Brieuse said:

schwweeet, I'll go to the doc on Monday!

Click to expand...

So you are going to the doctor on Monday because you want to be in one of the studies concerning some of the theroies of the origin of homosexuality?

I will pray that it isn't because you aren't feeling well, and just hope you were trying some kind of sarcastic response to an article that states they can not prove the origin of homosexuality.

I keep reading post about how unbias the APA is and then links are given that supposedly prove some point about the naturalness of homosexuality. I guess links to newsletters from the APA aren't quite as unbias if they state there is no proof that it is genetic, isn't that strange?

savedandhappy1 said:

So you are going to the doctor on Monday because you want to be in one of the studies concerning some of the theroies of the origin of homosexuality?

I will pray that it isn't because you aren't feeling well, and just hope you were trying some kind of sarcastic response to an article that states they can not prove the origin of homosexuality.

I keep reading post about how unbias the APA is and then links are given that supposedly prove some point about the naturalness of homosexuality. I guess links to newsletters from the APA aren't quite as unbias if they state there is no proof that it is genetic, isn't that strange?

Click to expand...

did you read the whole article?

Brieuse said:

did you read the whole article?

Click to expand...

Did you???

I guess I could go back and read how many times the word theroy was used.

Still it is from the APA, which has been used way more times than I can count to prove that homosexuality is normal, so why now when there is another article from APA is it wrong? How can you believe the APA if they are saying things you want to hear, but not believe if they aren't? In saying you I am not meaning you personnally, because I don't believe I have read your thoughts on them.

I guess they are believed kind of like the Bible is. The parts that say things I agree with or prove my point I believe, but it is fallible if I don't like what it says.

savedandhappy1 said:

Did you???

I guess I could go back and read how many times the word theroy was used.

Still it is from the APA, which has been used way more times than I can count to prove that homosexuality is normal, so why now when there is another article from APA is it wrong? How can you believe the APA if they are saying things you want to hear, but not believe if they aren't? In saying you I am not meaning you personnally, because I don't believe I have read you thoughts on them.

I guess they are believed kind of like the Bible is. The parts that say things I agree with or prove my point I believe, but it is fallible if I don't like what it says.

Click to expand...

of course I did. The article rips apart the proposal because of lack of collected data and actually has some positive reaction to Simon leVay's work due to his attempt to collect data.

davedjy said:

This proves homosexuality is sin, how, exactly?


I find it so ironic that some humans are born gay, and then the religious bigots who freely accept the fact that polygamy and slavery were freely accepted in the Scriptures is "OK", but homosexuality is a sin.

Read Exodus 21:10

Click to expand...

Already answer your polygamy and slavery strawman on some thread so won't go there again.

As for the other I wasn't trying to prove homosexuality is a sin, because that has already been done. I was just giving answer to another strawman that has been used to proof God thinks homosexuality is ok. You know the one where it is said that God doesn't see anything wrong with a loving, monogamous relationship weather it is hetrosexual or homosexual, and the one where God wouldn't want anyone to be celibate.