Is the Bible correct?

[JohnT]

No, there's very obviously a difference between attraction (physical/sexual/romantic) and sexual activity. The first can definitely take place without the second, even if the second is unlikely to take place without the first.

No, the meanings aren't synonymous at all.

And I notice you didn't answer the question I asked you:How would you describe the state of being attracted (or being likely to be attracted) to people of the same gender as oneself? If you wouldn't use the word "homosexual" for that, then what word would you use? And if you would use the word "homosexual", then how would you distinguish between "homosexual but not engaging in homosexual sex" and "homosexual and engaging in homosexual sex"? David.

There you go, again, You make a distinction without a difference!

To answer your question would give credence to your absurd position.

There is no difference. Get over it.

You argue against the dictionaries and common sense.

 

[onemessiah]

There you go, again, You make a distinction without a difference!

To answer your question would give credence to your absurd position.

There is no difference. Get over it.

You argue against the dictionaries and common sense.

Ignorance is bliss....
if you can't comprehend something as simple as what he explained, it's best to keep your mouth shut.

 

[David Brider]

There you go, again, You make a distinction without a difference!

I've explained the difference very clearly. If you don't see it, that's your problem.

To answer your question would give credence to your absurd position.

Or maybe it would reveal how absurd your position is?

There is no difference.

Of course there is. Unless you want to seriously argue that everybody who experiences any kind of romantic/physical/sexual attraction then goes out and acts on that attraction by having sex with the person to whom they're attracted?

Get over it.

You argue against the dictionaries and common sense.

You're the one who's arguing against common sense. There's clearly a difference between romantic/physical/sexual attraction and sexual activity. That's common sense.

David.

 

[HaloHope]

David and Halo:


Go fight MANY dictionaries, then!
The words are synonyms according to these esteemed sources. Or do you have another, more esteemed source?


American Heritage Dictionary - ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty (hō'mə-sěk'shōō-āl'ĭ-tē, -mō-) n.

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

homosexuality
noun a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition -

homosexuality

A sexual attraction between persons of the same sex. (See gay and lesbian; compare heterosexuality.)

[Chapter:] Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary -

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·tyn.

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary -


Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-"sek-sh&-'wal-&t-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Oddly enough all the UK based dictionarys I just checked they made distinction between being a homosexual and having homosexual sex. I, as a gay person have NEVER come across someone using the word "homosexual" to mean having same-gender sex. Ever. Under any circumstances until I saw you use it like that on this forum. A homosexual, may or may not have homosexual sex. You cant possibly use "homosexual" in a sentance in that context

"The people were having homosexual?"
"The two people had homosexual that night"

It's diabolical English and makes zero sense.

You would say
"The person was homosexual and he/she had homosexual sex that night"

or something.

 

[onemessiah]

That is a linguistically impossible statement!

The prefixes "homo" and "hetro" are Greek. In the former, the prefix means the same, and in the latter, the prefix means different. By definition of the terms, HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS THE SAME AS SAME SEX SEXUAL ACTIONS.

Tell that to the American Phsychological Association:


What is sexual orientation?

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).
People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing.



Notice the clear distinctions made between orientation and the physical act.

Think of it this way.
If a person had a gay orientation, and then suffered some strange affliction which prevented him from having sex ever in his life. Is he still gay, or is he of no orientation because he's never had sex?

 

[JohnT]

Tell that to the American Phsychological Association:

Last I checked, the APA is not a linguistic organization.

Check out their spin on pornography. The word is a compound of two Greek words: graphos means writing and pornos means evil. Therefore, in its earliest forms, pornography meant "evil writing"

Denotatively, it has expanded to include much more than that, and some wishing to soft soap its origins and intents make out "soft" or "hard core" porn or call it "erotica'.

No matter how thin you slice it, it is still evil writing.

The same distinction holds for homosexual leanings, attraction, or sexual acts. Some nay wish to change the denotation for OBVIOUS reasons, but that does not change the original derivation of the word.

Really, by renaming homosexuality to something other than what it is in reality, is merely an attempt to hide your sinful behavior. That is logically akin to saying that if murder were no longer be a crime, any one who murders will not be a criminal. Nevertheless a murderer is still a murderer.

As Gertrude Stein once said, "A rose is a rose is a rose".

 

[onemessiah]

Last I checked, the APA is not a linguistic organization.

Check out their spin on pornography. The word is a compound of two Greek words: graphos means writing and pornos means evil. Therefore, in its earliest forms, pornography meant "evil writing"

Denotatively, it has expanded to include much more than that, and some wishing to soft soap its origins and intents make out "soft" or "hard core" porn or call it "erotica'.

No matter how thin you slice it, it is still evil writing.

The same distinction holds for homosexual leanings, attraction, or sexual acts. Some nay wish to change the denotation for OBVIOUS reasons, but that does not change the original derivation of the word.

Really, by renaming homosexuality to something other than what it is in reality, is merely an attempt to hide your sinful behavior. That is logically akin to saying that if murder were no longer be a crime, any one who murders will not be a criminal. Nevertheless a murderer is still a murderer.

As Gertrude Stein once said, "A rose is a rose is a rose".

And this refutes their research how exactly?
The fact still remains that they are a neutral scientific organization and acknowledged experts in the field.
Rhetoric does not negate the facts.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Even if it's true that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual interactions (and you're well aware that not every Christian agrees with you on that), if you don't care what gays do in their privacy, why does what the Bible condemns matter to you on that particular issue? As long as you don't do what you believe the Bible condemns, you're okay. Taking part in debates such as this suggests that to some extent you do care what gay people do in their privacy.

David.

I care about the truth. I don't care what gays or anyone else does in their privacy. Understand that my issue is with what is being preached here, not the people it's targeted at.


ps. You should reconsider supporting the troops, they kill people so we don't have to. And if they didn't, we'd all be speaking german right now, and we'd definitely not have the freedom to have an opinion, let alone civil rights. I may disagree with the current state of things, or the decisions made by the politicians, but I don't blame the men and women who put their lives on the line for the sake of us all. Take care.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

So you have to love obedience to his rules, but not follow them? How bizarre.

It's not bizarre. I don't know if you made that reply in order to keep the argument going, but I'll answer it anyhow. Salvation lies in Christ alone. No matter what we do, we cannot save ourselves. We are all sinners. However with our faith in Christ, we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and we also do our absolute best to uphold and follow God's commands. Do we succeed in that? Of course not, but with Spiritual conviction for our shortcomings we become more discerned and spiritually mature. We are saved by our faith in Christ, but shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.

Then why do you not kill homosexuals?

Because I'm not in the proper position to judge.

Or those who weave clothes from two different fibres? Or follow any of the other barbaric OT laws?

Because I'm not an ancient israelite, not to mention that gentiles aren't held to the same standards as jews. I don't use the leviticus passages to solidify the condemnation against same-sex sex. It's just a part of a series of things that lead to that conclusion. First there is the several examples of the male-female relationship as how He intended. You may say 'well since we are gentiles we don't have to consider the OT', but reading through romans 1:26-30 continues to show that the same-sex sexual relationship is not part of God's plan. And who was that book written to? Oh yeah, the gentiles.

So why argue that Jesus would have mentioned it if he condoned it? As you say, it wasn't the headline maker it is today.

It's arguing from silence on both sides. We can speculate all we want, all I'm pointing out is that Him being versed on the Law would've most definitely known that gay sex was a sin, as it is in jewish tradition. So if He were against that, or wanted to correct a 'mistranslation/misuse' of leviticus then one would think that He would've mentioned it in specific. At least that scenario is more likely than Him not saying anything about it because it was 'the norm' of the day. Still speculation, though.

Because analysing the post-translation and pre-translation texts highlights a bias: of the myriad of possible translations, the most obscure was chosen. Why? For the same basic reason "the mark of Cain" was interpreted to justify racism, or God's creating Adam first to justify sexism, or what have you.

The pro-glbt side also uses a bias with their 'post-translation', as they do not want to be told they are sinning. I could see if someone was on here saying that 'sodom was destroyed by gays', that they were being biased in their translation or view.

I read the Bible to see what all the fuss was about. Beautiful as it was in places, I wasn't particularily impressed. Currently, I read the Bible if I need to locate a particular verse to further my argument (biblegateway helps with that).

There is a difference between what you do and what a believer does when reading scripture. Belief, of course, plays a large part, and also Spiritual guidance/discernment/wisdom comes into play on the believer's side. Believe me I spent several years as an agnostic and I read scripture in an effort to undermine or try to understand someone's position, and the difference in my understanding between then and now is night and day.

Where is the reference to Leviticus?

It's implied, there are some on your side of the debate who have mentioned this also.

If both are guilty, why the need to seperate the two?

well partially because of the way its worded (referencing the leviticus passage again), as it has been argued on here before, the leviticus passage seems to single out the 'agressor' in the way it is worded.

Perhaps, but you did not answer my question: how do you discern whether or not someone is being guided by the Holy Spirit? How do you know God didn't desire and require the alleged lunatic to burn down the orphanage? Saying you read it in the Bible just means your particular interpretation of what Spirit-led means differs to what the claimant says Spirit-led means. How does one discern who is right?

Because scripture defends any true 'Spirit-led' actions. That part is simple, because loving your neighbor would no lead you to burn down an orphanage. If someone claims to be "Spirit-led" and they state that God approves of and/or blesses gay-sex, then I'd ask him to show me where scripture defends this claim.

How so? I don't see this distinction mentioned in the text.

Because it defines what IS natural. 'In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another'
The natural relations for the men are with women. And to further reiterate that point, the next verse goes 'Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion'

This shows scripture's stance on sexual behavior, and that it is still defined as being between man and woman. This is what is normal. I keep hearing the argument that 'straights were turned gay and gays were turned straight', but I only see one example in the passages. I see that both men and women were given over to the lusts of their hearts, and in doing so, they left the natural use of each other and went for their own sex. Scripture does not make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual, it speaks of people as human beings rather than sexual identifiers.

But this does not mean homosexuality is unnatural.

According to scripture, it does. The passages I just referenced defined it as such.

The best argument against this is simply to cite the 1500+ observed instances of homosexuality in animals.

What does this have to do with scripture? I don't define natural by the world's standards but rather God's.

I also like to point out that homosexuality wouldn't have evolve din the first place if it didn't offer some benefit to the society in which it evolves (note also that no non-social species has homosexual members).

There are lots of things that have 'evolved' along without any particular benefit. This only becomes an issue when homosexuals try to separate themselves from the mainstream and become a separate group anyhow. They are not like a branch out from the human race that is going to die off.

The question, then, is: what is his will for us? Some say it is to be heterosexual mothers and fathers who vote for the Conservatives. Others don't.

I personally don't think God expects us to change our sexuality. People are born with struggles all the time, and some things are gained over time (like drug addiction, just for example). We all have hurdles to overcome, and when we know we are acting contrary to what we know His will to be (according to scripture), then we have to make some sacrifices if we choose to follow and obey Him to our utmost. On that note, I just wanted to add, that I have a ton of respect for any homosexual who feels convicted by acting on their attraction, and abstains from doing so in order to please God. They are big shoes to fill, and definitely require special people of great faith.

As you may have guessed, I disagree that this translation is accurate.

For instance, the phrases "against nature", "contrary to nature", and "sin with each other" are all various ways in which translators have translated the Greek para physin (παρα φυσι&#957. They translate it to imply a moral condemnation. Indeed, it literally translates to something like "against nature".

However, Paul uses this phrase elsewhere, and its use is most decidedly not one of moral condemnation. In 1 Corinthians 11:14 he uses para physin to describe men with long hair as unusual or not ordinary. In Romans 11:24, he uses it to descirbe God's good actions to bring the Jews and Gentiles together.

Thus, Paul's use of the phrase para physin is almost certainly not one of moral condemnation: it is simply to highlight something out of the ordinary. Indeed, in the latter case, it is used positively.

I'm not sure why you are trying to redirect the 'natural' argument like this. physis and para physis is used in several places, many more than what you referenced (just one example romans 11:24). physis literally means nature and para of course is 'against'.

eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

It might also help to consider what is natural to paul, and to his targeted audience. Did paul consider same-sex sex to be natural? Highly unlikely. Did the romans? Highly likely, or even if not, they (pre-epistle) probably did not see it as a moral issue.

There are a number of other key phrases whos translation is iffy (to use the vernacular).

Since you keep bringing this up, I'd like to see how you'd word the romans passages, in order to give your idea of a proper translation. Remember, we are dealing with just single translations of words and not entire sentences, so fill in the blanks on the ones you find 'questionable' or 'iffy'.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

I was simply reiterating what he said.

My issue with that is that you weren’t because you were referring to loving obedience rather than God.

Which begs the question: what is deemed 'sin'?

Why would that beg the question? It doesn’t beg the question, what is sin just as who our neighbour is and how we love them is all described in the Bible. However It may be different in Wicca, perhaps you can explain where you get you truth from?

I mean I don't understand any of it. The grammar and syntax do not resemble our Earth grammar and syntax.

But if I have given you the scriptures you can refer to them, you don’t need to worry about my ‘earth grammar’

I have absolutely no idea. Jesus is a human who allegedly existed ~2000 years ago, so being 'in' him doesn't seem to make sense.

Ok so you don’t understand, I cant really debate with you about the reality of Jesus Christ if you don’t believe, all I am doing is addressing your disbelief with the truth about Jesus Christ which you don’t believe. .. so would you like to give the Wicca view?

You appear to contradict yourself: you seem to strongly agree that Paul is condemning temple prostitution by the words he chose to use, yet then arbitrarily make an anti-homosexuality conclusion. Why?

Actually that’s incorrect and where you seem to have been mislead. Paul was as much the first to use this word as we can see and if he had wanted to use another word he might have missed making the precise reference to Lev 18 and 20. In addition he has used pornos which is fornication in general and could be in conjunction with temple prostitution, eidololatres which is idoloterer and could be in conjuction with temple prostitution, and moichos which could be in conjunction with temple prostitution as well as malakos. Yet he knew from Jesus teaching that moichos and pornos break what God has ordained in creation for man and woman (Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5)

I am both a scientist and Wiccan.

So could you describe both the scientific and Wiccan sources for your views?

It tells me nothing. The human penis and orangutang vagina also fit together. Do you therefore advocate bestiality?

The human penis and the orangutang vagina is not an example of same-sex my friend, in your example the penis comes from a human male and the vagina comes from a female orangutang. My goodness you aren’t much of a biologist. Bestiality is condemned in the Bible Lev 18 and 20 and outside God’s purpose for man and woman Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5 etc. So God doesn’t advocate bestiality, does science or Wicca?

I do not appreciate ad hominem attacks. Show me my error.

If you don’t understand Greek or Hebrew how can you criticise the translation? That’s the error I am showing you. If you offer an experts criticism of the translation I will offer you another expert’s support for the Bible, nonetheless the Bible translation is the Bible translation provided to you.

So why are you disputing what the Bible says if you don’t care?

Because other people care. There are Christians who genuinely believe that the Bible condemns homosexual sex and marriage, and wish to impose their religious beliefs upon the masses. I oppose this.

But you are in a democracy, Christians do not wish to impose this on the masses any more than anyone else in the masses wishes to impose same-sex unions on the masses. Remember there are non-Christians as well who don t want same-sex unions. You seem to want a secular oligarchy rather than a democracy, which limits some worldviews, we as Christians are more tolerant and recognise in a democracy all views may be presented and sought.

 

[Phinehas2]

One of the things we are forgetting here is that one must be born again of the Spirit John 8, John 14-16,
Gal 3 "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Its not about what we feel or who we think we are but who we are in Christ and the new creation we are in Him. If we focus on our sexual orientation its not focussing on Christ and God's purposes but on our old dead self, (providing of course we are born again)

 

[JohnT]

Tell that to the American Phsychological (sic) Association:


What is sexual orientation? Blah, blah blah

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
​

If I am an adulterer because I have a lusty, leering look at a woman, then the same holds true for homosexuality.

Besides that, in the APA there is no definition of the word "sin" and naturally, there is no remedy for it. Only Jesus can do that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

STILL it is an extremely vague, generalized statement, and like most generalities, totally off base. Repeating a baseless charge does not make it true. You show no proof. Thus the statement is bogus, and has not changed.

I figured it was obvious. Do you really not see the theological differences between Christian denominations? Examples would be the division between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians, Calvanists and 'Free will'-ers, theistic evolutionists and YECs, etc.

I do not know what you smell, unless you stepped on something on your lawn. There are common definitions for cults, look them up, and then ask me about that, OK?

By all means, give your own definition.

Do you really want to see my Critical Apparatus, or the many books I have on Biblical inerrancy, transmission and canon? Of course, to use the Critical Apparatus, you have to be familiar with both Greek and the various manuscripts, codices, etc

I simply want the source for your claim.

In case you did not realize computer chips are INORGANIC, and their getting smaller is a matter of technology following Moor’s Law. The theory of evolution deals with LIFE FORMS. By any chance are you mistaking biology for physics?

You made the vague statement, not me. So tell me: why can non-living matter go from simple to complex, but not populations of living organisms?

Guess what you get if you allow dogs to reproduce randomly: mutts.

Indeed: a dog will never naturally give birth to something that is not a dog. Such an event would disprove common descent.

That is an example of devolution, entropy.

What does entropy have to do with this? Perhaps you are espousing a rehash of the "Second Law forbids evolution!!!" argument?

No matter how hard you or anyone tries, no one can point to any living specie that has been observed morphing from another specie.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'one living species morphing into another', but there are a plethora of observed instances of evolution.

Deduction is not the same as observation. Did you not learn that in school? To be “scientific” it has to be observed, and repeatable.

You have a faulty definition of 'scientific'. Science is the acquisition of probabalistic knowledge about the world, regardless of what that knowledge may turn out to be.

Science indeed makes a priori assumptions. It assumes that it can answer all questions via experimentation, and that is chutzpah.

You are describing reductionism, not science. Science looks at the given facts, and attempts to deduce the most probable explanation for why these facts are the way they are. This is exemplified in the cornerstones that are quantum mechanics, general relativity, and common descent.

The Bible does begin with an assumption: God exists. The third word in the Hebrew Bible is God (Elohim), and then it goes on to state what created. More important, it details how He covenants with his highest creation, humanity.

A great many religious texts also follow the same trend: a Creator entity/entities creating the world and humanity. What is your point?

Would you like me to find good translations for you to read?

The point, I think, is that one can't discern which tranlsation is 'good': the proponents of each version holds theirs as the most accurate.

I agree that the ending of all of Saul’s family is tragic because he disobeyed God (see 1 Kings 15-17); as also is the life of David, one of Israel’s greatest kings a tragic life. But for anyone to state that their love for each other was a homosexual mélange, that is belief contrary to any supporting facts.

Please, cite these facts.

Ah, English fails us here. In Hebrew, it is abundantly clear that they wanted to have sex with the angels.

Perhaps. What's your point?

Logic, WC, logic! This is a debate forum. The rules of debate are that I have to assert the positive, and then I supply the facts that back up my thesis. I have done that. That states my case.

Next, you need to find fault with the supporting details that I have posted. It is your job to counter the affirmative, which you have failed to do. You have failed to establish that my arguments are a) irrational, b) contrary to the evidence, and c) based upon wishful thinking. Until such a time comes, then my position remains established, and unanswered.

I am aware of the rules of debate. However, you have not presented your argument as well as you make out; you simply set up a strawman and arbitrarily place the burden of proof on me. You claim that God says homoseuxality is immoral, and I reject that claim: your supporting evidence (i.e., Bible verses) are themselves unverified. This is best demonstrated by the plethora of translations of the Bible, and the interpretations ascribed to each of those.

You see, WC, God made the rules. All I do is repeat them as they are stated regarding homosexuality, or any other sin. And to call homosexuality a sin is the most freeing, loving thing that anyone can do, In doing so, there is forgiveness, and reconciliation to God for all who repent.

Is it not a loving act to call humanity back to their creator? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God, and all who refuse him are headed for a godless, horrid eternity. The easy thing to do is to seek his face, and draw near, and he will come to you. Do not harden your heart, WC. There is still time to get right with God.

Since I do not believe your deity exists, your words fall on false ears.

Bottom line is that homosexuality is an abomination as is wiccanism [sic]. It is a "new" example of an old practice forbidden by God. The label is different, that is all. That is because it is self-described as "Neo-Pagan", and "Earth-Centered Worship". And while you in particular may not practice any of the crafts, divinations or magiks, others calling themselves "wiccans" do. These are all “occult” (actual meaning hidden) practices, and they are attempts at usurping the prerogatives of God. That is why he calls them all detestable.

I am aware of Christianity's attitude towards Wicca, the occult, and other Pagan paraphernalia.

Wise up, WC! Do not be fooled by those over you. Only Jesus can save your soul, but you gotta sincerely ask Him to do that.

I do not believe in the existence of Jesus, souls, or humanity's need for salvation. Again, your words fall on deaf ears.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not bizarre. I don't know if you made that reply in order to keep the argument going, but I'll answer it anyhow.

I'm pointing out an apparently bizarre belief in the hopes of clarification.

Salvation lies in Christ alone. No matter what we do, we cannot save ourselves. We are all sinners. However with our faith in Christ, we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and we also do our absolute best to uphold and follow God's commands. Do we succeed in that? Of course not, but with Spiritual conviction for our shortcomings we become more discerned and spiritually mature. We are saved by our faith in Christ, but shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.

Yet if salvation does not require one to uphold God's laws, why follow them? Indeed, why did God set them up in the first place?

It's arguing from silence on both sides. We can speculate all we want, all I'm pointing out is that Him being versed on the Law would've most definitely known that gay sex was a sin, as it is in jewish tradition.

If gay sex is considered a sin by God, then yes. But that is what we are discussing.

So if He were against that, or wanted to correct a 'mistranslation/misuse' of leviticus then one would think that He would've mentioned it in specific. At least that scenario is more likely than Him not saying anything about it because it was 'the norm' of the day. Still speculation, though.

Agreed.

The pro-glbt side also uses a bias with their 'post-translation', as they do not want to be told they are sinning. I could see if someone was on here saying that 'sodom was destroyed by gays', that they were being biased in their translation or view.

Naturally: gay Christians are inherently biased towards pro-gay translations, and homophobic Christians towards anti-gay translations. The same is true for anti-racism Christians towards anti-racist translations, and racist Christians to racist translations.

It's implied, there are some on your side of the debate who have mentioned this also.

Yet I do not see the implication. Can you elaborate? Romans 1 talks of people going against their nature as punishment for reverting to Pagan idolatry, but Leviticus does not.

Because scripture defends any true 'Spirit-led' actions. That part is simple, because loving your neighbor would no lead you to burn down an orphanage.

There are a myriad of events in the Bible wherein God commands the slaughter of children (among others) (Numbers 31:17, Hosea 13:16, 1 Samuel 15:3, etc. So it seems the infanticidal maniac is Spirit-led. Better get out that chainsaw .

Because it defines what IS natural. 'In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another'
The natural relations for the men are with women. And to further reiterate that point, the next verse goes 'Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion'

This shows scripture's stance on sexual behavior, and that it is still defined as being between man and woman. This is what is normal. I keep hearing the argument that 'straights were turned gay and gays were turned straight', but I only see one example in the passages.

Well of course: the vast majority of people are straight. It's the same as automatically assuming a person's partner is of the opposite sex upon hearing about them.

According to scripture, it does. The passages I just referenced defined it as such.

As ever, I disagree.

What does this have to do with scripture? I don't define natural by the world's standards but rather God's.

So the natural world is no indication of what is natural? My point was that if homosexuality is unnatural, then one wouldn't expect non-human animals to engage in it. Just because you interpret the text a certain way doesn't mean it's right: God may have put the evidence right before your eyes, but there's a book in the way.

There are lots of things that have 'evolved' along without any particular benefit. This only becomes an issue when homosexuals try to separate themselves from the mainstream and become a separate group anyhow. They are not like a branch out from the human race that is going to die off.

Naturally: two men or two women cannot reproduce without medical intervention. Nevertheless, homosexuality plays a role in social species (though most humans have have long abandoned East Africa, where our major behavioural traits evolved).

I'm not sure why you are trying to redirect the 'natural' argument like this. physis and para physis is used in several places, many more than what you referenced (just one example romans 11:24). physis literally means nature and para of course is 'against'.

eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Agreed, but I don't see what this has to do with the analysis.

It might also help to consider what is natural to paul, and to his targeted audience. Did paul consider same-sex sex to be natural? Highly unlikely. Did the romans? Highly likely, or even if not, they (pre-epistle) probably did not see it as a moral issue.

Why is it highly unlikely that Paul considered same-sex sex to not be natural?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My issue with that is that you weren’t because you were referring to loving obedience rather than God.

He said:

Loving God entails loving what He loves, and that is obedience to His rules.

I.e., he directly states that one must love moral legalism. However, he also said that one needn't uphold the law.

Why would that beg the question? It doesn’t beg the question, what is sin just as who our neighbour is and how we love them is all described in the Bible.

But that's just it: they're not defined. 'Sexual immorality' and 'strange flesh' are never explicitly defined.

However It may be different in Wicca, perhaps you can explain where you get you truth from?

I get truth by looking at the world and deducing why things are the way they are. Physicists have deduced that the universe is a foam of quantum particles spontaneously appearing and annihilating. Biologists have deduced that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago. Cosmologists have deduced that the universe was unfathomably tiny ~13.7 billion years ago (the subsequent expansion is known as the Big Bang).

Wicca is a religion, not a scientific discipline.

Ok so you don’t understand, I cant really debate with you about the reality of Jesus Christ if you don’t believe, all I am doing is addressing your disbelief with the truth about Jesus Christ which you don’t believe. .. so would you like to give the Wicca view?

There isn't one. Jesus may or may not have existed; it is a moot point with regards to Wiccan theology.

So could you describe both the scientific and Wiccan sources for your views?

With regards to gay marriage? Well, science is the pursuit of truth, and the legal recognition of gay marriage is a whole other kettle of fish. Within Wicca, there is no moral edict or precident that warrents the opposition of same-sex marriage. Indeed, Wiccan morality is summed up as "An it harm none, do what ye will", and if can be argued that opposing same-sex marriage causes harm.

The human penis and the orangutang vagina is not an example of same-sex my friend, in your example the penis comes from a human male and the vagina comes from a female orangutang. My goodness you aren’t much of a biologist.

...

Gods.

You implied that, because the penis and vagina fit so perfectly together, penetrative vaginal sex is the only 'moral' form of sex. I countered this by pointing out that human-orangutang sex would be moral by that view.

So your new position is that penetrative vaginal sex between two humans is the moral way to have intercourse?

Bestiality is condemned in the Bible Lev 18 and 20 and outside God’s purpose for man and woman Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5 etc. So God doesn’t advocate bestiality, does science or Wicca?

Science is the pursuit of truth, it advocates nothing. Wicca does not advocate bestiality (though neither does it condemn it; arguably, harm is being done to the animal).

If you don’t understand Greek or Hebrew how can you criticise the translation?

Because I have read explanations of the various translations of the text, and have come to a conclusion. That's why we have experts.

If you offer an experts criticism of the translation I will offer you another expert’s support for the Bible, nonetheless the Bible translation is the Bible translation provided to you.

Indeed: all we can do is cite our sources. There is no objective measure here.

But you are in a democracy, Christians do not wish to impose this on the masses any more than anyone else in the masses wishes to impose same-sex unions on the masses.

There's a crucial difference there: the legal recognition of same-sex unions would have no effect whatsoever on those not wishing to have a same-sex union. The lobbying Christians, however, do have an effect.

Remember there are non-Christians as well who don t want same-sex unions. You seem to want a secular oligarchy rather than a democracy, which limits some worldviews, we as Christians are more tolerant and recognise in a democracy all views may be presented and sought.

This view is not held by Christians alone. Nevertheless, anti-gay-marriage people are imposing their beliefs on others by holding back legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry. Pro-gay-marriage people impose no such obstacle: if you don't want to marry a person, then don't. But don't stop other people from expressing their love.

 

[JohnT]

I figured it was obvious. Do you really not see the theological differences between Christian denominations? Examples would be the division between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians, Calvanists and 'Free will'-ers, theistic evolutionists and YECs, etc.

You made the vague statement, not me. So tell me: why can non-living matter go from simple to complex, but not populations of living organisms?

Indeed: a dog will never naturally give birth to something that is not a dog. Such an event would disprove common descent.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'one living species morphing into another', but there are a plethora of observed instances of evolution.

You have a faulty definition of 'scientific'. Science is the acquisition of probabalistic (sic) knowledge about the world, regardless of what that knowledge may turn out to be.

You are describing reductionism, not science. Science looks at the given facts, and attempts to deduce the most probable explanation for why these facts are the way they are. This is exemplified in the cornerstones that are quantum mechanics, general relativity, and common descent.

A great many religious texts also follow the same trend: a Creator entity/entities creating the world and humanity. What is your point?

The point, I think, is that one can't discern which tranlsation is 'good': the proponents of each version holds theirs as the most accurate.

I am aware of the rules of debate. However, you have not presented your argument as well as you make out; you simply set up a strawman and arbitrarily place the burden of proof on me. You claim that God says homoseuxality is immoral, and I reject that claim: your supporting evidence (i.e., Bible verses) are themselves unverified. This is best demonstrated by the plethora of translations of the Bible, and the interpretations ascribed to each of those.

Since I do not believe your deity exists, your words fall on false ears.

I am aware of Christianity's attitude towards Wicca, the occult, and other Pagan paraphernalia.

I do not believe in the existence of Jesus, souls, or humanity's need for salvation. Again, your words fall on deaf ears.

=========================================================

I do not play those games, WC

When asked for proof, all you can muster is haughty arrogance, then try to flip the discussion, falsely claiming that the obligation is on me. Besides, even if I were able to "prove something to your satisfaction" your choice would still be unbelief, for it would then make you accountable to God.

I gave you a good definition of a cult: a group not adhering to the Nicene Creed. You deemed it insufficient.

You bring up the differences between the Calvinists and Arminians. Guess what? BOTH agree with the Nicene and Apostles Creed.

As far as the non trinitarians are concerned, they are by definition a cult because they do not hold to the Nicene Creed. Thus your distinction is absurd.

Absurdly, you make a gross generalization about the nature of the transmission and translation of the Bible, not knowing any details of it.

Absurdly you claim evolution is proved in technology.

Absurdly, you posit an inaccurate definition of scientific. Try these on for size:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

Audio Help /ˌsaɪ

ənˈtɪf

ɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uh

n-tif-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.of or pertaining to science or the sciences: scientific studies. 2.occupied or concerned with science: scientific experts. 3.regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures. 4.systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This scientific
adjective1. of or relating to the practice of science; "scientific journals" 2. conforming with the principles or methods used in science; "a scientific approach" [ant: unscientific]
​

Or perhaps you do not BELIEVE in these dictionaries, also?

Your hyperlink more describes genetic drift rather than a newly developed plant, and talks of hybridization. The work cited is 103 years old, hardly modern.

Finally, your last statement is the most absurd possible. You see, the existence of Jesus has NEVER been doubted; there are too many eye witness accounts.

As to his resurrection, a distinguished professor of Law at Harvard, who wrote the still-used Rules of Evidence for US Federal courts investigated the credibility of the evidence for Jesus resurrection. He found that the evidence presented exceeded the evidence required for a statement of fact. He is Simon Greenleaf, and you can buy his book on Amazon for under $5.00

Now, unless you are well educated in the US Rules of Evidence in Federal courts, you can whine or howl all you want, but your absurd position remains just that: absurd.

As to the games, mentioned pearler, I do not play them, You have not provided a scintilla of evidence, except to keyboard statements having no basis in reality, and expect me to dignify them with a response to "prove" them, when your stated position is that you do not believe that Jesus existed. That, WC is an absurdity into which I will not delve.

Know this, WC, and I say it not as a threat, but as truth, and as compassionately as possible, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of an angry God. Your prideful arrogance not withstanding there wil be a time when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Did you read that? EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW that includes you. The question is if your knee bowing to Jesus will be forced, or voluntary. The choice is yours. Jesus wants to be your Saviour; he died so that you could have eternal life with him, but again the choice is yours.

Also you have read the Gospel, so there is no excuse for you at judgment day.

Holy Spirit, work on the heart of WC, and help him to see the need he has for salvation through Jesus Christ, amen.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I'm pointing out an apparently bizarre belief in the hopes of clarification.


Yet if salvation does not require one to uphold God's laws, why follow them? Indeed, why did God set them up in the first place?

This is not a simple answer, obviously. There are several reasons that we can see in the text. One reason is because the israelites needed some sort of structure in their society, another is because God shows us that we all fall short in one way or another to His glory, so it better puts us into a proper perspective of ourselves.

Naturally: gay Christians are inherently biased towards pro-gay translations, and homophobic Christians towards anti-gay translations. The same is true for anti-racism Christians towards anti-racist translations, and racist Christians to racist translations.

Sure, each person has their own angle. I've approached this subject as centered as possible, though. I'd love nothing more than to state that God loves gay sex and what not, but I cannot back it up with anything substantial, and preaching what is right by God is more important to me than making friends.

Yet I do not see the implication. Can you elaborate? Romans 1 talks of people going against their nature as punishment for reverting to Pagan idolatry, but Leviticus does not.

It doesn't say they went against their nature, but rather the natural. Your focus is still on the individual people, and the text does not imply this at all.

There are a myriad of events in the Bible wherein God commands the slaughter of children (among others) (Numbers 31:17, Hosea 13:16, 1 Samuel 15:3, etc. So it seems the infanticidal maniac is Spirit-led. Better get out that chainsaw .

we have two different concepts of Spirit-led. I'm basing mine on the new testament teachings of what it is to be Spirit-led, not basing it on various actions that the ancient israelites did during their conquest of the promised land.

So the natural world is no indication of what is natural?

Sure, if you take God's definition of natural out of the equation.

My point was that if homosexuality is unnatural, then one wouldn't expect non-human animals to engage in it. Just because you interpret the text a certain way doesn't mean it's right:

Animals also eat their own young, and cannibalize one another, and by that standard those things must be perfectly natural for us as well.

God may have put the evidence right before your eyes, but there's a book in the way.

thats a nifty saying, although I don't think it applies here. Anyone who reads the bible as truth knows that we live in a fallen world, so basing our opinions and beliefs of truth and what is natural solely on that world is definitely lacking to any believer.

Why is it highly unlikely that Paul considered same-sex sex to not be natural?

well seeing that he was a pharisee before his conversion, he definitely knew the law inside and out. And to the best of my knowledge, during his time, same-sex sex was considered a forbidden act. On that note, it seems to give an indication of a lustful or promiscuous lifestyle as well. That also helps us understand how people understood gays back in a time before gays exited the mainstream and became their own group.

 

[onemessiah]

=========================================================


I gave you a good definition of a cult: a group not adhering to the Nicene Creed. You deemed it insufficient.

You bring up the differences between the Calvinists and Arminians. Guess what? BOTH agree with the Nicene and Apostles Creed.

As far as the non trinitarians are concerned, they are by definition a cult because they do not hold to the Nicene Creed. Thus your distinction is absurd.

Absurdly, you make a gross generalization about the nature of the transmission and translation of the Bible, not knowing any details of it.

Absurdly you claim evolution is proved in technology.

Absurdly, you posit an inaccurate definition of scientific. Try these on for size:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

Audio Help /ˌsaɪ

ənˈtɪf

ɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uh

n-tif-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.of or pertaining to science or the sciences: scientific studies. 2.occupied or concerned with science: scientific experts. 3.regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures. 4.systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This scientific
adjective1. of or relating to the practice of science; "scientific journals" 2. conforming with the principles or methods used in science; "a scientific approach" [ant: unscientific]
​

Or perhaps you do not BELIEVE in these dictionaries, also?

Your hyperlink more describes genetic drift rather than a newly developed plant, and talks of hybridization. The work cited is 103 years old, hardly modern.

Finally, your last statement is the most absurd possible. You see, the existence of Jesus has NEVER been doubted; there are too many eye witness accounts.

As to his resurrection, a distinguished professor of Law at Harvard, who wrote the still-used Rules of Evidence for US Federal courts investigated the credibility of the evidence for Jesus resurrection. He found that the evidence presented exceeded the evidence required for a statement of fact. He is Simon Greenleaf, and you can buy his book on Amazon for under $5.00

Now, unless you are well educated in the US Rules of Evidence in Federal courts, you can whine or howl all you want, but your absurd position remains just that: absurd.

As to the games, mentioned pearler, I do not play them, You have not provided a scintilla of evidence, except to keyboard statements having no basis in reality, and expect me to dignify them with a response to "prove" them, when your stated position is that you do not believe that Jesus existed. That, WC is an absurdity into which I will not delve.

Know this, WC, and I say it not as a threat, but as truth, and as compassionately as possible, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of an angry God. Your prideful arrogance not withstanding there wil be a time when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Did you read that? EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW that includes you. The question is if your knee bowing to Jesus will be forced, or voluntary. The choice is yours. Jesus wants to be your Saviour; he died so that you could have eternal life with him, but again the choice is yours.

Also you have read the Gospel, so there is no excuse for you at judgment day.

Holy Spirit, work on the heart of WC, and help him to see the need he has for salvation through Jesus Christ, amen.

Wow...
It's absurd that everyone but christians have accepted what evolution teaches? So then, go! Go prove those scientist wrong and show them what fools they all are.
And it's absurd to propose that Jesus never existed? Where are your eyewitnesses for Jesus? I promise you this- none of them exist outside of the bible.

Oh and by the way, since you like dictionaries so much-

Contrary to your claim, here is the definition of a cult.



Main Entry:
cult
Pronunciation:
\ˈkəlt\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date:
1617
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

I.e., he directly states that one must love moral legalism. However, he also said that one needn't uphold the law.

Moral legalism? Is that your idea?

But that's just it: they're not defined. 'Sexual immorality' and 'strange flesh' are never explicitly defined.

But that’s just it they are defined and has been demonstrated. Questions are only begged when one doesn’t accept what has been defined.

I get truth by looking at the world and deducing why things are the way they are. Physicists have deduced that the universe is a foam of quantum particles spontaneously appearing and annihilating. Biologists have deduced that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago. Cosmologists have deduced that the universe was unfathomably tiny ~13.7 billion years ago (the subsequent expansion is known as the Big Bang).

Wicca is a religion, not a scientific discipline.

Sorry can you clarify, I know what the disciple of science is, but your alias is Wiccan_child not Scientific_Child I was interested in what Wicca recognises as truth.

There isn't one. Jesus may or may not have existed; it is a moot point with regards to Wiccan theology.

Ok well we believe Jesus is alive, He is the truth and the way and the life, and we believe His Biblical testimony. You are on a Christian forum.

With regards to gay marriage? Well, science is the pursuit of truth, and the legal recognition of gay marriage is a whole other kettle of fish. Within Wicca, there is no moral edict or precident that warrents the opposition of same-sex marriage. Indeed, Wiccan morality is summed up as "An it harm none, do what ye will", and if can be argued that opposing same-sex marriage causes harm.

It can. How would two people of the same sex be suitable to raise children that only two people of the opposite sex can conceive and produce? It harms children when they do not have what is natural. Furthermore whatever sex a child is, it will have a female mother and a male father, except with a same-sex couple it doesn’t. Not good.
But let me ask you, you refer to ‘gay marriage’ but what does Wicca understand as marriage? Can anything be married? Can anything be married sexually? You see God created male and female, man and woman to be married (Gen 2 Matt 19 etc)

You implied that, because the penis and vagina fit so perfectly together, penetrative vaginal sex is the only 'moral' form of sex. I countered this by pointing out that human-orangutang sex would be moral by that view.

Moral is your addition not mine, for moral the Christian benchmark is God according to His Biblical testimony, What I am doing asking you what the Wican benchmark is.

So your new position is that penetrative vaginal sex between two humans is the moral way to have intercourse?

No that’s always been my position, God created man for woman its evident. The penis is designed for the vagina, one male and the other female. A good question for scientists is how come any other orafice such as the anus hasn’t similarly evolved for homosexuals.

Science is the pursuit of truth, it advocates nothing.

But science recognises the biological nature of male and female and human reproduction that is why it classifies humans male or female and not heterosexual or homosexual.

Wicca does not advocate bestiality (though neither does it condemn it; arguably, harm is being done to the animal).

In what way is harm being done to the animal in your view?

Because I have read explanations of the various translations of the text, and have come to a conclusion. That's why we have experts.

We have experts to translate the Bible, and they have all come up with translations that give same-sex as error in the relevant passages. So some are evidently not experts. If you have an issue with the translations please state what the issues are. But I have to ask if you don’t believe the Bible why would you be bothered about what it says, and is it just the passages that condemn and exclude same-sex sex that you don’t agree the translation for?

There's a crucial difference there: the legal recognition of same-sex unions would have no effect whatsoever on those not wishing to have a same-sex union. The lobbying Christians, however, do have an effect.

Sorry but a paedophile and a child or a man and a prostitute would have no affect on anyone else other than themselves yet they are not legal. Furthermore not all people who disagree with same-sex unions are Christians. You certainly have a real issue and dislike of Christianity. In a democracy laws are just as free to be based on Christian views of what is God’s purpose than Wiccan views of what harms.

This view is not held by Christians alone. Nevertheless, anti-gay-marriage people are imposing their beliefs on others by holding back legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry.

Absolutely right same-sex marriage harms people and marriage is man and woman not same-sex or man and animal or any other dysfunctional combination.

if you don't want to marry a person, then don't. But don't stop other people from expressing their love.

they are free to express their love, its Same-sex unions we are referring to not same-love unions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is not a simple answer, obviously. There are several reasons that we can see in the text. One reason is because the israelites needed some sort of structure in their society, another is because God shows us that we all fall short in one way or another to His glory, so it better puts us into a proper perspective of ourselves.

I'm still confused. If obeying the laws is not a requirement for salvation, and salvation is a way to counteract 'falling short of God', then how do the laws show us how we are 'falling short of God' in the first place? Presumably, disobeying the laws negates one's salvation.

Sure, each person has their own angle. I've approached this subject as centered as possible, though. I'd love nothing more than to state that God loves gay sex and what not, but I cannot back it up with anything substantial, and preaching what is right by God is more important to me than making friends.

I didn't mean people are biased to please other people, but rather that it is an unconcious consequence of how our minds work.

It doesn't say they went against their nature, but rather the natural. Your focus is still on the individual people, and the text does not imply this at all.

A fair point.

we have two different concepts of Spirit-led. I'm basing mine on the new testament teachings of what it is to be Spirit-led, not basing it on various actions that the ancient israelites did during their conquest of the promised land.

Why? They too were spirit led.

Sure, if you take God's definition of natural out of the equation.

My point is that God's (or rather, the Bible's) definition of 'natural' contradicts that given by nature itself.

Animals also eat their own young, and cannibalize one another, and by that standard those things must be perfectly natural for us as well. thats a nifty saying, although I don't think it applies here. Anyone who reads the bible as truth knows that we live in a fallen world, so basing our opinions and beliefs of truth and what is natural solely on that world is definitely lacking to any believer.

You misunderstand. The "other animals are gay too" notion is a counter-argument to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural. But it is not an argument in and of itself: that requires the premise that humans are 'allowed' to engage in any behaviour what animals do.

That is, I am not arguing that we should look to other animals for morality.

well seeing that he was a pharisee before his conversion, he definitely knew the law inside and out. And to the best of my knowledge, during his time, same-sex sex was considered a forbidden act.

Not really: the Graceo-Roman provinces were rife with homosexualist goings on (to pull a phrase from the 50's).

On that note, it seems to give an indication of a lustful or promiscuous lifestyle as well. That also helps us understand how people understood gays back in a time before gays exited the mainstream and became their own group.

It is my understanding that, before the rise of Christianity, homosexuality was treated as a non-issue. It is the subsequent translations*, and the interpretations thereof, that gave rise to the homophobic society of the West. Only in recent years has this trend reversed (no doubt coupled with the waning of Christianity, and waxing of non-Christian worldviews, in the West).

Just my humble opinion.

*Mistranslations in my opinion.