-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One more step towards equality...
- Thread starter Inspired
- Start date
My concern is that it is Christianity which appears to legitimize the hatred for so many. The notion that homosexuality is condemned by God serves to provide the rationale for that hatred. I know of no secular source with anti-homosexual themes that would be taken half as seriously as the supposed Biblical injunctions against it. The fact that so many Christians echo this theme uncritically, over-emphasize the sinfulness of homoesuality while accepting so many other sins as reasonable deviation, and generally oppose homosecuality as such far more than the violence and discrimination against homosexuals is more than sufficient to hold conservative Christianity culpable in the general hatred that is directed against homosexuals.
Upvote
0
Extirpated Wildlife
Wanted: Room to Roam
In your view, why is believing 'homosexuality is a sin' is hate? I don't get this. Does this mean in your eyes i hate people who have sex outside of marraige?
Upvote
0
Believing it is a sin, does not equal hate. The hate comes from those who start the name calling, the violence extra. I have several friends, who believe that homosexuality is a sin, I know this, but they don't judge me based on my sexual orientation. I would never ask them to change their beliefs for me.
Upvote
0
Inspired,
My respect for you has just gone up and incredible amount for that statement. If only everyone could figure that out.
As it should be. God bless.
Upvote
0
In my experience, bigotry toward homosexuals goes across the board. I see just as much, if not more, coming from the drunken rednecks who think it would be big fun to go out and beat up a 'homo', or vanalize their vehicle
In that instance, their hatred comes not from the idea that it is 'unnatural sin' but from the idea that the homosexual is unmanly and their little male ego is threatened. That's the reason they drive such big trucks, because they have an itty bitty maleness to deal with. :o
Not that the people I am pointing out are necessarily atheists. But they sure aren't Christians either. Which goes back to my point, that the hatred goes across the board and is not necessarily in either court.
Upvote
0
Hey Inspired,
How do you guys get the little symbols or smilies next to your user names? I have been seeing that more and more.
How do you guys get the little symbols or smilies next to your user names? I have been seeing that more and more.
Upvote
0
Go to your user panel, and it's a new feature called "icon", it has to be a .gif and no larger than 16x16 pixels, if you have trouble finding one, PM me I have a ton, let me know what you are looking for, I am making some nascar ones for someone else right now, I have to get back to work, but I will check my messages later tonight.
Upvote
0
Are you honestly discriminated against, or are people just bothered by your 'in your face' attitude?
Honestly, the world would be a better place with people didn't make such a big deal about sex in general.
Upvote
0
Actually, homosexuality isn't against the teaching of the new testament. Interestingly, you'll find that different translations all use different words in verses that supposedly condemn homosexuality.
I have not seen anywhere in the teachings of Jesus Christ that intimate love between two people of the same sex is wrong.
Upvote
0
coastie
Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
- Apr 6, 2002
- 5,400
- 48
- 45
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Here are some verses, but as always, I encourage that you prayerfully look at various translations so that you fully understand what they are saying.
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Upvote
0
And how much do you know of the Roman and Corinthian cultures regarding sex, specifically between men? And how much do you know of the original words used?
What was being condemned, and rightfully so, was the use of men and boys as sex-slaves. This is why you will often find translations having such a wide range of words. Some call them "male prostitutes", others the effeminate, or homosexuals.. etc.
What I believe the bible was speaking against, were the practices of the day, which can be summed up in Roman thought of the day:
"A woman for babies, a man for pleasure and a boy for bliss".
God didn't want men using other men or boys as sex-slaves. He didn't want straight men to engage in sex.. which when done at the same class level, was considered the 'ultimate' form of love. They were ignoring the love of women.
I have seen nothing in the New Testament that condemns flat out homosexuality.
Upvote
0
coastie
Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
- Apr 6, 2002
- 5,400
- 48
- 45
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You have read these verses and assigned your own meaning to them. I have studied both of these books to great extent. To imply that this verse is erroneous is an error on your part.
Romans 1:27 is as plain as day (this is from the greek translation)
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes. Also the OT condemns the practice in Leviticus 18:22.
It comes down to whether you shape your life to fit the Bible or whether you shape the Bible to fit your life.
I've heard all of the arguments against this passage, and I have concluded that in no way is it implied that Paul did not mean exactly what he wrote.
This particular passage in Romans was not only sent to the Gentiles of Rome but also the Jews which negates your claim that it was specifically regarding the Romans sexual lifestyles.
Regardless of who this was written for, how can you say that certain parts of the Bible are meant for certain cultures but not others. Do you have specific proof that Paul was referring to male prostitues or young males? It doesn't say that anywhere in there. Your version is just tweaked to fit into what you believe is an acceptable practice.
Romans 1:27 is as plain as day (this is from the greek translation)
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes. Also the OT condemns the practice in Leviticus 18:22.
It comes down to whether you shape your life to fit the Bible or whether you shape the Bible to fit your life.
I've heard all of the arguments against this passage, and I have concluded that in no way is it implied that Paul did not mean exactly what he wrote.
This particular passage in Romans was not only sent to the Gentiles of Rome but also the Jews which negates your claim that it was specifically regarding the Romans sexual lifestyles.
Regardless of who this was written for, how can you say that certain parts of the Bible are meant for certain cultures but not others. Do you have specific proof that Paul was referring to male prostitues or young males? It doesn't say that anywhere in there. Your version is just tweaked to fit into what you believe is an acceptable practice.
Upvote
0
I never said they were erroneous. I said the translations were. Unless you believe "soft", "homosexual", 'effeminate", "male prostitute", "coward" and so on are all the same word. The words used were difficult to translate into our modern thinking.
This has nothing to do with men having an intimate relationship with other men.
I brought up the New.
Considering I have no reason to to shape the bible, I think it's about finding the truth under centuries of mistranslations.
He sure meant what he wrote, but what he wrote wasn't a condemnation of homosexuality, but the using of men and boys.
Well, outside of the different translations, I know of the original words used, and that they are difficult to put into our cultural views of human sexuality.
As far as cultures go, the bible words apply to all cultures. What I was talking about what that sexuality in those days are a lot different than today's. In fact, many cultures' views sexuality today are different than the West's. We seem to divide everyone in a heterosexual or homosexual. And thus, it becomes difficult to translate.
I don't believe I said homosexuality was an acceptable practice. I just said it wasn't spoken against in the New.
Upvote
0
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals ,
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
The words in question, regarding homosexuality are:
"malakoi (malakos)" and "arsenokoitai (arsenokoites)"
What exactly they mean are open to interpretation. But anyone that knows about Greco-Roman cultures know they have nothing to do with two men or two women being in love.
Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals ,
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
The words in question, regarding homosexuality are:
"malakoi (malakos)" and "arsenokoitai (arsenokoites)"
What exactly they mean are open to interpretation. But anyone that knows about Greco-Roman cultures know they have nothing to do with two men or two women being in love.
Upvote
0
Stray Bullet,
Do you believe sex before marriage is a sin?
and back to the topic
what does having gay represenatives have to do with equality? There aren't any 22 year old women in congress so do they not have equality? People are sent to the House to represent all their district in a deliberative assembly. I see no reason that their sexual preferences would should have any bearing on how they decide what is best for our country anymore than their income does.
Do we need quotas in Congress?
Do you believe sex before marriage is a sin?
and back to the topic
what does having gay represenatives have to do with equality? There aren't any 22 year old women in congress so do they not have equality? People are sent to the House to represent all their district in a deliberative assembly. I see no reason that their sexual preferences would should have any bearing on how they decide what is best for our country anymore than their income does.
Do we need quotas in Congress?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
