Seems Pretty Clear

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

Seems like this verse would be prety clear to anyone who didnt have an agenda to justify their lifestyle. Even the great liberal preacher Tony Campolo agrees this verse condemns homosexual behavior. To recap:

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for other men;
• They have commited indecent acts with other men; and
• They will receive the due penalty for their perversion.

How can that NOT be clear?

DMagoh said:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

Seems like this verse would be prety clear to anyone who didnt have an agenda to justify their lifestyle. Even the great liberal preacher Tony Campolo agrees this verse condemns homosexual behavior. To recap:

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for other men;
• They have commited indecent acts with other men; and
• They will receive the due penalty for their perversion.

How can that NOT be clear?

Click to expand...

The early church fathers clearly understood it AS WRITTEN! Note particularly Origen.

The early church interpreted αρσενοκοιτης/arsenokoités [1 Cor 6:9] variously as,
Quoted from;
Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years. The early church fathers interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

1 Cor 6:9


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

3. Wishful thinking
It is abundantly clear from the evidence of later Christian usage that the term arsenokoites changed meaning from its original use by Paul: it eventually came to refer to anything from child molesting to anal intercourse with one's wife. This semantic drift probably occurred because Paul's warnings were so successful that the phenomenon he addressed actually disappeared from prominence in Christian-controlled areas of late antiquity/early medieval times. After the fall of paganism, temple prostitutes would have become a thing of the past, and male prostitutes, always probably fewer in number than female prostitutes, probably dwindled to extreme rarity. Later Christians, not readily seeing the meaning of arsenokoitai, would then have inserted a meaning they wished to see there, a practice not exactly unheard of in Christian circles.

Reading arsenokoitai 'homosexuals' is an example of eisegesis. Homophobes who want to find condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are capable of reading their prejudice into any given passage, just as their predecessors were capable of finding abundant encouragement for anti-Semitism and racism in the Bible.
...... At Judgment Day I don't think we will be held accountable for not harrassing those we thought were sinners; we will be held accountable for acting fairly and responsibly towards those who depended our actions." -- Gregory Jordan


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

davedjy said:

3. Wishful thinking
It is abundantly clear from the evidence of later Christian usage that the term arsenokoites changed meaning from its original use by Paul: it eventually came to refer to anything from child molesting to anal intercourse with one's wife. This semantic drift probably occurred because Paul's warnings were so successful that the phenomenon he addressed actually disappeared from prominence in Christian-controlled areas of late antiquity/early medieval times. After the fall of paganism, temple prostitutes would have become a thing of the past, and male prostitutes, always probably fewer in number than female prostitutes, probably dwindled to extreme rarity. Later Christians, not readily seeing the meaning of arsenokoitai, would then have inserted a meaning they wished to see there, a practice not exactly unheard of in Christian circles.

Reading arsenokoitai 'homosexuals' is an example of eisegesis. Homophobes who want to find condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are capable of reading their prejudice into any given passage, just as their predecessors were capable of finding abundant encouragement for anti-Semitism and racism in the Bible.
...... At Judgment Day I don't think we will be held accountable for not harrassing those we thought were sinners; we will be held accountable for acting fairly and responsibly towards those who depended our actions." -- Gregory Jordan


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

Click to expand...

I hate to think about the number of teen suicides because of church prejudice. For that reason I welcome anybody and everybody.

Indeed wishful thinking...in your part.

From Kenneth Boa Th.M.; Ph.D.; D.Phil.

mans 1 is not the only passage where Paul mentions homosexuality, although it is the main one. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 practicing homosexuals are listed among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. They are associated with idolaters, adulterers, thieves, swindlers, and the like (vv. 9-10), all of whom heard the gospel and left their sinful lifestyles behind by the grace of God. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 Paul says that the law is intended to expose sinners of all kinds, including homosexuals along with murderers, kidnappers, perjurers, and the like. Both of these passages use the term arsenokoitai, which is traditionally understood to refer to those committing same-sex acts. Critics of this traditional interpretation have tried to prove that the word has been mistranslated; they usually conclude that the word referred to male prostitutes. But David Wright has shown that the term is a compound word based on two Greek words used in both of the Leviticus texts condemning homosexual acts as found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament used in Paul’s day by Greek-speaking Jews). Leviticus 18:22 in the Septuagint says, “Do not lie with a male [arsenos] as one lies [koiten] with a woman,” while Leviticus 20:13 reads, “Whoever lies with a male as one lies [arsenos koiten] with a woman.” The word arsenokoites was evidently coined by Greek-speaking Jews (possibly even by Paul himself) to refer to persons guilty of engaging in the act forbidden in these texts.22 Thus Paul is not referring to male prostitutes or to some other special class of persons, but to anyone who engages in homosexual acts.
The reasonable person might come away from the Bible uncertain as to whether every passage traditionally thought to condemn homosexuality really does so. The account of Sodom’s destruction, for example, seems to stop short of explicitly teaching that all homosexual acts are immoral. But there is no reasonable way to eliminate the idea from the Bible altogether. Both Old and New Testaments contain explicit statements categorically describing same-sex acts as sin, going so far as to label them abominations, unnatural and shameful acts, and warning that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Only someone wanting desperately to justify homosexual acts, either for himself or herself or as part of a larger agenda of sexual liberation from biblical and traditional morality, could convince themselves that the Bible does not condemn all homosexual acts as grievous sin.
We have argued that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual acts are immoral. But is the Bible right? The principal objection to the validity of the Bible’s teaching on this matter is that the biblical writers did not realize that some people are naturally homosexuals. This is the question that will occupy our attention in the rest of this chapter.
Doing What Comes Naturally?

The modern homosexual rights movement insists that the traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) view of homosexuality as a perversion is wrong. While engaging in same-sex acts may be unnatural for most people, it is claimed that such acts are natural for those who identify themselves as homosexuals or “gays” (male homosexuals) and “lesbians” (female homosexuals). Those who say that all homosexual behavior is immoral on this view are actually attacking a class of people who are the way they are through no fault or choice of their own. Homosexuals commonly compare their appeal for equal status and acceptance in society to the civil rights movement for racial minorities or the feminist struggle for equal rights for women. Usually they claim that homosexuals are born as such — that is, that those who feel sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex do so because they are born with a genetic predisposition toward same-sex intimacy that can no more be denied that most people’s instinctive desire for sexual intimacy with someone of the opposite sex.
Gay Apologetics

Those who argue that homosexuals are born that way and that it is perfectly natural for them offer a number of arguments in support of this conclusion. We will confine ourselves to what seem to be the three most common and important lines of reasoning. First, it is argued that roughly 10 percent of the population are homosexuals. Spong regards this as a very important point.
Statistically this means that in the United States of America, homosexuality is the sexual orientation of some twenty-eight million citizens. It means that every time one hundred people gather in a church anywhere in this nation, the mathematical probability is that ten of them are gay or lesbian persons. . . . It means that in every core family or extended family, when the circle expands to ten persons, there is a mathematical probability that one member will be gay or lesbian.23
Not only does this suggest that all of us have family members and close friends who are homosexual, but it also undermines the notion that homosexuals have something wrong with them, since “any process of nature that occurs one time out of every ten can hardly be called a malfunction.”24
Second, various scientific studies are cited that show that the brains of homosexual men differ in certain subtle ways from those of heterosexual men. The most famous such study, published in 1991, showed that tiny parts of the anterior hypothalamus region of the brain that are usually “more than twice as large in men as they are in women” were in gay men about the same size as those of women.25 Another commonly cited 1991 study reported that slightly more than half of the identical twin brothers of gay men were also gay, while only 22 percent of the non-identical twin brothers and 11 percent of the adopted brothers of gay men were themselves gay.26 A 1993 study appeared to provide even stronger proof of a genetic link. It examined the DNA of 40 pairs of brothers who were both gay and found that 33 of the 40 pairs “shared five different patches of genetic material grouped around a particular area on the X chromosome.” The study suggested that this finding provided “by far the strongest evidence to date that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.”27
Third, it is asserted that homosexuality is an incorrigible sexual orientation in gays and lesbians that cannot be changed. Any suggestion that homosexual feelings and desires can be unlearned, or that people can be “cured” of homosexuality, is rejected. It is in fact argued that attempting to change homosexuals’ sexual feelings and practices, in psychotherapy for example, is actually harmful to them.28
Cumulatively, these arguments seem to be convincing a growing number of people today that homosexuality is an inborn orientation, not a choice. What shall we say about these arguments?
How Many Are They?

Until very recently homosexual rights advocates have confidently made the claim that ten percent of Americans are homosexual. Analyses of the study on which this figure is based, as well as more recent studies, have weakened that confidence. The original study on which the figure was based was a 1948 Alfred Kinsey study29 that was seriously flawed and even more seriously misconstrued by the homosexual rights movement. The study was flawed primarily because it was based on an unrepresentative sample of the population: 25 percent of his sample were or had been prison inmates; all of the people included in his survey were volunteers who agreed to tell him about their sexual experiences and practices (leaving out most people of traditional morals who would be more reticent to talk about such matters); the sample was heavily weighted with homosexuals because Kinsey gathered his interviews by visiting gay bars and other gathering places.30
The study was also badly misused, though, because Kinsey did not conclude that ten percent of Americans were homosexual. Rather, he concluded that about ten percent of Americans had been primarily or exclusively homosexual in their sexual activities for a period of three years. Only about four percent of American males and about two percent of American females, on Kinsey’s count, were primarily homosexual throughout their life. When the skewed nature of his sample is taken into account, it becomes clear that if anything his study suggests that the percentage of homosexual males in America is probably significantly less than four percent.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s more sophisticated and accurate studies completely discredited the ten percent figure. Six separate surveys were conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Opinion Research Center between 1988 and 1990; these surveys consistently show that about three percent or less of American males have engaged in same-sex acts during the past fifteen years. Studies published in 1993 and 1994 found that between 5.5 and 7 percent of men, and between 2.5 and 4 percent of women, had ever engaged in same-sex relations.31 The author of the 1993 study of genetic factors in homosexual brothers, mentioned earlier, that same year reported that his research showed that the percentage of American males who were exclusively homosexual was about 2 percent.32
Probably the most illuminating study to date was one published in 1994 that surveyed 3,432 Americans. It found that about 9 percent of men, and about 4 percent of women, had engaged in a same-sex act at least once in their lives. Roughly 5 percent of men and 4 percent of women said they were attracted to persons of the same sex; these numbers include persons who said they were attracted to persons of both sexes. Most telling, “About 1.4 percent of the women said they thought of themselves as homosexual or bisexual and about 2.8 percent of the men identified themselves in this way.”33
It appears, then, that the percentage of Americans who think of themselves as homosexuals is roughly 2 percent — a little higher for men, a little lower for women. Somehow it should not have surprised us to learn that the number of homosexuals in America is probably less than six million, not the twenty-eight million claimed by Bishop Spong. Moreover, homosexuals are not spread evenly through the American population. In the twelve largest U.S. metropolitan cities about 9 percent of the population consider themselves homosexual or bisexual, compared to less than 2 percent in most of the nation’s suburbs and about 1 percent in rural areas.34 This means that, contrary to Spong, the vast majority of families and churches in America are unlikely to have any homosexual members.

Newguy101 said:

The word arsenokoites was evidently coined by Greek-speaking Jews (possibly even by Paul himself) to refer to persons guilty of engaging in the act forbidden in these texts.22 Thus Paul is not referring to male prostitutes or to some other special class of persons, but to anyone who engages in homosexual acts.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Newguy101 said:

The principal objection to the validity of the Bible’s teaching on this matter is that the biblical writers did not realize that some people are naturally homosexuals. This is the question that will occupy our attention in the rest of this chapter.
Doing What Comes Naturally?

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is genetic and cannot be changed, please see the major mental health foundations who OPPOSE Reparative therapy for gays:

Professional organizations that have expressed opposition, concern, and/or skepticism toward reparative therapy include the American Medical Association[46], American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association.[2][47][48] The ethics guidelines of these organizations discourage, and sometimes prohibit, its practice.[49] The American Psychiatric Association opposes any treatment that is “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.”[50] A survey of the American Psychological Association rated reparative therapy as "definitely discredited".[51]

Relatedly, the World Health Organization lists ego-dystonic sexual orientation under part F66 of the ICD-10; "Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation".[52] Ego-dystonic sexual orientation can be described as wishing that one's sexual orientation were different from what it is. Part F66 notes that "exual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder."[53] The American Psychological Association dropped ego-dystonic homosexuality from the DSM-IV in 1987 and opposes its diagnosis..[54]

There is debate on reparative therapy.[50] Organizations that support reparative therapy include NARTH, Deutsches Institut für Jugend und Gesellchaft (German Institute for Youth and Society),[55] Pathway to Freedom,[56] VenSer,[57] LDS Family Services,[58] Healing Homosexuality,[59] and the Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity.[60]

The APA has created a task force to revisit its policy on reparative therapy, with an official statement expected in 2008. Ex-gay advocates claim that the task force is biased against ex-gays, and commentators expect the new policy to take a stronger position against reparative therapy.[61]



http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy

DMagoh said:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

Seems like this verse would be prety clear to anyone who didnt have an agenda to justify their lifestyle. Even the great liberal preacher Tony Campolo agrees this verse condemns homosexual behavior. To recap:

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for other men;
• They have commited indecent acts with other men; and
• They will receive the due penalty for their perversion.

How can that NOT be clear?

Click to expand...

Why did y'all address every verse in the Bible EXCEPT the one I started the thread with (see the quote above)? I said THAT verse was Pretty Clear!

Could it be because it is PRETTY CLEAR in saying that homosexual behavior is sin?

DMagoh said:

Why did y'all address every verse in the Bible EXCEPT the one I started the thread with (see the quote above)? I said THAT verse was Pretty Clear!

Could it be because it is PRETTY CLEAR in saying that homosexual behavior is sin?

Click to expand...

Romans 1 I have already explained a gazillion times to you, read the article for proof of HISTORICAL CONTEXT.


FACT: It is interesting, to say the least, that despite homosexuality being looked on as the "vilest of sins," as it is so often referred to, Jesus never mentioned it! Furthermore, as was already mentioned, the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality" did not exist in the original Greek and Aramaic languages of the New Testament. There are only three passages of Scripture in the N.T. which have been cited in reference to homosexuality. The first is Romans, Chapter 1. In this passage, the Apostle Paul gives a very specific list of characteristics describing those in question: He describes them as those who once knew God, but who chose not to honor God as God. Instead, they worshiped material images of human beings, birds, animals, and reptiles as objects of worship rather than the One True Living God. We are told that they were filled with EVERY kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice. They were full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, and boastfulness. They were inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. (NRSV) As a result of their total depravity, God turned them over to complete spiritual ruin, so that they left no stone of sexual debauchery unturned, engaging in mass orgies and idolatrous sexual cult worship, which included both homosexual and heterosexual debauchery.

These murderous, malicious people who worshiped idols and hated God after once knowing Him, have NOTHING to do with people who have a sincere desire to love and worship the Lord Jesus Christ and who happen to be homosexual. Today, there are multitudes of homosexual people who are tirelessly yearning to be a part of the Church so that they can WORSHIP the One True Living God and profess Jesus as their Savior. Anyone who can possibly equate the monstrous, reprobate people of Romans 1 to modern-day gay and lesbian people who reach out to humanity, love and respect their parents, and who have been expelled from the church they love, just for being homosexual, is not using common sense! Like those religious leaders who scorned Jesus, they have chosen to believe lies founded on their traditions.

In fact, rather than Romans 1 being intended as a warning to gay and lesbian people, its actual purpose is revealed in the first verse of Chapter 2, where Paul rebukes his readers for passing judgment on others! The entire First Chapter of Romans was given to rebuke those who were being judgmental so as to "despise the riches of God’s kindness and forbearance and patience," forgetting that it is God’s kindness that leads men and women to repentance" (Romans 2:4). In other words, while many Christians use Romans Chapter 1 as a means of clobbering gay and lesbian people, the truth is that this chapter was actually written to rebuke those original readers for being so self-righteous and finger-pointing, that they forgot just how forbearing and gentle God was toward them! In their vindictive, finger-pointing, self-righteous preaching, they were forgetting that "all have sinned (missed the mark) and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) including themselves! No one who has truly humbled himself or herself, and acknowledged his or her own missing of the mark, can ever point a finger of judgment at someone else.

http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

davedjy said:

It is interesting, to say the least, that despite homosexuality being looked on as the "vilest of sins," as it is so often referred to, Jesus never mentioned it!

Click to expand...

OK, so if Jesus NOT mentioning something is the basis of it NOT being sin....


Jesus didnt mention incest, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia...

• Homosexual sex is not a sin because Jesus never said anything about it
• Jesus never said anything about pedophilia
• Pedophilia must also not be sin

Seems like great logic to me! We have all kinds of options available to us now!

You just cannot accept the idea that there are people who read Scripture in the historical, cultural, political and religious context of the period in which it was written — and therefore arrive at different interpretations than your own literal interpretation of Scripture, can you, DMagoh?

I can remember when I was a Baptist and used to believe that way, myself. I haven't seen any cedars skipping like a calf recently; nor have I seen Lebanon and Sirion dancing like a wild young ox; nor have I seen mountains skipping like lambs; nor have I seen rivers clapping their hands or mountains singing for joy; nor have I seen any four-footed insects — all of which are in the Scriptures.

But then — you're a Baptist (and a heterosexual Baptist, at that ) so I'm sure you can adequately explain these literalisms, since fundamentalists believe the Bible is to be read absolutely literally.

By the way: don't tell me these are metaphors or similes or allegories. If one is a Biblical literalist, these things don't exist in Scripture. (The Baptist pastor of my childhood and adolescence said so.)

UberLutheran said:

But then — you're a Baptist (and a heterosexual Baptist, at that ) so I'm sure you can adequately explain these literalisms, since fundamentalists believe the Bible is to be read absolutely literally.

By the way: don't tell me these are metaphors or similes or allegories. If one is a Biblical literalist, these things don't exist in Scripture. (The Baptist pastor of my childhood and adolescence said so.)

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, I am attracted to other men, but I just dont try to justify homosexual behavior. I can read the Bible and realize that reading it without an agenda that it is a sin. So therefore I dont engage in homosexual behavior. I could do like everyone else and just do what I want to do and try to find a way to justify it. But the verses are pretty clear.

Secondly, using your logic, if a literalist cant have any metaphors... then a person such as yourself who believes the flood never ocurred cant possibly believe Jesus arose from the dead. You cant have it both ways. No flood, no resurrection, no salvation.

DMagoh said:

Well, first of all, I am attracted to other men, but I just dont try to justify homosexual behavior. I can read the Bible and realize that reading it without an agenda that it is a sin. So therefore I dont engage in homosexual behavior. I could do like everyone else and just do what I want to do and try to find a way to justify it. But the verses are pretty clear.

Secondly, using your logic, if a literalist cant have any metaphors... then a person such as yourself who believes the flood never ocurred cant possibly believe Jesus arose from the dead. You cant have it both ways. No flood, no resurrection, no salvation.

Click to expand...

why not?

Not that I believe that the flood didn't happen, but why do we have to give them that ultimatum?

Back to the title of this thread. You know, a lot of things seem pretty clear don't they? We often speak of nice warm days when we have a nice clear blue sky.

What makes the sky blue?

davedjy said:

[SIZE=-1]Homosexuality is genetic and cannot be changed, please see the major mental health foundations who OPPOSE Reparative therapy for gays:

Professional organizations that have expressed opposition, concern, and/or skepticism toward reparative therapy include the American Medical Association[46], [NOT a mental health org.!] American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, [NOT a mental health org.!] the National Association of Social Workers, [NOT a mental health org.!] the American Academy of Pediatrics, [NOT a mental health org.!] the American Association of School Administrators, [NOT a mental health org.!] the American Federation of Teachers, [NOT a mental health org.!] the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, [NOT a mental health org.!] and the National Education Association. v[NOT a mental healthorg.!][2][47][48][/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Most of these ARE not mental health agencies and their opinion is no more meaningful than the opinion of the NRA or NASCAR.

Phony information at homosexual websites claim that homosexuality is genetic. If that were true, then since monozygotic, i.e. identical twins, are genetically identical, when one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% the second twin would be homosexual.

Here is the seminal study of twins and homosexuality. Irrefutable evidence, homosexuality CANNOT be genetic!

Brieuse said:

Not that I believe that the flood didn't happen, but why do we have to give them that ultimatum?

Click to expand...

Actually I was just responding to his silly ultimatum to me (see below) by using his logic.

UberLutheran said:

...I haven't seen any cedars skipping like a calf recently; nor have I seen Lebanon and Sirion dancing like a wild young ox; nor have I seen mountains skipping like lambs; nor have I seen rivers clapping their hands or mountains singing for joy; nor have I seen any four-footed insects — all of which are in the Scriptures.

But then — you're a Baptist (and a heterosexual Baptist, at that ) so I'm sure you can adequately explain these literalisms, since fundamentalists believe the Bible is to be read absolutely literally.

By the way: don't tell me these are metaphors or similes or allegories. If one is a Biblical literalist, these things don't exist in Scripture.

Click to expand...

DMagoh said:

Actually I was just responding to his silly ultimatum to me (see below) by using his logic.

Click to expand...

but do you believe what you posted?

DMagoh said:

Well, first of all, I am attracted to other men, but I just dont try to justify homosexual behavior. I can read the Bible and realize that reading it without an agenda that it is a sin. So therefore I dont engage in homosexual behavior. I could do like everyone else and just do what I want to do and try to find a way to justify it. But the verses are pretty clear.

Secondly, using your logic, if a literalist cant have any metaphors... then a person such as yourself who believes the flood never ocurred cant possibly believe Jesus arose from the dead. You cant have it both ways. No flood, no resurrection, no salvation.

Click to expand...

While we're at it — must I also believe that the world was created in seven literal days; in a literal Adam and Eve; that Eve got into a conversation with a talking snake who persuaded Eve to eat some fruit and that's how sin arrived in the world; and that the reason we have so many different languages today is because a windstorm blew down a 480 foot ziggurat in the Middle East?

Should I believe in dragons, as described in Isaiah and Revelation? How about sea monsters? A flat Earth? That the sun and the moon and the stars were hung in the sky? That the sun and the moon stopped moving for an entire day (because, of course, we all know the Earth does not rotate on its axis, but the sun and moon go around the Earth) so Joshua could win a battle?

You tell me. After all, I'm the "heathen liberal."