The Bible calls homosexual activity wrong, but . . .

[IamRedeemed]

Actually I don't believe that analogy can be applied to sexual immorality in the Church as 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 says, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body. What? Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

As well as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:
Do you not know 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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

As well as 1 Timothy 1:9-10 says:

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people. It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”

There is no Biblical provision for the tolerance of sexual immorality WITHIN the Church of Christ.
They that claim they are within, but live as those who are without, and those that support them
against what God has said, simply deceive themselves according to James 1:22 and 4:4

James 1:22
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

James 4:4
You adulterers! Don’t you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God?
I say it again: If you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God.

like everything else in the bible we are told to avoid things that are not functional or beneficial... it's not about harm as much as it doesn't work (produce fruit or be of benefit). Paul says all things are now lawful, but not all things are beneficial... i think this plays to that. at this point it is no longer a world of law but of love so there is no point in judging this issue anymore anyway.

 

[Washington]

As well as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:
Do you not know 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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

What is an "abusers of themselves with mankind"? I've heard of spousal abuse and self abuse, but how would one go about abusing oneself with mankind?
And why in the world would having effeminate mannerisms be a bar to heaven? And particularly when having mannish mannerisms is not. Women can be mannish but men cannot be effeminate? What's good for the goose is evidently not good for the gander.

Care to explain these rather odd remarks of Paul?

 

[Maren]

What is an "abusers of themselves with mankind"? I've heard of spousal abuse and self abuse, but how would one go about abusing oneself with mankind?
And why in the world would having effeminate mannerisms be a bar to heaven? And particularly when having mannish mannerisms is not. Women can be mannish but men cannot be effeminate? What's good for the goose is evidently not good for the gander.

Care to explain these rather odd remarks of Paul?

The odd remarks come down to two words that translators have difficulty with. The first, the one interpreted in this version as "abusers of themselves with mankind", is the Greek word "arsenokoites". The Greek word literally is the compound word of the words for "man" and "bed". This appears to be a word that Paul created, it does not appear in other Greek texts of the time period, though a handful of authors after Paul used it -- though none of these writings provide a context for the word.

In early translations of the Bible, the word was translated as "masturbator", though since the King James Bible most have tried to claim the word means "homosexual". Many do not believe Paul meant homosexual, largely because the Greeks had six commonly used words in Paul's time that clearly meant homosexual. You would think that if Paul had meant homosexual in these verses, though, he would have used one of the common words rather than making one up that people do not understand the meaning.

As for "effeminate", it is the Greek word "malakoi". The word means "soft" in ancient Greek, and is used that way in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25. Now, some try to claim that effeminate also is aimed at homosexuals, however in ancient Greece the word was not used to mean homosexual. Rather, it was used similarly to a coach calling his players "girls" or a drill instructor calling new recruits "ladies": it is a reference to the idea those referred to are "soft" or not in shape rather than having any sexual connotation.

 

[Washington]

The odd remarks come down to two words that translators have difficulty with. The first, the one interpreted in this version as "abusers of themselves with mankind", is the Greek word "arsenokoites". The Greek word literally is the compound word of the words for "man" and "bed". This appears to be a word that Paul created, it does not appear in other Greek texts of the time period, though a handful of authors after Paul used it -- though none of these writings provide a context for the word.

In early translations of the Bible, the word was translated as "masturbator", though since the King James Bible most have tried to claim the word means "homosexual". Many do not believe Paul meant homosexual, largely because the Greeks had six commonly used words in Paul's time that clearly meant homosexual. You would think that if Paul had meant homosexual in these verses, though, he would have used one of the common words rather than making one up that people do not understand the meaning.

As for "effeminate", it is the Greek word "malakoi". The word means "soft" in ancient Greek, and is used that way in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25. Now, some try to claim that effeminate also is aimed at homosexuals, however in ancient Greece the word was not used to mean homosexual. Rather, it was used similarly to a coach calling his players "girls" or a drill instructor calling new recruits "ladies": it is a reference to the idea those referred to are "soft" or not in shape rather than having any sexual connotation.

Interesting, and thank you for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it.

So what we could assume then is that in using the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" Paul is saying that if you touch you won't go to heaven.

And, when he uses "effeminate" he is saying that if you are physically out of shape you won't get into heaven. Rather an odd standard upon which god would base his grace, but then god never did make a lot of sense anyway.

All I can say is that heaven must be one verry sparsely populated place.

 

[TheManeki]

Paul had some odd hangups about sex, and may in part be responsible for passing these hangups onto the rest of the Christian church, some of which can be seen today in people who believe things like birth control and non-procreative sex to be sinful.

I wonder if Christianity would be a little less neurotic about sex if the Bible recorded Jesus getting some.

 

[Beanieboy]

Alerj123, note my use of the word “unhealthy addiction.” I’m addicted to running, which on the whole is not unhealthy. Your criticism of statistics is interesting, but I’ve long noticed that homosexual apologists do not use statistics in good faith. There are two relatively old studies on the life expectancy of homosexual men and women (around 40-45, if I remember correctly). Those studies were relentlessly assaulted, yet no university, government, or polling institution has ever gone out to collect more accurate and up-to-date information on how long the average gay or lesbian person can expect to live. Yet this is the most important statistic relevant to this discussion. I find the absence of such data very enlightening.

The person who did the data only collected it from gay newspapers in San Francisco announcing that the person had died from AIDS during 2 years in the 1980s. At the time, she took all of the death announcements, and averaged the age, and decided that was the age that the average gay man dies, and claimed it as fact.

The study doesn't, however, take into account people that did not die. That would raise the age. When the faulty study was done, in the 1980s, many people did not feel safe to be out, because there was also no law protecting them from unlawful firing, etc.

That is what is criticized - faulty data collection. It also must be reviewed by peers who conduct the same study, and come to the same findings. It was not submitted for review, nor considered a supported study.

If I were to average only the ages of heteroseuxals that have, for example, died during child birth, and said, "The average heterosexual woman only lives to be 40", would that seem accurate to you?
And if you explained to me, "What about the people that didn't die?" and I ignored you, am I being scientifically truthful? If I know it to be a faulty claim, and still claim it as truth, am I not bearing false witness?

To find how long the average gay person lives, one has to realize that there may be a gay 90 year old. How safe do you think they feel about coming out, when they were born in 1920, seen people lose their job simply for being gay, or people being arrested in the 50s for simply being in a gay bar?

The people that claim that gays only live to 40 could certainly do a study themselves, but they seem to be content on faulty studies that simply prove the average age of people who died of AIDS at the time of the study, and claim it to represent all gay men. Because it is used so much, you would think that they would want to re-do the study, but they seem content on reporting false information.

 

[Maren]

Interesting, and thank you for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

So what we could assume then is that in using the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" Paul is saying that if you touch you won't go to heaven.

But that is the problem, we just don't know what it is supposed to have meant. Presumably it has to do with a man and a bed. So, while I doubt this is what Paul meant, it could be referring to laziness (though, again, there were words in the Greek language that would have clearly stated that meaning). It could be masturbation. Or it could even have something to do with some subset of homosexual activity, for example some claim that it has to do with homosexual prostitution. Though, of course, it could mean something else altogether.

And, when he uses "effeminate" he is saying that if you are physically out of shape you won't get into heaven. Rather an odd standard upon which god would base his grace, but then god never did make a lot of sense anyway.

I'm guessing that Paul did not mean physically out of shape. My guess would be that Paul meant morally soft instead of physically soft. It still (to my understanding) still fits the general connotation of the word at the time. Though I recall also hearing that it could mean someone who is "idle", for example a rich man who does not do any sort of work and had servants to take care of him -- which would tie into the physically soft definition.

If nothing else, however, I think I've given you an idea why Biblical translators have such difficulty trying to determine how to translate these words.

All I can say is that heaven must be one verry sparsely populated place.

Reminds me of a joke of a man dying and going to heaven. He is getting the grand tour when they head out into a beautiful park like and uninhabited portion. However, off in the distance the man sees another populated area and asks his guide about it. The guide tells the man to speak softly, that it is [insert denomination here] who think they are the only ones in heaven.

 

[clarksided]

I think when god was dictating the bible he was getting hit on by another guy and thus tried to prevent this from happening again. Shame it didn't work, that God fellow tries really hard.

 

[Beanieboy]

I would like to point something out to people who may not understand why gays don't marry.

I work with a woman who has been married to a woman in Canada. They love each other, are very supportive of each other, very encouraging of one another.

I know of another couple who has been together for 10 years, and has no intent to be married.

Why? I would best describe it by this thread.
There are those that say gays are bad because they are promiscuous, disregarding heterosexual men's tendency to sleep with any woman that will say yes. Then, in the same breath, they will say that they are against gay marriage, because that will somehow undermine their own.

Because the gay person will look at this, and realize they are condemned both ways, they decide to make their own path. They refuse to bow to the demands of society to be "normative." It's usually called "heteronormative", meaning, we know that it isn't normal, like us, but the next best thing - so you marry, you have kids you take to soccer practice, etc. And instead, the group says, "I have no intention of living up to your expectations."

My partner and I are domestic partners, but I don't really think of a wedding. I am rather disgusted spending $30,000 on an event of one day that seems more like pageantry than what the day is meant to celebrate, which is the union and commitment of two people. He shys away from the heteronormative aspect of it, some sense that homosexuals are supposed to act like their heterosexual counterparts in every other way except the sex of each person.

In the same way, for a long time in the 80s, churches were shunning their gay members. They claimed that you couldn't be gay and christian. Even if one were to argue that it was a sin, people can be divorced and remarried and members (which is adultery in the bible), get drunk and be members, etc.

When churches began to come around, and said, "Ok, we think it's wrong but you can worship with us," many said, "No, thanks."
Some churches are affirming, Thank Buddha. MCC started a church for all the gay people that were kicked out, and continues to go strong. But the Christian Church has really burned a huge bridge with the gay community, and for many, a huge bridge to Christ. They dared to suggest that God wouldn't accept or love them just as they are, and yet, sing, "Just as I am, without one plea."

I hope that helps anyone who is wondering what the resistance may be when extending the olive branch. There are a lot of people that have been hurt by spiritual abuse within the church.

As I saw people dying of AIDS, a disease I didn't understand much at the time, I remember Falwell saying that it was God's Judgement. That isn't much comfort to someone who is mourning, and even seems like the person is callously throwing salt in the wounds of the survivors.

 

[Maren]

The person who did the data only collected it from gay newspapers in San Francisco announcing that the person had died from AIDS during 2 years in the 1980s. At the time, she took all of the death announcements, and averaged the age, and decided that was the age that the average gay man dies, and claimed it as fact.

The study doesn't, however, take into account people that did not die. That would raise the age. When the faulty study was done, in the 1980s, many people did not feel safe to be out, because there was also no law protecting them from unlawful firing, etc.

That is what is criticized - faulty data collection. It also must be reviewed by peers who conduct the same study, and come to the same findings. It was not submitted for review, nor considered a supported study.

If I were to average only the ages of heteroseuxals that have, for example, died during child birth, and said, "The average heterosexual woman only lives to be 40", would that seem accurate to you?
And if you explained to me, "What about the people that didn't die?" and I ignored you, am I being scientifically truthful? If I know it to be a faulty claim, and still claim it as truth, am I not bearing false witness?

To find how long the average gay person lives, one has to realize that there may be a gay 90 year old. How safe do you think they feel about coming out, when they were born in 1920, seen people lose their job simply for being gay, or people being arrested in the 50s for simply being in a gay bar?

The people that claim that gays only live to 40 could certainly do a study themselves, but they seem to be content on faulty studies that simply prove the average age of people who died of AIDS at the time of the study, and claim it to represent all gay men. Because it is used so much, you would think that they would want to re-do the study, but they seem content on reporting false information.

There is a great critique of this "study" here. One other thing they point out is:

Gay community newspapers do not have sections of death notices. When the AIDS epidemic began to claim the lives of so many gay and bisexual men in the 1980s, however, many gay newspapers began to print obituaries. Except in the case of prominent community figures, these obituaries are typically written by (or based on information from) the loved ones of the deceased. Assuming that the deceased person wasn't famous, an obituary appears in a gay community newspaper only if (1) a loved one or friend notifies the newspaper about the death (and, in many cases, writes the obituary) and (2) the editor decides to print the obituary.

And this is merely one of the flaws the critique points out.

 

[SiderealExalt]

It's moments like these, reading this thread that I am glad I am not Christian and still have at least SOME amount of common sense in life.

Personally, I am not willing to make the sort of ignorant and ultimately immoral claim that somehow my own desires for a female and/or my wish to be in a monogamous relationship with a woman and get married as a heterosexual male is in some way more "pure" and moral than the assumption that all homosexuals are oversexed fiends who only wish to have multiple partners with possibly diseased individuals and live some sort of fast loose lifestyle.

That's simply relegating a piece of humanity as subhuman, and sorry..this atheist isn't doing that.

Not that I am accusing posters here of that. But it's certainly one attitude that exists among a Christian or two. I don't however find the sort of "nice" ohh well there is something wrong with you and while I still love you I am going to work with you to get you over your "problem" type of Christians to be really any better at all. In some ways it's almost worse because of how two faced it really is.

For me it's a simple matter. People are people regardless of if they are gay or not. Am I'm going to treat them with the same sort of courtesy and make a value judgement on them based on their personality, not on the frivolousness of their sexuality.

It would be like me disliking someone because they like girls with long hair and I like one's with short hair. It's silly at best, stupid at worst.

 

[LightHorseman]

like everything else in the bible we are told to avoid things that are not functional or beneficial... it's not about harm as much as it doesn't work (produce fruit or be of benefit). Paul says all things are now lawful, but not all things are beneficial... i think this plays to that. at this point it is no longer a world of law but of love so there is no point in judging this issue anymore anyway.

Actually... I think if you talk to any homosexual they'll tell you it works perfectly well... homosexual intimacy isn't an attempt at reproduction, it serves other purposes.

 

[True_Blue]

I think maybe he's saying you can tell how good the sex is by how many times people do it. So lesbian sex is less good. But gay sex is too good (since the gay lifestyle involves promiscuity and hundreds of sex partners). And straight sex is medium good. And we know from fairy tales (in this case, not Cinderella but the Goldilocks and the Three Bears), that medium good is juuuust right.

I'm saying that gay sex is like drinking Hershey's chocolate syrup straight out of a bottle. Sex is sweet in the right context, but if sex is abused, it becomes sour.

 

[IzzyPop]

I'm saying that gay sex is like drinking Hershey's chocolate syrup straight out of a bottle. Sex is sweet in the right context, but if sex is abused, it becomes sour.

 

[True_Blue]

The person who did the data only collected it from gay newspapers in San Francisco announcing that the person had died from AIDS during 2 years in the 1980s. At the time, she took all of the death announcements, and averaged the age, and decided that was the age that the average gay man dies, and claimed it as fact.

The study doesn't, however, take into account people that did not die. That would raise the age. When the faulty study was done, in the 1980s, many people did not feel safe to be out, because there was also no law protecting them from unlawful firing, etc.

That is what is criticized - faulty data collection. It also must be reviewed by peers who conduct the same study, and come to the same findings. It was not submitted for review, nor considered a supported study.

If I were to average only the ages of heteroseuxals that have, for example, died during child birth, and said, "The average heterosexual woman only lives to be 40", would that seem accurate to you?
And if you explained to me, "What about the people that didn't die?" and I ignored you, am I being scientifically truthful? If I know it to be a faulty claim, and still claim it as truth, am I not bearing false witness?

To find how long the average gay person lives, one has to realize that there may be a gay 90 year old. How safe do you think they feel about coming out, when they were born in 1920, seen people lose their job simply for being gay, or people being arrested in the 50s for simply being in a gay bar?

The people that claim that gays only live to 40 could certainly do a study themselves, but they seem to be content on faulty studies that simply prove the average age of people who died of AIDS at the time of the study, and claim it to represent all gay men. Because it is used so much, you would think that they would want to re-do the study, but they seem content on reporting false information.

Dude, you're completely missing my point. My point is that no university has gone out and made a credible study of homosexual life expectancies. Why not? Could it be that people are afraid of what the studies will reveal about homosexuality?

 

[Maren]

I'm saying that gay sex is like drinking Hershey's chocolate syrup straight out of a bottle. Sex is sweet in the right context, but if sex is abused, it becomes sour.

I suppose this must have been your personal experience? It must be since there is no other type of evidence that supports your claim.

 

[True_Blue]

Absolute nonsense, sorry.

Homosexual couples are no different from heterosexual couples in that respect. Otherwise they wouldn't be "couples". This isn't rocket science.

This is true. An extension of what I'm saying is that a person who is married cannot have an erotic relationship with another person and truly love them in the "agape" kind of unconditional love. The best way to love someone you are strongly sexually attracted to, when you're married to someone else, is to not have a sexual relationship with them. Love is not about self-gratification.

 

[icedtea]

I'm saying that gay sex is like drinking Hershey's chocolate syrup straight out of a bottle. Sex is sweet in the right context, but if sex is abused, it becomes sour.

Wrong analogy. I would enjoy that!

 

[Maren]

Dude, you're completely missing my point. My point is that no university has gone out and made a credible study of homosexual life expectancies. Why not? Could it be that people are afraid of what the studies will reveal about homosexuality?

I don't think anyone is afraid of what the study might show. Rather, I think the problem is there is no way to conduct such a study scientifically. How do you determine, especially after a person has died, exactly what their sexuality really was? Studies can't even agree on what the percentage of gays in the United States is (much less the world), the claims vary from a low of 1% to a high of 10% of the population. If we can't determine the number of gays, can we have any hope of trying to figure out their life expectancy with any accuracy?

 

[True_Blue]

I would like to point something out to people who may not understand why gays don't marry.

I work with a woman who has been married to a woman in Canada. They love each other, are very supportive of each other, very encouraging of one another.

I know of another couple who has been together for 10 years, and has no intent to be married.

Why? I would best describe it by this thread.
There are those that say gays are bad because they are promiscuous, disregarding heterosexual men's tendency to sleep with any woman that will say yes. Then, in the same breath, they will say that they are against gay marriage, because that will somehow undermine their own.

Because the gay person will look at this, and realize they are condemned both ways, they decide to make their own path. They refuse to bow to the demands of society to be "normative." It's usually called "heteronormative", meaning, we know that it isn't normal, like us, but the next best thing - so you marry, you have kids you take to soccer practice, etc. And instead, the group says, "I have no intention of living up to your expectations."

My partner and I are domestic partners, but I don't really think of a wedding. I am rather disgusted spending $30,000 on an event of one day that seems more like pageantry than what the day is meant to celebrate, which is the union and commitment of two people. He shys away from the heteronormative aspect of it, some sense that homosexuals are supposed to act like their heterosexual counterparts in every other way except the sex of each person.

In the same way, for a long time in the 80s, churches were shunning their gay members. They claimed that you couldn't be gay and christian. Even if one were to argue that it was a sin, people can be divorced and remarried and members (which is adultery in the bible), get drunk and be members, etc.

When churches began to come around, and said, "Ok, we think it's wrong but you can worship with us," many said, "No, thanks."
Some churches are affirming, Thank Buddha. MCC started a church for all the gay people that were kicked out, and continues to go strong. But the Christian Church has really burned a huge bridge with the gay community, and for many, a huge bridge to Christ. They dared to suggest that God wouldn't accept or love them just as they are, and yet, sing, "Just as I am, without one plea."

I hope that helps anyone who is wondering what the resistance may be when extending the olive branch. There are a lot of people that have been hurt by spiritual abuse within the church.

As I saw people dying of AIDS, a disease I didn't understand much at the time, I remember Falwell saying that it was God's Judgement. That isn't much comfort to someone who is mourning, and even seems like the person is callously throwing salt in the wounds of the survivors.

God views all sins as equal--murder, lust, gossip, slander, witchcraft, pride, whatever. Homosexuality is a sin, just as are many other behaviors that I personally engage in on a regular basis. But God expects us to peer into our own hearts and accurately judge our character as corrupt and needing redemption. The problem with a lot of homosexuals is that they are not willing to admit that their behavior is wrong. I look inappropriate contentography, but at least I have the moral courage to admit that looking at inappropriate contentography is wrong, and I am engaging with God to help him fix that defective aspect of my character. A person, whether homosexual or not, who is unwilling to admit their behavior pattern is wrong, will probably be unable to enter Heaven, though God is the judge of that. To enter Heaven is to submit to God's divine control over your life. To refuse to call a sin a sin is to fail to submit to God. To fail to submit to God is to walk away from him. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Be fearful of God so that you will do the right thing and have your actions and faith be pleasing to him.