This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Just another topic about the homosexuality and the Bible.

#21Polish_CrusaderPosted 1/28/2014 4:29:37 PM
Just saying that acting like a total dick to a group of people, in an attempt to make them more like you, is the exact opposite of what works. And yes, far too often Christians try to suppress and reduce homosexuals, making them feel sub-human, which instead of accomplishing what they want to do just results in homosexuals feeling bitter towards Christians. That's my point.


Define "acting like a dick". Me, personally, i dont like having these topics and conversations in general, because they never get anywhere. But i made an exception, because it was made by a christian- so i know that theres a biblical/spiritual reason behind it, number 2- because the topic is clear cut and simple: what the bible says about homosexuality and thats it.

If you think repeating or explaining what the bible says is being a dick, then that is not my problem. Tell me how you think I can say what the bible says without "sounding like a dick". Thats a real vague abstract term. I can say you are "being a dick" for not listening to gods word. See how much sense that makes? We have to go deeper.


And if homosexuality is immoral, there should be a better reason than "it's in this book." God wouldn't make a meaningless edict, right? So there must be a REASON it's immoral, right? I've yet to hear it so far--oh sure, I've heard "it's unnatural" but no one has defined that word yet. I do a thousand unnatural things every day by my reckoning, and you do them too.


-Okay, now we are actually getting places. The main reason homosexuality is immoral is because god did not intend for it to happen. Infact it is the opposite of what God intended. Anything that goes against gods will is sin. Sin condemns us. There is sin that does not lead to hell (gluttony, cursing, etc.) but there is other sin that directly condemns us no matter what our relationship is with god (read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), one of those sins is homosexuality. God made woman for man, read genesis and story of adam and eve. It goes a lot deeper than that. The mystery behind marriage of man and woman is actually a metaphor of Gods marriage to the church. I have to go to school right now so i will pull the verses up later. But every single verse on the subject all refers to marriage of man and woman.

Does that answer your question? I dont wanna be vague here.
---
"Being a Christian isn't for sissies.It takes a real man to live for God If you really want to live right these days, you gotta be tough."-Johnny Cash
#22MorgasaurusPosted 1/28/2014 4:55:57 PM
Polish_Crusader posted...
-Okay, now we are actually getting places. The main reason homosexuality is immoral is because god did not intend for it to happen. Infact it is the opposite of what God intended. Anything that goes against gods will is sin. Sin condemns us.


Why am I gay then? Genetics? Hormones? Environmental influences? Humans do not particularly have any direct control over the factors which have been identified as contributors to determine sexual orientation. What do we call things that happen that are beyond our control?

There is sin that does not lead to hell (gluttony, cursing, etc.) but there is other sin that directly condemns us no matter what our relationship is with god (read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), one of those sins is homosexuality.


I already addressed this. English translations can't even agree on what the original Greek words were supposed to say in 1 Corinthians 6. Certainly Paul wasn't making a distinction between tops and bottoms which some English translations seem to think. It is most likely that he was condemning the common practice in Greece of older men having sex with young male prostitutes.

God made woman for man, read genesis and story of adam and eve. It goes a lot deeper than that. The mystery behind marriage of man and woman is actually a metaphor of Gods marriage to the church. I have to go to school right now so i will pull the verses up later. But every single verse on the subject all refers to marriage of man and woman.


None of that precludes the possibility that gay relationships are fine. Yeah so 95% of the population can be fruitful and multiply (but seriously slow it down guys). The rest of us will just... be fruity.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#23Dathrowed1Posted 1/28/2014 5:27:52 PM
serpentslayer posted...
I actually think homosexuality wasn't widely considered immoral at that time, specifically because of the Roman Empire. It's not a stretch to assume that the man Jesus said had to most faith out of anyone was a homosexual. The only words explicitly against homosexuality come from Paul, and many have argued that Paul distorted Christianity. I am among them. The idea that homosexuality isn't a sin is no stretch.


I think it's more acceptable to argue that it was more of a pederasty relationship; are you ready to eventually argue that it's ok from a biblical perspective?
---
sig
#24Faust_8Posted 1/28/2014 9:03:59 PM
I'd love to hear how an omnipotent, omniscient being can make a universe where things happen that they didn't intend.

I mean...how he could he NOT KNOW that it would happen? Because here's how it looks to me:

1) God makes it so that oral/anal sex is pleasurable.
2) God makes it so that sexual urges are among the strongest urges we ever feel.
3) God makes it so that we can't control our sexual preferences since they're determined by genetics and environment.
4) God makes it so LOTS of species can, sometimes, become attracted to the same sex permanently.
5) God didn't "intend" for this to happen and punishes us for it.

I could make a pen for a rat where two buttons dispense a tasty pellet, but kill the rat if hits the left button, and it would make just as much sense. If God is as powerful as you say, he not only made homosexuality possible, but inevitable, and he knew it beforehand. How could he "not intend for it to happen"?
---
"It's hard to reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into."
--JonWood
#25OrangeWizardPosted 1/28/2014 9:06:54 PM
And Morgasaurus gives the "All those words don't mean what you think they mean" defense.

Not very surprising.

I'd advise anyone arguing with him press him on providing sufficient evidence or proof of his claims that "X doesn't really mean X".
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#26Julian_CaesarPosted 1/28/2014 9:12:54 PM
Morgasaurus posted...
I already addressed this. English translations can't even agree on what the original Greek words were supposed to say in 1 Corinthians 6. Certainly Paul wasn't making a distinction between tops and bottoms which some English translations seem to think. It is most likely that he was condemning the common practice in Greece of older men having sex with young male prostitutes


When compared to the passage in Romans, though, where Paul clearly refers to male homosexuality as "forsaking the natural use of the woman", I'm not sure how you can justify that interpretation. I'm sure Paul DID condemn that common practice of using prostitutes...but it's a bit silly to suggest that he didn't consider "regular" homosexuality immoral as well.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#27C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2014 7:37:28 AM
Morgasaurus posted...
1) Sodom and Gomorrah. This one is easy. First of all, the "evil" present in the city was not as a result of homosexual behavior, but rather from the tendency of the citizenry to gang-rape any newcomers. One thing I'm certain of is that a committed same-sex couple is not going to gang-rape anyone.


I have heard this gang-rape explanation before. The problem with it is, there's no indication that the Sodomites intended to rape the angels. The only verse you could use to support that is this one: They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” The Hebrew word for "have sex with" is yada; it's used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and never means "rape." So there's nothing you can use to say that the Sodom story is about rapists.

2) The famous "abomination" verse from the OT. First of all the word "abomination" in this context is simply referring to anything that is forbidden under Jewish law. It is then not clear whether or not this particular Jewish law continues to remain in effect in the New Covenant. The "sexual immorality" from Mark 7 may simply refer to such things as one night stands. Again, committed partners are not going to do this.


Just because something is called an abomination in the Old Testament does not in itself mean that it's no longer morally wrong. For example, look at all of these other sins called abominations in the OT:

Lying (Lev. 19:11), theft (Lev. 19:13), bearing false witness (19:16), hating your fellow man (Lev. 19:17), exacting vengeance (Lev. 19:18), avoiding unjust balances (Lev. 19:36), sacrificing children (Lev. 20:1-5), committing adultery (Lev. 20:10), committing incest (20:11-14), and the practice of bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16)?

So if Lev. 18 outlines all the specific sexual sins, and then Jesus claims that sexual immorality is still wrong in the NT (using Lev. 18 as a source), then those specific sexual sins hold true for today. If you throw out homosexuality on the technicality that it's called an abomination, you also have to throw out all those other behaviors I listed in the above paragraph.

And there is absolutely no positive reason to think Mark 7 is only talking about one-night-stands. You pulled that from nowhere.

Before I go on to the other two, I just want to address what you said about "committed same-sex relationships" not being specifically forbidden anywhere in the Bible. You're right that they aren't specifically mentioned, but that seems largely irrelevant. Why does the Bible need to be that specific when it's already given a blanket condemnation of any same-sex relationships whatsoever? This is like saying that the Bible doesn't specifically forbid stealing from your boss at work; therefore, it's OK. Well yeah, the Bible doesn't specifically forbid that particular circumstance, but it forbids any thievery, period. I don't think you need the Bible to be a billion pages long and to mention every possible situation in order to understand its ethics. You can take one basic principle (like that stealing or homosexual behavior is wrong) and apply it to every situation.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#28C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2014 7:46:13 AM
3) Paul in Romans 1. The "they" described in Romans 1 is referring to a group of people who abandoned God and became "godless." Well it's pretty clear that abandoning God is a no-no for Christians. This verse cannot then be generalized to same-sex relationships between Christians.


Unless same-sex intercourse is one of the characteristics of these people who abandoned God. Of course abandoning God is wrong for Christians; once you do it, you're simply not a Christian anymore. And I think that Romans 1 is describing the behavior of these people who "abandoned God" so that they could live their lives however they wanted, especially sexually.

W can probably agree that Paul found a certain behavior from women to be "against nature," and that this was similar to how men were behaving with other men. But how are we to know what that behavior was, and why was it unnatural? To understand this, let's take a look at the Old Testament scripture that Paul is drawing a parallel to. I will bold the words that clearly show Paul's intent with Romans 1:24-27, but I'll also need to give the verses directly before those to display the proper context.

Genesis 1:26-28
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Romans 1:22-27
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

What I want to draw your attention to is that each of those words used in Genesis 1 show up again in Romans 1, in pretty much the exact same order. Paul is harkening back to the Garden of Eden when referring to what is "natural." And in the Garden, man and woman were told to be fruitful and multiply, with sex being the obvious method to accomplish this. Since Paul describes men as lusting after each other instead of using the woman for her "natural use," and right before that says that the women "likewise" went against nature instead of the "natural use," whatever the women were doing must have been comparable to what the men were doing.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#29C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2014 7:46:51 AM
4) Paul in 1 Corinthians 6. This is the most sticky of the verses, and if you believe many English translations, then you might think homosexual behavior is condemned here. However, one thing about it is very suspicious. The verse makes a distinction between dominant and passive homosexual partners. Okay. If you're Paul and you're going to condemn gays, are you really going to make it a point that your condemnation applies to tops and bottoms? No. What's going on here is that there are two words from ancient Greek whose translations we are depending upon for the traditional interpretation: arsenokoitai and malakoi. It is most likely that these words refer to young male prostitutes and their "customers" because that type of thing was common in ancient Greece. In fact the word arsenokoitai was translated as "pervert" in 1 Timothy.


The Greek word we're talking about in 1 Corinthians 6, as I'm sure you know, is arsenokoitai. I'm sure it includes pederasty, but it's certainly not limited to pederasty if you look at the etymology. And I'm not sure if Paul was the very first person to use it, but it's clear what the meaning is and where the word comes from.

Leviticus 18:22 (from the Septuagint, Paul's and Jesus' version of the Old Testament)
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos


And Paul actually "invented" well over 100 words in the New Testament- just food for thought. But if he only wanted to single out pederasts in 1 Corinthians 6, why would he invent this word from Leviticus clearly referring to male homosexuality in general rather than simply use the specific Greek word paiderastïs?

I think this is a knock-down argument for why 1 Corinthians 6 must refer to male homosexuality in general. Unlike other verses in the New Testament which we understand be culturally specific (like whether women can speak in church), there is nothing that contradicts this teaching and no reason given to assume that it doesn't still apply today just like everything mentioned alongside arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians, like sexually immorality, idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, slandering or swindling. Again, these other practices are always understood to be objectively wrong, not just cultural taboos; the text gives no reason to assume otherwise.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#30master_gamr1231Posted 1/29/2014 9:12:00 AM
C_Mat posted...
I have heard this gang-rape explanation before. The problem with it is, there's no indication that the Sodomites intended to rape the angels. The only verse you could use to support that is this one: They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” The Hebrew word for "have sex with" is yada; it's used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and never means "rape." So there's nothing you can use to say that the Sodom story is about rapists.


o_o

Wat. "We're not gonna rape them, we're just gonna forcibly have sex with them."

???
---
Why do people... betray one another? They might as well... all just die instead.
Welcome to my kingdom!