Defending the Truth

Syrokal · 11-25-2007, 02:02 AM

Quote:

"Romans 1:24-27, NIV"
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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.

In these passages, it blatantly states that lust was the cause behind their sin. Not only is lust a sexual immorality, but so is sleeping around.

Quote:

Actually, it seems that you are referencing behaviors (like eating certain foods) that are necessary for humans to survive. It seems to me that Homosexuality is not necessary for survival.

The referance was not to food but to the rules we choose as Christians to follow and the many many we choose not to, my neibourgh drives out to work each Sunday and im not about to start stoneing him to death for it.

Syrokal · 11-25-2007, 02:35 AM

Quote:

By the way, there's also a scripture that states the "sin of sodom" was lack of charity.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is as such: Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was living in the city of Sodom. Abraham had pleaded to God to spare the city under the condition that 10 righteous men were found there.

Quote:

"Genesis 18:32-33, NIV"
Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Unfortunately, that condition was failed to be met. However, God felt compassion towards Lot, and sent two angels to warn him of the impending doom of the city before its destruction. When they arrived, however, they were accosted by citizens of Sodom.

Quote:

"Genesis 19:4-30, NIV"
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 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."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

With these verses, a couple of key things are to be noted. First, note that Lot mentioned the men were protected. Second, note that he offered his daughters. The protection is to be noted because inhospitality was a grievous offense. Just as in the Roman myth of Jupiter and Mercury visiting Baucis and Philemon, hospitality was rewarded as you never knew who would be in your house. Lot offering his daughters shows that, as he was their father and thus their consent, that he was offering them consenting sex as opposed to rape. Also:

Quote:

"Genesis 18:20-21, NIV"
Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

God mentions an outcry that reached him. Would men consenting to homosexual sex cry out to God? No. Would people being raped repeatedly cry out to God? The answer is yes. Also, why would the sin of homosexuality be so grievous back then that it was worthy of razing an entire city, but is today not worthy enough for anything? The reason is that homosexuality was not the sin mentioned. The sin is rape and, slightly lesser, inhospitality. Note:

Quote:

"Ezekiel 16:48-50, NIV"
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Arrogance, gluttony, and apathy. Not helping the poor and needy, or being inhospitable. Haughty: Above the law. And detestable things? Rape. Case 2:

Quote:

"Luke 10:10-12, NIV"
But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

If you are not welcomed into a town, it says... If they are not hospitable to you, then they will suffer pains worse than that of Sodom.

I'd say that about clinches the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't you? Don't assume that since we have this word sodomy to refer to anal sex that Sodom's sin was sodomy.

Grace · 11-25-2007, 06:04 AM

Its obviously homosexuality wasnt the only sin those folks were quilty of. But its also obvious that homosexuality was also apart of there sin. Any fool can clearly see that.

tristanrobin · 11-25-2007, 07:58 AM

only a fool - who know NOTHING about historical social customs - would think that homosexuality had anything to do with it.

It was common, standard practice then to rape the losers in war, battles, etc. It was a way to subjugate them. And, it should be noted, it was most often gang rape.

I defy anybody to point out the parts of that story that condemn homosexuality instead of condemning rape and gang rape (and of course, all the other faults that are listed at various times throughout the Bible)

Grace · 11-25-2007, 09:04 AM

This had nothing to do with war, or rape.

Because of this, God gave them over to shamefull lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So to sum it up, God called sexual relationships between the same sex, unnatural, shamefull, indecent, and perversion. I cant see how it could be any more clear.

fxashun · 11-25-2007, 09:27 AM

It's also not illegal to be a slut, have homosexual sex, eat bacon, or wear polyester. Hell if you want, you can stick a coke bottle in your anus, you know, if that's your "thing". But no one is gonna let you "marry" said coke bottle if all of a sudden you come to the conclusion that you "love" Coke and to keep you away from it would be "discrimination" and against your "civil rights".

Syrokal · 11-25-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

This had nothing to do with war, or rape.

Because of this, God gave them over to shamefull lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Now. We have some key words in this part. Shameful, lusts, natural relations, indecent acts, perversion. These key words, when added to the verses above as well as a knowledge of Roman society, tell us something. We know that homosexuality is natural as it occurs in nature, yes? But even if it wasn't, what could Paul be talking about? What could he have knowledge of just by walking through the streets of Rome?

The Roman god Bacchus was a god of wine and pleasure. He, as well as other members of the pantheon, was celebrated with festivals that appropriately resembled or reenacted some aspect or story of the deity. When celebrating Minerva, goddess of crafts, they would weave a large blanket to drape over her statue. To celebrate Bacchus, god of wine and pleasure, they would get into a state of public drunkenness and have extremely large orgies that would last for days.

Such a public event is something Paul most likely had the "honor" of viewing when taking his trip through Rome. Remember that key verse that mentioned serving and worshiping things that weren't God? These festivals were definitely signs of worship to other gods. Still, people will say, "Well, Paul condemns homosexuals later in his Epistles, so it must've still been about gays."

Firstly, one must ask how Paul would've known about any homosexual acts the Romans did unless they were in public. Secondly, and most importantly, one must look to see if Paul actually condemns homosexuals. There are two verses that use the word homosexuals in the Modern English versions of the Bible, or at least many of the popular ones. Let's look at them in English, shall we?

Quote:

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV"
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The next verse isn't commonly translated as homosexual, so we will temporarily depart from our use of the NIV.

Quote:

"1 Timothy 1:10, NASB"
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

Now. That's what they say in English. Homosexuals, homosexual offenders, effeminate, or sodomites. Let's look at them in Greek.

Homosexual, in Greek, is now: [b]ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos[b]

Quote:

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Greek"
ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

That section that I've bolded is where the words translated to homosexual and company are. Let's look at them closely.

Quote:

μαλακοὶ, or malakoi, and ἀρσενοκοῖται, or arsenokoitai. Do those look like ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos?

On to Timothy.

Quote:

"1 Timothy 1:10, Greek"
πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,

See ομοφυλοφιλικός? Doubtful. ἀρσενοκοίταις is what shows up. It says arsenokoitais, which is the same as arsenokoitai. Still isn't omophulophilikos.

To continue with this, I will quote a man who has done much more research on the subject than I could at my age.

Quote:

"Reverend Mel White from www.soulforce.org"
Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

A big question to ask is this: "If Paul didn't condemn homosexuals before these two verses... And Christ didn't condemn them... and the Old Testament didn't condemn them... But everything else Paul condemned was condemned by the Old Testament or Christ... Where'd he get it from?"

Paul does not condemn homosexuals. Bad translators do.

And as we all known Paul has quite the reputation for shoveing his own opinion into his books,

Sorry for the long post

Edit: I cant seem to fix some of the Greek, but the main words remain intact and the point gets across
Syrokal-

fxashun · 11-25-2007, 09:42 AM

If you take all of the mentions of homosexuality in the Bible AND Koran, the common sense observations of the deviant nature of it, and the procreative barriers, it takes a serious delusional and irrational person to come to the conclusion that the Bible might have been misinterpreted on this subject.

It ain't like it was just mentioned in passing, and it ain't like EVERYONE knows that there is at the very least, something a bit "off" about homosexuality.

AlicornsPrayer · 11-25-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syrokal

"Shamefull lust's" im preaty sure rape is a shamefull lust
"Natural relations for unatural ones" this could be anything that isnt a loveing bond
"Indecent acts" again rape
"perversion" ....go on guess...yea rape.

But lucky us aye, it was all revoked apparently by christ's blood. So that story and everything it represents is all nonsense now, or so its said

The thing is...anything could be ment by those passages. None of those passages even hint of homosexuality...

Back then, sexual intercourse had strict rules of what was allowable and what wasn't...And what was considered 'unnatural' is actually mentioned in old Jewish texts, the stories about Lilith and Adam...

Basically, 'unnatural' sex for a female was any sexual position that wasn't 'subservant' to the male during intercourse...In otherwords....Good old missionary was 'natural', on top was 'unnatural'. And it worked the same way with the male...It was 'natural' for the man to be on top/dominant position, 'unnatural' for the man to be on the bottom/subservant position.

Same about masturbation/mutual masturbation and oral sex...It was 'natural' not to do such, 'unnatural' to do such...

The whole gist being that what the quotes saying 'natural' and 'unnatural' in it's text isn't in no way saying a thing about homosexuality. PERIOD. Instead, it's readers putting their own little add-ons into that text, thinking it is implying something it isn't instead...

Same with the 'indecent acts' interpretation by Christians...Again it isn't talking about homosexuality, but in fact what you're talking about Sy...Rape, non-charity, abuses, etc...

That's half the problem right there about Christian viewpoint on those particular texts...Because of thier dictate to ignore the laws/explinations in the Jewish texts, because of Jesus' "intervention/acceptance into their lives", they remain purposefully ignorant about the exact nature and meaning behind the quotes they are trying to use to justify their own predjudices...

The explinations to those texts are only found in Jewish theology/teachings, through the Tora and other Jewish commentary books of the OT...Which weren't included in the Christian version of the OT, as a means to seperate from Jewish teachings...

So on the part of the Christian, trying to use the OT as 'proof it's talking about homosexuality' within those texts, they are assuming it's about something without any full knowledge of that text's meaning.

It was also applied to the wearing of clothes in sex...It was 'natural' to engage in sex clothed...'Unnatural' to engage in sex unclothed.

fxashun · 11-25-2007, 09:56 AM

Yeah, they say men meeting for sex doesn't necessarily mean they are "homosexual". But the sex IS. And the Bible verses DO "hint" at "homosexual sex" and if you are a homosexual person, and you are having ANY sexual relations, you are going against the Bible's teaching. You can type all kinda bullshit you want. But you can't avoid that fact.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode