dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Ironic that the first sinner was a woman.
...how so?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ironic that the first sinner was a woman.
I know. Sigh. I know. Most of my posts say that the Bible is true. Translation is the problem. I think it was a problem for 'Jesus' too.Wasnt claiming to know you at all and was simply responding to your post.
Again the slippery word is "translation". That is all I have to say about that.I would've thought that stating they should be put to death would be pretty self explanatory. Look up all the different translations of the same verse if you like.
I am not an expert on christian scripture but I do not think I have come across anything in the NT that even speaks about homosexuality.
Ironic that the first sinner was a woman.
1 Corinthians 6:9 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
Galatians 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery
Revelation 9:21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood
Eh, different translations mean this reads differently as well.
Sexual immorality can be interpretated to include or exclude certain things though can't it?
I think this is what they call a straw man :cover:
You get what I mean though.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen
Yes Revelation 22:15's use of "dogs" may very well have been a direct reference to those who committed "homosexual" acts among males in colloquial use of the term, especially seen with Deuteronomy 23:18, so those who say Jesus never mentions it may be wrong on that regard if Revelation is taken into account. Now some may say that "dogs" only refers to those who willfully sell themselves to other males, but that itself cane open a whole can of worms. It's indisputable however that the use of "Effeminate" or "Soft" in 1 Corinthians 6 is a defacto reference to Catamites, as the term is employed by several Greek authors to denote, which may well be an early term to describe what we now call "Orientation"
...how so?
........Eve.
I know who the first woman was. I must have missed the point you were trying to make though.
That humanity gained sin through Eve, yet the thread is about condemning male homosexuals.
I think there are many that would about whether its just about male homosexuals. Its sad and amusing at the same time that homosexuality debates and discussions get more attention than things I would consider to be bigger issues.
The word "Arsenkoit" (man bedder) most probably does in fact refer to men who "bed other men", and Malekoi surely means "Effeminate" (effeminate males), the word Malekoi is used by other Greek authors to refer to Catamites. Some say Arsenkoit refers only to pagan temple (male) prostitutes but there's little basis for this as opposed to a general description of those who participate in the act in general.
The issue of "Homosexuality" as an orientation versus the action is a semantic issue and a rather moot point. It is most likely in fact condemning the actual practice of such. And even then, it can be argued that "Malekoi" is a defacto early form of identifying what we call today "orientation". It should be noted however that it's only referring to males, not females, despite those who may say that its intended to apply to both.
Again, there's evidence that the Ancient Jews did not consider Lesbianism on the same level as male-male relations.
Yes Revelation 22:15's use of "dogs" may very well have been a direct reference to those who committed "homosexual" acts among males in colloquial use of the term, especially seen with Deuteronomy 23:18, so those who say Jesus never mentions it may be wrong on that regard if Revelation is taken into account. Now some may say that "dogs" only refers to those who willfully sell themselves to other males, but that itself cane open a whole can of worms. It's indisputable however that the use of "Effeminate" or "Soft" in 1 Corinthians 6 is a defacto reference to Catamites, as the term is employed by several Greek authors to denote, which may well be an early term to describe what we now call "Orientation"
I understand dogs to mean those described at Romans 1:25
I should do this in Greek? Haha
A person can be almost flawless on the outside as they demonstrate their righteousness before men but on the inside they are giving their devotion to man instead of God. Dogs are known to do that. My doggy loves me no matter what. Human dogs are people who love their idol no matter what. Dog.
What?
Nope - did you forget Jesus used it for the Canaanites? Mat 15:26.