• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians, why do you hate Gays?

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wasnt claiming to know you at all and was simply responding to your post.
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.

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.
Again the slippery word is "translation". That is all I have to say about that.

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.

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
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
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

Eh, different translations mean this reads differently as well.

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

Sexual immorality can be interpretated to include or exclude certain things though can't it?
 

Shermana

Heretic
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"
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I understand dogs to mean those described at Romans 1:25

I should do this in Greek? Haha

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen

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.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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"

What's your opinion of the KJV translation? In that it seems to be referring to homosexual men.
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
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.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
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.

Actually we have many ancient fragments using the word and not a single one of them is homosexuality. It appears to "usually" mean aggressive sex acts against a person's will. For instance rape. And there are fragments using the term with women. SO - not homosexuality.

And Malekoi - is the same as "dandy" in English - and probably was used for the Temple Prostitutes. However - those male prostitutes were not homosexual - they were bought, or gifted, to the temple and trained for their sex acts.

I get a kick out of this actually - we know they had to have words for homosexuality - the Greeks definitely did - yet none such word is found in the OT - or the NT.

And before you jump in with "sodomite" any study will tell you that was a Temple Prostitute.

2Ki 23:6 And he brought out the Asherah from the Temple of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people.

2Ki 23:7 And he brake down the temples of the sodomites (Qadesh – Sacred Prostitute – Strong’s H6945,) that were by/in the Temple of the YHVH, where the women wove hangings in the Temple to Asherah.

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore (Qadeshah Sacred Prostitute H6948) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (Qadesh Sacred Prostitute H6945)of the sons of Israel.

They are obviously changing the actual meaning in later translations! And folks are saying they don't change text or mislead! Bull!
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
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"

Nope - did you forget Jesus used it for the Canaanites? Mat 15:26.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
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?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member

What are you whating I wonder?

Some people are like dogs. Did you ever have a dog? Dogs are attached to their owner just like some men are attached to their leader, master, lord, boss, whatever. It is how evil men become capable of doing damage. Evil men and women, I guess, gather dog like people around them. It is their power. I am too good to my dog. But I have seen dogs that are ill treated but those dogs still are devoted to their master.

A man can seem like a perfect specimen of humanity. The one thing that keeps him away from finding YHWH, righteousness and meekness is his dog-like quality. Zephaniah 2:3. How so? You cannot be serving two masters. That is plain logic. You either search for YHWH or you search for what your master demands. Some people are their own master. OK.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Nope - did you forget Jesus used it for the Canaanites? Mat 15:26.

Yes he did use it for the Canaanite woman but not necessarily exclusively for them. However, it's used in the OT for such most clearly. Are you implying that the text is meant to say that Christians will be rejected from the Kingdom if they are merely racially canaanite especially in context to the rest of those who are discluded in that verse? If so, what about the clear Deuteronomy reference?
 
Top