Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[starlite]

Yep, that is where they become two-faced. Most will tell you Iesous fulfilled the law, and they don't have to follow that OT stuff - then they will turn around and throw that OT law at people doing things they don't like.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Speaking of ancient Babylon’s priesthood, Professor S. H. Hooke, an authority on Biblical archaeology, says: “The priesthood was not confined to men, but women formed part of the staff of the great temples. It was considered an honor to belong to the order of priestesses, and we hear of several kings who dedicated their daughters to the priestly calling. . . . Their most important function was to serve as sacred prostitutes at the great seasonal festivals. . . . The temple of Ishtar [goddess of fertility and war], naturally, contained a large staff of such women.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This was directly the opposite of the worship that was to be rendered to Jehovah God by the nation of Israel. The Law clearly stated: “None of the daughters of Israel may become a temple prostitute, neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute. You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow, because they are something detestable to Jehovah your God.” Thus, a harlot’s payment was unacceptable as a contribution to God’s sanctuary. Even harlotry without any religious connotation was disgraceful. The Israelites were commanded: “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.” The laws against prostitution and homosexuality, which is described as “a detestable thing,” were a protection for the nation, both spiritually and physically.—Leviticus 19:29; 20:13. Morally unclean persons are called dogs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Leviticus 20:13) “‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Deuteronomy 23:18) . . .You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow, because they are something detestable to Jehovah your God, even both of them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](1 Corinthians 6:9,10) What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
This is just a couple of scriptures from both the OT and NT to show that God's view didn't change.[/FONT]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ἀρσενοκοῖται, or arsenokoites, has never been used to refer to homosexuals in any ancient Greek writing, other than in Biblical translations. In fact ἀρσενοκοῖται is only been found in 77 times in extant Greek manuscripts. Like the Levitical reference, the term likely refereed to Temple Prostitution, a common practice in the Hellenized world. As Leon Morris, in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1 Corinthians wrote: “The inclusion of idolaters may point us to the immorality of much heathen worship of the day.”
Many Greek biblical scholars also conclude that arsenokoites seems to refer to any "unnatural sexual act, or sex without procreation."

On another note, malakoi, which is commonly translated as effeminate in the Bible, is more correctly translated as intellectual or moral weakness.

Angellous and I had a discussion about this issue a while back: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/47922-some-notes-paul-homosexuality.html

His opinion was that these terms definitely do refer to homosexuality. Since he has a PhD in New Testament Studies, he doesn't have an anti-gay agenda to promote, and I trust him generally, I defer to his judgement on this issue.

 

[starlite]

Angellous and I had a discussion about this issue a while back: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/47922-some-notes-paul-homosexuality.html

Thanks for the link....I very much enjoyed the read

 

[davidthegreek]

I guess it is related to homosexuality being a sin in the NT?
I can't see how any Christian can get around what Paul teaches?

Same way we get around everything else. But don't worry. I don't advocate getting around it. What I personally advocate is that since we are all sinful, we should give each other a break. And focus on our behaviour for a change. Not on that of someone else. What everyone else does is between them and God. We can't just replace God and start passing judgements around.

 

[davidthegreek]

Actually, there are quite a lot of Christians who now don't really pay as much attention to Paul. It has been established by some that Paul's works were not supposed to be included in the Bible and that some of them were not even written by Paul. This really has nothing to do with the discussion, however.

The principles of healthy living that jesus teaches in the Gospels should be enough. Anyway I know I am off topic now, but what is your denomination?

 

[davidthegreek]

Where did Jesus say anything about hating gays?

The real reason people hate others is because it makes them feel better about themselves. If you can put down an entire group of people in your mind then it raises your own level of self esteem.

Last time I did that my psychology became a perfect hell. It isn't worth it. Hatred stirs up strifes, while love forgiveth all sins.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Thanks for the link....I very much enjoyed the read

The information in that link should come as no surprise. The interesting thing is that most of the people I I hear arguing that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality are the same people who not only reject the Bible as the word of God but also the notion that it's applicable in our lives today apart from a few warm platitudes.

 

[davidthegreek]

A suggestion: either present evidence that a majority of Christians hate gays or apologize for your bigoted distortion.

Perhaps he means the majority of the christians he meets.

 

[davidthegreek]

at least the fundies are honest.

Indeed. And God will take an honest man million times over a hypocrite.

 

[Walkntune]

I know not all of them do and there are many other religions that are the same. I am just wondering why a minority of Christians hate gays?

I heard this song by macklemore last week and I thought it was beautifully written and a great example as to what I am asking;

[youtube]hlVBg7_08n0[/youtube]
YouTube

As a Christian I don't hate gays. Only those who live according to religious laws condemn others.It is in no way a reflection of Christ and his love nor those who seek to be Christlike.No need for one to justify themselves or their behaviour as all fall short and noone is justified as Righteous.Jesus accepts all who come no matter what state one thinks he is in.It is not up to man to judge and place judgment on another.
Joseph's brothers stripped him of his tulmic and threw him in a ditch. They plotted against him to kill him but sold him to egypt instead out of greed.Joseph still had grace and love for his brothers and even blessed them before they recognised him as their own.Don't under estimate the love and grace in Christ because that of Josephs does not even come close!He forgave the very ones who crucified him. Christ is not looking at what you do or don't do as he loves you just the same.Any changing he wants to in someone do he will out of love and Holy Spirit convictions. Not the law and condemnation of man.

 

[Shermana]

Only those who live according to religious laws condemn others.

Like how Paul said "Let anyone who teaches another gospel be damned".

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I'm now telling you again what we've told you in the past: If anyone tells you good news that is different from the Good News you received, that person should be condemned to hell.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed.

And the gospel Paul preached most assuredly condemned what we now call male "Homosexuals", as Angellous meticulously explained.

 

[Ingledsva]

Right. ONE of them is idolatry. Therefore, to say that such forms of prohibited carnality is "idolatry" necessarily is proven bunk.

What?

I'm saying it is Sacred Temple Sex - that makes it Idolatry.

Any such sex to Molech is Idolatry for the Hebrew.

 

[Shermana]

What?

I'm saying it is Sacred Temple Sex - that makes it Idolatry.

Any such sex to Molech is Idolatry for the Hebrew.

And what you're saying has been proven to be totally wrong, arbitrary, not backed by any reputable source except those trying to push a gay-friendly reading of the Bible (As Angellous kind of puts it), and is based on cherry picking verses out of context.

Again, your logic would be that ALL those prohibitions in Lev 18 would only apply to Moloch rites, including Father-daughter relations, but is otherwise okay. And your argument that it only applies to verse 18:22 "Because it comes right after 21" but not 24 and on is bunk.

I really don't want to have to keep repeating the same thing.

 

[Ingledsva]

Speaking of ancient Babylon’s priesthood, Professor S. H. Hooke, an authority on Biblical archaeology, says: “The priesthood was not confined to men, but women formed part of the staff of the great temples. It was considered an honor to belong to the order of priestesses, and we hear of several kings who dedicated their daughters to the priestly calling. . . . Their most important function was to serve as sacred prostitutes at the great seasonal festivals. . . . The temple of Ishtar [goddess of fertility and war], naturally, contained a large staff of such women.”

This was directly the opposite of the worship that was to be rendered to Jehovah God by the nation of Israel. The Law clearly stated: “None of the daughters of Israel may become a temple prostitute, neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute. You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow, because they are something detestable to Jehovah your God.” Thus, a harlot’s payment was unacceptable as a contribution to God’s sanctuary. Even harlotry without any religious connotation was disgraceful. The Israelites were commanded: “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.” The laws against prostitution and homosexuality, which is described as “a detestable thing,” were a protection for the nation, both spiritually and physically.—Leviticus 19:29; 20:13. Morally unclean persons are called dogs.

(Leviticus 20:13) “‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.
(Deuteronomy 23:18) . . .You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow, because they are something detestable to Jehovah your God, even both of them.
(1 Corinthians 6:9,10) What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.

This is just a couple of scriptures from both the OT and NT to show that God's view didn't change.

No sure what you are trying to say to me here? I have already discussed all of the verses above. I said specific verses touted as about homosexuals are actually about Sacred sex - not homosexuality.

Of course the people were not to be prostitutes - but you need to understand there were two types of prostitutes - common and Sacred.

We know they brought Pagan Idols and Sacred Prostitutes into the Hebrew Temple. I posted a couple of those verses above.

You quote Deut 23:18 above. Deut 23:17 tells us they are talking about Qadesh and Qadeshah (Sacred Prostitutes) These are the actual words used.

And Deut 23:18 can be translated -

18 Don't bring the rewards of Fornication/Idolatry or the wages of a dog onto YHVH Elohiym whatsoever as a vow ...

1 Cor 6:9-10 does not actually say "nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men."

 

[Ingledsva]

...And the gospel Paul preached most assuredly condemned what we now call male "Homosexuals", as Angellous meticulously explained.

And I of course don't agree!

 

[starlite]

No sure what you are trying to say to me here? I have already discussed all of the verses above.

Of course the people were not to be prostitutes - but you need to understand there were two types of prostitutes - common and Sacred.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Here's a little background...the Bible, which contains the early history of the Jews tells us first of all that Abraham was a Hebrew. (Gen. 14:13) All the descendants of his son Isaac also came to be known as Hebrews. Those who sprang from the family of Jacob or Israel, Abraham’s grandson, were also known as Israelites. The term Jew comes from the name of Jacob’s fourth son, Judah, and at first applied only to his family and descendants. The first one to use the term “Jews” was the writer of Second Kings (16:6; 18:26, 28; 25:25). That the two terms, Hebrew and Jew, were considered synonymous as early as the seventh century B.C.E. is noted in Jeremiah 34:9: “Let each one his manservant and each one his maidservant, Hebrew man and Hebrew woman, go free, in order not to use them as servants, that is, a Jew, who is his brother.”[/FONT]

The point I am bringing out is that the Israelites, Jews from the nation of Israel, did not serve as temple prostitutes because it was not acceptable to their god Jehovah. They did not conduct themselves as the nations around them. Sex between men whether sacred or not was not acceptable to the God of the Jews. God's view has not changed...it remains the same today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The information in that link should come as no surprise. The interesting thing is that most of the people I I hear arguing that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality are the same people who not only reject the Bible as the word of God but also the notion that it's applicable in our lives today apart from a few warm platitudes.

Speaking for myself, I don't say that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. Here's what I think it says:

- it does condemn homosexuality and declares it to be sin.
- it also condemns judging others, particularly non-Christians, for their sins.
- it proclaims broad principles that support love in general, and therefore romantic love between members of the same sex (BTW: I do not approach the Bible assuming that it can't contradict itself).

I also recognize that the Bible's mixed message on homosexuality is very similar in a lot of ways to its mixed message on slavery, yet even the most fundamentalist Christian these days doesn't have an issue in disregarding the Biblical passages that support slavery to argue against the practice. Therefore, I think there's inherent hypocrisy when such people choose not to take the same approach on the issue of homosexuality and overlook the nasty passages on that issue.

Edit: so the short version is this: I think that the Bible both supports and condemns homosexuality, but for people who interpret it as condemning it, the Bible forbids them from judging others or acting on their opinion other than as a guide for their own actions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point I am bringing out is that the Israelites, Jews from the nation of Israel, did not serve as temple prostitutes because it was not acceptable to their god Jehovah. They did not conduct themselves as the nations around them. Sex between men whether sacred or not was not acceptable to the God of the Jews. God's view has not changed...it remains the same today.

To "the God of the Jews", it was unacceptable for a woman to be in a leadership position over men, and it was acceptable (and sometimes encouraged) to own fellow human beings as property. Are you sure that God's view hasn't changed?

 

[Ingledsva]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Here's a little background...the Bible, which contains the early history of the Jews tells us first of all that Abraham was a Hebrew. (Gen. 14:13) All the descendants of his son Isaac also came to be known as Hebrews. Those who sprang from the family of Jacob or Israel, Abraham’s grandson, were also known as Israelites. The term Jew comes from the name of Jacob’s fourth son, Judah, and at first applied only to his family and descendants. The first one to use the term “Jews” was the writer of Second Kings (16:6; 18:26, 28; 25:25). That the two terms, Hebrew and Jew, were considered synonymous as early as the seventh century B.C.E. is noted in Jeremiah 34:9: “Let each one his manservant and each one his maidservant, Hebrew man and Hebrew woman, go free, in order not to use them as servants, that is, a Jew, who is his brother.”[/FONT]

The point I am bringing out is that the Israelites, Jews from the nation of Israel, did not serve as temple prostitutes because it was not acceptable to their god Jehovah. They did not conduct themselves as the nations around them. Sex between men whether sacred or not was not acceptable to the God of the Jews. God's view has not changed...it remains the same today.

Again what does this have to do with the conversation?

We know they were not to be prostitutes - however - we also know they were doing this - they had Temple Prostitutes and idols in the Hebrew Temples. The Bible says so.

That is why they wrote the prohibitions against such.

This goes on over and over in Kings.

 

[Ingledsva]

The point I am bringing out is that the Israelites, Jews from the nation of Israel, did not serve as temple prostitutes because it was not acceptable to their god Jehovah. They did not conduct themselves as the nations around them. Sex between men whether sacred or not was not acceptable to the God of the Jews. God's view has not changed...it remains the same today

To "the God of the Jews", it was unacceptable for a woman to be in a leadership position over men, and it was acceptable (and sometimes encouraged) to own fellow human beings as property. Are you sure that God's view hasn't changed?

She is actually stating an ideal, an idea, a law - the reality is that the ideal/law was created because they were doing such.