Does the New Testament Anywhere Clearly Talk About Homosexuals?

[Jeremy Taylor]

I think you may benefit from looking at it a bit more deeply. There are standards that have to be followed in order for it to be credible.

This misses the point. Psychology is not exact as a science and its frameworks are coloured by philosophical and normative assumptions, especially in this sort of area. I would like to see that this is not the case before I accept that modern psychology has somehow disproven the view that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral as it was understood to be by Paul or others in the past.

It kinda points to the same thing. Not all mental illnesses cause distress.

Yes, some cause disability.

You mean you do not understand why mental illnesses are defined as mental illnesses?

I do not understand why modern psychology's definition should be accepted as a universal definition of all psychic disturbance. Nor I see why homosexuality has to be a mental illness, in the modern sense, to be unnatural or immoral.

 

[dgirl1986]

This misses the point. Psychology is not exact as a science and its frameworks are coloured by philosophical and normative assumptions, especially in this sort of area. I would like to see that this is not the case before I accept that modern psychology has somehow disproven the view that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral as it was understood to be by Paul or others in the past.

Yes, some cause disability.

I do not understand why modern psychology's definition should be accepted as a universal definition of all psychic disturbance. Nor I see why homosexuality has to be a mental illness, in the modern sense, to be unnatural or immoral.

How can you say that if you have never taken a deeper look at it? How can you claim to know what psychology says on the topic of homosexuality and what studies show about homosexuality if you never look for yourself?

Please clarify psychic disturbance.

Yes you stated that in your last post.

 

[Pegg]

For me personally, romance comes way before sexual. I could live without sex but I do not want to live without my gf by my side. Just because we are gay doesnt mean we wont be having kids or trying to adopt kids.

of course not, your natural desire is to have children. And that is why homosexuality is believed to be unnatural...it doesn't allow you to fulfil your natural desires. It becomes a roadblock to our natural desires.

 

[Ingledsva]

I have some knowledge of psychology, but have not studied it professionally. My point was about how one situates modern psychology as a branch of human knowledge, and how it is conducted.




Okay, this is not really pertinent, though. For a start, I believe it is distress which is a key part of the contemporary definition of a mental illness. As Wikipedia puts it:

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not developmentally or socially normative.

I don't see, one, why this alone is the definition of all mental or psychic disturbance and, two, why homosexuality has to be a mental illness in the contemporary sense to be in some sense unnatural or immoral.

It is not unnatural, or immoral!


The religions of Abraham's fantasy world beliefs, do not make it so.


It is appalling in this day and age that same sex adults can't love whom they love, without all this crap.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

of course not, your natural desire is to have children. And that is why homosexuality is believed to be unnatural...it doesn't allow you to fulfil your natural desires. It becomes a roadblock to our natural desires.

Not all people want children.


Nor should pumping out brats to overpopulate the planet, be the end all "desire."


*

 

[allright]

Perversion? You mean the perversion where we actually show hospitality, shelter the stranger, include the outcast, free the oppressed, and show respect for other human beings? The one where we actually stand up against discrimination, like MLK did in 1963? The one where we refuse to permit the systemic violence perpetrated upon minorities? That perversion? The perversion where we allow those who are socially considered "unclean" to touch us? The perversion that calls for a whole humanity instead of a humanity where some are treated as less than human? That perversion?

You think this is an "issue" with "sides" that can be "won." News flash: it's not a contest that some "win" and some "lose." We are humanity -- a whole humanity, in all of our differences and disagreements. This is about being that whole humanity. Join us. We need you.

I was mainly referring to perverting Gods word and character to say that those who practice this sin are acceptable to him.

The Bible uses the word "abomination" to describe it

 

[allright]

Also Josephus wrote the same thing as Paul did about sex acts between men and He was a Jew.

Jesus did'nt mention a lot of different sins that were were accepted as evil by all Jews.

He did'nt mention cannibalism. According to your nonsense since he didnt say anything about it therefore its okay with God

What a joke

 

[Jainarayan]

This entire debate hinges on the authority of Paul, which = none as far as I'm concerned. Christianity today is not Christianity, it is Paulism. Paul speaks of a vision w/ Jesus but there are conflicting accounts, even within different translations of the bible. However, in Acts 9, Jesus only tells Paul to proclaim Jesus's name. Jesus says nothing about making up the rules:

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

...

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

There's nothing to indicate Jesus gave Paul any kind of authority. Even in Romans 1, Paul is giving a narrative of what happened in the past, he is not laying down laws. He uses the phrase "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts... ". 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them is nothing more than Paul's re-iteration of Leviticus, which is not binding on Christians.

 

[Jainarayan]

He did'nt mention cannibalism. According to your nonsense since he didnt say anything about it therefore its okay with God

Jesus didn't have to mention cannibalism. Murder for the purpose of consuming a human is not OK. I don't know of any verse that prohibits eating an already dead human.

 

[Jainarayan]

of course not, your natural desire is to have children. And that is why homosexuality is believed to be unnatural...it doesn't allow you to fulfil your natural desires. It becomes a roadblock to our natural desires.

Suppose a man and woman desperately want to have a child but cannot? Is their marriage unnatural because they can't fulfill their natural desires? What about old people? Unnatural? The "homosexuals can't have children" excuse would be laughable in the extreme if it weren't such a desperate reach. Moreover, we can and do make babies.

 

[Nada]

ING - BULL - she also preached, it says so, see above. It uses the same word as when Jesus PREACHED.



*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are still incorrect.In Luke 2:38 it never uses the word preach in that passage.The actual word used is spoke.

38 ἐλάλει
spoke

HERE IT IS IN GREEK

καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα ἀνθωμολογεῖτο τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ
and She at that hour having come up giving praise to the Lord and spoke concerning

αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν Ἰερουσαλήμ*
him to all those waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem

IT NEVER SAYS PREACH.IT SAYS SPOKE.

In the holy scriptures when it speaks of Jesus preaching,like in Matthew 4:17, it uses this word.
κηρύσσειν it means to preach or proclaim.

Also in Matthew 4:23 it uses this word for preaching as well. κηρύσσων

These words mean to preach or proclaim: κηρύσσειν κηρύσσων




This word means spoke ἐλάλει,like in the case of Anna in Luke 2:38.

If you see the word preach in an english translation of Luke 2:38 ,it is a mistranslation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you don't read Greek, you shouldn't use it in an argument.

***
From the UBS Lexicon
laleo = speak, talk, say; preach, proclaim; tell; be able to speak; address, converse (with); promise (of God); sound (of thunder)

***
From Thayer
to announce or preach the word of God or the doctrine of salvation

 

[Nada]

If you don't read Greek, you shouldn't use it in an argument.

***
From the UBS Lexicon
laleo = speak, talk, say; preach, proclaim; tell; be able to speak; address, converse (with); promise (of God); sound (of thunder)

***
From Thayer
to announce or preach the word of God or the doctrine of salvation

I see how you stated Laleo means speak.There are also this.
Luke 2:38 V-IIA-3S
GRK: θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ
NAS: to God, and continued to speak of Him to all
KJV: unto the Lord, and spake of him
INT: Lord and spoke concerning him


In the Strong's concordance it says this.

Strong's Concordance

laleó: to talk
Original Word: λαλέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: laleó
Phonetic Spelling: (lal-eh'-o)
Short Definition: I speak, say
Definition: (I talk, chatter in classical Greek, but in NT a more dignified word) I speak, say.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from lalos (talkative)
Definition
to talk
NASB Translation
made (1), proclaiming (1), said (6), say (5), saying (7), says (2), speak (95), speak forth (1), speaking (54), speaks (25), spoke (44), spoken (38), stating (1), talked (1), talking (5), tell (1), telling (1), things spoken (2), told (7), uttered (1), whispered* (1).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2980: λαλέω

λαλέω, λαλῶ; imperfect 3 person singular ἐλάλει, plural ἐλάλουν; future λαλήσω; 1 aorist ἐλάλησα; perfect λελάληκα; passive, present λαλοῦμαι; perfect λελάλημαι; 1 aorist ἐλαλήθην; 1 future λαληθήσομαι:

It points out 20 occurrences of this word ἐλάλει.One of them is in Luke 2:38

ἐλάλει — 20 Occ.

Luke 2:38 V-IIA-3S
GRK: θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ
NAS: to God, and continued to speak of Him to all
KJV: unto the Lord, and spake of him
INT: Lord and spoke concerning him

It never meant that she preached in the congregation.She spoke to them about Jesus.

imperfect 3 person singular ἐλάλει, from the word Laleo which means to talk.

2980 [e] elalei ἐλάλει spoke V-IIA-3S

καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα ἀνθωμολογεῖτο τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν Ἰερουσαλήμ.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 21 versions from different bibles that use the word spoke and never preached.

Luke 2:38 And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

When it mentions Jesus preaching, it says just that,preaching.Or proclaiming.It uses these specific words.

Matthew 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."

Matthew 4:23 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

This word ἐλάλει, speak, is never used in Matthew 4:17 or 4:23.The words used there are κηρύσσειν and κηρύσσων which mean preached and proclaimed

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Like I said. If you can't read Greek, you shouldn't use it in an argument.

 

[Nada]

Thanks for your opinion

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks for your opinion

It's not an opinion. It's valuable advice.

1) You are referring to the same word as two different words because you don't know how the language functions

2) You are unable to access lexicons because you don't know the lexical form of any of the words that you incorrectly refer to

3) You have no experience with translating Greek so you cannot compare all of the appearances of the word in the NT and the rest of the Greek language

4) You don't know the difference between a majority translation and a relevant minor translation that is true to the lexical contexts

5) You cite Strong's and apply it terribly

As such, you are embarrassing yourself with a hopelessly inadequate argument because you don't have the competence to check yourself.

 

[Nada]

It's not an opinion. It's valuable advice.

1) You are referring to the same word as two different words because you don't know how the language functions

2) You are unable to access lexicons because you don't know the lexical form of any of the words that you incorrectly refer to

3) You have no experience with translating Greek so you cannot compare all of the appearances of the word in the NT and the rest of the Greek language

4) You don't know the difference between a majority translation and a relevant minor translation that is true to the lexical contexts

5) You cite Strong's and apply it terribly

As such, you are embarrassing yourself with a hopelessly inadequate argument because you don't have the competence to check yourself.

Im not embarrassed.When you speak to me,do so in a good manner.Do not be arrogant and rude and try to hurt me with words.If you cant explain it me without being rude don't speak to me at all.Have a nice day

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Im not embarrassed.When you speak to me,do so in a good manner.Do not be arrogant and rude and try to hurt me with words.If you cant explain it me without being rude don't speak to me at all.Have a nice day

Do you think that it's polite to type in bold font, all caps, asserting things that you obviously know nothing about?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

HERE IT IS IN GREEK

IT NEVER SAYS PREACH.IT SAYS SPOKE.

If you see the word preach in an english translation of Luke 2:38 ,it is a mistranslation.

To which I politely note - if you don't read Greek, it's not a good idea to use it in an argument, particularly when you're being this assertive.

 

[Nada]

Do you think that it's polite to type in bold font, all caps, asserting things that you obviously know nothing about?

Im only using the bold to separate words and make them stand out.Just like when I underline words too.I sometimes use all caps as a heading statement. Strong's Concordance does this.I don't think they are screaming at me.So does Thayer's Greek Lexicon.