Homosexuality and the Bible...

[Melody]

I think all the different translations play a major role in the confusion we get into and not necessarily the text themselves all the time. I guess it's ones responsibility to search their own hearts too in what is meant a lot of the time, don't you? I imagine it would be important to pray for God's guidance prior to reading most scriptures and trust in Him to lay the truth on ones heart.

I absolutely agree with you. I believe the answers are to be found in prayer and reading because ultimately it doesn't matter whether some pastor/church/religion says something is ok. I'm the one who is going to be standing in front of God and I somehow doubt "but they said..." is going to cut it.

 

[linwood]

*** Romans 1:24-27 ***
both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene

Yeah it`s weird how the Bible is full of contradictions ain`t it?

*** 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ***

9 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, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

Umm..exactly what version of the Bible are you using?
This is more than just a bit off.

Are you using the NRHV?
(New Revised Homophobic Version)

1Corinthians 6: 9-11

9

h ouk oidate oti adikoi basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin mh planasqe oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moicoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10

oute kleptai oute pleonektai oute mequsoi ou loidoroi ouc arpageV basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11

kai tauta tineV hte alla apelousasqe alla hgiasqhte all edikaiwqhte en tw onomati tou kuriou ihsou kai en tw pneumati tou qeou hmwn
6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

So having a "Gay" pastor, priest or father is a "no, no" and not up for discussion. God doesn't approve plain and simple. Same sex relations is verboten.

I agree entirely.
Why did he overlook it for David and Jonathan?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

It's much better to use something other than a translation from the middle ages for the basis of whether homosexuality was and is permissable in God's eyes. Afterall those early English translations mistook the word "cow" for "unicorn".

Perhaps it was not a mistake. There are unicorns still on this earth, and since they tend to be gentle creatures, there are only a few things that they will rise up against. These are hatred, bigotry and intolerance.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

.... what do those bible versus have to do with homosexuality itself. could it be that its a sin to be so lustful, whether you be straight or gay? its up to interpretation.

 

[Jaymes]

As far as I'm concerned, the path to hell is paved with pork, shrimp, and shirts made of more than one material. A bit of gay lovin' mixed in with all the other abominations isn't going to hurt anyone. :bonk:

 

[linwood]

King James Version
---------------------
NUMBERS 23:22 hath as it were the strength of an UNICORN.
NUMBERS 24:8 the strength of an UNICORN: he shall eat up
JOB 39:9 Will the UNICORN be willing to serve thee, or
JOB 39:10 Canst thou bind the UNICORN with his band in
PSALMS 29:6 a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young UNICORN.
PSALMS 92:10 the horn of an UNICORN: I shall be anointed


We aren`t discussing these verses.

We`re discussing the verses you posted which were obviously transliterated for an ulterior purpose.

If you have problems with the translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 I posted please show how it is incorrect instead of showing how different unapplicable verses in KJV are incorrect.

The fact that there are mistakes in the KJV isn`t a secret, as you yourself have shown there isn`t a Bible that exists that hasn`t been either honestly or purposely mistranslated.

Please show me how the translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is incorrect and I will concede and we will move on.

Mind you the NWT is modern English just like it says "New" World Translation. And since Sodom had men that didn't want the women that Lot sent out of his house and they only wanted the newly arrived strangers to have sex with. And then God answered their actions by having the angels blind them before God sent down fire and sulfur, I think this is a "tell" to what God thinks is permissable.

I am not arguing that homosexuality is condoned by God.
I have already stated that the Bible specifically condemns it.
I am arguing that the Bible is inconsistent in its condemnation and contradicts itself with its edicts.

The very book you cite here (Lot)shows Gods willingness to ignore his own rules by allowing incest, rape, and pre-marital sex .

Homosexuality is bad but rape and incest is ok.

Doesn`t sound right to me.

 

[Melody]

I am not arguing that homosexuality is condoned by God.
I have already stated that the Bible specifically condemns it.
I am arguing that the Bible is inconsistent in its condemnation and contradicts itself with its edicts.

The very book you cite here (Job)shows Gods willingness to ignore his own rules by allowing incest, rape, and pre-marital sex .

Homosexuality is bad but rape and incest is ok.

Doesn`t sound right to me.

When I read this passage, I do not see where God (or Lot) is approving of rape, incest or pre-marital sex. Nor do I see anything in the Bible that suggests that homosexuality is a worse sin than any other. All sins are the same in God's eyes (sorry my Bible is at home or I would quote the verse).

On the surface it seems horrific that Lot would sacrifice his daughters for these strangers but he had extended hospitality to these strangers and at that time and place, it was not something taken lightly. He probably felt duty bound to protect them at all costs and, I have no doubt, he placed his trust in the Lord as to the future outcome. Who is to say if the daughters had been sent out that God would not have blinded the crowd and so spared the daughters as well. It would not be the first time where God tested a believer's faith by asking for the thing most dear to their heart (Isaac and Jacob).

 

[linwood]

When I read this passage, I do not see where God (or Lot) is approving of rape, incest or pre-marital sex. Nor do I see anything in the Bible that suggests that homosexuality is a worse sin than any other. All sins are the same in God's eyes (sorry my Bible is at home or I would quote the verse).

Offering his virgin daughters to the crowd in order to spare the strangers = pre-marital sex & rape.

Lots daughters having sex with him in the cave constitutes incest & rape.
Lot being to drunk to wake up to ever know this act happened constitutes fantasy.

This whole tale shows that God holds woman as nothing more than property to be used however a man wishes.

On the surface it seems horrific that Lot would sacrifice his daughters for these strangers but he had extended hospitality to these strangers and at that time and place, it was not something taken lightly.

Justify it however you like but it doesn`t change what it is.
This just further proves my belief that the Bible has no pertinent moral guidance in this day and age.

It would not be the first time where God tested a believer's faith by asking for the thing most dear to their heart (Isaac and Jacob).

So you see that God did indeed ask Lot to directly break his laws.

What are we arguing about?

The justification?

There isn`t any in my mind.

 

[dan]

First off, that is a mistranslation where Lot offers his daughters. The real verse reads, "Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men , and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good." It's the guys who demand the men that want the daughters also.

Secondly, God does not condone Lot's actions, nonetheless, incest was not a moral law back then. How do you think Adam and Eve had grandchildren? Shoot, how do you think they had children, they were brother and sister?

Thirdly, if you understood the Bible or Jewish law at all you would know that God holds women to higher standards than men. Did you know that the Torah makes sex a right for women in marriage, but not for men? If a man is not stisfying his wife as much as she sees fit to require the man is guilty of transgression, but not so the other way around. Jewish tradition (that of the Old Testament) holds that women were closer to God's ideal than men. It states that God gives women more intelligence than men, and it states that no women took part in the worship of the Golden Calf. The Torah says a woman always has the right to prosecute rape, whether she enjoyed it or not; as long as she initially did not consent she cannot be held responsible. It cannot be argued that the roles are different, but nowhere (except in the heads of already bigoted people) does the woman's role take a back seat to the man's.

You are the one reaching for justification of the opinion you have created devoid of any reason or process of logic. You don't like the Bible because it leaves a bad taste in your mouth so you seek out ways to discredit it only to make your position feel like the right one. You neither understand the Bible, nor are correct in your assertions.

 

[dan]

That sentence in the second to last paragraph should read, "It cannot be argued that the roles are not different." My apologies.

 

[linwood]

First off, that is a mistranslation where Lot offers his daughters. The real verse reads, "Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men , and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good." It's the guys who demand the men that want the daughters also.

Please provide reference this translation.

Secondly, God does not condone Lot's actions, nonetheless, incest was not a moral law back then. How do you think Adam and Eve had grandchildren? Shoot, how do you think they had children, they were brother and sister?

The point is that God doesn`t condemn Lots actions as Christianity seems to do to homosexuality today.

God has numerous double standards.

Thirdly, if you understood the Bible or Jewish law at all you would know that God holds women to higher standards than men.

This is laughable.

[font=Arial, Helvetica]Leviticus 12:2
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]Leviticus 12:5
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

The above shows that God believes a female is more unclean than a male.at birth

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]Corinthians 11:3
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]Corinthians 11:8-9
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man

Above is an obvious statement of male superiority
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Judges 19:24-25
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go

Yet another female is treated as cattle by a man in the Bible with no condemnation from God.
He accepts it and promotes it
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti002.html#11"]I Timothy 2:11-14
[/font][/url][font=Arial, Helvetica]Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression

Just shut the hell up woman!
You`ve alreay screwed up the whole Garden of Eden gig.

I can do this all day.
To even imply that the Bible gives women a fair shake is ludicrous.


[/font]

It cannot be argued that the roles are different, but nowhere (except in the heads of already bigoted people) does the woman's role take a back seat to the man's.

I think I`m putting up a pretty good argument that the roles are entirely different.
Women in the Bible aren`t taking a back seat, their being dragged behind the vehicle.

You are the one reaching for justification of the opinion you have created devoid of any reason or process of logic. You don't like the Bible because it leaves a bad taste in your mouth so you seek out ways to discredit it only to make your position feel like the right one. You neither understand the Bible, nor are correct in your assertions.

You are quick to analize people you`ve never met to the point of ad hominum.
I need no justification for my opinion and no persons position is the "right" one for everyone.

My assertions come from my literal reading of Biblical text.

You are the one who thinks women are mens equals in the Bible with absolutely no consistent scripture to support it.

Go figure.

 

[dan]

What you're doing is saying, "Look! It's in the Bible so God must think it's O.K." God does not condone those actions you've talked about, nor are they representative of the ancient Jewish law. Now, I spoke of O.T. scriptures, and your interpretation of N.T. scripture is fallacious.

The Judges scripture only shows just how wicked they had grown without the Torah. Did you know that that's why they had judges instead of a prophet and unity? They weren't really obeying the law.

The Leviticus scriptures speak of ceremonial uncleanliness. It says nothing of worthiness. The dead were also unclean, and if you were near a dead person you were unclean. Does that mean you're a bad person in God's eyes because you walked by a dead guy? Your interpretation is once again fallacious. Your literal interpretations are a joke. You interpret without understanding the history or context, making your conclusions innaccurate and childish.

As faras God's "double standards" go, there was no standard during Lot's time saying Thou shalt not do this, that or the other. God did not condemn his actions because he did not break any laws. Homosexuality is agaisnt the aws of God. It is abomination, I recall the Bible saying. Where does it say that what Lot did was wrong prior to Genesis 19?

I stand by my argumentum ad hominem. If I'm correct in my argument I don't see how it's a bad thing for me to point it out. You have done nothing but prove that you have a remarkable ability to regurgitate what others have falsely assumed about scripture. You have yet to correctly interpret a single scripture. Why don't you go think for yourself for once, like my church tells me to do. And the reference is JST Genesis 19:11.

 

[dan]

Also, I edited my post. I meant to say that the roles were different, and they are, but different does not mean better and worse. Why do crusaders against religion insist that different means this when talking about women and men, but all our other differences (ethnicity, age, religion, sexual orientation) must not be interpreted that way? Men and women have different roles and different functions, but one is no better than the other. Be consistent.

 

[linwood]

Also, I edited my post. I meant to say that the roles were different, and they are, but different does not mean better and worse. Why do crusaders against religion insist that different means this when talking about women and men, but all our other differences (ethnicity, age, religion, sexual orientation) must not be interpreted that way? Men and women have different roles and different functions, but one is no better than the other. Be consistent.

I am not the one being unconsistent.
I am not arguing that men and women can`t have different roles and still be equal

Your Bible does not describe "Different but Equal" roles for men and women.

The very few verses I`ve posted here show a depth of inequality that brings one gender under the control of the other.

You are attempting to change the argument .

I am merely stating that Biblical scripture holds a male superior view of the two different genders.
Not that they are different but that they are unequal.

However this is not the topic of this thread.

if you wish to continue this lets move it here..

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=67289#post67289

 

[t3gah]

.... what do those bible versus have to do with homosexuality itself. could it be that its a sin to be so lustful, whether you be straight or gay? its up to interpretation.

Those are other translations so everyone can see how similar each Bible translation is of the account where all the male inhabitants of Sodom wanted to have sex with the two new stranges who were in Lot's house. Both of which were the angels God sent to Sodom to investigate the goings on before destroying the entire city. What it has to do with homosexuality is pretty evident. All the men wanted to have sex with the angels God sent. Granted they didn't know they were angels by the lack of evidence in the account.

As for people being lustful in general there are scores of accounts throughout the scriptures both in Hebrew and Greek that attest to that factor.

The problem with the world today is the same it was when the Romans were the world power. Homosexuality was rampant as thus considered ok because of first hand knowledge that many or most were harmless towards heterosexuals. Just like anyone else except for their sexual preference. Well, according to the scriptures posted, those accounts is what God thinks about it. We people can say whatever we like but the examples have been laid out for all to see. There's an ongoing argument over what the translation of a Greek term meaning "effeminate" means for the masses but that's another story entirely. The key thought that God has towards "Gay" is he doesn't approve or he wouldn't have destroyed Sodom.

Otherwise God would have made us all asexual or pregnant at birth so we could be man/man or woman/woman and it would be "no harm, no foul". But the situation is that God made Adam and Eve and then blessed them to be fruitful and produce many children. Since men can't spawn children with other men and the same goes true with women to women scenario's, nature, which God is the creator of, has spoken. Homosexuality is contrary to nature and God's design. Homophobic is a term mankind made up for society to mask over negative feelings others have for "Gay" persons. To make those who think "normal" think they aren't. To categorize them into a mould of persons with closed minds when it, homosexuality which was around in Abraham's time is wrong plain and simple. This is not intolernance like people think. Your vantage and viewpoint are skewed if you believe "Gay" and "homosexuality" are alright. The back of your front is an "output only device". And women's role is to have babies by having intercourse with their husband and fill the earth with the blessing God gave in the garden of Eden.

And the accounts with the apostle Saul (Paul) who received his insight from Yehoshua (Jesus) stating what he did in the book of Romans, being womanlike is mannerism in those days, thousands of years ago for God's choosen people was a "no, no". Yehoshua made his ways known to a Pharisee who was well versed in the Mosaic Law and the likes/dislikes of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9,10 state that people were declared saved because they repented and stopped being effeminate. Most likely a term used back then like the derogatory modern term "******" which many people still use today to signify homosexual. The dictionary however states "******" is a bundle of sticks. Most likely the "effeminate" term used in the Greek scriptures was well known to the inhabitants back in Yehoshua's time as to something everyone knew. We'll never really know that one for sure and that's why the divine judgement in Sodom's case is a telltale sign of just what God permits.

Homosexuals can repent or not repent. They can't change what happened to Sodom or God's viewpoint of it. It's done. Homosexuals can either stop being "gay" (homosexual) and be saved in the end with everyone who submits to God's rules or keep being "Gay" and suffer what Sodom and Gomorrah suffered. Utter annihilation.

Any faith that goes around the scriptures to allow "Gay" anyone to be married or teach anyone is going against the judgement that God had put to papyrus/leather with the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[linwood]

And thats why I`m an infidel.

Thank God.

 

[Jaymes]

"You know God is made up when he hates the same people you do."

 

[linwood]

"You know God is made up when he hates the same people you do."

So true.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

"You know God is made up when he hates the same people you do."

:sarcastic I always did think that was bit of a coincidence.

 

[t3gah]

This is something I don't understand... Practicing homosexuals claim to be Christians while both the New and Old Testament of the Bible condemn the homosexual act. What do you all make of this?

The definition of "Christian" is someone who follows the teachings of the Christ both in profession and life. Those who do not are no longer "Christians" they are "apostate Christians".:tsk:

_______________________________________________________________
(Proverbs 11:9)
By [his] mouth the one who is an apostate brings his fellowman to ruin, but by knowledge are the righteous rescued.