what do you feel is wrong with homosexuality?

[Autodidact]

The law you are refering to in Lev 18 specifies male as it is being written to the priesthood. However as this section on sexual morality is taken into account along with the book song of songs which is included in the canon as a sign of how a relationship is intended. As well the first relationship was not created man and man nor woman and woman but rather man and woman!

Well, the patriarchs had many wives, but most modern Christians don't take that as an example.

Speaking of an example, the OT has a beautiful example of the love between two women: Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God...

And remember, God did not prohibit them from expressing this love physically.

 

[astarath]

You don't seem to be aware that there are thousands of Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, and an entire mainstream Christian Church with outreach to the gay community. Perhaps you've heard of [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Reverend V. Gene Robinson?[/SIZE][/FONT]

I am part of such a church that reaches out to the gay community and invites them in with open arms.

 

[astarath]

When you say a relationship is "intended" a certain way, you introduce a third party into the relationship, the one who intends. But a relationship is really between two parties, and they're the only ones who get to "intend".

This is clarified in the epistles in which Paul describes a marriage and the cord of 3 strands!

 

[astarath]

You mean you follow Leviticus? No shellfish? No ham? No beard trimming or mixed fabrics?

btw, even those verses are unclear. Remember, you're translating here from ancient Hebrew--very uncertain enterprise. The phrase goes something like man-man-bed-woman-not. Not totally clear what is referred to.

What is absolutely indisputable is that lesbianism is not mentioned once in the OT. Zero. Zip. Silencio. 613 commandments, but none against that. In other words: it's permitted. Get over your prejudice about what you think it ought to say and read what it actually does say.

You only read half my statement and as such only understood half the point. The OT defines sin and Grace forgives it in the new. All people are guilty of sin it is only through Christ that one is saved or condemned. This is true regardless of the sin. (Homosexuality, adultery, lying, idolatry,...)

 

[astarath]

Most Christians consider themselves to have been relieved from the OT purity taboos by the redemption of Christ. Perhaps you're not familiar with this concept?

read below!

 

[astarath]

Well, the patriarchs had many wives, but most modern Christians don't take that as an example.

Speaking of an example, the OT has a beautiful example of the love between two women: Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God...

And remember, God did not prohibit them from expressing this love physically.

First quote the verse. Second understand the laws of sin are not applicable to only one sex but rather both man and woman. As a christian marriage dictates that a union can only be blessed by God if joining a woman and a man this places any homosexual love both gay and lesbian in constant adultery. This would make that style of love sexually immoral.

 

[Smoke]

This is clarified in the epistles in which Paul describes a marriage and the cord of 3 strands!

Why is an "Ebionite" citing Paul?

The OT defines sin

You have yet to provide any Old Testament scripture that forbids lesbianism. It seems to me that someone who respects the Bible will refrain from misrepresenting what it says.

 

[astarath]

Why is an "Ebionite" citing Paul?

You have yet to provide any Old Testament scripture that forbids lesbianism. It seems to me that someone who respects the Bible will refrain from misrepresenting what it says.

Why would I not? Although he was not an apostle there are prophetic words within his words. His epistles as a whole are not valid from the view of an ebionite but there are several words when tested hold validity to Christ's teachings!

Read the above post!

 

[astarath]

Second understand the laws of sin are not applicable to only one sex but rather both man and woman. As a christian marriage dictates that a union can only be blessed by God if joining a woman and a man this places any homosexual love both gay and lesbian in constant adultery. This would make that style of love sexually immoral.

 

[Smoke]

Why would I not? Although he was not an apostle there are prophetic words within his words. His epistles as a whole are not valid from the view of an ebionite but there are several words when tested hold validity to Christ's teachings!

How convenient. If you could find what you want to prove in the teachings of Jesus, you wouldn't have to have recourse to Paul; Paul is not being tested, in this case, against the teachings of Jesus, but against what you would prefer that Jesus' teachings had been.

Read the above post!

This one?

Second understand the laws of sin are not applicable to only one sex but rather both man and woman.

What law, specifically, are you referring to? Can you quote it?

 

[astarath]

No this one: As a christian marriage dictates that a union can only be blessed by God if joining a woman and a man this places any homosexual love both gay and lesbian in constant adultery. This would make that style of love sexually immoral.

 

[astarath]

I use teachings of God affirmed by the spirit to "prove" my arguments. Though some of Paul's statements are self serving and articles of his own works as a prophet he does share the Word of God.

 

[Smoke]

No this one: As a christian marriage dictates that a union can only be blessed by God if joining a woman and a man

And where do you find that in the Torah? Where do you find it in the teachings of Jesus? "Can only be blessed"? No, you won't find that at all. If you respect the teachings of Jesus, you should not misrepresent them.

 

[astarath]

As I respect the teachings of Jesus my stance on homosexuality is the same now as at the beginning of the thread. All sins are forgiven through the sacrifice at Calvary. My stance as a christian is that homosexual relationships though not as God intended are a no greater sin than any of the others. I openly welcome and love all people regardless of sexual orientation as brothers and sisters of Christ and hope they find redemption through belief in his redeeming grace. Its now midnight and I have to work in the morning please PM me any further thoughts and I will pray for you and all atheist queers to become Christian Queers!

 

[McBell]

No this one: As a christian marriage dictates that a union can only be blessed by God if joining a woman and a man this places any homosexual love both gay and lesbian in constant adultery. This would make that style of love sexually immoral.

Verses please.

 

[Smoke]

My stance as a christian is that homosexual relationships though not as God intended are a no greater sin than any of the others.

That's better than we get from most Christians, but it's still your stance. You still haven't been able to cite any teaching of Jesus (regarding either male or female homosexuality) or any teaching from the Torah (regarding female homosexuality) to back up your stance. But admitting that the stance is yours, and not Jesus', is a start.

I will pray for you and all atheist queers to become Christian Queers!

Thanks for the good intentions, I guess, but I've already been a Christian queer before, and I've found that going back to your ex just reminds you why you broke up in the first place.

 

[McBell]

I've found that going back to your ex just reminds you why you broke up in the first place.

Amen!

 

[astarath]

the church you returned to is your ex, try one that welcomes you as a total equal! But thanks for understanding that I pray for you in good intent!

 

[doppelganger]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/47922-some-notes-paul-homosexuality.html

I think malakoi (in some of its connotations) is closer to what modern English speakers mean by "homosexual" then the word usually relied on by religious conservatives: arsenokoitēs.

But in none of the major English translations is malakoi translated as "homosexual." KJV and NAS has "effeminate" while NIV and NLT have it translated as "male prostitutes." The ESV translates both malakos and arsenokoitēs together as "men who practice homosexuality," which is interesting, but I'm not aware of anywhere else in the Greek of the time where the two words are used together in the way the ESV translation suggests.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think malakoi (in some of its connotations) is closer to what modern English speakers mean by "homosexual" then the word usually relied on by religious conservatives: arsenokoitēs.

But in none of the major English translations is malakoi translated as "homosexual." KJV and NAS has "effeminate" while NIV and NLT have it translated as "male prostitutes." The ESV translates both malakos and arsenokoitēs together as "men who practice homosexuality," which is interesting, but I'm not aware of anywhere else in the Greek of the time where the two words are used together in the way the ESV translation suggests.

Obviously they are wrong. The modern ambiguity and confusion of the word is artificial. By the way, many translations preserve the homosexual nature of Romans 1 (and elsewhere) where malakoi is used without arsenokoi.

The translation "male prostitutes" does not come from the word arsenokoi or malakoi, but from the absolutely incorrect notion that Paul or any of his contemporaries could have known about life-long, committed homosexual relationships. It appears in Plato's famous Symposium, which was part of a basic Hellenistic education, and its ideas resurface not only in every philosophical school (either accepted or challenged) but Plutarch (a first century writer) patterns his dialogue on love (an extensive debate and speech on many forms of love, including homosexuality) after it. The "male prostitute" translation is an artificial attempt to force Paul to say something that he does not according to incorrect assumptions about his own education.

The reason why arsenokoiti does not appear anywhere else is because (I believe) it only appears in Paul. It's a hapex legomena.