Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I guess what I meant was most fundamentalist christians i've talked too. It probably isn't even MOST Christians that feel that way.
Well, I do know what you're getting at. I was talking to my sister-in-law a few weeks ago. She and my husband have an uncle who is gay but celibate (though there was a time when he had a boyfriend, or possibly several). She said that he used to be gay but isn't any more. I told her she was nuts, that he's as gay now as he ever was, but that he is no longer sexually active. She just kept insisting that that means he's no longer gay. I finally gave up. Some people would rather be misinformed, I guess.
Actually that's not true. The greek word for homosexual is "androkoitēs" not "arsenokoites", and your definition of the word is also erroneously adding a huge number of words to a term that we barely understand. arsen means man, and koites means bed with a slight sexual connetation. We don't know enough about ancient Greek to conclude anything beyond that. Given that Paul was fluent in what well understood Greek was at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, it's logical to assume that the use of a totally different word was intentional on his part, and the only other time the word is found is in 1 Timothy. Contemporary (albeit secular) philosophers such as 'Philo' ascribe the word arsenokoitēs to the practice of temple prostitution, which likely refers to sexual practices being sinfully conducted as part of ritual worship and having nothing to do with homosexuality directly at all.
And before you get oldschool and OT with me and start talking about the Hebrew word Kadesh, that is a root derivative of the Hebrew word kedeshah which was a female prostitute, thus seemingly once again referring to acts of male prostitution, or temple prostitution, perhaps the reason that Paul used the term in Corinthians?
So I'm sorry to say it, but you're adding a huge amount to known translations of ancient Greek in your assessment. We simply can't translate a single ancient greek word of that obscurity into a sentance of the length you've proposed with any kind of academic certainty. What we can say with certainty is that the word Paul used was not the word commonly accepted as meaning homosexual in ancient Greek.
We?
Actually it is true, the word means homosexual. And no, I am not talking about OT, but NT. Besides, you don't have to agree with the translation, when Bible is consistent with the message, and puts it in so many different ways that there is simply no way to misunderstand it.
For example:
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Right and think about Christians who never marry and are virgins. They aren't giving into their fleshly desires. I forgot, the OP wants to be happy and his happiness is more important than obeying God.
Well that's an unfortunate tactic of the Devil. Some people would rather believe and accept a lie over the truth for the sake of living a life for themselves, as opposed to living a life that allows them to be as humanly obedient to God because of what God has done for all of us through his Son Jesus Christ.
I think you would feel vastly different on the subject if you were gay. I think you would feel vastly different if you were the one who was told that you could either live a life without true love and God would love you - or you could experience love but you would rot in hell for all eternity. I, personally, don't think God would be that unfair and cruel.
Where does it say that God is fair or has to be fair? I can start a whole new thread just on this topic alone. God isn't fair, nor does he have to be. However He's just and merciful, and that's what the bible teaches about God. Because of his love , he shows mercy and gives us the gift of Grace. HE will be just in judging or dealing with anyone who has rejected Him and His Son.
Actually it is true, the word means homosexual. And no, I am not talking about OT, but NT. Besides, you don't have to agree with the translation, when Bible is consistent with the message, and puts it in so many different ways that there is simply no way to misunderstand it.
For example:
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
I think you are quoting from Romans chapter 1, and by reading that entire chapter in its context, one will find that God even turns these people over to a REPROBATE mind, meaning that they are so engrossed in their sins that they been unfortunately rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.
Finn, I wasn't arguing your interpretation of the Bible on the whole, just that your translation of Ancient Greek was totally and utterly wrong in that one instance. And it is. It's not opinion, or doctrine. Your translation of that word was absolutely, verifiably, provably, wrong in a purely academic sense.
"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
My favorite verse in the entire Bible, because you know what's mentioned there? LUST (and for once, its a correct translation). You know what's missing there? LOVE.
Homosexuality, despite what you've been fed isn't about men becomming so overcome with lust for one another they just screw. Lusty, outside of love relationships of any kind are at issue. Love overrides many sins, it is greater even than Faith. I'm sorry, but there is no reading of the Bible in my mind that has an issue with 2 men who are absolutely in love doing anything privately and within the context of a loving relationship. Lusty fornication is lusty fornication. Love is love. God is love. If you believe that love acting on 2 men and causing them to enter a loving and committed relationship with one another is inherently evil, then you're issue isn't with love at all, it's with God. You can't judge God from his own book. That just doesn't cut it.
Also I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality. It's no more of a sin than gambling, revelry, drunkeness, and yet you don't see hate campaigns attempting to restrict the civil liberties of individuals that gamble, or drink, or party.
Wow, is it really that difficult to separate the concept of the wants and desires of one's body verses one's spirit? Homosexuality, and any thought or action that goes with it, is no different of a sin against the laws of God than if a heterosexual were to entertain the thought or action of intense sexual desire with a person he is not married to.
If a person is gay, and this desire is not even attempted to be overcome on a personal basis, then the person is guilty of transgressing the entire law of God, and not worthy to receive the forgiveness made available to us all.
It's very cut and dry. Black and white, hot and cold, not lukewarm... it might hurt peoples feelings but this is the way God wants people to live in his house. he has his reasons! It's his rules. He's in charge. Take it or leave it. But God will not put his trust in you or hear your prayers or anything until you submit on this point. He's not interested in people who try to figure out a way to love God and still fit homosexuality into their lives. The Holy Spirit does not share space with sin.
Also I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality. It's no more of a sin than gambling, revelry, drunkeness, and yet you don't see hate campaigns attempting to restrict the civil liberties of individuals that gamble, or drink, or party.
It is not a hate campaign, it is the topic of the thread, and it was started by a gay person, if I am not mistaken, so you are wrong on all counts. In a Christian forum people occationally ask what the Bible says about any given topic, and in this case the topic is gay sex, and many posters have shown that the Bible is strictly against such actions. The answers are not assertions since they were backed by verses form the Bible and they are written is such clarity and repeated in so many places that there is absolutely no mistaking their meaning. As it often happens, people are offended by the truth, and thay try to accuse Christians of 'hating' gays. It is not hateful to tell the truth.
Finn, I wasn't referring to this thread when I cited the hate campaign against gays, but a hate campaign against gays by fudamentalist christians is existant, lol, but I like the deflection attempt.
The scripture on the subject is ignorant of historical context and correct translation and interpretation. Self referential interpretation when considering only similarly mistranslated nonsense from within the same mistranslated version of ancient Greek/Hebrew isn't a conducive argument of anything other than rote ignorance.
Repetition does not engender meaning. Your ability to translate ancient Greek into a coherent sentence from a barely understood and deliberately chosen word that does not mean homosexual is indicitive of the point I'm making. That can be repeated as often as it wants to be, but it still doesn't make it true, because its simply an incorrect translation. Read through a lens, I can make the Bible say anything I want it to. I'm not talking about the English version, but if I go through the original Hebrew and Ancient Greek with an eye to interpreting certain vague words a certain way I can produce a coherent translation that God is in fact a duck. In fact a Christian intellectual performed such an exercize just to make the point that when dealing with ancient texts it must be done without any pre-conceived notions as to their meaning except those contained in the original body of text.
That is of course a side issue, the main issue is, does the Bible speak against homosexuality? Perhaps. In certain sections it definitely does list it as sinful (largely in the OT, or in rants in the NT at the Romans for their prostitution driven lifestyle). However removed from the context of the times in which it was written and the clear undeniable fact that it's not the inerrant word of God, nor does it refer to itself as such (I'd love you to try and post scripture to contradict this ascertion because it would be a hearty debate) it can't be relied upon without reference to its historical context.
The only people that hate the truth are fundamentalist Christians who want it to be as simple as one text, one rule, one way. Unfortunately the history of that 'one' text precludes that from being the case.
Anyone asking me to condemn anything speaks against the fundamental tenant that love is the greatest of all virtues, even faith, and that God is love, is in my opinion missing the point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
