Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: Misconceptions Of Christianity

[linaloki]

GoGoillusionz

linaloki

Thelostcup

Garsh, it's not gays that God hates, its the sexual immorality, which paul covers in his letters to the Romans.

Quite correct. Sexual immorality which, strangely enough, according to Paul, was not homosexuality. 3nodding

Just curious. What is Sexual Immorality?

According to the Book of Romans, prolific sex (prostitution), and lustful sex.

[GoGoillusionz]

linaloki

GoGoillusionz

linaloki

Thelostcup

Garsh, it's not gays that God hates, its the sexual immorality, which paul covers in his letters to the Romans.

Quite correct. Sexual immorality which, strangely enough, according to Paul, was not homosexuality. 3nodding

Just curious. What is Sexual Immorality?

According to the Book of Romans, prolific sex (prostitution), and lustful sex.

Oh, ok. I see. I learn something everyday.

[Macaroni Jesus]

FerretPrince

All in the intent? Does this mean that I can still have sex with other men so long as I tell myself that we are trying to get a baby? :3

Uh, I dont think it works exactly that way.
I just know that the rules on how it works have been worked out to the finest detail but sadly I am not an expert

[linaloki]

FlowingPeace

linaloki

FlowingPeace

linaloki

FlowingPeace

As stated by another, though, 'homosexual' is origionally translated from Malakos, meaning "Soft to the touch". Also, Offender is generally used in relation to the breaking of a law. So that would mean that this particulat passage refers to the violation of that which is soft, (i.e. the young males as was commonplace at the time)

ninja As I said, roots of the words aren't my specialty. I know where to find the sources, but my work is strictly in-Bible.

That's fine. Yet, the thing to know is that it was common for the wealthier Greeks of the time to take young men more or less as prostitutes. This is where the "soft to the touch" argument comes in to refer to those of fair skin. As times were harsher in those days due to the increase in sustainable agriculture, being fair skinned was rare in people of either gender, but especially males. While this could be constued as a verse to ward off pedafiles, the previous words referring to 'male prostetutes points towards the likelyhood of it being of the homosexual nature.

[nod] It states that lust and prolific unmarried sex are the sins referred to as "sexual immorality" in the Book of Romans. Male prostitution and ***** prostitution would fit those categories.

So, in general, I think it can be agreed upon that while homosexual sex is indeed wrong, people shouldn't be throwing their sticks and stones unless they themselves are free of *drumroll for the word of the day* lasciviousness.

I still don't see how all homosexual sex is wrong. We covered male prostitution and child prostitution, but the Book of 1 Corinthians says that all prostitution is bad. And in Romans, it states that lust is sexual immorality. It never says homosexual sex, as long as it isn't lustful or whoring.

[linaloki]

GoGoillusionz

linaloki

GoGoillusionz

linaloki

Thelostcup

Garsh, it's not gays that God hates, its the sexual immorality, which paul covers in his letters to the Romans.

Quite correct. Sexual immorality which, strangely enough, according to Paul, was not homosexuality. 3nodding

Just curious. What is Sexual Immorality?

According to the Book of Romans, prolific sex (prostitution), and lustful sex.

Oh, ok. I see. I learn something everyday.

Sorry, slight mistake. Romans covers the lust, but 1 Corinthians covers the whoring. It's in Topic 4 on the first post.

[goldmule2]

linaloki

FlowingPeace

linaloki

FlowingPeace

linaloki

FlowingPeace

As stated by another, though, 'homosexual' is origionally translated from Malakos, meaning "Soft to the touch". Also, Offender is generally used in relation to the breaking of a law. So that would mean that this particulat passage refers to the violation of that which is soft, (i.e. the young males as was commonplace at the time)

ninja As I said, roots of the words aren't my specialty. I know where to find the sources, but my work is strictly in-Bible.

That's fine. Yet, the thing to know is that it was common for the wealthier Greeks of the time to take young men more or less as prostitutes. This is where the "soft to the touch" argument comes in to refer to those of fair skin. As times were harsher in those days due to the increase in sustainable agriculture, being fair skinned was rare in people of either gender, but especially males. While this could be constued as a verse to ward off pedafiles, the previous words referring to 'male prostetutes points towards the likelyhood of it being of the homosexual nature.

[nod] It states that lust and prolific unmarried sex are the sins referred to as "sexual immorality" in the Book of Romans. Male prostitution and ***** prostitution would fit those categories.

So, in general, I think it can be agreed upon that while homosexual sex is indeed wrong, people shouldn't be throwing their sticks and stones unless they themselves are free of *drumroll for the word of the day* lasciviousness.

I still don't see how all homosexual sex is wrong. We covered male prostitution and child prostitution, but the Book of 1 Corinthians says that all prostitution is bad. And in Romans, it states that lust is sexual immorality. It never says homosexual sex, as long as it isn't lustful or whoring.

Sex was God's gift to married couples. It was only meant for a man and his wife. Marriage started with Adam and Eve. It is between a man and woman. According to the Bible any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

[Imagine Eisley]

^.^ Woo mad props for doing your homework. I'm a Christian who's all for homosexuality. I could careless if the Bible said it was good or bad. I've got homosexual friends and as far as I'm concerned they are happy the way they are, and I'm fine with it. smile

[With Motion]

goldmule2

Sex was God's gift to married couples. It was only meant for a man and his wife. Marriage started with Adam and Eve. It is between a man and woman. According to the Bible any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

If sex is god's gift to married couples...then why are humans even physically capable of having sex out of wedlock? Hell, why are animals capable of having sex?

[FlowingPeace]

linaloki

FlowingPeace

linaloki

FlowingPeace

linaloki

FlowingPeace

As stated by another, though, 'homosexual' is origionally translated from Malakos, meaning "Soft to the touch". Also, Offender is generally used in relation to the breaking of a law. So that would mean that this particulat passage refers to the violation of that which is soft, (i.e. the young males as was commonplace at the time)

ninja As I said, roots of the words aren't my specialty. I know where to find the sources, but my work is strictly in-Bible.

That's fine. Yet, the thing to know is that it was common for the wealthier Greeks of the time to take young men more or less as prostitutes. This is where the "soft to the touch" argument comes in to refer to those of fair skin. As times were harsher in those days due to the increase in sustainable agriculture, being fair skinned was rare in people of either gender, but especially males. While this could be constued as a verse to ward off pedafiles, the previous words referring to 'male prostetutes points towards the likelyhood of it being of the homosexual nature.

[nod] It states that lust and prolific unmarried sex are the sins referred to as "sexual immorality" in the Book of Romans. Male prostitution and ***** prostitution would fit those categories.

So, in general, I think it can be agreed upon that while homosexual sex is indeed wrong, people shouldn't be throwing their sticks and stones unless they themselves are free of *drumroll for the word of the day* lasciviousness.

I still don't see how all homosexual sex is wrong. We covered male prostitution and child prostitution, but the Book of 1 Corinthians says that all prostitution is bad. And in Romans, it states that lust is sexual immorality. It never says homosexual sex, as long as it isn't lustful or whoring.

Okay, follow me on this train of thought...The term "lustful" is to have strong sexual desires; lecherous, libidinous. "Libidinous refers to the Libido which is the whole of instinctive desires brought that fall under the id. The id is the portion of the psyche that is the very basic impulses that are then refined by the ego and super ego before going into effect. This brings us to a more modern day take on this with the cpncept of, "If it feels good, do it!" This is pretty much what it was back then: All id and no super ego. God wants our ego to rely more on the super ego than the id as it is our human nature (id) to sin...and sin=bad.

[linaloki]

goldmule2

linaloki

FlowingPeace

linaloki

FlowingPeace

That's fine. Yet, the thing to know is that it was common for the wealthier Greeks of the time to take young men more or less as prostitutes. This is where the "soft to the touch" argument comes in to refer to those of fair skin. As times were harsher in those days due to the increase in sustainable agriculture, being fair skinned was rare in people of either gender, but especially males. While this could be constued as a verse to ward off pedafiles, the previous words referring to 'male prostetutes points towards the likelyhood of it being of the homosexual nature.

[nod] It states that lust and prolific unmarried sex are the sins referred to as "sexual immorality" in the Book of Romans. Male prostitution and ***** prostitution would fit those categories.

So, in general, I think it can be agreed upon that while homosexual sex is indeed wrong, people shouldn't be throwing their sticks and stones unless they themselves are free of *drumroll for the word of the day* lasciviousness.

I still don't see how all homosexual sex is wrong. We covered male prostitution and child prostitution, but the Book of 1 Corinthians says that all prostitution is bad. And in Romans, it states that lust is sexual immorality. It never says homosexual sex, as long as it isn't lustful or whoring.

Sex was God's gift to married couples. It was only meant for a man and his wife. Marriage started with Adam and Eve. It is between a man and woman. According to the Bible any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Verses please? Also, Adam and Eve were not the only humans on the earth. Therefore marriage was also not only God conducted. Holy matrimony, perhaps, but not marriage. And also, as they weren't the only humans, there could have been homosexual marriages.

[linaloki]

FlowingPeace

linaloki

I still don't see how all homosexual sex is wrong. We covered male prostitution and child prostitution, but the Book of 1 Corinthians says that all prostitution is bad. And in Romans, it states that lust is sexual immorality. It never says homosexual sex, as long as it isn't lustful or whoring.

Okay, follow me on this train of thought...The term "lustful" is to have strong sexual desires; lecherous, libidinous. "Libidinous refers to the Libido which is the whole of instinctive desires brought that fall under the id. The id is the portion of the psyche that is the very basic impulses that are then refined by the ego and super ego before going into effect. This brings us to a more modern day take on this with the cpncept of, "If it feels good, do it!" This is pretty much what it was back then: All id and no super ego. God wants our ego to rely more on the super ego than the id as it is our human nature (id) to sin...and sin=bad.

How you mixed Freud in with the Bible, I have no clue... And as I haven't studied Freud, I can't agree or disagree just yet.

Also, I still don't see how that condemns homosexual sex.

[linaloki]

Toshi Musha

^.^ Woo mad props for doing your homework. I'm a Christian who's all for homosexuality. I could careless if the Bible said it was good or bad. I've got homosexual friends and as far as I'm concerned they are happy the way they are, and I'm fine with it. smile

My homework? Nope, still haven't done that. ^_^ Just studying the Word.

[With Motion]

FlowingPeace

Okay, follow me on this train of thought...The term "lustful" is to have strong sexual desires; lecherous, libidinous. "Libidinous refers to the Libido which is the whole of instinctive desires brought that fall under the id. The id is the portion of the psyche that is the very basic impulses that are then refined by the ego and super ego before going into effect. This brings us to a more modern day take on this with the cpncept of, "If it feels good, do it!" This is pretty much what it was back then: All id and no super ego. God wants our ego to rely more on the super ego than the id as it is our human nature (id) to sin...and sin=bad.

That's the first time I've ever seen anyone look at Christianity with Freudian bias.

However, all religions are based on the Superego, considering that all morality is determined by it. So, stating that "God wants you to rely on your superego" doesn't state anything new.

...and if you're going to believe that Lust, being natural, is bad, I'd hope you wouldn't believe that homosexual sex is bad because it's not natural in turn.

[FlowingPeace]

linaloki

FlowingPeace

linaloki

I still don't see how all homosexual sex is wrong. We covered male prostitution and child prostitution, but the Book of 1 Corinthians says that all prostitution is bad. And in Romans, it states that lust is sexual immorality. It never says homosexual sex, as long as it isn't lustful or whoring.

Okay, follow me on this train of thought...The term "lustful" is to have strong sexual desires; lecherous, libidinous. "Libidinous refers to the Libido which is the whole of instinctive desires brought that fall under the id. The id is the portion of the psyche that is the very basic impulses that are then refined by the ego and super ego before going into effect. This brings us to a more modern day take on this with the cpncept of, "If it feels good, do it!" This is pretty much what it was back then: All id and no super ego. God wants our ego to rely more on the super ego than the id as it is our human nature (id) to sin...and sin=bad.

How you mixed Freud in with the Bible, I have no clue... And as I haven't studied Freud, I can't agree or disagree just yet.

Also, I still don't see how that condemns homosexual sex.

Freud is pretty much the father of the psychoannelytical lense of interperitation of writing. (Sorry, I have 5 months of this stuff pent up) One school of thought believes that people say things without saying them, reading between the lines if you will. You see, It's not specifically homosexual sex that it refers to, but any wonton sex in general. God is not one to have things for no reason, and things apart from him are bad. Homosexual sex could result in nothing (while heterosexual sex can create babies)...except possibly an STD...but either are suseptable to that... sweatdrop

[FlowingPeace]

[]Himura Kenshin[]

FlowingPeace

Okay, follow me on this train of thought...The term "lustful" is to have strong sexual desires; lecherous, libidinous. "Libidinous refers to the Libido which is the whole of instinctive desires brought that fall under the id. The id is the portion of the psyche that is the very basic impulses that are then refined by the ego and super ego before going into effect. This brings us to a more modern day take on this with the cpncept of, "If it feels good, do it!" This is pretty much what it was back then: All id and no super ego. God wants our ego to rely more on the super ego than the id as it is our human nature (id) to sin...and sin=bad.

That's the first time I've ever seen anyone look at Christianity with Freudian bias.

However, all religions are based on the Superego, considering that all morality is determined by it. So, stating that "God wants you to rely on your superego" doesn't state anything new.

...and if you're going to believe that Lust, being natural, is bad, I'd hope you wouldn't believe that homosexual sex is bad because it's not natural in turn.

No, the fact that lust being bad refers to either homo and heterosexual relations.