Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Rookherst[KOS]]

Denzyz

Rookherst[KOS]

Cougar Draven

How should that be transposed for readability, Rook?

Love thy Neighbor as thy Self

Out of curiosity, does the bible say anything about 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?

In the Old Testament.......Eye for an eye. I forget the exact Location

Matthew 4:43-48

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[Sarah_Love17]

I don't care
I'm an active Christian...but i support gay marriage...it doesnt matter to me

[PoeticVengeance]

Crazy_Gurl13

I don't care
I'm an active Christian...but i support gay marriage...it doesnt matter to me

As it should be, since by Scripture it doesn't seem to matter much to God either.

[Baby Spoon Ninja]

Getting back to the Genesis 1 and 2 thing: isn't it possible (likely?) that Genesis 1 is a sort of evangelical tool developed in exile to show Babylonians where they went wrong with their creation myth, while Genesis 2 developed as a separate tradition? If so, they cannot be made to have much bearing on each other.

Even if we don't assume that Genesis 1 is adapted from Babylonian mythology, the fact of two creation stories argues that they were developed separately, which on the Bible's time scale is likely more than a few hundred years difference. Just thinking that it's likely a stretch to try to fit them together as "proof" of other men.

[Zaxoth Arturos]

*shakes head* I'll not get in this. The poster is far too scrambled. Nice that he picks and chooses his verses he includes and leaves out the ones that go against what he says. Such as when he goes at 1 Corinthians 6, he starts at verse 12, after the mention of homosexuality.

[Zaxoth Arturos]

PoeticVengeance

Crazy_Gurl13

I don't care
I'm an active Christian...but i support gay marriage...it doesnt matter to me

As it should be, since by Scripture it doesn't seem to matter much to God either.

1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. I'll leave it at that.

[PoeticVengeance]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Crazy_Gurl13

I don't care
I'm an active Christian...but i support gay marriage...it doesnt matter to me

As it should be, since by Scripture it doesn't seem to matter much to God either.

1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

Mistranslation.

The word that was translated into homosexual is used for pedastry by Paul.

Did you seriously think that the word homosexual existed back then?

How silly.

Quote:

I'll leave it at that.

Then I guess you failed.

[Zaxoth Arturos]

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

1 Corinthians 6

Which doesn't actually cite homosexuality as bad but references things that are happening with homosexuality as a backdrop.

If you stab a baby with a red knife does that make red knives evil?

Hardly.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

PoeticVengeance

Did you seriously think that the word homosexual existed back then?

How silly.

Yes. If they had it then, they had a word for it.

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

I'll leave it at that.

Then I guess you failed.

Only for one with a lack of comprehension.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

1 Corinthians 6

Which doesn't actually cite homosexuality as bad but references things that are happening with homosexuality as a backdrop.

If you stab a baby with a red knife does that make red knives evil?

Hardly.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Kindly prove that arsenokoites means homosexuals.
Don't forget to read Ananel's Thesis.
And to prove that the KJV is incorrect when it says something other than "TEH GHEY."
Thanks!

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Did you seriously think that the word homosexual existed back then?

How silly.

Yes. If they had it then, they had a word for it.

Tell me what that word is, then.
Be sure to cross-reference with historical records.

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

I'll leave it at that.

Then I guess you failed.

Only for one with a lack of comprehension.

I think we can leave the stabs out of it, particularly if you aren't going to provide something that establishes your position.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Korangar Igniscurro

*shakes head* I'll not get in this. The poster is far too scrambled. Nice that he picks and chooses his verses he includes and leaves out the ones that go against what he says.

This is untrue.
Please don't go into ad hominems unless you are prepared to back that up.

Korangar Igniscurro

Such as when he goes at 1 Corinthians 6, he starts at verse 12, after the mention of homosexuality.

You can complain about that once you've proven that homosexuality is mentioned. Some of us have been over the bible in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Some of us think you need to re-examine your position.

[PoeticVengeance]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

1 Corinthians 6

Which doesn't actually cite homosexuality as bad but references things that are happening with homosexuality as a backdrop.

If you stab a baby with a red knife does that make red knives evil?

Hardly.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh special. Thank you for quoting the verse, as though that actually aided your point.

You see where the word homosexual is in that verse?

Its translated from the word Arsenokoites, which is a word that Paul made up to refer to pedastry.

So that word does not mean homosexual. It is a translation error. Is that getting through your thick skull?

And to give you the long version, Ananel's Thesis has a nice big chunk dedicated to the sin lists:

Ananel's Thesis

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That�s all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the �bottom� partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul�s letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the �top� partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one�s neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

Quote:

PoeticVengeance

Did you seriously think that the word homosexual existed back then?

How silly.

Yes. If they had it then, they had a word for it.

Sadly for you, Arsenokoites wasn't it. And that's the word that was translated (wrongly) into homosexual in those two verses.

Game set match.

Quote:

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

I'll leave it at that.

Then I guess you failed.

Only for one with a lack of comprehension.

It appears that its you that lacks comprehension, especially of a little thing known as Greek to English Translational Issues.

KTHXBYE jackass.

[Saigio]

Korangar Igniscurro

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Please provide proof that that is the original meaning of the verse, and that they had a word for homosexuality back then.

Korangar Igniscurro

Yes. If they had it then, they had a word for it.

Then you should have no problem proving it.

Korangar Igniscurro

Only for one with a lack of comprehension.

Now, now. Do you really have to shred your disguise that quickly. No need to be a jackass.

[PoeticVengeance]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

1 Corinthians 6

Which doesn't actually cite homosexuality as bad but references things that are happening with homosexuality as a backdrop.

If you stab a baby with a red knife does that make red knives evil?

Hardly.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Kindly prove that malakos means homosexuals.
Don't forget to read Ananel's Thesis.
And to prove that the KJV is incorrect when it says "effeminate" and not "TEH GHEY."
Thanks!

Lawl. Whichever of the three words it is, it definately does not mean homosexual.

Looks like Mr. Igniscurro is made of phailsauce and suckage.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

PoeticVengeance

Elf Lord Chiewn

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Korangar Igniscurro

1 Corinthians 6

Which doesn't actually cite homosexuality as bad but references things that are happening with homosexuality as a backdrop.

If you stab a baby with a red knife does that make red knives evil?

Hardly.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Kindly prove that malakos means homosexuals.
Don't forget to read Ananel's Thesis.
And to prove that the KJV is incorrect when it says "effeminate" and not "TEH GHEY."
Thanks!

Lawl. Whichever of the three words it is, it definately does not mean homosexual.

Looks like Mr. Igniscurro is made of phailsauce and suckage.

Looks like.

Ah well. Post changed to reflect arsenokoites, the new "ghey" word of the week. Guess malakos is next week's axegrinder.

[Baby Spoon Ninja]

PoeticVengeance

Shennanigans

PoeticVengeance

John Calvin

PoeticVengeance

Justify this.

Shennanigans probably said that none of the contradictions at had are "at all important," because he does not want to deal with them. He may also have withdrew from dealing with them, since there are people in the world who have already dealt with the issues posed.

I mostly just wanted him to not do a one word response.

I myself can spot many of the issues in the list of contradictions.

I have no interest in debating how many troops fought on what side against which king in what year. That is beside the point, isn't it?

Then cite it as irrelevant.

Of course, then you'll need to justify it as irrelevant. Considering we're dealing with common misconceptions in Christianity, that includes so called contradictions.

Instead of claiming they aren't important, why not look at them critically and determine if they are?

If they are unimportant then show why they don't matter.

John Calvin put the effort in, why couldn't you?

I did cite it as irrelevant. Because you seem to have difficulty finding it, let me requote what you had already quoted :

Shennanigans

None of these contradictions are at all important.

Next: it's clear that you're missing the thrust of my argument. I am not saying that Biblical contradictions are irrelevant to the discussion of misconceptions about the Bible. My argument is that those contradictions are not pertinent to the message of the Bible, and are therefore no basis for disbelieving the Bible. Way to read critically and use context clues. Thumbs up, soldier.

Furthermore, as one that spent four years in forensics, let me be the first to say that you are incorrect. Relevance is the burden of the one originally presenting the evidence. Evidence must have prima facie ("first look" wink relevance to what it is proported to support. If it does not (as in this case), the burden is on the one offering the contradictions as evidence to prove that it matters. Nevertheless:

Quote:

When I say that none of these contradictions matter, they do not pertain to the purpose of the Bible, which is to tell the story of the salvation of mankind and to contain the revelation of God to man. Your contradictions do not in any way place that message in doubt.

So, instead of looking the fool, it may behoove you to read my post and think about argumentation before you find fault with me.

Moving on . . .

Quote:

Quote:

Who cares how many stables King Solomon had? The Bible is neither a science text nor a history text. Over the course of the Bible, the Hebrews adapted to four different calenders, had contact with different counting systems, and was compiled over the course of a few thousand years. I daresay that it is the most internally consistent document that has been edited for the last four thousand years in existence.

So? One of the concepts that is very prevalent in Christianity is that the Scriptures are inerrant (both for simply the original translation, and overall. But the overall inerrancy doctrine is idiotic, since words like homosexuality and Hell didn't exist back then. So we'll stick with the original translation inerrancy doctrine).

Scriptural Inerrancy In the Original Writings is what was being called into question with the posting of the contradictions.

That not only makes it relevant (since this thread is a debate about what mainstream christianity is wrong or right about) but also makes it important.

I understand all of this. Again, missing the argument . . . Actually, I am supporting the Nazarene view of inerrancy in this challenge: That the Bible is inerrant in all things relating to salvation. Perhaps I should have included a preface about how not everyone has a strictly dogmatic view of inerrancy. My bad.

Quote:

Quote:

When I say that none of these contradictions matter, they do not pertain to the purpose of the Bible, which is to tell the story of the salvation of mankind and to contain the revelation of God to man.

Is this thread about the purpose of the bible?

No?

Then your bitching is irrelevant.

This thread is about misconceptions of mainstream Christians about the Scriptures and their religion.

It is not about the overall purpose of the Scriptures or of Christianity itself. If you think that a misconception exists within Christianity about the main purpose of the Bible, then by all means bring it up.

But no one here cares about it if there isn't a mistake being made to call on. Don't like it? Then make a thread about the purpose of the Scriptures and how contradictions don't matter and we can chat about it there.

You attack my claim that the contradictions are irrelevant as unsupported, and then want to categorically deny my line of argumentation as irrelevant? You can't have it both ways, silly. Since we are discussing a misconception about Christianity that centers on the Bible (which, incidentally, is of some importance to Christianity, lol.), discussion of the Bible is of course fair game. Not sure how/why you are misrepresenting this.

Quote:

Quote:

Your contradictions do not in any way place that message in doubt.

Note carefully, that I never once posted contradictions, nor did I ever show agreement with the post that contained them.

You fail reading comprehension if you even think I'm arguing on either side of the debate on whether contradictions take from the purpose of the Bible.

I'm just telling you to put your damn back into it and stop copping out by claiming irrelevancy. The rest of us are making the effort. Don't be lazy.

Actually, you're attacking me and making false accusations about my allegedly weak argumentation. So read for understanding, and please don't post attacks without first understanding what was said. If you ask politely, you'll find that the vast majority of folks here are more than willing to help clear things up.