Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[somucheasier]

Quote:

"Genesis 2:4-6, NIV"
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

"Genesis 1:9-13, NIV"
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Quote:

As Adam was made before vegetation was on the Earth, he was made during the third day: After the water, but before the veggies.

However:

Here you assume that Genesis 2:4-6 and Genesis 1:9-13 are talking about the same day. This is however, I believe the wrong conclusion.
In his book, Genesis by Paul J.Kissing, he states the following

Quote:

“The Phrase ‘shrub of the field’ refers exclusively to those plants which only spring up spontaneously after the rain and “plant of the field” refers exclusively to those plants which much be cultivated by humankind. The two part reason given for these stae of affairs (no rain and no man) corresponds to these two types of plants respectively. This noticing of the need for rain to produce shrubs of the field and then to soften the ground so that human cultivators can help produce the plants of the field, seems to indicate the perspective that only those living in Palestine are able to relate to. The Egyptians and the Mesopotamians relied on river flowing for cultivating and watering and planting crops, not on rain. The word translated into “shrub” (Hebrew sivah) recurs in Genesis 21;15 as a desert shrub under which Ishmael was placed; and twice in Job 30 (v 4,7) where desert vegetation or at least wild vegetation is in view. The word translated as “plant” (Hebrew eseb) is used in eg: Exodus 9:22,25 of cultivated grains like flax and barely. Perhaps we should translate “wild vegetation” and “cultivated grain.”

Another argument that I shall paraphrase says that the plants and shrubs refer to thorns which occurred after the fall, and the rain, the rain of judgement.
Whichever one, it is quite clear that Genesis 2 was not talking about the third day in Genesis 1.

In fact it is a recapping of the sixth day (as this is when both male and female were created according to Genesis 1) This style of writing is often used in the Bible, recapping events and zooming in on them to provide more details (the first example of this we find here, in the later parts of Genesis 1-Genesis 2). God likes to make a point CLEAR, for instance

Quote:

“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him”.

If you make a comparison between the end of chapter one and the beginning of chapter two, you will find the two in harmony, showing a fuller picture of the creation of humankind, the first man and woman, Adam and Eve.
Your statement then that

Quote:

“More humans were created on the sixth day.”

Using the verses

Quote:

"Genesis 1:26-30, NIV"
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Therefore, is absurd, there is no evidence whatsoever that the humans created were different from Adam and Eve, as the pair were most definitely “male and female.” Also, “more” humans are never mentioned again, and their existence would make the gospel useless. (I will return to this point later on.)

Your next argument,

Quote:

"Genesis 1:21-26, 31, NIV"
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


Animals. Animals were created prior to man on the sixth day. Well, if we visit chapter 2...
"Genesis 2:18-19, NIV"
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.


Adam was around prior to the animals. And yet, the Chapter 1 account says animals were created prior to man. This shows, yet again, that Adam was created prior to the "man" of the Day Six account.

This does not show that Adam was created prior to the animals. It says that God “had” formed the animals. As in past tense “had” he already had created them, whereas he was going to make a helper suitable for Adam, “I will make” as in future tense. These passages by no means show that Adam was created before the animals, and direct evidence is to the contrary as you can see on the account of the sixth day in Genesis chapter one.

Quote:

“And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground........the sixth day."

Your next point

Quote:

"Genesis 4:13-16, NIV"
Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.


Cain was worried that others may find and kill him. If his parents were the only others on the earth, who would he have had to worry about? Also, the land of Nod was known as the land of wanderers. Who was wandering for it to be named so? Cain, of course, is one... But note the plural. These verses only strengthen the suggestion that Adam, Eve, and their family were not alone.

Here you assume several things. Firstly that Cain and Abel were the first children of Adam and Eve (the Bible nowhere states this) that after Cain and Abel were born and before Abel was killed there were no other children (and therefore grandchildren, great grandchildren etc) born, and that this was all done within a relatively short time period.
A quote from the excellent article to be found at the website “answers in Genesis” and the “answers” book published by renowned apologists and scientist Ken Ham, may help here.

Quote:

“And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD.

Note the phrase “in the process of time.” We know Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3), and Eve saw him as a replacement for Abel (Genesis 4:25). Therefore, the time period from Cain’s birth to Abel’s death may have been 100 years or more—allowing plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. By the time Abel was killed, there may have been a considerable number of descendants of Adam and Eve involving several generations.”

This article goes on to argue the rest of your points about incestuous relationships (only forbidden from the time of Leviticus and onward) and the possibility of other humans other than Adam and Eve at the beginning. If you are interested to read, I will include the link here.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/who-was-cains-wife

Also the Book “The Genesis Record: A scientific & devotional commentary on the book of Beginnings by Henry M. Morris” offers a very “conservative” estimate of 120 000 people in the world by the time 800 years had passed following a reasonable and literal reading of Genesis. Cain would have had no problem getting a wife.

Quote:

"Genesis 4:17, NIV"
Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.


Why on earth was Cain building a city? And how was he doing it by himself?

The Hebrew word for city in this context could be taken to mean “walled encampment”, and could be about the size of 100 people or so. Nevertheless even if it was a true city, i am quite sure Cain had the nous to do so, as for the pure amount of labour, we say things such as “Hadrian built Hadrian’s wall” “The Egyptian kings built the Pyramids” however does this mean that Hadrian or the Kings built these things themselves? No, they commissioned it to be built. At the very least, Cain could have had help from the wanderers, aka his relations, or indeed his children (nowhere does it say that Cain didn’t have kids before he killed Abel)

As to why, one might draw a logical conclusion that it was to escape the self proclaimed curse

Quote:

“I will be a restless wanderer on the earth”

and to provide a home for his ever growing family.

Quote:

Genesis 6:1-2, NIV"
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.


Where did the daughters of men come from? It is simple to assume that sons of God were those of God's chosen race of peoples, those from the lineage of Adam and Eve. However, it makes a distinction between these and the daughters of men. If there were those that God had chosen special and those that God hadn't... Who were the ones God hadn't chosen special?

It is indeed simple to assume that “the sons of God were those of God’s chosen race of people, those from the lineage of Adam and Eve” but it is not nesccaerily correct. The explanation offered by Chuck Missler, seems to me to be much more plausible, and much less confusing. This explanation is also offered in the book I have made reference to before the “genesis record”
The words “sons of God” translate into “bene elohim” the only time that these words are used apart from describing the spiritual relationship between born again believers in the new testament (albeit it is the Greek equivalent) is in the book of Job. The beings described are Angels.
It is proposed that the Angels fallen from Gods glory (aka followers of Satan) inhabited the bodies of men and slept with the daughters of men (the Hebrew wording makes it clear that these daughters were related to Adam but for the sake of brevity I won’t go into it here, if you are interested I can readily provide the evidence however) therefore giving birth to the Nephilim, the “mighty men of old, men of renown.”
More information can be found in the book, or on Chuck Misslers website.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/#articles

My final issue with the statements in your topic one, that attempt to show that there were men and woman created in the beginning other than Adam and Eve, are as follows. This is quoting again, from the website AiG and “The answers book”

Quote:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).
We read in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Adam was “the first man.” God did not start by making a race of men.

Quote:

The Bible makes it clear that only the descendants of Adam can be saved. Romans 5 teaches that we sin because Adam sinned. The death penalty, which Adam received as judgment for his sin of rebellion, has also been passed on to all his descendants.
Since Adam was the head of the human race, when he fell we who were in the loins of Adam fell also. Thus, we are all separated from God. The final consequence of sin would be separation from God in our sinful state forever. However, the good news is that there is a way for us to return to God.
Because a man brought sin and death into the world, the human race, who are all descendants of Adam, needed a sinless Man to pay the penalty for sin and the resulting judgment of death. However, the Bible teaches that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). What was the solution?
The Last Adam
God provided the solution—a way to deliver man from his wretched state. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that God provided another Adam. The Son of God became a man—a perfect Man—yet still our relation. He is called “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) because he took the place of the first Adam. He became the new head and, because He was sinless, was able to pay the penalty for sin:
For since by [a] man came death, by [a] Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
Christ suffered death (the penalty for sin) on the Cross, shedding His blood (“and without shedding of blood there is no remission,” Hebrews 9:22) so that those who put their trust in His work on the Cross can come in repentance of their sin of rebellion (in Adam) and be reconciled to God.
Thus, only descendants of the first man Adam can be saved.
All Related
Since the Bible describes all human beings as sinners, and we are all related (“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” Acts 17:26), the gospel makes sense only on the basis that all humans alive and all that have ever lived (except for the first woman6 ) are descendants of the first man Adam. If this were not so, then the gospel could not be explained or defended.
Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7).
This also means that Cain’s wife was a descendant of Adam. She couldn’t have come from another race of people and must be accounted for from Adam’s descendants.
The First Woman
In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.
Eve was made from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–24)—this was a unique event. In the New Testament, Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and onetime event as the foundation for the marriage of one man and one woman.
Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn’t find a mate—there was no one of his kind.
All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, from the beginning. There could not have been a “race” of women.
Thus, if Christians cannot defend that all humans, including Cain’s wife, can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation?

And that, I believe, is the crux of the matter.


Furthermore, even if you could prove that there was another race, it still does not disprove the fact that marriage is only ever talked about (in the Bible) FROM THE BEGNNING as between a man and a woman. Therefore, even if there was another race who commenced homosexual practices from the beginning (and therefore disobeying Gods command to go forth and multiply) it was NEVER called marriage by God, nor was a it a Biblically recognized union. And according to the Hebrew definition of the word fornication, any sexual act that is not between a husband (masculine) and wife (feminine) on the marriage bed is an act of fornication, otherwise known as sexual immorality, mentioned quite a few times throughout the Bible.


The Complete Word Study Old Testament suggests three possible meanings for the Hebrew word "zanah."

Quote:

The first being fornication (pre-marital, illicit sex), the second being adultery (marital, illicit sex), and the third being idolatry (worship of a person or thing besides Yahweh).
Trying to pinpoint this word without examining the passage in question is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Fornication in either the Hebrew or Greek can have and denote a wide range of definitions. It can mean literal fornication, adultery, harlotry, incest, *****, bestiality, or any other sexual restriction that Yahweh has placed for mankind to observe.

http://www.yrm.org/qna-fornication.htm

Thus ends my refutation of your First Topic.

I’d like to refer to the verse you brought up at the end of topic two

Quote:

"Acts 15:24-29, NIV"
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul– men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

What is sexual immorality? These were Jewish Christians writing. The New Testament had not been formed yet, all they had was the old testament. Sexual immorality was defined as according to Leviticus 18. There was no other definition.

Quote:

Leviticus 18
Unlawful Sexual Relations
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Basically anything outside of marriage is consider sexual sin, and marriage is between man and a woman

Quote:

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

And every reference to marriage, marry, husband and wife in the Bible is between a woman and a man. Male and Female. There is no marriage recognized by God that is male and male within the Bible.
Marriage as being defined as a joining together of two people in “one flesh”-male and female, physically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually for life-unless the other one commits adultery- before God.

The only reference towards homosexual acts in the Bible is:

Sodom and Gomorrah-in this context men were threatening to rape a/some male (s)
The law- a man having sex with a man is an abomination/detestable act (and whether this is because of the customs of the day does not matter, if a man having sex with a man was detestable then, then it will be detestable now. Also it is recorded with the rest of the sexual sins, which are ALSO detestable now as they were in the day)

Romans- men committing indecent acts with other men this could mean anything from slave prostitution to merely men sleeping with other men in mutual consent, the actual greek word means male/bed implying they sleep/have sexual relations with each other but does not give a context)

Corinthians-condemning male prostitution and effeminacy

There are no positive mentions of it whatsoever. The verse you try to make sound positive by your flawed logic:

Quote:

"1 John 4:7-12, NIV"
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

These verses, properly interpreted and read, not misquote or drug out of context, show that God is behind all forms of love, and that lust and prostitutional fornication are the sexual sins mentioned. The verses from 1 John specifically refer to unconditional love. It states that any love that is unconditional is from God. The statement that Homosexuals can love their partners unconditionally, and therefore, can have unions blessed by God. Is quite simply, ridiculous. The love therein mentioned is Agape, unconditional love. I love my Father this way-my earthly Father- and he loves me. Should we decide to marry, would that be blessed by God? Certainly not! It is sexually immoral. So is the joining together of any who are not a male and female couple, previously not closely related.

Just for reference purposes, lust is different from sexual immorality, just as anger and murder are different . Often they are used together, but nevertheless different.

Quote:

Colossians 3:5 (New International Version)
5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

I agree with your point that Sodom and Gommorah were not destroyed because of homosexuality, but rather refusing to have mercy. Nevertheless this does not rule out that homosexuality is a sin that was committed there.

Quote:

Jude 1:7 (New International Version)
7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

What was sexual immorality? Leviticus 18.

As for your points on the New testament, you may refer to above.

Your point on marriage I think is invalid, since Christian marriage is different to any other form of marriage, because it is done before God, and invites Gods blessing. Homosexual marriage in the legal system i have not a problem with. If homosexuals want to marry in terms of a legal agreement in the world, then they are very welcome, it is when two Christians believe that God will bless something which He forbids is when I have a problem.

Quote:

We have some key words in this part. Shameful, lusts, natural relations, indecent acts, perversion. These key words, when added to the verses above as well as a knowledge of Roman society, tell us something. We know that homosexuality is natural as it occurs in nature, yes? But even if it wasn't, what could Paul be talking about? What could he have knowledge of just by walking through the streets of Rome?

Nature is fallen, for this reason we have spiders who eat their mates once they have capitulated with them, Lions who kill and eat meat rather than eat vegetation, snakes that poison and kill with their venomous attack. It stands to reason then, that a sexual act (homosexual sex) that does not follow Gods command to “go forth and multiply” is simply a symptom of the sin ridden, fallen world that we live in.

I live in New Zealand, we have a native bird called a Pukehoe. Pukekhoes when “in the mood” do not distinguish between male and female, instead they attempt to capitulate with any other pukekho in sight. This is a perversion of nature just as much as a spider eating its partner is.
Besides, in following this theory to it's conclusion, a woman could kill and eat her husband as soon as he impregnates her, stepfathers could kill all their wife's children of the previous marriage...etc etc. It is simply UNETHICAL to consider this!
Paul's point, (and therefore God's) is that it is impossible to produce offspring (the MAIN reason for sex, though of course God has made it a spiritually binding, incredibly pleasurable experience for us humans) therefore it is against nature. It goes against natures point for sex, procreation.

As for what could Paul have knowledge of-This was ROME, same sex relationships (though not marriages) were generally not frowned upon, therefore they would have been a part of everyday life unhidden. This was not a God-fearing, Jewish city, this was the heart of the pagan empire at the time. Paul would not have to sneak into houses to know of homosexual acts. They would have been part of music, literature, plays, even in some cases, worship. I know this becuase I have studied the texts and historical reports, both primary and secondary sources. of the time.
_________________________________________________________________



Homosexuality is, I believe according to the Bible, a sin, just as lust, incest, murder, stealing, adultery etc etc etc are sins. Because we ourselves have fallen natures, it is very likely that some of us will have weaknesses towards homosexuality, and indeed it is so, but just as incest is sin, so is this, and our fallen human passions and emotions does not mean that what we feel is not sin.
For instance, I myself struggle with areas of sin more than others, lust being one of the most prominent. I may have sexual relations with many different men throughout my lifetime, but will this make it right? No, it is sin. Similarly if a father cares for his child, but also has sexual relations with him/her then is this right? Even if their main motive is “love” this is still sin.

I do not say those who struggle with homosexual feelings are any worse than any of us, indeed, it is not so! But to give into those feelings, and say that God blesses them are wrong. They are sinning. I believe God calls us to speak the truth in love, and indeed love the sinner, but hate the sin.

God is a fair God, he does not create something and then punish it, he would not create a homosexual only to condemn them. Homosexuals have been present throughout the time the Bible has been written, and God only condemns the act. Therefore one MUST deduce that homosexuality is a perversion of our natural desire, a form of rebellion against Gods plan, that IS able to be conquered (as is any sin) or call God a cruel trickster.

I, for one, am not willing to do that. Are you?

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Bentokitty

The english word used during that story was servant, the greek word was "pais", which in greek means "master's male lover", or basically a male servant who is also a lover. So, Jesus healed a gay couple, and was amazed by their faith. So much for it being a sin....

You're repeating that which has been contested a few times already. Prove it. Pais means "boy," or "child," or "servant." I don't know where you get this idea of "master's male lover" from.

[Yuki the Mormon]

somucheasier

<snip>

Read the OP and the last few pages, damnit.

[Lord Setar]

Somucheasier, your post falls flat on its face every time you cite Leviticus. Leviticus does not apply to Christians - that law was nailed to the cross with Jesus' sacrifice.

[Yuki the Mormon]

John Calvin

Bentokitty

The english word used during that story was servant, the greek word was "pais", which in greek means "master's male lover", or basically a male servant who is also a lover. So, Jesus healed a gay couple, and was amazed by their faith. So much for it being a sin....

You're repeating that which has been contested a few times already. Prove it. Pais means "boy," or "child," or "servant." I don't know where you get this idea of "master's male lover" from.

I'm getting it from school. Please note that the romans did practice pedphlilic (sp?)apprenticeship...

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Bentokitty

I'm getting it from school. Please note that the romans did practice pedphlilic (sp?)apprenticeship...

This is called pederasty, which if I recall correctly from Ananel's work, was something that Paul was condemning in his day, which would be found in Romans 1:26, 27. Ananel is a bisexual Christian, and is well-known for his work regarding Romans 1:26, 27. Some people in Morality and Religion asked that if we accept homosexuality, then why not *****?

[Anakha the Silver]

John Calvin

Bentokitty

I'm getting it from school. Please note that the romans did practice pedphlilic (sp?)apprenticeship...

This is called pederasty, which if I recall correctly from Ananel's work, was something that Paul was condemning in his day, which would be found in Romans 1:26, 27. Ananel is a bisexual Christian, and is well-known for his work regarding Romans 1:26, 27. Some people in Morality and Religion asked that if we accept homosexuality, then why not ***** tell me you aren't arguing slippery slope?

[Yuki the Mormon]

John Calvin

Bentokitty

I'm getting it from school. Please note that the romans did practice pedphlilic (sp?)apprenticeship...

This is called pederasty, which if I recall correctly from Ananel's work, was something that Paul was condemning in his day, which would be found in Romans 1:26, 27. Ananel is a bisexual Christian, and is well-known for his work regarding Romans 1:26, 27. Some people in Morality and Religion asked that if we accept homosexuality, then why not ***** horses, or boats, or ninja pictures on pillowcases?! Is the slope high enough to sled on yet?

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Anakha the Silver

...Please tell me you aren't arguing slippery slope?

If you're not aware, I have nothing against homosexuality. I'm in full support of what linaloki has posted here, except with our differences regarding the Genesis passages, i.e., that God created more humans besides Adam and Eve. (We debated a bit on this issue in the past in this thread.) I assure you, I am not arguing a slippery slope. This, however, was the question that a number of people from the M&R asked, since Ananel showed full support that the Bible speaks nothing on homosexuality, and therefore cannot condemn it. I believe it was addressed by Ananel a number of times before.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Bentokitty

or horses, or boats, or ninja pictures on pillowcases?! Is the slope high enough to sled on yet?

Please, let's not jump to conclusions. I think you might be arguing just for the sake of arguing, Bentokitty, though I do also think you don't know me too well enough to make an accurate assessment about me. Just because Anakha the Silver asked me if I was arguing a slippery slope, does not mean that this is what I am doing. I just hope you do not become the very opposite of those who condemn homosexuality and say it's in the Scriptures, when it's not. You're like an opposite, claiming that homosexuality was supported by the Bible. Let's not become too extreme here, please. I'm only asking that you prove what you claim.

[Yuki the Mormon]

@JC: what kind of proof would you like? sorry about the lag, computer went weird

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Bentokitty

@JC: what kind of proof would you like? sorry about the lag, computer went weird

That your use of the Greek, pais means, "master's male lover." Also, something to note: Even if the centurion is commiting pederasty, please don't make the claim that Jesus was supporting or affirming that pederasty was fine by Him, especially when it says nothing of that in the Text. That's a bit of a stretch.

[Isaac488]

bisexualboy883

you go! whoo! we are all equal, whether we are gay bisexual or lesbian!

gay power

you know this is a debate board right?

[Yuki the Mormon]

John Calvin

Bentokitty

@JC: what kind of proof would you like? sorry about the lag, computer went weird

That your use of the Greek, pais means, "master's male lover." Also, something to note: Even if the centurion is commiting pederasty, please don't make the claim that Jesus was supporting or affirming that pederasty was fine by Him, especially when it says nothing of that in the Text. That's a bit of a stretch.

something is seriously ******** with my computer gonk

Welwood L. Anderson B.A., B.Ed., B.Th. (Hons.), Dip. T.

Mt. 8:5-13 has a parallel in Luke 7:1-10, which derives from a common or similar "Q" tradition. A significant difference between the Matthean and Lukan texts is Matthew's use of the Greek word, pais, meaning ‘son’, ‘serving boy’ or ‘servant’, compared to Luke's use of doulos, meaning ‘slave’, to refer to the centurion's serving boy.1Pais, is the derivative noun in, paidika, used to refer to the beloved youth in pederastic relationships. Hence the interpretation that the centurion’s serving boy is his catamite slave, the "beloved youth" in a pederastic relationship, here euphemistically called his ‘son’. Significantly, Luke’s version of the story makes specific reference to the centurion's affection for the boy (Luke 7:2b), something that the Matthean text does not require, for that understanding is already carried in the use of the word pais.

and a bit from the Goood Hope Metropolitan Community church:

Quote:

Jesus affirmed a gay couple. (Matthew 8:5-13)
The Greek word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in
ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner.
Discussion
From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a
Roman centurion. This story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we are told that the centurion
came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s house, but the
centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so — he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would
be healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed. Luke tells a similar story.
Just another miracle story, right? Not on your life!
In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek
word used in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais. In the language of the time, pais had three
possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or
it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” (See note 18.) Often these lovers were
younger than their masters, even teenagers.
To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of
ancient cultural norms. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships.
Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just above that of slave. Moreover, in
Jesus’ day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon
for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15. (See note 19.) Nor was it uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl.
Fortunately civilization has advanced, but these were the norms in the culture of Jesus’ day.
In that culture, if you were a gay man who wanted a male “spouse,” you achieved this, like your heterosexual counterparts,
through a commercial transaction — purchasing someone to serve that purpose. A servant purchased to serve this purpose
was often called a pais.
The word boy in English offers a rough comparison. Like pais, the word boy can be used to refer to a male child. But in
the slave South in the nineteenth century, boy was also often used to refer to male slaves. The term boy can also be
used as a term of endearment. For example, Jeff’s father often refers to his mother as “his girl.” He doesn’t mean that she is
a child, but rather that she is his “special one.” The term boy can be used in the same way, as in “my boy” or “my beau.” In
ancient Greek, pais had a similar range of meanings.
Thus, when this term was used, the listener had to consider the context of the statement to determine which meaning
was intended. Some modern Christians may be tempted to simply declare by fiat that the Gospels could not possibly
have used the term pais in the sense of male lover, end of discussion. But that would be yielding to prejudice. We must
let the word of God speak for itself, even if it leads us to an uncomfortable destination.
Is it possible the pais referred to in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 was the Roman centurion’s male lover? Let’s look at the biblical
evidence.
The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional
Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion’s entimos doulos. The word
doulos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son/boy. Thus, Luke’s account
rules out the possibility the sick person was the centurion’s son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a slave. However,
Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means “honored.” This was an “honored
slave” (entimos doulos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick
person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option — he was his master’s male lover.
(See note 20.)
A second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Matthew’s account. In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power
to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the
centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking
here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person.
He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not
the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary
slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave
who was the master’s male lover.
The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have many examples of people seeking healing for
themselves or for family members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing for a slave. The actions
described are made even more remarkable by the fact that this was a proud Roman centurion (the conqueror/oppressor)
who was humbling himself and pleading with a Jewish rabbi (the conquered/oppressed) to heal his slave. The
extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing for his slave is much more understandable, from a
psychological perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion.
Thus, all the textual and circumstantial evidence in the Gospels points in one direction. For objective observers, the
conclusion is inescapable: In this story Jesus healed a man’s male lover. When understood this way, the story takes on a
whole new dimension.
Imagine how it may have happened. While stationed in Palestine, the centurion’s pais becomes ill — experiencing some
type of life-threatening paralysis. The centurion will stop at nothing to save him. Perhaps a friend tells him of rumors of
Jesus’ healing powers. Perhaps this friend also tells him Jesus is unusually open to foreigners, teaching his followers that
they should love their enemies, even Roman soldiers. So the centurion decides to take a chance. Jesus was his only
hope.
As he made his way to Jesus, he probably worried about the possibility that Jesus, like other Jewish rabbis, would take a
dim view of his homosexual relationship. Perhaps he even considered lying. He could simply use the word duolos. That
would have been accurate, as far as it went. But the centurion probably figured if Jesus was powerful enough to heal his
lover, he was also powerful enough to see through any half-truths.
So the centurion approaches Jesus and bows before him. “Rabbi, my . . . ,” the word gets caught in his throat. This is it —
the moment of truth. Either Jesus will turn away in disgust, or something wonderful will happen. So, the centurion clears
his throat and speaks again. “Rabbi, my pais — yes, my pais lies at home sick unto death.” Then he pauses and waits for a
second that must have seemed like an eternity. The crowd of good, God-fearing people surrounding Jesus probably
became tense. This was like a gay man asking a televangelist to heal his lover. What would Jesus do?
Without hesitation, Jesus says, “Then I will come and heal him.”
It’s that simple! Jesus didn’t say, “Are you kidding? I’m not going to heal your pais so you can go on living in sin!” Nor did he
say, “Well, it shouldn’t surprise you that your pais is sick; this is God’s judgment on your relationship.”
Instead, Jesus’ words are simple, clear, and liberating for all who have worried about what God thinks of gay
relationships. “I will come and heal him.”
At this point, the centurion says there is no need for Jesus to travel to his home. He has faith that Jesus’ word is
sufficient. Jesus then turns to the good people standing around him — those who were already dumbfounded that he was
willing to heal this man’s male lover. To them, Jesus says in verse 10 of Matthew’s account, “I have not found faith this
great anywhere in Israel.” In other words, Jesus holds up this gay centurion as an example of the type of faith others
should aspire to.
Jesus didn’t just tolerate this gay centurion. He said he was an example of faith — someone we all should strive to be like.