Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[linaloki]

Cyphusiel

linaloki

Cyphusiel

(Rom 1:26), "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in the same way, also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" so what is your assertion of unatural acts in this phrase?

Paul was talking from his Jewish roots. To him, any non-childbirthing sexual acts were "unnatural". This does not mean bad, first off. Secondly, if Paul wanted to use the words that people translated as homosexual, why didn't he? Thirdly, he puts emphasis in the word lust. Lust is a sin even Jesus preached about. Within that passage, Paul uses the word lust or its equivalent 4 times. He mentions unnatural twice. In fact, in one translation, it says indecent. As in public. Romans and Greeks of ancient times were known to hold large, public orgies, something that Paul found unnatural and wrong. After all, one may see the male animal mounting another male, but never an orgy in nature has one seen, methinks.

Ok so on the one hand you got people saying its the Roman version of unnatural and on the other we are saying Peter version saying unnatural and I'm pretty sure the roman catholics are against any non-childbirthing sexual acts which include homosexuality

Paul. Not Peter. And, yes, the Catholics are against anything that doesn't produce children. Including condoms. Sexuality is not determined by sexual acts, however, and the Catholics do not have a Biblical basis for their belief. Also, the Roman Catholics are not who Paul was writing the letter to, as they didn't exist at that time.

[Cyphusiel]

linaloki

Cyphusiel

linaloki

Cyphusiel

(Rom 1:26), "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in the same way, also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" so what is your assertion of unatural acts in this phrase?

Paul was talking from his Jewish roots. To him, any non-childbirthing sexual acts were "unnatural". This does not mean bad, first off. Secondly, if Paul wanted to use the words that people translated as homosexual, why didn't he? Thirdly, he puts emphasis in the word lust. Lust is a sin even Jesus preached about. Within that passage, Paul uses the word lust or its equivalent 4 times. He mentions unnatural twice. In fact, in one translation, it says indecent. As in public. Romans and Greeks of ancient times were known to hold large, public orgies, something that Paul found unnatural and wrong. After all, one may see the male animal mounting another male, but never an orgy in nature has one seen, methinks.

Ok so on the one hand you got people saying its the Roman version of unnatural and on the other we are saying Peter version saying unnatural and I'm pretty sure the roman catholics are against any non-childbirthing sexual acts which include homosexuality

Paul. Not Peter. And, yes, the Catholics are against anything that doesn't produce children. Including condoms. Sexuality is not determined by sexual acts, however, and the Catholics do not have a Biblical basis for their belief. Also, the Roman Catholics are not who Paul was writing the letter to, as they didn't exist at that time.

So to summarize Catholics aren't against gays but homosexual acts and anything that doesn't ultimately doesn't have anything to do with childbirth in the sexual sense and the church allows gay priests as long as they didn't act out for at least 3 years kinda like how kinsey said that males can go through homosexual phases for 3 years

[Cyphusiel]

Kata Samoes

Cyphusiel

Ok so on the one hand you got people saying its the Roman version of unnatural and on the other we are saying Peter version saying unnatural and I'm pretty sure the roman catholics are against any non-childbirthing sexual acts which include homosexuality

That's people who read the Bible..not those who wrote it.

Fail.

But we are not sure which term of unnatural is being used Pauls or the Romans

PS Marriage isn't about love its sharing benifits

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Cyphusiel

linaloki

Cyphusiel

linaloki

Cyphusiel

(Rom 1:26), "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in the same way, also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" so what is your assertion of unatural acts in this phrase?

Paul was talking from his Jewish roots. To him, any non-childbirthing sexual acts were "unnatural". This does not mean bad, first off. Secondly, if Paul wanted to use the words that people translated as homosexual, why didn't he? Thirdly, he puts emphasis in the word lust. Lust is a sin even Jesus preached about. Within that passage, Paul uses the word lust or its equivalent 4 times. He mentions unnatural twice. In fact, in one translation, it says indecent. As in public. Romans and Greeks of ancient times were known to hold large, public orgies, something that Paul found unnatural and wrong. After all, one may see the male animal mounting another male, but never an orgy in nature has one seen, methinks.

Ok so on the one hand you got people saying its the Roman version of unnatural and on the other we are saying Peter version saying unnatural and I'm pretty sure the roman catholics are against any non-childbirthing sexual acts which include homosexuality

Paul. Not Peter. And, yes, the Catholics are against anything that doesn't produce children. Including condoms. Sexuality is not determined by sexual acts, however, and the Catholics do not have a Biblical basis for their belief. Also, the Roman Catholics are not who Paul was writing the letter to, as they didn't exist at that time.

So to summarize Catholics aren't against gays but homosexual acts and anything that doesn't ultimately doesn't have anything to do with childbirth in the sexual sense and the church allows gay priests as long as they didn't act out for at least 3 years kinda like how kinsey said that males can go through homosexual phases for 3 years

Just a sidenote here: Kinsey's studies? Hardly something to draw facts out of. They were, to say the very least, mortally flawed on a few levels.

[Reborn Revolution]

This is an excellent topic Mr. Loki. I really plan on showing the "Misconceptions" part to my mother who is very... funny when it comes to that.

[Saigio]

Cyphusiel

PS Marriage isn't about love its sharing benifits

Now that it is a legal institution it is. But long ago (thousands of years) it started of as a ceremony of love. There were no legal benifits to be had from it because peole did not have the same tax system or medical system we do today.

[Christinue]

Saigio

Cyphusiel

PS Marriage isn't about love its sharing benifits

Now that it is a legal institution it is. But long ago (thousands of years) it started of as a ceremony of love. There were no legal benifits to be had from it because peole did not have the same tax system or medical system we do today.

or a "I know that those babies ar mine because that woman is mine" tradition so that the mutual benefits of family could be relied upon and shared.

[Quasar OutPhase]

Atari Maxi Tariyama

The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, why such a long first post?

Because it gives us enough detail as of why it isn't wrong, while you back yourself up with absolutely nothing in your defense.

Quote:

The guys translating knew what they were doing, they had a VERY precise method and I SERIOUSLY doubt they made such a fundamental mistake.

It has nothing to do with translating errors. It was translated that way, and it does not actually say homosexuality is a sin

Quote:

My conclusion: you're wrong.

My conclusion: Don't post in a topic acting like your a** is bulletproof until you can defend your opinions.

Cyphusiel

PS Marriage isn't about love its sharing benifits

And that's why even Buddhists can get married, right? rolleyes Marriage has lost any and all religious meaning. It was never about "sharing beliefs". There are plenty of people who have completely different beliefs who have gotten married. Hell, there are also a decent amount of athiests who have participated in the act of Matrimony.

[PoeticVengeance]

Cyphusiel

Kata Samoes

Cyphusiel

Ok so on the one hand you got people saying its the Roman version of unnatural and on the other we are saying Peter version saying unnatural and I'm pretty sure the roman catholics are against any non-childbirthing sexual acts which include homosexuality

That's people who read the Bible..not those who wrote it.

Fail.

But we are not sure which term of unnatural is being used Pauls or the Romans

PS Marriage isn't about love its sharing benifits

Me and quite a few others subscribe to the notion that Paul was speaking to the Romans in the context of the Romans' beliefs.

Back then, the Romans found homosexuality as natural.


The reason I assert that Paul was speaking in Roman terms, was because Paul was trying to encourage the Romans not to engage in idolatry.

He was basically making threats about awful s**t that happens to idolaters. Not direct threats, but the kind your mother makes if you don't eat your veggies ("You'll never grow again and people will sit on your head!" wink .

Obviously, if you're trying to encourage a group of people to do something, you're going to speak in terms they understand and bring up things they actually fear.

If Paul told the Romans that they were all going to be homosexual (something many of them were already doing) if they committed idolatry, they'd laugh at him, shrug (or the Roman equivalent) and say, "So what?" (in Latin of course).

Paul wasn't an idiot. He knew how to get people to do what he wanted. Otherwise he wouldn't have kept early Christianity going so strongly.

[Kata Samoes]

Cyphusiel

But we are not sure which term of unnatural is being used Pauls or the Romans

Yes but you are debating what Paul and Peter said..not how someone took it.

Cyphusiel

PS Marriage isn't about love its sharing benifits

That is your opinion, but it has no relation to the thread.

[Trichotillomaniac]

It's times like this when I wish that Gaia was very popular towards people, so they can know the truth within the Bible, and the misconceptions that many popular Christians have made.

Καλό θέμα. Υποστηρίζω αυτό το νήμα εκατό τοις εκατό. 3nodding

[Rookherst[KOS]]

Trichotillomaniac

It's times like this when I wish that Gaia was very popular towards people, so they can know the truth within the Bible, and the misconceptions that many popular Christians have made.

Καλό θέμα. Υποστηρίζω αυτό το νήμα εκατό τοις εκατό. 3nodding

Oh oh....let me try: Good Subject. I support this thread [very much].

[Trichotillomaniac]

Rookherst[KOS]

Trichotillomaniac

It's times like this when I wish that Gaia was very popular towards people, so they can know the truth within the Bible, and the misconceptions that many popular Christians have made.

Καλό θέμα. Υποστηρίζω αυτό το νήμα εκατό τοις εκατό. 3nodding

Oh oh....let me try: Good Subject. I support this thread [very much].

Hehe yes, that's right. smile