How is being gay a sin?

[falsethreats]

xLady Tsukiyox

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

falsethreats

Mei tsuki7

Homosexuality is not against the Bible.

Firstly Christians do not have to follow the OT because Jesus came and fulfilled the old laws and old covenant and made new laws and a new covenant. That gets rid of Levitucus.

There is nothing in the NT that speaks of homosexuality being a sin.

Therefore homosexuality is not a sin.

Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 rolleyes

I absolute loathe how you interpret Jesus' saying that he came to fulfill the law. Truly we are saved by grace and we live under grace, but that doesn't mean that sins defined in the Old Testament cease to be sins. That's why Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law." Before the law, sin did not count (Romans 5:13,) but Jesus didn't get rid of the law. Paul teaches in Romans 6 that we are dead to sin and alive in Christ. Therefore, we no longer live in sin. Does this not mean that we ought to fight our sinfulness? Or, would you prefer to be like Anne Hutchinson and say "You're saved, so go out there and live like the devil. You'll still go to heaven"?

Christ did not get rid of the law. The law still exists, and therefore sin still exists and it still displeases God. His righteousness has fulfilled the law which condemns us and we are presented before the Father as justified. Our position in Christ is perfect righteousness but our condition in Christ is sanctification by the Holy Spirit to conform to Christ's image. In other words, if your desire to be a child of God, He will work in you to abandon your sins, including homosexuality.

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

Actually the word abusers of themselves with mankind does not refer to the word sodomite or even male homosexual. That's a mistranslation. King James, as we all know or should know by now, sucked at translating latin. It's pretty obvious. I mean how the hell do you get witch out of poisoner? Wouldn't the term apothecary be a more suitable word?

The term abusers of themselves refers to the Hebrew word qadesh or qedesh which actually means Male Prostitute. Prostitution is a major sin in the ancient world because prostitutes use sex as a shameless act and sell their bodies.

So really, what Romans 1:27 and 1 Cor 6:9 are actually referring to are male prostitutes, not homosexuals. I was going based off of memory of what Romans 1:27 said, but in Romans 1 there is mention of women trading their natural roles for unnatural ones which does refer to women being more dominant verses how they're supposed to be, which is submissive.

You have to take into consideration the culture during those times. There were male prostitutes doing their thing on the grounds of the bloody temples for Christ's Sake. Now that right there is shameless.

You said "sex as a shameless act." Romans 1:27 says, "men committing shameless acts with men." How do we know for sure that this refers to sex? Before that, it says, "men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another." How do we understand the meaning of the word "passion" in context with sexual desire? 1 Corinthians 7:9 says, "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

[Akhenaton of man]

Herald of Lies

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

May not be good for my health, but logically if I'm going to have my particular religion I should put it first, otherwise it's most certainly an utter waste of time.

But in the end, could you do that? You can physically get away with violating your religion, but if you violate the law, you will go to jail. It doesn't matter whether you like the law or not, you have to respect the law over your religion because you are forced to.

Well if by respect you include me breaking it and getting thrown in jail, then yes I would be forced to respect the law.

That does not mean I will have to respect the Constitution, I could vote for unconstitutional things and it's possible they'll get by. And though I was talking in general that would be sorta relevant to certain specific cases like this one.

Quote:

Herald of Lies

Not that my religion would call for violence in any particular circumstance I can think of so I doubt it would get to be that bad.

Yeah, but if you start molesting children and hoarding illegal weapons and then open fire on the ATF and SWAT team, then you have no excuse.

Well yeah my religion couldn't possibly call for that short of God changing things majorly between now an then.

But let me ask you. Is it worth going to jail for simply because your religion decided to put forth a dogma that violated state and/or federal law?

If I'm going to seriously try to be a good adherent of the religion, yes.

Well suit yourself. I personally think that the law is more important. The only thing that gets to me is that why would you purposely break a law for your religion when you were already granted freedom of religion in the first place?

[falsethreats]

xLady Tsukiyox

falsethreats

Mei tsuki7

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

That is your interpretation of those words. It could mean bestiality or even just adultery because they were obviously not married to those men.

Corintians is a horrible mistranslation. It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use. He used a word of his own creation that was a conjugation of the words "boy" and "bed." It is most likely speaking of ***** and/or the temple prostitutes.

So, you're suggesting that some of the widely accepted translations of the Bible are wrong? Do you not trust in the sovereignty of God, that He is able to pass down the Scriptures, unchanged and inerrant? It's like saying, "God allows His words to be manipulated, misleading millions upon millions."

Actually what we're suggessting is that you look at the original texts, the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic instead of looking at the faulty translation of the KJV. Like I said, King James was a crappy translator when it came to Latin.

So says other men. But, this is where faith in the sovereignty of God applies. Would God hinder his children by allowing the instructions of the most widely accepted version of the Bible to be faulty and with error?

[Postulate II]

All sexuality is a sin; it's a tool used by the demiurge to expand the population and spread disease and infidelity. All it takes to fool you bumbling fools is a little dose of physical pleasure.

Being gay is no worse than being straight. Pick your poison; it's all terrible.

[CuAnnan]

falsethreats

How, then, will a mistranslation be able to go undetected in the midst of thousands of theologians?

You claim that theologians all agree with one version of the bible then?
I ask again.
Which version of the bible is correct?
If God is so insistent on the inerrant bible being preserved, why is there more than one version?

[Herald of Lies]

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

Akhenaton of man

But in the end, could you do that? You can physically get away with violating your religion, but if you violate the law, you will go to jail. It doesn't matter whether you like the law or not, you have to respect the law over your religion because you are forced to.

Well if by respect you include me breaking it and getting thrown in jail, then yes I would be forced to respect the law.

That does not mean I will have to respect the Constitution, I could vote for unconstitutional things and it's possible they'll get by. And though I was talking in general that would be sorta relevant to certain specific cases like this one.

Quote:

Yeah, but if you start molesting children and hoarding illegal weapons and then open fire on the ATF and SWAT team, then you have no excuse.

Well yeah my religion couldn't possibly call for that short of God changing things majorly between now an then.

But let me ask you. Is it worth going to jail for simply because your religion decided to put forth a dogma that violated state and/or federal law?

If I'm going to seriously try to be a good adherent of the religion, yes.

Well suit yourself. I personally think that the law is more important. The only thing that gets to me is that why would you purposely break a law for your religion when you were already granted freedom of religion in the first place?

I'd only break the law if freedom of religion wasn't enough to stop it from being illegal. Which seems unlikely. It's more or less simply saying how I have my priorities set.

[falsethreats]

CuAnnan

falsethreats

How, then, will a mistranslation be able to go undetected in the midst of thousands of theologians?

You claim that theologians all agree with one version of the bible then?
I ask again.
Which version of the bible is correct?
If God is so insistent on the inerrant bible being preserved, why is there more than one version?

I'm not saying there's only one version. There are different translations, but the meaning of the Scriptures contained remain the same. Different translation doesn't always equate with mistranslation.

[Nines19]

Mei tsuki7

It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use.

Can we get a source on them having this word at the time Paul wrote his works? I've heard otherwise.

[xLady Tsukiyox]

Nines19

Mei tsuki7

It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use.

Can we get a source on them having this word at the time Paul wrote his works? I've heard otherwise.

I believe she's referring to the word arestinkos which does appear in the Bible however it's more of a pun.

Homosexuality Is not A Sin, Not A Sickness
Sexuality

Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin. What Christ Said And More.

[xLady Tsukiyox]

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

falsethreats

Mei tsuki7

Homosexuality is not against the Bible.

Firstly Christians do not have to follow the OT because Jesus came and fulfilled the old laws and old covenant and made new laws and a new covenant. That gets rid of Levitucus.

There is nothing in the NT that speaks of homosexuality being a sin.

Therefore homosexuality is not a sin.

Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 rolleyes

I absolute loathe how you interpret Jesus' saying that he came to fulfill the law. Truly we are saved by grace and we live under grace, but that doesn't mean that sins defined in the Old Testament cease to be sins. That's why Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law." Before the law, sin did not count (Romans 5:13,) but Jesus didn't get rid of the law. Paul teaches in Romans 6 that we are dead to sin and alive in Christ. Therefore, we no longer live in sin. Does this not mean that we ought to fight our sinfulness? Or, would you prefer to be like Anne Hutchinson and say "You're saved, so go out there and live like the devil. You'll still go to heaven"?

Christ did not get rid of the law. The law still exists, and therefore sin still exists and it still displeases God. His righteousness has fulfilled the law which condemns us and we are presented before the Father as justified. Our position in Christ is perfect righteousness but our condition in Christ is sanctification by the Holy Spirit to conform to Christ's image. In other words, if your desire to be a child of God, He will work in you to abandon your sins, including homosexuality.

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

Actually the word abusers of themselves with mankind does not refer to the word sodomite or even male homosexual. That's a mistranslation. King James, as we all know or should know by now, sucked at translating latin. It's pretty obvious. I mean how the hell do you get witch out of poisoner? Wouldn't the term apothecary be a more suitable word?

The term abusers of themselves refers to the Hebrew word qadesh or qedesh which actually means Male Prostitute. Prostitution is a major sin in the ancient world because prostitutes use sex as a shameless act and sell their bodies.

So really, what Romans 1:27 and 1 Cor 6:9 are actually referring to are male prostitutes, not homosexuals. I was going based off of memory of what Romans 1:27 said, but in Romans 1 there is mention of women trading their natural roles for unnatural ones which does refer to women being more dominant verses how they're supposed to be, which is submissive.

You have to take into consideration the culture during those times. There were male prostitutes doing their thing on the grounds of the bloody temples for Christ's Sake. Now that right there is shameless.

You said "sex as a shameless act." Romans 1:27 says, "men committing shameless acts with men." How do we know for sure that this refers to sex? Before that, it says, "men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another." How do we understand the meaning of the word "passion" in context with sexual desire? 1 Corinthians 7:9 says, "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

One can be a prostitute and feel passion. neutral

[xLady Tsukiyox]

falsethreats

CuAnnan

falsethreats

How, then, will a mistranslation be able to go undetected in the midst of thousands of theologians?

You claim that theologians all agree with one version of the bible then?
I ask again.
Which version of the bible is correct?
If God is so insistent on the inerrant bible being preserved, why is there more than one version?

I'm not saying there's only one version. There are different translations, but the meaning of the Scriptures contained remain the same. Different translation doesn't always equate with mistranslation.

No. You're implying that there is one version to use. The message is actually different in the KJV. Because it was politically charged. I mean the name King James Version of 1611...kinda says it all, doesn't it?

[Nines19]

xLady Tsukiyox

Nines19

Mei tsuki7

It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use.

Can we get a source on them having this word at the time Paul wrote his works? I've heard otherwise.

I believe she's referring to the word arestinkos which does appear in the Bible however it's more of a pun.

I believe she was referring to arestinkos when she said

Mei tsuki7

He used a word of his own creation that was a conjugation of the words "boy" and "bed."

and omophulophilikos when she said what I quoted and bolded.

xLady Tsukiyox

Homosexuality Is not A Sin, Not A Sickness
Sexuality

Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin. What Christ Said And More.

None of those links talk about when the word omophulophilikos was introduced into Greek language as compared to the writings of Paul, unless it's buried somewhere in Loki's thread - and forgive me if I kind of don't feel like searching through a 1690 page thread for something that's only a side-note to that thread's topic. (He mentions omophulophilikos and arestinkos or arsenokoitai on the first page, but doesn't discuss or even acknowledge the timelime I'm looking for.)

The first link does say

Quote:

Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual behavior but do not appear here.

But that's not the same as

Mei tsuki7

the Greeks had a word for homosexual

The second one says absolutely nothing at all about Greek, and thus doesn't apply to the question I asked, and to be honest I'm sitting here wondering why you gave it to me.

[falsethreats]

xLady Tsukiyox

No. You're implying that there is one version to use. The message is actually different in the KJV. Because it was politically charged. I mean the name King James Version of 1611...kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Is it? I read both NKJV and ESV, and there's really no difference in meaning between the two. I always find myself in the situation that more than one version of the Bible is used in studies (including KJV) and there's no difference in the message conveyed.

xLady Tsukiyox

One can be a prostitute and feel passion. neutral

Is that really how the word "passion" is being used here? It says, "consumed with passion for one another." Is it any coincidence that "men committing shameless acts with men" is what comes after that sentence, clarifying who "one another" refers to?

[xLady Tsukiyox]

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

No. You're implying that there is one version to use. The message is actually different in the KJV. Because it was politically charged. I mean the name King James Version of 1611...kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Is it? I read both NKJV and ESV, and there's really no difference in meaning between the two. I always find myself in the situation that more than one version of the Bible is used in studies (including KJV) and there's no difference in the message conveyed.

xLady Tsukiyox

One can be a prostitute and feel passion. neutral

Is that really how the word "passion" is being used here? It says, "consumed with passion for one another." Is it any coincidence that "men committing shameless acts with men" is what comes after that sentence, clarifying who "one another" refers to?

I stay away from KJV even the new one.

I stick with the NIV and I use Blue Letter Bible from time to time. I want to learn how to read the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts to better understand what it was that they said and how much the English translations differ.

I'm a writer. I know that mis-translation is common with books including manga. It all has to do with the orientation (left to right vs right to left) and how well the person translating the material knows the native language it was written in. In King James case, he knew very very little. And many translations go off of the KJV. -.-

With the prostitutes, yes that is what I get. Prostitution and Idolatry both were running rampant during Jesus' time. Both were very bad things.

And as Postulate said, Sex before marriage is bad REGARDLESS of your sexual orientation. It not so much that homosexuality is bad or being attracted to the same gender, but it's the sex.

[Nines19]

falsethreats

consumed

That may or may not be a big, huge, important word in the passage you're discussing.

I would also point out that most homosexuals are no more "consumed with passion" for one another than most heterosexuals are - so that passage may not apply to (most) modern homosexual relationships or conversely may indeed apply to (most) modern heterosexual relationships, depending on your level of cynicism about modern relationships in general.