How is being gay a sin?

[Kiumaru]

falsethreats

CuAnnan

falsethreats

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."

Are you claiming God is preventing mistakes from entering the bible?
Since you seem to claim the bible is inerrant, which version is correct?

I would see it this way: in Christian history, there have been many manipulated versions that people tried to spread through publication. Thanks to the sovereignty of God and the work of his servants, these "bibles" were exposed and never became widely accepted as Scripture. Also, thanks to the tens of thousands of manuscripts that we have for the Bible, we can be sure that any manipulation of the Bible will be exposed. John Piper alone reads his Bible from cover to cover every year, and manages to discuss about the accuracy of ONE word in a random passage! How, then, will a mistranslation be able to go undetected in the midst of thousands of theologians? Of course, none of this would be possible if not for the sovereignty of God.

1) So God will personally intervene if someone was going to mistranslate or misinterpret something? What will he do, affect the economics of it all? Also, a lot of translations disagree on certain things about how to translate said things. Translation is not a science, it's an art and it can definitely get inaccurate at points. It's not as if people who mistranslate the bible are going to be struck by lightning before it gets printed. (Things are bought because they look interesting. If it catches on enough, more people will hear of it and be more likely to purchase it. It's not as if economics has some kind of "mysterious force" acting behind it.)
2) Under this logic, the various churches would all be infallible because God allows them. Thus, people could be "misled" by these different sects which say entirely different things. If such a God would prevent the mistranslation of the bible, why would he allow the creation of such churches?

[Aino Ailill]

jaden kendam

Aino Ailill

Shalom My Soul

Ofluckit

I'm Catholic and there's a gay marriage debate at my school tomorrow. I'm for it.

I know, apparently there's somewhere in the bible that says its wrong, but I really don't understand all the fuss. People were born that way. God made them that way. I mean, if we're god's children, why would he let someone be born an "obomination"?

Also, if we do allow gay's to be married, aren't we doing the right thing? Gays will be together anyway and if we don't allow them marriage, they'll have sex before marriage.

For those of you who think its wrong, why?

(Btw lets all keep an open mind because I'm talking about this from a religious viewpoint. I don't want any idiots making fun of my religion, plz.)

-looks around for homosexuals- Erm..... Weeel... according to Romans 1:20 something.... God didn't "make" them that way via direct creation (as in born) . , He "allowed" them to be that way because they choose that path. Thus the question really isn't about what is right and what is wrong, it is about their individual choice to be what they want to be regardless of God's opinion of it. =/

Please don't kill me for posting this. ^^;;

No, Romans talks about pure action. He 'gave them over' to their lusts (already there), and they preformed unnatural acts. The action of having sex with another is, of course, a choice (except for rape).

The part that mentions unnatural acts follows the reason why God did what he did. The people that are mentioned were worshipping false idols. So, the question is, is every homosexual an idol worshipper?

Yes, ninja

[Aino Ailill]

falsethreats

jaden kendam

falsethreats

This does not mean that I would reject a homosexual individual because of his homosexuality. I have a number of homosexual friends (for the sake of establishing credibility.)

That establishes no credibility. "I don't reject black people cause of their skin. I have a number of black friends." Does that sound familiar? Does he list his use of scripture to support his statements?

Also, could you point to me where having a temper is a sin in scripture?

Except being black is not a sin. >_>

Anger itself is not a sin. Ephesians 4:26 says, "Be angry and do not sin." But, quickness to anger shows a lack of steadfast love, patience, and mercy. Furthermore, quickness to anger can lead to unreasonable anger, which is a sin according to Jesus in Matthew 5:22. Unreasonable anger, according to this passage, will lead to unreasonably calling your brother a "fool."

Being born can lead to quite a number of sins. Is it to be considered a sin simply because it can lead to them?

How does quickness to anger show a lack of love or mercy?

[Aino Ailill]

falsethreats

jaden kendam

falsethreats

jaden kendam

falsethreats

This does not mean that I would reject a homosexual individual because of his homosexuality. I have a number of homosexual friends (for the sake of establishing credibility.)

That establishes no credibility. "I don't reject black people cause of their skin. I have a number of black friends." Does that sound familiar? Does he list his use of scripture to support his statements?

Also, could you point to me where having a temper is a sin in scripture?

Except being black is not a sin. >_>

Really? Neither was shown homosexuality to be. But one might have thought that the statements are the same in their value of credibility. Which is to say that there is none.

Homosexuality is not a sin? Then correctly disprove my reasoning that homosexuality is a sin, with full use of Scripture.

Scripture talks only of actions, not of sexuality. Sexuality is a tendency toward being attracted to a certain gender or sex.

[xLady Tsukiyox]

Aino Ailill

falsethreats

jaden kendam

falsethreats

jaden kendam

falsethreats

This does not mean that I would reject a homosexual individual because of his homosexuality. I have a number of homosexual friends (for the sake of establishing credibility.)

That establishes no credibility. "I don't reject black people cause of their skin. I have a number of black friends." Does that sound familiar? Does he list his use of scripture to support his statements?

Also, could you point to me where having a temper is a sin in scripture?

Except being black is not a sin. >_>

Really? Neither was shown homosexuality to be. But one might have thought that the statements are the same in their value of credibility. Which is to say that there is none.

Homosexuality is not a sin? Then correctly disprove my reasoning that homosexuality is a sin, with full use of Scripture.

Scripture talks only of actions, not of sexuality. Sexuality is a tendency toward being attracted to a certain gender or sex.

Thank you! I think I should retire from this debate for a bit, before I scream and break my computer in frustration and tears.

[Aino Ailill]

falsethreats

jaden kendam

falsethreats

1) Why not explain to me why I put these things out of context instead of telling me to put them into context? If there's something I'm genuinely missing about these passages, why not explain instead of accuse? This is entirely what you're doing here, and it gets us nowhere in this discussion.

Romans 1:21-30 (New International Version)

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

There is Romans 1:21-1:30. Notice the context now?

Site

Haha! Do you know that I'm doing an intensive study on the book of Romans, and I'm doing this verse by verse placing context where needed?

The context of this is that God gave them up to their own sinful desires, thus leading men to committing acts of homosexual sex. They refused to follow God's ordained purpose of sexual relations, which is one man and one woman. You still think I'm out of context?

Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9 >>


NIV© Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
NAS© 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,
ISV© You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
GWT© Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,
KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
AKJ Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
ASV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
BBE Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,
DRB Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
DBY Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
ERV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
WBS Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
WEY Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit God's Kingdom? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime,
WEB Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
YLT have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

Corinthians 6:9

The ones listed in bold refer to homosexual males. If you disagree, might I ask why some translations list the word "homosexual" and others don't? Interestingly, the D-R Bible's translation doesn't actually say the word "homosexual" or anything that refers to homosexuality. But, just because you think it doesn't appear on some translations, are we to reject the ones that do say "homosexual"? As an aspiring theologian, I have to say that this is a poor attempt at trying to disprove the sin of homosexuality.

Quote:

1 Timothy 1:10 >>


NIV© for adulterers and perverts (synonymous with "unnatural" wink , for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
NAS© and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
ISV© for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching
GWT© Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.
KJV For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind(referring to KJV translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
AKJ For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
ASV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
BBE For those who go after loose women, for those with unnatural desires, for those who take men prisoners, who make false statements and false oaths, and those who do any other things against the right teaching,
DRB For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,
DBY fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,
ERV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
WBS For lewd persons, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
WEY fornicators, sodomites, slave-dealers, liars and false witnesses; and for whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching
WEB for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
YLT whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse,

Timothy 1:10

Neither all versions of Timothy or Corinithians says homosexuals.

Site for both Corinthians and Timothy

Once again, the words in bold are clear that homosexuality is a sin.

The word translated as 'homosexual' is 'arsenokoitais.' However, it is not an easily translated word due, in large part, to a lack of context.

Quote:

The term arsenokoitai is only used twice in the original texts of the Bible; in the two passages by Paul just cited. Usages of the word by contemporaries of Paul (secular or otherwise) seem to be almost nonexistant. (Father D. Helminiak, Ph.D., a Catholic theologian writes in his book "What the Bible really Says About Homosexuality": "1 Corinthians is our earliest record of the word." Yale Professor Dr. J. Boswell writes in his award winning "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality": "Paul appears to have been the first author to use the word, and it appeared very infrequently after him." wink

[x]

However, there is some context given. For examples, in Romans, "“males with males” (arsenes en arsenes) in v. 27" ([x], reflects the word 'arsenokoitai.

With what context is given, however, than how do we come to the conclusion that it is talking of male persons (and it is strictly male, so the unqualified term 'homosexuals' does not cover it!) who are inclined to be attracted (either romantically or sexually, typically both)?

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I have a rather massive headache right now but I can't seem to fall asleep, my typical remedy. If you can't understand something that I have written, do point it out. sweatdrop

[Aino Ailill]

Mei tsuki7

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?

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.

Right...'man-bed' and 'soft' would translate to a tendency toward attraction to animals, how?

[Aino Ailill]

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.

King James was written with the intent of being aesthetically pleasing when read aloud. This means they 'sucked at translating Latin,' how?

[Aino Ailill]

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, in other words, your answer is 'yes.'

[xLady Tsukiyox]

Aino Ailill

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, in other words, your answer is 'yes.'

There are English translations that don't go off of KJV.

I haven't read all the translations, I typically stick to NIV because it's easy for me to understand.

[xLady Tsukiyox]

Aino Ailill

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.

King James was written with the intent of being aesthetically pleasing when read aloud. This means they 'sucked at translating Latin,' how?

-rubs forehead-

No, I mean King James himself. I mean how else do you get witch from poisoner...I mean seriously, that still perplexes me. Not all witches work with herbs...wouldn't it be simplier to say Apothecary?

[Aftis Sinfel]

Ofluckit

I'm Catholic and there's a gay marriage debate at my school tomorrow. I'm for it.

I know, apparently there's somewhere in the bible that says its wrong, but I really don't understand all the fuss. People were born that way. God made them that way. I mean, if we're god's children, why would he let someone be born an "obomination"?

Also, if we do allow gay's to be married, aren't we doing the right thing? Gays will be together anyway and if we don't allow them marriage, they'll have sex before marriage.

For those of you who think its wrong, why?

(Btw lets all keep an open mind because I'm talking about this from a religious viewpoint. I don't want any idiots making fun of my religion, plz.)

Anywho...

FROM MY STANDPOINT...

Is it wrong for a brother to make "love" to his sister? "Love" is only natural, correct? Well... No, not that kind of "love". Homosexuality is no exception.

I honestly believe the homosexuality is something of a sinful nature. Something you can be freed from. I've heard tons of ex-gays talk, and they all at one point said they were born gay. Maybe it's true, but I know also that it doesn't mean they have to be that way forever. It's just like how some babies are born with an addiction to a drug or alcohol, but they don't all have to use it and most live full lives without the use of substance. Is it wrong for them to "not be true to theirselves"? No, it's actually better because that way they won't be harmed.

Just because a person is born one way doesn't mean they have to stay that way. I was born a sinner, am I then bound to hell? YES! But will I go there? NO! Why? Because Jesus Christ died so I could be forgiven and freed from my sins. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN AND WE CAN BE FREED OF SINS.

Rather simple the way I'm looking at it, no? wink

[Aftis Sinfel]

Kiumaru

falsethreats

CuAnnan

falsethreats

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."

Are you claiming God is preventing mistakes from entering the bible?
Since you seem to claim the bible is inerrant, which version is correct?

I would see it this way: in Christian history, there have been many manipulated versions that people tried to spread through publication. Thanks to the sovereignty of God and the work of his servants, these "bibles" were exposed and never became widely accepted as Scripture. Also, thanks to the tens of thousands of manuscripts that we have for the Bible, we can be sure that any manipulation of the Bible will be exposed. John Piper alone reads his Bible from cover to cover every year, and manages to discuss about the accuracy of ONE word in a random passage! How, then, will a mistranslation be able to go undetected in the midst of thousands of theologians? Of course, none of this would be possible if not for the sovereignty of God.

1) So God will personally intervene if someone was going to mistranslate or misinterpret something? What will he do, affect the economics of it all? Also, a lot of translations disagree on certain things about how to translate said things. Translation is not a science, it's an art and it can definitely get inaccurate at points. It's not as if people who mistranslate the bible are going to be struck by lightning before it gets printed. (Things are bought because they look interesting. If it catches on enough, more people will hear of it and be more likely to purchase it. It's not as if economics has some kind of "mysterious force" acting behind it.)
2) Under this logic, the various churches would all be infallible because God allows them. Thus, people could be "misled" by these different sects which say entirely different things. If such a God would prevent the mistranslation of the bible, why would he allow the creation of such churches?

... stare THAT'S OFF TOPIC!!! scream

[Kiumaru]

Aftis Sinfel

... stare THAT'S OFF TOPIC!!! scream

I was not the one who brought the idea that the Bible was the infallible word of God here. This contention is quite important to this case because of the fact that different translations have different things in relations to the passages which supposedly contend about the sinfulness of homosexuality. The reason why it is important is because of the fact that if we allow for the different translations, that means that it could be interpreted that such an action such as homosexuality is not considered a sin.

Unless you have a reason to argue that the Bible is infallible.

Aftis Sinfel

I honestly believe the homosexuality is something of a sinful nature. Something you can be freed from. I've heard tons of ex-gays talk, and they all at one point said they were born gay. Maybe it's true, but I know also that it doesn't mean they have to be that way forever. It's just like how some babies are born with an addiction to a drug or alcohol, but they don't all have to use it and most live full lives without the use of substance. Is it wrong for them to "not be true to theirselves"? No, it's actually better because that way they won't be harmed.

Can you prove that homosexuality is a sinful nature?

[jaden kendam]

falsethreats

jaden kendam

falsethreats

1) Why not explain to me why I put these things out of context instead of telling me to put them into context? If there's something I'm genuinely missing about these passages, why not explain instead of accuse? This is entirely what you're doing here, and it gets us nowhere in this discussion.

Romans 1:21-30 (New International Version)

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

There is Romans 1:21-1:30. Notice the context now?

Site

Haha! Do you know that I'm doing an intensive study on the book of Romans, and I'm doing this verse by verse placing context where needed?

The context of this is that God gave them up to their own sinful desires, thus leading men to committing acts of homosexual sex. They refused to follow God's ordained purpose of sexual relations, which is one man and one woman. You still think I'm out of context?

I know you are out of context as you missed the part about idolatry and the punishment. Clear condemnation of idolatry, not homosexuality. But keep saying you are studying intensively, and I am sure someone would buy it.

falsethreats

Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9 >>


NIV© Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
NAS© 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,
ISV© You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
GWT© Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,
KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
AKJ Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
ASV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
BBE Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,
DRB Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
DBY Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
ERV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
WBS Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
WEY Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit God's Kingdom? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime,
WEB Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
YLT have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

Corinthians 6:9

The ones listed in bold refer to homosexual males. If you disagree, might I ask why some translations list the word "homosexual" and others don't? Interestingly, the D-R Bible's translation doesn't actually say the word "homosexual" or anything that refers to homosexuality. But, just because you think it doesn't appear on some translations, are we to reject the ones that do say "homosexual"? As an aspiring theologian, I have to say that this is a poor attempt at trying to disprove the sin of homosexuality.

Your attempt at saying homosexuality equals abuse or sodomy is poor and something such an aspiring theologian should stay away from. Abusers of themselves with mankind could mean any number of things, and yet you jump right for the, homos are bad. Same with sodomites. Sodomy means a**l sex, and is generally used for a**l rapeage in legal cases. "The victim was molested, then sodomized, then molested again." I watch enough "American Justice" to know about serial rapists and the charges that are used against them. So, what that means is anyone who rapes another person up the a** or just ******** the other person in the a** is sinning. You many be too naive to know this, but heterosexuals have a**l sex as well. And not all homosexuals have a**l sex. God, that was a lame argument from you.

falsethreats

Quote:

1 Timothy 1:10 >>


NIV© for adulterers and perverts (synonymous with "unnatural" wink , for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
NAS© and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
ISV© for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching
GWT© Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.
KJV For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind(referring to KJV translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
AKJ For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
ASV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
BBE For those who go after loose women, for those with unnatural desires, for those who take men prisoners, who make false statements and false oaths, and those who do any other things against the right teaching,
DRB For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,
DBY fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,
ERV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
WBS For lewd persons, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
WEY fornicators, sodomites, slave-dealers, liars and false witnesses; and for whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching
WEB for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
YLT whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse,

Timothy 1:10

Neither all versions of Timothy or Corinithians says homosexuals.

Site for both Corinthians and Timothy

Once again, the words in bold are clear that homosexuality is a sin.

Prove that abusers of themselves with men, perverts, and sodomites equals the gay sexuals. Also, when saying that sodomy refers to the homos, that would kind of disclude the lesbians, unless they were to use broom handles or something.

If you are going to use the story of why God destroyed Sodom as your proof. Try not to disregard the reasons that were listed.

falsethreats

jaden kandam

falsethreats

2) Your dismissive attitude fails to back up your statements. Further explanation for the guy who doesn't seem to use logic: I question any person who claims to be quick-tempered towards inanimate objects and not at people. Quick-temperedness does not allow you time to think (as I pointed out earlier) so will a person be given time to make distinction between animate and inanimate when getting angry? Do you rely so much on your sub-conscience to guide your anger correctly? When I become quick to anger, I only later realize how unreasonable I become towards the object of my anger, animate or inanimate.

Once again, and my dismissive attitude of your statement is highly justified is that quick temper does not always lead to the sin that you said. Your own words even pointed that out. Also, just because you fly off the handle everytime you get angry, does not mean that everyone does. Some peoples temper just stews or they b***h and complain at their computer or they go and hit a punching bag or go for a walk. Doesn't mean they take it out on animals or other people.

If you're prone to react very impatiently with a machine, it DOES mean you may be prone to reacting very impatiently with humans. The object of your anger matters not when it's your nature to react to anger impulsively.

Look at your own words. May be prone does not mean always prone. If you can not control yourself when you have a temper, then you are the type of person that Jesus talked about in the quote you showed. Both of us are using ourselves as examples. Just because the kid hits me with a shopping cart and I get super pissed, does not mean that I will beat him and his parents and any security guards that step forth. No, I can leave the store.

falsethreats

From my observation, at this point, your reasoning hold no further solidity than mine. Hold not to your unmerited pride!

Unmerited pride you say. When you are the one holding yourself up a theologian and acting as if you know everything is unmerited pride in my eyes. Get over yourself.