Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Taineyah]

Atari Maxi Tariyama

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

To explain that the bible DOESN'T say that.

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.

How many languages do you speak? I speak two fluently, one with varying levels of success, one to make basic sentences and get my point across and one that I am learning.

Let's just focus on the two I speak fluently, shall we? These languages are French and English. Both have words with many latin roots. French, due to sentence structure and conjugation rules (what conjugation rules, I know.... xp ) is a romance language. English is, I have been told, a Germanic language.

I can say almost anything I want in French (I'm a bit out of practice, but it is one of the languages of my childhood) and absolutely anything I want in English.

There are some phrases in French that do NOT translate to English. For example: Les bras m'en tombent translates as "My arms are falling." It is actually an expression of shock, as "You could have knocked me over with a feather."

Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Now, the old testament was, to the best of my knowledge, written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek. These are not in the same language group. The Old Testament and the New Testament (which was written in Greek) was then translated to Latin. Latin is in yet another language group. After that, the two books were translated to "common languages" including English, French, German and so on.

Now, given that the Torah (the Hebrew holy book which is the Old Testament in (I think, anyway) its purest form is only allowed to be reproduced for synogogue use by hand and inspected carefully due to changes being slipped in in the past with an EXACT REPRODUCTION IN THE SAME LANGUAGE, tell me again that the Bible you use is in fact correct?

Quote:

My conclusion: you're wrong.

My conclusion? You know nothing of language.

[Cyphusiel]

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Cyphusiel

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

The terminology didn't arise till...late 1800s? Somewhere around there. At least I think it's 18...17 at the earliest

[cutestuff16]

i feel stupid, i understood everything but have no idea how to explain any of it crying

[Cyphusiel]

TrunkstheSlayer

Cyphusiel

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

The terminology didn't arise till...late 1800s? Somewhere around there. At least I think it's 18...17 at the earliest

So then there is no way to prove or disprove if it was or wasn't

Wasn't gay in ancient times just considered a phase?

[linaloki]

Cyphusiel

TrunkstheSlayer

Cyphusiel

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

The terminology didn't arise till...late 1800s? Somewhere around there. At least I think it's 18...17 at the earliest

So then there is no way to prove or disprove if it was or wasn't

Wasn't gay in ancient times just considered a phase?

...um, no. Not really. Besides, it depends on where you're talking about.

Point of the matter is the Greek words that Paul used to say homosexual were not in any way related to the words used to describe people that had sex with their same sex.

[Cyphusiel]

linaloki

Cyphusiel

TrunkstheSlayer

Cyphusiel

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

The terminology didn't arise till...late 1800s? Somewhere around there. At least I think it's 18...17 at the earliest

So then there is no way to prove or disprove if it was or wasn't

Wasn't gay in ancient times just considered a phase?

...um, no. Not really. Besides, it depends on where you're talking about.

Point of the matter is the Greek words that Paul used to say homosexual were not in any way related to the words used to describe people that had sex with their same sex.

But there were homosexuals but no word to describe them

[linaloki]

Cyphusiel

linaloki

Cyphusiel

TrunkstheSlayer

Cyphusiel

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

The terminology didn't arise till...late 1800s? Somewhere around there. At least I think it's 18...17 at the earliest

So then there is no way to prove or disprove if it was or wasn't

Wasn't gay in ancient times just considered a phase?

...um, no. Not really. Besides, it depends on where you're talking about.

Point of the matter is the Greek words that Paul used to say homosexual were not in any way related to the words used to describe people that had sex with their same sex.

But there were homosexuals but no word to describe them

There was no word equivalent to homosexual, no. I'm sure that there were words to describe those having homosexual sex at the time. Those words were not in the Bible, however.

[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?

[PoeticVengeance]

Cyphusiel

TrunkstheSlayer

Cyphusiel

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

The terminology didn't arise till...late 1800s? Somewhere around there. At least I think it's 18...17 at the earliest

So then there is no way to prove or disprove if it was or wasn't

Paul specifically referred to the term in question as meaning pedastry. Since the word's literal meaning in greek was man + bed, people mistranslated it.

There's your prove Cyph.

Quote:

Wasn't gay in ancient times just considered a phase?

Actually it was considered a completely normal state of affairs and wasn't mistreated at all.

Some societies actually considered bisexuality normal, and pure heterosexuality to be weird as hell.

[TrunkstheSlayer]

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?

Cy, it's been covered....extensively in this and every other one of these threads. Try reading

[PoeticVengeance]

Cyphusiel

linaloki

Cyphusiel

TrunkstheSlayer

Cyphusiel

Did they even have a word for gay back then?

The terminology didn't arise till...late 1800s? Somewhere around there. At least I think it's 18...17 at the earliest

So then there is no way to prove or disprove if it was or wasn't

Wasn't gay in ancient times just considered a phase?

...um, no. Not really. Besides, it depends on where you're talking about.

Point of the matter is the Greek words that Paul used to say homosexual were not in any way related to the words used to describe people that had sex with their same sex.

But there were homosexuals but no word to describe them

There were words, Paul just never used those words. Not once.

[PoeticVengeance]

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?

Unnatural acts as considered by the Romans to be unnatural.


Paul did not specify, therefore left the meaning up to the Romans.

To the Romans, unnatural included a citizen being on the bottom of a sexual encounter with a noncitizen.

Homosexuality was normal and natural to the Romans.

So this passage is detailing people doing things the Romans consider unnatural during homosexual sex.

So, this is clearly not a condemnation of homosexuality.

[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.

[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