Do you believe in Jesus?

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Garrett31212

Yes, positive moral messages like the abolishment of homosexuality.

The bible doesn't mention homosexuality as a sin, except in the old testament...  

[Garrett31212]

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

We must also look deeper into the context that Corinthians and Romans place homosexuality into. The Romans (Corinth being part of Rome just off of the shore of present Italy) would have an eromenos/erastes relationship which would be between a full grown man, and a child, usually 12-15... but sometimes it'd go to 17! These relationships usually ended when the boy became a "man" and would not go farther. The relationships also happened while the erastes (older man) was married, and these thus being adultery, and ***** also common practice for those in the Roman Military to be raped by a higher officer.
Another thing about Corinth is that it's main god(dess) was Aphrodite (the god(dess) of love) and the temples had many male prostitutes... of course the time didn't allow woman to hire prostitutes, however, during Peter's trip to Corinth he converted these prostitutes, and they still believed that our God allowed for the use of prostitutes in the temple.

Matthew 22:34-40

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

James 2:8

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.

Quote:

Romans 13:9-
9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Matthew 5:17 - said by Jesus
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

1st Corinthians 13:4-7
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

How is it that homosexuality affects our neighbor? If Jesus says he comes to fulfill the law, Peter says love is the law, then Peter says love is patient/kind/etc. I'm 100% sure that homosexuals can have that in a relationship. Today homosexual relationships are much different from what they were in Ancient Rome and Corinth, today they are claimed by the American Psychiatric Association to be able to be just as normal as a heterosexual relationship... and not consisting of Rape, or *****, or Prostitution.

1st Timothy 4:1-5

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

 

[charmed taurus]

Well here is my opinion in homosexuality. I think it's not a sin.  

[Garrett31212]

Rainbowified Mouse, regardless of all of what you just said, it still clearly says that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. And you're exactly right, it says in the Bible to love. Not the tolerate.

Completely normal? It'll take alot more than that to convince me. Gay couples are automotaically inclined to be effeminate, which is not normal behavior.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

I understand your opinion. After all... it does say the Spirit says that as time goes on more and more people will go astray from the "sound doctrine."

And honestly, I myself am not fully convinced of my opinion sweatdrop I'm really confused actually, as far as it goes, because, to me and many others I don't see how you're affecting your neighbour by being a homosexual, yet in Corinthians/Romans/Leviticus they have clear sayings, however, these saying we also can look from a historic sociological aspect and find that a lot of these people weren't necessarily homosexual, just had ***** relationships, prostitution, or rape, rather than a set stable one-on-one relationship. I've actually the past two weeks been in constant prayer and bible study on the issue, I'm almost finished reading the new testament. I have nearly 15 pages just on this one topic of many areas of the bible that talk about relationships, and historic viewpoints.

1st Corinthians 6:9-12

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

That is the area of the bible that says "nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" however, homosexuals word ἀρσενοκοῖτ or arsenokotai has a lost meaning, the only thing we have from today is that
"arsen" = man
"okotai" = ?
Which, yes, arsenokotai could in fact mean homosexual, but we must also remember that they had no word for homosexual until the 1800s. In fact, my King James Version of the bible replaces where homosexuals is in the bible with "abusers of mankind." Mankind typically, according to my concordonance and interlinear bible meaning "male genitals" or "male" so "abusers of male (genitals)" yep, we can see how homosexuals can fit in there, but we can also see how masturbation might fit in there, how hitting someone there might be there, and many other things, with the end being a root that is currently unknown.

Yes, some homosexuals are effeminate, but not all. I admit I'm a little more girly than most guys, I hate cars, I hate sports, other than that I'm pretty normal, I wear dudes clothes, I couldn't give a crap about fashion, etc.

Quote:

1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
2 : marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement

Who get's to define what's "typical" of a man? Because over the past millennium that's changed very often. And, not to be rude or anything, not every homosexual is effeminate, to be honest, yes, a lot are, but there are many other straight people that are effeminate. I really don't see the harm to another person if some people are effeminate.


Sometimes I feel as if everyone just looks at the bible and says that every verse applies to every person. When, in fact, these are letters from the Apostles to specific people that were doing things that were wrong.

Corinthians also says this, which we do not use today (except in few churches, like my Grandfather's)

1st Corinthians 11:3-10

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

Clearly, we allow woman in churches to not have anything on their head. I believe that further in Corinthians it also says that woman should not wear jewelry in church nor braid their hair. However, most churches disregard this due to the context that it was a historic wronging of the people of Corinth. Just as some believe it was a historic wronging of the ***** and homosexual rapists of Corinth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/eromenos

Just take a look at it, then after that look up "homosexuality in ancient Rome" somewhere in Wikipedia and view the acts done. There were not actual relationships, there were just horrible indecent acts of sex with children, multiple partners, along with rape among the roman militia. Seldom seen were there ever actual one-on-one marriages. God makes it clear in Corinthians that those acts are sexually immoral, and because sex goes into our body it ruins our temple if it is immoral.


In Corinthians we also find this verse as well

1st Corinthians 7:8-9

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Clearly, homosexuals burn with lust. However, I am blessed with the ability to not mind being chaste, however, some others do not have this gift. How does one expect homosexuals to stay chaste when Peter made it clear to us that only those gifted with the ability should.  

[Garrett31212]

Well as I've said in the past, your vote shouldn't be a matter of how it affects you, but how it affects your country.

As for effeminance, I think we both know that men are naturally masculine and women are naturally feminine. This is why throughout history the majority of men have been masculine, and the majority of women have been feminine. Therefore, manly behavior can be defined as masculine behavior.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Who defines the masculine/feminine socual border? Society? I believe in many places in the bible it tells us society is corrupt, therefore why would we let them define the terms. God didn't lay verses describing gender roles, except in church and matrimony... so how should we know what makes males effeminate. *goes to interlinear bible*

It shows the word malakoi meaning "soft"

Soft = effeminate?
I'm sorry but it isn't a deragatoryt term... however I would like to note that it was first translated by early churches as adrogyny(sp?) or masturbation... not effeminate  

[Garrett31212]

Ok, seriously. I think we both know what masculine and feminine behavior entails. This isn't society's corruption, this is just reality.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

We might know today's masculine/feminine borders, but that's due to society. Today's definition is very very very different from that from 1000years ago, 500years ago, 100years ago, heck even 30years ago... it's changing so much. Today it's a little more gender blurred. If a woman was to take a political position 100years ago, everyone would freak out... today they can... so are we to be the gender roles of 2000years ago?

We today take today's role, I'm sure that it will be even more blurred with time passing, so, do we take Jesus's time for gender conformity, or today's role for gender conformity? Because ultimately it is our society who defines what is right and wrong for boys and girls to do together, separate, etc. And I'm 100% sure that in 15years, 70% of our population will be more accepting of homosexual-like gender roles, and then what? There wouldn't be effeminacy to sin by? Then, if we go by the gender roles of Jesus's time, then we all inevitable have to change, no working woman, no political power for woman, all power to men, woman just have to cook, clean, and nurture.

Aside from that, effeminate, so, only men apply to this? What about masculinity? So, lesbianism is okay then? Because woman are naturally effeminate, however some lesbians are masculine... but masculinity is not mentioned. It would seem unjust for woman to be able to be homosexual, and not men.

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to sound like I'm having a heated debate sweatdrop just bringing up thoughts that occur in my head... after all, this is a topic at large among the church the past few years.  

[Garrett31212]

Now you're confusing the difference between masculine and feminine behaviors with gender roles. Yes, gender roles have changed over the years, especially recently with feminism, however males and females do still have and always will have masculine behaviors.

Do all males end up masculine and all females end up feminine? No, but the majority do which shows that these behaviors are part of male/female nature. Some of it is because of society, yes, but it is not just coincidence that it turned out this way in every single nation throughout history. Now as for homosexuality, I'm opposed all off it's forms, including lesbianism.  

[Rosary16]

I believe in Jesus Christ and that he suffered and died so that we could have a shot at eternal life.
Thanks a ton, JC!  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Garrett31212

Now you're confusing the difference between masculine and feminine behaviors with gender roles. Yes, gender roles have changed over the years, especially recently with feminism, however males and females do still have and always will have masculine behaviors.

Do all males end up masculine and all females end up feminine? No, but the majority do which shows that these behaviors are part of male/female nature. Some of it is because of society, yes, but it is not just coincidence that it turned out this way in every single nation throughout history. Now as for homosexuality, I'm opposed all off it's forms, including lesbianism.

Then how would masculinity and femininity be defined?  

[Lord Bitememan]

The problem with this whole debate on the Bible vs. homosexuality is this: the Bible tells us to do lots of things, whether by virtue of the Judaic law which we all tossed, or St. Paul's letters in the New Testament which often times insert as cannon things never spoken by Jesus while on earth. We eat pork even though the Bible tells us not to. We don't marry our brother's wives and sire his heirs like the Bible tells us to. The Bible tells us not to kill, but we still fight wars (and don't consider the soldiers condemned to damnation). If we want to delve into what the Bible says is sinful, we have to understand that we will be attempting to emulate the priori of a society that hasn't existed in 2000 years.

People place far too much veneration into the Bible without realizing the very ugly processes by which it was made. Canon was often decided in ecumenical councils presided over by Roman (specifically Byzantine) Emperors. There was broad disagreement between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians about the role of Jewish practices in the church. Many portions of the assembled Bible are written in languages that were totally alien to one another. The New Testament is written in Greek, an Indo-European language, but important early books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, a Semetic language. Before being standardized into the King James English version (amusing since King James himself was flamboyantly gay) the book was first translated into Latin in which it existed for several hundred years. Of course, this entire time there was no printing press. Versions were hand-copied by monks on sheep skin. Of course, King James hiself was no ecumenical scholar, and doubtlessly his version took editorial liberties with the translation to justify the hold of English protestantism. Enter your modern Bible, how confident can you really be about something produced by such a process. If we counted votes the way we assembled this holy book nobody would be sure if the winner had actually won.

Beyond that, we have a much more vexing problem on our hands with respect to Christian principles dictating policy: not everyone in this country is a Christian, and the Constitution specifically enshrines the right to this heterodoxy. Public policy cannot serve as a valve to impose the rules of one religion on the unbelievers. Thus, "the Bible says it's bad" can't effectively serve as a justification in a pluralistic society to impose law without fundamentally violating the rights of other believers. Believe what you wish, policy, on the other hand, needs a rational justification, not an ecclesiastical one.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Lord Bitememan

The problem with this whole debate on the Bible vs. homosexuality is this: the Bible tells us to do lots of things, whether by virtue of the Judaic law which we all tossed, or St. Paul's letters in the New Testament which often times insert as cannon things never spoken by Jesus while on earth. We eat pork even though the Bible tells us not to. We don't marry our brother's wives and sire his heirs like the Bible tells us to. The Bible tells us not to kill, but we still fight wars (and don't consider the soldiers condemned to damnation). If we want to delve into what the Bible says is sinful, we have to understand that we will be attempting to emulate the priori of a society that hasn't existed in 2000 years.

People place far too much veneration into the Bible without realizing the very ugly processes by which it was made. Canon was often decided in ecumenical councils presided over by Roman (specifically Byzantine) Emperors. There was broad disagreement between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians about the role of Jewish practices in the church. Many portions of the assembled Bible are written in languages that were totally alien to one another. The New Testament is written in Greek, an Indo-European language, but important early books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, a Semetic language. Before being standardized into the King James English version (amusing since King James himself was flamboyantly gay) the book was first translated into Latin in which it existed for several hundred years. Of course, this entire time there was no printing press. Versions were hand-copied by monks on sheep skin. Of course, King James hiself was no ecumenical scholar, and doubtlessly his version took editorial liberties with the translation to justify the hold of English protestantism. Enter your modern Bible, how confident can you really be about something produced by such a process. If we counted votes the way we assembled this holy book nobody would be sure if the winner had actually won.

Beyond that, we have a much more vexing problem on our hands with respect to Christian principles dictating policy: not everyone in this country is a Christian, and the Constitution specifically enshrines the right to this heterodoxy. Public policy cannot serve as a valve to impose the rules of one religion on the unbelievers. Thus, "the Bible says it's bad" can't effectively serve as a justification in a pluralistic society to impose law without fundamentally violating the rights of other believers. Believe what you wish, policy, on the other hand, needs a rational justification, not an ecclesiastical one.

Interesting point. We also have to bring up the fact that even the Gospels were not written until 30-50years after Jesus' death, AND the people who wrote them were not even the apostles, they were followers of these apostles who listened to the stories and scribed them... I'm not saying it was mistranslated this way, but who knows what we might be missing. However, I am a strong believer in the Holy Spirit. In the old testament it says the law was laid on our heart, and in the prophecies of the new testament it said we'd get a new heart, then in the new testament it said we'd get a heart where the Holy Spirit would live and be our 'conscience'... I strongly believe that if such a controversial issue were wrong, then I would feel it upon my heart. Like murder, even murders have guilt feelings (unless they have psychological issues)

To talk about the mistranslation aspect of the Greek-English, we must also keep in mind that the bible was translated from Greek-Latin by the predominant Catholic church for centuries and then translated first into German by Luther... then translated into English much much later. The Luther bible has where our word 'homosexual' is in place as 'child abuser' which is believed to be talking about the homosexual relationships greek men had with children...