1.a. The "vile affections" needed to be clarified. To do this we look to what it was describing. Simply put, pagnaism. It was relevant. Nonetheless, the "you too" defense is irrelevant; where is it that you're taking this from? Unless it's part of scripture, it's irrelevant. If you want to debate it properly thought, that's fine.
2. I wasn't speaking of The Sins, but of the list you provided (the one we're talking about). You put homosexuality alongside common deciet, in which case there's no real weight to it because if the person is still christian or prays for forgiveness, sins are forgiven. Lying is such a common transgression that it is hardly grounds for etenal damnation (assuming it wasn't a lifestyle or an ongoing thing above and beyond "acceptable morality"). If it is as easy to wash your hands of a white lie to your parents as it would be for homosexual intercourse then none of us need really worry and the debate ends up being as irrelevant (though no less interesting or deep) as if the question was about the morality of lying.
Good luck with Joyce, one of *the* great writers in the past century, and sorry for the sore bum. I'll take that advice.
quote: That's not in the verse we're talking about. If you want to quote chapter and verse we'll deal with that along with Corinthians etc.
Neither were the mentions of pagans…the pagan references were right before the verse in question, whereas the things I listed are right after the verse. (Look at Romans 1)
quote: if homosexuality (assuming it was even condemned) is only as bad as lying then one can easily be forgiven. It is not a mortal sin. If lying is as bad as murder and is unforgivable we're all going to hell and there's no saving anyone.
The “mortal sin” is knowing that there is a God and turning against Him. Maybe your thinking of the “seven deadly sins” which are purely a Catholic doctrine and are not scripturally based. And no, we are not incapable of being saved. If Jesus hadn’t died on the cross for our sins, then that would be one thing, but since He did we can be forgiven of our sins…even murder and homosexuality, provided we turn to Him.
That’s all I’ve got for tonight. I have to read 40 pages of Joyce’s stream of consciousness and my butt hurts like no other! (I just fell down a flight of stairs.) Tip: don’t try to run down wooden stairs in slippery slippers. So I’ll get to that Corinthians quote later.
1. Given the context of the section - discussing the immorality of pagan beleifs - it seems actaully rather likely that he was tlaking about the pagan orgies. Settign up and serimoniously knocking down a straw-man of drinking and drugs is irrelevant. It is more likely a condemnation of pagan rituals and beliefs than homosexuality itself. Misinterpretation of the bible over the years and launguages, combined with dogma creates these misinterpretations that lead to more hate than love. He did "come right out" and say he was condemning pagans and their rituals becasue that's what surrounds the verse you've isolated as your support. Taking the Bible out of context is dangerous and something people more often accuse the non-belevers of doing. Strangely enough, this is the only verse, that if interpreted as condemning homosexuality in general, explicitly condemns lesbianism. It seems conspicuous that if homosexuality were such a sin it would only condemn females once. Without this verse we get the strange contradiction of allowing lesbianism but not male homosexuality. The men geting their just due at the end of the cited verses is simply the punishment for heathen beliefs and practices.
2. If we're done with Romans we can move on. Leviticus as you stated, is part of Mosaic law that is not part of the new covenant. You're down to one. And if you're through with Romans we'll talk Corinthians.
quote:0Even if it is addressing homosexuality in pagans alone, it is still speaking negatively about homosexuality. I arrive at this conclusion because 1) it still says they "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion," which to me is still obviously speaking negatively of the sentence preceding it
The sentence proceeding it being about pagan sexual rites - which are understandably condemned by christians - not homosexuality.
quote: ; and what about "indecent acts with other men"?
Those acts being pagan sexuality. Indecent in the same way worshiping a golden calf is "indecent" or sexual experiences surrounding the worship of the calf. For instance, heterosexual sex is fine usually, but when done in pagan ceremonies or in lustful situations it becomes indecent. Homosexuality, when not involving heathen practices or lust, is fine. There are also a variety of things that could be considered "indecent" without being homosexual or even sexual. You are reading what you want to read when it's not explicitly stated.
quote: 2) it is grouped with other "vices" such as "envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice," which are all condemned in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. Homosexuality is discussed before these vices, however because it is the same group of people and scenario it is connected to those other listed vices.
That's not in the verse we're talking about. If you want to quote chapter and verse we'll deal with that along with Corinthians etc. But, since you mentioned it, if homosexuality (assuming it was even condemned) is only as bad as lying then one can easily be forgiven. It is not a mortal sin. If lying is as bad as murder and is unforgivable we're all going to hell and there's no saving anyone.
quote: Sure, let's go ahead and go on to the Corinthians quote.
Alright, 1 Co 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.9-10: In these passages we are given the distinct impression (in English translations) that homosexuality is sin. However, the Greek words used here do not refer to the homosexual proper. The first word, malakoi, is translated numerous ways: effeminate, male prostitute, catamite (a boy kept by a child molester) in other Greek literature. In fact, the literal translation of this word is "soft" and we have no idea what it means in this context (especially, since we find this word in a "list" format, there is no real "context" from which to derive a meaning anyway). It could just as easily have been translated malleable, coward, sickly, lacking self-control or morally weak (in a general sense), none of which have any specific homosexual connotations. It is found several other times in Scripture, being translated as soft or fine referring to clothing in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25, and infirmity or malady in Matt 4:23, 9:35, and 10:1.
The second word, arsenokoitai, translated in the NIV as "homosexual offenders", is actually best translated as sexual aggressor (with the connotations of a rapist of slave trader), or male prostitute. This word is found in no extant Greek literature prior to Paul's use here, which complicates our understanding of the word.
The strongest argument that leads one to believe that Paul was referring specifically to general homosexuality is the possibility that Paul coined this term himself. If this is the case, then he probably created this compound word from the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament) translation of Leviticus 20:13 (kai hos an koime:the: meta arsenos koite:n gunaikos...). However, this passage refers specifically to the holiness codes and thus probably implies some kind of ritual uncleanness (and again, this assumes both that he coined the term, and that he intended the term to refer back to this passage, neither of which have strong evidence).
Moreover, one wonders why, if Paul is going to go to the extent of creating a novel word to prohibit male homosexual behavior, why doesn't he, in the same verse, create a complementary word prohibiting female homosexual behavior. The conspicuous absence of such a prohibition implies one of two things: 1) If Paul is using the term arsenokoitai to refer to homosexual behavior at all, he not prohibiting all homosexual behavior, only some type of male homosexual behavior that produced ritual uncleanness in the mind of the first century church (unless he is allowing for female homosexual behavior, prohibiting only male homosexual behavior), or 2) he is, in fact, not referring to homosexuality at all in these passages. In either case, neither arsenokoitai nor malakoi are justifiably translated as homosexual in any other Greek literature, which makes one question why they are translated that way here.
Roisred- I did answer the question about not following certain things in the Bible, look at my post made on January 22, 2003 09:41 PM to Outspokenme. And as far as the Sodom and Gomorrah thing, it was a for a mix, both sexual immorality (both homosexual and heterosexual) and inhospitality.
Gemini- As far as how I would compare homosexuality to murder, I personally don’t see homosexuality as bad…but this is more society’s tendency to “rate” sin on a not so bad to horrible” scale. Despite what we have been conditioned to view as really bad and as not so bad, sin is still sin. God sees it all the same way. Keep in mind that some of the other vices listed in the passage in question are gossiping and boasting.
As far as the whole David and Jonathan thing. They were not gay! You must understand that men were more expressive of love between eachother in Biblical time!!! And here is another translation of the 1 Samuel 20:30 quote, which was misquoted: “Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?”
quote: God shows his homophobia by calling gay people "sodomites" and their sexual relations "abominations."
So you’re trying to tell me that God fears homosexuals? And as far as being “homophobic” because they are called “sodomites”…well, isn’t a sodomite simply one who commits sodomy? What is negative or wrong about this?
1 Timothy 6:9-10 has no mention of effeminacy or homosexuality, for that matter. Many of your scripture references are totally unrelated, for example, Revelation 22:13 has no reference to homosexuality, “dogs,” or even sexual immorality. It says simply “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Please at least check up on your source’s information.
Ok...homosexuality is going to be in the world whether someone likes it or not. People who are intolerant of things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM are very ignorant from my view. Things happen; if we accept them or not, that is our problem. That's all I want to say.
I do not believe in God, I do not follow a religion that is intolerant, so then the idea of homosexuality to me has few things that make wrong, one may argue it is unatural...then so are many things humans do, one may argue the main problem it speads is HIV, yet according to statistics heterosexual sex has just as big a HIV problem as homesexual, if sex is practiced safely this is not a problem. I fail to see anything wrong with homosexuality outside of the bible, and if you believe in the things said about homosexuality in the bible, then you must believe all the other rediculous stuff in it. PrincessMonica, you are a truly foolish person.
I have heard some say that the "sin" of Sodam and Gomorah (I/m sorry if my spelling is incorrect, I don't have the text with me) was not the act of sodomy but behaving inhospitably to a guest under their roof. Hospitality was one of the most valued virtues in the ancient world (you can see myths about being kind to strangers in many cultures). To attempt to rape guests (who happened to be male), who had been given shelter under your roof was even worse than offering your daughter to the rapists.
Back on topic, why has no one answered the post about other things in the Bible that are no longer followed? By it's logic if my parents had a dept, they would be perfectly correct in selling me as a slave to help pay it off. I think that they'd have a hard time arguing "the Bible made me do it" in front of a U.S. Court.
If you want to believe that homosexuality is wrong, you have that right. I support you in that right. I will disagree with you till the cows come home on rollerskates, but you can believe whatever you want. You DO NOT, however, have the right to take your beliefs and make them law that applies to anyone but yourself. That's the critical difference. Rois
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22 Genesis
"The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." ( Gee, I guess they must have been gay -- at least that is what the Christian Right believes.) 13:13
God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. This was because, so say the Christian Right, some homosexuals lived there. 19:4-5, 24-25 Leviticus
Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
Homosexuals must be executed. 20:13 Deuteronomy
Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." 22:5
God says not be bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. 23:17-18 1 Samuel
"The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul ... And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments ... and his girdle." 18:1-4
"Jonathan ... delighted much in David." 19:2
Saul is angered by his son's homosexual affair with David and says, "do not I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" 20:30
David and Jonathan "kissed one another, and wept with one another" when they parted for the last time. 20:41 2 Samuel
David says to Jonathan: "very pleasant has thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of woman." 1:26 1 Kings
God shows his homophobia by calling gay people "sodomites" and their sexual relations "abominations." 14:24
Asa "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" by expelling homosexuals (or "sodomites", as the good book calls them). 15:12
Jehoshaphat "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" and "took" the homosexuals (sodomites) "out of the land," or as the RSV says, "he exterminated" them. 22:43, 46 2 Kings
Josiah, with God's approval, broke down the houses of the sodomites. 23:7 Isaiah
The biblical god just doesn't seem to care much for homosexuals. And he gets especially upset when "they hide it not." So I'd just stay in the closet and hope the big guy just doesn't see you. 3:9 Joel
They "have given a boy for a harlot." 3:3 Romans
With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death" and should be killed. 1:31-32 1 Corinthians
Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10 1 Timothy
Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included in Paul's list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10 2 Timothy
Paul says that in the last days people will become evil, "without natural affection." Fundamentalist say that this refers to homosexuals. 3:3 Jude
God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 1:7-8 Revelation
John refers to homosexuals as "dogs" and condemns them to hell. 22:13
quote: it is grouped with other "vices" such as "envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice," which are all condemned in the Bible, both Old and New Testament
Do you believe homosexuality is as wrong as murdering, stealing, etc.? If so, something's wrong. Homosexuality hurts no one, muder does. That's a duh. I don't see how people can base all of their beliefs on a text written thousands of years ago. We're living in the 21st century. Things change, including people.
Even if it is addressing homosexuality in pagans alone, it is still speaking negatively about homosexuality. I arrive at this conclusion because 1) it still says they "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion," which to me is still obviously speaking negatively of the sentence preceding it; and what about "indecent acts with other men"? 2) it is grouped with other "vices" such as "envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice," which are all condemned in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. Homosexuality is discussed before these vices, however because it is the same group of people and scenario it is connected to those other listed vices.
Sure, let's go ahead and go on to the Corinthians quote.
1. Given the context of the section - discussing the immorality of pagan beleifs - it seems actaully rather likely that he was tlaking about the pagan orgies. Settign up and serimoniously knocking down a straw-man of drinking and drugs is irrelevant. It is more likely a condemnation of pagan rituals and beliefs than homosexuality itself. Misinterpretation of the bible over the years and launguages, combined with dogma creates these misinterpretations that lead to more hate than love. He did "come right out" and say he was condemning pagans and their rituals becasue that's what surrounds the verse you've isolated as your support. Taking the Bible out of context is dangerous and something people more often accuse the non-belevers of doing. Strangely enough, this is the only verse, that if interpreted as condemning homosexuality in general, explicitly condemns lesbianism. It seems conspicuous that if homosexuality were such a sin it would only condemn females once. Without this verse we get the strange contradiction of allowing lesbianism but not male homosexuality. The men geting their just due at the end of the cited verses is simply the punishment for heathen beliefs and practices.
2. If we're done with Romans we can move on. Leviticus as you stated, is part of Mosaic law that is not part of the new covenant. You're down to one. And if you're through with Romans we'll talk Corinthians.
Dante— As far as the translation of “vile affections,” I’ll be honest. I just don’t buy it. It seems like much too much of a stretch to say that God gave them over to a “frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." I think Paul would have come straight out and discussed wine, drugs, and music, and cults. I grant that “unnatural” may be translated as “unconventional,” and that the word could even be used in positive cases (Romans 11:24) but I do not think this is such a case. The very end of the Romans quote says that the men “received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” This is obviously saying that the homosexual acts were not acceptable. The 1 Corinthians and Leviticus quotes still stand against homosexuality. Please let me know if there is anyway to misinterpret them.
Outspokenme--- I never said that you can’t argue it, just that it was pointless to since it is an old argument that is actually not applicable. I gave an Old Testament example because it is confirmed by New Testament scripture, and it was the first scripture to speak against homosexuality. I apologize for the typo on the Romans quote.
Now, as far as different ways to interpret scripture. I strongly believe that one is most equipped when they have God’s help in interpreting the scriptures. Kinda like you can learn more about a book when the author of the book is your professor. Now please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that non-Christian’s interpretations are automatically flawed and invalid, or that non-Christians shouldn’t research scripture. I am saying, however, that if two equally capable people researched certain scripture the equal amount and came up with two different interpretations, I’d be more likely to believe the one who had God’s guidance.
back to outspoken me---my main point is that yes, there are different ways to interpret scripture, but only one right way. The point of researching and all that jazz is to try to find the correct one, which of course is never 100% positive as we are not God. Not to be rude, but I doubt your ability to do so, partially because you wouldn’t have asked for God’s guidance.
Misinterpretation is inherent becasue, since Jesus didn't speak English, the words had to be translated. Throught the translations dogmas were injected and interpretations were used to justify such misguided thinking and turing it into cannon. This is sad. For example, Romans 1:26-27.
Strangely enough, it's the Christians who disaprove of homosexuality more often that the Jewish. Essentially what we get then is a selective interpretation, at which point you wonder what we can next disregard. Leviticus has thus become one of not necessarily controversial, but most quoted and discussed in the religion debate.
As for the topic: As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting the writings of Paul: "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (KJV)
As stated by Dr. R.S. Truluck, "Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said."
It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek: About the words "vile affections:" The Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as: "vile affections and degrading passions" (Amplified Bible) "dishonorable passions" (English Standard Version) "degrading passions" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version) "shameful lusts" (New International Version) "shameful desires" (New Living Translation) "evil things" (Living Bible) "shameful affections" (Rheims New Testament)
In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.
About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc: The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as: "unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible) "contrary to nature" (English Standard Version) "against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament) "sin with each other" (Living Bible) "unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." 3 The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible: In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary. In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.
The context in which Verses 26 & 27 appear: It is important to analyze the preamble to the verses quoted above: Romans 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...": That is, his letter is written to all of the Christians in Rome. His recipients would be submerged in the Roman culture, where homosexual behavior was both widespread and acceptable by society.
Romans 1 is concerned with "Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals." 2 This is not often mentioned today. Rather, verses 26 and 27 are broken out of the longer passage and cited by themselves to condemn same-sex behavior.
Verses 21 to 28 include the following topics: Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples. Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals. Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here. Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women. Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error. Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He "gave them up" to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.
References: 1. "How to be true to the Bible and say 'Yes' to same-sex unions," at: http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/bennett.html 2. R.S. Truluck, "The six Bible passages used to condemn homosexuals," at: http://www.truluck.com/html/ 3. Quoted in: Bruce Hane, "'Natural' and 'unnatural' " at: http://www.newvisionsproject.org/ 4. "Free to be gay: A brief look at the Bible and homosexuality," Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/UFMCC/ Finally, being "unnatural" is no justification for condemnation. Even if we were to accept a view like yours there is no sounds basis for it. Left-handedness is unnatural and relatively rare (11% of the population). Vegetarianism likewise is a choice and unnatural but ceratinly doesn't rise to the level of moral condemnation you would want to foist upon homosexuals. Also, many would contend that homosexuality is, given it's nature, natural. What would be 'unnatural' is for a homosexual to deny his/her tendencies or to engage in heterosexual intercourse against what seems 'natural' to him/her.
You gave examples from Old Testament, but I am not allowed to argue it?
Your New Testament confuses me. I'm looking at a copy of the new testament, and your quote actually starts Rom 1:24. And upon reading it, it's really up for interpretation. How you interpret it is not how I might.
Topics 
