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.
Outspokenme, this is plain and simply an old and pointless argument to pose towards Christians. (Although not towards Jewish men and women.) This is because when Jesus came to earth, he brought a new law. The old law called for everything you listed. (except no sex for pleasure and contraception, I don’t know where that came from.) Therefore, Christians and everybody else do not have to follow all of the Mosaic laws to enter heaven. The reason why homosexuality is still forbidden is because it is specifically mentioned in the New Testament, along with many other things that are still forbidden. (For those of you who don’t know, the Old Testament is everything before Jesus came to earth.) Is adultery still forbidden? Yes, but is not reason for death, as Jesus demonstrated in john 8. Many counter the above by asking a Christian if they can just pick and choose what they want to follow and what they want to disregard from the Old Testament. My answer is of course no! As far as I know, the things that Christians say God is against are mentioned in both the old and new testaments. And as for sacrifices, no, Christians need not sacrifice. Jesus was the final atoning sacrifice.
Jookly, the Bible does not differentiate between loving homosexual relationships and non-loving homosexual relationships if sex is involved. I have nothing wrong with two gay men loving each other, like friends, but this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about homosexual relationships that involve sex.
So I pose my question once again, where can the misinterpretation be made?
Specifically to jstar, however to all Christians believing that the Bible is against homosexuality, I state this:
Do you follow everything in the Bible? Do you avoid menstrating women? eat pork? Do you believe in the death penalty for a person who curses his parent? commits adultery? has multiple marriages (this one by burning)?
The Bible forbids planting two different kinds of seeds in the same bed, wearing clothes of two different kinds of yarn (even the pope is guilty of this one), tattoos, sex for pleasure, contraception, the list goes on.
Do you follow all the festivals, feasts, sacrifices found in the Bible? If not, then why this one?
1 Corinthians 6:9 (New Testament): "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."
Leviticus 18:22 (Old Testament): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Rom 1:26-27 (New Testament): Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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.
Dante, please tell me where the misinterpretation could be made.
quote: I have been told that God loves us all, no matter what race, age, religion, etc. It doesn't matter, he loves us all the same. Yes, he loves us just as much as he loves his devoted followers, so why can't we just accept people as they are? God does it, so why can't you Christians, who are supposed to be Christ-like, do that?
Yes god loves everyone the same, but he does not condone a sinfull lifestyle. the verse is slipping my head, ill find it and post it in here.
I do not know why, they're making such a big deal out of this. What people want to do with their lives, is nobody's business but their own.
I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, you're just the same as the next guy, except for the fact that you prefer to be with people of the same sex. That is in no way, to my understanding, dirty or unclean.
You say it's in the Bible, but can anyone tell me exactly where? No, I have yet to see proof of what some of you are saying.
I have been told that God loves us all, no matter what race, age, religion, etc. It doesn't matter, he loves us all the same. Yes, he loves us just as much as he loves his devoted followers, so why can't we just accept people as they are? God does it, so why can't you Christians, who are supposed to be Christ-like, do that?
Topics 
*Star*