Christian Forums

This post of course is intended for Christians who have a problem with homosexuality:

It goes against all common sense and reason to believe homosexuals are unnatural. Homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual sex are 'not' sins in and of themselves. To condemn or treat the way a person was born as a 'sin' is the gravest sin of all. Homosexuals are born in every place around the planet; from the smallest mountain village to the smallest desert village. It is not something 'learned' or 'taught' to them. It is innately the way they were born, as God created them, and it is 'natural' for them to be attracted to, and fall in love with, their own gender, upon reaching puberty, just as it is 'natural' for a heterosexual to feel and do the same with the opposite gender upon reaching puberty.


Levitical purity laws, (which are mistranslated in almost all English Bibles concerning homosexuality) do not apply to Christians, and so the people who bring up Leviticus to attack gay people with are gravely mistaken.


Jesus and homosexuality:


It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He created a comprehensive list of sins that would bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is even more worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. The conclusion is that Jesus did not consider it a sin.


The options open to a Christian:


A Christian has two options with regard to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):


1. To accept a favorite (and safely familiar) English translation as accurately containing the words of the original authors. This is a simple and straightforward approach because biblical passages related to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons and transsexuals (LGBT) in English Bibles are universally condemning. No further effort is needed.


2. To base the interpretation of these passages on the most ancient available Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. This is as close as we are able to get to the original autograph copies written by the author(s). This option is much more demanding, and made even more difficult because the precise meaning of some of the Greek words are unknown and can only be inferred. Even worse, a convincing case can be made that 1 Timothy was written by a second century forger, many decades after Paul was executed.


If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is create an entirely new word.


The word "arsenokoitai" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy:


"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been uniquely created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word in the English language that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century.


More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here as:


• "homosexuals," (NASB);
• "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
• "homosexual offenders," (NIV).


In doing this, they appear to have little respect or attention to the actual meaning of the original Greek verse. By using the term "homosexual" the translators changed the scope of the verse. The original Greek refers to men only; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate.


The author of 1 Timothy also used "arsenokoitai." The KJV translated it similarly:


"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."


Christian theologians generally agree that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians circa 55 CE. However, they differ on the authorship and date of the three Pastoral Epistles -- 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.


• Some scholars believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles during the interval 62 to 64 CE just before his death.


• Many other scholars believe that they were written up to 85 years after Paul's execution, circa 100 to 150 CE by an unknown person who pretended to be Paul.


What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?


"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."


Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.


Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"


• "Homosexual offenders:" The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse, rape, unsafe sex, manipulative sex, coercive sex, etc).


• Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st centuryBCE) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to "arsenokoitai." This passage referred to "male temple prostitutes" -- people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.


• Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which contains the word "arsenokoitai:" This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex)." Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai."


• Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.


• Abusive pedophiles: Many would consider "malakoi" -- the word preceding "arsenokoitai," in 1 Corinthians -- to refer to a catamite: a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men. Such boys were often slaves, owned by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they were abusive pedophiles or hebephiles. The New American Bible contains a footnote which reads:


"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."


In their footnote, the translators recognize that the term refers to abusive male pedophiles, but apparently cannot resist the temptation to attack all homosexuals -- both gays and lesbians, non-abusive and abusive.


Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) states that the passage refers to:


"... both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."


Many religious scholars agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to male pedophiles who are also child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. to consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.


Male prostitutes: One scholar has provided an interesting analysis of 1 Corinthians. He noticed a pattern in verse 9 and 10. They are composed up of pairs or triads of related groups of people:


The lawless & disobedient: two near synonyms


The ungodly & sinners: also two near synonyms


The unholy & profane: two synonyms


The murderers of fathers & murderers of mothers & manslayers: three kinds of murderers


Whoremongers & "arsenokoitai" & menstealers


Liars & perjurers etc.: again, two near synonyms.


From the repeated pairs or triads made up of synonyms or near synonyms, one might expect that whoremongers, "malakoi arsenokoitai," and menstealers are interconnected with a common theme -- just like the other pairs and triads in the list.


In the original Greek, the first of the three words is "pornov." An online Greek lexicon notes that this is Strong's Number 4205, and was derived from the Greek word "pernemi" which means to sell. Its meanings are:


A man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire.


A male prostitute.


A man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator.


The second term is "arsenokoitai" which has not been given a Strong Number because it is a made-up word that is almost never found in the Greek language other than in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.


The last of the three words is "andrapodistes," the stem of the word andrapodistai. It is Strong's Number 405 which means:


A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer -- one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.


If we assume that the three words refer to a common theme, as the other five groups are, then we have to look for some sense which the words have in common. Cannon suggests:


"pornoi" refers to an enslaved male prostitute.


"arsenokoitai" refers to a man who forces sex on an enslaved male prostitute


"andrapodistes" refers to a person who kidnaps and enslaves people.


The common theme is slavery. Cannon suggests a translation: "It is as if Paul were saying, 'male prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure them'." That is, all three words deal with slavery. They are unrelated to homosexual behavior in the modern sense of the term i.e. consensual sex between persons of the same sex.


• A boy sex slave


Again, the common theme is slavery.


Translating "arsenokoitai" as a boy who is kept as a sex slave has some support in at least two Bible translations:


As noted above, a footnote in the New American Bible (NAB), interprets "arsenokoitai" as a " boy prostitute."


The Jerusalem Bible translates the triad in 1 Timothy as: "those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men." In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the same word "arsenokoitai" is translated as "catamite."

An acurate translation of 1 Timothy 1:10 would be: "...male prostitutes, boys who have sex with men, and slave dealers who enslave them both."


As you may have observed by now, attempts to distort the Bible into a message of hate are badly misguided. The passages in Leviticus and Paul's three letters specifically apply to people engaging in ritual activity with pagan priests or sacred prostitutes. The references to 'sodomites' in Deuteronomy, etc., are a clear error in translation that refer to the same thing. The Sodom and Gomorrah references clearly refer to inhospitality and not to homosexuality at all.


Here's the most fundamental weakness in such thinking: the Bible does not condemn lesbians. There is a proscription against women wearing men's clothing, and a letter from Paul 'mentions' "women [who] did change the natural use into that which is against nature" – whatever that means – but nothing else. Any translations that apply to 'homosexuals' (i.e., including females as well as males) are mis-translations, possibly intentional, certainly political.


So it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

For example, here is one verse that many Christians use to persecute gay people with, (even though Levitical purity laws do not apply to Christians) but don't realize that their Bible has it translated falsely.


Leviticus 18:22 - The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text:


"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."(KJV)


The honest and correct translation:


"And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."


Below, is a word by word translation of this verse:

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הִוא


V'et-zachar lo tishkav mishk'vei ishah to'evah hu.


(Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)


V'et - This is two words. First, V', which means and. This word cannot exist by itself, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, et. This word means with. So the first two words of this verse are And with.


zachar - This word means male. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so when the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a male. The verse so far reads And with a male.


lo - This word is the Hebrew equivalent of our words noand not. It is used in this case to negate the verb that follows it. Because English has a more complicated verb structure than Hebrew, it will take more than one English word to translate the next Hebrew word, and the not will need to go in the middle of those words, so we won't add this word to our translation yet.


tishkav - This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know about tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tense markers are needed.


The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, and it meanslie down. The first letter of the word, t, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate tishkav into English will require four words, as well as a parenthetical note to indicate the gender of the pronoun.


The word translates as Thou (male) shalt lie down. The previous Hebrew word, lo, negated the verb, so we have And with a male thou (male) shalt not lie down. mishk'vei - This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word "of" between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem (Bethlehem), which in English translates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state.Mishk'vei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would be a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions:


Hebrew has prepositions that correspond to ours, but doesn't always use them the same way. For example, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew, the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. The same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when Hebrew doesn't. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will sometimes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the English word in before the words beds of, in order for the sentence to make sense in English.


The verse so far reads And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of.


ishah - This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (the), it is understood to mean a woman.And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman.Since this is awkward, we will rephrase it to "in a woman's bed."And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed.


(Note: The word mishk'vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means "thy father," and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as "to thy father's bed." As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)

Punctuation as we know it was not part of the original text. Even modern Hebrew Bibles contain only one punctuation mark, which looks like a colon ':', and serves only to point out the end of a verse (but not necessarily the end of a sentence). English is very difficult to read without punctuation marks, so we insert them as we translate. After the word woman, we may insert either a semicolon, or a period, to indicate that the following words are not part of the first phrase, but simply offer further information about it. And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed;


to'evah - This is a noun. It translates as abomination. Without a definite article, it translates as an abomination. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, and this is one case where this is true. In English, this will be the last word in the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have finished with the next word.


hu - This little word serves so many purposes, not only for readers of the Hebrew text, but also for those today who wonder about the accuracy of the Hebrew text. You see, this word is a grammatical error made by Moses. Moses was well schooled in the arts and sciences of ancient Egypt, but not in the tongue of his own people. Although he evidently spoke Hebrew well enough to be understood, like so many today, he did not always use proper grammar. His meaning remained the same, but the grammar was wrong.


I want to repeat that: His meaning remained the same, only the grammar was wrong.The word הוא hu means both he and it. It means it when applied to masculine nouns. But to'evah is a feminine noun, so Moses should have used the word היא hi, which means she and it. It means it when applied to feminine nouns. (All Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender. This gender concept is grammatical in nature only, and has nothing to do with men or women, per se. For example, in Hebrew a table is masculine, whereas in the Romance languages, it is feminine. It has nothing to do with the nature of the table; it's simply grammatical.)


The next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In English these forms are am, art, is and are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost never uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for context.


The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God's name in Hebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that don't use the present tense of the verb to be. For example, Russian has become so used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russian equivalent of am can't even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can't, so we have to insert the appropriate forms when translating: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is


Finally, we put in the words an abomination: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."


This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman's bed together, for whatever reason.

The problem is that just because people see a nicely bound 'Bible' in the millions at many churches, it doesn't mean it's a good translation. A bible only sells, if people want to purchase it. There are 'many' different types of English Bibles that say many different things. They are far from infallible.


'Masturbators'. At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.


Leviticus 18:22


KJV: (King James Version, 1611): Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.


LB: (Living Bible, 1971): Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (Notice the clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians; lesbian behavior is entirely absent from the whole of Hebrew scriptures.)


NIV: (New International Version, 1973): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.


MSG (The Message, 1993): Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.


NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (Again, a clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians.)


NET (New English Translation, 2005): You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.


It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the term 'abomination' was an intentionally bad translation, given how far it differs from the meaning of the original Hebrew. It is used with a set of different situations in the King James Bible.


The Living Bible and its revision, the New Living Translation, by using the word 'homosexuality' (for which there was no linguistic or cultural equivalent in Hebrew times) add two further errors. First, they add lesbians to the condemned group with utterly no justification for doing so. Second, since 'homosexuality' includes not just homosexual acts but also the mere fact of being oriented toward the same sex, the translations condemn both. These two translations say that it is a sin to be the way God created gays.


However, when translated exactly word for word into English, it says: 'And with a male you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman,'which is to say that if two men are going to have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserved only for heterosexual intercourse.


Both this verse and the other from Leviticus (see below) appear in a holiness code that applied to Israel rather than to gentile Christians in an age of grace. Both occur in the clear context of opposition to the practices of the local fertility god Moloch; verse 21 sets the stage for this one by forbidding people from allowing their children to be burned in sacrifice to Moloch, verse 23 prohibits intercourse with animals (the idol of Moloch was in the form of a bull with a man's head and shoulders, so this verse too may refer to idol worship). At the time, in order to get a conviction, Jewish law required four (male) witnesses, so whatever the action condemned in Leviticus was, it was likely a public event (there are no instances recorded in the Talmud of anyone being brought before the Sanhedrin and charged with homosexual activity). Worship of other gods provided a context where sex is very public, and there are 59 other places in the Bible where the worship of other gods is called an abomination (in the KJV). How could these two verses not apply to temple prostitution?


The probability that ritual prostitution is the context of these two verses is underlined by a later mistranslation of the Hebrew word qadesh, which appears in Deuteronomy (23:17), 1 Kings (14:24, 15:12 & 22:46), and 2 Kings (23:7). Literally the word means 'holy one'; it is clearly used in these verses to refer to a man that engages in ritual (pagan) temple prostitution in order to encourage the god(s) to make the earth and its creatures more fertile. By analogy many scholars interpret the verses in Leviticus as specifically referring only to sexual activities in a pagan temple ritual.

In the King James Version the word qadesh was translated for the first time as 'sodomite,' a word that at the time generically referred to any person who engaged in 'unnatural' sexual acts of any type. The New King James and 21st Century King James translations inaccurately retain the word 'sodomite' even though today it refers specifically only to males who engage in anal sex; most other Bibles more accurately translate it as cult, shrine, or temple prostitute.


Translators face a choice between alternative prohibitions of:


-homosexual behavior by either sex
-sexual behavior between two men
-sexual behavior between a man and a married man (or perhaps three people, including at least one man and one woman)
-just anal sex between two men
-just pagan temple ritual sex (between two men?)
sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed


Be aware that post-King James translations fixate on the first two. This has had a self-perpetuating effect; a Bible that strays significantly from this message won't sell, which means it won't get published. Deviating from traditional interpretations would certainly generate a lot of media hype, which would temporarily boost sales because of the publicity generated, but it would also block the use of the translation by many if not most purchasers of large numbers of Bibles.


The fact that for the first 300 years of Christianity, there is evidence of men marrying each other, and that there was no rejection or persecution of homosexuality shows something went very wrong when the bishops at the time finally gained the ear of an emperor, whose word was law. After all, it had been recognized as 'normal' human behavior for thousands of years at the time Christianity burst onto the scene, and they wouldn't have made many converts if they were going to attack or kill (homosexual) people who the majority at the time found perfectly natural.

Aaron said---

<<<To condemn or treat the way a person was born as a 'sin' is the gravest sin of all<<<

I am an alcoholic---and I was BORN that way. Many scientists believe that alcoholism is an "inherited trait". But the Bible
says drunkards will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. Drunkeness is therefore a sin. So, do I throw up my hands and say "God,
I was born this way! I can't help myself!"?  No---because I was "born this way" gives me no right to get drunk every day.

So, what do I do? I admit that I am an alcoholic, whether "born this way" or not. The Bible says drunkeness is a sin, so I MUST admit
I am a sinner, and what I am doing is sin. I quit drinking because it destroys me, and God says it is wrong in His very Word. Only a percentage
of people are alcoholics---most can drink without it being a problem. Should I then complain to God that it is unfair because I was "born this way"
when most were not?  NO---it is still a sin, even if I was born this way.  And I need to repent, and not drink any more.  And I don't---I have not
touched alcohol for 8 years now, and don't ever intend to again.

Check out where drunkeness is listed in the Scritpures---the same place homosexuality is.  Homosexuality is NOT a GREATER SIN than drunkeness---
they are equally listed as keeping one from entering the Kingdom of God:

"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,  nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."  (1 Cor. 6:9,-11)

Please note that the verses above say "and that is what some of you WERE".   I will always have a weakness for alcohol, and I need to keep away from it--even if I was "born" with that tendency.  A homosexual has no excuse to say "I was born this way" and continue on in a rebellious and sinful lifestyle. They have no more right to continue in that lifestyle than I do to continue getting wasted every night because I was born with an alcoholic "gene".  Don't be deceived---repent--and turn to Jesus for help. There is great hope in Jesus!  You can be washed, and sanctified,and justified in His name. Don't throw up your hands and say "It's unfair! I was born this way!"---instead admit you are a sinner and repent, and come to the Lord Jesus----I sure am glad I did!

When you are before the Judgment Seat will you acknowldge sin as sin, or jump through all of the "translation hoops" you are attemting to jump through below to justify yourself?  Imagine if I tried to manipulate the word "drunkards" to only mean "sloppy, mean, drunks", not "nice ones". That would be ridiculous. But that is what you are attempting to do below with your re-interpretation of the word "homosexual" in Paul's text.  "Do not be deceived" Paul states in those verses----pay heed, and turn to Christ.

 Aaron Lindahl believe as you wish.

For myself I believe a practicing homosexual is sinning for one specific reason....

Fornication is replete throughout the new testament as being a sin. And if it is not the actual word fornication it is widely accepted as sexual immorality.

I am not going to cite chapters and verse but you appear to have studied well to endeavor to make your point and therefore you cannot counter this as fact.

If you are a practicing homosexual you are guilty of fornication or at the very least sexual immorality.

And this is not acceptable to God.

IF you are a homosexual then you ABSTAIN the very same way that I, as a single woman must.

It is that simple...... YOU JUST SAY NO.....................................

And , yes, that means for all of your life, just as it has had to be all of my life or any other single heterosexual that God has kept single.

As I read your logic....
because I know it is not acceptable for me to partake in sex outside of marriage , by reading your logic, should I  turn gay it then would be alright... if i found myself loving that person, or even if i didn't.... it would be alright because God does not find homosexuality a sin?

Before you get all huffy and say that is why gays should marry remember in

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 2:24King James Version (KJV) (Sorry if I offend with KJV, I have it handy)

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And


NEW TESTAMENT Mark 10:7-9King James Version (KJV)

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

NOWHERE did God ever say man and man or wife and wife.... it has ALWAYS been original intent of man and wife.

You go to great lengths to offset the interpretations of the Old Testament in Leviticus.

YOU cannot pick and choose interpretations to suit yourself.

Any member here who has good knowledge of more then one language will tell you that no every language can be translated word for word. And some phrases cannot be translated into English at all. My mother speaks Italian and there are words that can only be vaguely described. My friend speaks Spanish and the same goes for that.
But none the less.... there are words to describe what they are meaning in English.

My Holy Word tells me it is an abomination, and unless you can concretely give a specific word by word translation of meaning from original Hebrew DO NOT try to muddy the waters by picking words apart to make a meaning that suits your needs.

How lucky we are to have all these Greek .scholars who understand a 2000 year old dead language and its exact meaning better than those who have devoted their life to the study of the Greek and partied with many others to as best they could accurately translate the bible. ::smile:: ::eatingpopcorn:

Yes... how very 'lucky' such as you are..to sit and spin in your web of ignorance and prejudice, while reassuring yourselves that you are being 'righteous' ... 

Can anyone honestly deny the following facts in the history of the church, its brutal treatment of homosexuals, and what it eventually did to Classical Civilization?

Homosexuality flourished and was accepted by the general public for over 1,300 years within the Greek culture, and for almost 900 years of Roman culture, without causing any 'downfall' of civilization as some people today claim will happen if homosexuals are able to get married. Yet, within a little over 100 years after Christians at the time gained political dominance in Rome ('Christians' who were utterly unlike the loving and peaceful Christians of the first 300 years of Christianity), and had renamed Byzantium as Constantinople, the entire Classical civilization and culture (the birthplace of our own Western Civilization) collapsed... after they had forbade freedom of religion under pain of death, freedom of thought, shut down the Olympics, the theaters, the gymnasiums, and schools of learning. These were the same sort of self-styled 'Christians' who you see today demonizing gay people and attempting to stop them from marrying each other, or being free from their persecution. This is why the Founding Fathers were so wise to separate Church & State.

THE DEATH OF SECULAR SOCIETY:

They basically killed civic culture as it had been. The cities began to decline and fall into ruin. Public libraries were closed or abandoned since the majority of the citizens within 2 generations had lost the ability to read. Knowledge of sculpture, realistically depicted artwork, civil-engineering, and all that a robust and educated civic life engenders, withered and died. After all, you were told the world was going to end at any moment, and you didn't need to know anymore than what the religious authorities told or forced you to believe, let alone worry about 'secular' knowledge or interests.

The ancient world had been a relatively tolerant place in the world of religion. There were occasional bursts of persecution of this or that sect but as a rule many religions existed side by side. The fact that the Christians were persecuted at times, does not excuse what they did upon coming to power.

During the years 342 CE to 395 CE all this changed when Christianity established itself as the only religion in the Roman Empire and launched an all out campaign of religious terror against all other sects.

It was not until the Roman world was forcibly converted, and succumbed to an unforgiving and dictatorship-like form of Christianity (completely unlike the earlier peaceful and loving form of Christianity that had existed for 300 years), that we began to embark upon the Dark Ages.

PERSECUTION OF HOMOSEXUALS BEGINS:

On December 16, 342 AD, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, under advice from their bishops, issued the following edict.. a law specifically outlawing marriages between men, and reads as follows:

"When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty, shall be subjected to exquisite punishment." (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390, under the advice of their bishops, issued the following edict.. an edict that would begin an evil persecution towards gay people that would last well over 1,600 years:

"All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind by being burned to death in the public sight of the people." -Codex Theodosius IX. Vii. 6

What follows are quotes from the legal code of the Roman Empire as set forth by the Emperor Theodosius at the request of Christian leaders to crush competing religions. The legal persecution of non-Christian religions by Rome marked the beginning of a wave of religious terror that would remain in place until the eighteenth century.

THE BURNING OF NON-CHRISTIAN BOOKS:

"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius I.

LAW BANNING ALL RELIGIONS OTHER THAN CHRISTIANITY:

"We command that all those proved to be devoting themselves to sacrificing or worshiping images be subject to the penalty of death." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.6

"It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. ... The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.1.2.

EDICTS AGAINST NON-CHRISTIAN WORSHIP:

"No one shall consult a soothsayer, astrologer or diviner. The perverse pronouncements of augurs and seers must fall silent. ... The universal curiosity about divination must be silent forever. Whosoever refuses obedience to this command shall suffer the penalty of death and be laid low by the avenging sword." -- Codex Theodosianus, IX.16.4"The ability and right of making wills shall be taken from those who turn from Christians to pagans, and the testament of such an one, if he made any, shall be abrogated after his death."-- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.7.1.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES:

"It is decreed that in all places and all cities the [pagan] temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes."-- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.4.

Thankfully society at large is now freeing itself from these type of self-professed 'Christians', who are full of hatred and condemnation towards anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow view of reality, and who caused the Dark Ages to begin in the first place. Their mind-set is of the same type as those described above. Thankfully as well, more and more 'true' Christians have seen the errors of their ways on this issue and now openly and lovingly welcome gay souls and their loved ones, for the unique way that God created them.

A TIMELINE OF BRUTALITY, TORTURE, AND MURDER DONE IN THE NAME OF CHRIST:

305- 306 – Council of Elvira (now Granada, Spain). This council was representative of the Western European Church and among other things, it barred homosexuals the right to Communion.

314 – Council of Ancyra (now Ankara, Turkey). This council was representative of the Eastern European Church and it excluded the Sacraments for 15 years to unmarried men under the age of 20 who were caught in homosexual acts, and excluded the man for life if he was married and over the age of 50.

342 – Under advice from their bishops, the first law against same-sex marriage was promulgated by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.

390 – Under advice from their bishops, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.

498 – In spite of the laws against homosexuality, the Christian emperors continued to collect taxes on male prostitutes until the reign of Anastasius I, who finally abolishes the tax.

529 – The Christian emperor Justinian I (527–565) made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines,earthquakes, and pestilences."

589 – The Visigothic kingdom in Spain, is converted from Arianism to Catholicism. This conversion leads to a revision of the law to conform to those of Catholic countries. These revisions include provisions for the persecution of gays and Jews.

693 – In Iberia, Visigothic ruler Egica of Hispania and Septimania, demanded that a Church council confront the occurrence of homosexuality in the Kingdom. The Sixteenth Council of Toledo issued a statement in response, which was adopted by Egica, stating that homosexual acts be punished by castration, exclusion from Communion, hair shearing, one hundred stripes of the lash, and banishment into exile.

1120 – Baldwin II of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, convenes the Council of Nablus to address the vices within the Kingdom. The Council calls for the burning of individuals who perpetually commit homosexual acts.

1179 – The Third Lateran Council of Rome issues a decree for the excommunication of homosexuals.

1232 – Pope Gregory IX starts the Inquisition in the Italian City-States. Some cities called for banishment and/or amputation as punishments for 1st- and 2nd-offending homosexuals and burning for the 3rd or habitual offenders.

1260 – In France, first-offending homosexuals lost their testicles, second offenders lost their member, and third offenders were burned. Women caught in same-sex acts could be mutilated and executed as well.

1265 – Thomas Aquinas argues that homosexuality is second only to murder in the ranking of sins.

1283 – The French Civil Code dictated that convicted homosexuals should not only be burned but also that their property would be forfeited.

1370s – Jan van Aersdone and Willem Case were two men executed in Antwerp in the 1370s. The charge against them was same gender intercourse. Aersdone and Case stand out because records of their names have survived.

1432 – In Florence the first organization specifically intended to prosecute homosexuality is established, the "Night Officials", which over the next 70 years arrest about 10,000 men and youths.

1451 – Pope Nicholas V enables the papal Inquisition to persecute men who practice homosexuality.

1475 – In Peru, a chronicle written under the Capac Yupanqui government describes the persecution of homosexuals with public burnings and destruction of homes (a practice usually reserved for conquered tribes).

1483 – The Spanish Inquisition begins. Homosexuals were stoned, castrated, and burned. Between 1540 and 1700, more than 1,600 people were prosecuted for homosexuality.

1532 – Holy Roman Empire makes homosexuality punishable by death.

1533 – King Henry VIII passes the Buggery Act 1533 making anal intercourse punishable by death throughout England.

1620 – Brandenburg-Prussia criminalizes homosexuality, making it punishable by death.

1721 – Catherina Margaretha Linck is executed for lesbianism in Germany.

1836 – The last known execution for homosexuality in Great Britain. James Pratt and John Smith are hanged at Newgate prison, London after being caught together in private lodgings.

1895 – The trial of Oscar Wilde results in his being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 for "gross indecency" for having sex with other males, and is sentenced to two years hard labor in prison, ruining his health.

1903 – In New York on 21 February 1903, New York police conducted the first United States recorded raid on a gay bathhouse, the Ariston Hotel Baths. 26 men were arrested and 12 brought to trial on sodomy charges; 7 men received sentences ranging from 4 to 20 years in prison.

1945 – Upon the liberation of Nazi concentration camps by Allied forces, those who were interned for homosexuality, and who miraculously survived.. are not freed, but required to serve out the full term of their sentences under Paragraph 175.

1954 – June 7th –Mathematical and computer genius Alan Turing commits suicide by cyanide poisoning, 18 months after being given a choice between two years in prison or libido-reducing hormone treatment for a year as a punishment for homosexuality.

We are all born of the flesh and there is no escaping sin. So the concept of homosexuality being a sin shouldn't be too hard to accept. Imo

I don't believe anyone on this site approves the persecuting of homosexuals.

God hates sin but loves the homosexual, and true born-again Christians do to.

Homosexualality is wrong!

1Cor. 6:9
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,

Effeminate refers to men conforming to the nature of a woman with the purpose of committing homosexual acts with other men.

Abusers of themselves with mankind is man with man, and woman with woman.

1Cor. 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

You can push your agenda, but we know better.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

Not quite.

Koitai indicates the marriage bed, and is routinely used to indicate intercourse.  Note that the Latin word derived from the Greek is Coitus.

"Male-bedders" is the most literal translation, but the term I heard growing up was "chickenhawk."

Jarrod

I have compassion on those who have same sex attraction, but I would be hateful to them if I told them that they were free to take part in homosexual sex. Just as a single hetrosexual person should remain celibate, then so should a gay person if they are a believer. I have never actually met a Christian who is hateful to gays, on the contrary, but we cannot say that sin isnt sin. Its not politically correct to say this, but so what? We are not following the worlds ways but Gods.

Charlie has already posted this verse, which is very clear.
  1Cor. 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

It's really simple if you seek to understand God and not to excuse sin.

God called it "abomination" in numerous places in the word of God.  And no where in the word did He take that back, or correct it (like Paul did with eating foods in the New Testament)... but even right to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, chapter 21 verse 27...

"and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

I know that seems so simple to someone who might want to post long arduous postings to prove it's OK to be gay.  But, the truth is, God does make things way more simple than we might think. 

It's not complicated... In the front of the book He said "No-No homosexuo" and in the back of the book, He said "still No-No homosexuo". 

He called it an abomination in the beginning of the word, and said anyone who practices abominations cannot go to Heaven at the end of the word. 

oh my.  I've read this stuff before.  And the rebuttal to it...

Aaron - what gay activist group are you with?   


the basics are - sex outside of marriage is a sin.   and marriage is only between a man and a woman.   You get caught up in that  biblebabble  and go in circles.   I'm sorry for that.  Gay groups have been using that for years and years.  The only ones who will buy into it are those who don't know Christ and don't know what the Bible really says.

no one is born gay, other than that we are all born with sin... 

: kensington  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 02:17:42It's really simple if you seek to understand God and not to excuse sin. God called it "abomination" in numerous places in the word of God. 

I would not give that which is holy unto dogs.  Matthew 7:6  God called sodomites dogs in the scriptures, and dogs they are. The analogy fits perfectly~what do dogs do to each other?   All this guy is doing is laboring to provoke godly people to speak many things, and as Solomon warned us:

Proverbs 10:19

  .  "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin:  but he that refraineth his lips is wise."

He who speaks too much, will end up sinning.  Let this man go away to "his friends", and in the Judgement of the great day, present his case to the Almighty and see if he will hear him. 

Our Lord Jesus did not give in to such people:

Luke 11:53

  .  "And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things."

Our blessed Jesus never sinned with his words, even though the wicked labored vehemently to provoke him to sin with his words.  We just spent many post dealing with this very subject, let him go there and read our thoughts~ but he really does not care what the word of God said, only to cause righteous, God fearing people to hear his filth.   

Everyone is born in sin.  There is no getting around that. We all have a genetic (or whatever the spiritual equivalent is) predisposition to sin. So "being born that way" is no excuse. Sin is still sin.

As far as male homosexual behavior - it is clearly condemned in the bible in both testaments. Female homosexuality only has Romans 1.26 against it and it is sufficiently vague that without verse 27 it could be taken a different way.

What we call "orientation" is not addressed in the bible at all; so whether or not a same-gender attraction is sinful in and of itself depends on how you define "sin."

: skeeter  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 03:13:53no one is born gay,

I do not agree with that.  There is some evidence that a same-gender attraction can be demonic in origin; and some people are born demonized. So being "born that way" is certainly not out of the question.

By the same token - a baby can also be born with a demon of hatred or murder.  Those would still be considered sinful.

: DaveW  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 05:34:03

: skeeter  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 03:13:53no one is born gay,

I do not agree with that.  There is some evidence that a same-gender attraction can be demonic in origin; and some people are born demonized. So being "born that way" is certainly not out of the question.

By the same token - a baby can also be born with a demon of hatred or murder.  Those would still be considered sinful.

Also many men with same sex attraction were sexually abused as children by an adult of the same sex, and also God can heal those people and restore what was damaged.   

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 06:44:53
Also many men with same sex attraction were sexually abused as children by an adult of the same sex, ...

The same for girls who were abused, regardless of gender of the perp.

: skeeter  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 03:13:53
oh my.  I've read this stuff before.  And the rebuttal to it...

Aaron - what gay activist group are you with?   


the basics are - sex outside of marriage is a sin.   and marriage is only between a man and a woman.   You get caught up in that  biblebabble  and go in circles.   I'm sorry for that.  Gay groups have been using that for years and years.  The only ones who will buy into it are those who don't know Christ and don't know what the Bible really says.

no one is born gay, other than that we are all born with sin...

As you have said here skeeter, Gods will is for one man and one woman to have sex in marriage. I dont see how anyone can see anything else when taking the whole Bibles instructions and teachings on sex.

I suppose it comes down to whether you put God first or your sexual desires first.   ::shrug:: Everything He says is for our good.

: DaveW  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 06:48:01

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 06:44:53
Also many men with same sex attraction were sexually abused as children by an adult of the same sex, ...

The same for girls who were abused, regardless of gender of the perp.

Hmm, i know lots of women who were sexually abused and none of them are gay. I think it damages them in different ways, and remember that most abused women are abused by men not women. 

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 06:52:53
... most abused women are abused by men not women.

Right.  So male sexuality in general and male anatomy specifically becomes looked at as "the enemy." 

My wife has struggled with that.

It's obvious that almost all people commenting on here did not take the time to read the original post before attacking.  I'm not part of some 'gay' group.  I'm merely sharing the original Greek and Hebrew words pertaining to this subject, as many Christian congregations are now doing.  This subject has been falsely translated in every English Bible since the King James version, and if you had read the entire post, you would see that even in many of today's bibles, the translators admit this in their footnotes. The Bible was not originally written in English, so of course it is advisable to see what the Apostles actually wrote in their own language, that is, if you care enough to step out of your comfort zone, and want to follow Jesus' Truth, rather than a lie.

'Homosexual offenders:" The NIV Bible contains this falsely translated phrase of the Greek word 'arsenokoitai'. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences.

The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word in the English language that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century, so any Bible that uses that word is using a false translation.

At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as 'masturbator'. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.


More recent versions of the Bible falsely translate arsenokoitai here as:


• "homosexuals," (NASB);
• "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
• "homosexual offenders," (NIV).


In doing this, they appear to have little respect or attention to the actual meaning of the original Greek verse. By using the term "homosexual" the translators changed the entire scope and meaning of the verse. The original Greek refers to men only, and only very specific forms of homosexuality, not homosexual behavior in general; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate.

The Living Bible and its revision, the New Living Translation, by using the word 'homosexuality' (for which there was no linguistic or cultural equivalent in Hebrew times) add two further errors. First, they add lesbians to the condemned group with utterly no justification for doing so. Second, since 'homosexuality' includes not just homosexual acts but also the mere fact of being oriented toward the same sex, the translations condemn both. These two translations say that it is a sin to be the way God created gays.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 07:55:51
It's obvious that almost all people commenting on here did not take the time to read the original post before attacking.

You are not a victim here. You are not being attacked.  People are disagreeing with you. That IS allowed. 

I somehow missed the warm and Christian love being directed at me then in the comments. My apologies for mistaking them for attacks.

However, most of the comments show that they did not read the post before 'disagreeing' with what was posted, since the post goes into great detail on exactly how they are wrong.

To 'desire' something to be a sin when it is not, does not follow Jesus' teachings of love.

It has been explained to you how your exegete has failed to provide proper evidence for your claim.


Seems many today will attempt to re-translate scripture to suit their personal agendas.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 08:09:02
I somehow missed the warm and Christian love being directed at me then in the comments.

Christians aren't Teddy Bears and neither is God.  People who don't like being disagreed with or having opposing verses pointed out always *always* start making accusations that the ones disagreeing with them are attacking them, don't show Christian love... ::frown::

My apologies for mistaking them for attacks.

However, most of the comments show that they did not read the post before 'disagreeing' with what was posted, since the post goes into great detail on exactly how they are wrong.

And, in your mind, if they had read your post, with your opinions and comments on the scriptures being wrong...they would see the light and agree to celebrate homosexuality?

To 'desire' something to be a sin when it is not, does not follow Jesus' teachings of love.

No one desires things to be sin...it would be MUCH easier on ALL of us if God just didn't have standards, and we could decide for ourselves how we should live.

I can't *tell* you how much I wish I could do what I want sometimes, but dang it, ::doh:: Jesus says to deny self.

: Alan  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 08:25:35
It has been explained to you how your exegete has failed to provide proper evidence for your claim.


Seems many today will attempt to re-translate scripture to suit their personal agendas.

I agree. Its frightening.

Exchanging long held godly truth for lies.  ::hiding::

That does not mean that where people have been abused and mistreated, that THAT was truth or right. Its not.  We must show grace even in the face of sin.

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

It is not just myself who realizes this truth. These are the many denominations consisting of thousands of churches, and millions of people, who agree with the truth I share with you.

North America

• Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
• Anthem Phoenix & Family of Churches
• Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Community of Christ
• Ecclesia Gnostica
• Ecumenical Catholic Church
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Episcopal Church (United States)
• Evangelical Anglican Church In America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• The Evangelical Network
• Friends General Conference
• Friends of Jesus Fellowship
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
• Inclusive Orthodox Church
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Old Catholic Church
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Progressive Christian Alliance
• Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of Canada
• Unity Church

Europe

• German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
• German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch Old Catholic Church
• Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church
• Protestant Church in the Netherlands
• Church of Denmark
• Church of Norway
• Church of Sweden
• Church of Iceland
• United Protestant Church in Belgium
• Portugal - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• British Quakers
• Wales - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Albania - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy (CELI)
• Poland - Christian United Church in Poland
• United Kingdom - United Ecumenical Catholic Church

Central and South America

• Brazil - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Colombia - Affirming Pentecostal Church International

Australia

• Baptist Affirming
• Uniting Church in Australia
• Anglican
• Metropolitan Community Churches
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Pentecostal Reformed

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 08:30:01
Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

It is not just myself who realizes this truth. These are the many denominations consisting of thousands of churches, and millions of people, who agree with the truth I share with you.

This doesn't matter. Its not a contest of whose numbers are greater to prove truth or not.  Truth is proven in and by God's Word.

That it is needing to be altered and changed with claims of it being in error is very telling.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 08:30:01
Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

It is not just myself who realizes this truth deception. These are the many denominations consisting of thousands of churches, and millions of people, who agree with the truth I share with you.

North America

• Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
• Anthem Phoenix & Family of Churches
• Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Community of Christ
• Ecclesia Gnostica
• Ecumenical Catholic Church
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Episcopal Church (United States)
• Evangelical Anglican Church In America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• The Evangelical Network
• Friends General Conference
• Friends of Jesus Fellowship
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
• Inclusive Orthodox Church
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Old Catholic Church
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Progressive Christian Alliance
• Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of Canada
• Unity Church

Europe

• German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
• German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch Old Catholic Church
• Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church
• Protestant Church in the Netherlands
• Church of Denmark
• Church of Norway
• Church of Sweden
• Church of Iceland
• United Protestant Church in Belgium
• Portugal - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• British Quakers
• Wales - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Albania - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy (CELI)
• Poland - Christian United Church in Poland
• United Kingdom - United Ecumenical Catholic Church

Central and South America

• Brazil - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Colombia - Affirming Pentecostal Church International

Australia

• Baptist Affirming
• Uniting Church in Australia
• Anglican
• Metropolitan Community Churches
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Pentecostal Reformed

The fact that many have evolved into a liberal worldview makes no case for what Christ has called us to.

Matthew 7-13.14

13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

: Alan  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 08:25:35Seems many today will attempt to re-translate scripture to suit their personal agendas.

It's a very common practice, among those who cannot use the scriptures to defend their position. 

1 Corinthians 6:9   NASB95   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 homosexuals, nor sodomites,,

The last 2 terms there, homosexuals and sodomites, are the crux of your argument. in the Greek they are oute and arsenokoitēs respectively.

I do know if you are familiar with Dr Derek Prince; but he was a double king scholar from Eaton College and taught Greek Philosophy (Plato, Aristotle etc) at the graduate level IN GREEK prior to WW2 at Cambridge.  He was fluent in all forms of ancient Greek including Koine.

He described those last 2 words of 1 Cor 6.9 as being (in order) the more passive or feminine partner in a homosexual male relationship (oute); and the more masculine and agressive partner in a homosexual male relationship (arsenokoitēs).

"This doesn't matter. Its not a contest of whose numbers are greater to prove truth or not.  Truth is proven in and by God's Word.That it is needing to be altered and changed with claims of it being in error is very telling."

Actually it matters a great deal.  Do you honestly think it was easy for all of these congregations to face the truth, and to realize that they had been taught a lie on this subject?  No, it wasn't.

What is telling is that so many Christians desire to know the 'truth', and have done so.. and what is even more telling is that some people when faced with the direct and honest translation that many Biblical scholars now agree on... still prefer a simplistic lie, because inside themselves they have a prejudice on this issue, and 'desire' it to be a sin to validate their own human error, even when shown it is not.  That is the greatest sadness.

: DaveW  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 06:56:56

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 06:52:53
... most abused women are abused by men not women.

Right.  So male sexuality in general and male anatomy specifically becomes looked at as "the enemy." 

My wife has struggled with that.

yes, but sexual abuse by a man does seem to affect boys and girls differently. While girls may have problems with men generally after abuse, it doesnt seem to turn  them gay(At least with those I know).

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 08:09:02
I somehow missed the warm and Christian love being directed at me then in the comments. My apologies for mistaking them for attacks.

However, most of the comments show that they did not read the post before 'disagreeing' with what was posted, since the post goes into great detail on exactly how they are wrong.

To 'desire' something to be a sin when it is not, does not follow Jesus' teachings of love.

You have also not read most of the posts that were not attacking, but providing clear and simple Bible verses that show you what Gods intention for sex is, and what He forbids. Honestly its very simple and straight forward teaching. 

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 08:30:01
Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

It is not just myself who realizes this truth. These are the many denominations consisting of thousands of churches, and millions of people, who agree with the truth I share with you.

North America

• Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
• Anthem Phoenix & Family of Churches
• Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Community of Christ
• Ecclesia Gnostica
• Ecumenical Catholic Church
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Episcopal Church (United States)
• Evangelical Anglican Church In America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• The Evangelical Network
• Friends General Conference
• Friends of Jesus Fellowship
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
• Inclusive Orthodox Church
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Old Catholic Church
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Progressive Christian Alliance
• Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of Canada
• Unity Church

Europe

• German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
• German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch Old Catholic Church
• Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church
• Protestant Church in the Netherlands
• Church of Denmark
• Church of Norway
• Church of Sweden
• Church of Iceland
• United Protestant Church in Belgium
• Portugal - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• British Quakers
• Wales - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Albania - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy (CELI)
• Poland - Christian United Church in Poland
• United Kingdom - United Ecumenical Catholic Church

Central and South America

• Brazil - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Colombia - Affirming Pentecostal Church International

Australia

• Baptist Affirming
• Uniting Church in Australia
• Anglican
• Metropolitan Community Churches
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Pentecostal Reformed

Then they are clearly not reading their Bibles(not that I have ever heard of the majority of those denominations anyway.)
I have never met anyone in my country(the UK) who thinks as you do. Most pastors I know here would rather loose their jobs than marry or bless such a union.They long for gays to come to know God, but they would never condone what they do.  How can we bless what God doesnt?

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:12:47
"This doesn't matter. Its not a contest of whose numbers are greater to prove truth or not.  Truth is proven in and by God's Word.That it is needing to be altered and changed with claims of it being in error is very telling."

Actually it matters a great deal.  Do you honestly think it was easy for all of these congregations to face the truth, and to realize that they had been taught a lie on this subject?  No, it wasn't.

What is telling is that so many Christians desire to know the 'truth', and have done so.. and what is even more telling is that some people when faced with the direct and honest translation that many Biblical scholars now agree on... still prefer a simplistic lie, because inside themselves they have a prejudice on this issue, and 'desire' it to be a sin to validate their own human error, even when shown it is not.  That is the greatest sadness.

'A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife'.
'Let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband'.

How are those verses hard to understand?   

You have to choose Gods way or yours. We have had people here who also tried to justify hetrosexual sex outside marriage. That doesnt wash either.     

"You have also not read most of the posts that were not attacking, but providing clear and simple Bible verses that show you what Gods intention for sex is, and what He forbids. Honestly its very simple and straight forward teaching.  Today at 08:27:09 AM by chosenone "

This has already been addressed in great detail.  You obviously did not read the post.  Yes, it's very 'simple' to put a false translation of a late 19th century word 'homosexual', but it also is very 'false'.

You completely ignore that the original Greek words by Paul do not condemn homosexuality between adult males, but only very specific and abusive relationships.

By all means, keep it 'simple' if you desire to believe a lie, but the truth is more complicated apparently then you can handle.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:33:32
"You have also not read most of the posts that were not attacking, but providing clear and simple Bible verses that show you what Gods intention for sex is, and what He forbids. Honestly its very simple and straight forward teaching.  Today at 08:27:09 AM by chosenone "

This has already been addressed in great detail.  You obviously did not read the post.  Yes, it's very 'simple' to put a false translation of a late 19th century word 'homosexual', but it also is very 'false'.

You completely ignore that the original Greek words by Paul do not condemn homosexuality between adult males, but only very specific and abusive relationships.

By all means, keep it 'simple' if you desire to believe a lie, but the truth is more complicated apparently then you can handle.

I am referring to the many other verses that have been posted here that CLEARLY show that marriage is the only place for sex and that marriage is only for a man and a woman.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:12:47
"This doesn't matter. Its not a contest of whose numbers are greater to prove truth or not.  Truth is proven in and by God's Word.That it is needing to be altered and changed with claims of it being in error is very telling."

Actually it matters a great deal.  Do you honestly think it was easy for all of these congregations to face the truth, and to realize that they had been taught a lie on this subject?  No, it wasn't.

What is telling is that so many Christians desire to know the 'truth', and have done so.. and what is even more telling is that some people when faced with the direct and honest translation that many Biblical scholars now agree on... still prefer a simplistic lie, because inside themselves they have a prejudice on this issue, and 'desire' it to be a sin to validate their own human error, even when shown it is not.  That is the greatest sadness.

::frown::

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:33:32
By all means, keep it 'simple' if you desire to believe a lie, but the truth is more complicated apparently then you can handle.

The simple truth is that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  Homosexuality fits that bill just as much as the individual sin that trips all of mankind up.

Adultery, lust, lying lips, pride, arrogance, gossip, slander, selfishness, addictions, idol worship; the list goes on and on and on.

We are ALL doomed!  The good news is that GOD gave us a way of escape: CHRIST JESUS our LORD and loves us enough to show us how to live life His way.

He never says NO to us, just because He is in power and can, but because it is to protect us and keep us safe.

Like it or not. THAT is the truth.  He speaks against all manner of sexual sin, and homosexuality is included in that.  He does so not to condemn us, but that we might avoid harm and find His way is the best way.

It's interesting that the people who claim that marriage is only for one man and one women in the Bible never mention or seem to be aware of the following (I'm not promoting polygamy, but simply pointing out their inconsistency on the subject):

Lamech practiced polygamy (Genesis 4:19). Abraham likewise had more than one wife (Genesis 16:3-4; 25:6 "concubines"). Nahor, Abraham's brother, had both a wife and a concubine (Genesis 11:29; 22:20-24). Jacob was tricked into polygamy (Genesis 29:20-30), yet later he received two additional wives making a grand total of four wives (Genesis 30:4, 9). Esau took on a third wife hoping it might please his father Isaac (Genesis 28:6-9). Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5). Michael, Obadiah, Joel, Ishiah, and those with them "had many wives" (1 Chronicles 7:3-4). Shaharaim had at least four wives, two of which he "sent away" (1 Chronicles 8:8-11). Caleb had two wives (1 Chronicles 2:18) and two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46, 48). Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30). Elkanah is recorded as having two wives, one of which was the godly woman Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 8-2:10).

David, "a man after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Chronicles 1:1-9; 2 Samuel 6:23; 20:3). Solomon, who breached both Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and 17:14-17, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-6). Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), and sought many wives for his sons (1 Chronicles 11:23). Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21). Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7). Jehoram had wives who were taken captive (2 Chronicles 21:17). Jehoiada the priest gave king Joash two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3), and Jehoiachin had more than one wife (2 Kings 24:15). Polygamy is mentioned several times over in the Bible and never once is it condemned.

Polygamy was governed, not forbidden:

Not only is polygamy not forbidden, but God actually gave laws concerning its practice. For example, in Deuteronomy 21 the Lord gave Moses a law regarding a man who had two wives:

"If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

This law does not condemn the man who has two wives. It simply governs how he deals with the offspring.

That stated, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, let alone forbidding marriage between two people of the same gender. 

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:51:46
That stated, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, let alone forbidding marriage between two people of the same gender. 

Do you only believe parts of the Bible to be God's truthful Word?

Aaron,

I think it is well established (though not a wide source of self-reflection) that scripture in the hands of the unscrupulous can be made to say what it does not mean in the hands of the wrong people.  (2 Peter 3:16) While you assert that the "unscrupulous" would be those who have propagated that homosexual acts are immoral, others are going to say that the "unscrupulous" ones are those who say what you have been saying in this thread.  People could debate back and forth all day long with scriptural arguments.  There is only one moral truth about this topic, to be sure, and that truth is unchanging, but it seems that anyone contributing to this thread is going to be set in their own ways and their own interpretation of scripture which they authentically believe to be the correct one.

A simpler solution exists, which is to look at two things: the "natural law" and also whether the actual act brings peace or if it brings misery.

The natural law is undeniable even by people who don't believe in the Christian God.  Simply put, we can look at nature to understand the purpose of things.  With regard to human sexuality, we recognize that the parts used in the sexual act (genitalia) have two components to them that demonstrate their proper function: one is that they have a pleasure aspect, and the other is that, when complementary parts are put together, they operate in a way that will bring forth new life to the world.  Those two aspects together show that, naturally, genitalia are ordered toward both pleasure and life-giving, and neither is separable from the other. 

As you know, homosexual acts are not capable of giving life.  And that in itself shows that using them in that way to that end is not natural, and because God created nature, we can easily see that using them in that way goes against God's established order.  This in itself shows that homosexual acts are not God's intention for the human body, and thus not God's will.  And if a person is operating outside of God's established order, that is sin, plain and simple.

The second thing to look act is a more personal one, and that is whether their sexual acts bring peace or if they bring misery.  Every person can be the judge of this for himself, but if something they do, whatever it is, doesn't bring peace but brings misery, then that act is almost certainly sinful and not the will of God.  Each person can judge this for themselves, so it's not really something that even need be argued here.  You can ask yourself this if you personally have same-sex attraction, or perhaps whatever relative you know that has same-sex attraction can ask this to himself, if that is the case.

One thing I want to say, however, is that it is a lie propagated by our culture today that the person and any sin that they practice are one and the same.  The topic of the thread is surely true, that "homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin".  Another way to say that is that merely having same-sex attraction is not a sin.  The debate is really around whether the homosexual acts are sinful or not.  And there are many ways to go about debating that, but the simplest one is to look at the natural law, and the natural law shows that homosexual acts are not in line with the order in nature established by God.

Hi Catholica,

I and more and more churches now believe that God makes some people homosexual, and honor them for the unique beauty that God created them to be, especially as they have suffered and been persecuted and brutalized for so long now by people claiming to be Christian. It also is a natural part of almost every species as God intended them to be.  It is far from 'unnatural'.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay bonded together for years or even their entire lives.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:01:03
Hi Catholica,

I and more and more churches now believe that God makes some people homosexual, and honor them for the unique beauty that God created them to be, especially as they have suffered and been persecuted and brutalized for so long now by people claiming to be Christian. It also is a natural part of almost every species as God intended them to be.  It is far from 'unnatural'.

WHY is it that the thought they remain celibate so abhorrent? Why is the thought that one should abstain from sinful behavior so offensive?

Sex outside of marriage as GOD defines it, is sin and should be avoided.  ::shrug:: 

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

Solve problems by practicing it?! It is done to force some into submission and establish dominance.  It is neither a kind or loving act!  Not a real good point to bring up to support your claims of beauty.

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

Oh come one! A homosexual pairing cannot possibly cause a species to survive! There is no chance or reproduction.  ::frown::

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Those "lesbian" mothers would not have anything to raise if not for the counterpart of a male making the babies for them.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay bonded together for years or even their entire lives.

Are we mere animals, who are driven by instinct alone, with no reason or ability to understand morality, or were we not created in the likeness of God, and as such have a higher expectation put on us as to how we conduct ourselves?

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:01:03
Hi Catholica,

I and more and more churches now believe that God makes some people homosexual, and honor them for the unique beauty that God created them to be, especially as they have suffered and been persecuted and brutalized for so long now by people claiming to be Christian. It also is a natural part of almost every species as God intended them to be.  It is far from 'unnatural'.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay bonded together for years or even their entire lives.

It is natural for beings to want to feel pleasure.  That doesn't mean that the use of their organs is following the natural law with regard to their organs.  Animals are incapable of committing sin not because their acts would in themselves not be considered sinful if done by humans, but rather because they lack free will and reason to be able to discern whether said acts are morally right or not.

Gorillas in Africa routinely kill each other in territory battles.  That doesn't make killing not a sin.  They also eat their own poop.  That doesn't mean that eating one's own poop is in accord with the natural law.  Clearly the intent of poop is not to eat it.

Therefore the acts of different creatures in nature, while interesting, cannot be a source of whether any certain act is in accord with the natural law, nor can it show whether an act is sinful or not.  We have to look to the order of the things that God created, and what their intent is.

With human sexuality, which is what we are talking about, that order is clear, that genitalia were created to BOTH give pleasure AND reproduce, and not one and not the other, but both at once.

: Catholica  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:10:11

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:01:03
Hi Catholica,

I and more and more churches now believe that God makes some people homosexual, and honor them for the unique beauty that God created them to be, especially as they have suffered and been persecuted and brutalized for so long now by people claiming to be Christian. It also is a natural part of almost every species as God intended them to be.  It is far from 'unnatural'.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay bonded together for years or even their entire lives.

It is natural for beings to want to feel pleasure.  That doesn't mean that the use of their organs is following the natural law with regard to their organs.  Animals are incapable of committing sin not because their acts would in themselves not be considered sinful if done by humans, but rather because they lack free will and reason to be able to discern whether said acts are morally right or not.

Gorillas in Africa routinely kill each other in territory battles.  That doesn't make killing not a sin.  They also eat their own poop.  That doesn't mean that eating one's own poop is in accord with the natural law.  Clearly the intent of poop is not to eat it.

Therefore the acts of different creatures in nature, while interesting, cannot be a source of whether any certain act is in accord with the natural law, nor can it show whether an act is sinful or not.  We have to look to the order of the things that God created, and what their intent is.

With human sexuality, which is what we are talking about, that order is clear, that genitalia were created to BOTH give pleasure AND reproduce, and not one and not the other, but both at once.

::applause::  ::amen!::

Hi Memyself,

Two homosexual people joining in love and monogamy through marriage is a beautiful thing, not an ugly one, and if you want to deny basic biology concerning homosexuality in almost all species, of course you can do so.

That said, all bibles are not created equal. The first printed translation of the Bible in English, the Tyndale Bible of 1537, was plagued with errors. Subsequent bibles continued some of the questionable translations of that and earlier bibles, my main point is that we still suffer under the effect of this today. Furthermore, though translations of critical words and phrases have varied over time, translations of the supposedly anti-gay passages seem to have settled into anti-gay translations across Western culture generally (i.e., across different languages, not just in English).

You can compare translations for yourself via a variety of sites. In 2008, Bible Gateway (an online Bible site) had 80 different translations available (20 of these in English); Gateway now has over 130 versions and at least 30 in English.

It is even possible to go back further than that. Bibles before the Tyndale Bible were, of course, hand-written. The Wycliffe Bible of 1385, based on the Latin Vulgate, was the first translation of the Bible into English.

Although the Wycliffe Bible had simply been a translation of the Vulgate into English, the Tyndale Bible largely returned to the oldest available sources in the original Bible languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This was closely followed by the Great Bible of 1539, the first translation authorized by the Church of England; but it had relied more heavily on the Vulgate, and it contained lines from the Vulgate that were absent from the original texts.

In 1568 the authorized Bishops Bible replaced it; with the exception of the Apocrypha, it was entirely from original sources (whereas the Tyndale Bible was perhaps only 4/5 from originals). This Bible, however, suffered from inconsistencies because it had been produced by many hands without an overall editor; it had un-singable Psalms, and scholars attacked it for inaccuracies. Furthermore, the Geneva Bible of 1560 – first printed in England in 1575 – had language that was more powerful and easier to understand. But the powers-that-be – especially Puritans – were seriously offended by marginal notes in the Geneva Bible (which had a Calvinist character), so in 1604 it was decided that an official, authorized text was needed for the Church of England. This in 1611 yielded the version called the King James Version.

Although not highly valued when it was new, the language of the KJV has been burnished by time, and it is beloved today for its beauty. Unfortunately, inevitable changes in language have rendered it obscure or opaque to modern eyes in places, and the twentieth century began to see many attempts to update the Bible so that it returned to full understandability.

Be aware, however, that 'understandable' is not the same as 'accurate.' Mistranslation began with the first Bible in English, the Wycliffe Bible. A particularly well-known example of this is the word 'abomination' as applied to homosexuals. The 1385 Wycliffe Bible used it in Leviticus 18:22, and the 1537 Tyndale Bible used it in Leviticus 20:13 as well. Thereafter, at any time in the process that original scriptures were used, the word could have been more accurately translated, but for whatever reason, the term 'abomination' persisted in Leviticus until well into the 20th century.

This single word is not the only problem affecting passages that supposedly refer to homosexuals. It is merely one of a set of problems that have interfered with a proper understanding of those passages that many assume indicate what the attitude of God might be toward those children of God who are homosexual.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:51:46
It's interesting that the people who claim that marriage is only for one man and one women in the Bible never mention or seem to be aware of the following (I'm not promoting polygamy, but simply pointing out their inconsistency on the subject):

Lamech practiced polygamy (Genesis 4:19). Abraham likewise had more than one wife (Genesis 16:3-4; 25:6 "concubines"). Nahor, Abraham's brother, had both a wife and a concubine (Genesis 11:29; 22:20-24). Jacob was tricked into polygamy (Genesis 29:20-30), yet later he received two additional wives making a grand total of four wives (Genesis 30:4, 9). Esau took on a third wife hoping it might please his father Isaac (Genesis 28:6-9). Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5). Michael, Obadiah, Joel, Ishiah, and those with them "had many wives" (1 Chronicles 7:3-4). Shaharaim had at least four wives, two of which he "sent away" (1 Chronicles 8:8-11). Caleb had two wives (1 Chronicles 2:18) and two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46, 48). Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30). Elkanah is recorded as having two wives, one of which was the godly woman Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 8-2:10).

David, "a man after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Chronicles 1:1-9; 2 Samuel 6:23; 20:3). Solomon, who breached both Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and 17:14-17, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-6). Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), and sought many wives for his sons (1 Chronicles 11:23). Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21). Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7). Jehoram had wives who were taken captive (2 Chronicles 21:17). Jehoiada the priest gave king Joash two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3), and Jehoiachin had more than one wife (2 Kings 24:15). Polygamy is mentioned several times over in the Bible and never once is it condemned.

Polygamy was governed, not forbidden:

Not only is polygamy not forbidden, but God actually gave laws concerning its practice. For example, in Deuteronomy 21 the Lord gave Moses a law regarding a man who had two wives:

"If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

This law does not condemn the man who has two wives. It simply governs how he deals with the offspring.

That stated, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, let alone forbidding marriage between two people of the same gender. 

Matthew 19v5. spoken by Jesus.

  'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'
Gods word is in the whole Bible, and not just what Jesus said. 

If you want to discuss polygamy(which was never Gods intention) then start another thread.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:12:42
Hi Memyself,

Two homosexual people joining in love and monogamy through marriage is a beautiful thing, not an ugly one,

According to scripture, this is not so.  God designed marriage and it was Adam and Eve.  THAT is what God called good.  If He winked at homosexuality and the union between two of the same sex, He would have sanctioned it and allowed for it...He didn't.  He clearly speaks against it.

and if you want to deny basic biology concerning homosexuality in almost all species, of course you can do so.

Where did I do that? That is a false accusation..and not showing Christian love.  Just sayin'.


About your other opinions about the Word...do you feel it is man's word or God's?

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:01:03
Hi Catholica,

I and more and more churches now believe that God makes some people homosexual, and honor them for the unique beauty that God created them to be, especially as they have suffered and been persecuted and brutalized for so long now by people claiming to be Christian. It also is a natural part of almost every species as God intended them to be.  It is far from 'unnatural'.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay bonded together for years or even their entire lives.

This is all completely irrelevant. As believers we are to follow Gods ways and not do whatever we like regardless. If you are serious about your faith and about following God, then there is no other way.  ::shrug::

Hi ChosenOne,

I was merely listing examples in the Bible of different types of marriages, since the topic of marriage was brought up by someone else.  I wasn't aware it was forbidden to do so.

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8: "I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am."

1 Corinthians 7:26-28

"I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that."

So... not everyone is commanded to get married.

You said
Two homosexual people joining in love and monogamy through marriage is a beautiful thing, not an ugly one, and if you want to deny basic biology concerning homosexuality in almost all species, of course you can do so.


Thats your opinion its not Gods.  Its the worlds opinion but not Gods. Who will you follow, God or your own desires? We have a close friend who is attracted to other men due to childhood sexual abuse. He is a believer and chooses to remain celibate because he KNOWS that its wrong.   

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:20:22
Hi ChosenOne,

I was merely listing examples in the Bible of different types of marriages, since the topic of marriage was brought up by someone else.  I wasn't aware it was forbidden to do so.

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8: "I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am."

1 Corinthians 7:26-28

"I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that."

So... not everyone is commanded to get married.

I agree that not everyone will marry, in fact for women in the church many wont marry due to the lack of believing men, and they too should remain celibate. However that's different from a man being with another man or a woman with another woman. 

Just wanted to post this again so that it doesn't get lost in this high-speed topic.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:01:03
Hi Catholica,

I and more and more churches now believe that God makes some people homosexual, and honor them for the unique beauty that God created them to be, especially as they have suffered and been persecuted and brutalized for so long now by people claiming to be Christian. It also is a natural part of almost every species as God intended them to be.  It is far from 'unnatural'.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay bonded together for years or even their entire lives.

It is natural for beings to want to feel pleasure.  That doesn't mean that the use of their organs is following the natural law with regard to their organs.  Animals are incapable of committing sin not because their acts would in themselves not be considered sinful if done by humans, but rather because they lack free will and reason to be able to discern whether said acts are morally right or not.

Gorillas in Africa routinely kill each other in territory battles.  That doesn't make killing not a sin.  They also eat their own poop.  That doesn't mean that eating one's own poop is in accord with the natural law.  Clearly the intent of poop is not to eat it.

Therefore the acts of different creatures in nature, while interesting, cannot be a source of whether any certain act is in accord with the natural law, nor can it show whether an act is sinful or not.  We have to look to the order of the things that God created, and what their intent is.

With human sexuality, which is what we are talking about, that order is clear, that genitalia were created to BOTH give pleasure AND reproduce, and not one and not the other, but both at once.

We'll just have to agree to disagree ChosenOne, and as I pointed out before, I am not alone in my Christian belief. There are millions of other Christians in many different denominations who agree with me.

This is why more and more congregations perform same-sex marriage now.

In justifying themselves, people who are anti-gay uniformly give a single response when asked why being gay is so bad: "Because the Bible says it is an abomination."

This is, indeed, usually the end of the discussion; the response is an unreasoned one, not ever having been subjected to serious examination (and certainly not based on study of what the Bible actually says in the original.)

If pressed, though, some people can add a little to the immediate 'abomination' answer. When they do this, their reasons fall into four natural groups.

"It's not natural."

This is a sham argument having nothing to do with nature or anything that happens in it. Skyscrapers, toilets, medicine, fertility treatments, and clothing do not occur in nature. Cannibalism does occur, as does monogamy, but both are rare and could be considered un-natural.

On the other hand, homosexuality has been observed in perhaps 30% of species which have been studied. In Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, Bruce Bagemihl discusses the homosexual activity that has been documented in over 1500 different species of animals, showing that it is clearly a 'natural' part of sexual diversity.

The reality is that the absence of homosexuality would be unnatural. And it seems to occur in all cultures, without regard for the norms of a culture.

"It's a perversion."

This is little more than a variation of the  argument above, just with a religious cast to it. As such, of course, it has no place in a society committed to the separation of church and state; in such a society the moral basis for law rests on the benefits to society from instituting a law, not from some predetermined religious system.

"It's against God's law."

This argument is, of course, purely religious; without specifically stating the fact, it maintains that homosexuals ought to be bound by the particular religious principles of the proponent, whatever they may be. And, yes, these differ dramatically. Why? When the first parts of the Bible were written down 2900 years ago, people were using a vocabulary (there are 30,000 words in the Bible) that was half the size of an educated person's today (60,000, not including technical terms); and neither the vocabulary nor the scientific approach existed to make precisely scientific descriptions and explanations an option for people of the time. Language simply had to be metaphoric.

The result is that determining exactly what God's Law is is a real challenge. Furthermore, the languages that God's revelation to His people was originally written in – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek – have changed so much since the original writing that even these languages' modern equivalents require translation of the scriptures.

Fortunately, a comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the oldest texts we had before their discovery shows that the effects on meaning of a thousand years of copying have been minor. Still, the task of deciphering God's law remains. God's law is silent on the subject of homosexuality, no matter what you have heard.

"It's against family values."

Hello? Has anyone ever looked at the families in the Bible? There are Adam's (one son murders the other), Abraham's (whose wife gets a servant pregnant by Abraham and then mistreats her), Jacob's (he stole his brother's birthright), Jephthah's (he had to sacrifice his only child to God in return for victory in war), Saul's (he goes crazy), and David's (he gets his general killed so that he can have his wife, and his son Amnon rapes his daughter, Tamar). At best, these are dysfunctional examples of family values.

There are, of course, a handful of people who have genuinely investigated a theological dimension to the issue of homosexuality. Their approach tends to begin with the premises that a homosexual orientation is a choice that, once made, leads to a destructive lifestyle of promiscuity, disease, hopelessness, dramatically lower life expectancy – one that is also somehow destructive to family values.

For a moment, set aside the awesome illogic and junk science behind this position. It maintains that the righteous Christian has an obligation to oppose such a lifestyle in any way possible and to compel such sinners to turn to God. This is called "Dire Consequences Theology;" it holds that permitting such sordid lifestyles would inevitably lead to a decline or destruction of moral society, and a Christian must try to compel gays to abandon a choice which afflicts them with such deadly consequences.

The position entails the assertion that God richly rewards righteous faith – i.e., following God's path leads to health, wealth, and happiness – and that the absence of these is clear evidence of estrangement from God's path for us. Ignore for a moment the existence of birth defects on infants who are profoundly innocent of sin; ignore the incidence of cancer or dementia; ignore crippling automobile accidents; ignore Jesus' own warnings that those who choose His path would face ostracism, violence, suffering, and death – after all, people who claim to adhere to the piece of non-theology above ignore these things.

The fact is that this high-sounding philosophy is nothing but a mask for bigotry. Some people need to disguise their innate insecurity by projecting it onto others, and in this case that means denying people the protections and benefits decreed by a civil state but rather showering those who are different with insult and physical abuse. And despite a pretense of encouraging people to change sexual orientations and rejoin society, the plain fact is that the "ex-gay" effort basically involves convincing people to accept a celibate lifestyle and for the rest of their lives abandon any hope of an intimate mate. Without any exaggeration, this attitude leads to church-sponsored suicide.

In spite of Jesus' message of love, many people who mistakenly call themselves Christians seem to feel that being righteous justifies psychological and physical torture of homosexuals, sometimes including murder. Such people fail to comprehend that no one can be compelled to love Christ or anyone else. The very most this approach can do is force people to try to deny a basic part of themselves and avoid persecution by pretending to be 'straight.' This is to say that it fosters dishonesty (apparently a 'family value').

In the real world, if homosexuals were spared the abuse of such people, most would live their lives relatively free of misery. No, this doesn't deny the belief that genuine peace and happiness cannot come without Christ; many have found an emptiness and hunger of soul corrected only when they have found Christ. But love cannot be compelled. Forced conversions only create the illusion of success.

And an approach that is superficial and not based in genuine love cannot help but be inadequate when faced with homosexual lives that are neither plaintive nor quietly desperate but rather marked with apparent happiness and material prosperity. God's plan, whatever it may be, is of a certainty not accessible to people who do not begin from a standpoint of love and caring; and the question of why God permits good people – whether gay or not – to suffer is a fundamental one for any faith.

Dire Consequences Theology, therefore, is only something of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Homosexuality has dire consequences largely because people who believe in the philosophy make it have consequences. Without the psychological (and physical) violence that they impose on gays, lesbians, and transsexuals – not to mention people of other religions and races, or on anyone different from themselves – the consequences would be solely on an individual level and without an effect on society whatever.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:37:58
Dire Consequences Theology, therefore, is only something of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Homosexuality has dire consequences largely because people who believe in the philosophy make it have consequences.

There are consequences for sin that are far beyond what man "makes" happen.  That is why we stand up, in the Body of Christ, and speak out against sin.  We are concerned for peoples' eternity.

Without the psychological (and physical) violence that they impose on gays, lesbians, and transsexuals – not to mention people of other religions and races, or on anyone different from themselves – the consequences would be solely on an individual level and without an effect on society whatever.

My belief is that those that perpetuate violence against those they disagree with, even if they claim it to be in the name of God, are NOT Christians and are lying to make God's people look foolish and untrustworthy.

I disagree that rampant sin has no consequence on society.  Look at Sodom and Gomorrah.  Look at Rome before its "fall".  Look at the nation of America.  More and more sin is becoming 'legal' in the eyes of man..and our society is suffering (just like it did in those ancient times).

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:51:46
That stated, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, let alone forbidding marriage between two people of the same gender. 

True.  But there is a LOT of Torah (OT scriptures) that He never mentioned because He was not changing any of that.  If it was well understood by his audience and he was not changing it, why mention it? - OR  - if He DID mention it; the gospel authors thought it redundant and left it out. (paper was VERY expensive in those days)

I agree with you that rampant sin is 'not' good for society.  I did not say it was.

As for Sodom, it was not homosexuality that was her sin: Ezekiel 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 10:51:38
I agree with you that rampant sin is 'not' good for society.  I did not say it was.

As for Sodom, it was not homosexuality that was her sin: Ezekiel 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

No..that was ONE sin there in.  Homosexuality was another.  The sin was rampant.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 09:33:32
You completely ignore that the original Greek words by Paul do not condemn homosexuality between adult males, but only very specific and abusive relationships.

No - Paul said nothing about "abusive relationships."  You are ignoring a proper translation by an academically noted Greek Scholar; probably because it conflicts with your agenda here.

Paul's statement is based firmly on this:

Leviticus 20:13  If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

That is plain as can be.  Jesus did not contradict it and neither did Paul. It stands as is.

And if you want to argue that was ONLY for OT Jews - read Acts 15.  "Pornia" (translated fornication) is prohibited from Gentile New Covenant believers.  As far as I can tell pornia was used by the greek speaking diaspora Jews to mean anything that violated Torah sexual commands - including the prohibition on homosexuality.

No memyself.. The word 'homosexuality' was never mentioned in the original Greek.

As I've pointed out before, that is a false translation.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:06:36
No memyself.. The word 'homosexuality' was never mentioned in the original Greek.

As I've pointed out before, that is a false translation.

The behavior of it was mentioned.  And, just because they didn't use the exact word we do today, does not mean it is not in the Scripture and spoken against.  God speaks against it, many times and makes it clear that participating in it displeases Him...just like using His name in vain, stealing, lying, slandering, worshiping anything but Him, coveting, being jealous, etc.etc. etc.

Sin grieves God's heart, and we are ALL called to set aside the sin that so easily entangles us.  I don't like it that I have to give up my "pet" sins either, but I do.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:06:36
As I've pointed out before, that is a false translation.

Just as an aside...where does this claim of "false translation" stop?

The drunkard doesn't like being called out, nor the idolators, the adulterers, prostitutes, thieves, the greedy, slanderers or swindlers either....

what is stopping them from claiming that the passages that speak out against their behavior is a false translation and therefore, can just be flushed away and ignored?  Its a slippery slope you play on I am very afraid.

Memyself,  what about the following do you not understand?

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is create an entirely new word: "arsenokoitai"

At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:26:22
Memyself,  what about the following do you not understand?

Well....that has a snarky rude ring to it...was that your intent?

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is create an entirely new word: "arsenokoitai"

With all due respect. Hog wash.  There have been other posters that have addressed your claim above.

Ps. Paul didn't condemn anything...God was speaking through him, and God is clear about it being sin.

At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

"new" translations abandoned and switched...isn't that what you are doing?

Aaron--

As someone pointed out below---one can be "tempted" in a certain direction and not sin. Temptation is not
sin. The below verse could very well be including homosexuals when Jesus spoke the words:

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Matt. 19:12A)

But, we must also remember that a eunuch is a person who does not engage in sex. As I mentioned in an earlier post--I believe I was born
with the tendency towards alcoholism. It is necessary then that I be a person who does not consume alcohol. It may appear "unfair" because
so many other people can have a beer or glass of wine without experiencing the same problem I have. But I must face it--alcoholism and
drunkenness is a SIN---so I MUST abstain. I have become a "eunuch" when it comes to alcohol--I do not engage in drinking.
The homosexual must do the same--they must abstain from that which God calls sinful.

But, I must state most joyfully, that Jesus has so consumed my life and filled me with such hope and joy, that I rarely even think of alcohol
at all.  HOWEVER, it is part of my old nature--so I must keep guard. 

Aaron----   Jesus truly loves you. You must call sin "SIN" and repent. "If any man be in Christ he is a NEW CREATION, behold old things have
passed away, and all things are new". (2 Cor. 5:17). The Lord will give you a new nature and the more you follow Christ, the less that inclination
to sin will take place.  Don't continue to defend your sin, and make excuses for it---even to the point of trying to reinterpret the Bible. Accept what the
Bible says and conform your life to it.  It will be the best decision you have ever made!

Memyself...not snarky, but you 'do' seem to be blatantly ignoring the fact that the word 'homosexuality' has only recently been put into Bibles, and that it is a completely false translation of 'arsenokoitai', so what am I to think other than that you somehow cannot understand it?

It is the apostle Paul that made all three supposed mentions of homosexuals in the New Testament. Paul's fundamental message throughout his writing is that God's love is all-inclusive, i.e., not that God doesn't love homosexuals. His letter to Christians in Rome, chapter 1, verses 26 and 27, involve him railing at former Christians who knew God but yet who suppressed truth and chose to worship idols instead.

Paul's letter to the church in Rome was written to people immersed in Roman culture. Here homosexual behavior was simply a part of the normal environment, unnoticeable (as it also was in Corinth), but Paul's concern and focus was on pagan religious worship and rituals and their degrading effects on people who had abandoned God and returned to them. Sadly, God let them sink into the natural consequences of their choice – irresponsibility, ignorance, arrogance, and disease.

In the original Greek, the phrase translated as 'vile affections' in the KJV does not describe the passions in a normal marriage (or sexually active relationship); instead it characterizes the orgiastic mind-state that pagan rituals created by using alcohol and/or drugs.

The people in these rituals are not homosexuals at all but rather heterosexual Christians who had returned to paganism and, as a part of its rituals, not only engaged in heterosexual orgies but, under the effects of peer pressure and stimulants, abandoned their inborn sexual orientation to indulge in same-sex activities (the implication being that "received in themselves" refers to sexually-transmitted diseases, epidemic among such cults at the time). The larger context as a whole deals with people who reject God – and therefore is irrelevant to loving Christians (or Jews or Muslims). And in focusing on lust, it is irrelevant to people in or in search of long-term relationships. Paul's letter is a commentary both on variation from a person's faith and from his/her inborn nature. Homosexuals and committed relationships are completely absent here.

It certainly isn't a sin to love someone but if these statistics are correct ( and by me being friends and knowing a lot of the gay community- they seem to be).. It has sin written all over it and on many different levels. The first one is Lust.
http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity (http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity)

I don't think you need the bible to see the problems associated with this behavioral life style. I love all of my gay friends but for some "reason" , they seem to always be searching for something more so than my strait friends....And ALWAYS have a need to proclaim their gayness and a need to justify.  I have always wondered where exactly does that insecurity come from?

Maybe the OP can explain that..

: fish153  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:37:09
Aaron--

As someone pointed out below---one can be "tempted" in a certain direction and not sin. Temptation is not
sin. The below verse could very well be including homosexuals when Jesus spoke the words:

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Matt. 19:12A)

But, we must also remember that a eunuch is a person who does not engage in sex. As I mentioned in an earlier post--I believe I was born
with the tendency towards alcoholism. It is necessary then that I be a person who does not consume alcohol. It may appear "unfair" because
so many other people can have a beer or glass of wine without experiencing the same problem I have. But I must face it--alcoholism and
drunkenness is a SIN---so I MUST abstain. I have become a "eunuch" when it comes to alcohol--I do not engage in drinking.
The homosexual must do the same--they must abstain from that which God calls sinful.

But, I must state most joyfully, that Jesus has so consumed my life and filled me with such hope and joy, that I rarely even think of alcohol
at all.  HOWEVER, it is part of my old nature--so I must keep guard. 

Aaron----   Jesus truly loves you. You must call sin "SIN" and repent. "If any man be in Christ he is a NEW CREATION, behold old things have
passed away, and all things are new". (2 Cor. 5:17). The Lord will give you a new nature and the more you follow Christ, the less that inclination
to sin will take place.  Don't continue to defend your sin, and make excuses for it---even to the point of trying to reinterpret the Bible. Accept what the
Bible says and conform your life to it.  It will be the best decision you have ever made!

Good post!

Fish, thank you, and I'm glad that you have Jesus in your life. I'm well aware that Jesus loves me and I have nothing to repent of concerning this discussion.

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is create an entirely new word: "arsenokoitai"

Aaron - again you are IGNORING the proper translation of those terms by one of the most intelegent men on the planet (the only DOUBLE king scholar to graduate Eaton in the last 500 years). You claim Paul made up arsenokoitai, but Prince was completely familiar with the word from other Greek sources.

The Greek language is a LOT bigger than the text of the NT. Were you unaware of that fact or just convieniently ignoring it?

JD, they only behave that way when cast out of society and family, and certainly not all gay people behave that way.

That is why it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

Dave, it is not I who is ignoring true and honest translation regarding this issue.

Do you honestly believe that so many thousands of congregations went through the painful process of admitting that they had been following false teachings regarding homosexual people if it weren't extremely clear when confronted with an honest translation?

1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10

These verses are mistranslated in pretty much every English Bible commonly available.Both verses are printed below in Greek, then transliterated, and then with correct translations, and explanations about the translations.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Ἤ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι Θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; Μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται...

I ouk idhate oti adhiki Theou vasilian ou klironomisousin? Mi planasthe; oute porni oute idhololatrai oute mikhi oute malaki oute arsenokitai...

(Transliteration of Modern Greek pronunciation.)

Or haven't you known that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor soft ones* nor those who lie with males...**

1 Timothy 1:10

πόρωοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,

...pornis, arsenokitais, andhrapodhistais, psevstais, epiorkis, kei i ti eterov ti iyi-einousi dhidhaskalia antikitai,

(Transliteration of Modern Greek pronunciation.)

...to fornicators, to those who lie with males,** to kidnappers, to liars, to perjurers, and if any other thing opposes healthful teaching,

*Soft ones: The Greek word malaki (mala-KEE) is a plural noun, derived from the adjective malakos (mala-KOS). The adjective means soft or fine, but is restricted in its use to describing material or clothing. It describes the type of clothing worn by wealthy people. This adjective was used in Luke 7:25, when Jesus asked the crowd if they had gone out to the wilderness expecting to see someone dressed in fine clothing. Coining a noun from this adjective would logically suggest the type of people who wear soft or fine clothing. Jesus Himself indicated the near impossibility of wealthy people entering the kingdom.

**Those who lie with males: The Greek word arsenokitai (arseno-KEE-tay) (the form used in 1 Timothy is arsenokitais [arseno-KEE-tays]), is formed by combining the noun arsin, which means male, with the construction kit-, a derivative of the verb kimei, which means lie down. Combined, the word refers to people who lie down with males. What remains to be determined is whether the word is referring to males lying with males, or females lying with males. Ordinarily, to determine if a Greek noun is masculine or feminine, one looks at it in the nominative case with the definite article. For example, o adhelfos, the brother, is in the nominative case, and both the os ending and the definite article o tell us the noun is masculine. But the word used in these two verses presents a small challenge to us, because in ancient literature, it never appears with a definite article. (In fact, outside these two passages, it never appears at all) Of course, we could simply look it up in a Modern Greek dictionary, and it would tell us the word is masculine and means homosexual. But is that the end of it? Actually, no. The dictionary's definition and assignment of gender is based on centuries of preconceived notions about what Paul was saying, and not on actual usage from the first century. So in this case, the dictionary can't answer the question for us. We need to look back to the word itself, and its context, to search for clues.

The last two letters of the word in 1 Corinthians, and the last three in 1 Timothy, are where we need to look first. Greek nouns are declined according to case. That is, the ending of a noun changes to indicate how the word is being used in the sentence. We have something similar in English pronouns: We use the word I as a subject, but me as an object.

For all intents and purposes, I and me mean the same thing. But it is incorrect to say Me want a book, or Give I a book. In 1 Corinthians, the word is in the nominative case, and the ending is one that is often feminine. This would suggest that the word is referring to women lying with males. In 1 Timothy, the word is in the dative case, which in English corresponds to putting the word to before the noun. (Example: Give the book TO ME.) And again, the ending is one that is often feminine. The fact that this word is not found anywhere else in literature of the period suggests that Paul himself coined it.

Although there was no such word as homosexual at the time, there were words that could be used to indicate sexual activity between persons of the same sex. Had Paul intended to refer to homosexuals here, common sense would have him use words people already knew and understood. But the creation of a new word suggests a different concept. Had he intended for his new word to be understood to refer to males, he would have given it a different ending. The plural ending oi (ois in the dative case) is never feminine, and would have served the purpose. But he didn't do that. So even without the definite article to prove the point, the evidence so far suggests that Paul was speaking about women when he used this word, not men.

When honestly translated, Scripture contains no prior condemnation of homosexuality.

Paul, as a Jewish scholar, could not have been ignorant of this. So for him to suddenly, and without precedent, introduce a condemnation of homosexuality, without a word of explanation, would make absolutely no sense, and would have created an uproar in the early churches. This is why for the first 300 years of Christianity, homosexuals were openly welcomed into the church, and were never persecuted.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:43:11
JD, they only behave that way when cast out of society and family, and certainly not all gay people behave that way.

I disagree. I have seen the need to justify from those that come from family that fully celebrates with them.

That is why it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

oh my gosh!  WHY would we do this?  WHY would we see someone on the edge of a building about to fall to their death and say "go, ahead and jump...and take someone with you!" That just breaks my heart.

We can accept them, their sin that besets them, love them and befriend them, but also, call them to live a life surrendered to godliness.  They should remain celibate...just like those who are unmarried.

People will not die to do so.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:43:11That is why it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

No - God did NOT make them that way.  They were distorted by being born into a sinful and fallen world system. 

There is repentance and there is the power of the Holy Spirit for those who are in Messiah. They can marry someone of the opposite gender and find the love and physical affection you seem to think trumps God's word.

Do you honestly believe that so many thousands of congregations went through the painful process of admitting that they had been following false teachings regarding homosexual people if it weren't extremely clear when confronted with an honest translation?

Absolutely.  They have been duped by NOT hearing the voice of God for themselves and just arguing over words on paper. They have been blinded by the spirit of the age that says this behavior is ok.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:43:11
JD, they only behave that way when cast out of society and family, and certainly not all gay people behave that way.

That is why it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

Thanks for the reply. Have a blessed day Aaron.  ::smile::

: DaveW  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:52:02

Do you honestly believe that so many thousands of congregations went through the painful process of admitting that they had been following false teachings regarding homosexual people if it weren't extremely clear when confronted with an honest translation?

Absolutely.  They have been duped by NOT hearing the voice of God for themselves and just arguing over words on paper. They have been blinded by the spirit of the age that says this behavior is ok.

::amen!::

When honestly translated, Scripture contains no prior condemnation of homosexuality.

Paul, as a Jewish scholar, could not have been ignorant of this. So for him to suddenly, and without precedent, introduce a condemnation of homosexuality, without a word of explanation, would make absolutely no sense, and would have created an uproar in the early churches. This is why for the first 300 years of Christianity, homosexuals were openly welcomed into the church, and were never persecuted.

No prior condemnation?  Really?

How do YOU understand Lev 20.13?

Have you read the talmuds? (culled from the teachings that Paul received under Gameliel the Great - who is often quoted)

You may want to check this out:
http://torahweb.org/torah/special/2010/homosexuality.html (http://torahweb.org/torah/special/2010/homosexuality.html)

Dave and memyself... we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I've stated my beliefs, backed up by an overwhelmingly detailed analysis of the original Greek and Hebrew words, along with a very detailed history of the Church on this issue, and listed all the many Christian congregations that agree with what I've shared with you.

You've stated your beliefs.

Neither of us are going to agree with the other so further discussion on this is useless.

Unless you desire to 'argue' uselessly, which I definitely do not, and which would be a very un-Christian thing to do, please stop making any further comments to me.

Thank you jd and I wish the blessing of Christ on you as well! :-)

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 12:12:24
Unless you desire to 'argue' uselessly, which I definitely do not, and which would be a very un-Christian thing to do, please stop making any further comments to me.

Were you only wishing replies from those that agree with you or were "won" by your views?

Do you plan on continuing to post on this subject?  If so, even if Dave and I choose to abide by you telling us not to reply to you, others will.

Standing up to sin is not useless arguing either, just FYI.

Aaron - I will not be quiet on this because you are advocating a sinful lifestyle in opposition to scripture.

The religious leaders of His day wanted our Lord to be quiet also but He NEVER was.  He proclaimed the truth even while hanging on the cross.

If you would only repent and ask God to change your view point, you could see the validity of what we have been saying.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:43:11
JD, they only behave that way when cast out of society and family, and certainly not all gay people behave that way.

That is why it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

Jesus doesnt do that, because He KNOWS that its wrong and damaging and that it will only lead to pain and death. At this time
you seem to be saying that only Jesus' actual recorded words are Gods words, when of course its the whole Bible. As has already been pointed out to you, Jesus Himself reinforced what marriage is, and that is a covenant relationship between 2 people of the opposite sex.
There are countless Christians who live celibate lives because they have same sex attraction and KNOW that God has said they must not be in such a union. As I said we have people here all the time who try and justify their sin, and ignore the many verses that say its wrong.   

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 11:43:11
JD, they only behave that way when cast out of society and family, and certainly not all gay people behave that way.

That is why it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

No one is forced into a promiscuous and dangerous life style, that is their choice. As I said, there are countless celibate unmarried Christians in the church, straight and gay. Its either that or disobey God. Everyhing He says is for our good, believe me.

I've already stated my position in previous posts.. we obviously disagree.  What is the point of continuing to make comments to me on something I've already addressed except for personal and extremely non-Christian malice??

If someone has something 'new' that hasn't been addressed by me already, that is fine.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 12:12:24
Dave and memyself... we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I've stated my beliefs, backed up by an overwhelmingly detailed analysis of the original Greek and Hebrew words, along with a very detailed history of the Church on this issue, and listed all the many Christian congregations that agree with what I've shared with you.

You've stated your beliefs.

Neither of us are going to agree with the other so further discussion on this is useless.

Unless you desire to 'argue' uselessly, which I definitely do not, and which would be a very un-Christian thing to do, please stop making any further comments to me.

Its irrelevant what some churches do or dont do, or what the church has or hasnt done in the past. Its Gods words that we heed, and we here have posted many verses that clearly tell you in simple terms what marriage is and isnt and what God created sex for.

I heard a true story a while back of a gay couple here in the uk, who converted to Jesus. They carried on living together but many months later, they were praying together, and suddenly the power of God came on them as they sat there. Eventually they went to bed, but in the morning they both KNEW they had to end their relationship and give up that life. God had convicted them and changed them.

You will never have that intimacy with God until you stop joining your body with another man. You are living outside Gods will or blessings. 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 12:51:37
I've already stated my position in previous posts.. we obviously disagree.  What is the point of continuing to make comments to me on something I've already addressed except for personal and extremely non-Christian malice??

If someone has something 'new' that hasn't been addressed by me already, that is fine.

If you have anything new maybe you can do the same?
I know a lady who justified in her mind divorcing her husband for another man. I know many who try and justify having sex outside marriage. If we want something enough and arent prepared to give it up for God even when He clearly says its wrong, then we will try and justify it while ignoring most of the Bible. It never ceases to amaze me what believers will try and justify. ::shrug:: 


My local vicar is a lovely anglican man with such a heart to see ALL people saved. However he says he is prepared to loose his job and home if Anglicans are forced to conduct gay marriages. Most church leaders here would do the same.
As one said, how can I bless what God has condemned???   

Nope, nothing new for now.... I've already said quite a lot, and realize that most people aren't even reading what I posted anyway, as evidenced by their questions and statements, so I'm fine for now. Thanks.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 12:51:37
I've already stated my position in previous posts.. we obviously disagree.  What is the point of continuing to make comments to me on something I've already addressed except for personal and extremely non-Christian malice??

Wow. You are really quite skilled at the shame messaging aren't you?  ::frown:: No one has attacked you, or responded to you in an  un-Christlike way.  There has also not been any malice in the replies to you.

If someone has something 'new' that hasn't been addressed by me already, that is fine.

But, if you keep making claims, you really should be ready for others to stand up and say "not so".

I advise you to be less confrontational, recognize when a discussion is fruitful, and when it is not... unless you simply desire to argue for arguing's sake, which is not what a mature adult engages in, and dwell upon the following teachings instead:

Romans 14:1-4  As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Romans 15:5-7  May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

James 4:11-12 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Matthew 22:36-39 "Teacher," he asked, "which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and the most important commandment.  The second most important commandment is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'


Luke 6:37  Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.

1 John 3:15  Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

John 3:17  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:11:54
I advise you to be less confrontational, recognize when a discussion is fruitful, and when it is not... unless you simply desire to argue for arguing's sake, which is not what a mature adult engages in, and dwell upon the following teachings instead:

By "when it is not," do you mean that it is not going your way? Face it. You have lost this discussion and you need to repent of your position. 

Pure and simple.

Isaiah 5:20  Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:11:54
I advise you to be less confrontational, recognize when a discussion is fruitful, and when it is not... unless you simply desire to argue for arguing's sake, which is not what a mature adult engages in, and dwell upon the following teachings instead:

Oh my gosh. ::frown:: More digs.  Sad.

I am not being confrontational. I am challenging your thoughts, however. That IS allowed here.  I don't have to be quiet just because you don't like what I have to say. 

Romans 14:1-4  As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Romans 15:5-7  May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

James 4:11-12 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Matthew 22:36-39 "Teacher," he asked, "which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and the most important commandment.  The second most important commandment is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'


Luke 6:37  Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.

1 John 3:15  Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

John 3:17  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

These are all great scriptures, but they do not apply here since no one replying to you is judging, hating, condemning, being unloving, or speaking evil against you.  This is far more than opinion. This has potential to cause someone to stumble into sin and that is a very serious offense.

If you were quibbling over coffee vs. tea, I wouldn't enter into debate, because there is no potential to sin.  This topic DOES.

No, I have not 'lost' this discussion.  I realize saying that makes you feel better, so say that while looking in a mirror.. it'll feel even better, I'm sure.

The reality is that I've stated that we simply disagree, listed an enormous amount of detailed direct translations that support what I say, while you have not, and cannot handle that.

Aaron
A couple of general things.  Most are not disagreeing with you because we are mean or unloving.  I have those in my family who are practicing homosexuals.  I love them and accept them but not their sin.  We all have things we struggle with but that does not change the nature of sin.  My comments on being a Greek scholar above those who translate is not just you but we have some here who try to do the same to make obedience the way to salvation instead of faith and grace.

If you want folks to red your posts they need to be short and make a single point not a doctoral paper that is stored away in the library and no one reads.  You like the rest of us will not have everyone and some times no one agreeing with you.  Does not mean we are unkind our unloving or unchristian.  Just means we disagree.
Welcome to the forum.  Hope you keep posting you might find we have many views in common.   

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:38:23
I realize saying that makes you feel better, so say that while looking in a mirror.. it'll feel even better, I'm sure.

::frown::

The reality is that we simply disagree and you cannot handle that.

Its not that it can't be handled. If you are done talking, so will I be.  ::tippinghat::

However, if you continue to post on the subject, so will I.  ::smile::

: Johnb  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:40:39
Aaron
A couple of general things.  Most are not disagreeing with you because we are mean or unloving.  I have those in my family who are practicing homosexuals.  I love them and accept them but not their sin.   

I have as well.

: DaveW  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 05:34:03

: skeeter  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 03:13:53no one is born gay,

I do not agree with that.  There is some evidence that a same-gender attraction can be demonic in origin; and some people are born demonized. So being "born that way" is certainly not out of the question.

By the same token - a baby can also be born with a demon of hatred or murder.  Those would still be considered sinful.

There is another aspect that needs to be covered regarding being born that way or not.

Being born demonized is a certain consideration but what about the seeming "explosion" of gays today.

Stop and consider the general  age group of the bulk of those so called "coming out."

Their parents and and many grandparents were alive and well in the 1960s and after when the hippy movement, free love and free drug use was encourages to all those who would listen.

I remember working at a store in 1984 and a young woman, in her 20s.... I was in my late 30s... refused to believe I had never ever tried a drug of any kind....

And I never have.

But the majority of those have at the least smoked marijuana.

What screwed up effect on their bodies did these people do that may have alterd the fetuses they were carrying, even if they did not use drugs during her pregnancy.

This could be a direct outcome.

(Example: We all know, or those of us to have children coming out at the moment, do,  of the parents of Chastity/Chaz Bono. Did she/he make a lifestyle choice or was the lifestyle of the parents in their youth responsible with their admitted acceptance of illegal substances?

ALSO... Just think of what the government has and is accepting in the way of food modifications and genetic alterations....

That started in the 80s big time as well.... With the tomato and corn genetic alterations to begin with.

This could well be accountable for such changes in someones baby.

I am certain it is accountable for the epidemic we see in  diabetes and many other diseases we see today.

God help us if they start selling cloned meat....

In any even, whatever the reason... by choice or birth... abstinence is the word of the day.

Aaron you haven't responded to my last post, just in case you missed it.

Aaron
One more point we do not have to agree to be brother in Christ. At least you are generating a lot of discussion.   ::tippinghat::

Memyself...Do you think that by posting little smiley icons like a teenager would do makes you seem like a person who engages in serious adult debate?

JohnB... if your attention span and reading comprehension level aren't up to the task of reading my detailed and scholarly posts, and you desire something short and 'simple'.. then this conversation is definitely not for such as you.

: Catholica  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:43:17
Aaron you haven't responded to my last post, just in case you missed it.

I hope he does. Its a really good one, Catholica

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:44:30
Do you think that by posting little smiley icons like a teenager would do makes you seem like a person who engages in serious adult debate?

::shrug:: Not real sure what bothers you so much about the smilies here.  I like them, because they help add a little bit of humanity to the posts. 

At any rate, there is no need to be rude.  That is not very loving nor is it Christlike.

Wow cant you see that you are the one here who is being hateful and rude? If you come to a Christian forum trying to justify your sin then of course you will get most disagreeing with you.
You seem very angry that you cant make us all go along with your opinions, but God is more important to us than political correctness.  It would be cruel for us to tell you that you lifestyle isnt harmful or damaging for you physically emotionally and spiritually.

Memyself, I haven't felt any Christlike love since you first started attacking me, and especially after I asked you to leave me alone when it became apparent that we're not going to agree on anything, and thus further conversation was useless.

If the little cartoons make you feel better, then by all means, post them everywhere you can.

chosenon... nope.  I'm not being hateful.  I shared deep and scholarly information about the original Greek and Hebrew words on this subject, and when it became apparent that I'm not changing my position, and neither are certain others on here, some people apparently cannot do the usual mature thing that is done in these situations and leave it at: "We'll have to agree to disagree."

Catholica, I've already replied to your question.  Animals eating poop or killing each other does not have anything to do with the examples of dolphins forming bonded homosexual pairs for life.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:08:32
chosenon... nope.  I'm not being hateful.  I shared deep and scholarly information about the original Greek and Hebrew words on this subject, and when it became apparent that I'm not changing my position, and neither are certain others on here, some people apparently cannot do the usual mature thing that is done in these situations and leave it at: "We'll have to agree to disagree."

Well I have seen some pretty rude posts from you. ::eek::  Maybe we have different ideas of rudeness.  ::shrug::

We cant change our position when we are following God.  Its His position not ours. 

I've already stated that we'll just have to agree to disagree chosenone. God bless.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:14:34
Catholica, I've already replied to your question.  Animals eating poop or killing each other does not have anything to do with the examples of dolphins forming bonded homosexual pairs for life.

More attempts to justify sin.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:05:59
Memyself, I haven't felt any Christlike love since you first started attacking me,

Please show me where exactly it was that I attacked you. It was not my intention to attack your person, and if I did, I was in great error and would like the opportunity to see where I did and apologize to you sincerely.

and especially after I asked you to leave me alone when it became apparent that we're not going to agree on anything, and thus further conversation was useless.

This is a message board.  Though you may not like what I have to say on this topic, it is within the rules for me to respond to the points being made.  Please try and give me the benefit of the doubt that I am NOT attacking YOU as a person, who is fully and wholly loved by God, but challenging your opinions and convictions about the Word of God and this topic.

If the little cartoons make you feel better, then by all means, post them all over.

They DO make me feel better, because I hope they help convey that I am not frothing and pointing and screaming, but saying what I have to say in love and kindness...though you may find the words hard to accept.  They are not said in anger, attack or judgement.

Nope.... it's called 'nature', just as God created it to be.

PS. As I stated earlier, if you mean "agree to disagree" in the sense that this topic is done, you will not say anything more about it here, neither will I.

However, if you mean, "You be quiet now, but I'll keep posting" I will not hush.

Thanks memyself.   If you're brimming with Christian love for me, then please respect that I and millions of other Christians have a different opinion than you on this subject, and stop trying to beat a dead horse when it's obvious we're not going to agree with each other.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:19:58
Thanks memyself.   If you're brimming with Christian love for me, then please respect that I and millions of other Christians have a different opinion than you on this subject,

???  Where have I said I don't accept this?  I totally do, but I also have the right to speak MY convictions too, you know.  Speaking them does not mean I don't accept that you feel differently.  ???

and stop trying to beat a dead horse when it's obvious we're not going to agree with each other.

This goes for you too, I guess.  Few here will agree with you, so stop beating the dead horse and drop it.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:14:34
Catholica, I've already replied to your question.  Animals eating poop or killing each other does not have anything to do with the examples of dolphins forming bonded homosexual pairs for life.

Sorry, I must have missed it.  I still am having trouble finding it.  Which page is it on?

If you use the normal activities of animals to justify that said activities are "natural", then you must account for many, many activities that you probably don't want to deal with.

Grasshoppers are cannibals.
Ducks have been observed to practice necrophilia.
Cane toads have been observed to have sex with inanimate objects.

If a person did any of these things, that would be a sin.  Logic therefore rightly concludes that animal behavior of any kind cannot be used to determine whether human behavior of the same kind is immoral or not.

We can, however, see attributes of God in the things he has made.   And the argument concerning the creation of the human sexual system and it's end makes it apparent as to what God's intent for it is, and that is pleasure connected with reproduction of the human race, and not one or the other, but both at once.

There is no answer to this truth that can substantiate several sexual practices, one of them being homosexual sex, which cannot reproduce.  In other words, you can tell by how God made the body that it was not intended to be used by same sex partners for sexual pleasure alone.

Memyself, I've already repeatedly stated that I've posted more than enough on the subject, that I've heard your view, you've heard mine, and we disagree.  If you want to start your 'own' post on the subject, the forum room is open for you to do so.

Catholica, homosexuality exists in almost all species, just as God designed them to be.  It does not equate with killing or eating each other.  It is a form of affection and love.

That said, we are much more than simply 'genitalia'... when two souls meet, and find affection, love, and sexual desire for each other within a monogamous spiritual union, then that is a blessing, not a sin.

Reproduction is not required, since there are plenty of heterosexual pairings going on, both in Nature, and within Humanity.

If you're going to say it's a sin, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:17:54
Nope.... it's called 'nature', just as God created it to be.

God doesnt create anything that He then condemns. So much is skewed in the world today due to sin and evil. 
Read this its good and helps to describe why people have same sex attraction. Its nearly all because of someone else's sin. 
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/archive/12489-the-dangers-of-same-sex-marriage (http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/archive/12489-the-dangers-of-same-sex-marriage)

Sorry chosenone, again... we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  As I've stated and shown exhaustively before, God does 'not' condemn homosexuality, as millions of other Christians now know and agree with what I say.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:30:12
Catholica, homosexuality exists in almost all species, just as God designed them to be.  It does not equate with killing or eating each other.  It is a form of affection and love.

That said, we are much more than simply 'genitalia'... when two souls meet, and find affection, love, and sexual desire for each other within a monogamous spiritual union, then that is a blessing, not a sin.

Reproduction is not required, since there are plenty of heterosexual pairings going on, both in Nature, and within Humanity.

If you're going to say it's a sin, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that.

IF there are the very very occasional homosexual pairings in nature(and its very rare) then its because nature is also skewed as men are. Also do you think that we should do as a tiny number of animals do or should we do what God says and live a moral life of integrity?
God doesnt make a man desire a man. A man does that for many reasons including sexual abuse and a very poor father/son relationship. A man or women can chose to live the right way or not, but trying to say that God made them that way so its ok is franky mad.  ::frown:: You are free to live as you wish, but there will be consequences, and please dont ignore the many verses that we have posted here that state clearly that sex and marriage are only for a man and a women.

I suggest you study up more on that subject.  It's not rare at all in Nature, and instead is extremely widespread, common, and completely natural, just as God designed it to be. As to 'ignoring'.. I've seen them all, and stated that I and millions of other Christians disagree.

It is 'you' who have ignored the many detailed translations on this subject I've provided that were translated by the most advanced religious scholars.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:33:46
Sorry chosenone, again... we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  As I've stated and shown exhaustively before, God does 'not' condemn homosexuality, as millions of other Christians now know and agree with what I say.

Yes, Aaron, God does condemn sexual sin.  This is one area of that umbrella.

BUT, He waits on high to have compassion and sent His Son that we might live, not be condemned.

There is no reason to fear condemnation when one gives themselves fully over to Christ!  ::clappingoverhead:: 
I understand the great urge to love and be loved sexually, but the Word gives guidelines and boundaries for how to appropriately meet those needs. Some are called to remain celibate and if one is unable to set aside the sin that so entangles them, due to same sex attraction, they will be equipped to live a life of celibacy.  That does not mean it will be easy, but denying self hardly ever is.  That is just what Christ calls us to though.

Relationships can be fulfilling and loving even if they are not of a sexual nature. 

My brother is unmarried.  He is surviving though his longing for a wife and family goes unmet.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:17:54
Nope.... it's called 'nature', just as God created it to be.

If we're talking "natural selection," then it's strongly selected against.

If we're talking "natural law" then that demands a prohibition at the community level anyway, for the overall propagation and good of the community.

Jarrod

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:33:46
Sorry chosenone, again... we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  As I've stated and shown exhaustively before, God does 'not' condemn homosexuality, as millions of other Christians now know and agree with what I say.

Where are all these millions of Christians? I have been a christian for 40 years and have never met a single one who thinks as you do. Yes of course you disagree because you arent prepared to make the changes in your life that God is calling you to make.
Its simple, your lifestyle or God?  God or or the other man? I do know people who have given up their partners when God challenged them. They KNEW they had to do it. You can tell yourself till you are blue in the fact that its OK with God and perfectly natural, but when you stand before Him and He askes why you didnt choose Him, what will you say?

Wycliffs... "prohibition for the good of the community"?

Homosexuality flourished and was accepted by the general public and 'community' for over 1,300 years within the Greek culture, and for almost 900 years of Roman culture, without causing any 'downfall' of civilization as some people today claim will happen if homosexuals are able to get married.

The very foundation of Democracy itself, in the birthplace of Western Civilization itself.. was started by two 'gay' males..

The association of homosexuals with democracy and the military was intense and widespread, extending from Harmodius and Aristogeiton, a pair of lovers who founded Democracy by overthrowing the last tyrant of Athens, to the noted generals Pelopidas and Epanminondas, to the great military genius Alexander the Great and his male lover Bagoas.

Of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, no less acute a mind than Plato's observed that: "Our own tyrants learned this lesson through bitter experience, when the love between Aristogiton and Harmodius grew so strong that it shattered their power.  Wherever, therefore, it has been alluded to be shameful to be involved in sexual relationships with men, this is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice in the part of the governed."

For hundreds of years, larger-than-life statues of these founders of Democracy towered above Athens, as impossible to disconnect with the city as the Statue of Liberty is impossible for us to disconnect with New York..  and young male lovers from England to Egypt, and across the entire Classical world would journey there to pledge their faith and love to each other, underneath those statues.

Gorgidas, the leader of Thebes created the Sacred Band, composed of 300 men, who were all paired lovers.  They were known as the 'sacred band' because as Plutarch later explained, "even Plato calls the lover a friend inspired of God."

Philip of Macedon and Plutarch recounted how the greatest heroes in the Greek's own history were all known to prefer other males rather than women: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, Epaminondas, Asopichus, and Caphisodorus.

Even Hercules was famous for his male lover, Iolaus, who fought by his side.  In Plato's 'Symposium,' he noted the eagerness of the great warrior Achilles to join his lover and military partner in death as an explicit parallel to a wife's being willing to die for her husband.  Their bones were burned and mixed together in a gold amphora, as was done in the case of married heterosexual couples.

Aristophanes said that "..males who prefer other males are the finest men because they have the most manly nature.  Their behavior is due to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like." 

Plato and numerous other classical authors attested to the military value of armies made up of lovers.  When Epaminondas fell in battle at Mantineia, his lover died beside him.  One of the most formidable and feared Theban warriors of the early Classical Era was Kaphisodoros, who was part of the Sacred Band.

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:44:12

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:33:46
Sorry chosenone, again... we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  As I've stated and shown exhaustively before, God does 'not' condemn homosexuality, as millions of other Christians now know and agree with what I say.

Where are all these millions of Christians? I have been a christian for 40 years and have never met a single one who thinks as you do. Yes of course you disagree because you arent prepared to make the changes in your life that God is calling you to make.
Its simple, your lifestyle or God?  God or or the other man? I do know people who have given up their partners when God challenged them. They KNEW they had to do it. You can tell yourself till you are blue in the fact that its OK with God and perfectly natural, but when you stand before Him and He askes why you didnt choose Him, what will you say?

What I don't get is even using that "millions agree with me" as a valid argument.  ::shrug:: We aren't asking for mans' opinion, but Gods.  HE is who those on this side of the argument have to convince.  They can change scripture, claim IT is in error, and that THEY can fix it, but it won't change a thing.  Not really.

It makes my heart so heavy when I think how many are being deceived and will be caused to stumble over this.  ::cryingtears::

chosenone, I've already listed them, here they are again:

These are the many entire denominations consisting of thousands of churches, and millions of people, who agree with the truth I share with you.

North America

• Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
• Anthem Phoenix & Family of Churches
• Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Community of Christ
• Ecclesia Gnostica
• Ecumenical Catholic Church
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Episcopal Church (United States)
• Evangelical Anglican Church In America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• The Evangelical Network
• Friends General Conference
• Friends of Jesus Fellowship
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
• Inclusive Orthodox Church
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Old Catholic Church
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Progressive Christian Alliance
• Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of Canada
• Unity Church

Europe

• German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
• German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch Old Catholic Church
• Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church
• Protestant Church in the Netherlands
• Church of Denmark
• Church of Norway
• Church of Sweden
• Church of Iceland
• United Protestant Church in Belgium
• Portugal - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• British Quakers
• Wales - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Albania - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy (CELI)
• Poland - Christian United Church in Poland
• United Kingdom - United Ecumenical Catholic Church

Central and South America

• Brazil - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Colombia - Affirming Pentecostal Church International

Australia

• Baptist Affirming
• Uniting Church in Australia
• Anglican
• Metropolitan Community Churches
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Pentecostal Reformed

Aaron  I was not referring to my personal attention span but as a moderator giving advise on how to have your posts actually read.  I have 3 plus years of post graduate work in bible at a well known Christian college so no need to attempt to demean my ability to read and understand.  The fact that many here do not agree with your nontraditional stance on this subject does not mean they are being unkind or unchristian.  The fact that they accept the scholarship of the thousands of men who devoted their life to the study of Greek and Hebrew over 2000 years over your new views does not mean they are unkind or unchristian.  It just means they reject your conclusions and those who are trying to change what scripture actually has to say on the subject.  We all have sin that we do not over come (some say willful sin but IMO all sin is willful sin) and the grace of God will cover our sins and He is the final judge.  I am not willing to call my sins non sin nor the sins of the homosexuals.  Sin is sin and we are all saved by grace thru faith .  Now with that statement I will take some of the heat off you and some of the flaming arrows will come my way.  ::tippinghat::

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:32:50
God doesnt create anything that He then condemns.

I think there's a pretty good body of evidence to suggest that mankind is still a work in progress.  I'm not sure the "creating" process is finished, here.

Jarrod

JohnB... this has only been translated wrongly since the Middle Ages.

For the first 300 years of Christianity, homosexuals were openly welcomed into the Church and were able to marry each other.

It wasn't until in 305- 306 – the Council of Elvira (now Granada, Spain), that homosexuals began to be persecuted. This council was representative of the Western European Church and among other things, it barred homosexuals the right to Communion.

In 314, the Council of Ancyra (now Ankara, Turkey) met. This council was representative of the Eastern European Church and it excluded the Sacraments for 15 years to unmarried men under the age of 20 who were caught in homosexual acts, and excluded the man for life if he was married and over the age of 50.

On December 16, 342 AD, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, under advice from their bishops, issued the following edict.. a law specifically outlawing marriages between men, and reads as follows:

"When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty, shall be subjected to exquisite punishment." (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390, under the advice of their bishops, issued the following edict.. an edict that would begin an evil persecution towards gay people that would last well over 1,600 years:

"All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind by being burned to death in the public sight of the people." -Codex Theodosius IX. Vii. 6

: Johnb  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:50:35
Aaron  I was not referring to my personal attention span but as a moderator giving advise on how to have your posts actually read.  I have 3 plus years of post graduate work in bible at a well known Christian college so no need to attempt to demean my ability to read and understand.  The fact that many here do not agree with your nontraditional stance on this subject does not mean they are being unkind or unchristian.  The fact that they accept the scholarship of the thousands of men who devoted their life to the study of Greek and Hebrew over 2000 years over your new views does not mean they are unkind or unchristian.  It just means they reject your conclusions and those who are trying to change what scripture actually has to say on the subject.  We all have sin that we do not over come (some say willful sin but IMO all sin is willful sin) and the grace of God will cover our sins and He is the final judge.  I am not willing to call my sins non sin nor the sins of the homosexuals.  Sin is sin and we are all saved by grace thru faith .

::amen!::

JohnB, for security reasons, the translating staff is not identified by name or current location. However, it has been requested that the qualifications of the lead translator be listed. This individual, Rev. W.H.C., began independent study of koine Greek in 1968, guided by native Greek instructors. Rev. C. began studying the Hebrew language, beginning with modern Hebrew, and then moving to biblical, in 1979, under the tutelage of Israeli instructor B.K. He later taught classes in both languages in a Christian Bible college for a number of years. Further studies in theology, church administration, etc., took place at two NY Bible schools, and studies in research writing and the humanities at the State University of New York. He was the author of the ministerial training curriculum used by two Christian denominations. Rev. C. is an ordained minister, former pastor, and is currently Dean of a Bible school, where he continues to teach.

He has authored books on theology, and has done translation work from Hebrew, Greek and Russian. His work has been published in English, Hebrew, Russian, French and Spanish.

For too many years, people whose sexual orientation was other than heterosexual have been marginalized in the churches, made to feel dirty, useless, etc. Sometimes they are subjected to what can only be viewed as spiritual and emotional torture. And when they ultimately cannot change who they are, they are often driven away, and wind up abandoning God, falsely believing that He rejected them.

Others have been deluded into thinking that they can become what they are not, and some have maintained this illusion for years, only to be devastated when it ultimately fails. Such self-delusion usually results in depression, self-loathing, loss of faith in God, and even suicide.

They are not "liberal" theologians. They do not dismiss scripture as irrelevant to this day and age. They believe the Bible, in its original form, was the inerrant word of God. We endeavor to move beyond the mistranslations that exist in English translations of that word, using the extant Hebrew and Greek texts.

The process of researching the Hebrew and Greek, as well as the history of the church and world in regard to sexuality, began for them in 1980, and continues to this day. When translating from Hebrew and Greek to English, they tend to bypass religious resources, which have been known to alter meanings for doctrinal reasons (not just on this topic). They prefer to rely primarily on secular language sources, whose only "agenda" is proper understanding of the language.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:00:26
JohnB, for security reasons, our staff is not identified by name or current location. However, it has been requested that the qualifications of our lead translator be listed. This individual, Rev. W.H.C., began independent study of koine Greek in 1968, guided by native Greek instructors. Rev. C. began studying the Hebrew language, beginning with modern Hebrew, and then moving to biblical, in 1979, under the tutelage of Israeli instructor B.K. He later taught classes in both languages in a Christian Bible college for a number of years. Further studies in theology, church administration, etc., took place at two NY Bible schools, and studies in research writing and the humanities at the State University of New York. He was the author of the ministerial training curriculum used by two Christian denominations. Rev. C. is an ordained minister, former pastor, and is currently Dean of a Bible school, where he continues to teach.

He has authored books on theology, and has done translation work from Hebrew, Greek and Russian. His work has been published in English, Hebrew, Russian, French and Spanish.

Does he identify himself as a homosexual?

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:47:45
Wycliffs... "prohibition for the good of the community"?

Homosexuality flourished and was accepted by the general public and 'community' for over 1,300 years within the Greek culture, and for almost 900 years of Roman culture, without causing any 'downfall' of civilization as some people today claim will happen if homosexuals are able to get married.

The very foundation of Democracy itself, in the birthplace of Western Civilization itself.. was started by two 'gay' males..

The association of homosexuals with democracy and the military was intense and widespread, extending from Harmodius and Aristogeiton, a pair of lovers who founded Democracy by overthrowing the last tyrant of Athens, to the noted generals Pelopidas and Epanminondas, to the great military genius Alexander the Great and his male lover Bagoas.

Of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, no less acute a mind than Plato's observed that: "Our own tyrants learned this lesson through bitter experience, when the love between Aristogiton and Harmodius grew so strong that it shattered their power.  Wherever, therefore, it has been alluded to be shameful to be involved in sexual relationships with men, this is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice in the part of the governed."

For hundreds of years, larger-than-life statues of these founders of Democracy towered above Athens, as impossible to disconnect with the city as the Statue of Liberty is impossible for us to disconnect with New York..  and young male lovers from England to Egypt, and across the entire Classical world would journey there to pledge their faith and love to each other, underneath those statues.

Gorgidas, the leader of Thebes created the Sacred Band, composed of 300 men, who were all paired lovers.  They were known as the 'sacred band' because as Plutarch later explained, "even Plato calls the lover a friend inspired of God."

Philip of Macedon and Plutarch recounted how the greatest heroes in the Greek's own history were all known to prefer other males rather than women: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, Epaminondas, Asopichus, and Caphisodorus.

Even Hercules was famous for his male lover, Iolaus, who fought by his side.  In Plato's 'Symposium,' he noted the eagerness of the great warrior Achilles to join his lover and military partner in death as an explicit parallel to a wife's being willing to die for her husband.  Their bones were burned and mixed together in a gold amphora, as was done in the case of married heterosexual couples.

Aristophanes said that "..males who prefer other males are the finest men because they have the most manly nature.  Their behavior is due to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like." 

Plato and numerous other classical authors attested to the military value of armies made up of lovers.  When Epaminondas fell in battle at Mantineia, his lover died beside him.  One of the most formidable and feared Theban warriors of the early Classical Era was Kaphisodoros, who was part of the Sacred Band.

That's an awfully long response to have come up with in under 5 minutes.  Is all this from memory, or are you quoting from somewhere?  (In the future, if you are quoting, it would be good form to cite sources)

That aside, I'm very familiar with Classical scholarship, and while your list of famous examples is somewhat impressive, your overall post mischaracterizes the attitude of the Greeks toward homosexuality, by leaving out some important details.

The Greeks didn't practice homosexuality in the modern sense, so much as they practiced promiscuous bi-sexuality.  In an era where one's future livelihood and support depended entirely upon one's sons, there were few men who did not have a wife and family.  A man with no sons would have been an object of scorn, and Greek scholarship is derisive where it comes to "effiminate" men.

The Greek custom was not to have a monogamous gay lover.  The custom was to take a boy lover (usually from among orphans) as a consort, in addition to your wife and family.  Such a person would likely be your servant as well, so it would be "normal" for them to travel with you and defend you in battles, if you went to war (which was also fairly common for the Greeks).

Today we use words like "slavery," "sexploitation" and "p*dophilia" to describe these kind of customs.

I don't think this is the type of behavior you want to emulate or promote.

Jarrod

: Wycliffes_Shillelagh  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:08:19
That aside, I'm very familiar with Classical scholarship, and while your list of famous examples is somewhat impressive, your overall post mischaracterizes the attitude of the Greeks toward homosexuality, by leaving out some important details.

The Greeks didn't practice homosexuality in the modern sense, so much as they practiced promiscuous bi-sexuality.  In an era where one's future livelihood and support depended entirely upon one's sons, there were few men who did not have a wife and family.  A man with no sons would have been an object of scorn, and Greek scholarship is derisive where it comes to "effiminate" men.

The Greek custom was not to have a monogamous gay lover.  The custom was to take a boy lover (usually from among orphans) as a consort, in addition to your wife and family.  Such a person would likely be your servant as well, so it would be "normal" for them to travel with you and defend you in battles, if you went to war (which was also fairly common for the Greeks).

Today we use words like "slavery," "sexploitation" and "p*dophilia" to describe these kind of customs.

I don't think this is the type of behavior you want to emulate or promote.

Jarrod

Every time I hear of this historical facts, it breaks my heart.

There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Memyslef... No, he is not homosexual.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:11:53
Memyslef... No, he is not homosexual.

Does he have family that is?

Wycliffs... I have been debating this subject in online forums for many years.

I have a wealth of information readily available at my fingertips.

I also am well aware of the Greek customs of the time.

Do you deny the existence of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, or the existence of the Sacred Band of Thebes??

Memyself... every family in the world has a gay family relative... whether they're open about it or know about it, is a different story.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:15:59
Memyself... every family in the world has a gay family relation... whether they're open about it or know about it, is a different story.

So, is that a yes? HE has a family member that he dearly loves who struggles with homosexuality.

Not that I'm aware of. 

: Red Baker  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 04:28:39

: kensington  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 02:17:42It's really simple if you seek to understand God and not to excuse sin. God called it "abomination" in numerous places in the word of God. 

I would not give that which is holy unto dogs.  Matthew 7:6  God called sodomites dogs in the scriptures, and dogs they are. The analogy fits perfectly~what do dogs do to each other?   All this guy is doing is laboring to provoke godly people to speak many things, and as Solomon warned us:

Proverbs 10:19

  .  "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin:  but he that refraineth his lips is wise."

He who speaks too much, will end up sinning.  Let this man go away to "his friends", and in the Judgement of the great day, present his case to the Almighty and see if he will hear him. 

Our Lord Jesus did not give in to such people:

Luke 11:53

  .  "And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things."

Our blessed Jesus never sinned with his words, even though the wicked labored vehemently to provoke him to sin with his words.  We just spent many post dealing with this very subject, let him go there and read our thoughts~ but he really does not care what the word of God said, only to cause righteous, God fearing people to hear his filth.   

WHY are we folk debating this guy?  You are nothing more than casting God's truth before dogs! Using the words of Jesus Christ. 

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:23:02
Not that I'm aware of.

might be a good idea to find out...

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:14:49
I also am well aware of the Greek customs of the time.

Then why bring them up?  It creates an apples to oranges comparison.  Not to mention, you're associating yourself with practices that are exploitative at best, and abusive by most measures.  This is not the strength of your argument.

Would you prefer to talk about the Romans?  It's more of an apples to apples comparison, since they weren't nearly so promiscuous, and were more condoning of true single-same-sex relationships.

But in that case, your point is just wrong.  Rome and several other cities of Italy suffered from horrible internal rot, largely as a result of their widespread homosexuality.  Shall we discuss the plagues of sexually transmitted diseases that ravaged them?  Or perhaps just the creeping population decrease that threatened to destroy the empire's power... until they outlawed it.

Rome is actually a very good case study, supporting my former point.  Starting in an environment free from any stigma, natural law eventually induces the population to outlaw and stigmatize homosexuality.

Jarrod

Memyself... I can clearly see where you're attempting to go with that.

It's completely irrelevant whether he has a family member or not who is gay.  It's not him, it is a very large and international group of the most highly studied scholars of Hebrew and Greek.

The words on this issue that are now printed in English Bibles using the word 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual behavior' have been found to be completely false and intentionally misleading.

Wycliffs, you said this: "Rome and several other cities of Italy suffered from horrible internal rot, largely as a result of their widespread homosexuality."  That is simply ridiculous and utterly false.

Homosexuality flourished and was accepted by the general public for over 1,300 years within the Greek culture, and for almost 900 years of Roman culture, without causing any 'downfall' of civilization as some people today claim will happen if homosexuals are able to get married.

Yet, within a little over 100 years after Christians at the time gained political dominance in Rome ('Christians' who were utterly unlike the loving and peaceful Christians of the first 300 years of Christianity), and had renamed Byzantium as Constantinople, the entire Classical civilization and culture (the birthplace of our own Western Civilization) collapsed... after they had forbade freedom of religion under pain of death, freedom of thought, shut down the Olympics, the theaters, the gymnasiums, and schools of learning. These were the same sort of self-styled 'Christians' who you see today demonizing gay people and attempting to stop them from marrying each other, or being free from their persecution. This is why the Founding Fathers were so wise to separate Church & State.

THE DEATH OF SECULAR SOCIETY:

They basically killed civic culture as it had been. The cities began to decline and fall into ruin. Public libraries were closed or abandoned since the majority of the citizens within 2 generations had lost the ability to read. Knowledge of sculpture, realistically depicted artwork, civil-engineering, and all that a robust and educated civic life engenders, withered and died. After all, you were told the world was going to end at any moment, and you didn't need to know anymore than what the religious authorities told or forced you to believe, let alone worry about 'secular' knowledge or interests.

The ancient world had been a relatively tolerant place in the world of religion. There were occasional bursts of persecution of this or that sect but as a rule many religions existed side by side. The fact that the Christians were persecuted at times, does not excuse what they did upon coming to power.

During the years 342 CE to 395 CE all this changed when Christianity established itself as the only religion in the Roman Empire and launched an all out campaign of religious terror against all other sects.

It was not until the Roman world was forcibly converted, and succumbed to an unforgiving and dictatorship-like form of Christianity (completely unlike the earlier peaceful and loving form of Christianity that had existed for 300 years), that we began to embark upon the Dark Ages.

PERSECUTION OF HOMOSEXUALS BEGINS:

On December 16, 342 AD, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, under advice from their bishops, issued the following edict.. a law specifically outlawing marriages between men, and reads as follows:

"When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty, shall be subjected to exquisite punishment." (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390, under the advice of their bishops, issued the following edict.. an edict that would begin an evil persecution towards gay people that would last well over 1,600 years:

"All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind by being burned to death in the public sight of the people." -Codex Theodosius IX. Vii. 6

What follows are quotes from the legal code of the Roman Empire as set forth by the Emperor Theodosius at the request of Christian leaders to crush competing religions. The legal persecution of non-Christian religions by Rome marked the beginning of a wave of religious terror that would remain in place until the eighteenth century.

THE BURNING OF NON-CHRISTIAN BOOKS:

"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius I.

LAW BANNING ALL RELIGIONS OTHER THAN CHRISTIANITY:

"We command that all those proved to be devoting themselves to sacrificing or worshiping images be subject to the penalty of death." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.6

"It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. ... The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.1.2.

EDICTS AGAINST NON-CHRISTIAN WORSHIP:

"No one shall consult a soothsayer, astrologer or diviner. The perverse pronouncements of augurs and seers must fall silent. ... The universal curiosity about divination must be silent forever. Whosoever refuses obedience to this command shall suffer the penalty of death and be laid low by the avenging sword." -- Codex Theodosianus, IX.16.4"The ability and right of making wills shall be taken from those who turn from Christians to pagans, and the testament of such an one, if he made any, shall be abrogated after his death."-- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.7.1.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES:

"It is decreed that in all places and all cities the [pagan] temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes."-- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.4.

Thankfully society at large is now freeing itself from these type of self-professed 'Christians', who are full of hatred and condemnation towards anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow view of reality, and who caused the Dark Ages to begin in the first place. Their mind-set is of the same type as those described above. Thankfully as well, more and more 'true' Christians have seen the errors of their ways on this issue and now openly and lovingly welcome gay souls and their loved ones, for the unique way that God created them.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:40:09
Memyself... I can clearly see where you're attempting to go with that.

Good.  I wasn't trying to be sneaky...

I would be highly suspect (obviously) with someone who was attempting to "correct" the Word of God...and I would want to know what the motivations were to do so.  The bible is VERY clear in its warning not to cause a brother or little one to stumble.  And, it is also clear in its warnings to teachers about how they lead those "under" them.

It would break my heart to see so many fall due to an agenda that wasn't as godly as it appeared.  That is how Satan works.  He is the great counterfeiter.

It's completely irrelevant whether he has a family member or not who is gay.

I disagree. Its very relevant, because he just may have an agenda. ::shrug::

It's not him, it is a very large and international group of the most highly studied scholars of Hebrew and Greek.

The words on this issue that are now printed in English Bibles using the word 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual behavior' have been found to be completely false and intentionally misleading.

If you'll pardon me, I'll just stick with what's been and trust that God knew what He was doing in the translating and preserving of His Holy Word.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:38:23
No, I have not 'lost' this discussion.  I realize saying that makes you feel better, so say that while looking in a mirror.. it'll feel even better, I'm sure.

The reality is that I've stated that we simply disagree, listed an enormous amount of detailed direct translations that support what I say, while you have not, and cannot handle that.

no, you haven't.  you've posted enormous amounts of misinformation.  That others here know the scripture better than to just fold and say 'oh my goodness, you must be right!'  probably isn't what you expected.

While you might have a ton of info (from someone else) compiled together,  you obviously don't know Christ - or the simplicity of Him.  While you're  twisting and turning word meanings of a few specific words,  Jesus comes back with just a few that knock what you've posted out of the water.  Simply that - sex outside of marriage is a sin and sex is only not a sin if between 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.   It doesn't matter who or how many go against the word of God,  it doesn't magically then make it the word of God  by majority action.

What you evidently don't realize is that many, many churches/denominations and millions of people that go to them, teach from them, sit in them all across the world don't know Christ.  They aren't Christians - even tho they say they are.   There are dead churches everywhere - not teaching the truth of God's word.  Many of those churches you listed teach what will tickle the ears of its members,  not what God has to say to us.  And millions blindly listen and follow.  Jesus warned about false teachers over and over, as did the apostles.  It is our responsibility to know His word so that we don't fall for the lies and to stand up for the truth.

You might want to go back to where you posted about 'repeated pairs or triads made up of synonyms or near synonyms' and look it up to see what it says.  Or give the 'version' you used.  I've checked a few and don't come up with what you posted.

Then there was this that you posted - 'After all, it had been recognized as 'normal' human behavior for thousands of years at the time Christianity burst onto the scene, and they wouldn't have made many converts if they were going to attack or kill (homosexual) people who the majority at the time found perfectly natural.'

Christianity BURST onto the scene - huh?  Did the balloon of Christianity just appear one day and pop?  I don't think so...

making converts -  maybe you could tell us how 'they'  made converts?  And who 'they' are that were attacking and killing homosexuals people.

Jesus didn't find their activity to be natural.  And He is the one we follow.

Fascinating skeeter.  That said, obviously we'll have to agree to disagree on who is ignoring truth here.

Memyself, if you want to continue believing in a lie because it validates your desire for homosexuality to be a sin, go right ahead.

Aaron--

Can I ask a question? Really consider it. And it is: why are you visiting a Christian Message Board in the first place? Is it because
you are a Christian? Or is it that something is deeply bothering you? Atheists visit Christian boards to argue mainly because the
voice in the back of their head will not go away ("What if there really is a God?").  They will not admit that--but if they TRULY believed
what they claim they wouldn't even bother to visit a Christian board any more.

If I really don't believe something, what is the use in arguing about it? I don't have to argue with anyone about whether the Easter
Bunny exists, because I know he doesn't exist.

I bring this point up because you are coming to a board where you know that 99% of the responses will not line up with your beliefs. So,
then, why are coming to the board? Perhaps it is because God is still convicting you---in the back of your head is the recurring thought
"what if what it says in the Bible really is true? What if homosexuals really will not inherit the Kingdom of God??"

You go to those who believe as you do for "assurance", but something nags at you. You can't let it go. So you must confront those
that have an opposite opinion of yours to "re-assure" yourself that your stand is correct. You need to re-assure yourself that you
are not living in sin. But the problem is, as long as you take that stand you are living in sin, and that nagging doubt is going to stay
with you---and praise God for that!  The Lord doesn't want anyone to perish! He wants you to turn and repent of those things that you
know in your heart of hearts are wrong. As I mentioned before, Jesus loves you very, very much--so much that he died for the very sins
you try to hold on to!  Turn to the Lord----he is filled with great compassion and lovingkindness.

Hi fish,

Yes, it is because I am a Christian, no, I'm not deeply bothered, or in any emotional pain, and because like many other millions of Christians who have discovered the lie they were taught on this issue, I want to share the truth with other Christians so they can be aware as well. It is not important to me if 99% here disagree with me.  I assure you that on other Christian sites, many do.

It's up to you to seek the truth on this, or to blindly follow whatever you've been indoctrinated with, without troubling yourself to find the answer because then you'd have to go outside of your safety-net.

That is between you and God.  But consider this carefully... when you eventually meet God and you find out that someone tried to show you that what you had been taught was a falsehood created by men with prejudice and evil in their hearts, and that such false teachings that you followed caused many people torment, persecution and to even commit suicide, and yet you ignored them...you will have to account for that.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:15:59
Memyself... every family in the world has a gay family relative... whether they're open about it or know about it, is a different story.

Thats just not true.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:58:36
Memyself, if you want to continue believing in a lie because it validates your desire for homosexuality to be a sin, go right ahead.

Its not only a sin its an abomination.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:42:51
Wycliffs, you said this: "Rome and several other cities of Italy suffered from horrible internal rot, largely as a result of their widespread homosexuality."  That is simply ridiculous and utterly false.

Which you refute by... quoting exactly what you said before?   ::headscratch::

Chart from wikipedia:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Population_of_Rome.png)
See the point where the population fell off a cliff?  That's where the Goths sacked the city and killed everyone.  See the part before that with the steady decrease?  That's your golden age of the "Empire."  It starts at the point of Augustus legal reforms.  Population clearly decreased during the period in question.

There's more than one reason for that, but homosexuality is one root cause.  During the early days of the empire, the Romans practiced it in a more "Greek fashion" by only involving themselves in p*daresty, and that only with slaves.  When they later became licentious in homosexual practice, the Roman culture declined.  Maybe it's time to quote a history book?

"The biological suicide of the Roman upper classes" [weakened] "the traditions of classical civilization" (McNeil, The Rise of the West, 1991, p. 328).

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:42:51
Yet, within a little over 100 years after Christians at the time gained political dominance in Rome ('Christians' who were utterly unlike the loving and peaceful Christians of the first 300 years of Christianity), and had renamed Byzantium as Constantinople, the entire Classical civilization and culture (the birthplace of our own Western Civilization) collapsed... after they had forbade freedom of religion under pain of death, freedom of thought, shut down the Olympics, the theaters, the gymnasiums, and schools of learning. These were the same sort of self-styled 'Christians' who you see today demonizing gay people and attempting to stop them from marrying each other, or being free from their persecution. This is why the Founding Fathers were so wise to separate Church & State.

THE DEATH OF SECULAR SOCIETY:

They basically killed civic culture as it had been. The cities began to decline and fall into ruin. Public libraries were closed or abandoned since the majority of the citizens within 2 generations had lost the ability to read. Knowledge of sculpture, realistically depicted artwork, civil-engineering, and all that a robust and educated civic life engenders, withered and died. After all, you were told the world was going to end at any moment, and you didn't need to know anymore than what the religious authorities told or forced you to believe, let alone worry about 'secular' knowledge or interests.

The ancient world had been a relatively tolerant place in the world of religion. There were occasional bursts of persecution of this or that sect but as a rule many religions existed side by side. The fact that the Christians were persecuted at times, does not excuse what they did upon coming to power.

During the years 342 CE to 395 CE all this changed when Christianity established itself as the only religion in the Roman Empire and launched an all out campaign of religious terror against all other sects.

It was not until the Roman world was forcibly converted, and succumbed to an unforgiving and dictatorship-like form of Christianity (completely unlike the earlier peaceful and loving form of Christianity that had existed for 300 years), that we began to embark upon the Dark Ages.

There's not much to argue here.  Constantine and his chief henchman Eusebius were bad dudes, and IMO, not really Christians.  Constantine, for instance, was truly an adherent of Sol Invictus, and was not baptized until he was on his deathbed, and that purportedly only by force.  Their "toleration" and institutionalization of Christianity has done more damage to the true practice of Christianity than perhaps any other person in history, with the singular exception of Rabbi Akiva (who precipitated the break between Judaism and Christianity).

Jarrod

choseone... again, not true.  Here is a list of 'abominations', but for some reason, people like you don't seem to ever talk about them:

Leviticus 11:12 – Eating lobster, clams, shrimp, or any kind of shellfish is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:19 – Wearing clothing made two different fibers (such as polyester and cotton) is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:27 – Trimming the edge of your beard or cutting the hair on the side of your head is an abomination.

Proverbs 24:9 – Someone who scoffs at things is an abomination.

Proverbs 11:1, 20:10, 20:23 – False weights are an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:12 - Oppression of others is an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:13 – Lending with interest to a brother is an abomination.

Isaiah 1:13 – Burning incense for the Lord is an abomination.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:10:48
Hi fish,

Yes, it is because I am a Christian, no, I'm not deeply bothered, or in any emotional pain, and because like many other millions of Christians who have discovered the lie they were taught on this issue, I want to share the truth with other Christians so they can be aware as well. It is not important to me if 99% here disagree with me.  I assure you that on other Christian sites, many do.

It's up to you to seek the truth on this, or to blindly follow whatever you've been indoctrinated with, without troubling yourself to find the answer because then you'd have to go outside of your safety-net.

That is between you and God.  But consider this carefully... when you eventually meet God and you find out that someone tried to show you that what you had been taught was a falsehood created by men with prejudice and evil in their hearts, and that such false teachings that you followed caused many people torment, persecution and to even commit suicide, and yet you ignored them...you will have to account for that.

I wasnt indoctrinated at all.  Its all there in Gods word. Clear and simple and concise instructions about what godly marriage is and who is and isnt allowed to have sex. You are the one who is on deep deception and who has convinced themselves
that their sin isnt sin.It happens all the time in Christian circles, this self delusion so that people can carry on sinning .   

Wycliffs, yes... everyone fell of the cliff when the Christians of the time destroyed civic culture and started murdering anyone who disagreed with them.

The barbarians weren't everywhere... it was the destruction of classical civic culture that destroyed the Roman Empire.

The emperor Hadrian was Roman Emperor from 117 to 138 during the Pax Romana, and was one of the greatest emperors in their history at the time their civilization was flourishing.  He also was openly homosexual. Hadrian was regarded by some as a humanist and was philhellene in most of his tastes. He is regarded as one of the Five Good Emperors.

chosenone.. 'God's law' is not a simplistic and false English translation. I'm sorry you cannot look at the original Greek and Hebrew, and see your error.

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Aaron---

I don't need to "seek the truth" on this subject. I already told you that I, myself, appear in the list of things mentioned in
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 as "evil". But the difference is, I have repented of the drunkenness mentioned there.
You seem to have no problem believing that thieves, murderers, slanderers, drunkards, etc. will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
But you are removing, or attempting to alter the words that refer to homosexuals in that same verse.

Paul is stating very clearly that thieves, murderers, slanderers, drunkards, etc. must repent of their sins and turn to God. In that
same list is homosexuality.

You know, one day the Lord asked: "Fish153, I died on a cross for the sin you are trying to hold on to. I died for that drunkenness
and waste. Are you willing to let go of it and embrace ME instead? Repent, and I will give you victory--I will completely change your
life---I came that you might have life and have it more abundantly".

The Lord set me free from the sin that ruled me (alcoholism)-----and he can set you free also. The question you need to ask is: Who will be God in my life? Jesus or Homosexuality?  You can't serve them both.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:08:32
chosenon... nope.  I'm not being hateful.  I shared deep and scholarly information about the original Greek and Hebrew words on this subject, and when it became apparent that I'm not changing my position, and neither are certain others on here, some people apparently cannot do the usual mature thing that is done in these situations and leave it at: "We'll have to agree to disagree."

What you posted has been around for some time. And it's been debunked.  I have it on one of those memory sticks somewhere...  the rebuttal is probably as long as your p1 post.  Don't expect Christians to just abandon the word of God for this misinfo you have - anymore than US mega churches did when activists went thru out the country to them in person a few yrs back. (maybe they're still doing that)

you are calling people here hateful because they don't agree with you.   Well, you don't agree with them/us so why can't someone here call you hateful?  With skin that thin you won't get far here or on other forums.

Remember you are the one who posted here with this misinfo - if you keep posting why would you expect others here not to?  Because you tell them not to?  I don't think that's in the rules...

I'm sorry fish, but the words of Paul in their original Greek have already been gone over in extreme detail, which prove you wrong on this.  I suggest you go back and study them more deeply.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:58:36
Memyself, if you want to continue believing in a lie because it validates your desire for homosexuality to be a sin, go right ahead.

Why would I have a desire for it to be a sin?  It has nothing to do with me and what I want.   That's just a ridiculous, baseless, and laughable accusation.  *I* have no agenda.

Aaron--

Can I ask a question? Really consider it. And it is: why are you visiting a Christian Message Board in the first place? Is it because
you are a Christian? Or is it that something is deeply bothering you? Atheists visit Christian boards to argue mainly because the
voice in the back of their head will not go away ("What if there really is a God?").  They will not admit that--but if they TRULY believed
what they claim they wouldn't even bother to visit a Christian board any more.

If I really don't believe something, what is the use in arguing about it? I don't have to argue with anyone about whether the Easter
Bunny exists, because I know he doesn't exist.

I bring this point up because you are coming to a board where you know that 99% of the responses will not line up with your beliefs. So,
then, why are coming to the board? Perhaps it is because God is still convicting you---in the back of your head is the recurring thought
"what if what it says in the Bible really is true? What if homosexuals really will not inherit the Kingdom of God??"

You go to those who believe as you do for "assurance", but something nags at you. You can't let it go. So you must confront those
that have an opposite opinion of yours to "re-assure" yourself that your stand is correct. You need to re-assure yourself that you
are not living in sin. But the problem is, as long as you take that stand you are living in sin, and that nagging doubt is going to stay
with you---and praise God for that!  The Lord doesn't want anyone to perish! He wants you to turn and repent of those things that you
know in your heart of hearts are wrong. As I mentioned before, Jesus loves you very, very much--so much that he died for the very sins
you try to hold on to!  Turn to the Lord----he is filled with great compassion and lovingkindness.

::amen!::  Wonderful post, Fish!

Skeeter, 'I' didn't call anyone hateful, another person on here said that to me... please don't make things up.

That said, it is people like you who are getting all bent out of shape because I don't agree with you, not me.

I've already stated repeatedly that I don't care if everyone here disagrees with me.  It's no skin off my back.

I'm not going on other people's posts and attacking them, or trying to forcibly change their minds.

It is 'you' and people like you who are coming onto my post, and who cannot seem to handle that I neither require your agreement, nor care whether you agree with me.

No one's 'forcing' you to read my post, are they?  If you don't like it, go and create your 'own' post saying how 'bad' you think Aaron Lindahl is.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:22:19
choseone... again, not true.  Here is a list of 'abominations', but for some reason, people like you don't seem to ever talk about them:

Leviticus 11:12 – Eating lobster, clams, shrimp, or any kind of shellfish is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:19 – Wearing clothing made two different fibers (such as polyester and cotton) is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:27 – Trimming the edge of your beard or cutting the hair on the side of your head is an abomination.

Proverbs 24:9 – Someone who scoffs at things is an abomination.

Proverbs 11:1, 20:10, 20:23 – False weights are an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:12 - Oppression of others is an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:13 – Lending with interest to a brother is an abomination.

Isaiah 1:13 – Burning incense for the Lord is an abomination.

There are SO many verses that clearly teach what is and isnt right when it comes to marriage and sex. ALL of Pauls teaching on marriage refers to a husband and wife, a man and a  woman. No where in the Bible is marriage or any sexual relationship allowed between 2 men or two women.
It makes me so sad that you and others like you are being so deceived. God wants to heal and restore those who are gay, but until they will repent and admit their sin He cant work.

Hi chosenone,

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

The following is the love story of David and Jonathan, which thousands of Christian congregations and many denominations now use as a model of same-sex love and commitment for two men.

(Since this particular translation had to be as detailed and comprehensive as possible to withstand the disbelief of those who will attempt to deny its truth... it's fairly long... so it's intended only for those who have the comprehension level, interest, or patience, to read it) ('Strong' refers to Strong's lexicon which is used by theologians around the world for accurate Hebrew translations.. 'OT' of course refers to Old Testament, 'NKJV' stands for New King James Version and 'NRSV' refers to New Revised Standard Version')

In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David's beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David "was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh 'ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro'i, #2896, #7210]." (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as "a handsome [to'ar, #8389] person" (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was "a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar'eh, #3303, #4758]" (17:42, NKJV).

Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob ("beautiful, handsome" in both cases), along with to'ar and mar'eh ("[in] figure or shape"). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro'i (#7210, "a ... sight [to behold]) and admoni and 'ayinim, translated as "ruddy" and "eyes" respectively in the NRSV.

Jonathan's intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David's good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, "Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh]." Then (v. 3), "Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul." Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that "Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul." (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan "delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly" in David" (NKJV).

So, in response to three references to David's beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan's love for him – two of them twice using the verb "love" and the third using the related verb "delights [in]." Strong's lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means "to have affection for (sexually or otherwise)," along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of "love" (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, "He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160]." (NRSV)

The Bible records three spiritual unions that Jonathan and David made together. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: "Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: 'as himself,' nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: 'tunic'], and even his sword and his bow and his belt." The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, "the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul" (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of "loved," "bound [to]" (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan's love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself).

Jonathan's intense attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire "giving away [of] one's own self,".. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): "Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.' Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life." (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

20:42 (NRSV) records, "Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, 'The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.'" The repetition of aheb/ahaba ("love/loved") and of nephesh ("as [much as] his own life") in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): "Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord..." the pact made in 23:18 is not merely "a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact" described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and "lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything." The third pact is understood as a "fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship." In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

Just as three times our attention is directed to David's beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan "loved" David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word 'love' in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb ("loved/fallen in love"), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as "Michal had fallen in love with David", or "...fell in love with David" Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take "great delight [kaphes] in David" (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love.

This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob's daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with "was drawn to," v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used in Hebrew to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including "loved" (aheb), "heart" (nephesh) and "delighted [in]" (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of "longs [for]" (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: "bound [to]"), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).

In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David lived together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel's army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul's jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David's life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen.

Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.'" (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king's table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

Although the first part of Saul's insult has usually been translated like "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!" (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, "You son of a slu.!" or "You son of a bi...!" Interestingly, Lucian's version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe ("effeminate man") here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well.

Then, the second part of this insult reads, "Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]..." (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning "to choose."

The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads "...and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]" (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including 'erwa ("nakedness"), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth ("shame"), which is almost always used in a sexual context.

One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully (to his father at least) – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:38:40
Hi chosenone,

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

The following is the love story of David and Jonathan, which thousands of Christian congregations and many denominations now use as a model of same-sex love and commitment for two men.

(Since this particular translation had to be as detailed and comprehensive as possible to withstand the disbelief of those who will attempt to deny its truth... it's fairly long... so it's intended only for those who have the comprehension level, interest, or patience, to read it) ('Strong' refers to Strong's lexicon which is used by theologians around the world for accurate Hebrew translations.. 'OT' of course refers to Old Testament, 'NKJV' stands for New King James Version and 'NRSV' refers to New Revised Standard Version')

In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David's beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David "was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh 'ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro'i, #2896, #7210]." (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as "a handsome [to'ar, #8389] person" (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was "a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar'eh, #3303, #4758]" (17:42, NKJV).

Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob ("beautiful, handsome" in both cases), along with to'ar and mar'eh ("[in] figure or shape"). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro'i (#7210, "a ... sight [to behold]) and admoni and 'ayinim, translated as "ruddy" and "eyes" respectively in the NRSV.

Jonathan's intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David's good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, "Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh]." Then (v. 3), "Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul." Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that "Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul." (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan "delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly" in David" (NKJV).

So, in response to three references to David's beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan's love for him – two of them twice using the verb "love" and the third using the related verb "delights [in]." Strong's lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means "to have affection for (sexually or otherwise)," along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of "love" (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, "He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160]." (NRSV)

The Bible records three spiritual unions that Jonathan and David made together. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: "Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: 'as himself,' nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: 'tunic'], and even his sword and his bow and his belt." The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, "the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul" (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of "loved," "bound [to]" (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan's love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself).

Jonathan's intense attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire "giving away [of] one's own self,".. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): "Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.' Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life." (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

20:42 (NRSV) records, "Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, 'The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.'" The repetition of aheb/ahaba ("love/loved") and of nephesh ("as [much as] his own life") in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): "Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord..." the pact made in 23:18 is not merely "a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact" described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and "lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything." The third pact is understood as a "fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship." In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

Just as three times our attention is directed to David's beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan "loved" David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word 'love' in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb ("loved/fallen in love"), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as "Michal had fallen in love with David", or "...fell in love with David" Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take "great delight [kaphes] in David" (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love.

This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob's daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with "was drawn to," v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used in Hebrew to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including "loved" (aheb), "heart" (nephesh) and "delighted [in]" (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of "longs [for]" (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: "bound [to]"), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).

In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David lived together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel's army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul's jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David's life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen.

Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.'" (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king's table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

Although the first part of Saul's insult has usually been translated like "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!" (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, "You son of a slu.!" or "You son of a bi...!" Interestingly, Lucian's version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe ("effeminate man") here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well.

Then, the second part of this insult reads, "Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]..." (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning "to choose."

The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads "...and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]" (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including 'erwa ("nakedness"), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth ("shame"), which is almost always used in a sexual context.

One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully (to his father at least) – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

OH here we go, the old 'David and Johnathon had a gay relationship' nonsense. There is a massive difference between a close friendship with a good mate and a sexual relationship.  No one says we cant have close friends of the same sex as long as its a celibate one. 

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:37:20
I'm not going on other people's posts and attacking them, or trying to forcibly change their minds.

And, no one is trying to forcibly change your mind either...you may feel attacked because people disagree with you, but you aren't.  I have still not been shown were I attacked YOU, but you sure accused me of it.  ???

It is 'you' and people like you who are coming onto my post,

I'm sorry.  Were you not aware that by posting on a message board you would get replies?  Perhaps you would be happier starting your own blog and you could turn off the feature that allow others the freedom to express their opinions about what you write.

No one's 'forcing' you to read my post, are they?  If you don't like it, go and create your 'own' post saying how 'bad' you think Aaron Lindahl is.

Oh brother.  More victim mentality.  Sigh. Nobody is saying "how bad Aaron is".  Just your theology.

"For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any."

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:45:47
OH here we go, the old 'David and Johnathon had a gay relationship' nonsense. There is a massive difference between a close friendship and a sexual relationship as in a marriage type situation. No one says we cant have close friends of the same sex.

its heartbreaking how far this agenda is willing to sink isn't it, Chosen.  ::frown::  God have mercy on them!

memyself.. nope, I'm not a 'victim'... just stating how it is, so 'sigh' away to your heart's content if that makes you feel better.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:47:05
"For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any."

You are making something pure into something sinful. its very sad and quite appalling actually, but thats how far some will sink in their desperate efforts to justify their serious sin.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:49:36
memyself.. nope, I'm not a 'victim'... just stating how it is, so 'sigh' away to your heart's content if that makes you feel better.

Well...in case you care...its not how its been here.  Its what you immediately jumped to and starting accusing others of, but there is no truth to it.

PS. I agree that you're not a victim, so cut out trying to make it look like you are being picked on.

: MeMyself  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:47:37

: chosenone  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:45:47
OH here we go, the old 'David and Johnathon had a gay relationship' nonsense. There is a massive difference between a close friendship and a sexual relationship as in a marriage type situation. No one says we cant have close friends of the same sex.

its heartbreaking how far this agenda is willing to sink isn't it, Chosen.  ::frown::  God have mercy on them!

Its all part of the moral decay that is happening. I expect it of non believers, they usually know no better, but we are supposed to be different.

A good Biblical teaching on marriage.

http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family (http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family)

Here is part of what it says.

Homosexuality , fourth, marks another falling away from God's creation purposes in that it violates the divine will for marriage to be between one man and one woman. As Genesis 2:24 stipulates, "A man [masculine] shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife [feminine], and the two shall become one flesh." Heterosexuality is the only possible arrangement for marriage, as the Creator has commanded and expects married couples to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28). Since homosexuality involves same-sex intercourse that cannot lead to procreation, it is unnatural and cannot logically entail the possibility of marriage.

chosenone... I notice you immediately replied without even reading what I posted.

By 'all' means, please show where the errors are in the Hebrew translation, or.. admit that you cannot.

: Rella  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:43:10

: DaveW  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 05:34:03

: skeeter  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 03:13:53no one is born gay,

I do not agree with that.  There is some evidence that a same-gender attraction can be demonic in origin; and some people are born demonized. So being "born that way" is certainly not out of the question.

By the same token - a baby can also be born with a demon of hatred or murder.  Those would still be considered sinful.

There is another aspect that needs to be covered regarding being born that way or not.

Being born demonized is a certain consideration but what about the seeming "explosion" of gays today.

Stop and consider the general  age group of the bulk of those so called "coming out."

Their parents and and many grandparents were alive and well in the 1960s and after when the hippy movement, free love and free drug use was encourages to all those who would listen.

I remember working at a store in 1984 and a young woman, in her 20s.... I was in my late 30s... refused to believe I had never ever tried a drug of any kind....

And I never have.

But the majority of those have at the least smoked marijuana.

What screwed up effect on their bodies did these people do that may have alterd the fetuses they were carrying, even if they did not use drugs during her pregnancy.

This could be a direct outcome.

(Example: We all know, or those of us to have children coming out at the moment, do,  of the parents of Chastity/Chaz Bono. Did she/he make a lifestyle choice or was the lifestyle of the parents in their youth responsible with their admitted acceptance of illegal substances?

ALSO... Just think of what the government has and is accepting in the way of food modifications and genetic alterations....

That started in the 80s big time as well.... With the tomato and corn genetic alterations to begin with.

This could well be accountable for such changes in someones baby.

I am certain it is accountable for the epidemic we see in  diabetes and many other diseases we see today.

God help us if they start selling cloned meat....

In any even, whatever the reason... by choice or birth... abstinence is the word of the day.

I agree - a lot of what you posted has been on my mind for some time now.  I know that sometime around in the '50s the government spray something around the town I was born/raised in.  My sister and I are both  disabled now. If the gov ever did a study on babies born after that time I'm sure they haven't released it...

The stuff they put in our food - and the rise of fast food are not to our benefit.  How much do people think our bodies can take? I was in HS before we got our first McDs in town.  A few diners around town but not fast food places.

Anyway, there are a lot of things like this (and drugs in our water systems, hormones in meat and milk) that could contribute.  I have yet tho to hear that a scientist has discovered a new gene or a defective one (split, duplicated, whatever) that is the source of homosexuality.

It also makes me wonder about the rise in autism.

btw, I'm also one who has never taken illegal drugs or smoked pot - and yep, I was a teenager in the 60s!

Read about Pauls teaching on marriage. ALWAYS to a man and a women, a husband and his wife.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/paul-s-inspired-teachings-marriage (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/paul-s-inspired-teachings-marriage)

Please show me where there is any teaching for 2 men who are married?Or 2 women?   PLease show me where sex is taught about for anyone other than men and women?

chosenone... again... I notice you immediately replied without even reading what I posted.

By 'all' means, please show where the errors are in the Hebrew translation I provided, or.. admit that you cannot.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:37:20
Skeeter, 'I' didn't call anyone hateful, another person on here said that to me... please don't make things up.

That said, it is people like you who are getting all bent out of shape because I don't agree with you, not me.

I've already stated repeatedly that I don't care if everyone here disagrees with me.  It's no skin off my back.

I'm not going on other people's posts and attacking them, or trying to forcibly change their minds.

It is 'you' and people like you who are coming onto my post, and who cannot seem to handle that I neither require your agreement, nor care whether you agree with me.

No one's 'forcing' you to read my post, are they?  If you don't like it, go and create your 'own' post saying how 'bad' you think Aaron Lindahl is.

if it wasn't 'skin off your back',  you'd quit posting about it.

you CAN'T go on 'other people's posts'.  you can quote their post tho...
do you know how a forum like this works?

You posted a new THREAD with a topic.  Many people can then POST on your THREAD in reply to your original thread post/topic.

IF you don't like people posting replies on your THREAD, then you shouldn't have posted one.  That's what happens...that's how it works...  no one is required to agree with your OP.

Why?  Do you think you are bad?

you don't require others to agree with you?.... Is that why you told one poster to stop posting on  here?  Your 'logic'  on this  is another  zigzag.

From your posts here, you 'sound' like a very young person.

Skeeter, I'm almost 45, and I'm not the one going on to other people's 'threads' and freaking out because they don't agree with me.  You and I simply disagree on this subject. As I said, I'm completely fine with you or everyone here not agreeing with me.  Give it a rest.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 17:22:35
I'm not the one going on to other people's posts and freaking out because they don't agree with me.

Who do you see that IS doing that?

I wonder if you are confused about how this works.

YOU came here and posted your thoughts on this issue on a public Christian forum.  One that is designed for back and forth communication.  You seem bothered that your thoughts are being challenged and trying to make it sound like you are being stalked and harassed.  That is not the case.

You came, you posted, people responded, you cried foul.  ::shrug::

It's readily apparent.  If you can't see, that's not my problem. I've already said, I could care less whether you agree or not. God bless.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 17:28:05
It's readily apparent.  If you can't see, that's not my problem. God bless.

This reply reminds me of highschool...

Anyway, I edited my other post, so I'm not sure if you saw it.  Here is what I added:

I wonder if you are confused about how this works.

YOU came here and posted your thoughts on this issue on a public Christian forum.  One that is designed for back and forth communication.  You seem bothered that your thoughts are being challenged and trying to make it sound like you are being stalked and harassed.  That is not the case.

You came, you posted, people responded, you cried foul.

Fascinating.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 17:02:37
By 'all' means, please show where the errors are in the Hebrew translation I provided, or.. admit that you cannot.

There's not really anything wrong with your translation.  Those are just Strong's entries, anyway. 

It's just your commentary on it that's appallingly bad.

The 2 books of Samuel are, by any honest analysis, pieces of political propaganda authored during David's reign, and primarily for the purpose of legitimizing his monarchy.

Realizing the political motivations behind the book, is it very surprising that it:

(a) Goes on and on about how good-looking David is?
(b) Paints the former crown-prince as an effeminate, milquetoasty character who follows David around like a lovesick puppy?
(c) Portrays a series of covenants between David and the former prince, legitimizing David's claim on the throne as his covenant partner.

This is not a love story.  It's a campaign pamphlet.

Jarrod

"Paints the former crown-prince as an effeminate, milquetoasty character.."

Hmm... please 'do' tell where it does that!!! I'm all ears.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 17:40:20
"Paints the former crown-prince as an effeminate, milquetoasty character.."

Hmm... please 'do' tell where it does that!!! I'm all ears.

You're the one who already pointed it out.  Like I said, you're not translating wrong... just drawing the wrong conclusion from the translation.

Saul's insult is basically calling him a "mama's boy" or "pussy."

Jarrod

So you admit it was Saul, and not 'I' who did that, correct?  It was only Saul, and not the story itself who portrayed him as such.

That said, for those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the very first time, has one making a declaration of being in love with the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

So, by your reasoning, please provide all the examples of similar 'heterosexual' friendships.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 17:22:35
Skeeter, I'm almost 45, and I'm not the one going on to other people's 'threads' and freaking out because they don't agree with me.  You and I simply disagree on this subject. As I said, I'm completely fine with you or everyone here not agreeing with me.  Give it a rest.

45 IS rather young yet... the age of my younger 2 kids.   And no one here is 'freaking out' because they don't agree with you.  Maybe you hang out with much younger people  and jump on the 'freaking out' bandwagon?

what should I 'give a rest' to?  disagreeing with you? I should agree with you instead of the Lord?  not gonna happen.  God's word is very plain.

btw, you haven't answered chosenone's questions.

No... chosenone is the one who hasn't answered mine.  I suggest you read the posts more closely so you don't keep making false statements about who said what.

So you admit it was Saul, and not 'I' who did that, correct?

No problems admitting that.  Samuel says what it says, which is that David is...

Young
Handsome
From the Right Family
An Accomplished Soldier
Who Can even Kill Giants
Even Without a Sword or any Armor
Of Course He's Also a Brilliant General
Who Studied War Abroad In a More Powerful Civilization
And Has Key Alliances with Foreign Kings Already
And All the Soldiers Love Him,
And Even the Crown Prince is his #1 Fan
Even though that Guy is such a Panty-waste
But that's why He made David his covenant partner
Which Oh-by-the-way Gives Dave a Claim on the Throne
Why Look He Even Married the Daughter of the Former King
And Kicked Pharoah's Butt in Battle
But He Stays Humble
And Didn't Depose the Former King by Killing Him
Though He Totally Coulda if He wanted To
He's Down with the Prophets
Even God Endorses Him as King

Also, It's a Low-Down-Dirty-Shame that All Saul's Descendant's Got Killed Off
Dave Totally Didn't Do That
It was Some Misguided "Friends"
But Dave dealt with them
And He Even Found One of Saul's Descendants and was Kind to Him
Even though that guy is Crippled
And you Totally Wouldn't Want Him as King

(http://votefordavid.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/vote-for-david1.jpg)

Wycliffes... you get a gold star for creativity!!  Love it.

Here's another Biblical same-sex love story for ya':

In the entire Bible, there are only two books named after women. One is Esther, which tells the story of a Jewish woman who becomes Queen of Persia and saves her people from destruction by "coming out" as Jewish to her husband, the king. The other is Ruth, which tells the story of two women who love and support one another through difficult times. Both books contain powerful messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but it is the story of Ruth that addresses the question I raised before: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?

At the beginning of the book of Ruth, we're introduced to Naomi and her husband Elimelech. They are from Bethlehem, where a terrible famine has made it impossible to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab, a foreign land where they believe they'll be able to survive. Unfortunately, Elimelech dies shortly after arriving in Moab. Several years pass, and Naomi's sons marry Ruth and Orpah, two women from the surrounding country. But before they can have children, the sons also die. Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah are left alone with no husbands and no sons.

Note: For examples, see the stories of widows who came to Elijah and Elisha for help (1 Kings 17:10-24 and 2 Kings 4:1-37), and the story of the woman from Tekoa who confronted David (2 Samuel 14:4-12). Also, in Genesis 38, Judah tells his daughter-in-law Tamar to return to her father's house, because her husband has died, illustrating the two possibilities available to a woman.

To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father's household or a wife in their husband's household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (See note 1.) The constant biblical command to "look after widows and orphans" stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father's family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can't offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she'll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

You probably remember the story of Adam and Eve, as recorded in Genesis 2. After God creates Adam, he is terribly lonely. None of the animals God has created -- magnificent as they are -- can meet Adam's deep need for companionship. So God puts Adam into a deep sleep, takes a rib from his side, and creates Eve. When Eve is presented to Adam, he exclaims, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh . . . !" Finally, Adam had a human companion.

The next verse in the text then draws an important theological conclusion from Adam's experience. It says that, for this reason (i.e., the need for companionship), a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and "cling" ("dabaq") to his wife. (Genesis 2:24) And, of course, for the vast majority of human beings, that is God's will for them -- for a man and woman to leave their parents' home and form a relationship with each other that is so close, so intimate, that they can be described as "clinging" to one another.

But what about people who aren't heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God's blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?

The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth's feelings are celebrated.

In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" (Ruth 1:16-17)

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, "Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried," she wasn't talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn't do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

After this speech, spoken in the first chapter, the story moves on to tell of Ruth and Naomi's life together. The focus is on the quality of their relationship. The biblical storyteller chronicles how Ruth cared for Naomi by taking the only job available to a husbandless woman, gleaning. When the author tells of Ruth's eventual marriage to a much older man, the marriage is portrayed as one of convenience, contrived to help Ruth and Naomi survive the harsh conditions of widowhood. No mention is made of Ruth's love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi." (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth "who loves you, is more to you than seven sons." (Ruth 4:15) Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship. If we set aside our preconceptions of what is possible in the Bible, the book of Ruth reads like the story of two women in love.

Instinctively, and perhaps unwittingly, Christians throughout the centuries have acknowledged the validity of this interpretation. The vow Ruth makes to Naomi (quoted above) has been read at Christian weddings for centuries because it so perfectly captures the essence of the love that should exist between spouses. It seems more than a little inconsistent to use these words to define and celebrate spousal love, but then adamantly insist that those who originally spoke the words did not love each other like spouses.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:13:03
Wycliffes... you get a gold star for creativity!!  Love it.

Here's another Biblical same-sex love story for ya':

At the beginning of the book of Ruth, we're introduced to Naomi and her husband Elimelech. They are from Bethlehem, where a terrible famine has made it impossible to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab, a foreign land where they believe they'll be able to survive. Unfortunately, Elimelech dies shortly after arriving in Moab. Several years pass, and Naomi's sons marry Ruth and Orpah, two women from the surrounding country. But before they can have children, the sons also die. Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah are left alone with no husbands and no sons.

To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father's household or a wife in their husband's household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (The constant biblical command to "look after widows and orphans" stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.) For examples, see the stories of widows who came to Elijah and Elisha for help (1 Kings 17:10-24 and 2 Kings 4:1-37), and the story of the woman from Tekoa who confronted David (2 Samuel 14:4-12). Also, in Genesis 38, Judah tells his daughter-in-law Tamar to return to her father's house, because her husband has died, illustrating the two possibilities available to a woman.

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father's family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can't offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she'll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

In Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth's feelings are celebrated.

In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" (Ruth 1:16-17)

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, "Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried," she wasn't talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn't do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

After this speech, spoken in the first chapter, the story moves on to tell of Ruth and Naomi's life together. The focus is on the quality of their relationship. The biblical storyteller chronicles how Ruth cared for Naomi by taking the only job available to a husbandless woman, gleaning. When the author tells of Ruth's eventual marriage to a much older man, the marriage is portrayed as one of convenience, contrived to help Ruth and Naomi survive the harsh conditions of widowhood. No mention is made of Ruth's love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi." (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth "who loves you, is more to you than seven sons." (Ruth 4:15) Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship; the book of Ruth is obviously a story of two women very much in love.

Oh.my.gosh.

::frown::

Father, forgive them.  ::prayinghard::

This is truly heartbreaking! Utterly and totally so...

Aaron, please, I am begging you stop this scripture twisting.

Memyself... you don't need to 'beg'.. if you cannot stand the truth, then stop torturing yourself and simply stop coming onto, and commenting on, my 'thread'.  There are 'loads' of other threads on here where you can safely reassure yourself amongst others of your type that what you believe is correct on this issue.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:21:07
You don't need to 'beg'.. if you cannot stand the truth, then stop torturing yourself and simply stop coming onto, and commenting on, my 'thread'.  There are 'loads' of other threads on here where you can safely reassure yourself amongst others of your type that what you believe is correct on this issue.

What you've posted is NOT truth.

And, I am sincerely concerned for you over how far the agenda has taken you away from Truth.

Also, there is no need to be so rude, Aaron. You have spent the day saying how unloving others are to YOU, but you don't seem to hold yourself to the same loving standards.

Then... (surprise!) We'll just have to agree to disagree.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:23:33
Then... (surprise!) We'll just have to agree to disagree.

If the thread was done or locked here, fine, but you keep posting false "new" looks at scripture.  As much as you are bothered by my interjecting, I am by the "new" truth you have and are trying to share as if it is biblically accurate and I will speak up!

No... not false.  True.

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??  If you feel my analogy is false, then stop posting little quips filled with emoticon 'sighs' and 'rolling of eyes' or 'throwing my hands up over my head while rolling eyes'... and actually 'address' in 'detail' how what I have posted is wrong... or... admit that you're utterly unable to do so.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:28:32
No... not false.  True.

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??

What don't YOU understand about it?  Why does it mean to YOU that *I* must be silenced, while you get to keep spouting your new "truths"?

Agreeing to disagree doesn't mean, "there there dear, just hush your little mouth now and let me do all the talking.". ::frown::

and, no. Your spin is NOT truth!

I know this must be difficult for you to wrap your head around, so let me say this again:

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??  There's nothing about 'silencing' you. If you feel my analogy is false, then stop posting dramatic little quips filled with emoticon 'sighs' and 'rolling of eyes' or 'throwing your hands up over your head while rolling your eyes'... and finally start to actually 'address' in 'detail' how what I have posted is wrong... or... admit that you're utterly unable to do so.  By all means... if you are able to engage in an adult conversation or debate, backed up by 'facts'.. then go back to my post on Ruth and Naomi, and point out all the places where I have said a falsehood or where it is wrong..  I'm all ears.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:32:33
I know this must be difficult for you to wrap your head around, so let me say this again:

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??  If you feel my analogy is false, then stop posting little quips filled with emoticon 'sighs' and 'rolling of eyes' or 'throwing my hands up over my head while rolling eyes'... and actually 'address' in 'detail' how what I have posted is wrong... or... admit that you're utterly unable to do so.  By all means... if you are able to engage in an adult conversation or debate, then go back to my post on Ruth and Naomi, and point out all the places where I have said a falsehood or where it is wrong..  I'm all ears.

Father, right now, I have allowed myself to be provoked to anger. Forgive me.
I lift up Aaron to You and ask that he find the peace he is searching for in You.  I pray that he find the complete truth he seeks that can only be found in You.  I pray that You will protect Your little ones against the lies of "new truth" and that your children will be equipped with discernment and wisdom.  I pray that none will be lost that are confused, that they won't be swayed by doctrines that tickle their ears, but lead to a life devoid of being pleasing to You.
Thank You for Your love and care and for this season that we remember Christ has come not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved.
In Jesus name amen.

Aaron, I forgive you for your repeated rude comments, your impatience and your unkindness to those that disagree with you.

Memyself, thank you, and I also forgive you for your repeated rude comments, your impatience and your unkindness to those that disagree with you. In Jesus' name, Amen.

What a complete twisting and altering of a touching friendship between David and Jonathan. Their relationship is a type
of the relationship the Christian has with the Lord Jesus. He is "a friend that sticketh closer than a brother". To take
the story of that deep love for one another in true friendship, and turn it into a homosexual relationship between Jonathan
and David is pathetic and sickening.  It is greatly dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the memory of David, a man
after God's own heart.

I am glad this thread has been moved to "non-traditional theology". You're lucky it hasn't been discarded in trash bin. I will
pray for you Aaron---but if you really believe this garbage, you need to do some serious soul-searching.

I'll pray for you as well, fish. Thank you.

We have one word for love.  The bible speaks of three different kids: Agape - unconditional godly love, Philia – friendship,  and Eros - which is passionate/sexual love.

What a shame to see all three kinds reduced to sexual love.

It minimizes and distorts the good news of scripture, and puts FAR to high a priority on sexuality.

MeMyself... What a shame that you don't seem to know very much about the Bible on these subjects, or anything at all about the original Hebrew and Greek words of Scripture.

The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe her feelings towards Naomi is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:51:50
MeMyself... What a shame that you don't seem to know very much about the Bible on these subjects, or anything at all about the original Hebrew and Greek words of Scripture.

Another rude attack on me as a person.  I forgive you.

The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe her feelings towards Naomi is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

I just could not disagree more. There is NOTHING that even hints of them being lesbians.  It is a beautiful story of philia love.  It is one of my very favorites.  You accuse me of limited understanding, what I will admit is to being naive because the twist you put on it shocked and angered me.

Speaking of Adam and Eve...if God is so keen on homosexuality, why was the partner suitable for Adam that He made NOT another man?

Aaron, do you know of any other places that dabaq is used?  Do you always read it through the eyes of Adam to Eve?

I just did a quick search and it is used in other places that do NOT imply any hint of a sexual nature.

Here is a link in case anyone is interested in dabaq and its uses elsewhere.

oops! LOL forgot the link  ::doh::  ::giggle::

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/dabaq.html (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/dabaq.html)

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:46:07
JohnB... if your attention span and reading comprehension level aren't up to the task of reading my detailed and scholarly posts, and you desire something short and 'simple'.. then this conversation is definitely not for such as you.

oh my.  ::smile::

I think you stepped into some of that 'poo' on this one...

detailed and scholarly posts - boastful much?  'cause you ARE saying p1 and other writings you've posted here are actually yours - correct?

You also posted that you are a Christian,  then you shouldn't mind giving a very short testimony.  (just a few lines)   thx!

: MeMyself  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:17:08
Oh.my.gosh.

::frown::

Father, forgive them.  ::prayinghard::

This is truly heartbreaking! Utterly and totally so...

Aaron, please, I am begging you stop this scripture twisting.

yep.  I agree.  I wouldn't 'beg' him to stop tho - that's what he wants.
everything's about sex...

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:13:03
Wycliffes... you get a gold star for creativity!!  Love it.

Here's another Biblical same-sex love story for ya':

In the entire Bible, there are only two books named after women. One is Esther, which tells the story of a Jewish woman who becomes Queen of Persia and saves her people from destruction by "coming out" as Jewish to her husband, the king. The other is Ruth, which tells the story of two women who love and support one another through difficult times. Both books contain powerful messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but it is the story of Ruth that addresses the question I raised before: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?

At the beginning of the book of Ruth, we're introduced to Naomi and her husband Elimelech. They are from Bethlehem, where a terrible famine has made it impossible to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab, a foreign land where they believe they'll be able to survive. Unfortunately, Elimelech dies shortly after arriving in Moab. Several years pass, and Naomi's sons marry Ruth and Orpah, two women from the surrounding country. But before they can have children, the sons also die. Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah are left alone with no husbands and no sons.

Note: For examples, see the stories of widows who came to Elijah and Elisha for help (1 Kings 17:10-24 and 2 Kings 4:1-37), and the story of the woman from Tekoa who confronted David (2 Samuel 14:4-12). Also, in Genesis 38, Judah tells his daughter-in-law Tamar to return to her father's house, because her husband has died, illustrating the two possibilities available to a woman.

To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father's household or a wife in their husband's household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (See note 1.) The constant biblical command to "look after widows and orphans" stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father's family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can't offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she'll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

You probably remember the story of Adam and Eve, as recorded in Genesis 2. After God creates Adam, he is terribly lonely. None of the animals God has created -- magnificent as they are -- can meet Adam's deep need for companionship. So God puts Adam into a deep sleep, takes a rib from his side, and creates Eve. When Eve is presented to Adam, he exclaims, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh . . . !" Finally, Adam had a human companion.

The next verse in the text then draws an important theological conclusion from Adam's experience. It says that, for this reason (i.e., the need for companionship), a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and "cling" ("dabaq") to his wife. (Genesis 2:24) And, of course, for the vast majority of human beings, that is God's will for them -- for a man and woman to leave their parents' home and form a relationship with each other that is so close, so intimate, that they can be described as "clinging" to one another.

But what about people who aren't heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God's blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?

The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth's feelings are celebrated.

In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" (Ruth 1:16-17)

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, "Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried," she wasn't talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn't do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

After this speech, spoken in the first chapter, the story moves on to tell of Ruth and Naomi's life together. The focus is on the quality of their relationship. The biblical storyteller chronicles how Ruth cared for Naomi by taking the only job available to a husbandless woman, gleaning. When the author tells of Ruth's eventual marriage to a much older man, the marriage is portrayed as one of convenience, contrived to help Ruth and Naomi survive the harsh conditions of widowhood. No mention is made of Ruth's love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi." (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth "who loves you, is more to you than seven sons." (Ruth 4:15) Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship. If we set aside our preconceptions of what is possible in the Bible, the book of Ruth reads like the story of two women in love.

Instinctively, and perhaps unwittingly, Christians throughout the centuries have acknowledged the validity of this interpretation. The vow Ruth makes to Naomi (quoted above) has been read at Christian weddings for centuries because it so perfectly captures the essence of the love that should exist between spouses. It seems more than a little inconsistent to use these words to define and celebrate spousal love, but then adamantly insist that those who originally spoke the words did not love each other like spouses.

How low will you sink? As has been said here, its possible for 2 people of the same sex to be close (as in this case here a MIL and a DIL are close) and be like sisters or brothers, as Jesus is with us, without it being in anyway sinful or sexual.
I would be very worried using 2 such relationship in the Bible to try and justify your sinful behaviour, but you have believed the lies that other gays have taught you instead of relying on Gods truth.   Its very concerning that you have been so blinded, but thats what happens when people refuse to follow Gods ways and go off on the wrong path.

i'll repost this

Read about Pauls teaching on marriage. ALWAYS to a man and a women, a husband and his wife.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/paul-s-inspired-teachings-marriage (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/paul-s-inspired-teachings-marriage)

Please show me where there is any teaching for 2 men who are married? Or 2 women?   PLease show me where sex is taught about for anyone other than men and women?

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:09:12
No... chosenone is the one who hasn't answered mine.  I suggest you read the posts more closely so you don't keep making false statements about who said what.

and I suggest you start reading a Bible - including the parts that don't revolve around sex.

I really doubt you'll be bothered by anymore posts on YOUR thread. 

We all need to remember that if you post any other thread, you really don't want anyone to post ON it. 

Aaron Lindahl said...

This post of course is intended for Christians who have a problem with homosexuality:

It goes against all common sense and reason to believe homosexuals are unnatural.

That all depends on whether we are going to accept your claim over God's clear words...

Jude 1:7
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Romans 1:26-27
26   For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
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.

God says homosexual behavior is against nature, that means unnatural. I will take God's Word over your claim.

Homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual sex are 'not' sins in and of themselves.

If you spent more time reading the Bible instead of cherry-picking passages that you think teach that, then you might see things more clearly...

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

The word "lies" above in the Hebrew is shakab, and in the Niphal and Pual of Hebrew, means to have sex with, to commit a sexual act. The word here is in the Niphal, therefore it refers to homosexuals committing a homosexual act. Therefore, God once again says that homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual acts are sins in and of themselves - again you look God in the face and apparently call Him a liar. I would be careful where that takes you...

[/b]To condemn or treat the way a person was born as a 'sin' is the gravest sin of all. Homosexuals are born in every place around the planet; from the smallest mountain village to the smallest desert village. It is not something 'learned' or 'taught' to them. It is innately the way they were born, as God created them, and it is 'natural' for them to be attracted to, and fall in love with, their own gender, upon reaching puberty, just as it is 'natural' for a heterosexual to feel and do the same with the opposite gender upon reaching puberty.

Negative...God does not create what He labels as sin. No person is born homosexual...they are created in a state of innocence, what God calls good, and then they choose that way of life through various pathways that usually (in my experience with such persons) include some kind of demonic work. Children are exposed to demonic activity through their parents' activities, and can become possessed either fully or partially, which we have numerous examples of in the Scriptures. I have talked to guys that were at one time fighting against homosexual urges that KNEW they had a demon, I am not speaking from no experience in this area. And after the demon was cast out, all homosexual desire left immediately, they were free.

Levitical purity laws, (which are mistranslated in almost all English Bibles concerning homosexuality) do not apply to Christians, and so the people who bring up Leviticus to attack gay people with are gravely mistaken.

Wrong...it does not matter whether or not they have any bearing upon Christians today...the fact is that God does not change. If something was wrong regarding relationship with God in the OT then it is still wrong in the NT...and we have ample passages that address homosexuality in the NT, and you address later here in your OP...

Jesus and homosexuality:


It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He created a comprehensive list of sins that would bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is even more worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. The conclusion is that Jesus did not consider it a sin.

Nice try, but that is not a comprehensive list...if you want a comprehensive list you need to take all of the passages that address the issue cumulatively, and when we do that, homosexuality is definitely on the list.

The options open to a Christian:

A Christian has two options with regard to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

1. To accept a favorite (and safely familiar) English translation as accurately containing the words of the original authors. This is a simple and straightforward approach because biblical passages related to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons and transsexuals (LGBT) in English Bibles are universally condemning. No further effort is needed.

I thought you were trying to convince us otherwise?

2. To base the interpretation of these passages on the most ancient available Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. This is as close as we are able to get to the original autograph copies written by the author(s). This option is much more demanding, and made even more difficult because the precise meaning of some of the Greek words are unknown and can only be inferred. Even worse, a convincing case can be made that 1 Timothy was written by a second century forger, many decades after Paul was executed.

First, I do not believe we have even one Greek word in the NT that is not known precisely as to its meaning, so that claim is out the window.

Second, we have numerous manuscripts and partial manuscripts that all demonstrate no possible forgeries, all codified copies of Paul's original letters, so that claim is also out the window. Perhaps you are reading things from others who are trying to postulate homosexuality is not a sin, and are therefore perverting the Bible. I would stop reading such things if I were you.

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is create an entirely new word.


The word "arsenokoitai" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy:

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been uniquely created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word in the English language that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century.

Neither you nor the person you copied the above from has a very good grasp of the Greek here. Arsenokoitai is the plural masculine form of arsenokoites, a male who lies in bed (bed-chambering) with another male. It means a homosexual or homosexual acts. You (and the one you copied) speak of it as if that is the root word, but it is not.

More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here as:

• "homosexuals," (NASB);
• "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
• "homosexual offenders," (NIV).

Yes, and those three designations all fit the Greek meaning nicely.

In doing this, they appear to have little respect or attention to the actual meaning of the original Greek verse. By using the term "homosexual" the translators changed the scope of the verse. The original Greek refers to men only; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate.

[/quote]

Again, whoever you are quoting is playing games, and you seem to be going right along with him. Homosexual means a male engaging in sex with another male, or, a female engaging in sex with another female. It describes two people of the same sex engaging in sexual conduct with each other. Therefore, homosexual means either two men together having sex, or two women together having sex. None of your points so far are panning out to be true...

The author of 1 Timothy also used "arsenokoitai." The KJV translated it similarly:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

And what is your point above?

Christian theologians generally agree that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians circa 55 CE. However, they differ on the authorship and date of the three Pastoral Epistles -- 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

• Some scholars believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles during the interval 62 to 64 CE just before his death.

Since Paul wrote the letters, or transcribed them to another in his immediate presence, they would have had to have been written before his death.

• Many other scholars believe that they were written up to 85 years after Paul's execution, circa 100 to 150 CE by an unknown person who pretended to be Paul.

We need to keep secular scholars out of the equation...since they are not interested in discovering the truth of any Biblical matter.

What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."


Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.


Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"

Your source does not give any of his sources, and the only references that I can find regarding Greek for "paiderasste" is homosexual sources, I can find no actual ancient Greek sources for the word...perhaps it is made up or a modern Greek word, in either case what has been written above is outside the scope of your discussion. The meaning of arsenokoítēs in actual word for word correlation is not man-beds, it is man-chambering...which means two men having sex with each other.

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) states that the passage refers to:

"... both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

What page and section?

Many religious scholars agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to male pedophiles who are also child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. to consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

None of the above meanings pertain to arsenokoítēs...I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is not accurate in the least bit.

Male prostitutes: One scholar has provided an interesting analysis of 1 Corinthians. He noticed a pattern in verse 9 and 10. They are composed up of pairs or triads of related groups of people:

The lawless & disobedient: two near synonyms

The ungodly & sinners: also two near synonyms

The unholy & profane: two synonyms

The murderers of fathers & murderers of mothers & manslayers: three kinds of murderers

Whoremongers & "arsenokoitai" & menstealers

Liars & perjurers etc.: again, two near synonyms.

Again, what is your source? What is the name of the source? What page number and section? Who is this so-called "scholar" that you are quoting? Perhaps he is not a scholar at all...or perhaps he is a secular scholar which in this case means his words are pretty much worthless.

In the original Greek, the first of the three words is "pornov." An online Greek lexicon notes that this is Strong's Number 4205, and was derived from the Greek word "pernemi" which means to sell. Its meanings are:

A man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire.

A male prostitute.

A man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator.

Yes, but this has absolutely no bearing upon homosexuality...

The second term is "arsenokoitai" which has not been given a Strong Number because it is a made-up word that is almost never found in the Greek language other than in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.

No, it does not have its own number because it is not the actual word, that is the stem word in the plural masculine form. Its Strong's number is G733, and again, the word is arsenokoítēs.

The last of the three words is "andrapodistes," the stem of the word andrapodistai. It is Strong's Number 405 which means:

A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer -- one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

Again, this has no bearing upon homosexuality.

If we assume that the three words refer to a common theme, as the other five groups are, then we have to look for some sense which the words have in common. Cannon suggests:

"pornoi" refers to an enslaved male prostitute.

"arsenokoitai" refers to a man who forces sex on an enslaved male prostitute

"andrapodistes" refers to a person who kidnaps and enslaves people.

Your definitions here are vastly inaccurate, you need to check this source of yours, for I assume he is making up his own meanings in order to give support to a homosexual agenda.

Again, the common theme is slavery.

Again, the Greek definition of arsenokoítēs is man-chambering (word for word correlation) and means homosexual acts, not slavery.

Translating "arsenokoitai" as a boy who is kept as a sex slave has some support in at least two Bible translations:

As noted above, a footnote in the New American Bible (NAB), interprets "arsenokoitai" as a " boy prostitute."

The Jerusalem Bible translates the triad in 1 Timothy as: "those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men." In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the same word "arsenokoitai" is translated as "catamite."

An acurate translation of 1 Timothy 1:10 would be: "...male prostitutes, boys who have sex with men, and slave dealers who enslave them both."

Nothing you have stated above (or copied) detracts from the terms used for homosexual acts, you have not dented the Scriptural meaning of homosexuality and its condemnation one bit.

So it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

Whoever you are quoting from is deeply seated in sin and a sinful mind set, grossly perverting the Scriptures.

For example, here is one verse that many Christians use to persecute gay people with, (even though Levitical purity laws do not apply to Christians) but don't realize that their Bible has it translated falsely.


Leviticus 18:22 - The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."(KJV)

The honest and correct translation:

"And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

Below, is a word by word translation of this verse:

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הִוא

V'et-zachar lo tishkav mishk'vei ishah to'evah hu.

(Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)

First, Christians don't "persecute" homosexuals, telling them the truth in love is not persecution, but nice try.

Second, we are not dealing with modern Hebrew, but ancient Hebrew, and according to the original ancient text, that is not the words that are used. They are...

     lo             shâkab                            êth                  zâkâr      mishkâb        'ishshâh            hû                    tô‛êbah

no, not        lie down                with, together with       male     lying down      female      3rd Pers Sing.        abomination
            (figuratively - have sex)                                              (fig. for sex)                      (he, she, it)

V'et - This is two words. First, V', which means and. This word cannot exist by itself, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, et. This word means with. So the first two words of this verse are And with.

zachar - This word means male. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so when the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a male. The verse so far reads And with a male.

lo - This word is the Hebrew equivalent of our words noand not. It is used in this case to negate the verb that follows it. Because English has a more complicated verb structure than Hebrew, it will take more than one English word to translate the next Hebrew word, and the not will need to go in the middle of those words, so we won't add this word to our translation yet.

tishkav - This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know about tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tense markers are needed.

There is no "tishkav" in the ancient Hebrew text here, so where is your source getting it from?

The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, and it meanslie down. The first letter of the word, t, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate tishkav into English will require four words, as well as a parenthetical note to indicate the gender of the pronoun.

The word translates as Thou (male) shalt lie down. The previous Hebrew word, lo, negated the verb, so we have And with a male thou (male) shalt not lie down. mishk'vei - This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word "of" between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem (Bethlehem), which in English translates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state.Mishk'vei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would be a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions:

Hebrew has prepositions that correspond to ours, but doesn't always use them the same way. For example, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew, the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. The same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when Hebrew doesn't. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will sometimes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the English word in before the words beds of, in order for the sentence to make sense in English.

All of the above would be fine if the word was being used literally, but it is not. It's figurative meaning is having sex, therefore none of the above means anything for the conversation that I can see.

The verse so far reads And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of.

someone with more Hebrew experience may say otherwise, but I don't see it here. The words are not in the order in which you are placing them, nor does the meaning of the "beds" is in line with the meaning of the text, as pointed out above.

ishah - This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (the), it is understood to mean a woman.And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman.Since this is awkward, we will rephrase it to "in a woman's bed."And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed.

(Note: The word mishk'vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means "thy father," and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as "to thy father's bed." As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)

Punctuation as we know it was not part of the original text. Even modern Hebrew Bibles contain only one punctuation mark, which looks like a colon ':', and serves only to point out the end of a verse (but not necessarily the end of a sentence). English is very difficult to read without punctuation marks, so we insert them as we translate. After the word woman, we may insert either a semicolon, or a period, to indicate that the following words are not part of the first phrase, but simply offer further information about it. And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed;


to'evah - This is a noun. It translates as abomination. Without a definite article, it translates as an abomination. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, and this is one case where this is true. In English, this will be the last word in the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have finished with the next word.


hu - This little word serves so many purposes, not only for readers of the Hebrew text, but also for those today who wonder about the accuracy of the Hebrew text. You see, this word is a grammatical error made by Moses. Moses was well schooled in the arts and sciences of ancient Egypt, but not in the tongue of his own people. Although he evidently spoke Hebrew well enough to be understood, like so many today, he did not always use proper grammar. His meaning remained the same, but the grammar was wrong.


I want to repeat that: His meaning remained the same, only the grammar was wrong.The word הוא hu means both he and it. It means it when applied to masculine nouns. But to'evah is a feminine noun, so Moses should have used the word היא hi, which means she and it. It means it when applied to feminine nouns. (All Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender. This gender concept is grammatical in nature only, and has nothing to do with men or women, per se. For example, in Hebrew a table is masculine, whereas in the Romance languages, it is feminine. It has nothing to do with the nature of the table; it's simply grammatical.)


The next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In English these forms are am, art, is and are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost never uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for context.


The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God's name in Hebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that don't use the present tense of the verb to be. For example, Russian has become so used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russian equivalent of am can't even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can't, so we have to insert the appropriate forms when translating: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is


Finally, we put in the words an abomination: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

Tell your source that it was a nice try, but he fails. All that in an effort to twist the meaning of the text...what a waste of time.

This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman's bed together, for whatever reason.

Ya...that sure makes sense, doesn't it???

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the term 'abomination' was an intentionally bad translation, given how far it differs from the meaning of the original Hebrew. It is used with a set of different situations in the King James Bible.

tô‛êbah means abomination, it is not a "bad translation," that is what the word means...nice try. You might be able to get uneducated people to believe this nonsense, but that's about it.

Nothing you have presented was either factual nor very helpful in your argument...but as I said, it was a "nice try."

::preachit::

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:41:24
I'll pray for you as well, fish. Thank you.

Although I am all for anyone praying for Fish, I really don't think your prayers will do much good.

God doesn't answer the prayers of those who are not walking in obedience to Him...that is Scriptural teaching, not just my opinion.

::smile::

: skeeter  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 19:31:10

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:46:07
JohnB... if your attention span and reading comprehension level aren't up to the task of reading my detailed and scholarly posts, and you desire something short and 'simple'.. then this conversation is definitely not for such as you.

oh my.  ::smile::

I think you stepped into some of that 'poo' on this one...

detailed and scholarly posts - boastful much?  'cause you ARE saying p1 and other writings you've posted here are actually yours - correct?

You also posted that you are a Christian,  then you shouldn't mind giving a very short testimony.  (just a few lines)   thx!

Skeeter...I have not seen anything much "scholarly" in his OP...not even the quotes that he didn't cite by title, page number, etc....., so I don't know what he is talking about.

Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?  It's plain to see he either loves typing or listening to the clacking of his own keyboard.

I just wonder why he goes so far to complicate the scriptures, pretending to be some world renowned scholar who has knowledge far above that of simple man. When the reality is that the Bible was written on a third grade reading level.  So, he thinks he can teach the 3rd grade. He doesn't know jack about this sin as the word speaks to it. 

Or the Holy nature of God.  Not at all. And I am not even going to bother to explain that. 

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:41:24
I'll pray for you as well, fish. Thank you.

I would not waste my time praying for you~ you have proven by your many ramblings, and vain jangling~(1 Timothy 1:6) that you do not deserve the prayers of the faithful~ John 17:9

: kensington  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 02:43:16
Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?  It's plain to see he either loves typing or listening to the clacking of his own keyboard.

I just wonder why he goes so far to complicate the scriptures, pretending to be some world renowned scholar who has knowledge far above that of simple man. When the reality is that the Bible was written on a third grade reading level.  So, he thinks he can teach the 3rd grade. He doesn't know jack about this sin as the word speaks to it. 

Or the Holy nature of God.  Not at all. And I am not even going to bother to explain that.

Because they are troll feeders.  There hasn't been a troll yet that hasn't gotten a full five course meal from a few members of this forum.

Every one knows that homosexuality is a sin that leads to eternal death.
This guy is either trying to justify himself (as many homosexuals do) or gain access to the sheep pen so he can fleece the flock (as wolves do)

Not really sure which.

Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?  It's plain to see he either loves typing or listening to the clacking of his own keyboard.

Also, he has been plain about leaving it at to "agree to disagree".

I would not waste my time praying for you~

Sounds like that certain  southern Bible Belt attitude coming out in you Red.

Aaron has came here with his guns loaded and has blasted a lot of passion. This is what he has done here but on a different level:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bEcilTcjk9g

Everywhere I turn homosexuality seems to generate sin.

It's a no brainer and its easy for me to simply say that I agree to disagree with Aaron on this particular subject matter.

: Jd34  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 06:37:55Sounds like that certain  southern Bible Belt attitude coming out in you Red.

John 17:9~

2 King 3:14

  .  "And Elisha said, As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee."

Thank God there are men like JohnDB which have the spirit of Jehoshaphat concerning wicked people who go after strange flesh, be whatever that strange flesh be.

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

: Jd34  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 07:31:57

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

Thanks being said, let me add this: He did not saved his people so that they could continually serve sin~he also saved us from the power of sin reigning in our mortal bodies...and he that is serving sin, does not know God, and are none of his.

1 John 2:4

  .  "He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

And a hundred more such scriptures could be given, but they would serve no purpose to those who are in love with their sins!  By saying that, I am not speaking of you, but of Sodomites who claim that they love God, with their male lover in their arms!

: Aaron Lindahl  Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 18:21:07
Memyself... you don't need to 'beg'.. if you cannot stand the truth, then stop torturing yourself and simply stop coming onto, and commenting on, my 'thread'.  There are 'loads' of other threads on here where you can safely reassure yourself amongst others of your type that what you believe is correct on this issue.

Let's be clear:  you are not telling the truth.  You are bending God's word so far you actually claiming it says the exact opposite of what it does.

It is clear you do not know Greek or Hebrew.

It is clear you do not understand context.

It is clear you do not understand ancient culture.

Yet, you act as an "authority" in order to subvert and twist the Bible to suit your own self desires and beliefs.

When people point out how you are wrong, you make personal attacks against them.

I'm sorry, there is very little truth in your posts.

Hello all, I am married to my gorgeous wife of 29 years and want to tell you about our nephew who at aged 5 was exhibiting unlearned feminine behaviours including dressing up in girls clothes, yet was surrounded by an entirely heterosexual wider family. At 16 he was going with girls 'to prove' he was a red-blood hetero. After a lot of anguish and self harm and incredible inner torture he came out to my daughter. My view on all of the previous discussion on this thread is this: as Christians, we can argue the finite points but have we won people for Jesus? I believe we are called to build bridges to the saving love of Jesus not burn them. I read a great line recently - God judges, the Holy Spirit convicts and we are to love.

How often we get this around the wrong way! As humans, we also all of us have our 'paralyzers' - you know, the particular topic where before we know it our emotions have kicked in often clouding all objectivity. For many years, homosexuality and particularly the act itself was my paralyser. That is until I read that line - God judges, the Holy Spirit convicts and we are to love.

J - my nephew and his lovely and well-mannered respectful boyfriend A are often round at our house. They know we are Christians and because they are not part of our church or any church for that matter, we try to make our house a place where they can see the love of God in practical operation. Our place is not to point fingers, condemn or judge. My wife and I know that this non-judgmental approach has forced J and A lto completely reappraise their viewpoint on church and on Who Jesus is and it is our prayer that in God's good timing, His Holy Spirit will meet with these two lovely boys and He will speak in love to the very heart of where He needs to. Our ears are also always open to hear when God wants us to speak a word on His behalf to these two young men but so far, all we have done is open our home and of course..our fridge!!!

Personally, I am very glad that Jesus has melted my particular paralyzer and I hope this post helps in some way.

: Jd34  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 07:31:57

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

Amen. I have great compassion for those who struggle with same sex attraction, it must be awful.  God LOVES them and longs for them to know Him and come to him.
However when you get a man who actually claims to be a  believer, twisting some scripture, grossly distorting other scripture and totally ignoring scripture that many have posted here that clearly shows he is wrong, to try and  justify his serious sin, then thats a totally different matter altogether.

A Christian who struggles with a sin(as we all do at times,) but who knows they need help and forgiveness deserves all the help we can give them, but when that person wont even admit that their life style is wrong, then there is no way we can help them until they repent and come to God for forgiveness.

However when you get a man who actually claims to be a  believer, twisting some scripture, grossly distorting other scripture and totally ignoring scripture that many have posted here that clearly shows he is wrong, to try and  justify his serious sin, then thats a totally different matter altogether.

That's the offensive part and that is where the path begins to widen. For me , scripture and The Holy Spirit must go hand and hand. Without The Holy Spirit, scripture is just words to me.. I see a lot of words in this thread.

Aaron is proof on how we  can adjust scripture to how we want it and how we magnify what we want to hear and ignore what we don't. (just like everything else)

But anyone with the The Holy Spirit knows It can not be ignored no matter how hard you have to try to make scripture go against. I think that is what is going on here.

::groupprayer::

: kensington  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 02:43:16
Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?

I will answer for myself, and no, its not close to what the "helpful" post that spoke for us guessed at.   ::wink::

even though it may look like Truth is falling on deaf ears that can't hear because they are being tickled, my hope is that one seed of Truth tossed into the conversation, lay dormant and that in God's timing, it might take root and grow.

Also, it makes ME have to dig into the Word to defend my faith and convictions more deeply.  I think that is a good thing.  To challenge myself to go beyond, "this is what I was taught" to, "show me Oh God."  I have a member of my family that believes this theology and when the time comes, I will need to be able to speak on these subjects. So, in a way, its like a "practice round".  I can pray to better respond instead of react when my hard conversation comes...if God sees fit to make it happen that is.

And, I don't hate Aaron or those deceived like him...my heart truly grieves for them, so I don't want to write them off just because they are who they are and believe as they do.  ::shrug::

: Jd34  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 08:50:13

However when you get a man who actually claims to be a  believer, twisting some scripture, grossly distorting other scripture and totally ignoring scripture that many have posted here that clearly shows he is wrong, to try and  justify his serious sin, then thats a totally different matter altogether.

But anyone with the The Holy Spirit knows It can not be ignored no matter how hard you have to try to make scripture go against. I think that is what is going on here.

::groupprayer::

Good point, if we are led by the Spirit the truth becomes quite clear to us  ::smile:: 

I think that as long as we remember that judgment begins in the House of God (we are given permissionin truth and love to admonish one another within the church) and that any judgments directed at any individuals outside of the church (unless clearly directed to do so by The Holy Spirit) these judgments however well-intentioned will mostly only alienate us further from those who need to be 'brought in' to God's family. Don't you know it is Gods kindness that leads to repentance. Titus

: Ransomovitch  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 11:36:42
I think that as long as we remember that judgment begins in the House of God (we are given permissionin truth and love to admonish one another within the church) and that any judgments directed at any individuals outside of the church (unless clearly directed to do so by The Holy Spirit) these judgments however well-intentioned will mostly only alienate us further from those who need to be 'brought in' to God's family. Don't you know it is Gods kindness that leads to repentance. Titus

I so agree. The op here says he is a believer, so its very different from a non believing person who knows no better.

: Red Baker  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 07:39:15

: Jd34  Sat Dec 06, 2014 - 07:31:57

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

Thanks being said, let me add this: He did not saved his people so that they could continually serve sin~he also saved us from the power of sin reigning in our mortal bodies...and he that is serving sin, does not know God, and are none of his.

1 John 2:4

  .  "He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

And a hundred more such scriptures could be given, but they would serve no purpose to those who are in love with their sins!  By saying that, I am not speaking of you, but of Sodomites who claim that they love God, with their male lover in their arms!

Yeah...he aint real happy with me.  I take his "majors" and turn them into minors.

But the destruction of Sodom, and the stoning of any caught in adultery should be a clue here.

This type of sex is perversion and the teaching that it isn't is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.