Someone help me, please...

[Paul Hazelwood]

** Was typing this in response to Shawn's and Miriam's posts when Shawn posted in the meantime.


Yes, as far I'm concerned, this isn't primarily a sociological issue.  What say the scriptures?  (Translations, revelation, and accurately dividing the Word included) Who gets to decide?  God, or us?  IMO, any sociological or even what we may consider "moral" arguments are secondary to scriptural and spiritual.

I certainlly believe it's great to reconsider things.  But I don't believe in either going against the revealed scriptures, or trying to find some "comfortable" or convenient way around them - or necessarily to what "makes sense" to us.  (The [carnal] mind is enmity against God).   I've done that many times, and it's NEVER worked.  My conscience condemned me, the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I maintain "what says the Lord"?  All else is secondary and can be used as a diversion.   :2c:

And this is where I stand on every issue.  What do the scriptures say about this subject?  In the English, it's very clear to me.  But, I admit I have not seen a debate from the Greek and Hebrew on the subject.  For me, the belief that homosexuality is a sin is not something I'm unwilling to part with.  But, for me to do so it would have to be fundamentally scripturally sound.

My understanding is that it's there - in the original languages.  Some go to great lengths to explain it away, and attempt to make the words mean other things.  I posted once earlier in another thread, and then repeated in this thread several posts back.  From the most literal English translations available, including one from the Koine Greek, the words specifically are about homosexuality.  I also presented where Apostle Paul taught against same sex relationships without even using those specific words.  That's why I said earlier most walk away believing what they already believed, and God will need to do the rest.  The problem as I see it is, there may be some who are vulnerable, really searching, who can be mislead.

Actually those words are not inherantly about homosexuality,  a male prostitute is a very specific act, rather than a sexual orientations. 

In the new testament is the closest you get and you do not have to be gay to be a male postitute.   You also do not have to be a homosexual to pervert the natural use of a woman.  A man who simply wants to use a woman for self gratification has done that.   Women can use women and men can use men sexually and loveless , rather than true love and care. 

I know a man who just does that,  he can't get it with a woman, so it is easy to find a male parner to just get a sexual release.  And my friend certainly doesn't like it when I say that is something that is best not done.   However that problem is not specific to homosexual behavior. 

And really, there is no great lengths gone about anything.

No Christian has ever been able to associate the old testament scripture to lesbianism,  so if you can now would be the time.  Because it is easy to see that it is not about lesbianism it is about a male sex act that even many homosexuals will not engage in.   

[jabcat]

I disagree Paul.  I don't think that's correct.  I also don't see how you can explain away the other things Apostle Paul had to say without even using those specific words.

[jabcat]

I don't want to become contentious...sorry, I'm removing this post...   :bigGrin:

[shawn]

Here it is from The Christian Bible (1991), translated from the oldest available manuscripts in the Koine Greek - much of The Christian Bible admittedly resulted in different beliefs than what some of the translators originally believed prior to entering the translation task.

Why don't you just rather let yourselves be injured?  Why don't you just rather let yourselves be cheated?  Rather, you are injuring and cheating others and doing this to your brothers and sisters!  Or aren't you aware that the unjust won't inherit a share of God's Kingdom?  You must stop being led astray;  neither those who are having nonmarital sexual intercourse, nor those who are idol worshipers, nor those who are having extramarital sexual intercourse, nor those who have a soft, self-indulgent way of life, nor those who are homosexuals...  I Cor. 6

I wonder outloud.  If this translation states homosexuals, but yet we are speaking about prostitution, or just using someone for sexual release, then why use the word homosexuals.  Why not just say prostitution is sin?  Using people sexually is a sin?  Why does Paul speak specifically about male male relations?

[jabcat]

My previous post amended.  It can be so hard remembering "in honor, preferring one another".  I wasn't cussing and ranting, but I still don't like getting that curt.  Sorry.   :mblush:

[Molly]

This is the historical context in which the NT was written:


"The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and adolescent boys, known as pederasty."


"Though homosexual relationships between adult men did exist, at least one member of each of these relationships flouted social conventions by assuming a passive sexual role. It is unclear how such relations between women were regarded in the general society, but examples do exist as far back as the time of Sappho.[5]"

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

[Paul Hazelwood]

I disagree Paul.  I don't think that's correct.  I also don't see how you can explain away the other things Apostle Paul had to say without even using those specific words.

I respect that you disagree,  I am simply making observations concerning the definitions.  We have this same issue in the ED / UR side of things I didn't see how they explained that away at one time.

[Molly]

Here it is from The Christian Bible (1991), translated from the oldest available manuscripts in the Koine Greek - much of The Christian Bible admittedly resulted in different beliefs than what some of the translators originally believed prior to entering the translation task.

Why don't you just rather let yourselves be injured?  Why don't you just rather let yourselves be cheated?  Rather, you are injuring and cheating others and doing this to your brothers and sisters!  Or aren't you aware that the unjust won't inherit a share of God's Kingdom?  You must stop being led astray;  neither those who are having nonmarital sexual intercourse, nor those who are idol worshipers, nor those who are having extramarital sexual intercourse, nor those who have a soft, self-indulgent way of life, nor those who are homosexuals...  I Cor. 6

I wonder outloud.  If this translation states homosexuals, but yet we are speaking about prostitution, or just using someone for sexual release, then why use the word homosexuals.  Why not just say prostitution is sin?  Using people sexually is a sin?  Why does Paul speak specifically about male male relations?

I think because of the pederasty.  It's not prostitution.  It's an accepted way of life at the time.  Paul is saying it is wrong.

In that respect, Christianity was turning the social mores of the society on its head.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Here it is from The Christian Bible (1991), translated from the oldest available manuscripts in the Koine Greek - much of The Christian Bible admittedly resulted in different beliefs than what some of the translators originally believed prior to entering the translation task.

Why don't you just rather let yourselves be injured?  Why don't you just rather let yourselves be cheated?  Rather, you are injuring and cheating others and doing this to your brothers and sisters!  Or aren't you aware that the unjust won't inherit a share of God's Kingdom?  You must stop being led astray;  neither those who are having nonmarital sexual intercourse, nor those who are idol worshipers, nor those who are having extramarital sexual intercourse, nor those who have a soft, self-indulgent way of life, nor those who are homosexuals...  I Cor. 6

I wonder outloud.  If this translation states homosexuals, but yet we are speaking about prostitution, or just using someone for sexual release, then why use the word homosexuals.  Why not just say prostitution is sin?  Using people sexually is a sin?  Why does Paul speak specifically about male male relations?

I understand those issues, but there may be a lot of whys for a lot of things. If a translation that relates more precisely to the salvation of all men doesn't use the word eternal or everlasting or the word hell then why do most translations contain those words.

When you go to the level of scripture where you look at definitions, I cannot see the direct association to homosexuality being bad, and when I did that with Eternal Damnation, I got the same result.

[Molly]

They may not have had the word for homosexuality at that time, Paul.

But they sure understood what the action was.

[jabcat]

Thanks Mol for the info.  All of that may be true.   (yes, if you look at the progression of translation of the word, it comes out "male bed-liers").

Back to your post.  IMO, although relevant of course, I personally want to focus in on what I believe the NT teaches.  When Ap. Paul teaches against male-male "bed-liers", and states that men and women left "the natural use" of each other and "burned in their lust toward one another", and that they received the "due recompense for their error";  also, that "those who practice such things (and many other things) will not inherit the kingdom" (peace, joy, living in right relationship with the Savior, to face Him "unashamed"), again, IMO, all other social issues, historical issues, etc., must take a back seat.

I've probably said enough, folks will believe what they will until God shows each of us something different.  I just want it clearly be on record, as folks visit the boards, that there are scriptural reasons to turn from sin and look to the Lord to cleanse and deliver us.   :2c:  God's in control, He can take care of it.  Blessings.

[Molly]

Thanks Mol for the info.  All of that may be true.   (yes, if you look at the progression of translation of the word, it comes out "male bed-liers").

Back to your post.  IMO, although relevant of course, I personally want to focus in on what I believe the NT teaches.  When Ap. Paul teaches against male-male "bed-liers", and states that men and women left "the natural use" of each other and "burned in their lust toward one another", and that they received the "due recompense for their error";  also, that "those who practice such things (and many other things) will not inherit the kingdom" (peace, joy, living in right relationship with the Savior, to face Him "unashamed"), again, IMO, all other social issues, historical issues, etc., must take a back seat.

I've probably said enough, folks will believe what they will until God shows each of us something different.  I just want it clearly be on record, as folks visit the boards, that there are scriptural reasons to turn from sin and look to the Lord to cleanse and deliver us.   :2c:  God's in control, He can take care of it.  Blessings.

Yes, of course, he's very clear about that as well as premarital and extramarital infidelity.

I"m just saying it was a way of life in those days.  Everybody knew what he was talking about.

[jabcat]

Yes, thanks for info.  You're the info lady  :thumbsup:

[Paul Hazelwood]

Thanks Mol for the info.  All of that may be true.   (yes, if you look at the progression of translation of the word, it comes out "male bed-liers").

Back to your post.  IMO, although relevant of course, I personally want to focus in on what I believe the NT teaches.  When Ap. Paul teaches against male-male "bed-liers", and states that men and women left "the natural use" of each other and "burned in their lust toward one another", and that they received the "due recompense for their error";  also, that "those who practice such things (and many other things) will not inherit the kingdom" (peace, joy, living in right relationship with the Savior, to face Him "unashamed"), again, IMO, all other social issues, historical issues, etc., must take a back seat.

I've probably said enough, folks will believe what they will until God shows each of us something different.  I just want it clearly be on record, as folks visit the boards, that there are scriptural reasons to turn from sin and look to the Lord to cleanse and deliver us.   :2c:  God's in control, He can take care of it.  Blessings.

If tentmaker takes a specific stance towards homosexuality being wrong, now would be a good time to state it.  I have no idea how questioning religious traditions and pointing out the flaws in reasoning concerning homosexuality could cause someone to think that tentmaker condones living in sin on any greater level than someone visiting and seeing tentmaker specifically challenges and questions religious traditions and reasonings concerning Eternal Damnation.

Seems such a position is EXACTLY what tentmaker supports.

[Paul Hazelwood]

They may not have had the word for homosexuality at that time, Paul.

But they sure understood what the action was.

Not really.  In the old testament that reasoning doesn't apply, the verse in leviticus doesn't infer women by any stretch.


In the new testament, it is ridiculous to say there wasn't much adult same sex relationships, the study of ancient roman history will reveal otherwise. Sources trying to relate homosexuality to the obscure passages that are not specific or detailed concerning it are from religiously biased sources, of course, they would try to work in an association to pedophilia to homosexuality even though in modern times,  pedophilia is mutually exclusive from homosexuality in terms of the emotional constructs that are dealt with in those areas.   A male prostitute is mutually exclusive from homosexuality.

The definitions of words are the telling tale,  adult same gender relationships is not specifically condemned,  the verses are within passages specifically dealing with how one person treats and uses another and sexuality is a minor instance of ways people can mistreat one another. 

Hermaphrodites is something the Christian against homosexuality cannot apply their favorite scriptures to, that is also telling.  The passages most used to say homosexuality is wrong, cannot be applied to them in those specific terms, God didn't leave them out and when you DO apply those scriptures to them, for me it clears us that problem entirely.  There is no question to me that it is about the treatment of ourselves and to others.   The idea that homosexuality is an inherant flaw is a predisposition that you will not gather from the definitions of scriptural words. 

[Molly]

I have no idea what you are talking about Paul.

You make no sense to me.

The Bible is as clear as day.

It calls such practices an abomination, among other things.

But, in particular, in ancient Greece, young boys were not only at risk, it was an accepted way of life.  They were initiated into the practice by grown men.  You want to see that return?

[Paul Hazelwood]

I have no idea what you are talking about Paul.

You make no sense to me.

Irrelevant to the issue.


Why not post all those definitions of words we are accustomed to seeing if it is so clear. 

And simply answer the question concerning how those verses you say are so clear apply to hermaphrodites.

[Molly]

I have no idea what you are talking about Paul.

You make no sense to me.

Irrelevant to the issue.


Why not post all those definitions of words we are accustomed to seeing if it is so clear. 

And simply answer the question concerning how those verses you say are so clear apply to hermaphrodites.

Why are hermaphrodites part of this discussion?  That's a birth defect, isn't it?  It can be corrected based on the desire of the person suffering from it, can't it?  Pick a sex and go with it.  What percentage of the population are you talking about who are true hermaphrodites?  Three hundredths of one percent?  And, because of this you can't undertand what God means when he says that same sex sexual partnership is an abomination?  I could post definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words, but the English is very clear.


What is not clear to you?

[Paul Hazelwood]

I have no idea what you are talking about Paul.

You make no sense to me.

Irrelevant to the issue.


Why not post all those definitions of words we are accustomed to seeing if it is so clear. 

And simply answer the question concerning how those verses you say are so clear apply to hermaphrodites.

Why are hermaphrodites part of this discussion?  That's a birth defect, isn't it?  It can be corrected based on the desire of the person suffering from it, can't it?  Pick a sex and go with it.  What percentage of the population are you talking about who are true hermaphrodites?  Three hundredths of one percent?  And, because of this you can't undertand what God means when he says that same sex sexual partnership is an abomination?  I could post definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words, but the English is very clear.


What is not clear to you?

The issue is not about what is clear to me, I have been down the road, I can argue against homosexuality and have and completely understand the reasoning behind saying scripture saying it is inherantly wrong to be a homosexual,  so, I understand the arguments, I am challenging those traditional views like I have everything else. 

When scripture says a woman should not abandon the natural use of a woman, what does the hermaphrodite do?
When scripture talks about men burning in lust for other men, what does the hermaphrodite do?

When I tried it cannot be done, however, when talking about how a person treats one another it is easy to see that the hermaphrodite can burn with lust and forsake the natural use of whatever gender they choose.   The small percentage that you want to sweep under the rug is actually important.   The bible talks about the "LEAST" of these, funny how such a small percentage can change what God is trying to tell us.

How convenient that you do not post definitions on this issue because the "english is very clear".    Well, show how clear it is then.

[Molly]

No, it can be surgically corrected and with hormones.  Pick a sex and go with it. 


Are you suggesting that God approves of same sex sexual partnerships?  Is that your position?

Does he approve of marital infidelity, too?

Can I start having affairs with married men?

Did it occur to you that God is creating rules that make society a more pleasant, stable,  and safer place for all to live?  Especially children?

Paul was talking to Gentiles who routinely practiced these things he was talking against.  Why would he do that?  Just to be a prude?  Just to rain on their party?

[Paul Hazelwood]

No, it can be surgically corrected and with hormones.  Pick a sex and go with it. 

Often times it does not even need to be, why would it need to be?   What did they do before modern technology?

Are you suggesting that God approves of same sex sexual partnerships?  Is that your position?

Yep

Does he approve of marital infidelity, too?

No, but that is completely unrelated to homosexuality

Can I start having affairs with married men?

No and that is completely unrelated to homosexuality.

Did it occur to you that God is creating rules that make society a more pleasant and safer place for all to live?

Sure and those who didn't want women to vote, blacks to be free might have and probably did used that argument too.  White supremist think exterminating blacks will make society a more pleasant and safer place to live, perhaps they are on to something after all.

Paul was talking to Gentiles who routinely practiced these things he was talking against.

Sure, never said he wasn't.  But tradition infers things that may not necessarily apply, that is what I am challenging.  You try to infer that because I approve of homosexual relationships that I then condone all sorts of things, but you are incorrect in your reasoning.   

Why would he do that?  Just to be a prude?  Just to rain on their party?

Well because there are things that can be wrong.   I was raised that playing with dice was wrong, and said the bible was against it because gambling is evil.  I routinely defy the traditions I was raised with and play games using DICE.

I was also raised that blacks should marry blacks and white should marry whites, and of course all other races really weren't mentioned,  but unequally yoked was a CLEAR passage that proved it.   LOL.

[Molly]

No and that is completely unrelated to homosexuality.

Marital infidelity is related in that it is a sexual practice that God says is wrong.  So what is the difference?  I certainly am physically able to have affairs with married men.  I might even have a proclivity to do it.  I find men attractive.

So why should I refrain from doing it?  Isn't it 'natural'?

Why can't I say that you are discriminating against me by telling me that having affairs with married men is wrong?

[shawn]

Paul states...

Sure and those who didn't want women to vote, blacks to be free might have and probably did used that argument too.  White supremist think exterminating blacks will make society a more pleasant and safer place to live, perhaps they are on to something after all.

Are you comparing the extermination of blacks to that of people who think homosexuality is a sin?  People have used the Bible in all sorts of ways to opress many people.  I'm sure you use extreme imagery to make that point.  But, where in the Bible does it condone murder?  I can show clear scriptures that clearly state in multiple literal translations that same sex relations is considered sin by God.  You don't have to agree with it.  Even part of my natural being wants to say, hey if they love each other and are commited to each other...why not?  The problem, is the Bible doesn't agree with that stance.  I haven't seen anything scripturally that would make me see otherwise.

[jabcat]

I want to briefly cut in for this little update.  Michelle started this thread...would we please remember to keep her in our prayers?  Thanks.

[Paul Hazelwood]

No and that is completely unrelated to homosexuality.

Marital infidelity is related in that it is a sexual practice that God says is wrong.  So what is the difference?  I certainly am physically able to have affairs with married men.  I might even have a proclivity to do it.  I find men attractive.

So why should I refrain from doing it?  Isn't it 'natural'?

Why can't I say that you are discriminating against me by telling me that having affairs with married men is wrong?

You can say whatever you like, homosexuality has nothing to do with the behaviors you brought up.