Jesus Christ and Homosexuality.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

kate4christ03 wrote:
REX im not arguing that romans werent into homosexual practices i know that was prevalent at that time but im saying that according to pais which is used in the bible not just for male slaves but also children, sons and slaves...with no sex involved, that its a stretch to say that this guy was gay

It's not that much of a stretch. As I stated before, there are other words which could have been used that meant son or slave. Pais means slave boy and it was very common for Romans to have sex with such people. So, it's not really a stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
the law is clear that homosexuality is an abomination.

Yes, a strange word that. That part of the Bible is the part that Christians aren't supposed to follow. The original Hebrew is to'ebah, which is a religious term usually reserved for idolatry. It is the only part of that section which uses the word.

Why is that the only sexual sin as described in that part of the Bible that uses a word reserved for idolatry? It can therefore be interpreted as referring to temple prostitution.

Furthermore, if you insist in the Corinthians part being the Christian condemnation of homosexuality, that can also be interpreted in a different way.

The original Greek text describes the behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Malakoi means "loose" or "pliable", as in the phrase "loose morals", implying "unethical behavior". In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship."

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant 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. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no 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 aresenokoitai."

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. 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.

Great post Wolf I need to read it several times.

I heard is once said that the reason why homosexuality was sometimes referred to as idolatry is because both male and female homosexuals (of the past) have a natural tendency for goddess worship. This fits in with your temple ideas. Homosexuals are also partial to angel worship today in the same way if you have ever noticed. So it is more the things commonly associated with the act that are an abomination.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

. . . The law was weak. It relied on man/prophets to interpret it. . .

The law was perfect as it was given by God to lead us to Christ.

Golly whoppers, Rex. You sure are determined to justify homosexuality. My heart goes out to you. May the "truth set you free." (John 8:32)

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Homosexuals are also partial to angel worship today in the same way if you have ever noticed. So it is more the things commonly associated with the act that are an abomination.

Well, I am subscribed to a club that posts up Anime-style pictures of angel-like beings in all sorts of homoerotic situations, but I don't really think that's equivalent to angel worship.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
. . . The law was weak. It relied on man/prophets to interpret it. . .
The law was perfect as it was given by God to lead us to Christ.

Golly whoppers, Rex. You sure are determined to justify homosexuality. My heart goes out to you. May the "truth set you free." (John 8:32)

And which "God" gave the law? And if the law was perfect why a "new" testament? The law was inferior to Christ, so it is inferior to us and it is inferior to perfection.

The law was weak and this is a flaw that reveals it's imperfection.

If Jesus was so dead against homosexuality he would have taken a wife to show us the "natural" way to live. But no he instead sets himself up as some sort of celibate priest (homosexual). This in itself is unnatural isn't it? An we are supposed to take this celibacy as the way to be more natural? I just see that there is more to this story than is on the surface. It is true that Jesus did not wash his hands before he ate bread. Shall we take that as sin, death and disease because he clearly broke the law? He healed people on the sabbath. He was a radical not a conformist.

We see this great perfect law and then we see Jesus sidestepping it wherever and whenever he can. All to demonstrate it's weakness. To inspire us to rise above the law to liberty, moderation and peace with God.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Homosexuals are also partial to angel worship today in the same way if you have ever noticed. So it is more the things commonly associated with the act that are an abomination.

Well, I am subscribed to a club that posts up Anime-style pictures of angel-like beings in all sorts of homoerotic situations, but I don't really think that's equivalent to angel worship.

That was not particularly directed at you but you may have inadvertently proven my point. Very Happy

0 Replies

God is gay.

0 Replies

Micah 6:8
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

0 Replies

leviticus 20:13 if a man lies with a male as he does a woman, both have committed an abomination.
there are six different hebrew words for abomination used in the old testament the transliterated word for abomination in this verse is Tow`ebah which means 1.a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a.in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b.in ethical sense (of wickedness etc) this word is used not only to describe idolatry but also wickedness not relating to idolatry...

Pr 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: Pr 16:12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness. (i give these verses to show that this word doesnt just mean in terms of idolatry..but of any wickedness) there are more if you like...

My pt is that this verse in Leviticus isn't talking of prostitutes or idolatry in reference to men sleeping with men...It's speaking of plain sex..men with men...if you read the verses before and after it's talking of different people men can't sleep with ie other men, mothers, mother in laws etc...

Romans 1:27 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.

1 corinthians 6:9 ...Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals

the greek for effeminate is malakos 1.soft, soft to the touch
2.metaph. in a bad sense
a.effeminate
b.of a catamite
c.of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
d.of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
e.of a male prostitute

the greek for homosexual is Arsenokoites which means one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual (it doesnt state "prostitution")

so it doesn't make sense that he would, in one statement, list male prostitutes twice. And that isn't the case here.. He is listing male prostitution and homosexuality....two different sins .......

0 Replies

To Try for the Sun

We stood in the windy city,
The gypsy boy and I.
We slept on the breeze in the midnight
With the raindrop and tears in our eyes.
And who's going to be the one
To say it was no good what we done?
I dare a man to say I'm too young,
For I'm going to try for the sun.
We huddled in a derelict building
And when he thought I was asleep
He laid his poor coat round my shoulder,
And shivered there beside me in a heap.
And who's going to be the one
To say it was no good what we done?
I dare a man to say I'm too young,
For I'm going to try for the sun.
We sang and cracked the sky with laughter,
Our breath turned to mist in the cold.
Our years put together count to thirty,
But our eyes told the dawn we were old.
And who's going to be the one
To say it was no good what we done ?
I dare a man to say I'm too young,
For I'm going to try for the sun.
Mirror, mirror, hanging in the sky,
Won't you look down what's happening here below?
I stand here singing to the flowers,
So very few people really know.
And who's going to be the one
To say it was no good what we done?
I dare a man to say I'm too young,
For I'm going to try for the sun.
We stood in the windy city
The gypsy boy and I.
We slept on the breeze in the midnight,
With the raindrop and tears in our eyes.
And who's going to be the one
To say it was no good what we done ?
I dare a man to say I'm too young,
For I'm going to try for the sun.

Donovan

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

leviticus 20:13 if a man lies with a male as he does a woman, both have committed an abomination.
there are six different hebrew words for abomination used in the old testament the transliterated word for abomination in this verse is Tow`ebah which means 1.a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a.in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b.in ethical sense (of wickedness etc) this word is used not only to describe idolatry but also wickedness not relating to idolatry...

Pr 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: Pr 16:12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness. (i give these verses to show that this word doesnt just mean in terms of idolatry..but of any wickedness) there are more if you like...

My pt is that this verse in Leviticus isn't talking of prostitutes or idolatry in reference to men sleeping with men...It's speaking of plain sex..men with men...if you read the verses before and after it's talking of different people men can't sleep with ie other men, mothers, mother in laws etc...

Romans 1:27 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.

1 corinthians 6:9 ...Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals

the greek for effeminate is malakos 1.soft, soft to the touch
2.metaph. in a bad sense
a.effeminate
b.of a catamite
c.of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
d.of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
e.of a male prostitute

the greek for homosexual is Arsenokoites which means one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual (it doesnt state "prostitution")

so it doesn't make sense that he would, in one statement, list male prostitutes twice. And that isn't the case here.. He is listing male prostitution and homosexuality....two different sins .......

One person's idolatry is another person's God.

0 Replies

Lu 12:27
Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

0 Replies

Homosexuality will not be in heaven and neither will heterosexuality. So don't be deceived by prophets that use the spirit to speak half truths.

Biblically, all sexuality can be considered at least rooted in sin . If that was not the case we would all be running around in the buff. The human body is not something shameful is it? This represents the one-sidedness of the spiritual psyche and conscience of today. Nudity is a sin but the body is a temple? This is pure contradiction. It is rhetoric purely created to provoke a response in ethical behavior. Manipulative words of grandeur rather than plain words of wisdom and learning.

To use the flesh and fear to motivate the spirit is to breed apostles of terror.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Homosexuality will not be in heaven and neither will heterosexuality. So don't be deceived by prophets that use the spirit to speak half truths.

Biblically, all sexuality can be considered at least rooted in sin . If that was not the case we would all be running around in the buff. The human body is not something shameful is it? This represents the one-sidedness of the spiritual psyche and conscience of today. Nudity is a sin but the body is a temple? This is pure contradiction. It is rhetoric purely created to provoke a response in ethical behavior. Manipulative words of grandeur rather than plain words of wisdom and learning.

To use the flesh and fear to motivate the spirit is to breed apostles of terror.

If you stretch any further, Rex, you could slam dunk from center court.

Adam and Eve were created naked and were told to fill the earth. How do you suppose they were to have done that?

They didn't realize their nakedness until after they sinned.

0 Replies

Kate does make a point, however, arsenokoite is not a word. It was coined by Paul and before that did not exist. There was already a word meaning homosexual or something similar to that in existence. If he really meant homosexual, he would have used one of those words instead of creating another.

All this goes to show is that the Bible can be interpreted many ways and no one way is better than the other, unless of course you really pervert what it says in the Bible like saying Jesus was Satan because he called himself Light-Bearer, which is what Lucifer means.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Homosexuality will not be in heaven and neither will heterosexuality. So don't be deceived by prophets that use the spirit to speak half truths.

Biblically, all sexuality can be considered at least rooted in sin . If that was not the case we would all be running around in the buff. The human body is not something shameful is it? This represents the one-sidedness of the spiritual psyche and conscience of today. Nudity is a sin but the body is a temple? This is pure contradiction. It is rhetoric purely created to provoke a response in ethical behavior. Manipulative words of grandeur rather than plain words of wisdom and learning.

To use the flesh and fear to motivate the spirit is to breed apostles of terror.
If you stretch any further, Rex, you could slam dunk from center court.

Adam and Eve were created naked and were told to fill the earth. How do you suppose they were to have done that?

They didn't realize their nakedness until after they sinned.

Why cover their nakedness if heterosexuality is so fine and acceptable with God.

Also before God made Eden the devil was the most beautiful angel. God loved him and admired him above all else.

Then history takes some weird twists.

The Chaldeans religion depicts the Biblical devil as a feminine spirit "Lillith" and that she (according to the story) tempted Eve into lesbian sex over the love of Adam. The devil must have been quite a temptress to cause Eve to switch from the supposed "nature" of a new man. Again the Biblical writers placing fabricated "darkness" around the Biblical subjects.

Ok so the devil is a Lesbian? Then Jesus goes into hell and takes the devil's power. So does Jesus take over the power of a spirit that was once feminine?

Let's take the lesbian thing of the chaldeans out then. And thus if the devil was a predominantly male persona then God was smitten with this beautiful male spirit Lucifer and we all know that God has written his Bible to give himself predominantly male characteristics also even though God has no sex, like a eunuch.

Either way God's most beautiful angel is shown preference by God.

So either God's idea of beauty is a devil (depicted as male) or a lesbian (depicted as female).

When there is not supposed to be any sex in heaven. It sounds as thought God is walking in darkness.

We are told not to walk in darkness.

Walking in darkness is not the same as actually sinning. Walking in darkness is like being converted to christianity and quitting drinking alcohol but hanging every night in the bars trying to save souls. Couldn't they save souls at a laundromat instead?

Yet we see Jesus drinking and walking in darkness by the people he chose to associate himself with. We see him attiring himself with all of the garb of a homosexual. The celibacy, the flowers, the apostles (all male), friend of publicans and sinners, the wine drinking.

We see God living either with a male spirit in heaven as the most beautiful angel or this spirit had no desire for God's maleness and went for Eve's feminine.

So either way it is not so much the sexual choice but leaving God that was the problem.

Here is some of your trinity logic.

If God is the father of Jesus and he is also the son then he is the son and husband of Mary... THAT IS INCEST!

See we have a beautiful story (cynical) of this supposed triune God YET within this "story" we have HIDDEN and CONCEALED incest.

Should we believe the trinity with all of our heart? Should we believe that Jesus was both the son and husband of Mary? Not in my book anyway. The only mystery of the trinity is incest and idolatry.

Cunningly devised fables.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

. . . Also before God made Eden the devil was the most beautiful angel. God loved him and admired him above all else. . .

Where do you find these blockbuster revelations?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Kate does make a point, however, arsenokoite is not a word. It was coined by Paul and before that did not exist. There was already a word meaning homosexual or something similar to that in existence. If he really meant homosexual, he would have used one of those words instead of creating another.

All this goes to show is that the Bible can be interpreted many ways and no one way is better than the other, unless of course you really pervert what it says in the Bible like saying Jesus was Satan because he called himself Light-Bearer, which is what Lucifer means.

Jesus went into hell and in a battle with the angels triumphed over the devil so he took the devil's power of the heavens and became the most beautiful angel (or above the other angels). So God must desire his son over all other angels. God's desire...

Most of the devils powers today are imagined. Like God has set us free from our prisons but people choose to say behind bars anyway. People do not get release because they think they are unworthy of freedom or they think God is not able to free them.

The devil can still rule by imagination and fear, intimidation.

So if God is our father then who is our mother? God?

Why would God use a figure of speech attributing male characteristics it we were not to infer feminine characteristics also? Then doesn't this entire figure become a duality within God?

Why would God use the maternal and paternal if it only lead to dualism and imperceptibility of the people to understand the unity or oneness within him? God's maleness only divides the sexes.

It seems that God is beating around the bush rather than just being true to fact. He uses word figuratively rather than literal. WHY?

Do we not deserve to know the truth in plain constructs?

But God builds confusion so he can conceal the truth.

Maybe if we were to read the truth we would not believe it and we would instantly consider it a lie. But at least then we would know what we are being judged or rewarded for.

But these words are few and highly debatable. Instead of wielding off countless genealogies he could have been frank and stated IMPORTANT things more often if they were to be so pertinent.

They could have depicted a few public stoneings of homosexuals.

They could have had some adulterers stoned. But no just a few vague lines that do not define love but confuse love with "disease".

Flowery poetry condemning people, and no actual real incidents of "justice".

Like these great cities where perhaps thousands if not a million or so of people (supposedly) God wipes out because he can't stand their sin. "He" does that also in Noah's time.

Only one person out of thousands survives and then Lot later goes on to have sex with his daughters. Did God not foresee that in Lot's future? God is all knowing remember? Could not one of those millions in Sodom and Gomorrah have possibly redeemed their life over time?

So God spared Lot knowing he would do this act in the future and still Lot was worthy of saving? Again this story is a riddle.

How much worse then would the people of Sodom would have had to have been?

Lot had an excuse though, he was drunk... (We still have prisons for people like Lot today.)

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
. . . Also before God made Eden the devil was the most beautiful angel. God loved him and admired him above all else. . .
Where do you find these blockbuster revelations?

Lucifer was a snake in Eden... Would you have created your most beautiful angel in the form of a phallic symbol (serpent) if you were the true God?

Eden clearly reveals the devil in his/her fallen state.

0 Replies

wolf wrote

Quote:

arsenokoite is not a word. It was coined by Paul and before that did not exist. There was already a word meaning homosexual or something similar to that in existence. If he really meant homosexual, he would have used one of those words instead of creating another.

1. I have never heard this. Not even from liberal christian scholars that debate the creditibility of pauls words...Where did you get this information...was it from an accredited source?
2. Even if you are correct and this word was coined by Paul, it still doesn't negate the meaning. THe meaning is a man who has sex with another man. So even if paul made up this word, he still was clear on what was wrong in Gods eyes.
3. Even if you throw out this verse, you can't get past leviticus or romans which are specific.

Please don't think that i am in any way attacking homosexuals. I don't condemn any person, but i do believe homosexuality is a sin, no bigger than any other sin, but still wrong. As a christian, i believe the bible is clear on what is sinful in Gods eyes and I try to follow his teachings...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
. . . Also before God made Eden the devil was the most beautiful angel. God loved him and admired him above all else. . .
Where do you find these blockbuster revelations?

Lucifer was a snake in Eden... Would you have created your most beautiful angel in the form of a phallic symbol (serpent) if you were the true God?

Eden clearly reveals the devil in his/her fallen state.

Lucifer is not the name of the individual we call Satan. He was not created as a snake, but took the form of a serpent in order to deceive Eve.

0 Replies

Jesus Christ and Homosexuality.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know