Banned from Debates/Discussions/Chat for being Pro-Gay (Jesus, reject)

[rainbowchristianqld]

Originally Posted by Steve

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 Corinthians 6:9-11

As long as we're on the subject of "Using (or abusing) verses", let's point out that it states "Homosexual Offenders". In your eyes, what is a "Homosexual Offender"? Then, In your eyes, what is a "Heterosexual Offender" ? Would you agree that it someone who does something "offensive" e.g. rape? Most gay people I know, are not homosexual offenders (the same goes for my heterosexual friends)... So why this verse is used in most homosexual related threads is beyond me....

It's just stating offenders. At the beginning - it seems (from this translation) that the heterosexual sexual offenses are first, then (so the homosexual people around don't think they're outside those laws, because they're not hetero), they added "Homosexual Offenders". As if to say "As above, but to homosexuals as well".

I know this is a fairly simple view, and things were far from simple in the time this was written.
The term "Homosexual" didn't come around till hundreds of years later... so it is easy to say that the translater had a hand in how it was to come across (especially when you look at the other translations). Thus, this is quite a grey area.

[Mister Emu]

it is easy to say that the translater had a hand in how it was to come across

How true, like the difference between the earlier posted version and the KJV.

Originally Posted by King James

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, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11

Originally Posted by Rainbowchristian

I just find it strange that someone can put love (and comitting acts of love) in the same boat as someone... adulterous

If the adulterers are in love does that make it ok?

[CMIYC]

I personally think that Christianity has abused the bible to the most intolerable level.

Christians have taken what was once riches and turn it into a comedy show, through orientating far too much around love, and forgotten what is right and riches.



There are several reasons why homosexuality should not be accepted into Christianity.

First: it is orientated around sexuality and there is more to life then sexuality. Yes, sexuality is very important part, if it is used for the purpose it was intended for. But to use your sexuality for entertainment without intent to reproduce, is a direct insult against god. Jesus is not all about love. Out of love he gave his life and that was not for someone to keep sinning. In a homosexual relationship this is exactly the opposite to repentance of a sin, it is a continuous sin.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by rainbowchristianqld

Thanx mate, I think it came out the way you intended, so it's all good.

I do beleive we need to repent from our sins, but the Jesus in my life (i'm pretty sure he's the same that's in yours) doesn't see my "Orientation" as a sin. I know when I'm doing something sinful, but having feelings of attraction, love or soulfelt connection isn't one of them.

God Bless

I quite agree with you. Your 'orientation' is no sin - it's a temptation. I have a tendency to become easily angered. This in itself is no sin. If I go around hurting people because I believe that my passion is natural and normal and therefore somehow good, I would become a profligate sinner. I don't do this, but with Christ's help, have battled my passions for several years - and I repent every time I fall.

My cross (anger) is no different (in principle) than your cross of homosexuality. If you battle with it and try not to sin and sincerely repent when you fall then you are a perfectly good Christian. If, however, you deliberately indulge your passion or, worse yet, insincerely repent when you have no intention of changing your behaviour, then you are no Christian at all. Of course, if you genuinely do not understand homosexual acts to be a sin (but even if they were not expressly condemned how could they not be, given that all sex outside of marriage is sin?) then your position is not so bad, but to wilfully engage in something you know to be a sin is to exclude yourself from Christianity.

If you really think that Scriptures are twisted to condemn homosexual sex (and not homosexual orientation - I agree that some twist them for that purpose) then I hope that you can produce some examples of those passages you claim condone homosexuality and can counter the arguments of those of us who believe Holy Scripture (and in my case, at least, Holy Tradition) condemns acts of homosexual sex.

I would note that Christ didn't just accept all as he found them and while He most certainly accepted and forgave sinners, He also told them to go and sin no more.

James

[CMIYC]

Romans 1:24-32 NLT)So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

[rainbowchristianqld]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

Of course, if you genuinely do not understand homosexual acts to be a sin (but even if they were not expressly condemned how could they not be, given that all sex outside of marriage is sin?) then your position is not so bad, but to wilfully engage in something you know to be a sin is to exclude yourself from Christianity.

My view is that homosexual sex within a committed (blessed) relationship, marriage
etc.. is not a sin.

The ways of "Marriage" have changed enormously also. Biblicly, marriage need only be confirmed by the blood on the sheets after the 2 had sex.

----
Deuteronomy 22:13-19
16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,
----

If the girl was not a virgin (and there was no blood on the cloth), the marriage would not be final. (This happens with gay men and lesbians too on their "first time").

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

If you really think that Scriptures are twisted to condemn homosexual sex (and not homosexual orientation - I agree that some twist them for that purpose) then I hope that you can produce some examples of those passages you claim condone homosexuality and can counter the arguments of those of us who believe Holy Scripture (and in my case, at least, Holy Tradition) condemns acts of homosexual sex.

1 Peter 4:8
8Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
(no mention of the gender of the people involved)

1 Samuel 18:1-4
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Two naked men hugging and "became one in spirit" with whom they "Loved as himself", what else could that mean?

And ofcourse "Love thy neighbour"

[rainbowchristianqld]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

If the adulterers are in love does that make it ok?

I don't think I said that it was okay previously... So, No, It's not okay.
However a Blessed/Married relationship between 2 committed people is.

[James the Persian]

I'm not going into the whole marriage thing. I think it's abundantly clear from Scripture and Holy Tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman and I think you are stretching somewhat here. As to the virginity thing. This is only saying that you can't annul a marriage because you sleep with a girl and then claim she wasn't a virgin. It doesn't say that marriage to a non-virgin is invalid. If that were the case, how would you explain the marriages referred to in the New Testament of younger brothers to their deceased brothers' widows?

Originally Posted by rainbowchristianqld

1 Peter 4:8
8Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
(no mention of the gender of the people involved)

The word for love used here is agape in the Greek, which specifically excludes sexual love, and therefore does not support your position at all. Sexual acts are not included in the term agape but in the term eros, which clearly is not used in this passage. Agape can indeed be shared by people of the same gender, but it seems that you are allowing English's paucity of terms for love to colour your judgement here.

Originally Posted by rainbowchristianqld

1 Samuel 18:1-4
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Two naked men hugging and "became one in spirit" with whom they "Loved as himself", what else could that mean?

I'm not going to go into Hebrew because I know very little about the language, but it seems to me that this could mean any number of things - brotherly love being the most rather than least likely. In actual fact, the Septuagint version (Greek pre-Christian) does not use eros in translating 'love' in 1 Samuel 18:1 either, and the KJV rendering is far closer to the Greek than the version you quoted:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

Doesn't sound terribly physical to me, though if you omit the talk of souls I can see how you might see it as such.

In addition, in ancient cultures nudity did not necessarily have a sexual connotation (see ancient Greek athletes, for instance) and I fail to see where you read your two naked men hugging either. All I can see is that Jonathan loved Davisd so much that he gave all his possessions, even his clothes, to him. Hugging isn't even mentioned.

Originally Posted by rainbowchristianqld

And of course "Love thy neighbour"

Ditto my comment on 1 Peter. It seems to me that you are grasping at straws to justify your behaviour rather than fight your passions. Much as if I were to argue from Christ's anger at the money lenders in the temple that it would be right for me to indulge my own passion. Unfortunately re-interpreting an isolated passage to mean something explicitly condemned elsewhere is not a valid approach to interpreting the Scriptures (or any other text).

James

[rainbowchristianqld]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

I'm not going into the whole marriage thing. I think it's abundantly clear from Scripture and Holy Tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman and I think you are stretching somewhat here. As to the virginity thing. This is only saying that you can't annul a marriage because you sleep with a girl and then claim she wasn't a virgin. It doesn't say that marriage to a non-virgin is invalid. If that were the case, how would you explain the marriages referred to in the New Testament of younger brothers to their deceased brothers' widows?

I was giving it as an example of how Marriage has changed in the last several thousand years, which you've just clarified with your NT quote... yet the original marriages were just as valid as the ones today (including the homosexual ones... just another change in marriage).

The word for love used here is agape in the Greek, which specifically excludes sexual love, and therefore does not support your position at all. Sexual acts are not included in the term agape but in the term eros, which clearly is not used in this passage. Agape can indeed be shared by people of the same gender, but it seems that you are allowing English's paucity of terms for love to colour your judgement here.

I don't know Greek, so i'm forced to beleive you... I can quote about 20 other passages in the Bible stating "Love" without stating the genders if you want. The point is, we're called to love eachother. The fact that it says "Love eachother Deeply", that's a pretty strong love in my eyes.

Would you like me to find some "translations" of the words used for "Homosexuals" in the Bible? you'll find that they don't actually talk about "homosexual people" or "homosexual sex, in general".

I'm not going to go into Hebrew because I know very little about the language, but it seems to me that this could mean any number of things - brotherly love being the most rather than least likely. In actual fact, the Septuagint version (Greek pre-Christian) does not use eros in translating 'love' in 1 Samuel 18:1 either, and the KJV rendering is far closer to the Greek than the version you quoted:...............

Doesn't sound terribly physical to me, though if you omit the talk of souls I can see how you might see it as such.

Thank you for agreeing with me.... in your own way....

---
2 Samuel 1:26
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

---

How about this one? This kind of suggests that he loved Jonathan more than he did any woman...

In addition, in ancient cultures nudity did not necessarily have a sexual connotation (see ancient Greek athletes, for instance) and I fail to see where you read your two naked men hugging either. All I can see is that Jonathan loved Davisd so much that he gave all his possessions, even his clothes, to him.

While we're on the subject of "In Ancient Cultures" or "Reading it in the context of the time", maybe you should have a look at Gen, Lev, Rom, Cor and Tim again and put them in the context of Levitical, Roman, Corinthian etc.. times.. and see how they relate to people in the 21st Century... you might not beleive it, but it - the situations of the surposed "Homosexuals" in those passages were not loving or committed, they were dirty, lustful, cult followers, prostitutes, idol worshippers, rapests, abusers of servant boys (soft ones), abusers of them selves with "Mankind" meaning they had more than 1 male partner.
The absence of committed relationships (Apart from David and Jonothan) in the Bible suggests that it was beleived (as many Christians today beleive), that Loving/comitted homosexual relationships don't exist... Either that or (just like today) there were very few... possibly less than 10% of the population who had a homosexual orientation.

[James the Persian]

OK. I can see that you're just not getting it. The love between two men mentioned in the Bible is always (to my knowledge) rendered using agape in Greek, not eros. This includes that from your OT examples when translated into Greek (which was done by Jews, not Christians and prior to Christ's Incarnation). The examples that you give, then, do not bolster your case at all as they specifically preclude sexual love. Adding more examples of the same won't alter this.

You do have a point with relation to the times the Scriptures were written in (homosexual acts being, generally, promiscuous and often associated with pagan cults) but I feel that you are drawing conclusions that are not warranted. I said to you from the start that homosexuality is not a sin and, as homosexual sex acts were often accepted as part of normal sexual behaviour in ancient cultures, for instance Greece and Rome, there was actually no concept of an exclusively homosexual person to condemn. It was not and is not considered sinful to be attracted to members of the