In Search of Truth
"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)
 
 In Search of TruthIn Search Of Truth  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   Log inLog in 

homosexuality a sin?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
   In Search of Truth Forum Index -> Morality
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:09 pm    Post subject: MALOKOS
Lets assume malokos can mean effeminate....many heterosexual men are effeminate, will God send heterosexual men to hell who do housework, or do cookery or want to dance in ballet? Come on, thats silly. So already it actually does not even mean effeminate. No it is just soft really and can't mean homosexual anything since again the word homosexual did not exsist for ANYONE till 1869....this word has been ADDED into the bible and no one seems to mind that sin.

And even if arsenokotie is male-bed, it still can't mean same sex love, as lesbianism is still not a case in this text....sorry.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:52 pm    Post subject: just be patient for a second, please
email wrote:
Sadly the term sodomites does not help you less than before if thats the basis in your strongs concordance as sodomite is a term for anal sex in modern understandings and heterosexuals do practice anal sex, lesbians do not and not all gay men do. So the assumption arsenokotie is sodomite tells us more so its not homosexuality at all thats the sin, but any anal sex and not lesbians then or same sex romantic love still. If you hope its a sodomite, you loose more so, unless lesbianism is not a sin here.

So, you concede that anal sex is a sin? If not, why not, since that is at least part of the meaning of the words.

email wrote:
To begin, these ancient greek sorces are not bible terms...

Are you denying the accuracy and scholarship of these sources, especially in relation to ancient, New Testament Greek?

email wrote:
To begin, these ancient greek sorces are not bible terms, but lets look at them anyway since thats what you wish, they all talk about a clear definition, raw same sex acts, not same sex love, read them again. The case seems to be ONLY clear about lustful raw sex, and the whole bible talks against these acts....but for the millionth time, how do these relate to same sex romantic love as a sin? They don't, you just seem to want them to. Sex, lust and love are not all the same for heterosexuals, so its only fair to say the same thing back to homosexuals too.

What part of these definitions limit the meaning to "raw same sex acts, not same sex love"? The following definitions may include "raw same sex acts" and "lust", but there is no indication that they are limited to these things:

Ancient Greek authorities wrote:
  • arsenkoitai -
    • Thayer's NT Greek Lexicon – "1. one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual"
    • Friberg Arndt-Gingrich NT Lexicon – "an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast."
    • Young’s Analytical Concordance – "lying with a male"
    • Strong's Concise Greek Dictionary - "a sodomite"
    • Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon - "a homosexual"
    • Abridged Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon - "lying with men"
  • malakos -
    • Thayer’s NT Greek Lexicon – "1. soft, soft to the touch, 2. metaph. in a bad sense, a. effeminate (1) of a catamite (2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man (3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness (4) of a male prostitute"
    • Friberg Arndt-Gingrich NT Lexicon – soft; (1) of clothes soft (to the touch), delicate (LU 7.25); luxurious clothes (MT 11.8); (2) fig. of men, in a bad sense effeminate, unmanly; esp. of a man or boy who submits his body to homosexual lewdness catamite, pederast, sodomite (1C 6.9).
    • Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon - "(a) soft (b) homosexual"
    • Vine’s Expository Greek Dictionary – "soft, soft to the touch" (Lat., mollis, Eng., "mollify," "emollient," etc.), is used: (a) of raiment, Matt_11:8 (twice); Luke_7:25; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1 Cor 6:9, "effeminate," not simply of a male who practices forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.
    • Strong's Concise Dictionary - "of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite:--effeminate, soft."

Which of these definitions limit the application to "raw same sex acts"? Certainly, it may include "lusty" same-sex acts, but there is nothing here to suggest that it is the primary or only connotation. So, why are you saying these definitions are limited to that application? Are there other passages that specifically approve romantic, same-sex sexual relationships? Is there something in these definitions that say it only applies to this? All I see are very generic terms that apply to the physical act, regardless of the motive, thought, or heart: "1. one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual" - That's pretty generic is it not? Where is the description of the person's heart?

Now, let us reexamine the Bible passage to see if the context contains limiting phrases:

Paul, by the Holy Spirit, wrote:
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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians 6:9)

Is that not fairly generic? Where does it say, "Neither raw, lusty, homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God"? No, it just says, "effeminate, homosexuals". There is nothing here to excuse these acts under any circumstances, any more than fornication, adultery, covetousness, drunkenness, reviling, or extortion can be excused under any circumstances.

What do you see in this context to limit the application to "raw same sex acts"?

In the absence of any limiting phrase, either in the context or definition, there is therefore no reason to assume it is limited.

This answers the question you have asked many times over: Romantic same-sex acts are condemned in that all same sex acts are condemned, regardless of the motive, thought, or heart of those involved. The statement is blanket and general, covering all types of homosexual activities.

BTW, I have answered this several times previously, but it was apparently getting lost in the coverage of a multitude of points. That is part of the reason I hoped we could focus our attention on a single passage and point.

Once we get pass this hurdle, we can more easily examine your other questions, which I am deliberately ignoring for the time being, so we can answer the fundamental question first.
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:44 am    Post subject: ANAL SEX
Now we get to it a bit more, is anal sex a sin? I doubt it because we are not told if anal sex for heterosexuals is a sin are we. If a married couple in a committed relationship have anal sex (and belive me there are many who have anal sex!) is that a sin....and if so is sodomy a sin here? Well we are not told this info are we. In fact Im not sure we can say it is. Paul tells us that sex is vital in marrage so as not to stray, I think its in one of the corinthians chapters, so sex is vital in a heterosexual marrage, so sodomy can't be a sin or he would say so for heterosexuals....but no one did...did they?
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:46 am    Post subject: MALAKOS
Why is it not clear to you? These greek writers only talk on sex. Not love acts. Try to change these terms to heterosexuality and if they were talking about heterosexual acts you would see they are only about raw sex, not making love. Its quite clear to me and many others anyway. Lust is the issue here and not love....I hope you at leastknow the difference.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:46 am    Post subject: ARSENOKOTIE
The reason we KNOW the words arsenokotie and malokos do not mean same sex romantic love is because these words do NOT cover the term again! Malokos is soft as in soft or weak etc....not effeminate. If it can mean effeminate then even camp heterosexuals are condemned too. And thats just silly. Arsen is just male and okotie can mean couch, lier or so on, even if there is a same sex connection, it does not relate to same sex love anyway, and definatly does not cover lesbianism anyway period!
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:24 pm    Post subject: Re: ARSENOKOTIE
email wrote:
These greek writers only talk on sex. Not love acts. Try to change these terms to heterosexuality and if they were talking about heterosexual acts you would see they are only about raw sex, not making love. ... Lust is the issue here and not love.... The reason we KNOW the words arsenokotie and malokos do not mean same sex romantic love is because these words do NOT cover the term again!

Please state what part of the above verse or definition indicates the application is limited only to banning non-romantic acts? What implies that these acts would be acceptable, as long as you had a good motive in your heart, such as romantic love? You must forgive me that I do not accept your assertion.

Let me illustrate this another way: Where does God say that hating homosexuals is wrong? You have spoken passionately on this point, but I find no specific condemnation of hating homosexuals. Can you find a passage that specifically condemns this specific form of hatred? I only find the blanket, general condemnation of hating people, regardless of the specific reason. Hating people is wrong, regardless of the reason. (BTW, I don't a bit more hate homosexuals than you do, but how can you consistently apply Scripture in condemning those who do with one generic command without condemning homosexuals with another generic command?)

Likewise, I Corinthians 6:9 is a blanket condemnation of homosexual acts, regardless of the specific details of what is in one's heart. Can God not issue a broad command without having to specify every possible variation that falls underneath its umbrella?

I have provided a passage that offers a broad, general condemnation of homosexual activity. If you would like for me to approve of your dismissal, then please show me from the context, or the definitions, how this passage is necessarily limited in scope.

email wrote:
Malokos is soft as in soft or weak etc....not effeminate. If it can mean effeminate then even camp heterosexuals are condemned too. And thats just silly. Arsen is just male and okotie can mean couch, lier or so on, even if there is a same sex connection, it does not relate to same sex love anyway ...

Please look at the definition again. The one you have supplied is not consistent with the ancient Greek language. The lexicons and dictionaries specifically refers to sexual acts. Such people are feminine in their assumption of the female role in sexual relationships ("sodomite", "catamite", etc.). I too can make any interpretation absurd, if you allow me to redefine and twist at will the words involved. It becomes even easier if I am permitted to misrepresent the original interpretation (straw man attack).

email wrote:
Arsen is just male and okotie can mean couch, lier or so on, even if there is a same sex connection, it does not relate to same sex love anyway...

What justification do you have for solely using the etymology of the word and ignoring the definition as supplied by reputable, accepted ancient Greek scholars?

I do not have to supply a specific condemnation when a blanket condemnation has already been provided. Once you answer this satisfactorily, I will gladly answer your other questions. Why? Because if God condemns something, especially in general, then all the rationalization in the world will not make it right.
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: ARSENOKOTIE
There is no condemnation of just hating gay people obviously because the sin is JUST hate, any hate...no matter who or what all hate is a sin, thats why homophobia and heterosexism are sinful, because their very foundation is steeped in forms of hate or biggotry and mis understandings. So while its not just a sin to hate gay people, hate is a sin. Thats rather clear for anyone. But again I ask you to look at any biblical or early church wrtings and see that the condemnation is in raw lustful sex. When the bible talks against any heterosexual sin, look...its only against raw sex and lust for them also....whats to miss?
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:08 pm    Post subject: 1 COR 6
How is 1 cor 6 a blanket condemnation of homosexuality when the word arsenokotie only covers a male issue and not a female issue? Remember that arsen only means male or men. So even at best it can only ever cover male gay sex....not lesbianism. So no, you are still wrong to assume 1 cor 6 comes close to a whole condemnation of all things homosexual....sorry.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:09 pm    Post subject: ARSENOKOTIE
The dillemma you have is you use modern lexicons and dictionaries to prove your point on words like arsenokotie and malokos and therefore are at risk from modern biggotry. These words 2000 years ago ment different things to modern scholars today and sadly this is the trap you allow yourself to fall into. Again look at the facts, ancient greek had no word for homosexual. Yet you say they did. Eather historical facts are wrong or you are. Malokos is soft, not effeminate but if it is effeminate it can also mean any hetero male who is camp will fry in hell also. No its just soft, always was 2000 years ago. Why are you relying on modern understandings than historical facts?
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:24 pm    Post subject: Who are you?
email wrote:
There is no condemnation of just hating gay people obviously because the sin is JUST hate, any hate...no matter who or what all hate is a sin, thats why homophobia and heterosexism are sinful, because their very foundation is steeped in forms of hate or biggotry and mis understandings. So while its not just a sin to hate gay people, hate is a sin.

This is the very point. Clearly, you accepted the broad of rule of general condemnation, when it comes to hate. The same rule of interpretation applies here as well: God has generally condemned homosexual acts regardless of motive. Therefore, all homosexuality is sin, just as all hate is sin.

email wrote:
But again I ask you to look at any biblical or early church wrtings and see that the condemnation is in raw lustful sex. When the bible talks against any heterosexual sin, look...its only against raw sex and lust for them also....whats to miss?

Unfortunately, there are many people in the world, who misquote scholars. It could be accidental, or it could be prejudicial. The cause is not important. The fact remains that misquotes happen.

Therefore, if you want to use the early church "fathers" as a reference, please give me book, author, and page. Then, please explain why I should accept them over the clear teaching of the Bible. However, if you would like to use a Bible passage, please do not tell me what it means. Please give me book, chapter, and verse. I am sorry, but I do not accept "everyone is doing it" as a valid basis for my actions.

email wrote:
How is 1 cor 6 a blanket condemnation of homosexuality when the word arsenokotie only covers a male issue and not a female issue? Remember that arsen only means male or men. So even at best it can only ever cover male gay sex....not lesbianism.

This is flawed, just because it is based on the words' etymology - not the definition. However, if for the sake of discussion, I grant that this word could be limited to male homosexuality, would that change anything? I will limit myself to that point for now, just for the sake of brevity and clarity. However, I will continue to contend that the verse clearly condemns all forms of male homosexuality. Is this restrained point not consistent with this text?

email wrote:
The dillemma you have is you use modern lexicons and dictionaries to prove your point on words like arsenokotie and malokos and therefore are at risk from modern biggotry. These words 2000 years ago ment different things to modern scholars today and sadly this is the trap you allow yourself to fall into.

What are you expecting? An English dictionary penned by the apostle Paul? A Greek-English lexicon assembled by Peter? Any lexicon or dictionary that provides information in modern language, must therefore be written in modern times, by definition. What alternative would you suggest?

email wrote:
Again look at the facts, ancient greek had no word for homosexual. Yet you say they did. Eather historical facts are wrong or you are.

No, Strong, Thayer, Friberg, Arndt, Gingrich, Louw, Nida, Liddell, Scott, and Vine all say that the Greek word arsenkoitai generally meant "homosexual". If you want to challenge these men, then that it is fine. However, to make a respectable argument, please give your credentials, or provide a reputable reference to the contrary.

For starters, how many years have you been studying Greek? How many ancient works have you read in the original Greek? How many works have you translated into English? I would like to be able to examine your scholarship. Or, let us jump to the heart of the matter: Provide all the ancient Greek literature that you have discovered, in the form of title, author, page, and context, which uses arsenkoitai to refer to something besides homosexuality. Or, provide other contemporary Greek works that speak of homosexuality in detail, so we can understand how Greeks communicated or discussed the concept of homosexuality. After all, the Greeks were very sensual. Homosexuality abounded in both the Greek and Roman cultures. Therefore, they must have certainly at least mentioned it in some poetry, philosophy, or religious writing. For example, how did these church "fathers", which you previously mentioned, approve homosexuality without having a word for it? How do you even know that homosexuality was the topic of their writing, since they did not have a word for it?

email wrote:
Malokos is soft, not effeminate but if it is effeminate it can also mean any hetero male who is camp will fry in hell also. No its just soft, always was 2000 years ago. Why are you relying on modern understandings than historical facts?

You speak with such authority, so you should have no problem justifying your speech, considering you toss the world's best ancient Greek scholars out like they were simpletons.

How do you know what malakos meant 2000 years ago? Were you there? What credentials do you have to improve upon these men's scholarship?

Ignoring a multitude of Scriptures is understandable. It can be hard to work through all the passages in the heat of a debate, while pressured by prejudice. However, when one resorts to redefining words based on nothing but sheer "want to", and closing their eyes to an overwhelming amount of scholarship .... Surely you do not expect me to accept your word as fact, just because you said so (I Thessalonians 5:21).
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:28 pm    Post subject: HATE?
T5his really is weird, you again state clearly that God condemned all homosexual motives no matter what and yet there is no such text again to support this, you still have yet to find one text that tells us same sex romantic love is a sin.....its all well and good to say it is a sin anyway, but then I can say all cats are evil as the bible is silent on cats, so why can't I say this? Besides the fact its silly.....
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: ARSENOKOTIE
Good, at least you now can see your error in hoping 1 cor 6 was a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality when it can't be since arsen only means male or men. So at best you can hope it only condemns all male same sex acts, but sadly for you it does NOT include same sex romantic love....sorry. The term applies to man-lier, so at best you can assume it means all male same sex acts in raw sexual acts and does not refer to any same sex couples in loving committed relationships. It has nothing to do with this....sorry.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: Re: ARSENOKOTIE
I understand that it can be hard to find the origional meanings of terms written 2000 years ago, but the other parts of the bible speak themselves so I think its easy to say that from what evidence we do have that words HAVE indeed changed over 2000 years and there are facts, the best being no one had a word for "homosexual" till 1869 and yet here it is in modern bibles. Words written 2000 years ago magically now mean homosexual when they ment something else in Pauls day. Even if you look in other bibles you can see that scholars have a difficulty in translating malokos and arsenokotie...sorry!
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: 2000 YEARS AGO
Did you know that the early church did endorse same sex unions? Did you know the early church did not see homosexuality and same sex love as sins? Did you know to prove the case more so that even Jesus had extreamly little to say on the matter, in fact he said NOTHING against such things. The bible was looked on the way I see it now from what research Ive done. That it was silent on same sex love as a sin. More so now as science is proving...slowly mjind...that we are all born with sexual orientations which can not be changed.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:31 pm    Post subject: GREEK STUFF
Ive read tons into understanding greek and homosexuaolity to know my stuff at its basic level. I know no other greek litriture contains the word arsenokotie as it is a word Paul made up, and as the greeks had no word for homosexual, if they wanted to talk about it they had to use terms like hebrew of man lying with mankind as with a woman type remarks on same sex acts, but no, you won't find the word arsenokotie in any other greek litriture against or about any same sex issues. Go and see.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:33 pm    Post subject: MALOKOS
How do I know my claims are right? They are backed up by other bible texts, we KNOW malokos is soft as it clearly shows us in matt 11;8. You may hope it is effeminate, but the bible says otherwise. I find it odd you WANT it to have a gay indication....The bible is my authority. If you want to trust modern scholars you do this at your own risk.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:42 pm    Post subject:
I appreciate your time and earnestness in discussing this issue. Truly, I have pressed you on these points more than most; however, to do any less would have manifested the highest disregard for your soul. I hope and pray that the future will afford you an opportunity to revisit these thoughts with an open mind.

May God bless us both with a sincere and effective love of the truth and of Him.
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm    Post subject: IS THAT IT?
Does this mean you have ran out of evidence to prove same sex romantic love is a sin? What of the science evidence we now have to prove same sex attraction is something some are born with? What of the evidence that the ex gay movement has not managed to change anyone homosexual to heterosexual? What of the fact that many gay people suffer because of the anti gay theology? What of the bibles silence on same sex marrages or love being sinful? And yet we say they are anyway. Is this good, wholesome and Christian?
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:12 pm    Post subject: is that all? for you, yes
email wrote:
Does this mean you have ran out of evidence to prove same sex romantic love is a sin? What of the science evidence we now have to prove same sex attraction is something some are born with? What of the evidence that the ex gay movement has not managed to change anyone homosexual to heterosexual? What of the fact that many gay people suffer because of the anti gay theology? What of the bibles silence on same sex marrages or love being sinful? And yet we say they are anyway. Is this good, wholesome and Christian?

I do not visit this site to argue, win debates, or convert people to my group. I certainly did not come here to bang my head on a brick wall. I cannot speak for the forum owner and moderators, but I do not think this is the goal of this site either.

I try to be an honest truthseeker. I believe honest truthseekers are willing to engage in challenging discussions, but yet the goal should always be to arrive at the truth, not win a debate. This involves asking questions, providing answers, admitting weaknesses, and addressing strengths of each other's understanding.

If someone stumbles upon this thread and has questions. I would gladly hear, consider, and answer any and all evidence, even if it results in the surrender of my current beliefs. Although we may initially disagree, I would patiently do my part to work through our differences to arrive at a common understanding of the truth, whatever that might be. I honestly believe that we may indeed help each other (Proverbs 27:17), if we are all amenable to patiently and diligently working through our disagreements.

As for you, I answered all your questions many times over, but you were unwilling to fairly and honestly address them. If I had not answered them 5 times or more, I might feel guilty. If you had honestly faced my arguments, I could at least respect your integrity. If you had answered with something more than assertion, we might have been able to enjoy a discussion. But instead, all I can offer you is this evidence, "Go and prosper, for the LORD will deliver it into the hand of the king!" (I Kings 22:15 – http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/he_who_has_an_ear.html)

If something happens that causes you to reevaluate things, and you decide that you really want to talk about this, let me know.
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:22 am    Post subject: Re: IS THAT IT?
But you have only shown me the bible talks against same sex lust, passions, idolotry, prostitution and so on. You have not yet managed to show me where the bible condemns same sex romantic love. Also remember I can claim the same thing as you and say I did not come to bang my head against a brick wall etc, but I think Jesus is worth it. Id have thought you did. I can also say that you can come back when you wish to re evaluate your stance, but I don't need to as I proved that the texts you sent me so far do not mention same sex love as a sin. You will be in my prayers and I hope one day you can repent of your sin of homophobia.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject: Re: IS THAT IT?
Looks like the threads gone bear, is that the end of it? Does no one know where the bible condemns same sex romantic love then????
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:17 pm    Post subject: Proverbs 26:5
email wrote:
But you have only shown me the bible talks against same sex lust, passions, idolotry, prostitution and so on. You have not yet managed to show me where the bible condemns same sex romantic love.

You are very right. But, then again, it is impossible to show a person anything when they have their eyes clinched tight.

Previously, you claimed a word was inserted into the text. However, you are guilty of the very same fault here, which is the crux of your flawed position. Where does "lust" show up in "same sex lust" in I Corinthians 6:9? It doesn't! You inserted it! By your insertion of this word and thought, you are artificially limiting the broad, general application of this passage. As I already asked many times, how can you limit the broad application of I Corinthians 6:9? The passage clearly condemns ALL forms of male homosexual acts, regardless of the heart. This therefore includes and condemns same-sex "romantic" sex. The act is condemned - period. Your romantic love is a smokescreen. -- Don't just give me an answer based on your opinion. Show me from the text!

Since male same-sex sexual activity is generally condemned, the burden falls upon you to find a passage to specifically approve, what is otherwise generally condemned.

email wrote:
Also remember I can claim the same thing as you and say I did not come to bang my head against a brick wall etc, but I think Jesus is worth it.

You have not yet dealt honestly with my questions, and you are taking the high moral ground!? When will you WAKE UP and OPEN YOUR EYES (Matthew 13:12-15)!? Jesus did not ask Christians to debate with the obstinate until they were wore out. In fact, He warned against wasting time with people who would not listen (Matthew 7:6). He also provided examples of "withstanding" people "to their face", who are being stiff-necked, stubborn, and dishonest (Galatians 2:11-14; Acts 7:51-60). It is because I love Him that I am moving on. It is because I love you that I will not tolerate your appalling, dishonest treatment of God’s Word.

email wrote:
... as I proved that the texts you sent me so far do not mention same sex love as a sin.

No – they condemn all same sex acts. Whether it is done out of "romantic love" or "lust", it makes no difference. Same sex acts ("homo-sexuality") are condemned – period (I Corinthians 6:9-10).

email wrote:
FASINATING! Like all who suffer in homophobia or heterosexism you assume Im gay. Did I tell you what my sexuality is? .... Yes you did assume I was gay in a subtle way by saying you have no issues with my sexuality as if hinting you assume Im gay because I support gay people which is what most do who suffer in homophobia. ... You will be in my prayers and I hope one day you can repent of your sin of homophobia.

Who is guilty of assumption here? I never assumed you were a homosexual, despite your accusation. But, you have clearly assumed that I hate or fear homosexuals, just because I don't approve homosexual activity. That is awfully presumptuous and incredibly irrational.

If I understand adultery to be wrong, does that make me an adulterphobe? If I comprehend that the Bible condemns stealing, does that make me a cleptophobe? If I read a passage that condemns lying, does that mean I hate people who lie? That is a pathetic assumption and smokescreen, hiding the real issue.

...

I reread our exchange. As a summary, here are the condensed arguments and questions that you and I raised:

Me:
  1. homosexuality is wrong because it is condemned in Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, and I Timothy 1:8-11.
You:
  1. These passages do not specifically condemn same sex romantic love. God therefore approves homosexual acts as part of a permanent relationship, characterized by fidelity.
  2. These passage mention lust and idolatry; therefore, the application is limited to lust-driven, idolatrous acts.
  3. Some animals are naturally homosexual; therefore, homosexuality is natural for humans.
  4. Scientists have "proven" that homosexuality is genetic, although we "are still waiting on the evidence"; therefore, homosexuals are not responsible for fulfilling these desires.
  5. Matthew 19:10-12 proves that sexual orientation is natural and therefore, we are not accountable for it.
  6. Since gay people are naturally born gay, Romans 1:26-27 must not be applicable to them, since it is believed to be natural for them to have homosexual relations.
  7. I Corinthians 6:9 is a bad translation. There is some variance in translations. Therefore, it dos not apply.
  8. The English word "homosexuality" was not used in a Bible translation until 1869; therefore, the idea of "homosexuality" was not condemned until it was inserted by prejudiced translators in 1869.
  9. I understand Greek better than Strong, Thayer, Friberg, Arndt, Gingrich, Louw, Nida, Liddell, Scott, and Vine; therefore, my definition of ancient Greek words should be preferred over their published and accepted works which clearly define malakos and arsenkoitai as “effeminate” and “homosexual”.
  10. True love is never a sin; therefore, sexual relations enjoyed by partners engaged in true love can never be a sin.
  11. No one has ever been able to stop being homosexual (i.e., repent of it); therefore, we are not accountable for it.
Me:
  1. Romans 1:26-27 speaks of a single, universal nature for women and men. It leaves no room for a personalized nature, or even alternative variant natures. There is one nature for the woman, and one nature for the man. Therefore, claims to the contrary are in error. Moreover, I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:8-11 generally condemn same-gender sexual acts. Therefore, specific variances fall under this general umbrella of disapproval.
  2. These passages mention lots of sins, such as adultery, murder, stealing, ingratitude, etc. Are these acts only sinful, when committed in the context of idolatry? Just because other words appear in the same context, you cannot assume they are necessarily mutually dependent. You need something in the context to necessarily relate their dependency. Plus the context refutes this argument, as detailed above.
  3. Just because something is natural for animals, that does not make it natural for humans. Many species are purely monogamous and heterosexual. Inconsistency between species makes it impossible to assume that what is natural for one species is natural for another, especially humans.
  4. Science has proven nothing on this point. Only conjecture exists. Remember even you said that “we are waiting for the evidence”. Science operates on evidence. Only hope can operate where evidence does not yet exist.
  5. Matthew 19:10-12 only proves that some people are born eunuchs, as an explanation to why some people do not marry and have sexual relations. This passage has nothing to do with homosexuals. It does not even mention the concept - unless homosexuals dismiss marriage and are willing to accept celibacy like a eunuch, which is the only alternative to heterosexual marriage, provided by Jesus in the passage.
  6. There is no basis for accepting that people are born gay, except personal experience and opinion, which is highly subjective. Since the basis for the point is flawed assumption, the conclusion is also dubious. Plus, the passage specifically mandates a single, universal nature. This is prejudiced interpretation – eisagesis.
  7. Although some variance exist among translations of I Corinthians 6:9, the intent is clear. The best ancient Greek lexicons and dictionaries are clear. Even if some freedom is granted, it cannot be denied that arsenkoitai refers to generic, sexual relations between men.
  8. The original text and its meaning is not defined by any translation, especially modern. The best lexicons clearly define the words as relating to homosexual activity, even specifically condemning males serving as the female. The fact that many translations support this only corroborates this fact.
  9. Please present credentials and ancient Greek texts supporting assertion.
  10. True love never asks the partner to sin. Beside, this excuse cannot be consistently maintained. Christians cannot have sexual relations with every person they love, even if the love is true and transcendent. Sexual relations are a privilege for certain relations as defined by God (Genesis 2:18-24).
  11. The assertion that people have not repented from this act is both erroneous and irrelevant. The Corinthian church contained people that used to be homosexuals and effeminate (“such were some of you” I Corinthians 6:9-10). However, even if this assertion were true, it would not change one’s guilt before God. Few people repent from drug addiction, alcoholism, pornography, etc., but that does not mean they have to do it. It certainly does not imply they are unaccountable. Don’t forget God wiped out all of the people in Noah’s day, save a few souls – only 8 (I Peter 3:20-21). If the majority of people fail, it does not relieve them of any responsibility (Matthew 7:13-14). God does not grade on a curve.
Ample text has been provided, which condemns same-gender sexual acts. All of your arguments have been logically answered. Yet, you have clearly chosen not to see. Since you are irrationally launching character assaults and non sequitur arguments, there is nothing left that I can say. Since I cannot force you to open your eyes, there is nothing left that I can do.

If someone else would like to honestly discuss some other aspect of the previous correspondence, I would be happy to patiently consider another's questions or comments.
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:10 pm    Post subject: 1 COR 6
1 COR 6's word arsenokotie is not homosexual. Ancient greek had no word for homosexual as no one did till 1869, Im sorry you don't want to see facts but that is fact. This word is one Paul made up out of arsen, man and okotie bedders, so its male bedders and this word can mean BOTH hetero and homo, a man who sleeps around. It seems that you want it to JUST mean homosexual but sorry it never did 2000 years ago. So Ill stick with its obvious translation of a man bedder, he who sleeps around. This is straight folk to then.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:12 pm    Post subject: Re: IS THAT IT?
You keep saying all same sex acts are generally condemned, when you have seen same sex romantic love is never an issue, if it were God would also condemn David and Jonathan but he blessed their love. Love you see is not, nor ever can be a sin, where there is love, there is God, so in a 2 man or 2 women loving relationship, there is God also. Otherwise if love were a sin or same sex love, we would have been told somewhere in Gods word, so where is it?
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:13 pm    Post subject: LOVE
Im intollerant of Gods word when I belive love is never a sin and you do? The early church did same sex unions, the early Christians had nothing to say against same sex love, the bible is silent on love being a sin at all and you say Im twisting Gods word, sadly you need a reality check and repent from trying to make hate a good thing. Hate will thankfuly always be a sin....you will one day see, I just hope its not at judgment day. Im praying for your sin to be removed.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: (love != sex) && (sex != love)
email wrote:
You keep saying all same sex acts are generally condemned, when you have seen same sex romantic love is never an issue, if it were God would also condemn David and Jonathan but he blessed their love. Love you see is not, nor ever can be a sin ... Otherwise if love were a sin or same sex love, we would have been told somewhere in Gods word, so where is it?

There is a great assumption and fallacy in this logic. Please allow me to condense and reword, such as to expose the error of this thinking:

m273p15c, summarizing email, wrote:
“Love cannot be sin; therefore, even homosexual love cannot be sin.”

Did you catch that leap? Did you see where the train left the tracks? Please allow me to expand further, to ensure that we all see the error more clearly:

m273p15c, further summarizing email, wrote:
“Love cannot be sin. Sex is an inseparable expression of love. Therefore, homo-gender sexual activity, as an expression of love, cannot be sin.”

Can you see the fallacy now? The writer assumes if it is acceptable to love someone, then it is acceptable to have sex with him or her! The fallacy occurs when one subtly shifts from “love” to “sex”. In fact, this transition occurs without even mentioning sex in the above paragraph.

The same assumption is the root of the erroneous usage of David’s and Jonathan’s love to exemplify and condone homosexuality. Indeed, David and Jonathan were both men. And, truly they were great friends, willing to risk their lives for each other (I Samuel 18:1-4; 19:1-7; 20:1-42; 23:15-18; II Samuel 1:1-27). They shared great love, but that does not necessarily mandate that they had a sexual relationship. Moreover, although the Bible is replete with numerous references to their concern for each other, no where does the Bible state or imply that they had a sexual relation. If the case of David and Jonathan prove anything, it proves that two men can be friends and experience the highest form of love without engaging in homosexual activity.

Not only is the assumption greatly flawed, but it also cheapens love by placing sexual activity at the pinnacle of love’s expression, denying its existence without such activity. The following questions should illuminate the absurdity of this assumption even further:

Christian males are to love the women of the church. Can they have sex with every woman in the church? No! Therefore, love does not necessarily authorize sexual relations.

Can a man and wife love each other intimately and profoundly, even though they do not have sexual relations? Yes. Therefore, love may be enjoyed without sex.

Sex and love are separable. The assumption that mutually links them is erroneous; therefore, the conclusion is in error. Two men may love each other. God may approve their love. However, that does not necessarily authorize sexual relations, because one does not necessarily follow the other (non sequitur). Conversely, God may condemn their homosexual activity, without condemning their love for each other.

The writer will surely answer these questions; however, he cannot do so without recognizing an exception for the above cases. In so doing, he will surrender the necessary link between the two, aborting his own argument, even if he does not realize it.
Back to top
email
Non-Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:28 am    Post subject: SEX N LOVE
Ive never said sex is love or has to be part of love, but romantic love usually is making love as well. Now if sex is not that important why do all heterosexual couples in love have sex? It shows sex is and can be a part of a monogomus, caring and loving relationship. Love is only a sin if it abuses or hurts another as in rape, adultery and so on. But where does anyone get hurt or abused in a loving and caring relationship...see how yourt own logic is massivly flawed now!
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:43 pm    Post subject: (!pain != love) && (love != !pain) or sometimes love
email wrote:
Ive never said sex is love or has to be part of love, but romantic love usually is making love as well. Now if sex is not that important why do all heterosexual couples in love have sex? It shows sex is and can be a part of a monogomus, caring and loving relationship.

As predicted, the writer fails to provide a case for the necessary and inseparable link between love and sex. He effectively surrenders the point by shifting to a new argument; however, since he has not explicitly and verbally conceded the point, he is privately retaining the right to reuse the argument again. It would be no surprise to see it resurface in later writings, even though the error of his reasoning has already been exposed. Now let us examine the new argument:

email wrote:
Love is only a sin if it abuses or hurts another as in rape, adultery and so on. But where does anyone get hurt or abused in a loving and caring relationship

First, notice how he is keeping his foot in the door, by equating love with sex. What he means is, "Sex is only a sin if it abuses or hurts another as in rape, adultery and so on."

Second, notice how he rationalizes the relationship: "It does not hurt anybody, so it cannot be sin." First we might ask, "Where is the Scriptural basis for such rationalization?" However, the writer has already proven that he is not concerned with Scriptural justification, else he would not resort to his own reasoning as a basis for morality. Therefore, it would be best to continue to expose inconsistencies in his logic, which render it a useless rule, in a manner similar to the last post. For example:

What if people have pre-marrital sex? Is that a sin? They are not hurting anybody, assuming they are doing it out of "a loving and caring relationship"? However, the Bible clearly condemns sexual relationships outside of marriage (Hebrews 13:4; Ephesians 3:5-8).

What about people who have agreed upon an "open marriage"? In such a marriage, the partners accept and approve adultery. It does not hurt, because there is no betrayal - both are doing it.

Let us go even further, would it be a sin for couples to participate in "swinging", where the couples exchange partners, even participate in group orgies? They are not hurting each other, because they accept, approve, and even share their extra-marriatal affairs! Or, would the writer accept spouse swapping, if it was limited to a smaller circle of "caring and loving" friends? Is this not sin!? Of course it is! But yet, according to the writer's rationalization, this would have to be acceptable. The absurdity is obvious to all who are willing to see it.

I would expect the writer to argue that these are exceptions to his rule, because they involve lust, or because they are strictly condemned. However, he will once again have to concede that several exceptions exist for his rule. The existance of these exceptions mandate that one must consider other passages or moral principles. In other words, this rule is not sufficient justification in and of itself. Therefore, it also is not a necessary justification. Just because some sexual expression of love does not hurt somebody, it does not necessarily ratify God's approval.

On the flip side, is it a sin, when a young, dating couple "breaks up"? It is very painful, so would it not be sinful for dating teenagers to break up? What about a married couple working through painful differences? Does it become sin, if pain is introduced in the relationship? Even if it makes the relationship better? Just as the absence of pain and hurt does not justify a relationship, neither does the existence of pain make anything sinful.

When one begins to rationalize, so that he may vindicate a sinful practice, he will ultimately open the door wide enough to approve his cherished practice; however, he will invariably allow more immorality to escape through the open door than he intended. Plus, he will likely condemn obviously acceptable practices, as demonstrated here.

If one has moved beyond Scripture and resorted to rationalization, and he will not recognize the difficulties produced by his own rational