Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:18 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
I still don't get why Jesus would think homosexuality would be wrong in the first place. How does being gay affect how you treat everyone else?
  #52  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:27 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
Jesus treated sin as sin. In John 8:1-11

John 8 New International Version (NIV)

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

So Jesus told them "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Quickly all the men walked away. What was their sin? Maybe it was theft. Maybe they had cheated on their wives or with anothers wife. Maybe it was alcohol abuse. maybe it was homosexuality. It doesnt matter. They had sin in their lives and they knew it. When all had left he told the woman to "go and live your life without sin.

Problem is for far too long homosexuality has been given too much of a spotlight and attention from "Christians" when far more other sins were ignored. For too long Christians had the idea they could be sinners throughout the week but still good christians on sunday. I remember watching "Hee Haw" with the scantily clad women and the sexual innuendos and the songs glorifying drinking- well that was ok because the show ended with someone singing a Christian song.

The truth is Jesus called us to "sin no more" and to live sinless lives everyday and to love and care for our neighbors.
  #53  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:28 AM
FriarTed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: IN USA
Posts: 13,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I still don't get why Jesus would think homosexuality would be wrong in the first place. How does being gay affect how you treat everyone else?
Let's assume that Jesus was just a man of his time & place, a Torah-believing Jew who had compassion for people who violated the rules but who called people to come back to the God of Torah & was toughest on those who made life difficult for people struggling to be faithful. Torah condemns same-sex relations in the same section in which it condemns adultery, incest, bestiality, & child-sacrifice.
What makes you think that Jesus would isolate that particular violation from that section of Torah & be OK with it?
__________________
Charter Member, no matter what it says above.
  #54  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:08 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriarTed View Post
Let's assume that Jesus was just a man of his time & place, a Torah-believing Jew who had compassion for people who violated the rules but who called people to come back to the God of Torah & was toughest on those who made life difficult for people struggling to be faithful. Torah condemns same-sex relations in the same section in which it condemns adultery, incest, bestiality, & child-sacrifice.
What makes you think that Jesus would isolate that particular violation from that section of Torah & be OK with it?
So he would believe it to be a sin because of the cultural and religious standards of his time and place? If and when he comes back, what could we expect once he takes a look around and sees that those standards have evolved? How does making homosexuality a "sin" bring people back to God?
  #55  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:28 AM
FriarTed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: IN USA
Posts: 13,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
So he would believe it to be a sin because of the cultural and religious standards of his time and place? If and when he comes back, what could we expect once he takes a look around and sees that those standards have evolved? How does making homosexuality a "sin" bring people back to God?
I don't think Jesus believed same-sex relations to be a sin only because of the standards of his day. I just said that if he was just a man, there is no reason that he would think differently than what the standards of his day was, but that he would probably be kinder & more forgiving about it. I think Jesus held that to be a sin because He was the Express Agent of YHVH God. And no, if He came back, I don't think He'd change His mind because culture has changed. His Return would be to judge the culture, not to be judged by it.
__________________
Charter Member, no matter what it says above.
  #56  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:41 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriarTed View Post
Can't it be both?
Sure it can. That’d be equivalent to abstinence, practiced by some heterosexuals.
  #57  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:22 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriarTed View Post
I don't think Jesus believed same-sex relations to be a sin only because of the standards of his day. I just said that if he was just a man, there is no reason that he would think differently than what the standards of his day was, but that he would probably be kinder & more forgiving about it. I think Jesus held that to be a sin because He was the Express Agent of YHVH God. And no, if He came back, I don't think He'd change His mind because culture has changed. His Return would be to judge the culture, not to be judged by it.
The sentence I bolded sounds circular in nature and awfully close to "I think God said it, therefore it must be true."

If Jesus wants to be taken seriously when he comes back, then he needs to back off the people his daddy made different. I think you're interpreting sin from your own perspective and not his.
  #58  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:27 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
So he would believe it to be a sin because of the cultural and religious standards of his time and place? If and when he comes back, what could we expect once he takes a look around and sees that those standards have evolved? How does making homosexuality a "sin" bring people back to God?
This is saying "God needs to bend to accommodate human culture."
  #59  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:42 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is saying "God needs to bend to accommodate human culture."
If such an entity exists, it has always done exactly that.
  #60  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:43 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriarTed View Post
Can't it be both?
No. If something is innate, then it cannot also be an activity someone chooses to practice. I am white. I cannot practice being white. I just am white. I am male. I cannot practice being male. And I am straight, and I cannot practice being straight. I am cisgender. I cannot practice being cisgender.

I make no choice to be straight. Gay people make no choice to be gay.

Oh, and since you're Assembly of God, I can make a specific argument for why homosexuality is not a sin: Gay people can speak in tongues. They receive the infilling of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

And the Lord God is one. If one person of the Trinity is okay with them, then so would Jesus be.
  #61  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:54 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is saying "God needs to bend to accommodate human culture."
And God does that. Remember how often Jesus said "You have heard it said that [...] but I say [...]."

I firmly believe that the Jesus I worship would say "You have heard it said that homosexuality is an abomination to God. But I tell you the truth: God sees the oppressed and will deliver them."

The Council of Jerusalem ended with them deciding that Gentile Christians did not have to follow Mosaic law, so the Old Testament laws about homosexuality do not matter. And all that is left are poorly translated terms in the New Testament that clearly refer to pederasty, not homosexuality.

Realize that, and the inconsistency of having a God who seems to hate people for who they are goes away. It aligns with there being "neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Why should there not also be "no straight or gay"?
  #62  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:57 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriarTed View Post
OK, in Acts 10, Peter has a dream of God telling him to slaughter unclean animals & eat them, then awakens to get a request from a Roman centurion to come tell him & his loved ones about God/Jesus. He goes to share the Gospel with them, they believe & receive the Holy Spirit, which shows Peter that God is disrupting the old Jewish/Gentile barriers, so he goes ahead & baptizes them without putting any Judaic demands on them.
That's a...very deep interpretation of Acts 10. Peter's dream consists of God calling all animals fair game, "Do not call impure what God has made clean". God does, in fact, break down the Jewish/Gentile barrier, as he did regularly, even as Jesus walked the planet. Literally nothing else is said regarding circumcision, sacrifice, or anything else. Just that Gentiles can also be welcomed into the church.


Quote:
In Acts 15, the whole issue as to what God requires of Gentile believers, including circumscision, kosher diet, and other aspects of the law of Moses, finally forces the Apostles to consider the issue, with input of Peter regarding his dream & experience with the centurion's household, and from Paul regarding his ministry to the Gentiles. The final result, endorsed by James "the brother of the Lord", that Gentiles need not get clipped nor be bound to the Israel-specific laws of Moses, but they are forbidden from idolatry & eating things offered to idols, "blood" (either violence or eating blood), eating strangled (inhumanely slaughtered) animals, and sexual immorality.
Those things were forbidden in what the Rabbis considered the Noahic Law given to all humanity. That was what's often called the Jerusalem Council.
Nothing from God in that decision.

Quote:
In Leviticus 18 & 20, the sexual taboos are listed: incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, bestiality, along with child-sacrifice, with the notation that it was for those practices that the pagan peoples are being displanted by Israel.

Leviticus 19:19 is the law against mixing plant seeds, interbreeding animals, & mixing fabrics (specifically wool & linen), as symbolic of Israel/Gentile distinction.
That's reading a hell of a lot into "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." In any case, using the old Levitican Law to disprove the reasoning of Levitican Law is...circular, at best.

Quote:
Paul in Romans 1:26-27 & I Corinthians 6:9-11 includes same-sex relations among forbidden practices to all people. Now, to Christians, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles- Christ's Agent to bring us the Gospel & what He required of us, even as Peter & the rest were sent to Israel. Throughout his letters, he emphasizes the freedom of believers from kosher diet, circumscision, Sabbath & festival obligations. That does not free them from the moral obligations.
So...still nothing from God saying, "These laws are for everyone", "These laws are for Jews", and "These laws no longer apply because of my Son"? We have a select bit from his followers, but pardon me if I refuse to take my faith from man.
  #63  
Old 06-10-2019, 12:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
I actually have been hearing quite a bit about this subject, what Jesus would do concerning gays, if he were around today. It is hard to provide cites (much of it is on TV--like Real Time with Bill Maher just tonight). But I just tell you straightforward what I have heard.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Actually, the strange divisions we now have in sexuality is rather a new thing (I heard on the History Channel, a while ago). But he never mentioned what we would call gay sex acts, in any event.

Also, Jesus was very non-conventional. He said things no one ever said before (like love those who hurt you, instead of 'an eye for an eye' like people thought at the time). If he were around today, he might even endorse gay marriage. Why not?
You are correct. Jesus never talked about homosexuality.

Jesus was all about forgiveness, and The Other Waldo Pepper got it right when he said:
Upon seeing that a guy was about to hurl a rock at a gay person’s head, Jesus would presumably tell said guy not to hurl said rock;

However, Paul and the OT, dating back several thousand years did mention gay sex as a sin (altho Paul listed it as a sin along the lines of adultery, drunkenness, and so forth, in others words, not that bad).

But it's not just Judeo-Christianity, the Muslim faith, the Hindu faith and most other old school religions are not tolerant of gay sex. Back in the past, you needed babies and families to raise those babies- so gay sex, adultery and fornication were no-nos.
  #64  
Old 06-10-2019, 01:06 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
However, Paul and the OT, dating back several thousand years did mention gay sex as a sin (altho Paul listed it as a sin along the lines of adultery, drunkenness, and so forth, in others words, not that bad).
(My bolding)

It is possible that homosexual sex was 'disallowed' because heterosexual men did not want to commit adultery by having sex with another woman, and so therefore thought having a homosexual affair was not adultery, per se.

And it is possible that this is the type of homosexual activities that were against the 'law' (law in the sense of law vs. gospel).
  #65  
Old 06-10-2019, 01:10 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And God does that. Remember how often Jesus said "You have heard it said that [...] but I say [...]."
Except that that was the exact opposite. Jesus was not accommodating people. For instance, He said that "You have heard it said that a man can divorce his wife by giving her a certificate of divorce" (in other words, the human culture of the day was accommodating of divorce)..."but I say" (and then puts in much tighter restrictions, saying that even marrying post-divorce is adultery). He also said that human culture allows "eye for an eye" but then put in an even tighter restriction - that people were not supposed to retaliate even when struck.

He was flouting human culture of the day.
  #66  
Old 06-10-2019, 01:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
(My bolding)

It is possible that homosexual sex was 'disallowed' because heterosexual men did not want to commit adultery by having sex with another woman, and so therefore thought having a homosexual affair was not adultery, per se.

And it is possible that this is the type of homosexual activities that were against the 'law' (law in the sense of law vs. gospel).
Sure, could be. Also there were the equivalent of "gay sex clubs" and gay hookers, and those were repugnant to most. Note that Lesbians were never mentioned or singled out. So, it wasnt being gay.
  #67  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:01 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Except that that was the exact opposite. Jesus was not accommodating people. For instance, He said that "You have heard it said that a man can divorce his wife by giving her a certificate of divorce" (in other words, the human culture of the day was accommodating of divorce)..."but I say" (and then puts in much tighter restrictions, saying that even marrying post-divorce is adultery). He also said that human culture allows "eye for an eye" but then put in an even tighter restriction - that people were not supposed to retaliate even when struck.

He was flouting human culture of the day.
Even if this is all true, how does it support the idea that JC would consider homosexuality a sin and for what reasons? How does homosexuality affect, for good or otherwise, his purpose of redeeming us all (sorry if I have that wrong, I wasn't a Christian for long -- heck, by the standards of some I probably wasn't Christian at all -- and I'm not remotely one now and the doctrine is increasingly hazy).

I'd like to believe the best of Jesus of Nazareth but if this "homosexuality is sin" bullshit turns out to be true, then count me out. It defies logic and it defies love and humanity.
  #68  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:17 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Even if this is all true, how does it support the idea that JC would consider homosexuality a sin
It wasn't meant to. IIUC, Velocity was addressing the misconception behind one of BigT's statements (as I was tempted to do), but that doesn't mean what he was saying was directly relevant to the main topic of the thread.
  #69  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:48 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriarTed View Post
Ever hear of the Jerusalem Council of the Apostles?
The distinctions between the Ceremonial & the Moral Laws of Torah?
What applies strictly to the nation Israel & what applies universally to all humanity?

I do give you credit for going beyond the "what about eating pork & shellfish & wearing mixed fabrics, huh?" that I usually see in these discussions.

However, check out this elaborately produced & scholarly deep cartoon.

[url]
When that rather silly lecture hit the point of claiming that the entire point of Judaism was to produce Jesus, I quit watching.

Before I got there, however, I noted that the producer of that particular video put all of the Ten Commandments into Moral Law. Keeping the Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments.

More broadly: yes, I am aware that at various points groups of people got together, declared themselves authorities, and decided which of the rules in the bible they thought ought to apply to themselves; not to mention which scriptures they thought belong in the bible in the first place; and that they came up with various justifications for these decisions. I just don't think that the fact that people a long time ago decided to pick and choose certain passages and certain entire books to ignore means that people now aren't doing the same thing.
  #70  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:48 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,378
I'd like to say, if Jesus came back now (ignoring the whole end times thing) and just hung out, He's not going to be Jesus, son of God but yet can be killed. There's no need for the die for our sins thing, that's been done already. it's still valid.

He's going to be basically Superman. He's going to preach and have followers and rage against the false Christians. And He won't be able to be killed, or arrested. And He's going to do miracles. The only thing anyone could do to hurt or bother Him is ignore Him.

Now THAT would be interesting!

Last edited by Just Asking Questions; 06-10-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #71  
Old 06-10-2019, 05:02 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
Back to the OP, why do you ask?

I mean it looks like you have already made up your mind as are others who commented. Nobodies minds are being changed.
  #72  
Old 06-10-2019, 05:03 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
I'd like to say, if Jesus came back now (ignoring the whole end times thing) and just hung out, He's not going to be Jesus, son of God but yet can be killed. There's no need for the die for our sins thing, that's been done already. it's still valid.

He's going to be basically Superman. He's going to preach and have followers and rage against the false Christians. And He won't be able to be killed, or arrested. And He's going to do miracles. The only thing anyone could do to hurt or bother Him is ignore Him.

Now THAT would be interesting!
He might also take a stand on sin. Since he was there at creation he can honestly say what is in born, natural, and what is learned.
  #73  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:23 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
He would love them.

Yeah, my understanding is that homosexuality as an orientation, a matter of identity apart from behavior, "wasn't a thing" back then in the old days. It wasn't how people thought. One might even be able to argue that the Bible says nothing at all, anywhere, about homosexuality as we understand it today. But in any case, you're right: Jesus never mentioned it.
see genesis 19:5, also Luke 10:12
  #74  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:26 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Jesus was all about comforting the downtrodden. His entire ethos is that the oppressed are actually the most important people. The last shall be first, and all that. He was against legalism, and was really big on saying that "love your neighbor as yourself" was (along with loving God) the entire point of the law.

Homosexuality of today is not the pederasty of the past, nor is it some giant sex cult thing, worshiping a false god. I don't really see what he would find objectionable about it. He would just see an oppressed class of people who need comfort.

So, as a Christian, I see it as my responsibility to be like Christ in this respect. My fundamentalist brethren are into legalism, which Jesus abhorred.
You do know he said to leave parents and cling unto your "wife', also Luke 10:12 about not becoming like Sodom
  #75  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:28 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator View Post
https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphil...t-13ae949d6619

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. — Ezekiel 16:49,50
aren't you ignoring Genesis 19:5?
  #76  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:29 PM
ioioio's Avatar
ioioio is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: stuck inside a mobile
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
. . .
Many people today focus on God's love to the exclusion of His other attributes. But He is also just and holy; such a God cannot, by His very nature, cannot let sin go unpunished.
. . .
But he's God. He defines what's just and holy. He decides what's sin and what the punishment for it is.

I find it unlikely that the Creator of the Universe cares what people do with their genitals, as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
  #77  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:30 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Where in the Bible does Jesus describe homosexuality as a wicked lifestyle?
try fornication
  #78  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:45 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
try fornication
I have, and I'm a fan.
  #79  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:08 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
try fornication
According to modern theology, that's self-forgivenable.
  #80  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:18 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioioio View Post
But he's God. He defines what's just and holy. He decides what's sin and what the punishment for it is.

I find it unlikely that the Creator of the Universe cares what people do with their genitals, as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
If Jesus were to return, I think the Falwells and the Osteens would have more to fear from his wrath than our peaceful and loving gay citizens.
  #81  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:08 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
aren't you ignoring Genesis 19:5?
That's about rape and about betrayal of guests. Doesn't say a thing about consensual homosexual behavior.
  #82  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:23 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 56,492
I asked a rah-rah (radically religious) Christian this very question, and got a two word answer (CURE THEM!)

Life is so simple for some people.
  #83  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:57 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,581
Interesting article I just ran across:

Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible?

Quote:
THE WORD ARSENOKOITAI SHOWS UP IN TWO DIFFERENT VERSES IN THE BIBLE, BUT IT WAS NOT TRANSLATED TO MEAN HOMOSEXUAL UNTIL 1946.
Quote:
I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” In the German version it says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with women, for it an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” So we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
  #84  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Interesting article I just ran across:

Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible?

Yes, more or less:

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/m...-arsenokoitai/
English translations of the Bible have used the following words (not an exhaustive list) to represent the concept of arsenokoitais:

bugger (1557)
liers with mankind (1582)
sodomites (1735)
abusers of themselves with mankind (1885)
those who abuse themselves with men (1890)
The closest meaning of arsenokoitai over five hundred years of translation was men who took the active role inScreen Shot 2014-09-20 at 1.21.41 PM nonprocreative sex. Arsenokoitai did not define what we would call the sexual orientation of a person; it indicated the role played in the sexual act.

The curious shift in Greek words that began to reflect cultural disgust
A curious shift began to happen for the first time in the late 1940s: Arsenokoitai was translated in the 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible as “homosexual.” This meant that the translation changed the meaning of the original word from a condemnation of any kind of man who played the dominant role in sex with another male to a condemnation of one specific kind of man—a gay person.

After the RSV translated arsenokoitai to “homosexual,” the floodgates opened.

Historical translation of arsenokoitai
Arsenokoitai was soon translated variously:

pervert (1962)
sexual pervert (1966)
sodomite (1966)[1]
those who practice homosexuality (1978)
These changing translations directly reflect the evolving perceptions of gay people in the culture surrounding the American translators of the Bible.
  #85  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:03 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
The bible has nothing against having very close same sex friends that you love like David was to Jonathan. However it clearly shows that marriage and having children, was reserved for heterosexual relations.
  #86  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:17 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, more or less:

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/m...-arsenokoitai/
English translations of the Bible have used the following words (not an exhaustive list) to represent the concept of arsenokoitais:

bugger (1557)
liers with mankind (1582)
sodomites (1735)
abusers of themselves with mankind (1885)
those who abuse themselves with men (1890)
The closest meaning of arsenokoitai over five hundred years of translation was men who took the active role inScreen Shot 2014-09-20 at 1.21.41 PM nonprocreative sex. Arsenokoitai did not define what we would call the sexual orientation of a person; it indicated the role played in the sexual act.

The curious shift in Greek words that began to reflect cultural disgust
A curious shift began to happen for the first time in the late 1940s: Arsenokoitai was translated in the 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible as “homosexual.” This meant that the translation changed the meaning of the original word from a condemnation of any kind of man who played the dominant role in sex with another male to a condemnation of one specific kind of man—a gay person.

After the RSV translated arsenokoitai to “homosexual,” the floodgates opened.

Historical translation of arsenokoitai
Arsenokoitai was soon translated variously:

pervert (1962)
sexual pervert (1966)
sodomite (1966)[1]
those who practice homosexuality (1978)
These changing translations directly reflect the evolving perceptions of gay people in the culture surrounding the American translators of the Bible.
From your cite:

In the culture in which arsenokoitai originated, the meaning was closest either to pederasty or to a man engaged in exploitative sex with a male with some sort of trade or money involved. Such relationships were not and are not equal-status relationships; one partner has power, while the other is being used and degraded.

Strangely enough, that happens to agree wit hThudlow Boink's linked article.
  #87  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:22 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
That's about rape and about betrayal of guests. Doesn't say a thing about consensual homosexual behavior.
did you read the part where the mob wanted to have carnal relations with male angels? It's still homosexual
  #88  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
From your cite:

In the culture in which arsenokoitai originated, the meaning was closest either to pederasty or to a man engaged in exploitative sex with a male with some sort of trade or money involved. Such relationships were not and are not equal-status relationships; one partner has power, while the other is being used and degraded.

Strangely enough, that happens to agree wit hThudlow Boink's linked article.
I was not disagreeing. Sounds very plausible.

However, honestly, since St Paul made up the word, we can't really be sure. It does not seem to mean simply being gay, we can agree on that.
  #89  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:23 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
did you read the part where the mob wanted to have carnal relations with male angels? It's still homosexual
Yes, they wanted to have carnal relations -- against the will of the angels. What's mob rape got to do with consensual relationships?

I actually even read the part about Lot offering the mob his daughters to rape instead. Which is why I said it's also about betraying guests; because that's the very best color I can put on that scene, given that Lot is shown as being favored by God. There seem to be four possibilities there: one, that the family as a whole was responsible for the proper treatment of guests so handing over the guests would have been worse than handing over the daughters; two, that Lot knew they were angels and thought that raping angels was worse than raping humans, or possibly was afraid that he and maybe his entire family would be in for divine punishment if he didn't defend them; three, that the daughters were considered not really as people but as Lot's property that he could do what he wanted with; and four, that God is perfectly fine with gang rape just so long as the people getting raped are female. You seem to have chosen option number four. I don't, personally, think that one reflects very well on God.
  #90  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:56 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
Jesus said in Matthew 19:5

4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”…

For me, regardless of what you think "sin" is, the bible clearly points in the direction of men and women being made for each other.
  #91  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:01 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Jesus said in Matthew 19:5

4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”…

For me, regardless of what you think "sin" is, the bible clearly points in the direction of men and women being made for each other.
If that’s the case, shouldn't celibacy be as big a sin as homosexuality?
  #92  
Old 06-12-2019, 03:53 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
After he’d be crucified (or today, what? death by injection? electric chair?)
A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers' blood.
  #93  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:21 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller
If that’s the case, shouldn't celibacy be as big a sin as homosexuality?

Please don't give the cunts ideas.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #94  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:34 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Jesus said in Matthew 19:5

4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”…

For me, regardless of what you think "sin" is, the bible clearly points in the direction of men and women being made for each other.
We're not really debating what we think sin is, we're guesstimating what Jesus would think homosexuality is if he were to appear among us. Maybe the bible does reflect his thoughts at the time but those interpretations were written by men and man's ideas have changed over two millennia.

I still can't quite grasp why JC would oppose same sex relations. And the why seems pretty important.
  #95  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:12 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
We're not really debating what we think sin is, we're guesstimating what Jesus would think homosexuality is if he were to appear among us. Maybe the bible does reflect his thoughts at the time but those interpretations were written by men and man's ideas have changed over two millennia.

I still can't quite grasp why JC would oppose same sex relations. And the why seems pretty important.
Well for me, I dont debate sin either because it can be hard to define. I feel we know it in our own hearts. Just like in John when Jesus told the crowd who was about to stone the adulterous woman "he who is without sin cast the first stone", he never singled out the thieves, drunkards, gossips, and adulterers. People knew in their own hearts what their sins were so they dropped their stones and walked away.

I dont know all the answers. Only God. Now personally - I am at the point of my walk with the Lord that if someone was to ask, I would give them my opinion but along with that, if a person confesses to me they are a true Christian and that they have personally read the bible and prayed over this issue that if after prayer they feel God is telling them ok, then I dont bring it up because in truth we all have to stand before judgement.

Now if someone isnt a Christian and accepted Christ then I would witness to them to do that. THEN it is up to them to pray, read the bible, and accept the guidance of the holy spirit as to what is sin or not.

So please let me ask. Are you a Christian first?
  #96  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:19 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 56,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
The bible has nothing against having very close same sex friends that you love like David was to Jonathan. However it clearly shows that marriage and having children, was reserved for heterosexual relations.
Not anymore, buckko

Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
did you read the part where the mob wanted to have carnal relations with male angels? It's still homosexual
No, it's rape and any type of rape is always wrong.

WWJD about consensual homosexual relationships?
  #97  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:35 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Well for me, I dont debate sin either because it can be hard to define. I feel we know it in our own hearts. Just like in John when Jesus told the crowd who was about to stone the adulterous woman "he who is without sin cast the first stone", he never singled out the thieves, drunkards, gossips, and adulterers. People knew in their own hearts what their sins were so they dropped their stones and walked away.

I dont know all the answers. Only God. Now personally - I am at the point of my walk with the Lord that if someone was to ask, I would give them my opinion but along with that, if a person confesses to me they are a true Christian and that they have personally read the bible and prayed over this issue that if after prayer they feel God is telling them ok, then I dont bring it up because in truth we all have to stand before judgement.

Now if someone isnt a Christian and accepted Christ then I would witness to them to do that. THEN it is up to them to pray, read the bible, and accept the guidance of the holy spirit as to what is sin or not.

So please let me ask. Are you a Christian first?
Of course not and I don't accept scripture as an authority on social issues. There will be a credibility gap between me and anyone who does.
  #98  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:40 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers' blood.
JC was crucified which, then, was the most public, humiliating, and torturous way to be killed.
  #99  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:41 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
WWJD about consensual homosexual relationships?
He would love them.
  #100  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:43 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 56,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
JC was crucified which, then, was the most public, humiliating, and torturous way to be killed.
If the man was a *god*, he could take away the pain and all the negativity of the experience, AND he knew he'd be okay in three days.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017