This is why religion can be so toxic.  It clearly states that homosexuals are to be hated.  My guess is that when the bible was written, it was necessary to produce children and homosexuality doesn't promote that.  I also believe that homosexuality isn't 'unnatural' - it can occur in other species as well.

 What exactly is the issue with fornication and homosexuality?  My Bible knowledge isn't up to par.  Is there an explanation or does it just say it's bad?

On a side note, Anthony Burgess wrote a novel called The Wanting Seed in which homosexuality is promoted (it's homo to be sapien) due to overpopulation.  It was a very good book, I'd recommed it.

mindspread wrote:

I've been given these NT verses before: Romans 1:26-27 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 oh ok cool so their is stuff in thier , but this kidna raises the questions of why would god create gay people if its wrong??

Malice wrote:

mindspread wrote:

I've been given these NT verses before: Romans 1:26-27 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 oh ok cool so their is stuff in thier , but this kidna raises the questions of why would god create gay people if its wrong??

Fundys, religious homophobes, etc. reject the notion that homosexuals were born that way - promulgating instead that it is a choice, "born" of sin - you know that pesky sin that we inherited patrilineally from Adam ...

I need to step in here because I got to tell you, God does not hate anything.

There is no hate with God or with those who have actually read the bible and understand the message in regard to homosexuality.

Homosexuality as an act is a sin. The person who commits the sin however is not condemnable by another person. That's what it comes down to.

I need to step in here because I got to tell you, God does not hate anything. There is no hate with God or with those who have actually read the bible and understand the message in regard to homosexuality.

Are you serious? no hate? umm the whole condem them to death part sounds pretty hateful to me.

Second, no person can condemn another according to the bible as that's God's job. Hate the sin, not the sinner and use gentle approaches via love to the person who is not following God's law.

Homosexuality as an act is a sin. The person who commits the sin however is not condemnable by another person. That's what it comes down to.

Malice wrote:

Are you serious? no hate? umm the whole condem them to death part sounds pretty hateful to me.

Who said anything about condemning to death? 

razorphreak wrote:

I need to step in here because I got to tell you, God does not hate anything.  There is no hate with God or with those who have actually read the bible and understand the message in regard to homosexuality. 

the condeming to death comment was in resposne to the above you  when you said god does not hate anything. Pretty sure saying somoene should be put to death becuase they like boys counts as being hateful.  

razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:

i am gonna have to disagree with your last statements , yous ay you cant condem a person according to the bible and yet at the same time , the bible says that if someone does certain acts we should condem them to death??

No it doesn't.  Find me where it says that in the new testament... 

i know its not in the NT hence the whole reason for this thread,  i was refering to the OT because you said that no man can condem according to the bible.which means both OT and NT.

i really hope this is in the right place but i shall go ahead for now.

I dont have a bible handy on me right now , but i am pretty sure that the only ruling agains Homosexuality was in the old testament.

 

so my question is since you guys and girls keeps aying the old testament rules dont count anymore since jesus sacrficed himself. why is homosexuality seen as wrong?

Malice wrote:

i really hope this is in the right place but i shall go ahead for now.

I dont have a bible handy on me right now , but i am pretty sure that the only ruling agains Homosexuality was in the old testament.

 

so my question is since you guys and girls keeps aying the old testament rules dont count anymore since jesus sacrficed himself. why is homosexuality seen as wrong?

This is from ReligiousTolerance.org and there's more there. We all know that the Bible we have now is nothing like what it was compared to the earliest versions we have available.

 

	The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (malakoi; some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai)." Although these are often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
	"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
	"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5

 

Malice wrote:

the condeming to death comment was in resposne to the above you when you said god does not hate anything. Pretty sure saying somoene should be put to death becuase they like boys counts as being hateful.

Again..where does it say this? Sounds like you are making up stuff now...

 

Malice wrote:

i know its not in the NT hence the whole reason for this thread, i was refering to the OT because you said that no man can condem according to the bible.

The problem with your point of view here is that you believe man was to take into his own hands Lev 20:13. At no time does it say that man should kill another man for a sin. Sorry, the bible does NOT say to kill another man. And what's more so is CHRISTIANS follow the NT, and that puts Lev 20:13 out of context as well.

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

Leviticus 18:22 says ""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

umm i am sorry but how on earth did you interpret that as spiritual death?? it doesnt say anythign about the spirit what so ever  so unless you have a version of the bible no one else has i dont get how you came to that conculsion.

 

razorphreak wrote:

If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

hey that would be contradiction wouldnt it  

razorphreak wrote:

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

B/c of the forum i will be as kind as possible. you are ignoring history AND the bible. people were stoned to death back then and TO THIS DAY in the middle east. where have you been?

the NT story about jesus stopping the adulterous women from BEING STONED TO DEATH? HELLO!?!?

I have posted several threads about the intersexed/ hermaphodites and how that poses a HUGE problem for theists. Check 'em out or research the issue yourself.

Also, one has to ignore genetics, chromosomes, nature/nurture, etc, etc, and on and on...

i feel your purpose here is to inflame. period.

i just refuted your claim plain & simple. Your response?

i'm not listening to you or reading your responses.

Here's a thought: If a person can pledge themselves to a belief and contradict it just the same (which most people do as a matter of course, since many of the morals prescribed are inapplicable or barbaric) then how is that person any more morally reliable than a person who simply admits his or her own morals aren't set in stone, but are derived from society, culture and personal preference? (Which is what I'd argue most believers are doing in rejecting the incoherent and unappealing verses of their dogma.)

Oh... I get it. By acting all offended you can pretend my question was an ad hom attack rather than the broader observation that it clearly was.

Quote:

pretty sure you told him he wasnt listening becuase he gave you a reponse you didnt like.

No...he gave a response that wasn't even related to what I wrote...that's why I said that...

 razorphreak wrote:

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else

dassercha wrote:

you are ignoring history AND the bible. people were stoned to death back then and TO THIS DAY in the middle east. where have you been?

the NT story about jesus stopping the adulterous women from BEING STONED TO DEATH? HELLO!?!?

 Theirs the question and repsonse , pretty sure that was realted to the topic at hand you just didnt like the answer.

 

Malice wrote:

they can tell you that from your reponses to question and answers

What?

my response wasnt clear i i will give you that , you said that they dont know you how can teh claim your a contradiction , what i am trying to say is their view of you is  based on your resonses to questions.

Malice wrote:

i may be blind but umm neither claimed that tehy wanted to be left alone

Just as you generalized theists, I just did the same on athestis...

what are you serious? when did i generalize ? , i have had a look at your posts on other threads adn you seem to use this excuse a whole lot , also that did not answer my question , not once did either say tehy wanted to be left alone.

 

 

 

Except that you have been making just such observations on the failures of people to live up to Christian ideals (whatever those are, you've got about a million little factions with each believer holding a different interpretation still). These people who have failed to “live up to” “god”'s commands are suddenly off the table? Good to know. If you don't want to respond to my question because you think it's off topic, that's fine, but don't be deliberately dense.

Then don't sound aghast, dude. “HOW DARE YOU!”

If a Christian isn't bound to morals by scripture, what's the point of scripture? As a guide? If the average believer disregards a lot of his or her own dogma as a prerequisite to living in a modern society, that person has failed to live up to their belief system and has left the bosom of religiously-guided morals and entered the realm of cultural, societal and personally-based morality. In disregarding dogma, they've admitted either their failure to live up to dogmatic ideals, or the failure of dogma to translate into relevance in the modern world.

Malice wrote:

The message coulnt be any mroe clear , it says tehy should be put to death , it doenst mention spirit once, and i dont remember seeing anywhere that god was gonna come down and slay the gays himself so i think its safe to say it meant people were to kill the gays.

OK, you're wrong. I've told you you're wrong already. It is about spirit because God did not say "and you should put them to death"....it's not talking about a person must take an action against another man. It isn't....and it's not safe to say - you are assuming.

See this is where you need understanding of the WHOLE message of the bible, not just from one verse. I'm sorry you don't understand it, honestly I am, because if you did you'd understand what the message was as a whole, you'd understand that when God speaks of abominations, he means it in the spiritual sense. Jesus corrected man's misunderstanding of the law...

Matthew 5:44-45 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

The individuals who use God's word and law to "put to death" a person do not understand that message either. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along...and yet you assume something else?

Neither. It's conclusion (shared with other bible scholars) based on research of the written word. Somewhere I remember that's what science does too isn't it?