If Being Gay is alright in the eyes of God then.....

One more word for Mr. Fort who states that he did not choose to be gay. I will take Mr. Fort at his word.

On the other hand, a herterosexual virgin or an obedient priest did not choose to be heterosexual. They believe that it is their improper actions, not their sexual preferences, that would be considered a sin.

Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, are not required to engage in adultery, promiscuity, pedophelia or prostitution. Each person chooses his or her own path and behavior throughout life.

PHEW 30pages. Anyway I would just like to say that if it is wrong or god shuns it...this is what you believe, then why did god make our bodies so that it felt good? I am just curoius on your thoughts on this

Originally posted by 2012
Re: "What the Bible says..." The Bible is a complete document. It is a full guide to all aspects of life. This is what the Bible says about homosexual behavior.

All of the twelve or so biblical passages about homosexual behavior are negative. One even calls for the death penalty for homosexual offenders. One says that homosexuals cannot go to heaven. The passages about Sodom in Genesis clearly refer to sodomy; that is how we got the term.

Sodom's crime had nothing to do with homosexuality. It was about A.D. 96 that Josephus first used (in his Antiquities) the term sodomy to mean homosexual acts.

In fact, in Ezekiel and the Talmud, the LORD specifically states what Sodom's crimes were and why they were removed. Guess what...there is no mention of homosexuality!

Ezekiel 16:48 [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Ezekiel 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].
(The Hebrew word "to'ebah," translated here as "abomination," was used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) to refer to various condemned behaviors, such as Hebrews and Egyptians eating together, Hebrews eating lobster, shrimp, or snakes, sacrificing an animal in the temple which had a blemish, women wearing men's clothing, a man remarrying his former wife, etc.)
Sanhedrin 104b
For the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom: is there then favouritism in the matter? � Rabbah answered in R. Johanan's name: There was an extra measure [of punishment] in Jerusalem, which Sodom was spared. For in the case of Sodom, it is written, Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy. Whereas in the case of Jerusalem it is written, The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their children.
www.come-and-hear.com...

The use of Sodom as justification for condemning homosexuality, therefore, is without merit.

Leviticus clearly refers to all forms of gay and lesbian behavior.

Unless you adhere to all of the other rules listed in Leviticus, this is a self-defeating and absurd argument.

Originally posted by 2012] The condemnations of Romans and 1 Corinthians clearly refer to homosexual behavior.

Is that so? Here is the actual translation from Greek:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.

Malakoi, and arsenokoitai are the words that have since been translated to mean homosexual. The actual meaning of the words are far more difficult to discern.

Malakoi (or malekos) appears only four times in the New Testament. Three times it means soft, as when Jesus used it speaking of John the Baptist in Matthew 11:8: "...but what went you out to see? Behold a man clothed in soft (malekos) raiment? Behold, they who wear soft (malekos) clothing are in kings' houses." (KJV) The other time the word appears is in Luke's version of this same conversation�Luke 7:25. While �Strong�s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament� reads as follows: malakos = soft (i.e. fine clothing) figuratively, a catamite�effeminate, some Greek dictionaries define it to mean morally weak. Martin Luther translated it weaklings. In �Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words�, if you look up the word soft the book reads: see Effeminate. Where you find the original Malakos: soft, soft to the touch, is used (a) of raiment; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, "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.

The second word, arsenokoitai (arsenokoites) is even more obscure. It appears only twice in the New Testament�1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10. This word is so obscure that Vine's doesn't even attempt to define it. Instead of a definition, Vine's gives only the two scripture references where the word appears.

One method of interpreting the word is to try to discern some meaning from the use of arsenokoites in the lists. "Sin lists" tend to congregate words of similar type together. For example, "first are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics, or injustice" [Martin, 120]. In most of the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (TLG) listings, the order is fairly standard:

pornoi, moixoi,
malakoi, (arsenokoitai),
kleptai, pleonektai, methusoi,
loidoroi, or arsenokoites
andrapodistais kai epiorkrois

Translated, the pattern is as follows:
temple prostitutes, adulterers,
the morally weak (malakos), arsenokoites,
thieves, the greedy, drunkards,
the foul-mouthed or arsenokoites,
slave traders, perjurers.

In the TLG lists, the division is not very clear, other than they seem to start off with sexual sins, then include malakos and possibly arsenokoites, before passing on to sins of social injustice and impropriety.

Now, if the placing of arsenokoites in the TLG texts in between the sexual sins and social sins is not an accident, we would know that arsenokoites somehow related to sexual injustice. This interpretation is compatible with all the lists quoted. For example, the placement of arsenokoites just before slave trader is particularly appropriate, since homosexual slaves were normative in classical societies. The interpretation of arsenokoitai in terms of homosexual subjugation and/or exploitation, rather than referring to all homosexual behaviour, seems appropriate from these contexts.
www.geocities.com...

It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant �homosexuality�, was homophilia. That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death. But this word is never used in Scripture.www.freeingthespirit.org...

God created the institution of heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2. The concept of homosexual marriage is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

If the Bible doesn't mention something in particular, does that mean God is against it, for it, or has no opinion on it?

i think it is just insane to think a person would CHOSE to have people look at them and treat them like freaks......some of the people keep harping that being gay is a choise..now why would any rational person chose to have people speak about them in such harsh ways....if you ask me...which no one did...but i will say it anyway....if any group has some sort of an agenda its the Chirstian radicals....to me they are just as bad as Islamic terrorists..they spread hate and fear

as for the Bible...people are taking a book written by man...to be literal...it has its flaws...and a lot of it is stolen folklore from other religions...i love how people pick and chose what the bible says to follow...people will hate gay people becuase they are unholy but have sex before marriages...please someone show me a place in the Bible where one sin is ranked higher then another....a sin is a sin..unless of course it is apart of the deadly sins..in which dont think being gay is in there...

Ummmm....

Most people who have experience with the Bible are aware that the sin of Sodom was stated extremely clearly in Ezekiel, and it wasn't any form of sexual behaviour.

Ezekiel 16:49

49: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

The sin of Sodom was pride. Check out this link.

If being gay is genetic, then how come some people turn straight? Would that not be impossible if it were not a choice? If you are forced to be gay by your nature then there is no way possible you would be able to break away from that prison but a lot of people have been gay and then turned straight. How do you explain that?

Originally posted by wooten123
If being gay is genetic, then how come some people turn straight? Would that not be impossible if it were not a choice? If you are forced to be gay by your nature then there is no way possible you would be able to break away from that prison but a lot of people have been gay and then turned straight. How do you explain that?

I think God can change such things, but those are huge miracles, and they don't happen every day.

That doesn't help anything. That would mean God created you gay then recreated you non-gay midstream. That doesn't make sense.

I think of this logikly,if everyone was gay how could we populate the world we would slowly push humanity into extinction.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

"Judge not, least ye be judged"

"Love they neighbor"

Do I need to say more? Prolly not but I'm gonna anyways.

Its obvious that most christians have chosen to forsake thier god and his commandments and teachings, otherwise why would they bash or try to crucify a gay person or any other person for that matter.

No where in those passages did it say specifically that Sodom and Gamorhra were destroyed because of gay sex or gay marriage.

There are gays who have been married and for the life of me I can't see how it has harmed anyone. If your going to say that it sets an example and says its ok for you children to be gay then I would point to other religions who's teaching are different from yours and say they could influence your children too. Should we just kill everyone who doesn't agree with your belief so that you won't be emotionally traumatized ?

Anytime you say the lords name or have sex before your married or any other sin you separate yourself from God.Being Gay is no different,it's still a sin.We are all sinners know matter what way you look at it.

Agent i agree with you..no matter how you look at it..in terms of the Bible we are all sinners

Wooten..i dont think people up and turn striaght...i think it has to do with they were never really gay to begin with and just "having fun" or becuase of society they repress it

Just checking on something here..

So, agent, are you basically pointing out that my sexuality( I'm not gay ), is a sin? Also just to say on my behalf, I have nothing wrong with gays.

o.k, I have not yet read the replies, so if I repeat something that someone else has said previously, I apologize in advance.

The original Biblical Translation said "...that we may KNOW them". Not that we may have sex with them. Now, even though some Men came to the door (and Lot generously offered his poor Virginal daughters instead), does not mean the whole city was filled with Men wanting to "know" his guests. Now, Biblical scholars say that the word "know" translated to "want to be intimate with".

Now, God sends two Angels, to spend the night in this city that has been presented as filled with Homosexual-wanna-be-rapists (according to some intrepretations), allows them to spend the night at least, and then tells Lot to flee the next day?( What, was God giving Himself the night to think it over? )



The Bible is a tainted work. Tainted by Men who have used it to try to control the masses. To attempt to justify a person's own homophobic fears by using God's name, does a dis-service to God.

And, it is not honest.

Stop justifying bad behavor, by saying "God says so.....".

BTW-I am a straight female, and even I can see this.

I'm not a person who hates gay people or hate anybody for that matter, if a gay person were to approach me I would talk to him/her like I would talk to anyone. I believe physicaly and spiritually that love should expressed between a man and a woman,, the bible clearly states this and there are no circumstances that can change this.Every person on this earth will be judged not by me or by anyone else only by GOD!

Originally posted by wooten123
If being gay is genetic, then how come some people turn straight? Would that not be impossible if it were not a choice? If you are forced to be gay by your nature then there is no way possible you would be able to break away from that prison but a lot of people have been gay and then turned straight. How do you explain that?

Simple. Peer pressure. Some of them don't want to be labled as freaks. Who would? So insted of being shunned by people, they decided to pretend to be straight.

That's my theory, anyway. It may be wrong, but who knows for sure?

Agent....first where does it say "clearly" that God doset think it is right....second dosent the bible clearly state other things that are sin yet all of us do

im a striaght male and just dont understand how people use a book writen my other men....as a defence for treating people poorly....its disgusting

That's it. sirCyco and DeusEx, you both need to cut the rubbish about Christians being brainwashed and not haveing any intellect of their own ok. You obviously have no idea about what is really involved in being a Christian and it's your own decision. But don't come to the forums to just to have a good bash at anyone who respects and believes in God, because it just seems that you've got a point to make and that you want everyone to know that your *above* believing in God. The paradox is that you are about as accepting of Christians as the people you are arguing against are of homosexuals. And anyway, it's not like Christians hate gays, we wouldn't be proper Christians if we hated anybody. Take your gripe elsewhere...

Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? For centuries the answer to that question seemed obvious, but in the last few decades pro- homosexual commentators have tried to reinterpret the relevant biblical passages. In this discussion we will take a look at their exegesis.
The first reference to homosexuality in the Bible is found in Genesis 19. In this passage, Lot entertains two angels who come to the city to investigate its sins. Before they go to bed, all the men (from every part of the city of Sodom) surround the house and order him to bring out the men so that "we may know them." Historically commentators have always assumed that the Hebrew word for "know" meant that the men of the city wanted to have sex with the visitors.
More recently, proponents of homosexuality argue that biblical commentators misunderstand the story of Sodom. They argue that the men of the city merely wanted to meet these visitors. Either they were anxious to extend Middle-eastern hospitality or they wanted to interrogate the men and make sure they weren't spies. In either case, they argue, the passage has nothing to do with homosexuality. The sin of Sodom is not homosexuality, they say, but inhospitality.
One of the keys to understanding this passage is the proper translation of the Hebrew word for "know." Pro-homosexuality commentators point out that this word can also mean "to get acquainted with" as well as mean "to have intercourse with." In fact, the word appears over 943 times in the Old Testament, and only 12 times does it mean "to have intercourse with." Therefore, they conclude that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.
The problem with the argument is context. Statistics is not the same as exegesis. Word count alone should not be the sole criterion for the meaning of a word. And even if a statistical count should be used, the argument backfires. Of the 12 times the word "to know" is used in the book of Genesis, in 10 of those 12 it means "to have intercourse with."
Second, the context does not warrant the interpretation that the men only wanted to get acquainted with the strangers. Notice that Lot decides to offer his two daughters instead. In reading the passage, one can sense Lot's panic as he foolishly offers his virgin daughters to the crowd instead of the foreigners. This is not the action of a man responding to the crowd's request "to become acquainted with" the men.
Notice that Lot describes his daughters as women who "have not known" a man. Obviously this implies sexual intercourse and does not mean "to be acquainted with." It is unlikely that the first use of the word "to know" differs from the second use of the word. Both times the word "to know" should be translated "to have intercourse with." This is the only consistent translation for the passage.
Finally, Jude 7 provides a commentary on Genesis 19. The New Testament reference states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange flesh. The phrase "strange flesh" could imply homosexuality or bestiality and provides further evidence that the sin of Sodom was not inhospitality but homosexuality.
Contrary to what pro-homosexual commentators say, Genesis 19 is a clear condemnation of homosexuality. Next we will look at another set of Old Testament passages dealing with the issue of homosexuality.

www.probe.org...