Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

reply to post by pause4thought

---

thats not true... its trying to correct a misrepresentation,/misuderstanding of the word , pasteing a stament to a scripture that it doesnt belong to would fall under faslifying the word of god...i.e preaching a false gosipel

[edit on 20-5-2008 by scorand]

reply to post by Conspiriology

---

and comes off the same as when Bill Clinton answered

why do u keep clumping homosexuality with infidelity...

Question – If the bible isn’t against homosexuals then why are Christians? So homosexuals can get into heaven just like heterosexuals can…?

[edit on 20-5-2008 by andre18]

well christians have a hard time giving up dogma because it gets ingrained in the psyche.. much like school ingrains the stuff u need to learn to graduate.. and much like schools, they have a hard time admitting when they are wrong about somthing.. somethings take longer to correct, how hard it is to correct depends on how hard they hang on to a set belief.. i myself believe the church to be wrong about this, however getting my point across is difficult as dogma seems to not want to hear or understand.. also fear that their faith is being attacked.. but i really hope that people realize i'm not attacking their faith.. just the dogma that causes confusion in regaurds of docturine..... so i apologize here and now if i have offended anyone in this respect

reply to post by scorand

---

I am afraid that is complete bunkum. No true disciple of Christ is led by dogma. We are led by the words of the prophets, the Son of God and the apostles: the Bible. Any real Christian would take your position very seriously indeed if you were able to put forward a biblical argument that does not involve ignoring clear Scriptures that contradict your position and even twisting some of them.

It is not dogma that prevents those who believe the Bible from accepting your arguments, it is the fact that they tend to be agenda-driven, i.e. 'we believe homosexuality is a) purely genetic and b) morally acceptable to God - so there must be some way of explaining away the numerous biblical references to homosexual practice as immorality in God's sight'.

I say 'tend to be' because I accept there must be some who simply swallow what has been presented to them as a sound biblical argument while they remain unaware that the case being put forward contradicts how Christians have understood the languages and the passages until the 20th century, when secular society changed its attitude to homosexual practice, and those who practice it perceived it might now be possible to infiltrate the church with their views and unrepentant behaviour.

However it is no coincidence that those who adhere to the Bible as the Word of God and base their beliefs and practices on it have not been taken in by this movement, while those who take a liberal attitude to the Bible have generally shown little resistance. That is because they base their convictions on what God is like and what his attitudes are on their own choice of what to believe and what not to believe in the Bible, or on someone's personal adaptation of what it teaches, whether it be their own interpretation or that of some theologian.

As long as the Church remains faithful to God's Word it does not and cannot accept homosexual practice in exactly the same way it does not and it cannot accept any sexual relations outside marriage. No-one living this way would be accepted into membership of a local Bible-based church, and anyone who had previously claimed to have believed and repented of their sin but then fell into immorality would not be offered communion unless and until they had turned back from it.

As I mentioned previously, people might create, say, a 'church' which accepted people into membership who practiced any other type of immorality, such as adultery. Their are, I suppose other religions which already do this, and I daresay even 'churches' that operate this way. However to claim that they follow the Bible would be nothing but falsehood and deception, which is in fact the case with 'churches' that accept homosexual practice in their membership. Call them what you wish. But they are not Biblical churches.






[edit to correct typo]

[edit on 20/5/08 by pause4thought]

i agree on not twisting scripture however, the word in the current bible used is homosexuality but that word didnt come about till what, the 50s..and wasnt even used in the bible till reletivly recently, and then used in an inaccurate context.. the bible has been mixed up and other words used to change the meaning to something other than the original meaning.. so as far as twisting the scripture one needs to look in ones own back yard before accusing someone else of it..i noticed quite a few people quoting scripture but not jesus.. though there r some that have.. in a second hand kind of way, and most instead of discussing the differances or trying to refute what is a valid point, they continue to quote the same scripture over and over again.. they sound like a broken record.. and still not a word about the descrepencies so noted..however i'm not surprised, as i know i'd get the same responce from even the most kindly priest minister, or pastor..why? that is not true testimony for the scripture.. and initself invalidates their argumentive use of said scripture.. which my orginal point.. still standing.. was that the argument was based on dogma.. and they r faithfull to the book as they r very willing to change it when desired..

[edit on 20-5-2008 by scorand]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by scorand]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by scorand]

reply to post by scorand

---

My word, you really are scraping the barrel here. Christians follow dogma and change the Bible to make sure it fits with it?! This is a choice morsel of desperation.

Of course the Bible translators change the words. Language changes with the course of time. The nuances and even the basic meaning of words changes from generation to generation. In fact meaning can change significantly in the space of a few years. Take the word 'gay' for example...

If Bible translators didn't change the wording of the translation over time, the text of the target language would become less and less easy to comprehend as the translators intended. That is why although I have immense respect for the King James version I never use it - the English language has moved on enormously. One notable anomaly is as follows:


(Gospel of Mark 2:4)

Now unless Rupert Murdoch surreptitiously employed a time machine to gain exclusive coverage, I rather doubt foreign correspondents were there, much less the paparazzi. A modern version has it:


Mark 2:4 (New American Standard version)

The longer a translation remains unrevised, the less accurate it becomes in terms of contemporary usage, no matter how faithful to the original when first published. One more example, just for good measure:


2 Peter 3:11


2 Peter 3:11

Bearing in mind that in the King James version words in italics are those which are required for correct English but not present in the Greek (many modern translations have done away with this practise) the two translations above are actually identical. However whereas a 17th century word for behaviour was 'conversation' this is no longer the case (-and many who read it today would actually think the translators were trying to convey something about holy speech, which they were not).

When it comes to word selection in modern translations to convey aspects of homosexuality, the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with any church dogma. The decisions are made a) on the basis of scholarship in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and b) on modern usage. Granted, there are cults that deliberately twist their translation to fit their blatant agendas, but translations that are accepted across the Christian denominations are the fruit of years, even decades of interdenominational cooperation involving unquestionably eminent linguists whose expertise pertains to rigorous extraction of the original meaning and intent alone, and conveying it in the language of the day.

What you are suggesting is that Bible translators are involved in a conspiracy! Isn't the truth that the original languages convey something you would rather not be conveyed?

Let the reader be left in no doubt, the Bible is clear on this matter no matter what lengths proponents of homosexual practice go to in their attempts at obfuscation.


Romans 1:26&27 New American Standard version


Romans 1:26&27 New International version


Roman 1:26&27 New Revised Standard Version

Three versions will have to suffice, for the sake of space. But pick up any version, even a foreign one, and the reader will find that once the original Greek has been translated it leaves no room for ambiguity on this matter. The only people who protest what the Bible actually says are those with an agenda against its teaching, not those whose sole purpose is to provide a faithful rendering.






[edit to correct a number]

[edit on 20/5/08 by pause4thought]

u'r still talking about how the people were cheating on their spouse. and i'm talking about adding words that are obviously misrepresnetaions of the contex..i.e homosexuals as the sin and not adultery.. which homosexuality has been so ungracously dumped into that catagory which is about cheating not not homosexuality.. which the problem the church has is that if gay marriage is allowed people will question their authority.. and i reiterate that even true christians can be misled by misunderstood scripture... it was done in the case of slavery. and many others that i mentioned earlier.. again even true christians can be misled by misunderstood scripture which has in the past has been done on a massive scale.. and how many people suffered because of that??? therefore the phrase{ You Are Not Too Turn Away From Your Spouse With Anyone Or Any Sex}.. condeming homosexuals by useing adultery as the basis and trying to throw in other pieseces of scripture to back it up is a terrible misnomer.... and it is definately being questioned by the best biblical scholors in the world and as far as the other sources.. well again, scholors r questiong the contex in which it was written, the point of view of the writer at the time and a host of other reasons..besides that should be a clue as tohow long ago this was started remember the church decided waht was to be in the current bible.. and regaurdless of supposed divine right.{sic} they were human and suject to misinterpretation and mistakes.. there have been quite a few scholors that have brought evedience about this and were supressed be cause it would expose a long dated mistake that the church doesnt want to admit to as it would fly in the face of the statment u made about true christians would never be misled... which in turn makes it dogma and not the word of christ.. so yes it is about trying to get to a correct rendering and not trying to trash or otherwise discredit anything..

P.S p4t.. i have read many of you'r other posts on other threads and really have to agree whith most of what u had to say on those threads.. i am a bit surprised by this..

[edit on 20-5-2008 by scorand]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

You have to remember, man has put only what they wanted in the bible for their own purposes. Who really knows what the bible should really say. Even on the history channel has a thing about it, pretty good. Even in history class has taught us that, well my generation. The pope and some bishops way back then. Every so often new versions come out, but back then, it was changed and changed over again, trying to translate it, and purposely changing some to make some stories sound more herioc, but no biggie there, but some other things are left out for purposes of their own, but in general, it really doesn't matter for the most part. Humanity knows what is right and what is wrong, common logic and sense. But even common sense people don't have, why? who knows. But it does seem like, this is the only planet in the universe that has free will, like this place was a testing ground in the beginning, no matter who created us, that was a big mistake, very common logic to the basic. Maybe that's when God figured out what love was maybe, kind of? All these aliens are there, just watching us for the most part. The area 51 thing might exist, or something like that maybe? I don't care if that's true or not, it really doesn't matter in the end. Soon we will know the truth, as we know the truths of many things, whether we deny it or not, just to make us feel better. Revelations speaks quite clear to us how the end shall be. Just read it again, I have many many times, and do lots of research on it, as many other things. Knowledge will be the power that will remain after all this crap blows over. Instead of all this other crap that people think gives them power. Anyways, there shall be rumors of a great war, Jerusalem will be basically be pointed with weapons from all sides. There are many other signs that tells us how the end of a new beginning shall be. Yet we still don't pay attention to it. But sorry if I went off subject at spots, but as a homosexual, they don't see it like that, because they feel like they it's not. Homosexuals even change their sex, depending on their hormone and testosterone levels. Humanity is shown many many different genetic defects, why? Figure that on your own is all i got to say. Too much to talk about that. But, for one, we are needed to show our imperfections. I know that they won't be condemned, but we were not created that way. We were created man for woman, for the soul purpose of growing. Homosexuality has been around a long, long time, thousands of years, but I know some time before christ, but not too far back.
All I know is, there is a God that created all this in space, but can he or it be on top of everything at once as people think. In a sense, yes, but still takes time I'm sure, why there are these messengers, we call angels. God used to hang out with humanity for awhile until things got too crazy, then he assigned his angels to take care of things in a sense, but they still have to ask permission. Yet why are we being watched all the time by all these aliens, who knows for sure. Maybe humans were created genetically, then God steps in as God finds out. I have several theories, not just one. Yet I do know there is a God, and aliens. I'm sure God created many many types of beings, and these aliens I'm sure know more about God than we do. It's all dogma, really hard for me to try to imagine what God really is and like, who can. And what is what with the aliens. All I know, soon we will find out, and I can't wait.
P.S, sorry for all this other stuff

I can read a NEICain Look up words and I can use common sense and I am not an d id'diota. Fire the bushes, theyare not supposed to sit at all. He can't be president no more, he wasn't really a good soldier, and now he's old, just like I feel I am myself. I am not silly, just speaking frankly at anytime, abit mad -dough.

Marken Schrøder

reply to post by scorand

---

Thank you for your kind words.

With regard to this thread I don't know how I could have made it clearer that I believe God is on the side of the sinner, so to speak. Jesus lived and ate with 'sinners' and his true disciples treat all people with honour and respect, believing they are made in the image of God, and knowing 'there, but for the grace of God go I', no matter what another person has committed. I won't link to my post on the thread about Westboro Baptist "Church" (what a misnomer) again to demonstrate this - I linked to it earlier and people can look it up via my profile should they so wish.



There may be people in authority in the visible Church - RC or Anglican/Episcopalian clergymen - who think like this, perhaps you are right. Within the true Church of Christ - the not-outwardly-visible Church comprising all who have turned from sin and believed the Gospel (be they RC, Anglican, true(!) Baptist, Pentecostal or whatever other flavour you care to mention) - the problem the Church has is that they find arguments to suggest the Bible does not condemn homosexual practice as sin unconvincing.



This just doesn't hold water when you look at the vocabulary used in Romans 1:26&27. There is nothing in the words or the context to suggest it is adultery, not homosexual acts that are being condemned. A post from Bigwhammy in an earlier thread brought this home with tremendous force: www.abovetopsecret.com... It is therefore the force of the Scriptural evidence that prevents truly born-again people from changing their minds - they will not stop believing that God calls homosexual acts sin.



...And I for one trust the straightforward words of the Bible more than 'scholars' who question its authority. They invariably have not been born again and are not speaking from the Spirit of God. What you describe sounds like clever people clutching at straws to excuse politically incorrect teaching in the Bible.

You are now hinting at removing things from the Bible, and this proves what Bible-believers have been saying all along: the Bible is clear; if you don't accept its teaching that is at least a consistent position, but if you start hinting things need to be cut out it exposes that you have an agenda that you will promote at all costs.

What was included in the New Testament was decided on this basis: was the text self-evidently inspired by God and consistent with apostolic teaching? It is way too late to start tampering with the books in the Bible - two millennia - and remain within orthodox or historical Christianity.

As to your point about the Bible being misinterpreted to support the slave trade, the answer is simple. In any debate on what the Bible taught proponents of the anti-slavery movement could provide unambiguous Scriptures in favour of freeing slaves without having to twist or hint at changing what the Bible says! (But that is another subject altogether.)

Look, even if the bible doesn’t have a negative view on homosexuals whatsoever, the problem is Christians do, Christians are the ones you’ve got to reason with – not atheists…..

very true andre.. and p4t i'm not trying to dis christianity. but the evedence for what i was saying is also straight forward and rather obvious.. however i am not a athiest.. and my point was that most push what they want scripture to mean.. its very adaptible and the same lines can be used to mean lots of different things.. however u may want to piece it together and such tactics have been used on how many differnt places and people..

Gays are in danger from their lifestyle and condemnation from God because it is a Sin.
Sodom and Gomorrah were burned for wicked fornication and they are condemned in the new testament as well in the book of Jude:

Jud 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them, committing greedily fornication, in like manner with them, and going after other flesh, lie there as an example, undergoing the judgment of eternal fire.

Book of Romans warns against it as well. look it up esword.net .
But to God one sin of any type is enough to condemn us for the original sin and the only alternative is the saving grace of his substitutionary death on the cross that is personally accepted by the individual .
The greatest sin is to reject that gift because we were born in sin and have no hope without His help.
shalom
y

I think that when tackling the bible, one should consider the quality of the translation.

The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same,” and the Latin term sexualis, meaning “sex.” The term homosexual is of modern origin, and it was not until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) New Testament was the first translation to use the word homosexual.

There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for “sodomy” or “sodomite.” A Sodomite would have been simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite would have been an inhabitant of Moab, though the word sodomite does not show up in biblical Greek or Hebrew. Any translation of the Bible making use of the words sodomy or sodomite are clear interpretations and not faithful translations.

There's more here

Humans are extremely flawed creatures and Christianity is notoriously political and often with agenda. Because of this, it's extremely unlikely that the bible you're reading is the one that was first published.

reply to post by geekfan

---

What are you trying to do, blow my mind through irony overload?

All I can add is that the debate concerns what the Bible says, not what any particular section of the church or church-related organisation says.


Please read what I said two posts back. Then please reconsider whether you can still use this argument in favour of saying the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual acts!

i'm very sorry but geekfan is right. the scholars i was talking about..have in fact started quetioning the interptation of said verses and r starting to realize that there r some serious problems with whats pushed by modern churches,, remember nazi germany used scripture to condem the jews, america and many other countries used it in trying to keep the slave market running.. yes we are supposed to turn to the bible for learning how to live daily life. but the faithfull are suposed to turn to christ, and christ himself stepped up against the church for its inequities,for defileinghis fathers house, and warned about being decieved even by the church..as the church is run by man..and as first u said u should turn to the bible buy faith and said how the the translations were to keep up with the current languages.. and not to take what current biblical scholars into consideration,, how is that?? isnt it translaters who have written the current book able to make mistakes..pressure from the church can make man do many things. tradition in some cases is just church dogma based on how certain scripture is interpetid??.. how do u choose to believe, u'r church leader, or biblical scholars who are questioning them.. and remember some of these same scholars are respected in the church its self.. though there are others that were afraid to say anything as they would have had their careers destroyed by the church.. but a lot of people equate gods word with church docterine/dogma, dont question the church or else.. but it also plainly states to question the authority of anything to put it to the test. for how else r we supposed to verify if we are being missled.. faith is the basis but we sre not supposed to follow blindly..and again i reiterate on said scriptures that were used here,, they were talking about rape, and adultry, arrogance, and ihhospitality.. and lets not forgett revelations.. i believe it says in there..{cant think of the particular scripture off hand} that man shall lay with man without shame..

reply to post by scorand

---

Associate those who trust and teach the Bible in its entirety with the Nazis if you insist. You are already in the habit of calling what is bad good, so what not call bad what is good too? If you scrape the barrel any deeper you'll be through to the proverbial floor.


No, that is a shameless fabrication. There is no such verse in the entire Bible.

reply to post by andre18

---

Yeah, they bend and twist and cherry pick items from select translations to justify their backward views and blatant bigotry! Even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. It's unbelievable how passionate and adamant some people are about justifying their bigotry. And of all issues to place all that energy into and for what good? It serves no purpose other than to create hatred and discontent. If ever there was needed some spiritual cleansing and healing here it is right here with these folks!