It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clearing the air on homosexuality (from a Christian perspective)

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04
ETA: I also think it's important to make the point it is homosexual ACTS that is the sin.

Yep ... that's what the Catholic Church says anyways ...
The ACT is supposedly the sin. Not the feelings of same sex attraction.




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The epigentic link is a theory. It could be true. But as of now it's a theory. Either way, true or not, really doesn't matter.


Rom 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well it's what the Bible says. The word is from two greek words, one meaning man, and the other means intercourse.

The problem is that many Christians forget the verse I just posted, and instead of love display derision and hate. I think that is what the OP was trying to say, that is wrong.

Jhn 13:35
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   
It is not hard for an "outsider" to see how much anger, fear and hatred literally drip from posts like these. The desire to ignore the obvious and insert bitterness and bile into the Bible is a big part of what turns folks away ... not your Holiness Quotient.

Seriously,it was your Founder that said (and I'm paraphrasing and don't want to look up the scripts right now):

"Love God first, and love your neighbor as yourself; this summarizes the Torah (the Law and the Prophets)."

"Do good to them that hurt you."

"Judge not so that you will not be judged."

"Treat others as you wish to be treated."

"Let the one who is without error be the first to accuse."

"Don't worry about material things."

"Be a light to the world."

"Take care of the widows and the children."

"Go to the entire world and tell them Good News."

That's a selection of what your Boss, the Jewish Carpenter, actually said.

Why not work on those and let Him worry about The Gays for a change, eh?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Gryphon66

That's a selection of what your Boss, the Jewish Carpenter, actually said.

Why not work on those and let Him worry about The Gays for a change, eh?




Jesus was actually probably a stone mason not a carpenter.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
It seems as if these words can get contorted into different meanings depending upon the context of which it's said, but again i don't claim to be knowledgeable of Religion and i may be seeing things different.

one thing is, i believe a lot of people tend to use it as a crutch to say, homosexuality is against god so i am told not to believe in it, therefor "i" am not against Gay people but God says the Act is a Sin so how can i be "Homophobic" or "Bigoted" or whatever other word you can use when it's what "God" has already said.

i also think a lot of people truly don't take a look inwards and find of what truly you don't like about homosexuality, it's easy to say " the thought of two guys makes me sick"

*Side Note*

The thought of lesbians for guys is okay?

*End Side Note*

but that just seems like the easy way out, or my religion is against it, again an easy way out. if you stopped and thought are you truly against other Humans just because of a way they were born? and if you don't believe we are born this way, are you truly against people just based on who they are attracted to?

again, i am not knocking anyone's religion or belief, i am just asking questions



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I guess you've never seen the bumper sticker "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter" (fish symbol). It was an attempt to lighten the mood in here a bit.

What source do you have for the stone-mason over the carpenter for JC?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I know
I was just trying to be helpful.

The word is τέκτων tektōn. It really means builder. So if we look at what people built with in that area at that time, we find that the stonemason is really the builder, not a carpenter. they built their houses with rocks and stones, not wood.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Actually, we named one of the companies I manage "Tekton Ventures" because the investors are all in construction. I had the exact opposite understanding, that tekton was "builder" and more closely related to what we think of as a carpenter (more at wood-joiner), and this was distinct from calkeus (iron-worker or smith) and lithologos or techni (mason).

We get our world architect almost directly from tekton, don't we? Thanks for the help.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 




Why not read Matthew 8:5-13 where Jesus heals a Roman Centurion's gay lover.


Now that is a funny statement, and you don't know that for a fact either way.
This is the first I have ever heard of it, quite the twist on bible scripture.
But let's suppose we humor you and say he was, we don't know if the Roman became a Christian later either.
If he were to, then the scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:9 applies....


Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality,10  thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 11  And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.


In other words due to the culture of the day many gentile Christians that had come out of a pagan ideology most likely could have engaged in homosexuality, but they changed, they had to change just like the fornicators, adulterers, thieves and drunkards. No doubt due to sinful nature they continued to fight the urge perhaps their entire life. But many were successful.

The OP makes a point I have said many times, and it's silly when a Christian condemns fornication and adulterery and is branded just old fashioned and not with the times. But then condemns homosexuality, oh that is suddenly a hate crime. Then again a Christian that is living common-law and condemns homosexuals is a huge hypocritic, they don't even realize they are in the exact same boat, so to speak.


edit on 5-1-2014 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Blue_Jay33
Now that is a funny statement, and you don't know that for a fact either way.


I do.


Mat 8:5
When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.

Mat 8:6
“Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”


Servant. παῖς pais.

There is no possibility of a gay lover there. Seriously, the pro gay crowd has a 50ft reach on that one.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
It had been illegal since the time of Augustus for Roman Centurions (any soldiers) to marry.

"Soldiers were not allowed to marry during service, and if they were already married when they joined the army their marriages had to be dissolved. This was in accordance with the theory that they would often be on the move - or, perhaps, that they must not become soft, and distracted from their jobs." (Grant, The Army of the Caesars, p. 78, 314)

It was not uncommon for these men to form unofficial relationships with the locals (both men and women) as well as their own slaves.

"What of the Roman army serving in the provinces? ... Both the graffiti and the ethnographic passages do suggest that the basic schema hierarchical schema of homosexual relations prevailed in the lower social strata and the provinces. ... The main evidence for soldiers' homosexual relations with slave boys is literary and resembles mainstream Roman men's homosexual practices." (Phang, The Marriage Of Roman Soldiers, (13 BC-AD 235): Law And Family In The Imperial Army, p. 265-66)

The word used here as pointed out is pais "boy, son, slave" which carries a much different connotation from the mere doulos "house servant."

The Biblical text claims that the Centurion claimed this pais was very precious to him. He was precious enough, in fact, that the man came to a Jewish miracle worker to seek help for the boy when all else had apparently failed. Jesus praised the Centurion for the power of his faith.

The use of the word pais in this context is not certain either way.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


You quoted this as the text for Corinthians 6:9

Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality,10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

This is wrong, the original text was;

“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, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

The word is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.”

This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage. The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and more vain. Thus, men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as “effeminate.”

Paul wasn’t condemning men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait.

However, regardless of whether Paul intended to refer specifically to male prostitutes or more generally to all men considered morally soft, it is apparent that the term malakoi has nothing to do with the question we bring to Scripture. We are not defending prostitution, nor vanity or self-indulgence. Our question is whether same-sex couples may live in loving, committed relationships with the blessing of God. The term malakoi does not address that.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 

So what about the next Greek word, ARSENOKOITAI, which literally means "liying in bed with a male"?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Prophets, fanatics and smart people, who in fact wrote the laws of jews, tried to avoid social problems, including laws into the religion, which builds the reward and punishment framework to motivate people to act in a special way.

How about the circumstances in Jesu surroundings:

- sex outside of marriage produces lone parents, poverty and social drama nobody wants.
- sex practiced in a homosexual context produces no children, has no limiting factor to lust addiction, has non hygienic associations in minds
- sex can be a door opener to all of the human abysses including perversion, S/M, magic, children abuse ...
- abstinence of sex is the only known effective form of birth control and tries to avoid psychical problems

So no wonder, we find in the Bible verses that try to avoid all of the problems connected to sexuality.
No wonder they are put into the context of reward and punishment.
Its clear that moral behavior is good for oneself and for the society.
But should we define moral behavior the same way jews did 2000 years ago?
Do homosexuals have a morality codex built on own experience? Everything goes or what?

In my opinion its not religious dogma given by god, we need our times in our society,
because people easily forget about god.
Everybody has do understand the anonymous and powerful law of cause and effect, that works even beyond death. This would lead to responsibility on a higher level.

This would help people why they should be careful with their sexuality, like watching porn for example.
This would also explain why condemning somebody leads to condemnation of oneself,
like christianity is exposed to in our days
edit on 5-1-2014 by RobSch5 because: edit



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Arsenokoitai is typically translated as "abusers of themselves" or "sodomites", both of which are vague, and at the very least do not seem applicable to a long-term, loving gay relationship. (Even the reference to Sodom refers to an aggressive, impersonal sex-act, not one of mutual care, respect and fidelity). Regardless, there has been a great diversity of ideas on the meanings of these two words, none of which allows the broad imposition of all homosexual behaviour to be applied to either or both of these words.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 

My copy of Thayer's Lexicon derives the word from
ARSEN meaning "a male", and
KOITE meaning "a bed".
I think that derivation tells us what the meaning is.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


We'll have to agree to disagree!



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
What really gets me about Christians is the bible was put together by The Council of Nicaea, who chose what scripture to put it the bible 324 years after Christ was born.

This Council of Nicaea, could not even agree at the time what should and should not be placed into the current bible we have today including scripture and sermons made by Mary Magdalene.

At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
authority to the new church.”

And here we are 1700 years later disagreeing about scripture that a group of men who had never even seen Jesus decides what to put in the bible.

What about Protestants? A whole religion started by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife and yet over 1000 years later we still have Christians bashing the LGBT community when their own religion was bought about by adultery and divorce.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Sorry. You refused to answer my question because it destroys your argument. It was a word made for that verse, the word did not exist prior. The literal translation is male intercourse.

Anything else you decide to add such as if it's loving then it's ok is you adding your bias. Not to mention ALL sex without marriage is a sin, and the Bible strictly states marriage is between a man and a woman only. That alone makes ALL male-male sexual acts a sin.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join