Is being gay anti-god

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
juber3
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Been thanked: 1 time

Is being gay anti-god

Post #1

Post by juber3 »

My friend is saved and a born again christian. But one bad thing, hes gay. We started talking and the subject 'is it anti-god' came out. I totally blanked out on the question. whats your view

PS Otseng should this be moved to christianity debate?
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he
hath chosen for his own inheritance." PSALM 33-12

"To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The
fool hath said in his heart, There is no
God..... PSALM 13-1"

User avatar
Quarkhead
Apprentice
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: this mortal coil

Post #41

Post by Quarkhead »

Chancellor wrote:As for the sin, the scripture is clear: homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Yeah. As clear as mud. Here's what religioustolerance.org has to say about 1 Corinthians:
The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders."  Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee," and "arsenokoitai." Although this is 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

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.
Respectfully to your opinion, but I must say I find your idea of homosexuality as something "curable" to be not only incredibly wrong-headed, but I believe such programs in churches are very detrimental to the mental health of any homosexuals who become duped by such illogical ideas.

Chancellor

Post #42

Post by Chancellor »

Quarkhead wrote:
Chancellor wrote:As for the sin, the scripture is clear: homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Yeah. As clear as mud. Here's what religioustolerance.org has to say about 1 Corinthians:
The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders."  Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee," and "arsenokoitai." Although this is 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

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.
Respectfully to your opinion, but I must say I find your idea of homosexuality as something "curable" to be not only incredibly wrong-headed, but I believe such programs in churches are very detrimental to the mental health of any homosexuals who become duped by such illogical ideas.
Frankly, I'm not interested in what an organization such as religioustolerance.org has to say about it: I care what the word of God has to say about it. I used to buy into the gay theology arguments and, in fact, I even pastored a gay Pentecostal church. I know the arguments and I know they're wrong. As for your belief that the idea of homosexuality being curable is wrong-headed, all I can say is God changed the homosexuals in Corinth, God has changed thousands (if not millions) of homosexuals since then, and God is changing me.

User avatar
Quarkhead
Apprentice
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: this mortal coil

Post #43

Post by Quarkhead »

Frankly, I'm not interested in what an organization such as religioustolerance.org has to say about it: I care what the word of God has to say about it. I used to buy into the gay theology arguments and, in fact, I even pastored a gay Pentecostal church. I know the arguments and I know they're wrong. As for your belief that the idea of homosexuality being curable is wrong-headed, all I can say is God changed the homosexuals in Corinth, God has changed thousands (if not millions) of homosexuals since then, and God is changing me.
Perhaps you ought to give it a read in any case. You say you only care about what the word of God has to say about it - yet the various liberal and imprecise translations of Hebrew and Greek are precisely what religioustolerance.org is focused on. I should think that you would be concerned (since you are declaring so firmly about the 'word of god') about translations - which, after all, were made by people. Are you a Hebrew scholar? A Greek scholar? I am very fortunate that my grandfather, a well known Mennonite OT theologian, is both. I confess I have only a rudimentary understanding of Hebrew, and none at all of Greek, but I can certainly confirm that English translations are full of mistakes; often these mistakes are translations which were bent in order to conform with the societal context of the culture of the translators. It is for precisely this reason that many OT scholars learn Hebrew. Religioustolerance, should you bother to read it, gives all the various translations used in different versions of the Bible, plus the direct translation of the words. They offer quotes and commentary from both conservative and liberal theologians.

I understand and accept, of course, your own personal beliefs about homosexuality as being possible to, or even as something that needs to be, cured. However, I think that having programs like this in curches will do nothing to most homosexuals who enter into them, besides give them more neuroses and psychological disconnection. An adult who enters this of his or her own will is one thing; I find it very sad that any parent could think of themselves as "Christian" while forcing a horrible program like this on their child.

What is clear is that the Bible condemns rape, adultery, pederasty, the taking of sex slaves, and temple prostitution; these, whether hetero or homosexual. A monogamous, loving gay relationship is neither condemned nor even mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Chancellor

Post #44

Post by Chancellor »

Quarkhead wrote:
Frankly, I'm not interested in what an organization such as religioustolerance.org has to say about it: I care what the word of God has to say about it. I used to buy into the gay theology arguments and, in fact, I even pastored a gay Pentecostal church. I know the arguments and I know they're wrong. As for your belief that the idea of homosexuality being curable is wrong-headed, all I can say is God changed the homosexuals in Corinth, God has changed thousands (if not millions) of homosexuals since then, and God is changing me.
Perhaps you ought to give it a read in any case. You say you only care about what the word of God has to say about it - yet the various liberal and imprecise translations of Hebrew and Greek are precisely what religioustolerance.org is focused on. I should think that you would be concerned (since you are declaring so firmly about the 'word of god') about translations - which, after all, were made by people. Are you a Hebrew scholar? A Greek scholar? I am very fortunate that my grandfather, a well known Mennonite OT theologian, is both. I confess I have only a rudimentary understanding of Hebrew, and none at all of Greek, but I can certainly confirm that English translations are full of mistakes; often these mistakes are translations which were bent in order to conform with the societal context of the culture of the translators. It is for precisely this reason that many OT scholars learn Hebrew. Religioustolerance, should you bother to read it, gives all the various translations used in different versions of the Bible, plus the direct translation of the words. They offer quotes and commentary from both conservative and liberal theologians.

I understand and accept, of course, your own personal beliefs about homosexuality as being possible to, or even as something that needs to be, cured. However, I think that having programs like this in curches will do nothing to most homosexuals who enter into them, besides give them more neuroses and psychological disconnection. An adult who enters this of his or her own will is one thing; I find it very sad that any parent could think of themselves as "Christian" while forcing a horrible program like this on their child.

What is clear is that the Bible condemns rape, adultery, pederasty, the taking of sex slaves, and temple prostitution; these, whether hetero or homosexual. A monogamous, loving gay relationship is neither condemned nor even mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Actually, I did read what you had previously posted. In fact, I used to make many of the same arguments. I'm familiar with religioustolerance.org and it's certainly interesting that only liberals, feminists and homosexuals seem to rely on them as a resource.

As for programs, I'm not sure why you presume (it seems you are making that presumption) that I was referring to reparative therapy, other psychological methodologies or the 14 steps of Homosexuals Anonymous when I referred to churches helping homosexuals to change but let me tell you that you can forget reparative therapy and psychology and the 14 steps of Homosexuals Anonymous.

User avatar
sk8er
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: canton, ohio

being gay is not at all what God intended.

Post #45

Post by sk8er »

Though being gay may not be anti-God it is still going against him in many different ways. What osteng wrote is a bunch of bull. It clearly states in Malachi that God opposes homosexuality and it is distastefull in his sight. Why in the Bible that every single time it mentions homosexuality it is equated with a very bad sin that God despises. Homosexuality is an abomination in Gods sight and should not even be given consideration in the church... we should love homosexuals but their beliefs an their way f life is contrary to the whole idea of ADAM and EVE (not adam and steve) and is also contrary to Gods standered for man.

:2gun: -sk8er

User avatar
obsessed
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 11:05 am
Location: Rhode Island

being gay IS anti-God

Post #46

Post by obsessed »

What is your problem? Hello, look at the Bible and it clearly states in Malachi that being a homosexual is wrong. Otseng, I could get suspended for this but you are in no way a good Christian group administrator! Down w/ Otseng!

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: being gay IS anti-God

Post #47

Post by otseng »

obsessed wrote:What is your problem? Hello, look at the Bible and it clearly states in Malachi that being a homosexual is wrong.
And where have I said that homosexuality is not wrong?
Otseng, I could get suspended for this but you are in no way a good Christian group administrator! Down w/ Otseng!
Everyone gets one warning before getting put in probation (and fined), so consider this a warning. As per the rules:
1. No personal attacks are allowed.

Also, I realize that people won't agree with my positions (Christians too). But that's what this whole forum is about. To debate. Each side gets a chance to argue their own case. But, it can be done without attacking another person. And it can be done in a civil and respectful fashion. If someone cannot abide by the rules of civility, they are encouraged to find other debate forums to participate in.

User avatar
Quarkhead
Apprentice
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: this mortal coil

Re: being gay is not at all what God intended.

Post #48

Post by Quarkhead »

sk8er wrote:Though being gay may not be anti-God it is still going against him in many different ways. What osteng wrote is a bunch of bull. It clearly states in Malachi that God opposes homosexuality and it is distastefull in his sight. Why in the Bible that every single time it mentions homosexuality it is equated with a very bad sin that God despises. Homosexuality is an abomination in Gods sight and should not even be given consideration in the church... we should love homosexuals but their beliefs an their way f life is contrary to the whole idea of ADAM and EVE (not adam and steve) and is also contrary to Gods standered for man.

:2gun: -sk8er
The Bible condemns specific homosexual and heterosexual acts, but I can find no condemnation of homosexuality (or heterosexuality) itself as an orientation. Perhaps you could point out exactly what you are referencing in Malachi? I see nothing of the sort in that book.

jlamb
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 1:44 pm

Post #49

Post by jlamb »

On the question, whether being gay is anti-god: note I am not gay.
But it's a good question. The last verse of NT gospel John refers to John as the disciple Jesus loved. So Jesus was gay. And obviously not anti-god.
Further, god makes people what they are in most respects. So he makes gays what they are. But he also could be said to make vicious criminals and vicious sadists employed by despots as torturers what they are. He orchestrated the crucifixion . He orchestrated the fall too. So who cares what god thinks one way or the other about these wretched homosaxuals??
Sin is a bad relation to god. So what is 'bad'? This concept has remained unelucidated throughout the history of religion. The reason is that the whole shebang was predicated upon the ancient idea of duty as obedience.
JLAMB

Chancellor

Post #50

Post by Chancellor »

jlamb wrote:On the question, whether being gay is anti-god: note I am not gay.
But it's a good question. The last verse of NT gospel John refers to John as the disciple Jesus loved. So Jesus was gay. And obviously not anti-god.
Further, god makes people what they are in most respects. So he makes gays what they are. But he also could be said to make vicious criminals and vicious sadists employed by despots as torturers what they are. He orchestrated the crucifixion . He orchestrated the fall too. So who cares what god thinks one way or the other about these wretched homosaxuals??
Sin is a bad relation to god. So what is 'bad'? This concept has remained unelucidated throughout the history of religion. The reason is that the whole shebang was predicated upon the ancient idea of duty as obedience.
JLAMB
I will forgive your blasphemy (attributing evil, i.e., homosexual sin) toward Jesus. The Greek word translated "loved" in those passages is not referring in any way whatsoever to sexual/romantic love. While English has only one word for love, there are at least four of them in Greek and the one the gospel writer used in those passages is also used for God's love in John 3:16 and the love that we're commanded to have for one another.

Post Reply