Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 137

Thread: Is Homosexuality a "worse sin" than other sins?

  1. #101
    Professor and Chaplain Littlejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,323
    Amen (Given)
    1792
    Amen (Received)
    1834
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Put it this way... at face value, 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that homosexuality is something that will disqualify people from the kingdom. You'd better be 100% sure your interpretation is correct if you're going to tell people that's not what it means, otherwise, the consequences are going to be eternal.
    Right, and this article says that Paul basically originated the word by transliterating and combining 2 words from the Hebrew in Leviticus 18 and 20.

    Does the Greek word "arsenokoitai" really refer to homosexuality?That word is an unusual word. It’s a new word; we don’t know of any other instances of the word until Paul coins the word in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. It’s a compound word: “arsen” means man and “koite” or “koitas” or “koitai”—depending on a verb or a noun—means bed. It’s men who bed with other men.


    It’s quite clear that Paul has coined this word from Leviticus 18 and 20. Even if you don’t know any Greek, you could find online or pull up the Greek transliteration of these two verses. Look at the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and then just look at the Greek for the necessary passage in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 and you'll see there (and in fact the words are right next to each other in Leviticus 20) this word for man (“arsen”) and the word for bed (“koitai” or “koite”).


    https://www.crossway.org/articles/wh...nokoitai-mean/
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

  2. Amen Cow Poke, Teallaura, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  3. #102
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Nor did I claim we are. I merely exposed the silliness of your "logic".



    Just like we do any sinners in need of a Savior.
    And your response to the note in my Study Bible?

  4. #103
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,685
    Amen (Given)
    6058
    Amen (Received)
    11513
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    And your response to the note in my Study Bible?
    Study bibles are not created equal. We don't even know what you're using so we can evaluate its potential use as an authority. I've seen other sources assert that the same passage was referring to cultic temple prostitution, which is hardly compatible with what you've posted.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  5. Amen Cow Poke, Teallaura, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  6. #104
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,345
    Amen (Given)
    11581
    Amen (Received)
    24761
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    And your response to the note in my Study Bible?
    Notes in Study Bibles are not inspired by God the way that the Word is.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  7. #105
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Notes in Study Bibles are not inspired by God the way that the Word is.
    Of course and neither are our opinions inspired by God.

    I thought it interesting to know what a JEWISH Study Bible would say about a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures and it confirms what the Rabbi said about it that I mentioned.

    The bottom line is that no verse in the Bible addresses a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same sex.

    The fallout is that the opinions of some are causing people to bash homosexuals, threaten them, kill them, etc.

    And sadly the Gay nephew of one of the members of my church recently committed suicide because he could not take the persecution any longer and the persecutors justify what they do by interpreting the Bible the way that they do.
    Last edited by Christian3; 07-17-2019 at 03:45 AM.

  8. #106
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,345
    Amen (Given)
    11581
    Amen (Received)
    24761
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    Of course and neither are our opinions inspired by God.
    Mine are! (but not in the same way or to the same extent)

    I thought it interesting to know what a JEWISH Study Bible would say about a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures and it confirms what the Rabbi said about it that I mentioned.
    Paul was a Jew, and a Pharisee or Pharisees. What did he say?

    The bottom line is that no verse in the Bible addresses a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same sex.
    The Book of Ruth.

    The fallout is that the opinions of some are causing people to bash homosexuals, threaten them, kill them, etc.
    Bashing homosexuals, threatening them and killing them and is a sin. So is giving in to homosexual desires. One sin does not justify another sin.

    And sadly the Gay nephew of one of the members of my church recently committed suicide because he could not take the persecution any longer and the persecutors justify what they do by interpreting the Bible the way that they do.
    As tragic as this, it does not justify the sin of homosexuality.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  9. Amen NorrinRadd, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  10. #107
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,723
    Amen (Given)
    2105
    Amen (Received)
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    It's obvious that we are not speaking of a grown male taking advantage of children.

    A note in my Hebrew study bible says of Leviticus 18:22: "Biblical and ancient Near Eastern culture was not familiar with homosexuality in the sense of a defined sexual orientation or lifestyle. It acknowledges only the occasional act of male anal intercourse, usually as an act of force associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection."

    I've read some theories as to why people of the same sex are attracted to each other and no one seems to know for sure.

    What I am sure of is that God is the judge and we are not and that He will judge fairly.

    I am also sure that as Christians we should treat homosexuals with love and compassion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    And your response to the note in my Study Bible?
    Adrift's post quoting Robert Gagnon addresses the Lev. passages, and it seems to *slightly* touch on that argument.

    I've not found much that mentions the "orientation" aspect w.r.t. Leviticus. Keener has an article online that makes some small mention of some of the issues you cite, but in regard to Rom. 1. The CEB Study Bible briefly mentions the "orientation" aspect in regard to Lev. 18:22, agreeing with your source, and notes that homosexual practice was "detestable," in contrast to various other sexual practices that were merely "unclean." In the NIV Cultural Background Bible, Walton does not address the "orientation" issue, but his notes imply there was typically an age- or power-imbalance between the two parties in the homosexual encounter. His notes are necessarily brief, so I am perhaps deriving more than he intends, but his mention that homosexuality and bestiality were associated with cultic practices of some of the surrounding nations suggests (to me) something along the lines that the Hebrews almost automatically associated any such perverse behavior with those pagan nations, as opposed to recognizing any natural "orientation" toward it.

    I'm not sure why this matters. The fact remains that there is no Biblical example of a "positive" homosexual encounter or relationship, and that all Biblical mentions of homosexual activity are in a negative context.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  11. Amen Cow Poke, Teallaura, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  12. #108
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,286
    Amen (Given)
    6736
    Amen (Received)
    6509
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Study bibles are not created equal. We don't even know what you're using so we can evaluate its potential use as an authority. I've seen other sources assert that the same passage was referring to cultic temple prostitution, which is hardly compatible with what you've posted.
    It appears to be from The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation, which I'm sure is decent for what it is, but a study bible isn't going to offer a thorough examination on a subject, and of course, for a Christian, a Jewish Study Bible geared towards a largely Jewish audience is mostly going to forego any greater understanding or revelation on the subject we might get from the New Testament.

    At any rate, this is just moving the goalpost from "these laws were really about mixing practices associated with cultic rites, so they don't apply to us," to "Ok, well then it's actually about acts of violent homosexual practices associated with humiliation, revenge, and subjugation." Well, which is it? If it's actually in reference to cultic rites, then it's unlikely to be about revenge and subjugation. This becomes a sort of wack-a-mole defense where when one argument is hammered into the ground a new one presents itself because the person making the argument isn't comfortable, and/or really doesn't want to acknowledge the Bible's stance on the subject. I'm not completely comfortable with the Bible's stance on the subject; I have plenty of gay friends, family, and acquaintances who appear to be in tender and loving relationships, and it would make things so much easier on me as a Christian if I could simply acquiesce to our culture's current view on the subject, but I have go were the evidence leads, and I trust that God in his unlimited knowledge and wisdom knows something about why homosexual practices and behaviors are harmful and ought to be redirected.

    At any rate, as NorrinRadd pointed out, Gagnon alluded to some of this in my previous post, but here he offers a bit more on the subject,

    Source: A FAITHFUL JOURNEY THROUGH THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY? by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D

    First, as we shall see when we comment more fully on Paul’s view of homosexual practice, it is simply not true that no one in the ancient world had any notion of an exclusive attraction to persons of the same sex or of congenital influences on such attraction. That Hultgren & Taylor could make such a statement when work done by myself, Bernadette Brooten, and William Schoedel (the last two supportive of committed homosexual unions) had already shown that such notions did exist raises serious questions about the care with which Background Essay was produced.

    To be sure, ideas regarding something akin to a sexual orientation appear for the most part in works of the Greek and Roman periods rather than prior in the ancient Near East when the Levitical Holiness Code would have taken shape. Nevertheless, if such notions made little difference to Paul’s perspective on homosexual practice—an individual for whom grace was central—then the very same notions could hardly have made a difference for the writers of Leviticus 18 and 20.

    Moreover, we do know that Mesopotamian sources regarded figures comparable to the qedeshim in the Old Testament (i.e. male cult functionaries who could serve as feminized passive partners in male-male intercourse) as persons both who had been transformed into “men-women” by the goddess Inanna or Ishtar and whose actions were held in great disdain (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 49). While not a ‘scientific’ view, it nonetheless demonstrates the obvious point that people in the ancient Near East could regard as wrong or repugnant even behavior that arose from impulses over which the perpetrator of the behavior had little or no choice in feeling.

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ho...erCritique.pdf

    Source: Why I Could Not Recommend the Mennonite Book Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homosexuality (Herald Press, 2008), Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    The Deuteronomistic references to the qedeshim and the Levite at Gibeah. Legal material from Deuteronomy and narrative material from Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings) disparage the homoerotic associations of the qedeshim. The word literally means “consecrated men” but refers in context to male cultic figures who sometimes served as the passive receptive sexual partners for other men (i.e. homosexual cult prostitutes: Deut 23:17-18; 1 Kgs 14:21-24; 15:12-14; 22:46; 2 Kgs 23:7; cf. Job 36:14). Even Phyllis Bird, an OT scholar who writes on behalf of homosexual unions and has done extensive work on the qedeshim, concedes that the Deuteronomistic Historian was especially repulsed by the consensual, receptive intercourse that these figures had with other men. The reference to such figures as “dogs” (Deut 23:18) matches the slur made against parallel figures in Mesopotamia (the assinnu, kurgarrû, and kulu’u), called both “dog-woman” and “man-woman” because of their consensual attempts at erasing masculinity and being penetrated by other men (compare Rev 22:15, “dogs,” to Rev 21:8, “the abominable”).

    It will not do to dismiss the references to the qedeshim as irrelevant because of the cultic associations, the exchange of money, or the absence of orientation, for several reasons. (1) The Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic description of their behavior as an “abomination” (to’evah, an abhorrent or detestable act) links these texts ideologically to Lev 18:22, where the same tag is applied absolutely to all man-male intercourse and not limited to intercourse in a cultic context for pay. (2) The disgust registered by these narrators for the qedeshim parallels the disgust registered in Mesopotamia for similar figures precisely on the grounds of their attempt to define themselves sexually as women in relation to men rather than as the men that they are. (3) Despite the revulsion with which such figures were held in the ancient Near East, this was still one of the most accepted forms of homosexual practice (not the least), because it was believed that their androgynous demeanor was beyond their control (i.e. due to a goddess figure with androgynous traits). This has links to today’s claim that homosexual attraction is beyond a person’s control.

    So although there is no exact one-to-one correspondence between the qedeshim and homosexual persons today, Deuteronomistic abhorrence of the qedeshim was not confined to men who experienced no same-sex attraction or who were affiliated with a foreign cult and received compensation. It was primarily focused on men who feminized themselves to attract male sex partners—which, incidentally, is also the focus of Paul’s term malakoi (“soft men”) in 1 Cor 6:9. All of this is relevant to a proper interpretation of the Sodom narrative.

    Since the Deuteronomistic Historian’s attitude toward the qedeshim makes it clear that he would have been repulsed by a consensual act of man-male intercourse, it is evident that in telling the story of the Levite at Gibeah the Deuteronomistic Historian was indicting man-male intercourse per se and not only coercive forms of man-male intercourse. Since too the story of a Levite at Gibeah in Judg 19:22-25 is in many respects a carbon copy of the Sodom narrative in Gen 19:4-11 (there are even some verbatim agreements in the Hebrew), how the narrator of Judg 19:22-25 interpreted the attempt of the men of the city to have intercourse with a male visitor provides our earliest commentary of how the Yahwist would have interpreted the similar event at Sodom. In other words, the Yahwist is likely to have viewed the man-male dimension of the attempted act as a compounding factor in underscoring the depravity of the inhabitants.

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://www.robgagnon.net/GrimsrudTheissenReview.htm

    Source: Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture A Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s “Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church” Part III: Scripture by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    A. Ancient sexual orientation theories. Greco-Roman theories (Platonic, Aristotelian, Hippocratic, and even astrological) existed that posited at least some congenital basis for some forms of homosexual attraction, particularly on the part of males desiring to be penetrated. These theories included: a creation splitting of male-male or female-female binary humans; a particular mix of male and female sperm elements at conception; a chronic disease of the mind or soul influenced indirectly by biological factors and made hard to resist by socialization; an inherited disease analogous to a mutated gene; sperm ducts leading to the anus; and the particular alignment of heavenly constellations at the time of one’s birth (see my article, “Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful,” in Christian Sexuality [ed. R. Saltzman; Kirk House, 2003], pp. 140-52).

    Some of the ancient theories are obviously closer to modern theories than others. Differences, however, are beside the point for our discussion here. What matters is that many in the ancient world attributed one or more forms of homosexual practice to an interplay of nature and nurture; and, moreover, believed that homoerotic impulses could be very resistant to change. As T. K. Hubbard notes, “homosexuality in this era (viz., of the early imperial age of Rome, AD first century) may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation” (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, p. 386). He also points to a series of later texts from the second to fourth centuries that “reflect the perception that sexual orientation is something fixed and incurable” (ibid., p. 446). It is important to add here that many of the same Greco-Roman moralists and physicians who held such views could still oppose the behaviors arising from homoerotic predispositions. They could do so by distinguishing, as one Aristotelian text puts it, between behavior that is in accordance with nature and behavior that, though given “by nature,” is yet “constituted contrary to nature” as a “defect” (Problems 4.26).

    B. Why an orientation argument would have made little difference to St. Paul.

    1. Was Paul aware that at least some homosexual desire was not a matter of personal choice? As with Philo of Alexandria, Paul was probably aware of the existence of a lifelong homoerotic proclivity at least among the “soft men” (malakoi) who, even as adults, feminized their appearance to attract male sex partners (1 Cor. 6:9). In addition, nothing in the language of Romans 1:24-27 suggests that Paul viewed homosexuality solely as a chosen condition of constitutional heterosexuals. The expressions “exchanged” and “leaving behind” in 1:26-27 do not refer to a willful exchange of heterosexual desire for homosexual desire, as Peterson and Hedlund mistakenly believe (p. 4 of their part 2). Rather, they refer to a choice of gratifying innate homoerotic desires instead of complying with the evidence of male-female complementarity transparent in material creation or nature. In fact, the terms “exchanged,” “leaving behind,” “God gave them over,” “desire,” and “inflamed with their yearning” in 1:24-27 collectively suggest passions that are preexisting, controlling, and exclusive.

    2. Even exaggerated claims about “homosexual orientation,” particularly notions of congenital determinism and absolute immutability, are compatible with Paul’s view of sin in Romans 5 and 7. Sin for Paul was an innate impulse to commit actions prohibited by God—an impulse passed on by an ancestor, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control. If St. Paul could be transported into modern times and told that some homoerotic desire may be due to partial congenital causation factors (which is the most that we can say at the present time), what we know about Paul and his cultural environment suggests that he could either “I suspected as much” or at least “That fits well with my understanding of sin.”

    3. If some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians, operating within a culture that tolerated and at times endorsed at least some homosexual practice, could reject forms of homosexual practice committed by those with a biological predisposition, it is virtually impossible that Paul, operating out of a Jewish subculture, would have embraced homosexual unions entered into by homosexually oriented persons. Nor could one charge Paul with logical inconsistency if he, aware of something akin to homosexual orientation, did not acknowledge homosexual desire as “natural” in the best sense. For, as noted above, the ancients rightly recognized that not everything that has an origination in nature is natural in the sense of conforming to nature’s well-working processes. Persons’ deeply ingrained sexual desires can be at odds with their embodied sexuality. (A pedophilic orientation would be an instance that all could agree on today.) For Paul, too, nature meant something structurally broader than innate desires: the transparent structures of creation, including essential maleness and femaleness in their anatomical, physiological, and interpersonal complementarity.

    Even Bernadette Brooten, a New Testament scholar who has identified herself publicly as lesbian and has written extensively on lesbianism in antiquity, admits that knowledge of homosexual orientation would have made little difference to Paul’s absolute views on homosexual practice (and, by extension, the views of Jews everywhere in the ancient world): 25

    Paul could have believed that tribades, the ancient kinaidoi, and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word ‘exchanged’ to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago, 1996], p. 244).

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ho...mRespPart3.pdf

  13. #109
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Study bibles are not created equal. We don't even know what you're using so we can evaluate its potential use as an authority. I've seen other sources assert that the same passage was referring to cultic temple prostitution, which is hardly compatible with what you've posted.
    I use The Jewish Study Bible, featuring The Jewish Publication Society. Which one do you use?

    I also like Rashi's comments. He did not have one for Leviticus 18:22.

    I found this:

    Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
    "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

    In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

    The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

    The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

    An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

  14. #110
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Mine are! (but not in the same way or to the same extent)



    Paul was a Jew, and a Pharisee or Pharisees. What did he say?



    The Book of Ruth.



    Bashing homosexuals, threatening them and killing them and is a sin. So is giving in to homosexual desires. One sin does not justify another sin.



    As tragic as this, it does not justify the sin of homosexuality.
    About Ruth.

    https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45594

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •