Gay Christian?

[Searching4Truth]

sin any sin is still sin.

Which gives us every reason to burn in hell. Everyone.

 

[OFM]

sin still sin forgives in Our Lord Jesus Christ =Eternal forever life.
in Heavenly Heaven amen..............

 

[jonnoboy]

Heyy, to me if you look how the body was created, it proves it isn't right, God made our bodies the way he wanted, and for two of the same gender doesnt fit in anywhere! However, the world is very different now with the views on it, I for sure do not mind being a friend to anyone who is gay, because its about the person.... But in a Christian way, yes it is wrong!

Jonno

 

[chesser]

I'm not sure I understand the first statement.

As for whether the KJV is a bad translation or not, I have my reservations as it is translated from Latin, and the Latin Bible was translated from Greek (the Septuagint). The Septuagint is translated from Hebrew. In other words, the KJV has gone through at least two and half translations and this not counting the dispute as to whether the New Testament was written originally in Aramaic as opposed to Greek. There are many errors in the original authorized version of the KJV (such as 'unicorn' in Deuteronomy 33:17 when 'bicorni' should have been used). If memory serves me well, the goal of the translation team for the NKJV wasn't to correct these errors. Rather, they sought to update the words so that modern readers could understand the language. They wanted to preserve the original text even with all the translational errors.

As for the issue of acting upon or not acting upon, I'm sorry but you are still in error. The word "homosexuals" used in that verse in Greek is a plural noun. Because it's a noun, it also does not have voice. Furthermore, the entire verse has no verb associated with the nominative. That portion of the verse is in fact a fragment as it forms part of a list of sins. If my grammar is correct, the definite article is at the beginning of the list which indicates the entire list is the nominative. In other words, there is no bearing as to whether you need to act or not to act in order to be sinful. That issue is irrelevant but by translating to "homosexual offenders," the NIV gives the impression that one needs to act upon it in order to be in sin (that is, the false impression given is that one can be homosexual as long as one doesn't engage in homosexual activities). The Greek makes no such indication.

As I said earlier, this is something I encourage you to pray and reflect upon deeply. There is a great deal of research and learning you will need to do. There's just too much info to present in an informal, online bulletin board. Theologians write hundred-pages papers over these topics! To begin, you may want to look up the word "sodomite." Best wishes to you.

Unless you speak Greek what you say has no affect, I'm not denying you speak Greek, but I want to know if u got that from your own reading or the Internet.

 

[sunniemontana]

Hi Rick, I read your post. I could not tell you if anything is in the Bible or not concerning someone who is gay. But I can tell you how I feel. I am a straight married 53 year old woman. Been married for 35 years so far. I have a gay niece and nephew, and I don't think any different about them. In my opinion, God created all living creatures, and he loves us all. He did not make gay people so that he can not care about them. If the bible is how everyone says it is, then he made you the way you are, just like he made me straight, and he loves us both. If you need to chat, just send me a message, I would love to chat with you. Take care, Sunnie

 

[oopsies]

While you're probably correct in this case, this is not a general rule. Substantives can imply activity or passivity.

Thank you for your response. I might be mistaken but are you referring to Greek participles?

The word, unfortunately, doesn't have a wide usage before Paul's use. However, the word is made up of "men + bed." Not "men + lust" or "men + would really like to sleep with each other."

At face value, it does not apply to a celibate, who has never bedded anybody else, much less a man. Is this the way Paul meant it? If not, he should have used a more common word that indicated an inclination, not the place where the sin usually occurs.

I understand what you are trying to say but I think too much is being read into the word as an attempt to fit the verse into today's world view. I would not accuse people of doing so intentionally (though some are guilty of that) but it is like any other sin - we want to find justification in Scripture for those sins.

Perhaps we can use a different sin in that verse to illustrate what I mean. Let's use "adulterers" as the example and use a compacted, simple definition: a person who sleeps with a married person. Is a person an adulterer only when they act or when they entertain the thought? Matthew 5:27-28 shows us that the heart can commit adultery even without actually physically doing it. Yet, Paul does not make the distinction between thought and action in this particular verse. Why is there a need to make a distinction between thought and action for homosexuals today when in the same verse under the same laundry list of sins, there is no distinction made for adultery (or any of the other sins for that matter) - an issue that was probably wider in scope than homosexuality in Paul's day? There is really only one reason - to try to fit today's worldview into Scripture even thought it may not be intentional.

From my responses, it may not sound like I'm showing a modicum of concern or love. But I do understand the struggles and passions that people are going through with this hot-topic issue. That's simply because every sin we perform, we struggle against the Holy Spirit and what the world says we should be and what we should accept. That goes for sins of the tongue, to sins of the heart, to sins of the physical. But to overcome these sins, other than the obvious of praying and asking for God's forgiveness and help, it also helps not to read too much into individual words unless there's evidence to indicate that we should do that.

 

[oopsies]

Unless you speak Greek what you say has no affect, I'm not denying you speak Greek, but I want to know if u got that from your own reading or the Internet.

I got this from my own reading. However, should it matter if I got it from either my own reading or the Internet? Would you believe greater if I got it from one or the other? Given the example set out in 1 Timothy for the the Church in Ephesus, we are charged to discern all things with the Scriptures to ensure that we are not misled. I don't have the expectation that you would simply take my word for it and I understand your passion for the topic but wouldn't a better response be, "I'm not sure if you speak Greek or not or if you got this from your own reading or from the Internet, but I will pray for discernment and I will make further study into the topic"?

 

[episcopotic]

Thank you for your response. I might be mistaken but are you referring to Greek participles?

Participles are one example of a substantive that can carry voice, certainly. But I'm talking about something more primitive than that. If I read the word "man+car" are necessarily going to hell, I'd understand that meant someone who actually drove, rather than someone who was somehow inclined to. If I meant to imply somebody who wanted to, I have other, standard vocabulary for that.

Yet, Paul does not make the distinction between thought and action in this particular verse. Why is there a need to make a distinction between thought and action for homosexuals today when in the same verse under the same laundry list of sins, there is no distinction made for adultery (or any of the other sins for that matter) - an issue that was probably wider in scope than homosexuality in Paul's day? There is really only one reason - to try to fit today's worldview into Scripture even thought it may not be intentional.

I'd suggest that there is at least one more. All thought about adultery, proclivity towards adultery, etc. is not equivalent to adultery. Lust is not mere attraction. If someone sits down and thinks through an entire sexual escapade, then there's a problem. But there are much more subtle manifestations of the same thing that a person may not so responsible for.

As an example, a lot of attraction happens on a subconscious level - it can be shown that men and women react to even subtle stimuli before they've had a chance to form thoughts about it. Some men's eyes begin to dilate then moment they see a hint of something attractive, which could, in fact, turn out to be a scandalous fruit. If we roll all manifestations of homosexuality into one, put a stamp on it, call it all a sin, we have far fewer means by which to help people who, in my view, genuinely aren't sinning but are nevertheless dealing with the possibility of sin.

I believe the temptation, inclination, and even mindless ideation aren't in themselves sinful, but people are being made to feel they are a sin and therefore are less likely to seek help. The boy who's been told his "interesting" dream is sinful, even though he apparently exercised no will in bringing it about, may have just been cut off from confession of the things he actually does will.

I'm not, by the way, trying to fit this into any worldview - I simply disagree. Guessing at each other's hidden goals (hidden perhaps even to themselves) won't help.

<...> it also helps not to read too much into individual words unless there's evidence to indicate that we should do that.

If the word had larger attestation in Greek literature, we wouldn't need to read into it. I don't think looking into its etymology is an any sense looking too much into the word, especially given its lack of historical context.

In fact, I think implying the word has a clear meaning is a worse mistake. There is no surface reading for a word that, if it existed before Paul used it, wasn't used enough for other examples to have survived.

 

[episcopotic]

As an example of how rarely this word was used and why it's therefore necessary to read it carefully, here's a frequency search from Perseus, my favorite during my college years:

Word Frequency Information

It's worth keeping in mind that subsequent translators had as much available to them as we do; i.e. very little more than the etymology.

 

[chesser]

I got this from my own reading. However, should it matter if I got it from either my own reading or the Internet? Would you believe greater if I got it from one or the other? Given the example set out in 1 Timothy for the the Church in Ephesus, we are charged to discern all things with the Scriptures to ensure that we are not misled. I don't have the expectation that you would simply take my word for it and I understand your passion for the topic but wouldn't a better response be, "I'm not sure if you speak Greek or not or if you got this from your own reading or from the Internet, but I will pray for discernment and I will make further study into the topic"?

See, the reasoning don't trust What you said before to be true(about the translations) is because there is a little known fact about the Internet...not everything on it it true.

 

[jimmydiggs]

See, the reasoning don't trust What you said before to be true(about the translations) is because there is a little known fact about the Internet...not everything on it it true.

Not everything that comes from you, is true.

 

[chesser]

Not everything that comes from you, is true.

Was my last statement true?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

This statement is not true.

 

[masha]

READ,ROMANS 1:26-28
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relashionships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly daserved. 28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. i think we sin becaose of our weakness. Pray God to help you.

 

[HolyMoly]

Funny how people turn to the bible to support anti-gay agenda but when the bible says to "stone to death disobedient children"
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21) people don't profess or follow that. Cherry picking at its finest.

 

[megaman125]

Funny how people turn to the bible to support anti-gay agenda but when the bible says to "stone to death disobedient children"
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21) people don't profess or follow that. Cherry picking at its finest.

You should try actually reading that passage, because no where does it say to stone your children the instant they disobey you.

 

[HolyMoly]

You should try actually reading that passage, because no where does it say to stone your children the instant they disobey you.

Sorry, please translate exactly what it means for me please. Is the end result still to stone to death
disobedient children?

 

[megaman125]

Sorry, please translate exactly what it means for me please. Is the end result still to stone to death
disobedient children?

Ignoring context is typical of scoffers.

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

The bolded parts are the parts you seem to be conviently ignoring. This isn't saying to go grab stones just because your child came in 5 minutes past curfew. This is clearly talking about severe and repeated disobedience.

But if you don't like discipline and think you should be able to do whatever you want with no consequences, then Christianity isn't for you.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

This isn't saying to go grab stones just because your child came in 5 minutes past curfew. This is clearly talking about severe and repeated disobedience.

But if you don't like discipline and think you should be able to do whatever you want with no consequences, then Christianity isn't for you.

Excuse me ... you're saying it's okay to kill your child if he or she disobeys you severely and repeatedly?

I'm sorry, even in that context, it's still problematic. Such an act is absolutely illegal in this and most civilized countries, and I can't imagine any Christian condoning such an act, no matter how "sever and repeated" the rebellion in a child has gotten. I agree you can't just let a child go without some sort of punishment. But stoning a child to death? I'm sorry, if that's what "Christianity" means to you, I think you need to pray to Jesus for a while.

 

[megaman125]

Excuse me ... you're saying it's okay to kill your child if he or she disobeys you severely and repeatedly?

I'm sorry, even in that context, it's still problematic. Such an act is absolutely illegal in this and most civilized countries, and I can't imagine any Christian condoning such an act, no matter how "sever and repeated" the rebellion in a child has gotten. I agree you can't just let a child go without some sort of punishment. But stoning a child to death? I'm sorry, if that's what "Christianity" means to you, I think you need to pray to Jesus for a while.

Please don't put words in my mouth and jump to conclusions.

They had (and still do have) rules and regulations and consequences for breaking them. It doesn't matter what time period you live in, or what country you live in, you'll still be accountable to God for your sins, and you'll still need forgiveness from Jesus. Throughout the Old Testament, you see sin being punishable by death. Heck, you see this in the New Testament too in Romans 6:23. My point is, sins have consequences.