-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
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
Jonno
S
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
O
Thank you for your response. I might be mistaken but are you referring to Greek participles?
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.
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.
O
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"?
E
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
E
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.
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.
M
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.
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.
M
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.
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.
T
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.
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.
M
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.
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.