Richter 8.6
New member
condemn homosexuality? Let's take a look at the passages that (may) reference homosexuality:
Romans 1:21-32 - Often quoted as condemning homosexuality, it seems to me that this passage is taken out of context by doing so. Reading the passage actually shows that homosexuality is not the sin - it is the PUNISHMENT. Those mentioned in the passage have worshiped false idols, and in turn "God gave them over to shameful lusts...In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." It's hard to say that it's a passage condemning homosexuality; it's actually a passage condemning IDOLATRY.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - The Greek word used in this passage that is frequently translated as 'homosexuality' in fact means nothing of the sort. The word 'Malakoi' actually means 'soft'; when used in description of a man, the word generally meant 'effeminate' - a description that can apply to non-homosexual men. The other word, 'Arsenokoitai' is a compound word that appears to mean 'male bed', a euphemism for 'to bed a man'. However, this is an assumption based on context in the passage; a compound word's meaning cannot always be determined by taking the definitions of the root words (example: 'understand' does not mean 'to be upright beneath'). It's also important to note that the other passages in the bible where arsenokoitai appears independently are in reference to economic immorality, not sexual immorality. Based on this, the word could just as easily be translated as 'male prostitution' (a common occurrence in Greek temples of the day).
Timothy 1:8-11 uses the same Greek terms as Corinthians, and so the duality of malakoi and arsenokoitai are just as questionable in regards to a translation meaning 'homosexual' or 'consensual relations between the same sex'.
Given that information, is it really clear that the New Testament condemns homosexuality? For certain, Leviticus seems to condemn the act, but that Old Testament passage also condemns numerous other acts that are undertaken by most Christians without worry - and to accept that one passage, especially when most Christians argue that Christ's coming resulted in a new covenant that supplanted the old law, is disingenuous at best.
So what say ye, Christians?
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.html
@No Chance Without Jesus: Did you bother to read the details at all? I addressed those passages, and explained in quite a bit of detail why your interpretations are questionable at best, outright invalid at worst.
"And what does sodomy translate to??"
Actually, sodomy refers to any type of sex OTHER than the classic 'missionary' position - even when performed between partners of the opposite sex.
"I say you are trying to twist the Bible in order to make sin seem good."
No, I'm actually reading exactly what it says. Care to respond to what I actually wrote? As it stands, it seems you didn't even bother to read - which is, frankly, the close-mindedness Christians often accuse atheists of suffering from.
Imrod:
I'm not redefining words, man. I'm offering you the Greek language - the original language of most of the New Testament documents that are still in existence.
@Godboy:
"Flawed premise/ Modern Chritstians are still under the same covenant that has been built throughout the entire Bible."
Then I am certain that you've never worn clothes of mixed fiber, or eaten shellfish? Those are condemned in Leviticus in the same passages.
@Christine: "Also, if homosexuality stems from poor parenting or incomplete parenting (ex: raising children by a single parent without a suitable father-figure or mother-figure), as psychologists suggest"
Actually, that is not true. I'm living proof that this is bunk. I raised by a mother and father who are both still alive today, without any emotional, physical, or psychological abuse; I actually had a rather idyllic childhood.
The APA and AMA has not considered environmental factors the major cause in homosexuality for almost 30 years now.
@GunsRFun: Thank you for a candid answer. As a follow-up, though: Are there not numerous Christians who have engaged in premarital sex, or who have divorced and remarried for reasons other than adultery (the only reason specifically mentioned as excuse for divorce), and thus also 'sinned?
Then homosexuals would be guilty of only the same sin as numerous professed Christians. Do you assume that those same Christians are going to suffer for eternity alongside gay men and women?
Romans 1:21-32 - Often quoted as condemning homosexuality, it seems to me that this passage is taken out of context by doing so. Reading the passage actually shows that homosexuality is not the sin - it is the PUNISHMENT. Those mentioned in the passage have worshiped false idols, and in turn "God gave them over to shameful lusts...In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." It's hard to say that it's a passage condemning homosexuality; it's actually a passage condemning IDOLATRY.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - The Greek word used in this passage that is frequently translated as 'homosexuality' in fact means nothing of the sort. The word 'Malakoi' actually means 'soft'; when used in description of a man, the word generally meant 'effeminate' - a description that can apply to non-homosexual men. The other word, 'Arsenokoitai' is a compound word that appears to mean 'male bed', a euphemism for 'to bed a man'. However, this is an assumption based on context in the passage; a compound word's meaning cannot always be determined by taking the definitions of the root words (example: 'understand' does not mean 'to be upright beneath'). It's also important to note that the other passages in the bible where arsenokoitai appears independently are in reference to economic immorality, not sexual immorality. Based on this, the word could just as easily be translated as 'male prostitution' (a common occurrence in Greek temples of the day).
Timothy 1:8-11 uses the same Greek terms as Corinthians, and so the duality of malakoi and arsenokoitai are just as questionable in regards to a translation meaning 'homosexual' or 'consensual relations between the same sex'.
Given that information, is it really clear that the New Testament condemns homosexuality? For certain, Leviticus seems to condemn the act, but that Old Testament passage also condemns numerous other acts that are undertaken by most Christians without worry - and to accept that one passage, especially when most Christians argue that Christ's coming resulted in a new covenant that supplanted the old law, is disingenuous at best.
So what say ye, Christians?
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.html
@No Chance Without Jesus: Did you bother to read the details at all? I addressed those passages, and explained in quite a bit of detail why your interpretations are questionable at best, outright invalid at worst.
"And what does sodomy translate to??"
Actually, sodomy refers to any type of sex OTHER than the classic 'missionary' position - even when performed between partners of the opposite sex.
"I say you are trying to twist the Bible in order to make sin seem good."
No, I'm actually reading exactly what it says. Care to respond to what I actually wrote? As it stands, it seems you didn't even bother to read - which is, frankly, the close-mindedness Christians often accuse atheists of suffering from.
Imrod:
I'm not redefining words, man. I'm offering you the Greek language - the original language of most of the New Testament documents that are still in existence.
@Godboy:
"Flawed premise/ Modern Chritstians are still under the same covenant that has been built throughout the entire Bible."
Then I am certain that you've never worn clothes of mixed fiber, or eaten shellfish? Those are condemned in Leviticus in the same passages.
@Christine: "Also, if homosexuality stems from poor parenting or incomplete parenting (ex: raising children by a single parent without a suitable father-figure or mother-figure), as psychologists suggest"
Actually, that is not true. I'm living proof that this is bunk. I raised by a mother and father who are both still alive today, without any emotional, physical, or psychological abuse; I actually had a rather idyllic childhood.
The APA and AMA has not considered environmental factors the major cause in homosexuality for almost 30 years now.
@GunsRFun: Thank you for a candid answer. As a follow-up, though: Are there not numerous Christians who have engaged in premarital sex, or who have divorced and remarried for reasons other than adultery (the only reason specifically mentioned as excuse for divorce), and thus also 'sinned?
Then homosexuals would be guilty of only the same sin as numerous professed Christians. Do you assume that those same Christians are going to suffer for eternity alongside gay men and women?