The New Testament and Homosexuality

[the Black Prince]

as someone whose studied the bible from a young age, i've yet to find a new testament christian passage that condemns gay people, and even the leviticus passage so often cited is ambiguous on the issue.
in the galatians quote below, there is nothing that talks about homosexuality.
Now the doings (practices) of the flesh are clear (obvious): they are immorality, impurity, indecency,
could apply to anything at all, including straight sex.

i think more appropriate to remember however, are a few of the things that jesus taught you
1/ forgivness is dominant
2/ tolerance
3/ do not judge others lest you be judged yourself for judging is reserved for god alone
4/ do not comment on the splinter in another mans eye before oyu have dealt with the log in your own
5/ let him who is without sin cast the first stone
6/ love

i've always found it oronic that a religion in a the name of a man who preached a ministry of peace, love tolerance and forgivness should have his words used to condemn people, and to have people tortured, and nations declared war upon in his name. it all seems to go fundamentally against everything he was trying to teach you. but thats just my opinion

Now to the other more personal parts of your posting. If you really want New Testament scripture to explicitly talk about how homosexuality and crossdressing, etc. are explicitly wrong, I'll post them. I did not do so because I don't think it is necessary extravagantly provoke those who believe as you do. I deliberately was showing that repeatedly the Bible targets quite a few sins, and not exclusively homosexuality--which today seems to be at the center of the culture war.

...

Agreed. Let us start a new thread... I'll be civil, promise.

I propose you quote the longer, personal part of what you just posted, as the thread starter, titled "Does the Christianity of the New Testament outlaw homosexuality?" or something similar.

See you in that thread.

So here we are


Those who are veterans of this issue know that there are many sections of the Old Testament that condemn and prohibit many things.
personally, and with the help of some learned preachers, i know it is possibly to refute that every single one of the oft quoted old (and new) testament passages is actually about homosexuality (including the story of Sodom).
in reality, there is no need to do so.
The laws in Leviticus don't apply to Christians, they apply to Jews. By following those laws, Jews live a clean life that allows them to enter the inner sanctum of the temple upon death, and from there to the kingdom of heaven.
When Jesus died, that veil (seperating the inner sanctum) was split (in the earthquake). For Christians, the way to the kingdom of heaven is not through a temple, but through Jesus himself. he gave his blood to forgive our sins, that we may enter Gods Kingdom. Or so christians believe. I prefer to walk across the Bridge of Swords myself, but each to their own...

In the new testament, those selected versions of Jesus' ministry that form the gospels (yes yes, i'm biased, so what? ) tell us that Jesus wanted us to live in a certain way
He wanted us to live lives of Love, Forgivness and Tolerance
He told us not to judge others, lest we be judged ourselves (do not judge or condemn others)
He told us look not to the splingter in another mans eyes until you have dealt with the log in your own (don't be hypocrits)
He told us, let him who is without sin cast the first stone (again, no hypocracy)

I've therefore always found it of considerable amusement that Christians, in the name of Jesus and their God have spent several centuries waging wars and torturing people in the name of peace love and forgivness.
I found it highly amusing that certain right wing groups go round saying stuff like "God Hates Fags" when thats the precise opposite of what Jesus taught. Can you imagine Jesus being pleased about Inquisition torturing people in Gods name? Can you imagine Jesus being pleased that Christian groups, led by Christian Reverends go out and condemn and persecute gay people? Are these christian groups so absolutely free from sin that they can escape jesus instruction not to do this? Are they so wise and powerful that they have the right to judge others when Jesus forbade it?

i think not.

If you remember what Jesus was saying, you will find there is nothing in the new testament that actually condemns gay people. Its not the kind of thing Jesus ministry was trying to achieve.
Paul's words in the book of Romans are a good example of the misinterpretations used to condem gays. Paul's words speaking out about idolterous worship, and the use of sex rights in worship are now used to condemn gay people, when in fact Paul is speaking out against the various cults still practising Hieros Gamos, the Fertility Rites of Baal, the sexual communion found in the Cult of Isis, and several other similar such concepts all of which were popular religious movements both in Rome, where Paul was writing too, and Corinth, where he was writing from.

ENSAIS, i throw the gauntlet to you! hehehe

[Rush Limbaugh]

If you remember what Jesus was saying, you will find there is nothing in the new testament that actually condemns gay people. Its not the kind of thing Jesus ministry was trying to achieve.

Exactly. His main point was follow the golden rule , do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Also hate the sin but love the sinner. Excellent post BP.

[ENSAIS]

Guys, I'll edit this ASAP,

real life has interrupted my time on this forum or in playing SPQR 6.2-- we just had friends arrive from a different continent.

I promise an ENSAIS sermon inspired by the new testament re: is homosexuality sin as soon as possible.

Thanks for the thread. I'll post tonight hopefully and edit this into the thread it should be...
ENSAIS

[shenmueguru]

I've therefore always found it of considerable amusement that Christians, in the name of Jesus and their God have spent several centuries waging wars and torturing people in the name of peace love and forgivness.
I found it highly amusing that certain right wing groups go round saying stuff like "God Hates Fags" when thats the precise opposite of what Jesus taught. Can you imagine Jesus being pleased about Inquisition torturing people in Gods name? Can you imagine Jesus being pleased that Christian groups, led by Christian Reverends go out and condemn and persecute gay people? Are these christian groups so absolutely free from sin that they can escape jesus instruction not to do this? Are they so wise and powerful that they have the right to judge others when Jesus forbade it?

Do you assume all these people who commited these acts are christian? Just because they call themselves that doesn't mean they are. Of course the extremist "christians" don't represent christianity at all, you yourself said this. Therefore...they are not christians.

If you remember what Jesus was saying, you will find there is nothing in the new testament that actually condemns gay people. Its not the kind of thing Jesus ministry was trying to achieve.
Paul's words in the book of Romans are a good example of the misinterpretations used to condem gays. Paul's words speaking out about idolterous worship, and the use of sex rights in worship are now used to condemn gay people, when in fact Paul is speaking out against the various cults still practising Hieros Gamos, the Fertility Rites of Baal, the sexual communion found in the Cult of Isis, and several other similar such concepts all of which were popular religious movements both in Rome, where Paul was writing too, and Corinth, where he was writing from.

Like anything, interpreting the words of Paul and other christian writers isn't as easy as just reading it; one must have an understanding of the times when the passages were written. Almost takes a biblical scholar to give some insight into the original meaning. This sight gives some views, and I really can't comment on the matter because I really haven't looked into homosexuality and the new testament.

[Bwaho]

If you remember what Jesus was saying, you will find there is nothing in the new testament that actually condemns gay people. Its not the kind of thing Jesus ministry was trying to achieve.

Jesus didn't encourage sins just because he said he was ready to forgive them.

tell us that Jesus wanted us to live in a certain way
He wanted us to live lives of Love, Forgivness and Tolerance
He told us not to judge others, lest we be judged ourselves (do not judge or condemn others)
He told us look not to the splingter in another mans eyes until you have dealt with the log in your own (don't be hypocrits)
He told us, let him who is without sin cast the first stone (again, no hypocracy)

Indeed Jesus believed in forgiveness, but not in you taking advantage of his mercy. If you're not truly sorry for your sins then it doesn't matter how much you ask for forgiveness because in the end it is God that will judge you, and he will see right through you.

The laws in Leviticus don't apply to Christians, they apply to Jews

What people seem to forget is that Jesus was a reformer of judaism, not a creator of a new religion (although that was the result of his actions).

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

-Matthew 5:17

[ENSAIS]

So what does the Bible say about homosexuality? GOD is love isn’t He? Would he be against “love”?

As a fundamentalist Christian speaking to those who profess to want to know what the Bible (particularly New Testament) actually says regarding a topic, this response must involve a similar amount of scripture as a sermon would to seriously address the topic. Scripture verses are marked in green and scripture quotes in blue.

The following sample of New Testament teaching on homosexuality should be taken in the context of the entire Bible and the message of the New Testament. That is, GOD roundly condemns sins of all kinds, and calls us to repentance through Jesus Christ, which is a complete “about-face” turning away from our sin and rebirth as a new creature in Him. This is the process Jesus Christ Himself described first-hand in John chapter 3 to Nicodemus.

Time and time again in the New Testament there is a call to righteousness, and against lusts and accompanying sins of the flesh, which would include among them fornication, rape, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality—all defined explicitly as a sin in multiple parts of the Bible. [start with Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:18, and Romans 1:27 and Leviticus 18:22, You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”]

Romans 6:12-14,23 is a typical reference among literally volumes of examples of this New Testament call to righteousness rather than sins of the flesh:
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. …23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Another similar scripture among the flood of such New Testament basic doctrine: 1 Peter 4:1-4 (New International Version) 1Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. 2As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.

Many times sins of the flesh—which would include homosexuality—are warned against in a way that makes it clear what categories of sin is being referred to (the whole list of carnal sins) without explicitly saying the word “homosexuality.” A decent example of this is Philippians 3:18-19 18For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. A similar example is Ephesians 5:11-12 (New American Standard) 11Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.


So what we see so far is just that in Leviticus, Romans, and Deuteronomy we can find homosexuality defined, with other sexual practices, as a sin. Also, there are many calls in the Bible away from basically carnal fleshly living and sins of the flesh. Most reviews of scripture stop here, perhaps adding in Sodom and Gomorrah and the 20-30 New Testament references to it.

But is homosexuality addressed specifically in the New Testament?
Of course it is. Please don’t take the following to be the Bible clubbing you over the head, but if as a Christian you honestly did not realize the New Testament address this, you need to familiarize yourself with the following (and quite a few other) scriptures:

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New American Standard Bible)
“9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [note refers effeminate by perversion only], nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This is actually a fairly common teaching that appears many places. Another example is in
1 Timothy 1:5-11 (New American Standard Bible)
5But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. 8But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.


Finally, there is a passage of scripture that explicitly details the New Testament explanation of what homosexuality (among other sins) is, and how this and other sins came to be. It establishes very well the secular humanism of today that denies God and is given to futile speculations and darkened hearts. Note the death referred to at the end is the spiritual death… the “second death” of Revelation 2:11, Revelation 20:13-15, Revelation 21:8. I have included cross-references as they appear in my Bible… so you can dig further yourself if need be.
Romans 1:18-32 (New American Standard Bible)
18For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because (C)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not [a]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22(G)Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [b]crawling creatures.
24Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (Q)gossips,
30slanderers, (R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful;
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Footnotes:
Romans 1:21 Lit glorify
Romans 1:23 Or reptiles

Cross references:
Romans 1:18 : Rom 5:9; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6
Romans 1:18 : 2 Thess 2:6
Romans 1:19 : Acts 14:17; 17:24-ff
Romans 1:20 : Mark 10:6
Romans 1:20 : Job 12:7-9; Ps 19:1-6; Jer 5:21
Romans 1:21 : 2 Kin 17:15; Jer 2:5; Eph 4:17
Romans 1:22 : Jer 10:14; 1 Cor 1:20
Romans 1:23 : Deut 4:16-18; Ps 106:20; Jer 2:11; Acts 17:29
Romans 1:24 : Rom 1:26, 28; Eph 4:19
Romans 1:24 : Eph 2:3
Romans 1:25 : Is 44:20; Jer 10:14; 13:25; 16:19
Romans 1:25 : Rom 9:5; 2 Cor 11:31
Romans 1:26 : Rom 1:24
Romans 1:26 : 1 Thess 4:5
Romans 1:27 : Lev 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9
Romans 1:28 : Rom 1:24
Romans 1:29 : 2 Cor 12:20
Romans 1:30 : Ps 5:5
Romans 1:30 : 2 Tim 3:2
Romans 1:31 : 2 Tim 3:3
Romans 1:32 : Rom 6:21
Romans 1:32 : Luke 11:48; Acts 8:1; 22:20

After that rather explanation of sin, pride, foolish speculations, darkened hearts, and being given over to various sins, the most common response I have seen from unbelievers is to turn this back on God.

Now that they see a clear doctrine in multiple parts of the Bible explicitly declaring what they define themselves as to be sin, they say “It is God’s fault. He made me this way… etc.”
Let me be clear. Murderers kill people. Thieves kill people. Pedophiles molest children. Rapists rape. A person who is a homosexual practices homosexuality—and not just a person tempted with urges who does not do the sin, but a practitioner of that particular sin.

What does the New Testament say about your temptation to that sin? Is God the cause? James 1:13-16 (New American Standard) 13Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. 16Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.”

So what happens if being tempted of your own lust, you sin, repeatedly to the point where you define yourself by that sin, as a practitioner of said sin? Hebrews 10:26-27 26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.” [allcaps due to quotation of Isaiah 26:11]

This scripture was the basis for probably the most famous Protestant sermon of all time, “sinners in the hands of an angry God”…

Anyway, doctrinally there you have a New Testament-based discussion of homosexuality. More scripture available to the truly interested…

[Richard]

It says ''don't lie with a man as you would a woman"...but what about lieing with a woman as one would a man?

[Rush Limbaugh]

but what about lieing with a woman as one would a man?

The whole point is your not supposed to lie with a man if you are a man. In fact your not supposed to lie with a woman either unless your married.

[Richard]

No, I was meaning ''what about sodomising women''?

[Rush Limbaugh]

No, I was meaning ''what about sodomising women''?

Just another sin of lust.

[Lord Rahl]

So here we are


Those who are veterans of this issue know that there are many sections of the Old Testament that condemn and prohibit many things.
personally, and with the help of some learned preachers, i know it is possibly to refute that every single one of the oft quoted old (and new) testament passages is actually about homosexuality (including the story of Sodom).
in reality, there is no need to do so.
The laws in Leviticus don't apply to Christians, they apply to Jews. By following those laws, Jews live a clean life that allows them to enter the inner sanctum of the temple upon death, and from there to the kingdom of heaven.
When Jesus died, that veil (seperating the inner sanctum) was split (in the earthquake). For Christians, the way to the kingdom of heaven is not through a temple, but through Jesus himself. he gave his blood to forgive our sins, that we may enter Gods Kingdom. Or so christians believe. I prefer to walk across the Bridge of Swords myself, but each to their own...

In the new testament, those selected versions of Jesus' ministry that form the gospels (yes yes, i'm biased, so what? ) tell us that Jesus wanted us to live in a certain way
He wanted us to live lives of Love, Forgivness and Tolerance
He told us not to judge others, lest we be judged ourselves (do not judge or condemn others)
He told us look not to the splingter in another mans eyes until you have dealt with the log in your own (don't be hypocrits)
He told us, let him who is without sin cast the first stone (again, no hypocracy)

I've therefore always found it of considerable amusement that Christians, in the name of Jesus and their God have spent several centuries waging wars and torturing people in the name of peace love and forgivness.
I found it highly amusing that certain right wing groups go round saying stuff like "God Hates Fags" when thats the precise opposite of what Jesus taught. Can you imagine Jesus being pleased about Inquisition torturing people in Gods name? Can you imagine Jesus being pleased that Christian groups, led by Christian Reverends go out and condemn and persecute gay people? Are these christian groups so absolutely free from sin that they can escape jesus instruction not to do this? Are they so wise and powerful that they have the right to judge others when Jesus forbade it?

i think not.

If you remember what Jesus was saying, you will find there is nothing in the new testament that actually condemns gay people. Its not the kind of thing Jesus ministry was trying to achieve.
Paul's words in the book of Romans are a good example of the misinterpretations used to condem gays. Paul's words speaking out about idolterous worship, and the use of sex rights in worship are now used to condemn gay people, when in fact Paul is speaking out against the various cults still practising Hieros Gamos, the Fertility Rites of Baal, the sexual communion found in the Cult of Isis, and several other similar such concepts all of which were popular religious movements both in Rome, where Paul was writing too, and Corinth, where he was writing from.

ENSAIS, i throw the gauntlet to you! hehehe

Yes, Jesus wouldn't hate homosexuals. Neither do I. If you are a Christian and you hate homosexuals (as well as anyone else) that is a sin. What I would like to know is, if God created a man and a woman to be partners then why would men being with men or women being with women not be a sin. That is going against God's very plan for humans.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;
they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. — Leviticus 20:13

Yes, this was written for the Levites. They were not as we are. It was written toward non-Christians from a Christian man with Christian teachings. I do not think that you wish to say that since Romans was written for Romans that we cannot teach ourselves from those passages. Jesus says to love everyone but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is "good". In the Bible homosexuality, or, "lying with a man as with a woman", is said to be a sin multiple times. It should be treated like every other sin. Everytime I get turned on by the hotness of the curvy and sexy women that is as much of a sin as that of homosexuality. I just don't see why God would have made Woman if he thought it would be ok to just have Man. If God meant for us to have sex with other dudes then He would have made it make sense. I mean, women have vaginas. The vagina was made so we can stick it in. The anus is for, well, to crap out of. It just doesn't make sense.

[the Black Prince]

Ensais, i will respond to your post when i have the leisure of drafting a suitably researched and equally sourced reply


i will however make one comment

any bible quote that uses the word homosexual or homosexuality in it, is wrong, and a mistranslation. it cannot possibly be a word used in any of the books of the bible, old or new, because the word is only 150yrs old. (approx).
Bible editions such as the King James bible are very poor references and in many areas, not just this one, totally distort the original meaning of the text


i also thought the topic was one of the new testament, so i'm suprised to see quotes from leviticus mentioned...

[Bwaho]

any bible quote that uses the word homosexual or homosexuality in it, is wrong, and a mistranslation. it cannot possibly be a word used in any of the books of the bible, old or new, because the word is only 150yrs old. (approx).
Bible editions such as the King James bible are very poor references and in many areas, not just this one, totally distort the original meaning of the text

I find it interesting that whenever something in the bible speaks against your views you say it is either "distorted" or a "mistranslation"... but the bible is always right when it backs up your views...

Here are a few other translations:

Darby Translation:
Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men

Amplified Bible:
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

New International Version:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

New Living Translation:
Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God

Young's Literal Translation:
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither *****mongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

Holman Christian Standard Bible:
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom.

Wycliffe New Testament:
Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men,

but perhaps you prefer the homosexual lobby's bible translation?

i also thought the topic was one of the new testament, so i'm suprised to see quotes from leviticus mentioned...

sigh, you still don't get it do you?

[Tom Paine]

Bwaho, the word "homosexuality" has no greek equivalent; there was no greek word for it. Nor, in fact, ahebrew one. Ergo those passages are... and this may be a shock... wrongly translated.

[Dromikaites]

Well, I think Christians are in a dificult position when comming to the issue about how to treat homosexuals (at least male homosexuals since both the Old and the New Testament seemed to ignore the lesbians). It all depends on how much a Christian should obey to what is prescribed in the Old Testament.

Given the Christians don't generally eat kosher food, nor do they practice circumcision (in US they cut from where they should add , but that's another story - in the rest of the world Christians don't get pieces of their penises cut off) so it's quite likely the majority of the Christians today are not supposed to kill homosexuals nor witches even though both are mandatory according to the Old Testament.

What is clear though is according to the way the New Testament is interpreted by most of the Christian churches at least male homosexuality is considered a sin. However at least today punishing homosexuals for their sin is left to God, not to the state in most of the countries where Christianity is the dominant religion.

[Bwaho]

Bwaho, the word "homosexuality" has no greek equivalent; there was no greek word for it. Nor, in fact, ahebrew one. Ergo those passages are... and this may be a shock... wrongly translated.

ever considered that the hebrew or greek bibles used their own respective words/phrases to describe homosexuality as a sinful act and then we used our own words for it later? i.e: "homosexuality".

Just because there is no direct translation for a word doesn't mean the message can't be the same.

so it's quite likely the majority of the Christians today are not supposed to kill homosexuals nor witches even though both are mandatory according to the Old Testament.

Remember this? "If there be a man among you who is free from sin, let him be the one to throw the first stone."

Jesus didn't want humans to judge eachother, that was to be left to God.

However, as I said before: Jesus saying that he will forgive sinners is not the same as him saying it's ok to sin.

and here is a passage to back up my point:

Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives.

And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,

they said unto Him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned but what sayest thou?"

This they said testing Him, that they might have cause to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not.

So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the eldest even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted Himself up and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"

She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more."

John 8:1-11

Jesus forgives the woman, but also tells her not to sin again... do you understand how it works now?

[Tom Paine]

ever considered that the hebrew or greek bibles used their own respective words/phrases to describe homosexuality as a sinful act and then we used our own words for it later? i.e: "homosexuality".

Just because there is no direct translation for a word doesn't mean the message can't be the same.

Aye, this is true. But i have never seen a Bible actually translate it the way it would be; I mean you get the whole man lying with mn as with women thing... but elsewhere its just, homosexuality. I believe, and I'll look for the site on this, that the word translated just means sexual perversions... which a Greek would not see homosexuality as.

[the Black Prince]

Bwaho, here is but one verse, from several different translations of the bible

Daniel 1:9

Various English translations differ greatly:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (New International Version)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (King James Version)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)



The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth.


i'm particularly curious as to where the word "superintendent" comes from in the Living Bibles translation
to use words that couldn't possibly have been used by the authors, because they didn't exist is a mistranslation. and it distorts the meaning of the passage entirely. to put the word "homosexual" into Pauls mouth in the passage in romans for example, distorts the meaning of the passage when taken as a whole. Paul isn't taling about homosexual or heterosexual perversions of sex between two people. he's talking about sexual practices used in religion.


Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said. As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.

When Dr. Truluck taught a college course in the Book of Romans, he decided to memorize Romans, as Augustine suggested. The effort paid off. Being able to visualize the message of Romans as a whole immediately cleared up a lot of Paul's thought that he had not been able to untangle before by traditional means of study. It helped so much that he continued to memorize the books of the Bible that he taught in college courses.

The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses.

Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.

Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.

Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.

The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.

We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature."

One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently."

This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.

Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.

If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation. As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and Gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.

On Romans 1:31 in particular, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere!

The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

additional information from::
Doctor Rembert S Truluck
Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, 1973-1981



on a personal note, i think it important for the christian gay bashers to read and take note of Romans 2:1


"Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

[Bwaho]

Bwaho, here is but one verse, from several different translations of the bible

Daniel 1:9

Various English translations differ greatly:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (New International Version)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (King James Version)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)

all of those still convey the same message, there's no problem understanding what is being said here.



edit: black prince, can you at least read my last post? much of what you say I've already mentioned and dealt with.

[Arbaces]

I think post #6 sais it all. A New Testament which does not condemn gay people would be one written by gay people who knows, anyway not the True Orthodox Bible. Gay people always existed including in the times of Jesus so I see no reasons why the NT wouldn't condemn them as well.

ARBACES.