Should you say, 'Homosexuality is a Sin.'

  • 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.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
That's strictly in academia and liberal propaganda terms, though; and I don't think we should let them control language- because a big part of what they do is try to control language because people tend to think in their language- they are really trying to control the way people think by trying to control language.
The thing is, when the coin was termed.... by one of them.... it referred to a man who was attracted to males. That's what it meant in academia, the various social sciences, from what I gather, historically since then. Those lesser educated in the fields of study where the term was used started using the term for those who do same-sex sex acts. So they aren't really hijacking the term.

The NIV, for example, used 'homosexual' to refer to a man who has sex with men, probably the more 'dominant' role in the act. That's a translation challenge, but it was a bit inaccurate because they were using a word about inclinations to attaction to refer to a sinful act.

My concern with this is communicating truth to those who are tempted in this way, so they don't hear the wrong message, or something unintended by the preacher.

The term should be limited to homosexual practice and desire of the heart (which is what defiles a man), just as "adulterer" is limited to people who actually commit, or desire to commit, adultery.
That's not what it meant originally, and that isn't what it means to the masses now, not the younger generations, especially those who have had the 'orientation' rhetoric hammered into them through media and even the public school system, colleges, and universities.

The liberal propagandists can simply be ignored.
It's not really propaganda to stick with the original meaning of terms, though they do have a lot of propaganda. If you want to communicate with someone who grew up under the propaganda, you need to know their language.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
That's strictly in academia and liberal propaganda terms, though; and I don't think we should let them control language- because a big part of what they do is try to control language because people tend to think in their language- they are really trying to control the way people think by trying to control language.
The term should be limited to homosexual practice and desire of the heart (which is what defiles a man), just as "adulterer" is limited to people who actually commit, or desire to commit, adultery.

There might be academics, psycologists, sociologists, and other -ologists that want to classify and lock people into an "orientation", but it's a futile way of thinking. And honestly, with the dialog that I have had with self-professing "gays/lesbians" (who typically do not like the term "homosexual" interestingly enough), they have often privately admitted that their sexuality is a little more complicated than them simply being attracted to the same sex. The liberal propagandists can simply be ignored.
God has put out a pretty good dictionary. Actually, it's my favorite. Let see what He says...

Romans 1:27

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Calls it error. Unseemly error. Say these men shall receive a recompence for it. I wonder what that will consist of?
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
192
83
28
82
"Orientation" isn't a very relevant concept when discussing the Bible's teachings on the topic. A lot of LGBT apologists who use the Bible try to twist it to make it about their orientation theory.

I Corinthians 6 has a couple of words there, probably for the two participants in a same-sex act. Romans 1 condemns the activity, and describes the lust for it as shameful.
I will agree with you here, "sexual orientation" does miss the mark. It just seems that a very slim minority of people actually love their own gender and it is a much broader matter than sex. When you read the two verses that many translations translate as homosexual practice in the KJV and then check the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, you find definitions of the words are about sodomites, the words used are "abuser" as in 1 Cor. 6:9 is defined as deceiver; a ravisher; a sodomite; and "defile" in 1 Tim. 1:10 in terms that appear to refer to rape. That causes me to believe modern concepts are being read back into the Scriptures where in centuries past, they were not viewed like this. But, I suspect any Christians who are homosexual in nature, have gone to liberal churches or dropped out altogether. It it were not for the LGBTQ bunch and their 'in your face' attitude to cram this stuff down our throat, I suspect not many people would be so upset about it. That's my 2 cents worth anyway... .yeah, I know that may be all it's worth. :D
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
I will agree with you here, "sexual orientation" does miss the mark. It just seems that a very slim minority of people actually love their own gender and it is a much broader matter than sex. When you read the two verses that many translations translate as homosexual practice in the KJV and then check the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, you find definitions of the words are about sodomites, the words used are "abuser" as in 1 Cor. 6:9 is defined as deceiver; a ravisher; a sodomite; and "defile" in 1 Tim. 1:10 in terms that appear to refer to rape. That causes me to believe modern concepts are being read back into the Scriptures where in centuries past, they were not viewed like this. But, I suspect any Christians who are homosexual in nature, have gone to liberal churches or dropped out altogether. It it were not for the LGBTQ bunch and their 'in your face' attitude to cram this stuff down our throat, I suspect not many people would be so upset about it. That's my 2 cents worth anyway... .yeah, I know that may be all it's worth. :D
In Greek there is a word for "bed" that meant to have sex.

I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 have a word that refers to "man'bedders"... arsenoikoitai. The Greek LXX of the verse in Leviticus 20 that refers to this forbids as 'arsenos koiten' with a man....
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
192
83
28
82
In Greek there is a word for "bed" that meant to have sex.

I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 have a word that refers to "man'bedders"... arsenoikoitai. The Greek LXX of the verse in Leviticus 20 that refers to this forbids as 'arsenos koiten' with a man....
I'm aware of the Greek, and rapists or sodomites can commit their crime on a bed. But as to Leviticus, I do not go there as a Christian, I look for my directions in the New Testament. I'm going to post something I found this morning that I'd never seen before. But not as an answer to anyone, just for general information.
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
192
83
28
82
Many current translations not only render as those who practive homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6:9, they also have the word in 1 Tim. 1:10. I do not recall spending any time in study on 1 Tim.1:10 and that section, and this mornng I found it surprising. I take these from the https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html web site. It caused me to rethink the passage in 1 Cor. 6:9, 10. I offer this for consideration from men of old.

Abbots Illustrated New Testament: "Verse 7
Desiring to be; pretending to be,--desiring to be so esteemed.
1 Timothy 1:9,1 Timothy 1:10. The meaning seems to be, that the Mosaic law, with its onerous rites and threatened penalties, is not now to be pressed upon those who have abandoned their sins, and are looking for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Its hard conditions may be urged upon those who still continue in sin, and of course reject every other ground of salvation; but they must not be brought in to burden and oppress those who have turned from the law to the gospel."

Alford's Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary
"...but to the whole preceding sentence, the entire exposition which he has been giving of the freedom of Christians from the moral law of the decalogue) the gospel of the glory..."

Burkitt's Expository Notes:
"It was not made for a righteous man, that is, say some, it was not made for him as a burden, to be an uneasiness to him, because he has a love to it, a delight in it, and does voluntarily comform himself to the observations of it;

others say thus, The law was not made for a righteous man, that is, the righteous man is not under the coercive or vindictive, but directive, power of the law only: he is not under the curse of the law actually, though all are under it meritoriously; and accordingly the law was never made to terrify, and affrighten, and condemn them."

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary on Tim. 1:8 "The regular Greek idiom corresponding with our passive, if it be handled as law should be , that is, by the teacher of the law. Ellicott gives the sense of the passage clearly, ‘The false teachers on the contrary, assuming that it was designed for the righteous man, urged their interpretations of it as necessary appendices to the Gospel.’"

Heinrich Meyer on 1 Tim. 1:6,7 "Paul merely says that the νομοδιδάσκαλοι [law teachers] possessed no insight into the nature of the law, and hence they made assertions regarding it which were not understood even by themselves."
Meyer on vv 9 & 10 "As Wiesinger rightly remarks, vv. 9 and 10 show that the apostle is not contending here against actual Judaizers, but “against such as consider the law a means of attaining to a still higher moral perfection.”
Meyer quoting Otto on v11 in relation to the law: "I teach that God got rid of this opposition by reconciling the world to Himself, and that we have indeed a blessed God.”

Philip Schaff's Popular Commentary on the NT, on 1 Tim.1:8
"If a man use it lawfully. ‘We know,’ the apostle seems to say, ‘we who have been taught, through personal experience, by the Spirit of God, what is the nature and office of the law, that it is good and noble. To use it law-fully is to feel that it no longer touches us, that we are not under its condemnation, to press its observance not on those who are “just” as having the new life in Christ, but on those who still live in sin. That, with perhaps a slight play upon the word, is the legitimate use of law.’'

Scripture does not contradict itself so I''m taking a fresh look at 1 Cor. 6:11 as Albert Barnes writes:
"But ye are washed - Heb 10:22. Washing is an emblem of purifying. They had been made pure by the Spirit of God. They had been, indeed, baptized, and their baptism was an emblem of purifying, but the thing here particularly referred to is not baptism, but it is something that had been done by the Spirit of God, and must refer to his agency on the heart in cleansing them from these pollutions. Paul here uses three words, “washed, sanctified, justified,” to denote the various agencies of the Holy Spirit by which they had been recovered from sin. The first, that of washing, I understand of that work of the Spirit by which the process of purifying was commenced in the soul, and which was especially signified in baptism - the work of regeneration or conversion to God. By the agency of the Spirit the defilement of these pollutions had been washed away or removed - as filth is removed by ablution - The agency of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is elsewhere represented by washing, Tit 3:5,” The washing of regeneration.” compare Heb 10:22.

Ye are sanctified - This denotes the progressive and advancing process of purifying which succeeds regeneration in the Christian. Regeneration is the commencement of it - its close is the perfect purity of the Christian in heaven; see the note at Joh 17:17. It does not mean that they were perfect - for the reasoning of the apostle shows that this was far from being the case with the Corinthians; but that the work was advancing, and that they were in fact under a process of sanctification.

But ye are justified - Your sins are pardoned, and you are accepted as righteous, and will be treated as such on account of the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ; see the note at Rom 1:17; note at Rom 3:25-26; note at Rom 4:3. The apostle does not say that this was last in the order of time, but simply says that this was done to them. People are justified when they believe, and when the work of sanctification commences in the soul.
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
1,910
859
113
The thing is, when the coin was termed.... by one of them.... it referred to a man who was attracted to males. That's what it meant in academia, the various social sciences, from what I gather, historically since then. Those lesser educated in the fields of study where the term was used started using the term for those who do same-sex sex acts. So they aren't really hijacking the term.
The term has it's own literal meaning from the Greek- but let the social scientists use whatever terminology they like in their field of study.

With respect to the law: homosexual conduct is a sin, and a person engaging in the sin of homosexual conduct is a homosexual, just like a person committing robbery is a robber. Even if they are doing it for money or some other purpose and not really attracted to/aroused by the same sex.

I mean, just looking at the Wikipedia article on sexual orientation, we have scientists saying....

Sexologist Milton Diamond writes, "The terms heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are better used as adjectives, not nouns, and are better applied to behaviors, not people. This usage is particularly advantageous when discussing the partners of transsexual or intersexed individuals. These newer terms also do not carry the social weight of the former ones."[28]

I highly doubt there is any real consensus in the social sciences about anything at all- but especially sexuality. Is Milton Diamond "less educated" than Karl Heinrich Ulrichs?

My concern with this is communicating truth to those who are tempted in this way, so they don't hear the wrong message, or something unintended by the preacher.
I share your concern, and as I said earlier I definitely believe in the practice of diplomacy when it comes to these things.

That's not what it meant originally, and that isn't what it means to the masses now, not the younger generations, especially those who have had the 'orientation' rhetoric hammered into them through media and even the public school system, colleges, and universities.
I understand that, but at the same time worldly people understand and define marriage as something that it is not- they have to change their definition and understanding of what love and marriage really are with respect to biblical principles. Furthermore- we cannot recognize the definition of terms like "transgender" or "transexual" that say a man can become a woman, because they are definitions that are loaded with falsehoods that defy reality.

I am against the redefinition of words without cause- believe that. In this case, I believe there is sufficient cause for the following reasons.

-The understanding of "homosexual" as a noun describing someone with same-sex attraction is inconveniently narrow. The second element "-sexual" is too broad to only refer to sexual attraction, and does not refer specifically to attraction in other compound words with "-sexual" as an element.
-That understanding of the word was perhaps specific to social sciences.
- That understanding of the word in social sciences may not really be so monolithic.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is really important, is that people understand they will be judged for their sinful behaviors and motivations and not for genetic/environmental dispositions. No doubt that has to be explained to people- just as many other things need to be explained, because anything coming out of the bible is easy to misunderstand and take offense to (even if the person is not an unbeliever that is trying to be offended). Topics like "anger" being a sin- those have to be thoroughly digested or people will freak out and think they are a sinner or think the bible is stupid.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
very slim minority of people actually love their own gender and it is a much broader matter than sex.
Seems like we need to revisit what the definition of love is. It was a sad day when people started calling lust love.

Except a man love all men, including his enemies, he shall not see the coming Kingdom of God.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
not for genetic/environmental dispositions. No doubt that has to be explained to people-
The only thing that needs to be explained to people is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He is fully capable of fixing everything that needs fixing once we yield ourselves to Him.

the bible is easy to misunderstand and take offense to (even if the person is not an unbeliever that is trying to be offended).
The true seeking believer has the understanding of the Holy Spirit at his disposal. We need no secular sociology or psychology training to walk the Christian walk.

We need to conform to God's Word, not the other way around. If the Bible offends me, then I had better get on my knees really quick and get things right with God.

.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
Please do not be offended by my posts. I love you all.

I am just saying what comes to mind.

God bless.
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
5,769
2,256
113
Less than 5% of the population is even performing this particular sin.

But by the way it's being discussed you would think that 75% of the world population is doing it....these morally bankrupt people are trying to enlist those who would never contemplate such a thing into finding out "what they are missing out on" as if it's some great lifestyle choice.

Of course it's wrong....
It's not a question or a good idea.
Kinda like cutting off your hand....might sound good in theory but in practice a horrible thing.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
Less than 5% of the population is even performing this particular sin.
Yeh, that only amounts to multiple millions. No biggie. :whistle:

Of course it's wrong....
It's not a question or a good idea.
Kinda like cutting off your hand....might sound good in theory but in practice a horrible thing.
Now that, we can agree upon.

Mark 9:43
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:”

I wonder how we could apply that to homosexuals? :confused:
(an' dey only got one a' dem tings.)
 

Pilgrimshope

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2020
12,967
5,197
113
I've heard preachers preach on the sin of homosexuality. Some might even say homosexuals are going to Hell, gays are going to Hell, lesbians are going to Hell, etc.

When I grew up, the way 'homosexual', 'gay', etc. was used was to refer to people who did 'gay stuff'-- meaning sexual acts. So I thought.

It turns out based on the original meaning of the word and the way it is used in academia, a homosexual is someone attracted to the same sex. Now suppose you are a young person and you've never done any 'gay stuff', but you found yourself attracted to the same sex. Then you go to church, and you hear someone preach that if you have same-sex attraction, you are a sinner and you are going to Hell.

The sins that homosexuals commit that are related to homosexuality are things like actually performing same-sex sexual acts, and looking with lust. Having attraction for the same sex is a bad thing to have to deal with. But can't someone who struggles with this still be a Christian and just resist temptation?

Many of us men are attracted to beautiful women. Especially when we are/were young, a beautiful scantily clad woman might be a bit of an eye magnet for the flesh, but you can choose to avert your eyes and discipline your mind and not sin. There are ads on magazines and various other type of media. There is a difference between what we find attractive and the acts we commit. If a woman is attractive to a man, that doesn't mean he has committed fornication or adultery with her or that he has looked at her with lust.

And if a man struggles with same-sex attraction, that doesn't mean he constantly goes around sinning. At least with the Gen-Y and Gen-Z generations, and probably most of X now, and in academia, and certainly with LGBTI folks, in the US, 'gay', 'homosexual', and 'lesbian' refer to 'orientation'-- not what they do with their sex lives. Some Fundamentalists preachers who say 'Homosexuals are going to Hell' do no realize that what they are saying from the perspective of the listener is if you find yourself attracted to the same sex, even if you don't act on it, you are going to Hell. It sounds rather hopeless.

We do need to combat the ideas associated with 'orientation' that these types of inclinations or lusts are permanent problems. LBGT folks think of their sexual inclinations and propensities to be attracted as a big part of their identity. But the Bible tells Christians, to "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:11.)

Christian men who are attracted to women do not introduce themselves as "I am a Christian who has the propensity to fornicate with women", and so Christian men who struggle with same-sex attraction should not say, "I am a gay Christian." We should reckon ourselves dead to sin, and alive to God, and "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof."

Some people with same-sex attraction who become Christians may have to constantly struggle against it and overcome it for years, like some men have to tame their eyes. Others may be delivered from the temptation and not worry about it. Marriage between a man and a woman is a Biblical remedy for decreasing the propensity to be tempted by sexual lust.
sin is personal and individual depending on what one knows of right and wrong and how they respond to the inner discernment commiting homosexual perversions are definately sin but I know that because I know Gods law so for me it’s identified as sin and death

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭20:13‬ ‭

so asking is it sin yes of course sin is defined by anything that breaks the law

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭3:4‬ ‭KJV‬‬

in Christ however what each person has heard and knows becomes the measure in other words Sunnis imputed and taken into account when you know you are sinning

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
‭‭James‬ ‭4:17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

you have to know what’s right and not do it or you have to know what your doing is wrong and still do it

“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭14:23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

so if I understand homosexuality is a sin , and then I were to commit those perversions , I’m now guilty of an abomination and deserving of death. And need repentance to be granted d remission of sins to be given

this is the same for any sinner who sinned in any way of we know what’s right in Gods sight and we refuse to do it we are sinning against him , or if we know something is a sin in Gods sight and do it anyways we’ve sinned.

seven things God hate’s Above the rest

These six things doth the LORD hate: Yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

A proud look,

a lying tongue,

And hands that shed innocent blood,

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,

Feet that be swift in running to mischief,

A false witness that speaketh lies,

And he that soweth discord among brethren.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭6:16-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

that doesn’t seem different from this it’s also an abomination and transgression

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭20:13‬ ‭

sin is what offends God from a lie to a murder to perversions and adulteries not only that but sin is what harms other people. When we lie we’re lying to someone else , when we cheat we’re cheating someone else , steal we’re stealing from someone else , commit adultery against our spouse ect these things all hurt people they break hearts and scar trust damage the relationship man has been created to share in

if God allows sin to continue for eternity so would suffering , victimization of the weak , lies and deceptions , unfaithful people who harm others lie and steal from others even kill and rape others

all sin is going to be burned away like chaff and we who are serving and Planting and farming sin in the world also will perish

Gods plan is to make a perfect world without lies and liars , without death and murderers , with world peace and not violence and wars , without. Token hearts for all we do to none another in this world to hurt and carve holes in one another’s soul

lies kill trust , cheating breaks hearts murder takes life , rape destroys the spirit and soul , worshipping fake and false creates images and man made fables as gods ignoring the existence of our creator on and on the world is filled with sin homosexuality is just another thing man does to rebel and offend and reject Gods authority over mankknd

it’s all sin and death thank God we have the hope of repentance and remission of sins in the gospel

hypocrisy is a liar telling another sinner they are going to hell . An adulterer telling a liar they are going to hell , a thier tellkng an adulterer or homosexual they are going to hell ….when one sinner judges another they are setting thy ier own judgement and condemnk g themselves

Homosexuals need to repent asap , liars need to repent asap , thieves and idolaters need to repent asap

it’s hard when we’re too busy gazing at what the other guy needs to repent of repentance is something for us and others also to come to
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
5,769
2,256
113
Yeh, that only amounts to multiple millions. No biggie. :whistle:



Now that, we can agree upon.

Mark 9:43
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:”

I wonder how we could apply that to homosexuals? :confused:
(an' dey only got one a' dem tings.)
The truth is that the huge majority of mankind was never going to have salvation....only a "remnant".
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
The truth is that the huge majority of mankind was never going to have salvation....only a "remnant".
Good point.

It is only one problem among many. We need to be focusing on the root of all these things... sin itself, which comes before all these physical manifestations of it.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,478
4,112
113
It is also important to stick with the older Bible translations such as the KJV, RV, ASV and even the YLT. It is also important to distinguish between a sodomite and a homosexual person. Is a homosexual person merely a heterosexual person with temptation for loving their own gender? It may be a homosexual person has that sexual orientation just as a heterosexual person has their sexual orientation and it is not a matter of a heterosexual having same-sex-attraction temptation. It is just the way they are and they are only accountable to God about it. Maybe we shouldn't expect the Bible to speak in the language of sexology and psycho-babble.
LOL, I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Use any translation you have provided their context of marriage and sex as God of the Bible intended it to be is between one man and one woman Gen chapter 2. Jesus enforced that in the gospels.

To split hairs over sodomite and homosexual would be very close to an oxymoron.

The context of a sodomite is one who is from Sodom. Modern terms equated the actions of those from Sodom in the Bible as a sexual abomination. = those who did such things were called committing sodomy.

The word homosexual is one who is attracted to the same kind. However, the term is now and has been for some time connected to those who are gay which is a word also not used anymore in its original context, meaning happy.
Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.

Now we have sexual humanism trying to water down the context of the action of homosexuality by trying g to make it about attraction. No different than that of the attraction of heterosexuals like me being married and seeing a pretty girl who is not my wife. FYI that is normal to notice a person of the opposite sex as attractive; to take it further would be wrong.

LGBTQ has no peace and never will, so they try to make others just as miserable as they are. Like the women who see their best friend happy when their own relationship is terrible, they try to be a home wrecker. So gay people try to control non-gay with guilt trips they have with them all the time because of the sin that has a strong hold on them. They turn the INTO HATE. Boy, do they display demonic hate to the family as God intended it to be. Gay is no longer about two consenting adults in a relationship. It is a full all-out attack on the family. Agreeing to disagree is no longer a compromise. You are either hot or cold.

Choose ye this day whom you will serve.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,478
4,112
113
I didn't write that right. I thought I had put 'married' in there in my description consistently throughout and must have left that out for the phrase you quoted. That's the key word.

What I mean is this
"We wouldn't preach, "Any man who is attracted to a married hairy-legged 80-year-old, apple-shaped women is sinning and is on his way to Hell."

The sinful thing would be to __act on__ attraction to a married women. Being attracted to and marrying an older woman, hairy woman, certain shape of woman, etc. isn't inherently sinful.



Are you ___ attracted to__ handsome men? That's a little different from thinking a man is handsome.

I'm a bit face blind when it comes to male attractiveness. I'd just have to guess if a man is attractive. I can usually tell if a man is odd looking, but some women surprise me and are attracted to these men. I'd like trying to tell if horses are good looking to other horses. I can tell if a woman looks pretty to me personally.

But men that can tell and men actually being sexually attracted to other men is two different things.

Recognizing a married woman as pretty is one thing. If you are attracted to her, you could just not do anything sinful with the eyes, mind, or physically, and it isn't sin.

It isn't normal for men to be attracted to men, but some men are. That's what 'homosexuality', 'gay', etc. refers to-- except the LGBT folks think it is normal. One could have the propensity to be attracted to the same sex without acting on temptation, also.

If God delivers someone instantly from that, that's great. If they just have to constantly resist temptation, and they can do so without sinning, then it isn't a sin to have the temptation.

But they shouldn't make the temptation their identity. 'Christian homosexual' as a term to identify oneself withis analogous to having 'a the verge of committing adultery Christian' for 'hetero' people.

amen
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
1,910
859
113
It is a full all-out attack on the family
It's an attack on family- and really, God's relationship with man, and on God himself. When you look at it with respect to Christ and the Church: could you imagine if Christ married Christ and not the Church? or if the Church married a bride, and not Christ? Where does that leave the Church? Not married to Christ, not one with him, not part of his body, and Christ one with himself and not the Church. That imagery, to me, shows 'gay-marriage' and homosexuality for what they are, and how it separates people from God. If that doesn't show how incompatible homosexuality is with Christianity, and how the "love makes it okay" logic doesn't stand, I don't know what will.
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
192
83
28
82
LOL, I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Use any translation you have provided their context of marriage and sex as God of the Bible intended it to be is between one man and one woman Gen chapter 2. Jesus enforced that in the gospels.
Every translation of the Holy Bible has a bias and is influenced by the culture and times of its writing. It is important to understand this when using the various translations. The Translators to the Readers in the KJV explains a lot about their approach, but most have never read that section because most KJV Bibles today do not include it. The NRSV I use a lot I know will translate in the OT more in the way they suppose the OT saints would 'hear' it, rather than read back into the OT the NT theology. The REB of the UK is an excellent translation as well, but it revises the NEB which was not a revision of an earlier translation, but a fresh translation. The NEB avoided many ecclesiastical words of the tradition and it expands more in a dynamic approach to the translation. Even if you compare various literal, word for word Interlinear Hebrew/Greek/English works, you'll find they do not always agree with each other on the precise meaning of individual words in their context. It does take work, and in this day we can't leave it just to those guys in the pulpit to do the studying they are directed to and we often have to be diligent in our own studies.

As to the meaning of "sodomite" contrasted to "homosexual", in English I can only go to a dictionary and a thesaurus and read the meanings in 'standard' English.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,478
4,112
113
It's an attack on family- and really, God's relationship with man, and on God himself. When you look at it with respect to Christ and the Church: could you imagine if Christ married Christ and not the Church? or if the Church married a bride, and not Christ? Where does that leave the Church? Not married to Christ, not one with him, not part of his body, and Christ one with himself and not the Church. That imagery, to me, shows 'gay-marriage' and homosexuality for what they are, and how it separates people from God. If that doesn't show how incompatible homosexuality is with Christianity, and how the "love makes it okay" logic doesn't stand, I don't know what will.
I can't imagine but I do understand your meaning :)