Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

  • 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.
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
the Moral law is absolute. Being Christian means we follow Christ and He leads us from sin, not into sin. Were Sodom and Gamorra a Jews nation? Was Noah a Jew? Did God not destroy both for sin before the law of Moses? Yes, HE did. You are perverting the word of God. You cannot be gay and saved.
Mmm... "You cannot be gay and saved."? So, you deny salvation is fully by grace, not of any work of law?

"I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness be through law--then Christ died in vain." (Gal 2:21, YLT)

The definite article is not in the Greek, so this does not apply solely to the Law of Moses; but God's enduring law from Genesis on through time.

So, you know Ham's sin was homosexuality? You seem to see homosexuals everywhere! LOL

"some of the Jewish Rabbins {k}, as Jarchi relates, say that Canaan first saw it, and told his father of it; and some say {l}, that he or Ham committed an unnatural crime with him; and others {m}, that he castrated him; and hence, it is supposed, came the stories of Jupiter castrating his father Saturn, and Chronus his father Uranus: and Berosus {n} says, that Ham taking hold of his father's genitals, and muttering some words, by a magic charm rendered him impotent: and some {o} will have it that he committed incest with his father's wife; but these things are said without foundation: what Noah's younger son did unto him, besides looking on him, we are not told, yet it was such as brought a curse on Canaan; and one would think it would be more than bare sight, nay, it is expressly said there was something done, but what is not said, Ge 9:24." John Gill's commentary
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,067
4,348
113
Mmm... "You cannot be gay and saved."? So, you deny salvation is fully by grace, not of any work of law?

"I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness be through law--then Christ died in vain." (Gal 2:21, YLT)

The definite article is not in the Greek, so this does not apply solely to the Law of Moses; but God's enduring law from Genesis on through time.

So, you know Ham's sin was homosexuality? You seem to see homosexuals everywhere! LOL

"some of the Jewish Rabbins {k}, as Jarchi relates, say that Canaan first saw it, and told his father of it; and some say {l}, that he or Ham committed an unnatural crime with him; and others {m}, that he castrated him; and hence, it is supposed, came the stories of Jupiter castrating his father Saturn, and Chronus his father Uranus: and Berosus {n} says, that Ham taking hold of his father's genitals, and muttering some words, by a magic charm rendered him impotent: and some {o} will have it that he committed incest with his father's wife; but these things are said without foundation: what Noah's younger son did unto him, besides looking on him, we are not told, yet it was such as brought a curse on Canaan; and one would think it would be more than bare sight, nay, it is expressly said there was something done, but what is not said, Ge 9:24." John Gill's commentary
NO,
I am disagreeing that salvation leaves the person in the sin they were saved from :).

And there is no biblical proof Ham was a homosexual. That is Homosexual revisionist theology to try and make the scriptures say something that is not there. it is FALSE :) . FYI there are gay rabbis who too twist scriptures IF you did not know just like you are doing.
 
S

SophieT

Guest
anybody ask Jon here if he is in an male/male relationship? he's not married and says he was saved in 1950...which makes him quite possibly in his 80's

also, why is this prattle ongoing?

I have far less of a problem with actual homsexuals who are up front about who and what they are, then someone who continues to sneak in through the back door while trying to present everyone else as something he says he is not, while every indication of what he writes just screams that he actually is
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
"homophobic" is a neologism. Let's do away with it.



"homophobic" is a neologism. Let's do away with it.

The idea that restrictions on perverted sex-relations only apply to Israel is a non-argument.
You are so far-outside the margin on this topic that you have fallen off the page.
You aren't addressing the ignorant. Rather you are hoping to promote ignorance.


It's not uncommon amongst gay activists to campaign for acceptance within normal society and pretend to be
offended at the mention of sodomy. Many of them would like us to believe a fantasy of harmonious luvvy-duvvy
euphoria. No seedy public toilet sex, no inabilty to keep long-term relationships, no child abuse, no medical
problems, no hurt & destruction of families.


Stop pretending. The fact is gay men practise sodomy and it's a sin.
It has been a vice among mankind for thousands of years and we will keep the appropriate terms.
"Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?"

"Abstract
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/

Anyone who knows their Bible recognizes that the word "sodomy" is nowhere to be found in its pages. The KJV, ERV, ASV use "sodomite" to mean male temple prostitute in the OT; and the YLT, NRSV and others use "sodomite" in the modern meaning of the term, which is NOT homosexual in any standard dictionary or thesaurus.

The synonyms in their context from the Roget's 7th Edition:

"Page 60 Sect. 75.14 "homosexual" gay person, homosexualist, homophile, invert;"

"Page 60 Sect. 75.16 "sexual pervert; pervert, perve <nf>, deviant, deviate, sex pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nf> , bugger, pederast"
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,164
1,794
113
1 Corinthians 6:9-20
English Standard Version
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

There is no question that homosexual attraction not acted upon is just as evil as attraction toward a minor but not acted upon is evil.
Huh? why is there 'no question.' Paul wrote in Romans to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. He didn't say if there are potential lusts in there that you could possibly fulfill, then you do not inherit the kingdom.

Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman in order to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. He did not say if you are attracted to women but avert your eyes and think pure hearts, that you have committed adultery.

Being attracted to someone and sinning are not the same thing. If you live near the beach, a beautiful woman in a bikini might walk by. She might be married or single. You cannot do much about finding such women attractive. You can choose not to look, not to entertain sexual thoughts, not to touch, not to pursue some kind of inappropriate physical activity, etc. You might also choose not to live so close to the beach or not hang out on the outside of your house or apartment. Sins like this are not as 'involuntary' as experiencing some kind of attraction.

If you tell teens and young men that attraction is sin and keeps them from the kingdom, you are giving them a dose of false hopelessness. It's the same thing with people who experience same sex attraction. It's a worse thing to have because there is no noble outlet for it (like a legitimate real marriage). But it is possible for those who experience it to 'make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof' including looking with lust.

Telling people who experience same-sex attraction that they will not inherit the kingdom for having that attraction does not go far enough to offer them hope or help to live above. Some Christians experience this. I am in favor of preaching God's judgment against sin. But we have to make a distinction between unfulfilled, unexpressed lusts, and making provision for the lust to turn into sin. James says when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. We need to nip that in the bud, not allowing the flesh to express it's lust through sin. The flesh is there. A minority of people could be tempted with expressing a 'same sex' lust. Many more could be tempted with opposite sex type lust, particularly someone who is attractive and fits their 'type'. The lust of the eye is a huge problem, and those who experience 'youthful lusts' might be a bit more vulnerable, but it is still an issue for the middle ages and even the old.

It is a shame to even speak of those things they do in secret. Yes homosexual sin was an example that scripture gives as the worst condition of mankind when given over to their rebellion to sin. (Rom 1) It is clearly considered by God as one of the worst things a person can do. It will receive greater judgment than other sins and Sodom and Gomorrah was an example to help us learn that lesson.
I suppose it depends on which other sins you are talking about. Homosexuality, based on command, was supposed to considered an abomination-- it's repulsive, disgusting, etc. For some of us, that does not even need to be commanded. I think it is also natural and cross-culture for a lot of men to feel that way. The LGBT apologists call that feel 'homophobia', I suppose.

People can philosophically argue against it all they want, but soon God will show them how much his wrath burns against this type of extra heinous sin. And it is the promoting and encouraging of this sin to the children in the Public Schools that will be the flash point of the judgment. He will not let it go unanswered. Better that these teachers were never born than to tempt one of these children to sin by experimenting with homosexual sins.
God is slow to wrath and it can take a while for judgment to be fully realized. Look at how bad it was for the Canaanite children, with parents offering them to their gods. They had all kinds of nasty sex rituals. Israel even participated in some of the child sacrifice rituals, and theirs was a covenant nation, not a Gentile state based on Greek, Roman, and John Locke's political philosophy. The timing is up to the Lord
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
"Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience" 1646 Westminster Confession & the 1689 Baptist Confession

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also."

"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what manner of wisdom is in them?" (Jer 8:8-9, ERV)
*In translations of today many of them can be "wrought falsely" as well.

REMEMBER:
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478


"One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?" (Jas 4:12, ERV)

"Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand." (Rom 14:4, ERV)

"But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye:" (Acts 4:19, ERV)

"Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men." (1Cor 7:23, ERV)

"But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Matt 15:9, ERV)

"For am I now persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." (Gal 1:10, ERV)

"and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." (Gal 2:4-5, ERV)

"With freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage." (Gal 5:1, ERV)
* This specifically applies to those who quote Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 as if it applied to Christians

"To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them." (Isa 8:20, ERV)
* For me, the true word of God was more pure before the modern culture tainted the translations, starting in 1946.

"Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11, ERV)

From the words of Jesus about the Pharisees:
Matt. 23 - v4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger... vss13 &15 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,164
1,794
113
Presidente, you write a lot there that I would have full agreement with, but a few points I differ. It seems that in discussion of homosexuality, it is the "sex' that is focused on. But, for an exclusively homosexual male, it is not such a narrowly focused matter. I quote:

"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment." Taken from the American Psychological Association web site. I don't agree with everything on that site, but what I have quoted I believe is accurate.
The APA is influenced by the political and social landscape. There is already a psychological literature that addresses the fact that actively gay men tend to enjoy defying social norms and that homosexual men tend to have not bonded with a father figure, and eroticized masculinity.

I have also found that among Christians, when the term "same-sex attraction", SSA, is mentioned; it seems to come across that all men are heterosexual but have varying degrees of same sex desires(temptations). It appears certain that a minority of males are totally and exclusively homosexual in all areas of their desire for relationship.
I think there is a range, with many, many people solidly on the opposite-sex attraction side of things and a small percentage only attracted to the opposite sex. But I also think there are people who would have been 'straight' if the LGBT propaganda, watching porn, having edgy and elicit sexual experiences etc. hadn't pushed them toward homosexuality or bisexuality.

I have seen and participated in conversations where people say that homosexuality is not a sin, then someone says 'What about sex with animals?" Then the pro-LGBT person says that we are talking about human being who love each other. The sex with animals thing comes up because Leviticus puts homosexuality right there with adultery and sex with animals. But also, for a lot of us, the idea of beastiality is only slightly more disgusting or about as disgusting as homosexuality. I suspect that is natural across cultures for a lot of men, and that LGBT brainwashing of society through media, etc. is causing this natural reaction to decrease.


The idea that they are merely fighting against a temptation to lust, does not fit; it is their unchosen nature, how God made them, Rom. 9:20,21.
I did not catch this when I 'liked' the post. So are you a double-predestine Calvinist who thinks some people are predestined to be homosexual vessels of wrath fit for destruction?

I Corinthians 6 says 'and such were some of you, but now ye are washed', so there are people who engaged in the physical side of this and various other sins who were forgiven and washed in the church at Corinth. There is hope for redemption and deliverance through Christ.

I heard this testimony second hand. There was a man who was an out-of-the-closet homosexual engaging in a lot of sexual activity, not attracted to women at all, who repented, became a Christian, got married, had a family, and seemed to himself to be a totally different person from that gay man years before. Some of this sexual attraction stuff is 'fungible.' And if they cut off the fleshly lusts, it may go away or diminish. Paul offers marriage as the solution to sexual immorality. The 'gay' who repents who struggles with same sex attraction may not be that appealing of a partner. He might be able to partner up with the 'lesbian' who repents so they both have the same struggles. Maybe the mtf trans individual could marry a lesbian or ftm trans could marry the gay Christian. It's pretty messed up all around.

Paul indicates that not all men have the "gift" of sexual abstinence, so that puts the exclusively homosexual male in a bind for sure, since marriage is not a biblical option.
I am sure it does. Still, marriage to an available member of the opposite sex, in an honorable way, is the only option besides celibacy.

I do agree though, for a Christian who is exclusively homosexual, it is a mistake to label himself gay or homosexual. We know labels can be misleading and the term "gay" conjures up images like the LGBTQ activist crowd. A homosexual who is a Christian detests that Gay Pride Day parade display!
Yes, I don't see any reason for them to accept the 'gay', 'homosexual', or 'lesbian' labels that carry a lot of connotations a right-minded Christian would not agree with.

One other comment I'd make is about the idea of Paul taking his wording from the Septuagint from Lev. 18:22. It is tricky to compare NT use of the Greek against the Septuagint. In 2 Sam. 13:15, Amnon's rape of Tamar is referred to as "love" and the Greek there is agape.
The idea is the it is likely the word is a reference to the verse in the LXX. This does not have much to do with the historically held belief of the inspiration of the LXX during that era. Paul used 'love' a bit broadly, too, when he said that Demas loved (agape'd) this present world. The problem is with preachers saying inaccurate things like 'Agape is the God kind of love', constrasting it with eros, etc. in unrealistic ways... not with the LXX or the Greek language.

As a side note, it is obvious from my posts that I have studied this topic for years. I have many pages of notes on this topic and I condensed them and organized them as I have posted on here; Sodom, Leviticus, Paul's 3 writings on the topic. Yesterday I printed them out and gave them to a Christian lady who has as a relative who is homosexual and they attend the same fundamentalist church. That family is all to pieces over their situation and the church gives nothing but condemnation and totally unworkable solutions producing nothing but pain and guilt in the young man. I have striven to always adhere to Paul's instruction:
I see what you are saying. When you address a 'fundmentalist' audience, it would be better not to alienating them by affirming up front that you consider certain sexual activities to be sinful. 'Sodomy' is a legal term that chooses one possible aspect of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and not everything else.

There is an implied duty of hospitality in the Old Testament. It was also middle eastern culture to have this high regard for the importance of hospitality. Sharing one's food was part of that. Sodom went to the opposite extreme by harming outsiders. Israelites not sharing with the poor but oppressing them is along the same wavelength. Whether Isaiah's audience had thought of the sin of Sodom as attempting forced gay sex with angels, I do not know. The term 'sodomy' means certain acts performed by homosexuals (or the same acts with females) historically in certain Anglo legal systems. But I would not 'lead' with this issue in a post to evangelical Christians who still hold to some Biblical values on this issue.
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
anybody ask Jon here if he is in an male/male relationship? he's not married and says he was saved in 1950...which makes him quite possibly in his 80's

also, why is this prattle ongoing?

I have far less of a problem with actual homsexuals who are up front about who and what they are, then someone who continues to sneak in through the back door while trying to present everyone else as something he says he is not, while every indication of what he writes just screams that he actually is
You have given yourself the answer. I can't live into my 80s and be gay, AIDS would have killed me by now! LOL
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
I earlier recommended a move "Prayers for Bobby" and I admit I should have limited my suggestion to the portion of the movie leading up to his suicide. It depicts a young man being counseled by the fundamentalist approach. The first part of this movie I believe depicts the situation well, though the mother's actions after the loss of her son I do not recommend.


It is an important question, on the last day, at the judgment, am I going to be guilty of spreading dangerous false teaching, or will it be the fundamentalists who will be condemned for their false teaching on this matter?

There is a Christian Psychologist Professor of the Christian Reformed Church who writes college psychology text books. His name is David Myers and he posts his chapter on Sexual Orientation online. I find it the most accurate presentation of the homosexual situation.

https://davidmyers.org/uploads/SexualOrientationPsy12e.pdf
 
S

SophieT

Guest
You have given yourself the answer. I can't live into my 80s and be gay, AIDS would have killed me by now! LOL

that's not true

you haven't kept up with the meds then?

and you also did not answer me

you are as convincing as....oh wait. you're not
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,067
4,348
113
anybody ask Jon here if he is in an male/male relationship? he's not married and says he was saved in 1950...which makes him quite possibly in his 80's

also, why is this prattle ongoing?

I have far less of a problem with actual homosexuals who are upfront about who and what they are, than someone who continues to sneak in through the back door while trying to present everyone else as something he says he is not, while every indication of what he writes just screams that he actually is
sister, I don't think all give their true age or actual belief. IF he is 80 then he is even more in trouble than most because he has fewer days ahead of him and more behind him.
 
S

SophieT

Guest
sister, I don't think all give their true age or actual belief. IF he is 80 then he is even more in trouble than most because he has fewer days ahead of him and more behind him.
probably not

but he said he was supposedly saved in 1950
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Huh? why is there 'no question.' Paul wrote in Romans to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. He didn't say if there are potential lusts in there that you could possibly fulfill, then you do not inherit the kingdom.

Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman in order to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. He did not say if you are attracted to women but avert your eyes and think pure hearts, that you have committed adultery.

Being attracted to someone and sinning are not the same thing. If you live near the beach, a beautiful woman in a bikini might walk by. She might be married or single. You cannot do much about finding such women attractive. You can choose not to look, not to entertain sexual thoughts, not to touch, not to pursue some kind of inappropriate physical activity, etc. You might also choose not to live so close to the beach or not hang out on the outside of your house or apartment. Sins like this are not as 'involuntary' as experiencing some kind of attraction.

If you tell teens and young men that attraction is sin and keeps them from the kingdom, you are giving them a dose of false hopelessness. It's the same thing with people who experience same sex attraction. It's a worse thing to have because there is no noble outlet for it (like a legitimate real marriage). But it is possible for those who experience it to 'make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof' including looking with lust.

Telling people who experience same-sex attraction that they will not inherit the kingdom for having that attraction does not go far enough to offer them hope or help to live above. Some Christians experience this. I am in favor of preaching God's judgment against sin. But we have to make a distinction between unfulfilled, unexpressed lusts, and making provision for the lust to turn into sin. James says when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. We need to nip that in the bud, not allowing the flesh to express it's lust through sin. The flesh is there. A minority of people could be tempted with expressing a 'same sex' lust. Many more could be tempted with opposite sex type lust, particularly someone who is attractive and fits their 'type'. The lust of the eye is a huge problem, and those who experience 'youthful lusts' might be a bit more vulnerable, but it is still an issue for the middle ages and even the old.



I suppose it depends on which other sins you are talking about. Homosexuality, based on command, was supposed to considered an abomination-- it's repulsive, disgusting, etc. For some of us, that does not even need to be commanded. I think it is also natural and cross-culture for a lot of men to feel that way. The LGBT apologists call that feel 'homophobia', I suppose.



God is slow to wrath and it can take a while for judgment to be fully realized. Look at how bad it was for the Canaanite children, with parents offering them to their gods. They had all kinds of nasty sex rituals. Israel even participated in some of the child sacrifice rituals, and theirs was a covenant nation, not a Gentile state based on Greek, Roman, and John Locke's political philosophy. The timing is up to the Lord
It does not seem that you have experience the pure life. Christians men can be repulsed by the site of a naked supermodel. They can find a bikini clad model repulsive and offensive because they love holiness and righteousness and are not attracted to those who behave immodestly. The FIRST thought of those who have their senses exercised to discern righteousness is that of "GROSS, get some clothes on!" This purity of thought and victory over the animal impulses of the flesh is wrought by the Spirit that is given us when we are born again and is available to all that seek to have their minds renewed by the Word of God. No one has to surrender to the old thoughts of the old man when he or she is being transformed by the Spirit to a new way of thinking. The old ways of sin must be repudiated not made parly with or given quarter. They must die.

Prayer and obedience to the Word will transform every believer. God is no respecter of persons. He does not leave some to suffer defeat with attraction to naked strangers male or female and gives others a holy repulsiveness to such a sight.

If you don't know that overcomers are not attracted to people who are trying to dress sexy then you have not realized this victory over such impulses of the old man. It is available. It does not take that long. Once you get serious about it you will find that those that everyone else is lusting over you are finding repulsive. Your mind being renewed to holy things and "attractive" becomes that which is holy and flesh is grass that fades and dies and has no attraction to you any longer.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
You quoted a translation that reads "homosexuality" into 1 Cor. 6:9 when the word and concept never even existed then. The literal YLT reads it as:

"nor effeminate, nor sodomites"

Explain from the Greek, or from uses of the word "arsenokoites" in antiquity, why you chose a translation using the term "homosexuality". On choosing a translation on a substantive point, you should have a studied reason for your choice. Why choose a modern version that varies from the standard versions from history, such as the KJV, YLT, ERV & ASV? Are you merely quoting because it says what you already believe, or is there true evidence for that particular translation in the ESV? The word "effeminate" in no standard English dictionary defines the word as a sexual relationship. The translator notes in modern versions like the ESV usually explain the two words they have put together as referring to the passive partner and the active partner in homosexual conduct. I guess that leaves out those in male to male sexual relationships where it is not constructed like that, there is no passive one and active one, nor is any intercourse involved resembling marital copulation.

Even the NET2 Bible, which is an excellent study source, exposes how translators can render a Greek word to fit their preconceived notions. The tn in the Net2 Bible reads in part: "This term is sometimes rendered 'effeminate,' although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior".
Explain to us how the Greek for "effeminate", malakos, refers to homosexuality as the ESV renders it. Quote any verse in the Bible where malakos is used and explain how it means homosexual. Some Greek authorities understand malakos to mean "voluptuous ones" or the "self-indulgent" or "effeminate luxurious livers".

You write "Yes homosexual sin was an example that scripture gives as the worst condition of mankind when given over to their rebellion to sin. (Rom 1)".

If so, why is it not prominently listed in the Ten Commandments(words)? I see "adultery" but not "homosexuality" there. Adultery is a specific sexual sin calling for capital punishment.
Read commentaries by Gordon Fee, FF Bruce. They are a good start. But really there is no argument about it among evangelic, scholars who adhere to the inspiration of scripture. No one is presenting any papers in academic circles to argue that homosexual sin as we know it between two men was not intended. Because they know they could never support such a theory from the Greek. You have been misled. Keep reading other authors, or better yet. Take three years of Greek. Check out Bill Mounce College level Greek courses available online. Once you yourself know Greek you wont be confused by those you are reading that are trying to trick you.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,164
1,794
113
It does not seem that you have experience the pure life. Christians men can be repulsed by the site of a naked supermodel. They can find a bikini clad model repulsive and offensive because they love holiness and righteousness and are not attracted to those who behave immodestly. The FIRST thought of those who have their senses exercised to discern righteousness is that of "GROSS, get some clothes on!" This purity of thought and victory over the animal impulses of the flesh is wrought by the Spirit that is given us when we are born again and is available to all that seek to have their minds renewed by the Word of God. No one has to surrender to the old thoughts of the old man when he or she is being transformed by the Spirit to a new way of thinking. The old ways of sin must be repudiated not made parly with or given quarter. They must die.
And that might be a bit more likely if the man is gifted to be celibate. Another solution is if certain females are attractive to look away. If you don't look with lust or yield to lust in other ways, you avoid sin. Job said he had made a covenant with his eyes not to look upon the virgin with lust. So apparently, they weren't so repulsive he did not care at all. Not every young man is going to find a scantily clad pretty woman to be repulsive. If he doesn't feel that way instantly, that doesn't mean he is sinning. He can avert his eyes, keep his thoughts pure and avoid sin that way.

Those who experience same sex attraction may have to do something similar.

Telling young men that if they don't find a scantily clad woman who is fit, has attractive proportions and facial features, to be repulsive they are sinful isn't very helpful. Nor is it Biblical.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,164
1,794
113
4. In v27 men are "leaving" (ERV), "giving up" (NRSV), "having left" (YLT), "forsaking" (Literal translation by Jay P. Green). You cannot leave, give up and forsake that which you did not possess in the first place, and a male of same-sex orientation has not had the relationship to/for a woman from which to leave.
Your argument here is foolish sophistry. The passage is about 'men', and this is stuff that happened over time. Think of Canaanite society. At first, there was some residual knowledge of the true God. Eventually that was corrupted by idolatry. Eventually, men gave up natural desires for women. Men desiring men sexually is not natural or normal. It is an abomination/repulsive/disgusted and God commanded that it be deemed such. It's unnatural-- again Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And babies come out of women's wombs not the upper or lower end of a man's digestive system, hands, thighs, or what have you.

If it seems normal to you, that is because you have some twisted desires that are against nature. God can save and redeem people who have twisted desires.

This has been observed in the church as early as St. John Chrysostom (349-407AD) when he wrote in his homily on Romans:

"...he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that 'they changed the natural use.' For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, 'They changed the truth of God for a lie.' And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, 'Leaving the natural use of the woman.' And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature."
Not sure how this is supposed to prove your point. If one generation of Canaanites, Greeks, Romans, etc. had started off worshipping idols and had men lose interest in their wives for other men, and the next generation of men had some guys who never cared for women at all and just wanted to indulge in 'gay' sex, it's all sinful. Sexual relations between men are sinful. They were sinful for Gentiles in the BIble.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."
This is 'men'-- a group. It's a group of people doing this. If you desire something wicked from your youth or you turn to something wicked as an old man, it is still wicked. Leviticus 18 sexual sins were things for which __Gentiles__ were also driven out of the land.

Your trying to reinterpret scripture through the false paradigm of 'sexual orientation' that did not exist back then is reading your perverted philosophy back into the text, and clearly not what Paul was saying.


* To quote this encyclopedia, I had to include the adjective use of the banned words as it was so written.

6. The KJV word "lust" here is also an instance where this is the only occurrence in the entire NT Greek, "G3715 ὄρεξις orexis". The "burned in their lust" KJV, or "consumed with passion" NRSV; indicates something extreme, not to be compared with normal love, affection or even a close M-M friendship which may include some sexual desire considering that sexual orientation is a continuum,
No! no! This is perversion. It is abnormal for two men, even close friends, to have any kind of sexual desire for each other at all. Those who experience that have something wrong with them. This kind of desire is something extreme, not something normal. God can save people who have all kinds of backgrounds and problems, drug addicts, evil sexual desires. I Corinthians 6 tells us of such people who have been washed, sanctified, and justified-- not left in that state.

not neat categories. The word "lust" here is totally unrelated to the Greek lust in Matt. 5:27.
English has lots of different words to express related concepts, too.

7. The KJV words "working that which is unseemly" in the literal Greek reads "working the unseemliness", from Rev. Alford Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear. The Greek scholar, Boice, I referenced above writes: "the (well-known, notorious) indecency". The sexual perversions of Nero, who lived at the time Paul wrote, come to mind.
Maybe you should not think about such things. Lots of 'gay' people do some of the same sins as Nero, maybe not with the same threat of punishment. But they say he did wicked stuff like engage in sexual stuff with men, get 'gay married', very wicked stuff, in addition to the adultery attributed to him.


8. What is the "error" meant in "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet"? From the flow of the entire passage from v18, it would seem to refer to the rejection of the One True God and worshipping idols. The moral degradation described is the horrible descent into the depths of depravity which was sin compounding upon sin, as punishment. Again, Boice in the 19th century writes: "of their error, of their departure (from the true God)". The respected 19th century theologian, Presbyterian Charles Hodge states in his commentary on Romans: "The apostle for the third time repeats the idea that the moral degradation of the heathen was a punishment of their apostasy from God. Receiving, he says, in themselves the meet recompense of their error. It is obvious from the whole context that πλάνη here refers to the sin of forsaking the true God; and it is no less obvious that the recompense or punishment of this apostasy was the moral degradation which he had just described." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hdg/romans-1.html
Our society is not overtly idolatrous in the literal stone or gold statue-worshipping sense. But it has abandoned God in many ways and rebelled against many of His precepts. This slowly rising tide of homosexual perversion-- until recently about 30% of millineals stated they considered themselves LGBT in a survey--has been growing since the sexual revolution. American society and government rebelled against God by embracing sex before marriage, legalized murder of babies in the womb, and more recently same-sex sexual activity and transgendered operations. Gay men have higher suicide rates than sexually normal males. Trans men ('mtf') have much higher suicide rates than normal men. Yet those who suffer from the insane evil left-wing perspective on this issue promote LGBT among the youth. Public high schools have clubs promoting this evil. There are also people going onto Christian forums trying to persuade Chrsitians this sort of thing is okay.

Then the BDAG reads: "Of an erroneous view of God, as exhibited in polytheism, resulting in moral degradation (Wsd 12:24; Ar. 2, 1 al.; Just., D. 47, 1; Tat. 29, 1; Iren., 1, 1, 3 [Harv. I 11, 10]; Did., Gen. 217, 30) Ro 1:27" Yet in this day it is common to dogmatically insist the "error" is male to male sex and the "recompense" is something like AIDS.
The passage is not all that clear what the recompense is, and it isn't written in such a way to point to one specific thing. Being a sexual pervert who doesn't know God may be the recompense for the error, but there are a lot of other sins in the passage, too, listed toward the end. .

The foundational sin, the error, of this passage is exchanging the One True God for idols and self-worship which brings about degradation upon degradation to where their outrageous and extreme lust consumes them. The sexual sin is that of males for whom relations with females was their nature, but by being eaten up with lust, consumed by it; they become perverts like Nero.
No, the natural desire of men is for women, rightly expressed between a man and his wife. God allowed wicked homosexual desires to enter mankind because of idolatry. But that does not mean if a homosexual never desired women, that his desires are okay.

Your interpretation is just sophistry, and it does not line up with Leviticus or the overall teaching of scripture on sexuality. You are reading the LGBT ideology about orientation back into the text and interpreting it by an ideology that developed over 1900 years later. Stop justifying sin.