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.

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,576
1,882
113
there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual.
Well, this is essentially saying that there is no such thing as an imperfect Christian. The "Father" of Christ, however, was an adulterer and murderer, namely, king David.

Being Perfected in Christ isn't a matter of actual sin, but rather, it is a matter of Spiritual Circumcision. And, if Spiritual Circumcision has taken place (the Circumcision of Christ), then sin becomes a matter of whether or not it is habitual. If this is True, then the life of a Christian is not marked by habitual, continual sin. Below, note the word, "Practice." Sin is not a "practice" of a person, but can happen. And David? He certainly did not make a "practice" of adultery and placing others in harm's way (as he did with Urijah).

1 John 3:8-9 NLT - "But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God."
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,352
4,067
113
CS1, I don't merely give opinion, I back it up with authorities and objective observation; something I've not seen others do on this thread. No one has attempted to explain why he thinks the modern fundamentalist versions are accurately translated.

NET Bible: Translator's note on 'malakos': "This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior."

Check the onelook.com dictionaries for "demeanor" and its main meaning is "behavior". So, these translators decided it was just not effeminate behavior they wished in the translation, they read into it some form of same-gender sex. The word "effeminate" and the similar words "weaklings" and "wantons" have the following translation history and this would hardly be called "sometimes" as the NET translator's note reads!

Weaklings:
Tyndale Bible 1534
Matthew Bible 1537

Wantons:
Geneva Bible 1599

Effeminate:
KJV 1611/1769
RV 1885
YLT 1898
Douay-Rheims 1899
ASV 1901
Phillips NT 1972

1946 RSV is first translation to combine malakos & arsenokoites into one word, "homosexuals"
1971 Revised RSV "sexual perverts"
1971 Living Bible paraphrase, "homosexuals.

Most fundamentalist modern translations seemed to change the definition of malakos into homosexual after the start of the LBGTQ activism at the 1969 Stonewall Riots. The translator's note in the NET2 shows how modern evangelical translations read into the Greek passive same-gender sex, which is not there in the Greek!

The BDAG lexicon is often quoted, but the word "homosexual" is nowhere to be found in the definitions of malakos or arsenokoites, but in its paragraph on arsenokoites it indicates that "homosexuals" is inappropriate: "(on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] see WPetersen"

Many commentaries and lexicons state that malakos is figurative for a "catamite". They offer no evidence of that. The Holy Spirit would hardly inspire Paul to write malakos for "catamite" when the other 3 times it is used in the NT, it means "soft clothing". Also, when there is an exact word in Greek for catamite as seen in the LSJ Greek English lexicon, Paul had the exact word to use:

https://lsj.gr/wiki/κίναιδος

In the same lexicon, the word malakos, no sort of same-gender sex is given as a definition, among the many definitions given.

https://lsj.gr/wiki/μαλακός

Just as the fundamentalist translations changed from "miscarriage" in Ex. 21:22 NASB77 to "give birth prematurely" in the NASB95; to support their anti-abortion social views, these same fundamentalist translations change 1 Cor. 6:9 to read according to their own bias against males who want other males as companions, lovers and physical relationship.

This is not some "gay theology" or gay exposition, this was known back in the 19th century, as Heinrich Meyer writes:

"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/1-corinthians-6.html

Now when someone can present a rational defense of using some form of homosexuality in translating 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 you'll have some standing, above just biased opinions and bigotry.
don't have to explain why the idea of a man sleeping with another man is wrong. Don't need a theological history of those who have studied the word Homosexuality. The context is clearly seen God said man shall not lay with aman as he does a woman.

Please back up your so-called authorities and objective observation; from the word of God. You the Hebrew, use the Greek and use church fathers to justify sleeping with a man being a man. Genesis chapters 1 to 3 is very clear God created each thing after its own kind none were able to produce outside of God's Plan for man and women. Anything else is a perversion.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,352
4,067
113
Well, this is essentially saying that there is no such thing as an imperfect Christian. The "Father" of Christ, however, was an adulterer and murderer, namely, king David.

Being Perfected in Christ isn't a matter of actual sin, but rather, it is a matter of Spiritual Circumcision. And, if Spiritual Circumcision has taken place (the Circumcision of Christ), then sin becomes a matter of whether or not it is habitual. If this is True, then the life of a Christian is not marked by habitual, continual sin. Below, note the word, "Practice." Sin is not a "practice" of a person, but can happen. And David? He certainly did not make a "practice" of adultery and placing others in harm's way (as he did with Urijah).

1 John 3:8-9 NLT - "But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God."

no, it is not. I don't identify with sin that is what the word of God teaches. It's types like you who try and make false claims as to what one has said over what you think they have said. All sin produces its own payment. Christ is the remedy. David was not the Father of Christ. and Was is not the same as IS today. we all were something before Christ but now we are new in Christ not apart from Him.

The only reason why those who habitually sin in sex or alcohol or any other sin is mainly because we Like it. It brings pleasure to the flesh. If we do not separate ourselves we become addicted and a stronghold develops in the person's life. Homosexual politics today is very aggressive and controlling. These so-called tolerant ones will pursue you if You come out of the homosexual LGBTQ sexual preference. They are not so loving or accepting your choice. Just as they were in Sodom and Gomorrah. the action tells the whole story. As many do they use those who sin in the word of God to say " look they did it" as if God indorsed that sin, instead of seeing what is not supposed to be with godly judgment people embrace the same acts and blame God. That is called perversion.

call ing Good evil and evil good.
 
S

SophieT

Guest
WannabeWinner, if you want your head messed up, go to one of those fraudulent Christian counseling centers. Just like Exodus International claimed to cure or change same-sex oriented males into opposite sex lovers, that organization collapsed in shame. It is not the best idea though to seek a companion in any sort of lounge or 'watering hole' whether to meet females or males. You may do well to read a very good college textbook chapter on sexual orientation and it so happens it is online:

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

By the way, the author of that textbook and owner of the website is David Myers, a Christian man. He has many more articles on his main page: https://davidmyers.org/articles/sexual-orientation?pageID=16

while I think he is somewhat of a troll, I don't see where he said he was homosexual
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
don't have to explain why the idea of a man sleeping with another man is wrong. Don't need a theological history of those who have studied the word Homosexuality. The context is clearly seen God said man shall not lay with aman as he does a woman.

Please back up your so-called authorities and objective observation; from the word of God. You the Hebrew, use the Greek and use church fathers to justify sleeping with a man being a man. Genesis chapters 1 to 3 is very clear God created each thing after its own kind none were able to produce outside of God's Plan for man and women. Anything else is a perversion.
In what language do you think the word of God was written?

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1647
"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."(Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46)

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith retains the same wording as in the Westminster.

Either you are as a phrase in the KJV reads, "willingly ignorant"; or you decide your own morals by your personal autonomy, instead of by God's word:

Merriam-Webster
morals, "2: based on what you think is right and good"

I know on the last day, God's word will be my judge, the written and the Word in person. But there is a risk of being a Pharisee also:


"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...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." (Matt 23:4, 15 ERV)

By the way, the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary defines 'moral' thus:

"Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness."
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
while I think he is somewhat of a troll, I don't see where he said he was homosexual
He may be a troll, but I believe many read who do not post and some may have similar problems as expressed, even though I did not really follow his detailed thought. I did not say "homosexual", just that the college textbook referenced gives very good information, scholarly. His web site does have many links and other articles. Just as with any individual, I don't agree with everything he has posted, such as his support for same-gender marriage, but the textbook is very good.
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
Well, this is essentially saying that there is no such thing as an imperfect Christian. The "Father" of Christ, however, was an adulterer and murderer, namely, king David.

Being Perfected in Christ isn't a matter of actual sin, but rather, it is a matter of Spiritual Circumcision. And, if Spiritual Circumcision has taken place (the Circumcision of Christ), then sin becomes a matter of whether or not it is habitual. If this is True, then the life of a Christian is not marked by habitual, continual sin. Below, note the word, "Practice." Sin is not a "practice" of a person, but can happen. And David? He certainly did not make a "practice" of adultery and placing others in harm's way (as he did with Urijah).

1 John 3:8-9 NLT - "But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God."
2ndTimothyGroup, along the lines you have written, you may like the following:

The rigid, puritanical Puritans were more forgiving then many in the churches of today. From Thomas Brooks (1608-1680):

"Remedy (2). The second remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider, That God has nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I cannot find in the whole book of God where he has promised any such strength or power against this or that particular sin, as that the soul should be forever, in this life, put out of a possibility of falling again and again into the same sins. And where God has not a mouth to speak, I must not have a heart to believe. God will graciously pardon those sins to his people, which he will not in this life totally subdue in his people. I have never seen a promise in Scripture, which says that when our sorrow and grief has been so great, or so much, for this or that sin—that then God will preserve us from ever falling into the same sin. The sight of such a promise would be as life from the dead to many a precious soul, who desires nothing more than to keep close to Christ, and fears nothing more than backsliding from Christ.

In some cases the saints have found God better than his word. He promised the children of Israel only the land of Canaan; but besides that he gave them two other kingdoms which he never promised. And to Zacharias he promised to give him his speech at the birth of the child—but besides that he gave him the gift of prophecy.

Remedy (3). The third remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider, That the most renowned and now crowned saints have, in the days of their being on earth, relapsed into one and the same sin. Lot was twice overcome with wine; John twice worshiped the angel; Abraham did often deceive, and lay his wife open to adultery to save his own life, which some heathens would not have done. 'And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is your kindness which you shall show unto me; at every place where we shall come, say of me, He is my brother' (Gen. 20:13). David in his wrath was resolved, that he would be the death of Nabal, and all his innocent family; and after this he fell into the foul murder of Uriah."
https://www.preachtheword.com/bookstore/remedies.pdf

NOTE:
For a true Christian male who is attracted solely to males, one who is regenerated; if he continues to believe in his heart that his sexual inclination is sin, he'll have great struggle and battle with depression and guilt. Only the preceding by a Puritan can give peace of mind, as well as the statement in the Westminster Confession:

"5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5–8, 25, Gal. 5:17)"
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,352
4,067
113
In what language do you think the word of God was written?

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1647
"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."(Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46)

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith retains the same wording as in the Westminster.

Either you are as a phrase in the KJV reads, "willingly ignorant"; or you decide your own morals by your personal autonomy, instead of by God's word:

Merriam-Webster
morals, "2: based on what you think is right and good"

I know on the last day, God's word will be my judge, the written and the Word in person. But there is a risk of being a Pharisee also:


"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...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." (Matt 23:4, 15 ERV)

By the way, the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary defines 'moral' thus:

"Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness."


IN WHAT LANGUAGE DO YOU THINK GOD DID NOT MEAN HOMOSEXUALITY IS SIN
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,022
26,149
113
No one has attempted to explain why he thinks the modern fundamentalist versions are accurately translated.
I explained why I believe the Berean Study Bible is accurate. Why are you being so dishonest? Oh, wait. It is your modus operandi. Like implying that homosexuals lusting after each other and engaging in sexual acts with each other, other than sodomy, is not immoral sexual behavior considered to be sinful and an abomination according to God and His revealed written Word :oops:
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,352
4,067
113
In what language do you think the word of God was written?

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1647
"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."(Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46)

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith retains the same wording as in the Westminster.

Either you are as a phrase in the KJV reads, "willingly ignorant"; or you decide your own morals by your personal autonomy, instead of by God's word:

Merriam-Webster
morals, "2: based on what you think is right and good"

I know on the last day, God's word will be my judge, the written and the Word in person. But there is a risk of being a Pharisee also:


"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...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." (Matt 23:4, 15 ERV)

By the way, the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary defines 'moral' thus:

"Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness."
it is laughable that those who read the same Bible to rightly see that God can love can't see where God said this is an abomination.

They throw out smoke screens and well-named Seminaries to justify sexual sin. PERVERTING The word of God. Yet they read the same bible in more than one language and see the context of Love but not of a sin they support or have family members addicted to.

You change the word of God as the false prophets in the day of Jerimiah. The leaders did not like what was said by the Lord through a true Prophet of god they looked for those who would tell them what they wanted to hear. THat dog will not hunt with the Lord. Those who lie and do such things will have the greater Judgement.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,352
4,067
113
Perhaps when I'm aware of my own sinfulness, I'll be a little less harsh with another's. I encounter far too much anti-anyone rhetoric online and far too little, "love your neighbor as yourself," and "he who is without sin cast the first stone."
that is true but that also has been used out of context in the LGBTQ saying homosexuality is sin as God says is also unloving to those who profess to be chritians. That is not true. Judge not is the second most abused scripture by those who live in this kind of sin.

Guess Jesus saying GO AND SIN NO MORE was very harsh?
 
S

SophieT

Guest
He may be a troll, but I believe many read who do not post and some may have similar problems as expressed, even though I did not really follow his detailed thought. I did not say "homosexual", just that the college textbook referenced gives very good information, scholarly. His web site does have many links and other articles. Just as with any individual, I don't agree with everything he has posted, such as his support for same-gender marriage, but the textbook is very good.
oh what was I thinking...you did not say homosexual and I did not say that you did...maybe if you were not so touchy touchy about your favorite subject

blah de blah blah blabbity blah blah
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
oh what was I thinking...you did not say homosexual and I did not say that you did...maybe if you were not so touchy touchy about your favorite subject

blah de blah blah blabbity blah blah
Typical response by the emotional and feelings approach. Just more of the opinions of men. It is truly amazing to watch the following as is quoted by many here, out of the law given to Israel because it seems to settle the question for you. Are you guys Old Covenant Israelites at Sinai?

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22, ERV)

AND TO WHOM WAS THIS COMMANDED?

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)

and it is repeated in the last verse of the book of Leviticus:

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV)

If you people are Christians, stay in the commands of Jesus Christ given to us in the New Covenant:

"...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. (Matt 28:20, ERV)

If you don't like this topic, we can discuss the fundamentalist idea that a human being exists at conception and it is the only legitimate Christian understanding. The founders of America did not believe that. The ban on abortions in many States came about after the War Between the States. I believe with many of our fathers in the faith, a human being begins to exist at ensoulment, at viability.
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,576
1,882
113
2ndTimothyGroup, along the lines you have written, you may like the following:

The rigid, puritanical Puritans were more forgiving then many in the churches of today. From Thomas Brooks (1608-1680):

"Remedy (2). The second remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider, That God has nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I cannot find in the whole book of God where he has promised any such strength or power against this or that particular sin, as that the soul should be forever, in this life, put out of a possibility of falling again and again into the same sins. And where God has not a mouth to speak, I must not have a heart to believe. God will graciously pardon those sins to his people, which he will not in this life totally subdue in his people. I have never seen a promise in Scripture, which says that when our sorrow and grief has been so great, or so much, for this or that sin—that then God will preserve us from ever falling into the same sin. The sight of such a promise would be as life from the dead to many a precious soul, who desires nothing more than to keep close to Christ, and fears nothing more than backsliding from Christ.

In some cases the saints have found God better than his word. He promised the children of Israel only the land of Canaan; but besides that he gave them two other kingdoms which he never promised. And to Zacharias he promised to give him his speech at the birth of the child—but besides that he gave him the gift of prophecy.

Remedy (3). The third remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider, That the most renowned and now crowned saints have, in the days of their being on earth, relapsed into one and the same sin. Lot was twice overcome with wine; John twice worshiped the angel; Abraham did often deceive, and lay his wife open to adultery to save his own life, which some heathens would not have done. 'And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is your kindness which you shall show unto me; at every place where we shall come, say of me, He is my brother' (Gen. 20:13). David in his wrath was resolved, that he would be the death of Nabal, and all his innocent family; and after this he fell into the foul murder of Uriah."
https://www.preachtheword.com/bookstore/remedies.pdf

NOTE:
For a true Christian male who is attracted solely to males, one who is regenerated; if he continues to believe in his heart that his sexual inclination is sin, he'll have great struggle and battle with depression and guilt. Only the preceding by a Puritan can give peace of mind, as well as the statement in the Westminster Confession:

"5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5–8, 25, Gal. 5:17)"
Actually, the above commentary is proof for why I don't read it. Virtually ALL of commentary is filled with description only. Sure, there are plenty of cleverly worded sentences and paragraphs (above) that offer the description on "things," but what is the explanation for such a "heart" as mentioned above? Example below:

"I must not have a heart to believe."

This is absolutely True! But why? How is the Heart made to be a heart that believes?

1) My friend, the Purpose of Christ is to change our heart.
2) The Work of Christ is the explanation behind His Purpose. In other words, where does the Bible explain HOW this is done? And yes, there is a crystal clear explanation of this Work . . . it is the most important text of the entire Bible. And like the commentator whom you have quoted above, neither does he or modern-day "pastors" teach this most important Holy Work of Christ.
3) The completion of Christ's Work produces a most Holy Effect in our lives.

So, the Gospel is best described in the following way:

1) The Purpose of Christ
2) The Work of Christ
3) The Effect of Christ

Again, the above three points are only descriptions (or, Chapter titles of a potential book).

When a person can explain all three points above, then they are able to explain the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And of this day, no one has ever taught me the Gospel, and I've belonged to the Body of Christ for as long as I can remember, and that is a total sum of 49 years (according to my first memories of attending "church").

My best . . .
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,576
1,882
113
I know the truth hurts :)
Ahhh . . . I see that you're certainly not a mind-reader.

Actually, you can judge me all you want . . . your opinions of me mean absolutely nothing. You can keep belittling and goading if you like . . . whatever floats your boat.
 
S

SophieT

Guest
Typical response by the emotional and feelings approach. Just more of the opinions of men. It is truly amazing to watch the following as is quoted by many here, out of the law given to Israel because it seems to settle the question for you. Are you guys Old Covenant Israelites at Sinai?

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22, ERV)

AND TO WHOM WAS THIS COMMANDED?

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)

and it is repeated in the last verse of the book of Leviticus:

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV)

If you people are Christians, stay in the commands of Jesus Christ given to us in the New Covenant:

"...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. (Matt 28:20, ERV)

If you don't like this topic, we can discuss the fundamentalist idea that a human being exists at conception and it is the only legitimate Christian understanding. The founders of America did not believe that. The ban on abortions in many States came about after the War Between the States. I believe with many of our fathers in the faith, a human being begins to exist at ensoulment, at viability.

nothing to do with anything I said

touchy touchy

you must have yourself on rewind and press to spout
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,352
4,067
113
Ahhh . . . I see that you're certainly not a mind-reader.

Actually, you can judge me all you want . . . your opinions of me mean absolutely nothing. You can keep belittling and goading if you like . . . whatever floats your boat.
my opinion of you is from what you have already posted on this thread and your own words. I am not belittling you or judging you, I am only responding to your words of support for the homosexual lifestyle and trying to justify it. Surely you are not wanting me to post what you have said again to provide to you why I am saying this? If you do please let me know :).
 
Aug 3, 2019
3,744
507
113
Obviously I'm talking about the words/labels, when discussing the Bible, not persons. The words "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined about the 13th century by the church of Rome; and "homosexual" and "homosexuality" created in Germany in the 19th century, coming into English around 1900. We are living in a day when many (maybe 30%) think they fit somewhere in the modern idea of LGBTQ, and some young people are truly confused about it. So, I'm posting what I find the pertinent Scriptures teach on males relations to males. I'll be using the 1885 English Revised Version because of its literal accuracy. I'll usually use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for English, since I'm using an older English version. On definition of the Hebrew and Greek I'll use accepted standard reference works.

Sodom:
Lot, being covetous chooses the land toward Sodom because of its fruitfulness, being called "like the garden of the LORD". (Gen. 13:10, ERV)
"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13, ERV)

Webster's: "men, plu. of man. Two or more males, individuals of the human race...Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense", Strong's "Hebrew enowsh a mortal, a man in general". Therefore, Gen. 13:13 would mean the "people" of Sodom were exceedingly wicked, not just the males.

A key verse about "men" and "males" in OT Hebrew:
In Gen. 17:23 is the strange sounding phrase "every male among the men of Abraham's house" where "male" is the Hebrew zakar and "men" is the Hebrew enowsh. It is clear that the English "men" must be seen in context to determine if it means males; or mortals, humans in general.

"But before they lay down, the men(enowsh) of the city, even the men(enowsh) of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:4-9, ERV)

The word "men" here means young and old, all the people, male and female. There is no reason to think only males here because it is all the people. This wicked people want to "know them", the angels who appear as men; and we know this has sexual connotations because of Lot's offer to give his virgin daughters to them. Lot addresses his fellow citizens as "brethren", the Hebrew 'ach and Strong's gives "a brother" as the basic meaning, but then adds {used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1).} Webster's defines "brother" literally as male, but definition #2 reads "Any one closely united; an associate; as a band of brothers." When we say "brethren of the church" we don't exclude the ladies. Lot is speaking as we would say "neighbors". Verse nine clearly states an act of violence, "drew near to break the door", in other words this was going to be a rape, and rape is an act of dominance and violence, not sexual desire. In years past I'd have considered rape an act solely committed by males, but in our wicked day it's clear it can apply to both sexes. I can only see attempted rape here in the Sodom record, possibly by the entire city rather than only the males. The Lord GOD tells us what the sin of Sodom was:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50, ERV)

No sexual sin is specifically mentioned here, but the sins of "pride" and "haughtiness" are clearly mentioned. Yet there is the word "abomination" that translates the Hebrew to`ebah and Strong's defines it thus: "1(properly) something disgusting; 2(morally, as noun) an abhorrence; 3(especially) idolatry; 4(concretely) and idol." This Hebrew word is found 41 times in Ezekiel, more than any other OT book and it seems to be largely associated with idolatry in Ezekiel, yet 22:11 does connect it with adultery, and again in 33:26. More on this word "abomination" later when looking at Lev. 18:22 and Deut. 23:17.

Jesus spoke of Sodom, and his words spoken to the Jews are:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt 10:14-15, ERV)

One other statement about Sodom is in the NT book of Jude:

"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7, ERV)

Who is being referred to as "these"? It appears to be the angels as I read it. The Revised English Bible clearly translates in that manner:

"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7, REB)

So what does "strange flesh"(ERV) or "indulged in unnatural lusts"(REB) mean? In the Greek, strange is heteros which Strong's defines as "other or different"; and flesh is sarx which Strong's defines as "flesh (as stripped of the skin)." In Jude 14 the book, Prophecy of Enoch, is mentioned and in that book the story of Gen. 6:1-4 is thought to be about angels, "sons of God"; who have sexual relations with humans, "daughters of men". Since the non-canonical book of Enoch is referenced, I believe the "strange flesh" or "different flesh" refers to the people of Sodom attempting to rape angels, which is clearly a different flesh. The "different flesh" can not mean a human to human, but more fitting to human to angel, see: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes." (1Cor 15:39, ERV)

Isn't pride and a haughty spirit at the base of all violent criminality? Isn't sin very much about pride and a haughty air. We see it daily in minor things, where the normal rules of society are just ignored by those who think it does not apply to them. The healthy person parking in Handicapped Zones; the aggressive, reckless and high speed driving, etc. Prisons are full of people who think society's rules are only for others. The Apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BC, gives a historical look at what the Jews thought about Sodom, and I'll use the old KJV translation:

Sir 16:8 KJVA "Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride."

Leviticus 18:22 and Deut. 23:17,18 will be in the next OP. This is taking more space than I had thought.
The idea that 30% of the population identifies as LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ is Fake News commie media propaganda bulldookey. The actual number is probably closer to 1 percent, which is 1 percent too many.

In the Garden of Eden where marriage was instituted between His "male and female" creation, God never ran a sewer line, and neither should the church be attempting to install one when we are on the cusp of the return of Jesus.