In anybodys eyes do you think its right to be gay?

Posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

Hello b:

Well, if you're gay, of course it's right. If you're not, and you buy into the church crapola, then you might think it's NOT right.

So, what's new? We already know what Christians think of homosexuality. But, their opinion can be discounted because they've been brainwashed.

excon

According to basic Christian, Muslim and Jewish teachings, homosexual activity and its practice is wrong.

There are newer break off groups in all faiths that have accepted those beleifs, ( opinion more for the people and the donations than any real faith issues) And you will find some break off group that will accept any type of desire known to man if you search.

But historically and still in the majority ( Western culture), religious groups do not accept this behavior.

Scripture is clear, and here is one example. Note that some in the church in Corinth fell into each of these sins and were brought out of them.

1 Cor 6:8-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

Hello T:

I didn't know you disdain drunkards just like you do homosexuals...

How come you let drunkards, marry then? Or how come you don't pass a law that takes away a drunkards right to drink? Or how come it's OK to drink, but not get drunk? Wouldn't that mean that it's OK for two guys to kiss, if they didn't go any further?

Just curious.

excon

Hello T:

I didn't know you disdain drunkards just like you do homosexuals...

How come you let drunkards, marry then? Or how come you don't pass a law that takes away a drunkards right to drink? Or how come it's ok to drink, but not get drunk? Wouldn't that mean that it's ok for two guys to kiss, if they didn't go any further?

Just curious.

excon

I neither disdain those who drink excessively nor homosexuals.

Why is a "drink" okay - it is not a sin. Jesus drank wine. Scripture is clear on this point that the sin is excessive drinking.

But you are right to point out that each are stated in scripture to be sins, and no sin is better than another, so none of us can claim to be better than those who practice homosexuality. We all need to come to Christ for forgives of our sins.

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

To often homosexuality is presented to be somehow a worse sin than others, and that is not true.

This, BTW, is not talking about the law of the land, but what is and is not a sin.

Well personally my belief is of course Christian... im protestant... because the 'other' christian whatever you call them like baptists, methodists and other things like that... they all believe in different things... they keep taking stuff out of the bible to butter things up for the homosexual belief... like right here in WV... they have a gay church... im getting confused about the Christian belief... I know its wrong I was raised that it was and is but sometimes I just wonder...

Hello again, b:

Nobody here is telling you that you should accept homosexuality. If you think it's wrong, then it is. If your church believes that gay people shouldn't marry, then your church shouldn't marry gay people, and you can keep gay people OUT of your church if you want to.

Those are your rights, and nobody here would attempt to convince you otherwise.

I think your confusion is GOOD, too. I think people ought to challenge conventional wisdom instead of blindly accepting the rules of the past. Why don't you go to the gay church and talk to those people? You might find out some stuff.

excon

We don't keep anybody out of church its Gods house anybody and everybody is accepted there...
I was at a store yesterday with my parents and sis... I noticed them first but a lesbian couple walked in the door holding hands and my dad started making fun of them... he was just like 'they want to be noticed so I'm noticing'... they didn't hold hands after that but still I don't like to hurt peoples feelings so I didn't join along but I wanted to... I mean I have a gay friend but I don't make fun of her or anything but I still think its wrong

i dont like to hurt peoples feelings so i didnt join along but i wanted to...Hello b:

It's a shame your father DOES like to hurt feelings... You should instruct him on the Christian belief of "love thy neighbor as thyself". Plus, he's not even being polite. Doesn't he want you to be polite??

You've got your work cut out for you. It's VERY difficult to overcome a childhood filled with bigotry, but you CAN do it. I think the very FIRST thing to do, is ASK about it, and you DID. Good for you.

excon

Ummm... thanks and he is Christian he's was just saying what he believed just like those lesbians were showing what they believe and he didn't care who heard... see? This is very confusing

we dont keep anybody out of church its Gods house anybody and everybody is accepted there...
i was at a store yesterday with my parents and sis...i noticed them first but a lesbian couple walked in the door holding hands and my dad started making fun of them...he was just like 'they want to be noticed so im noticing'...they didnt hold hands after that but still i dont like to hurt peoples feelings so i didnt join along but i wanted to...i mean i have a gay friend but i dont make fun of her or anything but i still think its wrong

God loves those who are homosexual, and they should be welcomed in the church. The passage that I quoted is clear that some in the church in Corinth were, before they were saved, homosexuals. We come to Christ as we are.

ummm...thanks and he is Christian he's was just saying what he believed just like those lesbians were showing what they believe and he didnt care who heard...see? this is very confusingHello again, b:

Yes, it IS confusing. Let me see if I can help.

On the one hand you've got your father, who you love very much... Then, on the other hand, you're starting to question things... That's part of growing up, and it IS confusing.

I don't believe the lesbians were making a statement to the world. I believe they were making a statement to each other.

I don't know how old you are, but I promise you, that when you find your beau, and you hold hands with him/her, it WON'T be a message to the world. It'll be a message to your loved one.

I suppose too, that your father thought by holding hands, they were offending him, so he had the right to offend them back. But, they weren't, and he doesn't.

It's like I said, you're going to have a hard time overcoming your fathers influence... But, I'm here to help.

excon

I'm turning 18 in the beginning of sept... and things have been confusing very much for the past few years and I've been through a lot of stuff to prove it... but I do love my father and I know what he believes but I just think he hurt those girls feelings I mean their people too but I don't know?

i know waht he believes but i just think he hurt those girls feelings i mean their poeple too but i dont know?Hello again, b:

Yes, you DO KNOW. Treat people how you'd like to be treated... Oh, my gosh... That's another Christian prayer, isn't it?

excon

That's more like the golden rule...

According to Christian belief homosexual behavior is a sin. There just is NO getting around it.

TJ3,

Incidentally (and this is OFF the subject) do you know what Laodicean means? It is translated the People RIGHTS! I about fell over when I heard that. Thought you'd enjoy that since excon was giving you a lecture on the RIGHTS that Gay's don't get and the drunks do! LOL Well it blew me away anyway.

According to Christian belief homosexual behavior is a sin. There just is NO getting around it.

TJ3,

Incidently (and this is OFF the subject) do you know what Laodicean means? It is translated the People RIGHTS! I about fell over when I heard that. thought you'd enjoy that since excon was giving you a lecture on the RIGHTS that Gay's don't get and the drunks do! LOL Well it blew me away anyway.

Interesting. I always wonder, when people speak about sexual orientation rights, how far they would take it. For instance, what about pedophiles - should they have their rights recognized? There is already a group working on recognition of homosexual pedophile rights - rights to practice their sexual orientation. Also, many people say that the Bible does not speak about the orientation, just the act, but in fact the Bible does speak about the orientation.

Interesting. I always wonder, when people speak about sexual orientation rights, how far they would take it. For instance, what about pedophiles - should they have their rights recognized? Hello again, Tj:

I have no problem discussing my views. I DO have a problem discussing what other people SAID were my views.

In fact Tj, I don't speak about "sexual orientation rights". I don't know what that is.

If you followed my argument, I specifically spoke about gay marriage. I can back up my argument with Constitutional law. I'm right - you're wrong. That law WILL be changed. Of that, I have no doubt.

Pedophile have the right to get married too. I spoke of NOTHING other than the right to get married. Pedophiles DON'T have the right to molest children.

I don't expect you to confine yourself to THAT argument, as I get that you think gay marriage equates to pedophile rights.

THAT isn't worth responding to. It's actually kind of stupid. I can't argue with stupid arguments. Ok, I'll make ONE argument... There ISN'T ONE group calling for gay marriage that also calls for the rights of pedophiles to molest children...

At least MY arguments have a basis in reality.

excon

in anybodys eyes do you think its right to be gay?

posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

According to the bible, the ACT of homosexuality, like any other sin, is wrong.

We are all sinners, and it is sinners that Jesus Christ loves - that He died and resurrected for us . :)




G&P

Hello again, Tj:

In fact Tj, I don't speak about "sexual orientation rights". I don't know what that is.

I did not say that you did. Read again, carefully this time!


I'm right - you're wrong.

Not a compelling argument.


I don't expect you to confine yourself to THAT argument, as I get that you think gay marriage equates to pedophile rights.


First you falsely accuse me of claiming you said something that you didn't. Then you take it upon yourself to put words in my mouth. The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

According to the bible, the ACT of homosexuality, like any other sin, is wrong.

We are all sinners, and it is sinners that Jesus Christ loves - that He died and resurrected for us . :)




G&P

Yes thank you I know He has I just really wanted to get everones views:)

Not a compelling argument.
You conveniently left out his argument. The sentence that preceded what you quoted is: "If you followed my argument, I specifically spoke about gay marriage. I can back up my argument with Constitutional law." But you chose to leave that out.


Then you take it upon yourself to put words in my mouth. The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.You said: "I always wonder, when people speak about sexual orientation rights, how far they would take it. For instance, what about pedophiles - should they have their rights recognized?" I'd say he summarized it correctly.

You conveniently left out his argument. The sentence that preceded what you quoted is: "If you followed my argument, I specifically spoke about gay marriage. I can back up my argument with Constitutional law." But you chose to leave that out.


Yes, because it was irrelevant. We are not speaking about constitutional law - this is the "Religious Discussion" board, not the "Constitutional Law" board. Besides.constitutional law depends greatly upon what country you live in, what the basis for that law is (British, Napoleonic, etc.), and a few other factors.


You said: "I always wonder, when people speak about sexual orientation rights, how far they would take it. For instance, what about pedophiles - should they have their rights recognized?" I'd say he summarized it correctly.

I stand by what I said.

Yes, because it was irrelevant. We are not speaking about constitutional law - this is the "Religious Discussion" board, not the "Constitutional Law"Hello again, Tj:

You're a slippery little devil, but I got your number...

So, because this is a religious discussion board, your suggestion that I think pedophiles should have the right to molest children, should NOT go unquestioned...

I understand. That's what religion has done since it's inception. Lie. You represent it well.

excon

So, because this is a religious discussion board, your suggestion that I think pedophiles should have the right to molest children, should NOT go unquestioned...

I understand. That's what religion has done since it's inception. Lie. You represent it well.


excon,

I nsaid nothing of the sort, and you were told that before also. If you feel the need to smear those who disagree with you, then that says more about you than me.

Interesting. I always wonder, when people speak about sexual orientation rights, how far they would take it. For instance, what about pedophiles - should they have their rights recognized? There is already a group working on recognition of homosexual pedophile rights - rights to practice their sexual orientation. Also, many people say that the Bible does not speak about the orientation, just the act, but in fact the Bible does speak about the orientation.

I hope I won't be accused of misrepresenting or persecuting or falsely accusing you of anything if I simply ask where you find the Bible speaking about the orientation as something distinct from the act.

I hope I won't be accused of misrepresenting or persecuting or falsely accusing you of anything if I simply ask where you find the Bible speaking about the orientation as something distinct from the act.

You would never be accused of any of those if you don't do them. I hope that I won't be accused of lying for defending my faith.

There are many places throughout scripture, from one end to the other. Here are two:

Gen 8:20-21
21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
NKJV

What do you think the imagination of man's heart is?

You would never be accused of any of those if you don't do them. I hope that I won't be accused of lying for defending my faith.

I keep forgetting. You're the only one who's allowed to bully people. (And it's textbook bullying, really, complete with persecution-complex and accusations that others are willfully maligning you if they have the temerity not to agree with what you say.)


There are many places throughout scripture, from one end to the other. Here are two:

Gen 8:20-21
21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
NKJV

What do you think the imagination of man's heart is?

What on earth makes you think this is talking about sexual orientation? Am I to infer from this rather feeble offering that you couldn't find a place where the Bible talks about sexual orientation as opposed to sexual acts?

I keep forgetting. You're the only one who's allowed to bully people.

No one, including you, is allowed to bully people. Some people apparently assume the right to do so, or get frustrated when they have no response and assume that abuse is the best response to one is unwilling or unable to admit they have no answer.


What on earth makes you think this is talking about sexual orientation?

You asked where the Bible speaks of "orientation", so I gave an example. We have to start with basics sometimes to avoid mis-understandings.

I note that you did not answer my question.


Am I to infer from this rather feeble offering that you couldn't find a place where the Bible talks about sexual orientation as opposed to sexual acts?

If you are unable to carry on a civil and respectful discussion, then we are unlikely to get anywhere. Were you looking for a real answer, or an excuse to abuse?

What do you think the imagination of man's heart is?
It is such a vague idea that it could basically represent anything. It could represent free will, it could represent just that: "his imagination". Why do you think it represents a man's sexual orientation?

It is such a vague idea that it could basically represent anything. It could represent free will, it could represent just that: "his imagination". Why do you think it represents a man's sexual orientation?

Why do you think that I said that it referred to sexual orientation when I just responded to that very point to Akoue.

As for whether it refers to a person's orientation in general, let me ask you - what in your opinion is an "orientation"? Take the "sexual" out of it, and let's just consider a person's orientation or in any sphere of life. Define what you mean, so that we can see if we are on the same track.

Well, Tom, here's what you said in your respoonse to ClassyT:


Interesting. I always wonder, when people speak about sexual orientation rights, how far they would take it. For instance, what about pedophiles - should they have their rights recognized? There is already a group working on recognition of homosexual pedophile rights - rights to practice their sexual orientation. Also, many people say that the Bible does not speak about the orientation, just the act, but in fact the Bible does speak about the orientation.

I quoted this in my post, #27. Also, if that weren't enough, the thread has been about HOMOSEXUALITY.

So the question is, why did you quote that bit of Scripture as though it has anything to do with sexual orientation?

Well, Tom, here's what you said in your respoonse to ClassyT:

I quoted this in my post, #27. Also, if that weren't enough, the thread has been about HOMOSEXUALITY.

So the question is, why did you quote that bit of Scripture as though it has anything to do with sexual orientation?

Sigh! Did you read what I wrote?

As I said, you asked about orientation. Sometimes, particularly in cases like this (as we can see from this discussion), we have to ease into a topic by going back to basics. You appeared to be unaware that orientation is mentioned at all in scriopture. If we can get past that, we can look at sexual orientation.

If on the other hand, you just want to make belligerent comments about me rather than engaging in a discussion, then clearly we are not going to move forward. You asked a question - were you serious about wanting an answer? If so, then get down off your high horse and let's have a respectful dialogue.

I note that you still have not answered the question that I asked you.

Interesting. I always wonder, when people speak about sexual orientation rights, how far they would take it. For instance, what about pedophiles - should they have their rights recognized? There is already a group working on recognition of homosexual pedophile rights - rights to practice their sexual orientation. Also, many people say that the Bible does not speak about the orientation, just the act, but in fact the Bible does speak about the orientation.
Pedophiles are usually straight males. It's a deviance, not an orientation.

I thought this thread is about homosexuality.

But to many homosexuality is just another perversion thus the issue, pedophiles, perfering animals and so on are just extremes of varoius perversions, while not related to each other to some of us, we see little difference, only in extreme.

But to many homosexuality is just another perversion thus the issue, pedophiles, perfering animals and so on are just extremes of varoius perversions, while not related to each other to some of us, we see little difference, only in extreme.
I can't figure out what you wrote. Pedophiles are not homosexual.

Pedophiles are usually straight males. It's a deviance, not an orientation.

I thought this thread is about homosexuality.

First, when we speak about a sexual orientation, we need to understand that whatever you attribute to a sexual orientation such as homosexuality may also apply to other sexual orientation such as pedophilia.

As for your argument that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, professionals in this area disagree. Here is a quote from the National Register of Sex Offenders website:

"Pedophilia involves sexual attraction/orientation towards children, and usually involves males." (Source: http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/what-is-pedophilia.htm).

There are other sexual orientations also.

First, when we speak about a sexual orientation, we need to understand that whatever you attribute to a sexual orientation such as homosexuality may also apply to other sexual orientation such as pedophilia.

As for your argument that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, professionals in this area disagree. Here is a quote from the National Register of Sex Offenders website:

"Pedophilia involves sexual attraction/orientation towards children, and usually involves males." (Source: What is Pedophilia and why is it such an epidemic? - RegisteredOffendersList.Org (http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/what-is-pedophilia.htm)).

There are other sexual orientations also.
orientation = turning towards (like the word "attraction" mentioned just before it)

Pedophilia is "turning towards" or "orientating towards" children, usually by straight males.

It's a different use of the word "orientation."

I can orientate toward the sunrise every morning.

orientation = turning towards (like the word "attraction" mentioned just before it)

Yep, and there are numerous sexual orientations, including pedophilia, as indicated by that site and other experts in the field, and in agreement with even your definition above.



Pedophilia is "turning towards" or "orientating towards" children, usually by straight males.

Usually only because the overwhelming majority of males are straight. The percentage of pedophile homosexuals is no less however, and some studies have shown a notably higher rate of pedophilia amongst homosexual males. Regardless, I am not sure what this has to do with what we are discussing.



It's a different use of the word "orientation."

One sexual orientation versus another. I see no difference. Hypersexuality is also referred to as a sexual orientation.

Usually only because the overwhelming majority of males are straight. The percentage of pedophile homosexuals is no less however, and some studies have shown a notably higher rate of pedophilia amongst homosexual males. regardless, I am not sure what this has to do with what we are discussing.
If you do a literature search and check into legit studies, you will discover that pedophiles are not homosexuals, but are straight men or women -- to the tune of 98%. Pedophiles go after little kids of either gender.

And do you know how to correctly pronounce the word "pedophile"?

The topic of pedophilia was brought up by you earlier in this thread.

As for the OP, being gay is neither right nor wrong, but is who you are.

If you do a literature search and check into legit studies, you will discover that pedophiles are not homosexuals,

No one is arguing a connection, and in fact this seems to be distracting from the issue at hand. And believe it or not, there are legit studies which do not agree with you! (I did my research!! ). Pedophiles can be heterosexual; or homosexual, therefore saying that they are not homosexual is wrong.



But are straight men or women -- to the tune of 98%. Pedophiles go after little kids of either gender.

Just as heterosexuals constitute 98% of the population - so what is your point? It seems that every time that we try to discuss issues of other orientations, you keep bringing up this topic (homosexual pedophiles) for some reason that escapes me.



And do you know how to correctly pronounce the word "pedophile"?

Again, who cares and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


The topic of pedophilia was brought up by you earlier in this thread.

And the topic of homosexual pedophilia was brought up and brought up and brought up by you earlier in this thread.


As for the OP, being gay is neither right nor wrong, but is who you are.

Since we are on the religious discussions site, we should be looking at what scripture has to say:

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV

No one is arguing a connection, and in fact this seems to be distracting from the issue at hand. And believe it or not, there are legit studies which do not agree with you! (I did my research!! ). Pedophiles can be heterosexual; or homosexual, therefore saying that they are not homosexual is wrong.
Pedophiles are straight. The Catholic priest thing is not a pedophile issue.

Just as heterosexuals constitute 98% of the population - so what is your point?
Homosexuals are at least 12-15% of the population, maybe more.


It seems that every time that we try to discuss issues of other orientations, you keep bringing up this topic (homosexual pedophiles) for some reason that escapes me.
It started with your comment on an earlier page in this thread.

Again, who cares and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Then why did you first mention it?

And the topic of homosexual pedophilia was brought up and brought up and brought up by you earlier in this thread.
Page back. YOU brought it up.

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
That's a mistranslation of the word.

Pedophiles are straight. The Catholic priest thing is not a pedophile issue.

Why do you deny the existence of homosexual pedophiles (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA ). They exist whether you like it or not.



Homosexuals are at least 12-15% of the population, maybe more.

Credible studies give a much lower number. These figures inevitably are from homosexual SIGs.
Check out this site: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html


It started with your comment on an earlier page in this thread.

I mentioned pediophiles. You keep bringing up homosexual pediophiles. My only comment was about a group which promotes homosexual pedophile rights (NAMBLA) but at no point did I even suggest that there was an automatic connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, even though some studies do suggest that link. Regardless, if you read what I said, my point was that pedophilia is another sexual orientation (which it is), and if anyone wishes to promote equal rights for all sexual orientations, how far would they take it? NAMBLA and other groups have been fighting for the same rights as homosexuals, using the same arguments based upon their sexual orientation. They have been less successful simply because of the lack of public acceptance of their orientation.


That's a mistranslation of the word.

Experts disagree with you again.

Why do you deny the existence of homosexual pedophiles (check out North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA) ). They exist whether you like it or not.
You're using WIKIPEDIA as your infallible source??

Think about it. What age are altar boys? Pedophiles don't go after young adolescent males.

Did you figure out how to pronounce the word correctly yet? I rarely hear it said correctly.

Credible studies give a much lower number. These figures inevitably are from homosexual SIGs.
Once you allow them all to emerge from their closets, the number will be higher than we both think it is.

Experts disagree with you again.
Whatever.

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor pederastrists, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

You're using WIKIPEDIA as your infallible source??

Not an infallible source, but one of many sources. Of course so far you have only made unvalidated claims. So you, so far, are you only source.


Think about it. What age are altar boys? Pedophiles don't go after young adolescent males.

You really need to do a bit more research into the topic. It is all well and good to defend what you believe, but to claim that there is no such thing as a homosexual pedophile stretches your credibility to the breaking point:

Thai police: Three boys identify suspect - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/20/childsex.suspect/index.html)

Pedophile gets 20 years (http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2006/05/20/news-hyscout-05-20.html)

Freed pedophile defends boy sex - National - www.smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Freed-pedophile-defends-boy-sex/2005/01/11/1105423490372.html)

LiveLeak.com - PEDOPHILE who abused 300-400 young boys CAUGHT in Norway after 30 year long Manhunt (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb9_1200188921)

N.J. pedophile helps authorities arrest man charged with running Thai boy brothel - Breaking News From New Jersey - NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/nj_pedophile_helps_authorities.html)


Once you allow them all to emerge from their closets, the number will be higher than we both think it is.

Your opinion. Sop far that is all that you have given.


Whatever.

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor pederastrists, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Interesting how folks who wish to prove a point by finding a translation that they think proves their point rarely give the verse that they use. The original word is malakos which is also translated as "effeminate" in the KJV. It means effectively an effeminate man or alternately a "catamite" which is defined as "a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man." (check your dictionary - that comes from the Random House Dictionary)

The next word might also interest you - the one translated as sodomites, which means "someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)" (from Wordnet Dictionary by Princeton University)

The next word might also interest you - the one translated as sodomites, which means "someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)" (from Wordnet Dictionary by Princeton University)Hello again, T:

I looked it up too... But, I got to tell you, I never saw a word defined with that appendage. Really, the word "especially", doesn't define anything... It's an adverb used as an intensive, i.e. <an especially good essay> <nothing especially radical in the remarks>.

It would seem that somebody other than a lexicographer added that word. Maybe somebody like YOU.

I didn't know there were differing degrees of sodomy. Based upon your definition, I wouldn't know if some males who engage with females in the same manner, are ALMOST, but not quite sodomites? And, is the girl a sodomite too? If they're not "especially" sodomites, what are they?

And, if they practiced their sodomy, will they every make it to the top of the sodomite chain, according to YOUR definition?? Or, will they always be less than the especial sodomites, which you think are only homosexuals??

Just curious.

excon

Hello again, T:

I looked it up too.... But, I gotta tell you, I never saw a word defined with that appendage. Really, the word "especially", doesn't define anything.... It's an adverb used as an intensive, i.e. <an especially good essay> <nothing especially radical in the remarks>.

It is used a lot - check out the dictionary more often!

Hello again, T:

So, I'm dismissed? Why don't you want to argue with me? Cause you got nothing? I think so.

excon

Ex,

I WILL agrue with you. Sodomy is wrong. I don't know why he used "especially"... it doesn't really matter.. it is wrong. PERIOD. What I find interesting is why you want to argue about it. IF you BELIEVE the Bible it really IS a no brainer.. right there in black and white. Course you don't believe the bible.. you are just here to argue.. now AREN't you... Bring it on sunshine... you are going DOWN.

Sodomy is wrong. Hello again, T:

I never said sodomy is right. I simply say that gay marriage is a right. What homosexuals do in their bedroom isn't my business any more than what YOU do is.

Now, I have opinions about the stuff YOU do in the bedroom. I may or may NOT think it's right. But, your right to get married should NOT be based upon my opinion of your sex life. What I think, doesn't matter.

In terms of RIGHTS, it's what the Constitution says that matters.

In terms of religious BELIEFS, and this being the religious discussion board, I'll submit that religions and religious people are free to believe whatever they want to about gay people. They can include them in their church or not as they choose. They can even carry signs saying that homosexuals will go to hell, and that gay marriage should NOT be allowed. That's FINE with me.

But, the government must obey the Constitution.

excon

For anyone who is interested, the term malakos was used for boy prostitutes. So the verse quoted above is speaking specifically about these, not about some more general phenomenon.

Ex,

You off topic... this is about whether homosexual acitivity is right or wrong according to christian belief. Incidentally most americans disagree with your views on the "rights" of gays to marry. I am one of them, although I feel pretty certain living in a Post christian nation things are beginning to change. You will see it as "progress", I see it as the beginning of the end. The Bible says People will do what is right in their OWN eyes (... ummm that AIN't progress.)

Hello again, T:

I couldn't speak intelligently about what a Christian believes. I can barely speak intelligently about what I believe.

excon

... People will do what is right in their OWN eyes (....ummm that AIN't progress.)I do that every day! You should meet the great kids I have. And feel free to interview my co-workers or hockey teammates about what kind of guy I am. Doing what's right in our own eyes is not the beginning of the end.

Hello again, T:

So, I'm dismissed? Why don't you want to argue with me? Cause you got nothing?? I think so.

excon


Because I don't see that you provided anything which requires a response or changes anything which I posted.

For anyone who is interested, the term malakos was used for boy prostitutes. So the verse quoted above is speaking specifically about these, not about some more general phenomenon.
Isn't that more pederasty than homosexuality?

Isn't that more pederasty than homosexuality?

Exactly. As we've discussed on other occasions, one doesn't find talk about what we now think of as homosexuality in the NT. This probably doesn't settle things one way or the other, but it has to be part of the conversation.

Exactly. As we've discussed on other occasions, one doesn't find talk about what we now think of as homosexuality in the NT. This probably doesn't settle things one way or the other, but it has to be part of the conversation.
And it had a religious (as well as "social") aspect to it too, didn't it? I think of it as a wealthy man's preoccupation or prediliction.

And it had a religious (as well as "social") aspect to it too, didn't it? I think of it as a wealthy man's preoccupation or prediliction.

Right. The religious aspect meant being involved in pagan worship. And it was a common practice among the social elite.

Isn't that more pederasty than homosexuality?

Actually that verse covers both homosexuality and pedophilia nicely, leaving no out.

Actually that verse covers both homosexuality and pedophilia nicely, leaving no out.
Depending, of course, on one's interpretation...

Depending, of course, on one's interpretation..........

Depending upon whether one wishes to accept the definitions of the words and the context.

Wondergirl,

I thought you'd be interested to know that the word translated "sodomite" in 1Cor.6.9 is, in Greek, "arsenokoitai". We've had exchanges about this before, so I thought you'd be glad to know that it isn't in fact clearly talking about sodomy at all. "Koitai", as you probably remember, means "lewdness", which, in this context, could mean a lot of different things.

Oh, WG, one other thing...

Since in the same clause we are told that male prositution is prohibited, it seems reasonable that arsenokoitai is here referring to the men who go to male prostitutes. Neither the prostitutes nor their Johns will inherit the kingdom.

Oh, WG, one other thing...

Since in the same clause we are told that male prositution is prohibited, it seems reasonable that arsenokoitai is here referring to the men who go to male prostitutes. Neither the prostitutes nor their Johns will inherit the kingdom.
As a side note, during Martin Luther's time, arsenokoitai meant "masturbator." Lo and behold, by the time the 20th century rolled around, masturbation had become an accepted behavior, so Bible translators retranslated the word to the newest hot button term, "homosexuals."

As a side note, during Martin Luther's time, arsenokoitai meant "masturbator." Lo and behold, by the time the 20th century rolled around, masturbation had become an accepted behavior, so Bible translators retranslated the word to the newest hot button term, "homosexuals."

Good point. And you're exactly right. "Arsenokoitai" was used in reference to mastrubation in the ancient world with some regularity.

Seems to me that if one really wants to be a biblical literalist, then one is obligated to undertake the difficult and time consuming task of mastering ancient languages and of studying, in great depth, the history of the Bible's composition, redaction, and transmission. The manuscript tradition is riddled with contrary readings. And in many cases, the earliest copies of the texts are not in Greek but in Coptic, Armenian, and Latin. Flipping to a concordance is no substitute for hard work. Neither is the frequent use of a search engine.

But, then, as you've no doubt heard me say before, I think it's kind of silly to read the Bible literally since it doesn't even read itself literally.

Wondergirl,

I thought you'd be interested to know that the word translated "sodomite" in 1Cor.6.9 is, in Greek, "arsenokoitai". We've had exchanges about this before, so I thought you'd be glad to know that it isn't in fact clearly talking about sodomy at all. "Koitai", as you probably remember, means "lewdness", which, in this context, could mean a lot of different things.

As interesting as your private opinion and speculation is, I find the views of recognized experts in Greek to be far more compelling. For example, here is what BGAD has to say regarding the meaning of this word in Greek, in this context - "A male who practices homosexuality". The same word is translated elsehwere in scripture as follows:

1 Tim 1:10
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
KJV

The same recognized source also defines malakos as - "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."

A catamite is defined as:

n. A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.

(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. )

Not quite sure what "private opinion and speculation" means. But, then again, I don't much care. This stuff is common knowledge among classicists and NT scholars. But do as you see fit. Reminds me a bit of your reaction to asking: reject his expertise as a biologist, and along with it the chance to learn something, and instead cling to a source that fits your agenda (in that case it was the Discovery Institute, as I recall).

If anyone else is interested, you can just look up "arsen" and "koitai" in the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It's the standard lexicon used by people who actually know Greek and work on this stuff. The term "arsenkoitai" is rather unusual, and some people think Paul may have coined it. In the context of the passage Tom has been all excited about, it pretty clearly refers to the people who pay male prostitutes--a common practice at Corinth and for which Corinth was well-known throughout the ancient world. (It was also famous, or infamous depending on your point of view, for having the best female prostitutes.)

As interesting as your private opinion and speculation is, I find the views of recognized experts in Greek to be far more compelling. For example, here is what BGAD has to say regarding the meaning of this word in Greek, in this context - "A male who practices homosexuality". The same word is translated elsehwere in scripture as follows:

1 Tim 1:10
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
KJV

The same recognized source also defines malakos as - "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."

A catamite is defined as:

n. A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.

(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. )

Wow, that was a pretty substantial edit.

Boy prostitutes did have sex with men. That's why they were called "malakoi".

Wow, that was a pretty substantial edit.

"Edit" ha ha.


Boy prostitutes did have sex with men. That's why they were called "malakoi".

Homosexual pedophilia. Something that one other person on here said doesn't exist.

Homosexual pedophilia.
Sure, homosexual = male with male; pedophilia = old guys with boys, often temple slaves kept for that purpose (and they cost a bundle to enjoy--ooops, worship with--too). That's how they worshipped their gods back then.

And most of those were straight guys having sex with each other or old straight guys doing a power and money thing.

Sure, homosexual = male with male; pedophilia = old guys with boys, often temple slaves kept for that purpose (and they cost a bundle to enjoy--ooops, worship with--too). That's how they worshipped their gods back then.

And most of those were straight guys having sex with each other or old straight guys doing a power and money thing.

Homosexuals are males having sex with males. When men do this they are not "straight". They may be "bi-sexual", and they may be "homosexual", but not straight.

I would also be interested in how you know whether these men 2,000 ago were straight or homosexual. Are you older than you let us believe?

There is no such thing as a "homosexual straight man".

Homosexuals are males having sex with males. When men do this they are not "straight". They may be "bi-sexual", and they may be "homosexual", but not straight.

I would also be interested in how you know whether these men 2,000 ago were straight or homosexual. Are you older than you let us believe?

This is not at all how people thought of it in ancient and Hellenistic Greece. You're being anachronistic.

This is not at all how people thought of it in ancient and Hellenistic Greece. You're being anachronistic.

So you read the minds of 2,000 year old men?

It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.

"Edit" ha ha.

Well, you posted and I responded. In the time it took me to post my response you had gone back and doubled the length of your post. That's a pretty substantial edit. In order to avoid confusion, why not just post again. When you go back to earlier posts and significantly alter them it can be quite confusing for others.

Well, you posted and I responded. In the time it took me to post my response you had gone back and doubled the length of your post. That's a pretty substantial edit. In order to avoid confusion, why not just post again. When you go back to earlier posts and significantly alter them it can be quite confusing for others.

When I edit them within a 30 second timeframe to add additional text to complete the message? Come on, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. You might have a point if it was an hour later, but a matter of second or even a minute or so - no, that is getting way too picky. In any case, you saw the whole message as we can see, and you had full opportunity to deal with the content.

So you read the minds of 2,000 year old men?

There are no 2,000 year old men, Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner notwithstanding. But I do actually study the history and language of a period before holding forth about it.


It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.

It sure does matter, if you're interesting in what Paul was saying. Understanding the meanings of words at the time at which they are written is indispensable for understanding any ancient text. And you can't make it "reality" by fiat. Words have meanings; words and meanings change over time. The NT was written nearly two thousand years ago, in a now dead language. You can't reasonbly expect to understand it without studying the languages in which it was written and the historical context in which those languages were used. This is why people study philology.

There are no 2,000 year old men, Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner notwithstanding. But I do actually study the history and language of a period before holding forth about it.

As do I, but you are saying is effectively that what we read is not what they were thinking.


It sure does matter, if you're interesting in what Paul was saying. Understanding the meanings of words at the time at which they are written is indispensable for understanding any ancient text.

Since neither you nor I nor anyone else can read the actual thoughts of 2,000 old men, we have to go by what the text says, in context. Claiming that they did not write what they were thinking is not a compelling argument.

It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.
It is YOUR reality, no one else's.

Well, you posted and I responded. In the time it took me to post my response you had gone back and doubled the length of your post. That's a pretty substantial edit. In order to avoid confusion, why not just post again. When you go back to earlier posts and significantly alter them it can be quite confusing for others.
Recently, some of us have figured out that some posters edit their posts time and time again, even after much of the discussion has ended. For that reason, one of the other experts told me to pass the word that we should always "quote" the person to whom we are responding, so that person's text will be what we are responding to and will show in our answer box. If he or she adds to or deletes from it after we have responded, the difference will be apparent.

It is YOUR reality, no one else's.

It is the reality that they recorded for us. We can either read what they tell us, or we can chose to bend what they said to what we'd rather than they said, but the latter will not help us understand the truth. That is why I choose to look at what they said, in the context of what is written, and taking into account the meanings in the original language.

Some people may not like what they said, but it is reality.

Recently, some of us have figured out that some posters edit their posts time and time again, even after much of the discussion has ended. For that reason, one of the other experts told me to pass the word that we should always "quote" the person to whom we are responding, so that person's text will be what we are responding to. If he or she adds to or deletes from it after we have responded, the difference will be apparent.

Good advice!

I believe that when you are responding to what someone says, it is ALWAYS a good idea to quote the person. Too often I have seen people claim that I said something that I never said, and if they had just quoted, it would go a long way to avoiding mis-understandings.

We can either read what they tell us, or we can chose to bend what they said to what we'd rather than they said
"they"??

we dont keep anybody out of church its Gods house anybody and everybody is accepted there...
i was at a store yesterday with my parents and sis...i noticed them first but a lesbian couple walked in the door holding hands and my dad started making fun of them...he was just like 'they want to be noticed so im noticing'...they didnt hold hands after that but still i dont like to hurt peoples feelings so i didnt join along but i wanted to...i mean i have a gay friend but i dont make fun of her or anything but i still think its wrong


Wise beyond your years. It is good that even though you have been told what to believe, you are figuring out what you believe for yourself. And even if you do think homosexuality is wrong, you are tolerant and kind and open. Good for you. You dad could look to you as a good example.

That is why I choose to look at what they said, in the context of what is written, and taking into account the meanings in the original language.


Well, but my point is that that is precisely what you haven't done. You assume that where you see the words "homosexual" or "sodomite", etc. in your *translation* that the original language can be unproblematically assumed to be speaking of homosexuals or sodomites. And this simply isn't so. The linguistic and historical context in which the text is produced are essential to its meaning, since these determine the meanings of the words contained in it. Scholars have been complaining for years that most translations of the NT import faulty assumptions on the part of the translators about these terms.

There is a massive body of scholarly literature on the nature of homosexuality in ancient Greece and the very deep differences between it and the phenomenon as we think of it now. I urge you to explore it. So far, you have been anachronistic, foisting modern notions regarding homosexuality onto the NT, and that has bred distortion in your understanding of the text. You often talk about your commitment to understanding the context of the NT and the meanings of the terms in their original language, so I should think you'd be happy to learn of this and be eager to remedy it.

Understand that I am not arguing that Paul thought homosexuality is okay. My point is that in order to have any meaningful interaction with the NT on this particular point requires greater linguistic, philological, and historical rigor than many have been willing to admit. And that is problematic, particularly if one believes it to be the word of God. For if it is the word of God, then one should be prepared to spare no amount of toil and study in order to understand it aright.

How silly we argue about words today, one merey looks at the early church and its traditions to know what the view point of the early church was. Most of the "looking" at the meanings of words comes not from need but from groups wanting to change their meanings to fit their persnal desires of what they want them to mean.

When you stop looking at the bible as a whole and start picking on single words you lose any real meaning.

How does one look at the Bible as a whole *without* looking at the meanings of the words it contains?

I'm certainly fine with looking at the traditions of the early Church in order to settle questions like this one. But, of course, there are lots of people who reject this approach, claiming that the Bible itself is utterly unambiguous. But that's just not true. And the Church Fathers themselves were sticklers for linguistic precision and philological rigor.

Well, but my point is that that is precisely what you haven't done. You assume that where you see the words "homosexual" or "sodomite", etc., in your *translation* that the original language can be unproblematically assumed to be speaking of homosexuals or sodomites.

I posted validation for what I said, and all we hear from you is that your private opinion, IN YOUR OPINION, trumps the Koine Greek language experts.

I don't buy it.

No, Tom, I'm telling you what "Koine Greek experts" have been saying for decades. You're just deploying the same strategy here that you did with asking when you didn't like what the biology expert was telling you about what other biology experts have been saying for decades. As I've said many times, look it up in the Oxford lexicon if you don't want to take my word for it. Look up "arsen" and "koitai".

No, Tom, I'm telling you what "Koine Greek experts" have been saying for decades.

Well apparently these unnamed "Greek Experts" that you keep talking about disagree with those who are more highly recognized.


You're just deploying the same strategy here that you did with asking when you didn't like what the biology expert was telling you about what other biology experts have been saying for decades.

Right. I posted the facts and I posted details, just like I did here.


As I've said many times, look it up in the Oxford lexicon if you don't want to take my word for it. Look up "arsen" and "koitai".

I already posted what one of the top and best recognized Greek lexicons says, and your only response was to criticize me for editing the post.

Your religion doesn't matter, nor who you are attracted too. You are what you are, and have the freedom to do as you please within your own boundaries.

There is no difference between a heterosexual slut, and a homosexual one, so make sure your behavior reflects how you feel about YOURSELF, and don't worry about the problems everyone else throws at you. That's their problem, so don't make it yours.

If you define yourself, and are happy with it, who cares about what others say. They are no smarter or morally entitled to tell you what you should do, than you telling them what to do. Truth be told they are as flawed as you are.

Let your behavior reflect your own relationship with the GOD that you understand, not how others understand HIM!

Well, Tom, I don't intend to stay on this merry-go-round with you any longer than I already have, so I'll just post a couple of final remarks and then let you have the last word. I know that's very important to you.

You boast with some frequency about your extensive study and knowledge of the Bible and of the history of Christianity. Your lack of awareness of the decades old discussion about homosexuality and "arsenokoitai" belies that. You also claim to have a passionate interest in the Bible and the history of Christianity, to care about it, and to be avidly at work learning more. It's been my uniform experience that people who are as interested in a subject as you claim to be in the Bible and Christianity are excited to learn of some new area they can explore and are eager to study it. You have now been informed of a new area you might explore, and I've given you the title of the most highly regarded lexicon available in English (I'm guessing you've heard of Oxford). Given your avowed passion for the subject, I would have thought that you'd be genuinely excited for the opportunity to broaden and deepen your knowledge. But, sadly, you mostly seem interested in trying to score points against atheists, evolutionists, and Catholics.

This pattern plays itself out in your exchanges with a great many people. Altenweg, excon, De Maria, Arcura, JoeT777, asking, Athos, and Wondergirl, to name just a few. I'm not being ad hominem here, since I don't mention this up order to win an argument with you. It's just always a pity to see someone squander so many opportunities to learn.

Your religion doesn't matter, nor who you are attracted too. You are what you are, and have the freedom to do as you please within your own boundaries.

]There is no difference between a heterosexual slut, and a homosexual one, so make sure your behavior reflects how you feel about YOURSELF, and don't worry about the problems everyone else throws at you. Thats their problem, so don't make it yours.

Agreed. But just because you have that freedom does not make it right, and does not mean that you can behave as you wish without consequences, both physical consequences, as well as eternal consequences.

You boast with some frequency about your extensive study and knowledge of the Bible and of the history of Christianity.

In fact I never had made such a boast (though you often make varied false accusations like this about me). You have though, claiming to be a "professor", claiming to be a "Greek expert", etc. (even when your opinion is completely opposite to what the best experts in the field say), but I never boast about it. I post what scripture says and validate what I claim by going to third party expert sources where necessary. This is an approach that I have, time and again, encouraged you to take. It is an tried and tested approach used by scholars throughout time.

Unlike some folk, I don't just make idle boasts, tell them they are wrong without validation and then accuse them of all sorts of things when they don't agree.


Your lack of awareness of the decades old discussion about homosexuality and "arsenokoitai" belies that.

I am well aware of a debate - I am also well aware of what the Biblical experts have to say, and posted one example of the board, and provide my source (a source used widely by top Greek experts and even translators). Your opinion does not change that reality - and to date that is ALL you have posted is opinion.


You also claim to have a passionate interest in the Bible and the history of Christianity, to care about it, and to be avidly at work learning more. It's been my uniform experience that people who are as interested in a subject as you claim to be in the Bible and Christianity are excited to learn of some new area they can explore and are eager to study it.

I often share information back and forth on such issues with people who both agree and disagree. But you know what else that I have found to be uniformly true? That is that those who love truth are more than willing to examine the truth, and to discuss it respectfully. I also find that if they disagree, they do not demean others, they do not even get into who the other person is, but rather deal with validated information and share that information so that both parties can grow more into the truth even if at the end they still do not agree.

I never find those who are interested in growing in the truth simply tell others that they are wrong based upon a opinion, though they may share opinions and reasons for them. When information is posted on the board, even from the most highly respected experts in the field, you often just ignore them as you did the reference from BGAD (And I assume as a claimed "Greek expert" you know what BGAD means). It's just always a pity to see someone squander so many opportunities to learn.

Understand that I am not arguing that Paul thought homosexuality is okay.
I've come around to be almost convinced Paul himself was a homosexual, that that was his "thorn." It makes so much sense based on all he said about marriage and relationships and
Himself.

Let your behavior reflect your own relationship with the GOD that you understand, not how others understand HIM![/QUOTE]

I like this sentence and believe it whole heartedly .

I've come around to be almost convinced Paul himself was a homosexual, that that was his "thorn." It makes so much sense based on all he said about marriage and relationships and
himself.

Actually, I would suggest that it is completely out of context of all of the above. If you have any specific references which suggest this, then please post them and we can discuss.

First, if you say homosexuality was the thorn in the flesh (which many or most scholars actually believe was his eyesight based upon Gal 6:11). Further, if you say that it was homosexuality, you would be suggesting that homosexuality was an infirmity:

2 Cor 12:7-10
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
NKJV

Also, if that were the case, why would Paul suggest that when we come to Christ, He changes to take away homosexuality:

1 Cor 6:9-11
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

Lastly, it would be out of character for God to give Paul a sinful desire to keep him humble. It would make more sense that he would be given exactly what he said - an infirmity (whether that be bad eyesight or something else).

Actually, I would suggest that it is completely out of context of all of the above. First, if you say homosexuality was the thorn in the flesh (which many or most scholars actually believe was his eyesight based upon Gal 6:11).
If only we could send you back into that time in history, dear Tom.

If only we could send you back into that time in history, dear Tom.

Well, neither you nor I can, so we need to go by what Paul told us.

Well, neither you nor I can, so we need to go by what Paul told us.
And certainly not our own interpretation of his words!

Paul --
1. felt tremendous guilt and shame
2. loathed himself
3. spouted self-judging rhetoric
4. had negative feeling toward his own body
5. felt controlled by something he had no power to change
6. experienced a war between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body
7. was driven to a legalistic religion of control
8. feared when his legalism was threatened
9. had an "interesting" attitude toward women
10. Refused to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion
11. Wrote, "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
12. Also wrote, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13)
13. Felt beyond redemption as per his Jewish upbringing and thus, even more, appreciated what Christ had accomplished

Yeah, yeah, the thorn was his eyesight.

Wondergirl,

Your assessment of the Apostle Paul is pretty unfair. He told us in Romans 7 about the battle that raged within him. There is just NO WAY you can be a victorious Christian without the battle. If you continue in Romans and get to Romans 8 you find he found the solution for his guilt, sin, struggle, flesh!! He didn't wallow in any of it. I believe it was HE who said he (we) are more than a conqueror AND whatever his state he LEARNED to be content or that he forgot those things which were behind and pressed forward. This isn't a man that had some big sin issue.

As far as the THORN.. no one has a clue what it was but when he found out that the LORD wouldn't remove it... he was MORE than cool because he LEARNED in his weakness, he could be STRONG through the Lord Jesus.

And as for the other hogwash about him fearing his Legalism was threatened... that is just downright laughable... this man understood GRACE far better than you or I ever will.

This Apostle suffered greatly to be a witness for my savior and the Lord allowed him something that no other human being has been able to do.. he was caught up in the third heaven and saw UNSPEAKABLE things. AND he wrote most of the new testament ( inspired FULLY by the Holy Spirit)

I don't know what exactly your point about Paul is... but he was a pretty special guy. A sinner saved by grace who LEARNED be a overcomer you didn't do him Justice!!

Also, if that were the case, why would Paul suggest that when we come to Christ, He changes to take away homosexuality
In the next life, not in this one. This world and its residents are caught in the condition called sin as per Genesis 3. Relief will come only with Jesus' Second Coming. Then even the lion will lie down with the lamb.


Lastly, it would be out of character for God to give Paul a sinful desire to keep him humble.
Just as God caused you to be bathed in testosterone (and all that implies) in the womb? Or have you never experienced lust in your heart?

P.S. Homosexuality = sinful desire? I musta gone out with gay guys when I was dating.

Wondergirl,

Your assessment of the Apostle Paul is pretty unfair. He told us in Romans 7 about the battle that raged within him. There is just NO WAY you can be a victorious Christian without the battle. If you continue in Romans and get to Romans 8 you find he found the solution for his guilt, sin, struggle, flesh!!! He didn't wallow in any of it. I believe it was HE who said he (we) are more than a conquerer AND whatever his state he LEARNED to be content or that he forgot those things which were behind and pressed forward. This isn't a man that had some big sin issue.

As far as the THORN..no one has a clue what it was but when he found out that the LORD wouldn't remove it....he was MORE than cool because he LEARNED in his weakness, he could be STRONG thru the Lord Jesus.

And as for the other hogwash about him fearing his Legalism was threatened...that is just downright laughable...this man understood GRACE far better than you or I ever will.

This Apostle suffered greatly to be a witness for my savior and the Lord allowed him something that no other human being has been able to do..he was caught up in the third heaven and saw UNSPEAKABLE things. AND he wrote most of the new testament ( inspired FULLY by the Holy Spirit)

I don't know what exactly your point about Paul is...but he was a pretty special guy. A sinner saved by grace who LEARNED be a overcomer you didn't do him Justice!!!

Everything I listed is from his writings, from his epistles. Please read them.

It's really scary, isn't it, to think Paul was a homosexual.

In the next life, not in this one.

No, Paul said that some in Corinth HAD been homosexuals - past tense.



Just as God caused you to be bathed in testosterone (and all that implies) in the womb? Or have you never experienced lust in your heart?

Are you saying that God gives us the desire for sin?


P.S. Homosexuality = sinful desire? I musta gone out with gay guys when I was dating.

No one said that homosexuality was the ONLY sinful desire, but you said that God gave Paul homosexuality, which is a sinful desire.

Everything I listed is from his writings, from his epistles. Please read them.

I have read them and I am still waiting to see anything which might suggest that he was homosexual.

I have read them and I am still waiting to see anything which might suggest that he was homosexual.
Please reread my list. Note especially how he knew others would despise him and scorn him (for his terrible and threatening eyesight problem? *cough*).

No, Paul said that some in Corinth HAD been homosexuals - past tense.
Um, Tom, that's a verb tense thing, not healing from homosexuality.

Are you saying that God gives us the desire for sin?
No, you are implying that

No one said that homosexuality was the ONLY sinful desire, but you said that God gave Paul homosexuality, which is a sinful desire.
I didn't say God gave it to him.

Please reread my list. Note especially how he knew others would despise him and scorn him (for his terrible and threatening eyesight problem? *cough*).

Wondergirl,

I'm not SCARED nor do I think it is scary to consider he was a homosexual. It is simply not true. It makes more sense to think there may have been something physically wrong with the guy... like some kind of eye infection... ever seen green nasty goo coming out of someone's EYES... a GROWN man. They didn't have antibiotics back then AND it is only a theory.. ( incidentally, we KNOW he had something wrong with his eyes he said so).I mean if he WERE homosexual as you think he could hide it pretty well, especially back then, heck people in Hollywood do it all the time. I am NOT saying that is what the thorn in the flesh is.but I would suggest that to say a THRON would indicate some type of pain.. thorns don't really feel good. Not a SIN problem... he was more than a conqueror.

Everything you listed he most certainly did say... but you only tell HALF of the story. Like I said you can't have victory without the battle and he wrote over and over how he LEARNED to live and DIE to the flesh. Now if he died to his flesh ( he did get out of Romans 7 he said so in ROMANS 8), how could he be battling a sin issue? Give me a break. He worte against homosexual behavior!! ANDi'd be just as indignant if you had said that he was sleeping with woman. The Lord Jesus used him like none other... for a REASON. What an insult to the Lord and a man who understood the REAL meaning of living a Christian life and dying to his own flesh.

Everything I have said about the apostle paul is in his epistles... I read what you wrote and quoted. You told HALF of the story... please read it ALL!!

Paul --

11. wrote, "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
12. also wrote, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13)


Yeah, yeah, the thorn was his eyesight.

One last note.. he wrote he was given the thorn in the flesh from being to elevated because of all the knowledge he was given and mysteries revealed and being caught up in the third heaven.. it was then the Lord allowed the "thorn". So I guess old Paul wasn't born the homosexual.. just came on him. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

He called his thorn a bodliy ailment... wow I wonder how many homosexuals out there think they have a bodily ailment?

one last note.. he wrote he was given the thorn in the flesh from being to elevated because of all the knowledge he was given and mysteries revealed and being caught up in the third heaven..it was then the Lord allowed the "thorn". So I guess old Paul wasn't born the homosexual..just came on him. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

He called his thorn a bodliy ailment...wow i wonder how many homosexuals out there think they have a bodily ailment?
I know, I know, classyT. It truly is hard to wrap your mind around it at first, isn't it!

Wondergirl,

LOL I'm intelligent woman, but you got to give me something I can work with here... your theory sucks rocks... to be blunt. Sorry.

I gave you a list from Paul's writings. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, good. Now, open the windows in your mind. I know, I know -- they've been painted shut over the years. Mine had been too. Maybe get a pry tool and worry the seams a bit. Did I hear a cracking noise? Hmmmm, we might be getting there. Or maybe not.

Please reread my list. Note especially how he knew others would despise him and scorn him (for his terrible and threatening eyesight problem? *cough*).

I see people even today who make demeaning remarks when people write differently (i.e. the large letters that Paul speaks about). Indeed, I see demeaning comments and scorn even on this board from some folk who cannot handle simple disagreement.

BTW, you do know that Pharisees had to be married, don't you?

Acts 23:4-6
5 Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.' " 6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!"
NKJV

Um, Tom, that's a verb tense thing, not healing from homosexuality.

Really? Let's see how you managed to get aorund this by a "verb tense thing".

1 Cor 6:9-11
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

The only verb tense thing here is that fact that they were homosexuals and are not now because of the washing in the blood shed on the cross.


No, you are implying that

I didn't say God gave it to him.

But you did. You compared being a homosexual to God giving me the desires of a man. By your unvalidated and unBiblical theory, that would mean that God gave sinful desire top Paul.

Or are you now backtracking on that point and now conceding that was incorrect?

some folk who cannot handle simple disagreement.
I realize how rough it must be for you to be disagreed with, but that's life, Tom. You don't own this subject and this board. Or the truth.

I gave you a list from Paul's writings.

You gave a list - none of which either says or even gives the slightest implication that he was homosexual.

You gave a list - none of which either says or even gives the slightest implication that he was homosexual.
The windows of your mind have been painted shut too??

I realize how rough it must be for you to be disagreed with, but that's life, Tom. You don't own this subject and this board. Or the truth.

Nice try, but we all know who those are who turn nasty when anyone dares disagree with them.

Now, how about that supposed evidence of Paul being a homosexual? Have you come up with anything concrete, or is that list which have absolutely nothing in it in that regard all that you can scrape together?

The windows of your mind have been painted shut too?????

See what I mean about how some folk go personal when one dares disagree with them?

All you have to do is scrape together some CREDIBLE evidence for your claim.

Nice try, but we all know who those are who turn nasty when anyone dares disagree with them.
I'm hoping you won't start again either.


Now, how about that supposed evidence of Paul being a homosexual? Have you come up with anything concrete, or is that list which have absolutely nothing in it in that regard all that you can scrape together?
I can't do any better than Paul's own words and writings. Every item on the list can be referenced to his epistles.

I'm hoping you won't start again either.

Heh heh... I know that you hope that I won't start disagreeing with you again, but I cannot do otherwise when you make false and unsubstantiated claims suggesting Paul was homosexual.


I can't do any better than Paul's own words and writings. Every item on the list can be referenced to his epistles.

Then you concede that you have nothing credible to suggest that he was homosexual.

Then you concede that you have nothing credible to suggest that he was homosexual.
Only what Paul himself has written. If that doesn't work for you, oh well.

Only what Paul himself has written. If that doesn't work for you, oh well.

Paul's writings are clear - He spoke very clearly about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

That works for me. It seems to be you that has the problem with that.

BTW, did you miss the fact that Paul was married? I noticed that you failed to acknowledge that.

Again --


Nice try, but we all know who those are who turn nasty when anyone dares disagree with them.
I'm hoping you won't start again either.

Again --


I'm hoping you won't start again either.

Like I said before, I know that you hope that I won't start disagreeing with you again, but I cannot do otherwise when you make false and unsubstantiated claims suggesting Paul was homosexual.

Just try to control your reactions.

Paul's writings are clear - He spoke very clearly about the sinfulness of homosexuality.
He hated what he was.

How many homosexuals are married? Why do they marry?

He hated what he was.

Where does he say that? The closest that I see to that is where he says that he hates what he does when he slips in the war against the flesh:

Rom 7:14-25
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
NKJV

BTW, please note the context - Paul sattes that this is not specific to ANY sin, but a general discussion regarding the effects of sin:

Rom 7:8-12
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
NKJV

So where does he say that he hates what he is?

Indeed, he said the exact opposite:

2 Tim 1:12
12 For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.
NKJV

So where does he say that he hates what he is?

Where does he say that? The closest that I see to that is where he says that he hates what he does when he slips in the war against the flesh
There you go!


Indeed, he said the exact opposite
He was at the same time both sinner and saint. In his second letter to the Corinthians, he wrote, "But thanks be to God, who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 2:14)

There you go!

So I take it then that you concede that he did NOT say that he hates what he is, but rather was speaking in generalities about sin (and NOT about homosexuality), in stating that he DOES what he hates.


He was at the same time both sinner and saint. In his second letter to the Corinthians, he wrote, "But thanks be to God, who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 2:14)

This describes all who are saved in Christ and yet live at war with our flesh.

Again, nothing even suggests homosexuality.

Do you have anything else?

See what I mean about how some folk go personal when one dares disagree with them?
Jist havin' a wee bit o' fun wit you.


All you have to do is scrape together some CREDIBLE evidence for your claim.
The epistles aren't credible? Wait'll I tell Akoue and the others!

The epistles aren't credible? Wait'll I tell Akoue and the others!

Sigh - you like twisting what others say don't you?

The Epistles are credible - it is your argument which isn't because the epistles say absolutely nothing remotely close to what you want them to say.

So I take it then that you concede that he did NOT say that he hates what he is, but rather was speaking in generalities about sin (and NOT about homosexuality), in stating that he DOES what he hates.
hahahahahahahahahaha Funny, Tom. Or Funny Tom. You continue to prove my point and support my argument.


This describes all who are saved in Christ and yet live at war with our flesh.
And being human -- heterosexual as well as homosexual -- isn't being at war with our flesh?


Again, nothing even suggests homosexuality.
The Corinthians?? The CORINTHIANS?? "But thanks be to God, who hath given us [all of us who struggle with "the flesh"] the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 2:14)


Do you have anything else?
I'm good for all night. You getting tired and running out of fuel?

Wondergirl,
Everything you listed he most certainly did say...but you only tell HALF of the story.

This is indeed the issue. What scripture says is true. But it is wrong for someone to take snippets out of context to try to justify an argument which is entirely contrary to what scripture actually says. I remember warnings in various part of the Bible regarding adding to, or removing things from God's word.

This is indeed the issue. What scripture says is true. But it is wrong for someone to take snippets out of context to try to justify an argument which is entirely contrary to what scripture actually says. I remember warnings in various part of the Bible regarding adding to, or removing things from God's word.
*writing this down in permanent marker*
May I quote you? It will come in handy soon, I'm sure.

hahahahahahahahahaha Funny, Tom. Or Funny Tom. You continue to prove my point and support my argument.

Really? You claimed scripture said one thing, and when we read it, it says something much different - exactly how does that prove your point?


And being human -- heterosexual as well as homosexual -- isn't being at war with our flesh?

Those who are part of the body of Christ are at war with their flesh - and that goes for all of us who are saved. But where does Paul say that means that we are all homosexual? Where does he say that m,eans that he is homosexual?

In the context, he spoke about ALL sin.


The Corinthians?? The CORINTHIANS?? "But thanks be to God, who hath given us [all of us who struggle with "the flesh"] the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 2:14)

He was not speaking about ALL Corinthians. Let's see who the audience was:

1 Cor 1:2
2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
NKJV

He was speaking to those who are saved in the church at Corinth. You argument falls apatrt once more.


I'm good for all night. You getting tired and running out of fuel?

Not at all.

*writing this down in permanent marker*
May I quote you? It will come in handy soon, I'm sure.

I hope that you note it well, because it affects (indeed invalidates) every one of your arguments.

I hope that you note it well, because it affects each and every one of your arguments.
Yes, of course, Tom. Okie doakie, Tom. *faces Tom and holds up a mirror*

Yes, of course, Tom. Okie doakie, Tom. *faces Tom and holds up a mirror*

*Wondergirl fails to note that the glass surface of the mirror is pointing at herself*

*Wondergirl fails to note that the glass surface of the mirror is pointing at herself*
Hee hee hee hee Yer gettin' desperate, Tom.

hee hee hee hee Yer gettin' desperate, Tom.

Desperate? You're giving yourself too much credit. I would love the challenge if you could come up with an argument which needs more than 30 seconds to refute.

Desperate? You're giving yourself too much credit. I would love the challenge if you could come up with an argument which needs more than 30 seconds to refute.
All the epistles won't keep you busy?

Here's the list again, in case you misplaced it. Every single item can be supported with Paul's words from his epistles (as you have admitted), and the conclusion is that only homosexuality fits.

Paul --
1. felt tremendous guilt and shame
2. loathed himself
3. spouted self-judging rhetoric
4. had negative feeling toward his own body
5. felt controlled by something he had no power to change
6. experienced a war between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body
7. was driven to a legalistic religion of control
8. feared when his legalism was threatened
9. had an "interesting" attitude toward women
10. Refused to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion
11. Wrote, "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
12. Also wrote, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13)
13. Felt beyond redemption as per his Jewish upbringing and thus, even more, appreciated what Christ had accomplished

All the epistles won't keep you busy?

When you take passages out of context, or you alter the words, it is far too easy to refute such claims.

So, no, your out of context references do not keep me busy.

When you take passages out of context, or you alter the words, it is far too easy to refute such claims.

So, no, your out of context references do not keep me busy.
Good try, Tom, but your accusations don't wash. Look at the list again.

Here's the list again, in case you misplaced it. Every single item can be supported with Paul's words from his epistles (as you have admitted), and the conclusion is that only homosexuality fits.

Paul --
1. felt tremendous guilt and shame
2. loathed himself
3. spouted self-judging rhetoric
4. had negative feeling toward his own body
5. felt controlled by something he had no power to change
6. experienced a war between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body
7. was driven to a legalistic religion of control
8. feared when his legalism was threatened
9. had an "interesting" attitude toward women
10. refused to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion
11. wrote, "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
12. also wrote, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13)
13. felt beyond redemption as per his Jewish upbringing and thus, even more, appreciated what Christ had accomplished


Saw it before - post it a hundred times and it still won't be any more effective because none of these support your argument. If you think that they do, then pick the one that you think is the best / strongest argument and let's look at it in more detail.

Good try, Tom, but your accusations don't wash. Look at the list again.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously post ANY of these as supposed arguments to claim Paul was homosexual. I am left to wonder if you are serious, or just playing a time wasting game.

It is also important to note that some of these are not even scriptural.

Saw it before - post it a hundred times and it still won't be any more effective because none of these support your argument. If you think that they do, then pick the one that you think is the best / strongest argument and let's look at it in more detail.
I just didn't want you to rail at me to post the list again. I know how you get. And the more you deny the very real possibility of Paul's homosexuality, the sillier your comments get.

I just didn't want you to rail at me to post the list again. I know how you get. And the more you deny the very real possibility of Paul's homosexuality, the sillier your comments get.

You claim a very real possibility - please show me a real argument. If you think that there is ANY credibility in that list, pick out the number one strongest argument and let's examine it from scripture (second time of asking).

I know how you get.

I see once again when I disagree with you, you feel the need to go after me personally rather than deal with the issue.

You claim a very real possibility - please show me a real argument. If you think that there is ANY credibility in that list, pick out the number one strongest argument and let's examine it from scripture (second time of asking).
What a guy! Such patience. Rather, please refute any/all of the items in the list, that they were not alluded to or stated by Paul.

What a guy! Such patience. Rather, please refute any/all of the items in the list, that they were not alluded to or stated by Paul.

I have already refuted some, and showed you non-scriptural changes that you made.

So, which argument is, in your opinion, the strongest?

1. It is about the size of a marble.
2. It is usually reddish, purple, black, dark blue, yellow, pink, or green.
3. It growns on a vine.
4. Juice and wine can be made from it.
5. There may be a seed or seeds inside.
6. Jam and jelly can be made from it.
7. It can be eaten raw.
8. It is a fruit.
9. It can become a raisin.
10. Most varieties of this are native to the Mediterranean and Central Asia.

It is a ______________.

I have already refuted some, and showed you non-scriptural changes that you made.
Here we go. The rollercoaster just left on its run.

Here we go. The rollercoaster just left on its run.

You still cannot identify any strong arguments? Take your time, I can wait.

I have already refuted some, and showed you non-scriptural changes that you made. You still cannot identify any strong arguments? Take your time, I can wait.
You are so darn predictible, like Big Ben.

You are so darn predictible, like Big Ben.

Right, I examine each argument based upon it's merits.

Right, I examine each argument based upon it's merits.
it's = it is
its = possessive pronoun

Don't feel bad. Excon has trouble with that one too.

it's = it is
its = possessive pronoun

Don't feel bad. Excon has trouble with that one too.

Now if only you were so meticulous at examining the context of scripture, we might be able to conclude this discussion.

Now if only you were so meticulous at examining the context of scripture, we might be able to conclude this discussion.

Well, there is church tomorrow morning. It's getting late. And, before I go to bed at 12:30, I do so want to answer the Sploofus web site's Trivia Question of the Day (TQOTD), especially since I will be able to wager and win 8 million points if it is a subject I'm comfortable with.

Please don't confuse its and it's any longer. I'll be watching.

We can pick this up tomorrow sometime. Maybe some of our buddies will join us.

Sleep well. Good night.

Well, there is church tomorrow morning. It's getting late. And, before I go to bed at 12:30,

And I thought that you said that you were good to go all night!

And I thought that you said that you were good to go all night!
Oh, I'm good, but this is in your best interest. I don't want you to get overtired. Don't forget -- I'm a mom and can sense these things.

Oh, I'm good, but this is in your best interest. I don't want you to get overtired. Don't forget -- I'm a mom and can sense these things.

Heh heh heh, well there is a mom closer than you who knows me much better. I am another timezone away from you, so I have a one hour advantage. But if I am wearing you down, I understand - get well rested for the next round!!

My best friend is struggling with being homosexual.
She has been a christian for several years.
She says the situation is weighing her down and takes her further away from God.. she said that when she is close to God (praying everyday, doing bible studies etc) she feels as if the "problem" is lifted off her.
The bible also says in 1 corinthians 6:8-11 that its not something that can lead u to the path of righteousness. And at the beginning of time God made man but thought man needed something more, a women.. so like obviously God intended only man and women to be together in a more intimate relationship I spose..
They're just my thoughts.. :)

I gave you a list from Paul's writings. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, good. Now, open the windows in your mind. I know, I know -- they've been painted shut over the years. Mine had been too. Maybe get a pry tool and worry the seams a bit. Did I hear a cracking noise? Hmmmm, we might be getting there. Or maybe not.

LOL... my mind isn't painted shut neither is it open to drivel. There is nothing in the Word that would suggest Paul had a some secret sin he couldn't overcome. Quite the contrary. I'm going to go out on a limb here and point blank tell you that what you are suggesting is something that Paul told Timothy was a "doctrine of demons". I'm not a woman that is tossed too and fro like James wrote about gobbling up silly theory's and thoughts without a bit of proof. I prefer to take Paul at his word... he was MORE than a conqueror and leave it at that.

Tj3,

Incidentally, you are right. I believe Paul was married not only was he a pharisee but he was in a special group ( can't recall the type) but anyway marriage from what I have learned was one of the requirements.

Incidently, you are right. I believe Paul was married not only was he a pharisee but he was in a special group ( can't recall the type) but anyway marriage from what i have learned was one of the requirements.

You are probably thinking of the Sanhedrin.

I believe Paul was married not only was he a pharisee but he was in a special group ( can't recall the type) but anyway marriage from what i have learned was one of the requirements.
And that proves what, if he was a homosexual?

LOL...my mind isn't painted shut neither is it open to drivel. There is nothing in the Word that would suggest Paul had a some secret sin he couldn't overcome.
It was apparently no secret!!

what you are suggesting is something that Paul told Timothy was a "doctrine of demons".
And what a fantastic thorn in the flesh it would have been -- the perfect humiliation!!

I prefer to take Paul at his word
That's what my list does, takes his words right out of the epistles.

That's what my list does, takes his words right out of the epistles.

OK OK OK... let me rephrase... I prefer to take Paul at ALL of his words... in other words I prefer the entire PICTURE painted of Paul... not just romans 7. He was so much more than that chapter... Wondergirl, what do you do with ALL of his writings... what about him being MORE than a conqueror? What about him forgetting those things which are behind and press forward... what about this great man saying... I DIE DAILY. He LEARNED how... why do you want to diminish who he was and what he accomplished for the Lord? Why do you tell half of the story?

ok ok ok...let me rephrase...i prefer to take Paul at ALL of his words...in other words I prefer the entire PICTURE painted of Paul...not just romans 7. He was so much more than that chapter....Wondergirl, what do you do with ALL of his writings....what about him being MORE than a conqueror? What about him forgetting those things which are behind and press forward...what about this great man saying...I DIE DAILY. He LEARNED how...why do you want to diminish who he was and what he accomplished for the Lord? Why do you tell half of the story?
My list is taken from his words in many of his epistles.

My list is taken from his words in many of his epistles.

Wondergirl,

If the apostle paul didn't learn how to die daily and wasn't more than a conqueror than he was a liar and I wouldn't WANT to read any of his epistles. I said before and I will say it again... you tell HALF of the story.

There is nothing in the Word that would suggest

The Word (capital "W") is the second person of the Trinity, incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible, sometimes also called the "word" by some, is a book--or really a collection of texts composed at various times by various people under various circumstances. When you use a capital "W" to talk about the Word, it is quite natural to think that you are talking about the second person of the Trinity. But you are clearly referring to the Bible. You want to be careful about the Word/word distinction, since Christians are prohibited from worshipping a collection of texts, but are encouraged to worship the Word.

And what a fantastic thorn in the flesh it would have been -- the perfect humiliation!!!!

Except it makes NO sense how he could suddenly be given a THORN and the THORN was to lust after men.. LOL it is so silly. Of course it wouldn't a doesn't JIVE with how he lived his life... dying to himself and living for Christ. Yes the Lord allowed satan to give him a lust for men at the ripe ol age of what..? I don't know 40 something? Just sos he would get all puffed up and think he was something... yep.. I see it now... it all makes sense. LOL LOL

ok ok ok...let me rephrase...i prefer to take Paul at ALL of his words...in other words I prefer the entire PICTURE painted of Paul...not just romans 7. He was so much more than that chapter....Wondergirl, what do you do with ALL of his writings....what about him being MORE than a conqueror? What about him forgetting those things which are behind and press forward...what about this great man saying...I DIE DAILY. He LEARNED how...why do you want to diminish who he was and what he accomplished for the Lord? Why do you tell half of the story?

I don't see how it would diminish anything.

I have no idea whether Paul was gay or not, but I don't really see what hangs on it. Could you explain where the problem is that I seem to be missing?

I'm also unclear what this "half the picture" is that Wondergirl is supposedly omitting.

The Word (capital "W") is the second person of the Trinity, incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible, sometimes also called the "word" by some, is a book--or really a collection of texts composed at various times by various people under various circumstances. When you use a capital "W" to talk about the Word, it is quite natural to think that you are talking about the second person of the Trinity. But you are clearly refering to the Bible. You want to be careful about the Word/word distinction, since Christians are prohibited from worshipping a collection of texts, but are encouraged to worship the Word.

And using a capital letter when referring to the word of God means I am worshipping a collection of texts? Naah, I just think it is more than a mere book written by men or it could be a typo... never know with me.

and using a capital letter when referring to the word of God means I am worshipping a collection of texts? naah, i just think it is more than a mere book written by men or it could be a typo...never know with me.

Fair enough.

I still am genuinely puzzled by the exchange between you and Wondergirl, though. Could you explain why (a) you think it would somehow diminish Paul if he had been gay and (2) what the "half the story" is that Wondergirl is leaving out? I've read through the discussion and am honestly confused about that.

and using a capital letter when referring to the word of God means I am worshipping a collection of texts? naah, i just think it is more than a mere book written by men or it could be a typo...never know with me.
Be careful with apostrophes too. Plural nouns don't get one.

I don't see how it would diminish anything.

I have no idea whether Paul was gay or not, but I don't really see what hangs on it. Could you explain where the problem is that I seem to be missing?

I'm also unclear what this "half the picture" is that Wondergirl is supposedly omitting.

Well, the apostle Paul wrote against homosexual behavior.. he said it was sin. That is kind of important before I fill you in. He said he died daily, ( psst. When you do that, you don't fulfill the lust of the flesh), he also said he was MORE than a conqueror, therefore he wasn't living in a active sin lifestyle. And that would include lusting after women as well. He said he forgot those things which were behind and pressed forward. He said he was in a race and he was running for the prize set before him which was Christ ( gosh, that doesn't sound like a guy boggled down with thoughts of another man) He said for him to LIVE was Christ and to die was to gain.. this wasn't a man struggling with some sin cycle. That wondergirl thinks he felt shame about. The man understood how to REALLY live and that was dying to himself, his wants, his thought, his needs and he gladly did it all for the Glory of Jesus. He DID in romans 7 give a picture of the man that struggled with sin the struggle EVERY Christian goes through in order to get victory and he gives the outline for victory in romans 8. This is cleary a man who understood victory over his flesh and it IS in fact demeaning to say otherwise.

Be careful with apostrophes too. Plural nouns don't get one.

Guys... my grammar and punctuation sucks rocks. Sorry, if that is all you got though.. I understand.

Okay, so he wasn't engaging in homosexual sex--neither was he engaging in heterosexual sex. He wasn't "boggled down with thoughts of another man", nor of any woman. How does his sexual orientation change anything? He didn't lust after men or women, so what's the diff? Except that some people don't like the thought that he might have been gay. I just don't see what hangs on his sexual orientation. In dying to the flesh he would have died to whatever lusts--heterosexual or homosexual--that he had had.

he wasn't living in a active sin lifestyle
I didn't say he was. BEING a homosexual isn't the same as BEHAVING in a homosexual manner.


dying to himself, his wants, his thought, his needs and he gladly did it all for the Glory of Jesus
Exactly!! Homosexuals can do that too.


This is cleary a man who understood victory over his flesh
Again, exactly! Paul would certainly think you have really aggrandized him in your mental image of him. And none of what you say would knock out his being a homosexual. In fact, your arguments make it even more plausible!

Paul would certainly think you have really aggrandized him in your mental image of him. And none of what you say would knock out his being a homosexual. In fact, your arguments make it even more plausible!

More plausible? LOL okie dokie care to expand?

Okay, so he wasn't engaging in homosexual sex--neither was he engaging in heterosexual sex. He wasn't "boggled down with thoughts of another man", nor of any woman. How does his sexual orientation change anything? He didn't lust after men or women, so what's the diff? Except that some people don't like the thought that he might have been gay. I just don't see what hangs on his sexual orientation. In dying to the flesh he would have died to whatever lusts--heterosexual or homosexual--that he had had.

Well, akoue, I do believe that he was in fact married at least at one time. He was a pharisee and in order to be one, you had to be married. He admitted he was a murderer, in fact he killed Christians before becoming saved. There is just no indication whatsoever that he was homosexual and correct me wondergirl if I am wrong here but I THINK she is implying he was STRUGGLING with this behavior.

Paul would certainly think you have really aggrandized him in your mental image of him.

HOW? Everything I said about him came right out of his epistles. I didn't quote the bible word for word but I didn't exaggerate. HE SAID IT.

So he had to be married in order to be a Pharisee. And he really wanted to be a Pharisee... See where I'm going with this? If you have to do B in order to do A (and you really want to do A), then the rational thing to do is... B.

I just honestly couldn't care less whether he was gay or not. It wouldn't diminish him one bit in my eyes.

But maybe that's why he never once used the standard term for homosexuality in his epistles. Maybe that's why he used as unusual a term as "arsenokoitai", in preference to a term that would have been completely unambigious in his condemnation of homosexuality of any kind. Perhaps he was WAy ahead of his times.

And that proves what, if he was a homosexual?

I am still waiting for you to come forward with something of substance. That IF is one massive "IF".

That's what my list does, takes his words right out of the epistles.

Except that some of your claims are not Biblical (words added, subtracted or altered) and NONE of them even suggests that he was a homosexual.

Well, akoue, I do believe that he was in fact married at least at one time. He was a pharisee and in order to be one, you had to be married. He admitted he was a murderer, in fact he killed Christians before becoming saved. There is just no indication whatsoever that he was homosexual and correct me wondergirl if i am wrong here but I THINK she is implying he was STRUGGLING with this behavior.
He couldn't be a married homosexual?
He couldn't be a homosexual and murder Christians?
No one struggles with their sexual feelings? (not behavior -- homosexuals can be that without the behavior)

except it makes NO sense how he could suddenly be given a THORN and the THORN was to lust after men..LOL it is so silly.

Yep - that God would allow him to have a thorn in the flesh to make him humble by giving him a desire to commit sin, and giving him a sinful orientation.

Since when does God tempt us with sin?

James 1:13
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
NKJV

He couldn't be a married homosexual?
He couldn't be a homosexual and murder Christians?
No one struggles with their sexual feelings? (not behavior -- homosexuals can be that without the behavior)

So far your strongest argument appears to be innuendo against Paul.

I have no idea whether Paul was gay or not, but I don't really see what hangs on it. Could you explain where the problem is that I seem to be missing?


You may want to ask Wondergirl why she keeps pushing this unBiblical idea.

Yep - that God would allow him to have a thorn in the flesh to make him humble by giving him a desire to commit sin, and giving him a sinful orientation.
You're the only one saying it was sinful. God didn't say that.

I don't really see how it is any more or less "Biblical" than the idea that Paul was straight. But, then again, I rarely know what you mean when you throw around the words "Biblical" and "unBiblical". It sometimes looks like "Biblical" just means "Tom likes it" and "unBiblical" means "Tom doesn't like it". But that's just me. I'm not interested in making a thing out of it. But it also means that I don't think that Wondergirl is out of line to raise the issue. Seems perfectly fine to me.

You may want to ask Wondergirl why she keeps pushing this unBiblical idea.
There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

You're the only one saying it was sinful. God didn't say that.

But He did - not just in the NT but also in the OT. We have already shown you some passages.

There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

So are you telling us that you deny that the Bible is right when it says that homosexuality is sinful?

I don't really see how it is any more or less "Biblical" than the idea that Paul was straight.

It is unBiblical because her claim is not found in the Bible.

But He did - not just in the NT but also in the OT. We have already shown you some passages.
Your 2009 interpretation of English words. And some of us have told you those words were mistranslated and/or have been equated with current fundamentalist attitudes.

Your 2009 interpretation of English words.

The historic understanding of Koine Greek. Perhaps you skipped over the post where I provided the translation from one the foremost Lexicons.


And some of us have told you those words were mistranslated and/or have been equated with current attitudes.

Like I said at the time, given the choice between someone's opinion and that of recognized experts in Koine Greek, I must stand with the experts. You and everyone else is welcome to make their choice.

It is unBiblical because her claim is not found in the Bible.

That doesn't make it false. Here's another claim that is not found in the Bible: "78+57=135". It's true, though.

The historic understanding of Koine Greek. Perhaps you skipped over the post where I provided the translation from one the foremost Lexicons.



Like I said at the time, given the choice between someone's personal opinion and that of recognized experts in Koine Greek, I must stand with the experts. You and everyone else is welcome to make their choice.

I already told you, several times, that all you need to do is look at the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It's the one scholars use.

That doesn't make it false.

Based upon that alone, it is unsubstantiated speculation. Why would anyone want to accuse Paul of a sin for which no evidence exists? And why would anyone want to suggest that God allowed Paul to be given a sinful orientation to keep Him humble, in contradiction to His word?

Please just provide some substantiation for this claim and then we can move forward.

I already told you, several times, that all you need to do is look at the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It's the one scholars use.

And I already provided you with the actual quotes from a Lexicon used by scholars / experts / translators.

Why would anyone want to accuse Paul of a sin for which no evidence exists?
Where's the sin?

Where's the sin?

Homosexuality.

Homosexuality.
BEING homosexual isn't any more sinful than being heterosexual.

Based upon that alone, it is unsubstantiated speculation. Why would anyone want to accuse Paul of a sin for which no evidence exists? And why would anyone want to suggest that God allowed Paul to be given a sinful orientation to keep Him humble, in contradiction to His word?

Please just provide some substantiation for this claim and then we can move forward.

Can you substantiate the claim that he was heterosexual?

Unlike you, I don't regard sexual orientation as sinful. You seem to think that just by virtue of being attracted to men Paul would been sinning, even if he never acted on it. I don't think Wondergirl take that view. It's my understanding that Wondergirl has suggested not that Paul had sex with a man but that he may have been attracted to a man or men. I don't see any reason to regard that as sinful.

BEING homosexual isn't any more sinful than being heterosexual.

God told us otherwise. You can, of course disagree with Him, but given a choice between your opinion, and God's word - sorry but I will have to take God's word.

God told us otherwise. You can, of course disagree with Him, but given a choice between your personal opinion, and God's word - sorry but I will have to take God's word.
Now we're back to the interpretations of words. We've done this part already.

Can you substantiate the claim that he was heterosexual?

I don't need to. That is How God made humans - male and female.

When an accusation is made that Paul was guilty of a specific sin, then that is what needs to be substantiated.

God told us otherwise. You can, of course disagree with Him, but given a choice between your personal opinion, and God's word - sorry but I will have to take God's word.
NOT God's word. It's what you want God's word to say.

Now we're back to the interpretations of words. We've done this part already.

Yes, the experts interpretation, vs the one used by you and Akoue.

NOT God's word. It's what you want God's word to say.

I take God's word at what it says. It is quite clear - check it out.

Yes, the experts interpretation, vs the one used by you and Akoue.
No, the experts' interpretation vs. the 2009 definition you want to use.

I take God's word at what it says. It is quite clear - check it out.
Tom, we beat this horse dead already. Akoue gave you the Greek understanding and definitions a day or so ago.

No, the experts' interpretation vs. the 2009 definition you want to use.

Let's get back to reality. I posted the information from one of the foremost lexicons, and you have provided your opinion.

I don't need to. That is How God made humans - male and female.

When an accusation is made that Paul was guilty of a specific sin, then that is what needs to be substantiated.

Right, God made humans male and female. That doesn't speak to sexual orientation.

What sin. By your own account, the BAGD (not BGAD) says that "arsenokoitai" *can* mean males who PRACTICE homosexuality. That's different from have a homosexual orientation. So even if we go with your preferred source, merely being gay isn't a sin; it's the acts that would be sinful. So Wondergirl isn't accusing Paul of committing a sin.

Tom, we beat this horse dead already. Akoue gave you the Greek understanding and definitions a day or so ago.

He gave me his opinion, which disagrees with the experts.

Person opinions, as interesting as they are are not as compelling. Perhaps you like to accept whatever he says as better than what scripture and the experts say, but I am not so easily swayed.

He gave me his opinion, which disagrees with the experts.
His opinion??

Roll with me here for a minute, Tom.

God created a perfect world and created perfect creatures for it. Right?

Let's get back to reality. I posted the information from one of the foremost lexicons, and you have provided your opinion.

First of all, I've said many times that the word "arsenokoitai" gets used in different ways. It was also used for masturbation and for anything "unnatural"--which could mean any number of things, including going to a boy prostitute (malakos) for sex.

Second, the BAGD isn't the last word on anything. The very fact (which I feel I've pointed out before) that there is disagreement over the meaning of "arsenokoitai" would seem to suggest that it's not at all unambiguous. I made the same point on another thread recently: If Paul had wanted to be clear about condemning homosexuality in general, he could easily have done so. He chose to use this specific word, and in a clause in which he condemns young male *prostitutes*, in a letter addressed to Corinth, which was known not for homosexuality but for prostitution--male and female prostitution.

Right, God made humans male and female. That doesn't speak to sexual orientation.

Really? How would you expects homosexuals to multiply? Why did God declare homosexuality a sin if He created it?


What sin. By your own account, the BAGD (not BGAD) says that "arsenokoitai" *can* mean males who PRACTICE homosexuality. That's different from have a homosexual orientation. So even if we go with your preferred source, merely being gay isn't a sin; it's the acts that would be sinful. So Wondergirl isn't accusing Paul of committing a sin.

BTW, it is BGAD - it is sitting right in front of me and that is the common abbreviation (unless of course your opinion is that everyone else is wrong on that also.

As for the practice of homosexuality, since an orientation towards sin is also a sin according to scripture, why is homosexuality so special that it gets a special exemption?

Really? How would you expects homosexuals to multiply? Why did Gopd declare homosexuality a sin if He created it?

Well, surely you don't mean to suggest that every human being is to have offspring. Many can't. Don't think I said that God created homosexuality. I was just pointing out that what you said wasn't to the point.


BTW, it is BGAD - it is sitting right in front of me and that is the common abbreviation (unless of course your opinion is that everyone else is wrong on that also.

As for the practice of homosexuality, since an orientation towards sin is also a sin according to scripture, why is homosexuality so special that it gets a special exemption?

BGAD it is, then. Most of us who have been at the for a while refer to it as "BAGD" since that how it was known for years.

The orientation toward food isn't a sin, but many think gluttony is. The orientation toward sex isn't a sin, but lust is. As is adultery. Is there a specific passage where the Bible says that sexual orientation can be sinful. To be clear, is there a place where it speaks of orientation in such a way as to distinguish between orientation and act? If not, I'd have to say you're making unBiblical claims.

Yep - that God would allow him to have a thorn in the flesh to make him humble by giving him a desire to commit sin, and giving him a sinful orientation.

Since when does God tempt us with sin?

James 1:13
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
NKJV

I agree, it sickens me for anyone to suggest it. Whatever Paul's "thorn" was it wasn't a sin. The Lord Jesus told Paul that he would suffer for HIM. Paul lived for the Lord and he suffered for the Lord Jesus... he endured hardship all for the Glory of the LORD. The mere suggestion that he suffered scorn and humilation because he was a homosexual is so carnal minded. If Paul learned one thing, he learned it WASN'T about HIM.

I agree, it sickens me for anyone to suggest it. Whatever Paul's "thorn" was it wasn't a sin. The the Lord Jesus told Paul that he would suffer for HIM. Paul lived for the Lord and he suffered for the Lord Jesus...he endured hardship all for the Glory of the LORD. The mere suggestion that he suffered scorn and humilation because he was a homosexual is so carnal minded. If Paul learned one thing, he learned it WASN'T about HIM.
So you believe being, simply being, a homosexual is a sin.

Tj3, not allowed to do a rating on discussion board, but great job, but it is as always, those that want it bady will never listen to God's will. They did not for Noah, they did not for Lot, and they will not for us.
"Us"??

Well, surely you don't mean to suggest that every human being is to have offspring. Many can't.

I thought that we were discussing homosexuality, not the propagation.


BGAD it is, then. Most of us who have been at the for a while refer to it as "BAGD" since that how it was known for years.

You are welcome to call it what you wish.

[quote]The orientation toward food isn't a sin, but many think gluttony is. The orientation toward sex isn't a sin, but lust is.[quote]

I asked once before but did not get an answer. Maybe you can define what you think an orientation is.

Tj3, not allowed to do a rating on discussion board, but great job, but it is as always, those that want it bady will never listen to God's will. They did not for Noah, they did not for Lot, and they will not for us.

Thanks. I agree that there will always be those who will find a way to justify their views regardless of what scripture says.

I asked once before but did not get an answer. Maybe you can define what you think an orientation is.
Will you accept Wikipedia's definition? -- Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." (my underline)

So you believe being, simply being, a homosexual is a sin.

Having homosexual tendencies without acting on it? no. I don't think God made us to be homosexual though. He made us male and female and something is wrong when we are attracted to the same sex. He wouldn't have given Paul a sexual orientation that is contrary to His will for him. NO WAY.

having homosexual tendencies without acting on it? no. I don't think God made us to be homosexual though. He made us male and female and something is wrong when we are attracted to the same sex. He wouldnt have given Paul a sexual orientation that is contrary to His will for him. NO WAY.
Ok then. Let's go back to my post that was ignored. Did God create a perfect world and perfect creatures to live in it?

Will you accept Wikipedia's definition? -- Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." (my underline)

I am starting with looking at what an orientation (generic) is rather than getting into specifics at this point. I fear that trying to get into this to fast without establishing the basis first will only result in more confusion. Let's try to set a basis for understanding first.

What do you believe an "orientation" is?

Ok then. Let's go back to my post that was ignored. Did God create a perfect world and perfect creatures to live in it?

Yes he did... and then sin entered in...

Tj3, not allowed to do a rating on discussion board, but great job, but it is as always, those that want it bady will never listen to God's will. They did not for Noah, they did not for Lot, and they will not for us.
This is a discussion board without ratings. You have no business coming on here (as a moderator!! ) and giving approval ("great job") to one of the parties.

I am starting off with looking at what an orientation (generic) is rather than getting into specifics at this point. I fear that trying to get into this to fast without establishing the basis first will only result in more confusion. Let's try to set a basis for understanding first.

What do you believe an "orientation" is?
I will accept Wikipedia's definition of sexual orientation as posted.

This is a discussion board without ratings. You have no business coming on here (as a moderator!!!) and giving approval ("great job") to one of the parties.

I understood him to be coming on here as a participant giving his opinion, just as you have been doing.

I will accept Wikipedia's definition of sexual orientation as posted.

It is interesting how you refuse to answer my question each time that I ask it.

This is a discussion board without ratings. You have no business coming on here (as a moderator!!!) and giving approval ("great job") to one of the parties.

Ouch! Wondergirl, I think I'm officially scared. Hee hee. ;) Be gentle with me.. I cry easy.

Yes he did...and then sin entered in...
And when sin entered in, everything went topsy turvy. Weeds spouted, animals killed and ate each other, man had to work for a living, women had pain in childbirth, and not only were men attracted to women, they were also attracted to other men.

ouch! wondergirl, i think i'm officially scared. hee hee. ;) Be gentle with me..i cry easy.
I didn't realize you are a moderator.

I thought that we were discussing homosexuality, not the propagation.

Me too. That's why I thought it odd when you brought it up:


Really? How would you expects homosexuals to multiply?

As for orientation, Wondergirl's definition of *sexual* orientation looks good to me. Can't see how nautical or other uses of the term are on point. Why not stick with the *relevant* sense of "orientation".

And when sin entered in, everything went topsy turvy. Weeds spouted, animals killed and ate each other, man had to work for a living, women had pain in childbirth, and not only were men attracted to women, they were also attracted to other men.

Now you are starting to understand. As men entered into sin, they chose sinful orientations.

Me too. That's why I thought it odd when you brought it up:

I didn't - read carefully.


As for orientation, Wondergirl's definition of *sexual* orientation looks good to me. Can't see how nautical or other uses of the term are on point.

Well, if we cannot come to terms on what an "orientation" actually is, then to discuss what a specific type of orientation is will be no less clear to you.

So, humour me, what do you believe an orientation is?

I didn't realize you are a moderator.

hey, I'm teasin you. I agree with you as far as the state of the world after sin entered in.

Now you are starting to understand. As men entered into sin, they chose sinful orientations.

Tee hee... I don't think she is starting to understand...

Now you are starting to understand. As men entered into sin, they chose sinful orientations.
No, not a choice, but from birth -- just as many are born heterosexuals (and don't choose it), others are born homosexuals (and don't choose it).

I understood him to be coming on here as a participant giving his opinion, just as you have been doing.
His "opinion" was only approval of you. He did not add to the discussion in any way.