Okay can you give us the literal translations for the verses in the Bible such as Leviticus and Romans where it says that same sex shall not be together?
Can you explain why the Bible would teach against sexual sins such as adultery and fornication and lust but exclude same sex as not being a sin? Can you give any Bible references where it condones a man with a man or a woman with a woman?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
—Matthew 5:27-30
Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
—Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-20

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
—1 Corinthians 6:9-20
Galatians 5:16-21

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
—Galatians 5:16-21
Ephesians 4:19-24

They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!— assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
—Ephesians 4:19-24
Ephesians 5:3-5

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
—Ephesians 5:3-5
1 Thessalonians 4:3-8

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
—1 Thessalonians 4:3-8
Hebrews 13:4

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
—Hebrews 13:4
Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
—Revelation 21:8

Can you justify homosexuality or give the correct interpretation to the above verses?

Just because a word was not coined does not make the definition non existent.

N0help4u.
Excellent!!
I'm sure he may try, but he can not effectively refute those passages.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

What's unclear about this?

Not unclear. The problem some have with it is that it occurs in Leviticus, i.e. it is part of the Law that is no longer binding. Lots of stuff is said in the OT to be an abomination that is no longer regard as such (I'm thinking of Romans here). That's all. (Some have also pointed out that the prohibitions such as they are speak only to male homosexuality, not to lesbianism.)

It's just not clear to me how, without some appeal to a tradition of interpretation of Scripture, one can build a sola scriptura case against homosexuality. (The same is not true in the case of abortion.)

De Maria,
Have you noticed that...
Supporters of homosexuality have and will bend anything and everything they can to seemingly side with them.
I am NOT saying that to single out any person on this site.
It is just an observed generality I have witnessed over the years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Arsenokoitais , plural for arsenokoitois. Arsen = male and koitomai=lye, so arsenokoitois = he who lyes with men .And it is used only as masculine.

Then what do you do with sexual sin that is in the New Testament?
Is that done away with as well?
Romans 1 and the verses I listed above?

Anything outside of a husband and wife is considered sin according to the Bible NEW Testament!

Yes, and aresenokoites was used for lots of different things that were regarded as unnatural, including those that had nothing to do with sex. Homosexuality may be one of those. But like many words in ancient Greek, it isn't just the sum of its roots (the composition of complex terms isn't simply a matter of addition, after all). As I say, there was a perfectly obvious vocabulary available to St. Paul, and he chose not to avail himself of it. Arsenokoites was not a widely used term in the first century--some even suspect St. Paul may have coined it, although I find that unlikely. In any event, he presumably didn't have a problem with a woman going to bed with a man (though aresenokoites seems, on your construal, to prohibit anyone going to bed with men). Unless, as he may well have been, he was thinking of prostitutes who go to bed with men to whom they aren't married (a real problem throughout Greece at the time, especially at Corinth, and especially problematic for its relation to pagan religion). This reading certainly comports with other things he says. A koite could be a bed or couch, or a wedding-bed. Koitai is lewdness. The term can be jiggered lots of different ways, and it isn't *obvious* what exactly St. Paul had in mind--at least, it's not obvious just from looking at the page. If he had homosexual relations in mind, it would have been perfectly easy for him to convey that fact without ambiguity or vagueness. There is a long tradition of reading the passages as addressing homosexuality in general (not just male homosexuality, although the term doesn't have an obvious application to lesbianism), and that's fine. I have no problem at all with the appeal to tradition. But it is a term that was also used for masturbation. And there is real scholarly debate among scholars of ancient Greek--including scholars who are themselves native speakers of Modern Greek--over what precisely the term means. Simply flipping open the text doesn't sort this out by a long shot. And that was my point.

Just a quick follow-up: It's thought by many that Paul was actually talking about lewd behavior, and not about homosexuality per se. Greek society at the time was much more tolerant of behavior that, to Paul, a Jew, would have been regarded as intolerable. That said, and to be fair to both points of view, Paul came from a Jewish tradition that reprobated any and all homosexuality. The fact that he may not have had homosexuality in mind with his use of this term doesn't mean that he thought homosexuality was okay. He may have taken it for granted that his audience thought it was prohibited. But, and this is the sticky part, he was writing to Greek communities that couldn't necessarily be relied upon to share Jewish mores regarding same-sex relations. My own sense of where things stand is that it isn't nearly as clear where things stand as some would like. Inasmuch as I am not gay I don't have an intimately personal stake in the matter. I personally find it unlikely that St. Paul thought that homosexuality is okay--but that's just me. Now, as I've said, there are well established traditions regarding the meaning of the term in Paul's writings, and I have said nothing pro or con regarding those.

adam7gur
Brother Adam,
Thanks for that and the discussion which followed with Akoue.
I find it very interesting.
Pax Chrsiti,
Fred

All this is very interesting... I myself have wanted to be a part of the voting community but voting year after voting year find it extremely hard to vote for one that stands so liberally regarding critical issuses such as these. It is sad very, very sad. I only hope that one day there will be a God fearing candidate that will be able to take the stand for us and make the changes we need. Thank you for posting this question.

No it is not OK. Who, who will take that stand.

compsavvyimnot,
Glad to see you here.
Yes, it is a very good question.
I hope and pray as you do regarding a successful candidate with good Christan morals who will stand up for those as opposed to those who are anti-Christian.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

THE FOLLOWING IS FOR N0help4u

I'll address the message you directed to me piece by piece, starting with "Just because a word was not coined does not make the definition non existent." Yes, this is very true; however, yet again, the context, the whole picture, has to be considered as you'll see as you read further.

In order to judge something, you need to know what it is you're judging to ascertain you're forming a proper judgement. God gave us logic to understand morality, didn't He? So let's exercise it.

I'm sure you would agree that there's nothing sinful, in other words, unethical in two consenting adults loving each other, wanting to be with each other, and fulfilling each other both mentally and physically. It shouldn't matter what chromosomes the two aforementioned human beings have - that is, unless you're basing your judgement on something else than sin/ethics/morality.

Comparing the above-mentioned innocent love with adultery, a dishonest vow-betraying act, is illogical. According to the Princeton dictionary, the definition of "fornicate" is the following: "have sex without being married." If you honestly believe that simply having sex is morally wrong, that would make heterosexuality a sin.

As for Bible references regarding passages where a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman is specifically condoned, I can't give any references. This, however, is inconsequential. Hypothetically, having these stories occur doesn't point to any moral direction (right/wrong) whatsoever. For example, would you say a father fornicating with his daughters (incest) - which, by the way, does happen in the Bible - is morally right?

Now let's address some passages. I'll disregard the one's that only involve adultery, marriage, and the body being a temple, because, in these cases, they have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Romans 1: 26-27 says that the people in question "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature," and that "God gave them up to dishonorable passions." For a straight person, heterosexuality is natural, and, for a gay person, homosexuality is natural as everyone with the modern knowledge of different sexual orientations know. And, yes, it can be considered a dishonorable passion to have relations with someone you're not naturally attracted to. For the gay person, it's the opposite sex, and, for the straight person, the same sex.
From this, we can surmise that the people mentioned in the passage were naturally straight.

Although you weren't the one to mention Leviticus 18:22, I'll address that one, too. It says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It's an abomination." For your information, gay men aren't attracted to women if you haven't figured that out. Both parties are men. Therefore, a gay man having sex with a gay man is, in fact, having relations as with mankind, not womankind. That's basic logic. I guess it's funny how the fear, hate, and ignorance of the unknown can make people suspend logic and see things through a warped lens.

As I said before, the Bible is a historical document, which means that, in order to truly understand some passages, you need to be familiar with the context. In the case of Leviticus 18:22, we need to look back at the culture. First of all, it was in the Middle East thousands of years ago where women were thought to be inferior to men. Secondly, the concept of homosexuality was unknown, and men were expected to be attracted to women. Therefore, the passage was aimed at straight men, which also explains " ... as with womankind." As I said before, having relations against one's nature, whether one is gay or straight, can be most dishonorable. So, in the above-mentioned case, for a straight man to have relations against his nature, and, from his point of view, to be degraded to the same level of a woman in that chauvinistic era, must've been dishonorable beyond measure.

Let's go through Corinthians 6: 9-20 next. First of all, the accurate translation doesn't mention "... nor men who practice homosexuality," as that - "homosexuality" in this case - is an anachronism and, therefore, not possible without alteration of the original scripture. The accurate translation says "men who have relations with men." And I don't think I need to repeat the cultural context this was written in as with Leviticus 18:22. Corinthians was, of course, written at a different time than Leviticus, but, as a conservative tradition-revering people, the same norms were alive and well. I that this time I've enlightened you to the fact that homosexuality doesn't exist in the Bible.

On another note, would you say selling daughters into slavery is right, which, by the way, is sanctioned in EXODUS 21:7? It goes "וכי ימכר איש את בתו לאמה לא תצא כצאת העבדים׃" Translation: "If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Do you think we're morally obligated to put everyone working on the Sabbath to death?
(EXODUS 35:2 -
ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה וביום השביעי יהיה לכם קדש שבת שבתון ליהוה כל" העשה בו מלאכה יומת׃" Translation: "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.")
What about this next one? DEUTERONOMY 25: 11-12 -
כי ינצו אנשים יחדו איש ואחיו וקרבה אשת האחד להציל את אישה מיד מכהו" ושלחה ידה והחזיקה במבשיו׃וקצתה את כפה לא תחוס עינך׃" Translation: "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

If you do, in fact, follow the Bible word for word regardless of context as you appear to do with increasing frequency according to your messages, you should have no problem following the aforementioned passages. Somehow I still doubt you do, and I hope you don't, because the Bible can act as a guide, but, in the end, it is logic and logic alone that separates right from wrong. Even people who've never heard of the Bible know what is ethical and what isn't. The Bible shouldn't be used as an excuse to force one's prejudiced thoughts on others or as a shield to avoid thinking logically in terms of moral problems and facing personal dilemmas head-on.

THE FOLLOWING IS FOR N0help4u

I'll address the message you directed to me piece by piece, starting with "Just because a word was not coined does not make the definition non existent." Yes, this is very true; however, yet again, the context, the whole picture, has to be considered as you'll see as you read further.

In order to judge something, you need to know what it is you're judging to ascertain you're forming a proper judgement. God gave us logic to understand morality, didn't He? So let's exercise it.

I'm sure you would agree that there's nothing sinful, in other words, unethical in two consenting adults loving each other, wanting to be with each other, and fulfilling each other both mentally and physically. It shouldn't matter what chromosomes the two aforementioned human beings have - that is, unless you're basing your judgement on something else than sin/ethics/morality.

Comparing the above-mentioned innocent love with adultery, a dishonest vow-betraying act, is illogical. According to the Princeton dictionary, the definition of "fornicate" is the following: "have sex without being married." If you honestly believe that simply having sex is morally wrong, that would make heterosexuality a sin.

As for Bible references regarding passages where a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman is specifically condoned, I can't give any references. This, however, is inconsequential. Hypothetically, having these stories occur doesn't point to any moral direction (right/wrong) whatsoever. For example, would you say a father fornicating with his daughters (incest) - which, by the way, does happen in the Bible - is morally right?

Now let's address some passages. I'll disregard the one's that only involve adultery, marriage, and the body being a temple, because, in these cases, they have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Romans 1: 26-27 says that the people in question "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature," and that "God gave them up to dishonorable passions." For a straight person, heterosexuality is natural, and, for a gay person, homosexuality is natural as everyone with the modern knowledge of different sexual orientations know. And, yes, it can be considered a dishonorable passion to have relations with someone you're not naturally attracted to. For the gay person, it's the opposite sex, and, for the straight person, the same sex.
From this, we can surmise that the people mentioned in the passage were naturally straight.

Although you weren't the one to mention Leviticus 18:22, I'll address that one, too. It says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It's an abomination." For your information, gay men aren't attracted to women if you haven't figured that out. Both parties are men. Therefore, a gay man having sex with a gay man is, in fact, having relations as with mankind, not womankind. That's basic logic. I guess it's funny how the fear, hate, and ignorance of the unknown can make people suspend logic and see things through a warped lens.

As I said before, the Bible is a historical document, which means that, in order to truly understand some passages, you need to be familiar with the context. In the case of Leviticus 18:22, we need to look back at the culture. First of all, it was in the Middle East thousands of years ago where women were thought to be inferior to men. Secondly, the concept of homosexuality was unknown, and men were expected to be attracted to women. Therefore, the passage was aimed at straight men, which also explains " ... as with womankind." As I said before, having relations against one's nature, whether one is gay or straight, can be most dishonorable. So, in the above-mentioned case, for a straight man to have relations against his nature, and, from his point of view, to be degraded to the same level of a woman in that chauvinistic era, must've been dishonorable beyond measure.

Let's go through Corinthians 6: 9-20 next. First of all, the accurate translation doesn't mention "... nor men who practice homosexuality," as that - "homosexuality" in this case - is an anachronism and, therefore, not possible without alteration of the original scripture. The accurate translation says "men who have relations with men." And I don't think I need to repeat the cultural context this was written in as with Leviticus 18:22. Corinthians was, of course, written at a different time than Leviticus, but, as a conservative tradition-revering people, the same norms were alive and well. I that this time I've enlightened you to the fact that homosexuality doesn't exist in the Bible.

On another note, would you say selling daughters into slavery is right, which, by the way, is sanctioned in EXODUS 21:7? It goes "וכי ימכר איש את בתו לאמה לא תצא כצאת העבדים׃" Translation: "If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Do you think we're morally obligated to put everyone working on the Sabbath to death?
(EXODUS 35:2 -
ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה וביום השביעי יהיה לכם קדש שבת שבתון ליהוה כל" העשה בו מלאכה יומת׃" Translation: "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.")
What about this next one? DEUTERONOMY 25: 11-12 -
כי ינצו אנשים יחדו איש ואחיו וקרבה אשת האחד להציל את אישה מיד מכהו" ושלחה ידה והחזיקה במבשיו׃וקצתה את כפה לא תחוס עינך׃" Translation: "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

If you do, in fact, follow the Bible word for word regardless of context as you appear to do with increasing frequency according to your messages, you should have no problem following the aforementioned passages. Somehow I still doubt you do, and I hope you don't, because the Bible can act as a guide, but, in the end, it is logic and logic alone that separates right from wrong. Even people who've never heard of the Bible know what is ethical and what isn't. The Bible shouldn't be used as an excuse to force one's prejudiced thoughts on others or as a shield to avoid thinking logically in terms of moral problems and facing personal dilemmas head-on.

neokafkaesque'
I guess you have answered your own question. However, as I read, you are simply refusing to accept what the Bible teaches about unnatural sex. That is sex between two men, two women between man and animals, etc. From reading your response it definitely appears that you are trying to "make it OK" in your mind for some reason? Not sure why. Why is it so hard for you to accept what the Bible, the inspired word of GOD, teaches on this subject?

Homosexuality definitely did exist in the bible ages. Specifically in Sodom and Gomorrah. And it says in so many words that the Lord frowned upon it.
Look what happened to them.:(

neokafkaesque,
No matter how you want to or try to twist it the bibles says homosexuality is wrong.
From my point of view it is immoral and repugnant no matter what the bibke says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn, if you even bothered to read my message in its entirety, you'd know that I couldn't have answered any question of mine, since I never posed one, excluding the obvious rhetorical questions, of course, which had points of their own.

Anyhow, you're saying that I'm "refusing to accept what the Bible teaches about unnatural sex ..." Assuming you read my response, like I said, I totally agree that one shouldn't have to go against one's nature in terms of sex. I don't know what you're trying to say; in no way, does my response contradict the Bible or vice versa. As for bestiality, that's entirely a different subject as opposed to the fabricated claim of homosexuality existing in the Bible. I've never even commented on the issue until you brought it up, and, quite frankly, comparing bestiality to love between to consenting human adults, is ridiculous.

I never said the Bible was wrong; I simply explained the Scripture carefully and objectively in the proper context, leaving no critical margin for error in an effort to awaken some rational thinking, since too many people seem to interpret the Bible from a prejudiced fire-and-brimstone-preaching standpoint by putting unbiblical words in the Bible and warping its message by a veneer of unfounded lies.

Furthermore, you also say I'm trying to '"make it OK"'. I don't know what "it" refers to; however, as I said before, all of what I have expressed is in line with the Bible. And, compsavvyimnot, of course, homosexuality existed in "the bible ages". What some, however, perceive the Bible to depict, in some passages, homosexuality is based on superficial interpretation as I pointed out in my previous response. As everyone knows, or should know, behavior doesn't constitute sexual orientation. If you kiss someone of the same sex, that does not change your sexual orientation regardless of one's sex or sexual orientation.

compsavvyimnot, the Bible mentions the behavior of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (GENESIS 19) and their malicious intentions, not homosexuality. It's not said that they were gay or straight, and, therefore, no opinion is given regarding sexual orientation. The point of the story is Lot keeping his vow of hospitality to the angels he took under his roof, since the angels had nowhere to go. When the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah gather in front of Lot's house demanding to have relations with the men Lot has as guests, he refused. Lot would rather sacrifice his daughters to the raping mob than compromise his duty as host (back then regarded as holy) to his guests who were males by the way.

He was binded by not letting the men be degraded, since they were superior to women at the time, and, in addition, he had to be a good host, not to mention the fact that his male guests were also angels. The point wasn't about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah having relations with the men but the duty of hospitality. After all, you wouldn't say sacrificing your daughters to a violent, malicious gang rape is morally right, which, in this case was the alternative, would you? Later on in the story Lot fornicates with his daughters; therefore, engaging in incest (GENESIS 19: 33-35 to be specific), and you wouldn't sanction that, would you? Well, I hope you don't, because that, too, would equally be missing the point of the story - hospitality, that is.

Your long diatribe still sounds like you are trying to justify homosexuality. You do not want to accept what the bible says, by trying to cite what it does not say.
Homosexuals are still loved by God, but the Homosexual act is not natural and wrong in Gods eyes. You have chosen to argue against that fact. If you would read the passage in Genesis you have quoted it does state that the people wanted Lot to send out the strangers so that they (the people) could have their way with them. Sounds like a homosexual act to me. And that was one of the reasons the twin cities were destroyed.
If you are able to quote specific scriptures that say that homosexual acts are acceptable to God. Please do so.