Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married.

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or 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 men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine.

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

The verses you pointed out with the words “homosexuality” in it, the word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to mean “homosexual” until 1946. “Arsenokoitai” in greek (the language New Testament was written in) meant men having sexual relationships with boy slaves. so of course it was sexual immorality. it was never meant used to equate two men or two women in a commited respectful relationship. So the entire premise for the rest of the paragraphs underneath is wrong, thus the argument doesnt hold up.
See below on a scholar’s view regarding this matter:

“Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. So the interesting thing is, I asked if they ever changed the word arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. So my friend found it and told me, “The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s. Also because the Germans were the ones who created the word homosexual in 1862, they had all the history, research, and understanding to change it if they saw fit; however, they did not change it until 1983. If anyone was going to put the word homosexual in the Bible, the Germans should have been the first to do it!”

There is a gay agenda, but not for what people think of it today. They used mistranslations to condemn gay sex in general.

Source: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/...-in-the-bible/

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

The verses you pointed out with the words “homosexuality” in it, ...

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

The Greek word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word composed of "arsen" (Strong's #730) which indicates a male, and "koitas" which is a bed or mat. There are verses which use arsen when referring to the birth of a male baby, a male child, and a male adult. As such, "arsen," without further context, does not provide any definite information about the age of the male, as it is in the English language. Arsen is only gender specific, without reference to age.

Thus, using only the strict wording of 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1, we don't know specifically whether this act is adult with adult or adult with child. Since no caveats are included in scripture for male adult with male adult, none should be assumed, which refutes the entire basis of the article referenced by Serenity and her "German" friend.

Romans 1.27 also addresses male with male sex. The context never indicates that one party is a child or a victim, rather that both males "burned in their lust toward one another." Obviously both males could be adults or mature minors, old enough to lust passionately.

Trapped, I rushed these comments out, so please confirm, correct, or expand on anything I wrote here.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Greek word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word composed of "arsen" (Strong's #730) which indicates a male, and "koitas" which is a bed or mat. There are verses which use arsen when referring to the birth of a male baby, a male child, and a male adult. As such, "arsen," without further context, does not provide any definite information about the age of the male, as it is in the English language. Arsen is only gender specific, without reference to age.

Thus, using only the strict wording of 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1, we don't know specifically whether this act is adult with adult or adult with child. Since no caveats are included in scripture for male adult with male adult, none should be assumed, which refutes the entire basis of the article referenced by Serenity and her "German" friend.

Romans 1.27 also addresses male with male sex. The context never indicates that one party is a child or a victim, rather that both males "burned in their lust toward one another." Obviously both males could be adults or mature minors, old enough to lust passionately.

Trapped, I rushed these comments out, so please confirm, correct, or expand on anything I wrote here.

Again you take the historical context out of the meaning of the words. In some languages, you cant just take the word’s meaning at face value, yoo have to read the surrounding verses and the cultural context in which the author, or Paul is writing in. Romans 1:27 is talking about the ancient Roman practice of temple prostitution. Readers of Romans would know what Paul is talking about but us as modern readers, no, because we dont live in that time period! This is why those who use the Bible to justify their points of view (i.e slavery at the time of Abraham Lincoln is right) are foolish. Take a look here for historical context:
https://eewc.com/historical-literary...romans-124-27/

https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewco...=mastersessays

https://www.google.com/amp/s/lgbtqco...-romans-1/amp/

See this article for terminology:
https://www.westarinstitute.org/wp-c...koitai-3.1.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Again you take the historical context out of the meaning of the words. In some languages, you cant just take the word’s meaning at face value, yoo have to read the surrounding verses and the cultural context in which the author, or Paul is writing in. Romans 1:27 is talking about the ancient Roman practice of temple prostitution.

Actually, I do not take these words out of historical context. My study uses excellent time-tested Bible study aids, and not some "covid-in-the-basement internet scholar." What I wrote is confirmed by the best authors.

For example, Paul had in mind Genesis 19 when he wrote Romans chapter 1. Had Paul written comments like this to the Corinthians, then I would agree with you. I Cor chap 6 confirms this. Paul directly referred to temple prostitutes in verses 6.9, 6.11, and 6.15-6.20.

The semantics I use are found in the Bible and contemporary Greek writings. What you have written about me is inaccurate.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

And if how Job depicts God is accurate, then, God is a trickster God ... and all bets are off.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Okay.......awareness.......God loves us all. He "SO" loves us, as John 3:16 says. Love does conquer all. But guess what.....as you know.....His holiness and righteousness still have to be satisfied. Love doesn't NEGATE all. When we sinned, God the righteous judge has to punish wrongdoing, or else He wouldn't be a just God.

But Job doesn't depict God as just. What God does to Job is far from just. That's why I say God might be a trickster. Hey, I can be nutty, but I'm going by the word of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Job doesn't depict God as just. What God does to Job is far from just. That's why I say God might be a trickster. Hey, I can be nutty, but I'm going by the word of God.

It's all distorted when it passes thru you.

Why are you permitted to call God a TRICKSTER?

If I refer to you this way, immediately I am censored, but you regularly get away with it with impunity.

The story of Job reveals God's love and care for us, using trials to perfect our faith, exposing our pride and self-righteousness, providing us with a heavenly scene to expose the source of all evil, yet pointing to the coming Redeemer. Occurring in time after Abraham but before Moses, Job's story has become a source of learning and encouragement for all God's people, both Jew and Gentile, for all generations.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Job doesn't depict God as just. What God does to Job is far from just. That's why I say God might be a trickster. Hey, I can be nutty, but I'm going by the word of God.

I do actually understand where you are coming from on the Job thing. That's one of those I have "put a pin in" to grapple with later when I have more time, because it's a common stumbling block to many.

A few thoughts though:

1. Since you and I are not the author of life, when we take the life of another, it's murder and a sin, because it's not ours to take. But God is the author of life, and He thus has the full right to give it and take it as He sees fit. Period. We are the clay and we talk back to the Potter, but it's just the facts. He has determined the length of our days.

2. We each think that we deserve a life without pain or suffering, fully energetic and healthy all the way to 102 years old, but that's not how it goes. Some live to 2. Some to 32. Some to 82. Most suffer a lot during those years. None of us have earned any right to live to the age we think we should be given to live to.

3. If you are a Christian, you know that people don't really die.....they just change location, if you will. When someone dies, we know their body is no longer alive, but their soul is still indeed alive. So while Job's kids lost their temporal, earthly life of suffering, only their body died, as for us all. In Job 3, Job even speaks of being in death as peace, rest, ease, and freedom.

As for Job himself? The torment he was put through? Yeah. Ya got me. Job 4:18 says "For He wounds, but He also binds; He strikes, but His hands also heal." Sounds like a human being I would be scared of, honestly. So I'm partially with you on this one.


Edit to add: sorry, I don't mean to veer away from the thread topic.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

I was merely pointing out the policability of the verses you use to lead up to your questions. I’m not a bible literalist and the bible literalists in here only think the only Christians are Christians who look and think like them.

So no, I have different points of view on each of your questions

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I was merely pointing out the policability of the verses you use to lead up to your questions. I’m not a bible literalist and the bible literalists in here only think the only Christians are Christians who look and think like them.

So no, I have different points of view on each of your questions

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you think committed heterosexuals living together and having sex, but not being married.....is fine and is not a sin?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I was merely pointing out the policability of the verses you use to lead up to your questions. I’m not a bible literalist and the bible literalists in here only think the only Christians are Christians who look and think like them.

Ahh, well no. So let's define what a Christian is. Simply defined, it's someone who has Christ living in them, right?

Someone with Christ living in them can think and do all sorts of things - in fact, they can behave just like unbelievers and do everything unbelievers do. In other words, a child of God can go into a far country, waste their substance on riotous living and sleep with the hogs in despair. But they're still a child of the King and Father still loves them!

I think this forum, and specifically this thread, points to the fact that we're all over the proverbial map when it comes to how we take scripture.

(and someone can do all the things according to the law and be a very good person, but without Christ living in them, they are not a child of God and are lost)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think this forum, and specifically this thread, points to the fact that we're all over the proverbial map when it comes to how we take scripture.

What? Me? I resemble that remark.

Ya know Trapped, Ohio, and others, Serenity makes a valid point. In short, we weren't back there. And we don't have a clue of what it was like. It was a whole other world back then. They were flat earthers. They couldn't help it.

Our modern scientific age is a universe apart with how they lived and thought back then. Their mindset was beyond our ability to even imagine. For one, superstition was prevalent virtually everywhere back then. It was the common way to think. It couldn't be helped. Yet they were smart, as proven by their writings, many that are full of out of this world fantastical stories.

I point that out because they back then had minds far and away from ours today.

So we shouldn't be so certain about what Paul says, to the point of clobbering anyone with his verses. I think if we're gonna stick to Paul, we should read 1 Corinthians 13 over and over again. Otherwise we risk just being a clanging cymbal ... and be stuck thinking like a child.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ya know Trapped, Ohio, and others, Serenity makes a valid point. In short, we weren't back there. And we don't have a clue of what it was like. It was a whole other world back then. They were flat earthers. They couldn't help it.

This presupposes that the Bible was written only by men and without divine inspiration and help, and couldn't possibly know with clarity man's real nature and what manifestations of the flesh would like like in the future . . . (because God can surely knows it and see the end from the beginning, right?)