Why do some christians treat homosexuals badly and is it a sin?

[Bobtheduck]

Romans 1:27, Nate.

ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρρενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους

Short of it is men having appetites for each other. Abandoning natural relationships to have appetites for each other. It's not about a single word they used, it's the whole of the sentiment. Also, if it only refers to those turning to paganism, why would it be brought up? It's only a sin for those, but not those who remain Christians? Doesn't really work, does it?

It's not just there, however. http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective while it does mention the verses that have translations you don't agree on (because of one word usage, which isn't the case for all of them) it lists others later on. I'll get my wife to look over other verses in Greek later, too. Or any of the 200 or so Biblical Greek students at the seminary here. Unless you're just going to ignore their translations (people who actually read the language) because it doesn't agree with the one that is trying to say something that a lot of people do is just fine and dandy. Either way, it's really convenient to simply go with the one who translates it the way you like it, because it sounds good to your ears and makes things easier somehow. You could very well argue the same for me, but I trust someone who can tell me what it means in whole.

As for K. Ayato, yes. We should treat everyone with respect, at least respect in the sense you're referring to.

This is pretty much how I feel. I'm convinced it's a sin, but it should be treated just the same as any other sin.

Nah, it's just because I've learned that I'm going to disagree with Nate on half of everything and so I've already given up on proving any point because I'm not convincing him and so that we don't get anything locked with endless bickering.

Sorry you're the only one I quoted directly. I also don't agree with all sins being treated equally. Things like murder and assault and such, for instance, should be stopped because of damage it can do. Also, doctrine that false to the degree that it encourages things like murder or lying or sexual immorality should also be cut off. Fellowship be ceased. I mean, there's petty disagreements over music and methods of sacraments and things that really don't matter, but there's some that don't fall under that category.

Now, for sins outside of the church that aren't actively hurting non-intentional participants, yeah... Those should all pretty much be treated equally. That is something the Church has gotten wrong for a long time.

[TopazRaven]

Edit: Never mind. My original statment is probably going to come across as quite rude, so to aviod offending others I'm going to retract it. I'll let people who know more on the subject discuss the above claim until I can more clearly and less offensivly add my own sentiment on the matter.

[Yamamaya]

Romans 1:27, Nate.

ὁ]http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective[/url] while it does mention the verses that have translations you don't agree on (because of one word usage, which isn't the case for all of them) it lists others later on. I'll get my wife to look over other verses in Greek later, too. Or any of the 200 or so Biblical Greek students at the seminary here. Unless you're just going to ignore their translations (people who actually read the language) because it doesn't agree with the one that is trying to say something that a lot of people do is just fine and dandy. Either way, it's really convenient to simply go with the one who translates it the way you like it, because it sounds good to your ears and makes things easier somehow. You could very well argue the same for me, but I trust someone who can tell me what it means in whole.

As for K. Ayato, yes. We should treat everyone with respect, at least respect in the sense you're referring to.

And others who have read those same verses in the Greek come to a different conclusion. Don't use appeal to authority. Tis a weak argument.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

...This thread is so gay.

[SIZE="7"]XD[/SIZE]

[TopazRaven]

...This thread is so gay.

[SIZE="7"]XD[/SIZE]

[LadyRushia]

...This thread is so gay.

[SIZE="7"]XD[/SIZE]

Well, you know what Maraget Cho's mother says.

"Everybody little bit gei. Espesharry in college."

[SnoringFrog]

Dude, Jude 1:9 was the verse I was talking about. XD I was mentioning how Jude 1:7 in the KJV says that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was the people desiring "strange flesh," and that it was probably a reference to Jewish folklore/mythology we as Christians don't know about. I said that this would be consistent with how Jude is, since Jude 1:9 talks about the fight between Michael and the devil over the body of Moses, which we also don't know about because it's probably also some sort of Jewish folklore/mythology.

I know it was. The point was Jude 1:9 is a reference in the Bible that mentions exactly what Jude 1:9 says I know that by "no reference" you meant no additional/other reference though. This was an attempt at a joke, which I think I failed at. XD Oh well.

Sorry you're the only one I quoted directly. I also don't agree with all sins being treated equally. Things like murder and assault and such, for instance, should be stopped because of damage it can do. Also, doctrine that false to the degree that it encourages things like murder or lying or sexual immorality should also be cut off. Fellowship be ceased. I mean, there's petty disagreements over music and methods of sacraments and things that really don't matter, but there's some that don't fall under that category.

Now, for sins outside of the church that aren't actively hurting non-intentional participants, yeah... Those should all pretty much be treated equally. That is something the Church has gotten wrong for a long time.

This is one of those things that feels like it makes sense in my head then suddenly doesn't after reading something like this XD

I agree with you on how sins like murder, assault, etc. should be stopped because of the objetive harm they do. There are some other sins that I feel an also do plenty of harm, but they're more focused on emotional harm and couldn't really be stopped (from more of a legal side of things) because it's more difficult to nail down the harm itself.

However, outside of the initial punishment and stopping the overt harm from being done, then I would think the treatment is equal to a degree (equal to a degree makes no sense...but I can't think of other wording at this point). What I'm trying to say is, you still go through the same general process of correcting the internal issue (though that specific process would likely change from person to person and sin to sin). I'm not trying to say that treating all sins equally means everything is reduced to "hey don't do that" or escalated to imprisonment/death, but I am trying to say that we can't just pick and choose which ones to have an issue with. It can't be, well liars and vain people and gay people are okay and I'll let that all slide, but cheaters and murderers and idol worshippers I don't like. Or vice versa. All sins should be met with the same concept that's been pointed out several times in this thread, "love the person, hate the sin." Saying they should be treated equally was only supposed to imply that we can't just chose to ignore some types of sin because we feel like it. I do definitely see how what I said could come across that way though.

[TGJesusfreak]

Acceptance does not necessarily equal turning a blind eye. I will go as far as saying my brother-in-law is gay. I don't agree with his choices, yet I've chosen to love him regardless. I feel too often we forget how much God the Father loves us in spite of all the things we've done that are deserving of His divine justice. In spite of it all, He showed us mercy and offered grace. Should we not strive to do the same in His strength, regardless as to whether or not our fellow man is gay or straight?

Exactly this. I think it's a sin. So I wont sit down and just LET stuff happen. but I also repect them and dont wanna force anything. This is where things get dicey. and I'm not sure whether I should be ok and just let laws be passed for it, or to stand up and say "no. It's a sin". I wont get into politics. But It's just conflicting for me. I dont kow what is the right thing.

for me there are 4 things:
Acceptance
Tolerance
Love
and Respect

each of those come in different amounts. but I dont know the exact levels of each. except for the Love part. that is full and complete. =P Its just hard to know the exact amounts. of those to give. =/

[quote="bob"]Romans 1:27, Nate.

ὁ] Hmmm that actually really helped me.... and gave me A LOT more to think about too DDDDX

[Cognitive Gear]

Exactly this. I think it's a sin. So I wont sit down and just LET stuff happen. but I also repect them and dont wanna force anything. This is where things get dicey. and I'm not sure whether I should be ok and just let laws be passed for it, or to stand up and say "no. It's a sin". I wont get into politics. But It's just conflicting for me. I dont kow what is the right thing.

for me there are 4 things:
Acceptance
Tolerance
Love
and Respect

each of those come in different amounts. but I dont know the exact levels of each. except for the Love part. that is full and complete. =P Its just hard to know the exact amounts. of those to give. =/

Hmmm that actually really helped me.... and gave me A LOT more to think about too DDDDX

But wouldn't love necessitate those three other things? I'm not sure how I can love someone if I am not accepting of them, or tolerant of them, or respectful to them. Take note that it is possible for me to disagree with someone and still do all of these things. I think that I might be misunderstanding how you are dividing these categories, so would you be willing to explain them?

As a side note, if you don't want to get into politics, it's generally best to not bring them up. People have a tendency to reply to what you say, even if you aren't directly stating a political position. (though, this is one a a very few political issues that I would be willing to get into on CAA, but I think it's best if we don't push that line.)

As far as the greek translating is concerned: I am always skeptical and very careful when my interpretation of scripture has come down to the translation of a single word. I do try my best to get the most complete and accurate translation, but I think that there are other things that need to be taken into account that are possibly more important than the extremely difficult and often debatable translation. We need to look at verses in context of the overall message and themes of the Bible and Christ's teachings, as well as the historical and social context of the time.

[K. Ayato]

Amen to that.

[fermy6]

Here's a link to a page which explains and interprets Romans 1 18-32.....please read everything on this page and you can then make up your mind about what you think it says....feel free to explore the whole site if you want to

http://www.gaychristianfellowship.com/articles.php?aid=1009&cid=6

[Nate]

Also, if it only refers to those turning to paganism, why would it be brought up? It's only a sin for those, but not those who remain Christians? Doesn't really work, does it?

Dude, yes it does. Hold on, let me get the verses right before that in Romans.

Romans 1:22-23, right before verse 27 which talks about "unnatural relations" or "vile affection" or "appetite for other men." However you want to say it.

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

To me, it's obvious Romans 1 is NOT talking about those who love God and are Christian and gay, but about those who turned their back on God and accepted pagan rituals. At the very least, I can't think of any Christian denominations that worship images of birds and animals and reptiles. This is why context is important.

That's why it annoys me when people take the "Your body is a temple, honor God with your body" verse out of context and try to tell people "Smoking and eating fast food is a sin because you're not honoring God's temple!" when the context of the verse is talking about sexual sin, and nothing else.

Either way, it's really convenient to simply go with the one who translates it the way you like it, because it sounds good to your ears and makes things easier somehow. You could very well argue the same for me, but I trust someone who can tell me what it means in whole.

Yes, I can very well argue the same for you, but I'll be more respectful than that. I'm sorry, but saying "Everyone else says this so that makes it right!" does not a sound argument make, nor do I appreciate your claim that this "makes things easier." Do you really think that me being accepting of homosexuality as a Christian is easy? I can tell you it's not. People here have accused me of being a false Christian, that I secretly hate Christianity or that I'm not serious about my faith. If I wanted things to be easy, I'd just go "Yep, being gay sure is a terrible sin!"

What I believe certainly does not make things easier for me. But that's okay, because I think I am right. And I will continue to speak up for myself, to say what I think is right, regardless of what others think of me. Is it difficult? Yes, it is. I feel like nobody listens to me, that I serve no purpose, that my words aren't reaching anyone. I feel useless, stupid, alone. But I can't give up on what I think is right. I think that would be the worst thing I could do.

[Rusty Claymore]

To me, it's obvious Romans 1 is NOT talking about those who love God and are Christian and gay, but about those who turned their back on God and accepted pagan rituals. At the very least, I can't think of any Christian denominations that worship images of birds and animals and reptiles. This is why context is important.

Wait, so as long as you love God anything goes? As long as you aren't worshipping created things rather than the creator fornication is all right? I'm confused.

[Nate]

I'm not saying as long as you love God anything goes. XD What I'm saying is the context of Romans 1 is talking about those who have turned their backs on God and become pagans. And as I said before, temple prostitution and wild drunken orgies were part of pagan practices in those days. Since Romans 1 mentions that the people who had been "given over" to their passions had started worshiping images of animals and birds and stuff, that they aren't Christians, and so as far as I'm concerned cannot be used as evidence of being LGBT being a sin, since the people mentioned in Romans 1 were participating in pagan practices.

[fermy6]

Wait, so as long as you love God anything goes? As long as you aren't worshipping created things rather than the creator fornication is all right? I'm confused.

He's not saying that loving God makes a sin acceptable....What Nate tried to say that those acts commited in Romans were a result of the peoples idolatry, and not from a natural orientation
Before Nate posted I posted a link to a page which explains this whole thing in detail and I encourage you to please look through it and you can make up yuor mind after that

[F.M Disciple]

Here's my take on this issue, I never read Romans 1: 26-32 Without reading Romans 2:1-5

And truth be told I wish that people reading Romans 1: 26-27 in readings during sermons would read Romans 2: 1-5 right after more frequently.

[Warrior4Christ]

I'm not saying as long as you love God anything goes. XD What I'm saying is the context of Romans 1 is talking about those who have turned their backs on God and become pagans. And as I said before, temple prostitution and wild drunken orgies were part of pagan practices in those days. Since Romans 1 mentions that the people who had been "given over" to their passions had started worshiping images of animals and birds and stuff, that they aren't Christians, and so as far as I'm concerned cannot be used as evidence of being LGBT being a sin, since the people mentioned in Romans 1 were participating in pagan practices.

But it's described as "indecent acts" and "perversions", which sounds sinful even without any associated pagan worship....

[fermy6]

But it's described as "indecent acts" and "perversions", which sounds sinful even without any associated pagan worship....

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1Corinthians 11:14

Here Paul is also saying that for a man to have long hair its a shame to him and against nature, and obviously that wouldnt be the case today

[Warrior4Christ]

The word "perversion" seems to indicate there's a natural order of things, and a perversion is that which goes against that natural order....
Shame seems to not be the same...

[fermy6]

Read the verse again "Doth not nature itself teach you etc......"

[Rusty Claymore]

Here Paul is also saying that for a man to have long hair its a shame to him and against nature, and obviously that wouldnt be the case today

Really? Why not? Back in the day in fuedal Japan, killing those worthless peasent types was socially ok. So, was "Thou shalt not murder," something that didn't matter in the social times? I'm not saying that "If thy hair touchest thou shoulder, ye shall be cast into the outer darkness, where the fire is never quenched and the worm dieth not." Seriously, we're just talking about shame here! XD
But it's really dangerous to assume that God's Word is socially irrelevent. "There is nothing new under the sun, that which has been done of old will be done again," for a better version just read Ecclesiastes. XD But the case stands, because why would an Omnicient God write in His divine revelations to us something that would just be irrelevent later? Even in cases like the Nicolaitanes, the mystery cult mentioned in Revelations 2:15, the point was God hated their doctrine(2:15) and their deeds(2:6), so it doesn't matter if the Nicolaitanes exist today or not, God still hates false doctrine and wicked deeds, and will for eternity.
And just to clarify Fermy, I have read that page you posted.

[fermy6]

Really? Why not? Back in the day in fuedal Japan, killing those worthless peasent types was socially ok. So, was "Thou shalt not murder," something that didn't matter in the social times? I'm not saying that "If thy hair touchest thou shoulder, ye shall be cast into the outer darkness, where the fire is never quenched and the worm dieth not." Seriously, we're just talking about shame here! XD
But it's really dangerous to assume that God's Word is socially irrelevent. "There is nothing new under the sun, that which has been done of old will be done again," for a better version just read Ecclesiastes. XD But the case stands, because why would an Omnicient God write in His divine revelations to us something that would just be irrelevent later? Even in cases like the Nicolaitanes, the mystery cult mentioned in Revelations 2:15, the point was God hated their doctrine(2:15) and their deeds(2:6), so it doesn't matter if the Nicolaitanes exist today or not, God still hates false doctrine and wicked deeds, and will for eternity.
And just to clarify Fermy, I have read that page you posted.

Romans 29-31....(29)They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deciet and malice.
They are gossips,(30) slanderers, God-haters, insolent,arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; (31) they are senselessn faithless, heartless, ruthless.

This describes those things in that passage that God was against....And before you refer back to the previous verses remember that if you read carefully you will see that those sexual acts were a result of their idolatry and were using those acts as a way of worshipping their false gods (I didn't mention the last part before but I'm sure Nate covered that up).....

And I don't just assume stuff about Gods word, I've done lots of research on this topic....To assume would be foolish

[Rusty Claymore]

This describes those things in that passage that God was against....And before you refer back to the previous verses remember that if you read carefully you will see that those sexual acts were a result of their idolatry and were using those acts as a way of worshipping their false gods (I didn't mention the last part before but I'm sure Nate covered that up).....

And I don't just assume stuff about Gods word, I've done lots of research on this topic....To assume would be foolish

Actually, their decent into wickedness wasn't because of pagan rituals. It states it pretty clearly earlier in verses 18-23. 21 specifically: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful]their[/I] way.

God's way is the best way. So any other "way" can not be anything but a poor and inadequite substitute at "best". He gave us the free will to choose which way we will walk in, and we then have the responsibility to bear the consequences of that way we choose. And the consequnces of Idolatry are listed in Romans 1:29-31, among other places.

[K. Ayato]

Guys, please. I think we're done here.

[Midori]

You know what guys, I'm going to close this thread, not because anybody's done anything wrong, but because we're certain this debate will not get resolved, and personally I am tired of moderating this thread, and I think the other moderators are too. Thanks for being nice everyone! This thread ended up being much more respectful than I or anybody else expected.