I know more about and therefore I know it's a crock of ****! According to "God" it is a sin...according to me it is not!

Mandyat,

Your profile indicates that you are a powerful writer, no doubt you must have been somewhat inpires by the Psalms.

Do you write for a living, I think you could. In fact erotica can provide a very good living for many. I don't suppose that earning a living that way would be a sin, would it? At least not equivalent to prostitution or anything. Of course I wouldn't know, I'm not a Christian.

Anyway, I just wanted to compliment your writing.

This is a very emotional subject for most "Christians" and "Non Christians" simply because it's taboo.

The reality is that homosexuality was never actually singled out as a sin in the bible. There closest possible Scripture in the Bible that touched on the subject was Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In those scriptures, homosexual SEX was called an 'abomination' (translated into English). However, what most people don't (or won't) realize is that term was used as a descriptor for ritual uncleanness. In that vein, the 'abomination' of homosexual sex was the same level as menustration or eating unfinned, unscaled fish. So, every woman who's had a period is going to hell? K...

Anyway, that was in the Torah, which was the Hebrew Scriptures, which is kept as a part of the Bible for continuity, but since we're all good practicing Christians, then certainly I don't have to tell you that all Mosaic law was nullified when Jesus died for your sins.... Right? Of COURSE you knew that! Silly me!

The next issue is that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality in the Bible. Ever. Period. So anyone who says "God hates gays" is putting words in the Lord's mouth. Something I'd encourage you not to do.

And where was this horrible sin when the ten commandments were being written? Just curious. I mean it covered those other lesser sins like adultery, fornication (which by the way, I dare you to tell me you're not guilty of that one) murder, idolatry, etc...

IN FACT if homosexuality is indeed a sin, it would be the only one in which no one else was hurt. All the other ones, are sins for a reason. But being gay entitles you to a trip to hell simply because you are, not because you took a life, broke up a marriage, or raped someone... Kinda odd, eh? Oh well... Ted Haggart knows best I guess... (Sarcasm...)

Finally, in the interest of keeping this short, since it won't make any impact on anyone who blindly listens to an interpretation from a stranger on a pulpit instead of doing the research (and if you can't translate Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, then you're still regurgitating information ladies and germs) the prevailing teachings of Christ were about love, forgiveness, humility and grace. Something the average so-called Christian has always had an issue with. Hell, a few hundred years ago, a Scripture was twisted that taught everyone that people of my heritage were sub human. Taught in the churches... Was it right? Well, I guess you can try to debate that, but I would take great pleasure in mentally destroying every argument you can possibly conjure up.

But I digress...

The point I was about to make was simple. Jesus did preach about humility and not being judgemental. If you actually read the Bible (not have it read to you) and actually understand context and can comprehend, you'd already know that YOUR relationship with God is YOUR business, as is YOUR sin. The moment you start preaching about other's sins, oh buddy... All yours have a nasty habit of coming home to roost.

it is in Genesis chapter 19...Sodom and Gomorrah
but i don't know why the atheist that's knows more then me couldn't answer that for you

Actually 98% of Bible Scholars would disagree with you. These would be the people who have a strong love for Christ, and actually can do little tricks like read the languages the Bible (not the King James version) were written in.

See, that kinda muddies up that argument.

Leviticus Hebrew Homo errors
http://www.sigmalogobooks.com/SLB_bible_mistranslated_wrong.html


English Bible Mistranslation
Greek/Hebrew texts Mistranslated. Bible translated wrong translation on homosexuality, same-sex love. Textus Receptus. -.Books -

For years, many documents have described the mistranslation of the Bible into English from the original Hebrew and Koine (ancient Greek) New-Testament writings. Issues of incorrect translation concern many areas, such as: the word "virgin" (Isaiah 7:14); the name "Yahweh" (YHWH); descriptions of angels; the term "Sons of God"; and incorrectly translating forbidden sexual practices.
There are several passages often mistranslated as forbidding homosexual activity; however, those Bible passages can be correctly translated by considering many aspects of the Bible, as a whole: literal translation, rarity, priorities, sanity-test and reality-test.


Literal Translation- . In the New Testament, the two verses 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 are often mistranslated as condemning homosexuality in English Bibles (but not in the Roman Latin Vulgate Bible or the 1545 German Bible of Martin Luther). Mistranslation is based on two ancient Greek words "malakoi" & "arsenokoitai" (Greek letters " " literally, "male-beds"), which was a new word used by Paul (Saul) at the time and not a common term for homo-sexuality. Because Paul was speaking in a religious context, the word "arsenokoitai" has been translated as referring to male-pimps or customers in temple prostitution, a common practice in so-called pagan rituals widespread in Temple Cult worship of the time. [The minor term "malakoi" (used to describe "soft" clothing) is non-sexual and has been translated as "effeminate" (KJV), although others state "weaklings" or "morally weak, lazy" men.]

Rarity of Words- . The ancient Greek word "arsenokoitai" occurs in only those 2 verses, 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10. Logically, if homosexuality were considered a sin, there should be many verses about it, and the word "arsenokoitai" would occur more than twice if it had referred to a major issue, such as homosexuality; the rarity of the word fits the logical translation: the word "arsenokoitai" refers to the rare practice of temple prostitution, not general homosexuality.

(See: 73 references to arsenokoit* found in TLG E Feb/2000, "http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm".) Yet, precisely because the word is so rare and had no formal definition, the word "arsenokoitai" is crucial in fostering misinterpretation of the Bible: a more common word could not be so easily redefined.

Priorities - . The verses in the Bible follow certain priorities: for example, the words "adultery" or "adulteress/adulterer" (Greek "moixoi" ) occur 47 times in the King James Version; however, the word "arsenokoitai" occurs only 2 times, and the common terms of that time period about homosexual activity are not mentioned in the Bible at all (such as man-boy pairing, Greek "erastes-eromenos"). Condemning homosexuality in Biblical times was not an issue, not a priority, at all.

A Sanity- Test - . Since adultery & adulterer are mentioned 47 times in the King James Version, it could be expected that a sin would be mentioned many times in the Bible: the condemnation of lying/liars occurs over 70 times ("liar" 21 times, "false witness" 19, "lying" lips/tongues 31 times); murder is prohibited 35+ times ("murderer" 20 etc.); and stealing is condemned 73+ times ("steal" 23 times, "thief/robber" 50+, except stealing for food: Proverbs 6:30 "Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry." [KJV]). However, the common terms (used in those days) to describe homosexual activity are not even mentioned. It doesn't make sense to translate a few rare words & phrases as condemning homosexuality, when specific sins are mentioned many times in the Bible--it simply doesn't pass a sanity-test.

Reality- Test - . During the time period of 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy^ 1:10,:the word "arsenokoitai" occurred in only a few religious writings, such as a later text describing Adam deceived to have sex with serpent-god Naas. The erotic literature of the period never used the word "arsenokoitai" but used other ancient Greek terms ("erastes-eromenos": man-boy pairing) to describe homosexual practices, and those Greek terms were never mentioned in the Greek texts of the Bible. To try to re-interpret & translate other Bible verses into condemning those specific (unnamed) acts is just not realistic--it doesn't pass a reality-test ("reality_check"). The translation of the ancient Greek New Testament must fit the language & cultures of the time period. The translation must match the reality of that era.

Old-Testament Literal Translation - . The infamous verse Leviticus 20:13, often used to condemn homosexuality, is about a married-man with another male, in the "marriage-bed" as with his wife. See the Latinized Greek for Leviticus 20:13 below:
"Kai hos an koimEthE meta arsenos koitEn
gunaikos, bdelugma epoiEsan amphoteroi;
thanatousthwsan, enoichoi eisin." [Lev 20:13 in Greek Septuagint LXX].

The translation of the Greek term 'gunaikos' is interpreted to mean: wife. Hence, the verse actually forbids male-male adultery, pertaining only to a married man.
Similarly, for Leviticus 18:22, the wording of the original Hebrew is very different from the KJV form:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination." [Leviticus 18:22, King James Version]
However, the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 reveals a different 3rd meaning:

"We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah" [Lev 18:22 Hebrew, Latinized]
("And-with a-male NOT lie-down in beds-of a-woman") [Lev 18:22 literal translation]

So, the Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 mentions: someone + a male + a woman; hence, a forbidden 3-way.

Those 2 infamous Leviticus verses actually mention other women or wives, rather than male-male relationships, as is often the misinterpretation & mistranslation.

When many aspects of Biblical issues are considered, there is no textual basis for misinterpreting & mistranslating Bible verses to condemn homosexuality: the original Hebrew & Greek texts of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality at all, and so, homosexuality should not be considered a sin by today's society.

Finally, the question arises: In 1611, did the Bible translators/scribes for King James purposely mistranslate Bible verses into English because they had intensely resented King James, with his open homosexuality & various male lovers? The answer might never be known.

but that's the thing...you said they study all but the king james version which is the most correct english version of the bible and the only version my church would ever use

Excerpts from “The Children Are Free”
By: Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.”
(Leviticus 18:22)

“If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”
(Leviticus 20:13)

If we wish to understand the true meaning of these verses, we mush look at their context, both textual and historical. Until we understand what prompted these rules in Old Testament times, we will not be able to determine if the rules should be applied in the case of two people in a committed, loving relationship.

The text itself gives a big clue as to the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 & 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did. The term Canaanites refers to the group of nations who lived in the land into which the Israelites migrated when they left Egypt. It follows, therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behavior was common among the Canaanites and Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses were meant to prohibit.

Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god/goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex.

Consider that a male worshiper was offering his greatest possession, semen (which was thought to be the essence of life), to the goddess through her priests. Depositing semen in the body of a priest of that goddess was believed to guarantee one’s immortality.

This is what was going on in Canaan and Egypt at the time the Levitical rules were announced - - Homosexual temple prostitution. As already noted, Leviticus 18 and 20 specifically say they were written to address pagan religious practices. Leviticus 18 begins with the admonition, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.” (18:3) Chapter 20 is even more specific, beginning with an injunction against the pagan practices associated with a god named Molech. And both chapters include long lists of sexual practices common in the cultic rituals we mentioned above. However, neither of them speaks to the question of whether two people of the same sex can live in a loving relationship with the blessing of God.

Historians tell us our model of loving, long-term homosexual relationships did not meaningfully exist in Canaanite culture. This was a tribal culture in which it would have been virtually impossible to form such relationships. Offspring were essential to survival in this primitive agricultural economy. Moreover, there were rigid distinctions between women’s work and men’s work. If two men had lived together as a couple, for example, one of them would have been placed in the position of doing women’s work, and the presence of a man working among the women of the village would not have been tolerated.

It simply is not reasonable to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 & 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be applied.

Some people may object, saying, “But if you ignore the context and just read the words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in black and white, they appear to prohibit all sex between men, not just sex in pagan rituals.” But this is the whole point: The meaning of words depends on context. Remember, the words of Corinthians 11 also appear to require long hair and head coverings for all women in all circumstances. But, because we have studied the context, we know that is not what was meant. A text taken out of context is pretext. Let’s apply the same common-sense rule here.

Oh, I forgot to answer the OP.



NO!

Good night all. Don't hate just do you own thing. If your bitter sak yourself what's wrong with your inner person who ever you are.

Actuallllllly.... Incorrecto!

The KJV is actually one of the least accurate versions, and this aint from me, this is coming from virutally every Seminary and Theological school, which by the way use The new Revised Standard Version.

There was teeeeeny little problem with not really having many original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts when it was translated into (Old) English in the 1600s. But that's really not relevant I guess.

Sorry Mandy seems you may have been misled.


Here read this!


(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
The text of the story tells us that “the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man” (vs.4) gathered at Lot’s door and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group oat Lot’s door was compromised of either all the people of the city (men and women) or, at a minimum, all the males of the city, both boys and men. This is a telling fact. To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual) and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.
This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story. Lot, in a last ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the crowd at the door. Although Lot’s offer is reprehensible, it does yield another important interpretive clue. If you were entertaining some dinner guests at your home when suddenly a group of men that you khew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would ti make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead?

The motivaton to sexually abuse those we hate is, sadly, part of the general human experience (even if it is not part of each of our personal experiences). It is this motivation, not desire, which stands behind the sin of Sodom. Perhaps the men of the city feared the two angelic strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot (a recent immigrant) had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of Sodom were at Lot’s house clamoring to brutalize the strangers. This is a story about attempted mob violence, not desire.

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Trading natural relations for unnatural (Romans 1:21-28) King James Version

Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us who enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today.

Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions andrationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?

Follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorigy God (v.21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator. (v.23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v.25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex, in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v.26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v.29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing her is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution), and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

By the way Mandy, the authors of my quotes used the KJV while doing their reasearch.

mmmm - got another version you want to switch to?

On the other hand EVERY SINGLE version of the Bible declares divorce to be a sin NOT ONLY A SIN, but few people today could even be considered divorced by biblical standards.

Just imagine how many of them are now living a CONTINUOUS life of sin in adultery. Homosexuals don't live adultery as the church doesn't allow them to be married. They simply love.

you're right...the kjv isn't going to be word for word what the hebrew bible said...you can't totally translate one language to another because in some languages they don't have the wording to match but the story is still there...the main question of the thread was...is being gay a sin and unless you're religious then you don't believe in sin so it's a religious question and i answered it with a religiously correct response...according to the bible it is a sin all the way back to the first book of the bible...God doesn't hate sinners, he hates the sin so to keep us close to him he tries to turn us away from sin and that's what i was saying about the hollywood question...i never said he'd turn his back on them like someone who wanted to twist my words said....even in Sodom and Gomorrah he asked them more then once to stop what they were doing and they didn't...there are consequences for all our acts and that was theirs...i'm not better then anyone, i sin too...all i'm saying is that if you believe in the word then no matter what you do you can always ask for forgiveness and you will get it because God loves us all

we would be here all night if we kept this up...divorce is only ok according to the bible is someone was unfaithful but you don't live in adultery anymore if you ask for forgiveness...just read the bible it will tell you what are sins and what aren't but my thing is...you don't have to live with your sin unless you want to....repentance and forgiveness...that's my point

mmm I just don't know Mandy, it seems that the following verses have more to day about the subject of divorce than you seem to have read. Here I'll do a cut paste for you. Why don't Christians follow these rules anymore, anyway?

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

—Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Malachi 2:13-16
And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

—Malachi 2:13-16
Matthew 5:31-32
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

—Matthew 5:31-32
Matthew 19:3-9
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

—Matthew 19:3-9
Mark 10:2-12
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

—Mark 10:2-12
Luke 16:18
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

—Luke 16:18
Romans 7:2-3
For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

—Romans 7:2-3
1 Corinthians 7:10-15
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

—1 Corinthians 7:10-15
1 Corinthians 7:39
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

According to things everything is a sin! Like who really cares! NOBODY! We are born in this world then we die!!! THATS IT!

The biblical ignorance is when a person can pick one so called sin and make it any worse than another. There is only one unforgivable sin. Picking one above another is silly. There are so many sins mentioned and only one that is brought up time and again. It is redyculous.

Kat

What the crap???? It happened again.
Kat