Can homophobic Christians please stop trying to justify their intolerance with unreliable verse?

Question

Some Christians pull 1 Corithians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 out of context to justify their intolerance of Gays and Lesbians. A quick survey shows these passages to be unreliable.

The word being translated to "homosexual" in 1 Corithians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 is "arsenokoitai." This word does not appear in Greek writings prior to Paul's use of it in the NT. Paul made the word up!!

During the time of Martin Luther, the word was universally translated as masturbators. It wasn't until the 20th century that it began being translated to homosexual.

Homosexual is a modern translation that did not exist before the 20th century!! Yet, many Christians because of blind faith or hatred take these passages to be the word of God condemning homosexuals.

Did God change? Did he decide masturbation is ok, and turned instead to homosexuals?

I was specifically talking about the reliability of these two verses. That does not mean that I do not dispute the other verses ripped out of context by intolerant Christians.

For example, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality. The decision to destroy the city of Sodom was made prior to the incident with the angels.

Ezekeiel 16:49-50 tells us exactly why the city of Sodom was destroyed: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." There is no mention of homosexuality.

In Matthew 10:14-15 & Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implies that the sin of the people of Sodom was inhospitality to strangers.

Jude 1:7 talks about the sin of Sodom as "going after strange flesh." The angels were not HUMAN, this verse is obviously talking about bestiality.

The other problem with saying that this story is about homosexuality is that Lot offers his two daughters to the mob. Lot lived in Sodom and would have certainly known if the men in the mob were homosexual. Why would he even offer his two daughters to a mob of homosexuals? If the mob's intentions were homosexual in nature, then why didn't Lot offer the mob his two future son-in-laws?

Romans 1:26-27 is not speaking about people with a homosexual orientation. It is speaking specifically about heterosexual men and women who go against their own sexual nature.

The key word here is "exchanges." That implies that the men and women being talked about had known something different previously. They had previously known the truth about God, then exchanged him for what they knew to be a lie, (what went against their own nature.) They had previously been heterosexual, and again exchanged it for what goes against their own nature.

Answer 1

I agree. They also quote Sodom, and forget that whole story was about greed.

Christians also seem to have a hard time grasping the context of romans 1:27.

Oh well. It's good they have a book to hide behind.

Answer 2

Would you like some reliable verse?
Well, during the Old Testament, God expressed his attitude toward homosexuality in the laws he established for the Israelites. Here's the verse, then:

Leviticus 20:13: 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 shall be upon them.

Of course, Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Therefore, when he died, all of these laws were fulfilled and became unnecessary. Since Jesus' blood atoned for sin, a person no longer must suffer this punishment. But this verse expresses God's attitude to homosexuality pretty clearly, and, since God doesn't change, God's attitude to certain sins doesn't change. He still hates homosexuality.

Before you argue that the law is in the Old Testament, let me point out that there are a LOT of laws mentioned in the Old Testament that are not in the New Testament. For example, a law against fathers prostituting their own daughters is ONLY in the Old Testament:

Leviticus 19:29: Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

But a law of that sort isn't in the New Testament. Should we assume, then, that prostituting one's daughter is alright? In the same way, even if the New Testament were completely silent on homosexuality, but the Old Testament is against it, as is the case with the prostitution of daughter law, is homosexuality alright, then?

Did God change? Did he decide prostitution and homosexuality were okay?

Answer 3

You quoted Romans 1:26-27. Where do you NOT see that such an affront to God's intended purpose for human sexuality doesn't exist? Read all the way through verse 32 in that chapter and tell me if you can what God means when he says that such people who "go against their nature" are being turned over to a "reprobate" mind? Where in that passage of Scripture do you think God says it's OK to be gay?

Answer 4

The Word of God is clear on homosexually being a sin and an abomination before God. Those who are faithful must believe and follow God. Your false accusations not with standing do not make one who believes God and not you a phobic at all. Rather all these false accusations prove that those who would promote this unnatural lifestyle have no good case and must rely on childish and false accusations or just yelling loud enough to try to win the debate with out real basis. Problem is the truth remains and all history and every civilization stand with it. Its one thing to attack us mere men but you attack also the Word of God and this remains true though every man deny it.

Answer 5

What do you make of this writing?
Romans 1:26-32
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I believe that it is rather clear in it's writing. Read and then tell us what YOU seem to think HE means in this. Unless you are ignoring HIS TRUTH you will know that a man and a woman are meant to be together (natural) two of the same sex are not (unnatural).
Eds

Answer 6

Truth vs. Tolerance. Isn't it funny that you are only "tolerating" those who already agree with you? (Which by anyone's definition is not tolerance.) I'm afraid you are mistaken on your translation. Christians are supposed to love the person even though they hate the sin. This is where God stands on the matter:

In Genesis 19:1-29 the cities of Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because the people were so wicked. The men of the city wanted to have sex with other men. So God's judgement on the city was to destroy it by raining down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah.

Leviticus 18:22 (speaking to men in Israel) "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders...will inhereit the kingdom of God."

1 Corinthians 6:13 "The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers."

Answer 7

Deffinantly read Romans chapter one and there is no dispute if you look at it rationally.

Also in the story of Sodom, the men of the city compassed Lot's house and said to bring the visotors out that we may "know them"

Lot told them to not do so wickedly but to take his 2 daughters instead.
He knew what they meant.

Just as it says"and Cain knew his wife, and she conceived.
Same thing happened when Adam "knew" his wife.

Answer 8

Homosexuality is a sin
Homosexuals are people
Jesus died for ALL people

The sins of a homosexual are no 'worse' than mine or anyone else's.

However, I notice you have no dispute with Romans 1. It spells it out very clearly.

Answer 9

Maybe only the homsexuals masturbated in Olden Times. The real answer is that most Christians don't do any research. Their preacher's word is all the proof they require. When you start looking at the Bible as fallible, you begin to lose your faith. It's automatic.

Answer 10

Homosexuals will use any excuse to try and justify their behavior.