Question for the "gay" activists (including heterosexual "gay" activists) who say that Scripture doesn't condemn homosexual acts

[livingwordunity]

If homosexual acts aren’t condemned in the Bible why would “gay” activists have to come up with their own Bible that omits all those parts that are claimed by some other “gay” activists to not be about homosexual behavior?

I know that we are supposed to show love for homosexuals. Notice that I say “homosexual acts” and not homosexuals. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.

When I say “gay activists” I don’t mean every homosexual since not all homosexuals are “gay” activists. But I include the many heterosexuals who have jumped onto the “gay marriage” bandwagon and who argue for and encourage homosexuals in the behavior.

Also, for those who say, “but heterosexuals commit sodomy”, I don’t think that the anus is meant for anything other than to dispose of waste products out of the body whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals. And people aren’t currently trying to get laws passed to make everyone accept heterosexual sins as “the new normal” (although polygamy and incest are surely going to be next up to bat).

I’ve seen many who have come up with some very creative and elaborate interpretations for all the places in Sacred Scripture that to the average reader would seem to be condemning homosexual acts. By the way, the shellfish argument is bogus since it only says in the Bible that shellfish was an abomination to the people (not to God). It was like telling the people of that time “You don’t like shellfish”. Maybe it was making them sick, who knows? But it wasn’t saying that shellfish was an abomination to God.

The biblical texts which address the question of homosexuality directly or indirectly are:

In the Old Testament

Genesis 19:7-8: “I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don’t do anything to these men.”

Judges 19:23-24: “No, my brothers; do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime. Rather let me bring out my maiden daughter or his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against the man you must not commit this wanton crime.”

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”

In the New Testament

1 Corinthians 6:9: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:10: “… law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly … the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”

Romans 1:26-27: “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

 

[cwltexas]

I am not for sure I know which version of the Bible you are referencing that omits what you are speaking about?

I think something that would be exceedingly helpful would be to go to original text, in the original languages of the Bible, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and translate the exact words and define them in context of the verses and passages that they are used in.

Let’s remember that you are telling someone else that what is permitted to you, through your natural desires, inclinations, makeup is totally denied them for theirs, please spend some time reflecting on this, how would you react to exactly the same case if you were on the receiving end? How would you view that coming from someone who takes for granted that they have every right to the full use and enjoyment of their sexual life? This makes a huge difference.

Also remember that as a heterosexual, married person, while you may be open to pregnancy, during your fertile years every time you have intercourse, you know full well that you are not going to get pregnant every time you have intercourse and do engage in it for pure physical pleasure and gratification.

 

[Publisher]

If homosexual acts aren’t condemned in the Bible why would “gay” activists have to come up with their own Bible that omits all those parts that are claimed by some other “gay” activists to not be about homosexual behavior?

I know that we are supposed to show love for homosexuals. Notice that I say “homosexual acts” and not homosexuals. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.

When I say “gay activists” I don’t mean every homosexual since not all homosexuals are “gay” activists. But I include the many heterosexuals who have jumped onto the “gay marriage” bandwagon and who argue for and encourage homosexuals in the behavior.

Also, for those who say, “but heterosexuals commit sodomy”, I don’t think that the anus is meant for anything other than to dispose of waste products out of the body whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals. And people aren’t currently trying to get laws passed to make everyone accept heterosexual sins as “the new normal” (although polygamy and incest are surely going to be next up to bat).

I’ve seen many who have come up with some very creative and elaborate interpretations for all the places in Sacred Scripture that to the average reader would seem to be condemning homosexual acts. By the way, the shellfish argument is bogus since it only says in the Bible that shellfish was an abomination to the people (not to God). It was like telling the people of that time “You don’t like shellfish”. Maybe it was making them sick, who knows? But it wasn’t saying that shellfish was an abomination to God.

The biblical texts which address the question of homosexuality directly or indirectly are:

In the Old Testament

Genesis 19:7-8: “I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don’t do anything to these men.”

Judges 19:23-24: “No, my brothers; do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime. Rather let me bring out my maiden daughter or his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against the man you must not commit this wanton crime.”

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”

In the New Testament

1 Corinthians 6:9: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:10: “… law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly … the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”

Romans 1:26-27: “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

What translation are you using…I know the NIV uses the word “homosexual” in the NT…but there is no word equivilent to “homosexual” in the New Testament…that was an “interpretive” translation…Paul never uses the word since “homosexual” has modern origins.

The Genesis and Joshua passage is about violent rape of individuals. Since in the time and culture those passages have their origin in, women were considered nothing more than property…rape of prisoners or visitors was the highest insult to their masculinity and degraded them to the status of women. It violated the rules of hospitality. You see Lot thought no more of his daugthers than his cattle since he offered them to the crowd to be raped and allow them to “do what they wanted to”.

Of course in the next chapter Lot and his daughters character flaws are further displayed when the have a drunken night of orgiistic incestous sex.

The passage in Leviticus has it’s answer in the opening chapter of Leviticus. "Don’t do the things your pagan neighbors do.’ Since the preceeding verse which condemns “men laying with women” also condemn having one’s children pass thru the fire of Molech and Leviticus is a book of what defiles one to prevent religious service in Israel…I’d think it’s dealing with some sort of worship practice as the surrounding verses seem to. Engaging in ritual sex to gain a god’s favor makes sense…considering Israel had a problem with male temple prostitution later down the road.

The whole first chapter of Romans deals with worship and how God is evident in creation, I would think he wouldn’t deviate from this theme just to fortify our baser feelings concerning our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters…since Romans has no “chapter and verse” breaks…we should continue on to chapter 2 and read further his counsel…but many of us don’t…we just stop at 1:26-27 and say “See!!!”

 

[Mumbles140]

Let’s remember that you are telling someone else that what is permitted to you, through your natural desires, inclinations, makeup is totally denied them for theirs, please spend some time reflecting on this, how would you react to exactly the same case if you were on the receiving end? How would you view that coming from someone who takes for granted that they have every right to the full use and enjoyment of their sexual life? This makes a huge difference.

Let’s remember that sex is preserved for marriage, which is about more than sexuality, and requires a male and a female (per God). Let’s also remember that the same chastity is asked of (by God) for all unmarried persons, heterosexual or otherwise. This isn’t a condemnation for the way one person feels, but it is asking them to respect that sexual acts are for marriage alone, and in God’s creation, marriage cannot exist between those of the same sex. However, this is precisely the reason why much care and support should be offered to them, as they are asked to live a life similar to that of the Holy Virgins.

 

[livingwordunity]

Some “gay” activists have come up with some very novel and creative interpretations for the quoted verses in the OP saying that they aren’t about homosexual behavior or that they don’t condemn it but condemn something else while other “gay” activists say that these verses are very offensive to “gays”. They consider it to be “hate speech” against “gays”, and they believe that these verses must be removed. Which is it?

 

[LightFromLight]

Also remember that as a heterosexual, married person, while you may be open to pregnancy, during your fertile years every time you have intercourse, you know full well that you are not going to get pregnant every time you have intercourse and do engage in it for pure physical pleasure and gratification.

Sex has a twofold purpose: Unity and procreation. Having sex must be out of self-less love and with an openness to new life. Sexual intercourse purely to pro-create uses a person as a means to an end similar using a person purely for pleasure and gratification.

Therefore, denying either of the purposes is sexually immoral. Note that openness to children isn’t the same as intending to get pregnant every time, sexual intercourse should express the couples devotion to one another.

Men and women are like corresponding jigsaw pieces. Whereas homosexual acts cannot achieve either unity or pro-creation.

 

[cwltexas]

Sex has a twofold purpose: Unity and procreation. Having sex must be out of self-less love and with an openness to new life. Sexual intercourse purely to pro-create uses a person as a means to an end similar using a person purely for pleasure and gratification.

Therefore, denying either of the purposes is sexually immoral. Note that openness to children isn’t the same as intending to get pregnant every time, sexual intercourse should express the couples devotion to one another.

Men and women are like corresponding jigsaw pieces. Whereas homosexual acts cannot achieve either unity or pro-creation.

Sometimes I feel like I am speaking to an empty room, I honestly do.

Is sex IMPORTANT to you? Do you LIKE sex? Do you feel you have a PHYSICAL DRIVE to have sex? If the answers to these questions is yes, BE GRATEFUL that you are heterosexual, can MARRY WITHIN THE CHURCH and have a SANCTIONED SEX LIFE and consider showing some COMPASSION for those who CANNOT, rather than PREACHING? Just a suggestion.

 

[LightFromLight]

Sometimes I feel like I am speaking to an empty room, I honestly do.

Is sex IMPORTANT to you? Do you LIKE sex? Do you feel you have a PHYSICAL DRIVE to have sex? If the answers to these questions is yes, BE GRATEFUL that you are heterosexual, can MARRY WITHIN THE CHURCH and have a SANCTIONED SEX LIFE and consider showing some COMPASSION for those who CANNOT, rather than PREACHING? Just a suggestion.

Tell me where I condemned anyone? What did I say that offended you? We are all sinners here, I’m not denying that fact.

I’m not married and it is extremely difficult to be celibate even as a heterosexual. I do have compassion for homosexuals, life is difficult enough without having to remain celibate your entire life. Most people, who matter their orientation commit many sexual sins but remember that Saint Augustine said sexual sins are the easiest sins for God to forgive since they are the easiest sins for human beings to commit.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Let’s remember that you are telling someone else that what is permitted to you, through your natural desires, inclinations, makeup is totally denied them for theirs, please spend some time reflecting on this . . .

I believe I’d rather spend time reflecting on clearer , less confusing concepts:

The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. We rely on Her definitive statements of what is morally good and what is morally not , to guide our conduct.

The OP did not focus on homosexual “desires” and/or “inclinations” : The focus was on homosexual acts , according to what was written.

. . . Notice that I say “homosexual acts” and not homosexuals. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.

Neither did what the OP posted preclude heterosexual gay activists who parrot the gay militant rhetoric - particularly as it concerns gay -]marriage/-] in the name of a false “equality” which, as we have seen , subsequently results in the state sanctioned commission of menticide by indoctrinating other peoples young children with the homosexual agenda against their parents’ wills and frequently without their parents’ knowledge.

The OP was clear on that one too. . .

. . . When I say “gay activists” I don’t mean every homosexual since not all homosexuals are “gay” activists. But I include the many heterosexuals who have jumped onto the “gay marriage” bandwagon and who argue for and encourage homosexuals in the behavior.

The OP did not make an assertion regarding homosexual “desires” or “inclinations” , much as Father John Hardon S.J., leaves some room for interpretation of homosexual tendency and * homosexual attraction* . Father Hardon does confirm however in no uncertain terms that active homosexuality is morally indefensible . This is what the OP addressed, and it is something which can’t be viewed from a skewed morally relativistic perspective.

Modern Catholic Dictionary , Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

HOMOSEXUALITY.

In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

Natural desires is such an abused and maligned expression today; not only by homosexual activists, but also by those who believe a human being should be able to run after and fulfill any and every sexual “desire” or whim or fantasy they may entertain .

As far as acts and desires and (ahem) “natural desires” are concerned, what is it that the Catholic Church is teaching - if not what God Himself is saying to us ? . . .

In an overly simplistic manner, it could be said that “Thou shalt not commit adultery” , refers primarily to the act and **“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” *refers more to the desire . To desire my neighbor’s wife , might be a temptation - perhaps even a common *one - or an inclination , but God is telling me *it certainly isn’t at all natural *: It’s disordered. So where do I try and draw the line ?

Our Blessed Lord himself gives us the ideal : “Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

We are all called to chastity according to our state in life. And the concept of living in this state is not at all some type of utopian existence which could be considered in line with our , um , *“desires” * . Actually , the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us it will be a struggle - an ongoing one .

(* continued in next post w/quotes from the CCC . . .

 

[NeedImprovement]

*. . . Continuation )

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

II Vocation to Chastity

The Integrity of the Person**

2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. “Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.”

2340 Whoever wants to remain faithful to his baptismal promises and resist temptations will want to adopt the means for doing so: self-knowledge, practice of an ascesis adapted to the situations that confront him, obedience to God’s commandments, exercise of the moral virtues, and fidelity to prayer. “Indeed it is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity.”

2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

2342 Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life. The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.

2343 Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin. “Man . . . day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves, and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth.”

2344 Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is “an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society.” Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.

I can’t help but feel at least a little bit of despondence when I read efforts here to equate any form at all of sexual gratification with the holy committment of a man and woman who are courageous enough and who have enough integrity to try to co-create, nurture and sustain a family in this troubled world of ours.

A family is something very holy . A natural family is also the foundation of society.

The gay militants, homosexual activists and those who cluelessly sympathize with them would do well to stop messing with it.

*From: Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J. *:

FAMILY.

A group of persons who are related by marriage or blood and who typically include a father, mother, and children. A family is a natural society whose right to existence and support is provided by the divine law. According to the Second Vatican Council, “the family is the foundation of society” (The Church in the Modern World, II, 52). In addition to the natural family, the Church recognizes also the supernatural family of the diocese and of a religious community, whose members are to co-operate for the upbuilding of the Body of Christ (Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office, 34; and Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 43). (Etym. Latin familia, a family, the members of a household; from famulus, a servant, attendant.)

 

[livingwordunity]

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” - 2357, The Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Some “gay” activists have come up with some very novel and creative interpretations for the quoted verses in the OP saying that they aren’t about homosexual behavior or that they don’t condemn it but condemn something else while other “gay” activists say that these verses are very offensive to “gays”. They consider it to be “hate speech” against “gays”, and they believe that these verses must be removed. Which is it?

I think the key word here is ‘some’. Your question addresses all homosexual activists, and yet the example you’ve citied only references a few. I think the majority of homosexual activists take the ‘you can’t force the Bible on us’ stance more than anything.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think the key word here is ‘some’. Your question addresses all homosexual activists, and yet the example you’ve citied only references a few. I think the majority of homosexual activists take the ‘you can’t force the Bible on us’ stance more than anything.

My point is that the verses must be pretty darn clear to arouse such an extreme reaction from the “gay” activists who have called the verses “hate speech” and have even gone so far as to create their own Bible which omits those verses. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[livingwordunity]

Sex has a twofold purpose: Unity and procreation. Having sex must be out of self-less love and with an openness to new life. Sexual intercourse purely to pro-create uses a person as a means to an end similar using a person purely for pleasure and gratification.

Therefore, denying either of the purposes is sexually immoral. Note that openness to children isn’t the same as intending to get pregnant every time, sexual intercourse should express the couples devotion to one another.

Men and women are like corresponding jigsaw pieces. Whereas homosexual acts cannot achieve either unity or pro-creation.

I like the jigsaw puzzle pieces analogy. Men and women are born with an unmistakable physical complementarity. Men and women were made for each other with sex organs that fit perfectly together like the jigsaw puzzle pieces. Husbands and wives have a love and complementarity that is so real that usually 9 months later they have to name it. Homosexual acts are like using a tool for a purpose other than what it’s made for, like using a screwdriver as a hammer. And usually when something’s used for a purpose other than what it was made for things tend to get broken. I think that explains why even in countries that have fully embraced so-called “same-sex marriage” the average homosexual is still statistically at a much higher risk for suicide, depression, and drug abuse than the average heterosexual (source).

 

[cwltexas]

“…the average homosexual is still statistically at a much higher risk for suicide, depression, and drug abuse than the average heterosexual…”

Or it could be sanctimonious people who are abusive, condescending and gleeful about bullying them and driving them into depression, drug abuse and finally suicide. The Universe is full of possibilities.

 

[Aviatrix]

I think that explains why even in countries that have fully embraced so-called “same-sex marriage” the average homosexual is still statistically at a much higher risk for suicide, depression, and drug abuse than the average heterosexual (source).

Even in countries that have legalized gay marriage, homosexual people are still treated appallingly. I have a friend who can’t walk his dog without being called disgusting names. I constantly hear people (especially teenage boys) using the word “gay” as an insult. A girl (who was straight) was teased mercilessly in school, called lesbian and he-she, because she didn’t fit gender norms. Those are just some examples. I’m sure if I heard that I was worthless, disgusting and lesser-than nearly every day of my life I would be depressed too. While it may not be responsible for the entire difference between hetero- and homo-sexuals, I believe that it is part of the reason. Please realize that countries with legal same sex marriage are not free of stigmatization.

 

[livingwordunity]

Even in countries that have legalized gay marriage, homosexual people are still treated appallingly.

If that’s true then it proves that redefining marriage isn’t going to make things better for anyone. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Aviatrix]

If that’s true then it proves that redefining marriage isn’t going to make things better for anyone. Thanks for sharing.

I disagree with that. Homosexuals ARE treated better. And it is getting better every day. However they still aren’t without stigma.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I am not for sure I know which version of the Bible you are referencing that omits what you are speaking about?

I think something that would be exceedingly helpful would be to go to original text, in the original languages of the Bible, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and translate the exact words and define them in context of the verses and passages that they are used in.

Let’s remember that you are telling someone else that what is permitted to you, through your natural desires, inclinations, makeup is totally denied them for theirs, please spend some time reflecting on this, how would you react to exactly the same case if you were on the receiving end? How would you view that coming from someone who takes for granted that they have every right to the full use and enjoyment of their sexual life? This makes a huge difference.

Also remember that as a heterosexual, married person, while you may be open to pregnancy, during your fertile years every time you have intercourse, you know full well that you are not going to get pregnant every time you have intercourse and do engage in it for pure physical pleasure and gratification.

There is strong evidence that arsenokoitēs used by Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 means a man who goes to bed with other men

Scholars on the Greek word arsenokoitēs

James B De Young’s commentary

tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf

David E Malick writes

it is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women

biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf

Charles H H Scobie writes in The Ways of Our God: An approach to Biblical Theology

it clearly echoes the Greek of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the LXX (arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed”), so that arsenokoitēs literally means “one who goes to bed with a male”

Gunther Haas writes in Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice

an examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong

I believe that Hays is correct in holding that arsenokoitēs refers to a man who engages in same-sex intercourse (Hays 1997, 97). The term is a compound of the words for “male” (arsēn) and “bed” (koitē) and thus could naturally be taken to mean a man who goes to bed with other men. True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts (Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does. In the Greek version of the two Leviticus passages that condemn male homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13) a man is not to lie with a male as with a woman each text contains both the words arsēn and koitē. First Cor 6:9-10 simply classifies homosexuality as a moral sin that finally keeps one out of the kingdom of God.

Source: Dan O Via and Robert A J Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views

Scholars on the Greek word malakoi used in 1 Corinthians 6:9:

Most translators render it as “effeminates” or “catamites,” implying receptive anal homosexuality – or use a less precise term like sodomite or homosexual

Source: The Construction of Homosexuality by David F Greenberg, page 212

In general there is broad (but not unanimous) agreement that μαλακοί in 1 Cor 6:9–10 denotes “the passive … partner … in male homosexual relations

Source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary by Anthony C Thiselton

Most commentators and translators continue to understand these terms as references to passive and active partners in male homosexual intercourse

Source: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia by Blandstra and Verhey, volume 4, page 437

 

[cwltexas]

There is strong evidence that arsenokoitēs used by Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 means a man who goes to bed with other men

Scholars on the Greek word arsenokoitēs

James B De Young’s commentary

tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf

David E Malick writes

biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf

Charles H H Scobie writes in The Ways of Our God: An approach to Biblical Theology

Gunther Haas writes in Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice

Source: Dan O Via and Robert A J Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views

Scholars on the Greek word malakoi used in 1 Corinthians 6:9:

Source: The Construction of Homosexuality by David F Greenberg, page 212

Source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary by Anthony C Thiselton

Source: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia by Blandstra and Verhey, volume 4, page 437

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to research and provide this factual information. You did not claim with absolute certainty, you provide real factual data and provided a reasonable foundation for linkage. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for.

THANK YOU AGAIN!