The word lifestyle

NIV, known to be more accurate than the KJV, says:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Not that it matters.
If people don't believe in God they will argue what the Bible does or doesn't say... instead of just brushing it off as they should.

 

You do realize King James has been heavily translated right?

 

"Homosex" isn't a word.

The scripture doesn't address homosexuality in any language. I don't grudgingly admit it, I freely and willingly admit that scripture doesn't address homosexuality in any way.

And I won't be spending eternity in hell, you remember that guy Jesus? Yeah well he paid the price for our sins.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of translating error, the scripture he posted says nothing about homosexuals.

 

You can make this false assertion a million times and it does not erase the sin.

Even Satan knows that, it does not guarantee you will avoid Hell. I'd quote Scripture to prove this point, but is seems you have a totally different bible re-written for Sodomites

 

What a good follower of Christ you are telling someone to enjoy eternity in Hell.

 

Things aren't sins just because you insist that they are.

I wasn't aware that the king James bible was written for sodomites. Wasn't that the one you quoted?

 

The arrogant delight in their arrogance. I got that from the king James version, which apparently is the sodomite bible.

Who knew?

 

I find that some linguistic housekeeping is called for. The word 'homosexual' is a combination of words from two very different languages - Greek and Roman. "homo" was Greek for "same". The earliest known meaning of the Latin word "sexual" referred to the binary concept of male and female, rather than referencing actions. That original meaning has been supplanted by a broader one: "relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals."

So let's apply this. The word "homosexual" can be used as an adjective to describe attraction to the same sex, but without further context, we don't know if we're talking about a single instance of homosexual attraction, or an established baseline for an individual's experience of attraction.

"Homosexual" can also be used as an adjective to describe behavior between persons of the same sex. As above, without further context we don't know if we're talking about a singular incident of same-sex behavior, or an individual's pattern of behavior.

So just what is 'a homosexual', using the word as a noun, then? Is it a person who experiences same-sex attraction? Or a person who engages exclusively in same-sex behavior? Or is it sufficient for the person to engage primarily in same-sex behavior?

The correct answer is that it can be any of these three, but context is necessary to tell us which one the person using the word likely meant.

So, we can pinpoint where the breakdown in communication consistently occurs in this forum between certain individuals and certain other individuals - it is from one person (or persons) insisting that "homosexual" means behavior only, while another or others insist on classifying it as attraction. It can be either or both, but it is in no way helpful to the discussion for anyone to demand that their usage is the only 'correct' one, because the meaning of any word is determined by the acceptance of its usage by those involved. Without either side being willing to agree as to the meaning, further discussion is unproductive and a waste of time. Better perhaps to disengage at that point. And I have - it's called putting repeat offenders on ignore for purposely trolling and derailing the discussion into a debate over terminology that goes absolutely nowhere, instead of attempting to discuss the topic at hand.

As for 'gay', I don't consider 'homosexual' and 'gay' to be synonymous. 'Gay' is a matter of sexual identity. 'Homosexual' could also refer to identity, but as detailed above, it can refer to other matters as well. To use 'gay' to mean 'homosexual behavior' is to dismiss the identity connotation of the former term. 'Gay' as a component of identity is based firmly on attraction. People identify as 'gay' based on their same-sex attraction, often well before they engage in same-sex behavior. The orientation of sexual attraction toward the same sex is a driver of same-sex behavior (though not the only one). People can exhibit behavior that runs contrary to their sexual orientation. From which, it should be obvious, that same-sex behavior is not what drives same-sex attraction, and that same-sex behavior does not 'make' a person 'gay'.

One more time: 'Gay' is about the identity linked to same-sex attraction. Anyone who can't accept that this is how gay people generally understand their own sexuality needs a further does of reality: A non-gay person does NOT have the ability or the authority to determine how a gay person perceives and understands their own sexuality. If you somehow operate under the misbegotten notion that you do, then there's simply no helping you understand these issues - because you very clearly do not wish to understand them.

 

Depends on which bible you are using and how accurate the translation is, most bibles use incorrect translation or add in words to make it say what translators bias tells them it should say.

The fact of the matter is that even the most used quote from the bible Lev. 18:22 has been mistranslated and in some versions of the bible has words added.

 

Post chapter and verse please.

 

Except that it doesn't and the word homosexuality or homosexual didn't exist at the time of the writing of the bible.

 

Except that-that translation is in fact wrong.

 

I 'sometimes' bypass discussing the term "lifestyle", but it depends primarily upon how reasonable a person is. If the person disagrees but is reasonable and compassionate... I'll discuss with them why being homosexual is not some 'lifestyle'; and a lot of good gets done (in my circles) because many of these people will go out and share with others in the same reasonable way(s).

But I agree wholeheartedly with you, that some people essentially need to be told to just mind their own business; all they're out to do is hate, vilify and oppress.

True. Still, I think it is worth discussing with 'some' people (as I mentioned above).

True, in my view. Still, if I can lay some groundwork to help people be more rational about allowing homosexual people to live peaceful lives and to be accepted even more than they are today... I'll do it.

I learned that is important, because I've talked with many friends about ethnic issues also. And with some, I like to see or find out where they may have problems with people of other 'cultures'. Typically, with a reasonable, compassionate person... you can go a very long way toward showing them that acceptance or better understanding of those who are 'different' isn't as HIGH or IMPENETRABLE a barrier as they imagined or believed. It just takes time and some decent conversations.

In the legal sense, I totally agree. In the social sense, I'd rather people understand homosexual people all the more, so that more people who are NOT homosexual will better understand why we're just as human and 'normal' as they happen to be.