Questioning what I believe, referencing Christian history in Britain

[mlssufan01]

I had a conversation with a friend the other night, basically she told me why she left church and stopped believing, how she had all the right answers but didn't actually believe any of it (she had grown up Catholic tho), and how now she believes every religion is true for each person individually, and only believes Jesus existed as a historical, non-deistic man; and I knew if I was being biblical about things, I should have presented the Gospel, or at least defended why the Bible is true. I wish I could say it was because she was working and we were in public and I didn't want to raise a scene; but if I'm being honest even in private I probably wouldn't have defended it; it just made me realize that I'm still a). learning a lot of things and b). I've always had some mixed feelings about the Bible; in particular when it comes to homosexuality. I do not deny the Bible (at least the English translation) says it is sin; but I also don't understand why God would act so condescendingly towards a sin that is legitimately a struggle for the vast majority of those people. I think it would be very rare that a person says they are trying to be gay. I try to think how Jesus would handle something like this; and I don't think it would be through rebuke. I've also often wondered how we came to terms with casting out homosexuals, when in fact, in original Greek, and in the time period, the word didn't exist. The word that is used is arsenokotai, simply meaning male beds; typically used when referring to male prostitution; some reference the verse about men defiling the marriage bed by chasing after other men; but 2 things here; there is the possibility that the defiling came from the adultery/cheating itself, or because often times these acts were orgy sex parties; so there's no concrete point that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. So why was this act deemed a sin?
If we look at when the Bible was translated into English..1526 by William Tyndale, we discover that around this time, King Henry VIII is also issuing death warrants to many people for many reasons; to William Tyndale and Martin Luther for their protest against the Catholic church, as well as many death warrants for the act of homosexuality. But I see something very peculiar--in 1395, John Rykener was arrested for being a transvestite prostitute. Prior to this, King Edward the 11 was killed, and was regarded and remembered for his homosexual relationship with a man named Gaveston. So there is an issue here that was very likely a huge subculture of homosexuality within England just prior to Bible being translated. The act of prostitution is essentially a means, albeit a sinful means, of gaining money. These acts were often public and lewd. So it would make sense, that the first English translation of the Bible, would spew forth anti-homosexual translations of a term that seems to have only rejected premarital sex, prostitution, and possibly public indecency, but never the lone act of being a homosexual; but rather, perhaps the Bible was translated with anti-homosexual jargon due to a predisposition of negative views of the surrounding culture.

[HAZARD]

 

DR NEIL WHITEHEAD: SCIENCE PROVES THAT GAYS ARE NOT BORN GAY

 

Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

More here;

https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/dr-neil-whitehead-science-proves-gays-are-not-born-gay

Here's what God says about homosexuality, and nothings changed as far as His Word goes.

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. 

[BeauJangles]

2 hours ago, HAZARD said:

gays were not born that way.

No link of scientific evidence is necessary to come to this intelligent conclusion. Just my two shekels worth. God bless! 

Shalom, 

David/BeauJangles

Edited May 18, 2019 by BeauJangles

[Who me]

16 hours ago, mlssufan01 said:

I had a conversation with a friend the other night, basically she told me why she left church and stopped believing, how she had all the right answers but didn't actually believe any of it (she had grown up Catholic tho), and how now she believes every religion is true for each person individually, and only believes Jesus existed as a historical, non-deistic man;

I've always had some mixed feelings about the Bible; in particular when it comes to homosexuality. I do not deny the Bible (at least the English translation) says it is sin; but I also don't understand why God would act so condescendingly towards a sin that is legitimately a struggle for the vast majority of those people.

 So why was this act deemed a sin?
 

Apart from someoine saying they didn't believe Christianity is true, all you are asking is why is homosexuality classed as a sinful act.

The first is easily challenged, all religeons cannot all be true. Panthesis, Monothesis are a direct contradiction so to say that person can believe in many Gods and this person can believe in one God and that both beliefs are true is nonsence.

Your friend is being irrational.

 

Homosexuality why is it clased as a sinful act. Very simply, God set out hetrosexuality as the normal sewxual relationship for men and women and this was only within marrage.

 

[Jayne]

You speak of the surrounding culture as  contributing to the Bible being translated with and "spewing forth" "anti-homosexual jargon".

Cultures change, but God does not.  Consider the following translations of Leviticus 20:13.

•  Wycliffe's 1382 Bible - "If a man slepith with a man, bi letcherie of a womman, euer either hath wrouyt vnleueful thing, die thei bi deeth; her blood be on hem.  (If a man sleepeth with a man, like in fleshly coupling with a woman, they both have done an unlawful thing, and they both shall be put to death; their blood be on them.)
•  King James 1611 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as hee lyeth with a woman, both of them haue committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shalbe vpon them."

These weren't translated by a culture that was anti-homosexuality.  These were translated by scholars who were faithful to the best of the ancient manuscripts that they had at the time. And the meaning of this verse has never changed and is not "spewing" anything.

Examples:

• Latin Vulagate - [circa 400 AD] = "qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos"  ["The man who lies with a male as one lieth with a woman, both have committed an abomination them be put to death: their blood shall be upon them,"]
•  Septuagint [Koine Greek] - [circa 200 BC] = "καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν"  [And that who sleeps with a man (as) sexual intercourse (as) a woman is a foul thing make both put to death blood guilt is on him]
•  Hebrew [Modern]= "וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה--תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם." [And a man if lies with a male as he lies with a woman an abomination have committed the two of them surely they shall be put to death their blood is on them]  
•  Hebrew [Paleo] = I'd show you that, but I can't translate it.

God's word has not changed since he dictated it to Moses - initially.  

Culture changes, mankind changes, opinions blow with the wind.  People grow close to God, then rebel, then grow close to God, then rebel.

God does not change.

The Bible was not written nor translated by the cultural whims of people.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Jayne