Cinders Could you explicate your comparison of homosexuality to lust? Are you implying that all homosexual relationships are lust-driven, not love-driven? Or are you simply saying it's equally offensive to God as the sin of lust?

Ninja-Kitten And this was worth an article...? I too, am curious about this "bigger form of lust" and how it is comprable to murder.

gir5136 I am saying it is as offensive as lust. God looks at all our wrongings as one. He doesn't compare us to each other. I brought up something that would get other's attention. In the end I too might learn something. I'm not saying I know all because the truth is I don't. However, sometimes relationships in general are based off of lust.

Cinders OK, so I am hearing you say two different things here. First, I hear you saying that homosexuality is a sin on par with lust on the "offensive to God" scale. Then, I hear you saying that all sins are equally offensive to God. In which case, why choose lust as the comparative sin to homosexuality? By association, you are implying that homosexual attractions are lust-based, even if you are not intending such. Disregarding an argument about the equality or inequality of all sins (as that's another topic entirely), let's focus on the lust/homosexuality relationship you have (perhaps, inadvertently) established. First of all, there is no stronger of a connection between lust and homosexuality than there is between lust and heterosexuality. Gays and straights can experience lust in the same capacity, and they have the equal opportunity to choose whether or not to act on that lust. But just as gays have an equal potential to fall victim to lust as straights, they also have the equal potential to fall in love as straights. Going by Biblical standards, all lust in any form, gay or straight, is wrong. Also going by Biblical standards, all love - fraternal, parental, platonic, filial, romantic and otherwise - is the exact opposite of "wrong." Ergo, using logic, we can deduce that homosexual love is not wrong, either. We can also deduce that homosexual lust probably is wrong, but no more wrong than heterosexual lust. Mentions of and allusions to homosexual acts in Leviticus and Genesis are always within a lust-based context. So one could interpret these passages as warning against lust - not love.

gir5136 I'm saying homosexuality(the actions and lust) is a sin. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 '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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 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.' Please give me one,just one, example in the Bible that says homosexuality is okay. 1 Timothy 1:10 says 'Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.' I'm not saying I don't like homosexuals because some of my best friends and aunt are homosexuals. I love them as Christ loves me even though I don't agree with it.

Cinders "I'm saying homosexuality... is a sin." - Yes, I got that. I was questioning your conflation of homosexuality and lust, which are two different "sins" if you will. Just as adultery and lust are different sins. I can give you examples of homoerotic, or if you prefer, homosocial relationships within the Bible. The relationship between David and Jonathan (First Book of Samuel) being the first that comes to mind. "The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (18:1-4) On top of that, when Saul finds out that Jonathan helped David, he's furious, and says, "Thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" (20:30) After Saul tries to kill David and Jonathan for their "sins," they manage to survive, and then we have I Samuel 20:41. "David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." Additionally, the translation you posted is the NIV, correct? One has to be careful with the newer translations, because they include newer (and more politically motivated) interpretations. Take, for example, King James Bible, which has your same passage as: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Bolds added for emphasis) "abusers of themselves with mankind" COULD BE lumped together with "sexual immorality," for example, and be an all-inclusive reference such as is explicitly interpreted in the NIV I Timothy 1:9. HOWEVER, this phrase is still generally conceived of implicating homosexuals, but more specifically (as usual in the Bible), homosexual men as it is discussing those that defile themselves with mankind (as opposed to woman kind). Additionally, you'll note that the KJV term "effeminate" was replaced in the NIV with "male prostitues." I can see the leap from "effeminate" to "gay," perhaps, but to "male prostitutes"? really? The point is that different translations create different interpretations. But as far as I'm concerned, the more recent a translation, the farther it gets from the original message. Take King James and the NIV, for example, look how different they are. One uses modern terms, in an effort to make it more clear to a modern audience, but those are terms that did not exist in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin, let alone English until the last hundred and thirty years. In short - anywhere where the term "homosexuality" or "homosexual" explicitly crops up should be questioned, and cross-referenced with previous translations.

gir5136 Okay I get that different translations word things differently but when it boils down to it, it is all the same. So my point in my article was that someone had asked me a question and I answered hoping to answer those who have the same question. All have sinned but if you ask God for forgiveness, that sin is "thrown away" until the sin repeats. If you ask Jesus into your life and change, you'll go to Heaven.

Cinders OK, but my question is, how do you know it's all the same? One can interpret "abusers of themselves with mankind" in a hundred different ways. Not to mention the utter lack of mention of lesbianism in the Bible. If sin is sin, there's no need to compare homosexuality to lust at all. I don't mean to challenge your beliefs on homosexuality. In all honesty, I just wanted some clarification. I suppose I always end up stumbling into debate mode. Call it a bad habit I fall into. You have the right to those beliefs, and its supported by scripture (or is a valid interpretation of scripture). What are your thoughts on the David/Jonathan relationship? What sort of covenant do you think they made?

gir5136 I know it is all the same because many different people who spoke different languages wrote the same things. Some were even in different centuries and they said the same thing. I have a question for you. If one were to say," Hola" how do you know it means hello? Or Konichiwa means Good day or good afternoon in Japanese? By what someone says or what you learn? I can interpret some of the things and then I look them up in different translations and see if I'm right. So onto the lack of mention of lesbian in the Bible. God uses the word man to means women and children too. Homosexuality also refers to lesbians too. Don't be sorry on challenging me, I think I need more of it. However, please do not bring up an arguemnet just for the sake of arguing. That is what really irritates me.By the way, I love a good debate so don't worry. I do debates all the time with my friends. It's harmless. David and Jonathan were like brothers. What are you implying here? Jonathan saved David from Jonathan's father who tried to kill David. Jonathan hid David for his protection. "If homosexuality and lust are both sins then there would be no reason to compare them if in fact sin is sin."

Cinders "I know it is all the same because many different people who spoke different languages wrote the same things." ^^ Except that they didn't. Translations are a tricky business. There are specific words that have nuances in one language that they don't in another, or words that just don't translate at all. "Homosexuality" is a modern word, cropping up in the early 1900s and coming into heavy use in the 1950s and 60s. Before then, there was no definable term for the state of being gay. Additionally, I gave you a prime example about the differences in translation. Nuance is everything. Whereas one translation (NIV) says "homosexuality," an early translation (KJV) says "abusers of themselves with mankind." Douay-Rheims (1899) has the phrase as "liers with mankind." And if "mankind" is meant to be a gender-neutral term, then the phrase "liers with mankind" or even "abusers with mankind" could be another comment on adultery or sex out of marriage, could it not? After all, it's saying "those who lie with another person," or "those who have sex with another person." That's no comment on homosexuality at all. So you can't have it both ways - either "mankind" is gender specific, or it isn't, in which case it changes the translation. You see why translations are hard? You gave the example of "Hello," which is a basic greeting, and standard in most languages. But if I told you the Arabic translation for "Hello" is "salam alekhem," you would think that salam alekhem is equivalent in meaning to the English greeting, "Hello." While it's true, that "salam alekhem" is a greeting in Arabic, it also has a literal translation and a second layer of meaning. If we were reversing the translation - Arabic to English - and you asked me what "salam alekhem" meant (because maybe you'd heard it used), I would tell you it means "Peace be upon you," which you might interpret as a blessing or a way of expressing gratitude. But unless I told you, you wouldn't know it was also an Arabic greeting. And it's this that make translations so tricky. I once translated a French text to English, where the word "feuille" appeared multiple times. The author did this on purpose for its double meaning in French - one of which is "leaf" the other is "sheet of paper." We do not have a word for both of these things in English, so I had to make a choice about what the author was trying to say and when it made sense and when it didn't. Most of the times, it made sense, but sometimes it didn't. For example, the title of the piece was "La Feiulle," which could have just meant "The Paper," or it could have been a reference to leaves. But translators have to make executive decisions like this all the time, and it happens just as frequently in the Bible. If you look at some of the quotations I provided concerning Jonathan and David, maybe you will see what I'm trying to say. Perhaps a more specific question I could have asked is, what sort of "covenant" do you think they made (I Samuel 18:1-4)? What did Saul meant when he accused Jonathan "to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" (20:30). Why bring in a reference to "confusion" (which is often used in a sexual context in the Bible) and his "mother's nakedness" if this relationship was merely homosocial and not homosexual in nature? EDIT: PS - I don't think this is debate for debate's sake. I think it's useful, but sometimes I step on toes I didn't mean to step on. I don't think I'm being argumentative.

gir5136 I have a question. Do you believe a history book is correct let's say for U.S History? How do you know? The different translations it had to go through because first it was Native Americans, then Christopher Columbus(an Italian Spanish Navigator therefore he had to speak Italian and Spanish to navigate)? It had to go through translations at least four times to start with. Now we have many languages spoken(even though they may be a smaller amount than English) in our country. Plus there are different dialects. The list goes on. It all boils down to the same thing. He mistakeably wound up on America when he tried to go to Asia. Native Americans were treated terrible and thus formed America. I'm no scholar so I wouldn't know older words. Just as you wouldn't know Italian if you only studied Spanish. I do not know all the answers but I do know this. Jonathan and David were the closest friends. Saul tried to kill David because a prophet said David was God's chosen king and Saul's time was expired. Jonathan found out about his father's plan and hid David. When Jonathan knew it was safe he would shoot an arrow. Their covenant was of [b][i]friendship and loyalty,[/i]"to keep up and maintain a cordial respect to each other, and to support each other's interest both in life and after death, whoever was the survivor; and in consequence of this David had a friend at court, when Saul fell out with him, and who pleaded his cause, and discovered his father's plots, and was the means of preserving David's life".[/b] So "what kind of covenant do[b]you[/b] think they made?" I really want to know if your implying that they had sex and that the covenant was of love(not friendship or brother love). I didn't think it was a debate for debate's sake. I simply put it there for future refrences. This is extremely useful. P.S when I said they all wrote the same language I meant that in Bible times they often understood each other. Also I think you have to look at what God is talking about.

Cinders I think you're missing my point about translations. Let's side-step a digression about the myths surrounding Columbus's "discovery" of America, and focus on the matter at hand. Transcribing history is one thing - general ideas, especially when translated from Latin or Germanic languages - often get across smoothly enough. The problem with Biblical translations is the fact that it's not the general ideas or big things that get lost in translation, but the specific. Add to the fact the numerous Biblical translations to English. There is not one official Biblical translation, there are dozens. And changing one word can change the specifics as I evidenced in my examples with the I Corinthians passage time and time again in this conversation. And speaking of the importance of specific words - The word "covenant" is defined as: "an agreement, especially by lease, deed, or other legal contract." Archaically (which is the meaning in a Biblical context), it's known to be an agreement with God, or forsworn to God. Marriage is described as a "sacred covenant," for example. I'm not implying sex - I'm implying love, and perhaps, marriage. Later, in I Samuel 20:42, Jonathan says to David, "Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever." (King James Bible) Additionally, you don't need to be a scholar to know basic etymology about important words, especially if you know where to look. Etymology Online is an excellent place to start. My point is, if there was no word for homosexuality in English until recently, any Bible that has that word should be cross-referenced with an earlier translation to see what term(s) it has replaced. This is exactly what I have done in comparing the New International Version to the King James Bible. You'll note the term "homosexuality" is absent from the latter, and the phrase that it replaced in the former does not necessarily indicate homosexuals at all. And that is why translations are important - for the details. I... don't remember you saying anything about anyone all speaking the same language. But in Biblical times, there were actually quite a few languages going on, including but not limited to Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic. Also, there's the Tower of Babel... Not that any of that has any relevance to what we're discussing.

gir5136 you know what ... you are right about translations... to a point though...btw there was no marriage between David and Jonathan. The covenant between Jonathan and David though is brotherly because they were they were such good friends that they were like brothers. brothers(believe it or not) love each other

thetacoman If you want people to take you seriously, use Spellcheck. "gays" correct "lesbiAns" "bI'S" But as to this debate, go with the Bible.

gir5136 Thank you thetacoman.

supersunny102 God has created homosextual people the way they are. The bible says that God loves all of his creations. I know He must love them too.

gir5136 He loves all. No matter who you are what you've done.

jjfromlv this is a easy question. From the Bible not picking out a few verses that is used against a secion of people. God loves all of his children. He sees sin as sin period. He did not put down degrees of any sins. He loves the sinner which is all of us and hates the sin. Only God will ever know who went to heaven, we cannot see a hamans heart or hear his thoughts but God does. At the end of life they or we can go to our father and be forgiven. Of course we can'g go out and sin and think we can fool God. At the end of life only God knows and I am thankful for that.

jjfromlv I was reading some of the comments its unreal to me that we always come across people who think they have a right to correct others. Spell check get real. The question I see is a honest one not hateful. God doesn't approve of people full of their own pride ask satan that was his down fall. When you want to think you are better than others and try to make them look bad over spelling or anything else, God also looks at you and judges you for the judgement you put onto others so next time please you resd the Bible. There is no reason why anyone can't ask a question is isn't about spelling or grammer its about wanting to learn or share. Thats honest. So please think before you judge. in any matter.

MineTurtle Well, God is a God of second, third, 10,000th and last chances. No one can say, 'Oh, you're going to Hell', because ONLY God can decide who goes to Heaven and Hell. he loves us so much, he doesn't want us to go to Hell, but He is a righteous judge. The Good Judge.