Exodus Intl Closes doors

[DanieltheDragon]

Exodus a leading ex-gay ministry closed its doors and issued an apology for the harm it has caused to the gay community.

Does this influence the way you view homosexuality as a choice?

they operated for 40 years claiming they could cure homosexuality even their leader claimed he used to be gay. After 40 years they admitted they were wrong and their president admitted he was never cured.

[East of Eden]

This is the King James Version (KJV) of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 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, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Does the word 'homosexual' jump out from the above list?

What do you think effeminate means? Do you want to dispute the OT prohibitions against sodomy too? If you would read my link in post 37 it might clear things up for you.

[connermt]

Exodus a leading ex-gay ministry closed its doors and issued an apology for the harm it has caused to the gay community.

Does this influence the way you view homosexuality as a choice?

they operated for 40 years claiming they could cure homosexuality even their leader claimed he used to be gay. After 40 years they admitted they were wrong and their president admitted he was never cured.

I've said this before, but I'll do it again:
I once saw an interview with a minister on TV that said (paraphrased) that even if it's proven 100% that being gay isn't a choice, it will still be a sin.

You see, many believers don't accept science that interferes with their mythical beliefs, and accept those that do. No matter what, they will continue to wallow in their beliefs. Those people will never change. Fortunately, they seem to be the minority. Unfortunately, they seem to have the loudest mouths.
The same can be said of non-believers, though they don't seem to be as entrenched in their beliefs as "true believers".

I would disagree with that TV minister, same-sex feelings aren't a sin, homosexual behavior isn't. No different than being tempted to adultery or drunkeness isn't a sin, the act very much is.

No doubt most would disagree with that minister, as he was an idiot.
Many also disagree with "the act" as being a sin as well. Fact is, it's the (more) modern interpretation of the bible that indicated it a sin and specifically speaking to men/men, not women/women. Which isn't to be unexpected in a male dominated superstitious society.

[connermt]

I feel the need to interject here. Several times East of Eden has quoted the Bible and used the term 'homosexual'. Nowhere in the original manuscripts was the term 'homosexual' used. That term is a relatively recent one and it matters not to me whether it's the equivalent of a Hebrew or Greek meaning for homosexual/homosexuality ...the word 'homosexual' is NOT found in the original manuscripts NOR the KJV. Nor is it necessarily the Hebrew/Greek equivalent that is being referenced in those texts that Christians just LOVE to use in their anti-gay campaign. Please stop with this deception!

The word may not be, but the meaning certainly is. Here is a rebuttal of the flimsy argument you're trying to make:

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arseno ... ysterious/

When you start saying "well, what it MEANS is...." that's when you run into trouble as "meaning" is open for interpretation and thus, an opinion.
Many "interpretations" of biblical statements held inter-racial relationships were sinful, headaches were "demon possession" and other nonsensical things.

[East of Eden]

Exodus a leading ex-gay ministry closed its doors and issued an apology for the harm it has caused to the gay community.

Does this influence the way you view homosexuality as a choice?

they operated for 40 years claiming they could cure homosexuality even their leader claimed he used to be gay. After 40 years they admitted they were wrong and their president admitted he was never cured.

I've said this before, but I'll do it again:
I once saw an interview with a minister on TV that said (paraphrased) that even if it's proven 100% that being gay isn't a choice, it will still be a sin.

You see, many believers don't accept science that interferes with their mythical beliefs, and accept those that do. No matter what, they will continue to wallow in their beliefs. Those people will never change. Fortunately, they seem to be the minority. Unfortunately, they seem to have the loudest mouths.
The same can be said of non-believers, though they don't seem to be as entrenched in their beliefs as "true believers".

I would disagree with that TV minister, same-sex feelings aren't a sin, homosexual behavior isn't. No different than being tempted to adultery or drunkeness isn't a sin, the act very much is.

No doubt most would disagree with that minister, as he was an idiot.
Many also disagree with "the act" as being a sin as well. Fact is, it's the (more) modern interpretation of the bible that indicated it a sin and specifically speaking to men/men, not women/women. Which isn't to be unexpected in a male dominated superstitious society.

Nonsense, as I have demonstrated, the church has held this to be sin since the beginning, and as a matter of fact the NT does address lesbians.

[East of Eden]

I feel the need to interject here. Several times East of Eden has quoted the Bible and used the term 'homosexual'. Nowhere in the original manuscripts was the term 'homosexual' used. That term is a relatively recent one and it matters not to me whether it's the equivalent of a Hebrew or Greek meaning for homosexual/homosexuality ...the word 'homosexual' is NOT found in the original manuscripts NOR the KJV. Nor is it necessarily the Hebrew/Greek equivalent that is being referenced in those texts that Christians just LOVE to use in their anti-gay campaign. Please stop with this deception!

The word may not be, but the meaning certainly is. Here is a rebuttal of the flimsy argument you're trying to make:

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arseno ... ysterious/

When you start saying "well, what it MEANS is...." that's when you run into trouble as "meaning" is open for interpretation and thus, an opinion.
Many "interpretations" of biblical statements held inter-racial relationships were sinful, headaches were "demon possession" and other nonsensical things.

Some people have a vested interest in confusing the plain meaning of Scripture.

[KCKID]

This is the King James Version (KJV) of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 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, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Does the word 'homosexual' jump out from the above list?

What do you think effeminate means? Do you want to dispute the OT prohibitions against sodomy too? If you would read my link in post 37 it might clear things up for you.

There's a lot of guesswork going on here and I'm not interested in such. Please read the below, link supplied:


I Cor 6:9 Greek Study:
Historical Background

Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians has been totally falsely twisted from the Greek to English. It says nothing at all about homosexuality only ancient idolatry. The temple of Aphrodite Pandemos, goddess of sexual fertility, dominated

Acrocorinthus and employed 1000 prostitutes who served in sexual rites virtually around the clock. The greek words pornoi, arsenokitai and malikos, were no doubt promiscuously available throughout the city, a city famous for her libertine rites in the worship of idols. Acrocorinthus was the dominant geographic feature enshrouding the Corinthian skyline and rose to a great height of 1750 ft. above the city. Corinth, herself, was a metaphor of fertility and libertine sexuality among the ancient cities of Mediterrania.

The range of meanings for the Greeks "malakos" and "arsenokoital"in I Cor
6:9 is very wide. In the KJV its "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind", other versions translate it as homosexuals, sodomites, or who are guilty of homosexual perversion. However there are many lexical errors in all these translations.

"Malakos"
The idea that "malakos" (soft, effeminate) links it to homosexuality ignores the hebrew culture. Gay men were not viewed as effeminate unless they exhibited feminine characteristics in addition to being gay. Many heterosexual males were called effeminate and there is no essential connection between this and sexual preference in any ancient literature. Other greek words were used for homosexuals but never "malakos", and the other words are never used in scripture.

Boswell points out that it is frequently used in moral context as licentious. Scroggs points out it also has been used as the effeminate call-boy prostitute in pederasty, but has nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today.

"Arsenkoites"
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.

The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute.

These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods!

Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.

It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.

The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do.
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section07.html

Whatever else the article references I'd like to emphasize the part that states: It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. There is far too much of that going on within Christianity.

[East of Eden]

So the church had it wrong for all this time only to be corrected 2,000 years later by non-believers with an axe to grind? Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

[KCKID]

I feel the need to interject here. Several times East of Eden has quoted the Bible and used the term 'homosexual'. Nowhere in the original manuscripts was the term 'homosexual' used. That term is a relatively recent one and it matters not to me whether it's the equivalent of a Hebrew or Greek meaning for homosexual/homosexuality ...the word 'homosexual' is NOT found in the original manuscripts NOR the KJV. Nor is it necessarily the Hebrew/Greek equivalent that is being referenced in those texts that Christians just LOVE to use in their anti-gay campaign. Please stop with this deception!

The word may not be, but the meaning certainly is. Here is a rebuttal of the flimsy argument you're trying to make:

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arseno ... ysterious/

When you start saying "well, what it MEANS is...." that's when you run into trouble as "meaning" is open for interpretation and thus, an opinion.
Many "interpretations" of biblical statements held inter-racial relationships were sinful, headaches were "demon possession" and other nonsensical things.

Some people have a vested interest in confusing the plain meaning of Scripture.

The PLAIN meaning of scripture ...? You're kidding, are you not? Do we have only ONE Christian denomination?

As for the vested interest part of your response ...I agree. The vested interests of the militant anti-gay group is reliant on the confusing of scripture.

[DanieltheDragon]

So the church had it wrong for all this time only to be corrected 2,000 years later by non-believers with an axe to grind? Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Well technically it hasn't been around for 2000 years. The church as we know it really came into being after 325 with the first council of Nicea. Before then Christians really didn't agree much on anything the Council was formed as an attempt to unify the vastly disparate sects of Christianity. so you can say roughly 1700 years but even still this is inaccurate as eastern orthodoxies didn't really share the same beliefs either. Even the trinity was not really agreed upon by early Christians nor the divinity of Jesus. We also have this compounded by the protestant reformation. While homosexuality hasn't really been the topic du jour amongst reformists there were many things the church has been wrong about and mistranslated. So to say the church has been right for 1700 years and is infallible is a bit of a stretch lets not forget for at least 1000 years they thought the earth was flat when the greeks established this in 3rd century BC. I am sorry bud but the church is clearly not infallible.

[KCKID]

So the church had it wrong for all this time ...

Quite possibly. In fact, it's highly likely that, as knowledge has increased, so too has our understanding of past cultures, their beliefs, their superstitions, the Bible and its authors, etc. The early Church would have been very much in the dark compared to what we now know about many things. It stands to reason. You should also understand that the millions of people who believe what they believe only do so because of what has been handed down to them by others who had it handed down to them, who had it handed down to them, ad infinitum. Even those that actually study the scriptures likely do so with preconceptions as to what the scriptures say. In other words, the scriptures appear to tally with what they already believe.

The 7th-day Adventists, for instance, believe in various Bible fundamentals that much of mainstream Christianity would reject. Do the 7th-day Adventists have biblical support for their beliefs? You bet they do! Do those that reject the SDA beliefs have biblical support? Well, they certainly believe so. So, your remark 'has the church had it wrong for all this time?' assumes that they had it right to begin with . . .

only to be corrected 2,000 years later by non-believers with an axe to grind?

Wrong. Those that are 'doing the correcting' are most often Bible-believing Christians. Furthermore, one does not require an ax to grind simply because they want to represent the truth. There was no need at all for you to add that to your statement.

Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

No need to apologize ...I really don't care . . .