Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Education|Tue, Feb. 26 2008 07:30 PM EST

Pro-Gay Booklet's 'Facts' Draw Criticism

By Alexander Sheffrin|Christian Post Contributor

A coalition led by the National Educational Association (NEA) and the American Psychological Association (APA) has come under fire recently over a published booklet that was distributed throughout the nation’s 16,000 school districts, and which critics claim endorses homosexuality.

The 24-page booklet, titled "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth," claims to act as a helpful guide for educators "who confront sensitive issues involving gay, lesbian and bisexual students."

“Many adolescents as well as adults may identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual,” reads the booklet, published the Just the Facts Coalition. “This is particularly relevant during adolescence because experimentation and discovery are normal and common during this developmental period.”

The booklet, which claims to include “the most recent information from professional health organizations,” further states:

“Most lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths are healthy individuals who have significant attachments to and make contributions to their families, peers, schools, and religious institutions.

“Thus, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy, has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.”

Conservative groups, in response, have dismissed both the booklet and its “facts.”

"Among the so-called 'facts' in the 24-page document is the opinion that homosexuality is 'a normal expression of human sexuality,'" stated Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), in an email to FRC supporters.

Perkins derided both the NEA and APA in their roles in producing the booklet.

"For years, the organization (NEA) has used teachers' dues to subsidize its top officials' left-wing fanaticism, which includes everything from promoting homosexuality and abortion in schools to pushing birth control," Perkins stated.

“The APA is no better. In the past few decades, the group has gone from listing homosexuality as a mental disorder to becoming one of its biggest champions in the public square,” he added.

Perkins accused the two groups of “using their influence to transform public schools into incubators for their radical social agendas.”

Most recently, in an effort to counter the booklets’ influence in schools, the FRC has released a guide for parents, titled “Homosexuality in your child’s school.”

"Despite decades of activism and media propaganda promoting acceptance and celebration of homosexuality, and a number of political and judicial victories for the pro-homosexual movement, polls show that a clear majority of Americans still believe that homosexual behavior is 'morally wrong,” said Paul Sprigg, vice president for policy of the FRC.

“This pamphlet will equip you to oppose this promotion of homosexuality in your child's school,” he added.

First formed in 1998, the Just the Facts coalition produced the original version of its booklet “to respond to concerns that school personnel were receiving inaccurate information on the issue of sexual orientation.” The updated publication “reflects the coalition’s continuing concern about the safety and well-being of gay, lesbian and bisexual students.”

The coalition is comprised of 13 different groups.

On the Web: www.frc.org

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
  • Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    "As it is, if you are to allow homosexual marriages based on "love", then you must allow incestuous marriages based on "love". There's no way around it."

    I think feet knows that, which is why he refuses to answer directly. Similarly, feet would also be required to accept spouse swapping relationships, threesomes or orgies, and fornicating relationships, provided that they are conducted in the context of loving intimate relationships. But he will not answer for obvious reasons. For if he answers "Yes," I believe even he recognizes how spiritually bankrupt his position is. If he answers "No," then he recognizes that he can no longer logically support his position on homosexuality.

    And all this reference to 'spirit witness' is obviously code for 'whatever I think is right is morally acceptable.'

  • Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Once again, feet continues to associate incest with pedophila. I could find a dozen websites showing how damaging homosexuality is to minors, thus proving my point that homosexuality is an abomination. But we are not talking about homosexuality, or incest, involving minors. We are talking about two consenting adults. So, feet, please remain on topic instead of all this other garbage. Once again, we are not talking about children here. We are talking about adults. So when I speak of incestuous relationships, I am speaking of two consenting adults. I've said that countless times to feet, but he either doesn't realize it, or he purposely ignores it in order to propigate his misled point.
    As it is, if you are to allow homosexual marriages based on "love", then you must allow incestuous marriages based on "love". There's no way around it.

  • Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    iranaeus




    But my eye witness is irrelevant; only the testimony (witness) of the Word of God is relevant.
    And one who obstinately persists in the homosexual lifestyle does not share the same inheritance as Paul clearly states that they will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.

    i only know jesus's designation that by their fruits you will know them. fruits being fruits of the spirit they were given over to..............which requires witness. by what scripture do you get this superceding word of god understanding?


    could you expand on your last paragraph i had difficulty understanding you are asking?


    if you think narth is a valid source of information then the word bias is not in your vocabulary.

    you are right, its a technicality loaded with bias i should never have brought it up.


    these are technicalities that attempt to support legalities.

    but as i said before the only valid testing is thru witness as was done with slavery, as was done in the civil rights movement concerning whites being able to marry blacks. it was a
    minimum of 1800 years after christ before the church openly supported ending these injustices. it was done by over coming suppositions, technicalities, and biblical legalities.

    i gave a website showing how damaging and unloving incest was. personally i was unfortunate enough to have had witnessed it. it leaves me shaken how anyone could even consider it any less damaging than pedophilia.
    i can only say, having been promiscuous in my early years, there was little love, and it was damaging to me.. for the others,do you have one credible source that would say otherwise......................................yourself?
    outside of the realm of promiscuous sex, the term fornication is very broad, its parameters run from masterbation to common law marriages, there is no way to respond to the term.

    according to romans 1:20 all goodness of god can be determined thru what god created, this includes spirit................................hence a spirit witness....spirit witnessing spirit.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Feetxxxl,

    This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

    Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit – Galatians 5:16-25.

    Lasciviousness is an inclination to lustfulness; wantonness; something lewd. This is the lust that is described in Romans chapter one. This chapter highlights those who are unwilling to repent and for this reason God gave them up to their own lusts –

    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: - Romans 1:24.For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: - Romans 1:26.

    It seems that you continue to promote this false dichotomy between the “written code” as you call it and the Spirit. Be careful my friend when you decide to neglect or twist the Word of God to justify any sin. The Holy Spirit is the one who moved upon these men to pen Scripture; so to separate the two is illogical.

    As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction – 2Peter 3:16.

    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost – 2Peter 1:21.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    In response to Prophets question, "You consider unconditional love as a love that will not hold you accountable to remaining in sin?", you stated, " yes, of course." So then, God is either a liar since He is the one who states that he will call all men to render an account; resurrection to life for the righteous, and resurrection to damnation for evildoers or the He does not love everyone unconditionally. Which is it?

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    “here you have term created by paul, that was never used before, and afterwards never used as a term for homosexuality.”

    Come on, feet. You know good and well that that’s not true. We’ve been through this before. According to one commentary I found, the word ARSENOKOITAI is found in some classical Greek literature many years before and after the New Testament made use of the word. It appeared in the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus 6, 10, 25; Anthologia Palatina 9, 686, 5; and Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum viii, 4, p. 196, 6; 8; and the Sibylene Oracles 2, 73 and Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3. Also, other phrases were used to designate the same thing, such as "man who lies with a man as with a woman" or "men who gave up natural relations with a women for unnatural."

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    ”the point is you dont know the spirit of homosexuality let alone its fruits. you've never made an eye, 1john1, witness in the fellowship of christ with your brothers in christ who share your same inheritance, but who happen to be gay.”

    Yes, I do. Don’t tell me what I don’t know. Homosexual behavior is a moral abomination. I know homosexuals who live chastely and those who submit to the sinful lifestyle of the gay culture. But my eye witness is irrelevant; only the testimony (witness) of the Word of God is relevant. And one who obstinately persists in the homosexual lifestyle does not share the same inheritance as Paul clearly states that they will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.

    ”what you know apart from your own disgust is, that the translators included homosexuality with sexual immorality, (if homosexuality is sexually immoral why would it be included, when sexual immoralirty is already designated) adulterers, and thieves, etc. its guilt by association. your logic is. it must have the same essence as the other three. “

    Probably for those who, such as yourself, would attempt to claim that certain sexual acts do not fall under sexual immorality, so for emphasis on the various facets of sexual impurity, some are listed separately. Think about it, the same could be asked (using your exact words) 'if adultery is sexually immoral why would it be included, when sexual immorality is already designated?' Apparently Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was prompted to call out 4 of 10 in his list of sins in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that were sexual in nature.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    “you gave these characterizations..................because your understanding is that homosexuality is at odds with the law.”

    On the contrary, I gave you these characterizations precisely because this is scripture’s understanding of homosexual acts.

    ” licentious........... disregarding accepted rules and standards
    abomination.........something that arrouses great hate and disgust
    perversion..........sexual practices deviating from the norm.

    these could be applied to anything that is considered a sin. but they dont address homosexaulity specifically as to how it comes against loving your neighbor as yourself.”

    But these words are also used in scripture SPECIFICALLY to describe homosexual acts.

    Now for the seventh time, would you then also accept as morally licit (just as you do homosexual relationships) incestuous relationships, spouse swapping relationships, threesomes or orgies, and fornicating relationships, provided that they are conducted in the context of loving intimate relationships?… You know, loving your neighbor as yourself?

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    did you copy and paste from my first post? or did you type it yourself?

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    still not working

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It worked for me. Are you sure you typed it correctly? www.I S A I A H S C R Y.blogspot.com
    I know that sometimes I've misspelled isaiahscry because it's easy to...lol . A lot of times I forget the s or an a.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wouldnt connect!

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    check out my website www.isaiahscry.blogspot.com
    the article titled "What about the Love Part 2"

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i yes, of course

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You consider unconditional love as a love that will not hold you accountable to remaining in sin? A love withou discipline is not love. If your child continually did something illegal or unethical to you, you'd discipline them, but you would still love them. And they may hate you and say that you're not fair, and that you dont love them, but you still do. And it breaks your heart to discipline them or take away a privilege. The same is with God. It tears him up with people continue to be rebellious by remaining in sin. You think that God enjoys disciplining. He doesn't.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Is that question directed at me?

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    why would you consider the love that is of god and is god conditional?

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good. I'm glad to hear that. I'm your neighbor, so you need to love me, regardless of my lifestyle. Even if my lifestyle offends you.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    irs not a lifestyle its a life. its a life that has families, carreers, personal, growth, civic involvement, faith etc...................everything that a heterosexual life would have. he is your neighbor, and yes, supporting his life like you would anyone else is of the spirit of christ.

    the intimate relations that he has with his life pardner are done as an affirmation of the devotion they have to each other , the same as any heterosexual union.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,
    Do you believe that accepting the homosexual lifestyle would be loving my neighbor?

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    They may be Christians, but they're far from Christlike. And if they want to toy with eternity by consciously remaining in sin, then that's their right. They can play the "I can be saved and still sin" game all they want. And they'll lose in the end...no matter how they roll the dice. God's grace is only sufficient for those who are striving to cease from sin, not for those who would use it as an occasion to keep sinning. Homosexuals will find out quickly how misled they were about God's grace. I pray for them, that they discover the truth about God before it's too late.

    The one true God changes people.
    Gay's god is impotent.
    The one true God is lovingly just.
    Gay's god is lax and uncaring.
    The one true God is holy and sinless.
    Gay's god is man-made in gay's image and full of sin.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    irenaeus

    "I am saying the spirit of homosexuality is the spirit of perversion, licentiousness, abomination, etc. The fruit of the spirit is opposed to these things. That's what I'm saying".

    licentious........... disregarding accepted rules and standards
    abomination.........something that arrouses great hate and disgust
    perversion..........sexual practices deviating from the norm.


    you gave these characterizations..................because your understanding is that homosexuality is at odds with the law.

    these could be applied to anything that is considered a sin. but they dont address homosexaulity specifically as to how it comes against loving your neighbor as yourself.

    the point is you dont know the spirit of homosexuality let alone its fruits. you've never made an eye, 1john1, witness in the fellowship of christ with your brothers in christ who share your same inheritance, but who happen to be gay.


    what you know apart from your own disgust is, that the translators included homosexuality with sexual immorality, (if homosexuality is sexually immoral why would it be included, when sexual immoralirty is already designated) adulterers, and thieves, etc. its guilt by association. your logic is. it must have the same essence as the other three.
    that is being led by the law.
    and that is why on some religious internet sites there is a barrage of denegation regarding homosexuality

    being led by the spirit is making an eyewitness assessment in the spirit apart from the law. here is something else apart from the law that is in christ, besides our righteousness.


    homosexuals were rejected by the church and society, and abandoned by friends and family, and subject to possible incareration, assault, and even murder. because society was encouraged by a church, a church that was also being led by the law, and in some cases is still today
    the cry today is we didnt treat them in the right way, because we werent led in the right way but, now we are.

    it is impossible to be led by the law and the spirit at the same time..............................in christ we are led by th spirit

    here you have term created by paul, that was never used before, and afterwards never used as a term for homosexuality. you would think that such uniqueness would inspire witness.but those that transposed it, did it instead legalities, but without any apparent witness thru fellowship, ........................just like what was done with slavery.

    and that is what testing of the prohibition about homosexuality will bring. a new understanding of the depth and fullness of what it means to be led by the spirit. and what it means to witness in fellowship.

    god bless

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    irenaeus and Chris,
    I've gone over the exact same argument with feet, time and time again. Each time he says that incest is not built on love, but homosexuality is. Wrong as it is, he still argues that point. He also continues to equate incest with pedophilia, which in some cases is true (as well as it is true with homosexuals), but not in the case of adults. He also argues that incest is looked down on because of the genetic defects in offspring. But yet, homosexuals can't procreate on their own. So he says "does marriage have to be all about procreation?" which just shoots down his previous comment about incest. But then it comes back around full circle to his argument that it's all about love, but he refuses to acknowledge the love between incestuous adult brother and his sister.
    It's a vicious circle that he keeps running in order to keep from hearing the truth and incriminating his own moral exclusivity.
    He claims that we Christians are exclusive because we will only allow heterosexual marriages.
    He then proves his own exclusiveness by only allowing hetero and homosexual marriages,,,,but nothing else.

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    "being led by the spirit....................so you are saying the spirit of homosexuality is what and the fruit of the spirit is what?"

    I am saying the spirit of homosexuality is the spirit of perversion, licentiousness, abomination, etc. The fruit of the spirit is opposed to these things. That's what I'm saying.

    Now for the sixth time (I think???) would you then also accept as morally licit (just as you do homosexual relationships) incestuous relationships, spouse swapping relationships, threesomes or orgies, and fornicating relationships, provided that they are conducted in the context of loving intimate relationships? I know you have already conceded that unmarried people engaged in a sexual relationship are not sinning.

    By the way, you sound like you are presuming that incest must be taking place between an adult and a minor. Not necessarily so.

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    a nice article, but nothing proves that a father and his 18 year old daughter cannot have a loving relationship. If disorders in children is a problem then one of them can become sterile. Bam no problem, and if they want kids, they can adopt. (Sound familiar?) The CDC has a wonderful article on their website about how homosexuals have a much higher rate of suicide than heterosexuals, well you don't say, "This proves homosexual relationships are bad" (whether or not it does) You just say, "Well, some homosexuals have relationships based on a loving committment" That is fine, but it is not approved of by God, that is what we go by. If you are going to reinterpret God's Word in such a way to approve of homosexuals, then you need a better reason to exclude incestuous relationships than what you gave.

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    chris 333

    lcheck it out.......................................http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/68/Incest.html

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,
    That's incredible. Thats almost exactly what I've heard many experts say about homosexuality.

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    That is not true, you cannot just say, "All incestuous relationships are not based on love" and in the same breath, "Most homosexual relationships are based on love" You also cannot say that they are all a power relationship. It is just not fair. Just like I cannot say that all homosexual relationships are abusive power relationships, where one or both participants had bad relationships with their fathers. (However true or false this statement may be) Rather I can say, "It is just wrong" or "It is just not wrong"

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    right.................................. most cases of incest are generational and are passed down thru many generations. in somet cases a particular female is designated to service the males of the extended family. in all cases incest is when one member has more power than another. in cases where it isnt manifested thru seduction, its another form of pedophilia. in all cases it manifests itself thru low self esteem amd self hatred and exists when there is an absence of familial love in the family

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    right.................................. most cases of incest are generational and are passed down thru many generations. in somet cases a particular female is designated to service the males of the extended family. in all cases incest is when one member has more power than another. in cases where it isnt manifested thru seduction, its another form of pedophilia. in all cases it manifests itself thru low self esteem amd self hatred and exists when there is an absence of familial love in the family

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    iraneaus,
    Don't talk to feet about such things as incest. He's too narrowminded and judgemental to accept those vices. Even when they're in the same "spirit" as homosexuality. And all he'll do is skirt the issue and change the subject. He's nothing but a bag of hot air.

    feet,
    If you were truly lead by the Spirit, you wouldn't have to ask that question.

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    irenaeus

    being led by the spirit....................so you are saying the spirit of homosexuality is what and the fruit of the spirit is what?

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    ”if the translators are saying it is god's intent not to allow same sex bonding. they are assuming they know the mind of god, which scripture says no human does. paul says god no longer speaks to his people thru a ralationship of regulation like he did in lev but instead thru the leading of the spirit whom we now serve of.”

    So then fornication, incest, and bestiality are also now morally licit, correct? After all, none of these moral issues in Leviticus apply today, right?

    “if the translators are making the statement homosexuality means lust they are doing by regulation without witness.where is the spirit witness that there is lust or that this is against loving your neighbor as yourself, the summation of the law. there is no witness. the accusation is by supposition. paul says we are no longer under the law in our covenant with christ. therefore, the translation is not of the covenant.”

    You are equating sexual relations with loving your neighbor? Again, you completely misunderstand what Paul means by no longer being under the law in our covenant with Christ; otherwise, you also have to allow fornication, incest, and bestiality as being morally licit. You are also confusing ceremonial and dietary laws with the moral law. The moral law was never abrogated under the new covenant, which is why even in Christ, Christians are not allowed to commit fornication, adultery, murder, idolatry, incest, bestiality, homosexual acts, licentiousness, etc. Sounds like a bunch of regulations to me...

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    ”if there is a desire that is a sin in the bonding process, it is spirit that one is given
    over to in that bonding process. heterosexuality is an attraction to the opposite sex. if there is a sin in acting out that attraction, it is the spirit that those attracted, are given over to that is the sin, not the essence of being heterosexual.”

    Bingo! Now let’s take your exact same statement and exchange heterosexual for homosexual. Homosexuality is an attraction to the same sex. If there is a sin in acting out that attraction (and it is a sin to act on it), it is the spirit that those attracted, are given over to that is the sin, not the essence of being homosexual.

    In other words, a person could experience same-sex attraction, and while this is a severe deficiency with the human psyche, or as some deem it a 'disordered orientation', then this is no more a sin than a disposition toward kleptomania or alcoholism. But it is the acting out on the inclination that is the sin.

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    ”a desire for human bonding has never been a sin. bonding is to find a life helper in the struggle of living and dealing with being alone and need for intimacy.”

    If that’s true, would you then also accept as morally licit (just as you do homosexual relationships) incestuous relationships, spouse swapping relationships, threesomes or orgies, and fornicating relationships, provided that they are conducted in the context of loving intimate relationships? I know you have already conceded that unmarried people engaged in a sexual relationship are not sinning.

    ”The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’”

    But that’s just it… the helper must be SUITABLE. And certainly within the immediate context of which that statement was made was for a female for the male, NOT a male for the male.

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    ”self abuse is a negative spirit does exist and is of the sin nature. because term is a compound word it is further complicated, because compound words rarely take on meaning of its integral parts. example ladykiller and butterfly”

    I don't know about rarely. But either way, it doesn't help you point. Notice that “malebed” does not mean “a bed of the male gender,” but rather two men engaged in sexual relations with each other.

    ”in the nineteenh and twentieth century there were 11 translators who transposed for this phrase to ‘homosexual’.”

    That’s only because the term ‘homosexual’ is a relatively new word in the English language (late nineteenth, early twentieth century). Prior to the formulation of this term, other English words or phrases were used. It makes sense to update an English translation as the English language evolves.

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    “i thought you understood.............in 1tim and 1cor 6 the literal translation for the greek words in this verse was" malebed". the original kjv translated this in english to mean "abusers of themselves with mankind". .”

    I thought you understood… The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as follows:

    Lev. 18:22 - meta ARSENOS ou koimethese KOITEN gunaikos
    Lev. 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta ARSENOS KOITEN gunaikos

    The use of the terms arsenos and koiten in both verses, especially their juxtaposition in 20:13, presents an obvious parallel to Paul's use of arsenokoitai. Since it is clear that the Hellenistic Jews condemned the homosexuality they encountered in the Greek world, the reasonable conclusion is that arsenokoitai came into use in the intertestamental period, under the influence of the Septuagint of Leviticus, to designate that homoerotic activity the Jews condemned. The plausible conclusion is that the verses in Leviticus not only encouraged the formation of the term but also informed its meaning. And remember we do have a few instances in extrabiblical Greek before and after the NT was written that employ this same term when referring to homosexual acts.

    I Cor 6:9 reads as follows: E ouk oidate hoti adikoi Theou basileian oukleronomesousin? Me planasthe, oute pornoi outeeidololatrai oute moichoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai oute kleptai oute pleonektai, ou methusoi, ouloidoroi, ouch harpages basileian Theou kleronomesousin.

    oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai is the word order which means, “nor boy prostitutes (or if intended generally, the passive male in homosexual act; i.e., effeminate), nor sodomite ([practicing] homosexuals; active male in homosexual act)”

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In First Corinthians 6 the word used is "malakos" which means effeminate. "Effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are two totally separate distinctions in First Corinthians 6. I don't know why you insist on combining them.
    If you look at just the word "abusers" as used in this text. It is the word "arsenokoites" which means "sodomite", or someone involved in sodomy. It comes from the word "arsen" which means "male" and the word "koite" which is "couch" or "cohabitation". And the word "mankind" is also translated from the same word "arsenokoites". So, I get from this scripture that two sodomites (those who have oral or anal copulation with one of the same sex) having sex and/or cohabitating is a sin.

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    arenaeus

    "No, I'm talking about the translations with which you have a problem and what translation 'of old' that you claim is the corrrect one. "

    i thought you understood.............in 1tim and 1cor 6 the literal translation for the greek words in this verse was" malebed". the original kjv translated this in english to mean "abusers of themselves with mankind". .
    self abuse is a negative spirit does exist and is of the sin nature. because term is a compound word it is further complicated, because compound words rarely take on meaning of its integral parts. example ladykiller and butterfly

    in the nineteenh and twentieth century there were 11 translators who transposed for this phrase to "homosexual".

    a desire for human bonding has never been a sin. bonding is to find a life helper in the struggle of living and dealing with being alone and need for intimacy.

    The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."


    if there is a desire that is a sin in the bonding process, it is spirit that one is given
    over to in that bonding process. heterosexuality is an attraction to the opposite sex. if there is a sin in acting out that attraction, it is the spirit that those attracted, are given over to that is the sin, not the essence of being heterosexual.

    if the translators are saying it is god's intent not to allow same sex bonding. they are assuming they know the mind of god, which scripture says no human does. paul says god no longer speaks to his people thru a ralationship of regulation like he did in lev but instead thru the leading of the spirit whom we now serve of.

    this is why the ethnic slavery that was condoned in scripture is now in christ an evil.
    CONTINUED

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    if the translators are saying that the essence of being attracted to the same sex is the sin, without any explanation of spirit. then they are putting homosexuals under the law in the same way that lev said a priest could not marry a widow, or a disfigured man cannot enter the temple, or collecting fire wood on the sabbath was forbidden. a widow and a priest love each other and wish to marry. a man is disfigured but loves worship and longs to attend it. a member gathers firewood for family need. . in the same way, 2 of the same sex love each other and have attractions to each other. . in none of these cases is there an indication of being given over to a sin nature such as hate malice or lust etc. but by law the priest is prevented from marrying, the man is not allowed to attend synogoge, the fanily member is executed if he collects firewood. and if the homosexual attempts to assume the same license as if he were heterosexual he is condemned a sinner.
    that is being under the law.

    if the translators are making the statement homosexuality means lust they are doing by regulation without witness.where is the spirit witness that there is lust or that this is against loving your neighbor as yourself, the summation of the law. there is no witness. the accusation is by supposition. paul says we are no longer under the law in our covenant with christ. therefore, the translation is not of the covenant.

    i went to biblegateway and found out all translators who made the transposition to homsexual, and con tacted them. ive lost track of which ones they are, but all information is on the web site.
    as to what paul was saying i have no idea.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    I think this is about the 4th time to ask you this, so let’s try this again. If you are consistent in your reasoning, would you then also accept as morally licit (just as you do homosexual relationships) incestuous relationships, spouse swapping relationships, threesomes or orgies, and fornicating relationships, provided that they are conducted in the context of loving intimate relationships? I know you have already conceded that unmarried people engaged in a sexual relationship are not sinning.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tom,

    I have been praying for feet ever since I met his cyber-aquaintance a couple of weeks ago. I have heard of people being seriously deluded, but I'm not sure that I've met one this extreme before.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    "you can find everything you need at www.biblegateway.com and then google for email addresses"

    No, I'm talking about the translations with which you have a problem and what translation 'of old' that you claim is the corrrect one.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    "its interesting. i keep quoting scripture, i keep hearing...." that cant be true because............." im not misquoting scripture. you have your own.bibles "

    You have never heard me say, "That can't be true because... " But what you will hear is whether your twisting scripture to suit and rationalize your erroneous position. I never stated that you are misquoting; only that you are misinterpreting and misapplying. I have also quoted scripture demonstrating where you are wrong in your position, but have not responded to most of them or you dismiss them as having vague meanings or as coming from a poor translations.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:37 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    feetxxxl,

    Do you have a response for this passage & post?

    "My witness is that because the fruit of the spirit is of and in homosexual marriages in the same way it is of and in heterosexual marriages, they also are of the spirit of Christ."

    This is the Lord's witness -

    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, - 1Corinthians 6:9.

    This passage clearly speaks against your loose interpretations; it speaks against those (men) who have unsuitable feminine qualities (effeminate) and against those who have ABUSED themselves with mankind. If those who do not repent by God’s grace of fornication and adultery will not enter the kingdom; how is it that you think that those who participate of these unnatural lusts will enter in?

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:40 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Irenaeus and Chris I see you are increasingly fustrated with the agruments of feet. Don't give up. What feet doesn't realize is that he is wrong and he is working the works of the evil one. He has a veil over his eyes. Jesus said the road to heaven is a narrow road. feet believes the road is wide and all will get to heaven thus the reason for what he believes in, which is contary to Scripture. He also fails to realize that the spirit of the anti-christ is also working in the hearts and mans of men, able to deceive even the saints if we are not protected by the blood of Jesus Christ. So pray for him and those like him who are, according to their works/words on the wide road to destruction. Pray that God will reveal himself to them, that they to will one day worship God in Spirit and Truth and walk the narrow road of the Truth of Jesus Christ. Gods Blessing on you all who are defending the Gospel and Gods word. It will be a great day indeed when we hear "well done good and faithful servant" coming from the lips of our Savior. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    John Doe is a chronic rapist. Unfortunately, he has applied your logic and therefore continues raping women and small girls. He is just like you and knows that sin cannot take away his salvation. He swears that he has love in his heart, but even if he didn't sin can't take away his salvation right? Not even hatred!

    So lets see how you would respond to Joe, I know what I would say. Your sad joke has gone on for long enough.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    irenaeus

    Please provide the 11 translations and what the correct translation prior to their erroneous change as I would like to look into this

    you can find everything you need at www.biblegateway.com and then google for email addresses

  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    irenaeus

    its interesting. i keep quoting scripture, i keep hearing...." that cant be true because............." im not misquoting scripture. you have your own.bibles





    you are concerned that if we are now led by and serve of the spirit.................people will do anything they want. but that has always been the case.

    are you saying that love in our hearts will account for nothing.


    iyou are concerned that men will not sin, unless they have the threat of loosing their salvation. they will not have it anyway. because they cannot receive it by not sinning, that would be by.works. and we know we receive it, not by works, but by grace thru faith.


    therefore those in christ who do not sin, do not sin because of threat of loosing salvation, but instead for the love of christ and god, for loving ones neighbor as one loves oneself, and for loving one another as christ loved us.

    1cor13: 1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I GAIN nothing.

  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:52 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    I’m not sure how to address a person who is so abject and deceived as to believe that Jesus paid for it all, and since we are now under grace and no longer under the law, we therefore can live however we want. I thought this was the definition of licentiousness. feet, isn’t licentiousness condemned in the scriptures. How can licentiousness ever be a concern if your interpretation of being under grace and not under law is correct? Jude actually sounds as if he is addressing a person just like yourself: “[G]odless men, who pervert the grace of our God into license for immorality (licentiousness) and deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ” – Jude 4.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links