Religious Beliefs Based only on the Christian Bible Must Condemn Homosexual Relationships

Pro: "Look a translation of the bible is just as subjective as the belief of what the individual words mean, do you not realize that the translations that you read are simply the individual interpretations of different organizations?" Translations of phrases and entire passages can be subjective, but the translation of a single word isn't. Pro: "you have simply said that this text is mistranslated because this means something else, very elaborate I might say, but not proof." I have offered proof that the word has been mistranslated, and given it's literal translated meaning. No one can actually decided on the meaning of the word, but most scholars are certain that arsenokoitai does not refer to homosexuals. The Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 is along the lines of "arsen should not koitai with arsen". This is were the confusion arises with arsenokoitai, but without a qualifier after koitai, all we know is that Paul is referring to a man who has sex but we don't know with who. This is why it's important that we look at the context of the word. The closest word to arsenokoitai that could relate is malakos, with is used elsewhere in the bible to reffer to both sexes as sperate times. So it could be that Paul is talking about men who have sex with malakos, which can be either male or female. The most prominent researcher on this subject, the professor of religious studies at Yale University, Dr. Dale Martin, states that the meaning of arsenokoitai is extremely obscure and most likely doesn't mean homosexual. He also goes on to say that it shouldn't be used to condemn them. [1] Pro- "Also you are trying to claim that if homosexual relationships are a sin, the bible says nothing on female homosexuality, this is were I see a bit of a hidden problem, you see the bible addressees the whole of human creation as man" This is true, but the use of man to mean both a single male and all of mankind is only found in English. In both Greek and Hebrew there are completely separate words for man and mankind and at no point does the Greek word for man (arsen) ever refer to the entirety of humanity [2]. The Hebrew word for man (ish) used in Leviticus 18:22 refers only to a man or a group of men, but it is never used to refer in anyway to a female. The Hebrew word for mankind is enosh, which is not used in Leviticus, but as we've established before, Christians are not bound be Levitical Law. Therefore my point about lesbianism still stands. Pro- "another problem with that is that you are saying that just because the bible does not expressively condemn something, that it supports it?" I never said the Bible supports it. The Bible is mute on the subject. The Bible is also mute on the subject of playing professional sports, but it would be ridiculous to condemn those who play professional sports because the Bible doesn't support such action. The Bible does, however, support the owning of slaves and does not condemn those who own them. As such the Bible has been used in the past to justify racism and bigotry, just as it is being used now to justify anti-homosexual stances. Pro- "the bible never expressively condemns me planting a grenade in a building belonging to someone else and letting it go off while no ones there, in effect destroying someone's home while they are gone, the bible never mentions those exact words so does that mean I should go ahead and do it?" The Bible does condemn you for doing so, as doing this would violate Jesus' words when he told us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Blowing up a house would belonging to some else is indirectly condemned in that it might not be expressly written, but it violates a greater commandment as stated by Jesus. Homosexual relationships on the other hand are not condemned directly or indirectly through other commandments. Pro- "At last if you refuse to believe all of this, remember that homosexuality, as drinking etc... is a falter to those trying to come to Christ, things that if are not sinful in nature, are sinful because you do not need them and are causing those who are weak in there faith to falter because of our desires to do as we wish because we believe what we do is not sinful" Under this logic someone could condemn anything by saying that it causes them to falter in their faith. For instance, a Pentecostal could condemn women for cutting their hair by saying that they perceive it is sinful. Women cutting their hair is not necessary and not supported by the Bible. Paul speaks on this in Romans when he talks to believers about whether or not they should eat meat sacrificed to idols. His conclusion that eating this meat is not sinful but if you are around someone who thinks it is then don't do it. The same can be said for the Christian homosexual, it isn't sinful, but you might not want to parade it around in front of people who think it is sinful. The problem here is not with sin or with god, but with other peoples prejudices. As you can see, the Bible at no point condemns homosexual relationships or fully sexual lesbian relationships. [1] http://www.clgs.org... [2] http://strongsnumbers.com... http://www.stjohnsmcc.org...