Church stance on gay marriage "for good of society", says Bishop Michael Nazi

[kılıç_mehmet]

There are no passages which speak to homosexuality as a sin.

In the bible? I guess the law of Moses speaks very clearly about those who commit sodomy. But I'm not sure what the official stance is about just "being" homosexual without including sexual acts.

We seem to be far less tolerant of such relationships today than we were in the distant past.

Well, I don't know, I am fairly certain that even those who engaged in homosexual acts with others of their sex would simply do this with younger members, not with fully grown men as it's done today, neither would they have such a thing in terms of marital law, but I guess it was prevalent in Rome once.
As you probably notice, it always talks about "lovers" not husbands-husbands or whatever word one uses to denote the roles of spouses in a homosexual marriage.
I think that further stigmatizing homosexuality is an unnecessary thing in the times we live in, but really, my personal opinion on marriage only includes the way it has always been.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh does it? Chapter and verse? Let's see what it has to say about homosexuality.

-and then I'm going to remind you that the NT provides a new covenant, a new order, or doesn't, depending on who you ask.

(I'm sure you'd like to paint homosexuals all the way back to antiquity as pedophiles, but no one really gives a shit what picture you'd like to paint in this regard, we've already heard what you have to say. You're mistaken.)

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

There's actually several verses in modern translations that make readers think homosexuality it is sin. The OT law passages, Sodom story, the various sin lists in the NT, the Romans 1-2 passage, and verse in Jude. But some say these are mistranslations or bad readings.

[The Grand Nudger]

All mis-translations, and all in service of bigotry. That's precisely the problem. Apparently, the bible can say whatever one wishes for it to say, even two things at once, in one breath. That any given translation has a strange habit of being precisely in line with the cultural or ethical leanings of the translator doesn't even seem to register as a blip on the radar. Do you loathe homosexuality? So does God! You're okay with homosexuality? What luck, so is God!

[kılıç_mehmet]

Oh does it? Chapter and verse? Let's see what it has to say about homosexuality.

-and then I'm going to remind you that the NT provides a new covenant, a new order, or doesn't, depending on who you ask.

(I'm sure you'd like to paint homosexuals all the way back to antiquity as pedophiles, but no one really gives a shit what picture you'd like to paint in this regard, we've already heard what you have to say. You're mistaken.)

Leviticus 18:22.
I don't know how more open this could get.
It's the same in the Turkish and German versions I've read. They all say the same thing.
Besides, does it really matter if the NT provides a new covenant?

But some say these are mistranslations or bad readings.

Well, I never saw any other translation, really. They are the same in all languages.
They all condemn homosexual acts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Had you actually read the thread, you would have realized that this was precisely the passage I discussed several posts back. It is very open, and how you managed to misinterpret it isn't exactly a mystery to me. You don't like teh gayz.

Let me ask you a question, why do you think they decided to add a qualifier in here? If they had stopped with. "Do not have sexual relations with a man" that would have been a pretty clear message, right? I don't see how anyone would find a lack of clarity in such a statement. No, no, they apparently had something much more specific in mind.

I'm going to repeat this again. There isn't anything in there that says god hates fags. It's tough for me to say it, I really want it to be in there, it just isn't. That's in the hearts of the people turning the pages, not found in the words themselves.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

....

Well, I never saw any other translation, really. They are the same in all languages.
They all condemn homosexual acts.

The issue centers around the exact meaning of "arsenokoitēs." When you see "homosexual," or "effeminate" in your Bible, it's that word translated. 20th century translations render it "homosexual." Most scholars I think are dead set that it really means "homosexual" but there are a number of scholars who argue that it probably doesn't. According to the books I've read, we're not really certain what the word means. I'm not a Christian anymore so I'm not really concerned about the issue, but if you're Christian, you may want to look into the debate.

Countryman has written a book about interpreting Biblical sexual ethics in light of historical context. He has this to say on the word (apologies if this quote is too long):

Arsenokoitai is of uncertain meaning. It contains basic elements referring to male gender and to sexual intercourse, and the King James translators, presumably relying on the guidance of etymology, used the peculiar phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind." The original edition of the Revised Standard Version combined the two terns and translated them "homosexuals." The second edition substituted "sexual perverts." The great problem with analyzing this vocabulary is that arsenokoitai never appears in a context that can give us a clear sense of exactly what the term meant to Paul or to Paul's audience or even for some centuries thereafter. There is no certain instance of it prior to the New Testament writings, and it occurs only one other time in the New Testament itself again in a list and this time without malakoi (1 Tim. 1: 10, a post-Pauline writing). Its etymology could suggest some such meaning as "a man who has intercourse with another man," but etymology is a notoriously bad guide to the actual, live meanings of words. In American English, for example, "outbuilding" and "outhouse" are synonymous in terms of etymology, but quite different in usage, the one meaning any outlying building on a farm, the other meaning a latrine. Usage, not etymology, determines meaning.

...

There have been two major suggestions about the meaning of Paul's terns. One, put forward by Robin Scroggs, proposes that malakoi and arsenokoitai functioned together as Greek equivalents to technical terminology in rabbinic Hebrew that designated, respectively, the penetrated and penetrative partners in anal intercourse. The terns, on this interpretation, would have been closely tied to the purity law of Leviticus and its interpretation in the scribal tradition.50 The other suggestion, made by John Boswell, holds that there was no intrinsic connection between malakoi and arsenokoitai, that the former word, if it had anything at all do with sexual activity, meant "masturbators," and that the latter was probably a vulgar expression meaning "male prostitutes." If this is correct, it would be unclear whether Paul's use of the term was meant to condemn them for same-gender sexual acts or for acts of prostitution or both.51 Scroggs's argument implies that the two terms malakoi and arsenokoitai should form an invariable pair because neither would have the same import without the other. Yet in its one other occurrence in the New Testament, arsenokoitai appears without malakoi and is associated rather with "those given to harlotry" and "kidnappers" (1 Tian. 1: 10). Furthermore, if Paul was indeed employing technical terminology used in the synagogue and reaffirming it in the context of the church, we should expect knowledge of this usage to continue, but the later record is at best mixed, with little evidence for arsenokoites as meaning anything like "homosexual."52 Then, too, Scroggs's hypothesis is complex, requiring us to understand the vocabulary in terns of a double linguistic and cultural tradition, whereas Boswell's hypothesis stays entirely within the bounds of the Greek-speaking world. This does not prove that Scroggs is mistaken, but, other considerations being at least equal, the simpler hypothesis is preferable.53 More recently, Dale B. Martin has presented strong arguments against the linking of the two words and has demonstrated once again that we simply do not have any adequate evidence to tell us what arsenokoites meant.

L. William Countryman. Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Kindle Locations 1672-1700). Kindle Edition.

[kılıç_mehmet]

20th century translations render it "homosexual."

Well, I'm not really a fan of biblical revisionism. I think that things are rather clear. Translations of not, Judaism also views homosexuality as a sin.
And well, there is no certain "word" that is used in the verse I've posted. It describes the act in full, as you see. It doesn't call them this or that, it just describes the act, and deems it worthy of death. A mortal sin.
That is all.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't. Many jews view it as a sin, many christians view it as a sin. Their god is silent on the matter (as he is in all matters, in any case). Things are rather clear, you are mistaken.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

20th century translations render it "homosexual."

Well, I'm not really a fan of biblical revisionism. I think that things are rather clear. Translations of not, Judaism also views homosexuality as a sin.
And well, there is no certain "word" that is used in the verse I've posted. It describes the act in full, as you see. It doesn't call them this or that, it just describes the act, and deems it worthy of death. A mortal sin.
That is all.

Well, revisionism is only bad if it's revising something that was already correct. If the revisionism is actually correct, then what's wrong with that?

It sounds like you're thinking of the Romans chap 1-2 message. When you get down to the original text and deal with the grammar, people like Countryman will argue that the text really says that God *made* the gentiles like homosexual acts as punishment for not worshiping him. It's a subtle but important difference.

Again, these people could be wrong, but I'm just letting you aware that the view that the Bible condemns homosexuality is on shaky ground.

EDIT: on the Leviticus 18:22 passage. If I remember correctly that might have connection to cultic worship acts in OT days, not just two guy's loving each other in San Fran like us moderns think of homosexuality.