|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:01 pm
Xairip PirateEire i like burnination Quote: Then there's those laws in the OT that are trumped by the Law of Agape. and then there's those laws that are confirmed by Paul to still apply. So you take Paul's word over Jesus's? Xairip Ah, but don't sex and marriage go hand in hand? I mean, have you ever heard of a marriage without sex? I haven't. I have. I'm sure that you're also aware that sex exists outside of marriage as well. Laws on sex do not dictate laws on marriage, nor vice versa, in modern day society, now do they? I never said that they did. =P I just said that, according to your logic, that it's only if they have sex that they're sinning. But, since most marriages involve sex, even gay ones, the gay marriages therefore involve sinning. But a gay couple having sex is not a sin according to the most acurate translation of "phusin." It is a sin for an innately straight person to have gay sex. It says nothing against those who are innately gay, and who have gay sex.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:01 pm
PirateEire Xairip PirateEire i like burnination Quote: Then there's those laws in the OT that are trumped by the Law of Agape. and then there's those laws that are confirmed by Paul to still apply. So you take Paul's word over Jesus's? Xairip Ah, but don't sex and marriage go hand in hand? I mean, have you ever heard of a marriage without sex? I haven't. I have. I'm sure that you're also aware that sex exists outside of marriage as well. Laws on sex do not dictate laws on marriage, nor vice versa, in modern day society, now do they? I never said that they did. =P I just said that, according to your logic, that it's only if they have sex that they're sinning. But, since most marriages involve sex, even gay ones, the gay marriages therefore involve sinning. But a gay couple having sex is not a sin according to the most acurate translation of "phusin." It is a sin for an innately straight person to have gay sex. It says nothing against those who are innately gay, and who have gay sex. Proof, please. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:40 pm
Xairip PirateEire Xairip PirateEire i like burnination and then there's those laws that are confirmed by Paul to still apply. So you take Paul's word over Jesus's? Xairip Ah, but don't sex and marriage go hand in hand? I mean, have you ever heard of a marriage without sex? I haven't. I have. I'm sure that you're also aware that sex exists outside of marriage as well. Laws on sex do not dictate laws on marriage, nor vice versa, in modern day society, now do they? I never said that they did. =P I just said that, according to your logic, that it's only if they have sex that they're sinning. But, since most marriages involve sex, even gay ones, the gay marriages therefore involve sinning. But a gay couple having sex is not a sin according to the most acurate translation of "phusin." It is a sin for an innately straight person to have gay sex. It says nothing against those who are innately gay, and who have gay sex. Proof, please. ^^ Allow me to introduce you to something called "Burden of Proof". If you make a claim that someone is at fault(namely, Homosexuals), You are the one responsible to provide proof. The American Justice System works simalirly, with what is best known as "Innocent until proven Guilty". It is now your burden to support a statement that a Homosexual Marriage is in fact, a Sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:18 pm
PirateEire Xairip PirateEire i like burnination Quote: Then there's those laws in the OT that are trumped by the Law of Agape. and then there's those laws that are confirmed by Paul to still apply. So you take Paul's word over Jesus's? Xairip Ah, but don't sex and marriage go hand in hand? I mean, have you ever heard of a marriage without sex? I haven't. I have. I'm sure that you're also aware that sex exists outside of marriage as well. Laws on sex do not dictate laws on marriage, nor vice versa, in modern day society, now do they? I never said that they did. =P I just said that, according to your logic, that it's only if they have sex that they're sinning. But, since most marriages involve sex, even gay ones, the gay marriages therefore involve sinning. But a gay couple having sex is not a sin according to the most acurate translation of "phusin." wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:16 am
*wanders in*
So I didn't read the entire thread... got rather tedious after the first 3 pages... but I just wanted to throw a thought out there...
Since marriage is just a 'piece of paper', why can't gay couples just get legally married under the law? Why does the church have to be involved anyways?... If the church doesn't want to marry a homosexual couple, why can't they just not marry them? If the church wants to marry a homosexual couple, I guess that works too. But if church and state are so seperate, wouldn't getting married under the church be unneccessary unless the couple themselves wanted to, in which case, it's their problem to find a church that would do so?
In short... why should the government care if they're of the same gender?
And if it's a matter of the church allowing the government to allow homosexual marriage, well, I don't think it's the church's place to say that. Sure, vote no on it all you want, that's what democracy is about, right? But trying to trump the laws of democracy with personal beliefs is kind of silly, don't you think?
Furthermore, why should the church forbid legal marriage? If it's not under the sacred matrimony, it's not like it's an actual marriage under the church's beliefs (technically speaking), right? As stated previously, all sinners (not saying that homosexuals are sinners, but if you should so see them that way) have the right to choose to sin or not. Isn't that why the forbidden fruit was placed in Eden in the first place? Who are we to remove that God given right? Not only is that against the Bible, it's against our constituion...
I personally don't believe in homosexual marriage through the church (sorry... just don't). If I were a clergyman, no, I wouldn't go through with it. But I'm not a clergyman, nor the King of the church. If the church wants to, I'm not going to scream blasphemy and change my religion. If homosexuals get married under the law, by all means, right on, they have my support.
I just don't see why this would be an issue for the government. Or why the church should make it an issue for the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:58 pm
Se Ga Takai Xairip PirateEire Xairip PirateEire So you take Paul's word over Jesus's? I have. I'm sure that you're also aware that sex exists outside of marriage as well. Laws on sex do not dictate laws on marriage, nor vice versa, in modern day society, now do they? I never said that they did. =P I just said that, according to your logic, that it's only if they have sex that they're sinning. But, since most marriages involve sex, even gay ones, the gay marriages therefore involve sinning. But a gay couple having sex is not a sin according to the most acurate translation of "phusin." It is a sin for an innately straight person to have gay sex. It says nothing against those who are innately gay, and who have gay sex. Proof, please. ^^ Allow me to introduce you to something called "Burden of Proof". If you make a claim that someone is at fault(namely, Homosexuals), You are the one responsible to provide proof. The American Justice System works simalirly, with what is best known as "Innocent until proven Guilty". It is now your burden to support a statement that a Homosexual Marriage is in fact, a Sin. Ok, here you go: 1 Corinthians 6:9 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:18 pm
care to Elaborate on the difference between a Homosexual and a Homosexual Offender?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:34 am
Se Ga Takai care to Elaborate on the difference between a Homosexual and a Homosexual Offender? There's another verse about it, but I can't seem to locate it right now. And I'm guessing Offender is someone who is a practicing homosexual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:24 am
Offender, people... Rapists.
Does the story of Mr. Lot in Sodom ring a bell? Remember those crazy citizens? Rapists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:51 am
Xairip Ok, here you go: 1 Corinthians 6:9 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 What in the nine hells has that got to do with the word "phusin?" You're straying off topic in an attempt to prove that the Bible speaks against homosexuals and homosexuality. According to Aristotle, there are 4 different types of nature, if you will. Nature, as we know it--the green stuff, weather, the environment, land, etc etc... is "phusis." The next is "phusei," which means "to come by nature" as in an illustration or perpetuation of something that does have a nature. Then we have " kata phusin," or "t o happen in accordance or as a result of a certain/innate nature." The last is to simply have a certain/ innate nature. " phusin echein." Back onto the whole "arsenokoitai" thing. Arsenokoitai is a difficult word to translate, not unlike malokoi, as they both had much different connotations, as well as complex definitions in the time that Paul recorded the verse Xairip quoted. ... Anyway, Draycore, well said. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:00 pm
PirateEire Anyway, Draycore, well said. biggrin How did I miss that post? Yeah, Draycore, very well said. Stated better than I could have, apparently sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:04 pm
PirateEire Xairip Ok, here you go: 1 Corinthians 6:9 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 What in the nine hells has that got to do with the word "phusin?" You're straying off topic in an attempt to prove that the Bible speaks against homosexuals and homosexuality. According to Aristotle, there are 4 different types of nature, if you will. Nature, as we know it--the green stuff, weather, the environment, land, etc etc... is "phusis." The next is "phusei," which means "to come by nature" as in an illustration or perpetuation of something that does have a nature. Then we have " kata phusin," or "t o happen in accordance or as a result of a certain/innate nature." The last is to simply have a certain/ innate nature. " phusin echein." Back onto the whole "arsenokoitai" thing. Arsenokoitai is a difficult word to translate, not unlike malokoi, as they both had much different connotations, as well as complex definitions in the time that Paul recorded the verse Xairip quoted. ... Anyway, Draycore, well said. biggrin I wasn't straying off topic. You told me to give you proof that it's a sin, and I did. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:27 pm
so ... Aristotle did not believe in human nature?
besides, we're not arguing philosophy. we're arguing Greek semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:15 pm
Xairip I wasn't straying off topic. You told me to give you proof that it's a sin, and I did. neutral That was Se Ga Takai who asked for proof. So, then... Both Takai and myself contested your proof as it were anywho, so do we get a response or no? You know. "OFFENDER" and such?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
