|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:34 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Jedediah Smith No, "burned in their lust one toward another men with men," not together. Any sexual desire (lust) is sinful except within the marriage union. Okay, so lust is bad. What does this have to do with homosexuality? Are you saying that gay lust is worse than straight lust, because the verse doesn't support that. I'm trying to show that homosexual relations is sinful. I'm trying not to present gay lust is worse than straight lust, that would be unbiblical. Tangled Up In Blue Jedediah Smith Why you say? Their actions are unnatural according to verse 26. Yeah, but as I pointed out earlier, it's unclear how it's unnatural. It's entirely possible that, as a punishment, God gave a bunch of straight people over to homosexual lusts, which would be unnatural in the sense that said lusts would be against their intrinsic nature (an interpretation that would be supported by one of the definitions of the Greek word phusis). God didn't gave anything, God left the idolatries in Romans 1. You are calling God a hypocrite if you say that God wanted them to lust. Tangled Up In Blue Or maybe God was very specific and made a bunch of Roman men desire to be the 'receiving' partner, a condition that would be very shameful and 'unnatural' for a Roman citizen, who, according to social prejudices, should always be on top, as it were. Again, your saying that God wanted the men to lust. These interpretations do not work. Tangled Up In Blue In interpreting Romans 1 you're ignoring both the varied connotations of phusis and the prevailing social mores of the people that Paul was writing to, all in the interest of furthering an agenda rather than performing careful biblical exegesis. I'm systematic, I gather the text around scripture and make an interpretation. So here is my interpretation... Romans 1 deals with the creation rebelling against God in exchanging God’s glory and relationship with Him for idolatry. So, since they inverted the order, God inverts them, and "abandons them to their own lustful passions and desires so that men burn in their passion one for the other and women left their natural use" [Rom. 1:26]. The key, of course, is the term "natural use." That takes us back to Genesis 1: the natural use of the woman is to be the mate of the man. I think that that is a very strong position. The Jews hold this position very strongly, though not in those exact terms. You are also avoiding the issues of same-sex marriage. If homosexuality is not condemned then you are going to find a dead end about avoiding adultery for homosexuals because same-sex marriage philosophy does not exist in the Bible. Therefore, homosexual sexual relations are sinful because there is no union for homosexuals. "I say to the unmarried and to widows, if you do not have self-control, then marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with lust. Each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." 1 Corinthians 7
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:45 pm
Jedediah Smith I'm trying to show that homosexual relations is sinful. I'm trying not to present gay lust is worse than straight lust, that would be unbiblical. And pointing out that Romans one speaks negatively of lust, be it gay or straight, doesn't help prove your argument that homosexuality is a sin, which is what I'm trying to show. Quote: God didn't gave anything, God left the idolatries in Romans 1. You are calling God a hypocrite if you say that God wanted them to lust. Quote: Again, your saying that God wanted the men to lust. These interpretations do not work. If you're going to advance an argument, you should at least endeavor not to contradict it later on in your post: Quote: So, since they inverted the order, God inverts them, and "abandons them to their own lustful passions and desires so that men burn in their passion one for the other and women left their natural use" [Rom. 1:26]. The key, of course, is the term "natural use." Emphasis mine, of course. The wording's different but your premise is the same as mine: God punitively altered the nature of the people in question in order to punish them for 'exchang[ing] the truth of God for a lie'. Time to start backpedaling. Quote: Romans 1 deals with the creation rebelling against God in exchanging God’s glory and relationship with Him for idolatry. So, since they inverted the order, God inverts them, and "abandons them to their own lustful passions and desires so that men burn in their passion one for the other and women left their natural use" [Rom. 1:26]. The key, of course, is the term "natural use." Which you again insist in shoehorning into a very narrow definition of 'natural' that is not reflected in the Greek Quote: That takes us back to Genesis 1: the natural use of the woman is to be the mate of the man. I think that that is a very strong position. The Jews hold this position very strongly, though not in those exact terms. Never mind, of course, that many English translations use the word 'relations' or some similar rather than 'use'. Acknowledging that little piece of differing translation would undercut your argument, wouldn't it? Quote: You are also avoiding the issues of same-sex marriage. If homosexuality is not condemned then you are going to find a dead end about avoiding adultery for homosexuals because same-sex marriage philosophy does not exist in the Bible. Therefore, homosexual sexual relations are sinful because there is no union for homosexuals. Does the bible expressly forbid homosexual marriage? Not last I checked. True, I suppose you could extrapolate such ban from other biblical passages by interpreting them very, very narrowly, but otherwise there's nothing that says it can't be done. And, as you point out, it does say that if you burn with lust you ought to marry. In point of fact, given the logic of the Corinthians verse that you cite, aren't we doing homosexuals a grave disservice, forcing them into sin, as it were, by forbidding them to marry? Forcing a group of people to live adulterous lives doesn't seem to be in keeping with Christian ethos if you ask me. If homosexual sex isn’t in and of itself a sin, then the only reason that homosexual relationships are sinful is because society has made them sinful by denying them the right to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:50 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Jedediah Smith I'm trying to show that homosexual relations is sinful. I'm trying not to present gay lust is worse than straight lust, that would be unbiblical. And pointing out that Romans one speaks negatively of lust, be it gay or straight, doesn't help prove your argument that homosexuality is a sin, which is what I'm trying to show. I think it helps my argument. Tangled Up In Blue If you're going to advance an argument, you should at least endeavor not to contradict it later on in your post: My posts are not contradicting, read below. Tangled Up In Blue Emphasis mine, of course. The wording's different but your premise is the same as mine: God punitively altered the nature of the people in question in order to punish them for 'exchang[ing] the truth of God for a lie'. Time to start backpedaling. Hold on one second, I didn't say that God punitively altered the nature of the people. God didn't altered anything, he abandon the people because of their idolatrous practices. Tangled Up In Blue Which you again insist in shoehorning into a very narrow definition of 'natural' that is not reflected in the Greek I think my interpretation fits nicely with the Greek definition. Tangled Up In Blue Never mind, of course, that many English translations use the word 'relations' or some similar rather than 'use'. Acknowledging that little piece of differing translation would undercut your argument, wouldn't it? No. Tangled Up In Blue Does the bible expressly forbid homosexual marriage? Not last I checked. True, I suppose you could extrapolate such ban from other biblical passages by interpreting them very, very narrowly, but otherwise there's nothing that says it can't be done. And, as you point out, it does say that if you burn with lust you ought to marry. In point of fact, given the logic of the Corinthians verse that you cite, aren't we doing homosexuals a grave disservice, forcing them into sin, as it were, by forbidding them to marry? Forcing a group of people to live adulterous lives doesn't seem to be in keeping with Christian ethos if you ask me. If homosexual sex isn’t in and of itself a sin, then the only reason that homosexual relationships are sinful is because society has made them sinful by denying them the right to marry. You cannot compromise secular ideology of marriage with biblical marriage. Does the Bible forbid praying to Mary? Not last I checked. You dont fill in scripture, you follow it. Marriage is for heterosexuals according to the terminology used in almost every book of the Bible. Same-sex marriage ideology is based on secular position of marriage. By scripture alone, the Word of God, both New and Old Testament, same-sex marriage does not exist in Christianity or Judaism. Same-sex and bestiality marriage falls into the man made category. "Each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." 1Cor 7:2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:52 pm
Here's another verse about homosexuality:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9, 10
Now who are those "Christians" who claim homosexuality is not a sin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:34 pm
Why Ananel's thesis is wrong. =)
1) There is no Greek word for homosexuality, instead, as said in Ananel's thesis Paul used "Arsenokoites" (I Corinthians 6: (which is a term that refers to pedastry between a boy and a tutor, which was common in Greek times).
Paul was writing this to get the message over to the Greek people in Corinth as easy as possible.
2) Ananel says that Ezekiel 16 doesn't mention homosexuality. He's right, but it does mention "detestable things". As Ananel said, there was such rampant and horiffic acts of sex along with homosexuality that the Bible dares not discuss them. This is evidenced by the Bibles lack of other terms that refer to extreme sexual acts.
3) In Acts 15 it says that we shouldn't follow the Jewish Law anymore and therefore negates Leviticus 18:22. WRONG, it says that we should not follow the Jewish Law except for eating the meat of strangled animals, food offerered to idols and sexual immorality. Hmm, seems pretty clear to me that it covers Levitius 18:22.
4) Again in Corinthians in verse 6:8 Paul covers all of his bases by saying that we should not do such things as adultry. What else could homosexuality refer to? Theres only one clear answer, homosexuality, duh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:25 pm
SUPERSQUIRRELX 1) There is no Greek word for homosexuality, instead, as said in Ananel's thesis Paul used "Arsenokoites" (I Corinthians 6: (which is a term that refers to pedastry between a boy and a tutor, which was common in Greek times). Paul was writing this to get the message over to the Greek people in Corinth as easy as possible. That... doesn't prove anything. At all. What, exactly, is the point of this section? SUPERSQUIRRELX 2) Ananel says that Ezekiel 16 doesn't mention homosexuality. He's right, but it does mention "detestable things". As Ananel said, there was such rampant and horiffic acts of sex along with homosexuality that the Bible dares not discuss them. This is evidenced by the Bibles lack of other terms that refer to extreme sexual acts. Which doesn't condemn homosexuality in any way. In fact, you're just repeating what Ananel said. SUPERSQUIRRELX 3) In Acts 15 it says that we shouldn't follow the Jewish Law anymore and therefore negates Leviticus 18:22. WRONG, it says that we should not follow the Jewish Law except for eating the meat of strangled animals, food offerered to idols and sexual immorality. Hmm, seems pretty clear to me that it covers Levitius 18:22. Chapter and verse? SUPERSQUIRRELX 4) Again in Corinthians in verse 6:8 Paul covers all of his bases by saying that we should not do such things as adultry. What else could homosexuality refer to? Theres only one clear answer, homosexuality, duh. adultery could refer to the act of, you know, adultery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:29 pm
im not down with homosexuality, it falls along the same lines as say being lustful. my proof?
well, if you honestly cant help being attracted to the same sex, does that mean you have to engage in a sinful practise? its simple, gay or not remain abstinent, and if you do mess up, god will forgive you
i see homosexuality as a sin, but i think god will forgive you for it if you truly repent, if your a good person then theres nothing to worry about it, just dont give me the excuse "ohh you cant help being gay" cause that may or may not be true, but what you can help is committing those sinful acts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:27 pm
pimpkilla2 im not down with homosexuality, it falls along the same lines as say being lustful. my proof? well, if you honestly cant help being attracted to the same sex, does that mean you have to engage in a sinful practise? its simple, gay or not remain abstinent, and if you do mess up, god will forgive you You realize that none of what you just said actually proves that homosexuality (or at least, having hot ghey sexx) is sinful, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:14 pm
Sinner pimpkilla2 im not down with homosexuality, it falls along the same lines as say being lustful. my proof? well, if you honestly cant help being attracted to the same sex, does that mean you have to engage in a sinful practise? its simple, gay or not remain abstinent, and if you do mess up, god will forgive you You realize that none of what you just said actually proves that homosexuality (or at least, having hot ghey sexx) is sinful, right? my stance was clear (or at least i thought it was) i percieve homosexual acts a sin from what i understand you cant help being attracted to someone from the same sex or whatever, what you can help is how you act, its called self control, and it goes for both men and women, straight and gay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:14 pm
pimpkilla2 my stance was clear (or at least i thought it was) i percieve homosexual acts a sin That's fine. But nothing you've said so far serves to justify this belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:56 pm
Sinner pimpkilla2 my stance was clear (or at least i thought it was) i percieve homosexual acts a sin That's fine. But nothing you've said so far serves to justify this belief. well rather than try and refute my posts with conjecture, why dont you try and prove me wrong? if i havent made any real claims to back it up, then it would be easy right? (like you can disprove an opinion more so, its kinda like telling a dog hes stupid for having 4 legs, its not going to change nothing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:06 pm
pimpkilla2 well rather than try and refute my posts with conjecture, why dont you try and prove me wrong? if i havent made any real claims to back it up, then it would be easy right? (like you can disprove an opinion more so, its kinda like telling a dog hes stupid for having 4 legs, its not going to change nothing) No, you don't get it. There's nothing to refute. All you've done is stated your opinion, you haven't backed it up at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:20 pm
Sinner pimpkilla2 well rather than try and refute my posts with conjecture, why dont you try and prove me wrong? if i havent made any real claims to back it up, then it would be easy right? (like you can disprove an opinion more so, its kinda like telling a dog hes stupid for having 4 legs, its not going to change nothing) No, you don't get it. There's nothing to refute. All you've done is stated your opinion, you haven't backed it up at all. ok then, what are you doing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:46 pm
What did I say about logical fallacies on the rules post, which I'm sure you all read?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:39 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Looks like the thread's going to be kicked off with a discussion of the applicability of ceremonial law post-Christ. Alumnus "22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22 "He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code [i.e. the ceremonial laws of Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy], with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." - Colossians 2:13-14 (Emphasis mine.) Or, to put it another way, do you, per chance, eat shellfish? Quote: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." In the Greek, the word translated as 'unnatural' or 'against nature' can have several different connotations. It can mean something against nature, but it can also refer to something that is against and individual's nature, or against a society's prevailing social mores. For example, among the Romans, to whom Paul's letter is addressed, it would be considered 'unnatural' for a Roman citizen to take the 'bottom' role in a homosexual relationship insomuch as it would be emasculating and therefore shameful, but not in the sense that it would necessarily be a crime against the natural order of things. The exact meaning of the word in this context is rather ambiguous; certainly ambiguous enough that it ought to give us pause before we interpret it as an implicit condemnation of homosexuality. Moreover, the thrust of the passage has to do with loss of control and God's punishment of those that forsake Him. It is not an explicit condemnation of homosexual relations. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what you don't understand by that verse. It means don't do it. And yes there are many different greek meanings for the word unnatural but you don't know which one it is. An no i don't eat seafood, but it you want to refer to the levitucus as ineffective think of it this way, anything that no longer applies from the old testament God cleared up in the new testament. Sacrifices:Jesus Sacrificed once and for All(Hebrews 10:11 and 12) Eating Unclean Food sad Matthew 15:16-20) Ceremonial Cleansing sad Matthew 15:1, 16-20) Besides if that is the way that we are going to see it then, I guess the whole beastiality thing is okay too, because it's in Leviticus, and it's not exactly unnatural. Please Use scripture, not explanations or "logical reasoning"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
