|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:55 pm
1) Romans
Romans 1:27 (KJV) "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Unseemly: not seemly: as a : not according with established standards of good form or taste b : not suitable for time or place : INAPPROPRIATE, UNSEASONABLE (m-w.com)
Now. The KJV version is the most accurate, as the original KJV tranlators wanted to directly translate the Bible word for word. The NIV and others like it only wanted to make it "easy to read." So the KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible.
The KJV uses the word "unseemly," which is not according to standards. The actual meaning of sin comes from the Greek word αμαρτία, or amartia. It means "a missing of the mark." Now, to miss the God's "mark" would be anything that doesn't comply with his rules. It is unnatural in God's sight to have men lay with men or women lay with women. Therefore, it is a sin.
2) A Different Angle: Deacons
1 Timothy 3 (KJV) "1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. "
The qualifications for deacons apply to pretty much everyone. Notice it uses wife, (deacons must be men) not husband. To be a deacon, you must be married to a woman. As the qualifications for deacons apply to pretty much everybody, men are to marry women.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:09 pm
[Sleeep Deprived Ranting is not Debate]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:16 am
Edit: Eh, resolved. I should have posted this via PM anyway, so I'm scrapping it. Um, everyone just try to be nice, please. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:24 pm
Jedediah Smith This is an example of compromising scripture with human society = Liberalism. There is no source to prove such claims anyways. I am not sure on what you mean by, "There is no source to prove such claims anyway." If this is pushin, then that might be incorrect for the Greek word. The word "natural," in Greek, is phusikos. Since there is no letter "Y" in the Greek, the letter "U" replaces it, and so, we could write phusikos as physikos, which gives the word "physical." Another example for the letter Y being replaced with U is hupokrites, which means hypocrites (the letter "H" is not in the Greek language either). Phusis ( physis) means "nature." Also, I see you used the word "liberalism." Now, I would not or could not say that Ananel, if that is who you're also referring to, is liberal. I must say, he is very much conservative as you are. For the simple fact, he supports homosexuality. Ananel gone through some extensive work, and though I do not agree with him on this (and I don't seem to get into arguments on homosexuality), I would commend him for his efforts on what he has written. And, to say the least, he seems to be faithful to Scripture. There, I've raised his ethos. Jedediah Smith Here is where I disagree the most, which you can look above at my post for my reasons. Ananel thesis is known to be liberal garbage. Moving on... You cannot simply call Ananel's thesis "liberal garbage." It must be considered. Jedediah Smith Look, Romans Chapter 1 is about speaking against paganism, homosexuality was known to the pagans in that time. I doubt that. Romans 1:18-32 shows the total depravity, the utter sinful nature of man. In Romans 2:1-16 continues with the sinful nature of humanity, but this time, Paul is directing it to his audience. And then Romans 3:10-20 continues to show how terrible, how wretched man is, and this should be a basic way of presenting the Gospel, because leaving out a certain part is not a true, orthodox, Gospel. Yes, Romans 126, 27 looks like it is speaking against homosexuality, which, I do see. But, at the moment, I don't know how to respond, especially since I have focused more on other things than this controversial discussion. Jedediah Smith 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. is not a hupokrites, if He were to give the people over to their lusts. In Romans 1:24, 25, Paul writes, "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen." (emphasis mine) See also, that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. Furthermore, Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12, "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." (emphasis mine) Jedediah Smith Again, your saying that God wanted the men to lust. These interpretations do not work. These are assertions. Explain why these interpretations do not work. Alumnus Please Use scripture, not explanations or "logical reasoning" With the Scriptures, each person has their own explanation. And where do they get their explanations? Simply from using the historical usage and metaphors. And logic is used at times to bring oneself to that conclusion. Were there no logic, the interpretation would be illogical. Oh, and hi, everyone. Blue, do you know when the Creation/Evolution thread might be finished? I would like to throw in some interpretations, which you have seen in the past at the M&R, not the interpretations that I directed to you through PM. Oh, and if you want Romans 1:26, 27 in Greek, I took some time to write up the wording from Greek into the English form of Greek. I'm sure that finding certain Greek words there may be helpful, if you search for them via Blue Letter Bible or Google. Edit: I see the Creation/Evolution thread, and no one wrote in it. I won't respond tonight, and if I am busy tomorrow, then not tomorrow. But perhaps I'll have something. Dia touto paredoken autous ho theos eis pathe atimias, hai te gar
theleiai auton metellaksan ten phusiken khresin eis ten para phusin;
homoios te kai hoi arsenes aphentes ten phusiken khresin tes theleias
eksekauthesan en tei oreksei auton eis allelous, arsenes en arsesin ten
askhemosunen katergazomenoi kai ten antimisthian hen edei tes planes
auton en heautois apolambanontes. Yay for having a Greek-English Interlinear Bible and figuring out what the Greek words are in English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:57 am
Theo, it's nice to know someone else educated in theology supports my stance against homosexuality =).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:54 pm
Collun 1) Now. The KJV version is the most accurate, as the original KJV tranlators wanted to directly translate the Bible word for word. The NIV and others like it only wanted to make it "easy to read." So the KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible. I don't know if it is truly sure to say that the KJV is the most reliable in being the most accurate. KJV was done before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. KJV is innacurate today since English is a living language so it isn't accurate today since we do not fully follow and understand the nuances of KJ English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:57 pm
Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible is clear from the Old testament to the New Testament. PORNEOS is used a lot in the Greek to discuss some homosexual sins. We are to still love homosexual people as creations of God. We are to not like or agree with the sin of homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:51 pm
jamesthelittle Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible is clear from the Old testament to the New Testament. PORNEOS is used a lot in the Greek to discuss some homosexual sins. We are to still love homosexual people as creations of God. We are to not like or agree with the sin of homosexuality. if I am not mistaken, porneos means, literally, 'sexual perversion'. Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but I do believe there are alot more then just one form of sexual perversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:22 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor jamesthelittle Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible is clear from the Old testament to the New Testament. PORNEOS is used a lot in the Greek to discuss some homosexual sins. We are to still love homosexual people as creations of God. We are to not like or agree with the sin of homosexuality. if I am not mistaken, porneos means, literally, 'sexual perversion'. Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but I do believe there are alot more then just one form of sexual perversion. Very true. But porneos was used to describe homosexual sin as well as other perversions. Porneos can be used as a general blanket term since the OT and parts of the NT describe a marital relationship as being between a male and a female. Knowing that as foundation means they could just use porneos
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:52 pm
People are impossible, sometimes i think you people would rather argue than just believe what God says
p.s. don't give me any crap about what everyone believes is different
by the way I made the statement about logical reasoning because Tangled up in blue never attempted to make use scripture, but only to explain his own ideas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:06 am
Alumnus People are impossible, sometimes i think you people would rather argue than just believe what God says p.s. don't give me any crap about what everyone believes is different Crap? Hardly. It's a fact. People simply don't interpret God's Word in the same way. Just look at the debate between Arminians and Calvinists, or the disagreements between, say, premillennialist and postmillennialist. All these people look at the same text and, guess what, can't agree on what it means. The point of debate is to see which side has more merit, which is why we're all doing this. If you're not interested in that, then don't join in. Quote: by the way I made the statement about logical reasoning because Tangled up in blue never attempted to make use scripture, but only to explain his own ideas I'm going to assume this is related to my point about Romans, since I did use scripture when I said that the ceremonial laws are defunct (Colossians 2:14). Since you clearly disagree with me on about that, though, you may wish to check to make sure that your clothes are all made out of only one type of fabric (Leviticus 19:19), among other things. You might also try reading Chapter V of Baruch Spinoza's A Theologico-Political Treatise. Anyway, on to Romans. I'll try to explain this as simply as possible: Romans 1 was translated from ancient Greek. I was making an argument based, in part, on the translation of said chapter. In other words, I was arguing about the precise meaning of scripture, about my own ideas about scripture. The fact that I did not cite any verses there was because it wasn't relevant. Okay? Just because I'm not taking your interpretation of what may be an imperfect English translation of Romans 1 as irrefutable fact doesn't mean that my arguments are bollox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:30 pm
asn_sc 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: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:56 pm
Alumnus People are impossible, sometimes i think you people would rather argue than just believe what God says The problem, dear, is that we don't know what God said. Hence the arguing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:31 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor Alumnus People are impossible, sometimes i think you people would rather argue than just believe what God says The problem, dear, is that we don't know what God said. Hence the arguing. So are you suggesting that the Bible is unreliable on God's word thus making it meaningless?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:02 pm
aznkiddie So are you suggesting that the Bible is unreliable on God's word thus making it meaningless? Are you familiar with the concept of the straw man logical fallacy? Because that was a spectacular example of one. He said that we don't know what God said, not that the bible is unreliable and meaningless - you said that. And now, if you're so sure that we have a perfect understanding of the Word of God, then perhaps you'll be so kind as to settle a few issues for those of us not granted the same degree of insight into the machinations of God's mind: Premillennialists vs. postmillennialists. Armenians vs. Calvinists. Is Revelation a literal prophecy, historical metaphor, or something else? What is the proper English translation of the word arsenkoites? Is Genesis, especially Genesis 1-3, metaphorical or literal? And so on and so forth. Don't forget to prove your answers beyond a shadow of a doubt. Or you can save yourself the trouble and admit, along with the fact that Cometh was actually right, that biblical interpretation isn't an exact science and that people disagree precisely because God's word isn't always crystal clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
