Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A pointless post. Guess that speaks volumes about the poster.
I'm going to try once more: Jeff, the point is that you are not open to new ideas, such as that the intention behind the words is to indicate that profligacy or licentiousness is unhealthy rather than being a condemnation of a specific act.
I'm going to try once more: Jeff, the point is that you are not open to new ideas, such as that the intention behind the words is to indicate that profligacy or licentiousness is unhealthy rather than being a condemnation of a specific act.
I wouldn't have watched the video if that was true.
Your argument hinges on the translation of one word, "arsenokoitai". And "arseno" means male. The verse clearly is talking about a sinful act between two men.
Yet the verse in 1 Timothy says absolutely nothing about temple prostitutes. Unless you have that clear distinction, there is no argument here.
I don't have to prove anything. The Bible is clear as day. Verses referring to same sex relations are seen throughout the Bible in the context of sexual immorality and sin. The fact that you can't get away from is that there is not a single verse in the Bible that speaks positively of homosexuality. If God designed it as just another blessed orientation, the Bible would be more ambigiously referring to marriage as unions between your mate, not specifically man and wife like Jesus said in Matthew 19:4.
The Bible also tends us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. I bring up this verse because it highlights that Jesus and later Paul's mission was never to incite a revolution. That's what the people were asking Jesus and He diffused it by saying to just obey your government and laws. Put your focus on getting your heart right with God. Slavery was a highly ingrained institution in the culture. IT would require a complete overall of the economic structure, hence a revolution and civil war to uproot it. The bigger mission is the salvation of people's heart so the Bible told them how to operate best in such a society rather than overturn it. Otherwise, Jesus would have told them to fight against Caesar.
Nope, the complete chapter in my verse describes their many sins. Idoltry was one of them. Homosexuality was another. Evil, greed and depravity are others. Are you going to tell me that Paul only means evil and greed within pagan worship? You desperately want to tie everything to the pagan worship and it just doesn't work. The verse clearly says same sex relations are unnatural.
I watched the video and doesn't prove anything. The crutch of the argument is that Leviticus 18:21 talks about idol worship and then it is followed by a verse condemning homosexuality. How is that proof that verse 22 only refers to practices in idol worship? Each verse in that chapter is self contained referring to a specific sin act. So you have zero proof that verse 21 and 22 are tied together. If that's the case then the conclusion is that incest and bestiality outside of worship to Molek is fine and dandy.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
That statement alone speaks VOLUMES about the poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
A pointless post. Guess that speaks volumes about the poster.
Time and again my point is proven--typically with very little effort from me.
Your argument hinges on the translation of one word, "arsenokoitai". And "arseno" means male. The verse clearly is talking about a sinful act between two men.
The word was put there to reveal the sin in your heart. It's a matter of interpreting in the light of Jesus' love and acceptance, or in light of the Pharisaical division of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yet the verse in 1 Timothy says absolutely nothing about temple prostitutes. Unless you have that clear distinction, there is no argument here.
Well there were still temple prostitutes in Rome where Paul spent most of his time and was faced with christians who STILL used them. Clobber verses in Romans chapter one are pointed out as belonging to the Roman christians to whom he wrote (Rom. 2:1).
Moreover the context of first Timothy is about not engaging in the practices of false teachers that were in the christian community--the false teachers were those engaged in the same temple prostitution of Rome. At that time polytheism was still the dominate religion throughout the gentile region.
Moreover the Greek term you are translating as "homosexual" is completely, positively improper. At best it would apply to MEN, not women.
Quote:
The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" was apparently created by Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians about 55 CE. No record remains of any writer using the term before that time.
The word is often translated in English versions of the Bible as "homosexual." That is, a men or women who is sexually attracted only to persons of the same sex. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after the start of the scientific study of human sexuality. Also, "arsen" in Greek means "man." Thus, it is most unlikely that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male gays and lesbians.
I don't have to prove anything. The Bible is clear as day. Verses referring to same sex relations are seen throughout the Bible in the context of sexual immorality and sin. The fact that you can't get away from is that there is not a single verse in the Bible that speaks positively of homosexuality. If God designed it as just another blessed orientation, the Bible would be more ambigiously referring to marriage as unions between your mate, not specifically man and wife like Jesus said in Matthew 19:4.
Well we certainly wouldn't ask you to prove anything, because not once in hundreds of posts have you managed to "prove" anything at all (as far as I can recall), and dozens of posters have called you on it.
Sexual relations are not sin, as evidenced by God allowing and giving multiple marriages, including Abraham's half-sister to be his own wife--she gave him Haggar as another wife--but God didn't strike him dead.
Judah had sex with what he thought was a prostitute, but it was his own widowed daughter-in-law who disguised herself to have sex with him. She got pregnant, and he was going to have her killed when he discovered it--UNTIL---he found out it was his child. Then he declared Tamar as more righteous than himself. Did God take action against the man who went to a prostitute and a woman who was deceptive in seducing him? Of course not. Jesus is descended from them.
What about David who had many wives (God gave him Saul's wives). God had no problem with that, but He did have a problem with David's adultery with Bathsheba. Nathan, confronting David, told him had he only asked God would have given him MORE wives.
Or Solomon, with 700 wives and 300 concubines, wasn't chastized until he took one too many "foreign" consorts in Sheba. That was the final straw for God.
The list goes on and on--making you look completely foolish to say that's the way it was from the beginning. God is not ambiguous at all about polygamy--He endorsed it.
With regard to homosexuality--your view is quite modern. Early Christian churches married same sex couples up until about the 14th century.
Quote:
There is no question that Professor (John) Boswell (Yale University) has found records of ceremonies consecrating a pairing of men, ceremonies often marked by similar prayers and, over time, by standardized symbolic gestures: the clasping of hands, the binding of hands with a stole, kisses, receiving holy communion, a feast after the ceremony.
The Bible also tends us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. I bring up this verse because it highlights that Jesus and later Paul's mission was never to incite a revolution. That's what the people were asking Jesus and He diffused it by saying to just obey your government and laws. Put your focus on getting your heart right with God. Slavery was a highly ingrained institution in the culture. IT would require a complete overall of the economic structure, hence a revolution and civil war to uproot it. The bigger mission is the salvation of people's heart so the Bible told them how to operate best in such a society rather than overturn it. Otherwise, Jesus would have told them to fight against Caesar.
Temple prostitution was highly ingrained in the Roman world--and it was idolatry. It also had economic implications because that is how the organized pagan religions received a goodly portion of their money. Did it have negative consequences? According to your view it did--the Romans were persecuting Christians right from the beginning--I can disprove that theory--but I'd rather let you stew in the consequences of your own misinformed opinion--unless you wish to alter it for this and all other posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Nope, the complete chapter in my verse describes their many sins. Idoltry was one of them. Homosexuality was another. Evil, greed and depravity are others. Are you going to tell me that Paul only means evil and greed within pagan worship? You desperately want to tie everything to the pagan worship and it just doesn't work. The verse clearly says same sex relations are unnatural.
Yep, there were a lot of sins among early christians--and many of them were pagan. Again the point of writing to Roman Christians is that they were living among Romans and practicing Roman vices. Evil and greed are two sins associated with everyone, male and female, Jew and Gentile, freeman and slave, heterosexual and homosexual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I watched the video and doesn't prove anything. The crutch of the argument is that Leviticus 18:21 talks about idol worship and then it is followed by a verse condemning homosexuality. How is that proof that verse 22 only refers to practices in idol worship? Each verse in that chapter is self contained referring to a specific sin act. So you have zero proof that verse 21 and 22 are tied together. If that's the case then the conclusion is that incest and bestiality outside of worship to Molek is fine and dandy.
It doesn't help closed minded people, that's for sure. Because fundamentalists seek ways to disenfranchise people from the kingdom of God. It is a high trait of the Pharisees.
You are uneducated in reading linguistically and considering context. You like and embrace what you read, so why should you try to educate yourself about such "trivial" things as linguistics and context?
Congratulations, you remain firmly among the forums top Pharisees.
The word was put there to reveal the sin in your heart. It's a matter of interpreting in the light of Jesus' love and acceptance, or in light of the Pharisaical division of people.
Well there were still temple prostitutes in Rome where Paul spent most of his time and was faced with christians who STILL used them. Clobber verses in Romans chapter one are pointed out as belonging to the Roman christians to whom he wrote (Rom. 2:1).
Moreover the context of first Timothy is about not engaging in the practices of false teachers that were in the christian community--the false teachers were those engaged in the same temple prostitution of Rome. At that time polytheism was still the dominate religion throughout the gentile region.
Moreover the Greek term you are translating as "homosexual" is completely, positively improper. At best it would apply to MEN, not women. Anti-homosexual 'clobber passages:' 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Well we certainly wouldn't ask you to prove anything, because not once in hundreds of posts have you managed to "prove" anything at all (as far as I can recall), and dozens of posters have called you on it.
Sexual relations are not sin, as evidenced by God allowing and giving multiple marriages, including Abraham's half-sister to be his own wife--she gave him Haggar as another wife--but God didn't strike him dead.
Judah had sex with what he thought was a prostitute, but it was his own widowed daughter-in-law who disguised herself to have sex with him. She got pregnant, and he was going to have her killed when he discovered it--UNTIL---he found out it was his child. Then he declared Tamar as more righteous than himself. Did God take action against the man who went to a prostitute and a woman who was deceptive in seducing him? Of course not. Jesus is descended from them.
What about David who had many wives (God gave him Saul's wives). God had no problem with that, but He did have a problem with David's adultery with Bathsheba. Nathan, confronting David, told him had he only asked God would have given him MORE wives.
Or Solomon, with 700 wives and 300 concubines, wasn't chastized until he took one too many "foreign" consorts in Sheba. That was the final straw for God.
The list goes on and on--making you look completely foolish to say that's the way it was from the beginning. God is not ambiguous at all about polygamy--He endorsed it.
With regard to homosexuality--your view is quite modern. Early Christian churches married same sex couples up until about the 14th century. Beliefs - A study of medieval rituals in same-sex unions raises a question - what were they solemnizing? - NYTimes.com
The only question, according to one scholar, is "what did they do in bed," a weak, and profoundly prejudiced question that goes right to the heart of fundamentalist homophobia.
Temple prostitution was highly ingrained in the Roman world--and it was idolatry. It also had economic implications because that is how the organized pagan religions received a goodly portion of their money. Did it have negative consequences? According to your view it did--the Romans were persecuting Christians right from the beginning--I can disprove that theory--but I'd rather let you stew in the consequences of your own misinformed opinion--unless you wish to alter it for this and all other posts.
Yep, there were a lot of sins among early christians--and many of them were pagan. Again the point of writing to Roman Christians is that they were living among Romans and practicing Roman vices. Evil and greed are two sins associated with everyone, male and female, Jew and Gentile, freeman and slave, heterosexual and homosexual.
It doesn't help closed minded people, that's for sure. Because fundamentalists seek ways to disenfranchise people from the kingdom of God. It is a high trait of the Pharisees.
You are uneducated in reading linguistically and considering context. You like and embrace what you read, so why should you try to educate yourself about such "trivial" things as linguistics and context?
Congratulations, you remain firmly among the forums top Pharisees.
You do an excellent job of analysis and we all learn a lot from your posts, Warden. But given the subject matter, this is ALL carnal-minded stuff and we are supposed to be developing a spiritual-minded understanding of God. To continue to believe God cares about these carnal issues is to miss the point entirely. It is not the carnal acts that are a problem. It is the state of mind that accompanies them that is the spiritual issue. If they are done selfishly and willfully even knowing there could be harm or hurt to others, then it is a spiritual issue.
You do an excellent job of analysis and we all learn a lot from your posts, Warden. But given the subject matter, this is ALL carnal-minded stuff and we are supposed to be developing a spiritual-minded understanding of God. To continue to believe God cares about these carnal issues is to miss the point entirely. It is not the carnal acts that are a problem. It is the state of mind that accompanies them that is the spiritual issue. If they are done selfishly and willfully even knowing there could be harm or hurt to others, then it is a spiritual issue.
I got to "rep" you! If I try every once in awhile one goes through.
The way I have tried to convey what I understand is that it is not specific acts that are being condemned, but the spiritual state from which some examples may come.
Jeff. there is a difference between watching with an open mind and watching to find something to criticize.
I know, that's the exact attitude I get from atheists when they demand evidence. They don't want evidence. They just want to criticize. You ever think for ONCE just once that your side could be wrong???
The word was put there to reveal the sin in your heart. It's a matter of interpreting in the light of Jesus' love and acceptance, or in light of the Pharisaical division of people.
Well there were still temple prostitutes in Rome where Paul spent most of his time and was faced with christians who STILL used them. Clobber verses in Romans chapter one are pointed out as belonging to the Roman christians to whom he wrote (Rom. 2:1).
Moreover the context of first Timothy is about not engaging in the practices of false teachers that were in the christian community--the false teachers were those engaged in the same temple prostitution of Rome. At that time polytheism was still the dominate religion throughout the gentile region.
Well we certainly wouldn't ask you to prove anything, because not once in hundreds of posts have you managed to "prove" anything at all (as far as I can recall), and dozens of posters have called you on it.
Sexual relations are not sin, as evidenced by God allowing and giving multiple marriages, including Abraham's half-sister to be his own wife--she gave him Haggar as another wife--but God didn't strike him dead.
Judah had sex with what he thought was a prostitute, but it was his own widowed daughter-in-law who disguised herself to have sex with him. She got pregnant, and he was going to have her killed when he discovered it--UNTIL---he found out it was his child. Then he declared Tamar as more righteous than himself. Did God take action against the man who went to a prostitute and a woman who was deceptive in seducing him? Of course not. Jesus is descended from them.
What about David who had many wives (God gave him Saul's wives). God had no problem with that, but He did have a problem with David's adultery with Bathsheba. Nathan, confronting David, told him had he only asked God would have given him MORE wives.
Or Solomon, with 700 wives and 300 concubines, wasn't chastized until he took one too many "foreign" consorts in Sheba. That was the final straw for God.
The list goes on and on--making you look completely foolish to say that's the way it was from the beginning. God is not ambiguous at all about polygamy--He endorsed it.
Temple prostitution was highly ingrained in the Roman world--and it was idolatry. It also had economic implications because that is how the organized pagan religions received a goodly portion of their money. Did it have negative consequences? According to your view it did--the Romans were persecuting Christians right from the beginning--I can disprove that theory--but I'd rather let you stew in the consequences of your own misinformed opinion--unless you wish to alter it for this and all other posts.
Yep, there were a lot of sins among early christians--and many of them were pagan. Again the point of writing to Roman Christians is that they were living among Romans and practicing Roman vices. Evil and greed are two sins associated with everyone, male and female, Jew and Gentile, freeman and slave, heterosexual and homosexual.
It doesn't help closed minded people, that's for sure. Because fundamentalists seek ways to disenfranchise people from the kingdom of God. It is a high trait of the Pharisees.
You are uneducated in reading linguistically and considering context. You like and embrace what you read, so why should you try to educate yourself about such "trivial" things as linguistics and context?
Congratulations, you remain firmly among the forums top Pharisees.
Complete garbage and insults. That's all you can offer. Your hatred of God's word is disgusting.
I know, that's the exact attitude I get from atheists when they demand evidence. They don't want evidence. They just want to criticize. You ever think for ONCE just once that your side could be wrong???
Yes, Jeff, I was on the other side once. As for the atheist attitude, what they are looking for is PROOF, not evidence. Just accept that there is no PROOF and move on. Evidence can be far too subjective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
