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.
It's actually quite valid, considering that's how Jewish experts in the 1st Century viewed it.
Around 35 A.D., the Jewish philosopher Philo (a contemporary of Paul’s) held that arsenokoites referred to shrine prostitution (Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42).
No historic usage of the word Paul used that is now translated as "homosexuals" would make any sense if it were referring to gay people.
Not sure I'd call him "anti-gay". He didn't know what sexual orientation was, and the only same-sex behavior he was actually familiar with was pederasty and prostitution. Nobody is arguing that the Greeks and Romans were hedonistic. But most of them were not gay, nor is their behavior anything like modern day gays.
I agree with all of this.
Good point. "Anti-gay" is a 21st-Century term. I was referring to his former life as devout Jew, in which he'd be following the teachings of his religion.
You can believe what you want. I read part of it Friday and I only responded because you brought it up again today.
But I'm not going to read and respond to every lengthy link. I believe that people searching for something to disprove the Bible are trying to avoid the truth themselves, for their own peace of mind which will never occur.
And the fact that you are unable to list any points the article makes tells me that there is nothing of any substance there. If there was you could say it in your own words.
I love how you just sliced off the second half of that post. Like if you don't acknowledge it, it never existed.
And we've already established that you are a liar. You cannot read something, not read it, or only read part of it. Only one of those statements can be correct, so you lied, twice. Your credibility, which you didn't have much of to begin with, has been shot to hell.
And where did you get the idea that I was unable to list any points? I actually included a rather important snippet when I originally posted it, and you didn't respond to that one either.
For the sake of discussion though, I'll provide a few notes we can discuss.
1) The New Testament says nothing about homosexuality, and there exists not a single word in the bible that can be translated to "homosexuality". Also the idea of sexual orientation is "essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers. The word “homosexuality” came into use only in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and, as New Testament scholar Victor Paul Furnish notes, it and related terms “presume an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychological and sociological analysis.” In other words, “The ancient writers . . . were operating without the vaguest conception of what we have learned to call ‘sexual orientation’.”
2) At most, only three passages refer to anything similar to modern day homosexuality. None of the four gospels mention it at all, so we have no way of knowing how Jesus felt on the matter.
3) Two of the passages which might refer to homosexuality are nothing more than a miscellaneous list of vices which "appear to have been somewhat stereotypical in nature, representing a kind of laundry list or grab bag of negative labels that could be trotted out and used for rhetorical purposes with little attention to individual items in the lists."
4) Of those two passages, there is significant contextual and translation issues which show that it may not have meant homosexuality at all.
5) If these two passages are in fact referring to homosexuality, they are likely referring to scenarios with exploitative and degrading elements, such as older men using young male children for sexual services.
6) The Romans passage you specifically brought up, refers to idolatry, not homosexuality.
- Taken literally, the passage says homosexuality is not the sin but the punishment.
- Passage assumes homosexuality is "unnatural" when we can easily observe that this is not the case in humans.
- Passage assumes that homosexuality is the result of insatiable lust, which people turn to when they can not get enough heterosexual sex. Thus, it is not applicable to those solely of homosexual orientation.
- Thus, this passage is not applicable to those in a monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship.
I'll post the entire conclusion.
Quote:
Conclusion: The New Testament really does not provide any direct guidance for understanding and making judgments about homosexuality in the modern world.
To the extentthat it does talk about homosexuality, the New Testament appears to be talking about only certain types of homosexuality, and it speaks on the basis of assumptions about homosexuality that are now regarded as highly dubious. Perhaps, then, we could paraphrase what the New Testament says about homosexuality as follows: If homosexuality is exploitive, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is rooted in idolatry, then it is wrong; if homosexuality represents a denial of one’s own true nature, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is an expression of insatiable lust, then it is wrong. But we could say exactly the same thing about heterosexuality, couldn’t we?
If homosexuality is not necessarily any of these things, however, then it would appear that the New Testament has nothing to say about it in any direct sense. Speaking specifically of the Pauline letters but in words that are applicable to the New Testament as a whole, the Pauline scholar Victor Paul Furnish puts it as follows:
[Paul’s] letters . . . cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Shall practicing homosexuals be admitted to church membership? Shall they be accorded responsibilities within a congregation? Shall they be commissioned to the church’s ministry? The Apostle never asks or answers these questions. . . . On these points there are no proof texts available one way or the other. It is mistaken to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position on these matters.
In short, there is nothing in the New Testament that tells us directly whether homosexuality per se is a good thing or a bad thing or simply a fact of life.
To be sure, when we consider its overall message, the New Testament may provide some indirect guidance regarding homosexuality. Indeed, it may well be the case that a twenty-first century “Paul” would revise Galatians 3:27–28 to read as follows:
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female, there is neither homosexual nor heterosexual; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I disagree with all of that. They are weak points which you cannot support.
If a lengthy description in the New Testament of homosexuality is countered by your argument that the word is not there, then you are nothing but a deceiver.
Religious views should never impact the rights of US citizens.
I'm appalled by my nation's view on gay marriage. The notion that we should vote on others rights is wrong. I applaud MD & ME voters for passing gay marriage but I'm still sad that it even had to be put to a vote.
Essentially, yes. Paul tells us not to argue over petty things. If a person rejects the most fundamental notions, we're not supposed to play with them.
But then if the goal is to be in the world but not of it then doesn't that then mean Christians who ascribe to that belief don't play in petty politics?
But then if the goal is to be in the world but not of it then doesn't that then mean Christians who ascribe to that belief don't play in petty politics?
You lost me there because I don't see how your conclusion follows ( "but then") my statement. Here's a revision with answer. If my revision doesn't reflect the intended spirit of the question, feel free to correct me:
The goal of a Christian is to be in the world but not of it; therefore, Christians shouldn't play in petty politics.
Maybe; maybe not. In addition to being an excellent system to gain communion with God, I feel that Christianity has a far more practical application as a self-help program. A Christian who has achieved communion may be able to afford to disregard the world, but that person might also be capable of marching to their own crucifixion as an advocate for the weak against the corrupt. That would be an exceptionally mighty person serving in the righteous army of God.
But these are so advanced that normal people will not achieve such standing, nor would they want to achieve that standing. Doing God's work is a terrible burden, and nobody is happy to get the touch, even Jesus. For most people, they need to take it easy and just do their best.
I think that your grievance is with people whom use the Bible as a club to beat others. I'd prefer that you challenge that behavior rather than challenge all of Christendom.
P.S. Use the quote option, would you? It makes it easy for me to reference the post that you're quoting.
Last edited by The Homogenizer; 11-10-2012 at 12:17 PM..
Do you mean that to illustrate the cultural trait that leads them to refuse to say the name of James Holmes?
No, what I said was based on the nonsensical nature of what was being posted. Did he [the poster to which I was replying] live in Colorado? In other words, had he been partaking of a little celebratory pot.
I didn't mean to create confusion. I was using but then in the same way of an If then variable statement. The if was your statement, the then, mine.
Without quoting everything you said, let me start with: while I'm not a fan of people beating others with Christianity or any religion, I could care less what people believe as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. For a less heated example: Believe women should be subservient all you wish. I'll support your right to believe and say it. Try to create, push through and or enforce laws that force women into subservience (or make them less than) and I'll fight you tooth and nail.
The older I get, the more I move toward Libertarianism.
Quote:
Maybe; maybe not. In addition to being an excellent system to gain communion with God, I feel that Christianity has a far more practical application as a self-help program.
This goes to my earlier point. Amongst Christians there are many different beliefs. Wonderful. There is nothing wrong with that. I do, however, believe there is something very wrong with one Christian telling another Christian what is right and wrong, what they should and should not believe. What a person does or does not believe is between them and their God.
To be clear, I have no problem with someone believing the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. (I don't agree with the belief but neither do I have to agree.) What I do have a problem with is the idea as presented in this thread that if you don't believe what I believe, you're wrong.
No, what I said was based on the nonsensical nature of what was being posted. Did he [the poster to which I was replying] live in Colorado? In other words, had he been partaking of a little celebratory pot.
Oh; I didn't realize that you were blatantly using an ad hominem. I'm a Midestern Christian in Colorado, so there are a lot of things that they do here that seem just plain wacky to me but are rooted in their culture. I thought that you might be referring to a cultural difference that seems strange.
Quote:
What I do have a problem with is the idea as presented in this thread that if you don't believe what I believe, you're wrong.
I'd recommend that you read the Bible. You'd find no shortage of arguments to support your position.
Oh; I didn't realize that you were blatantly using an ad hominem.
I wasn't. It was a legitimate question asked about as nicely as I could ask it. It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the person I was speaking with at the time.
When someone posts videos as a response to you - videos about songs and movies at that - followed by comments to which you're not sure What is being referred to, and it happens multiple times, asking if they are drunk or high IS a reasonable question.
Quote:
I'd recommend that you read the Bible. You'd find no shortage of arguments to support your position.
Reading the Bible really isn't an issue but thank you. I've read it many times; my partner has a degree in it. What passages can be interpreted as, however, can be an issue.
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.
