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.
If we had gone down this road previously and you or anyone else had responded with a satisfactory answer the same question wouldn't need to be continually asked, now would it? There really is no need to make a mountain out of this. Are same-sex practices as recorded in the Bible applicable to our present-day definition of the term homosexuality or are they solely referencing idolatry and shrine temple prostitution? I'm simply asking for a 'yes' or a 'no' and appropriate explanations for one or the other. If the answer is, "Yes, same-sex practices as recorded in the Bible ARE applicable to our present-day definition of the term homosexuality," then I will ask how you arrive at this from your interpretation of specific Bible texts. If the answer is, "Bible references to same-sex practices refer to idolatry and shrine temple prostitution and don't at all reference the present-day definition of homosexuality," then I will ask why then are these scriptures used to condemn gay people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Still none of them brave enough to accept the challenge I see.
I have read and even participated in the very long thread about Sodom and Gomorrah and thought there were some very valid points made by Romulus.
What I didn't see or haven't seen in any other threads (perhaps I've missed them) is how do you get around Romans 1:26-27? How is that not about homosexual relations in the modern day context?
Also the word sometimes translated as homosexuals in Corinthians is the Greek αρσενοκοίτης which is a compound word made up of "man" and "bed". Basically "man-bedder". I don't think there is a more straightforward way to interpret that Greek word.
Since same sex animals do bond---often for life--and God created nature and called it good---then take up your fruitless argument with God. Homo, meaning same, and sexual referring to our physical anatomy---what else is it? Even fruit flies have a certain percentage of "homosexual" behavior. What you cannot do based on the facts, is call it "unnatural" as rbb1 mischaracterized it. Ou may believe it "sinful" but that's because you have no concept of how to study Scripture in a scholarly manner. Romulus does---hence a different opinion.
Further, monogamy was not a Christian nor Jewish concept. It was introduced by the Romans who believed in one man, one wife. But then they also felt partaking of sexual pleasure with temple prostitutes, male or female, was a way of worshipping their gods. The Old Testament deity had no problem with Jews practicing multiple wives---in fact He gave David all Saul's wives and, according to Nathan, would have given him more had Daid only asked.
What you have done is to impose modern cultural ideas about marriage back into Scripture. I've only been married to one woman for over 45 years and believe true monogamy (faithful and without the serial marriages that are completely acceptable to biblically ignorant Christians) is best for society. But I do not try to twist Scripture to make it sound as if God has always desired "one man, one woman." God had no problem in the OT with His followers visiting prostitutes either. Jesus lineage traces back to Tamar who lied to her father-in-law, Judah, to make him think she was a prostitute so he would impregnate her. Voila---several generations later comes Jesus.
RainMusic is right---sex "sin" is just about all many Christians are concerned about. Hence we have a movie censorship that makes nude bodies on screen to receive an "R" rating, while those with multiple bloody murders are often PG13.
Why don't all of you start studying Scripture in a scholarly fashion by reading throughly the views of many different scholars BEFORE you condemn people to hell for being born as God made them. At least that way you wouldn't appear so brainwashed by preachers who appear to have received their MDiv from a Cracker Jack box.
All very intelligable points. Yet specific to What the Lord says on the subject of Marriage is being perverted. And their is no justification for cursing our Heavenly Father.
I will warn you before you go too far.
Marriage is consumated by an act that needs no explaination.
Did your God claim nature was "good" once He created it? Then what right have you to claim it is "unnatural" if He made virtually every species with a homosexual element---that includes fish and insects as well as mammals?
Oh, that's right. You have usurped God's position in order to judge people based on an ignorant reading of Scripture. AND, you have positioned yourself in other threads to brag about wilfull ignorance in order to appear "holier" than others and to refuse to duly study Scripture in a scholarly manner to show yourself RIGHTFULLY dividing the word of truth.
Sadly the bigoted society you represent when posting such things always hides behind God and the Bible when what they are doing is displaying the dirty laundry of their hearts. Peace back at you, threefold!
“We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
sex
seks/Submit
noun
1.
(chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
"he enjoyed talking about sex"
synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse, lovemaking, making love, sex act, (sexual) relations; More
2.
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
"adults of both sexes"
synonyms: gender
"adults of both sexes"
verb
1.
determine the sex of.
"sexing chickens"
2.
informal
present something in a more interesting or lively way.
"the department set up a task force to help sex up the concept of conserving water"
What I didn't see or haven't seen in any other threads (perhaps I've missed them) is how do you get around Romans 1:26-27? How is that not about homosexual relations in the modern day context?
Read the whole chapter. Unless all modern day homosexuals have worshiping statues or some other form of extreme idolatry, Paul is not necessarily talking about modern day homosexuals in loving relationships in this passage. This entire passage also very well mirrors the behaviors that were going on it popular Roman cults at the time (namely the cult of Cybele) so idolatry and what God allowed it to lead to is the big theme here...another interesting note on this is where it supposedly talks about lesbians in this chapter, several early church fathers including Saint Augustine believed it was talking about women having 'anal relations' with men (which was also a big cult thing) and if this is true, Lesbianism is not directly mentioned once in the bible...Just some things to ponder. Amazing what actual context can do for a chapter!
I haven't lied. What you have done is tried to cover up deep seated bigotry by stating it is "god" not you who has condemned homosexuality. Yet you fail to study Scripture in a scholarly fashion that would lead you to a different conclusion. You don't want a different conclusion. You want to hang on to judging people so that they become "less" than you---homosexuals are an easy target. History proves it. And yet the Church itself has in the past blessed homosexual unions.
Quote:
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the althttp://rense.com/general50/cath.htmar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Boswell's book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union" having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."
It is modern day bigots that have allowed Satan to take over many churches in order to condemn without justification same sex marriage ceremonies that were practiced centuries ago.
The only person lying is you--and not to me---to yourself and your god. Perhaps you should spend some considerable time praying about it.
"The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
What I didn't see or haven't seen in any other threads (perhaps I've missed them) is how do you get around Romans 1:26-27? How is that not about homosexual relations in the modern day context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrhockney
Read the whole chapter. Unless all modern day homosexuals have worshiping statues or some other form of extreme idolatry, Paul is not necessarily talking about modern day homosexuals in loving relationships in this passage. This entire passage also very well mirrors the behaviors that were going on it popular Roman cults at the time (namely the cult of Cybele) so idolatry and what God allowed it to lead to is the big theme here...another interesting note on this is where it supposedly talks about lesbians in this chapter, several early church fathers including Saint Augustine believed it was talking about women having 'anal relations' with men (which was also a big cult thing) and if this is true, Lesbianism is not directly mentioned once in the bible...Just some things to ponder. Amazing what actual context can do for a chapter!
Yes. Having many times addressed Romans 1:26-27, obviously I agree with the above. Paul is talking about those who once knew God who have now resorted to the worship of man-made idols in the form of humans, animals, reptiles and birds. This is clearly explained in Romans 1:21 which is simple a lead up to the following verses that speak of the acts affiliated with idolatry. Verse 26-27 only makes sense when connected to the former verses!
Moreover, despite having been given the status of a deity by most of mainstream Christianity - without good reason, I quickly add - Paul was simply a human being. We should not even be considering allowing another human being to make 'divine calls' for us on behalf of a supernatural deity! The claim that Paul spoke 'as God' or even that he was a spokesperson for such a deity comes from the minds of men and nowhere else! It was decided by MEN that Paul's epistles be included in the New Testament. If this had not been the case, we would never have heard of Paul OR read his letters to the early Christian Churches. God did not decide what would appear in the New Testament unless the collators of the NT were also 'divine'!
So, even if Paul HAD been referring to homosexuality as we today define the term (which he was not!) then this would not be sufficient a case to demean homosexuals, i.e. refer to them as 'sinners' by virtue of their innate sexual orientation, or to suggest that they remain celibate for all of their lives or otherwise turn heterosexual. It really does boggle my mind how many go out of their way to try to apply these ancient as well as often ambiguous texts to we of today. It boggles my mind how Christian academics take a word such as 'arsenokoitai' (a term apparently made up by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 & 1 Timothy 1) and virtually do linguistic acrobatics to make this previously unknown word equate to 'homosexual'.
The above has been my take on this issue for a number of years. And, no one so far has offered anything remotely substantial that would have me change this view.
Romulus I must ask, are you saying that you do not consider ANY of Paul's writings to be Canonical?
If so is it ONLY Paul's writings or are there other NT books you consider to be non-canonical?
I assume that by some of your other posts you would at least consider the OT to be wholly canonical. Is that right?
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.
