An abomination...

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Ctrl, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes.



    BTW
    the verse you're referring to says,
    [32] But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
    Which says the MAN commits adultery--not specifically the woman--although I think it's understood it takes two to commit adultery.
     
  2. prospect

    prospect New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here, I don't know if this verse has been thrown up in here yet.

    1 Corinthians 6:9
     
  3. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    John 20
    [30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
    [31] but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.


    The Bible doesn't have Jesus specifically condemning child abuse, rape, incest, murder, etc...etc...either. Does that mean they aren't sin?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Those who want to believe the lies will just say that homosexual sex is not "perverted" sexual acts.
     
  4. prospect

    prospect New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is fine if they don't considered it perverted, I'm just offering up one verse that seems to support the NT being against homosexuality ..


    ..
     
  5. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The RSV renders that verse, "[9]Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,"
     
  6. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you.

    I have found that typically those who are very vocal in their opposition to homosexuality pay only lip service the Jesus's words regarding divorce.

    It would seem to me that anyone who opposes homosexuality because of the words of the New Testament should logically be condemning divorce even more- since divorce is far, far more common.
     
  7. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I agree divorce should be more vocally condemned (not "more" but as condemned). The tenets of my Church respects marriage in this way (even though many who claim to be a part of the Church commit the sin--it is a terrible scandal, IMO).
     
  8. prospect

    prospect New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's why I didn't put the verse up there at first, so that Ctrl could just google the translation for himself. I gave a literal translation.

    arsenokoites: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
    Original Word: ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ
    Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
    Transliteration: arsenokoites
    Phonetic Spelling: (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace)
    Short Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
    Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.

    And

    malakos: soft, effeminate
    Original Word: μαλακός, ή, όν
    Part of Speech: Adjective
    Transliteration: malakos
    Phonetic Spelling: (mal-ak-os')
    Short Definition: soft, effeminate
    Definition: (a) soft, (b) of persons: soft, delicate, effeminate.

    Seems like it all points to homosexuality . Am I wrong ?

    ..
     
  9. Alfalfa

    Alfalfa Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,972
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nor did it say anything prohibiting lesbian love.
     
  10. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are wrong. It points to the greek custom of pederasty. Paul didn't have any concepts of homosexuality as sexual identity that can be lived in loving relationship between two equal and committed partners. These concepts did not yet exist in his time.
    More later, off to work.
     
  11. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No- and I don't claim that is so. But what I see is that many Christian Conservatives deal with homosexuality as if that issues is the focus of the New Testament.

    Clearly either Jesus- or the persons who wrote down Jesus's words found the issue of homosexuality less important than my example of divorce.

    What about Jesus's other words?

    "Woe to you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders. Hypocrites! For you won't let others enter the Kingdom of Heaven and won't go in yourselves."

    Are all religious leaders denied the Kingdom of Heaven?

    I like Matthews 22:36

    "This is the first and greatest commandment: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.'

    The second most important is similar: 'Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.'

    All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets stem from these two laws and are fulfilled if you obey them. Keep only these and you will find that you are obeying all the others."


    And this:

    Then Jesus said to his disciples, "It is almost impossible for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I say it again – it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God!

    When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, "Then who can be saved?" And Jesus replied, "For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible."

    Again- Jesus wasn't condemning homosexuals but he did specifically say that it will be almost impossible for a rich man to enter heaven.


    Along with:

    "If you want to be perfect, go and sell everything you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." But when the young man heard this, he went away sadly, for he was very rich.

    So how often do we see Christians advocating Jesus's words to give away their wealth in order to be a perfect Christian? Other than a few religious orders, I never see any Christian advocate this.
     
  12. prospect

    prospect New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Out of - all this

    You pick the only word that is favored or more popular with acceptance today ? You will need to give me more information then because saying that Paul didn't know that two men could Love each other,or that it even mattered, seems like a reach into the comfortable social acceptance zone.

    ..
     
  13. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Opinions are irrelevant.


    Really? Funny thing is that they always have their etymology to look back upon.


    And your point is what?

    Taking a term from human existence and applying it to inanimate objects is also not a stretch, and no explanation is necessary. Doing so, however, does not make that thing human.



    Don't know your own being huh?



     
  14. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did I say that the homo prefix in homosexual was from one source or another? NO? Then you, like some of the others, are barking up the wrong tree.

    Now, what is your reference source showing a derivation from the Greek as opposed to the Latin?
     
  15. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope...That's what it says.
     
  16. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is such wishful thinking bull. There were gay people in Rome just as gay as any "out" person/couple in San Francisco. It's not a secret. Paul was well traveled and well educated. Spare us your revisionist history to try and justify a sin because you wish the Bible didn't say it is a sin. It is, it always has been, and the Bible's New Testament absolutely clearly says so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    This is such wishful thinking bull. There were gay people in Rome just as gay as any "out" person/couple in San Francisco. It's not a secret. Paul was well traveled and well educated. Spare us your revisionist history to try and justify a sin because you wish the Bible didn't say it is a sin. It is, it always has been, and the Bible's New Testament absolutely clearly says so.
     
  17. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,745
    Likes Received:
    1,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am fond of http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3120&t=KJV
     
  18. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just like all your non answers. I think it might be pathological with you. Its impossible to get you to answer a straight up question.



    jonsa said: I can't begin to tell you how relieved I am.
    Incorporeal replied: Don't know your own being huh?

    Went over your head. not a problem ,don't bother looking up, moment has gone.
    Language can be a funny thing tho.
     
  19. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry, I should have waited with posting until I was less in a hurry and could have expressed myself more clearly. Well. I've got a little time now:

    The thing is that any dictionary is misleading if it lists "homosexuality" as a possible translation for an ancient Greek word. Homosexuality as we understand it today was an unknown concept in the 1 century. The Greek didn’t have a word for it.* The term first came up in the late 19th century. Most of what we know about homosexuality now was discovered from the 20th century onwards with the development of scientific sexology. Thus it’s about as naïve to expect the Bible to directly comment on homosexuality as it would be naive to expect it to comment on rocket science.
    The homosexual acts Paul knew of in the society he lived in were all in the context of pederasty (which ironically a biblical author would probably not have the same problems with as we do these days, because they didn’t have our understanding of ‘childhood’ and childhood-development), prostitution, coercive and oppressive sexual slave-master relations and pagan worship. So it comes as no surprise that Paul viewed these sexual acts negatively. Whether Paul would be negative about homosexuality had he had the knowledge about it that we have now – that homosexuality as a sexual orientation is in all likelihood caused by by genetics and hormonal factors during fetal development and that it has no negative effects on mental health other than those that are caused by experiences of discrimination in society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) - is highly dubious. With that knowledge available to me I feel it’s my Christian duty to stand up for LGTB rights.

    As for the “comfortable social acceptance zone”: We are compelled to read the Bible in the light of its own time to understand which light it sheds on ours. If we didn’t do that, we’d still wholeheartedly embrace slavery, just because Paul as a child of his time did not denounce it.


    *As for the difficulties in translating μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται in 1. Corinthians 6:9
    here’s a little summary in English: http://lakeweedatarrowhead.net/5hardtou.htm
     
  20. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry for trying to educate you on your understandable mistake and to help with the ensuing confusion. My reference source would be having learned Latin as well as Greek in school. Alas, both my Latin and my Greek are rather rusty these days. So if you don't trust me look it up in the internet. Here for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
     
  21. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Undoubtedly Paul saw the incidents of same-sex intercourse he knew of in 1. Century Roman society as a sign of being wicked and they probably were. That does not mean that homosexuality as such, a phenomenon Paul knew nothing about - is wicked. For more see my answer to prospect here:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/294655-abomination-7.html#post1062428113


    Oh please, felicity! I’m afraid I'm wicked in very many ways, but standing up for the defense of a sexual minority that is imho unjustly being discriminated against is not one of them. While I deem your and the Catholic Churches condemnation of homosexuality as wrong and as causing unnecessary grief and suffering, I fully appreciate that you act out of the pure - if imho in this case misguided - wish to serve God’s will. It would be nice if in turn you could appreciate, that I too try to serve God’s will here, even if we disagree on what this will is.

    Apart from the fact that what Peter in all likelihood refers to here are conflicts between Jewish and Gentile Christians concerning the necessity of observing Jewish religious laws in general: The question is whether you or me are twisting the scriptures in regards to homosexuality to our own destruction. The Lord shall be the judge of that.



    Forgive me for mentioning it, but that's a passage some Priests should read more often. Imho, it's not their homosexuality that's wicked, nor is it wicked that they condemn homosexuality out of an honest misunderstanding of the bible. What's wicked is their blatant hypocrisy preaching one thing while doing another.
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In the example you cited above (highlighted in red letter), there is no question, yet you complain that I don't answer your questions. Do you even know what a question is?
     
  23. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Like ,, duh... did you not read what I previously stated? My confusion? You then are perhaps suggesting that the dictionary is confused, as well as you when considering that you seem to be saying that I suggested that the prefix in homosexual is the same as homo as in Homo Sapiens. I plainly cited my source...the dictionary... (not my words printed there).. Take your complaint up with the folks who published that information.
     
  24. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That the prefix in homosexual is the same as homo as in Homo Sapiens is exactly what you suggested in your post. It's there for everybody to read. The dictionary is not to blame if you look things up in the wrong language section. No need to get defensive over this. It's an understandable mistake, that's now cleared up. Let's move on.
     
  25. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Where did"I"make such a suggestion?
     

Share This Page