Since you won't answer the question, I will: you're a leftist troll who hopes to discredit by association those who see homosexuality as the perversion it is.
I like Albert, he was funny. You shouldn't make assumptions, and I am suspicious of anyone naming themselves after the Serial Killer YGUY. However, you should know that I am about as far from left field as anyone could be. My post RE: QUEERS is exactly what I think. Homosexuality is a mental illness or mental condition and we ought not pretend it's just a normal variation of the human condition. I don't want to punish homos, but I also do not celebrate their lifestyle.
I'll just bet you do. I know everything about you that I need to know. Please, even if you're not lying, you're so far right that you might as well be a leftist; and no one in his right mind would let you within 100 feet of his or her children.
Oh, you're a super hero. That's cool, mazel tov. The truth is I was going to name myself Charles Manson, but thought it would be in poor taste.
No they didn't call it homosexuality but what Paul was clearly talking about were all the sins associated with Sodom,Baal /pagan worship. Yes, that would include pederasty, men having sex with men, prostitution, adultery,etc... Even Moses recognized this in his day and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. Baal /pagan worship were also a sin because not only did they worship different gods, they practiced these things. All wrong in Paul's eyes. To say that Homosexuality is better understood today is great and I am certainly happy about that, but it isn't the love of a man that Paul is condemning, it is a sexual act. No, to be a homosexual would not be a sin if you never had same-gender sex if that is what you mean but the Bible is very clear that it was indeed against god - 'at the time' .. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Just as clear as the verse was at that time. - The word that Paul used in his verse meant male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast. all of those things were always anti-God's law. Says who though ? I would like to believe it but I am not convinced,to be honest. ..and that speaks volumes in itself, and yet you are saying that they were really talking about a 'young boy having relations with a man' vs. what they KNEW was abominations to their God since the history of their religion ? I don't think so. All sins as well, all mentioned. Paul and Jesus both said it was better not to even have sexual relations if you could stand it but Paul knew that was unrealistic and preached only within monogamy. This isn't about gay rights though, because I too, stand up for their right to be married and do what they want because I don't like a condemning message any more than you, and I want them to be happy, and do understand that they can't help their attraction anymore than we can. This is not a good reason to change history and bend the understanding of what the Bible says about it. Sure, and that's what I'm doing. At that time, men having sex with men was anti-God's law. So was slavery,against Christ but he wasn't into force control and neither was Paul.They were both about self- control and pretty extreme at that. yeah I did see that site and many like it.. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G733&t=KJV
Your game is infintile. Interaction with you yields no substance. It is obvious you have nothing to teach or inform me, let alone provoke reflection, analysis or consideration.
Yet you continue to post responses to my "infintile" "game". Though you suggest that I have nothing of substance to add to this conversation, I contend that you likewise have nothing of substance to add to any conversation that might involve the existence of God, or the Bible.... so far, all you have added is your opinion. Uh oh. Your game is busted.
The very same Paul proclaimed the New Covenant. So while I find it amusing how evangelical fundamentalists in particular like to pick and choose which verses are still valid and which can safely be ignored - I think that were a bit past the topic of Leviticus. Undoubtedly though the going-ons in Rome and in Corinth, infamous at the time for its temple- prostitutes and its proverbial loose morals, must have reminded Paul of OT-descriptions of Phoenician/Canaanite Baal-cults. Accordingly he saw the sexual acts he alludes to as caused by the worshipping Pagan Cults. To him they were a mere symptom for the wickedness of leaving the Jewish/Christian God and praying to idols instead. These days we know that homosexual acts and pagan-worship arent necessarily causally linked and that the two are indeed rarely linked at all in the 21th century, in which they are mostly a natural expression of a natural sexual orientation. We cant expect a 1th century Jew to foresee this knowledge, let alone the authors of the OT. Im afraid this wont help you much unless you are willing to pay for access or able to find it in the local library, but heres a rather sound article on homosexuality in antiquity: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/homosexuality-e516930?s.num=3#e517010 From the only other English speaking source I can offer right now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome While Pauls aversion against such practices was probably more rooted in His Jewish cultural background than in a social revolutionarys attitude, exploitative relationships like these would indeed still be immoral from todays point of view and would not be condoned by even the most liberal pro-LGTB Christian pastors. There may well have been same-sex sexual practices that were not (only) carried by a master/slave power disparage but (also) by true love, but they werent the known norm. Some Christian gay activists like to see the relationship of the Roman Centurion and his servant in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 as such. But of course this interpretation , however lovely it is, does not sufficiently break Jesus silence on the issue, especially not for its critics. Maybe you are interested anyway if you havent heard of it already: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html Off hand I can think of just one verse in which Jesus is recorded as saying something that - with a stretch of imagination could be remotely interpreted like that (Mt 19: 12§). As for Paul: what kind of eunuch Paul may have been remains an open question for biblical scholars, but its certainly one thats worth asking. This is not about changing history or about bending what the Bible has or has not to say about homosexuality. This is about taking a good look at history so that we can better understand what the bible has to say, why it said it back then and what it tells us in our rather different cultural background today. Doing such is the daily grind of any exegete. Im not sure whether I quite understand what you want to say here. Surely you are aware that the same biblical book that has God say that lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination, has God explicitly permitting slavery. Also you are surely aware that neither Paul nor Jesus are recorded as speaking out against slavery. Quite the contrary: supporters of slavery would find sufficient quotes that at first glance would strongly indicate that neither had the slightest problem with it. So if you share my and many other modern Christians conviction that slavery is indeed not condoned by Christ you must have come to this conclusion with very much the same hermeneutics that made me come to the conclusion that God does not have a problem with homosexuality as such.
Cool, huh? It kinda makes you wonder how much of of the English language came from Latin or Greek. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=homosexual
First, a good question to ask is what Christians actually follow the dietary restrictions put forth in the Bible. If it's in the Bible, then why doesn't anyone follow it? Or at least not anyone I know. The answer can be found in Acts 10:9-17 with Peter's vision on the rooftop, God commanding him to kill and eat several animals that had in the law been deemed unclean. When Peter questioned him, God told him "What I have called clean, you shall not call common." Acts 15 also answers the question at the Council of Jerusalem:
Is it your position that that which is not specifically addressed or controverted by Paul from the old testament still stands?
I put the Leviticus law in there to show how they didn't mince words.It was very clear what they were not to do. ..and you are right, the going-ons in Rome and in Corinth undoubtedly did remind Paul of OT-descriptions of Phoenician/Canaanite Baal-cults. So while he did proclaimed the New Covenant, this certainly wouldn't negate the laws concerning those practices.That wouldn't make any sense from Paul perspective. A good symptom or a bad one ? Also,that is a backwards argument, IMO. It is like saying that sacrificing children was a symptom of devil worship which is why sacrificing children got a bad rap. Yes, that is the verse. It is very clear that both Paul and Jesus understood the discipline of being in control of their flesh rather the other way around. I was talking about Jesus.Jesus wasn't against 'servants' but he certainly did not condone people holding people against their will and beating them like everyone pictures in the OT. Jesus' teachings don't permit it. So that is in contrast with slavery. What can I say, some people are ignorant .. Jesus was harder on Divorce than the old timers but most people follow the ways of the OT on that one,eh ? I'm not saying that God has a problem with homosexuals, I'm saying that the Bible writers didn't speak favorable about men sleeping with men.
What Paul is very clear about is that Gentile Christians shouldn’t be bound by Levitical Law. Obviously He was of the opinion that some Gentile Christians took this liberty too far when it came to their sexual conduct. The question we have to ask ourselves today is: what exactly did Paul have a problem with and why? Part of the answer is already in your post. It’s my very point that it wouldn’t have made sense from Paul’s 1th century Jewish perspective to condone same-sex sexual relationships. It does make sense from a 21 th centrury Christian perspective though. It’s a living faith! A bad one of course. And seeing the nasty contexts in which same-sex sexual relations were known to occur in his time, I couldn’t agree with him more. The question is whether todays Christians should see homosexuality as a bad symptom of idol-worshipping. The answer is no, not per se. What we ought to be critical of are any sexual acts – both hetero- and homosexual – that reduce people to their “flesh”, abuse and objectify them rather than being the bodily expression of the special commitment between two people who love each other. As for child sacrifice: look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. God rejects the child-sacrifice in the end, but He certainly appreciates the offer. Here (as in other things) the main issue OT-authors had with child sacrifice was that it was practised by religions the people of Israel ought to distance themselves from. Only if you put Paul's words into Jesus' mouth. Sorry, but in the “ Parable of the Unmerciful Servant“ (Matthew 18:21-35) for example Jesus seems to be perfectly fine with imprisoning and beating slaves. I would agree with you if you said that while the New Testament doesn’t explicitly distance itself from slavery, Jesus just told parables based on a 1th century cultural background of his then audience. And I’d totally agree that the timeless teachings of Christ and the “new law” of loving each other don’t permit slavery . Those are the very same teachings we should base our attitude towards homosexuality on. An 18th century slaveholder would regard both these notions as ridiculous, but since then humankind has had 300 years to live and learn. Here too historical context is of importance. During Jesus lifetime one of the topics of the day was a rabbinical dispute between the School of Rabbi Shammai and the School of Rabbi Hillel on how to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1. While Jesus was closer to the more lenient Hillel school of thoughts in many ways, in this one issue we see Jesus taking sides with the Shammal-school. Which is great from a feminist perspective because the adherents of Hillel believed they could throw out their wives and thus basically leave them to socio-economic destitution for any odd reason. Throwing out your wife for having spoiled the dinner indeed shows “hardness of heart” (Mt. 19:. So while it is clear that Jesus wants us to "become one flesh" in committed life-time relationships, Galatians 3:28 tells us that Christ - while again speaking within the limit of his audiences cultural horizon in Matthew 19 - would probably not care much about which gender the partners in such a relationship happen to have. Which brings us to a core question: do biblical authors always reflect nothing but God’s opinion 1:1 or do they on occasion contribute their own opinions that are affected by rather human cultural norms and if so, how do we differentiate between God's opinions and theirs (or ours for that matter)? Imho the timeless guide here is “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Mt. 7:12) That would be the basic law of the “New Covenant”. I’m sure once it is written in our hearts (Hebrews 8:10) and once we’ll have increased our knowledge and ability for compassion, Christians will be just as sorry for the ways in which Conservative 21th century Christian Churches treated homosexuals as they are already for transgressions of the past in which Christians obviously did not follow Mt 7:12 appropriately from our now point of view.
Interesting massaging of fact, Junobet....you ought to be ashamed... Jesus actually DID address the issue of "gender partners." Matt 19 [4] He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? I hope you don't bet your soul on your wishful thinking concerning Jesus and his "audience" and their "cultural horizon." What flaming hogwash.
I’d say it’s hogwash to expect the book of Genesis or the New Testament Jesus to say that God made all of us more or less male or female or transgender depending on our genetic make-up and prenatal androgen exposure etc., or that for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife or to his husband depending on his sexual orientation and who he falls in love with. Yet modern science informs us that God is obviously very creative concerning on how He (or She, or It, or God knows What) mixes around our biological sexual traits and orientations. He (or She, or It, or God knows What) probably thought, we’ll figure that one out soon enough. Just as most of us have figured out by now that Adam probably did not get created during a divine pottery class. Then again I bet my soul on Jesus Christ rather than on a rather earthly institution that won’t allow its members to use their own God given brain and that has a history of notorious corruption.
Matt 12 [36] I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; [37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
Is that insinuation that Ill be condemned for my words in this thread your substitute for a good counter-argument? I would have thought you could find something a bit more intelligent in some Roman-Catholic approved apologetic guideline somewhere. Then again, maybe you could not, because theres nothing to be found. *shrugs*
