Does God actually find homosexual relations "abominable"?

[one11]

And the French word comes from the Latin word for marriage. NOT from the name of Jesus' mother.

Marriage is the English word derived from MARRY + AGE.

Here is the definition of matri, which forms the compound word matrimony.

matri-

  Use matri- in a Sentence

See web results for matri-

See images of matri-

a combining form meaning “mother,” used in the formation of compound words: matrilineal.

Also, matro-; especially before a vowel, matr-.

Origin:
< L, comb. form of m&#257;ter mother

 

[one11]

Here is the second part of the root word for matri-mony. I provided you with the links E.P.II, but apparently you did not use them.

MONY

a suffix found on abstract nouns borrowed from Latin, usually denoting a status, role, or function (matrimony; testimony), or a personal quality or kind of behavior (acrimony; sanctimony).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Marriage is the English word derived from MARRY + AGE.

Here is the definition of matri, which forms the compound word matrimony.

matri-

&#8194; Use matri- in a Sentence

See web results for matri-

See images of matri-

a combining form meaning “mother,” used in the formation of compound words: matrilineal.

Also, matro-; especially before a vowel, matr-.

Origin:
< L, comb. form of m&#257;ter mother

Riiiiight.... Um... notice nothing there about Jesus' mum? On acount of the matriae root word being Latin that predates Christianity.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Here is the second part of the root word for matri-mony. I provided you with the links E.P.II, but apparently you did not use them.

MONY

a suffix found on abstract nouns borrowed from Latin, usually denoting a status, role, or function (matrimony; testimony), or a personal quality or kind of behavior (acrimony; sanctimony).

Latin... which existed long before either Jesus or Mary were born.

 

[GenemZ]

[per&#183;ver&#183;sion (p

r-v&#251;r

zh

n, -sh

n)
n. 1. a. The act of perverting.
b. The state of being perverted.

2. A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant./QUOTE]I know what it means. Don't think it has anything to do with homosexuality.

In fact, I don't think there are many sexual practices at all that can accurately be described as "perversion". Sure, a few of the paraphilias that can be traced to an actual neurological impairment possibly qualify as a "perversion", but even them, the person displaying the condition should be treated as a suferer of a condition, not as a willing participant.

Romans 1 tells us that perversion begins with man's thinking. God handed them over to homosexuality only to reflect what was at work in their hearts towards God. Homosexuality is God's way of outwardly manifesting an action to warn others of an inward deviation.

Romans 1:18-19

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness
of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God
is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."

​

That's what they were like in their hearts while they were yet heterosexual in expression. Homosexuality was punishment for how they thought. They were not born gay. These become the aggressor types... seducing many at a young age which can become conditioning to directing their sex drive.

That explains how many homosexuals came into being. If men did not have wicked thoughts towards God in the invisible drawing process that God gives to all men.. there would be no homosexuality. Homosexuality is symptomatic of something not overt. One's attitude towards the Spirit of God. They are perverse towards God in their thinking. These come up with rationales and excuses to justify where they find themselves rather than be honest before God and repent. They suppress the truth with wickedness. That's what the Bible says.


.









.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Romans 1 tells us that perversion begins with man's thinking. God handed them over to homosexuality only to reflect what was at work in their hearts towards God. Homosexuality is God's way of outwardly manifesting an action to warn others of an inward deviation.

Romans 1:18-19​

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness
of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God
is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."​

That's what they were like in their hearts while they were yet heterosexual in expression. Homosexuality was punishment for how they thought. They were not born gay. These become the aggressor types... seducing many at a young age which can become conditioning to directing their sex drive.

That explains how many homosexuals came into being. If men did not have wicked thoughts towards God in the invisible drawing process that God gives to all men.. there would be no homosexuality. Homosexuality is symptomatic of something not overt. One's attitude towards the Spirit of God. They are perverse towards God in their thinking. These come up with rationales and excuses to justify where they find themselves rather than be honest before God and repent. They suppress the truth with wickedness. That's what the Bible says.
.

I don't agree with your interpretation, and I take offence at your accusation that "homosexuality is a punishment"

 

[one11]

Riiiiight.... Um... notice nothing there about Jesus' mum? On acount of the matriae root word being Latin that predates Christianity.

You're not listening.

I said the French words are marie and marie. One for Yeshua's mother whose name is Marie in the French language, and the French word to marry is also marie (which means our English word marry). Marry is the M.English word derived from the French.

However, even when I speak in my American accent and say the words marry and Mary they sound exactly the same to me. As do the words the Virgin Marie and the celebration of the marie in French.

And I do believe it derives from the Virgin Mary's name, though they dropped an r, most likely out of respect for her "name", which is different in many languages. Yet French was spoken in like 1 A.D., and middle English didn't really develop until about one thousand years later, approx. Middle English words began to appear about 11 to 13 A.D.

But aside from that, matri from the word matrimony, still means the one designed to be the mother. And what is a mother? A woman, the one with the womb.

However, the main point of contention is how can one receive forgiveness if they do not ask for forgiveness nor admit something is a sin?

 

[GenemZ]

I don't agree with your interpretation, and I take offence at your accusation that "homosexuality is a punishment"

That is what Romans 1, states it is for those it mentions...

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against
all the godlessness and wickedness of men
who suppress the truth by their wickedness."

​

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women
and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty
for their perversion."


​

It does not say that they are being punished for being homosexual. Matter of fact, it says that their perversion was what brought on the homosexuality. Stay with the Word of God. please. It says what I am repeating.


​

"Men committed indecent acts with other men,and
received in themselves the due penalty
for their perversion."


.
​

.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You're not listening.

I said the French words are marie and marie. One for Yeshua's mother whose name is Marie in the French language, and the French word to marry is also marie (which means our English word marry). Marry is the M.English word derived from the French.

However, even when I speak in my American accent and say the words marry and Mary they sound exactly the same to me. As do the words the Virgin Marie and the celebration of the marie in French.

And I do believe it derives from the Virgin Mary's name, though they dropped an r, most likely out of respect for her "name", which is different in many languages. Yet French was spoken in like 1 A.D., and middle English didn't really develop until about one thousand years later, approx. Middle English words began to appear about 11 to 13 A.D.

But aside from that, matri from the word matrimony, still means the one designed to be the mother. And what is a mother? A woman, the one with the womb.

However, the main point of contention is how can one receive forgiveness if they do not ask for forgiveness nor admit something is a sin?

It doesn't matter that the French word for Mary and for Marry sound the same, "marriage" comes from a Latin root word. It has NOTHING TO DO with Mary.

Yes, I know they sound similar, but that is, if anything, a coincidence.

The Latin rood word "matriae" from which the French word, and then the English word, is derived, PREDATES the existance of Mary or Jesus.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

However, the main point of contention is how can one receive forgiveness if they do not ask for forgiveness nor admit something is a sin?

You can argue that all you like, that usn't what I'm talking about. My entire point in talking to you here is that your "marriage belongs to Christian religions" is WRONG.

 

[one11]

You can argue that all you like, that usn't what I'm talking about. My entire point in talking to you here is that your "marriage belongs to Christian religions" is WRONG.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But I think a lot of people are agreeing with me and disagreeing with you.

Latin came first, French came second, Middle English came much later.

I give up with you.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You are entitled to your opinion.

But I think a lot of people are agreeing with me and disagreeing with you.

Latin came first, French came second, Middle English came much later.

I give up with you.

Of course Latin came first, French (Old French, to be technical) came second, then middle English.

And Matriae is a LATIN word, which has NOTHING to do with Mary. Do you think that somehow Latin incorporated Mary's name into their language before she was even born?

 

[GenemZ]

You can argue that all you like, that usn't what I'm talking about. My entire point in talking to you here is that your "marriage belongs to Christian religions" is WRONG.

God ordained marriage for all mankind.. Male and female.

Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning
the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said,
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore
what God has joined together, let man not separate."​

Notice... What Jesus said? "What God has joined together." God brings together male and female.





.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

God ordained marriage for all mankind.. Male and female.

Matthew 19:4-6​

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning
the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said,
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore
what God has joined together, let man not separate."​

Notice... What Jesus said? "What God has joined together." God brings together male and female.

.

Quote mining Jesus isn't cool.

 

[one11]

Because the posts in which they appear are falling further and further behind, and because many of them rely on the same or similar points, I will not be spending as much time and space in commenting on most of the rest of Ken's postings. For example, the remaining section of the Dictionary mostly concerns itself with defending the association of the "man-bedders" (arsenokoitai) in 1 Corinthians with the sin of "man-lying" (mishkav zakur) in Leviticus. I have already said I have no problem with that identification, so that is all I have to say about it.

The excerpt from the Apologetics Study Bible makes the serious mistake of claiming that the Jewish morbid fascination with "homosexuality" as sin is evidenced throughout the Bible, when in fact, the focus on, first, sexual sins, and then, "homosexuality" was a gradual process begun in the Post-Exlilc period.

The MacArthur excerpt points out the fact that Plato would have no reason to condemn "homosexuality" in general, but appears to be unaware that the passage in Romans originated in a work by Plato. In addition, it assumes, despite the evidence of both historical research and the words of the Bible, that the sin of Sodom was always and primarily identified as "homosexuality."

The Freedman article, on the other hand, deserves a closer look. Freedman caught the use of the five words Paul inserted, but he did not connect them to the sin of Passion. He recognizes the influence of the Jewish apocalyptic literature, but misses the more complete picture.

I'll look at the Freedman excerpt in my next post.

I've been trying to get back to find your post O.F. but they are too far back now.

You had begun an interesting point about "Paul" perhaps making an ethnic joke about the homosexual orgy Paul was talking about or whatever it was?

However, I don't think Paul was joking because some of the men of the Corinthian church might have been what is called "Jesus peddling". They may have been falsely accusing people of the same thing they did which they seem to have been forgiven for?... and then perhaps charging people money for repentance which may have been a type of corrupt communion?

A lot of bad things were going on in Corinth. Paul even has to explain over and over that the gospel message of Jesus Christ is FREE, and Paul preaches it free of charge. However, Paul then, in a most graceful way goes on to saying that yes he (Paul) preaches the gospel free of charge, but that does NOT mean do away with hospital and charity. Paul was very gracious, even though he should have been mad, imo. Paul was merely asking for a little food, perhaps a bath, a bed to sleep in, a place to wash his clothes. Paul endured a lot (understatement) and was loving his neighbor as himself, and expecting the same in return! Corinth was out of hand. This subject could be a subject for some of you to debate. I'd rather stay out of that debate if started as I haven't read enough of 1 Corinthians yet.

However, I need to know if the seven churches or however many churches in REVELATION there are are the churches written of in the Epistles, the '"churches" written of in REVELATION?

If they are the churches written about in the book of Revelation, there would be no way to do without the Epistles because then they are the churches in the book of Revelation. So, I need to know that first. Anyone, know?

And if these are the "churches" in the book of Revelation, then I'd rather stay out of this discussion.

But an interesting thread O.F. might be was if "Paul" was "ethnic joking"?

 

[david_x]

Nope. Would you?

Have. While we are on the subject read Romans 14, then live it.

 

[OllieFranz]

I've been trying to get back to find your post O.F. but they are too far back now.

You had begun an interesting point about "Paul" perhaps making an ethnic joke about the homosexual orgy Paul was talking about or whatever it was?

Actually it was Plato who made the ethnic joke four hundred years earlier. Paul simply decided to cite Plato's example for his own reasons. (Although I did indicate that Paul probably knew it was an ethnic joke, because he made a different ethnic joke against the same nationality in his letter to Titus.)

However, I don't think Paul was joking because some of the men of the Corinthian church might have been what is called "Jesus peddling". They may have been falsely accusing people of the same thing they did which they seem to have been forgiven for?... and then perhaps charging people money for repentance which may have been a type of corrupt communion?

You seem to be confusing the letter to the Church in Rome, which Paul had never visited, with his letters to the Church in Corinth. And again, Paul did not make the joke, Plato did. Paul just used the possible confusion between the joke and the description of the sin for his own purposes.

A lot of bad things were going on in Corinth. Paul even has to explain over and over that the gospel message of Jesus Christ is FREE, and Paul preaches it free of charge. However, Paul then, in a most graceful way goes on to saying that yes he (Paul) preaches the gospel free of charge, but that does NOT mean do away with hospital and charity. Paul was very gracious, even though he should have been mad, imo. Paul was merely asking for a little food, perhaps a bath, a bed to sleep in, a place to wash his clothes. Paul endured a lot (understatement) and was loving his neighbor as himself, and expecting the same in return! Corinth was out of hand. This subject could be a subject for some of you to debate. I'd rather stay out of that debate if started as I haven't read enough of 1 Corinthians yet.

You might want to read the letter to the Romans if you wish to comment on Paul's choice of example, since the passage in question is in that letter, not 1 Corinthians.

However, I need to know if the seven churches or however many churches in REVELATION there are are the churches written of in the Epistles, the '"churches" written of in REVELATION?

If they are the churches written about in the book of Revelation, there would be no way to do without the Epistles because then they are the churches in the book of Revelation. So, I need to know that first. Anyone, know?

And if these are the "churches" in the book of Revelation, then I'd rather stay out of this discussion.

This might be an interesting line of inquiry, but I am already committed to responding to the material Ken posted. After I catch up on that, I'll look into this.

But an interesting thread O.F. might be was if "Paul" was "ethnic joking"?

 

[Polycarp1]

I think we're mistaking Paul's intent in quoting Epimenides. The more intellectual among the Greeks, and those who aspired to their number. delighted in word play, paradoxes, things that challenged them to think. The old saw, "If God is omnipotent, can He make a stone so heavy that He Himself annot lift it?", dates from early Christian Greek times. (The paradox, of course, is that whatever answer you give implies something God cannot do, contary to the presumption in the premiss ("if" clause). The quote from Epimenides is one of these. All Cretans are liars. We know this because Epimenides, who was himself a Cretan, said so. But if Epimenides was telling the truth, then his statement was incorrect, because he was a Cretan who was not lying, whereas if he was lying, then his lie proves the truth of the satement.... it turns into a paradox.

As someone (Gene?) noted earlier, Paul would appeal to the Jews speaking as a Jew, to the Romans living in a town as himself a Roman citizen. And he had a good education, including both the knowledge of the Law expected of a Pharisee, and the classical scholarship expected of a prominent Roman citizen. Talking to the Greeks who revered philosophy, he became a Greek philosopher, that he might lead them to Christ.

That;s why the little comment about Cretans, with its side glance at Epimendees (quoted but not named). Evangelists use this gimmick, and use it properly: they tailor their address to what they believe has the best chance of reaching their audience, of speaking to their hearts. An evangelist speaking in Princeton, Berkeley, Cambridge, will use the best intellectual and scholarly examples he can come up with, for the same reason as speaking to a farm audience, he sticks to Jesus's agricultural parables and what they have to say to the new believer. Talking to Greeks, Paul became a Greek, and indulged himself in a bit of paradox wordplay that would speak to the Greek love of learning and intellectual fun

 

[Ave Maria]

No, God does not find homosexual relations to be abominable, especially not loving homosexual relations. The verses that are often quoted against homosexuality are known as the "clobber passages". I would post a link about them but I can't because I don't have enough posts. So instead, I'll refer you to the website. Do a Google search of "homosexual clobber passages" and a website called Religious Tolerance should be the first on the list. Click on that and take a look at it. You will see differing interpretations of the homosexual "clobber passages". I happen to subscribe to the liberal or progressive interpretations.

 

[epistemaniac]

Quote mining Jesus isn't cool.

neither is butchering His teaching...

blessings,
ken