Floatingaxe
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2007
- 14,757
- 877
- 73
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Speaking as one of the Fallen, FA, it does not respond to anything but love and kindness. It will not abide or accept being harassed, "verbally stoned", abused or mistreated by anyone nor approached with a condemnatory nasty attitude by anyone, and it certainly will NOT permit itself to view God as one to condone that behavior. It will NOT receive anything of that nature as coming from God. BUT you can ask anyone what knows it to any REAL degree in this world and they will tell you Moriah responds to love.
You can do with that information whatever you wish -- it has no hope for anything here and it does not say this to make the matter personal but as one speaking for many. If you really bes concerned with the reclamation of souls you need to realize that condemning ppls only pushes them further away. Love and kindness may not always work right away (in terms of getting ppls to respond the way you think they should) but it will not alienate or slam the door shut forever, that bes for certain.
Being loving and kind does NOT equate to winking at sin. It simply does not equate condemning sin with condemning and harshing out on people.
Do with that info what you wish. Maybe the problem bes not that they don't respond to "nice". Maybe the problem bes that your expectations bes unrealistic. Paraplegics cannot just start walking because you befriend them. But that does not mean you should start screaming at them and blaming them for losing the use of their legs.
Dear Moriah_Conquering_Wind,
Not at all. The comment wasn't for you, but for someone who said Jesus never mentions gays and lesbians. Well there is no mnetion of gays and lesbians in ancieent Greek and Roman literature. Sure there were thsoe who had and practicsed same-sex sex, indeed the NT writers pointed out its error.
And I am perfectly well versed in the ancient literture.
Just one other point. We have discovered in these debates that the idea of what constitutes 'love', differs. Pro-gay posters do not seem to affirm the Biblical agapeo love I and others point out, in that Jesus loved us enough to suffer and pay the price for all our sin in death. The love of God demonstrated through Jesus Christ is a sacrficial love. Alas pro-gay debaters consistantly propose love is a same-sex union. Sadly the word of God describes same-sex unions as detestible and error, even perversion to use that translation. There are thousands dying of lack in the world at the moment and thousands of believing Christians in mortal danger for their beliefs, I can harldy bat an eyelid at those who consider speaking God's word "verbally stoning" or abusing them. This is a debating forum, we cannot but speak what we believe and it is in love, well at least our love if not yours.
I'd be interested to read that. Is it online?You bes kidding right? So like the entire Greek and Roman social structures built around the various types of homosexual relationships, including but not limited to the sapphic and pederast traditions, simply did not exist?
Got a pretty scholarly read called Homosexuality in the Scriptures that would disagree with you there. It goes into comparing all the various historical and cultural expressions of homosexual alignment and activity, etc. back in the day, in discussing these verses of the Bible.
I understand, and I appreciate that you are willing to take the time to try to understand my position, and Plato's before responding.
Although I do agree with those who declare that we do not have enough context to definatively define what Paul meant when coined the word arsenokoites, it does seem clear enough that he meant to echo the LXX translation of Lev 20:13 which includes the phrase arsenos koiten. So I have no objection to connecting the two Pauline verses to the two Levitical verses.
The weakness I referred to is based not in Paul's language but in the Mosaic Law.
Consider the incest laws. They take up several verses, many of those verses including several types of relatives. So there are dozens of examples of who is too close a relative, and they are in groupings that potentially include still more types. For example, Lev 18:9 speaks of a sister, a half-sister on the father's side, a half-sister on the mother's side, and a step-sister. However if there were a girl raised in your household who is not directly related to you, but is your half-brother's step-sister, she would be included here as well. It is just not possible to list every immaginable relationship. But they give enough examples to set up a general principle.
But there is only relation, indeed only one action, which is forbidden in Leviticus 18:22. Nor does Leviticus 20:13 add anything to the ban except the consequences.
The rabbis, who usually admitted that "built a fence around" the Mosaic Law in order to avoid even the possibility of accidently violating it. So that the few laws about unclean animals and about cooking a kid in its mother's milk became elaborate dietary laws in which certain cuts of meat are forbidden and you need separate settings for different meals depending on whether the meal includes meat or dairy.
Similarly, the "fence" the rabbis built around Lev 18:22 includes all forms of male-male sex. Significantly, however, it did not include female-female sex. The rabbis brought up the question, only to dismiss it. Whatever females "rubbing" one another was, it was not male-male penitrative sex.
But the language of Lev 18:22 is a little unusual. There are only five significant words in the whole verse. A literal translation would read "With-a-male to-lie in-the-lyings/as-to-lie with/of-the-wife is-taboo."
The words for the man and the woman are not counterpart to one another. The word for the man is the one used when one is just aknowleging the sex of the person, while the word for the woman references a specific woman, his wife. Likewise, the two instances of "lying" are two different words.
I have seen different studies into the significance of the unusual language. If we assume all of those theories are true and have equal weight, then the conclusion is that the command simply forbids you from raping a strange man you find in your wife's bed! Clearly, not all of these studies are equally valid. But that does not mean none of them are.
Likewise, a case can be made for the command referring to a specific religious practice among the Canaanites, and so it is therefore an anti-idolatry command, not an anti-sex one. However that interpretation is not without its problems.
So there are competing theories of just what was forbidden, and under what circumstances. They cannot all be right. But does it really matter all that much?
Let's accept the broadest possible interpretation -- that it forbids being the "dominant" partner in male-male sex under any circumstances. It still only calls the act toevah, "taboo." Mosaic Law usually labels sexual immorality as zimmah, "wicked."
So it is taboo for an Israelite to engage in male-male sex, just as it is taboo for him to eat forbidden food (Deut 14:3), to share a meal with an unbeliever (Gen 42:32), or to remarry a woman he once divorced, if she had been married to someone else (Deut 24:1-4)
But those other taboos are intended mainly for the purpose of clearly showing the Israelite people to be different from the pagan Gentiles. They have been lifted with regard to Christian (Acts 10-11, Acts 15, etc.). If man-lying is not "wicked" then it should be lifted as well.
If in the middle of a speech, or a letter, I quote a famous saying (for instance, "We have nothing to fear but Fear itself.") I may not attribute it, as I would in a more formal paper. I'd rely on its fame to speak for itself.
Paul quoted it, not for the lessons that Plato taught (although they would be in the back of his readers' minds), but because it was a well-known example of the kind of unbridled passion he wanted to mention at this point in the introduction to his real topic of Grace.
Exactly! He had to start the letter where the readers were (mentally), and unlike any of his other letters, he had never met these people, so he went with what he knew they had read.
I look forward to it.
I'd still like you to address my question... you said earlier that only OT laws that are later repealed in scripture can be discarded... so where is the scripture that tells us a rape victim no longer has to marry her attacker?You seem to think I have alot of time on my hands.
Seriously, I will need time to go over many parts of your post, and do some more studying. I can honestly say I haven't studied the Lev. scriptures that much because they aren't the only scriptures that speak of homosexuality. Also, I get tired of hearing the shellfish and mixed fabic statements, and having to post the NT scriptures which tells meat and drink aren't unclean. I figure if I don't add the Lev. scriptures that it will cut down the chance of having to read the fish and fabic stuff.
That probably isn't good on my part, but at least I'm being honest.
Thank You for your patience and understanding.
I'd still like you to address my question... you said earlier that only OT laws that are later repealed in scripture can be discarded... so where is the scripture that tells us a rape victim no longer has to marry her attacker?
It's utterly ridiculous to be considering homosexuals as part of the wonderful diversity of humanity created by God! He created diversity in us all within the heterosexual model--normalcy.
God never said so, your interpretation is that "God hates it". You do this over and over, you state something as fact like I won't see right through it, but I do, and anyone reading this thread can too.Of course they think that! It's absolute delusion. God hates it. He says so.
No, actually what they come with is EVIDENCE, such as that the orientation is unchangeable, and that a gay or lesbian is best off living their lives out as their true sexuality. You have no proof that they are "godless", you only say that because of your personal biases. After reading testimony after testimony on sites like beyondexgay.com, it is easy to see who's "thinking" is put onto gays and lesbians, and it certainly is not your so-called "right-thinking" in any way, shape or form!!!They are too spineless, godless and highly influenced by the secular society that pushes perversity on right-thinking Christian people.
I will combat this quote with the opposite "there's nothing YOU or any of the other anti-gay debaters can do to make God say that He hates homosexuality". There aren't any word games, just PROOF. I listed nearly all the names that people who engaged in homosexual behavior were called.Word games. We all know what God means, and there isn't any spinning and weaving that you can do that changes His mind on the matter.
Your article states this, however, this does not mean that it is a fact. It still does not address going against one's own instincts and inclinations.Paul is clear that homosexuality goes against nature as shown in his using words that would have been understood in that place and time.
The point is, the customs of the time were brought into account. Do you believe a man with long hair is shameful or that it is unnatural? Paul never said that a homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of God, and I guess it bears repeating to an unknown translation that you are referring to of a different passage (Arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9). Paul's understanding of nature was based on Stoic philosophy, and it isn't the one we use now. Paul always associated the word "nature" with cultural heritage and religious teachings, which is why I made the comparison.Since when does long hair on a man have anything to do with homosexuality? I don't believe Paul ever said that long hair on a man will keep him from inheriting the Kingdom of God, so I see no comparison in one being a sin and the other being shameful.
Trying to muddy the water by using things that have no bearing isn't anything more then trying to cause confusion., which we know that God isn't the author of.
Appreciate you taking the time to follow up... and now I can't find it either!Sorry, I must have forgotten or missed that I owed you a post. I will go back and see what we were talking about, and get you an answer.
Since I am not sure but what I can remember studying before, there is something about the fact that the word some translations say is rape wasn't.
So will go back and look at the posts you are referring to and get back with you.
Sorry, again for either forgetting or missing your post.
If you are open to the possibility that "rape" is an incorrect translation of a word in the original, are you open to the possibility that "homosexual" might be an incorrect translation?there is something about the fact that the word some translations say is rape wasn't
Phinehas2, you may wish to study the language of Greek history a little, because this post is completely erroneous. Gays and lesbians have existed for a long time, and there were standard terms used for those who engaged in homosexual behavior: arrenomanes, kinaidos, paiderastes, paidophthoro, pallakos, NONE of which Paul used. My post also clutches at the notion that a person's inclinations and instincts are abandoned, and in order to do that, they could not have a same sex orientation. I demonstrated this with the words "phusis" and "phusikos".No Paul is speaking not from man's ideas but from the Risen Lord. Secondly, gays and lesbians didnt exist then. You are mixing what you think are meanings of ancient Greek words with modern words and concepts. No. Romans 1 is not just dependant on Phusis and Phusikos, the explanation is clear enough. Your proposition clutches at straws men with men instead of women is gay and lesbian in your terms. You could say Paul was speaking about gays and lesbians, thats the point
Phinehas2 said:Secondly, gays and lesbians didnt exist then
Phinehas2 said:You could say Paul was speaking about gays and lesbians, thats the point
You don't have any proof that this statement is true, and that he had the heterosexual model in mind for all, OR that it defines what is "normal". Normal is relative.
God never said so, your interpretation is that "God hates it". You do this over and over, you state something as fact like I won't see right through it, but I do, and anyone reading this thread can too.
No, actually what they come with is EVIDENCE, such as that the orientation is unchangeable, and that a gay or lesbian is best off living their lives out as their true sexuality. You have no proof that they are "godless", you only say that because of your personal biases. After reading testimony after testimony on sites like beyondexgay.com, it is easy to see who's "thinking" is put onto gays and lesbians, and it certainly is not your so-called "right-thinking" in any way, shape or form!!!
I will combat this quote with the opposite "there's nothing YOU or any of the other anti-gay debaters can do to make God say that He hates homosexuality". There aren't any word games, just PROOF. I listed nearly all the names that people who engaged in homosexual behavior were called.
Your article states this, however, this does not mean that it is a fact. It still does not address going against one's own instincts and inclinations.
The point is, the customs of the time were brought into account. Do you believe a man with long hair is shameful or that it is unnatural? Paul never said that a homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of God, and I guess it bears repeating to an unknown translation that you are referring to of a different passage (Arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9).
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
It has plenty of bearing, even though you may wish to ignore it. Customs, and historical context must be taken into account, as well as the perspective of the original author.
Phineas has demonstrated he has no wish to study anything that contradicts his a priori viewsPhinehas2, you may wish to study the language of Greek history a little, because this post is almost completely erroneous. Gays and lesbians have existed for a long time, and there were standard terms used for those who engaged in homosexual behavior: arrenomanes, kinaidos, paiderastes, paidophthoro, pallakos, NONE of which Paul used. My post also clutches at the notion that a person's inclinations and instincts are abandoned, and in order to do that, they could not have a same sex orientation. I demonstrated this with the words "phusis" and "phusikos".
so when you refuse to look at evidence, thats OK, but anyone else disagreeing with your purely subjective POV is denial?Your response is merely denial. Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush...
Your argument is with Almighty God. Take it up with Him...
No homosexuals back then?No Paul is speaking not from man's ideas but from the Risen Lord. Secondly, gays and lesbians didnt exist then. You are mixing what you think are meanings of ancient Greek words with modern words and concepts. No. Romans 1 is not just dependant on Phusis and Phusikos, the explanation is clear enough. Your proposition clutches at straws men with men instead of women is gay and lesbian in your terms. You could say Paul was speaking about gays and lesbians, thats the point
12,000 BC
Near the end of the Upper Paleolithic Era, human beings have left artifacts and artwork suggesting an appreciation of homo eroticism.[citation needed] Examples include a few cave paintings and hundreds of phallic "batons" among which is a graphically carved double [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from Gorge d'Enfer (in present-day France) that seems to have been crafted for two women to use together.[1]
[edit] 5,000 BC
Possible examples of homo eroticism in European Mesolithic art include a rock engraving found in Addaura, Sicily, in which men and women dance around two cavorting sexually aroused male figures.
Source: Timeline of more History
[edit] 25th/24th century BC
It is believed that the two men may have been lovers, making this the first record of a possible homosexual relationship.[2]
- Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum's tomb is built in Egypt during the fifth dynasty.
[edit] 7th century BC
Pederasty spread through ancient Greece, influencing sports, literature, politics, philosophy, art and warfare, and causing, according to some, a flowering of culture; it was associated with gymnasia and athletic nudity.[3][4]
- 630 BCE Dorian aristocrats in Crete adopt formal pederastic relations between adult princes and adolescent boys, with the double aim to educate the youths and curb population growth; see Cretan pederasty.
[edit] 6th century BC
[edit] 4th century BC
- 600 BCE - The term Lesbian and Lesbos is used for the first time[citation needed] - See Etymology of "lesbian" [1]
[edit] 1st century AD
- 338 BCE The Sacred Band of Thebes, an undefeated elite battalion made up of one hundred and fifty pederastic couples, is destroyed by the forces of Philip II of Macedon who bemoans their loss and praises their honor.
[edit] 4th century AD
- 54 - Nero becomes Emperor of Rome. Nero married two men in legal ceremonies, with at least one spouse accorded the same honours as a Caesar's wife.[5] This action was criticized by contemporary commentators.
- 342 - The sons of Constantine I, Constans and Constantius II, pass a law read variously by historians as outlawing gay prostitution, outlawing gay marriage, and most severely, outlawing homosexuality altogether.
so when you refuse to look at evidence, thats OK, but anyone else disagreeing with your purely subjective POV is denial?
You are agreeing with anti-gay doctrine, and not God, for the record, and everyone reading this thread can see as fact, THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.There is no evidence to support your view. It is all contrived, and clearly defies God and His word. It's called "rebellion" and it is as old as the hills.
Christians don't have a subjective POV regarding this, because we are only agreeing with God's POV!
Most of the anti-gay arguers confuse translations with the word of God, and believe they are one and the same. This is why they are not even qualified to debate here, why do we waste our time? I have to ask myself this everytime I get here. Somehow we have crossed over to the dark, Apostate side, and we are the "enemy", it's preposterous.so when you refuse to look at evidence, thats OK, but anyone else disagreeing with your purely subjective POV is denial?
God has never made any statement about homosexuality. All God has ever said is he wants us to love and accept each other. This is completely compatible with homosexuality.There is no evidence to support your view. It is all contrived, and clearly defies God and His word. It's called "rebellion" and it is as old as the hills.
Christians don't have a subjective POV regarding this, because we are only agreeing with God's POV!
Denial? prove it's denial in the smallest of ways, I would really love to wait around to see you prove that. Your response is not even a rebuttal to mine, so here we go again. You are not actually debating (you hardly ever do), and you are not refuting anything I posted (which is factual evidence against your anti-gay doctrine and translations), nor are you posting any evidence that contradicts what I have posted.Your response is merely denial. Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush...
Your argument is with Almighty God. Take it up with Him...
You love to confuse us arguing with God, like that is some credible debate point, and it isn't.
My argument is against you, I don't have a problem with God in the least.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?