Has the gay community infiltrated this website?

Im_A · Mar 13, 2007

davedjy said:
Burning with lust, but what does this chapter address? it addresses lust and not attraction or romantic love.

You see this as an example for monogamous, homosexual relationships? Do you realize the historical fact backings is that it is in conjunction w/pagan worship and wild orgies? how are you going to dodge historical facts and the true link w/documented facts?

I didn't dodge anything, I put PUNISHMENTS into perspective!

while i hold no opinion of homosexuality, i see your point big time here.

it's one thing to go on and quote about homosexuality being sin because of this and that verse, but yet, i'm sure all modern families love failing the levitical law when they don't stone their disobediant children, or forget about the rest of the Levitical Law.

and it makes me chuckle when i hear the arguments quoting Paul but then believers thinking it is ok to have women in leadership, slaves be free.

it's not my point to say that homosexuality isn't sin, but the contradictions are there in the argumentation against it. i just choose not to judge something as sin, or say it isn't sin when it is something i can never understand. i'm a flaming hetero brother! God Bless you always!

Lisa0315 · Mar 13, 2007

davedjy said:
Burning with lust, but what does this chapter address? it addresses lust and not attraction or romantic love.

You see this as an example for monogamous, homosexual relationships? Do you realize the historical fact backings is that it is in conjunction w/pagan worship and wild orgies? how are you going to dodge historical facts and the true link w/documented facts?

I didn't dodge anything, I put PUNISHMENTS into perspective!

That is my favorite line to get someone to come out of the closet.

It was bait to get you to address the Scripture which you had previously ignored.

Now, can you provide a link to the historical fact backings in conjunction with pagan worship and wild orgies. I know this was certainly going on, but please show how this is the meaning behind Paul and Jude's writings on the subject. Then, could you please address the historical writings of the church fathers on the subject of homosexuality?

Lisa

BTW, I hope you know that my stance on the subject has no bearing on my personal feelings towards you. You seem like a very nice person. I actually wish that you could prove me wrong. I just do not believe that it is so.

eastcoast_bsc · Mar 13, 2007

tattedsaint said:
while i hold no opinion of homosexuality, i see your point big time here.

it's one thing to go on and quote about homosexuality being sin because of this and that verse, but yet, i'm sure all modern families love failing the levitical law when they don't stone their disobediant children, or forget about the rest of the Levitical Law.

and it makes me chuckle when i hear the arguments quoting Paul but then believers thinking it is ok to have women in leadership, slaves be free.

it's not my point to say that homosexuality isn't sin, but the contradictions are there in the argumentation against it. i just choose not to judge something as sin, or say it isn't sin when it is something i can never understand. i'm a flaming hetero brother! God Bless you always!

Nothing worse then a flaming hetero flaunting himself

Im_A · Mar 13, 2007

eastcoast_bsc said:
Nothing worse then a flaming hetero flaunting himself

well i don't flaunt around, i just like using controversial terms to make light of conversation when the person i responded to knows i have nothing but love and compassion for him.

davedjy · Mar 13, 2007

Lisa0315 said:
That is my favorite line to get someone to come out of the closet.

It was bait to get you to address the Scripture which you had previously ignored.

Now, can you provide a link to the historical fact backings in conjunction with pagan worship and wild orgies. I know this was certainly going on, but please show how this is the meaning behind Paul and Jude's writings on the subject. Then, could you please address the historical writings of the church fathers on the subject of homosexuality?

Lisa

BTW, I hope you know that my stance on the subject has no bearing on my personal feelings towards you. You seem like a very nice person. I actually wish that you could prove me wrong. I just do not believe that it is so.

Why do I have to bring that here? Can't you just Google historical context of Aphrodite in Rome? this was the prevailing god of the time.

I don't believe you didn't say it intentionally, but this is a debate forum, and when you say things like that, it implies to other members that I am just saying something not based on facts and evidence.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/aphrodite.html

davedjy · Mar 14, 2007

Lisa0315 said:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=9626

Those websites make it painfully obvious that these sources had no knowledge of an "orientation" back in Biblical times.

Lisa0315 · Mar 14, 2007

davedjy said:
Why do I have to bring that here? Can't you just Google historical context of Aphrodite in Rome? this was the prevailing god of the time.

I don't believe you didn't say it intentionally, but this is a debate forum, and when you say things like that, it implies to other members that I am just saying something not based on facts and evidence.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/aphrodite.html

Oh, I was not saying that you did not have a source, but asking you to show it. We judge the validity of an argument based on the source of the person's statements.

Plus, in a forum such as this, you do need to back up what you say with either scripture or other source. That is standard, and it is even a rule. In fact, it is explicitly stated when discussing homosexuality.

Lisa

Lisa0315 · Mar 14, 2007

davedjy said:
Those websites make it painfully obvious that these sources had no knowledge of an "orientation" back in Biblical times.

Those sources are the founding fathers of Christianity. Orientation is a modern term, and one created for political correctness. The founding fathers were not concerned about hurting people's feelings, but were concerned about truth and the salvation of souls.

Lisa

Der Alte · Mar 14, 2007

davedjy said:
Why do I have to bring that here? Can't you just Google historical context of Aphrodite in Rome? this was the prevailing god of the time.

I don't believe you didn't say it intentionally, but this is a debate forum, and when you say things like that, it implies to other members that I am just saying something not based on facts and evidence.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/aphrodite.html

You are saying something NOT based on facts or evidence. Aphrodite was unknown in Rome. Aphrodite was the goddess of love in Greece, NOT Rome. For example, we have instant news via TV, etc. and the average person knows nothing about Islam.

Paul was writing to Rome possibly from Corinth. The Romans had to understand what he was talking about, they know nothing of Aphrodite or the pagan religious practices of the Greeks.

And OBTW the claim has been made that Paul just made up the word "arsenokoites." Can you picture the Roman church sitting around reading Paul's letter and saying, "Hey, anyone know what this 'arsenokoites" means? Paul used the word twice and never explained it, therefore both audiences must have understood it. For example, John's disciple Polycarp, and his student Irenaeus both understood it as did other early church fathers, sodomy, "lust, impurity, works of the flesh, carnal, lawless intercourse, shameless, burning with insane love for boys, licentiousness, co-habitors with males, lusters after mankind,.

Did you even read the last sentence at the link you posted?

savedandhappy1 · Mar 14, 2007

Lisa0315 said:
Those sources are the founding fathers of Christianity. Orientation is a modern term, and one created for political correctness. The founding fathers were not concerned about hurting people's feelings, but were concerned about truth and the salvation of souls.

Lisa

savedandhappy1 · Mar 14, 2007

Aphrodite
Greek goddess of sexual love and beauty. She is also associated with the sea and, according to legend, was born of sea foam arising from the genitals of Uranus. Sparta, Thebes, and Cyprus honored her as a goddess of war. Many scholars believe that her cult is Semitic rather than Greek in origin. According to Homer, she was the daughter of Zeus and his consort Dione, and she married Hephaestus but betrayed him with Ares. She had many mortal lovers. Her main centres of worship were on the islands of Cyprus and Cythera and at Corinth. As a fertility goddess, she is associated with Eros, the Graces, and the Horae (seasons).

united4Peace · Mar 14, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
Atheist come on here all the time, and post as Christians. There is nothing that can be done about this, because we aren't allowed to question their salvation, or if they really are Christian. No matter how much we know about them from other forums, like FSTDT, or from what they say themselves. The best thing to do is ignore them, and make sure everyone knows what the truth is, because unlike this site, we need to make sure the weak or new in faith don't get tripped up by Atheists, posting in sheep's clothing.

And Atheists also set up Churches that Worship God and Jesus and they actually Pray to God and Jesus and read the Bible for over an hour or more on Sundays and sometimes other days of the week (get togethers) just for boredoms sakes.

NOT. Not any Atheist I know of.

aflower4God · Mar 14, 2007

smilingheart said:
I can see how this could happen...it is REVOLTING and sneaky and sick if that is the case....
I am confused about something, your thread is called "Has the gay community infiltrated this website?" BUT you are asking bout atheist????

Okay no one has answered this question (or I may have overlooked the answer deeply sorry if I did) anyway Why is this thread called "Has the gay community infiltrated this website" BUT it is asking about atheist?

united4Peace · Mar 14, 2007

smilingheart said:
Okay no one has answered this question (or I may have overlooked the answer deeply sorry if I did) anyway Why is this thread called "Has the gay community infiltrated this website" BUT it is asking about atheist?

From what Ive read so far (I just started reading mind you) Im assuming the OP figures that those that are Homosexual are Atheists

I could be wrong though

davedjy · Mar 14, 2007

savedandhappy1 said:
Aphrodite
Greek goddess of sexual love and beauty. She is also associated with the sea and, according to legend, was born of sea foam arising from the genitals of Uranus. Sparta, Thebes, and Cyprus honored her as a goddess of war. Many scholars believe that her cult is Semitic rather than Greek in origin. According to Homer, she was the daughter of Zeus and his consort Dione, and she married Hephaestus but betrayed him with Ares. She had many mortal lovers. Her main centres of worship were on the islands of Cyprus and Cythera and at Corinth. As a fertility goddess, she is associated with Eros, the Graces, and the Horae (seasons).

You do realize that the City of Corinth is where that chapter takes place, right?

davedjy · Mar 14, 2007

Der Alter said:
You are saying something NOT based on facts or evidence. Aphrodite was unknown in Rome. Aphrodite was the goddess of love in Greece, NOT Rome. For example, we have instant news via TV, etc. and the average person knows nothing about Islam.

Paul was writing to Rome possibly from Corinth. The Romans had to understand what he was talking about, they know nothing of Aphrodite or the pagan religious practices of the Greeks.

And OBTW the claim has been made that Paul just made up the word "arsenokoites." Can you picture the Roman church sitting around reading Paul's letter and saying, "Hey, anyone know what this 'arsenokoites" means? Paul used the word twice and never explained it, therefore both audiences must have understood it. For example, John's disciple Polycarp, and his student Irenaeus both understood it as did other early church fathers, “sodomy,” "lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”,.

Did you even read the last sentence at the link you posted?

You clearly show your lack of historical knowledge, which in the link I gave proved you don't know what you are talking about...

No, they knew what the word meant, but WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

davedjy · Mar 14, 2007

Arsenokoites: divide and conquer

We begin with the dissection of the word arsenokoites. Martin notes how interpreters have frequently split the word into its two root words, arsen (=male) and koites (=to bed or sleep with sexually; like the English word coitus). Thus, they have tended to assume that it refers generally to any man having sex with another male.

This is a faulty assumption, Martin says, because the meaning of a compound word is usually more than the sum of its parts. He gives as an example the word "understand" and notes that understand does not mean to stand under. Or, consider the word "chairman." Martin says, "None of us ... takes the word 'chairman' to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did." Therefore, to leap to the conclusion that arsenokoites refers to men having sex with other males is "linguistically invalid," Martin says. It is "naive and indefensible."

That leads me to believe it could only be one of two things:

1) a male prostitute or Catamite
2) a male who rapes another male (a Sodomite - true definition back then)

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dale+Martin's+%22arsenokoites+and+malakos%22+tried+and+found+wanting-a0153025991

Der Alte · Mar 15, 2007

davedjy said:
You clearly show your lack of historical knowledge, which in the link I gave proved you don't know what you are talking about...

The link, in the post I quoted above, does NOT prove that the Romans had any knowledge of Aphrodite, who was a Greek, deity. Read the last sentence at the link. Then tell us again what was Paul talking about in Romans 1?

davedjy said:
No, they knew what the word meant, but WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

Yes we do know what the word means. Read the several early church fathers I quoted, including Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, and Irenaeus a disciple of Polycarp.

The ONLY people who "don't know" what the word means are people like Boswell, who was a practicing homosexual, with NO listed education in Greek. Greek scholars who have actually studied Greek know what the word means. I have posted the evidence repeatedly but you don't want to listen to the truth, you would rather believe people who don't have a clue what they are talking only because they support homosexuality.

Der Alte · Mar 15, 2007

davedjy said:
Arsenokoites: divide and conquer

We begin with the dissection of the word arsenokoites. Martin notes how interpreters have frequently split the word into its two root words, arsen (=male) and koites (=to bed or sleep with sexually; like the English word coitus). Thus, they have tended to assume that it refers generally to any man having sex with another male.

This is a faulty assumption, Martin says, because the meaning of a compound word is usually more than the sum of its parts. He gives as an example the word "understand" and notes that understand does not mean to stand under. Or, consider the word "chairman." Martin says, "None of us ... takes the word 'chairman' to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did." Therefore, to leap to the conclusion that arsenokoites refers to men having sex with other males is "linguistically invalid," Martin says. It is "naive and indefensible."

That leads me to believe it could only be one of two things:

1) a male prostitute or Catamite
2) a male who rapes another male (a Sodomite - true definition back then)

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dale+Martin's+%22arsenokoites+and+malakos%22+tried+and+found+wanting-a0153025991

Dave do you really, really want to accept what this article says? Did you even read this before you copy/pasted it here? The reason I ask is because you should have read down to the conclusion which PROVES from the O.T. that "aresenokoites" does in fact mean a man who has sex with another man.

The part you quoted out-of-context was an argument by someone named Dale Martin who the author quoted in order to rip his argument to shreds.

Quoted from the conclusion of the article at your link.

[SIZE=+1]Arsenokoites in Leviticus

More important for us is to see how the word was being used in an Old Testament Jewish context, which probably would have been the greater influence on Paul and his understanding of the word. So let us consider those passages in Leviticus that prohibit a man from lying with a male as with a woman.

Although originally written in Hebrew, we look to see how these OT passages were rendered in Greek. In the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the OT), we find that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 both use the two Greek words arsenos and koiten together (the root words for arsenokoites). The phrase from Lev 20:13 is rendered in Greek: kai os an koimaythay meta arsenos koiten gunaikos bdelugma etoiesan amphoteroi ("and if a man might lie with a male as with a female, abomination/desecration they both have done"). Notice that arsenos and koiten not only both appear in this sentence, but arsenos immediately precedes koiten. Thus, it is no stretch to see how Paul, who undoubtedly would have been familiar with these verses from the Septuagint, could have from their influence put the two words together to form a new word, arsenokoites, and as he did so, clearly had in mind "a man bedding a male as a female" (Lev 20:13).

This conclusion is not based on arsenokoites appearing in unrelated lists from a century or two after Paul and then speculating on what might have been the intended meaning. It is based directly on analysis of a text Paul would have been familiar with and whose meaning was and is clear. Even though at the time the Septuagint was written the two words had not previously (so far as we know) been joined together to make the single word arsenokoites, the essential meaning had already been established in the Septuagint's rendering of these verses. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would have been referring to and proscribing male homosexuality in general in the sense of a male lying with a male as with a woman as did Leviticus[/SIZE].

davedjy · Mar 15, 2007

The part you quoted out-of-context was an argument by someone named Dale Martin who the author quoted in order to rip his argument to shreds.

I know, he THOUGHT he ripped him to shreds but he didn't. His debates against him, don't even make clear, concise sense, in the least way! He "assumes" too much, while Dale Martin's arguments were actually incredibly convincing.

Has the gay community infiltrated this website?

Legend

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

observant petal

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency