Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[HuntingMan]

HH - I am not convinced, despite your exegesis, that the matter is not as 'clear' as you would like. You have not taken into account the Roman culture of Paul's day. You have look at scripture in isolation. I think you have to look at the social forces at play with which Paul had to deal.

The Roman culture explains the idolatrous practices. It doesnt remove the FACT that men lusting after and being with other men is spoken against by Paul in Romans.
Additionaly, it really doesnt matter if I convince anyone who wants for homosexuality to be 'ok' as Id expect that type to close their eyes to any and all evidence anyway...even if God Himself presented it to them.

 

[davedjy]

The Roman culture explains the idolatrous practices. It doesnt remove the FACT that men lusting after and being with other men is spoken against by Paul in Romans.
Additionaly, it really doesnt matter if I convince anyone who wants for homosexuality to be 'ok' as Id expect that type to close their eyes to any and all evidence anyway...even if God Himself presented it to them.

Heterosexual lust is condemned as well...which proves what?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Paul wasnt quoting Plato....he was presenting GODS instruction for man to obey.

Not in the few obscure references which appear to possibly refer to some sort of homoerotic lust. In that he was only reflecting the culture.

 

[Brennin]

The only thing condemned in Romans 1 is same sex lust...and that is the only thing that can be proven. All lust is seen as a "degrading passion". Paul clearly thought these men were heterosexual (I'm sure he even thought ALL men were heterosexual by inborn nature). If you take a part the Greek words they have to do with one's natural instincts AS WELL as the natural order. Gays and lesbians are not the focus of the passage...as a result of their total depravity, they were turned over to complete spiritual ruin. Gays and lesbians have a natural disposition to the same sex, and that is proven.

Paul is not observing same sex couples or gays and lesbians...he is observing idolatry with worshiping graven images of human beings, birds, animals, and reptiles (material images). Cult pagan ritual orgies IS the proven historical context, and it fits with this analysis.

Even if he viewed it as shameful...Paul also mentions that men with long hair is shameful (1 Corinthians 11:14). The historical context always has to be taken into account.

Nope. Homosexual acts in any context are condemned in Romans and elsewhere. Moreover, the natural order is heterosexuality, regardless of one's sexual orientation.

 

[HumbleServant94]

Wikipedia is not reliable. Do you own research with reliable scholars.



Anyone who has a different opinion is wrong.



Read the Bible - you might actually learn something. There is no conclusive evidence within the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin.

Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1

 

[archaeologist2]

i am done with this thread as it has devolved to nothing but throwing stones. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong no matter how you slice it.

looking to change the meanings of greek words, especially without the help of God who would not change the meaning just to suit people of the 21st century, you try to justify practicing sin and you can't.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

i am done with this thread as it has devolved to nothing but throwing stones. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong no matter how you slice it.

looking to change the meanings of greek words, especially without the help of God who would not change the meaning just to suit people of the 21st century, you try to justify practicing sin and you can't.

I am surprised they let you back in Archie.

I didn't know you were an expert in Greek. Have you been studying?

 

[davedjy]

Nope. Homosexual acts in any context are condemned in Romans and elsewhere. Moreover, the natural order is heterosexuality, regardless of one's sexual orientation.

Certain homosexual acts are condemned (ritual orgy sex acts), however you have not proven ANYTHING about natural order and the true meaning of it. Homosexuality is an orientation found in much of God's creation (thousands). Appeal to God for believing in man-made doctrine.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

i am done with this thread as it has devolved to nothing but throwing stones. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong no matter how you slice it.

looking to change the meanings of greek words, especially without the help of God who would not change the meaning just to suit people of the 21st century, you try to justify practicing sin and you can't.

BTW, since your last ban at Koreabridge http://www.koreabridge.com/forums/index.php?&&CODE=00 your erstwhile chum Stephen has been involved in a deabte over there on this very subject. Shall I PM him and let him you know you need his help?

 

[davedjy]

rofl!

 

[Christian Soldier]

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...d=265548&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers

"Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality In the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants "alternative lifestyle" status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

The authors write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality—including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these Scriptures, they refute the revisionists' arguments—including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the Law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and return to God's plan for His people."

 

[davedjy]

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...d=265548&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers

"Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality In the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants "alternative lifestyle" status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

The authors write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality—including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these Scriptures, they refute the revisionists' arguments—including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the Law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and return to God's plan for His people."

Anything concrete, or at least (a) interpretation(s) from you other than posting a cover with 2 men that believe homosexuality is sin that support your religious opinion?

 

[OllieFranz]

I would ask you the same thing. Even if Paul were intimately familiar with Plato, that does not detract from the fact that he, an eminent Christian authority, condemns homosexual acts.

Incidentally, you should have provided this from the get go in light of your claim that Paul quoted Plato "almost verbatim."

If you re-read my first post, you will see that the quote from Plato is there (albeit only in English translation), and that there have been no edits done after the next post, much less after your post. So I did provide it "from the get-go."

And the only evidence that Paul "condemns homosexual acts" are this very passage -- which in the original did not condemn "homosexual acts," but intemperance, and in which Paul made changes to downplay the homosexual nature of the example and to emphasize the fact that it was, indeed intemperance and addiction that were the sins -- and two occasions of the word "arsenokoites."

Even if we accept that "arsenokoites" is translated from "mishkab zakar" and means "man-lying" and refers to Leviticus 18:22, does not indicate that Paul is saying that Leviticus 18:22 is any more binding on those under grace than Deuteronomy 7:3.

Paul did advise , on practical grounds, against mixed marriages, but did not forbid them despite Deuteronomy 7:3. In fact, he said that unless the other party asked for a divorce, Christians should remain in mixed marriages.

 

[OllieFranz]

Paul wasnt quoting Plato....he was presenting GODS instruction for man to obey.

If Plato were under copyright, and the holders of that copyright sued Paul for plagiarism, any jury comparing the two passages, especially comparing the phrases I highlighted in color in post #13, would have to rule in Plato's favor.

I agree that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul's writing, but under His guidance Paul referenced a passage He knew would be familiar to some of the Romans in order to make a point. Your claiming that it was not intended to to be known as coming from Plato is calling God a plagiarist, a thief. You might want to reconsider that.

And also consider the fact that all of the differences in Paul's version downplay the homosexual aspects of the example and emphasize the addictive nature of intemperance.

 

[wayseer]

I provided them.

Josephus

Thank you. However, Josephus was a traitor to the Jews. Historians treat his work with caution. Much of his work is know not to have been written by him.

Homoeroticism refers to sexual acts between members of the same sex.

No - you are referring to homosexuality.

The word 'erotic' has a wider meaning incorporating such meanings as pornographic, suggestive, lewd, smutty, explicit, steamy, raunchy. I'm talking about love and compassion. So it seems we are to disagree.

 

[wayseer]

The Roman culture explains the idolatrous practices. It doesnt remove the FACT that men lusting after and being with other men is spoken against by Paul in Romans.

I agree - when you use the word 'lusting'. I am not talking about what another poster described as homoeroticism - the worship of self-indulgence. I'm talking about any relationship that is mark out by love and compassion.

Additionaly, it really doesnt matter if I convince anyone who wants for homosexuality to be 'ok' as Id expect that type to close their eyes to any and all evidence anyway...even if God Himself presented it to them.

That's my point - God does not seem to have 'presented' that evidence. I have given my thesis earlier.

 

[Brennin]

If you re-read my first post, you will see that the quote from Plato is there (albeit only in English translation), and that there have been no edits done after the next post, much less after your post. So I did provide it "from the get-go."

And the only evidence that Paul "condemns homosexual acts" are this very passage -- which in the original did not condemn "homosexual acts," but intemperance, and in which Paul made changes to downplay the homosexual nature of the example and to emphasize the fact that it was, indeed intemperance and addiction that were the sins -- and two occasions of the word "arsenokoites."

Even if we accept that "arsenokoites" is translated from "mishkab zakar" and means "man-lying" and refers to Leviticus 18:22, does not indicate that Paul is saying that Leviticus 18:22 is any more binding on those under grace than Deuteronomy 7:3.

Paul did advise , on practical grounds, against mixed marriages, but did not forbid them despite Deuteronomy 7:3. In fact, he said that unless the other party asked for a divorce, Christians should remain in mixed marriages.

You did not provide a full quotation. And Plato most certainly condemns homoeroticism in Laws. But even if he had not, that has nothing to do with Paul's condemnation. You are trying to obscure the issue by appealing to Greek, which with many are not familiar, but I know Greek and I see through your smoke screen.

 

[Brennin]

Thank you. However, Josephus was a traitor to the Jews.

Irrelevant.

Historians treat his work with caution.

With no more caution than they treat others.

Much of his work is know not to have been written by him.

According to whom?

No - you are referring to homosexuality.

No, I am referring to homoeroticism. Make recourse to a good dictionary.

 

[Texas Lynn]

homosexuality is sin, it is wrong no matter how you slice it.

There is no basis for this weak assertion whatsoever.

 

[Brennin]

If Plato were under copyright, and the holders of that copyright sued Paul for plagiarism, any jury comparing the two passages, especially comparing the phrases I highlighted in color in post #13, would have to rule in Plato's favor.


I agree that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul's writing, but under His guidance Paul referenced a passage He knew would be familiar to some of the Romans in order to make a point. Your claiming that it was not intended to to be known as coming from Plato is calling God a plagiarist, a thief. You might want to reconsider that.

Nonsense. Quit while you are behind. Incidentally, where, with whom, and using what texts did you study Attic and Koine?

And also consider the fact that all of the differences in Paul's version downplay the homosexual aspects of the example and emphasize the addictive nature of intemperance.

The only thing I am considering is how you could be so bold as to feign an expertise you do not possess.