I appreciate your reasoned discourse, sincerely I do, and I'll even accept that when Jesus said "pornea" that he meant a range of behaviours that were accepted as "immoral" at the time. However, I'll go out on a limb and say that I bet a great many of the things considered immoral at the time are acts that occur today largely uncomented on, heck, I bet you've even done a few yourself, I know I have. "morality" is a contemporary term, and it changes, so even though pornea had a set of acts implicit in it back then, I don't know that it necesarily follows that everything in that set is still included today, or even that some new ones that weren't considered wrong then, but are now, should not be included.Lighthorseman,
I appreciate you bringing up your views about Soddom. I was also shocked when the girl was raped in the book of Judges by the Benjamites. I just happened to be shocked more by the Sodom episode because I didn't expect to see that kind of scene in the bible and it was the first explicit one I came across. I actually started at genesis when I began reading the bible, rather than the gospels.
"homosexuality" may or may not be mentioned in the New Testament or by Jesus, but Jesus and the apostles also didn't use the word "beastiality" either. Hands down, beastiality was sexually immoral on moral grounds. Premarital sex was also hands down morally wrong. Clearly, the word used for such things was pornea.
Lighthorsemen, it would be logical to agree that this case is true: that beastiality is also not mentioned in the new testament. So you will have to agree with me that we can't just think of biblical terms from an English perspective, simply because, were talking about a greek text here. Now, the greek word for sexual immorality is pornea. When Jesus mentioned it, it would be safe to believe that it referred to a lot of sexual immoral things like premarital sex, foreplay before marriage such as [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s, various other fornications, beastiality, incest (like father-daughter relationships for example or mother-son relationships). Can we agree on this, Lighthorse?
Now, regarding beastiality, incest, etc... I look to Christ's new commandment for clarification. This is me speaking, but the way I interpret the new commandment, it means, "imagine yourself in the other guy's position, and then treat him as you would want to be treated if you were him". Thats my reading of it, and it seems to jive pretty well with the rest of Christs inclusive, non legalist, non judgemental message. After many many hours of meditation and prayer on this issue, believe me, I've given this a great deal of thought, I'm not making it up as I go along, it seems to me that in observance of this "treat others as yourself" commandment, that any act between two or more people who have given there fully informed consent cannot be immoral. ANY act. Now, let me stop you right there because I know what you're going to say next... beastiality? still immoral, because an animal can't give genuine informed consent. Ditto incest, I don't believe both parties in an incestuous relationship can ever be genuinely equal, one always holds some sort of power over the other, so no genuine consent there either. Seriously, it works for every single situation. If there is mutual informed consent for all participants, then I believe Christ is OK with it. Sure, there are some cases where it starts to get tricky to work out, and there are other caveats I'll bring into play, mostly to do with greatest good for greatest number and other similar considerations, but in broad terms, what goes on between two mutually consenting adults is their business and God is fine with it. Go on, please, try to come up with a situation where the adult informed consent of the participants does not negate any apparent immorality?
p.s. wish I knew what you wrote that got [wash my mouth out]ed
Upvote
0