Homosexuality

[Sammy-San]

That translation is archaic, but even so, the reflexive use of the verb ("of themselves") conveys a different meaning.

Yes, abuse is a subset of unethical behaviour. But its consequences are so much more damaging than other forms of unethical behaviour that it is important that we clearly distinguish it.

Im saying that to justify certain sins as a legitimate relationship is a self contradiction because by nature it is connected and an offshoot of far more damaging unethical behavior.

 

[Sammy-San]

That translation is archaic, but even so, the reflexive use of the verb ("of themselves") conveys a different meaning.

Yes, abuse is a subset of unethical behaviour. But its consequences are so much more damaging than other forms of unethical behaviour that it is important that we clearly distinguish it.

The consequences are much less damaging because its almost like a husband and wife relationship.

 

[Sammy-San]

That translation is archaic, but even so, the reflexive use of the verb ("of themselves") conveys a different meaning.

Yes, abuse is a subset of unethical behaviour. But its consequences are so much more damaging than other forms of unethical behaviour that it is important that we clearly distinguish it.

I apologize for my bad wording. Nuance matter.
Wierd is similar to whats that or what the heck is that but its subtler and in a category of its own

 

[Paidiske]

Im saying that to justify certain sins as a legitimate relationship is a self contradiction because by nature it is connected and an offshoot of far more damaging unethical behavior.

It's not justifying certain sins to make a distinction between them and abuse. But blurring the line does lend itself to justifying abuse.

 

[Sammy-San]

It's not justifying certain sins to make a distinction between them and abuse. But blurring the line does lend itself to justifying abuse.

I was explaining that the reason that homosexuality is a sin is related to the same technicalities as far worse sins being sins.

 

[Sammy-San]

It's not justifying certain sins to make a distinction between them and abuse. But blurring the line does lend itself to justifying abuse.

Since the word always had connotations of immoral behavior its self contradictory to say its not a sin

 

[Paidiske]

I was explaining that the reason that homosexuality is a sin is related to the same technicalities as far worse sins being sins.

Well, first I'd say you need to make a distinction between an orientation and an action.

 

[Paidiske]

Since the word always had connotations of immoral behavior its self contradictory to say its not a sin

Which word? But even then, just because something has "always" been seen one way, doesn't mean our understanding can't change. That sort of refusal to re-examine our thinking often underpins things like sexism and racism.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well, first I'd say you need to make a distinction between an orientation and an action.

Saying homosexual orientation is a sin implies straight orientation isnt, which doesnt make sense because one is by definition wrong and one is by definition partially a sin. Its also a pernicious sin in ways that normal sexual sins arent, acccording to Justin Peters.

Isnt what you like saying orientations to lie and steal and gossip arent sins. They are a part of the sin nature, not an active willful sin, but part of the impurity that makes sinners sinners.

Its like saying that gender is defined by off limits ness. No gender is about a steel or flower symmetry of appearence, mind, body.

 

[Paidiske]

Saying homosexual orientation is a sin implies straight orientation isnt, which doesnt make sense because one is by definition wrong and one is by definition partially a sin.

My point was that it's the action that sinful, not the orientation.

 

[Sammy-San]

Which word? But even then, just because something has "always" been seen one way, doesn't mean our understanding can't change. That sort of refusal to re-examine our thinking often underpins things like sexism and racism.

It might be more pernicious than normal sins of a similar nature but it isnt much different, which is why it cant be excused. Since "straight" people (which nobody is according to the Ten Commandments) are also guilty of lust, nobody said its the worst thing ever.

Its a sin because there are boundaries.

 

[Sammy-San]

My point was that it's the action that sinful, not the orientation.

I agree with you.

 

[hedrick]

The Bible says abusers of themselves with mankind.

It’s actually a single word, which might mean homosexual, or might mean male prostitute or some other things. Abusers of themselves with mankind was how KJV chose to put it in English, but abusers isn’t actually there.

 

[Sammy-San]

It’s actually a single word, which might mean homosexual, or might mean male prostitute or some other things. Abusers of themselves with mankind was how KJV chose to put it in English, but abusers isn’t actually there.

which means it has a technical similarity with much different forms of immorality.

Its similar to how girlfriend doesnt mean a person who has the intention to be taken advantage of but friend is in the title, even though it isnt a friend friend, friend is part of the title. It technically means a friendship that has a connection to sexuality without the intention.

 

[Jaxxi]

We also can’t assume that He was against the things He didn’t mention.

We do know that He was a Jew and followed the Old Testament which is clearly against homosexuality.

 

[hedrick]

which means it has a technical similarity with much different forms of immorality.

Its similar to how girlfriend doesnt mean a person who has the intention to be taken advantage of but friend is in the title, even though it isnt a friend friend, friend is part of the title. It technically means a friendship that has a connection to sexuality without the intention.

Sorry. I’m not sure what you are getting at. The roots in the word are male and beds. You’re right that girlfriend is an example where the actual meaning can’t be guessed from the roots present in the word. This may be a similar case. If so, we may have to say simply that we don’t know what it means. But the most common guesses are men having sex with men, male prostitutes, or pederasty.

This web page lists early uses of the word. Define Arsenokoites - In ancient times, this didn't describe gays. I am citing it simply for the list, not their editorial comment. Most uses are citations of this passage, with no definition. The others don’t seem to me to have any context that would determine the meaning. (In saying this I disagree with the author of the web page,)

 

[Sammy-San]

Sorry. I’m not sure what you are getting at. The roots in the word are male and beds. You’re right that girlfriend is an example where the actual meaning can’t be guessed from the roots present in the word. This may be a similar case. If so, we may have to say simply that we don’t know what it means. But the most common guesses are men having sex with men and male prostitutes.

By default it also refers to women prostitutes and women having sex with women

 

[Paidiske]

By default it also refers to women prostitutes and women having sex with women

If you're talking about the Greek word, arsenokoites, no, no it doesn't.

 

[hedrick]

By default it also refers to women prostitutes and women having sex with women

Doubtful. The first root is male. Of course the meaning may not be based entirely upon the roots, but in that case it’s hard to say much of anything.

 

[Sammy-San]

Sorry. I’m not sure what you are getting at. The roots in the word are male and beds. You’re right that girlfriend is an example where the actual meaning can’t be guessed from the roots present in the word. This may be a similar case. If so, we may have to say simply that we don’t know what it means. But the most common guesses are men having sex with men, male prostitutes, or pederasty.

This web page lists early uses of the word. Define Arsenokoites - In ancient times, this didn't describe gays. I am citing it simply for the list, not their editorial comment. Most uses are citations of this passage, with no definition. The others don’t seem to me to have any context that would determine the meaning. (In saying this I disagree with the author of the web page,)

That word also referred to improper relationships between men and girls, or women and girls.