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.
Now why would anyone expect anything other than an antiChrist, liberal theology from the campus minister where you teach?
He's welcome to make it a social issues. Social issues arise because there is a spiritula issue. And that issue is sin.
You're going to have trouble telling scripture adhering Christians this, Miss. fragmentsofdreams, explain the romans verse.
I assume the "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." one from Romans chapter 1..
The NEW Testament makes it pretty clear:
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-27, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Your appeal to false authority fails both logically and factually.
"probably" and "something close" doesn't cut the mustard. Even IF he does have a psychology degree, there are MANY psychologists who would disagree with him.
He's giving nothing more than his own personal opinion.
Your post is blatant hogwash.
I personally know a couple who are both qualified psychologists with over 30 years experience each, with Ph.D's from secular universities, and have done work for state government mental health facilities.
They disagree completely with you, so your statement is falsified.
Our college chaplain does not deny either God or Jesus. So how can he be labeled "antiChrist?"Dear Ohioprof,
Christians recognise the Bible as God's word, indeed Jesus Christ came in the flesh to show us the truth. His word says those who deny the Son alos deny the Father and are the anti-Christ. For those who dont believe there isnt a problem, but for those who might want to thats quite a challenging statement.
People often think they are being labelled when in fact they are not, they are just getting convicted from something that is said generally, becuase they realise it applies to them.
Christians recognise the Bible as God's word.
Marrying one's beloved spouse is not degrading one's body, nor is it being given over to the "sinful desires" of one's heart. It is not sexual impurity. It's making a lifelong commitment to love and support one's spouse, to make a family together.
Not all of them. Some of us consider the words of JESUS to be God's Word, and not everything written in an edited, revised and poorly translated book.
Says who? You?
Then you must be God, as you never give a position from God on anything you say.
Yet, you claim to know Him. You just say whatever you like,
and it is so, because you say it. That is circular and it is relative.
That is the same as being a "god" unto yourself.
I dont know you tell me as you seem to have suggested he has such a label. All I am doing is pointing out what the Bible says as I believe it is the word of God not your college chaplains thinkingOur college chaplain does not deny either God or Jesus. So how can he be labeled "antiChrist?"
No I havent called your college chaplain anything Ohioprof so you are the one spinning.You can call it getting "convicted" if you want to, but labeling our college chaplain "antiChrist" is still labeling, however you try to spin what the other poster was saying. And the label is wrong.
Yes all of them. In fact if you read Jesus words you will see He instructs His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything He commanded them. So are you saying all these disciples immediately abandoned all He had taught them and started falsely claiming what Jesus had taught them which was there own opinion?Not all of it. Some of us consider the words of JESUS to be God's Word, and not everything written in an edited, revised and poorly translated book.
Hi, friends. Today I was eating lunch with some colleagues, including our college chaplain, who is a Christian minister. Someone asked him why many Christians have such strong views against gay people. (That is how she put the question.) He said that homosexuality is the most controversial issue within Christianity right now, just as the role of women was very controversial some years ago.
Then he said that people are against homosexuality because they have been taught to be growing up.
I said that I post in a Christian forum, and people here repeatedly point to the Bible and say that the Bible condemns same-sex relationships.
The chaplain replied that this is not really a Biblical issue; it's a social issue. People, he said, use the Bible to try to justify their anti-gay attitudes. But there is really very little in the Bible that addresses homosexuality, and it's not anything central in the Bible.
I said that this issue appears to be central to many of these folks with whom I post, who regard condemnation of homosexuality as an important part of the Bible.
The chaplain said that many Christians highlight those parts of the Bible that they think support their beliefs, to try to justify those beliefs. But, he said, there is much more in the New Testament calling for radical inclusivity of all people than there are statements condemning homosexuality.
The chaplain added that people use the Bible to try to justify the beliefs they were taught growing up that homosexuality is wrong, but this is really not what the Bible as a whole calls for, especially not the New Testament.
I just thought I would share the chaplain's insights. I leave it to folks here to consider whether questions about homosexuality are really Biblical questions, or whether they are in truth social questions.
Come on if you were really interested in the truth and not just a gay and lesbian agenda...
You do the same thing. You believe that you speak for God, but you don't. You merely present your interpretation of the Bible, and you claim that it's God talking. But it's really just you talking.Says who? You?
Then you must be God, as you never give a position from God on anything you say.
Yet, you claim to know Him. You just say whatever you like,
and it is so, because you say it. That is circular and it is relative.
That is the same as being a "god" unto yourself.
Bingo!!! Told ya that in its basest form its nothing but idolatry. But that's what you get when you try to fashion your own Jesus.
But we know what God's Word says about the idolator.
[SIZE=-1]. . .
[SIZE=-1]As a final explanatory note, I have three primary differences in translation of arsenokoit* based on various academic sources and context . One translation is "homosexual slave trader", referencing Martin's work (Martin, Dale. Arsenokoites and malakos: Meanings and Consequences. Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, Robert Brawley. Westminster Press: Louisville, 1996.). His argument for the economic subjugatory translation of arsenokoit* in many contexts is quite persuasive to me and given the texts that I have found, I am further convinced of his logic. It is well known that slavery was common in Greek and Roman cultures. It has further been well established that it was common for one's slave to function in a sexual capacity. The context of sex within the Greek and Roman cultures were not so well established along gender lines as with power lines so same-gender sexual behavior did not have the cultural baggage of "gay versus straight" as we think of it today. Therefore for a male slave owner to have sex with a male slave would not have assigned the slave owner a cultural label of "gay", but "powerful". (Cantarella, Bisexuality in the Ancient World, 1992, Yale Press; Williams, Roman homosexuality : ideologies of masculinity in classical antiquity, 1999, Oxford UP; Dover, Greek homosexuality, 1989, Harvard UP). I summarize these arguments to a greater degree on my Web site in an addendum on Greek homosexuality on my main Web site on Homosexuality and Christianity.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] A second translation is "homosexual rape" and seems more appropriate in other contexts. This argument is explored in Boswell (Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1980). While Boswell's argument has many problems as pointed out posthumously by his critics, some of his work still seems valid in a limited number of contexts. The third translation is "having non procreative sex", whether with a male or female. . . [/SIZE]
This brings us to our second point, which is that Paul's intentional meaning for the word arsenokoites is far from clear. Paul had many different words at his disposal that referred to homosexuality in general, not just pederastic relationships, as was once thought. In this line of reasoning, Paul coined the term from the Septuagint, as discussed above, because there was no word that expressed all homosexual acts, regardless of the type of relationship. This is now known to not be the case, so we must search further for the meaning of this word. The best way to learn the meaning of this word is to look at its usage in other contexts. The problem is that we primarily find arsenokoites in lists, which give us little information as to the meaning of the word. A search of the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae database as of 1997 shows 73 usages. Most of these are in lists that are of the same basic pattern as that found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10, using mostly the same words. The few contexts in which we find these words do not necessitate that we interpret the word to mean generalized homosexual behavior.
One method of interpreting the word is to try to discern some meaning from the use of arsenokoites in the lists. Martin notes that "sin lists" tend to congregate words of similar type together. For example, "first are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics, or injustice" (pg. 120). In most of the TLG listings, the order is fairly standard (but not universal): , pornoi, moixoi, malakoi, arsenokoitai, kleptai, pleonektai, methusoi, loidoroi, with some substitution of andrapodistais kai epiorkrois following arsenokoites. Translated, the pattern is as follows: temple prostitution, adultery, moral weakness (malakos), arsenokoites, thief, greedy, drunks, foul-mouthed; or arsenokoites, slave-trader, perjurer. In the TLG lists, the division is not very clear, other than the first half of the list seems to be sexual, then arsenokoites is listed, then economic/injustice sins, sometimes followed by moral sins. If this were all we had, then we would not know on which side to classify arsenokoites--whether purely sexual, purely economic, or some mixture of the two. However, there are two non-TLG texts, both of which are early usages of arsenokoites, the first of which is from the Sibylline Oracle 2
[SIZE=-1]
"Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life. Do not arsenokoites, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man." (Martin, pg. 120)[/SIZE]
Similarly, the second text, from the Acts of John 36: [SIZE=-1]
"And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoites, the thief, and all of this band..." (Martin, pg. 121)[/SIZE]
In neither of these texts do we find them in the context of purely sexual sins. In fact, we see no hint of sexuality at all in these lists. We do know, however, that arsenokoites is some type of sexual sin. However, if we put in the English translation "homosexual" in place of arsenokoites in these lists, it makes no sense. It doesn't fit with the categories. What makes much more sense, is if the placing of arsenokoites in the TLG texts in between the sexual sins and economic/injustice sins is not an accident. What makes sense is that arsenokoites is a term referring somehow to sexual injustice. For example, when arsenokoites is placed just before slave-trader, this seems particularly appropriate, since homosexual slaves were normative in both Greek and Roman societies. The interpretation of arsenokoitai therefore, as one of homosexual subjugation and/or exploitation, rather than referring to all homosexual behavior, seems most appropriate as we see from these contexts.
This type of connotation to arsenokoites fits well within two other TLG texts, both of which are early uses of the word. The first is out of the Apology of Aristides, chapters 9 and 13. It is relays the myth of Zeus, and his relationship with the mortal Ganymede. In the story, we are told that the myth is evidence that Greek gods act with moixeia (adultery) and arsenokoites. Similarly, in Hippolytus' Refutatio chapter 5, we are told the story of the evil angel Naas, and how he committed adultery with Adam in the Garden, which is how arsenokoites came into the world. Hippolytus relates Naas and Adam back to Zeus and Ganymede (Petersen, pg. 284). In neither of these instances do we find a mutually consenting, equal relationship--we find an aggressor forcibly taking advantage of a weaker individual. In fact, Dover, when describing Greek art depicting Zeus and Ganymede, says thatZeus in B186 and R348* commands Ganymede in a manner that will not accept refusal . . ., and in R405, R829*, R833* he simply grasps Ganymede, who struggles violently. (p. 93)Dover later mentions two texts, one by Ibykos fr. 289, and the other, The Hymn of Aphrodite 202-206, which puts the Zeus and Ganymede story in the specific context of rape by drawing the parallel between it and the story of Dawn and Tithonos (p. 197). The human rights violations that are clear in the above uses of arsenokoites gives us a fairly clear indication of the meaning of the word, a meaning which matches the attributed meaning we surmised about arsenokoites as it was found in the few contexts/lists that we have. It seems clear that arsenokoites does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships, but to a powerful aggressor subjugating/exploiting the weak, whether in the context of rape, or slave trading. . .
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?