Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
One Question about Romans 1:26
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OllieFranz" data-source="post: 55612564" data-attributes="member: 194533"><p style="margin-left: 20px"> And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> <strong>Plato, <u><em>Laws</em></u> 1:636c</strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> <strong>Romans 1:26-27</strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>As I said, in the original, Plato spelled out that the women were mating with women. Paul merely says they what they were doing was "contrary to nature" or "against nature" (<em>para physis</em>) -- a technical phrase that merely means sin. Paul does not tell us what their sin was.</p><p></p><p>And this is <em><strong>not</strong></em> an artifact of translation as oldwiseguy suggests. I can show you both Plato and Paul in the original Greek and point out the fact that Paul has obscured the reference. He could not eliminate the reference, or it would no longer be recognizable as a citation of the passage from Plato, but he could play down the homosexuality which Plato added as an ethnic joke, and try to separate it from the actual sin which was Unbridled Passion. </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Are you agreeing that this passage is not about "homosexuality? Because this is one of only two places where discussions about homosexuality, or which touch on same-sex sexuality are allowed here on CF. The other "ethics" forum (in the Christians Only area) is the other. So this <em>is</em> the place for this discussion as long as some people claim that it condemns "homosexuality.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>If you prefer "downplay" rather than "obscure," I can agree to the change.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>The word that the KJV translates as "use" and your translation renders as "relations" is <em>chresis</em>, which only appears as a noun in these two verses. The verb form, <em>chraomai</em>, appears 11 times. 10 of those times, the KJV translates it as "use," and the actual meaning varies according to the context. It was a choice of interpretation to render the word as "relations." Why, when Plato clearly wrote that the activity was mating, did Paul choose a word that could mean almost anything, forcing modern translators to feel they had to fill in the blanks when they rendered it into English?</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>But I don't deny that the original included such, nor do I claim that Paul changed that fact. Anyone familiar with Plato could see the connection. His purpose was not to deny that the women mated with women, it was just to try to take attention off the joke and focus it onto the actual sin.</p><p> </p><p>Or as we know it today: homosexuality, gay and lesbian behavior</p></blockquote><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="OllieFranz, post: 55612564, member: 194533"] [INDENT] And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. [B]Plato, [U][I]Laws[/I][/U] 1:636c[/B] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. [B]Romans 1:26-27[/B] [/INDENT] As I said, in the original, Plato spelled out that the women were mating with women. Paul merely says they what they were doing was "contrary to nature" or "against nature" ([I]para physis[/I]) -- a technical phrase that merely means sin. Paul does not tell us what their sin was. And this is [I][B]not[/B][/I] an artifact of translation as oldwiseguy suggests. I can show you both Plato and Paul in the original Greek and point out the fact that Paul has obscured the reference. He could not eliminate the reference, or it would no longer be recognizable as a citation of the passage from Plato, but he could play down the homosexuality which Plato added as an ethnic joke, and try to separate it from the actual sin which was Unbridled Passion. Are you agreeing that this passage is not about "homosexuality? Because this is one of only two places where discussions about homosexuality, or which touch on same-sex sexuality are allowed here on CF. The other "ethics" forum (in the Christians Only area) is the other. So this [I]is[/I] the place for this discussion as long as some people claim that it condemns "homosexuality. If you prefer "downplay" rather than "obscure," I can agree to the change. The word that the KJV translates as "use" and your translation renders as "relations" is [I]chresis[/I], which only appears as a noun in these two verses. The verb form, [I]chraomai[/I], appears 11 times. 10 of those times, the KJV translates it as "use," and the actual meaning varies according to the context. It was a choice of interpretation to render the word as "relations." Why, when Plato clearly wrote that the activity was mating, did Paul choose a word that could mean almost anything, forcing modern translators to feel they had to fill in the blanks when they rendered it into English? But I don't deny that the original included such, nor do I claim that Paul changed that fact. Anyone familiar with Plato could see the connection. His purpose was not to deny that the women mated with women, it was just to try to take attention off the joke and focus it onto the actual sin. Or as we know it today: homosexuality, gay and lesbian behavior[/quote] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
One Question about Romans 1:26
Top
Bottom