Sodomites!!!!

[davedjy]

The word used is: tow`ebah {to-ay-baw'} or to`ebah {to-ay-baw'}

• 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
  • a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
    b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

It is the same word used in Lev 18:22, 20:13 to describe the abomination of the same sex act, as well as the ritual defilements.

G

Care to show us which letter of definition you know for sure this falls under?!?

The majority of Scholars agree that it is in the ritual sense (a), and nothing more.

 

[Gusoceros]

Care to show us which letter of definition you know for sure this falls under?!?

The majority of Scholars agree that it is in the ritual sense (a), and nothing more.

The Majority of Scholars? Is this a logical fallacy?? Yes it is- an appeal to authority, and an either/ or logical fallacy. The act itself is cited as abomination- specifically noted- and the fact that this act is consistently treated as an abomination/ sinful act throughout the Bible- in both testaments- shows that this is not abomination for merely the ritual.

G

 

[davedjy]

The Majority of Scholars? Is this a logical fallacy?? Yes it is- an appeal to authority, and an either/ or logical fallacy. The act itself is cited as abomination- specifically noted- and the fact that this act is consistently treated as an abomination/ sinful act throughout the Bible- in both testaments- shows that this is not abomination for merely the ritual.

G

Well then, stop wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, or eating shellfish, and anything like that. It falls under a purity code violation, and for that I cite Tony Campolo AGAIN, who says that it is a purity code violation in Leviticus.

Care to show me where it says "Thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind it is abomination"??? Every single condemned sex act is mentioned specifically in Scripture there. The GPNA says that the literal translation, word for word with the Hebrew is: "with men, thou shall not lie in beds of a woman".

 

[Gusoceros]

Well then, stop wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, or eating shellfish, and anything like that. It falls under a purity code violation, and for that I cite Tony Campolo AGAIN, who says that it is a purity code violation in Leviticus.

Care to show me where it says "Thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind it is abomination"??? Every single condemned sex act is mentioned specifically in Scripture there. The GPNA says that the literal translation, word for word with the Hebrew is: "with men, thou shall not lie in beds of a woman".

I know you cite Mr Campolo- the homosexual act is a sin guy.

We have already established that Christians are not bound by the law- so ...

And what we now have is consistent treatment with regard to right and wrong and the same sex act in both Testaments.

G

 

[davedjy]

I know you cite Mr Campolo- the homosexual act is a sin guy.

We have already established that Christians are not bound by the law- so ...

And what we now have is consistent treatment with regard to right and wrong and the same sex act in both Testaments.

G

Where is it condemned in the NT?

The only chapter in question is Romans 1, and we have no knowledge that has anything to do with anything other than pagan worship combined w/lustful same sex acts (promiscuous/prostitution).

This is an example of a loving, monogamous relationship condemned?

 

[Gusoceros]

Where is it condemned in the NT?

The only chapter in question is Romans 1, and we have no knowledge that has anything to do with anything other than pagan worship combined w/lustful same sex acts (promiscuous/prostitution).

This is an example of a loving, monogamous relationship condemned?

To the contrary- we have multiple verses in the NT

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

We have already covered- that monogamous sinful relationship is still in sin.

G

 

[davedjy]

To the contrary- we have multiple verses in the NT

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

We have already covered- that monogamous sinful relationship is still in sin.

G

The only chapter in question is in Romans 1.

1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Cor 6:9, are inconsistent translations of the same word. 1 Timothy 1:10 says "sexual pervert" in some translations, but they are not consistent.

Romans 1

abandoned natural use - implying they had the natural use (straight people)

pagan worship to a god w/both sex organs -- pagan verse shown in verse 23, backed w/historical context

Burning with lust -- does not address homosexual attraction, just "lust", which is different.

men did shameful things w/men... implying that it was a promiscuous situation...this is not an example of a monogamous, loving, same sex relationship, so it doesn't work.

 

[Der Alte]

Well then, stop wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, or eating shellfish, and anything like that. It falls under a purity code violation, and for that I cite Tony Campolo AGAIN, who says that it is a purity code violation in Leviticus.

And I ask you for about the 4th time what specific field is Campolo's degree in? Does he have any specific training in Bible languages or church history? If not, why should we care what he says on this topic?

I gave you a relevant analogy before. A Proctologist and a Heart Surgeon are both MDs but I'm not going to have open heart surgery from a Proctologist. What is Campolo's specific field? OBTW I already know the answer.

Care to show me where it says "Thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind it is abomination"??? Every single condemned sex act is mentioned specifically in Scripture there. The GPNA says that the literal translation, word for word with the Hebrew is: "with men, thou shall not lie in beds of a woman".

Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance, or argument from silence. Would you like to take a wild guess how many times in scripture that masculine references includes the feminine?

1Ti 2:4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.​

The only chapter in question is in Romans 1.

1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Cor 6:9, are inconsistent translations of the same word. 1 Timothy 1:10 says "sexual pervert" in some translations, but they are not consistent.

Romans 1

abandoned natural use - implying they had the natural use (straight people)

pagan worship to a god w/both sex organs -- pagan verse shown in verse 23, backed w/historical context

Burning with lust -- does not address homosexual attraction, just "lust", which is different.

men did shameful things w/men... implying that it was a promiscuous situation...this is not an example of a monogamous, loving, same sex relationship, so it doesn't work.

Someday a lot of folks will stand before God and try their excuses on him, “But the Bible doesn't say a monogamous, loving, same sex relationship” As if God did not know the difference.

Do you really think God will say, “Ooops, you got me there, I forgot to say anything about 'a monogamous, loving, same sex relationship', so you get a free pass..”

Or will God say,“I said what I meant and I meant what I said, If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

I wonder if that “a monogamous, loving, relationship,” excuse will work for a man who has a loving relationship with his goat?

Lev 20:15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.​

You make a big stink about how “1 Timothy 1:10 says "sexual pervert” in one translation while you have claimed that arsenokoites and malakoi were both interpreted as masturbation and you haven't backed up either argument.

 

[Gusoceros]

The only chapter in question is in Romans 1.

1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Cor 6:9, are inconsistent translations of the same word. 1 Timothy 1:10 says "sexual pervert" in some translations, but they are not consistent.

Claiming inconsistency does not make them go away- feel free to make a case.

Romans 1

abandoned natural use - implying they had the natural use (straight people)

pagan worship to a god w/both sex organs -- pagan verse shown in verse 23, backed w/historical context

Burning with lust -- does not address homosexual attraction, just "lust", which is different.

These are not rebuttals. Burning with lust is not lust- and you are saying this is different how? Again- make a case. Because it was pagap worship- does this now make it OK? Dont think so- the Bible is consistent on the topic.

men did shameful things w/men... implying that it was a promiscuous situation...this is not an example of a monogamous, loving, same sex relationship, so it doesn't work.

Men doing shameful things in a monogamous loving relationship is still men doing shameful things. It does work- the relationship is irrelevant.

G

 

[davedjy]

Claiming inconsistency does not make them go away- feel free to make a case.

Actually it does, if something doesn't translate out the same, it should be deemed incorrect, but of course w/your vast superior knowledge, you can't see that.

These are not rebuttals. Burning with lust is not lust- and you are saying this is different how? Again- make a case. Because it was pagap worship- does this now make it OK? Dont think so- the Bible is consistent on the topic.

Burning with lust is not lust? I said ATTRACTION is different than lust. The Bible is as consistent on this topic as it is w/polgamy...although that is actually specifically mentioned by name, while "homosexuality" does not have a name in Scripture

Men doing shameful things in a monogamous loving relationship is still men doing shameful things. It does work- the relationship is irrelevant.

G

Yeah, whatever. What is the "shameful" thing? you have yet to know, because of the vague reference here. straight men doing gay things would be shameful, going contrary to their nature. Again, you lost this battle because Paul DOES assume that everyone here is born heterosexual, so that would be going contrary to their nature.

 

[davedjy]

And I ask you for about the 4th time what specific field is Campolo's degree in? Does he have any specific training in Bible languages or church history? If not, why should we care what he says on this topic?

Even if you knew his degree it wouldn't change your opinion, just like I gave you all the mental health foundation claims. You are still fighting for church doctrine, and not for the truth (which you truly don't care about, you care about protecting your precious Church history doctrine).

He has a PHD in Bible theology or something.
It's on his website:
http://www.tonycampolo.org/abouttony.php

Someday a lot of folks will stand before God and try their excuses on him, “But the Bible doesn't say a monogamous, loving, same sex relationship” As if God did not know the difference.

Some day you will stand before God for standing up for tradition, instead of the truth...clearly Jesus said: "by your traditions you make null and void the Word of God". For my other stance, as you said that homosexuals go to hell, which is a faulty statement, read my signature.

Do you really think God will say, “Ooops, you got me there, I forgot to say anything about 'a monogamous, loving, same sex relationship', so you get a free pass..”

No, I know that God doesn't care. I have been freed from the Church doctrine, and from the old Leviticus law you like to cherry pick out your way from.

Or will God say,“I said what I meant and I meant what I said, If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

You mean similar to being put to death if you have sex w/a woman (even your wife) within 7 days of her menstrual cycle? what about if you eat shellfish, are you going to answer to God?

I

wonder if that “a monogamous, loving, relationship,” excuse will work for a man who has a loving relationship with his goat?

Of course, all you can do is compare to that, when it that is a non-consensual relationship

You make a big stink about how “1 Timothy 1:10 says "sexual pervert” in one translation while you have claimed that arsenokoites and malakoi were both interpreted as masturbation and you haven't backed up either argument.

I have backed up the inconsistencies w/the arsenokoites translation. 1 Timothy 1:10 doesn't use the same word for each phrase. A sodomite isn't someone who commits sodomy, it was an inhabitor of Sodom that was a rapist, or engaged in idolatry and promiscuous wild orgies....

 

[Gusoceros]

Actually it does, if something doesn't translate out the same, it should be deemed incorrect, but of course w/your vast superior knowledge, you can't see that.

Bullroar- most translations are not *exactly* the same- but they carry the same message. This does not invalidate the message. Now- claiming it is so- does not make it so- CITE YOUR SOURCES of this vastly different message, or consider your point dismissed for lack of evidence.

Burning with lust is not lust? I said ATTRACTION is different than lust. The Bible is as consistent on this topic as it is w/polgamy...although that is actually specifically mentioned by name, while "homosexuality" does not have a name in Scripture

I dont care about attraction- Im talking about lust- as that is what the Bible said. Having one word to describe the act is not necessary- it has been described- so either make your case, or consider it dismissed for lack of evidence.

Yeah, whatever. What is the "shameful" thing? you have yet to know, because of the vague reference here. straight men doing gay things would be shameful, going contrary to their nature. Again, you lost this battle because Paul DOES assume that everyone here is born heterosexual, so that would be going contrary to their nature.

Are you saying that because you do not know what the shameful thing is, it doesnt matter now? Contrary to our nature? Since when was the sin nature of our body, the standard?

G

 

[davedjy]

Bullroar- most translations are not *exactly* the same- but they carry the same message. This does not invalidate the message. Now- claiming it is so- does not make it so- CITE YOUR SOURCES of this vastly different message, or consider your point dismissed for lack of evidence.

Cite your evidences of what this word means, and I don't mean using blueletterbible.org Even Tony Campolo says that the Scholars are not agreed on the true meaning of the word, and he knows he cannot use this chapter for his debate points...so you lose on that alone.

I dont care about attraction- Im talking about lust- as that is what the Bible said. Having one word to describe the act is not necessary- it has been described- so either make your case, or consider it dismissed for lack of evidence.

This statement doesn't mean anything or make any sense whatsoever.

Are you saying that because you do not know what the shameful thing is, it doesnt matter now? Contrary to our nature? Since when was the sin nature of our body, the standard?

G

You haven't been able to prove that homosexuality is a result of sin nature, so you don't even have a leg to stand upon with that.

Please inform ALL OF US here at CF where the Bible addresses a sexual orientation?


*crickets chirping, no response to question*

 

[Der Alte]

Even if you knew his degree it wouldn't change your opinion, just like I gave you all the mental health foundation claims. You are still fighting for church doctrine, and not for the truth (which you truly don't care about, you care about protecting your precious Church history doctrine).

Wrong, you don't know what church doctrine is. I am discussing from the consistent unchanging definition applied from the time of Moses, through, the early church until today. From the time of Moses a Sodomite was a man who had sex with another man. I have proved it from irrefutable Jewish sources.

He has a PHD in Bible theology or something.
It's on his website:
http://www.tonycampolo.org/abouttony.php

WRONG! Tony was a Sociology professor. NO, NONE, specific education in Bible languages or history.

I have backed up the inconsistencies w/the arsenokoites translation. 1 Timothy 1:10 doesn't use the same word for each phrase.

You have backed up NOTHING. Your so-called explanation is totally irrelevant. One translation, in one Bible version, proves absolutely nothing about that word or any other word.

A sodomite isn't someone who commits sodomy, it was an inhabitor of Sodom that was a rapist, or engaged in idolatry and promiscuous wild orgies....

According to the Jews at the time of Moses a sodomite was a man who had sex with other men.

According to the ENTIRE early church [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size] was interpreted as “SODOMY," lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “ shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “ licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc. Specific quotes here http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32635683&postcount=82

 

[Gusoceros]

Cite your evidences of what this word means, and I don't mean using blueletterbible.org Even Tony Campolo says that the Scholars are not agreed on the true meaning of the word, and he knows he cannot use this chapter for his debate points...so you lose on that alone.

Do you think Tony knows you are beating his horse? You claimed it means something different in different translations- it is your burden to cite these vast differences in meaning.

You haven't been able to prove that homosexuality is a result of sin nature, so you don't even have a leg to stand upon with that.

I dont have to- the Bible cites it as sin- the act that is.

Please inform ALL OF US here at CF where the Bible addresses a sexual orientation?

Again dont care - the orientation is irrelevant. We are not judged by our temptations, rather by our actions.

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I dont have to- the Bible cites it as sin- the act that is.

No it doesn't.

At least, not anywhere relevant to the new covenant

 

[Gusoceros]

No it doesn't.

At least, not anywhere relevant to the new covenant

We've been through this- I have cited the Scriptures to you- and your argument thus far has been- those are Paul's writings- they arent Scripture.

If the standard you are using is the Right and Wrong according to what enemyparty believes the standard to be, in rejection of the parts of the Bible that EP chooses to ignore- then we should agree that I dont accept your personal standard, and as a personal standard, it carries little weight further than you.

G

 

[davedjy]

Do you think Tony knows you are beating his horse? You claimed it means something different in different translations- it is your burden to cite these vast differences in meaning.

I don't need to prove anything, I proved it has inconsistent translations. Why are you here again? what is your purpose in even trying to ask me these questions?

I dont have to- the Bible cites it as sin- the act that is.

Show me where BESIDES 1 Cor 6:9 (unknown word translation) and the Leviticus purity violation?

Again dont care - the orientation is irrelevant. We are not judged by our temptations, rather by our actions.

G

You can't answer that question, because there is no mention in scriptures of an orientation, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF AN ORIENTATION.

 

[Gusoceros]

I don't need to prove anything, I proved it has inconsistent translations. Why are you here again? what is your purpose in even trying to ask me these questions?

You are the one claiming inconsistent translations on the subject - presumably to show vastly different meaning to render the text unusable in my argument. You need to back up your claim by showing these different meanings- because you just saying so- doesnt cut the mustard. Its pretty basic, Im asking you the questions because you made the claim.

Show me where BESIDES 1 Cor 6:9 (unknown word translation) and the Leviticus purity violation?

Already did.

You can't answer that question, because there is no mention in scriptures of an orientation, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF AN ORIENTATION.

Covered this already- orientation is irrelevant- we are not judged by our temptations, rather by our acts.

G

 

[davedjy]

Covered this already- orientation is irrelevant- we are not judged by our temptations, rather by our acts.

No, you ignore it, because they had no knowledge of a sexual orientation back then, which is why it wasn't mentioned. You have yet to mention a loving, monogamous relationship condemned, and there is NO MENTION of the act, whatsoever. Leviticus falls under a purity code violation. If God set his standard in the earth that this was wrong, it would've been a MORAL violation from the start.

You are just like those sheep, you just follow whatever comes out of doctrine. Have you actually prayed to God about this topic? are you even clear in your leading of the Holy Spirit? Why are you here...why is this more important than any other sin to you?