What is marriage, and why does it preclude homosexuality? (Moved from C,P&E to DOH)

[AetheriusLamia]

I spent roughly two hours this afternoon discussing various issues with a priest at my local Catholic church. The argument on my website completely fills the front side of ten pieces of paper, shortening the margins as much as possible without resizing the text.

He made it rather clear to me that it's silly to begin defending homosexuality as I have done when I am not entirely sure of it, or of myself. (I may very well be homosexual, but having never dated a woman, I am not sure.) Unfortunately, due to the language barrier (he's from Africa), we did not manage to discuss marriage during those two hours. By the way, for those of you unfamiliar with the Roman Catholic Church, I'll say this now: The official position of the Church is that the homosexual orientation is inborn, but since only penal-vaginal intercourse is allowed in marriage, homosexuals are called to lifelong celibacy. "Homosexuality" isn't a sin (according to them) any more than being prone to alcoholism is a sin.

So far, though, no one has been able to find any problems with anything I've said, except, perhaps, Leviticus. However, the validity of Leviticus is still very much under question in my mind: if it is a ritual transgression and ceremonial prohibition (related to idolatrous practices) as it appears, then it is not valid. If it is a moral commandment, then obviously it is valid. I will have to research that further.

He gave me two pamphlets to read. Pamphlet is not the correct word; please tell me what is. It's a little packet, a long article, but not big enough to be considered a book. The first is Same Sex Attraction: Catholic Teaching and Pastoral Practice by John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S. The second is Study Guide to Evangelium Vitae. The Gospel of Life. An encyclical by His Holiness Pope John Paul II by Russell Shaw.

I do not anticipate anything I've not already heard, and I feel God loves me whatever conclusion I come to, so I suppose I am in dire need of prayer, eh? (I mean, if I'm comfortable with myself and with my relationship with God but others feel I could go to hell if I wind up with a guy ...)

Hopefully they'll have something in them about marriage, and it also has multiple books in a list of recommended reading ... Although, to be clear, such reading is unnecessary, when you may simply read the Bible, right? ... right. So, I suppose I'll disappear for a bit, at least until I've read them.

 

[sunlover1]

I spent roughly two hours this afternoon discussing various issues with a priest at my local Catholic church. The argument on my website completely fills the front side of ten pieces of paper, shortening the margins as much as possible without resizing the text.

He made it rather clear to me that it's silly to begin defending homosexuality as I have done when I am not entirely sure of it, or of myself. (I may very well be homosexual, but having never dated a woman, I am not sure.) Unfortunately, due to the language barrier (he's from Africa), we did not manage to discuss marriage during those two hours. By the way, for those of you unfamiliar with the Roman Catholic Church, I'll say this now: The official position of the Church is that the homosexual orientation is inborn, but since only penal-vaginal intercourse is allowed in marriage, homosexuals are called to lifelong celibacy. "Homosexuality" isn't a sin (according to them) any more than being prone to alcoholism is a sin.

So far, though, no one has been able to find any problems with anything I've said, except, perhaps, Leviticus. However, the validity of Leviticus is still very much under question in my mind: if it is a ritual transgression and ceremonial prohibition (related to idolatrous practices) as it appears, then it is not valid. If it is a moral commandment, then obviously it is valid. I will have to research that further.

He gave me two pamphlets to read. Pamphlet is not the correct word; please tell me what is. It's a little packet, a long article, but not big enough to be considered a book. The first is Same Sex Attraction: Catholic Teaching and Pastoral Practice by John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S. The second is Study Guide to Evangelium Vitae. The Gospel of Life. An encyclical by His Holiness Pope John Paul II by Russell Shaw.

I do not anticipate anything I've not already heard, and I feel God loves me whatever conclusion I come to, so I suppose I am in dire need of prayer, eh? (I mean, if I'm comfortable with myself and with my relationship with God but others feel I could go to hell if I wind up with a guy ...)

Hopefully they'll have something in them about marriage, and it also has multiple books in a list of recommended reading ... Although, to be clear, such reading is unnecessary, when you may simply read the Bible, right? ... right. So, I suppose I'll disappear for a bit, at least until I've read them.

I checked out your site Aetherius.
First of all
I will pray for you too.

You said, on your site:

If this is the case, then my attention should turn to gay sex and gay marriage. Is celibacy necessary as the Church says? Why can't gays marry? Etc. Directly, if God doesn't care what sexual organs your body has, then their existence or absence would not – and cannot – affect a spiritual union.

I dont understand how you come to this conclusion.
God cares so so very much even about our
sex life. There's no detail He's not concerned
about .

I am quite a bit older than you are and have
been through some very crazy stuff in my life,
and I just want you to know that things are so
not always as they appear.
I'm very impressed with your maturity level.
I have a son your age, and so I do have
a frame of reference.

And also, I know how very unimportant sex
really is now, I mean in the bigger picture
of our lives.
I came by that "knowing" the hard way.
I remember sitting alone crying, huge with
pregnancy, just been jilted and rejected
like an old sock, thinking "THIS is what
premarital sex gets you" TROUBLE.
And i made some adjustments, better
late than never.


And you knwo what, it's so true.
What do we see every day?
Babies with no daddy wanting them.
Aids, Other STD's, Herpes, SHEESH
the Std's are incredible , lifetime many
of them...

Then we could talk of relationships too.
LOL.
The only ONLY good relationships that I
run into, and I mean great relationships.
are those involving two Christians, who
are mature enough to know what's
really important in life.
And it aint how hot you are, it aint
how rich you are, smart, young, etc.

You want a GREAT marriage, and the one
that God would choose for you? Then
Just go to the Rock.
FORGET about it for now. Stop obsessing
about this very difficult decision.
Choose God and get your foundation first.
Take some time to get to really really
know Him and know what His voice
sounds like.
He loves you so much. So much there's
nothing that He'd not do for you. And
then, when you're settled there, then
let Him bring you into that next stage.

If you're wise enough to even CONSIDER
what I've said, I'll be shocked.
Because even at an older age than you,
I was such a foolish ninny, that I'd
never had just taken the time to be with
God, my maker, the ONLY one who really
we can depend on, the really ONLY one who
is alwaYs there no matter what.

I chose to be the captain of my own ship
back then friend. And I made a shipwreck
of my life.
God's worked miracles in my life since and
in spite of me, but please please consider it.

Your life is so precious and worth so much.
This huge huge problem, in retrospect will
appear much smaller.

Sorry if i sounded bossy.
I am used to counseling my kids.

sunlover

 

[davedjy]

I agree with you here, and if this was the only reference to homosexuality in the bible, I think that Aetherius would have a good case. However we know that scripture confirms scripture, and we need to take the entire context of the scripture to find it's meaning which is what I have done.

Peace

You will find that the ONLY debatable passage of Scripture is Romans 1 among the Scholars.
I hear you quoting the law, but enormous sins were referred to as "Zimmah", in the Hebrew law. A ceremonial/ritual impurity is not the same thing. The historical context of Leviticus is that men were dressing as women and having sex to a false God in the Canaanite religion. Women were not dressing as men, hence why there isn't any verse condemning any same sex female practices in the passage.


As for 1 Cor. 6:9, and sometimes used in 1 Timothy 1, the definition of Arsenokoitai is UNKNOWN!
At the time of Martin Luther it was universally translated as those who touch. That isn't the only translation inconsistency with this word, it has also been said to mean a male pimp and a male prostitute:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

 

[mattlock73]

He made it rather clear to me that it's silly to begin defending homosexuality as I have done when I am not entirely sure of it, or of myself.

I don't think it's silly at all. That's how we find the answers to things, by finding questions within ourselves and then seeking answers. There is nothing inherently wrong with the questioning, it is only when we stop looking for the answers that the problems start.

I do not anticipate anything I've not already heard, and I feel God loves me whatever conclusion I come to, so I suppose I am in dire need of prayer, eh? (I mean, if I'm comfortable with myself and with my relationship with God but others feel I could go to hell if I wind up with a guy ...)

God does indeed love you, and we are ALL in need of prayer.

Hopefully they'll have something in them about marriage, and it also has multiple books in a list of recommended reading ... Although, to be clear, such reading is unnecessary, when you may simply read the Bible, right? ... right. So, I suppose I'll disappear for a bit, at least until I've read them.

There are plenty of books out there that may be great to read and may help you with your dilemma. The important thing to remember is that the scripture is the authority on which we rest.

You seem to be an intelligent and honest person seeking answers. Remember that if you pray for wisdom, He will not deny you. That is the one prayer that always gets answered.

God bless and I will remember you in my prayers.

 

[mattlock73]

You will find that the ONLY debatable passage of Scripture is Romans 1 among the Scholars.

I disagree that it is the only debatable scripture reference, but I think it is valid as well.

I hear you quoting the law, but enormous sins were referred to as "Zimmah", in the Hebrew law. A ceremonial/ritual impurity is not the same thing. The historical context of Leviticus is that men were dressing as women and having sex to a false God in the Canaanite religion. Women were not dressing as men, hence why there isn't any verse condemning any same sex female practices in the passage.

Hmm, I don't know about your translation, but the Hebrew says shakab, the same root of the word [SIZE=-1]sh@kobeth [/SIZE]incidentally used in the very next verse, here they are together so that you can see for yourself:

Lev 18:22-23 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.

I guess you are next going to tell me that men were dressing up in animal skins to have sex?

As for 1 Cor. 6:9, and sometimes used in 1 Timothy 1, the definition of Arsenokoitai is UNKNOWN!

There has been debate about the origin of the word, but most, not all, credible NT scholars agree that the term is used to indicate same-sex relations.

 

[davedjy]

I guess you are next going to tell me that men were dressing up in animal skins to have sex?

The verses are not connected, why would I say that? Abomination = tow'ebah, which is the ceremonial violation used, not Shakab.

There has been debate about the origin of the word, but most, not all, credible NT scholars agree that the term is used to indicate same-sex relations.

The word taken a part merely means "man" and "many beds". The word definition is unknown, so to assert it means what they are saying, is very misleading.

Btw, the history of Romans 1, is mass orgies/idolatry to a false god...again, not your example of a monogamous same sex relationship, and neither are any of these other passages.

 

[mattlock73]

The verses are not connected, why would I say that? Abomination = tow'ebah, which is the ceremonial violation used, not Shakab.

Shakab is to 'lie with' to engage in sexual intimacy with. A man is directed not to have sexual relations with another man, and then the very next verse directed not to have sexual relations with a beast. So from your logic, using the 'context' of men dressing up as women, I figured the same would apply here, men dressing up in animal skins to have sex.

It really doesn't matter how you want to twist it, the verse is quite clear what it is talking about. BTW - tow`ebah has two meanings. Ritual impurity and the one you would like to ignore, ethical or moral wickedness. Also used in Lev 20:13 -
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth (shakab) with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (tow`ebah): they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Do you think that God would pronounce death on someone for a 'ritual impurity' when in other cases it only required a sacrificial atonement?

The word taken a part merely means "man" and "many beds". The word definition is unknown, so to assert it means what they are saying, is very misleading.

No, that is an etymology of the word suggested by Scroggs who has lots of problem with his exegesis. Basically, he suggested that Paul made up a new word by combining the Greek forms of the Hebrew 'man and bed'.

Btw, the history of Romans 1, is mass orgies/idolatry to a false god...again, not your example of a monogamous same sex relationship, and neither are any of these other passages.

I beg to differ, and think that I have shown scriptural proof of such.

 

[davedjy]

Shakab is to 'lie with' to engage in sexual intimacy with. A man is directed not to have sexual relations with another man, and then the very next verse directed not to have sexual relations with a beast. So from your logic, using the 'context' of men dressing up as women, I figured the same would apply here, men dressing up in animal skins to have sex.

That logic is flawed, since abomination is not described there with beasts. I find it interesting that you use that for your debate, when it includes BOTH sexes, when the previous violation only includes one. This is further proof that these 2 things are not connected.

It really doesn't matter how you want to twist it, the verse is quite clear what it is talking about. BTW - tow`ebah has two meanings. Ritual impurity and the one you would like to ignore, ethical or moral wickedness. Also used in Lev 20:13 -
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth (shakab) with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (tow`ebah): they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

There isn't any "twisting" done at all, you suggest it means one thing, but you cannot prove it means both. Where is the violation against lesbians if this is a sexual orientation violation and not a ceremonial one?

Do you think that God would pronounce death on someone for a 'ritual impurity' when in other cases it only required a sacrificial atonement?

Why not? having sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual cycle was included along the list.

No, that is an etymology of the word suggested by Scroggs who has lots of problem with his exegesis. Basically, he suggested that Paul made up a new word by combining the Greek forms of the Hebrew 'man and bed'.

That word appears in a list of ECONOMIC sins and does not repeat itself anywhere. Taken part, that is what the word means. As stated, that word was universally translated as those who touch at the time of Martin Luther.
There isn't any proof that arsenokoitai translates as homosexual, the translation is an assumption.

I beg to differ, and think that I have shown scriptural proof of such.

Using the two Greek phrases that are used in Romans 1...phusis and phusikos, which means these people abandoned their natural instincts and natural dispositions. Paul was not talking about gays and lesbians in this passage, and this does passage does not represent monogamous same sex relationships, OR relationships at all.

 

[mattlock73]

That logic is flawed, since abomination is not described there with beasts.

As I was pointing out. The logic was yours, not mine.

The word used in the second verse is [SIZE=-1]tebel meaning a perversion of the natural order specifically with sex. It is only used twice, once to refer to bestiality and the second to refer to incest. Interestingly enough, the punishment for both of those sins is the same as for homosexual acts.

[/SIZE]

I find it interesting that you use that for your debate, when it includes BOTH sexes, when the previous violation only includes one. This is further proof that these 2 things are not connected.

I honestly don't know why it was not included. It does not change the fact that it is referenced elsewhere.

There isn't any "twisting" done at all, you suggest it means one thing, but you cannot prove it means both. Where is the violation against lesbians if this is a sexual orientation violation and not a ceremonial one?

Again, I have no idea why it was not included and would not presume to guess. But let me ask this, since when is omission of something now proof FOR something? Where is the proof that any homosexual activity is approved of in the Bible?

Why not? having sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual cycle was included along the list.

But the punishment is not death for that sin. So once again, you seem to be ignoring the obvious.

That word appears in a list of ECONOMIC sins and does not repeat itself anywhere. Taken part, that is what the word means. As stated, that word was universally translated as those who touch at the time of Martin Luther.
There isn't any proof that arsenokoitai translates as homosexual, the translation is an assumption.

umm... OK. Let's read 1 Co 6:9-10 again.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators (pornoi), nor idolaters (eidOlolatrai), nor adulterers (moikhoi), nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai),Nor thieves(kleptai), nor covetous (pleonektai), nor drunkards, nor revilers (loidoroi), nor extortioners (harpeges), shall inherit the kingdom of God. (KJV)

Yeah, not so sure I would call that list an example of economic sins, so lets try 1 Ti 1:9-10

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,For whoremongers (pornoi), for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (KJV)

Hmm... Not so much on the whole economic sins theory there either.

As I stated earlier, although not all agree, MOST credible NT scholars agree that the word is referencing same-sex relations. For you to assume it does not, assumes that you know more than these and the early church fathers that came before them. In this case, especially with supporting scripture from the OT and Romans, I will choose their interpretation.

Using the two Greek phrases that are used in Romans 1...phusis and phusikos, which means these people abandoned their natural instincts and natural dispositions. Paul was not talking about gays and lesbians in this passage, and this does passage does not represent monogamous same sex relationships, OR relationships at all.

Lets take a look at what natural instincts and dispositions they abandoned:

Rom 1:26 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:

This verse, if taken on it's own seems rather vague. We know that the action is considered vile, but really does not explain what that action is.

Rom 1:27 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.

Aha, now we see what the action is by the context of the two verses together (along with the rest of the chapter and book). Men abandoning their natural use of women. What is the natural use of women for men? Marriage, procreation and sex. And then men embracing the unnatural, burned in lust toward other men performing the unseemly (aschēmosynē), literally an unseemly deed specifically having to do with nakedness and shame or an unseemly deed performed on a woman's genitalia.

I really don't see how it gets any more clearer. You may choose to interpret it any way you wish, however, this is what the scripture says. I am sorry, but I simply don't see where you have a leg to stand on.

 

[davedjy]

As I was pointing out. The logic was yours, not mine.

It isn't the same...I'm not pointing out Shakab, I'm pointing out the origin of what is an "abomination", and the one about the beast uses confusion, 2 different Hebrew words.

The word used in the second verse is [SIZE=-1]tebel meaning a perversion of the natural order specifically with sex. It is only used twice, once to refer to bestiality and the second to refer to incest. Interestingly enough, the punishment for both of those sins is the same as for homosexual acts.

As I already stated, much of the impurity code was punishable by death, including the menstrual cycle violation.

Again, I have no idea why it was not included and would not presume to guess. But let me ask this, since when is omission of something now proof FOR something? Where is the proof that any homosexual activity is approved of in the Bible?

Do you need approval to drive a car by the Bible? A same sex monogamous, life long partnership doesn't need a specific verse to be "approved". However you think it does, but arguments either way from silence aren't good ones.

But the punishment is not death for that sin. So once again, you seem to be ignoring the obvious.

Already answered, much of the impurity code was punishable by death, things that today would seem ridiculous.

umm... OK. Let's read 1 Co 6:9-10 again.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators (pornoi), nor idolaters (eidOlolatrai), nor adulterers (moikhoi), nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai),Nor thieves(kleptai), nor covetous (pleonektai), nor drunkards, nor revilers (loidoroi), nor extortioners (harpeges), shall inherit the kingdom of God. (KJV)

Yeah, not so sure I would call that list an example of economic sins, so lets try 1 Ti 1:9-10

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,For whoremongers (pornoi), for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (KJV)

Hmm... Not so much on the whole economic sins theory there either.

It originally appeared in the Sibylline Oracle, I'm not talking about 1 Cor. OR 1 Timothy.

As I stated earlier, although not all agree, MOST credible NT scholars agree that the word is referencing same-sex relations. For you to assume it does not, assumes that you know more than these and the early church fathers that came before them. In this case, especially with supporting scripture from the OT and Romans, I will choose their interpretation.

As proved the early Church Fathers believed the word to mean "masturbators", and as I demonstrated, the word has been translated as male pimp, and male prostitute, as well as the vague term "sodomite".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

The proof from that link alone shows it is enough of a rebuttal to cause doubt it means what you say it does. I don't care what majority vs. minority argument is made, the proof still lacks in a major way that it translates out as a homosexual. Btw, it is a serious breaking of Biblical exegesis to translate arsenokoitai as homosexual, when that word did not exist in the Greek at the time the Bible was written in it's original languages.

Lets take a look at what natural instincts and dispositions they abandoned:

Rom 1:26 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:

This verse, if taken on it's own seems rather vague. We know that the action is considered vile, but really does not explain what that action is.

Rom 1:27 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.

Aha, now we see what the action is by the context of the two verses together (along with the rest of the chapter and book). Men abandoning their natural use of women. What is the natural use of women for men? Marriage, procreation and sex. And then men embracing the unnatural, burned in lust toward other men performing the unseemly (aschēmosynē), literally an unseemly deed specifically having to do with nakedness and shame or an unseemly deed performed on a woman's genitalia.

Again, this passage does not address same sex relationships, and so there isn't anything to be said. Gays and lesbians don't "burn in their lust", and homosexuality isn't against nature, it is in over 450 vertebrate species. Being gay or lesbian IS what is natural to those who are born gay. The only logical explanation is that these were heterosexuals that in their idolatry to the false Gods, and graven images they worshiped, they were turned over to complete depravity.

I really don't see how it gets any more clearer. You may choose to interpret it any way you wish, however, this is what the scripture says. I am sorry, but I simply don't see where you have a leg to stand on.

The interpretation of the passage does not mean "this is what the Scripture says". You are not looking at the passage in it's entirety. These people were malicious murderers who were turned over to complete spiritual ruin through their idolatry (Romans 1:22). This is before any type of sexual activity is even mentioned. We are told that they were filled with EVERY kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice. They were full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, and boastfulness. They were inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. (Romans 1:29-31)To equate all of that to gays and lesbians just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

A leg to stand on? you haven't looked at the passage in it's entirety to where it makes sense from your viewpoint.
The other problem are the two Greek word definitions used in this passage of abandoning natural instincts and a natural disposition (phusis and phusikos). Gays and lesbians DO NOT abandon that, which their instinct and disposition is to the SAME sex...the phrase does not mean that which is natural "in general". It couldn't be clearer, it is talking about heterosexuals that abandoned their natural instincts. Either that or Paul had no knowledge of a sexual orientation.

 

[sunlover1]

The only logical explanation is that these were heterosexuals that in their idolatry to the false Gods, and graven images they worshiped, they were turned over to complete depravity.

But how do you get that (above)
from this?

Rom 1:27 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.

 

[davedjy]

But how do you get that (above)
from this?

Rom 1:27 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.

I don't dispute whether the actions were homosexual, but the orientation of the individuals performing those actions. Paul was describing people who went against their natural instincts and natural dispositions (phusis and phusikos). As stated, gays and lesbians do not have natural instincts and natural dispositions to the opposite sex, and that isn't even disputed, unless they are bisexual.

 

[mattlock73]

It isn't the same...I'm not pointing out Shakab, I'm pointing out the origin of what is an "abomination", and the one about the beast uses confusion, 2 different Hebrew words.

Which I explained was only used twice in the entire OT to describe two particularly heinous acts, incest and bestiality. You were the one who brought the entire context of Lev 18 into play with the notion that it was only written because men were dressing as women. The faulty logic is yours, not mine, for if you look at the entire context of chapter 18 you see that argument does not hold water.

Abomination was used a lot, and NOT only for ritual or ceremonial sins as you like to call them. BTW - this classification of sins is ridiculous. Sin is sin, it is separation from God. A lie has the same penalty as murder, for the wages of sin is death.

As I already stated, much of the impurity code was punishable by death, including the menstrual cycle violation.

Sex with a woman during her cycle called for the punishment of being separated from the people, not death. Lev 20:18

Try again.

Do you need approval to drive a car by the Bible?

Red herring.

A same sex monogamous, life long partnership doesn't need a specific verse to be "approved". However you think it does, but arguments either way from silence aren't good ones.

The Bible is not silent about it. I have shown you scripture after scripture which refutes that idea. You however can show not one that supports the lifestyle you are defending.

Already answered, much of the impurity code was punishable by death, things that today would seem ridiculous.

While we as society do not presume to be the judge, jury and executioner any longer, outside of the reach of a courtroom that is, there is still one who can pronounce that sentence. I thank God that it is not my job, and I am not condemning anyone, but His Word is clear. Let him who has ears hear it.

It originally appeared in the Sibylline Oracle, I'm not talking about 1 Cor. OR 1 Timothy.

OK, but that is not what we are discussing here, nor would it be the first definition that one goes to in determining the intent of Paul's writing.

As proved the early Church Fathers believed the word to mean "masturbators", and as I demonstrated, the word has been translated as male pimp, and male prostitute, as well as the vague term "sodomite".

You have proved no such thing. You have made a statement. The link you provided is hardly better.

The proof from that link alone shows it is enough of a rebuttal to cause doubt it means what you say it does. I don't care what majority vs. minority argument is made, the proof still lacks in a major way that it translates out as a homosexual. Btw, it is a serious breaking of Biblical exegesis to translate arsenokoitai as homosexual, when that word did not exist in the Greek at the time the Bible was written in it's original languages.

The word may have been rare, but it did exist. I find it hard to believe that Paul, a learned, literate and very exact writer, simply made up a new word in order to be vague about a topic. There are proofs that early Christian fathers did all translate this to mean masturbaters. Polycarp's letter the the Philipians in circa 110 AD:

"to be cut off from the lusts in the world, because every lust fights against the spirit, and neither 'pornoi' nor 'malakoi' nor 'arsenokoitai' will inherit the kingdom of God, nor those who commit crimes."[PPhp 5:3]

Polycarp seems to be alluding to [1Co 6:9], and has edited the Apostolic list to suit his intended audience of young unmarried men, omitting adulterers. If the Bishop meant to refer to male prostitutes (rent boys) by either 'arsenokoitai' or 'malakoi', it is strange that he omits two reasons for resorting to the trade: religion (in which case idolaters should also be mentioned), or money (in which case the greedy should also be mentioned).

And Eusebius writes in the 4th century:
"But those who roam outside of these, they seek after pleasures beyond nature, desiring to [do what the arsenokoitai do]."

Here is a link explaining exactly why MOST credible NT scholars believe they know what it means

Again, this passage does not address same sex relationships, and so there isn't anything to be said. Gays and lesbians don't "burn in their lust", and homosexuality isn't against nature, it is in over 450 vertebrate species. Being gay or lesbian IS what is natural to those who are born gay.

Homosexuality is not the natural order of things. If it were then life would cease on the planet. The premise that homosexuality is their personal natural proclivity, does in no way make it 'natural'. By that same logic a serial killer is completely natural. This again is a red herring.

The only logical explanation is that these were heterosexuals that in their idolatry to the false Gods, and graven images they worshiped, they were turned over to complete depravity.

No, it is neither logical nor the only explanation. You still would have to throw out half the verse to make that case. It's called cherry-picking.

The interpretation of the passage does not mean "this is what the Scripture says". You are not looking at the passage in it's entirety. These people were malicious murderers who were turned over to complete spiritual ruin through their idolatry (Romans 1:22). This is before any type of sexual activity is even mentioned. We are told that they were filled with EVERY kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice. They were full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, and boastfulness. They were inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. (Romans 1:29-31)To equate all of that to gays and lesbians just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

This passage in no way states that these qualities, for lack of better word, were possessed by EVERY person. Paul is not describing an individual, he is describing a group. If I look back at the LA riots and say "it was an agry mob, they were beating people up, setting fire to stores and looting", it would be true. As a group, that's what they were doing. Individually however, they were not ALL doing those things, but the group is made up of individuals so the group shares the same characteristics as those that form it.

A leg to stand on? you haven't looked at the passage in it's entirety to where it makes sense from your viewpoint. The other problem are the two Greek word definitions used in this passage of abandoning natural instincts and a natural disposition (phusis and phusikos). Gays and lesbians DO NOT abandon that, which their instinct and disposition is to the SAME sex...the phrase does not mean that which is natural "in general". It couldn't be clearer, it is talking about heterosexuals that abandoned their natural instincts. Either that or Paul had no knowledge of a sexual orientation.

Already been over this.

 

[davedjy]

Which I explained was only used twice in the entire OT to describe two particularly heinous acts, incest and bestiality. You were the one who brought the entire context of Lev 18 into play with the notion that it was only written because men were dressing as women. The faulty logic is yours, not mine, for if you look at the entire context of chapter 18 you see that argument does not hold water.

There isn't any faulty logic, YOU brought the red herring, the verses are not connected, YOU connected them, not me. You also proved my point all the more, since the violation you brought is specific to both sexes, and does not say anything about female-female sex.
At least my historical context makes sense.

WHERE IS THE FEMALE - FEMALE VIOLATION?
please do explain that away, because that is a faulty point you made.
The context I brought shows that it isn't the sex act, but the ceremony that is the sin. The historical context backs the ceremonial lexicon, as well as the reason why female-female isn't mentioned.

Sex with a woman during her cycle called for the punishment of being separated from the people, not death. Lev 20:18

Try again.

The death penalty WAS given for that offense, you clearly aren't familiar with old Jewish law:

Note in the above Mishnah, Niddah 14a, husband and wife are required to bring a sacrifice if they have intercourse during niddah. However, there is also provision to inflict the death penalty, presumably if the transgression was deliberate.

MISHNAH. THERE ARE IN THE TORAH THIRTY-SIX [TRANSGRESSIONS WHICH ARE PUNISHABLE WITH] EXTINCTION:
1. WHEN ONE HAS INTERCOURSE WITH HIS MOTHER,
…
15. OR WITH A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN;
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_3.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/menstruation

Being cut off from your people, also was another way of being put to death.

Regardless, it is ridiculous to make any current day law claim based upon the nature of the punishment back in those days.
Even by today's standards, if someone was cut off in a way that wasn't by death, it is absolutely RIDICULOUS, so why use any of these laws as a current day example?

Red herring.

Not a red herring, I used an example. Pull the red herring line out, but arguments from silence aren't good ones. The Bible does not mention gay marriage, nor does it talk about a monogamous same sex relationship. Appeal to silence.

The Bible is not silent about it. I have shown you scripture after scripture which refutes that idea. You however can show not one that supports the lifestyle you are defending.

You have yet to prove the context is in that of monogamous, same sex relationships, or relationships at all.

While we as society do not presume to be the judge, jury and executioner any longer, outside of the reach of a courtroom that is, there is still one who can pronounce that sentence. I thank God that it is not my job, and I am not condemning anyone, but His Word is clear. Let him who has ears hear it.

I hear that statement a lot from Fundamentalists that "His Word is clear", yet you haven't prove that His Word is clear in the relationships we speak of, or of a sexual orientation.

You have proved no such thing. You have made a statement. The link you provided is hardly better.

Disprove the link - disprove the information from Religious Tolerance, don't just say something. I have seen the translation of masturbators, and it WAS translated that way. So go on and disprove the information on the link. You haven't disproved it, and saying "the link is hardly better", does not disprove my source.

The word may have been rare, but it did exist. I find it hard to believe that Paul, a learned, literate and very exact writer, simply made up a new word in order to be vague about a topic. There are proofs that early Christian fathers did all translate this to mean masturbaters. Polycarp's letter the the Philipians in circa 110 AD:

Regardless of whether the word existed, OR if he made it up, the translation accuracy is not there due to the word being pretty obscure.

Polycarp seems to be alluding to [1Co 6:9], and has edited the Apostolic list to suit his intended audience of young unmarried men, omitting adulterers. If the Bishop meant to refer to male prostitutes (rent boys) by either 'arsenokoitai' or 'malakoi', it is strange that he omits two reasons for resorting to the trade: religion (in which case idolaters should also be mentioned), or money (in which case the greedy should also be mentioned).

And Eusebius writes in the 4th century:
"But those who roam outside of these, they seek after pleasures beyond nature, desiring to [do what the arsenokoitai do]."

I don't see how that disproves that it is on a list of economic sins, or the relevance of what you are saying in context with what I'm saying.

Here is a link explaining exactly why MOST credible NT scholars believe they know what it means

All that link ultimately amounts to is a supposed rebuttal to Boswell's claim.

Homosexuality is not the natural order of things. If it were then life would cease on the planet. The premise that homosexuality is their personal natural proclivity, does in no way make it 'natural'. By that same logic a serial killer is completely natural. This again is a red herring.

A red herring? that seems to be your new favorite word, and you are throwing it around on baseless claim. You brought up this whole natural order discussion, and yet it doesn't really hold water. Homosexuality is shown in over 450 vertebrate species. Only a minority of the population has ever been gay, bi, or lesbian, so what is your point with that? obviously not everyone is all one way, hence reproduction occurs.

No, it is neither logical nor the only explanation. You still would have to throw out half the verse to make that case. It's called cherry-picking.

I haven't thrown out anything, just putting the passage into context. I can just as easily say you have cherry picked the entire passage by picking out one thing out of it, and making your whole claim about Paul condemning homosexual behavior, which hasn't been proven.

This passage in no way states that these qualities, for lack of better word, were possessed by EVERY person. Paul is not describing an individual, he is describing a group. If I look back at the LA riots and say "it was an agry mob, they were beating people up, setting fire to stores and looting", it would be true. As a group, that's what they were doing. Individually however, they were not ALL doing those things, but the group is made up of individuals so the group shares the same characteristics as those that form it.

However, Paul is using the same group, and brings them to the point where they are full of total depravity as a result of their idol worship. There isn't any proof it has anything to do with homosexual behavior, or that this is what Paul is condemning in the passage.

Already been over this.

Already been over this, yet you haven't refuted what I've said.



If you want to continue this, I will, but do it over in the homosexuality sub-forum, this is in the wrong one.

 

[Polycarp1]

But how do you get that (above)
from this?

Rom 1:27 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.

On the interpretation davejdy is presenting, it's important to note that Paul is not one to waste words. Let's look at the beginning of your passage from Romans again, with different emphasis:

Rom 1:27 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,

In other words, these were men whose "natural bent" would have been towards women, who turned from that and lusted men for men (and women for women, as noted in the other verse). In short, not "natural homosexuals" (meaning people with that orientation from their earliest days), but people of heterosexual orientation who turned to homosexuality -- and why? Because they turned from honoring God to worshipping things of this world, idols (see Romans 1:23,25) In addition, promiscuous homosexual lustfulness is not the only vice to which they are subject (see Romans 1:28-32).

In my opinion, it's highly significant that Paul writes this description to the Romans, never mentioning the malakoi and the arsenokaites, and skips entirely that detailed indictment but does include those terms in a list of those whose sins bar them from the kingdom when writing to the Corinthians. Because, of a rarity, we have contemporary secular testimony to something that Paul is writing about. Petronius Arbiter's scurrilous Satyricon is a scathing portrait of the debauched excesses of the Roman elite, partying less than a mile from where the Roman church was accustomed to meet. And their descriptions, save for length, are interchangeable -- Petronius depicts the behavior which Paul encapsulizes in the latter half of Romans chapter 1. Paul is not talking about gays, he's talking about debauchees backbiting each other for the Emperor's favor and trying anything (including, in passing, gay sex) for new kicks.

But it's also important to note that Romans is not a "chatty" letter like the two to the Corinthians, Philippians, etc., where he jumps from topic to topic. It's a long and carefully structured presentation of his own theology, set forth at length. And key to that is that one cannot earn salvation, one is not entitled to it -- it is purely a free gift of His grace and mercy. Because after setting forth the natural order in the first half of Romans 1 and showing how the debauchees violated it in every particular in the second half, he begins Romans 2 with a shocker: "Therefore are you inexcusable, o man..." -- "you guys reading this are just as bad in his eyes as the debauchees I just laid out in lavender." All men have sinned and fallen short of His glory; trying to obey the Law won't save you. But Christ, by His atonement, can and does -- and leads you to new and more glorious life in and through the Spirit. So you are free from the Law, not to sin but to live lives full of love in Christ, showing mercy and forbearance towards one another and the world and refraining from judging one another or haling one another into court.

To take this long, detailed presentation of how it is grace and not an impossible sinless life that saves us sinners and alone makes us worthy to stand before him, and turn it on its head into a means of judging one's fellow man, is to do an injustice both to the Scripture and Paul, and not only to them but to our Lord who suffered in bloody sweat and died in agony that we might have that grace.

And those who use it as a tool to condemn their neighbor need to repent. Now. Before He comes to judge -- by the standards He said he would use, in Matthew 7:1-2 and 25:31-46.

 

[sunlover1]

On the interpretation davejdy is presenting, it's important to note that Paul is not one to waste words. Let's look at the beginning of your passage from Romans again, with different emphasis:

Rom 1:27 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,

In other words, these were men whose "natural bent" would have been towards women, who turned from that and lusted men for men (and women for women, as noted in the other verse).

Right, but it doesnt imply this, that there are
"other" type of men who dont have a "natural
bent" towards women.

IN fact, if you leave out the "natural use"
line entirely, you have:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men,
burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men

It appears that this "men with men" is what
is soley presented as the 'unnatural' thing.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another;

I dont see any 'bent' mentioned, just that
men, leaving the normal use of women
burned in lust toward each other.

Plus we need to consider the women verse, which
lead into this men verse:
for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men,http://christianforums.com/#_ftn1

It says it's against nature, not against
their nature.
This is why I cannot see the 'bent' pov.
Too much ambiguity in your version imo.

http://christianforums.com/#_ftnref1

Petronius Arbiter's scurrilous Satyricon is a scathing portrait of the debauched excesses of the Roman elite, partying less than a mile from where the Roman church was accustomed to meet. And their descriptions, save for length, are interchangeable -- Petronius depicts the behavior which Paul encapsulizes in the latter half of Romans chapter 1. Paul is not talking about gays, he's talking about debauchees backbiting each other for the Emperor's favor and trying anything (including, in passing, gay sex) for new kicks.

So in your estimation, it's because "straight men"
are acting out homosexually, which is vile,
but had they been 'bent' towards it, it would
be cool?
Bad and given over by God to a reprobate mind,
because they didnt have the proper former 'bent'.
It just doent make a lot of sense to me.

Because after setting forth the natural order in the first half of Romans 1 and showing how the debauchees violated it in every particular in the second half, he begins Romans 2 with a shocker: "Therefore are you inexcusable, o man..." -- "you guys reading this are just as bad in his eyes as the debauchees I just laid out in lavender." All men have sinned and fallen short of His glory; trying to obey the Law won't save you. But Christ, by His atonement, can and does -- and leads you to new and more glorious life in and through the Spirit. So you are free from the Law, not to sin but to live lives full of love in Christ, showing mercy and forbearance towards one another and the world and refraining from judging one another or haling one another into court.

Amen and amen

To take this long, detailed presentation of how it is grace and not an impossible sinless life that saves us sinners and alone makes us worthy to stand before him, and turn it on its head into a means of judging one's fellow man, is to do an injustice both to the Scripture and Paul, and not only to them but to our Lord who suffered in bloody sweat and died in agony that we might have that grace.

I didnt see it as a means of judging one's fellow
man, but rather as a statement of what happens
when we worship the flesh.
The letter begins with unthankful hearts,
the unthankful heart, then in turn leads
to looking to the flesh,
which leads to God giving us up to a reprobate
mind to do things that are really unnatural,
while all of the time thinking they're perfectly
natural.
because the end of it all was iirc, God
walking away from them.
And if God quits speaking to us,
we hear only ours and the enemy's voices.
Tricked again
Been there done that. Thought I was hearing
God, lol what a loser.

And those who use it as a tool to condemn their neighbor need to repent. Now. Before He comes to judge -- by the standards He said he would use, in Matthew 7:1-2 and 25:31-46

Amen.
I am not standing in judgement,
just the opposite actually.
My heart goes out to people
who find themselves in this situation
and confused, thinking what seems,
feels so right, can be so wrong?

I too am only learning.
Although imo, God never intended
this and it's not pleasing to him,
and it's something that the enemy
has tricked into belief.

Devil is a counterfeiter we all know.
Takes what's pure, lovely, and tries
to replace it with some fake.

Sorry I didnt address all of your post.

Thanks,
sunlover

 

[Polycarp1]

Sunlover -- two things.

1. I used your post as a starting point to compose something that went way beyond what you addressed, and that generalized indictment of "those who use Scripture to judge" was most emphatically and explicitly not directed at you personally. ("He whom the shoe fitteth, let him put it on and wear it.")

2. My point was not anything about straight men vs. gay men acting homosexually, but the fact that Paul was painting a picture of the manifold sinfulness of people well known to his original readers in the church at Rome as an initial element in setting forth his theology of salvation by the grace of God alone. The fact that two verses out of nearly 20 in that indictment address burning with desire for people of the same sex should not delude us into thinking they were Adam Lambda and Steve Glaad, young committed gay yuppie couple of the 21st century. They were the supposed rulers of the Roman Empire, given over to envy, murder, deceit, malignity, backbiters, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, and, oh, yeah, bored by normal sex and looking for new kicks with man-man, woman-woman, man-boy, man-girl, woman-boy, and woman-girl sex -- and whatever else they thought of. (Read the Satyricon if you have a strong stomach.) And except for the pedophilia, which is in the Satyricon, that's all spelled out a couple of verses away from the Romans 1:27 that everybody likes to quote. But, beyond that, having given us this stomach-turning portrait of multiple vices, he then points out that we're all as guilty, as much sinners, as little naturally righteous, in the eyes of God. (And at that point he can then get into the Good News, as noted above.) I'm not denying that Romans 1:27 shows people sinning - I'm looking at what Paul is trying to do with that particular depiction of sinfulness, what else he has to say about how they're sinning, and where it fits into the broader picture of what he's trying to convey to the Christians in Rome.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

sunlover, thanks for the post (at the top of p 15); i appreciate it.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

mattlock, thanks for the post (near the top of p 15) ... i like the idea of this prayer thing, and people thinking of me, although that's probably just my ego ... makes me feel loved. <3 lol

... and, you guys ... please create a new thread in the homosexuality board and continue the debate about the clobber passages there, if it no longer pertains to marriage. Or is it acceptable at this website for threads to go off-topic? I'd like us to discuss things tangent to marriage ... It's 1 am and I'm tired; I suppose homosexuality is related to marriage between gays, right? ... oh well. I just don't want to see this thread wind up in the Homosexuality board, because that's not what it was intended for. I really wanted this thread to discuss aspects of marriage: how it evolved, who coined the word, whether it is proper for atheists to be "married" by courts, if polygamists sin, etc. To be fair to myself, though, I think in the OP I only asked about gays marrying.

 

[sunlover1]

Sunlover -- two things.

1. I used your post as a starting point to compose something that went way beyond what you addressed, and that generalized indictment of "those who use Scripture to judge" was most emphatically and explicitly not directed at you personally. ("He whom the shoe fitteth, let him put it on and wear it.")

I didnt feel you were finger pointing.
But I did want to make my position clear too.

The reason I didnt address your entire post, was
that I have about zero knowledge of Greek, I
have not parsed the passages in any way, just
read it many times, and took note of what I
thought was the main thrust of the message.
God made man, man shunned God, God gave
man up to do as he pleased and he did bad.

2. My point was not anything about straight men vs. gay men acting homosexually, but the fact that Paul was painting a picture of the manifold sinfulness of people well known to his original readers in the church at Rome as an initial element in setting forth his theology of salvation by the grace of God alone. The fact that two verses out of nearly 20 in that indictment address burning with desire for people of the same sex should not delude us into thinking they were Adam Lambda and Steve Glaad, young committed gay yuppie couple of the 21st century. They were the supposed rulers of the Roman Empire, given over to envy, murder, deceit, malignity, backbiters, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, and, oh, yeah, bored by normal sex and looking for new kicks with man-man, woman-woman, man-boy, man-girl, woman-boy, and woman-girl sex -- and whatever else they thought of. (Read the Satyricon if you have a strong stomach.) And except for the pedophilia, which is in the Satyricon, that's all spelled out a couple of verses away from the Romans 1:27 that everybody likes to quote. But, beyond that, having given us this stomach-turning portrait of multiple vices, he then points out that we're all as guilty, as much sinners, as little naturally righteous, in the eyes of God. (And at that point he can then get into the Good News, as noted above.) I'm not denying that Romans 1:27 shows people sinning - I'm looking at what Paul is trying to do with that particular depiction of sinfulness, what else he has to say about how they're sinning, and where it fits into the broader picture of what he's trying to convey to the Christians in Rome.

[/QUOTE]
Im not familiar with Satyricon, but am somewhat
familiar with the state of mind of Rome during the
times of the Bible and thereabouts.
They didnt have God though, had been worshipping
the roman gods, so were depraved anyhow.

Yes, Paul does indeed say that we ALL were once
as such, and that who are we to judge.

But for the sake of this thread and for the sake
of the Author of it, and those in that same boat,
I'd like us to look closely at all of the passage
as well.
And any others that would shed some light.
This is a very important subject!

As I said before, the enemy, when he tricks us,
disguises himself.
If we have a "spirit" of error, we certainly are NOT
aware of it at the time if ever. (not pointing
away from myself, I include all of us btw)

So imo, we need to FIRST seek the kingdom of God,
Seek His voice, His Rhema for us, then, and only
then, worry about sexual relationships (marriage).

But it's easy to say, and the flesh is weak.