what needs to be done?

Phinehas2 · Oct 3, 2007

Dear davedjy,

There is the main problem in your argument. One cannot prove by the Bible that a monogamous, same sex relationship is condemned, therefore you cannot prove all forms of homosexual behavior are sin.

we have proved it, you just dont believe it. Romans 1 says men committed lust and indecent acts with other men instead of women which is error. You dont believe it si you are a none believer. What we have also seen is you cant prove what you are saying as you have no evidence.

Cash80 · Oct 3, 2007

davedjy said:
There is the main problem in your argument. One cannot prove by the Bible that a monogamous, same sex relationship is condemned, therefore you cannot prove all forms of homosexual behavior are sin.

Then, I suggest, you please, reread Romans 1. Also, I am a multilingual person, I speak 3 languages, including Russian. I noticed that the word "arsenakoitay" from 1 Corinthians 6:9, translates as men in bed with other men. For example, in Russian language, this word is translated as "muzhelozhniki." It is a coined up word: muzhe means men, lozhno means bed or couch and iki signifies doers of something. So if you put it all together, you'll get "menbedders." The Russians have translated their Bible straight from Greek, and used it for 800 years. BTW, in the Soviet period, the practice of homosexuality was a crime, and the word describing men practicing homosexuality was muzhelozhniki, the same one used in the Russian bible in 1 Corinthians 6:9. It applied generally to all men having sex with each other, no matter whether or not the relationship was committed. Now, my question is how can so many languages be wrong, if they translate the same thing?

Just to let you know, Paul invented the world "arsenakoite" from Leviticus 18:22, where the words arsena and koite, which mean men and bed, are used in order to prohibit not to lie down to bed with a man as with a woman, and call it abomination. So, that's why.

Also, even if I say that "arsenakoitay" means men having sex with each other, do you believe that in the context it was written, it does not apply to committed same-sex relationship? Are you saying that "arsenakoitay" or "menbedders" means something else?

Sam

tulc · Oct 3, 2007

Hey Cash80! How's the move going?
tulc(remember: lift with your legs, not your back!)

davedjy · Oct 3, 2007

Cash80 said:
Then, I suggest, you please, reread Romans 1. Also, I am a multilingual person, I speak 3 languages, including Russian. I noticed that the word "arsenakoitay" from 1 Corinthians 6:9, translates as men in bed with other men. For example, in Russian language, this word is translated as "muzhelozhniki." It is a coined up word: muzhe means men, lozhno means bed or couch and iki signifies doers of something. So if you put it all together, you'll get "menbedders." The Russians have translated their Bible straight from Greek, and used it for 800 years. BTW, in the Soviet period, the practice of homosexuality was a crime, and the word describing men practicing homosexuality was muzhelozhniki, the same one used in the Russian bible in 1 Corinthians 6:9. It applied generally to all men having sex with each other, no matter whether or not the relationship was committed. Now, my question is how can so many languages be wrong, if they translate the same thing?

Just to let you know, Paul invented the world "arsenakoite" from Leviticus 20:18, where the words arsena and koite, which mean men and bed, are used in order to prohibit not to lie down to bed with a man as with a woman, and call it abomination. So, that's why.

Also, even if I say that "arsenakoitay" means men having sex with each other, do you believe that in the context it was written, it does not apply to committed same-sex relationship? Are you saying that "arsenakoitay" or "menbedders" means something else?

Sam

You cannot put arsenokoitai together to get "menbedders", that is only one possible translation.

Not all scholars are universally agreed upon arsenokoitai, and as I keep pointed out the Latin Vulgate and Jerusalem Bible's both reject the homosexual translation, and use Male and boy prostitutes. At the time of Martin Luther, it was universally agreed upon as "masturbator".

That word only means "Man" and "beds", broken down, you cannot put it altogether and assume it is condemning homosexuality to start. It could very well be promiscuity...a man who jumps from bed to bed.

davedjy · Oct 3, 2007

Phinehas2 said:
Dear davedjy,
we have proved it, you just dont believe it. Romans 1 says men committed lust and indecent acts with other men instead of women which is error. You dont believe it si you are a none believer. What we have also seen is you cant prove what you are saying as you have no evidence.

It is condemning an idolatry ritual, read verse 22.

The only thing condemned in Romans 1 is same sex lust, not love.

You also may wish to read the rules of this forum, RE: calling someone a non-believer.

Cash80 · Oct 3, 2007

tulc said:
Hey Cash80! How's the move going?
tulc(remember: lift with your legs, not your back!)

I'll officially depart Colorado, next Monday, and I 'll be on the road for 2 days. But I already disconnected my internet service, so I'm not on the boards too often. I only lurk in the library, whenever I have time between work and time off. Speaking of which, I must butt out, for now.

That being said, I appreciate if ya'll keep this thread as calm as possible, where everybody will behave themselves. I don't think I will contribute much for the time being, but we'll see what happens later

Cash80 · Oct 3, 2007

BTW; to let everybody know, Latin Vulgate is considered to be a very sloppy translation by several scholars, which is deviating from the original.

Zaac · Oct 3, 2007

Cash80 said:
Then, I suggest, you please, reread Romans 1. Also, I am a multilingual person, I speak 3 languages, including Russian. I noticed that the word "arsenakoitay" from 1 Corinthians 6:9, translates as men in bed with other men. For example, in Russian language, this word is translated as "muzhelozhniki." It is a coined up word: muzhe means men, lozhno means bed or couch and iki signifies doers of something. So if you put it all together, you'll get "menbedders." The Russians have translated their Bible straight from Greek, and used it for 800 years. BTW, in the Soviet period, the practice of homosexuality was a crime, and the word describing men practicing homosexuality was muzhelozhniki, the same one used in the Russian bible in 1 Corinthians 6:9. It applied generally to all men having sex with each other, no matter whether or not the relationship was committed. Now, my question is how can so many languages be wrong, if they translate the same thing?

Just to let you know, Paul invented the world "arsenakoite" from Leviticus 20:18, where the words arsena and koite, which mean men and bed, are used in order to prohibit not to lie down to bed with a man as with a woman, and call it abomination. So, that's why.

Also, even if I say that "arsenakoitay" means men having sex with each other, do you believe that in the context it was written, it does not apply to committed same-sex relationship? Are you saying that "arsenakoitay" or "menbedders" means something else?

Sam

we have proved it, you just dont believe it. Romans 1 says men committed lust and indecent acts with other men instead of women which is error. You dont believe it si you are a none believer. What we have also seen is you cant prove what you are saying as you have no evidence.

They know this yall. They are just desperate to hang on to this one defense they have for making them feel okay with committing this sin.

Hardened hearts will deny the truth until Jesus Christ removes the scales from their eyes.

MrPirate · Oct 3, 2007

Phinehas2 said:
Dear davedjy,
we have proved it, you just dont believe it. Romans 1 says men committed lust and indecent acts with other men instead of women which is error. You dont believe it si you are a none believer. What we have also seen is you cant prove what you are saying as you have no evidence.

In simplest terms lust is not the equivalent of a monogamous, same sex relationship and it is rather disingenuous of you to suggest such. You display the married icon hereis your marriage based solely on lust?

Otherwise, your claim fails on several levels other than your misapplication of lust

In the original Greek, the phrase for vile affliction translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not the modern onethe word did not mean passion or lust but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by the anthropologist Mircea Eliade. These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be speaking in tongues and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but as noted the non Christian process he was condemning, like so many other non-Christian traditions, found their way into Christianity.

The real killer of your argument is the word Natural The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. The word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Pauls audience would have been to force oneself to go against ones own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Since ones sexuality and sexual oriention are natural, what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against ones nature. In the verse God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not. So ultimately Romans is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

Zaac · Oct 3, 2007

Some have to come on with debates about translation. Some have to denounce God's Word as His Word. Some steal biased commentary from those who also wanted to justify the same sin. Some just don't care.

All in an effort to justify this one sin.

If the same degree of focus was put into other sins, then perhaps there would be cause to examine some things.

But none of the people who jump through hoops to justify this sin do the same with other sins and they need to ask themselves why.

MrPirate · Oct 3, 2007

Cash80 said:
Then, I suggest, you please, reread Romans 1. Also, I am a multilingual person, I speak 3 languages, including Russian. I noticed that the word "arsenakoitay" from 1 Corinthians 6:9, translates as men in bed with other men.

At issue here is the translation of the Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. It is only in rather recent history that this word has been translated to mean homosexual. There is no reason or evidence to believe that arsenokoites translates as homosexual at all.

Ancient Greek had several well known words that meant homosexual and or homosexual relations, if Paul had wanted to specifically condemn homosexuals he would have used these well known words not a rather obscure word that seems to have meant something else.

various attempts have been made to defend the interpretation of arsenokoites as a reference to male-male or homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians and the denial that there are translation issues with that word appears to be political rather than anything else. This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoites came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine, just as most first declension nouns in Greek are. Thus referring to a man and a woman’s bed, not in the bed of another man

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. However writings contemporary to Paul that also use the word arsenokoites do not use it to mean homosexual, rather they use the word to refer to men who use money to exploit women sexually…or more simply men who employ prostitutes.

Just to let you know, Paul invented the world "arsenakoite" from Leviticus 20:18, where the words arsena and koite, which mean men and bed, are used in order to prohibit not to lie down to bed with a man as with a woman, and call it abomination. So, that's why.

This theory that Paul created this word from combining words from the Septuagint fails for reasons other than transnational issues. As already noted Ancient Greek had several well known words that meant homosexual and or homosexual relations, if Paul had wanted to specifically condemn homosexuals he would have used these well known words not create a new one that the people he was speaking to would not understand.
Additionally there is the issue of other contemporary writers using the word arsenokoites who would not have cobbled it together from the Septuagint and who used the word to mean something other than homosexual.

FURTHER trouble with this claim stems from the fact that arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11: And if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his father's wife...Leviticus 20:12 if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his daugther-in-law...Leviticus 20:15 if a man(arsen) lay (koites) with a beast... and so on and so forth. If you're going to pretend that this combination somehow means homosexual as some sort of justification to "prove" it is properly referring to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (because arsen and koite appear in Leviticus 20:13) then you pretty much have to ignore (deny/lie) that it could be referring to any other verse in Leviticus even though arsen and koite appear in them as well.

Cash80 · Oct 3, 2007

I oppose racism too.

Does that also make me a fascist?

Fascism means silencing and punishing people whom you disagree with. And speaking of rascism, KKK has a right to hold their rallies and meetings, you, as a citizen has a right to counter their rallies and express your disagreement, but you have no right to stop them from speaking what they believe. It is evident that gay political activists, like Soulforce want to silence those who oppose homosexual behavior based on religious beliefs, that's why they are fascists.

And they want to accomplish their goals by appealing to people's emotions.

MrPirate · Oct 3, 2007

Cash80 said:
Fascism means silencing and punishing people whom you disagree with.

And who is being silenced?

Certainly not you

Now what was it you were asking a couple pages back about preventing pro-rights activism?

And what was your motivation is falsely labeling me a fascist?

In the meantime.you didnt answer my question (no real surprise there) I am also opposed to racismdoes that make me a fascist?

And speaking of rascism, KKK has a right to hold their rallies and meetings, you, as a citizen has a right to counter their rallies and express your disagreement, but you have no right to stop them from speaking what they believe.

Yes the KKK can rally and speakbut there are organizations like soulforce that confront the lies and the hatred that is spoken by these people just as soulforce confronts the lies and the hatred of hate based organizations that target gays and lesbians.

It is evident that gay political activists, like Soulforce want to silence those who oppose homosexual behavior based on religious beliefs,

Obvious? In the link you provided for this thread we see soulforce asking to speak to Dobson and ask him to stop baring false witness about homosexualshmm so where does this mysterious silencing come in?
Asking to speak to someone is silencing?
Asking someone stop lying is silencing?
Publicizing the harmful impact of lies and discrimination is silencing?

by playing on people's emotions,that's why they are fascists.

And you try to play the victim hereso what does that make you

Cash80 · Oct 4, 2007

Zaac said:
They know this yall. They are just desperate to hang on to this one defense they have for making them feel okay with committing this sin.

Hardened hearts will deny the truth until Jesus Christ removes the scales from their eyes.

Zaac,

I think you are absolutely right about this. I believe that various homosexual activists including Soulforce and Wayne Besen deep down inside understand that this kind of behavior is immoral, but don't want to admit it, because as you said: they love this sin and their hearts are hardened.

In order to justify its practice, they go around and promote strawman fallacy against Christian people who hold the biblical truth. They simply distort what the disagreeing parties have actually said.

For example: a number of conservative Christians would say: Because of the sinful nature of human beings, ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, people gave in to temptation and developed attraction for the members of the same sex, known as homosexual orientation, as it is described in Romans 1.

Soulforce says: Conservative Christians say that gays and lesbians are sick and sinful because of their homosexual orientation.

Focus on the Family says: In the best interests of children to grow emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually, they need to have a biological mother and a father.

Soulforce says: Focus on the Family says that gays and lesbians are unfit to be parents and seek to hurt children.

You see, they totally misinterpret what the above mentioned parties have said in order to make them look bad. Looks like they are bearing false witnesses against others. If it's not a sin, then what is it?

Sometimes I wonder if political gay activists are intentionally lying, or do they truly believe what they say about conservative Christians?

What does anybody else think?

Sam

PS: I never said that all LGBT people are into waging psychological intimidation against Christians, it is only a selected few of this community. But, nevertheless, the actions of these few, must be addressed.

Phinehas2 · Oct 4, 2007

Dear Mr Pirate

This theory that Paul created this word from combining words from the Septuagint fails for reasons other than transnational issues. As already noted Ancient Greek had several well known words that meant homosexual and or homosexual relations, if Paul had wanted to specifically condemn homosexuals he would have used these well known words not create a new one that the people he was speaking to would not understand.

Yes I note that gay sites often say there are many ancient Greek words for homosexual and they also often say the ancients have never understood homosexuality.. it depends which Godly truth they are attacking.

I would like to see which ancient Greek words for homosexuality you are thinking of here please.

In fact arsenokites is used twice, 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1. In 1 Tim 1, it is referring to the law so it is not surprising to suggest that this comes from the Septuagint Lev 18 & 20. especially as we can see its with sexual sins. One can assume it means Lev 18 as that’s the law Paul is referring to. Paul also writes in Romans 1 that men lusting and committing acts with men instead of women is error. So arsenokoites is probably to make sure that believers know what the law was.

FURTHER trouble with this claim stems from the fact that arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11: And if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his father's wife...Leviticus 20:12 if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his daugther-in-law...Leviticus 20:15 if a man(arsen) lay (koites) with a beast... and so on and so forth. If you're going to pretend that this combination somehow means homosexual as some sort of justification to "prove" it is properly referring to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (because arsen and koite appear in Leviticus 20:13) then you pretty much have to ignore (deny/lie) that it could be referring to any other verse in Leviticus even though arsen and koite appear in them as well.

But arsen and koites still mean the same, if you are going to pretend that incest and bestiality as well as same-sex sex are ok, I still disagree with you.

davedjy · Oct 4, 2007

Zaac said:
Some have to denounce God's Word as His Word.

Under any degree of examination, this comment does not hold up, as we are debating the translation of what the word actually means AKA "God's Word". To even say that someone is denouncing God's Word, you are again, not speaking from facts, but from your unbacked opinion.

All in an effort to justify this one sin.

All in an effort to prove it isn't sin, it has nothing to do with justifying. As I have even mentioned, I don't come here to justify my own actions, but share my beliefs, and use Scholarly backings to do so.

MrPirate · Oct 4, 2007

Cash80 said:
Zaac,

I think you are absolutely right about this. I believe that various homosexual activists including Soulforce and Wayne Besen deep down inside understand that this kind of behavior is immoral,

Yes they understand that hate and prejudice are immoral, sinful and damaging to everyone involved.

but don't want to admit it, because as you said: they love this sin and their hearts are hardened.

More accurately they love the truth and are unwilling to stand by while hate groups lie about an entire minority

In order to justify its practice, they go around and promote strawman fallacy against Christian people who hold the biblical truth. They simply distort what the disagreeing parties have actually said.

Can you actually back up this claim?

For example: a number of conservative Christians would say: Because of the sinful nature of human beings, ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, people gave in to temptation and developed attraction for the members of the same sex, known as homosexual orientation, as it is described in Romans 1.

If only Romans 1 had some relevance to the topicbut no, even then this wouldnt hold up to even passing scrutiny.

Soulforce says: Conservative Christians say that gays and lesbians are sick and sinful because of their homosexual orientation.

and they would be speaking truthfully
You know, one of the great misnomers in our society is the term `gay. That somebody who is involved in something that is leading to suicide, where the V.D. rate is 11 times that of others, which are almost driven and ashamed and fearful and confused and psychotic and all the others that we read about plaguing this part of our society. The term gay is the most serious misuse of the English language. Theyre not gay, theyre very, very depressed and miserable. Pat Robertson

This conduct [homosexuality] is anti-social, and it is a pathology. It is a sickness, and it needs to be treated. It doesnt need to be taught in the classroom as a preferred way of life...Pat Robertson

"homosexual behavior is extremely unhealthy, contributing to the spread of AIDS, hepatitis A, B and C and other sexually transmitted diseases.A study of more than 6,400 obituaries in homosexual publications reveals that homosexuals typically have far shorter life spans than the general population. Other reports indicate that homosexuals are more likely to have drug and alcohol abuse problems. It is unfair to force businesses to pay the extra insurance expense and lost productivity that inevitably results from homosexual behavior."- Robert Knight, Family Research Council

"Although the homosexuals represent 2-4% of the U.S. population they carry over 44% of the nations syphilis, 51% of gonorrhea of the throat, 53% of intestinal infections and 80% of the AIDS disease. Diseased homosexual food handlers in public restaurants in San Francisco and Minneapolis, have been responsible for major outbreaks of amebiasis and hepatitis A infections. The homosexuals have a rate of infectious hepatitis B, 20 to 50 times greater than heterosexual males." - Paul Volle, (by the way, his statistics are false)

"You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol...or sex addiction...or kleptomaniacs." - Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott,

What do we know about this disorder? Well first, it is a disorder, despite the denials of the American Psychiatric Association. James Dobson, Bringing Up Boys, pg 115

Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Focus on the Familys Love Won Out conference, Oklahoma City, 2003.

Focus on the Family says: In the best interests of children to grow emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually, they need to have a biological mother and a father.

Soulforce says: Focus on the Family says that gays and lesbians are unfit to be parents and seek to hurt children.

And soulforce would be correct about the numerous lies Focus on the Family tells about homosexual and particularly about gay and lesbian parents.

here is a couple of the lies told

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire, p. 54.

Guess what? Hes absolutely right. There is just one major catch. Those studies compared children raised in heterosexualsingle-parent homes (either a mother or a father) to children raised in heterosexual two-parent homes (both a mother and a father). Those studies did not examine same-gender parents at all! Not surprisingly, research shows that kids do best with two parents instead of just one, regardless of the parents sexual orientation. Yet Dr. Dobson liess babotu this to further his own agenda.

The sparse research regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in well-being to those in single-parent households. https://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm
This is not true. Research has shown that Hcildren rased by gay and lesbain couoles are indistinguishable from children raised by opposite sex couples. Stacey and Biblarz (How) Does Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?
American Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 66 (April:159183) 159

You see, they totally misinterpret what the above mentioned parties have said in order to make them look bad. Looks like they are bearing false witnesses against others. If it's not a sin, then what is it?

As noted Focus on the family is bearing false witness.

Or are you saying that lying about homosexuals is not a sin?

Sometimes I wonder if political gay activists are intentionally lying, or do they truly believe what they say about conservative Christians?

The only ones lying are groups like Focus on the Family

PS: I never said that all LGBT people are into waging psychological intimidation against Christians, it is only a selected few of this community. But, nevertheless, the actions of these few, must be addressed.

Quite the change of tune there

MrPirate · Oct 4, 2007

Phinehas2 said:
In fact arsenokites is used twice, 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1. In 1 Tim 1,

and how many times is it translated as homosexual?

it is referring to the law so it is not surprising to suggest that this comes from the Septuagint Lev 18 & 20. especially as we can see its with sexual sins. One can assume it means Lev 18 as thats the law Paul is referring to.

Click to expand...

The law referring only to male on male rape

Paul also writes in Romans 1 that men lusting and committing acts with men instead of women is error.

Click to expand...

Not in error but against their nature
the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. The word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

So arsenokoites is probably to make sure that believers know what the law was.

Click to expand...

And is there a reason to support supposition other then the justification of prejudice?

Click to expand...

But arsen and koites still mean the same, if you are going to pretend that incest and bestiality as well as same-sex sex are ok, I still disagree with you.

Click to expand...

and their meaning has nothing to do with homosexuality

Click to expand...

Phinehas2 · Oct 5, 2007

Dear Mr Pirate,
Firstly thank you for your reply.
However it is rather difficult to debate with you as you only seem intent on trying to justify same-sex. When I challenge what I see as the fatal flaws in your argument you simply move on to you next attempt to justify same-sex sex.
The claim the Bible makes is homosexual offenders or men abusing men/sodomites, not homosexuality as such. Indeed many gay and lesbian activists, including the former leader of the ECUSA, say the NT writers didnt understand homosexuality yet you say Paul could have used words for it. I asked you which words you said Paul could have used for homosexuality? I put it in bold so you wouldnt miss it yet you did.

and how many times is it translated as "homosexual"?

Well we can deal with that point after you have acknowledged that in 1 Tim 1 it refers to the law. It is translated variously as homosexual offenders, sodomites, mankind abusers. We can see what it means by looking up the words in the law.

The law referring only to male on male rape…

No mention of rape in Lev 18:22 & lev 20. Just a man bedding a man instead of a woman.

Not in "error" but against their nature

Nope, no mention of ‘their nature’
just against nature. Men with men is error, God created woman for man Gne 2, Matt 19, your disbelief here is based on, and built upon your disbelief of other parts of scripture.

The word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person.

No mention of that. That’s your assumption and its incorrect if you read the text. Its an assumption based on modern sexuality thinking which sees everything in terms of sexual desires.
Romans 1 is about all wickedness, not just same-sex wickendness. The passages say they abandoned the natural use of the opposite sex to same sex which is against nature. Phusikos, para phusis Natuiral against nature. You dont know your Greek, let the experts translate the Bible into English

And is there a reason to support supposition other then the justification of prejudice?

No problem as long as its the truth whatever you think of it.

and their meaning has nothing to do with homosexuality

There you go again ingoring my point and merely trying to claim homosexuality I said but arsen and koites still mean the same, if you are going to pretend that incest and bestiality as well as same-sex sex are ok, I still disagree with you.

MrPirate · Oct 5, 2007

Phinehas2 said:
Dear Mr Pirate,
Firstly thank you for your reply.
However it is rather difficult to debate with you as you only seem intent on trying to justify same-sex. When I challenge what I see as the fatal flaws in your argument you simply move on to you next attempt to justify same-sex sex.
The claim the Bible makes is homosexual offenders or men abusing men/sodomites, not homosexuality as such. Indeed many gay and lesbian activists, including the former leader of the ECUSA, say the NT writers didnt understand homosexuality yet you say Paul could have used words for it. I asked you which words you said Paul could have used for homosexuality? I put it in bold so you wouldnt miss it yet you did.

Where as you seem only interested in justifying your personal prejudices. When I challenge flaws in your argument you simply move on to you next attempt to justify prejudice.

Well we can deal with that point after you have acknowledged that in 1 Tim 1 it refers to the law. It is translated variously as homosexual offenders, sodomites, mankind abusers. We can see what it means by looking up the words in the law.

But to do so would be dishonest.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurersand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 1 Tim 1:8-10

So where is the condemnation of homosexuals? Strangely it isnt here yet in the original Greek the word , arsenokoités is right in the middle of that text. So we end up with a word you are trying to twist to mean homosexual in one instance yet strangely doesnt mean homosexual elsewhere

No mention of rape in Lev 18:22 & lev 20. Just a man bedding a man instead of a woman.

Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded though shall not lie is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Nope, no mention of their nature
just against nature. Men with men is error, God created woman for man Gne 2, Matt 19, your disbelief here is based on, and built upon your disbelief of other parts of scripture.
No mention of that. Thats your assumption and its incorrect if you read the text. Its an assumption based on modern sexuality thinking which sees everything in terms of sexual desires.
Romans 1 is about all wickedness, not just same-sex wickendness. The passages say they abandoned the natural use of the opposite sex to same sex which is against nature. Phusikos, para phusis Natuiral against nature. You dont know your Greek, let the experts translate the Bible into English

Read verse 26 again.
The word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

Again you are attempting to justify your own personal prejudice here. See above

Because of this, God gave them over to vile affliction. Even their women exchanged their natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned their natural relations with women

No problem as long as its the truth whatever you think of it.

But it is not the truth and you wishing to justify your petty personal prejudices is not reason to lie and pretend it is truth

There you go again ingoring my point and merely trying to claim homosexuality I said but arsen and koites still mean the same, if you are going to pretend that incest and bestiality as well as same-sex sex are ok, I still disagree with you.

And their meaning is not homosexuality. Unless you wish to ignore the many instance where that word combination refers to heterosexuality.

what needs to be done?

Phinehas2

Guest

Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

MrPirate

Guest

Well-Known Member

MrPirate

Guest

Member

MrPirate

Guest

Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Well-Known Member

MrPirate

Guest

MrPirate

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

MrPirate

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency