12 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerRegardless of how you twist it homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. End of story.
from Adam Clarke's commentary:
Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up, &c.] Their system of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity. How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of their worship were adulterers, fornicators, and prostitutes of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Venus, &c.? Of the abominable evils w ...[text shortened]... rostitution and sodomitical practices.
[b]its clear Paul was talking about prostitution[/b]
The only point you have is how should a church treat sinners. In my view, all sinners ranging from those guilty of glutony and lust to murder should receive similar treatment. Leave the judging and casting into outer darkness to Christ.
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by Rajk999the word homosexuality is a modern contrivance from the 19th century, how could it therefor be a sin?
Regardless of how you twist it homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. End of story.
The only point you have is how should a church treat sinners. In my view, all sinners ranging from those guilty of glutony and lust to murder should receive similar treatment. Leave the judging and casting into outer darkness to Christ.
though I agree with your latter portion
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadthe problem is that there is no ancient Greek or Hebrew word that is the equivalent of homosexuality. The references in the bible that seem to indicate that are never speaking about 2 committed loving adults in a consensual sexual relationship.
Surely the word "kill" being English also post dates the Bible. And "gluttony".
The whole Bible has been translated.
They are usually talking about temple prostitution or some other religious rite, catamites (the using of young boys), rape (which is usually and act of aggression not of sex) or the sexual molestation of a slave adult or otherwise.
context means everything
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerWell then you should have argued as such. Simply saying that the word homosexuality is a modern goes nowhere.
the problem is that there is no ancient Greek or Hebrew word that is the equivalent of homosexuality. The references in the bible that seem to indicate that are never speaking about 2 committed loving adults in a consensual sexual relationship.
They are usually talking about temple prostitution or some other religious rite, catamites (the using of young b ...[text shortened]... not of sex) or the sexual molestation of a slave adult or otherwise.
context means everything
Either the Bible describes homosexuality as a sin or it doesn't, whether the word existed is irrelevant.
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI beg to differ. People have argued here that homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so. Nowhere does it say that, in fact homosexuality as we know it is not referenced in the bible.
Well then you should have argued as such. Simply saying that the word homosexuality is a modern goes nowhere.
Either the Bible describes homosexuality as a sin or it doesn't, whether the word existed is irrelevant.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerI don't think it is credible to suppose Paul was just talking about prostitution here.
from Adam Clarke's commentary:
Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up, &c.] Their system of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity. How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of their worship were adulterers, fornicators, and prostitutes of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Venus, &c.? Of the abominable evils w ...[text shortened]... rostitution and sodomitical practices.
[b]its clear Paul was talking about prostitution[/b]
I agree that context is very important, so I think a better argument is the one relayed in Andrew Sullivan's book 'Virtually Normal', where he acknowledges that Paul is in fact condemning homosexual behaviour. To deny this given the text is not plausible, but the context suggests that Paul is using this as an analogy to attack the Romans for their polytheism in the face of the opportunity to follow the one true god. Since the concept of homosexuality as a natural orientation was unknown in Paul's time, homosexual behaviour was perceived by the prohibitionists of the time as going against what is natural for everybody, just as the Romans were seen as going against what ought to be a natural reaction to the good news by persisting in polytheism.
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkI disagree. Paul was condemning sexual practices that involved temple prostitutes, and catamites, not consensual sexual relations between adults.
I don't think it is credible to suppose Paul was just talking about prostitution here.
I agree that context is very important, so I think a better argument is the one relayed in Andrew Sullivan's book 'Virtually Normal', where he acknowledges that Paul is in fact condemning homosexual behaviour. To deny this given the text is not plausible, but the conte ...[text shortened]... g against what ought to be a natural reaction to the good news by persisting in polytheism.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerWell, ok you disagree. I'm not a Biblical scholar but I am aware of arguments which hold that certain mistranslations of words like kadeshim which means 'temple prostitute' give rise to erroneous anti homosexual interpretations.
I disagree. Paul was condemning sexual practices that involved temple prostitutes, and catamites, not consensual sexual relations between adults.
The trouble is, as far as I understand it, this does not apply to Romans 1:26-28, since catamites and prostitutes are not mentioned.
However, I have no axe to grind since I'm an atheist who thinks homosexual behaviour is absolutely fine. So can you persuade me through the power of argument that the context indicates that Paul was referring to prostitutes or catamites? I think that these practices were regarded as morally dubious even at the time, so you could start there.
12 Aug 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkdon't believe me, read the commentaries of henry, barnes or clarke they agree with me, or rather I generally agree with them.
Well, ok you disagree. I'm not a Biblical scholar but I am aware of arguments which hold that certain mistranslations of words like kadeshim which means 'temple prostitute' give rise to erroneous anti homosexual interpretations.
The trouble is, as far as I understand it, this does not apply to Romans 1:26-28, since catamites and prostitutes are ...[text shortened]... these practices were regarded as morally dubious even at the time, so you could start there.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerThese were posted a few pages back. Maybe you didn't see them...
I beg to differ. People have argued here that homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so. Nowhere does it say that, in fact homosexuality as we know it is not referenced in the bible.
Is this not describing homosexual acts?????????????
Rom. 1:24-27: “God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites,
""""for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene""""
and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”
1 Tim. 1:9-11: “Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners,fornicators,
"""""men who lie with males"""""
, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God.” (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)
Jude 7: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word “sodomy,” which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)
1 Cor. 6:9-11: “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
"""" nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men""""
. . . will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.”
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75
The name Sodom has become the basis for the word “sodomy,” which usually designates a homosexual practice.
Some homosexuals do this and some heterosexuals do this. For demographic reasons, it is probably done more by heterosexuals in fact.
13 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75asked and answered, I'm not going to rewrite my responses all over again. if you can't keep up with the class maybe you shouldn't be swimming in the deep end.
These were posted a few pages back. Maybe you didn't see them...
Is this not describing homosexual acts?????????????
Rom. 1:24-27: “God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites,
""""for both their females ch in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.”
edit: the translation you qouted is an inaccurate translation. as far as these passages go the KJV is likely the most accurate, and can be used in conjuction with Strong's concordance.