Rebuked

Originally posted by duecer
here Paul uses the word "malakoi"(in some cases arsenokoitai) which does not mean homosexual, but is better translated as one of loose morals, can be used to describe soft or fine clothing, or in some cases effeminate or unmanly. If he wnated to refer to homosexual behavior he would have used the word "paiderasste."

So as long as the homosexual is not effeminate or unmanly he is "OK"? 🙄

Paul also speaks out against homosexual activity in 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:24-27. In addition, there are the verses within the OT that condemn it as well. Are you now going to reinterpret them all for me?

Originally posted by duecer
Do you see how easily your argument is dismissed? Trying to to grasp God's word through poor english translations is like trying to by a train ticket in Tokyo while speaking Spanish to a ticket seller, when your native tongue is English. Paul thought and spoke in hebrew, the translations used were greek into english. Don't get hung up on the details, but try to see the bigger picture.[/b]

In terms of the big picture, are you to have me believe that monogamous homosexual relations would have been "OK" in Mosaic times or would they have been "OK" during the time of Jesus?

Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands?

Is it a sin for an unmarried heterosexual couple to hold hands?

Originally posted by duecer
Paul condemened all sin, not just homosexuality, but Paul learned somevery important lessons about being humble, and relying on God. In 2 Corinthians he says," 8 Three different times I begged the Lord to take it away. 9 Each time he said, “My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness.” So now I am glad to boast about my weaknesses, so that the p ...[text shortened]... reek into english. Don't get hung up on the details, but try to see the bigger picture.

here Paul uses the word "malakoi"(in some cases arsenokoitai) which does not mean homosexual, but is better translated as one of loose morals, can be used to describe soft or fine clothing, or in some cases effeminate or unmanly. If he wnated to refer to homosexual behavior he would have used the word "paiderasste."

Exactly what are your sources for this? 'Paiderasste' looks like a compound of 'pais' (child) and 'eros' (sexual desire). So I am skeptical that it means homosexual, at least in the sense that we use it. Granted, homosexual relations in classical Greece were primarily pederastic (older man coaching adolescent boy), so perhaps the Greeks simply called all homosexuals relations by this. I would think however that 'paiderasste' has a much narrower sense, referring to a particular type of homosexual coupling between an adult and adulescent.

Anyway, your linguistic explanation does not cover Romans 1:28 in which St. Paul specifically talks about homosexuality and describes exactly what he means. St. Paul is very clear: he states that he is talking about men whose 'natural function' (phusiken chresin) towards women has been burned and who desire one another. I can't see any possible defense of ambiguity.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands?

Is it a sin for an unmarried heterosexual couple to hold hands?

When one becomes a Christian, we are called to have self control when it comes to our sexual desires no matter what sexual orientation we may be. According to Christ, sex should be abstained from except in the case of marriage. In fact, we all recognize the need for self restraint in terms of our sexual desires at various points in our life for various reasons. The question then becomes, do we desire to submit to the example Christ gave us or do our own thing? Do we desire to please him above our own desires?

As for holding someones hand, I suppose if you were attracted to that person it could arouse them. If that be the case, then if you know, for whatever reason, that you should not be having sexual relations with them, you are playing with fire. Fair enough?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
here Paul uses the word "malakoi"(in some cases arsenokoitai) which does not mean homosexual, but is better translated as one of loose morals, can be used to describe soft or fine clothing, or in some cases effeminate or unmanly. If he wnated to refer to homosexual behavior he would have used the word "paiderasste."

Exactly what are your source ...[text shortened]... burned and who desire one another. I can't see any possible defense of ambiguity.[/b]

again let me try and be clear. The word homosexual did not exist until 19th century psychologists invented it. It refers to orientation. The bible deals not in orientation but in behavior. There are multiple sites on the web that will confirm the greek, I urge you to do your own work around the matter.
As for Romans 1:28, again he is talking about behavior not orientation. Is it "natural behavior" to go against one's orientation? aye there's the rub isn't it? But again, the epistle does not say homosexual, it says depravity. Its important to read this contextually here ia an importrant passage preceding Romans 1:27-28
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


What is being discussed here is the worshiping of images and and pagan rites. It was a long standing pagan practice to be "serviced" by a male prostitute at the pagan temples. Paul is essentially condemning the carry over of pagan practice, he is not addressing monogamous same sex realtionships. This is an important distinction, especially in light of the numerous bad translations and poor researched commentary that exist out there.

Originally posted by whodey
So as long as the homosexual is not effeminate or unmanly he is "OK"? 🙄

Paul also speaks out against homosexual activity in 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:24-27. In addition, there are the verses within the OT that condemn it as well. Are you now going to reinterpret them all for me?

the word "homosexual" wasn't invented until the 19th century, there is no equivelent word in greek. they only discuss behavior, see my above post.

Originally posted by whodey
In terms of the big picture, are you to have me believe that monogamous homosexual relations would have been "OK" in Mosaic times or would they have been "OK" during the time of Jesus?

YES!!!!

Talmudic scholars have no record of any person brought before the sanhedran for such a relationship...ever. Nowhere in the bible is there a prohibition against mongomous same sex relationships. Show me where it syas differently and I will recant, but be prepared to have a point by point refutation of your beliefs system blown out of the water.

Originally posted by duecer
again let me try and be clear. The word homosexual did not exist until 19th century psychologists invented it. It refers to orientation. The bible deals not in orientation but in behavior. There are multiple sites on the web that will confirm the greek, I urge you to do your own work around the matter.
As for Romans 1:28, again he is talking about behavior n ght of the numerous bad translations and poor researched commentary that exist out there.

again let me try and be clear. The word homosexual did not exist until 19th century psychologists invented it. It refers to orientation. The bible deals not in orientation but in behavior. There are multiple sites on the web that will confirm the greek, I urge you to do your own work around the matter.

I agree. But I have to wonder, why then did you say that 'paiderasste' means 'homosexual' if you believe that the idea of homosexuality is an entirely modern innovation?

As for Romans 1:28, again he is talking about behavior not orientation. Is it "natural behavior" to go against one's orientation? aye there's the rub isn't it?

I don't think the distinction between orientation and behaviour has any relevance here. This was not part of your earlier argument. Anyway, St. Paul clearly says here that the natural behaviour is with women (he says literally that they are 'Having left the natural function of the female'😉. We can also infer that St. Paul is writing about people with both same-sex attraction and practice. These are not just people who whimsically engage in sex with other men, these are people who 'burn' for other men. This is an orientation.

But again, the epistle does not say homosexual, it says depravity. Its important to read this contextually here ia an importrant passage preceding Romans 1:27-28

Well, obviously, he does not mention homosexuality if it really is the case that the Greek language was totally bereft of such a concept. The point is that St. Paul explicitly describes the condition of a homosexual.

What is being discussed here is the worshiping of images and and pagan rites. It was a long standing pagan practice to be "serviced" by a male prostitute at the pagan temples. Paul is essentially condemning the carry over of pagan practice, he is not addressing monogamous same sex realtionships. This is an important distinction, especially in light of the numerous bad translations and poor researched commentary that exist out there.

If I were to follow your standards of exegesis, I would have to call you a hypocrite. You say that the New Testament does not teach against homosexuality because there is no explicit use of the word for 'homosexual', yet here you claim that a whole passage is about iconography and pagan rites -- yet there is no explicit mention of these. I cannot see the word 'pagan' or 'image' or 'prostitute'.

EDIT: Anyway, the point of my earlier post was to ask what your sources were. I am skeptical about claims like 'paiderasste' means 'homosexual'.

Originally posted by duecer
[b]YES!!!!

Talmudic scholars have no record of any person brought before the sanhedran for such a relationship...ever. Nowhere in the bible is there a prohibition against mongomous same sex relationships. Show me where it syas differently and I will recant, but be prepared to have a point by point refutation of your beliefs system blown out of the water.[/b]

Whatever happened to sola scriptura? Since when has the sanhedrin held any religious authority? I suppose next you will be quoting the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]again let me try and be clear. The word homosexual did not exist until 19th century psychologists invented it. It refers to orientation. The bible deals not in orientation but in behavior. There are multiple sites on the web that will confirm the greek, I urge you to do your own work around the matter.

I agree. But I have to wonder, why then did y . I am skeptical about claims like 'paiderasste' means 'homosexual'.[/b]

again...the word homosexual is a fairly modern incarnation. what we are talking about is behavior. The bible only talks about behavior, not about orientation. Male sexual relations would have been described as paiderasste instead of Malakoi. Paiderasste was the common market word that best described a "homosexual" or what we view as homosexual today. At any rate malakoi does not describe sexual behavior.


If I were to follow your standards of exegesis, I would have to call you a hypocrite. You say that the New Testament does not teach against homosexuality because there is no explicit use of the word for 'homosexual', yet here you claim that a whole passage is about iconography and pagan rites -- yet there is no explicit mention of these. I cannot see the word 'pagan' or 'image' or 'prostitute'.

really? I think the wording there is fairly clear, try reading it again. (hint)changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. He is clearly talking about false idols here.

Well, obviously, he does not mention homosexuality if it really is the case that the Greek language was totally bereft of such a concept. The point is that St. Paul explicitly describes the condition of a homosexual.

On this we will have to disagree. none of the passages generally used by conservatives to condemn homosexuality never address monogomous same sex unions. They talk about keeping young boys as slaves, or continuing the pagan sex rites. or worse,...rape. yes this was a common practice; the raping of your enemy was done to humiliate them and subjugate them...not unlike what happens in prison.

As for Romans 1:28, again he is talking about behavior not orientation. Is it "natural behavior" to go against one's orientation? aye there's the rub isn't it?

"natural behavior" is a key point here. if gays are born with their orientation, then isn't it completely natural from their perspective?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Whatever happened to sola scriptura? Since when has the sanhedrin held any religious authority? I suppose next you will be quoting the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils.

sola scripture does not preclude the use of other authorities. The bible is remarkably silent on things like electronics, automobiles and abortion. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
Making use of subordinating evidence is completely acceptable.

Originally posted by duecer
again...the word homosexual is a fairly modern incarnation. what we are talking about is behavior. The bible only talks about behavior, not about orientation. Male sexual relations would have been described as paiderasste instead of Malakoi. Paiderasste was the common market word that best described a "homosexual" or what we view as homosexual today. At any r ...[text shortened]... th their orientation, then isn't it completely natural from their perspective?

I agree that the Greek hardly thought in terms of sexual orientation. They made distinction between active and passive, between love (or friendship) and lust. Sexual behaviour was dependent on the place someone had in society, and also on age.
Therefore there is not a Greek word that covers the meaning of our word homosexual as we use it. Pederastoi didn't have that meaning either. It reflects the relation between an elder and often married man and an adolescent in which the elder is the dominant partner. Malakoi comes maybe most close to how we use it, although it is only used for effeminate men.
Pederastoi were existent among the aristrocats in the polis and in the army. There is very little known about sexual contact between the citizens (demos) of the same gender . Besides the pederastoi, there were the male (and female) whores (Corinth) and the sexual orientated rituals and orgies. Probably it were these groups Paul had in mind when he wrote his letters.

Historians en theologians differ greatly about explaining the meaning of the word Arsenkoitai (male bedders), which hadn't been used before Paul invented the word. It is to easy to translate it as homosexuals.

The expression "natural" is rather confusing to me. Why is homosexuality not natural? Because homosexuals are a minority? Or because it is only natural to have sex when it can leads to babies? Most sex these days is luckily not exercised for that reason; we would be in great trouble otherwise. So, do we call all sex that is not intended for offspring not natural?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands?

Is it a sin for an unmarried heterosexual couple to hold hands?

1. Not just to hold hands, no, but they souldn't be married and therefore are "living in sin"

2. No.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't Christians regularly drink the blood of Jesus? Should they be rebuked?

Catholics not Christians We don't drink the blood, but receive Holy Communion. No we should not be rebuked for that. Because Jesus told us to to that.