1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

scripture to condemn homosexuality

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Mike182, Jul 27, 2005.

  1. Mike182

    Mike182 Flaming Queer

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    13,383
    Ratings:
    +1,389
    god and mother nature are one of the same things

    you condemn me, for something that is probably seen as trivial in gods eyes, yet you have not read the first in the ten commandments? oops!

    the only thing tha tgod is "apart of" as you suggest, is the holy trinity, god the farther, the son, and the holy spirit - not the holy square of god the farther, the son, god the holy spirit, and god the mother nature


    now then, to your comment on human kindness, is it neccersary for human physical evolvement? YES! without it we would evolve into stone cold emotionless beings with no regard of respect for others and our environment. the peak of what humanity can reach is the state in which christ lived whilest here on earth, and that was also the peak of what human kindness can reach. this is purely based upon my religion ofcourse, but im sure you follow the same faith as me!?!?!?!?!

    C_P
     
  2. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    Fluffy. In response to that big long quote a few pages back. One of the things which you said really caught my attention. It was the quote from 2 peter or whatever, about don't wrest the scripture. I contend that you are the one wresting the scripture, to make a favourable interpretation of the scripture, which you see as necessary because of how often, as a different quote said, Paul's letters have been used to opress many people.
    Another thing is you made mention of how there were only 3 references to homosexuality being a sin. Never once does the Bible mention that polygamy is a sin, yet is well maintained in the Christian that it is.

    Now, I appologize profusely, but I'm kind of tired, so I can't keep my attention on anything for long enough to make coherent replies. I'll try to answer you tomorrow. ( say try, because I'm jointly getting ready to move to college, and helping my parents get their house ready for sale, and I just got a new computer and I haven't been able to get the internet to work on that one, so this one would have to be available. I appologize again, profusely, for not being able to answer you right now, and for taking on this debate even knowing that I may not be albe to reply in a while.)
     
  3. drekmed

    drekmed Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Ratings:
    +26
    now, i am not a christian, and do not believe in the christian's god or heaven and hell, however those of you that do, and are completely against homosexuality and either bash or proclaim that is is completely wrong, please read Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7. i just got finished reading them. these are some of the teachings of jesus. now, you should read it starting at matthew 5:1 and ending at matthew 7:29. has some really good views on how things should be, and if read straight through, there is cutting and pasting and using 1 or 2 verses out of the entire thing just to fit the view you may be trying spin. in my opinion, the actual teachings of jesus, i.e. the words that he said, and not the writings of others that claim to have divine influence, are the most enlightening things in the bible, and really the only things worth reading. but hey, dont listen to me, read it yourselves.

    the version i used is the "search the bible" link under the "Extras" tab on the top of page, just type in Matthew 5, and start reading.


    Drekmed
     
  4. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    Just because it isn't mentioned every other verse does not mean that the verses in which it is mentioned can just be disregarded. Everything the Bible says is important, not just the stuff said over and over.

    Okay. So it condemns homosexuality. I don't think it condemns a homosexual inclination, though, just makes a warning against fulfilling those desires.

    Of course, that was 2 pet. 3:16-17. 15 says "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" I think this is an important verse because it says that he wrote in wisdom. In wisdom did he condemn homosexual behaviour.

    QUOTE=Fluffy]And warnings from a more modern source. [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said." [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
    - R.S. Truluck, "The six Bible passages used to condemn homosexuals," at: http://www.truluck.com/html/[/QUOTE]
    And I agree that some of those acusations were false. But the condemnation of homosexual behaviour I don't beleive is false. For one, no matter how "hard" it may be to translate Paul's writing, the fact still stands that most of the people who have translated the Bible directly have written that verse to condemn homosexual behaviour. Obvoiusly many, many biblical scholars think it an adequate translation.

    But Paul, being very good with all that religious stuff, surely knew that God created man and woman to be together, that that was what was natural. Since Paul knew that God first created man, and then he created woman as his compliment, he knew that this, and only this, was the "natural" way of things. By saying that they were "abandoning" what was "natural" means that they were abandoning what God set forth for man and woman since the foundation of the world.


    Well, I just think that this "alternative interpretation" is wrong, and the traditional interpretation is the right one.
     
  5. Fluffy

    Fluffy A fool

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Ratings:
    +1,007
    I didn't mean to imply as such by that paragraph. I was pointing out that after 10 pages of what was supposed to be a debate on scripture relating to homosexuality, only very few posts were actually relevant. Furthermore, even less were actually based on some sort of scripture.

    In fact, as I said, there are numerous more occasions in the Bible that have been cited as "anti-gay" passages but are absent from this thread. This just seems similar to shooting oneself in the foot and led me to the conclusion that either people do not know what the Bible says about homosexuality or they do not care. The latter would back up my personal belief that scripture is often (not always) used to justify anti-gay feelings rather than the other way around.

    You are of course entitled to your belief but you have not outlined why you think that this passage is about homosexuality, nor have you explained why, given that it is dealing with homosexuality, the inclination is not condemned but the act is.

    No it means that whatever he wrote was done in wisdom if such a passage is taken to be true. Since the debate is about whether Paul condemned homosexuality in Romans, you cannot assume the conclusion without first backing it up. If this passage condemns homosexual behaviour then it is condemned in wisdom.

    Furthermore, I would add that this is essentially irrelevant since I am not trying to argue that Paul's opinion is worthless to a Christian therefore by backing up its worth in such a way, you are not making a counter argument. You are simply showing that Paul wrote wise things.

    [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
    I don't think whether the accusations were false or not was the point that Truluck was attempting to convey. He was demonstrating that it is very easy to interpret the writings of Paul in different ways. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant, the important bit is that we are careful with his work.

    [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
    That is very true. Lets go back in time roughly 300 years and hold this same conversation but about women instead. Plenty of biblical scholars came to the conclusion that women were inferior according the writings of Paul back then. If you base the validity of your beliefs on what the majority of biblical scholars think then what do you do when in those days biblical scholars thought one thing and in these days another? Similarly, what will you do if in 200 years, someone makes exactly this point because they are trying to show that whilst in the rather backward years of the 21st century, most biblical scholars (perhaps?) thought that Paul condemned homosexuality, nowadays this was not the case perhaps even because of some of the arguments I have outlined here.

    NB I dont know your views on women but if they are similar to Biblical scholars of 300 years ago then please replace the word "women", in the above paragraph, with "Jews" instead.

    [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
    The first sentence is an assumption based on modern day knowledge of the Bible. Since it is modern day knowledge of the Bible which I am criticising, you will excuse me if I don't find arguments which utilise it further to be very convincing.

    For all we know Paul was completely pro-gay (maybe even gay himself since it was quite popular at the time). Not convinced? Thats because I've failed to support such an assertion with evidence. Exactly like you have failed to support your first sentence with evidence. It is far more likely, given how most people view Paul's stance on homosexuality, that we will view him as being anti-gay. However, since we are calling into question this very stance, such an assumption is totally unfair unless you would like to cite a non-Biblical source, demonstrating Paul's views on sexuality?

    The second sentence, whilst going some way to back up the first, is not exactly fullproof. You are assuming God's motives. Here are 2 alternative theories:

    1) the creation story is not literal therefore God created many men and many women whose sexualities are not defined Biblically. Given that the average level of homosexuality in any human population is roughly 10%, including any recordable time period and culture, it is logical to assume that the original men and women shared such a statistic.
    2) God created men and women because he needed to allow the human race to reproduce. However, once the population was stable, a minority of gays would not make a dent in the overall success of humanity in terms of reproduction. Therefore, homosexuality is fine as long as it is in the minority.

    Again, not convinced? Thats because this is just random conjecture that happens to fit the facts. However, since both scenarios have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them as your "Paul was anti-gay" scenario (eg zero), we must assume that all 3 are equally likely along with any other possibilities.

    [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
    That is the nature of debate. It wouldn't be much of one if you and I agreed. However, whilst such beliefs are fine in privacy, they do not get anywhere in debates. If did not believe that I could not back up my belief with evidence then I would not attempt to assert that it is more correct than your belief. You can ignore such evidence if you wish but that does not destroy my argument, it just means that you are free to turn a blind eye to it.

    Finally, I would like to thankyou for taking me up on this subject. It is one that I have wanted to debate for a very long time. I realise that such a debate could get very heated so if some of my phrases seem blunt or in-your-face then I apologise but I promise you that no offense is intended.
    [/font]
     
  6. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    QUOTE=Fluffy]In fact, as I said, there are numerous more occasions in the Bible that have been cited as "anti-gay" passages but are absent from this thread. This just seems similar to shooting oneself in the foot and led me to the conclusion that either people do not know what the Bible says about homosexuality or they do not care. The latter would back up my personal belief that scripture is often (not always) used to justify anti-gay feelings rather than the other way around.[/QUOTE]
    Which are the others. I'd be happy to debate those as well

    Okay. Here's my reason why I think it is about homosexuality.
    Rom 1:24 "wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves."
    So this what I think it means. "God turned away from them because of thier sins. Their sins were their lusts in which they completely dirtied themselves by performing homosexual sex acts. To dishonour one's body, in my beleif, means to have unrighteous sex (for lack of a better phrase), and the fact that they were doing it amoungst themselves, and not with women, means that it was homosexual.
    Rom 1:25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
    That really has no bearing to homosexuality.
    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."
    The "natural use" is the natural use of their body, which is to say, one man one woman. This is definitely the "natural use" because that's how God created man and woman. He didn't create one heterosexual pair and one homosexual pair, so homosexuality is not natural based on how God created things. So, this verse, in my views, states that homosexual sex acts between women is considered vile by god. The fact that is says "even the women" is also another indication that the men were engaging in homosexual behaviour as well.
    Rom 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burnid in their lust one toward another; men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receicing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
    The key here, I beleive, is "leaving the natural use of the woman." This shows, once again, that heterosexuality is the "natural" way, due to how God created us. It doesn't say "some of the men were leaving their natural way to have sex with men, while others were having sex with men already, but that was okay, because that was natural for them" There is no for them in this verse. Heterosexuality is what is normal for everyone.
    The rest of the verses are just about the other sins they were doing, so I don't think they have bearing.
    Now, for the part about the thought vs the act. I don't think an inclination is ever a sin. It's only when you act on the inclination in a sinful manner. Let's take something else for way of example. Teenagers commanly feel a very high sex drive that they have never felt before in their lives. This is natural, and the higher sex drive in and of itself is not a sin. It becomes a sin, however, (and this is just my views) when the teenager starts to act on those inclinaition by looking at porn, masturbating, having sex with anyone who is willing, and other things of that nature. Only then, when he has acted, has he sinned. The same is true, I beleive, with homosexuality. The inclination is not the sin. It is only when one acts on these inclinaitons that it becomes a sin.

    Well, let's look at it this way. Most of what Paul said about women is true. Sure, it was taken out of context, and many were not treated too well, but now it is going in the other direction. Churches are letting women become priests, baptize people, etc, which I think, and Paul probably meant with his writings, are men's jobs. While it is certainly a bad thing to persecute people because of taking too strict a view, taking too lenient a view is just as bad. The same now is happening with the homosexuality verse. While back in the olden days, and to some extent even now, homosexuals are being beaten and told they have a mental illness (which violent behavoiur I'm sure Paul would not have condoned), we are also now moving toward ultra-tolerance in which we completely disregard the biblical verses and start thinking that homosexual actions are not a sin, which I think is just as bad as being too strict.

    [QUTOE=Fluffy] For all we know Paul was completely pro-gay (maybe even gay himself since it was quite popular at the time). Not convinced? Thats because I've failed to support such an assertion with evidence. Exactly like you have failed to support your first sentence with evidence.[/QUOTE]
    Forgive me. I'm young, I have had practically no debates until I found this forum, and I tend to not understand what it that people want me to argue unless they spell it out for me.

    I also don't think the first sentence made unfair claims. I said that Paul would have very good Biblical knowledge (he was a Pharisee), that therefore he would know that God made man and woman for each other, and therefore would know that one man one woman is the natural, or at least non-sinful, way of things.

    I beg your appologies again..

    You're welcome. I have also wanted this debate for a long time. And, knowing now that your blunt comments were just your debating and not due to some sort of deep seated hatred you feel for me, I am definitely willing to debate this topic some more, if you are not unwilling to debate in with an ameature and therefore have to tell me exaclty what I did wrong in every one of my senteces. Because chance are I won't know that it was bad. I'm not very good at these long posts and extended debates with multiple points to consider. *laughs in embaressment.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,471
    Ratings:
    +1,278
    Religion:
    Christian
    On why I believe that Romans 1:27 is for lack of better phrasing, anti-homosexual.

    Natural-
    phusikos:
    produced by nature, inborn


    agreeable to nature

    governed by (the instincts of) nature



    translated three times in the KJV, all three times as natural.



    Some modern interpreters have said that when Paul wrote "natural" he was saying heterosexual men who turned from there natural use, while not speaking against homosexual men with whom same sex sex is natural. In this arguement I have yet to see any sources that state that 1st century Jews believed that homosexuality was natural, much less a (pharisee/saducee?). I would like evidence of this being Paul's view if this is to be argued.



    Unseemly-

    aschemosune

    1) unseemliness, an unseemly deed a) of a woman's genitals
    b) of one's nakedness, shame

    Now men burning with lust, regardless of whether or not the lust itself is natural, commit acts which are considered unseemly.

    Error-
    plane:
    1) a wandering, a straying about
    a) one led astray from the right way, roams hither and thither
    2) metaph.
    a) mental straying
    1) error, wrong opinion relative to morals or religion


    b) error which shows itself in action, a wrong mode of acting

    c) error, that which leads into error, deceit or fraud



    appears 10 times in the KJV, 7 as error and once as to deceive, deceit, and delusion.



    They recieve their recompence for their error (earlier described in the verse as unseemly acts comitted by men, with men, while burning for lust with each other).

    This is of course just my personal opinion. Shred it to pieces at will :D

    (greek definitions and the amount of times translated in the KJV are from www.blueletterbible.org )
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Fluffy

    Fluffy A fool

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Ratings:
    +1,007
    Heya Aqualung, here is my long over due response to your post. If my brain doesn't freeze over by the end of this then I'll try and respond to Mister Emu as well.

    Whilst I dislike referring to specific passages as "anti-homosexual" (since, obviously, from my point of view, no such passages exist), here are a list of passages which are commonly used to build up a biblical argument against homosexuality. Romans 1 is the easiest to misinterpret and therefore the hardest to refute, however.

    OT
    Genesis 1:28, 2:18-24, 9:20-29, 19
    Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
    Deuteronomy 23:17
    Judges 19:14-29
    1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46
    2 Kings 23:7

    NT
    Romans 1:26-27
    1 Corinthians 6:9
    1 Timothy 1:9-10
    Matthew 5:22, 8:5-13, 19:4-12
    John 3:16
    Jude 1:7

    For a list of other passages which build on the biblical argument against homosexuality but focus more on what the Bible says beyond the fact that it is wrong, such as authorising the killing of homosexuals, please visit this website: www.godhatesfags.com It is one of the leading Christian anti-gay sites on the internet and can be relied on to not miss a single passage relevant to their cause.

    The subject of this sentence is important since we need to assess that Paul is indeed talking about a single gender in order for their unrighteous sex to be homosexual. The subject is found in Romans 1:18. The translation in the KJV is indeed "men" but I believe this to be referring to humans in general and not the male gender, as I'm sure you are aware, is common practice especially due to the male dominance at the time. To further support this theory, the AB, NLT, CEV, HCSB, NIRV and WE all translate the word as "people" instead of "men" which implies that the original Greek word was intended to mean this rather than the male gender.

    Therefore, I propose that homosexual sex has not yet entered into Paul's speech at this point. Additionally, this passage does not say the form which the sexual acts took. "between themselves" could easily be referring to masturbation or group sex, both of which are looked down on in the Bible. Additionally, the unrighteousness could be due to the fact that the sex was out of marriage, not done out of love or because it was part of a Pagan ritual. There is no scriptural evidence to support the idea that the sex was wrong because it was homosexual, especially when there are a variety of other, more likely possibilities.

    You are quite right, this has no bearing on homosexuality whatsoever. So the question becomes, why did Paul bung it into the middle of a passage that he intended to condemn homosexuality with? A possible motive could be that Paul was afraid that his writing could be misinterpreted to be condemning homosexuality and so decided to make it absolutly clear that he was talking about a Pagan fringe group who were engaging in sexual rites. In other words, he wanted to make it clear that it was the fact that these people were Pagans and that they were engaging in sex outside of marriage and possibly loveless sex that made what they were doing wrong; the homosexuality was irrelevant.

    I'm sure you can see a massive difference between a consenting, loving, homosexual relationship and a religious sex orgy involving a group of men who probably barely knew each other? Why apply the condemnation of the latter onto the former?

    Please note that the word which is translated in the KJV as "affections" is also used to describe the suffering and death of Jesus. Can you explain to me why it refers to sex here and to Jesus' sacrifice in Acts 1:3?

    If you wish to interpret that the natural use of the female body is for heterosexual sex then that is fair enough. I dare say you would get many a feminist who strongly disagrees with that interpretation especially since it is clear that the female body can do many other things other than have sex with men.

    Disregarding this, I fail to equate "that which is not natural" with "morally wrong". If your definition of something which is natural is "that which God created", then surely any human being after Adam and Eve, regardless of their sexuality, are unnatural since they were not made by God? You cannot apply such a distinction to just sexuality (ie God created heterosexuality, not homosexuality) and then ignore everything else which God did and did not create. Is it unnatural for me to be typing on this computer at the moment? God certainly didn't create it so does that make it wrong? Furthermore, God himself is far from being natural, he is supernatural. If that which is not natural=wrong then God himself is wrong by that logic.

    Furthermore, I do not see how you came to the conclusion that what God does = natural. Paul himself declares that one of the acts of God was "against nature" (Romans 11:24). From this I conclude two things. 1) What God does can either be natural or unnatural. 2) The nature of an act has no bearing on its morality. To condemn the unnatural is to condemn God himself, both through his own nature and the nature of his actions.

    This simply indicates that all of the men who were engaging in this homosexual sex were heterosexual and not homosexual themselves. They must have all had sex with women in the past to "leave" it so they are comitting adultery. Why could Paul not simply be condemning homosexual sex between heterosexuals (a "be true to yourself" sort of message) and adultery?

    Is there a difference between 2 homosexuals committing adultery and 2 homosexuals in a consenting loving relationship? If there is then why does the comdemnation of one apply to the other?

    If I rape a woman and the Bible condemned it, would that be condemning rape or heterosexuality? The other sins are of immense bearing since it is these which indicate why these Pagans are in Paul's bad books and that homosexuality was irrelevant to the morality of the situation.

    I agree with you and that is something you would have to debate with Ms. Sims since I am unaware of the reasoning behind her asserting differently.

    (continued in next post)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Fluffy

    Fluffy A fool

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Ratings:
    +1,007
    (Continued from last post)

    As soon as we go from "all" to "most", we lose any sort of debating material. A part of the Bible becomes irrelevant simply because it is no longer true in one person's opinion. Which bits of Paul do you think are wrong regarding women and why do you accept the rest of what he has to say on the matter, or any other matter, to be authoritative given such a mistake?

    Fair enough. It is equally valid to suggest that the passages used to condemn homosexuality are more like those to support slavery. Or do you propose that our interpretation of those passages is now too lenient as well? To feel that passages in support of slavery can be disregarded but those apparently condemning homosexuality or women cannot, is to display a double standard. Perhaps you have some other source such as contact with God through prayer which caused you to decide to do this, eliminating the double standard. Without one, you will be eaten alive in a debate since the way a person treats and views the Bible is key. Treating different areas of the same author differently is enough to discredit the source for your arguments.

    Paul would have had a very good knowledge of scripture (not the Bible, it hadn't been compiled yet). However, this is not why I think your sentence was unfair. I think that you are looking at Genesis, assuming that this shows that a man and a woman is natural and 2 members of the same sex are not, and then assuming that Paul came to the same conclusion as you. Since we are debating about the conclusions that Paul came to, is it not very circular to assume them in order to back them up?

    All we know, or at least have a very good reason to think, is that Paul was aware that God created one man and one woman and likely believed the Creation story to be 100% fact (not a parable). In the abscence of any other evidence, the assumption that Paul looked at this knowledge and thought "Yup, heterosexuality is right" is equal to the assumption that he looked at it and thought "God needed to breed the next generation of humanity. Homosexuals can't breed with each other and so would have been counterproductive in the beginning. Now that the original need is lost, homosexuality is fine and could even be a method, by God, to place a population control on the planet as a way to deal with overpopulation."

    I promise none are necessary .

    Don't worry I have no real experience in debating technique either. Do keep in mind however, that simply because I can pick apart your sentences, does not necessarily mean that the belief "homosexuality is wrong" is not incorrect. I would be fooling myself to think I was authorative on this matter. I merely think I provide a decent argument for why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and therefore, there is no source for hatred on either side . Some of my best friends think homosexuality is wrong but their belief stems from unsupported belief, just like mine, that it is right, stems from unsupported belief. We have no common ground for debate so are forced to respect the others point of view and come to the conclusion that either belief could be equally right as the other.

    Blessed Be
    Fluffy

    PS: Sorry Mister Emu, looks like my brain did freeze. Aqualung, would you mind if I kept this conversation and published it at a later date on the internet in such places as other forums and my weblog?
     
  10. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    Well, I'm not sure. You're a pretty darned good debater, and I'm not, so we'll have to see how big a fool you make out of me. :D
    Anyway, though, I'll look at your argument. I'll probably take it piece by piece in lots of different posts, if you don't mind. It's hard for me to keep track of everything in one long post, instead of being able to look back at small other posts I've done.
     
  11. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    You make a strong point. But I propose that if Paul was actually talking about all people he would have said people, because of the male dominance. He woudn't want to be taken wrongly by saying man, if what he actually meant was people, and knowing he was living in a male society, he knew that saying man when he meant people would be very confusing. Also because of the male dominance, I think that he was just talking to the men, who were probably the only ones who thought they should do this sort of thing. The men woudn't allow their women to do this sort of thing, and women probably felt that it was not their place to do anything like this, or to debase themselves in such a way.

    As to the second paragraph, you make another very good point. I will agree that "dishonouring their bodies between themselves" is very unclear as to what they did to dishonour themselves. I think "between themselves" means, however, that they were doing it not just together (as in, at the same place and time), but that it had something to do with partnership. If they were just mastubating, I don't think Paul would have said "between themselves." This phrase means that they were doing something a little more personal. The only thing I can think of would be homosexual acts.
     
  12. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    The reason he put that in the middle is because he was listing off a whole bunch of different sins, and homosexuality happened to be one of them. He wasn't just talking to people who may or may not have been involved in Pagan rituals, and therefore his warnings only go to those people. Do you think that just because the epistle is Paul's epistle to the Romans that it only applies to Romans? I don't, and I don't see any reason that Paul's warnings against any of the sins he mentions only apply to that one group. Verse 18 tells people not to hate the gospel. verses 21-23 warn against being foolish and making false idols. These admonitions (is that the right word?) are against all people, as is what follows in v 24, the condemnation of the homosexual act. 25 states other sins, as the previous verses did, and warns against them. It's not that Paul put an unrelated verse in the middle of something he was using to condemn homosexuality. he was condemning many, many behavoiurs, which apply to every one.

    Mainly because of the other verses that condemn it. Even if you think this is just condemning a sex orgy, the Lev quote which says "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind" does not also say "unless it's monogomous and loving." You have to take all the verses together.
     
  13. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    I don't know why. good point.

    Why are we not natural if it is what God created? God created all of us. He just didn't reach down and make us out of dust, because he had a different way. And it's not that things which are not natural are morally wrong. it is things which are unnatural. Which is to say, if it is against nature. Using a computer, while it is not "natural" in the sense that computers grow on trees (or something :D) it is certainly not against nature. Homosexuality is. We were created spe
    537
    cifically with gender, and sexuality is a thing that is inherent in gender, and the same for everyone. To go against that is "unnatural" and immoral.

    Which sort of answers the "be true to youself" message. We were created with specific gender. Sexuality, being inherent in gender, is the same for all of the same gender. So, to be true to one's self is to be heterosexual.
     
  14. Fluffy

    Fluffy A fool

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Ratings:
    +1,007
    Lol I dont think you give yourself enough credit :). Keep in mind that you have the harder task. You must prove a specific viewpoint whilst I can prove any viewpoint I wish as long as it disagrees with yours. Small posts work for me but I can't promise that mine will stay small as well.

    Again that is fair enough but some translations use the word people whilst others use men. Now assuming that there were no ulterior motives going on by those translators, it seems more logical that the word Paul used meant "people" not "men" and therefore we were able to get these 2 translations whereas how could some translators translate the Greek word for men as people? It is far more likely that it was the other way around indicating that taking it to mean the male gender is a false implication.

    Unfortunately, this is just speculation and without a copy of the original Greek for this passage, I would not be able to take it further. It is also possible that the Greeks used the same word for people and men but I doubt this seeing that I was under the impression that they used gender in their words so the difference should be obvious.

    Yes I agree that it does seem like group activities are more likely but only when put into the context of whom Paul was talking about, most likely members of a Pagan sex cult. However, I can think of other sexual activities involving more than one person other than those which could be deemed as homosexual. For example, sex outside of marriage, loveless sex, sex whilst under the influence of some drug, sex as a religious ritual. Without the classification needed by the aforementioned Greek word, all of these are possibilities at this point.


    Paul was condemning a number of actions that were prevalent in Rome (and Corinth) at the time. One of which was homosexual sex (not homosexuality) in a loveless, non-marriage situation between heterosexuals. When I look at that I see the following sins: heterosexuals having homosexual sex, sex before marriage, loveless sex etc. He wasn't just talking to Pagans but he was talking about them (I can't think of any other mass orgy that might have occured during that time other than in a Pagan ritual such as perhaps the Great Rite).

    Verse 25 backs up the idea that these people were Pagans (or perhaps atheists but that is far more unlikely). One can make a fairly solid argument from the Bible that sex (regardless of the kind) is immoral outside of marriage. That would apply to heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. If I were Paul and knew of a sex orgy in which only extramarital heterosexual sex occured then I would not be condemning heterosexuality to condemn the actions of these people. Similar, if I replaced heterosexual with homosexual then I would be making a mistake to interpret such a condemnation as attacking homosexual sex.


    Ah Leviticus. Leviticus also says a lot of things which a modern Christian would find rather silly and would not give a 2nd thought to. Do you, for example, refrain from shaving or cutting your hair? What about asking the females in your congregation to cover their heads so as to be respectful to God? Easy way around that is to follow the 200 odd laws of Leviticus (or attempt to) but I think that would be a bit of a culture shock.

    Additionally, Leviticus commands Christianity as a whole to kill every homosexual. Personally, I believe that anybody who accepts it will get into a ton of trouble attempting to defend it.
    Here is a possible explanation for why the word is used in both situations. The word does not refer to lust or attraction, or even love, in the normal every day sense of the word. It refers to a type of passion that is only found in unusual circumstances, such as that as a near death experience or a drug fueled sex orgy.

    Ahhh well I assume you agree that homosexuality does exist and it is not an illusion or mental illness? Its fair enough if you don't but then you will get into trouble on scientific grounds rather than just theological grounds.

    If we assume that the qualification for something being natural is "God creating it". This indicates that anything which God directly had a hand in (such as Adam and Eve) are natural. Well the rest of humanity is surely natural as well, as you rightly counter. Therefore, anything which comes from God, directly or indirectly, must be natural?

    Well when God created Adam and Eve, he created heterosexuality, right? At some point in the nearish future, homosexuality would have made an appearence as well, indirectly created by God. Therefore, natural. I don't see how one can be natural and the other can't if the thing that makes something natural is "creation by God". Everything in the world is created by him therefore everything is natural.

    However, such a view disagrees with Paul's own view, since he clearly says that not only is the unnatural a good thing but also that God can created the unnatural.

    Again such a belief is fair enough but it is not complementary with scientific belief. I do not think that beliefs that disagree with science are necessarily wrong. But I just don't think either of us are educated enough to dismiss science in one fell swoop like that either (or even that bit of science).

    Blessed Be
    Fluffy
     
  15. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    So . . . do you want to stop debating that point? I would then make the score Fluffy-1 Aqualung-0, because the way you have presented that point makes it seem that you could be right, and since we both don't know enough to say for sure what the word is, the (what's that word when you don't have sufficient information) for any sort of interpretation gives you the point.

    It wasn't just sex outside of marriage. That is covered in v 29, when he stops talking about how they were doing homosexual things and started talking about their other sins. It wasn't loveless sex, becuase that it condemned in v 31. drugs aren't even mentioned in the verse, and I think that if it were sex with drugs, the "drugs" part would have been important enough for Paul to mention it. It could very well have been part of a religious ritual, since all throughout the chapter Paul talks about people turning away from god.
     
  16. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    Another very strong point. Which is why all the verses need to be considered in conjuction with each other. Not just lev (that was what came most readily to my mind) but all of them as well.
     
  17. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    I ceratainly know it exists, and isn't a mental illness. I however think it is a choice. This choice is either concious or subconcious, but it is a choice.
     
  18. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    The thing, though, is that everybody was created directly by God, at least in the spirit sense. Before we got bodies, our spirits were created by God, directly. Our spirits had gender and sexuality. Sexuality was inherent in gender, so all people were heterosexual. Our bodies may not be "natural", as they weren't created directly by God, which is why the bible speaks of us being resurected with perfect bodies. But our spirits, which were created directly by God, are natural and have inherent gender and sexuality.
     
  19. Mike182

    Mike182 Flaming Queer

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    13,383
    Ratings:
    +1,389
    in the spirit sense, if my spirit or soul has a gender (lets call it female for arguments sake) and was placed by god into a male body, i would be attracted to the opposite state of my soul - so in this body i would be attracted to other males

    i also believe that our current bodies were created directly by god

    C_P
     
  20. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    God doesn't place spirits in the wrong bodies. Our bodies were chosen specifically for our spirits, and since it's going to be the body we have for all eternity, it would be stupid to place it in the wrong body. It would make moot the entire aspect of gender. That's just what I think, though.
     
Loading...