...It's right there in the root word.
Advertisement
by The Princes of the Universe » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:19 am
by Eli Islands » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:20 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:20 am
Eli Islands wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:The tradition holds that all non heterosexual and non(word I don't want to use) intercourse is sinful. It's firstly that there is not a homosexual marriage, and secondly that what we now know as sodomy is sinful.
when the tradition was made most homosexual acts were either rape or between a man and a boy. but the Bible never talks about loving consensual relationship.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:21 am
by The Princes of the Universe » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:22 am
by Eli Islands » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:22 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Eli Islands wrote:
when the tradition was made most homosexual acts were either rape or between a man and a boy. but the Bible never talks about loving consensual relationship.
Sodomy is sinful in all cases. John Chrysostom even talks about men committing the "vile sin" of anal intercourse with their wives.
by Eli Islands » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:23 am
The Princes of the Universe wrote:Eli Islands wrote:
but is Leviticus heresy, If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Leviticus was, from my understanding, a holiness code that only ever applied to a specific subset of Jews.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:23 am
by The Princes of the Universe » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:24 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Eli Islands wrote:
when the tradition was made most homosexual acts were either rape or between a man and a boy. but the Bible never talks about loving consensual relationship.
Sodomy is sinful in all cases. John Chrysostom even talks about men committing the "vile sin" of anal intercourse with their wives.
by Anywhere Else But Here » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:24 am
by The Princes of the Universe » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:26 am
by Eli Islands » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:27 am
by The Princes of the Universe » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:31 am
Eli Islands wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:A marriage pretty much requires sexual intimacy.
no the Merriam Webster dictionary defines marriage as: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship.
so it is a contractual relationship and to my knowledge a relationship does not require sexual intimacy.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:31 am
Eli Islands wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:A marriage pretty much requires sexual intimacy.
no the Merriam Webster dictionary defines marriage as: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship.
so it is a contractual relationship and to my knowledge a relationship does not require sexual intimacy.
by Eli Islands » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:34 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Eli Islands wrote:no the Merriam Webster dictionary defines marriage as: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship.
so it is a contractual relationship and to my knowledge a relationship does not require sexual intimacy.
But the Christian concept of marriage is a uniting in one flesh.
by Jamzmania » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:35 am
The Princes of the Universe wrote:Eli Islands wrote:can you show me where in the Bible it says gay marriage is a sin?
A. Sola scriptura is a heresy.
B. Neither scripture nor wider tradition has any reference to a man leaving home and becoming one flesh with anyone but a wife (it is indeed physiologically impossible with any other combination).
The Alexanderians wrote:"Fear no man or woman,
No matter what their size.
Call upon me,
And I will equalize."
-Engraved on the side of my M1911 .45
by Diopolis » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:36 am
Eli Islands wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:The tradition holds that all non heterosexual and non(word I don't want to use) intercourse is sinful. It's firstly that there is not a homosexual marriage, and secondly that what we now know as sodomy is sinful.
when the tradition was made most homosexual acts were either rape or between a man and a boy. but the Bible never talks about loving consensual relationship.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:37 am
Eli Islands wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:But the Christian concept of marriage is a uniting in one flesh.
The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple).
by Diopolis » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:41 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Eli Islands wrote:
but is Leviticus heresy, If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Leviticus is the Old Law; things have changed, namely that redemption is possible
by Diopolis » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:42 am
The Princes of the Universe wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Sodomy is sinful in all cases. John Chrysostom even talks about men committing the "vile sin" of anal intercourse with their wives.
I don't understand why anyone would want to do that in any context let alone with enough frequency to warrant a specific condemnation so early in church history, but that's not particularly germane to this thread...
by Hakons » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:43 am
Eli Islands wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:But the Christian concept of marriage is a uniting in one flesh.
The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple).
by Eli Islands » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:44 am
Diopolis wrote:Eli Islands wrote:
when the tradition was made most homosexual acts were either rape or between a man and a boy. but the Bible never talks about loving consensual relationship.
This is entirely wrong for a couple of reasons:
1) Actually, we don't know what specific context arsenokoitai was intended to cover. It's a neologism. We can infer that it doesn't refer to pedophilia because a: the etymology is pretty specific to men, not to a man and a boy and b: Greek at the time had a word referring to homosexual pedophilia, and so Paul probably wouldn't have invented a new one.
2) There's a fair amount of evidence that relatively consensual homosexual relationships were common or at least not stigmatized as a form of contraception among the Roman middle class. Granted, we know very little in general about how the Roman middle to low classes lived, but what we do know points to a fair amount of homosexuality that was more consensual than the standard heterosexual relationship of the day, which was between a thirteen year old girl and the thirty year old man she'd been sold to. Literary evidence indicates that these relationships tended to have an age gap but that most of the participants involved would have been old enough to give consent, albeit barely in some cases. Most early Christian converts probably came from the middle class.
3) If the problem was rape or pedophilia per se, why doesn't Paul condemn that, instead? Both behaviors were reasonably common, and in some cases not stigmatized, in Ancient Rome. Greek has the ability to refer to both without a neologism, whereas homosexuality as we think of it was not well enough defined to have a term for it.
4) Arsenokoitai appears, in the Greek, to be calling back Leviticus 18:22. No one argues that Leviticus 18:22 is really just specific to rape and pedophilia.
by Eli Islands » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:45 am
Diopolis wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Leviticus is the Old Law; things have changed, namely that redemption is possible
Also note that the punishments specified in the old law are not, technically speaking, commands. They are recordings of the civil penalties in ancient Israel.
On a side note, the generally accepted opinion among theologians is that sodomy is a severe enough sin to merit the death penalty, but that the use of the death penalty is to be avoided whenever possible, and that furthermore simply struggling with homosexual attractions(which is all that is necessary to be a homosexual) is not a sin in itself.
by Hakons » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:47 am
Eli Islands wrote:Diopolis wrote:This is entirely wrong for a couple of reasons:
1) Actually, we don't know what specific context arsenokoitai was intended to cover. It's a neologism. We can infer that it doesn't refer to pedophilia because a: the etymology is pretty specific to men, not to a man and a boy and b: Greek at the time had a word referring to homosexual pedophilia, and so Paul probably wouldn't have invented a new one.
2) There's a fair amount of evidence that relatively consensual homosexual relationships were common or at least not stigmatized as a form of contraception among the Roman middle class. Granted, we know very little in general about how the Roman middle to low classes lived, but what we do know points to a fair amount of homosexuality that was more consensual than the standard heterosexual relationship of the day, which was between a thirteen year old girl and the thirty year old man she'd been sold to. Literary evidence indicates that these relationships tended to have an age gap but that most of the participants involved would have been old enough to give consent, albeit barely in some cases. Most early Christian converts probably came from the middle class.
3) If the problem was rape or pedophilia per se, why doesn't Paul condemn that, instead? Both behaviors were reasonably common, and in some cases not stigmatized, in Ancient Rome. Greek has the ability to refer to both without a neologism, whereas homosexuality as we think of it was not well enough defined to have a term for it.
4) Arsenokoitai appears, in the Greek, to be calling back Leviticus 18:22. No one argues that Leviticus 18:22 is really just specific to rape and pedophilia.
but Paul had a lot of strange beliefs that we no longer follow (1 Timothy 2:9-15) and also Paul isn't Jesus so tbh why would we follow anything he said.
by Diopolis » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:50 am
Eli Islands wrote:Diopolis wrote:Also note that the punishments specified in the old law are not, technically speaking, commands. They are recordings of the civil penalties in ancient Israel.
On a side note, the generally accepted opinion among theologians is that sodomy is a severe enough sin to merit the death penalty, but that the use of the death penalty is to be avoided whenever possible, and that furthermore simply struggling with homosexual attractions(which is all that is necessary to be a homosexual) is not a sin in itself.
but god doesn't hold any sin higher than others, why would sodomy be more severe than say gluttony?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Baltinica, Herador, Likhinia, Saiwana, Tesseris
Advertisement