I do believe that Paul's beliefs on women and slavery should be followed, he says that women should be subject to their husbands, yet in the very next statement says that men should love their wives. Eph 5:22-27 And as far as slavery Paul doesn't say anywhere that we should have slaves and its the law, he just says that IF you are a slave that you should show reverance and respect to your master. In the same way we should treat our supervisors at work, with reverent respect. And regarding homosexuality the Bible is very clear that it's wrong: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" (Leviticus 20:13).
Nice, it is a good idea to go back to the original text! You can find Rom 1:27 here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=1&v=1&t=NIV#conc/27 It seems clear to me that it's talking about homosexuality as a consequence of God giving people over to their "unnatural" and "indecent" desires since they choose not to acknowledge him. How do you see it? Just because something is sin however, does not mean we should not love and accept sinful people. We accept sinful heterosexuals as friends and loved ones, and in the Bible, God loved us before we had done anything to change or even seek him (1 John 4:9-11). We who have received grace should extend it, and the correction that we give should be in love not condescension. I would agree with some of the other posters that this sin should not be elevated to the special position it occupies today. I think the rampant problem of p*rnography and other sexual problems within the church is mostly swept under the rug and ought to be dealt with first. "Purge the evil from among you." As far as why Christians do not have to obey the specific laws and ceremonial rituals of Leviticus, it's an aside and is more detailed, so I will spoiler. Spoiler There are a few reasons given from the Bible that I am familiar with: 1) The spirit of the law is embodied in the two greatest commandments (Matt 22:35-40). As it says, all other laws fall under these. Perhaps this summary is given because of people's tendency to lose sight of the forest for the trees (as sadly occurs often with hating homosexuals). 2) Jesus has fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17). The law was given to communicate God's standards to man as a guide and ultimately to show man his inability to be perfectly obedient leading us to see our need for God's help (related to #3). Jesus fulfills the law in two senses: first, he was the only one who was perfectly obedient to it and second, in himself and in his death on the cross he meets the need which the law exposed -- that, without our earning it through being "good enough", we can be reconciled with God because the punishment for our sin was placed on Jesus. 3) Now that Jesus has fulfilled the law, we are no longer under it (Gal 3:21-29). However, this does not mean the Law is to ignored, it teaches us many things about God and is a continual reminder of our need for him.
Most Christians (can't necessarily speak for all denominations) don't believe they need to follow Mosaic law. Jesus came, fulfilled the law, and established his own, new covenant. A covenant where you achieved salvation through grace, not by following law. Thus, most Christians believe that Old Testament law no longer applies. Related to homosexuality, they shouldn't use Leviticus as justification for their beliefs. But Paul did bring it up a few times in his writings. Of course, you can always debate the translations and even whether Paul was speaking with God's voice or interjecting his own opinions along the way.
That's just not true, that myth has been debunked by a number of people including Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote: “ Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[5] By the old logic a lot of our dogs are homosexual because they hump male doggy toys? Things that would be considered homosexual if a human did it doesn't necessarily mean it's homo for an animal
Hahaha, now it is clear you are trolling. Questions 1 and 2 are based off the NIV translation, which you proposed. Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Let me make it clearer for you: my aim in asking the question was to see how literally you think we should take Paul's writings. It is fine for you to say that you do agree with his views on women and slavery. At least that would give you a platform and progress the debate. Instead, you've chosen to follow a textbook response in losing an argument. That formula includes, first, condescension through a logical fallacy (your appeal to authority on translation, especially funny since you didn't even know the translation to which you referred), second, reliance on that appeal to authority as you ignore new arguments raised (self explanatory, when I had to ask you three times to answer a question), third, making a joke about something external about your opponent to distract from the argument (you making fun of my misspelling of and) and fourth, once you can no longer avoid the question, use condescending and glib responses in order to continue to avoid making an argument of substance (your last post). Again, nice try.
Right, right, he's not gay, he just likes gay sex. Whatever. The point is, homosexual RELATIONS, ARE found in nature.
This is exactly the long of response I was looking for. Kudos for engaging in the discussion. I see Paul's reference as more of one that relates to his tome, when homosexuality was stigmatized. Therefore a) I think his writings about principles rather than example matter more and b) there isn't a condemnation of it. I think the original aversion to homosexuality was born out of a more pragmatic need, with population low in establishing a new Jewish state, encouraging pro-creation was a necessity, much like avoiding pork and shellfish to prevent food borne illnesses.
lol this is rich. You're at least persistent in your incorrectness. You were shown exactly which passages addressed your original point. Then you claimed those passages weren't good enough because of your own expert Greek translation. At that point, the argument was over, because nobody is going to believe your translation over scholars. You were done. Then you started introducing unrelated points such as slavery. That's a sure sign that you've lost the argument. Even more comical is how you cling to the fact that you're still a player in this argument. You're not. You haven't convinced me of anything. You have not provided the relevant burden of proof required.
Yes they may be found in nature but using the argument that "it's been found in 1500 different animal species, so therefore its right" is kinda silly. As I heard someone say earlier no sin is bigger than another, but this also is not a good arguement for why it should be ok. In regards to that point you have to ask yourself how do you feel about liars, theifs, murderers, rapists, do you think "hey it's cool to do those things because you have freedom of choice". No one would ever think that, but just because you enjoy doing something doesn't mean you have to make up reasons why it's right. I don't see anyone ever arguing why murder is ok, it's because general society doesn't enjoy doing it so we all agree it's not ok. But when it comes to someone doing something that they enjoy (getting drunk, gambling, smoking pot) we argue that its ok...
Again, non responsive to what I said. Sometimes its okay to admit you don't know what your talking about. In this case it is painfully clear you don't. Don't worry though buddy, study up a little bit and then come join the grown up discussion. Until then, I'm sure your delusions of grandeur will convince you that you participated and won the debate. Here's a little parting pro-tip: sometimes its helpful to respond to the other side's argument. Hahaha.
I think it is a very valid argument. We are part of the natural world. If 1500 other species occasionally take part in homosexual activity, why is it so surprising that some humans do? Murder and sex aren't comparable, apples and oranges. My question to you is why do you care if someone engages in homosexual activity? Do you believe their actions will bare consequence to your salvation? Do you believe your salvation is determined by stopping others from "sinning." Doesn't Jesus advocate loving everyone no matter what? Isn't it more hateful to call them "sinners," than to just accept them for who they are? Don't all Abrahamic religions teach that only God judges? Murder, drugs, prostitution, etc., these things affect people more than homosexuals, yet you rarely hear the Church making a fuss about the murder rate, drug recidivism, or prostitution rings...
I think your understanding/googling of the Greek language may be off a little bit. The term Arsenokoites or (ἀρσενοκοῖται) is the word Paul was using, and it's definition is: one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual Since you would like a link I"ll be more than happy to provide one for you: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/arsenokoites.html Or if you would like another one, I'll be glad to do that one as well: http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htm Now just because I like where this is headed, and I can't imagine you trying to discredit 3 sources, so I'll include a 3rd: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a)rsenokoi%3Dtai&la=greek&prior=ou)/te&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155:book=I%20Corinthians:chapter=6:verse=9&i=1 And btw the Greek word for pervert: pervert = διαστρέφω, διαστρεβλώνω diastrefo, diastreblono
That's where people get tripped up, there is a difference between "judging someone" and telling them that what they are doing is wrong. If I were judging someone then I would tell them that unless they listen to me I'm going to send them to Hell. If no one is allowed to "judge" (based on your definition) then I guess the entire Bible should be thrown out because Paul talks a lot about people and the wrongs that they are doing. And he shouldn't be confused with being God. Me staying quiet when someone is doing wrong (whether homosexuality, stealing, or lying) can affect my salvation. And you can't say no sin is worse than another, and then tell me that murder and homosexuality is like apples and oranges.
Apparently most of you guys missed the book of Samuel. You know, the one that describes the one of the many very adult stories of King David, whose love of Jonathan "was more wonderful than the love of women". And they kissed. And disrobed each other and traded armor. It's way more explicit in Hebrew than it is in any English translation I've read, ESPECIALLY Christian ones, which uses an awful lot of purple prose to cover over a lot of things that were very clear in the Hebrew. There are a lot of words used that are only used to describe romantic relationships. But what do know? I only was forced to study this stuff in the religious university I went to in Israel. Anyway, carry on. It's fun to watch heathens arguing about how to stone the heathens.
I agree that the important thing is to determine the principle the author is conveying. Some people would say, "Well anyone can interpret anything", but I believe we can gain insight into the principle by studying the text more carefully. In this case, I think a high-level view of Romans helps. After the introduction, the second half of Chapter 1 is about how the whole world is guilty before God because the existence of God and his attributes can be clearly seen through creation but men choose not to acknowledge God and instead turn to idols (modern day ones being money, comfort, power, pleasure, fame, self-fulfillment, self-realization -- things we spend our time and effort on and live for, but ultimately cannot satisfy). Chapter 2 is about how the Jews cannot feel self-righteous above non-Jews just because they were God's chosen people and received his law since they have broken the law (my favorite passage being, "you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?"). Chapter 3 nails home the takeaway point of chapters 1-3, that all have sinned, and no one is "good" before God since his standard is perfection -- so much higher than ours. The rest of Romans talks about how God provides the solution to the problem no man can solve on his own through Jesus. It does this on a grand scale, as an treatise summarizing the relationship between God and man. Since Romans 1 lays the foundation for the argument that all mankind is sinful, which will later lead to God's solution in Christ, then it follows that what is mentioned there serves as a demonstration of just how sinful man has become. It would not make sense for Paul to interject pragmatism here and would not coincide with his purpose. It would be better served to have been later in Romans like chapter 12, when he's describing how Christians should live, giving many specific and practical instructions.
I did respond. With specific passages, thereby blowing you out of the water. Then you started a mission to convince others of your superior Greek translation skills. At that point, you lost all credibility, and also the argument. No point in responding to your additional unrelated questions after the argument was finished. Sorry, but you've not accomplished your objectives because you're not able to provide sufficient evidence to meet the required burden of proof. and just a little pro-tip for you, there's a difference between "your" and "you're". You might want to study up on that between your Greek translation lessons... hee hee hahaha *snort*
Well we've already come to the conclusion that we would prefer the rationale come from the New Testament since they were under the Mosaic law at that time. And does it matter if they did that or not? We're not talking about if it happened we're talking about if it's right or not....
If you are telling someone they are doing something wrong, than that means you are judging them. You are assuming that your definition of right and wrong applies to everyone and passing your judgement on to them. And yes, you are right, the bible does a lot of judging and should be thrown out. I didn't say no sin is worse than another. So my fruitful statement stands.
This is a great post. Do you think it follows, however that homosexuality is wrong? I take Paul in Romans to be talking about sin in general rather than homosexuality or any other specifically?
