Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 15:35:32 GMT
The Bible does NOT Condemn HomosexualityI will later copy/paste different part of the Dissertation here. But for starters the Gist of it. I am NOT a theologically Liberal Christian doing this. There are plenty of Bible teachings I'm uncomfortable with that I accept. Like how absolute with only one very specific exception Jesus condemned divorce. I'm a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist and a Pre-Millennial Futurist. I believe in Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security. I'm not trying to appease the Left. Plenty of aspects of my views may still leave the Liberal LGBT Community unhappy with me. Like my opposition to Hate Crime/Hate Speech Laws. Or that I view Anal Sex (which not all Gay Men do) as at least ill advised. Or that I view Marriage as between Man and a Woman (but not all Sex outside Marriage as a Sin), but oppose laws restricting Marriage on purely Libertarian grounds. I hold this position because I believe The Bible is infallible and The Finale Authority. And that Man has since before the Canon even closed been attempting to pervert it. Satan wants people to think God is more restrictive then he actually is. The gist of my view is that the Sin of Sodom was In-hospitality and cruel treatment of immigrants, which manifested in the form of RAPE. While the other passages are all about pagan ritual sex acts involving penetrative anal intercourse. Let me give the short version of the Leviticus 18 part here. "As with a Woman" is a qualifying statement that makes it not applicable to all male same-sex acts, only penetrative anal intercourse has ever been thought of as an imitation of the unique male-female sex act.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2017 16:02:51 GMT
The Bible does NOT Condemn HomosexualityDo they meet on Fridays or Sundays? I'm certain that homosexuality was a punishment for not acknowledging God. Certainly you've heard that before? Why does it not simply mean "for the purpose of orgasm"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 17:05:11 GMT
The Bible does NOT Condemn HomosexualityDo they meet on Fridays or Sundays? I'm certain that homosexuality was a punishment for not acknowledging God. Certainly you've heard that before? Why does it not simply mean "for the purpose of orgasm"? I shall deal with the whole Romans 1 Reprobate doctrine. My position on the Sabbath is that it hasn't change. But it's also not something to stress over.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 5, 2017 7:02:38 GMT
The Bible definitely condemns male homosexual intercourse. It was punishable by death in the time of Moses. And in the time of Abraham entire cities were burned up by God because of the homosexual lust of their citizens. It's a far cry from the special rights afforded to limp-wrists today, but it remains an evil perversion of the human body and an abomination in the eyes of God. That much has not changed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 15:41:00 GMT
The Bible definitely condemns male homosexual intercourse. It was punishable by death in the time of Moses. And in the time of Abraham entire cities were burned up by God because of the homosexual lust of their citizens. It's a far cry from the special rights afforded to limp-wrists today, but it remains an evil perversion of the human body and an abomination in the eyes of God. That much has not changed. Every-time The Bible references back to Sodom and Gomorrah it is something it has in mind. The law in Leviticus you are thinking of is at the broadest possible interpretation applicable only to Anal Penatrative Intercourse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 15:50:29 GMT
The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: IntroductionI'm giving this dissertation as a Fundamentalist Christian who takes the Bible literally, who once held the common assumption that it condemns homosexuality. I don’t change my views to appease anyone, but I always try to be polite towards and tolerant of people with different views, including those who may disagree with me on this. My views on this matter changed as a result of my carefully studying (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) all of the passages of Scripture relevant to this issue. Before I explain everything in detail, here is the gist of it. Most of the passages are dealing with Pagan Goddess worship rituals involving Anal intercourse. And the Sin of Sodom was in-hospitality. Now, I also want to make clear, that even when I did hold the common assumption, I was still very different from your typical Fundamentalist on the issue. I never obsessed over it as though it was the main spiritual problem facing the nation; in my view, that’s always been Darwinism. And I’ve never liked homophobes. Nothing is more offensive or blasphemous to me than to accuse God of hating anyone. “God is Love”- 1 John 4:8; and Jesus said to “love your enemies”. As Chuck Missler often says, “there is no sin God doesn’t hate but no sinner God doesn’t love“. He gave his only begotten Son to die for us, hatred is not in his vocabulary. It is of course only a loud minority of Christians who make the offensive statement that he hates homosexuals. But the majority of “conservative” Christians are also under the common misconception that the Bible condemns homosexuality, which is why I’m doing this. Details matter. Some will say I’m twisting things around to try and change what to them is the clear plain reading of the text. Many of these same Christians however will be unlikely to defend the out of context plain reading of many other verses in the KJV and other modern English translations as they're frequently cited by unbelievers to allege contradictions or make God look cruel. I believe that the design of God’s Word is perfect and precise, and every detail both of what it does and does not say is important. Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Jot/Yot/Yod is the smallest and most frequently used letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It would look to us like an apostrophe. A tittle is a small decorative hook on many letters. One doesn’t really need a brief Hebrew lesson to understand this, the point being that every detail of God’s Word matters, even the little ones, because seemingly insignificant details can make a world of difference, as any good detective would tell you. Independent Baptists who are KJV-Only are the Christians most likely to be hostile to this interpretation. This is what makes my holding this view even more surprising, because I do basically consider myself an Independent Baptist. But being Independent means I don‘t just blindly follow what a Pastor tells me the Bible says, but rather I look it up for myself. I’m also basically KJV-Only, since I absolutely consider the King James Authorized Version to be the best English translation; it’s always the one I default to using. And I absolutely reject the changes made in modern translations based on the Alexandrian Manuscripts and the textual criticisms of Wescott and Hort, such as removing many critical occurrences of the word 'Blood'. Unlike some KJV-Only believers however, I do acknowledge certain imperfections of the KJV. It is in fact impossible to perfectly translate either Hebrew or Greek into English. NONE of those imperfections effect the Gospel, but some will be relevant to passages I will discuses on this issue. Unlike many KVJ-Onliers I do not discourage studying the original Hebrew and Greek; in fact I encourage it. I believe the Masorectic should be used for the Hebrew, and the Textus Receptus for the Greek (the sources for the KJV) are what should be relied upon. Thing is though I do also believe even the KJV renderings are not blanket condemnations of all homosexual or even all male homosexual affection. And in some cases it's simply a matter of understanding the context of what those words meant in 1611 rather then what man has changed them to mean today. In fact in some cases the modern versions are more blatantly anti Homosexual then the KJV. Which tells me the perception that The Bible condemns Homosexuality is something Satan really wants to promote. There is a popular meme out there that a "Lesbian goddess worshiper" helped write the NIV and that's why it removed Sodomite. Regardless of if such a person was involved however the NIV does blatantly condemn Homosexuality in the New Testament. In verses where the KJV is more ambiguous. The point is, the common understanding of the relevant verses is based on just casually reciting the way they're usually rendered in modern English without putting much thought into them. What I have done is put a lot of thought and study into it - always under the starting premise that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inherent Word of God, using Scripture to interpret Scripture and doing so logically and consistently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 15:52:27 GMT
The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Sin of SodomSodom and GomorrahEven back when I was still under the impression homosexuality was a sin, I never agreed with the view that homosexuality was "The Sin of Sodom". Neither did anyone in Pre-Christian times, absolutely no Jewish source or commentary (Philo is the only exception, he was a Platonist) would claim it was. I don’t believe it’s accurate to label anything "The Sin" of Sodom, I see Sodom and Gomorrah as places where it world be easier to list what sins they weren't committing. But many Jewish sources, including the Talmud and Midrashim, see in-hospitality, greed, and selfishness as the primary issue in question. Hospitality was and is very important in Semitic/Middle Eastern cultures, far more then it’s ever been in the west, which is part of why Western readers today have trouble getting this part of the point. Twice when the Bible itself later refers to Sodom it’s with this concern. "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Ezekiel 16:48-50, and Jesus himself, when he sends the Apostles out in Matthew 10:1-15 and Luke 10:1-12, compares to Sodom and Gomorrah those who are inhospitable to his disciples. (In The Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where Gibeah, a city of the Benjamin tribe, is destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in revenge for a mob of its inhabitants raping and killing a woman.) Hebrews 13:2 which famously says "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Is there to encourage Hospitality, and what Paul mainly had in mind was Genesis 18, which is part of the same narrative as Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. So that's two New Testament witnesses that Hospitality is what's in mind here. Leviticus 19 also demonstrates how Hospitality was an important value in the Mosaic Law. It's funny actually how some modern politically conservative Christians want to impose Leviticus 18 and 20 on modern America, but won't mention the following passage of the in-between chapter when discussing Immigration. Verses 33 and 34. Verse 34 draws on the phrase from the earlier verse 18 that is the only Leviticus statement ever directly quoted by Jesus, it's what he labels it the second greatest commandment. "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." This notion of reminding the Israelites that they where strangers in Egypt is something God often does when telling them to be kind to their strangers. This is why Egypt is paired with Sodom when Jerusalem "spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt" in places like Revelation 11, where they celebrating he martyrdom of God's two messengers. God is condemning Jerusalem for it's in-hospitality. In Genesis 19, a sexual act is threatened in the narrative, but it's an act of rape, gang rape specifically, and is thus sinful regardless of the genders involved. Rape back then as now is more about Power then Sex, male on male rape particularly is about humiliation. That's the reason for Prison Rape, those men aren't actually of a Homosexual orientation. Yet I have critics of my view then asking me with a mocking tone"so what it Rape or In-Hospitality". And I just rolls my eyes. Can they really not figure out that raping a guest in your home or visitor in your town is the ultimate in-hospitality? In various key verses of Genesis 18 and 19 the word you see translated "men" is actually 'enowsh (en-oshe') Strong # 582 (in it's plural form). Enosh is not actually a gender specific term, if the author wanted to be gender specific here he’d have used either iysh or zakar. Enosh is closer to how Adam is used, as a references to all humans. Enos was the name of an ancestor of Noah in Genesis 4 and 5, in other words we are all descendants of Enos just as we are of Adam. Elsewhere even the KJV simply translated it "persons". The Sodom and Gomorrah narrative uses it both of the angel visitors and those who seek to attack them. Genesis 19:4 says “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:” The italics are Enosh, as seen by what I put in bold, it’s clearly NOT just the males doing this. I think it’s very conceivable it’d have been just the women actually screwing them and the men would have just watched, some people are into that sort of thing. I've recently read some of Ken Johnson's material ('Ancient Post-Flood History: Historical Documents That Point to Biblical Creation' and 'Ancient Paganism: The Sorcery of the Fallen Angels'), he has a fixation on the so called "Book of Jasher" (which he also has an entire book dedicated to, which I don't have yet but I'm sure he makes the same statement). He believes the medieval Midrash Jasher is the "Jasher" mentioned in Joshua and Samuel, but I the real Jasher we don't have. But at any rate, when mentioning what Chapter 18 of this Pseudo-Jasher has to say about Sodom and Gomorrah, he unfortunately shoehorns homosexuality into it. Not even the text as he quotes it say anything emphasizing a homosexual nature to the men of Sodom, but instead do give many details testifying to their evident heterosexuality. Jasher 18, verses 13 and 14 reads "And all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah went there four times in the year, with their wives and children and all belonging to them, and they rejoiced there with timbrels and dances. And in the time of rejoicing they would all rise and lay hold of their neighbor's wives, and some, the virgin daughters of their neighbors, and they enjoyed them, and each man saw his wife and daughter in the hands of his neighbor and did not say a word." Reading from verse 16 onwards however, the emphasis is on in-hospitality; it's discussed far more than any sexual issues. Verse 16 "the people of these cities would assemble, men, women and children, young and old, and go to the man and take his goods by force". And it lists many other examples of their ill treatment of visitors. www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/18.htmlThis isn't the only thing he gets wrong either. His scholarship is horrible and I absolutely would not recommend his books to any young Christian not already well informed on these subjects. Another extra-Biblical source would be Clement of Rome, besides the Didache perhaps our oldest extra-Biblical Christian document. He too refereed to Sodom when discussing Hospitality. Jude verse 7 is often cited by Chuck Missler and others as confirming the sin of Sodom was sexual in nature. I’m a fan of Chuck’s but we have disagreements, and here I’m actually going to use some of Chuck’s own arguments against him. The sin Jude is concerned with does have a sexual nature to it, but it’s not homosexual. Here are both verses 6 and 7 as they read in the KJV “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” I have put "strange" in bold for a reason. The irony of trying to say this is condemning Homosexuality is that the word translated strange here is Heteros (het'-er-os) Strong # 2087, which is the word the hetero part of the word Heterosexual comes from. Homios means the same kind while Heteros means a different kind. In New Testament times neither was combined with a word meaning sexual to imply orientation, that is a modern development. Both words are commonly translated "another". Chuck Missler will often make points about there being 2 different words for "another" in Greek, Homios meaning "another" of the same kind, while Heteros means another of a different kind. But he fails to acknowledge that they're not always translated "another", and that Heteros is used here. Homios is part of what’s translated “like manner” to indicate this being the same kind of sin addressed in the previous verse. I personally would in this verse translate Heteros as Alien, “Alien flesh” (Some scholars have already suggested that before me). We do know from various references to the Raphaim that the region where Sodom and Gomorrah was located was a center of Nephilim activity, the servants of Satan trying to repeat what they did before The Flood as explained in Genesis 6 which Jude alludes to in verse 6. 2 Peter 2:4-10 also mentions that and Sodom & Gomorrah together in the context of explaining the signs of the end times. Chuck talks about this subject a lot, including “As in the days of Noah” from the Olivet Discourse, but the Luke account of the discourse adds to that a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in 17:28-30. I don’t believe these were the first Angels the people of Sodom had encountered, just the first not fallen ones. And I believe Human and Angel interbreeding is what Jude was referring to. It was rather the opposite of homosexuality; it's how the intended victims were different from their attackers that is the concern. The Testament of Naphtali refers of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 3.3.4-5 refers explicitly to the Women of Sodom having Sex with Angels, with terminology that is similar to Romans 1 interestingly. Another common mistake on this passage, do not leave it with the conclusion that God approves of Lot offering his Daughters. He has the key value the Sodomites do not, Hospitality. But he goes about that in the wrong way. Lot is NOT meant to be an ideal role model, he's consistently depicted as a worldly believer. God never condones what Lot did here, in fact the Angels there as God's agents who clearly understand God's will better then Lot does made sure it didn't happen. What is a Sodomite? The word Sodomite, both singular and plural, often occurs in the KJV of the Hebrew Bible. This term derives from Medieval interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah being about male homosexuality. The way it’s used in many verses in the KJV and some modern Bibles makes it look like the text is referring back to Sodom and Gomorrah. Problem is that’s NOT in the Hebrew text at all. The first occurrence is Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” The reason why this is such an obviously bad rendering, is that in the Hebrew the word rendered Sodomite (Qadesh (kaw-dashe') Strong # 6945) here is actually just the masculine form of the word rendered whore (Q@deshah (ked-ay-shaw') Strong # 4948) . And it’s the same word all 5 times Sodomite occurs, the other 4 occurrences are all in Kings. Once the same word is translated differently by the KJV, in Job 36:14 it’s rendered "unclean". The feminine form is also often rendered "harlot". The feminine form is closer to being translated accurately but not quite. It doesn't refer to just any prostitute (there were other Hebrew words for that), but specifically to Temple prostitutes engaged in ritual prostitution in the cults of goddesses like Astarte and Qedeshtu. The root of the word is "Qedosh" which means "Holy". Every time you see "Holy" in the OT it's "Qedosh", and "Holy One" (a title of the God of Israel) is it's noun form. It derives from similar practices involved in the worship of Inanna in Uruk of ancient Sumer, who later became known as Ishtar in Babylon. The prostitute (male or female) in question played the goddess while a male played the goddess’s husband and they then engaged in ritual sex. From my studies of the contemporary equivalents to this kind of pagan practice, I've coined my own word to be a translation of the term. "Hierogamist" from "Hieros gamos" (holy marriage). It means one who engages in a ritual goddess worshiping sex act. But I will add for the most radical KJV onliers reading this, that in 1611 "Sodomite" and "Sodomy" did not exactly refer to what we today call Homosexuality or even specifically male Homosexuality. The term simply meant Anal sex and could include heterosexual anal intercourse. There will be more on that in the next part. But regardless of how the word is translated. The context of it's occurrences in Kings tell us it's about Canaanite pagan practices. Because it's linked to the tearing down of the Groves (phallic obelisks, named after the goddess Asherah) and High Places.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 15:53:47 GMT
The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Leviticus 18 and 20Regardless of your position on The Law, The Law doesn't condemn Homosexuality. I actually want to start by saying I don't really approve of how the Leviticus verses are commonly written off by other Pro-Gay Christians. Not all of Leviticus is purely ceremonial law. So mocking the idea of Christians citing Leviticus 18 as if it's comparable to "don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" or eating shellfish is just setting yourself to look Biblically illiterate. The main Leviticus verse cited on this subject isn't in the same section as the dietary laws, it's sandwiched between verses on child sacrifice and bestiality. Both things no Liberal would view absurd to consider a Sin, but the latter we would have no Biblical basis for condemning if we went only by the New Testament. Same with the earlier Incest laws. Don't misunderstand, Christian aren't under The Law at all, not even the Decalogue (what we commonly call The Ten Commandments) we're under the New Covenant where God's Law is written on our hearts. My point is however is not all Leviticus verses are on the same level, and all of Leviticus could still be useful to help guide Christians, even the deity laws which had good health reasons behind them. So what's condemned in Leviticus 18 I do view as a sin, and as much a sin now as it ever was. But I don't view it as a blanket condemnation of all Homosexual, Homoerotic or Homo-romantic affection. Thing is I feel the New Testament references I'll need to discus latter are drawing on this Leviticus law, so Leviticus needs to be understood here. The other Leviticus chapter in question is 20, and that one is absolutely not something relevant to New Testament believers in terms of life style. (I won’t call it completely irrelevant because it’s still part of the Inspired Word of God.) Any passages that includes punishments to be carried out for the crime are part of the civil law code of the nation of Israel. For many reasons I believe New Testament believers should be more Libertarian then the Law of Moses was. God had a special arrangement with the nation of Israel, even before Christ I believe he would have always preferred less strict civil laws from Gentile nations, thus his approving of Gentile kings like Cyrus and Artaxerxes. I also believe that on this side of the Cross capital punishment is no longer permitted. Most people don’t see it as significant that the wording of the alleged condemnations of same sex intercourse are all clearly male gender specific. But I believe what The Bible doesn't say can be important. Leviticus 18:23, the verse on bestiality that immediately follows the verse commonly cited as condemning homosexuality, does risk sounding redundant to make it absolutely clear that both men and women are forbidden to lay with animals. Yet verse 22 only appears to refer to "men lying with males", no female equivalent. So logically in my view we have two options, either women are allowed to do something men aren't, or the common modern understanding of the verse is incorrect. While there could be good reasons to argue for the first option (and I'm surprised more people haven't), I feel the second is the correct one as I shall explain. There are two sections to Leviticus 18. The first section is sexual sins, mainly incest but a few others are addressed. Then the focus shifts to Idolatry. Here is the thing, verse 21 is where the change of subject occurs. So while the first two verses after that do have a sexual element to them, it’s not as sexual sins they're being addressed but as idolatrous sins. And that is key to understanding them. The KJV rendering of Leviticus 18:22 is “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Before I get into studying the text, I want to point out that even in this English rendering, "as with Womankind" is clearly at most specifically only referring one specific kind of sex act, penetrative intercourse of some form. ( "lying" alone in Biblical terminology would be enough to imply we were dealing with something sexual.) It means the one thing men can do together that can be seen as an imitation of the unique sex act only a man and woman can do. Now bare with me because I’m going to have to break down pretty much every word here. The first word I’ll address is actually the last, "Abomination". Abomination has become a very loaded word in modern English, being commonly used in Frankenstein type Sci-Fi stories to basically mean a raping of nature itself. And this connotation is what’s meant by how the word is commonly emphasized when certain people quote this verse. A number of Hebrew words are translated abomination, none of them mean unnatural or anything like that, they're all about idolatry. The “Abomination of Desolation” uses a noun that is clearly a Hebrew derogatory term for an Idol itself, but the word translated "Abomination" here is more about the acts affiliated with worshiping Idols and how God views them very negatively. While I rejected above writing off this entire command by comparing it to the dietary and other ceremonial laws. I do think it's valid to address the over emphasis on the word Abomination here by pointing to how it is also used of those kinds of restrictions in the Torah. Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Technically that one is a different word in the Hebrew, but to the most absolute of KJV onliers that is irrelevant. Deuteronomy 14:3 does use the same Hebrew word as Leviticus 18 talking about dietary restrictions, there it is translated "abominable thing". It's also used in Ezekiel 43-44 to refer to Uncircumcised gentiles entering The Temple. I actually think a more accurate translation of the word would be "taboo". The word rendered "lie" is translated perfectly. The word rendered "mankind" is Zakar (Strong # 2145), technically accurate, but based on the first time Zakar is used (Genesis 1) I personally would translate it male or masculine. The word translated "womankind" is ishshah (Strong # 802), again technically accurate but I’d just render it woman, it is also the word for wife. Both are gender identifying words, as you’d expect, but the thing is they're not their main counterparts to each other. Zakar is usually paired with Naqebah (Strong # 5347) including when it‘s first used in Genesis 1:27. Which I would always translate female. And ishshah is the feminine form of iysh (Strong # 376) which is translated both man and husband. Technically none of that makes a drastic difference in the meanings of the words used, but I feel if the gender distinction was all God was concerned with here, he would have been more consistent in what terms he used. The word translated "with" is Mishkab (Strong # 4904), in the verse in chapter 20 this is rendered "lieth". And both those renderings are off, they're not even the right kind of word, it’s a noun not a verb. Of the 46 times the word appears in the Masorectic Hebrew text, 34 of them the KJV accurately translates it bed, 4 times it’s rendered bedchamber and once it’s rendered couch. The two Leviticus verses supposedly about Homosexuality are simply two of 7 verses where the KJV translated it as a verb. I’m not of course the first person to question the common interpretation of this verse, but my approach is different from many. Some have suggested the real intent here is to condemn a husband making love to a male in his wife’s bed. Because in the ancient world the bed in which a married couple made love was considered the wife’s bed, her property or domain. Such concepts do carry over into medieval and renaissance times, you see it on The Tudors in fact. I don’t believe that’s the main concern here, but it is possibly relevant. Now I refer everyone back to the last section of the Sodom and Gomorrah post. What I and many scholars believe is that what’s in mind here is the same practice being performed by the Qadesh male temple prostitutes. The context of idolatry to these verses already established makes that likely, but here is the thing. Specific details of the ceremony often involved the prostitute dressing in female clothing like it was her wedding night, and engaging in the sexual act in a sacred bed said to be the bed of Astarte. Now for Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” The part I put in italics is different in how the KJV renders it, but in the Hebrew is basically identical to 18:22, so just copy and paste everything I said about that. I also already addressed the death penalty aspect. The word at the beginning rendered "man" is iysh. That word is sometimes translated Husband, I've heard some some suggest you have to be married for it to apply but I don't feel quite convinced of that. I know one website online dedicating to arguing this is only about Adultery, I don't feel that works with my understanding of how The Bible defines Adultery. So while homosexual intercourse is relevant, It’s more specific then that. The context is describing a Pagan ritual. To some being involved in a Pagan ritual is enough to condemn it altogether. In my view that's flawed logic, Pagan rituals did many things, including many things very much the same as the Israelites did in worshiping YHWH. Skeptics of the Bible like to point those things out to say the Israelites just grew out of the Canaanite culture. That claim doesn't hold up of course. The Law does condemn many things specifically citing usage in Canaanite rituals as the reason. Most notably that the Israelites were NOT to build altars to the LORD on High Places (mountain tops or hill tops). But in Ezekiel 40-48, when Paganism no longer even exists (and clearly the very geography of Israel has changed) God's Temple is on a High Place. But this command doesn't make doing anything on a High Place a Sin, acts of Worship even of the True God are advised against there. But it's not a Sin to build a house on a hill top, or to even walk on one. It's just about how to properly worship. Leviticus 18:24 and to the end of the Chapter clearly defines the earlier commands in those same terms. "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." But you may be thinking, "in that case isn't beastiality in the same position"? An animal can't consent to sexual relations with a human, beastality is therefore inherently an act of Rape. So even if there never was a single Bible verse specifically on it, Christians should consider it wrong for the same reasons any other act that is abusive to animals is wrong. At the most, you might might be able to convince me it's condemning Anal sex. It is only that form of male on male sex that is viewed as imitating the unique act only a man and a woman can perform. Society has a tendency to view anal sex and male homosexuality as synonymous. But this stereotype is in fact a very flawed assumption, and some studies have shown that only a minority of Gay or Bi men engage in it or like it at all. Example, Magnus Hirschfeld, in his 1914 work, The Homosexuality of Men and Women, reported the rate of anal sex among homosexual men surveyed to be 8%, the least favored of all the practices documented. (William A. Percy and John Lauritsen, Review in The Gay & Lesbian Review, November–December 2002) Likewise, some scholars state that oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men in long-term relationships, and that, in general, anal intercourse is more popular among homosexual male couples than among heterosexual couples, but that "it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation" among both sexual orientations in prevalence. By the 1950s in the United Kingdom, it was thought that about fifteen percent of male homosexuals had anal sex. Other studies very, some about 50/50 and some more recent ones do imply a majority do it, (as if it's popularity has been increasing, perhaps simply from society telling them their supposed to do it). But all clearly have a large number who do not. Many Christians view how the risk of HIV and other STDs are higher with Gay men is itself proof that something is wrong with it. Of course they ignore that those same statistics have Lesbian intercourse as far less risky then Heterosexual. At any rate those statistics are flawed, being in part skewed by gay men being more likely to get tested because they believe their at a greater risk. And the degree to which it is the case is only because of the Anal sex as I discussed above, which does have other health risks too. But that is a big maybe. I stick to my argument that it is the Pagan ritual sex being condemned here. Which contrary to what you might assume does still go on today, in different ways but it does. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some religious cults practiced sacred prostitution as an instrument to recruit new converts. Among them was the alleged cult "Children of God", also known as "The Family", who called this practice "Flirty Fishing". They later abolished the practice due to the growing AIDS epidemic. (Williams, Miriam (1998). Heaven's Harlots. New York: William Morrow/ Harper Collins. p. 320.) In Ventura County, California, Wilbur and Mary Ellen Tracy established their own temple, "the Church Of The Most High Goddess", in the wake of what they described as a divine revelation. Sexual acts played a fundamental role in the church's sacred rites, which were performed by Mary Ellen Tracy herself in her assumed role of High Priestess. Local newspaper articles about the Neopagan church quickly aroused the attention of local law enforcement officials, and in April 1989, the Tracys' house was searched and the couple arrested on charges of pimping, pandering and prostitution. They were subsequently convicted in a trial in state court and sentenced to jail terms: Wilbur Tracy for 180 days plus a $1,000.00 fine; Mary Ellen Tracy for 90 days plus mandatory screening for STDs. "Hieros gamos" (holy marriage) and "Sex Magik" also exist in modern Neo-Pagan and occult movements, just search for those two terms on Wikipedia. As a Libertarian I disagree with such activity being criminalized, on among other things First Amendment grounds. But to a Jew or a Christian it is sinful, being a violation of the first two commandments, and something we should not do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 15:55:20 GMT
The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality: Romans 1First it is imperative to understand the context here. Romans is one of the most important books of The Bible, Chuck Missler often calls it the most definitive statement of Christian doctrine. But it is compartmentalized in it’s focus. The first 8 chapters are NOT about how Christians should live but about fully nailing down the matter of Salvation. That we are justified by Faith alone, other issues being addressed are incidental. Romans 9-11 are about Israel, 9 Israel’s past, 10 Israel’s present and 11 Israel’s future. And when you study them they completely destroy replacement theology, which is what I love about them. The remainder of the book after that addresses how Christians should live. One thing Paul is doing here is addressing the prejudices that exist between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome. All with the purpose of explaining that there is no difference between a Jew and a Gentile when it comes to Salvation. The first chapter is Paul negatively describing Roman (and probably also Greek) culture form a typical Jewish POV, but he goes on in chapter 2 to turn it on it’s head and inform them that they're not any better. Next is that the behavior being described is not itself Rome’s problem, but a product of it. It’s earlier in this chapter that Paul says in verses 19-23 “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because 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. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” We don’t know a whole lot about very early Roman history, thanks to many records being destroyed by the Gaul’s sack of Rome in 390 B.C. But we know from Plutarch that Numa Pompilius, the second Pre-Republic king of Rome had outlawed Idolatry and frequently used Monotheistic terminology, and his outlawing of Idolatry was kept for over 140 years. Cicero in his Nature of The gods makes, (as a Pre-Christian gentile who died around 40 B.C.) all the basic common sense arguments for Intelligent Design that are so well known today. If your unable to find the book to read for yourself, the key passages are quoted here. www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch1.htmlThe sin of Rome was rejecting God as the Creator. And it should be pointed out that the verses in question follows this discussion of Rome's idolatry. Verse 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." But also a Strong Argument can be made that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical speech Paul does not agree with, maybe even him quoting someone Else's words, there are similarities to the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon and Philo that have been pointed out, a lot of words used here are ones Paul uses rarely if ever in the rest of Scripture, it's generally not his usual style. And in Romans 2 he refutes that rant. Now for the two verses in question, 26&27. “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: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” Some take the above wording to make this the one passage that does condemn Female homosexual affection. Even if it is, if you only have one verse on something, you shouldn't build doctrine on it. That’s really not the case however. There is something “unnatural” being done by women we’re told. Then when we’re told men are doing something "likewise", but it’s specified to be homosexual only for the men, even though it‘s the same thing the women are doing. If this is a specific sexual act, then the implication is it’s something that would have to be a homosexual act for a male to engage in it, but not necessarily so for a female, maybe even just the opposite. The primary act that comes to mind that fits that description is being the passive partner during anal sex. But so many people I've argued this with just can't comprehend this. To them Paul clearly says "and likewise also", that means they're doing the same thing as in being same-sex relations. But the concept of orientation is a modern 19th century invention. In terms of the actual acts they perform, Lesbians and Gay men do not do the same thing. In fact what they do is arguably even more different form each other then either is from heterosexual intercourse. Lesbians tend to do things involving the parts of their anatomy unique to women. And male homosexuals that which is unique to males. In no way could they actually be confused as doing the same thing. Only a very modern way of thinking puts them in the same box. "Natural use" clearly means a specific act. In my view that "natural use" being left is the use of standard intercourse involving female anatomy. I could argue "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman". Is what's defining the similarity, and then the elaboration on Homosexuality is something needed only for the Men. The word for woman in both verses is not Gune, the standard Greek word for Woman/Wife. It's Thelus, a word used in total only five times in The New testament. Twice in these verses rendered woman by the KJV, the other three times it's rendered "female". But it's used in a different form both times here. In verse 26 is the only time it's plural. In verse 27 it's used with a special emphasis qhleiaV, while it's just ghlu the times it's clearly refers to female individuals. I could justifiably translate this "leaving the natural use of the female anatomy", because the root from which the word is derived is frequently used in reference to breast feeding. The word translated "use" also means function. It is at least an equally valid interpretation that it means the "natural function" of vaginal intercourse in exchange for anal. Greek is a very precise language, the words translated "receiving" and "recompense", are both economic terms. Meaning in the Greek it’s implied that this is also prostitution of some form. The same kind of ritual prostitution discussed earlier did also go on in ancient Rome, just the names of the goddesses had changed. The words translated "natural" and "nature" don’t quite mean what we mean today by those English words. They simply mean culturally normal. Elsewhere Paul uses the same terminology to call men with long hair unnatural. The phrase translated "against Nature" is also used of God's actions in Romans 11, grating gentiles into the Tree of Israel. 1 Corinthians 11:14-15: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." The word rendered "shame" there is the same as Vile in the Romans verses in question. This passage is the most similar to Romans 1 in-terms of how Paul used those key words. Yet we don't interpret them similarly. There are Pastors who take a more Pharasitic approach to this Corinthians passage then I find appropriate, Paul intends this to be advice for how Christians present themselves, not actual Moral Law. But even they don't interpret this as harshly as they do the Romans 1 usage. The word translated men is Arsen (Strong # 730), I would render it "males" as I tend to view it basically as the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Zakar. This word will be important latter. In his fourth homily on Romans John Chrysostom (Fourth Century) had a very harsh view of the activity being condemned here. "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said: “ But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere.” However, he emphasizes, in P.G. 60:417, col. 1, near bottom of the column,that he (and Paul) is not referring to two men who are in love with one another, but who burn in their appetite for each other. He writes, clarifying Paul's position in Romans 1, “ he did not say that they fell in love [< "eros"] or had passion for each other, but rather that they `burned in their appetite for each other'.” This is not helpful particularly for determining what is in mind here, unless it's just a matter of saying lust is wrong but not love. But it shows even early Church Fathers didn't always necessarily view it as condemning all male homosexual affection. I'd add to pointing out that Paul didn't use the word "Eros" that he didn't use "Agape" either, a word he does use often elsewhere, in contexts that definitely include but aren't limited to Romantic Love between a man and woman. Nor did he use "Phileo", but that tends to have more brotherly love in mind so isn't very relevant. The translation in the Link I provided is. "For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, they burned in their lust one toward another." Still, being post Constantine, Chrysostom's own views were already a product of much Platonic influence on the Early Church. So I'd hardly endorse him. One interpretation I've seen some fellow Pro-Gay rights Christians put forward is that this condemns men who aren't "naturally homosexual" engaging in homosexual acts. That is possibly an element of it, but the question is why, why are these men doing something against their general preference? The cause of this effect is Idolatry. Another incorrect alternative presented by some is that it just condemns the pederastic relationships common in Greek culture. But this is about Rome where that wasn't as condoned. Though sometimes the relationships Roman soldiers had with male slaves is viewed as analogous to that, but it's really not. There is no good indicator that's what's in mind here. Philo on shrine prostitution. “(40) And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually rewards given for intemperance and effeminacy. At all events one may see men-women [androgynes] continually strutting through the market place at midday, and leading the processions in festivals; and, impious men as they are, having received by lot the charge of the temple, and beginning the sacred and initiating rites, and concerned even in the holy mysteries of Ceres [Ceres is another name for Cybele, the fertility goddess first century Romans referred to as the Mater Deum or Mother of the gods]. Remember, Philo lived from 20 BC to AD 40. He probably wrote this around AD 35. (41) And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes... [Philo here describes the castrated Galli priests who served Cybele or other fertility goddesses worshiped in Rome]. (42) But if there was a general indignation against those who venture to do such things, as was felt by our lawgiver..." [Moses was the Jewish Lawgiver. Philo refers to Moses' writings in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17] Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42. Philo of Alexandria, clearly links the same concerns of Torah passages addressing the Qadeshim to things going on in his contemporary society. Also contemporary with Paul. Philo also condemns Pederasty in this same section of his work. But no evidence he considered all homosexual affection a Sin. I'm citing Philo even though he is not always in agreement with me on these issues. He has been cited as being the first to insert Homophobia into the Judeo-Christian tradition, including being the first to suggesting same-sex affection was the Sin of Sodom. I think he did so partly in-response to these Pagan practices that were abhorrent to him, and partly from his Platonic influence. So again, while activity that’s homosexual in nature is relevant, it’s also more specific then that. Paul is not condemning all homosexuals. Now I want to address something I saw one particular Pastor who I don't want to name say on this passage. He takes "For this cause God gave them up" to mean homosexuals (he prefers to say fags and queers) are not even eligible for Salvation anymore. That, really disturbs me. He backs this up by saying that the Bible never commands us to preach the Gospel to Homosexuals. There are a lot of specific groups The Bible doesn't specifically say to preach to, that's why we're simply commanded to Preach it to the WHOLE WORLD. Now, leavening aside for a moment what the sin here is. The concept of God giving people over to a certain Sin appears elsewhere in The Bible. It never renders one ineligible for Salvation, it's often done in reference to people already Saved. This same Pastor happens to agree with me on using the narrative of Saul to back up the Doctrine of Eternal Security. Well the Evil Spirit that troubled Saul came from The LORD. It may or may not be possible for an unsaved person to reach a point where they're not capable of becoming a Believer anymore, the Blasphemy of The Holy Spirit issue is something I still struggle with. But no specific external Sin should be viewed as evidence of such a thing. It's clear from the context of the entirety of the first three Chapters of Romans that no Sin discussed there is meant to be viewed as beyond the Saving Power of the Shed Blood of Jesus. Because he ultimately tells his readers that they're no better then the unsaved Romans they were criticizing. This video's approach to Romans 1 is mostly compatible with my own. I wouldn't recommend the companion videos on the other passages as much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 15:56:40 GMT
The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Corinthians and TimothyArsenokoites (Strong # 733) and Malakos (Strong # 3120) Here is the KJV rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9&10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” How to translate two words that appear in the Greek of this passage is the final issue of my dissertation. The word rendered "effeminate" is Malakos. Malakos is used three other times in the Bible, but in none of those occasions as a title of some specific sin as it clearly is here, and they're certainly not sexual in nature. On those three (twice in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25) occasions the KJV renders it "soft". Both passages Jesus is using it to describe people in royal courts who live decadent lifestyles. The context here appears to be sexual in nature, following adulterers, but it can’t be known for certain, these two words, if they're sexual, end the sexual section, and are followed by economic sins. Instances of the use of Malakos in earlier secular literature are: Herodotus: Histories 7.153 & 13.51; Aristophanes: Wasps 1455, Plutus 488; Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics 1150a:33; Plato: Republic 556c. Here it can have sexual connotations, but not homosexual. Aristotle says specifically that "Malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. This kind of fits with Jesus linking it to decadence. The Aristotle work in question does discus homosexual acts, but doesn't link Malakos to them. But even the extent to which "effeminate" could be accurate, what calling a Man "effeminate" meant in Ancient Greeco-Roman culture was not exactly the same as today. For one thing, in Rome particularly, a man behaving effeminately for the sake of attracting a sexual partner was probably seeking women. Back then Men looked down on "girly men" like they do today, and that tended to include those men who had homosexual inclinations. And I know it's trendy to act like women being attracted to feminine looking men is some new fad inflicted on the modern world by Pop Boy Bands and Twilight, but it's really not. Adonis was a pretty boy in Greek mythology, not a muscular hairy perfect manifestation of masculinity like people want to in-part on the word today. Traits the ancient Greeco-Romans considered "effeminate" included such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments. Again, all this backs up how Jesus linked Malakos to decadence. If Paul had meant Crossdressers as people tend to take him to mean now days, he'd have probably used androgynes like Philo did. Arsenokoites is what’s rendered abusers of themselves with mankind. It appears elsewhere in scripture only once, another writing of Paul. 1 Timothy 1:10 “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” is the KJV rendering. The italics is how the word in question is rendered. More modern Bible translations often render this word simply Homosexuals, Homosexual offenders, practicing homosexuals, or Sodomites. In this case the KJV is less indisputably about simply Homosexuality then most more modern ones. Because it uses words like "Abusers" or "Defilers". Yes I know from the current standard conservative POV homosexuality is itself an Abuse or a Defileing. But that's not how you build doctrine. It's interesting that King James himself was a Bisexual, but disapproved of "buggery", a British slang term for Anal intercourse. (Those who deny King James was in any way Queer base their evidence solely on his love for his wife and that he disapproved of "buggery".) The complication with this word is that Paul appears to have coined it himself. These two verses are the only known pre-second century examples of it being used at all. There were a number of Greek words for male-male Homosexual behavior Paul could have used, like erastês and erômenos, androkoitēs, paiderastia, catamite, arrenomixia, androbateo, androbates, arrenomanes, maiandro or ganymede. A popular from of the traditional view is that Malakos means the passive partner and Arsenokotis the active partner. However if that was Paul's intent he's have used erastês and erômenos. Arsenokoites is a compound word, combining Arsen (which was already mentioned in the study on Romans 1), and the other is Koite (Strong # 2845) which literally means bed but can be an idiom for sex. Compound words are not as easy to decipher as they look. Lady-killer doesn't mean “Lady who kills” or “Killer of ladies”. One interpretation is offered by Paul R. Johnson for “Second Stone” magazine titled “A New Look at Arsenokoitais” (1994 January/February issue). In this article he wrote: “The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means ‘the male who has many beds’. The word arsen means ‘male’, the adjective o means ‘the’, and the term koitais is defined as ‘many beds’. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy.” Problem is I also disagree that The Bible only approves of absolute Monagamy. And it's also in plural here because all the words listed are. A common theory is that it derives from the Septuagint renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Where Zakar is translated Arsen and Mishkab is rendered Koite, and they are used right next to each other. I tend to reject the assumption that NT authors used the Septuagint, but it could likely have looked that way in any Greek rendering, including if Paul constructed one himself. It is possible that Paul might have been referring to the same thing he addressed before in Romans, where he used the word Arsen. This view is the only option available really that uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. But the issue then is, what was Leviticus actually referring to? I addressed that and also Romans. Some early Christian writings turn the word into a verb as arsenokoitia. None of the early uses of the word are apparently using it to mean homosexuals. And some contradict it, like John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, around A.D. 575. “One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling , and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones. One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both). [Jacob with Leah and Rachel] Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one's son; another the wife of one's brother. It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father's concubine. Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.” Seems not to imply inherently Homosexual. It's confusing frankly cause it isn't even clear if he's left the subject of Incest when he uses this word. I have my own separate study on incest restrictions in The Bible, which does not exactly agree with this commentary on the subject. There was also found an old inscription in a house in Greece somewhere that says "Beware a male arsenokoite". So again, further evidence it was a sin women could commit with men as well as men could. I believe the word is probably another reference to Temple Prostitution/sacred-marriage, or at most specifically Anal intercourse. Either way it’s certainly not a blanket condemnation of Homosexuality as a whole. Around the year 2 B.C. Strabo (VIII,6,20) in his geographic/historical description of the town of Corinth wrote some remarks concerning female temple servants in the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, which perhaps should be dated somewhere in the period 700-400 B.C.:[See Introduction in [Baladié]. The fragment is in Geographika VIII,6,20] “The temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it employed more than a thousand hetairas,[The Greek εταίρα (hetaira) means literally: female companion, female mate.] whom both men and women had given to the goddess. Many people visisted the town on account of them, and thus these hetairas contributed to the riches of the town: for the ship captains frivolously spent their money there, hence the saying: ‘The voyage to Corinth is not for every man’. (The story goes of a hetaira being reproached by a woman for not loving her job and not touching wool,[One of the main tasks of these women was the processing of wool (source: [Radt,6], p. 484)] and answering her: ‘However you may behold me, yet in this short time I have already taken down three pieces’.)” [The Greek text has here a blue pun which is hardly translatable. ιστός means: 1) (the standing posts of a) weaving loom (n.b.: ancient Greece initially knew the vertical loom); 2) mast; 3) (metonym.) woven tissue. καθει̃λον ιστους means then, firstly: taking down the woven web from the loom; secondly: lowering the mast. Thirdly the hint on ‘lowering’ some other kind of ‘mast’. (Sources: Greek dictionary, [Baladië], [Radt,2], [Radt,6].)] The text in more than one way hints at the sexual business of those ladies. Remarks elsewhere of Strabo (XII,3,36: “women earning money with their bodies”) as well as Athenaeus (XIII,574: “in the lovely beds picking the fruits of the mildest bloom”) concerning this temple describe this character even more graphic. In 464 B.C., a man named Xenophon, a citizen of Corinth who was an acclaimed runner and winner of pentathlon at the Olympic Games, dedicated one hundred young girls to the temple of the goddess as a sign of thanksgiving. We know this because of a hymn which Pindar was commissioned to write (fragment 122 Snell), celebrating "the very welcoming girls, servants of Peïtho and luxurious Corinth".[(French) Trans. Jean-Paul Savignac for les éditions La Différence, 1990.] So Cornith was another ancient center of Temple Prostitution. None of these references confirm Males being used in the same purpose as we know happened with the Ancient Canaanites, but it still could have been likely. But again, maybe it's wrong even to assume the word Arsenokoitis refereed to men, though ending with an "s" in Greek is usually Grammatically Masculine, though some exceptions exist. Or it could be he's talking about the Men who are the clients of the Temple Prostitutes, or maybe both. You may be thinking, "if you're saying it's so difficult to even know what this word means doesn't that hurt the idea of The Bible being inspired? Why would the Holy Spirit use a word he knew would be obscure?" Well that's why I somewhat support the theory of connecting it to Leviticus 18:22, that's the only approach that qualifies as using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, everything I've pointed out just helps back up my view that to Paul Leviticus 18:22 meant the same thing I argued it meant. But we're not supposed to build Doctrine on Vice Lists (not moral doctrine), vice lists just say, so and so are sinners, but once your saved you're not longer considered whatever type of sinner you are, your name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, which means at the White Throne we're judged based on Christ's works not our own. You may lose your rewards or inheritance from continuing in those sins, but not your Salvation. So for that reason it doesn't matter too much how certain we are what these verses refer to. I have read some attempts to justify why Paul needed to invent a word rather then just use ones that already existed while maintaining it's all Homosexual behavior. Two of them are exact opposites. One argued that the other terms are to broad (My whole objection to saying it condemns all same-sex affection is that that is too broad). Many examples they say are about any non reproductive sex particularly Anal, but don't these same Christians also think of those as sins? In arguing that Androkoites is too broad they assert "Andros can also mean Mankind/Humanity" this plainly wrong, Anthropos is the Greek for Mankind/Humanity, Andros is frequently clearly used as the counterpart to Gune which means woman. The Bible never uses Andros but it does use Anthropos in contexts clearly not meant to exclude women. Even so that doesn't change that no idiot would think a condemnation of Androkoites was any sex with a human being. Another argued that Androkoites is too specific. That Andros means "adult male" and thus Androkoites excludes Pedastry. Why wouldn't Paul just use more then one word and list Pedastry as a separate sin? But if the motive for constructing Arsenokoites to to be broad in it's same-sex condemnation, then it means something that he still constructed a word that cannot include Lesbianism. Maleness is quite inherent in it, if it was a sin that could be committed by a woman or with a woman, or that a woman could be the victim of (which is implied by some Extra-Biblical uses of it) they'd have to do it with or to a male, or be something a male does to or with them. If The Holy Spirit wanted to create a Greek term equivalent to our Homosexual, the Homo part does in fact come from Koine Greek, Homios, which means "the same" or "likewise". If Paul had constructed Homiokoites no one would have thought any other sameness was being forbidden to have sex with, most sex was between people of the same nation/tribe back then since the world wasn't as globalized yet, the exceptions were often scandalous. And Christians are advised to only have relations with people of the same faith. To others the comparison to androkoites is key. If Androkoites means male same-sex acts, and Arsen is basically a synonym of Andros, then how can Arsenokoites mean something different? Again constructing composite words is complicated, sometimes the entire reason when creating a new one to replace one word in an existing one with a synonym is to prevent confusion when something different is very much your intent. Both words likely have something to do with males and beds/sex, but putting those two nouns together could have lots of meanings, and one meaning "male homosexual" was already covered. Mostly they argue for it drawing on Levitcus to prove their point. But that presumes what Leviticus is about is being interpreted correctly. And to me how Arsneokoites was used by many post Paul authors shows the word certainly could have been about ritual anal sex, which is what I argued Leviticus 18:22 is about. Some of the earliest extra-Biblical uses of the word are in Vice lists that are not of Sexual sins but of economic or exploitative sins. In the second century Apocryphal Acts of John, John condemns a rich man of Ephesus. You who delight in gold and ivory and jewels, do you see your loved (possessions) when night comes on? And you who give way to soft clothing, and then depart from life, will these things be useful in the place where you are going? And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band. ...So, men of Ephesus, change your ways; for you know this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers shall go naked from this world and come to eternal misery and torment (section 36) Sexual sins are denounced earlier in section 35, effectively a different list. The two times Paul uses it are also next to Sins of an economic or exploitative nature, next to thieves in Corinthians and Manstealers in Timothy. It could be some form of Sex-Slavery is in mind. Which could overlap with forms of Temple Prostitution, since as I already showed some women were sold to Sex Goddess temples without their own consent. It's also used in a similar fashion in the Jewish Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10. This reference could work against the assumption Paul invented it, it's date of origin in uncertain but it's not Christian in origin, rather Hellenistic Judaism. However most scholars agree it's under gone some Christian redaction. Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life. Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.) Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly. Nothing here is a sexual sin except disputably arsenokoitein Another vice list in the same book is primarily about Sexual sins, 2.279-82. Theophilus of Antioch in his treatise addressed to Autolychus, has a vice list that begins with sexual sins, then lists three economic or exploitative sins, then Arsenokoites, then more sins that are not sexual. He does latter in the same work have another list listing it next to Sexual sins, but also next to greed and idolatry. Hippolytus of Rome used it in Refutation of All Heresies 5.26.22-23. Hippolytus claims to be passing along a Gnostic myth about the seduction of Eve and Adam by the evil being Naas. Naas came to Eve, deceived her, and committed adultery with her. He then came to Adam and "possessed him like a boy (slave)." This is how, according to the myth, moicheia (adultery) and arsenokoitia came into the world. The language about Naas's treatment of Adam, indeed, which could be read "taking or possessing him like a slave," could connote exploitation and even rape. The context allows a reading of arsenokoitia to imply the unjust and coercive use of another person sexually. The third-century writer Bardesanes is quoted in Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel 6.1 0.2 5. Bardesanes is remarking that the peoples who live east of the Euphrates River take the charge of arsenokoitia very seriously: "From the Euphrates River all the way to the ocean in the East, a man who is derided as a murderer or thief will not be the least bit angry; but if he is derided as an arsenokoités, he will defend himself to the point of murder. [Among the Greeks, wise men who have lovers (ermenous echontes, males whom they love; "favorites") are not condemned]" The text seems to have gone through some corruption in transmission. The sentence in brackets does not occur in the Syriac fragments of Bardesanes's text or in the other ancient authors who seem to know Bardesanes's account, leading Jacoby, the editor of the Greek fragments, to suggest that Eusebius himself supplied the comment. (Ibid.; see also Die Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen in Rufius Übersetzung, rev. 1 ed. Bernard Rehm, earlier ed. Georg Strecker (Berlin: Akademie, 1994), , 284-87.) Thus Eusebius's text would provide evidence only that he or other post-Constantine Christian scribes wanted to equate arsenokoités with Homosexuality. Hippolytus and Eusebius are the oldest references that even come close to using it in a way that backs up viewing it as Homosexuality. Hippolytus is recounting a Gnostic myth in a work dedicated to condemning the Gnostics, Augustinin sexual morality comes from Augustine's Gnostic background. And Eusebius was a leader in the post Constantine agenda to reconcile Christianity with socially conservative Roman culture. On the subject of the last issue I addressed at the end of the Romans study. Reading on in 1 Corinthians 6 it's clear that there where Christians saved out of every Sin being listed here. And that is the end of my dissertation, I hope I have succeeded in opening minds and increasing knowledge of God’s Word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 15:57:48 GMT
The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Condoned Homosexual AffectionPossible Homosexual relationships in The Bible. I wasn't originally going to cover this at all, but I've decided I should. None of these are provable beyond any shadow of a doubt, they're all ones that have been speculated about before; on all but the first I’ll cover my position is, it's very likely. An important thing to remember is people didn’t think in “Orientations” like we do now, it was much more normal for Sexuality to be "Fluid". And men weren’t as insecure about their masculinity. I for one don’t like to put people in boxes; I think most people are more capable of being “Bisexual” then they might realize. Ruth and Naomi Some people see a Lesbian affection here, but I think that Ruth saw Naomi as a surrogate mother. At any rate, Ruth's expression of devotion to Naomi is often cited in wedding ceremonies. Symbolically, their relationship is how the relationship between the Church (Ruth) and Israel (Naomi) is supposed to be. David and Jonathon Probably the most infamous Bromance in the Bible (Yes I actually used that word in reference to a Biblical relationship). There are 3 things in the narrative mainly that make people see a possible romantic affection between the 2. 1. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.” The thing about Jonathon disrobing here is that it’s symbolic of his normal right as Saul’s successor being given to David. 2. 1 Samuel 20:30 “Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?” This is often read as Saul suspecting such a relationship, and not being happy about it. But the main issue here is he’s accusing Jonathon of betraying his own family. An unrelated note “son of the perverse rebellious woman” is a pretty good literal translation of the Hebrew phrase used here, but the thing lost in translation is that it’s also a vulgarity, some translations have rendered it “Son of a Bitch” but I don’t think even that is harsh enough to convey Saul’s intent here, but also that expression has become more of a generic insult then what Saul is saying. 3. From David’s song mourning Saul and Jonathon’s deaths. 2 Samuel 1:26 “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.” That too can be interpreted different ways. Also the timing to remember is this was written well before what would become David's most significant female relationship, Bathsheba. People who like to compare various Biblical narratives to other myths from Pagan mythology, like to equate David and Jonathon with various mythical heroic Bromances, which are also often interpreted to have homosexual undertones. Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Herakles and Iolaus, Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades, Alexander and Hephaestion ect… Modern examples of relationships following this pattern include Hamlet and Horatio, Echolat and Simolor Holmes and Watson, Batman and Robin, Frodo and Sam, House and Wilson ect… The flaw in such an analogy is those follow a more clear Mentor/Student or Hero/Sidekick pattern, in this Biblical example Jonathon is older and yet is the lesser figure. Daniel Chapter 1 verse 9 “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. ” Again, we don’t have a great deal of detail, but it is interesting. The New Testament Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Tell the story of a Centurion who asked Jesus to heal his “Servant” and shows greater faith then all the children of Israel as he knows Jesus can heal him without even being present. The word translated servant has some ambiguity involved, it was common in Rome for soldiers to be engaged in homosexual relationships with younger servants or pupils. Some think this was such a relationship and I think that’s highly possible. Then there is what Jesus says in Matthew 19 verses 11 and 12. “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Clearly more then standard definition of “Eunuch” is what Jesus has in mind here. Some see it as simply referring to people for whom a vow of Chastity would be easier than others, or people who are Asexual. But some see him as possibly having Homosexuals, or Transgender/Transsexual or Intersex people ect… I think all those readings could have some truth to them. I feel like adding, that any Christian who objects to transgender people by saying “God doesn’t make mistakes” does not fully understand Genesis. God only directly created 2 people, Adam, and then Havvah who he cloned from a sample of Adam’s DNA. We are merely imperfect copies of Adam, because of the Fall in Genesis 3 genetic mistakes often happen, and screw ups in the Gender defining chromosomes/hormones ect… can certainly be among those. Remember Biblically we all consist of 3 components, the Body, the Spirit and the Soul. So yes I think a person meant to be a Man could be born in a biologically female body, or visa versa. And I don’t think such a person seeking an operation would be wrong. A person born blind seeking an operation to restore their sight certainly isn’t. I feel now like directing readers to John Chapter 9.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 16:00:58 GMT
Plato, Augustine, and Traditional ChristianityWe are used to thinking of Calvinism and Catholicism as adversaries. Catholics like to define all Protestants (and Evangelicals who they don't consider distinct) based on Calvinism, calling it "Reformed Theology". And Calvinists too like to see themselves as the only true full rebels from Popery and label belief in Free Will as inherently Catholic. However the truth is Catholicism and Calvinism are two sides of the same coin. That coin being Augustine, and the mint in which it was forged was Plato. Calvinists are among the Protestants who in my view made a serious mistake by only rejecting about 1000 years worth of institutionalized error, and choose to prop up the "Early Church Fathers" as authoritative just as much as the Catholic Church does. And they may indeed in some areas agree with what those early fathers originally taught more then Catholic dogma does. But I still feel the early fathers were just as guilty of following the doctrine of the Nicolatians. Some I agree with more then others but none I consider authoritative. Pretty much all of the major doctrinal issues Evangelicals have with Catholicism have their roots in Augustine's teachings. He may not have been the first to teach any of them but he played a major role is refining and popularizing them long before the Vatican really formalized any. His main gripe with the Pelegians was their rejection of Infant Baptism. On Mary he affirmed that the Virgin Mary "conceived as virgin, gave birth as virgin and stayed virgin forever". (Augustine of Hippo, De Sancta Virginitate, 18). Calvin was quite open about how much he drew on Augustine. “Further, Augustine is so much at one with me that, if I wished to write a confession of my faith, it would abundantly satisfy me to quote wholesale from his writings.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.63). Augustine originally believed in premillennialism, namely that Christ would establish a literal 1,000-year kingdom prior to the general resurrection, but later rejected the belief, viewing it as carnal. He was the first theologian to expound a systematic doctrine of amillennialism, although some theologians and Christian historians believe his position was closer to that of modern postmillennialists. The medieval Catholic church built its system of eschatology on Augustinian amillennialism, where Christ rules the earth spiritually through his triumphant church, (Blomberg, Craig L. (2006). From Pentecost to Patmos. Apollos. p. 519.). Dominionism follows the same basic error. At the Reformation, theologians such as John Calvin accepted amillennialism. Augustine is also credited with being the father of the Catholic notion of Purgatory, though the gist of that he borrowed from Tertullian, the first Church Father to write in Latin. Augustine was also the first to try and reconcile Christianity with Evolution. In Augustine's De Genesi contra Manichæos, on Genesis he says: "To suppose that God formed man from the dust with bodily hands is very childish. ...God neither formed man with bodily hands nor did he breathe upon him with throat and lips." Augustine suggests in other work his theory of the later development of insects out of carrion, and the adoption of the old emanation or evolution theory, showing that "certain very small animals may not have been created on the fifth and sixth days, but may have originated later from putrefying matter." Concerning Augustine's De Trinitate (On the Trinity), White wrote that Augustine "...develops at length the view that in the creation of living beings there was something like a growth—that God is the ultimate author, but works through secondary causes; and finally argues that certain substances are endowed by God with the power of producing certain classes of plants and animals."(White 1922, p. 53) Augustine is also a major factor in developing the prudish attitudes towards sexual morality of "traditional" Christianity I have spent much time on this blog objecting to. While by no means the first to hold such views, he majorly popularized them. He even goes further with it then most modern Evangelicals or Catholics will at least admit to going. Stating outright it is a Sin to enjoy sex, even between a Husband and Wife for the purpose of reproduction. He also committed the error of thinking Sodom's main Sin was their sexual preferences. None of this means I consider Augustine wrong on everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Like Ron Paul I wish more American Christians would follow his Just War principle. And I'm certainly not questioning his Salvation. But since he's also put a lot of Bad Fruit into Christian history, I feel we should examine his roots. Augustine had been before he converted to mainstream Christianity a follower of Manicheism, a form of Gnosticism. And one that believed quite strongly in both Determinism (Predestination) and that the flesh is inherently evil. Like other Gnostic sects it rejected the Old Testament. Whether or not they were among those that believed the Old Testament God to be an Evil Demiurge I'm unsure. But it seems Augustine's preference was for just rejecting the Old Testament narrative altogether. Many people who convert from one religion to another still bring the baggage of their old Religion with them. And this does include some Christians after getting Saved. Most who don't go over the top trying to be the opposite of how they were before, and will still bring all kinds of ideas with them. What evidence is there Augustine brought Gnostic baggage with him? Some I think is already apparent but there is more. The main thing that kept him from fully embracing mainstream Christianity was his dislike of the Old Testament characterization of an Emotional God who in some areas changes. It was Ambrose convincing him that those Emotions could be allegorized away that converted him. Gnosticism was among many Philosophical traditions influenced either directly or indirectly by Plato. Even Philosophical traditions that predicated themselves on rejecting (at least some of) Plato (like the Epicureans) were still influenced by him (for example Epicurus shared Plato's distaste for Homosexuality). Aristotle, Plato's most notorious direct pupil, also broke with Plato in many areas while agreeing in others. The various descendants of Plato often disagreed with each other. Plotinus, the founder of Neo-Platonism, spent much time attacking the Gnostics, even though he was more similar to the Gnostics then some other Platonists like the Stoics. Plato in Timaeus originates the idea of the Demiurge. A "creator deity" of sorts, but not truly, he merely rearranged and refashioned preexisting chaotic matter. To the Gnostics the Demiurge was an Evil god responsible for cursing humanity with fleshly bodies. Many Gnostics who presented themselves as a form of Christianity identified the Demiurge with the God of the Old Testament, and believed Jesus wasn't that God but a higher deity. But that isn't the only rout to twist Christianity into being Gnostic. Augustine fully admits to being ok with adopting some of those pagan Philosophical ideas into "Traditional" Christianity. Augustine writes: “Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also, that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life, we must take and turn to a Christian use.” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 40, Section 60). Augustine adds: “But they gave their gold and their silver and their garments to the people of God as they were going out of Egypt, not knowing how the things they gave would be turned to the service of Christ. For what was done at the time of the exodus was no doubt a type prefiguring what happens now.” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 40, Section 61). Augustine is forgetting that that Gold was used to make the Golden Calf. Augustine is not the only means by which Gnostic and/or Platonic ideas entered the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many of the Greek Church fathers felt comfortable drawing on Greek writings to appeal to their Greek flocks. Justin Martyr claimed that Socrates and Plato were "unknowing Christians" and the Alexandrian Bishops are also an interesting case. In fact I don't know of an example of an Early Church Father who's writings have survived who was hostile to Plato. Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenized Jew who adopted much of Platonism into his writings. Christians have from very early on liked to cherry pick certain teachings of his to make him sound almost Christian, he did happen to like some of the same key Greek words John did, but those are the same words the Gnostics also liked, like Logos. He is also credited with being the first to interpret the Sin of Sodom as being Homosexuality. Though whether or not he meant all Homosexual acts are a Sin is debatable. There is also Valentinus, who followed a different brand of Gnosticism, and was prominent in Rome around 100-160 AD. According to Tertulian he almost became Bishop of Rome. Bob Hill explains: “The Manichaeans stressed rational inquiry over authority. Augustine agreed with this method of ascertaining truth. The Manichaeans disliked the Old Testament because it revealed an angry emotional God. ... The Manichaeans believed God could not be mutable and retain his perfection. Augustine accepted this rationalistic philosophy as true and attempted to prove this doctrine with Scripture.” “Augustine agreed with the Manichaeans that a mutable God was totally unacceptable. In this conflict between the Platonic doctrine of immutability and the literal interpretation of Scriptures, what had to change? Augustine’s answer was that the literal interpretation of Scripture had to change. For Augustine the plain narratives of Scripture had to be reinterpreted by spiritual or allegorical methods to agree with his philosophical presuppositions. The Manichaeans believed the Old Testament revealed a God who was mutable or could repent. Since the Platonists believed that God was immutable this idea of God repenting was a source of ridicule for the Church. Augustine was so embarrassed by these arguments that he chose to reinterpret Scripture rather than refute the Platonic philosophy.” (Calvinism Unmasked, chapter 2). Even many modern Catholics and Protestants are unashamed of their Greek Philosophical influences. Webster Tarply, is a fellow Conspiracy Theorist who's research I find helpful. He is regardless a devout Catholic, who condemns the Protestant Reformation for "rejecting Plato in favor of Aristotle". He's talking about the Politics mainly which confuses me because he seems to have the Politics of Plato and Aristotle switched around. Plato's Republic was the original Communist Utopia (and I suspect a strong influence on Thomas Moore's (who advocated Freedom of Speech yet burned 6 Protestants at The Stake) Utopia). Aristotle directly criticized the Communism of The Republic. Republic was the hypothetical Communsit Utopia while Laws was the Socialist/Statist system he actually intended to implement. Not unlike how Socialism and Communism relate today. It recommends laws restricting every area of life. Including laws against "excessive wealth" making it not a Free Market system at all. Aristotle was by no means Libertarian, but his views were much closer to what being a "Republic" means to modern Americans. I've also seen Plato and Aristotle quoted by Christians on WVCY as supporting their call for Censorship of Rock and other Secular Music. People are often mistakenly led to believe Plato was a pro Same-Sex love author because of the Homoerotisism in his Dialogues. But only one character generally in each Dialogue represents Plato's own views (and that character is presented as the wisest). usually this is "Socrates", but in The Laws it's the unnamed Athenian. In Aristotle's critique of Laws he refers to this person as Socrates, which has caused some scholars think he wasn't originally unnamed. Although the character "Socrates" concedes the supreme status of chaste love between males, any positive statements about homosexual sex all come from the less wise characters, never from "Socrates" himself. On the contrary, the wise character is confronted with a society in which same-sex sexuality is prevalent, and wishes to find ways to discredit it with an aim to abolishing it altogether. If Plato's work has a lot of seemingly positive ancient characterizations of homosexuality, that is only because those positive characterizations were current in his world. They are the starting point from which Plato wishes to lead his followers and his society into exclusive heterosexuality in marriage. The original definition of "Platonic Love" was not how it's commonly used today, love that isn't romantic or sexual. It was originally Plato's ideal of Love that was Romantic and maybe even Erotic to a certain extent but ultimately Chaste, no sex or at least no orgasm, and certainly no penetration. In the Republic, the Laws, and his other works, Plato sought to devise a system of education that would promote what he considered to be the qualities of an ideal man: wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage. Sexuality was fundamentally dangerous and antithetical to his project, so he said, because it was characterized by mental frenzy as opposed to rationality (Republic 403) and because sexual acts failed to teach courage to one partner (the passive) and temperance to the other (the active) (Laws 836). The only justification for sexuality to exist at all was for procreation. Therefore, all sexuality outside of marriage should be forbidden by law (Laws 838-9). "If only that were possible!" he laments (Laws 835). Getting everyone to agree to this moral code would be difficult, but once it was established it would perpetuate itself, if only all people could somehow be prevented from ever contradicting or denying it (Laws 838). He offers various potential means for establishing the acceptance of such a moral code, including telling children at an impressionable age that non-marital sex is hated by God (Laws 838), that abstinence from sex represents a victory even more glorious than any athletic or military victory, and that failure to be abstinent is ugly and makes you lower than the animals (Laws 840). He also suggests requiring that people hide their sexual practice, so that the sight of some people enjoying sex would not become an enticement to others (Laws 841). Finally, one could simply enact a law forbidding all homosexual sex and all sex outside of marriage or concubinage (Laws 841). Two books on the subject of Homophobia originating with Plato are Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia by Robert H. Allen and Plato or Paul?: The Origins of Western Homophobia by Theodore W., Jr. Jennings. I shall copy the part of Laws in question here. There is speculation that Plato's ideas on Sexual Morality and many other things came from Zoroastrianism. Manicheism drew even more on Zoroastrianism having developed in Persia (modern Iran) for much of it's history. Zoroastrianism is often called the first Monotheistic religion (by those who teach the deception that Judaism wasn't always Monotheistic) but it's really Dualisim. It's Satan figure and God figure are equal, unlike in the Abrahamic Faiths. Another theory is Plato got it from the Pathagoreans. The strict reproductive sex only morality Laws sought to codify does seem consistent with the cosmology laid out by the title character in Timaeus who was a Pathagorean. Timaeus is also the main Platonic text that was drawn on by the Gnostics in forming their cosmology. The primary work taken to label Plato as approving of Same-Sex love is Symposium. Symposium is one of his early works while Republic, Timaeus, Critias and Laws are much later works. Thus some have suggested that Plato's view of Homosexuality changed at some point, perhaps as a result of encountering Pathagorens in Italy, like Robert H. Allen. But I also think Symposium is being a bit satirical, the drunk pretentious partiers wax poetical about male-male love (and it even includes in Aristophanes speech the only positive statement about female same-sex love from a male Greek writer) when it's an abstract. But at the end once someone starts actually trying to get laid it shows it's trues color (in Plato's eyes) as being embarrassing and demeaning. Diodorus Sicilus was another Philosophically minded Ancient Greek who wrote against Homosexuality. In his History, 32.10.9.3. Pagan Roman culture was very socially conservative, contrary to our popular modern stereotypes. And Ovid, an important Roman poet of the first century BC argued that Homosexuality was unnatural in his Metamorphosis 9.758. Also from Ovid, Ars Amatoria 2.683–684; Pollini, "Warren Cup," p. 36. All the accusations of homosexual activity leveled against the "Decadent" Emperors come down to us from Senatorial class sources that wanted to make those Emperors look bad. Suetonius was essentially an Ancient Tabloid reporter. Juvenal's second Satire also links Homosexuality to what he saw as wrong with the Rome of his day. There are websites out there attempting to say Epicureanism was "Hedonistic" this is never based on any actual quote of Epicurus about sexuality. They are unaware of quotes like "Sexual intercourse never did anyone any good and it is fortunate if it does no harm." Lucretius was an Epicurean who was a major influence on Rome. The Epicureans were the chief promoting the ancient equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. They were naturalists and materialists, and the NT allusions to them practically treat them as the Greek equivalents to the Sadducees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 16:02:47 GMT
" Yea, hath God said" and the preferences of Satan I'm sure you've often seen during a debate with a very "Traditionally" conservative Christian. A person will question if The Bible was actually making such a broad and absolute condemnation as we assume, and the "conservative" will point out "Yea, hath God said" are the first words The Serpent utters from Genesis 3:1, as proof that questioning how strict God is is somehow obviously Satan's favorite tactic. This is textbook out of context quoting. Regardless of the inquisitive form of that phrase, the Serpent absolutely did want Eve to believe God didn't want her doing what he was trying to convince her to do. You see what the Serpent says after that, the statement he attributes to God, is in fact something God did not say. Let's go back to Genesis 2:16-17 where the actual command from God the Serpent wants Eve to break is said to Adam, let's quote God's exact words from The KJV. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Now in Chapter 3 the Serpent says to the Woman. "Yea, hath God said, "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"" See the difference? Thing is you could argue he gave a technically accurate representation of what the command was, but the tone is changed. God emphasized there was plenty Adam could eat, just one singular isolated tree he was not to eat. The Serpent wants to make God seem less permissive, to make his restrictions seem broader then they actually are. The Woman's response also played into The Serpent's hands. "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."" See that? God's Word was added to. Was it because Adam taught her incorrectly (The Woman was created after the command was given) or was she herself making it stricter for fear of breaking it. Or was it a little of both? We don't know for certain, a view that Adam taught her wrong is perhaps backed up by how NT references back to this blame Adam alone for what happened. But it's ultimately conjecture. Point is, once again the misquoting of God makes God seem more restrictive not less. And I've seen Bible teachers point out the significance of the "neither shall ye touch it" not being what God said, yet when on a different part of Scripture, they'll encourage the same attitude, saying the commands against drunkenness mean don't even walk into a bar, and so on. In that movie about Johnny Cash called Walk The Line, there is a scene where one of Johnny's Christian friends judging him is actually referencing Genesis 2-3 and doing exactly what Eve did, completely oblivious. I found it really funny and I'm not even certain the writers knew what they did there. Satan was deceiving Eve, but the deception was about the reason it's a Sin not about making her think something is not a Sin. And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." By making God's command seem more restrictive, he made it seem unreasonable, which in turn made God seem afraid of something, which in turn made him seem like an @$$hole. Once in a fallen world a lot more things are forbidden to us. But the Torah also makes clear sinning in ignorance of The Law is not nearly as bad as sinning knowingly, still bad, but not as bad, because Sins made in ignorance can be paid for by the Sin Offering, while knowing Sins require more. So Satan prefers to get people to do the worse option. His Temptation of Jesus was not I believe typical of his usual strategy, he needed to do anything to make Jesus no longer a Spotless Lamb. But even there only one of the three temptations (the first) seems to be based on trying to trick him into doing something unlawful by playing with technicalities. The second is seemingly a dare to prove His claim and the third had no false pretense at all. Jesus spent his ministry condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for their overly strict interpretations of Laws like the Sabbath, and adding none Biblical Laws called Traditions. Only on Divorce does he object to them allowing something he felt they shouldn't allow. In Matthew 23 He says of them "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.". This is in contrast to Himself in Chapter 11:28-30. "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." So when I get told that I'm the one trying to pervert Christianity into what Satan wants it to be by promoting more "permissive" interpretations of Moral Law on issues like Sexuality. I mostly just laugh and wonder what Bible they read. Paul said "all things are permissible to me but not all things are beneficial" in 1 Corinthians 6. The Law is now written on our Hearts not in Stone. There are false belief systems out there built around saying people should do (Biblically) indisputably sinful things. But they are mostly, (especially the ones that are successful enough to make me suspect Satan is putting particular effort into them) predicated on Rebellion against The Judeo-Christian God. They have no desire to deny The Bible condemns those things, and it suits them in-fact to claim the Bible condemns things it doesn't. Mostly these are different forms of Satanism. The major heretical Judeo-Christian religions, whatever their heresies on Theology and Soterology are, all have in common on Morality wanting to increase not decrease what is Sinfull. The Catholic Church doesn't want Priests marrying, JWs want people paranoid about Blood Transfusions. Mormons put Coffee in the same category as Alcohol and hard Drugs. Rabbinic Judaism makes the command to "not boil a kid in it's mother milk" a condemnation of Cheese Burgers. And you know I even consider Islam with it's over the top prudishness and legalism a form of heretical Christianity. They see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, their denial of his Divinity is not unlike the Ebonites and other early Jewish-Christian heretics. All this shows me Satan wants the God of Abraham to seem strict. The Christian sects that do take an anything goes approach (to the left of even my morality) are very small fringe groups without a lot of mainstream influence. I actually don't think every false religion has Satan's personal endorsement, the fallen human mind can come up with bad ideas perfectly fine on our own. Even major false religions and philosophical systems that have no claim of Biblical roots can also tend toward Legalism. A recent example would be the Atheistic Straight Edge movement affiliated with pro-wrestler CM Punk (in his Face persona he's like most people in the movement, a perfectly like-able human being, but as a Heel he is a demonstration of how judgmental they can become). The end result is the same, if people think living a Moral life is really difficult they will give up on trying to. We've been conditioned to think Pagan=Anything goes especially on Sex. Neo-Pagan sub-cultures in the West where the mainstream default religion is nominally Christian, tend towards being socially Liberal because they attract people who in some way want to rebel against society. But even most of these have more Morality then people give them credit for. I've already spoken of how Rome was contrary to popular imagination a very Socially Conservative culture. I will talk in the Future about Greek Philosophy. Japan is also a Pagan culture that has a lot of Homophobia. On a few select issues Christianity has been tricked by Satan into being OK with things we should have condemned. Like Slavery/Segregation, Anti-Semitism, Rape victim blaming, imperialism/neo-con foreign policy. All these serve the same purpose as much of the Legalism however, alienating people from the Gospel and those who know it. And tend to be tied to something those same Christians do condemn (rightly or wrongly). Today I feel homophobia and Capital Punishment are at the top of the list of things serving that purpose. To a Homosexual or Bisexual person their Gayness is part of who they are, not just something they do. So my fellow Evangelicals even if you insist on still viewing those things as Sins at least avoid the topic while evangelizing. A lot of False Religions are trying to appeal to LGBT individuals. I've seen websites for Satanic groups bragging about the Gay Marriages they perform. And even the Catholic Church looks like it may be trying to appeal to them under Pope Francis. (Thanks to the Catholic Church accepting Evolution, Evangelicals are inclined to see them doing anything as proof it's wrong). And there are plenty other Neo-Pagan examples. However for all the reaching out to Homsexuals in some Occult circles, the Neo-Pagan/Wiccan movement has it's own Homophobia. I think Christians need to stop simply thinking "if the world is promoting it it must be wrong" and realize that Satan wants to reach out to exactly those who feel alienated by The Church. When Blacks were enslaved by professing Christians he created Vodoo to appeal to them, fortunately many didn't fall for that and identified with the Exodus narrative. During Segregation he created the Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters. To appeal to women who feel alienated by the Patriarchal norms of traditional Christianity he has feminist and matriarchal themed religions like Wicca, as well as the Aristasia sub-culture, which is another example of a very socially conservative Pagan belief system. Today he's doing the same thing to reach out to LGBT people. And we play into his hands when we push them away. The Democratic Party and other institutions of the political left want to use the LGBT community as political pawns same as they do blacks and other minorities and feminists. And the same as the Republican party uses Christians and Gun owners. None of that I see as real true authentic support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 16:04:54 GMT
What does Fornication actually mean?The word "fornication" was first recorded in Middle English around 1303. It comes from the Latin word "fornix," which literally means "a vault" or "an arch." So what does a vault or an arch have to do with committing fornication? At that particular time in Rome, prostitutes solicited customers in archways. It was like a red light district is today. Of course, The Bible was not originally written in Latin; it was originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The first hand-written English language Bible was produced in the 1380's by John Wycliffe. Then came the Gutenberg Bible, the Oxford Bible, Luther's German Bible, the Tyndale New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew-Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible, which was originally published in 1611. Since the word fornication was first used in the early 1300's and continued to be used in the King James Version of the Bible, which is still being used today, it seems logical that these translators spanning over 200 years must have believed that the word fornication had something to do with prostitution; otherwise, they surely would have used a different word. The Strongs concordance has some problems from being influenced by modern assumptions and indeed what the Strongs Concordance says about "Porneia" Strong# 4202 (the word translated Fornication in the New Testament) is completely wrong and not based on any study of Greek etymology at all. In Matthew 19:9 The sin of Porneia is the only valid excuse he allows for Divorce, it can't possibly mean simply extramarital sex here. He was asked to intervene in an internal debate between the Pharisees about divorce, but he shocked them all by being more strict then any sect of the Pharisees expected. All the Pharisees agreed that Adultery was a valid reason for divorce. The Shammai camp believed that adultery was the only valid reason, while Hillel allowed many others. Jesus was usually inline with Hillel's way of thinking but here he made an exception, he was shockingly to the right of even Shammai. Some people think it means here Pre-Martial sex, or finding out the bride wasn't a virgin. But Jesus was all about forgiveness and not holding things against people, he would never condemn a bride for a pre-existing condition, that'd be even worse then allowing it for adultery. Prostitution is the sin Gomer the wife of Hosea was guilty of and for which he divorced her. The only time in The Bible a divorce happens because God instructs it. But in the long run God prefers forgiveness even for this offense. The story is ultimately an analogy to Israel's spiritual Adultery and Prostiution with other gods. People often tie this into Deuteronomy 24:1, especially if they want to say Jesus wasn't really doing away with The Law but clarifying it. But it was in chapter 22 that Deuteronomy dealt with if a husband accuses his bride of not being a virgin. Defilement in Deuteronomy could refer to anything in Leviticus 18, as well a prostitution. Jesus made it clear his teaching on divorce was about how it was only to appease man it was allowed under The Law of Moses at all. That Gomer's sin is what Jesus meant is the most Biblically sound and logical conclusion from using Scripture to interpret Scripture. Porneia derives from pernaō, which means "to sell off". Putting that meaning in a sexual context clearly means Prostitution. Another related word used in The Bible is Pornos (por'-nos); Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 4205 a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire a male prostitute Which is 5 times translated "Fornicator" but 5 other times "Whoremonger" which typically means one who visits prostitutes. King James English simply didn't know how to communicate the idea of a male Prostitute, Gigolo wasn't coined yet. Also Porne (por'-nay); Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4204 a woman who sells her body for sexual uses a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain an idolatress of "Babylon", the chief seat of idolatry 8 times translated Harlot and 4 times Whore in the KJV. So as you can see, it's about Prostitution, not simply any and all sexual activity one doesn't like. 1 Corinthians 6:13 and up when talking about Fortification explicitly defines it "shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Revelation 17 also used Fornication to describe the allegorical Prostitution of the Whore of Babylon. Now sometimes words affiliated with prostitution are casually used more loosely to express disapproved of sexual behavior. A Biblical passage where that might be how it's being used is in Jude when discussing Sodom and the Pre-Flood world. But again premarital sex isn't the issue there, Human-Angel interbreeding is the main concern. But it certainly is possible prostitution was going on too. Actually Ezekiel 16 when talking about Sodom clearly mentions prostitution. John 8:41 is one of the few where they're obviously using it loosely, but it's the villains of the narrative using it there, believers are supposed to understand everything they say to be wrong on every level. Now I've seen some argue that New Testament usage of certain Greek words should be understood by how the Septuagint (The Hellenistic era Greek translation of the Old Testament) used them. Well to begin with the Septuagint is very flawed, and I feel the assumption that early Christian, and specifically NT authors where always following it is also flawed. Our main existing Septuagint manuscripts come from Christian copyists, so we should be careful what we assume about places where the LXX and the New Testament seem to match. Now, I can't easily check how the Septuagint used Pornea. But I do know that all 5 occasions where the KJV of the OT used "Fornication", it's one of 2 Hebrew Words. Zanah (Strong# 2181) or Taznuwth (Strong# 8457). Both words that the majority of the times the KJV translated something like Whoredom, "go a whoring", Whore, Harlot, Whorish, and so on. So again, there is no Biblical basis for the word meaning anything more then Prostitution. 1 Corinthians 5 verse 1 is a passage that one might consider the Achilles heel of arguing the word only means prostitution. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." Paul uses the word, but then specifies he's talking about a type of Incest. First of all this is still a specific Sin specifically addressed in Leviticus 18. So it is still hardly enough to argue that the word means "everything" the way "Fornication" has come to mean to modern pharsiees. Even if it did mean "sexual immorality" (as many modern Bible translate it) we'd still have to use the greater testimony of Scripture to determine what is sexually immoral. I have a separate study on that, and with the help of the Song of Solomon I refute the notion that all none reproductive sex is a sin. And argue that it's mostly reproductive sex God wanted to restrict, though Prostitution and Pagan sex acts have other reasons for being deemed a sin. Secondly, we don't know the full details of this situation. Since we're still in the first generation of Christianity, all Paul's readers were likely not born into the faith, so this individual's father's wife, may likely have been an unbeliever. Which leads back to the fact that Prostitution in the Bible is often used symbolically of Idolatry. That's what the "Strange Woman" discussed repeatedly in Proverbs is really, about, all the words translated "Strange" there mean Pagan or Heathen (foreign in a spiritual sense). So I'd argue the only way in which The Bible would approve of loosening the definition of Prostitution is in the context of Believers getting involved with Unbelievers. And at any-rate, as I discus elsewhere, ritual Prostitution was known to be going on in Corinth. Some scholars have seen an allusion to that here, but that's speculative. Those verses where it might seem to casually be used more loosely are not passages that define sexual sin, they're simply stating that "Porneia" is/was going on somewhere. So just because you can cite a verse as seeming to mean more then just "Paying money for sex" doesn't mean you can then just jump to saying it means "Everything but sex between a husband and wife". Even today our using words like "whore" loosely does not change that when someone specifically says they disapprove of prostitution they clearly mean paying money for sex. Originally Fornication was a perfectly accurate translation of the meaning of this word. Man has simply abused it since 1611.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 16:06:24 GMT
Does The Bible condemn all Sex outside Marriage?The first question when we address the subject of Biblical sexuality, is how do we define Sex? In the modern western world, it can often be outright offensive to suggest that only actual penetrative sex (vaginal or anal) technically qualifies. One reason being it implies Lesbians can't have "actual sex" at all. But like it or not, for most of human history that has technically been the assumption. The Hebrew Bible doesn't have any word that simply translates to "sex" how we use it today. And there is plenty of evidence that in antiquity Lesbians took pride in being called virgins, looking at homo erotic myths related to Artemis/Diana. Biblical terms like "Lie with" or "Know" or "Uncovering Nakedness" are not strictly limited to sex in their literal definition anyway, so it's hard to determine without context. The term "Lie Carnally" is more explicit, the word translated "Carnally" is Zera` [(zeh'-rah); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2233] which means "seed", and can literally mean "sperm" or "semen". Technically the Strongs will give the impression in one occurrence another word is what's translated Carnally. But that verse also uses Zerah, the order of words being changed in translation simply caused confusion here. We tend to think of Carnally as meaning "fleshly" or "of the flesh". And in it's one New Testament appearance in the KJV of Romans 8, that is what the Greek word means there. But the Old Testament usages are different. Now when a male orgasms his "Seed" comes out. So you might think that doesn't make it very specific at all. But in English we too have created a verb form of one of our terms for that substance. "Inseminate", and what we mean when we say "inseminate" isn't putting the semen anywhere, it's usually about putting your semen in a woman's reproductive organs making it possible a child could be conceived. Possibly with conception being the explicit intent. I think it's perfectly reasonable that Moses meant something similar, and that it's specifically reproductive sex those verses are about. You may have heard of the principle that the Intent of the law is more important then the letter of the law, well that concept is in fact Biblical. Mark 2:27 "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". There is a reason for every law God gives, and the details are important because they help us understand the intent. Only two not even potentially reproductive sexual acts are ever condemned. A very specific male homosexual act in a very specific pagan context. And Bestiality, both initially occurring in Leviticus 18:22-23. Later verses are just repeating that commandment. The context of being after verse 21, as I've explained elsewhere means they're condemned because of Pagan rituals involving those acts. The Bible also does NOT condemn Masturbation. That line you often hear (comedian Ron White says in one of his bits that his Grandmother quoted it to him) spouted which sounds Biblical, "It's better for thy seed to land in the belly of a whore to fall on the floor", really isn't, it's made up. In the Strongs you can easily tract down every occurrence of "Seed" as well as the other key words of that sentence (and synonyms for them), and it doesn't appear. The story of Onan in Genesis 38 is the only basis people have for condemning masturbation, but it's not about that at all, Onan's Sin was breaking his agreement to produce offspring for his brother. And Masturbation isn't even what he did, but rather "pulling out". Leviticus 15:16 has been cited as relevant to Masturbation. That is a part of Leviticus not about Sin at all but ritual uncleanness. Like being to close to a dead body. When Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It is important first to know that the word translated "Woman" here is the Greek "Gune" which like the Hebrew "Ishshah" also means "Wife". In the context of being about adultery "Wife" is clearly the intended meaning here. That's still incidental to my point, though. People often cite that verse to sound like it means you've sinned every time you observe a woman's attractiveness, or get turned on, or simply don't immediately look away. That's not Jesus' intent, the intent is just to show that God judges thoughts as well as actions. But that doesn't mean being tempted itself is Sin. Jesus himself was Tempted and He's without Sin. It's indulging in those thoughts that makes it a Sin. He's really not introducing something new, but folding the Tenth Commandment into the earlier ones. Looking is fine, leering is not. Now I've shown elsewhere that "Fornication" doesn't mean what you think it means, it means Prostitution. The "Strange Woman" passages the occur throughout Proverbs are often cited by people as condemning any non-martial sex. The woman in question may or may not be a Prostitute of some form, but the greater point is that both words translated strange mean "alien" or "foreign", they don't mean bizarre or weird. And in these kinds of context it's being spiritually or religiously foreign, not ethnically or nationally that is the concern, (as we see with Ruth's marriage to Boaz being okay). Her not worshiping the True God is why she should be avoided. It is popular for Christians to insist any non-reproductive sex is a sin, but that as you can see is not Biblical. In fact it has become my conclusion studying the Bible, that besides the Blasphemy of Pagan ritual sex acts, it's chiefly reproductive sex God desires to limit. Yes we were commanded to "Be Fruitful and multiply" but we are still supposed to do so carefully to give each new child a healthy stable family to raise them in. The Song of Songs or Song of Solomon has three verses that poetically allude to what we today would label Oral sex. The woman on the man in 2:3, and the man on the woman in 4:16 and 8:2. The last of which is also proceeded by a verse describing the man suckling his lover's breasts. Conservative commentators insist the Song of Songs only condones sexual activity between a husband and wife, because the book revolves around a marriage. But that ignores the chronology of the book, the wedding is in chapter 4, the end of 4 is indeed the first allusion to actual intercourse, but they're Intimate in ways we'd today deem sexual well before then. The idea that sex is only for reproduction is not Biblical, it is an expression of love, and also a basic physical need. Lack of moderation with anything can lead to problems and thus be sinful, since our Bodies are the Temple of God we should take care of them. The typical view is that adultery being a sin, combined with the verses on the importance of virginity makes all extramarital sex a sin. Number One, a woman who's already lost her virginity outside marriage is certainly not addressed, and in the culture of the time she was probably not going to get married. So should she be denied that pleasure for life based on one indiscretion? Which she might not have even consented to? Number Two, what about a widow? Widows were allowed to remarry, that's the only time a non virgin could ever get married. And nothing directly condemning a widow having extra marital sex exists in The Law. Number Three, how is adultery defined? First of all like it or not it only goes one way in the Biblical laws about it, (Even in the New Testament) only the woman's fidelity is addressed. Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife". Even in Matthew 5:28 condemning even the coveting there is no gender reversal equivalent. It's undeniably unfair to women, but it's an unfairness necessary in the ancient world lacking DNA testing to verify paternity. The actual wording of The Ten Commandments doesn't define adultery, just labels it a sin. It's Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:12-13 that defines it, and the term used is "Lie carnally" (or "lie with her carnally") the definition of which I speculated on above. Only one statement of Jesus, recorded thrice in each Synoptic Gospel (it may be he said it more then once, since they seem to be at different chronological points), seems to imply a Man can commit Adultery against his Wife by being involved with another woman. Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." But this passage exists in the context of condemning Divorce, and also remarriage after Divorce. In the Sermon on The Mount when Jesus discuses the same matter, he possibly clarifies what he meant. Matthew 5:32 "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of prostitution, causeth her to commit adultery". Unlike Men, Women more or less needed to be married to survive back then, so when a man divorced his wife back then he forced her to remarry. So he's guilty of the sin of adultery because he forced someone else to commit it. Not because Jesus was suddenly defining Adultery in gender neutral terms no one ever heard of before. So it's an old gender double standard that isn't as needed anymore because of modern technology. Yet modern society has chosen to try to make this double standard right by giving men the same restrictions women have always had. As a supporter of freedom, I think it should have been the opposite approach. The emotion of Jealousy is the basis for being so bothered by infidelity, Envy is a Sin. Cheating is a Sin, but not a sexual sin, if it's part of the agreed terms of your relationship to be monogamous then yes failing to do so is a violation. How is virginity defined? Many would argue it's absurd to purely base it on the modern clinical definition. I reject the traditional view of Tokens of Virginity. But again the implied intent comes down to the man needing to know he's the father of any child conceived. In summery, Sex is only truly Sinful if it's motivated by something other then Love, or forced on someone against their will, or done in Pagan worship. But it is certainly preferred you try to avoid reproducing unless you know you can provide for the potential offspring. I've seen one website (which argues many things I agree with) say that maybe sex outside marriage was fine under the Old Testament but not the New. Nothing is more wrong to me then suggesting the NT condemns something the OT doesn't. The things the OT tolerated that the NT doesn't seem to anymore like Harem Polygamy still had God's true disapproval apparent in the Old. Even my Capital Punishment argument was not without OT basis. Jesus came to remove a heavy yoke, not to add a greater burden. 1 Corinthians 7 is the key passage to their argument. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." Notice how it goes both ways on your body now being owned by your spouse. No notion here of the Wife as merely property of the Husband which so many assume The Bible condones. It is also overlooked that most of what begins this is not Paul's words, he's quoting a question he was asked "ye wrote unto me", and I"m afraid it's not easy to tell where the question stops and his response begins. And his answer to the question is not entirely a yes or a no. But going on to verses 8 and 9. "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." There is an insistence that the terminology here treats marriage as the only alternative to being single (which they just assume is synonymous with celibacy). And that there would be no point to this if one is simply allowed to have extra martial sex, even in a loving context with a fellow believer. Fornication is a key word here, it's important not just to understand that it doesn't mean all Sex outside Marriage. But that it is, no matter how many times it may be used more loosely, first and foremost a word for prostitution. It's not any random sex Paul wants them to avoid. It is also important to know that this is a place where Paul is letting his personal opinions influence him, not enough to undermine the Divine inspiration, but it's there. "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord". It is not the full testimony of Scripture that single-hood is preferable to marriage, in fact Jesus seemed to have the opposite opinion. God did not want Adam to be alone. The Church as the Bride of Christ is a vital Biblical doctrine. The statement that it is better to marry then to burn with lust is not about avoiding any sexual fulfillment, you could condemn masturbation with that flawed logic, which is absurdly stupid. It's for people who need deeper intimate companionship. A need that only a committed relationship can truly fulfill. And that if not fulfilled by that could lead to a certain kind of Prostitution. A kind that is not as well known today as it used to be, but you see in films and literature about older times like, The Egyptian or Baccarat and Torquise in the Rocambole novels. Where the mark winds up seeking a quasi-romantic relationship with a Courtesan. And where actual physical intimacy may not even happen. The word "lust" is not used in this chapter, but it's always inserted by commentators. Even if it were lust can refer to more then just physical desire, in fact it can be used in contexts not sexual at all. The desire Paul is speaking of people burning with is not just the desire for physical release, it's a desire for something more. I will also disagree with those who say this instruction is only for those "in the ministry", I do not support Organized Religion. All Believers are servants of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 5, 2017 20:51:04 GMT
...In the modern western world, it can often be outright offensive to suggest ... It's likely that most people today do not believe homosexuality is a sin. That's because they do not understand their religion or read the Bible or attend the services of those who do. You are guilty of ridiculous semantic gymnastics because you can't or won't face the truth that homosexuality is a sin. You are not fooling any people of god. It is likely that many people today really do think homosexuality is disgusting, but do not think religion will be able to do anything about it. That's why they aren't recognizing the obvious truth of intelligent design. They are ignorant of science and religion, things not likely taught at Trump University. You might fool them. They want to be fooled your way. The only reason you are capable of herding them around like that is that you are not a real person and don't have to actually be a scholar. These boards are closing down because so many who are not real people are herding people around without them having to win real debates. You do not support any religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 13:15:55 GMT
Please address my actual arguments if you think they are so wrong?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 6, 2017 14:30:46 GMT
What was that about people not wearing enough hats?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 7, 2017 7:18:59 GMT
Please address my actual arguments if you think they are so wrong? No thanks, enough people have done that already elsewhere. The majority of experts disagree with you. Neither here nor there, are you skyhawk0?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 8, 2017 11:06:38 GMT
The Bible does NOT Condemn HomosexualityI will later copy/paste different part of the Dissertation here. But for starters the Gist of it. I am NOT a theologically Liberal Christian doing this. There are plenty of Bible teachings I'm uncomfortable with that I accept. Like how absolute with only one very specific exception Jesus condemned divorce. I'm a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist and a Pre-Millennial Futurist. I believe in Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security. I'm not trying to appease the Left. Plenty of aspects of my views may still leave the Liberal LGBT Community unhappy with me. Like my opposition to Hate Crime/Hate Speech Laws. Or that I view Anal Sex (which not all Gay Men do) as at least ill advised. Or that I view Marriage as between Man and a Woman (but not all Sex outside Marriage as a Sin), but oppose laws restricting Marriage on purely Libertarian grounds. I hold this position because I believe The Bible is infallible and The Finale Authority. And that Man has since before the Canon even closed been attempting to pervert it. Satan wants people to think God is more restrictive then he actually is. The gist of my view is that the Sin of Sodom was In-hospitality and cruel treatment of immigrants, which manifested in the form of RAPE. While the other passages are all about pagan ritual sex acts involving penetrative anal intercourse. Let me give the short version of the Leviticus 18 part here. "As with a Woman" is a qualifying statement that makes it not applicable to all male same-sex acts, only penetrative anal intercourse has ever been thought of as an imitation of the unique male-female sex act. Sorry it really does. I get why you want to think otherwise, but you are on a hiding to nothing.
|
|