Re: the Bible, translation and gays

In article <ALVNj.16181$vz2.10625@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, shegeek72 says...

>On Apr 16, 5:33 pm, rtdav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> I believe shegeeks post to be very heavy on insinuation but lacking in
>> any convincing detail.

>To begin with, I did not write the article. It's from a website and I
>posted the URL (http://www.ppmcc.org/About_the_Bible.html)
at the top
>of my post.

Well, so _what_ if you did not write it? You must take responsibility
for what you post, just as everyone else here.

>As for 'convincing detail,' explanations of the Greek words '****ea'
>and 'akathartos' can easily be found by googling.

Newsflash: when _I_ google it, I find that the _good_ sites disagree
with you.

>My study, both on the internet and at my church, overwhelmingly
>indicate that neither term refers to the loving, longterm same-***
>relation****ps of today.

But this is only because what you call 'study' is not even genuine
study. Genuine study would not dismiss the witness of St. Clement as
"the opinion of just one man" as you did. Not when it was shared by so
many others.

Genuine study, after all, includes the ability to COUNT.

The results of _my_ study overwhelmingly indicate that _both_ terms
condemn even what _you_ call "loving, longterm same-*** relation****ps
of today". This became obvious reading St. Clement of Alexandria,
whose condemnations had _nothing_ to do with pecuniary motives and
_everything_ to do with the insult to their own manhood.

Furthermore, _unlike_ you, I _did_ give the details in my posts, I did
_not_ wimp out by asking my reader to Google it.

>'Akathartos' is translated into 'uncleaness' and '****ea' into
>'fornication.' Sampling of websites:

And neither of these translations answer the relevant question. But
perhaps this omission was deliberate on your part: for if you _did_ do
an honest study of what was considered 'fornication' then, you would
be _forced_ to admit that you are wrong.

>http://www.religioustolerance.org/****ea.htm
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
>http://www.wfn.org/2000/11/msg00082.html

Both you and your chosen websites weaken your own credibility by
mis-spelling the word. It is ****EIA, not ****EA.

Nor is that the only indication that the author has at best a
superficial knowledge of Greek.

>And I asked, in this forum and others, for inherent harms in
>homo***uality and no one has given me a valid answer.

How long do you plan to continue repeating this lie? You have been
answered, and that many times. You just prefer to dismiss the answers,
stirring yourself up to provide some answer only to the weakest of
them.

>Indeed, the word 'homo***ual' wasn't even in existence when the Bible
>was written and translated and Jesus said nothing on gay ***, yet he
>railed against all manner of sin.

Now this is a scurrilous dodge! Of course the _word_ did not exist
yet. It is the invention of 19th century psychologists. But that does
_not_ imply that their acts were not condemned. On the contrary: their
acts are very clearly condemned, under the classic example of
cir***locution, "who lie with a man as with a woman".

Furthermore, it is an incredible slight against Christ that you call
His preaching "railing". No, He _never_ 'railed' against sin, not even
against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees.


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)