On Apr 17, 9:49 pm, shegeek72 <karmictara...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
>
> As for 'convincing detail,' explanations of the Greek words '****ea'
> and 'akathartos' can easily be found by googling. 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.
> 'Akathartos' is translated into 'uncleaness' and '****ea' into
> 'fornication.' Sampling of websites:
I believe this is an attempt at justifying what is clearly a sin, by
trying to distinguish a difference.
For instance, in the first link=85.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/****ea.htm
=85. we get a discussion that the meaning of ****ea-
1) that the term fornication is more limited than has been credited
and
2) that conservative Christians have wrongly increased the scope=85
For example:
=93According to Christs Freedmen, it now includes "premarital ***,
orgies, masturbation, oral ***, fetishes, anything to do with
****ography, 'improper' thoughts about the opposite ***,
homo***uality, and just about any other ***ual sin you could think
of." He comments: "While some of these things are sin...this is a
gross misuse of the word fornication.=94
But the verses I am thinking of aren=92t merely applying a generic term
of ***ual immorality, they specifically define homo***ual activity.
Leviticus 18:22
=93Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable=94
Romans 1:26-27
=9326Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same
way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion=94
It directly states that homo***uality is an indecent act based on
shameful lusts. It makes no distinction between =93loving, long term=94
homo***uality or any other type of homo***ual behavior.
Claiming a misreading of the word ****ea simply has no relevance
here.
In this link, there are some comments on Romans 1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
There is an attempt to rationalize the clear meaning by questioning
several words.
1. Patho atimas- shameful lusts
RT [Religious Tolerance] says this applies to Pagan fertility rites
and not the type of emotions as one finds in a marriage or ***ually
active relation****p. But the word pathos seems to refer to passion/
feeling/emotion=85. It is used three times in the NT and every time
after it there is a modifier to describe what the feeling/emotion is
Romans 1:26 patho atimas =96 passion shameful
Colossians 3:5 pathos =96 passion [or lust=85 in context]
1 Thessalonians 4:5 pathei epithumias =96 passion/desire of fornication
Pathos then need not be restricted to pagan rites at all. In fact, it
reads perfectly well with no need for special context or explanation.
2. metallasso =96 exchanged
RT makes the argument that this word refers to those that had once
been hetero***uals but where now engaging in same-*** behavior in
violation of their natural desires. They would attribute this kind of
persuasion to peer pressure and chemical stimulants at pagan rituals.
The assumption then is this passage is not describing homo***ual
relations where they feel this is the natural state.
I=92m not sure why this is a more acceptable answer than reading the
passage simply
3. para physin - unnatural
The first definition of =91nature=92 given is:
The nature of things, the force, the laws, order of nature.
It can also [obviously] refer to physical origin, a way of acting that
by long habit has become natural, and the sum of innate properties by
which one person differs from others: native characteristics.
RT tries to make a case that this is mistranslated and demonstrated
prejudice as meaning something immoral when it should mean only
unconventional. Granting the possibility of reading =91para physin=92 as
such, I don=92t see that there is a better argument for reading it as
=91against native [personal] characteristics=92 than =91against the
natural
order=92. Given the context of the passage, it would seem that against
the natural order is much more plausible. But more on context below.
4. Context
RT mentions context in several points:
A. the epistle is written to =93all in Rome who are loved by God and
called to be saints=94. Homo***uality was widespread and acceptable in
Roman culture.
B. Romans 1 is concerned with the denunciation of idolatry, and NOT
the denunciation of same-*** behavior.
However [A] might be true, I don=92t see how it applies to the argument.
Yes the epistle was written to the saints in Rome and perhaps they
were exposed to widespread homo***uality=85. But so what?
As for point two, the context of romans one is the rejection of God
leading to various behaviors.
=9319since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities=97his eternal power and divine nature=97have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men
are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish
hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became
fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to
look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts
to ***ual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and wor****ped and served
created things rather than the Creator=97who is forever praised. Amen.=94
Verse 20 tells us that knowledge of God is all around and men are
without excuse, BUT=85.
Verse 21 say though they knew God, they neither glorified him nor gave
thanks to him, SO their hearts became darkened.
Then there is a list of behaviors that they were given over to.
Now despite the attempts to make it sound like the bible is picking on
homo***uals here, the point of this passage REALLY =85. is that we are
ALL depraved. Note that conclusion in chapter 3: there is none
righteous, not even one. Paul is ultimately making a point that we are
all sinful. NOT just homo***uals.
However, homo***uals using a rewording of this passage to eliminate
themselves from the list are deluded, and in fact living out the very
delusion Romans 1 states so clearly.
Therefore Romans 1 is not primarily a denunciation of idolatry, it is
a list of various behaviors of those rejecting God, and idolatry as
well as homo***uality is one of those. The denunciation of same ***
relation****ps stands from Romans 1.
Hence the next link:
http://www.wfn.org/2000/11/msg00082.html
where the basic thrust is that the passage is simply Paul=92s cultural
bias, not part of the essential message of the gospel.
There is certainly no shortage of proclamations about what ought to be
in the bible and what ought not to be, but opinions of this aside, the
bible DOES indeed say what it says about homo***uality. If you don=92t
like that, then don=92t follow the bible, but it=92s just silly to claim
that it doesn=92t condemn homo***uality, it clearly does.
> And I asked, in this forum and others, for inherent harms in
> homo***uality and no one has given me a valid answer. 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.
Discussing inherent harms is an endless debate. Whatever one might say
is an inherent harm, another will simply say it is not. The same can
be [and indeed, it is=85.] argued on almost any point. However it is
clear that the bible condemns it.
|
