1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10-Read First Post Please

[Ananel]

To be quite honest, this is a massive debate, so I am going to request that we keep our discussions limited to these two verses in this thread. This keeps the thread in a manageable chunk of topics, so that we have more ability to center our discussion.

Please respect that request.

The verses in question:
1 Corinthians 6:9,

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

1 Timothy 1:10,


for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrineBoth verses above are quoted from the NIV. The words in question are bold.

Here are the verses in greek (Scrivener 1894)

1 Corinthians 6:9,

η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται

1 Timothy 1:10,

10πορνοις αρσενοκοιταις ανδραποδισταις ψευσταις επιορκοις και ει τι ετερον τη υγιαινουση διδασκαλια αντικειταιμαλακοι is defined as effeminite, with perverse implications. The term is specifically related to catamite, towards pederasty. Male Prostitute is often considered too narrow of a definition, and it is thought that effeminite is better. The connotation may refer to the bottom partner of a homosexual relationship, but to state this so generically also seems a weak translation. Catamite seems strongest in translation.

αρσενοκοιται and its derivative in 1 Timothy are both compound words, derived from αρσεν (Man) and κοιτες (Verb referring to bed, sexual implications). The word does not appear prior to 1 Corinthians in the greek language. It is defined normally as homosexual, but Frederick, William and Danker note clearly that it refers more directly to a pederast, the 'top' partner in this specific relationship.

Also, the source of this definition is highly suspect. The Septuagint of Leviticus 20 includes the two words in the same location, and commentators have stated that Paul may have mashed the words together. However, all other uses listed by F, W and D (such as Eusebius and Theophonis's [sp?] Anthologies) seem to have the connotation of Pederast. The term clearly has an idiomatic meaning from its further usage, and we have no context in a list of sins to decide that it would not be used in similar fashion here.Add to this that if we simply take the root meanings, the definition of Adulterer in the NIV for 1 Timothy 1:10 would seem equally accurate.

http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html (http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html) contains a collection of additional information in it on the subject. I do not fully agree with Dale Martin, but I think he brings up several good points.

All in all, would it not be more accurate to translate 1 Corinthians 6:9 as,

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor catamites nor pederasts...

And 1 Timothy 1 similarly?

(Edit: For reference, pederasty is a very complicated form of relationship common in Greecian society, even up to the time Paul writes to the Corinthians. It is a specified relationship in which a young man trades sexual favors with an older man in return for training and education. Male whore and pedophile does not describe the nuances of the relationship, as described by individuals such as Plato in his Symposium and other works. [Source-Nissinen, M. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World. Augsburg Fortress. Minneapolis, MN. 1998.])

[John Reece]

In the OP above, the word in bold print in the NIV text of 1 Timothy 1:10 (adulterers) does not match the word in bold print in the Greek text (arsenokoitaiV).

In 1 Timothy 1:10, the NIV "adulterers" is a rendering of pornoiV.

The NIV renders arsenokoitaiV "perverts".

From BDAG:

arsenokoitaiV . . . a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex, pederast . . . 1 Ti 1:10; . . . Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution . . . , or limited to contract with boys for homoerotic service . . .

From the New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles (pages 85-86) by George W. Knight III:

Paul's list also includes a representative of the seventh commandment arsenokoitaiV (also in 1 Cor. 6:9, cf. Rom. 1:27; for extrabiblical use see BAGD, MM, and LSJM; not in LXX and according to Morgenthaler not found in pre-Christian literature), "homosexuals," so that both heterosexual and homosexual aspects of immoral activity are covered. The latter is in accord with Paul's approach elsewhere (Rom. 1:24, 26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11), where he writes about homosexuality as the perversion of the God-ordained orientation of sex and reflects the OT condemnation of homosexuality (cf. Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; and then also in Gn. 18-20; 19:4-7; Ezk. 16:48-50, especially v. 50; Jdg. 19:22, 23).

The word Paul uses is composed of two components, arseno- and koithV. The former is the specific word for male (arshn) with “strong emphasis on sex” (BAGD). The latter means generally “bed” and is a euphemism for sexual intercourse (BAGD). The word does not refer, as some writers have alleged, only to sex with young boys or to male homosexual prostitutes, but simply to homosexuality itself (so Paul explicitly in Rom. 1:26, 27; cf. the article by Wright, “Homosexuals”). Paul writes elsewhere that the consequence for continued and unrepentant involvement in this, and other sins listed here, is exclusion from the kingdom of God and that deliverance from this, and the other sins, is an integral part of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord through the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

[kofh2u]

I am missing the point no doubt.
It seems to me that homosexual issue so exaggerated before the church would do well to note the inclusion of this behavior along with the general indictment of sexual immorality enumerated by Paul and therefore put down the stone.

Nevertheless, two dins do not make an absolution eitherand in the issue of matrimony as a sacriment, none but virgins ought to blessed into what is now a failed institution, is it not?

[Ananel]

In the OP above, the word in bold print in the NIV text of 1 Timothy 1:10 (adulterers) does not match the word in bold print in the Greek text (arsenokoitaiV).

In 1 Timothy 1:10, the NIV "adulterers" is a rendering of pornoiV.

The NIV renders arsenokoitaiV "perverts".

From BDAG:


arsenokoitaiV . . . a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex, pederast . . . 1 Ti 1:10; . . . Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution . . . , or limited to contract with boys for homoerotic service . . .

From the New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles (pages 85-86) by George W. Knight III:


Paul's list also includes a representative of the seventh commandment arsenokoitaiV (also in 1 Cor. 6:9, cf. Rom. 1:27; for extrabiblical use see BAGD, MM, and LSJM; not in LXX and according to Morgenthaler not found in pre-Christian literature), "homosexuals," so that both heterosexual and homosexual aspects of immoral activity are covered. The latter is in accord with Paul's approach elsewhere (Rom. 1:24, 26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11), where he writes about homosexuality as the perversion of the God-ordained orientation of sex and reflects the OT condemnation of homosexuality (cf. Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; and then also in Gn. 18-20; 19:4-7; Ezk. 16:48-50, especially v. 50; Jdg. 19:22, 23).


The word Paul uses is composed of two components, arseno- and koithV. The former is the specific word for male (arshn) with “strong emphasis on sex” (BAGD). The latter means generally “bed” and is a euphemism for sexual intercourse (BAGD). The word does not refer, as some writers have alleged, only to sex with young boys or to male homosexual prostitutes, but simply to homosexuality itself (so Paul explicitly in Rom. 1:26, 27; cf. the article by Wright, “Homosexuals”). Paul writes elsewhere that the consequence for continued and unrepentant involvement in this, and other sins listed here, is exclusion from the kingdom of God and that deliverance from this, and the other sins, is an integral part of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord through the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Ahhh, thank you for the update. I hadn't been 100% sure which of the two words that fit, but this makes more sense as adulterer specifically fits with fornicator of porneias.

However, I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the view that the term refers to homosexuals in general. Arsen + koites has a variety of different meanings just from the individual points, and based upon more detailed analysis such as that from Fredrick, William and Danker, to have the idiomatic meaning of pederast.

To stretch a word to have a more modern meaning when its usage identifies itself as an idiom referring to a specific practice is unwise. Pervert, too, seems far too general considering the other usages (such as Eusebius). No, if the word means pederast, you don't call it homosexual. That a pederast is having homosexual sex is immaterial. A perjurer is speaking or writing in the process, so should we then condemn these things? The crime of pederasty is a singular thing of more specific connotations.

[Ananel]

I am missing the point no doubt.
It seems to me that homosexual issue so exaggerated before the church would do well to note the inclusion of this behavior along with the general indictment of sexual immorality enumerated by Paul and therefore put down the stone.

Nevertheless, two dins do not make an absolution eitherand in the issue of matrimony as a sacriment, none but virgins ought to blessed into what is now a failed institution, is it not?
Not to be rude... but I think you have missed the point. However, the problem is that I really don't know what you're getting at. Perhaps you could rephrase yourself.

[John Reece]

However, I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the view that the term refers to homosexuals in general. Arsen + koites has a variety of different meanings just from the individual points, and based upon more detailed analysis such as that from Fredrick, William and Danker, to have the idiomatic meaning of pederast.


Perhaps you are unaware, or didn't notice, that it is Frederick William Danker (= one person, not three) who is the source of this quote in the post to which yours above is a response:

From BDAG (Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature – Third Edition Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker):

arsenokoitaiV . . . a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 . . . 1 Ti 1:10; . . . Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution . . . , or limited to contract with boys for homoerotic service . . .

Danker does not limit the semantic range of arsenokoitaiV to pederast. He does give that as the definition in 1 Corinthians 6:9, but he expressly refutes your assertion with regard the occurrence in 1 Timothy 1:10.

[Ananel]

Perhaps you are unaware, or didn't notice, that it is Frederick William Danker (= one person, not three) who is the source of this quote in the post to which yours above is a response:

From BDAG (Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature – Third Edition Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker):



arsenokoitaiV . . . a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 . . . 1 Ti 1:10; . . . Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution . . . , or limited to contract with boys for homoerotic service . . .

Danker does not limit the semantic range of arsenokoitaiV to pederast. He does give that as the definition in 1 Corinthians 6:9, but he expressly refutes your assertion with regard the occurrence in 1 Timothy 1:10.I am quite aware of that fact. I made an assertion based upon his research. This does not mean that I agree with all points. There is no, and I do mean no, ontextual evidence in either 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 to delineate which of the two senses ought be taken. However, Pederast is the more precise of definitions. The broader definition derives from an understanding of the homosexual behavior inherent in pederasty. I trust to the thesaural reference more, as the term appears to be defined as homosexual primarily because there is no regular generic term. There are only specific terms with singular idiomatic and social connotations, and this is a term which appears to have a singular meaning according to the references that the BDAG uses outside of the scriptures. It is unjustified, without some level of sensible contextual evidence, to indicate that αρσενοκοιταις means a different definition than the precise and accurate one derived from other sources. To do so is to theologically charge one's translation with a false creation.

I mean, for crying out loud, even the Latin Vulgate doesn't do that. Admittedly, he translates 1 Corinthians 6:9 as the often considered too narrow "male prostitute," but it is further evidence that the passages are not the generic condemnations of homosexuality commonly believed.

Besides, I have yet to see a response to Meyer either. By the way, just what book did you think I was using as a lexical aid? I wouldn't have made the pederastic reference without using the BDAG. There is a method to my madness, and responding as if I were a little child is only going to turn me into an irascible one.

[OneFollowingHim]

First, thanks for the greek study. I am not a greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination. But I find this stuff fascinating. My wife just thinks I'm overzealous.

A question of clarification. Is the point of this thread to change some idea of what the bible teaches about homosexual activities or simply to clarify the interpretation of these scriptures? Without trying to steer the direction of the thread, I would just like to know.

It seems to me to follow from the nature of the discussion that one ought to adjust his view of biblical teaching if the translation/interpretation of the words have diffferent meanings than what one understands them to mean.

[John Reece]

There is a method to my madness, and responding as if I were a little child is only going to turn me into an irascible one.

:smile:

i·ras·ci·ble (ĭ-răs'ə-bəl, ī-răs'-)
adj.
Prone to outbursts of temper; easily angered.
Characterized by or resulting from anger.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin īrāscibilis, from Latin īrāscī, to be angry, from īra, anger.]

i·ras'ci·bil'i·ty or i·ras'ci·ble·ness n.
i·ras'ci·bly adv.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:smile:

A “method” in the service of a “madness”.

“A little child” who threatens to become “irascible” if he does not have his way with the words of Danker and the words of Paul.

A selective quoting of a lexical aid.

An insistence that extra-biblical sources be used to trump all Paul’s other writings (and all other scripture) on the subject of male same-sex activity.

:smile:

Carry on . . .

[Ananel]

“A little child” who threatens to become “irascible” if he does not have his way with the words of Danker and the words of Paul.
*quirks an eyebrow* Your bemusement aside, this does not make me wrong. Contextual evidence in the usage of the term indicates the translation I have given, over the generic translation which engenders accusations of theological bias in interpretation.

A selective quoting of a lexical aid.
Fair, the full quote should have been made in the first place. It is made now, and perhaps for completeness purposes I will edit it onto the first post, if I can ever figure out how to edit a primary post. However, in the meantime, the position I have now made clearer remains strong.

If the term does not properly mean homosexual, but contextually is identified as pederast, why use the inefficient definition created based upon the the primary, thesaural, definition that holds a significant and clear theological bias?

An insistence that extra-biblical references be used to trump all Paul’s other writings (and all other scripture) on the subject of male same-sex activity.
I have yet to see you present evidence that the two quotes within scripture actually indicate the meaning of the words contextually. The quotes cited in BDAG (Coincidentally explained in greater detail by Meyers), however, give a distinct impression of the word's meaning.

So, I'm still waiting for evidence contrary to my position. Perhaps my irritation IS a bit childish but this does not make me wrong. I am somewhat unaccustomed to people actually knowing what the hell BDAG is, much less being able to cite the thing, so I would like to take an opportunity offered from someone who can actually respond to the translation which I have presented.

Do you see any strong evidence to indicate the meaning of the words Arsenokoites or Malakos in these two lists?

[Ananel]

First, thanks for the greek study. I am not a greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination. But I find this stuff fascinating. My wife just thinks I'm overzealous.

A question of clarification. Is the point of this thread to change some idea of what the bible teaches about homosexual activities or simply to clarify the interpretation of these scriptures? Without trying to steer the direction of the thread, I would just like to know.

It seems to me to follow from the nature of the discussion that one ought to adjust his view of biblical teaching if the translation/interpretation of the words have diffferent meanings than what one understands them to mean.
The point of the thread is to question the idea of what the Bible teaches in these verses and to test the accuracy of common translation v. the translation of other scholars such as St. Jerome, who viewed the translation as male prostitutes or others, who cite the terms as indicative of pederasty, not homosexuality in general.

[John Reece]

*quirks an eyebrow* Your bemusement aside, this does not make me wrong. Contextual evidence in the usage of the term indicates the translation I have given, over the generic translation which engenders accusations of theological bias in interpretation.


Fair, the full quote should have been made in the first place. It is made now, and perhaps for completeness purposes I will edit it onto the first post, if I can ever figure out how to edit a primary post. However, in the meantime, the position I have now made clearer remains strong.

If the term does not properly mean homosexual, but contextually is identified as pederast, why use the inefficient definition created based upon the the primary, thesaural, definition that holds a significant and clear theological bias?


I have yet to see you present evidence that the two quotes within scripture actually indicate the meaning of the words contextually. The quotes cited in BDAG (Coincidentally explained in greater detail by Meyers), however, give a distinct impression of the word's meaning.

So, I'm still waiting for evidence contrary to my position. Perhaps my irritation IS a bit childish but this does not make me wrong. I am somewhat unaccustomed to people actually knowing what the hell BDAG is, much less being able to cite the thing, so I would like to take an opportunity offered from someone who can actually respond to the translation which I have presented.

Do you see any strong evidence to indicate the meaning of the words Arsenokoites or Malakos in these two lists?

Your request in the OP (opening post) "that we keep our discussions limited to these two verses in this thread" limits my ability to respond to your post.

At issue is "Paul's strictures against same-sex activity” (BDAG), and I cannot do justice to that subject without bringing into consideration all that he wrote on the subject - including his allusions to the Jewish scriptures.

Regarding arsenokoithV, there is nothing in the word itself to limit the definition to relationships between men and boys, and if context is to be determinative, context should not be narrowly limited to two verses in the scriptures.

[Ananel]

Your request in the OP (opening post) "that we keep our discussions limited to these two verses in this thread" limits my ability to respond to your post.

At issue is "Paul's strictures against same-sex activity” (BDAG), and I cannot do justice to that subject without bringing into consideration all that he wrote on the subject - including his allusions to the Jewish scriptures.

Regarding arsenokoithV, there is nothing in the word itself to limit the definition to relationships between men and boys, and if context is to be determinative, context should not be narrowly limited to two verses in the scriptures.
Feel free to draw on the context of the passages at hand, not merely two verses. I have done so in my research. Use whatever verses are necessary to clarify your position concerning these passages, but please keep this to an exegetical analysis. That's why I had the topic put here in the first place.

Yes, I am aware of the presence of arsen and koites in the septuagint for Leviticus 20. I have already commented that this is circumstantial evidence at best.

Regarding the plea to discuss the totality of the subject: This is a translational question. I'm not going to claim that this thread decides the matter of scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. If I gave that impression, then I apologize. The intent here is to discuss a translation.

You are correct: To truly and fully deal with the matter of homosexuality in the bible, at minimum, one must deal with the following passages:

Genesis 1-3, 18-19.
The similar account from Judges (forgive me, I never remember its chapter)
Leviticus 18 and 20
Ezekial 16
Acts 15
Romans 1:18-32 (Or Romans 1-3 in totality if you wish to be thorough on the subject.)
1 Corinthians 6:9
The book of Galatians
Colossians 2
1 Timothy 1:10

However, I'm merely asking a straightforward translational question concerning these two verses. Please respond to that as you please and need. I will address the matter of biblical concerns of homosexuality in all likelihood at another time, and in another forum (As the matter is more systematic than exegetical in nature)

I apologize if there was a miscommunication in the initial warning of the OP. I simply did not want an exegetical discussion to be dragged off track and end up debating Romans 1 or Sodom and Gomorrah when I'm trying to get translational commentary on these passages.

[OneFollowingHim]

Disclaimer: I am not a greek scholar. If I am intruding, please let me know. I'm afraid that I can't really speak to translating the greek words, but I think it is noteworthy to quote a different translation. You chose to quote these verses from the NIV translation. The NIV does not always give the best translation. The King James version translates these verse a little differently. (emphasis added)

9 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,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
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;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

(I hope I am emphasizing the correct words here.) It seems reasonable to conclude that however the word is translated, there is a wrongness about the activity in God's mind. I agree that it is vital to accurately translate the words and thoughts. It is also vitally important to know what God thinks about the concept of what is recorded in the scriptures, ie, whether He thinks it is wrong and to be avoided. Clearly, it is a human actvity that God warns against.

Due to my lack of knowledge about biblical translation, I'll have to stop there. Carry on...

[John Reece]

Feel free to draw on the context of the passages at hand, not merely two verses. I have done so in my research. Use whatever verses are necessary to clarify your position concerning these passages, but please keep this to an exegetical analysis. That's why I had the topic put here in the first place.

Yes, I am aware of the presence of arsen and koites in the septuagint for Leviticus 20. I have already commented that this is circumstantial evidence at best.

Regarding the plea to discuss the totality of the subject: This is a translational question. I'm not going to claim that this thread decides the matter of scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. If I gave that impression, then I apologize. The intent here is to discuss a translation.

You are correct: To truly and fully deal with the matter of homosexuality in the bible, at minimum, one must deal with the following passages:

Genesis 1-3, 18-19.
The similar account from Judges (forgive me, I never remember its chapter)
Leviticus 18 and 20
Ezekial 16
Acts 15
Romans 1:18-32 (Or Romans 1-3 in totality if you wish to be thorough on the subject.)
1 Corinthians 6:9
The book of Galatians
Colossians 2
1 Timothy 1:10

However, I'm merely asking a straightforward translational question concerning these two verses. Please respond to that as you please and need. I will address the matter of biblical concerns of homosexuality in all likelihood at another time, and in another forum (As the matter is more systematic than exegetical in nature)

I apologize if there was a miscommunication in the initial warning of the OP. I simply did not want an exegetical discussion to be dragged off track and end up debating Romans 1 or Sodom and Gomorrah when I'm trying to get translational commentary on these passages.

Well, it's clear that you are already aware of, and dismissive of, all the scriptures which are the basis for the fact that BDAG contradicts your thesis.

Regarding translation, I have nothing to add to BDAG, since you have admitted your omission of Danker's conclusion that "Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution . . ., or limited to contract with boys for homoerotic service . . .".

Cheerio.

[Ananel]

Well, I appreciate the honest dissagreement of position there. That's... quite frankly, that's bloody refreshing. The usual response that I recieve is that "Obviously" I'm wrong.

I appreciate the comments you made mister Reece. We do not agree in this matter of translation, but I appreciate teh clarity of your response. You accept Danker's assessment at face value, whereas I take him with a grain of salt as it were, and hold a position more in line with Meyers. *nods* We'll see if anyone else wishes to comment.

[stormrunner]

Feel free to draw on the context of the passages at hand, not merely two verses. I have done so in my research. Use whatever verses are necessary to clarify your position concerning these passages, but please keep this to an exegetical analysis. That's why I had the topic put here in the first place.

Yes, I am aware of the presence of arsen and koites in the septuagint for Leviticus 20. I have already commented that this is circumstantial evidence at best.

Regarding the plea to discuss the totality of the subject: This is a translational question. I'm not going to claim that this thread decides the matter of scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. If I gave that impression, then I apologize. The intent here is to discuss a translation.

You are correct: To truly and fully deal with the matter of homosexuality in the bible, at minimum, one must deal with the following passages:

Genesis 1-3, 18-19.
The similar account from Judges (forgive me, I never remember its chapter)
Leviticus 18 and 20
Ezekial 16
Acts 15
Romans 1:18-32 (Or Romans 1-3 in totality if you wish to be thorough on the subject.)
1 Corinthians 6:9
The book of Galatians
Colossians 2
1 Timothy 1:10

However, I'm merely asking a straightforward translational question concerning these two verses. Please respond to that as you please and need. I will address the matter of biblical concerns of homosexuality in all likelihood at another time, and in another forum (As the matter is more systematic than exegetical in nature)

I apologize if there was a miscommunication in the initial warning of the OP. I simply did not want an exegetical discussion to be dragged off track and end up debating Romans 1 or Sodom and Gomorrah when I'm trying to get translational commentary on these passages.
I am but a humble lay person on this board. I think it makes sense to widen the context in which the two subject verses are viewed. I also think it makes sense to widen that context even wider than John Reese suggests if we seek the broadest truth. Would not the context of what Jesus did NOT say about homosexuality, and what he did say about inclusion, non-judgmental love, and caring for each other; plus the fact that Paul was human and subject to overlaying his own point of view and inclinations? and that a connection stronger to Jesus than to Paul could be warranted?

[Darkstone]

I am but a humble lay person on this board. I think it makes sense to widen the context in which the two subject verses are viewed. I also think it makes sense to widen that context even wider than John Reese suggests if we seek the broadest truth. Would not the context of what Jesus did NOT say about homosexuality, and what he did say about inclusion, non-judgmental love, and caring for each other; plus the fact that Paul was human and subject to overlaying his own point of view and inclinations? and that a connection stronger to Jesus than to Paul could be warranted?

Forgive me because this is the first post that I have ever placed here, but I feel compelled to respond to this statement. First, it is a little out of context with the Greek language thread so it may be better to carry this on elsewhere. When you start talking about Jesus being inclusive, non-judgmental and caring for others, there is a big red flag that goes up in my brain! Jesus calls us to love others and that includes our enemies as well as our neighbors. It does not mean that we are to accept all the actions of those people as actions that a follower of Christ would do. Loving does not mean accepting unconditionally. It means that if you see a brother or sister going down the wrong path you love them enough to point out their error. Jesus calls us to sin no more (see John 7:53 - 8:11, I know, it probably does not belong in John but it does give us insight about leaving sin behind). There will be those who will not enter the Kingdom in the end. It includes a whole list of people that are included in the writings of Paul and the words of Christ (see Revelation 21:8). Loving our neighbor does not mean acceptance of all their actions. When we love those around us with the love of Christ, there is bound to be a change in the person. Just as the woman caught in adultry, when we come into contact with the living God of the Universe, expect to change. When those who are living in sin come into contact with God, expect to see a lifestyle change. :offtopic: I know!

[stormrunner]

Well, I appreciate the honest dissagreement of position there. That's... quite frankly, that's bloody refreshing. The usual response that I recieve is that "Obviously" I'm wrong.

I appreciate the comments you made mister Reece. We do not agree in this matter of translation, but I appreciate teh clarity of your response. You accept Danker's assessment at face value, whereas I take him with a grain of salt as it were, and hold a position more in line with Meyers. *nods* We'll see if anyone else wishes to comment.
There are other points of view regarding these New Testament passages. For example, a Baptist theologian and pastor argues on his website that Biblical admonitions against homosexuality have been improperly translated. His website is: http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html - and I would like to see some comments on this.

Surely, those who wrote the early testaments were a product of both the new experience of Jesus’ teachings and also the times in which they lived. And I hope you agree that we should not abandon centuries of our tradition of reading the Bible in conversation with our reason

Today there are millions of AIDS babies in the world suffering unbelievable pain, and this is in many ways a direct result of the homophobia that existed when AIDS first arose in the American gay community in the 1980’s and was not given the compassionate and crisis response that a similar new disease would have been given if the victims were white Christian heterosexual men. I say this, as I want to convey that the attitude toward gays does matter. And that much of the attitude towards gays is a result of an interpretation of scripture taken out of context, colored by individual bias, exaggerated relative to the overriding message of Jesus, and devoid of an intuitive reasoning that love is the most important message of all.

[Panayioti]

Well, I appreciate the honest dissagreement of position there. That's... quite frankly, that's bloody refreshing. The usual response that I recieve is that "Obviously" I'm wrong.

I appreciate the comments you made mister Reece. We do not agree in this matter of translation, but I appreciate teh clarity of your response. You accept Danker's assessment at face value, whereas I take him with a grain of salt as it were, and hold a position more in line with Meyers. *nods* We'll see if anyone else wishes to comment.

The time and energy that has been wasted in this endeavor is simply mindboggeling. The Greek word "Malakos" means a man who is "Sof" meaning "effeminent" and usually the bottom half of a Homosexual relationship. In Ancient Greek culture and that of Late Antiquity this is exactly what it meant.

St John Chrystostom also took it to encompass Masturbation, which a modern Greek derivative of the word "Malakos" does mean that.

Second, the word "Arsenikitios" (hope I'm transliterating correctly) has meant Homosexuality. The Fathers of the Church (which were much closer to the text that you or I) understood it in this regard.

Now, if you want to continue in this debate, go right ahead, but I've seen this debate before, and will probably see it again. However, for Orthodox and Catholic Christians who follow the Fathers of the Church and Holy Tradition, there is not debate or confusion.

[stormrunner]

I think you for your response, however, I feel as if I have been dismissed, as a child would by a dispassionate parent. It reminds me of the close-mindedness that has spawned, out of the Church, so many atrocities in His name over the centuries. I suppose you would also preach a literal translation of 1 Corinthians 14.33-36?

God gave us reason, intelligence, curiosity – and with that, if it is purposeful, a purpose that we use our common sense and an intuitive insight into the type of non-judgmental love and caring that our Lord taught.

How can you state that individuals who are gay, not by choice (as the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association clearly state), be marginalized in the Church and denied the opportunity for a committed relationship of love and caring (as homosexuals are routinely blessed for)?

You dismiss out of hand the arguments of a theologian without giving clear and current counter. If in the time of Jesus there were effeminate young men who worked in prostitution or as temple prostitutes and who were promiscuous and their love was only erotic and sensual and orgiastic, then I can see how the followers of Jesus would see that as not good.

But the true and honest and committed and caring love that two gay men have for each other may both not have even recognized in those times or is not what was being addressed in those scriptures. Would you be able to stand before your Maker and say unequivocally that you were right and justified to preach that real and honest love between two committed men (or women) is wrong?

[stormrunner]

I think you for your response, however, I feel as if I have been dismissed, as a child would by a dispassionate parent. It reminds me of the close-mindedness that has spawned, out of the Church, so many atrocities in His name over the centuries. I suppose you would also preach a literal translation of 1 Corinthians 14.33-36?

God gave us reason, intelligence, curiosity – and with that, if it is purposeful, a purpose that we use our common sense and an intuitive insight into the type of non-judgmental love and caring that our Lord taught.

How can you state that individuals who are gay, not by choice (as the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association clearly state), be marginalized in the Church and denied the opportunity for a committed relationship of love and caring (as homosexuals are routinely blessed for)?

You dismiss out of hand the arguments of a theologian without giving clear and current counter. If in the time of Jesus there were effeminate young men who worked in prostitution or as temple prostitutes and who were promiscuous and their love was only erotic and sensual and orgiastic, then I can see how the followers of Jesus would see that as not good.

But the true and honest and committed and caring love that two gay men have for each other may both not have even recognized in those times or is not what was being addressed in those scriptures. Would you be able to stand before your Maker and say unequivocally that you were right and justified to preach that real and honest love between two committed men (or women) is wrong?
sorry, third paragraph should read "(as heterosexuals[B] are routinely blessed for)?"

[Panayioti]

I think you for your response, however, I feel as if I have been dismissed, as a child would by a dispassionate parent. It reminds me of the close-mindedness that has spawned, out of the Church, so many atrocities in His name over the centuries. I suppose you would also preach a literal translation of 1 Corinthians 14.33-36?

God gave us reason, intelligence, curiosity – and with that, if it is purposeful, a purpose that we use our common sense and an intuitive insight into the type of non-judgmental love and caring that our Lord taught.

How can you state that individuals who are gay, not by choice (as the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association clearly state), be marginalized in the Church and denied the opportunity for a committed relationship of love and caring (as homosexuals are routinely blessed for)?

You dismiss out of hand the arguments of a theologian without giving clear and current counter. If in the time of Jesus there were effeminate young men who worked in prostitution or as temple prostitutes and who were promiscuous and their love was only erotic and sensual and orgiastic, then I can see how the followers of Jesus would see that as not good.

But the true and honest and committed and caring love that two gay men have for each other may both not have even recognized in those times or is not what was being addressed in those scriptures. Would you be able to stand before your Maker and say unequivocally that you were right and justified to preach that real and honest love between two committed men (or women) is wrong?

First, the organizations you have cited have and continue to have a clear agenda for homosexulaity. I can comment further, but it gets off topic about what this thread is about.

Second, your dilemma does not lie with the biblical text, but with what you believe. either you believe what the scriptures AND the Holy Tradition of the Church has and continues to say about homosexuality or not.

Third, don't worry what a theologian has to say, worry about what the Church says.

Fourth, yes, I can say that sexual perversion between two men or two women is wrong. St. Paul said it in Romans Chapter 1. If he can say it, so can I and every other Christian.

I bid you peace

[stormrunner]

I’m a bit taken back at your remarks. Are you implying that the Catholic Church’s blessed viewpoint is to automatically trump any other opinion on this board? Or is this an open board that discusses theology from all points of view?

You state that the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, and American Psychiatric Association “have a clear agenda for homosexuality”. Is that like saying Copernicus or Galileo had agendas just because they were offering discovered fact? The fact is homosexuals exist – a recent British government study estimates 6% of the population in Britain. And most reputable scientists concur that this sexual orientation is not chosen – thus, God makes homosexuals.

Are you sure that you are not just responding to your own distaste for the idea of homosexual sex – the “ickyness” factor?

I merely take a point of view that homosexuality is very obliquely and marginally mentioned in the entire Bible, and is open to interpretation within the context of the time in which it was written. And that it is the accumulated baggage of centuries of human tradition and theological bureaucracy that has somehow subverted the real message of our Lord by closed minded, smug, and maybe homophonic individuals – to such an extent that even the facts of homosexuality are dismissed.

In the spirit of this season – I ask that you reexamine this position and bring a bit of common sense to a discussion that has reached the point of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

[stormrunner]

sorry, I need to be a better editor - I meant "and maybe homophobic individuals"

[Panayioti]

I’m a bit taken back at your remarks. Are you implying that the Catholic Church’s blessed viewpoint is to automatically trump any other opinion on this board? Or is this an open board that discusses theology from all points of view?

You state that the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, and American Psychiatric Association “have a clear agenda for homosexuality”. Is that like saying Copernicus or Galileo had agendas just because they were offering discovered fact? The fact is homosexuals exist – a recent British government study estimates 6% of the population in Britain. And most reputable scientists concur that this sexual orientation is not chosen – thus, God makes homosexuals.

Are you sure that you are not just responding to your own distaste for the idea of homosexual sex – the “ickyness” factor?

I merely take a point of view that homosexuality is very obliquely and marginally mentioned in the entire Bible, and is open to interpretation within the context of the time in which it was written. And that it is the accumulated baggage of centuries of human tradition and theological bureaucracy that has somehow subverted the real message of our Lord by closed minded, smug, and maybe homophonic individuals – to such an extent that even the facts of homosexuality are dismissed.

In the spirit of this season – I ask that you reexamine this position and bring a bit of common sense to a discussion that has reached the point of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

I bring the Sacred Tradition of the Church (which by the way I'm Greek Orthodox NOT Roman Catholic, but the Catholics are the same on this point).

I also bring the Fathers of the Church that are much better interpreters of Scripture that you, I or anyone on this Board.

Finally, there is NO ickyness factor, but the simple truth of the Christian faith. I do not bend scripture so as to have or embrace an "enlighten" view ( or I should say demonic view).

Scripture says what it says on this issue you nor anyone cannot change it. Further, the issue goes beyon scripture for me as the Church is the final authority as the Church hold the Sacred apostolic teaching (Sacred Tradition) from which scripture was born.

You honestly believe that I and other Christians like me are homobopic? Its you who only wants to engage the issue. I want to engage the actual people. It is out of care and love that I say what I say not hatred.

When one's immortal soul is in peril I try very hard to save it, not to just accept that its drowning in the river of sin. The love that I have and the positions I take are based on scripture, but also from having friends and collegues who are Gay.

The Chicago Gay popoulation is racked with an increase of HIV/AIDS because of an explosion of Meth that is running through the Gay underground. Chicago has the best, and well funded (private, City and State) HIV/AIDS clinic: The Lakeview Specialty Clinic, that caters to all of Chicago's Gays and the surrounding midwest area because its one of the best.

I've been in this and many other clinics because I defend Gay people when they are discriminated at their jobs and housing and I defend the families of Gay people when a Gay son dies, due to a work or other type of accident, and the insurance company tells the family - "well, he had HIV so his life expectancy is only 10 years at best so here's $70,000.00 and leave us alone" who do you think defense these innocent souls? I do as well as my firm.

I have worked closely with Dr. Blaauw of the Lakeview Specialty Clinic to help gay men and their families get the money and services they deserve. I have seen Gay men waiting in the waiting room of the clinic hoping to God they don't test positive for HIV - I, which is the strain of the virus we have here in America.

I have seen the toll and agony that is placed on Gay men when they take their HIV/AIDS drugs which is a combination of Combrivar and Sustiva, as well as their joy when their T-cell count goes above 500 and their Viral Load is non-detectable.

I have counselled them, I have cried with them and their families, I have been here working in my community by putting my legal skills at work for Gays and their families.

However, it is because of what I have seen the agnoy, the death, the violence between lovers, the infection with HIV-1 and the emotional and psychological toll it takes on them and their families that has strengethened my Christian views AGAINST homosexuality more than at any other time in my life.

All my Homosexual clients know what I believe on this issue, but does that stop me from helping them? NO! whther they agree or not is not the issue. The issue is what does Scripture say about Homosexuality? That its a sin, period. What else does scripture say? love your neighbor as theyself, period.

I know what I believe, and I know what scripture says, I suggest you do the same, and stop trying to bend the word of God to your own views and beliefs and ACCEPT the scripture as is. As always, I bid you peace.

Peter

[Panayioti]

[QUOTE] The fact is homosexuals exist – a recent British government study estimates 6% of the population in Britain. And most reputable scientists concur that this sexual orientation is not chosen – thus, God makes homosexuals.

[Panayioti]

[QUOTE] The fact is homosexuals exist – a recent British government study estimates 6% of the population in Britain. And most reputable scientists concur that this sexual orientation is not chosen – thus, God makes homosexuals.


In response to "Reptuable Scientists" and their agendas I suggest you read books of the early history of the HIV/AIDS virus. What we find is "Reputable Scientists" that knew the San Francisco bath houses need to be closed, blood bnaks needs to be screened and the virus identified.

What happened was political agendas got in the way of treating people with HIV/AIDS and to one of the biggest scientific Frauds with Dr, Gallo claiming to have discovered the HIV virus when if was really the French at the Pasture Institute that discovered the virus.

The Matter was immediately litigated, stopping all proper research and treatment for several years, that eventually led to both Gallo and the French having credit as co-discovers of the HIV virus.

Everything in science passes through a filter with political and economic agendas constantly playing a role.

Scientific research with Twins and in the Hypothalamis have come out "Ambiguous" as the the nature/nuture debate. Yet, many psychologists believe that human beings are asexual at birth and develop a sexual orientation as they develop that is combination of nature and nuture.

well that sounds like a great middle of the road position. the reason being that pro-gay people are, by in large, in modern psychology, with a strong pre-Kinsey group asserting pressure for a more open approach that is based on the scientific model of observation, experimentation and repetition of results. Its as simple as that.

Politics purvaids all facets of life even science.

Peter

[spiritmech]

Ouch.
sm

[stormrunner]

As commendable as it may be, especially if your work was pro bono and you are not profiting from AIDS as drug companies do, I see it as little relevance to this theological discussion. In fact you continue to patronize gays with your characterizations.

Homophobia is largely responsible for AIDS not being quickly addressed when it first appeared - because those dying were only homosexuals and IV drug users! Contrast that with today’s efforts to contain bird flu. And if you think AIDS is a punishment on gays by God, explain that most new AIDS cases today are heterosexual and millions of AIDS babies exist.

Somehow you don’t have the perspective to see that past ignorance, buttressed by sometimes well meaning religious interpreters, led to slavery, the Inquisition, witch burning, religious wars and a whole hell of evils man inflicted against man in the name of so called Biblical interpretation.

Where is the wisdom to step back and have context? Jesus was the Son of God – we are all the children of God. The writers of the Bible were inspired by God, as were Van Gogh, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Einstein, and Pasteur. How arrogant that you have the truths – and others, who reach out for God’s truth in equally honest and sincere ways, are dismissed.

Old Testament dietary laws were certainly a context of health experience in the era they were postulated. New Testament writings, years after Jesus and by ordinary people, must also contain their perspectives and the context of their times. And most fundamentalists cherry pick according to their bias, prejudices, and intolerances – propping up obscure passages while dismissing such ones as 1 Corinthians 14.33-36.

By not accepting science fact and the view of enlightened societies, we condemn today’s homosexuals to the lives of duplicity and shame and exclusion – and that may be the real sin. Theology has to occur not just in the study of ancient texts but in the experience of being human and being able to not just read the text but also in reading the spaces between the lines.

[Panayioti]

[QUOTE=stormrunner]As commendable as it may be, especially if your work was pro bono and you are not profiting from AIDS as drug companies do, I see it as little relevance to this theological discussion. In fact you continue to patronize gays with your characterizations.

Homophobia is largely responsible for AIDS not being quickly addressed when it first appeared - because those dying were only homosexuals and IV drug users! Contrast that with today’s efforts to contain bird flu. And if you think AIDS is a punishment on gays by God, explain that most new AIDS cases today are heterosexual and millions of AIDS babies exist.

Somehow you don’t have the perspective to see that past ignorance, buttressed by sometimes well meaning religious interpreters, led to slavery, the Inquisition, witch burning, religious wars and a whole hell of evils man inflicted against man in the name of so called Biblical interpretation.

First, God condems sin, not us.

Second, scripture and the Church have always said what they have said about homosexuality - that it is a sin.

Third, I have heard these arguments many times before, and we are now talking past each other.

Finally, my compassion is that of Christ who acknowledged the harlots sin, forgave her and then told her to sin no more.

I will pray that you let go of your hatred and your demonic view of God, Scripture and Humanity. Yes, demonic. What you call enlightened is nothing more than demonic.

You put your trust in science. I put my trust in the truth of God that is found in faith and science. Its not a struggle for me, nor is my love and compassion for all people, while at the same time recognizing sin as sin and calling people to account for it.

In addition, I believe you have a great issue with hatred of God and his people as well as with his word. I hope you can learn to let go of your hate and recognize that we are all fallen beings in desperate need of a savior.

Thank you for the discussion. I bid you peace.

Peter

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

αρσενοκοιται and its derivative in 1 Timothy are both compound words, derived from αρσεν (Man) and κοιτες (Verb referring to bed, sexual implications). The word does not appear prior to 1 Corinthians in the greek language. It is defined normally as homosexual, but Frederick, William and Danker note clearly that it refers more directly to a pederast, the 'top' partner in this specific relationship.

Also, the source of this definition is highly suspect. The Septuagint of Leviticus 20 includes the two words in the same location, and commentators have stated that Paul may have mashed the words together. However, all other uses listed by F, W and D (such as Eusebius and Theophonis's [sp?] Anthologies) seem to have the connotation of Pederast.Can you refer to any source where the entire word is used n a context that requires that the word itself mean pederasty?

The fact that this is a compund of two words that appear side by side in the Septuagint (Leviticus 18:22 in our english versions) specifically where it condemns same-sex acts between men has every appearance of being an entirely adequate explanation of the term's meaning.

[stormrunner]

[QUOTE=stormrunner]As commendable as it may be, especially if your work was pro bono and you are not profiting from AIDS as drug companies do, I see it as little relevance to this theological discussion. In fact you continue to patronize gays with your characterizations.

Homophobia is largely responsible for AIDS not being quickly addressed when it first appeared - because those dying were only homosexuals and IV drug users! Contrast that with today’s efforts to contain bird flu. And if you think AIDS is a punishment on gays by God, explain that most new AIDS cases today are heterosexual and millions of AIDS babies exist.

Somehow you don’t have the perspective to see that past ignorance, buttressed by sometimes well meaning religious interpreters, led to slavery, the Inquisition, witch burning, religious wars and a whole hell of evils man inflicted against man in the name of so called Biblical interpretation.

First, God condems sin, not us.

Second, scripture and the Church have always said what they have said about homosexuality - that it is a sin.

Third, I have heard these arguments many times before, and we are now talking past each other.

Finally, my compassion is that of Christ who acknowledged the harlots sin, forgave her and then told her to sin no more.

I will pray that you let go of your hatred and your demonic view of God, Scripture and Humanity. Yes, demonic. What you call enlightened is nothing more than demonic.

You put your trust in science. I put my trust in the truth of God that is found in faith and science. Its not a struggle for me, nor is my love and compassion for all people, while at the same time recognizing sin as sin and calling people to account for it.

In addition, I believe you have a great issue with hatred of God and his people as well as with his word. I hope you can learn to let go of your hate and recognize that we are all fallen beings in desperate need of a savior.

Thank you for the discussion. I bid you peace.

Peter
Reasonable men are having serious conversations about homosexuality and the church. Yet you arrogantly deny that conversation as irrelevant. Many Churches are accepting of homosexuality, homosexuals, and the blessing of homosexual unions – so your absolutist statement regarding the church’s position is erroneous. There are other churches than your church and other interpretations than yours.

And you condemn me here as demonic. I would hope others on this board would recognize this type of personality – imagine if you will if this poster were instead the Grand Inquisitor during the Inquisition. It helps to understand how such human atrocities come to be.

Some of the Bible is open to interpretation – some is crystal clear. Non-judgmental behavior, love, caring, charity, forgiveness, tolerance – these are certainly aspects of Christianity. Attacks on homosexuality is not a hallmark of my Christianity, and just as accepting that the world is not flat, contemporary society is coming to view that homosexuality is a normal characteristic of the rich spectrum of human characteristics bestowed by God.

Fortunately we live in a time of free expression and free consideration of various points of views – and your bullying will be seen for what it really is.

[Panayioti]

[QUOTE=Panayioti]
Reasonable men are having serious conversations about homosexuality and the church. Yet you arrogantly deny that conversation as irrelevant. Many Churches are accepting of homosexuality, homosexuals, and the blessing of homosexual unions – so your absolutist statement regarding the church’s position is erroneous. There are other churches than your church and other interpretations than yours.

And you condemn me here as demonic. I would hope others on this board would recognize this type of personality – imagine if you will if this poster were instead the Grand Inquisitor during the Inquisition. It helps to understand how such human atrocities come to be.

Some of the Bible is open to interpretation – some is crystal clear. Non-judgmental behavior, love, caring, charity, forgiveness, tolerance – these are certainly aspects of Christianity. Attacks on homosexuality is not a hallmark of my Christianity, and just as accepting that the world is not flat, contemporary society is coming to view that homosexuality is a normal characteristic of the rich spectrum of human characteristics bestowed by God.

Fortunately we live in a time of free expression and free consideration of various points of views – and your bullying will be seen for what it really is.

As a Greek Orthodox Christian the Bible is NOT open to interpretation. The Church interprets the Bible. The Fathers of the Church have interpreted the Bible. There is no discussion as far as I am concerned.

There may be with others, but not me, and not for The Holy Orthodox Church.

[Panayioti]

I apoligize I forgot to bid you peace.

[stormrunner]

I apoligize I forgot to bid you peace.
And therein lies perhaps the most relevant issue in theology. Do we read the Bible in conversation with our reason – or do we just accept, without question, the dogma of one church or another.

Perhaps this is more an issue for psychology than for theology. What exactly is the precursor for liberal versus conservative mindsets? This issue is very important as the fundamentalist conservative views scripture and law as inviolate – word for word truth – and they want to not stray an iota from this. Whether their context is the Bible or the Constitution or the Koran. Is this not the reasoning the Osama Bin Ladens and the Tom Delays and the Jerry Falwells of the world use? Do we not try to view the intention and context of the writers of these documents and try to apply their concepts through the lens of contemporary life as they might do were they here today?

If I don’t bow to your position – you get snippy and leave the conversation. How is this then a theological discussion? Either I accept your point of view or else? How is progress made if not through open mined discussion among men of good will? God gave us among all beings the ability to think, question, reason – as all things in God’s universe are purposeful, why would he give us these abilities and yet have us hide this bright light under a bushel?

[Panayioti]

And therein lies perhaps the most relevant issue in theology. Do we read the Bible in conversation with our reason – or do we just accept, without question, the dogma of one church or another.

Perhaps this is more an issue for psychology than for theology. What exactly is the precursor for liberal versus conservative mindsets? This issue is very important as the fundamentalist conservative views scripture and law as inviolate – word for word truth – and they want to not stray an iota from this. Whether their context is the Bible or the Constitution or the Koran. Is this not the reasoning the Osama Bin Ladens and the Tom Delays and the Jerry Falwells of the world use? Do we not try to view the intention and context of the writers of these documents and try to apply their concepts through the lens of contemporary life as they might do were they here today?

If I don’t bow to your position – you get snippy and leave the conversation. How is this then a theological discussion? Either I accept your point of view or else? How is progress made if not through open mined discussion among men of good will? God gave us among all beings the ability to think, question, reason – as all things in God’s universe are purposeful, why would he give us these abilities and yet have us hide this bright light under a bushel?


Your problem is you do not bow to Christ. Further, it is your own sin that gives you your "abilities" if you mean homosexuality, not God.

Further, I don't get snippy, I state the words of St. Paul that said that the Church is the Bulwark of Truth, and that no individual has the right to Privately interpret Scripture.

do you honestly believe that the Greek Speaking Church has gotten Leviticus, Romans, 1st Corinthians, 1st Timonthy, etc. wrong, thus believeing Homosexuality is a sin, that has read the Greek of the LXX and the Greek of the New Testament that declares Homosexuality is a sin?

So all these centuries have passed, and it takes Gays to properly interpret these passages for us? I find that very hard to believe.

You have a clear Gay agenda that you are trying to force unto the Scripture. I'm sorry but you are wrong. I'm not being dismissive of you, but when you tell me the Sky is Green, when its obviously Blue, why should I waste my time?

Further, Homosexuality is not the problem you have, but lack of faith in God, meaning you don't want to believe his word. Fine, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your lie.

I'm very sorry I have to take this tone with you, but you are 100% wrong. In any event, I'm done with this. On to more productive things in life.

Peter

[stormrunner]

Your problem is you do not bow to Christ. Further, it is your own sin that gives you your "abilities" if you mean homosexuality, not God.

Further, I don't get snippy, I state the words of St. Paul that said that the Church is the Bulwark of Truth, and that no individual has the right to Privately interpret Scripture.

do you honestly believe that the Greek Speaking Church has gotten Leviticus, Romans, 1st Corinthians, 1st Timonthy, etc. wrong, thus believeing Homosexuality is a sin, that has read the Greek of the LXX and the Greek of the New Testament that declares Homosexuality is a sin?

So all these centuries have passed, and it takes Gays to properly interpret these passages for us? I find that very hard to believe.

You have a clear Gay agenda that you are trying to force unto the Scripture. I'm sorry but you are wrong. I'm not being dismissive of you, but when you tell me the Sky is Green, when its obviously Blue, why should I waste my time?

Further, Homosexuality is not the problem you have, but lack of faith in God, meaning you don't want to believe his word. Fine, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your lie.

I'm very sorry I have to take this tone with you, but you are 100% wrong. In any event, I'm done with this. On to more productive things in life.

Peter
A hallmark of fundamental conservatives seems to be eventual inconsistency and then hypocrisy. And the your posts presented here are clear examples.

(1) The use of obscure Old Testament verse as support that homosexuality is a sin – but I assume you excuse the dietary laws and other Old Testament admonitions all but ignored in all but the most fundamentalist of Jewish sects.

(2) Judging me over and over in the most unchristian manner – when you have no idea whatsoever of what my sexual orientation even happens to be.

(3) Evasion of the issue, that apart from this board, their is a rather universal discussion in the churches of the world regarding the church’s response to new science and facts regarding homosexuality – AND, new scholarly interpretations of scripture.

(4) My relationship with God and Jesus is personal, strong, and committed – thank you. I don’t attack your spiritual quest and I would thank it appropriate that you not attack mine. I love God – God loves me.

(5) This board is not controlled nor measured by the tenants of the Greek Orthodox Church.

(6) As most fundamentalists who hold others to strict interpretation of rules – they tend to exempt themselves as you seem to do (by hawking your book on these boards in direct violation of the rule against advertising here).

(7) I am merely trying to look for open-minded discussion on a vital subject of our time. And find instead a derisive and un-useful dogmatic attack on me personally. How typical of fundamentalist conservatives.

[spiritmech]

I'd just like to commend you for your non-judgemental response.
sm

A hallmark of fundamental conservatives seems to be eventual inconsistency and then hypocrisy. And the your posts presented here are clear examples.

(1) The use of obscure Old Testament verse as support that homosexuality is a sin – but I assume you excuse the dietary laws and other Old Testament admonitions all but ignored in all but the most fundamentalist of Jewish sects.

(2) Judging me over and over in the most unchristian manner – when you have no idea whatsoever of what my sexual orientation even happens to be.

(3) Evasion of the issue, that apart from this board, their is a rather universal discussion in the churches of the world regarding the church’s response to new science and facts regarding homosexuality – AND, new scholarly interpretations of scripture.

(4) My relationship with God and Jesus is personal, strong, and committed – thank you. I don’t attack your spiritual quest and I would thank it appropriate that you not attack mine. I love God – God loves me.

(5) This board is not controlled nor measured by the tenants of the Greek Orthodox Church.

(6) As most fundamentalists who hold others to strict interpretation of rules – they tend to exempt themselves as you seem to do (by hawking your book on these boards in direct violation of the rule against advertising here).

(7) I am merely trying to look for open-minded discussion on a vital subject of our time. And find instead a derisive and un-useful dogmatic attack on me personally. How typical of fundamentalist conservatives.

[Panayioti]

A hallmark of fundamental conservatives seems to be eventual inconsistency and then hypocrisy. And the your posts presented here are clear examples.

(1) The use of obscure Old Testament verse as support that homosexuality is a sin – but I assume you excuse the dietary laws and other Old Testament admonitions all but ignored in all but the most fundamentalist of Jewish sects.

(2) Judging me over and over in the most unchristian manner – when you have no idea whatsoever of what my sexual orientation even happens to be.

(3) Evasion of the issue, that apart from this board, their is a rather universal discussion in the churches of the world regarding the church’s response to new science and facts regarding homosexuality – AND, new scholarly interpretations of scripture.

(4) My relationship with God and Jesus is personal, strong, and committed – thank you. I don’t attack your spiritual quest and I would thank it appropriate that you not attack mine. I love God – God loves me.

(5) This board is not controlled nor measured by the tenants of the Greek Orthodox Church.

(6) As most fundamentalists who hold others to strict interpretation of rules – they tend to exempt themselves as you seem to do (by hawking your book on these boards in direct violation of the rule against advertising here).

(7) I am merely trying to look for open-minded discussion on a vital subject of our time. And find instead a derisive and un-useful dogmatic attack on me personally. How typical of fundamentalist conservatives.

I am sorry you believe I have personally attacked you. I have not. However, youmust understand that those who want to distort scripture will and those that won't will not.

This is NOT the first time I and others on this board have gotten into the meaning of the biblical text. For example, Jews will never accept the translation of Esaias 7:14 as that of "Virgin" even though that's how Greek and Latin Christians have always translated and interpreted that text.

However, I and other Christians have a right to disagree with those views and say to those persons, as I have said, that they are wrong. That's why I'm Christan and they are Jewish. Ok, fine.

So when you tell me that the Greek Words "Malakos" - Effeminate and "Arsenikopios" (This is going off memory, excuse me if i'm inaccurate in the spelling) - Homosexual do not mean what they mean, and you exclude Romans Ch. 1 from this discussion which a clear rebuke by St. Paul of the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle. I don't know how to respond to you, but to say you are wrong.

There is no nice way of saying it. I have tried to disengage myself from this thread so I don't say something that is mean, but your views are demonic. And I will admit for the record that that is a harsh, very harsh thing to say.

I will also tell you that many an Orthodox Monk and Priest have said such things because of our belief that is supported by scripture that Satan is the Great Deceiver and is working overtime in our world today.

I cannot begin to tell you that I have no hatred for no one, but I will stand up for the truth. To do otherwise, to leave you and others in peril of your very souls, would be a complete abandonment of my Christian Duty to reprove and correct a fellow brother or sister in the Lord.

I mean no malice nor intent any hatred towards you. Also, dietary laws are very important to an Eastern Christian. Do I always live up to them? No. Am I fanatical about separating meat and dary dishes, no.

St. Peters explicit vision in the Book of Acts has freed us from the strict Old Testament Dietary Laws. St. Paul's teaching on the circumcised and uncircumcised has also freed us from that requirement, but was replaced with Baptisim.

However, I find no New Testament scripture that relaxes the Moral Law of God as far as a code or way of life to live by. In fact our Lord reaffirms the moral law of God as does St. Paul. What has been relaxed, because of the Gospel of Christ, is the Judgment or Punishment. In the Old Testament when people engaged in Homosexual activity or Beastiality were immediately killed.

Under the Gospel of Christ the judgment has been replaced with mercy and grace. We do not kill, mame, or hurt as Christians, and if we do that is the greater sin that we must repent from and seek forgiveness.

As for me "Hocking" my book, I will endeavor in the future to only give translation updates. But when the LXX and Official GNT scriptures are translated into Englsih for Orthodox Christians, I'm going to provide them to my fellow Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians.

Finally, I don't "Hock" my book every day for crying out loud, but if you would like a copy please go to www.peterpapoutsis.com and pick up a hardcopy and e-book.


Yours Ib Christ

Peter

[Panayioti]

So you understand were I'm coming from, and how the verses cited in this thread are viewed by Orthodox Christians, please see below:

HOMOSEXUALITY: Although there is much more open discussion about homosexuality in the twentieth century than in previous times, there is sufficient reference to it in ancient writings. The frequently used synonym, sodomy, comes from the apparent homosexual activity among men of Sodom (Genesis 19), and the severity of strictures set forth in the Holiness Code with nothing short of the death penalty being imposed, suggested that the need for discipline must have been great, (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The Old Testament understood normal sexual intercource as not only a way of expressing a loving relationship, but also as a divinely appointed way of creating new life.

In the New testament, St. Paul condemns male prostitutes and homosexuals (I Corinthians 6:9-11). In the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:24-32), he also judges it as unnatural . Homosexuals are included elsewhere among the immoral persons who, St. Paul says, deserve judgement by God (I Timothy 1:10). There is no example in all of the New Testament of approval, acceptance, or even tolerance of homosexuality.

Throughout Christian history, this disapproval has continued to be the case. In the patristic era freedom from homosexuality was seen as a mark of the Christian's ethical superiority to the wanton way of life that converts had left. Patristic thinking, like scriptural references, were directed to the practice of homosexuality, not to the desire itself. The Orthodox Church does not condemn the person who keeps this propensity in check, and ministers to homosexuals who wish to find release from this inclination.

[stormrunner]

So you understand were I'm coming from, and how the verses cited in this thread are viewed by Orthodox Christians, please see below:

HOMOSEXUALITY: Although there is much more open discussion about homosexuality in the twentieth century than in previous times, there is sufficient reference to it in ancient writings. The frequently used synonym, sodomy, comes from the apparent homosexual activity among men of Sodom (Genesis 19), and the severity of strictures set forth in the Holiness Code with nothing short of the death penalty being imposed, suggested that the need for discipline must have been great, (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The Old Testament understood normal sexual intercource as not only a way of expressing a loving relationship, but also as a divinely appointed way of creating new life.

In the New testament, St. Paul condemns male prostitutes and homosexuals (I Corinthians 6:9-11). In the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:24-32), he also judges it as unnatural . Homosexuals are included elsewhere among the immoral persons who, St. Paul says, deserve judgement by God (I Timothy 1:10). There is no example in all of the New Testament of approval, acceptance, or even tolerance of homosexuality.

Throughout Christian history, this disapproval has continued to be the case. In the patristic era freedom from homosexuality was seen as a mark of the Christian's ethical superiority to the wanton way of life that converts had left. Patristic thinking, like scriptural references, were directed to the practice of homosexuality, not to the desire itself. The Orthodox Church does not condemn the person who keeps this propensity in check, and ministers to homosexuals who wish to find release from this inclination.
I appreciate that you have not withdrawn from the conversation. Know that I am also concerned about your soul, and hope that you remain open minded and available to any new truth that comes your way. I hope you are accepting that you may not know completely God’s truth for you, and that the spiritual path often requires courage and wisdom beyond what we may have possessed in the past.

Please explain how you accusing me as “demonic” is different from a similar personality similarly accusing someone in the historic context of the Salem witch trials or The Inquisition. From my point of view should I see you as demonic? – As the devil who is trying to trick me with false arguments when the truth of the message of Jesus of unconditional love is so apparent?

Does not a portrayal of my spiritual quest as demonic fuel and encourage those who would today attack, bash, or otherwise find outlet for their hatred, and needs to feel superior and more powerful than some others?

Is it irrelevant to construct a context of the times of Jesus? Of people, who are not so sophisticated, are mostly illiterate, are oppressed by Roman occupation, and lead rather simple lives close to subsistence level? In such a context could not homosexuality be seen also in context? I remember in the 60’s that my only exposure to homosexuals was that they were queers, faggots, and perverts. I had no understanding of any monogamous relationship between two men that was analogous to the romantic and traditional heterosexual stereotypes.

I have no qualm with the great truths and the overriding laws of behavior pronounced by the Bible. I have no desire to kill, or steal, or commit adultery, or lie. However, I think much of the Bible is parable, moral allegory, or even exaggeration. I don’t think that we all came from Adam and Eve (if so their children would have had to be incestuous); I don’t believe Noah lived to be 500 years old. I have no problem eating pork. I believe that God wants me to read the Bible in conversation with my reason.

And I do not have the answer to whether homosexuality is a sin. I believe that two men loving and caring for each other in a monogamous relationship is seen by society in a changing way, and also that scripture is viewed anew by each generation. You say it is not for me to interpret the scripture – that I must be spoon-fed. By whom? By you? By church elders? Somehow, I don’t think that will be sufficient excuse when I stand before God. I was given the ability to know right from wrong. As a child I was on a bus in Richmond when the driver told a black person that they were not sitting far enough back in the bus. I knew then that he was wrong – even though there were mixed messages about this coming to me from my environment.

I know that many confuse homosexuality – they try to tie it to pedophilia, drug abuse, sexual orgies, promiscuity, AIDS, effeminacy, nanny behavior, lisping, cross dressing. Well then you should also confuse heterosexuality with all the same attributes. I am talking about the loving and caring committed and monogamous love between two men that is analogous to that of our romantic and stereotype heterosexual love that is fully accepted and blessed by family, community, church, and government – and which is withheld from gays. The scientific world views sexual orientation not so different from being right handed or left handed. To accuse as demonic those who would want society to treat such individuals with love and inclusion may be the real sin in God’s eye.

[Panayioti]

I appreciate that you have not withdrawn from the conversation. Know that I am also concerned about your soul, and hope that you remain open minded and available to any new truth that comes your way. I hope you are accepting that you may not know completely God’s truth for you, and that the spiritual path often requires courage and wisdom beyond what we may have possessed in the past.

Please explain how you accusing me as “demonic” is different from a similar personality similarly accusing someone in the historic context of the Salem witch trials or The Inquisition. From my point of view should I see you as demonic? – As the devil who is trying to trick me with false arguments when the truth of the message of Jesus of unconditional love is so apparent?

Does not a portrayal of my spiritual quest as demonic fuel and encourage those who would today attack, bash, or otherwise find outlet for their hatred, and needs to feel superior and more powerful than some others?

Is it irrelevant to construct a context of the times of Jesus? Of people, who are not so sophisticated, are mostly illiterate, are oppressed by Roman occupation, and lead rather simple lives close to subsistence level? In such a context could not homosexuality be seen also in context? I remember in the 60’s that my only exposure to homosexuals was that they were queers, faggots, and perverts. I had no understanding of any monogamous relationship between two men that was analogous to the romantic and traditional heterosexual stereotypes.

I have no qualm with the great truths and the overriding laws of behavior pronounced by the Bible. I have no desire to kill, or steal, or commit adultery, or lie. However, I think much of the Bible is parable, moral allegory, or even exaggeration. I don’t think that we all came from Adam and Eve (if so their children would have had to be incestuous); I don’t believe Noah lived to be 500 years old. I have no problem eating pork. I believe that God wants me to read the Bible in conversation with my reason.

And I do not have the answer to whether homosexuality is a sin. I believe that two men loving and caring for each other in a monogamous relationship is seen by society in a changing way, and also that scripture is viewed anew by each generation. You say it is not for me to interpret the scripture – that I must be spoon-fed. By whom? By you? By church elders? Somehow, I don’t think that will be sufficient excuse when I stand before God. I was given the ability to know right from wrong. As a child I was on a bus in Richmond when the driver told a black person that they were not sitting far enough back in the bus. I knew then that he was wrong – even though there were mixed messages about this coming to me from my environment.

I know that many confuse homosexuality – they try to tie it to pedophilia, drug abuse, sexual orgies, promiscuity, AIDS, effeminacy, nanny behavior, lisping, cross dressing. Well then you should also confuse heterosexuality with all the same attributes. I am talking about the loving and caring committed and monogamous love between two men that is analogous to that of our romantic and stereotype heterosexual love that is fully accepted and blessed by family, community, church, and government – and which is withheld from gays. The scientific world views sexual orientation not so different from being right handed or left handed. To accuse as demonic those who would want society to treat such individuals with love and inclusion may be the real sin in God’s eye.


I do not have the truth, the Church does.

Christ has unconditional love for people, but does not accept a person's sin. See the Gospel According to St. John Ch.8 where Christ forgave the prositute, but acknowledged her sin and never accepted it. Unconditional love for the person should never be confused for acceptance of sin. We are not libertines. Read the book of Revelation's early chapters and see what is said of those Churches that adopt positions such as yourself.

Either we repent and change by the power of Christ's Gospel or we do not. The early Christians had "another" Gospel, which St. Paul peached and fought against. Where did this lie come from if not from Satan the Father of lies. If the great lie comes from Satan is it not satanic? demonic?

If you do not know that Homosexuality is a sin, when it is clearly stated in the Scripture and pronounced as sin by the Church for 2000 years, what else do you not know? And why do you not know that such "reason" is demonic? Read the early Christian Fathers, see the Church's stand against a Pagan Roman world that is the same as ours and you will see what the Church fought and died for, and in the end was victorious over a world that as cruel, dark and full of sin.

The Church as not a Gnostic Church not knowing itself or keeping the truth for itself and a select few. It knows itself, its Savior and the Truth of His Gospel. How is it that Christ and His Church know the Truth and you do not?


Peter

[stormrunner]

I do not have the truth, the Church does.

Christ has unconditional love for people, but does not accept a person's sin. See the Gospel According to St. John Ch.8 where Christ forgave the prositute, but acknowledged her sin and never accepted it. Unconditional love for the person should never be confused for acceptance of sin. We are not libertines. Read the book of Revelation's early chapters and see what is said of those Churches that adopt positions such as yourself.

Either we repent and change by the power of Christ's Gospel or we do not. The early Christians had "another" Gospel, which St. Paul peached and fought against. Where did this lie come from if not from Satan the Father of lies. If the great lie comes from Satan is it not satanic? demonic?

If you do not know that Homosexuality is a sin, when it is clearly stated in the Scripture and pronounced as sin by the Church for 2000 years, what else do you not know? And why do you not know that such "reason" is demonic? Read the early Christian Fathers, see the Church's stand against a Pagan Roman world that is the same as ours and you will see what the Church fought and died for, and in the end was victorious over a world that as cruel, dark and full of sin.

The Church as not a Gnostic Church not knowing itself or keeping the truth for itself and a select few. It knows itself, its Savior and the Truth of His Gospel. How is it that Christ and His Church know the Truth and you do not?


Peter
You state, "I do not have the truth, the Church does.”

Which Church is that? The Greek Orthodox Church? The Southern Baptist Church? The Lutheran Church? The Unitarian Church? The Mormon Church? Not one of these church's existed at the time of Jesus, they are man-made constructs and fallible as we all are.

All you do is state over and over that you are right and I am demonic. Yet you don’t engage in conversation, you avoid a response to my comments, and you surely don’t come into this with an open mind. You are like a child who still believes in Santa Claus long after they should have learned a broader lesson of the blessing of giving without expecting anything in return.

And you seem blind to the sins, of equally righteous thinking fundamentalists before you, who justified atrocity after atrocity in the name of their interpretation of God’s word. Such a simple commandment as “Thou shall not kill” is perverted such that we stand alone in the civilized world clinging to capital punishment, and justifying war when all avenues to peace have not been exhausted.

Have you no understanding of history? – do you not know how the Church was perverted? How the Crusades of the 12th century slaughtered thousands of men, women, and children, and had you lived then, I am most confident that you would have found your place among the smug fundamentalist religious explainers that both supported the Crusades and justified their horrors – in the name of Jesus.

You and your kind have been with us throughout the centuries – arrogant in your assumed superiority and unwavering in your positions.

And unfortunately, seemingly oblivious to the pain and suffering you directly or indirectly inflict – in the name of the greatest love the world has ever known. For Heaven’s sake – what possible lesson must you experience that will shake you from your blind faith and open your eyes to real courage, real charity, real sacrifice, real love – in the name of the Savior you claim to follow?

[Panayioti]

You state, "I do not have the truth, the Church does.”

Which Church is that? The Greek Orthodox Church? The Southern Baptist Church? The Lutheran Church? The Unitarian Church? The Mormon Church? Not one of these church's existed at the time of Jesus, they are man-made constructs and fallible as we all are.

All you do is state over and over that you are right and I am demonic. Yet you don’t engage in conversation, you avoid a response to my comments, and you surely don’t come into this with an open mind. You are like a child who still believes in Santa Claus long after they should have learned a broader lesson of the blessing of giving without expecting anything in return.

And you seem blind to the sins, of equally righteous thinking fundamentalists before you, who justified atrocity after atrocity in the name of their interpretation of God’s word. Such a simple commandment as “Thou shall not kill” is perverted such that we stand alone in the civilized world clinging to capital punishment, and justifying war when all avenues to peace have not been exhausted.

Have you no understanding of history? – do you not know how the Church was perverted? How the Crusades of the 12th century slaughtered thousands of men, women, and children, and had you lived then, I am most confident that you would have found your place among the smug fundamentalist religious explainers that both supported the Crusades and justified their horrors – in the name of Jesus.

You and your kind have been with us throughout the centuries – arrogant in your assumed superiority and unwavering in your positions.

And unfortunately, seemingly oblivious to the pain and suffering you directly or indirectly inflict – in the name of the greatest love the world has ever known. For Heaven’s sake – what possible lesson must you experience that will shake you from your blind faith and open your eyes to real courage, real charity, real sacrifice, real love – in the name of the Savior you claim to follow?

If you knew anything about history you would know what the Greeks suffered at the hands of the Fourth Crusade and the loss of their Empire.

Second, men are not angels but fallen imperfect beings who can rationalise (according to you) just aboutr anything such as western Christians sacking a Christian City (i.e. Constandinople).

Third, like I said people make mistakes. The Pope apologized by going to Greece and expressly asking the forgivness of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek people. The bravery and sincerity in Pope John Paul's acts were felt by all Greek and other Orthodox Christians.

I am not smug, nor to I force anyone to be Christian. I pray for the conversion of sinners with prayer and sincere argument, never with violence or discrimination. However, I will not abandon the Truth of my Faith just because mistakes were done in the past. We do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Mistake in Judgment is one thing, mistake about the faith and morals never.

Further, you make a very flawed Protestant argument that I have never accepted (i.e. What Church?). There is only one - I repeat only ONE CHURCH! The Orthodox Church may have certain disagreements with Catholic or Protestant Churches, but acknowledges the common faith that all Christians hold to. The Orthodox Church does make very specific claims of being the Authentic Church, but that does not mean that other "sister" churches in which we have a common faith are not Christian

Man created the divisions, not God. This is why Pope Benedict and the Church of Greece have recently worked together on the publication of certain religious Byzantine manuscripts (specifically St. Basils menologion) for both western and eastern Christendom.

As for lessons that sake one's faith - my soul was saken a long time ago and found rest in Christ. What lesson will you learn to stop kicking at the torns and enbrace the living Christ unconditionally?

I don't think scripture is your problem. This entire time you have never once quoted the Gospel, never once quoted scripture, but you have constantly put forward a political and social agenda that has nothing to do with the Christian faith and everything to do with a New Left agenda that I found and still find on colleges here in Chicago.

It is very difficult to offer Christ and his Gospel to a world that does not want to hear it, but I do. Never with violence, but always with Love.

You create starw men arguments about "Christian violence" and talk about history? Do you know history? Do you know that the Doge of Venice manipulated the events of the Fouth Crusade and the Destruction of the Catholic City of Zara for economic and NOT Religious reasons? Did you know that Pope Innocent could not condemn the Doge, even though he saw him for the heretic he was, as the Papacy needed the Venetian Fleet and the Crusader army to protect the Papy from nothern barbarian tribes that wanted to sack Rome?

How is it that I am able to forgive the Catholics for their failings and their mistakes and you are not? What would you have done in Pope Innocent's Position, Any better? Am I excusing the destruction of Constandiople? No, but I am not blaming God, but the Politics of the Day.

People do not kill in the name of God, people use the name of God to justify their killing that is based on political and/or economic reasons. That is the real lesson of history. Never read what is on the surface. Examine all aspects of history and realize that the picture is much more complex and you may think.

I hold to the Gospel because I know it to be true. That is not being smug or a fundalmentalist, that's being a Christian. And if you equate the two as one and the same then fine - I'm a Fundalmentalist and proud of it.

Peter

[stormrunner]

If you knew anything about history you would know what the Greeks suffered at the hands of the Fourth Crusade and the loss of their Empire.

Second, men are not angels but fallen imperfect beings who can rationalise (according to you) just aboutr anything such as western Christians sacking a Christian City (i.e. Constandinople).

Third, like I said people make mistakes. The Pope apologized by going to Greece and expressly asking the forgivness of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek people. The bravery and sincerity in Pope John Paul's acts were felt by all Greek and other Orthodox Christians.

I am not smug, nor to I force anyone to be Christian. I pray for the conversion of sinners with prayer and sincere argument, never with violence or discrimination. However, I will not abandon the Truth of my Faith just because mistakes were done in the past. We do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Mistake in Judgment is one thing, mistake about the faith and morals never.

Further, you make a very flawed Protestant argument that I have never accepted (i.e. What Church?). There is only one - I repeat only ONE CHURCH! The Orthodox Church may have certain disagreements with Catholic or Protestant Churches, but acknowledges the common faith that all Christians hold to. The Orthodox Church does make very specific claims of being the Authentic Church, but that does not mean that other "sister" churches in which we have a common faith are not Christian

Man created the divisions, not God. This is why Pope Benedict and the Church of Greece have recently worked together on the publication of certain religious Byzantine manuscripts (specifically St. Basils menologion) for both western and eastern Christendom.

As for lessons that sake one's faith - my soul was saken a long time ago and found rest in Christ. What lesson will you learn to stop kicking at the torns and enbrace the living Christ unconditionally?

I don't think scripture is your problem. This entire time you have never once quoted the Gospel, never once quoted scripture, but you have constantly put forward a political and social agenda that has nothing to do with the Christian faith and everything to do with a New Left agenda that I found and still find on colleges here in Chicago.

It is very difficult to offer Christ and his Gospel to a world that does not want to hear it, but I do. Never with violence, but always with Love.

You create starw men arguments about "Christian violence" and talk about history? Do you know history? Do you know that the Doge of Venice manipulated the events of the Fouth Crusade and the Destruction of the Catholic City of Zara for economic and NOT Religious reasons? Did you know that Pope Innocent could not condemn the Doge, even though he saw him for the heretic he was, as the Papacy needed the Venetian Fleet and the Crusader army to protect the Papy from nothern barbarian tribes that wanted to sack Rome?

How is it that I am able to forgive the Catholics for their failings and their mistakes and you are not? What would you have done in Pope Innocent's Position, Any better? Am I excusing the destruction of Constandiople? No, but I am not blaming God, but the Politics of the Day.

People do not kill in the name of God, people use the name of God to justify their killing that is based on political and/or economic reasons. That is the real lesson of history. Never read what is on the surface. Examine all aspects of history and realize that the picture is much more complex and you may think.

I hold to the Gospel because I know it to be true. That is not being smug or a fundalmentalist, that's being a Christian. And if you equate the two as one and the same then fine - I'm a Fundalmentalist and proud of it.

Peter
Peter,

Reading our postings I wonder if there is any hope for mankind. If you and I cannot reach some accommodation, some community, some mutual trust and respect - well, then what is the hope for our world? A world where good men who have different belief systems, who are not as comfortable with Church dogma as you are, who find some truth in many religions and many life experiences which they craft together into their own personal belief system?

You wear the badge of fundamentalism proudly, but why then even participate in this conversation? If you are only here to pronounce that the truth you say you know is THE truth and any deviation from that truth is heresy? What are you here to learn? What are you open to? Absolutely nothing - as you see yourself as having absolute truth. And not only that, your belief is that those not believing in that same truth will be condemned by God to hell.

That is powerful.

That is scary.

That is a religion that takes no prisoners.

And as I have mentioned previously, that is a religion that has historically, through fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, caused uncountable suffering.

On the other hand, I believe in peace, love, tolerance, non-judgmental behavior, charity, kindness, humility, stewardship of our environment, fair and equitable laws, forgiveness, and friendship. Isn’t this a large enough commonality to have a community of common sense and tolerance for a wider range of beliefs?

Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20


Bill

[Panayioti]

Peter,

Reading our postings I wonder if there is any hope for mankind. If you and I cannot reach some accommodation, some community, some mutual trust and respect - well, then what is the hope for our world? A world where good men who have different belief systems, who are not as comfortable with Church dogma as you are, who find some truth in many religions and many life experiences which they craft together into their own personal belief system?

You wear the badge of fundamentalism proudly, but why then even participate in this conversation? If you are only here to pronounce that the truth you say you know is THE truth and any deviation from that truth is heresy? What are you here to learn? What are you open to? Absolutely nothing - as you see yourself as having absolute truth. And not only that, your belief is that those not believing in that same truth will be condemned by God to hell.

That is powerful.

That is scary.

That is a religion that takes no prisoners.

And as I have mentioned previously, that is a religion that has historically, through fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, caused uncountable suffering.

On the other hand, I believe in peace, love, tolerance, non-judgmental behavior, charity, kindness, humility, stewardship of our environment, fair and equitable laws, forgiveness, and friendship. Isn’t this a large enough commonality to have a community of common sense and tolerance for a wider range of beliefs?

Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20


Bill



Christ is the Hope of Humanity. This is why I am not scared nor worried.

[Panayioti]

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. I bid you peace.

[stormrunner]

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. I bid you peace.
Peter, I would hope you and anyone else who might be following this discussion, might take a deep breath, and read the following:

http://artfuljesus.0catch.com/johnson3.html

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Peter, I would hope you and anyone else who might be following this discussion, might take a deep breath, and read the following:

http://artfuljesus.0catch.com/johnson3.htmlWow.... that article starts out by postulating things that run contrary to so much of what Christians believe. How could it hope to reach receptive Christian ears?

[stormrunner]

Wow.... that article starts out by postulating things that run contrary to so much of what Christians believe. How could it hope to reach receptive Christian ears?
Perhaps the natural counter to moral relativism is egotistical absolutism. I am Christian – who made you the arbiter of what is Christian?

A more useful discussion might be just that – a discussion, rather than just your assertion of your point of view as being the word of God.

[stormrunner]

Wow.... that article starts out by postulating things that run contrary to so much of what Christians believe. How could it hope to reach receptive Christian ears?
. . . and I might add, that article ends with, "The Jesus to whom Saint Francis of Assisi appealed in his call for a poor and giving rather than a powerful and grasping church was not the historical Jesus but the Jesus of the Gospels. One must only wonder why this Jesus is not also the "real Jesus" for those who declare a desire for religious truth, and theological integrity, and honest history. "

[stormrunner]

Forgive me because this is the first post that I have ever placed here, but I feel compelled to respond to this statement. First, it is a little out of context with the Greek language thread so it may be better to carry this on elsewhere. When you start talking about Jesus being inclusive, non-judgmental and caring for others, there is a big red flag that goes up in my brain! Jesus calls us to love others and that includes our enemies as well as our neighbors. It does not mean that we are to accept all the actions of those people as actions that a follower of Christ would do. Loving does not mean accepting unconditionally. It means that if you see a brother or sister going down the wrong path you love them enough to point out their error. Jesus calls us to sin no more (see John 7:53 - 8:11, I know, it probably does not belong in John but it does give us insight about leaving sin behind). There will be those who will not enter the Kingdom in the end. It includes a whole list of people that are included in the writings of Paul and the words of Christ (see Revelation 21:8). Loving our neighbor does not mean acceptance of all their actions. When we love those around us with the love of Christ, there is bound to be a change in the person. Just as the woman caught in adultry, when we come into contact with the living God of the Universe, expect to change. When those who are living in sin come into contact with God, expect to see a lifestyle change. :offtopic: I know!
It is always amazing the hypocrisy of the religious right fundamentalist Christians who will just so conveniently overlook the laws of the Old Testament that don't fit their contemporary lifestyle - but will seize on an obscure law about homosexuality as if it were Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:17-19 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[spiritmech]

Thank you for *finally* admitting defeat! It was getting quite tedious.
sm

It is always amazing the hypocrisy of the religious right fundamentalist Christians who will just so conveniently overlook the laws of the Old Testament that don't fit their contemporary lifestyle - but will seize on an obscure law about homosexuality as if it were Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:17-19 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[stormrunner]

Thank you for *finally* admitting defeat! It was getting quite tedious.
sm
I'm at a loss to understand where you are coming from with that statement. Would you please elaborate?