Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 137

Thread: Is Homosexuality a "worse sin" than other sins?

  1. #91
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    454
    Amen (Given)
    69
    Amen (Received)
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Ambiguous? Are you kidding?
    No, I am not kidding.

    Leviticus 18:22:

    22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

    Is this verse speaking of a man who cannot find a willing woman or a loving relationship between two males?

    I cannot imagine being attracted to someone of the same sex, but there are people who are and it starts very early.

    Imagine if you are male or female and are attracted to the same sex, but everyone tells you that you are committing a sin for doing so. Imagine in these circumstances that you marry someone of the apposite sex. Imagine how horrible it would be for you and your mate.

  2. #92
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,569
    Amen (Given)
    11636
    Amen (Received)
    24853
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    No, I am not kidding.

    Leviticus 18:22:

    22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

    Is this verse speaking of a man who cannot find a willing woman or a loving relationship between two males?

    I cannot imagine being attracted to someone of the same sex, but there are people who are and it starts very early.

    Imagine if you are male or female and are attracted to the same sex, but everyone tells you that you are committing a sin for doing so. Imagine in these circumstances that you marry someone of the apposite sex. Imagine how horrible it would be for you and your mate.
    Imagine if you are male or female and are attracted to children, but everyone tells you that you are committing a sin for doing so. Imagine in these circumstances that you marry someone under age. Imagine how horrible it would be for you and your victim.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. Amen Teallaura, DesertBerean amen'd this post.
  4. #93
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,723
    Amen (Given)
    6068
    Amen (Received)
    11552
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    No, I am not kidding.

    Leviticus 18:22:

    22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

    Is this verse speaking of a man who cannot find a willing woman or a loving relationship between two males?
    It appears to be rather unambiguously referring to two males, regardless of circumstances.
    I cannot imagine being attracted to someone of the same sex, but there are people who are and it starts very early.

    Imagine if you are male or female and are attracted to the same sex, but everyone tells you that you are committing a sin for doing so. Imagine in these circumstances that you marry someone of the apposite sex. Imagine how horrible it would be for you and your mate.
    Maybe not marry, in that case?
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  5. Amen Cow Poke, Teallaura, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  6. #94
    tWebber Faber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Sagittarius Arm
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,022
    Amen (Given)
    219
    Amen (Received)
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Imagine if you are male or female and are attracted to children, but everyone tells you that you are committing a sin for doing so. Imagine in these circumstances that you marry someone under age. Imagine how horrible it would be for you and your victim.
    Or to animals.

  7. #95
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,109
    Amen (Given)
    4883
    Amen (Received)
    21755
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Does the author make any attempt to address the facts that

    1) There are NO passages that AFFIRM same-sex sexual relationships, and

    2) There are multiple passages that, whether or not they are "about" homosexuality, do *involve* homosexuality, and all are negative?
    I can destroy every single idiotic argument on that list with one fact:

    ANY Sex outside of marriage is a sin and condemned in the bible. That would include all homosexual sex. If committed homosexual relationships were OK, then they would have allowed them to get married. But homosexual marriages were not allowed at any time from the Israelites to the Christians. So there is no way a committed homosexual relationship was not a sin.

  8. Amen Teallaura, Cow Poke, Adrift, DesertBerean amen'd this post.
  9. #96
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,309
    Amen (Given)
    6775
    Amen (Received)
    6529
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    I found an article just yesterday you might like to read:
    The majority, even among critical non-evangelical scholars, is that the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. To make dealing with each claim simpler, I'm going to cite from NT scholar Robert Gagnon's website, who more or less specializes in this area counter folks like John Boswell and Matthew Vine. You can read the rest of his articles at the links I leave below each cite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    1. Genesis 19:1-14, 24-26: The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of what
    happens when God’s people do not live up to God’s expectations. It is teaching a lesson
    about the importance of hospitality to the stranger. The cruel men of the town were
    planning to rape the visitors and were definitely not homosexuals.
    Source: Why We Know That the Story of Sodom Indicts Homosexual Practice Per Se, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    Jones follows others in arguing that most, if not all, biblical texts that refer directly to Sodom say nothing about homosexual practice but rather comment on inhospitable treatment of the vulnerable in their midst: the poor, resident aliens, and visitors. The truth is that most texts in the canon of Scripture that refer to Sodom simply mention it and Gomorrah as places of great evil that God utterly destroyed.[7] Isaiah 1:7-17 alludes to Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of discussing social injustice but this merely picks up one theme of the Sodom cycle without excluding other themes. There are a number of biblical texts that allude to the immorality of homosexual practice at Sodom.

    (1) Ezekiel 16:49-50. According to Ezek 16:49-50, Sodom “did not take hold of the hand of the poor and needy. And they grew haughty and committed an abomination (to’evah) before me and I removed them when I saw it.” Is the reference to “committing an abomination” to be identified with “not taking the hand of the poor and needy”? The evidence indicates that it is to be identified rather with man-male intercourse.

    a) The vice list in Ezek 18:10-13, consisting of ten vices, clearly distinguishes between the offense “oppresses the poor and needy” (fifth vice) from the offense “commits an abomination” (ninth vice).

    b) The conjunction in Ezek 18:12-13 of a singular use of to’evah, as a reference to a single specific offense, with a plural use of to’evoth, as a summary description of all preceding offenses, is exactly what we find in Lev 18:22 (man-male intercourse) and 18:26-30 (summary of preceding offenses).

    c) All scholars of Ezekiel agree that Ezekiel knew, and shared extraordinary affinity with, either the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26) or a precursor document. The Holiness Code, as we have seen, treats man-male intercourse as intrinsically sinful. There are no historical grounds for believing that Ezekiel had a different perspective.

    d) The phrase “committed an abomination” in Ezek 16:50 is identical to the phrase in Lev 20:13 that refers to man-male intercourse.

    e) The two other singular uses of to’evah in Ezekiel refer to sexual sin (22:11; 33:26).


    The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi also understood to’evah in Ezek 16:50 as a reference to homosexual practice, as have some modern commentators.[8] The evidence thus indicates that Ezekiel in 16:50 was apparently interpreting the Sodom episode through the lens of the absolute prohibition of man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13, indicating that he understood the same-sex dimension of the rape to be a compounding offense.

    [7] Ibid., 79 n. 103.

    [8] E.g., Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 289 and Ezekiel 21-37 (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1997), 685; J. A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions (CBET 1. Kampen: Kok, 1990), 37, 72-74.

    © Copyright Original Source


    http://robgagnon.net/homosex7thDayAdvArticleSodom.htm


    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    2. Judges 19:1-30: This story parallels that of Sodom and Gomorrah and provides an
    example of how the townspeople plot to rape the visitor. It is yet another example for the
    ancient Jewish culture of how not to act by showing the extreme inhospitable behavior of
    the town. Some mistakenly interpret the townsmen’s behavior to be somehow related to
    homosexuality, but this was an example of the brutality of one group of men toward a
    group of visitors.
    Source: Why We Know That the Story of Sodom Indicts Homosexual Practice Per Se, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    Another element that confirms the intrinsic indictment of homosexual practice in the Sodom story is the related story of the Levite at Gibeah in Judg 19:22-25, a story within what scholars refer to as the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings). Since the story of a Levite at Gibeah in Judg 19:22-25 is in many respects a carbon copy of the Sodom narrative in Gen 19:4-11 (there are even some verbatim agreements in the Hebrew), how the narrator of Judg 19:22-25 interpreted the attempt of the men of the city to have intercourse with a male visitor provides our earliest commentary of how the Yahwist would have interpreted the similar event at Sodom.

    In fact, we have strong evidence from within the Deuteronomistic History that the narrator would have regarded even consensual acts of man-male intercourse as abhorrent. The evidence comes from a string of references in Deut 23:17-18 and the Deuteronomistic History to persons known as the qedeshîm (pronounced kə-day-'sheem; 1 Kgs 14:21-24; 15:12-14; 22:46; 2 Kgs 23:7; cf. Job 36:14). The word literally means “consecrated men” but refers in context to male cult figures who sometimes served as the passive receptive sexual partners for other men. The narrator appears to have been especially repulsed by the consensual, receptive intercourse that these figures had with other men. How do we know this? The reference to such figures as “dogs” (Deut 23:18) matches the slur made against parallel figures in Mesopotamia (the assinnu, kurgarrû, and kulu’u), called both “dog-woman” and “man-woman” because of their consensual attempts at erasing masculinity and being penetrated by other men (compare Rev 22:15, “dogs,” to Rev 21:8, “the abominable”). It will thus not do to dismiss the references to the qedeshîm as irrelevant because of the cultic associations, the exchange of money, or the absence of orientation.[12]

    Since the Deuteronomistic Historian’s attitude toward the qedeshîm makes it clear that he would have been repulsed by a consensual act of man-male intercourse, it is evident that in telling the story of the Levite at Gibeah the Deuteronomistic Historian was indicting man-male intercourse per se and not only coercive forms of man-male intercourse. Since too the story is in many respects a carbon copy of the Sodom narrative, it lends significant support for concluding that the Yahwist too viewed the man-male dimension of the attempted act as a compounding factor in underscoring the depravity of the inhabitants of Sodom.[13]


    [12] Three additional points are worth noting. First, the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic description of their behavior as an “abomination” (to’evah) links these texts ideationally to Lev 18:22 and 20:13, where the same tag is applied absolutely to all man-male intercourse and not limited to intercourse in a cultic context for pay. Second, despite the revulsion with which such figures were held in the ancient Near East, this was still one of the most accepted forms of homosexual practice (not the least), because it was believed that their androgynous demeanor was beyond their control (i.e. due to a goddess figure with androgynous traits). This has links to today’s claim that homosexual attraction is beyond a person’s control. Third, the Deuteronomistic revulsion toward men who feminized themselves to attract male sex partners continued well into the first century A.D. in the disgust Jews felt toward what Paul and others referred to as the malakoi (“soft men”) in 1 Cor 6:9.

    [13] See further The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 48-49, 100-10.

    © Copyright Original Source


    http://robgagnon.net/homosex7thDayAdvArticleSodom.htm


    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    3. Leviticus 18:22 and …

    4. Leviticus 20:13: These texts state that a man should not lie with another man, and that if
    they do it is an abomination. The rules were meant to set the Israelites apart from the
    Canaanites and Egyptians who at that time participated in fertility rites in their temples
    that involved different forms of sex, including homosexual sex. Male-to-male sex was
    seen to mix the roles of man and woman and such “mixing of kinds” during ancient times
    was defined as an “abomination,” in the same way that mixing different kinds of seeds in
    a field was an abomination. This scripture occurs in a section of Leviticus called “The
    Holiness Code” which has as its main purpose to set out laws to keep Israel different
    from the surrounding cultures. (Helminiak, pg. 54)
    Source: Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    42. Pro-homosex advocates usually cite as analogous quaint and obsolete regulations two sets of apodictic law (of “You shall not” style) in the Holiness Code: Lev 19:19 (against breeding two different kinds of animals, sowing different kinds of seeds in the same field, and wearing clothing made of two kinds of yarns) and Lev 19:27-28 (against rounding off the hair on the temples, destroying one’s beard, gashing one’s flesh, and tattooing one’s body). Since no penalty is attached to the proscriptions, it is hard to know how strongly they were taken. However, Lev 19:19 has a parallel in Deut 22:9-11 and there the penalty for sowing one’s vineyard with a second kind of seed is merely that the yield is forfeited (22:9). By extension it is likely that the penalty for violating the other two prohibitions was merely that the animals (or their offspring) and the clothes, respectively, would be destroyed. Moreover, the prohibition of animal and cloth mixtures was not absolute: the cherubim of the ark were hybrid creatures; and mixtures of linen and wool were enjoined for some Tabernacle cloths, parts of the priestly wardrobe, and the tassel of the laity (the last involving a single blue thread amid linen corner fringes). The reason for the prohibitions appears to be that mixtures symbolized penetration into the divine realm (so Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 [AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 1658-64). This does not mean, however, that all mixing has a sacral quality, for not even priests are permitted to engage in bestiality; nor that all mixing is forbidden, for in one sense heterosexual intercourse requires a greater degree of mixing than homosexual intercourse. As for the prohibitions in Lev 19:27-28 (cf. Deut 14:1b), at least the hair cutting and flesh gashing were associated with pagan mourning rites for the dead. The aim of the proscriptions was to prevent participation in idolatrous rites. The significance of the tattoo ban is less clear but may have had to do with the abolition of perpetual slavery (ibid., 1694-95). Neither the proscriptions of Lev 19:19 nor those of 19:27-28 are taken up in the New Testament. Their timebound quality is self-evident, possessing as they do a largely symbolic character. Adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, and bestiality perhaps have a negative symbolic value. Yet their wrongness is hardly exhausted by viewing them as symbols. Yes, adultery can be used as a metaphor to picture the unfaithfulness of God’s covenant people. But it does concrete intra-human harm as well. It is wrong to view the Levitical proscription of man-male intercourse, or of incest and bestiality, merely as a dispensable symbol.

    © Copyright Original Source


    http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    5. Romans 1:18-27: The behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with
    idol worship (probably temple prostitution) and with heterosexual people who searched
    for pleasure and broke away from their natural sexual orientation or their natural ways of
    having sex (both male and female) and participated in promiscuous sex with anyone
    available or used methods not culturally accepted. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 14) In the
    surrounding culture it was common for men of a higher status to take sexual advantage of
    male slaves or male prostitutes. Here Paul is instructing his readers to keep pure and
    honor God. Paul is talking about the use and misuse of power and authority and how that
    impacts one’s relationship with God. (Dwyer, pg. 58) Paul didn’t have in mind
    specifically prohibiting consensual same-sex relationships because they were never
    considered in his cultural context.
    Gagnon has quite a bit to say on this topic, but to summarize, here are his "Fifteen Reasons Why the Temple Prostitution Theory Is a Bad Idea," which is a rebuttal to Jack Rogers’s Temple Prostitution Argument. You can read his detailed reasoning for each here.

    1. Rogers’s historical anachronism regarding temple prostitution in Corinth.
    2. The plain-sense meaning of Romans 1:24-27.
    3. The mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26.
    4. Mutual gratification and mutual condemnation in Romans 1:24-27.
    5. The Genesis connection.
    6. The parallel between idolatry as an act against creation and same-sex intercourse as an act against nature.
    7. The other vices in Romans 1:29-31 not dependent on idolatry.
    8. Sexual uncleanness in Romans 6:19.
    9. The distinction between idolatry and male-male intercourse in 1 Corinthians 6:9.
    10. The expression “contrary to nature” as applied to same-sex intercourse.
    11. Early Jewish critiques of same-sex intercourse.
    12. The link between “men who lie with males” in 1 Cor 6:9 and the absolute prohibitions in Leviticus.
    13. The main objection to the homosexual cult prostitutes in the Old Testament.
    14. The meaning of “soft men” in its historical context.
    15. A Corinthian critique of male-male love.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    6. I Corinthians 6:9-10: Paul’s list of sinners includes malakoi and arsenokoites. Malakoi
    means “soft” and is also interpreted as male prostitutes. Arsenokoites is difficult to
    translate, but it probably refers to a male using his superiority to take sexual advantage of
    another male. Paul is right to condemn these sexual activities, but this has nothing to do
    with a consensual homosexual relationship.
    Source: Dale Martin and the Myth of Total Textual Indeterminacy, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    Now I certainly do not agree that, in the context of 1 Cor 6:9, malakoi means what Martin claims it must mean. In fact, I have critiqued his argument and similar arguments about 1 Cor 6:9 in my first book and works thereafter.

    Cf. The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), esp. pp. 303-36; Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 81-88, with online notes 96-111 at http://robgagnon.net/TwoViews.htm; and “A Comprehensive and Critical Review Essay of Homosexuality, Science, and the ‘Plain Sense’ of Scripture, Part 2,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 25 (December 2003): 226-39, online here.

    Essentially I argue that the meaning of malakoi (lit., “soft men”) in context is not the broad sense of merely effeminate men but rather has the more restrictive sense of “men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners” (incidentally, this is similar to the meaning given to the term by both Victor Furnish and Bernadette Brooten, two scholars supportive of homosexual unions). What is the evidence for the more restrictive sense?

    1. Its place in the vice list amidst other participants in illicit sexual intercourse. Since it is sandwiched in between the terms pornoi (a generic term for sexually immoral persons but, in the immediate context of 1 Cor 5, applied specifically to the incestuous man in nearly identical vice lists; cf. 5:9-11) and moichoi (adulterers) on the one side and arsenokoitai (men who lie with a male) on the other side, it is probable that malakoi too has to do with immoral sexual relations.

    2. Its pairing with the immediately following word arsenokoitai. Since arsenokoitai means “men who lie with a male” as a reference to the active, insertive partners in male-male intercourse, it is likely that malakoi refers to the passive, receptive partner in such intercourse. Indeed, the two preceding terms eidololatrai (idolaters) and moichoi (adulterers) form a natural pair in the Old Testament, making more probable the pairing of the next two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai.

    3. Philo of Alexandria’s use of cognate words. Philo (a first-century Jewish philosophy) uses cognate terms to malakos to refer to men who actively feminize themselves for the purpose of attracting other men: malakia and malakotēs, “softness”; also: anandria, “unmanliness,” hoi paschontes, “those who are ‘done’” [as opposed to the “doers,” hoi drōntes], and androgynoi, “men-women” (cf. Special Laws 3.37-42; On Abraham 135-36; Contemplative Life 59-61; translated in Gagnon 2001a, 172-75).

    4. Greco-Roman usage of malakoi and the parallel Latin word molles (soft men). The terms malakoi and molles could be used broadly to refer to effeminate or unmanly men. But in specific contexts it could be used in ways similar to the more specific terms cinaedi (lit., “butt-shakers”) and pathici (“those who undergo [penetration]”) to denote effeminate adult males who are biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men. For example, in Soranus’s work On Chronic Diseases (early 2nd century A.D.) the section on men who desire to be penetrated (4.9.131-37) is entitled “On the molles or subacti (subjugated or penetrated partners, pathics) whom the Greeks call malthakoi.” An Aristotelian text similarly refers to those who are anatomically inclined toward the receptive role as malakoi (Pseudo-Aristotle, Problems 4.26). Astrological texts that speak of males desirous of playing the penetrated female role also use the term malakoi (Ptolemy, Four Books 3.14 §172; Vettius Valens, Anthologies 2.37.54; 2.38.82; cf. Brooten, 126 n. 41, 260 n. 132). The complaint about such figures in the ancient world generally, and certainly by Philo, centers around their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them by God/nature, not their exploitation of others, age difference, or acts of prostitution.

    Regarding the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9, “men who lie with a male,” Martin is less certain. He is not certain enough to claim “to know what [it] meant,” though he thinks it “probable that arsenokoites referred to a particular role of exploiting others by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily by homosexual sex” and he adamantly denies that anyone can say with reasonable certainty what it meant. Martin’s supposition here appears to be that if Martin can’t figure it out, no one else can. In this, too, I believe that he is mistaken. The evidence is, in fact, overwhelming for taking the term, in context, as an absolute indictment of men who serve as the active partners in male homosexual practice of any kind (see my resources cited above).

    © Copyright Original Source


    http://www.robgagnon.net/DaleMartinResponse.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    7. I Timothy 1:8-11: This passage is similar to I Corinthians, above. This time it is a list of
    sins (as opposed to sinners) and includes the words pornos, arsenokoites and
    andrapodistes. Pornos most likely refers to a male having sex outside of marriage.
    Arsenokoites can probably be defined as male same-sex relationships that involved some
    level of exploitation, inequality or abuse. Andrapodistes can be translated as “slave
    traders.” Scholars believe that the three terms were used together in that slave dealers
    (andrapodistes) would be acting as pimps for captured boys (pornos) who would be
    taken advantage of by powerful men (arsenokoites). (Brownson, pg. 274) These are sins
    that certainly need to be addressed, but this Bible passage does not relate to homosexuals
    in a committed relationship.
    Source: More Reasons Why Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace Should Not Be Embraced: Part II: Sodom, Leviticus, and More on Jesus and Paul, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    (6) Johnson borrows from Robin Scroggs’s argument that in 1 Tim 1:10 the entire meaning of arsenokoitai is subsumed under the next group of offenders andrapodistai (slave traders, kidnappers, men-stealers). Yet Johnson neglects to acknowledge my counterpoint. The last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:9-10, at least, corresponds to the order of the Decalogue’s fifth to ninth commandments. The mention of pornoi (sexually immoral people) in 1 Tim 1:10 clearly aligns with the seventh commandment against adultery, while the reference to andrapodistai clearly aligns with the eighth commandment against stealing. The only question is whether arsenokoitai belongs more with the latter (as Johnson thinks) than the former. The question is not hard to resolve once one realizes that several early Jewish and Christian discussions make a distinction between men who have sex with males, placed under the rubric of the seventh commandment against adultery, and “men-stealers,” classified under the eighth commandment against stealing.[25] Moreover, is Johnson arguing that Paul included male slaves who were coerced into effacing their masculinity by lascivious masters among the malakoi that are condemned in 1 Cor 6:9 and with whom, presumably, at least some of the arsenokoitai are having sex? If the issue is exploitation, why would Paul be asserting that such coerced figures run the risk of exclusion from God’s kingdom?

    Even Dan O. Via and Walter Wink, two NT scholars strongly supportive of homosexual unions, have acknowledged that arsenokoitai would have included for Paul men who initiated a caring and committed homosexual relationship.[26] The idea that Paul would have told two men in a committed sexual relationship that the term did not include them is historically preposterous.

    © Copyright Original Source


    http://robgagnon.net/homosexStacyJoh...nsCritique.htm

    Source: Does Jack Rogers’s Book “Explode the Myths” about the Bible and Homosexuality and “Heal the Church”? (Installment 3; June 10, 2006) Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

    ▪ Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament.

    The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai (kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Rogers,parroting others), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by Adrift; 07-15-2019 at 10:02 AM.

  10. #97
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,569
    Amen (Given)
    11636
    Amen (Received)
    24853
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    The majority, even among critical non-evangelical scholars, is that the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin....
    Good work. Bookmarked your post for future reference.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  11. Amen Adrift, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  12. #98
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    454
    Amen (Given)
    69
    Amen (Received)
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Imagine if you are male or female and are attracted to children, but everyone tells you that you are committing a sin for doing so. Imagine in these circumstances that you marry someone under age. Imagine how horrible it would be for you and your victim.
    It's obvious that we are not speaking of a grown male taking advantage of children.

    A note in my Hebrew study bible says of Leviticus 18:22: "Biblical and ancient Near Eastern culture was not familiar with homosexuality in the sense of a defined sexual orientation or lifestyle. It acknowledges only the occasional act of male anal intercourse, usually as an act of force associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection."

    I've read some theories as to why people of the same sex are attracted to each other and no one seems to know for sure.

    What I am sure of is that God is the judge and we are not and that He will judge fairly.

    I am also sure that as Christians we should treat homosexuals with love and compassion.

  13. #99
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,569
    Amen (Given)
    11636
    Amen (Received)
    24853
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    It's obvious that we are not speaking of a grown male taking advantage of children.
    Nor did I claim we are. I merely exposed the silliness of your "logic".

    I am also sure that as Christians we should treat homosexuals with love and compassion.
    Just like we do any sinners in need of a Savior.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  14. #100
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Triangle
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,215
    Amen (Given)
    1671
    Amen (Received)
    4472
    Put it this way... at face value, 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that homosexuality is something that will disqualify people from the kingdom. You'd better be 100% sure your interpretation is correct if you're going to tell people that's not what it means, otherwise, the consequences are going to be eternal.
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  15. Amen Cow Poke, Cerebrum123, Teallaura amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •