- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecer
I believe I already have,
That belief is false, since it is not the case that you have persuaded me via argument. What you have done is refer me to some biblical commentators which is a different thing. Perhaps you don't understand their arguments but have agreed with them because you like their conclusions, or perhaps you are so expert in biblical criticism that you think their conclusion is self evident and can't be bothered to go through the baby steps with me. Since you haven't really attempted an argument, I can't tell which end of this spectrum you are nearest.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerWhatever......You personally should be able to get the IDEA from any bible I hope but you must not. Maybe the waters over your head at that deep end???? Lol.
asked and answered, I'm not going to rewrite my responses all over again. if you can't keep up with the class maybe you shouldn't be swimming in the deep end.
edit: the translation you qouted is an inaccurate translation. as far as these passages go the KJV is likely the most accurate, and can be used in conjuction with Strong's concordance.
13 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Lord Shark*sighs* the 1 Corinthian 6 passage uses the term "masculorum concubitores'" in the Latin Vulgate wich translates as male prostitue
Originally posted by duecer
[b]I believe I already have,
That belief is false, since it is not the case that you have persuaded me via argument. What you have done is refer me to some biblical commentators which is a different thing. Perhaps you don't understand their arguments but have agreed with them because you like their conclusions, or ven't really attempted an argument, I can't tell which end of this spectrum you are nearest.[/b]
the Romans passage I have already quoted adequate commentary on, but lets look at that a bit further.
The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, for Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.
Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual).
edit: its important to read contextually. This chapter is immediately followed by the rejection of judgment: Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."
I believe I have adequately argued the point to death
13 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerRomans 1:24-27 (King James Version)
*sighs* the 1 Corinthian 6 passage uses the term "masculorum concubitores'" in the Latin Vulgate wich translates as male prostitue
the Romans passage I have already quoted adequate commentary on, but lets look at that a bit further.
The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, for Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, sexual a st the same things."
I believe I have adequately argued the point to death
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
In NO WAY does this imply what you are claiming.The passage DOES NOT say "God gave them over to something new(homo sexuality).
God did not encourage them to engage in homosexuality as you claim .
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonyes it does
Romans 1:24-27 (King James Version)
24Wherefore [b]God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause ...[text shortened]... new(homo sexuality).
God did not encourage them to engage in homosexuality as you claim .[/b][/b]
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerOriginally posted by duecer
*sighs* the 1 Corinthian 6 passage uses the term "masculorum concubitores'" in the Latin Vulgate wich translates as male prostitue
the Romans passage I have already quoted adequate commentary on, but lets look at that a bit further.
The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, for Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, sexual a ...[text shortened]... st the same things."
I believe I have adequately argued the point to death
*sighs*
No need for that, it isn't my fault that you find it burdensome to attempt a decent argument.
the 1 Corinthian 6 passage uses the term "masculorum concubitores'" in the Latin Vulgate wich translates as male prostitue
Which is why prohibitionists generally cite Romans.
the Romans passage I have already quoted adequate commentary on,
I disagree.
but lets look at that a bit further.
The part of this that has merit is the same as that in the Sullivan book, with which you disagreed, claiming that Paul was talking about prostitution. Yet in this more detailed exposition, no mention of prostitution is made. Now you might assume prostitution is involved on the basis that pagan orgies of the time involved this, but you have produced no evidence that this is the case, and in any case Paul doesn't mention orgies as far as I can see. Again it is possible that it is a reasonable assumption nonetheless, but hardly clear cut as you claimed.
13 Aug 10
The post that was quoted here has been removedOn your interpretation, the phrase "gave them up [or over] to..." is read as "caused them to, or instilled in them...". But the analyses I've read interpret the phrase as "allowed them to, or ceased to restrain them from...". On your interpretation, then, it is God causing folks to act contrary to their nature. On the other analyses, however, God is refraining from preventing folks from giving in to base impulses that are already there within them. What textual evidence do you have that your interpretation is better? Believe me, I would prefer it if your interpretation were correct, but I need some convincing.
13 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI have no solid evidence that one is better than the other, it just seems to make more sense when contrasted with the first 8 books of Romans. Either way I am satisfied.
On your interpretation, the phrase "gave them up [or over] to..." is read as "caused them to, or instilled in them...". But the analyses I've read interpret the phrase as "allowed them to, or ceased to restrain them from...". On your interpretation, then, it is God causing folks to act contrary to their nature. On the other analyses, however, God is refrain ...[text shortened]... ve me, I would prefer it if your interpretation were correct, but I need some convincing.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerWhat about the SPIRIT of Biblical Laws VS the letter.
I have no solid evidense that one is better than the other, it just seems to make more sense when contrasted with the first 8 books of Romans. Either way I am satisfied.
Can you seriously say to Christ on the day of judgment at which we will all stand .. " Well Christ .. I really thought that two guys getting married was fine "
If you say 'Yes' you are a liar.
Stop the twisting of scripture. You getting like a JW.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by Rajk999I would rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons
What about the SPIRIT of Biblical Laws VS the letter.
Can you seriously say to Christ on the day of judgment at which we will all stand .. " Well Christ .. I really thought that two guys getting married was fine "
If you say 'Yes' you are a liar.
Stop the twisting of scripture. You getting like a JW.