Homosexuality not included.

[A. T. Henderson]

The Bible does talk about homosexuality, but it simply doesn't use the modern term. 1 Chorinthians for example makes it clear that homosexuality is being talked about.

Not saying the Bible is right, but that it does in fact talk about homosexuality.

It's talking about a sin which involves homosexuality, but is homosexuality itself the sin being talked about?

The answer is no, it isn't. The sins in question there are prostitution (malakoi) and being a client of prostitutes (arsenokoites). It's not the homosexuality which is condemned, but the lust.

Further, Corinthians is only Paul's opinion, given to a specific set of people in a specific situation. it was never intended to be applied as broadly as it has been. The religion is Christianity, not Paulianity.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Yes, it seems that we agree on something then. Although I don't believe in the concept of "sin", I do believe that some actions are harmful to oneself and others. There could be more education on healthy eating habits in churches I suppose, although perhaps there are some.

Probably the other biggest "sin" in America is greed and yet the churches are silent about their incompatibility with the capitalist economy, which is so anti-christian really. Pope John Paul the 2nd even admitted as much.

It's often downplayed that he criticized what he called the “all-consuming desire for profit and the thirst for power at any price with the intention of imposing one's will upon others, which are opposed to the will of God and the good of neighbor.”

Do not twist it to suit your fancy. Bl. John Paul II, coming from Poland, spoke out against communism to.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

And this one? Trust me I don't mind that the world turns against Christianity as Jesus already said it would be so.
Are Christians being discriminated against?

This doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality in any sense, and so is completely off topic.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

What if I don't enjoy my Big Mac?

Hmm. Good question. I'd say it could still fall under some description of gluttony. There's nothing that says you have to enjoy your sin, after all.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Lusting is the problem then.

I thought that was common knowledge. As with masturbation being a product of lust, which is why its counted as a sexual sin. And as with every sexual sin, lust is the motivation behind it.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Thomas Aquinas doesn't speak for Christianity as a whole. And really, most Christians have no idea who he is. So what every forms he lists is a personal list really.

And yet you referenced Paul, who cannot really be said to speak for Christianity as a whole any more than Thomas Aquinas did. If we're only allowed to reference people who speak for Christianity as a whole, then the only source is Jesus. And since Jesus never said anything about homosexuality at all, this debate ought to be a lot briefer than it's going to be.

 

[JacobEzra.]

A bigger issue to whom?

A bigger issue to [most] Christians.

You know what. I already covered this reasoning.

If marriage was not a hot topic, then homosexuality would not be talked about. Its controversial and therefore spoken much more.

Though its not only just homosexuality, but all lust related sins are a bigger topic compared to any of the other sins. Results of a sex-crazed culture.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Sure you can.

Sure you can, what?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Funny bit of trivia here... when Jesus said what he did about marriage being one man and one woman, he was explaining why divorce is wrong (Mark 10:2-10). Now divorce is commonplace, and they apply the verse to gay marriage instead. So who is it who's really trying to change the definition of marriage?

You make no sense. Yes he was speaking on marriage and divorce. Take another look at the verses

1 Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan.
2 Large crowds followed him and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, 'Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?'
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.'

Right here he not only defines marriage but answers the Pharisees question. Marriage is sacred because a Man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with his wife


7 They said to him, 'Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?'
8 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.
9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife -- I am not speaking of an illicit marriage -- and marries another, is guilty of adultery.'



10 The disciples said to him, 'If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.'
11 But he replied, 'It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.
12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.'

And right here Jesus comments on how some are to be married and some are not to be married. Divorce is still wrong, just as "homosexual marriage". Why? Because Man and Women are to be joined into one flesh. They shouldn't be separated, and it can not be man and man or women and women.

 

[Walkntune]

Is that actually possible? It's not like anyone goes there for nutrition...

I always thought it was for convenience myself.Who goes there for the artificial tastes?

 

[A. T. Henderson]

I always thought it was for convenience myself.Who goes there for the artificial tastes?

It's not the taste, exactly, but the substance. High-fat, high-protein food such as is available through McDonalds is actually addictive. Your body craves it, regardless of how bad it really is for you.

This is kind of off-topic though. I'm new here, so I don't know how heavily the mods frown on that...

 

[fallingblood]

It's talking about a sin which involves homosexuality, but is homosexuality itself the sin being talked about?

The answer is no, it isn't. The sins in question there are prostitution (malakoi) and being a client of prostitutes (arsenokoites). It's not the homosexuality which is condemned, but the lust.

Further, Corinthians is only Paul's opinion, given to a specific set of people in a specific situation. it was never intended to be applied as broadly as it has been. The religion is Christianity, not Paulianity.

Paul was a spokesperson for Christianity. Since it is in the Bible, Christians accept it as scripture (yes, there are some exceptions, but that is of little cause here since we are talking about the Bible). So trying to dismiss Paul simply is not possible in this case.

As for the Greek words, that really isn't the context. Malakoi means effeminate, soft. In this context, it is basically calling a man a woman, in the fact that they are the passive participant in homosexuality. Arsenkoites, which can refer to prostitution, in more general terms (and this is supported by the use of the word malakoi before it) is the active participant in homosexuality. Put together, it is speaking about homosexuality, and we can know that by looking at the culture in which Paul was writing in (or cultures).

Add to the fact that Paul also mentions this in Romans, saying that women and men gave up their natural disposition and exchanged it for unnatural, which is referring to homosexuality again. Yes, they don't use the term homosexuality, as it simply is a new word. But Paul described it in the best manner that he could.

Add to that the Jewish idea concerning homosexuality, there is absolutely every reason to assume Paul was talking about homosexuality. All of this together is why the vast majority of scholars agree that Paul was talking about homosexuality.

It doesn't mean that we need to follow what Paul said, but we can't deny it either.

 

[Quintessence]

That's not a Biblical list.

I know. But it's my understanding that the folks who canonized the seven deadly sins didn't exactly live in the same generation as the folks who are harping on homosexuality. They're products that came out of different eras, aren't they?

 

[fallingblood]

And yet you referenced Paul, who cannot really be said to speak for Christianity as a whole any more than Thomas Aquinas did. If we're only allowed to reference people who speak for Christianity as a whole, then the only source is Jesus. And since Jesus never said anything about homosexuality at all, this debate ought to be a lot briefer than it's going to be.

Is Thomas Aquinas in the Bible? Is he considered to have written scripture? No and no. Paul is in the Bible. He is seen to have written scripture. Huge difference.

As for Jesus, we have little of what he said. Since he says nothing either way, we can't use him for either perspective. To try to use his silence is simply ridiculous. Especially, if we look at his culture, his religion, and his most likely position.

Again, Paul is in the Bible. His letters are seen as scripture. The Bible is a defining book for most Christianity, and thus Paul, who is included in this books, and see to have written scripture, does, in part, speak for Christianity (yes, there are exceptions).

 

[fallingblood]

Sure you can, what?

Masturbate with out lust. Masturbation is simply an action. It doesn't require any thought really. More so, if one masturbates to images of their wife, is that really committing adultery or lusting? I don't think so.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hmm. Good question. I'd say it could still fall under some description of gluttony. There's nothing that says you have to enjoy your sin, after all.

Yet Ecclesiastes says it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Masturbate with out lust. Masturbation is simply an action. It doesn't require any thought really. More so, if one masturbates to images of their wife, is that really committing adultery or lusting? I don't think so.

Its lusting.

In my life, I have never once heard of such a thing. Masterbate without lust? Impossible, and you know it. There must be some kind of sexual thought which stimulates everything to get "going".

As to, with an image of their wife? Yes that is a lusting after her.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Paul was a spokesperson for Christianity. Since it is in the Bible, Christians accept it as scripture (yes, there are some exceptions, but that is of little cause here since we are talking about the Bible). So trying to dismiss Paul simply is not possible in this case.

I'm not dismissing him, but I'll point out that he has no better claim to be a spokesman for Christianity than Thomas Aquinas did, and you dismissed him easily enough. Regardless of whether it's in the Bible or not, the intent of Paul's letters has to be taken into account whenever referring to them, and as I said they were intended for a specific group of people in a specific situation, not for everyone everywhere.

As for the Greek words, that really isn't the context. Malakoi means effeminate, soft. In this context, it is basically calling a man a woman, in the fact that they are the passive participant in homosexuality. Arsenkoites, which can refer to prostitution, in more general terms (and this is supported by the use of the word malakoi before it) is the active participant in homosexuality. Put together, it is speaking about homosexuality, and we can know that by looking at the culture in which Paul was writing in (or cultures).

That's precisely what I am doing. The two words are slang terms used in Paul's time to describe a male prostitute and said prostitute's clientèle respectively. The letter is specifically saying that some amongst the Corinthian church were formerly one or the other of these, and that they had left that behind them.

What it does not say is that they also had to give up homosexuality entirely. When a female prostitute gives up hooking, she doesn't necessarily stop being attracted to men. It is the lust, not the orientation, which is being addressed.

Add to the fact that Paul also mentions this in Romans, saying that women and men gave up their natural disposition and exchanged it for unnatural, which is referring to homosexuality again. Yes, they don't use the term homosexuality, as it simply is a new word. But Paul described it in the best manner that he could.

And again, homosexuality qua homosexuality is not being condemned in Romans: this is a specific case in which people who were already condemned by God were given over to "unnatural lusts". Their homosexuality was not the source of their condemnation, in this instance it was effectively a punishment for it. And again, it is the lust, not the orientation, which is condemned.

Add to that the Jewish idea concerning homosexuality, there is absolutely every reason to assume Paul was talking about homosexuality. All of this together is why the vast majority of scholars agree that Paul was talking about homosexuality.

Cultural taboos against homosexuality are an entirely separate issue as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

It doesn't mean that we need to follow what Paul said, but we can't deny it either.

But we can dispute both whether he was saying what you think he was, and whether what Paul said is actually significant. While you, and many others, consider Paul a spokesman for Christianity, that doesn't mean that his is the final word on the matter.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Is Thomas Aquinas in the Bible? Is he considered to have written scripture? No and no. Paul is in the Bible. He is seen to have written scripture. Huge difference.

Aquinas came too late to be included in the canon. You can't blame him for not having been born in time.

As for Jesus, we have little of what he said. Since he says nothing either way, we can't use him for either perspective. To try to use his silence is simply ridiculous. Especially, if we look at his culture, his religion, and his most likely position.

Untrue: Jesus's teachings regarding love and condemnation are quite clear, and it's pretty easy to figure out what his stance would have been on homosexuality as we know it today.

Again, Paul is in the Bible. His letters are seen as scripture. The Bible is a defining book for most Christianity, and thus Paul, who is included in this books, and see to have written scripture, does, in part, speak for Christianity (yes, there are exceptions).

If you promote Paul's word over the rest of the book, you aren't reading it properly, and you certainly aren't reading it in the way he'd have wanted you to. Paul knew his place, and on any occasion where his word conflicts with the message of Jesus, his word ought properly to be dismissed.

Besides, you've yet to demonstrate that Paul ever wrote anything that actually condemned homosexuality qua homosexuality, and not merely lustfulness expressed with a partner of the same gender.

 

[no-body]

Sitting there and telling homosexuals they have to live a loveless celibate life if they want to be Christians is beyond hypocrisy. How many people that advocate such follow Paul's edict of it is better not to be married at all and remain celibate?