Homosexuality not included.

[A. T. Henderson]

"They still get to drink from a drinking fountain, just not my drinking fountain, see it's still equal"

Seriously.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Sure he does. Again, he is included in the NT Canon, which for many Christians, (and this is definitely true for the past), what he wrote is scripture. It is the very Word of God. So yes, he is a spokesman for Christianity, as the Bible is a defining book for Christianity (at least most streams of Christianity, and this is certainly true for the orthodox church that arose).

According to Christianity, Paul's works are meant for everyone, as they are scripture, (again, some would disagree with this, but the primary position has been this in the past).

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.

That is not what the letter is saying. There is a reason why nearly all NT scholars state differently. And really, you just don't see support for your claim in other literature during that time.

What you're doing is giving the words definitions that they simply didn't have at that time.

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.

No, it is the act that is being mentioned. It is an act that is associated with homosexuality that is the focus here. And putting it into context, there is no reason to think that Paul was not saying homosexuality was a sin.

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.

I didn't say homosexuality was being condemned. I said that Paul talks about homosexuality. And Romans is a very good case. Put that into context, it also backs up the idea that Paul was talking about homosexuality in 1 Corinthians.

He obviously saw homosexuality as wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't have spent the time to list it as being wrong. He is not necessarily condemning it, but he is not supporting it either.

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

Judaism saw homosexuality as a sin. Paul was part of that culture. He speaks out against homosexuality. Thus, we have every reason to assume that Paul did not condone homosexuality and saw it wrong or "unnatural."

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.

Did I ever say that his word was the final work on the matter? No. In fact, I think Paul was wrong, and I have even written an essay on just that subject.

However, Paul was talking about homosexuality. He wasn't necessarily condemning it, or even singling it out, but he mentions it and does not condone it. Simply ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

 

[Spirited]

It's okay to be flattered by men hitting on you. It's okay to enjoy it.

Whew, I was getting nervous, glad we got that cleared up.

Source please.

"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”1 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.2 By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.3"


There's more to this article here: Promiscuity



Random conservative article
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

 

[A. T. Henderson]

However, Paul was talking about homosexuality. He wasn't necessarily condemning it, or even singling it out, but he mentions it and does not condone it. Simply ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

I'm not ignoring it, and neither am I ignoring the fact that Paul disapproved of homosexuality. It's patently obvious that he did, after all. Along with looking feminine, acting feminine and, well, being a woman.

Regardless, what I'm saying is that while he disapproves, he refrains from openly condemning, as you mention above. I believe that he does this because he knew that doing so would a) be contrary to the message of Jesus and b) probably mean that fewer Romans would be interested in the faith than otherwise might be the case.

I'll try to find a source regarding the prostitution thing: I know I have one in a book at home, but I don't know where to find one online. I'll get back to you on that.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978...http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Source dismissed.

 

[fallingblood]

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

You miss the point. Paul is in the Bible. The Bible is seen as the word of God. What Paul said thus is seen as the word of God. So yes, Paul, for many Christians, is more of a spokesperson for Christianity that Aquinas.

It really is not that difficult. Paul is scripture according to Christianity. Aquinas was a Christian who wrote. Very different.

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.

No. You are retrojecting modern ideas onto Jesus. Since he says nothing about homosexuality, we can't assume what he thought on the subject. We can discuss which one may have been more probable, but then we have to look at the Jewish perspective during that time, which was that homosexuality was not condoned.

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.

Did I say that one should promote Paul over rest of the book? No. However, he is in the book, and thus, is seen as scripture (there are exceptions, but generally, through history, that is how it was seen).

More so, since Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, and the only thing the NT says about homosexuality is that it is wrong, there is no reason to through Paul out simply because of that. It is more logical just to realize that Paul was not always the best moral or ethical guide.

More so, Paul knowingly opposes Jesus at least on the subject of divorce, so obviously, Paul did not see Jesus as being the final word.

The point though is that Paul, according to Christianity, is scripture. You can't deny that, and to try to dismiss that is foolish.

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.

I never said that Paul condemned homosexuality. I said that he writes about homosexuality, and that he saw it as wrong. And yes, I have supported that position. You simply denying it won't make it go away, and only causes additional problems. And you not taking into consideration the culture that Paul was part of, but retrojecting modern ideas onto Paul simply does not work.

 

[McBell]

Whew, I was getting nervous, glad we got that cleared up.




"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”1 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.2 By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.3"


There's more to this article here: Promiscuity



Random conservative article
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Now that you have established it for San Fransisco a decade ago, how about the rest of the country?

The Family Research Center is not a source for anything but agenda filled selective cherry picking.

 

[Awoon]

unclean hands are sinners

 

[no-body]

Whew, I was getting nervous, glad we got that cleared up.




"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”1 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.2 By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.3"


There's more to this article here: Promiscuity

Got any sources from this decade :sarcastic

Random conservative article
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Comparing an institution that has been around for thousands of years to one that has only just begun, what a fair and balanced article :areyoucra

 

[fallingblood]

Too bad most Christians don't feel this way.

I agree. There is a significant movement in Christianity that is moving this way. It's just too bad that some Christians would try to impeded such.

As foolish as comparing homosexual acts to drug use, thievery and murder, yes.

I agree those are foolish as well. But two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Spirited]

And you think that your being a gay man magnet even compares to religious proselytizing?
Seriously?

And you think that your being a gay man magnet even compares to religious proselytizing?
Seriously?

Give me a better analogical argument.

They can't. They can fire you based on your behaviour, which has nothing to do with either. A company couldn't refuse to hire me for being a Thugee, but they could fire me for garotting people.

Praying at work is religious behavior and frowned upon. You keep refuting my arguments in logically fallacious ways like calling them "ludicrous", etc... Yet, you make completely ridiculous assertions about the tolerance of religion and opposing views in the workplace. And, actually, they could refuse to hire you for being "Thugee". No company is going to hire someone who has a needlessly violent or aggressive disposition, that is a horrible counter argument.

That's a pitiful argument. I counter with: yeah, it is.

Not giving long-winded rebut to short-winded hot air.

Cite a source which proves this claim. Oh, and by "a source", I mean a reliable and objective source.

This is common knowledge, but I posted random sources for you anyways.

"They still get to drink from a drinking fountain, just not my drinking fountain, see it's still equal"

Ah, but that doesn't properly describe my argument. Mine is actually the opposite. They may drink from our (societies')fountain, but may not request a new one be built.

 

[McBell]

unclean hands are sinners

​

 

[fallingblood]

I'm not ignoring it, and neither am I ignoring the fact that Paul disapproved of homosexuality. It's patently obvious that he did, after all. Along with looking feminine, acting feminine and, well, being a woman.

Regardless, what I'm saying is that while he disapproves, he refrains from openly condemning, as you mention above. I believe that he does this because he knew that doing so would a) be contrary to the message of Jesus and b) probably mean that fewer Romans would be interested in the faith than otherwise might be the case.

I'll try to find a source regarding the prostitution thing: I know I have one in a book at home, but I don't know where to find one online. I'll get back to you on that.

I think we actually agree on more than either of us thought. I don't think Paul was condemning homosexuality. I do see him as stating that it was wrong, and possible a punishment or a sign of sin. But like you, I don't think he condemned it, and in the end, would reluctantly accept homosexuals because of the idea he shared with Jesus that one should love your neighbor.

So we do agree on most of this.

 

[Awoon]

unclean dishes are sinners

 

[McBell]

Give me a better analogical argument.

Do your own homework.
​

 

[Spirited]

Now that you have established it for San Fransisco a decade ago, how about the rest of the country?

The Family Research Center is not a source for anything but agenda filled selective cherry picking.

Because there is no cherry-picking on the behalf of the supporters >.<

In Today's society people can lose their jobs for attempting to publish an article against homosexuality, even if it describes a negative aspect of it in an unbiased light. People cite philosophies of ancient times to support their views, I cited one that's merely 30 years old and it's instantly tossed out. Show me a source that states something otherwise.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

No. You are retrojecting modern ideas onto Jesus. Since he says nothing about homosexuality, we can't assume what he thought on the subject. We can discuss which one may have been more probable, but then we have to look at the Jewish perspective during that time, which was that homosexuality was not condoned.

Let's be honest, Jesus wasn't really a great supporter of the typical Jewish attitudes of the time, was he?

 

[A. T. Henderson]

I think we actually agree on more than either of us thought. I don't think Paul was condemning homosexuality. I do see him as stating that it was wrong, and possible a punishment or a sign of sin. But like you, I don't think he condemned it, and in the end, would reluctantly accept homosexuals because of the idea he shared with Jesus that one should love your neighbor.

So we do agree on most of this.

I think so too: we seem to mainly be arguing about peripheral interpretations rather than the core issues.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whew, I was getting nervous, glad we got that cleared up.

No need to be nervous. I'm sure you can find a number of kind, sensitive gay men to show you the ropes.

 

[Spirited]

No need to be nervous. I'm sure you can find a number of kind, sensitive gay men to show you the ropes.

I'm sure you have plenty of references for me, PM me?