Is premarital sex really a sin?

[sojourner]

My opinions do not require the agreement of others.

They do if you're going to assert that they have any basis in fact. 3rd party agreement is generally required for veracity.

 

[Sonofason]

They do if you're going to assert that they have any basis in fact. 3rd party agreement is generally required for veracity.

The fact that many people might agree that something is fact does not ensure that that which they agree upon is fact.

 

[sojourner]

The fact that many people might agree that something is fact does not ensure that that which they agree upon is fact.

Doesn't matter. For one's opinion to be considered fact, there should be corroboration. the fact that the best experts in the fields concerning the issue are in agreement, and that their agreement is at odds with your opinion, does not bode well for the tenability of your opinion. Just sayin'.

 

[JerryL]

There's no Biblical rule against being homosexual.

There's a rule against being (best English translation I can find) "effeminant"
There's a rule against "lying with a man as you would a woman".

This is important because of the semantic argument you are having over what constitutes "homosexuality". It doesn't matter because that's not the proscription.

 

[gsa]

I guess you're right, I suppose all of these things actually can be categorized as homosexuality. Forgive me if I have suggested otherwise.



Well, in part by these verses of scripture:
(Romans 1:18-32)

reprobate - to foreordain to damnation
Reprobate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I believe I have made the connection you've requested.

You have certainly moved on from Leviticus. Which is good, because your reading of Leviticus is unsustainable. Your reading of Paul has different problems:

Some scholarship of late, of which Porter’s article is the most thorough example, has noted that Romans 1:18-32 does not represent Paul’s view, but the prevailing view of Gentiles among many Jews at the time, which this apostle to the Gentiles feels compelled to refute. Building off of the scholarship of J.C. O’Neill (who calls it “a traditional tract which belongs essentially to the missionary literature of Hellenistic Judaism”) and E.P. Sanders (who explains that “Paul takes over to an unusual degree homiletical material from Diaspora Judaism”), Porter ultimately concludes that “in 2:1-16, as well as through Romans as a whole, Paul, as part of his Gentile mission, challenges, argues against, and refutes both the content of the discourse and the practice of using such discourses. If that is the case then the ideas in Rom. 1.18-32 are not Paul’s. They are ideas which obstruct Paul’s Gentile mission theology and practice.”
Other explanations of what ὦ ἄνθρωπε is doing here are less satisfactory. Some have suggested that Paul is sincerely making these condemnations, stressing here (but only here) God’s anger instead of his kindness (as in 2:4), and then he imagines some onlooker applauding what he’s saying and turns to address him, condemning him for judging but somehow still agreeing with the content of what was just said.

Porter’s argument (which he thoroughly supports with rhetorical models from antiquity) makes much more sense: that the arguments present in the last half of Romans 1 were typical of those made by Hellenistic Jews to distinguish themselves from the Gentiles (thus the repeated use of “they” as noted before), and Paul, as an apostle to the Gentiles, finds this condemnation problematic and thus seeks to refute it, leading up ultimately to his similar conclusion in Romans 14:13, using strikingly similar language to that in 2:1: “Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.”

This doesn't even begin to address Paul's endorsement of slavery and probable endorsement of obedience slaves, including obedience to sexual access, a contextual reading that transforms Paul into a monster (Philemon, specifically, which suggests Paul is using a play on a slave's name to speak of him as an object). Or Paul's use of "vessels" to describe approved sexual outlets, a term that easily could have encompassed slaves but which modern conservative Christians disingenuously translate as "wives" or "spouses."

I am assuming you are a Calvinist, if you believe damnation is preordained.

 

[gsa]

There are many sexual positions one can enjoy, without inserting one's instrument in excrement.

This is like saying heterosexual intercourse requires the insertion of one's instrument into urine. An appeal to ickiness that also shows some contempt for the "passive" partner.

 

[Sonofason]

You have certainly moved on from Leviticus. Which is good, because your reading of Leviticus is unsustainable.

On the contrary, the book of Leviticus speak for itself, and sustains itself. My reading of it has zero effect upon it's sustainability.

This doesn't even begin to address Paul's endorsement of slavery and probable endorsement of obedience slaves, including obedience to sexual access, a contextual reading that transforms Paul into a monster (Philemon, specifically, which suggests Paul is using a play on a slave's name to speak of him as an object). Or Paul's use of "vessels" to describe approved sexual outlets, a term that easily could have encompassed slaves but which modern conservative Christians disingenuously translate as "wives" or "spouses."

I'm not sure where this is coming from. You provided in quotes this:

Some scholarship of late, of which Porter’s article is the most thorough example, has noted that Romans 1:18-32 does not represent Paul’s view, but the prevailing view of Gentiles among many Jews at the time, which this apostle to the Gentiles feels compelled to refute. Building off of the scholarship of J.C. O’Neill (who calls it “a traditional tract which belongs essentially to the missionary literature of Hellenistic Judaism”) and E.P. Sanders (who explains that “Paul takes over to an unusual degree homiletical material from Diaspora Judaism”), Porter ultimately concludes that “in 2:1-16, as well as through Romans as a whole, Paul, as part of his Gentile mission, challenges, argues against, and refutes both the content of the discourse and the practice of using such discourses. If that is the case then the ideas in Rom. 1.18-32 are not Paul’s. They are ideas which obstruct Paul’s Gentile mission theology and practice.”
Other explanations of what ὦ ἄνθρωπε is doing here are less satisfactory. Some have suggested that Paul is sincerely making these condemnations, stressing here (but only here) God’s anger instead of his kindness (as in 2:4), and then he imagines some onlooker applauding what he’s saying and turns to address him, condemning him for judging but somehow still agreeing with the content of what was just said.

Porter’s argument (which he thoroughly supports with rhetorical models from antiquity) makes much more sense: that the arguments present in the last half of Romans 1 were typical of those made by Hellenistic Jews to distinguish themselves from the Gentiles (thus the repeated use of “they” as noted before), and Paul, as an apostle to the Gentiles, finds this condemnation problematic and thus seeks to refute it, leading up ultimately to his similar conclusion in Romans 14:13, using strikingly similar language to that in 2:1: “Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.”

And I can't for the life of me imagine where this came from and why you have put it into quotes as if it came from me, thus your response to it is rather meaningless to me. Perhaps you could shed some light on this blatantly clear misrepresentation of our discussion.

I am assuming you are a Calvinist, if you believe damnation is preordained.

You can assume anything you like, but I assure you that your assumptions hold no weight whatsoever.
If I were to tell you that if you put your hand in the fire that you will be burned, will you think of me as a Calvinist since I believe that God has preordained those who put their hands in fire to become burnt by fire?

 

[gsa]

On the contrary, the book of Leviticus speak for itself, and sustains itself. My reading of it has zero effect upon it's sustainability.
I'm not sure where this is coming from. You provided in quotes this:

And I can't for the life of me imagine where this came from and why you have put it into quotes as if it came from me, thus your response to it is rather meaningless to me. Perhaps you could shed some light on this blatantly clear misrepresentation of our discussion.
You can assume anything you like, but I assure you that your assumptions hold no weight whatsoever.
If I were to tell you that if you put your hand in the fire that you will be burned, will you think of me as a Calvinist since I believe that God has preordained those who put their hands in fire to become burnt by fire?

1. Leviticus speaks for itself in ancient Hebrew, using an isolated idiom we have no way of translating with any certainty, agreed.

2. Quote was from a linked article, not you.

3. Followup about Paul's endorsement of human sex trafficking is mine. Read Jennifer Glancy for more info.

4. Do you believe God elects people for salvation and examination, or knows who will be saved or damned ?

 

[Sonofason]

1. Leviticus speaks for itself in ancient Hebrew, using an isolated idiom we have no way of translating with any certainty, agreed.

2. Quote was from a linked article, not you.

3. Followup about Paul's endorsement of human sex trafficking is mine. Read Jennifer Glancy for more info.

4. Do you believe God elects people for salvation and examination, or knows who will be saved or damned ?

1. I'm sorry, I cannot be certain of what you are asking here.
2. It is good to cite your references, and to do so outside the boundaries of the quotation.
3. Okay, Paul's endorsement of human sex trafficking is yours. agreed.
4. I honestly cannot say with any certainty what God knows and what He does not know. Let me put it this way. Calvin might have been right, or he might have been wrong. I personally don't know if he was right or wrong. Perhaps one day I will know.

 

[McBell]

But no less depraved.

Prove it.

 

[Sonofason]

Prove it.

It's self evident.

 

[McBell]

It's self evident.

Yet you are unable to prove it..?
You suck at back peddling.

 

[Sonofason]

Yet you are unable to prove it..?
You suck at back peddling.

I'm not back peddling. I believe that it is self evident that sodomy is depraved behavior. That is my opinion, and I intend to stand by it. I don't need to prove it to anyone. It is sufficient for me to know the truth. I do not require something to be written in black and white in order to believe it. I don't need anyone to agree with me in order for me to believe it. Perhaps I should have been more clear and specific.

It is self evident to me.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not back peddling. I believe that it is self evident that sodomy is depraved behavior. That is my opinion, and I intend to stand by it. I don't need to prove it to anyone. It is sufficient for me to know the truth. I do not require something to be written in black and white in order to believe it. I don't need anyone to agree with me in order for me to believe it. Perhaps I should have been more clear and specific.

It is self evident to me.

You can believe whatever you want to, but your belief doesn't mean that what you believe in is automatically "the truth."

 

[Sonofason]

You can believe whatever you want to, but your belief doesn't mean that what you believe in is automatically "the truth."

You're right. It isn't true because I believe it. I believe it because it's true.

 

[sojourner]

You're right. It isn't true because I believe it. I believe it because it's true.

Unfortunately, the evidence you've presented doesn't lead to the conclusion that what you claim is "truth" is, in fact, true.

 

[Sonofason]

Unfortunately, the evidence you've presented doesn't lead to the conclusion that what you claim is "truth" is, in fact, true.

I didn't present any evidence.

 

[sojourner]

I didn't present any evidence.

Right. Your evidence is non-evidence, and does not support your assertion that what you believe is, in fact, truth. you can't just state that something is "true" without presenting evidence to back up that claim. Otherwise, I could simply say, "Black people don't have the physical brain capacity to reason well," find some bible passages taken out of context that loosely could be misinterpreted to support that claim, and call it "truth."

 

[Sonofason]

Right. Your evidence is non-evidence, and does not support your assertion that what you believe is, in fact, truth. you can't just state that something is "true" without presenting evidence to back up that claim. Otherwise, I could simply say, "Black people don't have the physical brain capacity to reason well," find some bible passages taken out of context that loosely could be misinterpreted to support that claim, and call it "truth."

Actually, I can state my beliefs without providing a lick of evidence. In fact, I have done just that. My personal beliefs about sodomy have absolutely nothing at all to do with the Bible. My beliefs with regard to that subject is a result of my own reasoning, and I am confident that I am correct in my thinking.

 

[JerryL]

It's self evident.

My beliefs with regard to that subject is a result of my own reasoning, and I am confident that I am correct in my thinking.

Which is it? Self-evident or the result of reasoning?