- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,208
- Reaction score
- 19,786
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Yes, that's very specific........thank you. :roll:
According to the figures in your source......a married couple would have a better chance of producing six sets of quadruplets before witnessing documented homosexuality in the animal kingdom. :shrug:
Your words not mine.
What a load of misinformed crap. No wonder you are so blind.
The only reference to sodomite was a citizen of Sodom.
arsenokoitai was the improper translation. Doesn't mean sodomite.
Homosexuality isn't a sin nowhere in the Bible is it established that way.
You are relaying demonic lies. You are serving the dark one. You have no clue what it says.
Nobody should listen to you at all about biblical scripture. You are blatantly misinformed.
read the Bible again very carefully.
So what?
Homosexuality is uncommon, no ****. What difference does that make?
You are the one in the position that being uncommon makes it ungodly, where you came up with that crap probably the same place you dug up the other satanic crap you lie about and say is scripture.
Your location is Mississippi. When did they ratify the 13th amendment? I think it was around 6 months after Lincoln... the movie.It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I was just pointing out that he was incorrect when he made the false claim that it was a common occurrence. No need to get so defensive here...........believe it or not, you are among friends. It's combative gays like you that give so many others a bad reputation. You've prejudiciously attacked every post I've made without considering it for its substance and you've jumped to the conclusion that because I'm a devout Christian, and consider homosexuality sinful, that I hate gays. My friend, you could not be further from the truth.
Perhaps you should take a step back and reevaluate your approach......you seem a bit abrasive.....and high-strung. :shrug:
You've prejudiciously attacked every post I've made without considering it for its substance and you've jumped to the conclusion that because I'm a devout Christian, and consider homosexuality sinful, that I hate gays. My friend, you could not be further from the truth.
Your location is Mississippi. When did they ratify the 13th amendment? I think it was around 6 months after Lincoln... the movie.
I was just throwing it in there for humors sake. Lighten up.So, it's come to this......this is all you have? Wow! I'm in Mississippi....Mississippi is not me. What does this have to do with the topic anyway? Your strawman, and your obvious intelligence level is noted. Now, either debate the issue, or kindly move along.
What's truly interesting is that you are being shown up by a dumb lil' ol' poster from Podunk, MS. :lol:
I was just throwing it in there for humors sake. Lighten up.
Yeah, I know it had nothing to do with this. I'm not a christian, but I'm pretty sure that ladies interpretation of Leviticus is uncommon.Okay. Sorry, you caught me while I was on a roll there this morning. No harm, no foul.
Prove to me that this was the wrong translation......just prove it....that's all. You cannot....for all you have are allegations driven by emotion.
Funny......I'm apparently the "closed-minded" Christian here......and I'm the one openly admitting that I am a sinner and no holier or better than anyone else............you, who apparently want the world to see you as the poor "victim" of intolerance in this debate,.... are the one being antagonistic and the one who is blatantly denying his sin..........you don't find this ironic in the least? :lol:
It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I was just pointing out that he was incorrect when he made the false claim that it was a common occurrence. No need to get so defensive here...........believe it or not, you are among friends. It's combative gays like you that give so many others a bad reputation. You've prejudiciously attacked every post I've made without considering it for its substance and you've jumped to the conclusion that because I'm a devout Christian, and consider homosexuality sinful, that I hate gays. My friend, you could not be further from the truth.
Perhaps you should take a step back and reevaluate your approach......you seem a bit abrasive.....and high-strung. :shrug:
Prove to me that this was the wrong translation......just prove it....that's all. You cannot....for all you have are allegations driven by emotion.
Funny......I'm apparently the "closed-minded" Christian here......and I'm the one openly admitting that I am a sinner and no holier or better than anyone else............you, who apparently want the world to see you as the poor "victim" of intolerance in this debate,.... are the one being antagonistic and the one who is blatantly denying his sin..........you don't find this ironic in the least? :lol:
Wow! Thanks for your very specific response to my request. (1)I give you specific scripture. (2) you deny it is accurate and give no specific, cited evidence as to how or why. Then, (3) you give me this as a rebuttal? Debating is not really your thing, I can tell. :lol:
It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I was just pointing out that he was incorrect when he made the false claim that it was a common occurrence. No need to get so defensive here...........believe it or not, you are among friends. It's combative gays like you that give so many others a bad reputation. You've prejudiciously attacked every post I've made without considering it for its substance and you've jumped to the conclusion that because I'm a devout Christian, and consider homosexuality sinful, that I hate gays. My friend, you could not be further from the truth.
Perhaps you should take a step back and reevaluate your approach......you seem a bit abrasive.....and high-strung. :shrug:
You called me agnostic, I am a Christian. I rebutted your false claims on what is sin. Never said you hated gays, just that your interpretation of the scripture you posted is only yours and that it doesn't follow the words written. It relies on a false hood that everybody is naturally heterosexual. That is a predisposed judgment or a prejudice. You can't think that way if you want to read scripture and get its true meaning.
As I explained several times for me to force a heterosexual relationship against God's design, that would be a detestable act. For me to give up what is natural for me, in my case, a relationship with a man would be exchanging what is natural for what is unnatural. Burning with lust seems to be the part that is detestable. Lust drives wedges in families, and between us and the lord.
I don't care if its heterosexual or homosexual. Why it was referenced here was the practice of prostitution that occurred in the pagan temples the prostitutes were male.
When you read the scripture here in original Greek, the words don't really reflect homosexuality.
Correction it is my interpretation based on what is written.Wow, you've quoted my one little post, several times. First off, I don't remember ever calling you an agnostic. Secondly, This is ONLY your interpretation of scripture based on what you believe regarding homosexuality.
Thirdly, I don't think it really matters whether the persons involved were considered to be "naturally" gay or were just "experimenting"......the scripture does not specify.
The scripture only specifies that giving up what is natural for what is unnatural is detestable.what it DOES specify, is what acts are considered abominations in God's eyes.
passage from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians does refer to either "homosexuals" or to "sodomites" depending on the literal translation from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. You can dance around this all you'd like, but you can't change what was written there 1900 years ago.
That is also all you are doing. Hello pot, I am the kettle, stop calling me black.All you are accomplishing is that you are nitpicking semantics from only the translations which you find favorable and you seem to be ignoring the basic content of the scripture.........
this is not how objective study is done.......you can't simply throw out what you find unfavorable.
The concept of homosexuals didn't exist until about 150 years ago, that is precisely why your argument that Paul was referring to homosexuals is ludicrous. Did he carry a Mac ten and a cell phone also?Your argument that Paul does not specifically reference "natural-born" homosexuals is completely ludicrous. Show me ANY other credible historic document from that specific era and that specific region which shows discernment between "casual" homosexuals and "natural" homosexuals,
Seems like your mind is made up. Beware, satan's greatest trick is commencing you he isn't there.You won't because you can't.........it does not exist and your argument is based on utter nonsense and on your emotional ties to this issue.
No, it doesn't, it refers to lust and doing what is unnatural. Sorry you are dead wrong here.When you read the scripture in its most accurate literal translation into English (which is not from any EXISTING Greek edition) it DOES indeed reflect homosexuality. :shrug:
I already have, in 1 Corinthians.It only specifies giving up to lust. And replacing what is natural with what is unnatural. Nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.
Show me where it directly references homosexuality.
The scripture only specifies that giving up what is natural for what is unnatural is detestable.
Yes, it is true that Paul, apparently created this Greek word for the sole purpose of describing specific acts that were being committed by men. There is no evidence of this word ever being used before Paul employs it. So, let us take a closer look at the word "arsenokoital". It can simply be broken down into its two basic Greek root words: arsen (=male) and koites (=to bed or sleep with sexually; like the English word coitus). Knowing this, I can't imagine any other reason why Paul would have combined these two Greek words other than to describe homosexual acts........can you? Well, of course you can, because you are obviously incapable of analyzing this objectively. :shrug:In original Greek the word is arsenokoitai, that is not synonymous with homosexual, sorry. In Hebrew it is catamites, again not synonymous with homosexual.
As am I, and the English translation of these two very basic Greek root words is fairly evident.I never did, I am going by the English translation.
Wow! Just when I thought this could not become more strange and ridiculous. Yes, you are correct......which is probably why Paul used his own combination of two Greek words to describe the act. We don't know if Paul was completely fluent in Greek or if he was simply adept at translating letters into Greek. We do know that he combined these two words into one in an attempt to describe something sinful......and the English translation of the words makes his intent pretty clear........both in my humble opinion......and in the opinions of most reputable biblical scholars.The concept of homosexuals didn't exist until about 150 years ago, that is precisely why your argument that Paul was referring to homosexuals is ludicrous. Did he carry a Mac ten and a cell phone also?
I think you meant "convincing" us that he does not exist. Either way, I am quite aware of the enemy's intentions and am not swayed by them.. Also remember that Christ, Himself reminds us that Lucifer is indeed the Prince of this world and is always on the prowl. What you suggest is that Paul's message is confusing and that he may have misused terminology. My suggestion is that my God is not a God of confusion and that His message is simple. It is the enemy who spawns confusion and tempts us to twist the message of Christ and of His Holy Word by attempting to rely too heavily upon our own understandings and by not seeking out God's will and the guidance of His Holy Spirit.Seems like your mind is made up. Beware, satan's greatest trick is commencing you he isn't there.
What act was he describing, because you only dissected a noun. arsenokoitai is a noun. And removed out of its text can mean anything, but when used in conjunction with pornos, malakos, and catamites the meaning becomes clear that this is a particular type of arsenokoitai, one that uses soft (malakos) beardless (catamites) prostitutes (pornos) being that they are a male (arseno) bedder (koitai) its abundantly clear that this is a specific form of homosexuality. It is still homosexuality.Wow! Just when I thought this could not become more strange and ridiculous. Yes, you are correct......which is probably why Paul used his own combination of two Greek words to describe the act. We don't know if Paul was completely fluent in Greek or if he was simply adept at translating letters into Greek. We do know that he combined these two words into one in an attempt to describe something sinful......and the English translation of the words makes his intent pretty clear........both in my humble opinion......and in the opinions of most reputable biblical scholars.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?