Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19
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.
I already have, in 1 Corinthians.
The scripture only specifies that giving up what is natural for what is unnatural is detestable.
No, not really. I've already established that that which is deemed "natural" is not always Godly.
In original Greek the word is arsenokoitai, that is not synonymous with homosexual, sorry. In Hebrew it is catamites, again not synonymous with homosexual.
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:
I never did, I am going by the English translation.
As am I, and the English translation of these two very basic Greek root words is fairly evident.
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?
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.
Seems like your mind is made up. Beware, satan's greatest trick is commencing you he isn't there.
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.
I pray for you my brother.....that you'd not rely too much on your own interpretations and understandings and seek out God's will in your readings of the scripture. I'll just leave it at this.........I will argue semantics and worldy interpretations with you no further, as it is not my goal to change your mind, but simply to express to you why my faith leads me to believe what I do. I truly believe that some scripture is meant to be taken at face value and is not necessarily "open to interpretation."
I suppose this is where we part ways...........may you go in God's grace my friend.