Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

studiorat wrote: »

Indeed we can, it's common place with Muslims in North Africa.

David says to Jonathan..
very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

Paul says...
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Once again we see Paul not talking about homosexuality but rather prostitution.

???? Let's get the full quote to see what Paul was talking about:

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Yes, all manner of wickedness flowed from their debased mind - but Paul, in using it to introduce the subject, highlighted homosexuality as particularly debased. Not that it is as wicked as murder, for example, but it is spectacularly degrading. Just as lying drunk in you own vomit is not as evil as stealing your neighbour's possessions, but it is a public humiliation of the sinner.

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Whoever wrote this rejects the historic testimony of the Church, and perverts the meaning of the Scripture. He is quite simply lying.

You give James B. De Young as the source - have you the references in his works? Thanks. The biblography and references are vast, and I’ve no intention of spending the next hour copying them out or do I have a Greek type face on my computer.

I was asking for the references you cited. You did take them from James B. De Young?

So I’ll give you an example.

Quote:
“male cult prostitute”. See Peter C. Craige, “The Book of Deuteronomy”. Pp 302.

One can trace the English Vulgate which used the Latin Word for homosexual in all the references. This reflects the fact that in Rome homosexuality was an official function of the male prostitute, as in Canaan.

And that means homosexuality is OK of itself? So the condemnation of fornication only applies to female temple prostitution? It's OK to murder a child, so long as it's not done as a sacrifice to the idols?

No, read Romans 1 and you will see no temple prostitution there, male or female. Just male and female homosexuality.

Considering one of Paul’s primary concerns was how best to make rules for the “Goyim” who were joing his growing congregation of the new Jesus Followers. * Most of the gentiles who were signing up were in fact pagan and some would have had a tradition of pagan ritual, including this prostitution. The primary concept for their loyalty to the new faith was monotheism and they followed similar rules to the Torah with some changes, the diet and the dangerous procedure of circumsision being just two examples. .

Yes, and he specifically mentions the things to be avoided regarding their past connections:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:1-14;&version=50;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:14-33%20;&version=50;

Paul didn’t expect his letters and declirations to actually make it into scripture

Nonsense! Paul's teaching was to be held as from God:
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 13:1 This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” 2 I have told you before, and foretell as if I were present the second time, and now being absent I write to those who have sinned before, and to all the rest, that if I come again I will not spare— 3 since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you.

2 Timothy 1:11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles...13 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 3:10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And Peter was in no doubt about the status of Paul's writings:
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

and didn’t feel the need to convert the gentiles to Judaisim because he fully expected Jesus to return in his own life time.

He didn't feel the need to convert the Gentiles to Judaism at all. Nothing to do with Jesus' return. All to do with Jesus' fulfilment and abolition of the Old Covenant.

After the second temple fell the Jews really thought the end of the world was coming.

It was certainly the end of their world. The kingdom of God was taken from them. Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles until near the end of time. Just as the Messiah promised.

The problem is there is little historic testimony concerning the Bible.

There is a lot of commentary down the ages on both OT and NT Scripture.

Comtemplation of the text has little to do with accurate fact. Midrash (exegesis) was a spiritual past time as opposed to a historical examination.

The commentators certainly varied in their rigour. But that says nothing about the accuracy of the text.

I see you refer to the Rev. James Jones a liar.

If the cap fits.

Quote:
One of the country's most senior bishops has argued that the Bible sanctions same-sex relationships, using the bonds between Jesus and John the disciple, and David and Jonathan as examples.

The Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev James Jones, a conservative evangelical, expressed the views in a book, A Fallible Church, in which he apologised for objecting to the appointment of the gay cleric Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading. He was one of nine bishops to sign a public letter criticising the proposed consecration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/05/religion.world


Quote:
Jones said: "I deeply regret this episode in our common life. I still believe it was unwise to try to take us to a place that evidently did not command the broad support of the Church of England but I am sorry for the way I opposed it and I am sorry too for adding to the pain and distress of Dr John and his partner."

What the article writer calls same-sex relationships Christians call brotherly love. He seems to think Jesus and John were in a homosexual relationship. Jones himself is to blame, for he deliberately refuses to say if he meant sexual when he said physical. Jones' conversion to homophilia is evidence of his apostasy from the faith.

* It had been common practice for the gentiles to be allowed take part in many of the Jewish festivals of both the exiled Jews and the ones who remained in Judah. On the exiles return this continued in both north and south of the region. Israel and Judah.

In Christ's time Gentile participation in Judaism was minimal - the God-fearer had a place, but a Jew could not even enter their houses without defilement.

The Samaritans, on the otherhand, were examples of Gentile/Jewish post-exilic integration - and they were utterly rejected by the Jews at the time of Christ.

I know it's a few days behind the general conversation but I wanted to post this anyway... It may have been covered at some point in the last few days but I recalled that someone had asked wolfsbane what he meant by fornication (or maybe what he included under the term)... anyway... I wrote the following while thinking about the topic on the bus the other day.

--->
Fornication is now (sometimes/often/always?) taken to mean sex between any unmarried (to each other) male and female human being...
The word comes from 'fornix' the latin for arch... I use to think that this was a reference to the arching of the woman's back when she was really into it (or just the arching of backs generally ), but that's incorrect, which many people here I'm sure already know.
In Rome prostitutes use to hang out under archways and sold their services there. 'Fornicatio' means "done in the archway" and was a Latin euphemism for prostitution/sex with a prostitute, even brothels not under an arch became known as Fornices (That would be the correct plural of 'Fornix', wouldn't it?).
Since then its original use it has been widened to include any extra-marital sex.
Wolfsbane, of course, uses it in its modern meaning, by modern meaning I mean not Classical Latin, I've no idea when the euphemism shifted from purely prostitution to a broader sense, although I doubt if the Pagan Romans would have equated all unmarried sex to sex with whores...
So moving on, Jimmy and Jane, a pair of unmarried individuals, loving and faithful to each other, living together for several years are fornicators as they are not married?
Or, wolfsbane, do you mean fornication in terms of having multiple partners, with no emotional attachment and general promiscuity?
<---

If Jimmy and Jane are not fornicators, by virtue of their loving and faithfull relationship, then where do you draw the line?
If they then get married are they suddenly no longer fornicators? do their previous actions no longer count as fornication? or were they never really fornicating, after all they are now married and what is time to God? Or do those fornicarious sins add to their punishment in hell (assuming they are going there, either for other reasons or by virtue of their unrepentant premarital fornications. Wolfsbane has elsewhere commented that, in his divinely inspired and therefore correct opinion, the degree of eternal punishment in hell is dependent on the severity of sin. I'm guessing the spiritual equivalent of mild nagging pain for the poor lost souls of children born in the wrong place at the wrong time, repeated stabbings of red hot pokers through various orifices at the very least for the worst crimes against God, both these degrees are given in relation to each other and not to mere physical pain we know here on Earth, as they should be unspeakably terrible and of course continue for ever and ever).
If their emotional state could be said to be equivalent to marriage but they have not gone through with the rigmarole of a wedding, vows, priests, witnesses and so on would they still be fornicators?
Where do you draw the line?

...
Since writing the above I've spotted this youtube video... not the best source I know but it presents an interesting case... if you can listen through the first half (in which he talks about his posts on another video) and understand his accent.
He maintains that the use of the euphemism fornicate/fornication in the bible includes/may include homosexual relations and various other forms of sexual activity, as well as idolatry and a few other things...(generally things where one can be considered to be prostituting oneself) but does not include sex between single men and women.
I don't know if I would agree with him but he does (maybe) show that by 130AD Fornicato has moved away from it's original meaning of "Sex involving a prostitute" and right up to including any sex not explicitly for reproduction (or even any sex at all!) in the eyes of some.
I've not looked into it much though...

Well that's me for now I think.

kiffer said:

Fornication

---

I know it's a few days behind the general conversation but I wanted to post this anyway... It may have been covered at some point in the last few days but I recalled that someone had asked wolfsbane what he meant by fornication (or maybe what he included under the term)... anyway... I wrote the following while thinking about the topic on the bus the other day.

--->
Fornication is now (sometimes/often/always?) taken to mean sex between any unmarried (to each other) male and female human being...
The word comes from 'fornix' the latin for arch... I use to think that this was a reference to the arching of the woman's back when she was really into it (or just the arching of backs generally ), but that's incorrect, which many people here I'm sure already know.
In Rome prostitutes use to hang out under archways and sold their services there. 'Fornicatio' means "done in the archway" and was a Latin euphemism for prostitution/sex with a prostitute, even brothels not under an arch became known as Fornices (That would be the correct plural of 'Fornix', wouldn't it?).
Since then its original use it has been widened to include any extra-marital sex.
Wolfsbane, of course, uses it in its modern meaning, by modern meaning I mean not Classical Latin, I've no idea when the euphemism shifted from purely prostitution to a broader sense, although I doubt if the Pagan Romans would have equated all unmarried sex to sex with whores...
So moving on, Jimmy and Jane, a pair of unmarried individuals, loving and faithful to each other, living together for several years are fornicators as they are not married?

Yes, they are fornicators if they are not married.

Yes, I use fornicate in it's morern meaning - for that meaning is set by the English New Testament use, which is from the Greek πορνεία/porneia, a term covering a broad range of sexual sin:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

Used as a distinctive, fornication is used to refer to unmarried sex, rather than adultery, bestiality or homosexual sex that are part of the broader meaning.

Or, wolfsbane, do you mean fornication in terms of having multiple partners, with no emotional attachment and general promiscuity?

No, single partner 'loving' sex is as much fornication as multiple partner 'thrill' sex.

If they then get married are they suddenly no longer fornicators?

Correct.

do their previous actions no longer count as fornication?

No, they remain the sins they were. The differnce is if the couple repent for having commited them, or still believe they did no wrong.

or were they never really fornicating, after all they are now married and what is time to God? Or do those fornicarious sins add to their punishment in hell

If unrepented, yes.

(assuming they are going there, either for other reasons or by virtue of their unrepentant premarital fornications. Wolfsbane has elsewhere commented that, in his divinely inspired and therefore correct opinion, the degree of eternal punishment in hell is dependent on the severity of sin. I'm guessing the spiritual equivalent of mild nagging pain for the poor lost souls of children born in the wrong place at the wrong time, repeated stabbings of red hot pokers through various orifices at the very least for the worst crimes against God, both these degrees are given in relation to each other and not to mere physical pain we know here on Earth, as they should be unspeakably terrible and of course continue for ever and ever).

1. Only the Bible is divinely inspired, not my opinions. Where I pass on the Bible's teaching, you can rely on that.

2. I do not believe any children are in hell.

3. The nature of the suffering in hell is beyond full description, but we may take Christ's words as enough for us to grasp:
Mark 9:45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where


‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

If their emotional state could be said to be equivalent to marriage but they have not gone through with the rigmarole of a wedding, vows, priests, witnesses and so on would they still be fornicators?
Where do you draw the line?

If they declare to themselves that they are married, that is enough for it to be binding in God's sight. It is usually better to have it witnessed, for the sake of testimony/reputation. No priestly action necessary.

...
Since writing the above I've spotted this youtube video... not the best source I know but it presents an interesting case... if you can listen through the first half (in which he talks about his posts on another video) and understand his accent.
He maintains that the use of the euphemism fornicate/fornication in the bible includes/may include homosexual relations and various other forms of sexual activity, as well as idolatry and a few other things...(generally things where one can be considered to be prostituting oneself) but does not include sex between single men and women.
I don't know if I would agree with him but he does (maybe) show that by 130AD Fornicato has moved away from it's original meaning of "Sex involving a prostitute" and right up to including any sex not explicitly for reproduction (or even any sex at all!) in the eyes of some.
I've not looked into it much though...

Well that's me for now I think.

I've run out of time tonight. I'll watch and respond tomorrow, DV.

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible describes what a spiritual revelation physically feels like?

I suppose what I am getting at is that a person may know they are having say a heart attack by matching their feelings with documented effects of a heart attack. So you may feel sharp pain in your left arm etc and based on other experiencing that while having a known heart attack, you can learn from a doctor or medical book that this is associated with a heart attack as opposed to say a stroke or migraine.

how did you learn what a spiritual revelation is supposed to feel like so that you were able to correlate what you experienced with this?

I see what you meant now. No, I was speaking about the revelation being confirmed by later experience in the sense that the God who revealed Himself to me back then later proved to be just who He said He was - faithful, kind, able and willing to deliver, etc. His answer to my calls in time of need, His word on the nature of man, etc. all support the initial revelation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

kiffer said:
...

Yes, I use fornicate in it's morern meaning - for that meaning is set by the English New Testament use, which is from the Greek πορνεία/porneia, a term covering a broad range of sexual sin:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

It's interesting that people at the time of translating the Greek to Latin would choose a word that does not actually mean that then...

Used as a distinctive, fornication is used to refer to unmarried sex, rather than adultery, bestiality or homosexual sex that are part of the broader meaning.


No, single partner 'loving' sex is as much fornication as multiple partner 'thrill' sex.

hum... I wonder why loving is between inverted commas

Correct.


No, they remain the sins they were. The differnce is if the couple repent for having commited them, or still believe they did no wrong.


If unrepented, yes.

I find that very odd. What difference does it make? Emotionally they are in the same state... clearly they are not just screwing around.

1. Only the Bible is divinely inspired, not my opinions. Where I pass on the Bible's teaching, you can rely on that.

No. You've been pretty clear about this.
You have claimed that your interpretations of the bible are correct because your god told you so.
You have claimed that your interpretations of the book are correct, not by virtue of logic, but by virtue of revelation.
Not only have you claimed to have received the revelation that the bible is inerrant, but you've claimed that "God has spoken to you" on specific issues of scripture.
It is the specific issues and interpretations which allow me to say, "Your opinions are divinely inspired".

Your interpretation of scripture is your opinion and is different from the opinions of others.
You hold your opinion as being correct and are intransigent on many issues, those issues are the ones that I assume you think you have received divine guidance on as otherwise you could be at least slightly swayed by logic, reason or compassion.

2. I do not believe any children are in hell.

Yes... it would be pretty hard to justify the statement that God is a loving god if you thought children went to hell... I feel it takes a bit of double thinking though...

3. The nature of the suffering in hell is beyond full description, but we may take Christ's words as enough for us to grasp:
Mark 9:45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where


‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

Yes Yes, Hell is very nasty. My meager descriptions do not do it any justice at all.
It is infinitely worse than the worst thing that a human could do to another...

If they declare to themselves that they are married, that is enough for it to be binding in God's sight. It is usually better to have it witnessed, for the sake of testimony/reputation. No priestly action necessary.

ahhh... so that's the difference, saying the words, making the deceleration is more important than the feelings in a persons heart.

Húrin wrote: »

What about the children who were predetermined to burn forever because they are not among the elect?

Who says any child who dies is not among the elect? God elects whom He will; He also determines the life-span of us all - so He is perfectly able to ensure all who die in childhood are of the elect.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thats the most stupid thing i've ever heard....god determines our life span??? If god determines our life span then he hasnt exctly given us free will, also by that rational all murderers are doing god's work and suicide can't be a sin because well, they were going to die that day anyway. I may aswell go walk off a cliff right now, either I'll die or a freak gust of wind will deliver me to safety because i'm not due to die until sometime next week. hahaha.....

Yes, God determines your lifespan. He decides what foolish thoughts you will be allowed to act on, and what not. If you think of throwing yourself under a bus, He may allow it or not. It is your responsibility, but His providence.

Likewise for third parties, like murderers. God decides if they will be permited to succeed in their evil intention, or not. Every event is under His control, but that does not make a man's sin less sinful. The murderer will pay for his sin.

Nodin wrote: »

Thus innocent folk die young and relatively blameless all the time, but the Brendan Smiths live till their 70's....If I believed in a God, I can't say I'd back his decision making.

The length of our time here is relatively unimportant in the light of eternity. But how we use it is most significant: God put us here to seek after Him, that we might be pardoned and brought back to Him.

Yes, the wicked often prosper and the righteous perish. But one Day it will be set right.

Isaiah 57:1 The righteous perishes,
And no man takes it to heart;
Merciful men are taken away,
While no one considers
That the righteous is taken away from evil.
2 He shall enter into peace;
They shall rest in their beds,
Each one walking in his uprightness.

James 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. 4 Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5 You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

MrPudding wrote: »

So we don't have freewill after all? Why do you keep banging on about our freewill when we obviously don't have any?

MrP

Where do I keep banging on about our freewill ?

Man does not have free-will in the sense most people assert he does. Man is only morally free to do what his nature desires, and is only able to carry out those desires if God permits.

In regard to spiritual free-will, Man by nature will always reject God, for he hates Him in his heart - even if that hatred is subconscious. For a man to repent and trust in God it takes God to give him a new heart, a new nature.

EmoMatt15 wrote: »

In relation to free will, wolfsbane, how could we have such a thing, even if what you're now saying is true, that God determines whether we will succeed in our actions?

You are free to will what your nature directs. You are not free to carry it out, unless God permits.