Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality.

almeyda writes:

quote:

---

The Greek word "arsenokoitai" used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means "men who sleep with men".

---

No, it doesn't.It was a word that Paul invented and there is no good translation of it precisely because it was invented for the Bible and only appears twice, neither time in very good context. The best one is "male temple prostitute."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

Homosexuality is an inversion of the sexuality established by God to meet his purpose of 'fruitful and multiply'.

---

Then sterile people should not have sex as that is an inversion of the purpose of sexuality which is to be "fruitful and multiply."Any form of non-penis/vagina sex is an inversion of the purpose of sexuality which is to be "fruitful and multiply."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Did some quick research as the etymology seemed interesting. 2 I thought the second quote reveals,once again, the moving goalposts of Christian definitions. This is also a very interesting
etymological chart that professes to shows the different translations of "arsenkotai" from year 56 to the Third Millenium Bible published in 1998.It would appear that yes, arsenokoitai, does refer to the people we of the 21st century call homosexuals; and, it also appears that the objection to homosexuality is not only from OT (Leviticus) as I found this reference to the NT (Romans 1:26) from this bastion of Christian love and understanding: Attention Required! | Cloudflare. I submit we can safely say that the NT's homophobia can stand alone without Leviticus.This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 01:55 AM

Can you point out where Lam has called you an idiot? They wouldn't fit in if they broke the forum rules, which is all that concerns me.AdminBrian.

To mike_the_wiz:Errrrr.....I asked Rrhain because that question came up in my own thinking (see my posts to Brian). It has nothing to do with you, or your "arguments", or your "statements".By the way, if you click on my name and access my message index, go to the closed forum down the bottom called "Hypothetical evidence for the existence of the Christian God" and read it.Now check the dates for when I created that thread, and the dates for when you sent me that link the first time.I beleive you may be embarassed.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

no, guess again.
inverted means opposite
sterile is not opposite

Hope that does the 'idiot' part."Also, please people! For the love of goodness, give support for your assertions.
I will go ahead and call anyone who refuses to give support for his assertions
(like PecosGeorge) an "idiot." I am sick and tired of people that are only good
at giving unsupported assertions."As for what you said about Christ, etc., breaking rules.....read the NT and let me know how many they broke....you are correct, they would not be welcome here nor would they fit in.

as in fear?
I see no fear of it in the NT.
Rather, denunciation as evil, sinful.

Do you willfully ignore context or are you just not very bright? You said that God's purpose for sexuality was that we would "be fruitful and multiply". Sterile people cannot be fruitful and multiply. If they have sex, they do so outside God's purpose for sex. Any thinking person can easily see Rrhain's point. Why can't you?I'll take a stab at stating the question without using words like 'inversion' that allow you to avoid the issue: If God's purpose for sex is that we "be fruitful and multiply", does it not follow that any sex not intended to produce offspring falls outside God's purpose and is therefore sinful or perverted or whatever word you people who speak for God say that it is? If gay sex is sinful because it falls outside God's purpose for sex, is not straight sex, when not intended to produce children, also sinful?

This is interesting. I'm curious to know which of the following the Christians in this thread consider sinful since they all seem to fall into the category of sex outside of God's purpose for sex.1 - Male Masturbation
2 - Femal Masturbation
(I split these up since one involves ejaculation of semen and the other does not)

3 - Heterosexual Anal Sex
4 - Heterosexual Oral Sex - Fellatio
5 - Heterosexual Oral Sex - Cunnilingus
6 - Heterosexual sex using contraception Heterosexual sex where one participant is no longer capable of reproducing due to:

7 - Voluntary operation (vasectomy)
8 - Operation necessary to save life (removal of cancerous uterus)
9 - Age (menopause)A simple 'sinful/not sinful' for each works for me.This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 03:54 PM

If I remember correctly, and since I'm old, please forgive any errors, the first six fall under the category of.............................................................FUN!!!!!!This message has been edited by jar, 05-27-2004 04:01 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To answer your question Berberry, in a word. YES.
The Roman Catholic church has always had this stance on sex.
To quote Monty Python. film The Meaning of LIfe ."EEVahReeey Sperm is SAACred every sperm is great and if a sperm is waisted God gets quite irrate" LOL!!!

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Oh boy. Lam didn't call you an idiot, he only said that you do not support your assertions. He is speaking in future tense as well, so he hasn't called you an idiot yet, but the meaning of his message is that if you do fail to suport your assertions in regard to the topic he will THEN call you an idiot. If this happends, I promise to put Lam over my knee and thrash him within an inch of his life. They would be welcome, but they would probably stink a lot by now and wouldn't be very talkative.AdminBrian.

AdminBrian said which simply shows he is not familar with Paul. No one and No thing ever kept Paul from having plenty to say.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Including being dead for about 2000 years?AdminBrian.