Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Just a question for Dread: Why would God destroy Sodom and Gommorah over how guests were treated?
Macfistowannabe said:Of course I do, and it's ridiculously high. I've heard divorce being preached in church so much more than homosexuality. I was citing examples about how people get divorces for the wrong reasons. Banning divorce is not the answer, I'm not enforcing that in any way. I'm not sure what I said that made you think that I think divorce is rare.
Macfistowannabe said:Just a question for Dread: Why would God destroy Sodom and Gommorah over how guests were treated?
Macfistowannabe said:I know it wasn't destroyed over homosexuality alone, there's no way possible, but it could've played a minor role.
Macfistowannabe said:I will say this though, God may have been a "picker and chooser" in this case, seeing that he chose to save Lot and his family, even though the wicked culture definately influenced them, especially his daughters. Wasn't it his daughters that wanted to, and did, lose their virginity to Lot? I thought they got him drunk.
What treatment? I haven't been kicking anyone around. Those who do mistreat them do not speak for me. I just don't think God would've created women - if you believe that men were intented to live alone.Dreadsox said:So "could've played a minor role" is the basis for the treatment of gays and lesbians?
Of course it is! Who here would approve of that? Not me.Dreadsox said:Couldn't be the acts of rape on strangers?
indra said:
If that's what it says, you can certainly tell that part was written by a guy.
Macfistowannabe said:What treatment? I haven't been kicking anyone around. Those who do mistreat them do not speak for me. I just don't think God would've created women - if you believe that men were intented to live alone.
I do want to make it clear that I think it's a little hasty to say "don't give me this holier than thou bs" and then I get just that. I can respect your differences of opinion, all I ask is that you respect mine as well.
Dreadsox said:Why didn't Paul use words that someone who spoke Greek at the time, would have used in reference to homosexuality?
Words like:
"erastes," "eromenos," "paedika," "paederastes"
Why did he use a word that appeared in other texts in reference to an economic transaction?
Dreadsox said:
If you believe it is clear that homosexuality is what Paul is condemning in the NT, then how can you justify divorce, a topic that Jesus VERY clearly spoke out about?
Well, todays society holds divorce as acceptable. Is this wrong? Should we be protesting in the streets, in ralleys that were led by the Churches of Boston against Divorce as they did over gay marriage?
It is ALL about picking and chosing. It is what led to the splits in the church and the fractioned denominations that represent Christianity.
thacraic said:
In 1 Corn. 6:9 the word arsenokoites is translated as what we would modernly view as homosexualoffender.In 1Tim. 1:10 the word translates simply as pervert.
Dreadsox said:
And the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality it was the desire to rape men who were guests to Soddom.
Dreadsox said:
That is incorrect.
The use of the word, as I demostrated by quoting two other ancient texts that use the word, both use it in a list of economic transactions.
It is was not ever translated as homosexual behavior until 1958.
The second oldest translation as I referenced it is more in line with sex with boy prostitutes.
I completely disagree with your conclusion based on theses facts.
I refrained from mentioning any names, but you tend to do it quite often. Everybody obviously thinks they're right about something, but you're not much different from anyone you criticize. I refrained from singling you out, and meanwhile, you've given personal cheap shots to almost everyone you disagree with. You also tend to use that famous open-minded oxymoron quite a bit. You don't have to be openly mindless to be open-minded. You have no respect for anyone with an opinion that doesn't match yours. It seems that you think anyone who disagrees with you is a heartless, mindless, soulless, ignorant redneck, homophobic, intolerant hypocrite. With that said, go on thinking that if you want to.BonoVoxSupastar said:I didn't see anyone get "holier than thou" on you. Not even close. Dread went through a lot of research and historical fact to show people that the original texts did not read the way that so many others have interpreted them.
If this scared you and made you question your beliefs then I'm sorry, but it's far from "holier than thou".
thacraic said:
Well the use of the words in the text I am dealing with does translate as is stated (not as homosexual offenders per se, because yes that is a more modern term for a person which engages in sodomy, which that word in itself is not in the Bible, but as a result of societal usages and understanding of the word since the fall of Sodom, is translated as such.) Also, what about this word being translated as pervert in Timothy?
It seems you are basing your opinion that the translation of the word is wrong on the four words you pointed out. While all of these words earasete, ernomenos, paiderastia, paedika were not the words used to denote mere homosexuality in ancient Greek society. Quite the contrary, these words deal in the specifics of relations between two distinct groups of people (older men in there 20s to 30 and young adolescent boys, which I don't even want to think about the ages of those children, because it isn't that pleasant of a thought).
So your saying that the usage of arsenokoites is soley one thing and not to be taken as is based on four words that either together or seperate do not define actual homosexuality in ancient Greek times either.
Let's find the ancient Greek word which solely defines what homosexuality activity was at that time if the words being discussed don't offer up any clear understanding. However, in my opinion, they do.
Dreadsox said:
That's just it though, When I Quote the Gospel Writer John and the other text, which were written at roughly the same time, it is not used to denote homosexuality. It is used to denote the transaction of MONEY. The transaction of money and the sexual prostituion of boys was happening in the temple. That is based on the two words I cited. If Paul were discussing a SEXUALITY sin he would have used one of the other words, which are clearly more defined.
There is a specific meaning of the word.
You are also ignoring the next earliest translation of the text, closest to 46 AD. It was not translated in the manner you are translating it.
The Sin of Soddam and Gommorah was the practice of raping, and forcing sexual intercourse. Even in the 15-1600's when it was translated to mean sodomy a story that was not about homosexuality.
If you feel that a 1958 translation is more accurate than the texts that used the word as well as the next nearest translation to 46 AD. That is your choice.
Clearly, I am not going to change everyones mind who choose to believe it condemns homosexuality, verses using the temple to prostitute young boys.
Macfistowannabe said:I refrained from mentioning any names, but you tend to do it quite often. Everybody obviously thinks they're right about something, but you're not much different from anyone you criticize. I refrained from singling you out, and meanwhile, you've given personal cheap shots to almost everyone you disagree with. You also tend to use that famous open-minded oxymoron quite a bit. You don't have to be openly mindless to be open-minded. You have no respect for anyone with an opinion that doesn't match yours. It seems that you think anyone who disagrees with you is a heartless, mindless, soulless, ignorant redneck, homophobic, intolerant hypocrite. With that said, go on thinking that if you want to.