# Ask the Seminary Student **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825 "2006-02-10T05:46:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/121 "2006-02-14T13:02:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am not sure why I keep seeing this silliness, from time to time, and I really do not understand why I continue to see it on the SDMB when it has been so thoroughly refuted, and I especially am not sure why I continue to see it in [posts emanatating from your keyboard](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6500737&postcount=10), since you, specifically, [have been corrected on this point](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6501767#post6501767). > > When Constantine called what became the Council of Nicaea, the gathered bishops made no effort to _create_ or even _define_ the New Testament. In fact, several of their decrees presumed that such a body of works already existed and no decree from Nicaea acts to delineate which books would or would not be part of the Christian canon. > > As early as around 170, (Nicaea did not occur until 325), there was a list now known as the Muratorian Canon that basically listed the majority of the books that would later be recognized as the New Testament. > > There are more than enough references to the development of the canon to put aside any notion that it “owed its beginning” to Nicaea and there are plenty of fragments and codices that demonstrate that “the bishop of Rome” could not have rigged a separate re-write. > > It is perfectly legitimate to question whether the Holy Spirit actually guided the process or how much human politics interfered. It is irresponsible to make historically false claims about events that have been pretty well documented. Indeed there was not a New testement for many years and it is still a matter of the fact that humans decided what they wanted God to Say or inspire. It is a matter of Faith how one interpets, it and there are many sects of Christianity that interpet it differently, so the Holy Spirit must be giving many different meanings to many different people. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_Jo\_Jo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@Joey\_Jo\_Jo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_Jo_Jo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/122 "2006-02-14T13:19:36Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > **Joey Jo Jo** , what of gossip? Is gossip a natural relation? Is greed, envy, murder and haughtiness natural? > > Could this mean that rather than focusing on family, they became consumed with things such as politics, business, etc. in their lust and greed for wealth? I think verses 24 to 32 Paul is talking about two distinct aspects of God’s judgement for rejecting him. In verses 24-27, Paul is saying that one element the result of rejecting God is impure lusts. Then in verses 28-32 Paul says that in rejecting God, humanity has also gotten a debased mind. The two are obviously linked in that they are both results of our rejection of God, and therefore neither are good, but I don’t think the two are equivalent. Secondly the language in 24-27 is inherently sexual. The passion talked about is a sexual passion, and therefore really given the context can only really mean some form of homosexuality. I think it is a interpretive mistake to assume that the passion Paul is talking about cna be non-sexual in nature. Joey Jo Jo. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/123 "2006-02-14T13:33:49Z")
> [@Joey Jo Jo](#): > > And my immediate response 🙂 is that Paul is not talking about natural in the sense “occurs in nature”. Of course Paul knows that homosexuality occurs in nature, otherwise why write about it. He is talking about natural in the sense of “according to God’s original design specifications before the effects of sin”. Unnatural in the way that clothes are unnatural, then? (Genesis 2:25, 3:21). Of course, the appropriate interpretation of the Genesis account of the Fall is another debate altogether, and I see no reason to object to the idea that homosexuality wouldn’t exist in an unfallen world. However, that’s not the world we live in; I’ve never heard any Christian claim that we should attempt to live like the (unfallen) Adam, or regard that as the ultimate goal of our lives. I don’t deny that lust is sinful. I don’t accept the idea that heterosexual activity isn’t necessarily lustful while homosexuality necessarily is. > [@](#): > > While I don’t really want to support atheism, I would say that rejecting all of the bible is far more logical than just accepting the bits that you like. It really comes down to where your final authority comes from. If you accept the whole bible as the world of God, then your ultimate wuthority is the author of the bible, who Christians would say is God. If you only accept part of the bible based on what you feel to be true, then really you are your own ultimate authority. You, not God, decide what is true and what isn’t. As such I would actually argue that such a position is idolatrous. Not idolatrous in the sense of makeing statues and bowing down to them, but idolatrous in the sense of making God who you want him to be, rather than who he is. It depends what we mean by “accept”. If you mean “regard as true unquestioningly”, then, yes, I do “reject” the entire Bible, and any other text ever written. I would say that we are all our own “ultimate authority” when it comes to deciding what we _consider_ to be true; our decision needs to be informed by our reason, our experience, and the opinions of others, yes, but it’s ultimately ours to make. I can’t imagine just “accepting” something as being “true” because some text or person says that it is, without using my own reason to assess the claim. This probably won’t come as a surprise to you, but I don’t regard God as being the author of the Bible, in the way that Mohammed is the author of the Koran or Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon. The authors of the Bible were all fallible, mortal men like the rest of us, and prone to the same biases and mistakes. I don’t deny that they may have been divinely inspired - I _do_ deny that their words are infallible, immutable, and not open to critisism. It might also be considered idolatrous to worship a book rather than God, to bow down before the text rather than the God it (imperfectly) reflects. > [@](#): > > I think that the bible contains a consistent view of God. Yes, but, in my opinion, that God is the evil tyrant against whom **Der Trihs** and our other more militant atheists rail so effectively. The God that emerges from an uncritical reading of the Bible isn’t worthy of our worship, only of our condemnation and hatred. (Luke 11:11-12). Does my inability to worship or accept such a God make me un-Christian? Perhaps - but that would mean excluding all the liberal churches from the definition of “Christian”, as well. What should we call ourselves instead? 🙂 > [@](#): > > If every truth in the bible is questionable, then why suffer for something that you are not even sure is true? Exactly. Which is why I don’t base my faith on the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_Jo\_Jo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@Joey\_Jo\_Jo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_Jo_Jo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/124 "2006-02-14T13:58:37Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > One of the real issues with the Romans passage is Paul’s precise meaning of the words _phusiken_ and _para phusin_ (translated as “nature” and “against nature” respectively. The word usually denotes observable characteristics rather than any sense of divine purpose and Paul uses the word that way in other passages (He says that Jews are Jews "by nature (_phusei_), for example, that Gentiles are \*phusei[/i[ sinners (but that sometimes, also _phusei_ they do things within the law), and he says that it’s _phusin_ for men to have short hair and women to have long hair. _Phusis_ is a DESCRIPTIVE term for manifest, observable traits, not so much a term intended to designate innate purpose or design. The question though is that what does Paul see the “nature” of man and women to be. For if man only has one actual nature with regards to a subject, then there is a convergence of nature as innate purpose and also of observable trait. So for instance if I was to say that “it is natural to breath air”, since all people do breath air, then “nature” can be taken either in an ontological sense, or it can be taken in a descriptive way. There is only really a distinction when there is a possibility of something not being in the nature of someone else. So the statement “it is natural for people to play tennis”, natural is being used in a descriptive way, since clearly not all people play tennis, and therefore cannot be sonething ontological. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In Romans 1, Paul is talking about people who worship idols and, as a result, become so consumed with base passions that they begin to engage in behavior which is _uncharacterstic_ for them. It might likened to someone who has to much to drink at a party and then, against his usual natures (_para phusin_) does a table dance with his shirt off. In the case of Romans I would argue that Paul’s writing reveals that he sees men and women as having only one sexual nature, that of heterosexuality. You see this especially in verse 27 where he explicitly identifies “natural” as being men+women, and “unnatural” being men+men. This explicit mentioning of gender IMHO prohibits the view that Paul thought that man may either have a homosexual or a heterosexual nature. It seems that Paul sees people as having only a heterosexual nature. To say that the text means that rejection of God leads people doing something unnatural _for them_ requires reading things into the passage that simply aren’t there. Paul explicitly states that he sees “unnatural” as being same sex relationships, and he makes no qualification for people who are “naturally” homosexuals. Indeed given the fact that Paul writes about heterosexual relationships in several places in his letters, yet fails to say anything at all that is supportive of homosexuality means that there is simply no evidence anywhere that Paul thought that homosexuality could be in someone’s nature. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Its important to recognize that Paul is not saying these people are bad _because_ of their passions, but that their passions are a result of idol worship. It;s the idolotry that is being condemned, not homosexuality _per se_. Well, given how this thought starts in verse 18, the fact that idolatry is not mentioned until verse 23, and the overall flow of his argument he is condemning the universal rejection of God by humanity. Nevertheless that does not make homosexuality OK. This hints at the larger problem. The “pro-gay” (for want of a better term) movement seems to be almost entirely focused on determining what the bible doesn’t say, and not what it actually does say. I think if you want to claim that the bible does not say that homosexuality is a sin you have to do more than just “debunk” the passages that suggest that homosexuality is wrong. What you should do is create a theology of sexuality that treats all of the biblical evidence fairly and also demonstrates that in the biblical concept of sexuality, homosexuality is not a sin. I have yet to see anyone make a decent attempt at this, mostly because I think it can’t be done. One of the cornerstones of biblical sexuality is the difference and complementarity between men and women. Such complementarity is not in homosexual relationships, and therefore much of how the bible talks about sexuality is not true in these cases. For instance passages like Ephesians 5 can’t be read in the context of homosexual relationships, because at it’s core is the difference between men and women. Joey Jo Jo. Joey Jo Jo. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/125 "2006-02-14T14:37:47Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Indeed there was not a New testement for many years and it is still a matter of the fact that humans decided what they wanted God to Say or inspire. It is a matter of Faith how one interpets, it and there are many sects of Christianity that interpet it differently, so the Holy Spirit must be giving many different meanings to many different people. I have no problem with this argument. I would challenge the claim of “many years” without a clarification of “many.” I object to the false presentation of history that claims that the New Testment was “begun” or “created” or even “defined” at Nicaea, in 325, because that council made no statements as to the canon and was clearly already operating on an understanding that there already existed a New Testament. (The exact dates can be the subject of some haggling, but a _de facto_ New Testament definitely preceded the year 300.) I also reject the notion that there was very much room to change the writings. We have many texts from the second through fourth centuries. We have only a couple of (more or less complete) texts in Greek from the fourth century, but when we look at the entire body of texts, including codices and fragments, several in Greek, but also including translations to the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin, and other languages, many of which were not under the “control” of the Church at Nicaea and nearly all of which are mutually supportive, the chance that substantial passages were added or subtracted in the fourth century drops to almost nothing and any secret changes following the fourth century are nil. To get a plausible conspiracy going, you would need to push it back to the middle of the second century. Given that we have commentary describing the changes that Marcion imposed (in the middle of the second century), we also need to propose that having fought one battle in the open with lots of messy evidence laying around, all subsequent changes (when the church had actually fractured _more_) would have been successfully carried out in secret. That is simply not plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/126 "2006-02-14T14:52:53Z")
> [@Joey Jo Jo](#): > > While I don’t really want to support atheism, I would say that rejecting all of the bible is far more logical than just accepting the bits that you like. It really comes down to where your final authority comes from. If you accept the whole bible as the world of God, then your ultimate wuthority is the author of the bible, who Christians would say is God. If you only accept part of the bible based on what you feel to be true, then really you are your own ultimate authority. You, not God, decide what is true and what isn’t. As such I would actually argue that such a position is idolatrous. Not idolatrous in the sense of makeing statues and bowing down to them, but idolatrous in the sense of making God who you want him to be, rather than who he is. Couldn’t you argue it the other way, though? Frankly, while I find much of value in Christianity, I find that the Pauline epistiles feel very wrong compared with the rest of the NT, so I reject them. This doesn’t seem to me to say ANYTHING about my relationship with God as final-arbiter-of-truth, but rather my relationship with Paul, a mortal human being who I consider to be a scam artist. Essentially, my question is this–what makes a long-ago church father more authoritative than me on “which books ought be canon” or “what does God REALLY want”, so long as we’re coming from the common ground of “accepts the Gospels and Jesus specifically”? Especially in the context of the original Fall in Genesis–after all, that’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve steal from, and that says strongly to me that we human beings, while cursed with sin and death and loss of innocence, have gained for ourselves a conscience–something that retains that knowledge from that first sin. (\*) (this is clearly influenced by my Catholic upbringing, I don’t understand how you can have the punishment from the original sin without the rewards =P) I guess my thoughts are summed up by this: while it’s been rightly said by other posters that the Christian Church in aggregate is not likely to significantly change or add to the canon, how do we know that God doesn’t speak to each one of us every day? How do we know there are not more prophets and guides and apostoles writing the Word of God even today? - An example, somewhat relevant: When I think about murdering someone, I KNOW it’s wrong. When I think about stealing, I also know. I don’t get the same feeling about not-taking-communion, even though my Catholic upbringing taught me it was a really bad thing to miss Mass. I do get it about asking God for frivolous things, and taking His name in vain, although not as badly. I don’t feel like there’s anything wrong with a committed homosexual relationship, and I DO feel like there’s something wrong with sex for the sake of lust (as opposed to love). So if I’m being misled by something, culturally or spiritually, why am I not misled in easier things (like petty thievery, or taking God’s name in vain) as opposed to something I’ll never likely do (homosexual sex)? ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/127 "2006-02-14T16:14:22Z")
> [@Joey Jo Jo](#): > > Secondly the language in 24-27 is inherently sexual. The passion talked about is a sexual passion, and therefore really given the context can only really mean some form of homosexuality. I think it is a interpretive mistake to assume that the passion Paul is talking about cna be non-sexual in nature. How? What in the Greek language implies that the passion is sexual in nature? It seems entirely plausible to me that the “natural” that is being referred to is referencing the origin of man in which all things were created good and that the punishment of the denial of God, and/or idol worship, is the continued fall from grace in which rather than focus on righteousness, men and women are separated by evil and become “gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, heartless, ruthless.” Imho, this is a recurring theme throughout history where women and men become isolated by greed, wealth, power and take on forms of unnatural behavior to acheive and accomplish more. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/128 "2006-02-14T16:28:27Z")
> [@Joey Jo Jo](#): > > The question though is that what does Paul see the “nature” of man and women to be. No, the question is what does Paul mean when he says they behaved _para phusin_. The passage from Romans does not discuss the “nature” o f men and women in any teleological sense. > [@](#): > > For if man only has one actual nature with regards to a subject, then there is a convergence of nature as innate purpose and also of observable trait. So for instance if I was to say that “it is natural to breath air”, since all people do breath air, then “nature” can be taken either in an ontological sense, or it can be taken in a descriptive way. There is only really a distinction when there is a possibility of something not being in the nature of someone else. So the statement “it is natural for people to play tennis”, natural is being used in a descriptive way, since clearly not all people play tennis, and therefore cannot be sonething ontological. When you say “ontological” I think you mean “teleological” but Paul does not use _phusis_ in that sense in other passages. Once again. _phusis_ describes that which is seen or manifested in a person or object, not an invisible, unseen purpose. That which is _para phusin_ for a person is that which is counter to his usual habits, customs, appearance, etc., not “unnatural” in a moralistic sense. > [@](#): > > In the case of Romans I would argue that Paul’s writing reveals that he sees men and women as having only one sexual nature, that of heterosexuality. You see this especially in verse 27 where he explicitly identifies “natural” as being men+women, and “unnatural” being men+men. But that’s NOT what he does. You’re assuming a conclusion about the meaning of _para phusin_ and trying to use your own conclusion as a proof. Paul says that both men and women left their _phusiken_ (normal/usual/characteristic) affections for their spouses and carried on _para phusin_ (uncharacteristically) with people of the same sex. > [@](#): > > This explicit mentioning of gender IMHO prohibits the view that Paul thought that man may either have a homosexual or a heterosexual nature. It seems that Paul sees people as having only a heterosexual nature. Not at all. Not only is this absurd in light of the fact that Paul would have had no modern concept of homosexual and heterosexual orientations in the first place, but you’re also still attributing _para phusin_ with a meaning it doesn’t have. What is _para phusin_ to a person is ONLY that which is not usually observed for THAT PERSON. It does not have a moral connotation. It does not desiganate any kind of “nature” or natural purpose external to that person’s own unique characteristics. > [@](#): > > To say that the text means that rejection of God leads people doing something unnatural _for them_ requires reading things into the passage that simply aren’t there. translating _para phusin_ as “unnatural” is reading things into the text that aren’t there. What Paul says is that people who abandon God for idols behave _uncharacteristically_ (go crazy). > [@](#): > > Paul explicitly states that he sees “unnatural” as being same sex relationships, He states no such thing. > [@](#): > > and he makes no qualification for people who are “naturally” homosexuals. Nor would he be expected to because he wasn’t talking about heterosexuality and homosexuality, he was talking about _married_ people going nuts and acting unlike themselves. > [@](#): > > Indeed given the fact that Paul writes about heterosexual relationships in several places in his letters, yet fails to say anything at all that is supportive of homosexuality means that there is simply no evidence anywhere that Paul thought that homosexuality could be in someone’s nature. This is called an argument from absence. It’s meaningless. If Paul didn’t say anything about interracial marriage does that mean he must not have approved of it? Jesus didn’t say a word about homosexuality so it couldn’t have been very important to _him_. > [@](#): > > Well, given how this thought starts in verse 18, the fact that idolatry is not mentioned until verse 23, and the overall flow of his argument he is condemning the universal rejection of God by humanity. What “thought” starts in verse 18? Not anything relating to _para phusin_ behavior. Let’s look at the passage, shall we? 18for revealed is the wrath of God from heaven upon all impiety and unrighteousness of men, holding down the truth in unrighteousness. 19Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God did manifest [it] to them, 20for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead – to their being inexcusable; 21because, having known God they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened, 22professing to be wise, they were made fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles. 24Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves; 25who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen. 26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; 27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving. ( **Romans 1:18-27** , _Young’s Literal Translation_) Verses 23 and 24 make it clear that God gave them up to their passions because they worshipped idols. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless that does not make homosexuality OK. Romans 1 says nothing explicit about the general morality of homosexuality. It talks about what happened to married people who worshipped idols. Reading the passage as a flat condemnation of all homosexual relationships is tendentious, _a priori_ and reaching. > [@](#): > > This hints at the larger problem. The “pro-gay” (for want of a better term) movement seems to be almost entirely focused on determining what the bible doesn’t say, and not what it actually does say. My Bible study is not vested in any pro-gay agenda. My interest is purely objective and academic. I do not view the Bible as authoritative or divinely inspired. I do not inform my own choices or moral aesthetic with the Bible. From a personal, philosophical standpoint, I don’t _care_ what the Bible says. If I thought the Bible explicitly condemned homosexuality, I would _say_ so and I would also say the Bible is wrong, like it’s wrong about a lot of things. The Bible endorses a lot of morally repugnant ideas, in my opinion. It endorses slavery. It has some rather unenlightened views on women. I don’t have a problem with recognizing when the Bible disagrees with my own worldview. I have no emotional investment in the Bible supporting my own moral opinions. It just means I’m right and the Bible is wrong. I have no problem with that. > [@](#): > > I think if you want to claim that the bible does not say that homosexuality is a sin you have to do more than just “debunk” the passages that suggest that homosexuality is wrong. What you should do is create a theology of sexuality that treats all of the biblical evidence fairly and also demonstrates that in the biblical concept of sexuality, homosexuality is not a sin. This is incorrect. If you want to assert that the Bible claims homosexuality is a sin, it is your burden to prove it. If you can’t show me a passage where such is clearly stated (and believe me, you can’t) then you have failed to meet your burden. There is no need for me to formulate any “theology” of anything. You can either meet your own burden or you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/129 "2006-02-14T17:19:12Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > How? What in the Greek language implies that the passion is sexual in nature? Nothing especially. There are three words in 24-27 which indicate passions. Verse 24 refers to _epithumiais ton kardion auton_ - “desires of their own hearts.” _Epithumiais_ has a general meaning of “desires, longings, cravings or lusts.” It CAN have a sexual meaning but it doesn’t have to and without context it’s better just to translate it as “desires.” Verse 26 says God gave people up to their _pathe atimias_. _Atimia_ means “dishonorable, disgraceful.” _pathos_ has a means literally, “that which happens” but has a broad range of meaning, includining “accident, misfortune, incident, affliction, condition, passion” and more. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything bad but often does in the NT. I think _pathe atimias_ could be well translated as “shameful/dishonorable conditions, afflictions or passions” which might manifest sexually but not necessarily. Verse 27 says the men 'burned in their _orexei_ towards one another." _Orexexis_ is a pretty generic word for “desire” which could apply to a desire for a Big Mac as easily as a desire for a well oiled stud. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/130 "2006-02-14T18:47:46Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There are three words in 24-27 which indicate passions. Verse 24 refers to _epithumiais ton kardion auton_ - “desires of their own hearts.” _Epithumiais_ has a general meaning of “desires, longings, cravings or lusts.” It CAN have a sexual meaning but it doesn’t have to and without context it’s better just to translate it as “desires.” And, in this context, it has a sexual meaning. > [@](#): > > Verse 27 says the men 'burned in their orexei towards one another." Orexexis is a pretty generic word for “desire” which could apply to a desire for a Big Mac as easily as a desire for a well oiled stud. And again, the “for each other” clause makes it clear what the desire is for. So this statement is pretty self-evidently wrong. _:shrugs:_ I realize this will make no difference to your usual “there’s glory for you” arguments, but for the benefit of those who might want to distinguish scholarship from denial… Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/131 "2006-02-14T19:40:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And, in this context, it has a sexual meaning. Wrong, as usual for you. In that use of the word it implies a generic cluster of base desires and appetities with no explicit statement that all of them are sexual. As I said, the word can include sexual desire but doesn’t _have_ to. > [@](#): > > And again, the “for each other” clause makes it clear what the desire is for. So this statement is pretty self-evidently wrong. In this case, I was just stating that the definition of the word wasn’t explicitly sexual. Yes the context gives this one sentence a sexual connotation. **gooftroopag** asked a specific question about the meaning of the GREEK WORDS FOR PASSION. I was telling him that none of the Greek words themselves have a particularly sexual meaning. Get it? I was trying to answer a factual question about Greek definitions and nothing more. > [@](#): > > I realize this will make no difference to your usual “there’s glory for you” arguments, but for the benefit of those who might want to distinguish scholarship from denial… Can you point out anything I’ve said that’s factually wrong in my definitions? What am I “denying?” What’s not “scholarly?” If you have nothing more to add (and you don’t) than this kind of petty, semantic gamesmanship then maybe you should stay out of the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/132 "2006-02-14T20:01:02Z")
> [@Mines Mystique](#): > > As the title says, I am a first-year Seminary student at Denver Seminary. [beavis & butthead] Heh-heh . . . heh-heh . . . He said “seminary”! [/b&b] ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/133 "2006-02-14T20:01:07Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In this case, I was just stating that the definition of the word wasn’t explicitly sexual. Yes the context gives this one sentence a sexual connotation. Why does the context give the sentence a sexual connotation? Gossip circles “desire” to be together, so why must this refer to something sexual? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/134 "2006-02-14T20:07:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [beavis & butthead] > > Heh-heh . . . heh-heh . . . He said “seminary”! > > [/b&b] Remember folks, the second patriarch was named laughter (Yitzhak is the Hebrew word for laughter.). If your faith does not make you crack at least an occasional smile, then you’re doing something wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/135 "2006-02-14T20:13:43Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > Why does the context give the sentence a sexual connotation? > > Gossip circles “desire” to be together, so why must this refer to something sexual? I think when you see a claim that men abandoned their usual affections for their wives and burned with uncharacteristic desire for each other instead that it’s probably not talking about cuddling or poker. I think it has to be understood that this does not contain an explicit condemnation of homosexual sex _per se_. It’s claiming that this kind of crazed behavior was a direct resut of idol worship. The homosexuality is depicted as a _consequence_ of sin, not a sin in itself. It’s also important to note that these men were married. Paul doesn’t say anything about consensual relationships between _un_married men (or women). ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/136 "2006-02-14T20:52:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think when you see a claim that men abandoned their usual affections for their wives and burned with uncharacteristic desire for each other instead that it’s probably not talking about cuddling or poker. Perhaps, I just see it as akin to a man working +80 hrs per week rather than spending time with his family. I work with a group of guys that go to work to get away from their wives… ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/137 "2006-02-14T21:03:59Z")
> [@Mines Mystique](#): > > As the title says, I am a first-year Seminary student at Denver Seminary. I will answer questions to the best of my ability, but be aware that I probably won’t have all the answers to questions that might come up. > > For a little background, I am pursuing a Masters of Divinity degree, specializing in Youth and Family Ministry, planning on being a youth pastor. My undergraduate degree is a B.S. in Engineering Physics from the Colorado School of Mines (I know, odd career choice, if you ask, I would love to tell you the story there). > > Ask away! Ask your instructors to show you definite proof of the truth of any part of the Jeebus myth. Ask them why there are no contemporary records of his existance. After all, this was a big-time thing; if we can find lists of the names of gladiators killed in the arena around that time, why can’t we find his name anywhere in contemporary records where it hasn’t been proven to be forged? The Romans were anal about that sort of thing; seems strange to me that nothing has been found. Ask them why they persist in perpetuating a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/138 "2006-02-14T21:12:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Can you point out anything I’ve said that’s factually wrong in my definitions? What am I “denying?” What’s not “scholarly?” The part where you said that the desire could have been for a Big Mac, as I pointed out is the part that is factually wrong. The part that is not scholarly is the part where you simply deny that any word has any meaning apart from whatever you assign it. The other part that is factually wrong is the idea that your “translation” is not agenda-driven. It clearly is. This is also a part that is unscholarly. It amounts to a serious of special pleadings rather than anything worthwhile. I note, as is often the case, that you have failed to produce any evidence for anything you have asserted in this thread. Since it is fairly obvious that you are merely making this up as you go along, your word for any of this is worth essentially nothing. > [@](#): > > If you have nothing more to add (and you don’t) than this kind of petty, semantic gamesmanship then maybe you should stay out of the conversation. Pointing out that you don’t know what you are talking about is hardly petty or semantic gamesmanship. You would like to post from a position of authority, and it is clear that there is no basis to believe you. The purpose of the board is fighting ignorance. You are attempting to propagate it. If you don’t like having your “arguments” shot down, feel free to back them up, or withdraw. Since you can’t do the one, you might consider the other. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/139 "2006-02-14T21:16:47Z")
And while we’re at it: You said earlier that you believe the 6 Days of Creation myth. Well, let’s look at it for a moment in fast forward mode: 6 Days, Adam and Eve, snake and apple, pissed-off angel and boot in the butt out the gate. Two kids, Cain and Abel. Cain whacks Abel. God finds out and: 004:009 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? 004:010 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. 004:011 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand; 004:012 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 004:013 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 004:014 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 004:015 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. 004:016 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 004:017 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Whoa! Ask your teachers where Cain’s wife came from. At this point in the story, there are only three living people on the face of the earth: Adam, Eve and Cain. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/140 "2006-02-14T21:23:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The part where you said that the desire could have been for a Big Mac, as I pointed out is the part that is factually wrong. I was talking about the _definition of the word_, not its specific context in Romans. My statement was factually correct. > [@](#): > > The part that is not scholarly is the part where you simply deny that any word has any meaning apart from whatever you assign it. Where did I say that? Cite? > [@](#): > > The other part that is factually wrong is the idea that your “translation” is not agenda-driven. It clearly is. This is also a part that is unscholarly. What’s my agenda? What is your evidence? What have I sad that’s unscholarly? Cite? > [@](#): > > It amounts to a serious of special pleadings rather than anything worthwhile. I note, as is often the case, that you have failed to produce any evidence for anything you have asserted in this thread. Since it is fairly obvious that you are merely making this up as you go along, your word for any of this is worth essentially nothing. What specifically would you like proof for? What am I making up? Cite? > [@](#): > > Pointing out that you don’t know what you are talking about is hardly petty or semantic gamesmanship. You would like to post from a position of authority, and it is clear that there is no basis to believe you. You have not identified anything that I’m wrong about > [@](#): > > The purpose of the board is fighting ignorance. You are attempting to propagate it. If you don’t like having your “arguments” shot down, feel free to back them up, or withdraw. Show me anything I’ve said that’s factually incorrect. You haven’t “shot down” anything, you’re just whining. I’ve made nothing up. If you have no ability to rebut the actual content of my arguments (which you don’t) then you’re better served staying out the discussion. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825.md?page=8)