Actually, the best understanding of malakoi seems to imply, not effeminacy or moral weakness, but lack of steadfastness: the Malakoi were weak in not standing on their principles, as a good Greek citizen would, but bending with every flight of opinion they heard.
Arsenokoitai (sometimes rendered arsenokaites) appears to be Paul’s own coinage, thought by many to echo Leviticus 18:22. But that it means “homosexual” or “homosexual offender” in the modern sense is highly debatable – the Leviticus passage addressed “abominable practices of the Canaanites, which you [the Israelites] shall refrain from” – and the best evidence for 18:22’s “lying with a man the lyings as with a woman” seem to reference Canaanite fertility rites, in which male and female alike would copulate with the priests of Ba’al or Astarte in an effort to induce bumper crops.
In short, general, it appears someone shot down your B-29.
The thought and the act are equally sinful (ie anyone who has lusted after a woman in his heart has commited adultery) so being in a state of sinful thought or desires is sin.
Those are part of the Mosaic law which has been superseded by the NEw Covenent is why I didn’t cite Leviticus.
This seems problematic. I mean, for one thing, you can’t really control what you think about until after the initial thought, and even then it depends for some people. I mean, if I mention green elephants, you’ve now got green elephants in your head, and it doesn’t really matter how much you might wish you don’t, you did. It seems unfair to cast as sins that which isn’t under our control.
But, perhaps more problematically, this would mean that there are people for whom mere existence is a sin. I included, in fact. Which means that, essentially, from birth (or conception, I suppose) I’m condemned, whilst others are not until they commit a sin of their own will. That doesn’t seem particularly just to me; why can’t I be judged on my acts and the thoughts I can control rather than the ones I can’t?
I didn’t know that honoring your parents was now not in the new testament.
I’m an atheist, I have been all my life, biblical laws are all the same to me and I don’t really care which are “true” and which are not. You are the one picking a few of them and claiming they’re special, and that others can be ignored. Or more probably, you’re part of a religion that has already made those choices. In any case, my question is still the same - and I notice that you’ve completely avoided answering it: what is the reason that you care about homosexual activity? Especially how it applies to non-believers, but let’s not ignore the christian denominations that are OK with homosexuality. Can you come up with any reason at all that would not be “god doesn’t like it”?
And very convenient for people wanting to lay down guilt trips, since people ***can’t ***just decide to not lust “after a woman in his heart”. People want what they want, whether it is “sinful” or immoral or just stupid. And in fact such a standard will likely just increase “sin”, because trying NOT to think of something is a very effective means of making people think of it.
As someone who doesn’t consider fantasies of any kind wrong, I’m probably less likely to sexually fantasize about someone else’s wife than someone who thinks that doing so is sinful. And who therefore is thinking very hard about how he has to stop thinking about that cute married woman next door.
To be fair, so far as I can tell, Curtis only seems to be seeking to define the status of homosexuality within Christianity. He hasn’t yet suggested that the answer is the only valid one.
Wow dude, that was really deep. I always find it so sad the way people will call themselves Christian in order to justify what they already set out to do, very carefully stepping over the parts of Christianity that tells them very specifically not to do that very thing.
Curtis LeMay, have you ever noticed that God seems to hate all the same people you do? I wonder why that is.
Also, do you see all these acts as equally sinful? After killing all the gays? Who do you plan to go after next?[ul]
[li]sexually immoral[/li][li]idolaters[/li][li]adulterers [/li][li]male prostitutes [/li][li]homosexual offenders [/li][li]thieves[/li][li]greedy [/li][li]drunkards [/li][li]slanderers [/li][*]swindlers[/ul]
No church follows exactly what the Bible says. Try 1 Corinthians 14:34 on for size and see how far it gets you.
And clearly, just because the Bible gives you rules about something, doesn’t mean they’re always relevant. Have a read of Ephesians 6:5-9; instructions for how slaves should be with their masters. Does that mean that slavery should simply be accepted as it was in Paul’s day? Obviously these rules no longer apply.
So you have to study the reason why these rules were given. I imagine homosexual sex was banned because of health issues. Same with having sex outside marriage, before contraception it was generally not good to be having kids if you weren’t intending to stay together.
Things have changed, get with the times. You’re happy dismissing Leviticus because it no longer applies, well how about everything else that no longer logically applies?
Well, it’s not 100% but Hinduismhas varying degrees on it.
If you’re specifically looking for textual stuff, this’d be a start on the mythology. Like most things in Hinduism, it’s not a black and white issue, but there are texts that don’t condemn it, and those that do, and those are silent with their interpreters having opposite interpretations of the beliefs.
But as for your line of it just sucks to be gay- not quite the case, I’ve grown up with it being included in my texts, it just wasn’t a major point or anything, but it wasn’t certainly a damning thing either. It’s just something that happened and it fit the plot of the story- how you interpret the actions well that’s your own influences that must come into play there. But if you def. want more info, I do encourage the mythology wiki- there are plenty of transgendered, gender switching, eunuchs, and other such behavior seen within the traditions- and not all were negatively perceived.
Then again, I’m sure plenty of people disagree with my religious views- in my religion and out of it. So everyone’s mileage varies.
But just figured I’d at get a chance to point out:
Only Siths deal in Absolutes.
Well many people can’t help but desire to steal or rob out of greed. Also it’s no the though of lusting that’s sinful it’s the though of wanting to lust that’s sinful or lusting but thinking it’s all right; if you know it’s wrong and recognize it’s alright if you have ocacaisonal thought of lust you can’t help with.
[quote=“emacknight, post:52, topic:515786”]
Wow dude, that was really deep. I always find it so sad the way people will call themselves Christian in order to justify what they already set out to do, very carefully stepping over the parts of Christianity that tells them very specifically not to do that very thing.
Curtis LeMay, have you ever noticed that God seems to hate all the same people you do? I wonder why that is.
Also, do you see all these acts as equally sinful? After killing all the gays? Who do you plan to go after next?[ul]
[li]sexually immoral[/li][li]idolaters[/li][li]adulterers [/li][li]male prostitutes [/li][li]homosexual offenders [/li][li]thieves[/li][li]greedy [/li][li]drunkards [/li][li]slanderers [/li][li]swindlers[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
“Kill”, “Go After”? I favour neither against any group of sinners, but I will try to stop them from sinning or at least recognize it’s sin.
Does homosexuality or sex outside marriage still exist? Then the rules still apply since slavery has been abolished at least in the US.
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”
Children still exist. Do you still think we should stone them to death if they misbehave?
Well, on a practical level, I don’t see how we’re going to pay for town gates in this economy.
Or how we’re going to compel old people to stand around near them waiting for some cheeky young whippersnapper to be hauled up by his parents for stoning.