A Honda because Jesus and his apostles were all in one accord!!
Having followed Polycarp in wading into the battles over homosexuality on another board (somebody’s got to cover his back!), that passage in 1 Corinthians also includes thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. Why does only one ambiguous word get the publicity? I’ve also yet to get a cite for Jesus explicitly saying one word against homosexuality, although someone once did cite a passage in which he condemns fornication (I forget which one). On the other hand, the Samaritan woman to whom He first revealed Himself to be the Messiah was certainly guilty of sexual immorality by the standards of the time – she was on her 5th husband! (Ok, maybe not in that sense.)
kjckjc, the most famous passage in which Jesus said “Go and sin no more” is the one which deals with the woman caught in adultery. I didn’t give you a chapter and verse for it because it can appear in about 4 different places in either Luke or John. Apparently it doesn’t appear in the earliest versions of the Gospels.
To get to the OP, I rather naively believe God is present at all marriages, even though I suspect at some even He’s hoping the couple will wise up and change their minds! I think Christ would attend a modern day gay marriage and, if it was between two people who truly loved, honored, and respected each other, would be celebrating as joyfully as anyone there. If it were a marriage which was destined to wind up abusive or one which people were entering into for the wrong reasons, I could see Him giving a little one-on-one counseling, in the former case, ministering to the abuser as well as the abused.
Excuse me. I know I must sound like a rainbow, hearts, and flowers type Christian right now. I promise I’ll revert to my usual tart self in a moment.
CJ
What?!.. an Accord sits 13??! Why, thats a miracle!
ooh wait… :smack:
Thats funny! Hey not to get off subject but is there pm boxes here?
I am fairly new here.
Here Ya go:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/misc.php?action=faq&page=2#pm
Happy Prime Ministering!
oh wait… :smack:
Oh, sure. For a reasonable fee, Jesus will even photograph your wedding. He does a lot of work in the Bay area, so I’d have to assume he’d have no problem with a gay wedding.
Thank you X~Slayer:)
I’m a little bit late to the Greek discussion but here is a little more info:
[symbol]malakoi[/symbol] malakoi means literally “soft ones” It was used in a broaders ense to mean “effeminate” and was idiomatically used to refer to either male prostitutes or to boys who were “kept” for sexual purposes. Whatever the case, a malkos was specifically the passive partner.
[symbol]arsenokoitai[/symbol] (arsenokoitai), unfortunately, means homosexuals. There’s no way around it. It’s a composite of two words, [symbol]arsenos[/symbol] (arsenos) means “male” and [symbol]koitos[/symbol] (koitos) which means “bed.” an arsenokoitos, therefore, is one who lies with/ goes to bed with men. This did have a connotation, however, of a man who took young men/boys to bed with him, i.e. a pederast.
I think, therefore, from the context of the entire passage that Paul was probably more specifically condemning the practice of pederasty which was fairly prevalent in the Greek world. It’s hard to tell what he would have thought of monogomous homosexual relationships between mature adults. I’ve read some Jewish scholarship which suggests that the Jews of ancient Palestine did not particularly object or find it remarkable for two men to live together as a couple> They really only had issues with men who went outside a marriage, or was promiscuous, or who preyed on young boys, etc.
In the ancient Greek world, the trend was for a lot of men to be married with kids, but then to keep a boy on the side. I believe that this was what Paul was condemning.
Diogenes, I’ve also seen ‘arsenokoitai’ defined as “male prostitutes” and someone making an argument that the word refers to men who butter up wealthy widows in the hopes of getting their fortunes when they die as a result of their services as bedded men, just to add to the suspected definition as “pederasts”.
I believe I remember that there’s no context for the word as used in the culture, because it only survives in Paul’s writings at all. Which only makes the whole matter more difficult.
Thanks for the clarification, Diogenes – I’d always been certain in my own spirit that there was a major distinction between predatory sex and sex-in-the-context-of-committed-union, and that the former was wha was condemned – but I didn’t have the nuances underlying the Pauline terminology in order to deal with the N.T. Scriptures fairly.
I suppose this explains why it keeps saying that Caiaphas was in a Fury!??!
I don’t think they make furys anymore do they?
That is a plymouth fury right?
I think it may have been blue. lol