dude, i don’t give a shit what the “stoic” term for “unnatural” is. Natural is consistent with narture.
I didn’t have an argument, captain. I answered the question to the thread. don’t waste your time with pointless details, loser.
What the hell is your definition of “natural?”
I’m done cynic…y’all win…no big deal…or is it?..
no, it’s not…
Well that was a pathetic piece of sub-humanity. 
I won’t argue that this assumption may be true, but how do you get past the verbiage used that it was “shameful” behavior and that they received their “punishment” for their actions? Does this not give a clear implication that the act was unacceptable?
I’m sorry, the correct quote was “penalty”, not “punishment”.
augusta:
[Moderator Hat ON]
If you don’t have an argument, perhaps you should not be posting in a debate forum. Also, calling people “loser” is not acceptable in this forum.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
For Paul and for the Stoics, I’d say homosexuality was unacceptable, yes. It’s just that that’s not what the beginning of Romans was about…Paul was just taking for granted that homosexuality was wrong.
Doesn’t that answer the OP?
Sort of, even though the Leviticus passage is a more clear example of biblical condemnation of homosexuality. In Romans, Paul sort of takes the wrongness of homosexuality for granted.
A couple of qualifications to The Romans pasage which I have read:
1.) Paul was condemning the acts as “shameful” not because there were homosexual, per se, but because they were unloving, hedonistic, selfish, animalistic rather than spiritual.
2.) They were adulterous.
Also, I would reiterate that homosexuality was little understood as an orientation and that Paul does not really address the kind of mature, committed same-sex relationships that have become more normative now.
And hey, it’s not like Paul was free of cultural prejudice. He also said that womens should be submissive and keep their mouths shut.
cynic, my heart felt apologies go out to you. I didn’t know you were an overly sensitive “intellect”. Man, it sure would be nice to have your debating skills. your smart cynic, your really smart. very intelligent. i bet it’s fun to be you.
Why are you addressing this to me? I’m not the guy you called a “loser,” and I’m not the mod who warned you about it. Where do you get this “sensitive” stuff? I’ve got a hide like a buffalo, dude. You’re not going to hurt my feelings.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A couple of qualifications to The Romans passage which I have read:
1.) Paul was condemning the acts as “shameful” not because there were homosexual, per se, but because they were unloving, hedonistic, selfish, animalistic rather than spiritual.
2.) They were adulterous.
[QUOTE]
Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence. I don’t see anything in the Romans passage that indicates that Paul specifically referred only to unloving, selfish and/or adulterous acts. What is your source for these qualifications?
[QUOTE=Skammer]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A couple of qualifications to The Romans passage which I have read:
1.) Paul was condemning the acts as “shameful” not because there were homosexual, per se, but because they were unloving, hedonistic, selfish, animalistic rather than spiritual.
2.) They were adulterous.
The interpretation I’m referring to is one that suggests that giving up “natural affections” meant giving up affections for spouses. Most adults would have been married then, especially women. It was just assumed. It went without saying in that time and place. The only person a woman could have “natural” relations with would have been her husband.
It’s also pretty obvious that Paul is speaking to hedonistic abandon, not loving relationships, and he’s blaming it on idolotry.
I’m not really trying to convince anyone, my only intenet in this thread is to show that other interpretations exist. It’s not universally accepted by Christians or Jews that the Bible condemns all homosexual relationships.
The “unnatural” thing is especially strange considering that homosexuality is so prevalent in nature.
Yeah, but again, a lot of the time, the Stoics didn’t use “natural” to describe the way the world actually was, but instead the way the world “should” be. So, for the Stoic, at least, something “unnatural” could happen even in the natural world, due to corruption or something.
Some are saying this here, but I don’t think they’re being very concise. I hope that I may do better…
It’s not being homosexual that’s prohibited in both the Old and New Testament in the Bible, but rather certain homosexual acts that are prohibited. It’s not being gay that’s the problem; rather, it is acting on the “lusts of the flesh” that’s the problem here, and that’s what is specifically being prohibited. There are a great many passages that address heterosexual acts that are just as prohibited. It is our perception of heterosexuality as “normal” that makes us look at those passages that address heterosexual acts as not prohibiting heterosexuality in general.
Did that make sense?
Also, concerning Paul’s writings that prohibited certain modes of dress, etc., I can use the epistles to the Corinthians as examples. It must be remembered that Paul was writing to specific church groups with specific “hang-ups.” To the Hebrews, it was their unyielding abidance with Mosaic law; with the Corinthians, it was “carnality” or “lusts of the flesh.” It turns out that the Corinthians had something of a hedonistic lifestyle that they were accustomed to, and Paul was addressing them concerning this. He was basically telling them what they could do to lessen the temptations they were dealing with on a daily basis. In fact, as a matter of perspective, there was an apparently common phrase at the time that was used to describe someone falling into physical depravity - they became “Corinthianized.” (No, I’m not making that up, but I don’t have my reference bible handy - I’m traveling this week - to look up the cite.)
Anyway, in 1 Corinthians, Paul lays out all these do’s and don’t’s about dress and actions, etc. Unfortunately, the Corinthians took it a bit too far. He spends a great deal of the first portion of 2 Corinthians basically saying, “Whoa! Beep, beep, back the truck up! You folks have carried it too far and are making it a law that you have to dress and act these ways! You’re turning my first letter into a legal script to follow, like the Hebrews with Mosaic law, and that’s not what Christianity is about!”
my $.02 - I hope I made some sense
While I certainly agree ::cough Greek and Roman practices cough:: that Paul was not the more unbiased reporter in a room featuring him and your average Fox News consultant, I was under the impression that the Greek verb he used that is often mistranslated as “talk” is more aptly translated as “gab/gossip”. This from my parents, one of whom is the oft-cited monk and the other of whom double-majored in Greek and religion:)
BtW, Dirk:
I was not under the impression that a decision had been reached on the bolded sections … unless you were presenting it as your opinion of the Bible, not purporting it to be The Last Word:D
DrkGntly:
I’ve heard they were into leather in a big way.
Chaim Mattis Keller
iampunha,
Of COURSE it’s The Last Word - I said it! 
Anyway, yes, it is my opinion, but I haven’t found anything that indicates definitively otherwise. The whole point of my argument was actually that there are probably just as many prohibitions against certain heterosexual acts, which, taken by themselves, could be seen as a prohibition of heterosexuality, and I don’t see a lot of people arguing that point…
…and yes, this would be a hi-jack, but if anyone other than I wanted to tackle it in another thread, I think it would be a lively discussion, primarily that the specific scriptures cited in the NT that condone monogamy actually don’t do any such thing, and that, in fact, polygamy (1 man, multiple wives) was still common and approved of in Paul’s time - and that those self-same scriptures actually are rules for how to handle oneself in ANY marital situation, poly or otherwise…(just a thought)