News-Record.com

Nancy:

I have a lot of respect for you, but John Shelby Spong is way off the deep end. I decided to use wikipedia since it should be a neutral website to give you an idea of some of his views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

ECUMAN, that's the information on Spong. However, that does not give any information or opinion on the topic at hand.

At least Spong gives evidence to support himself, whether he is agreed with or not, he gives the evidence to support his stand.

The issue of GLBT has been wrangled for decades in mainline Christianity. Sadly, very few biblical scholars have stepped forward to give a more accurate reading of the 5-6 passages used to discrminate against GLBT people.

That is where the discussion should begin, with those passages. When anyone is ready, let me know.

Shalom0

There is already a day when people don't care about the sexual life of people... today. The fact that not everyone has that attitude is not likely to ever go away. But I think that as time goes on, the number of folks who get their panties in a knot over this sort of thing will decrease.

Darryl:

Eric and I went through this last week, but if you want to revisit that discussion, that will be fine. I would prefer to take one passage at a time, so we can stay focused. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 6 and tell me what it means.

From the NASB (New American Standard Bible)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Of course, the very word "homsexual" is a nineteenth-century invention. Paul was on the warpath against the Greek traditions of male Eros, especially because the gymnasiums were right where the philosophers had spent generations training young men to think for themselves rather than rely on gods and assorted irrationality.
Greek men were not allowed to act "effeminately", however, which is not an excat cognate to "homosexual", either. It all screams of a very narrow hypervigilant atrophy of anima.

And it is rather rhetorically stinky of you, ECUMAN, to quote this passage in such a way to equate all those sexual behaviours with stealing. Is it a package deal? Are each of these behaviours morally equivalent?

And what constitutes idolatry? Could that include the vaunted worship of Xbox and...hey...the very computer on which we type now? Technology has more lasting and insidious influence our daily lives than Sunday school once a week.

ECUMEN is perfectly correct to cite I Cor. 6 as an example of the consistent and pervasive biblical rejection of perverse sexual behavior. And Darryl, I’m ready. The word translated “homosexual” means exactly that: from “arsen” – male and “koite” – couch-cohabitation-male sperm (Englishman’s Greek Concordance). And, in the context, there is little doubt as to the correctness of this rendering. The word for “effeminate” – malakoi, is also clearly connected to perverse sexuality.

And it is purely self-serving to say that there are only a few passages that refer negatively to homosexuality. There may be a limited number that mention it specifically, but there are a great number of passages that make it crystal clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of sexual expression that God either intended or accepts (not to mention the anatomical evidence – Rom. 1, 26,27). It is an extreme exercise in futility to search the Scriptures for support of perverted sexuality. But like the I Cor. passage ECUMEN cited (v. 11), God extends His redeeming love to all – calling them to repentance from their sin, not excusing or accepting it. It would be UN-loving for God to allow and encourage people to remain in their death-ridden sin and perversity.

Like Spong, those who try to twist the Scriptures to condone perversion always have a low view of Scripture to start with, and try to MAKE the Scriptures say what they want it to say in order to make a pretense of being Christian. At least Eric and his fellow atheists are consistently honest about wanting neither gods nor absolute truth.

Acceptance of sodomy and the gay lifestyle is indeed gaining some acceptance in some circles, which only demonstrates the mind-bending power of the megamedia. And continued gains of the GLBT lobbies only reflect this power, as well as a sympathetic liberal/humanist court establishment. If it indeed does gain wider acceptance in influential areas of the populace, it will only serve to hasten God’s sure and certain judgment on this nation; for God is not mocked – now, before or ever.

Nikos:

Thanks for you support. I'm not well versed in Greek or Hebrew. I do know how to read passages in context in English and that allows me to understand at least 95% of what I read in the Bible and anything else for that matter. I use the NASB because I trust a formal translation rather than a paraphrase. I do appreciate the additional incite into the Greek. I would love to learn more, but there are only so many hours in the day. Thanks again.

I humbly submit that perhaps this physical collection of inked letters, the various and sundry bibles clutched to the collective bosoms of believers and parsers and sybils, and their accompanying translation-acrobatics are themselves a form of idolatry.

And inciting the Greeks was exactly Pauls' purpose, I expect.

And inciting the Greeks was exactly Paul's purpose, I expect.

Now on to I Corinthians 6.9. The Greek words translated “effeminate” and “homosexual” do not mean effeminate or homosexual!

In this verse, the Greek word translated to read “homosexual” does not mean homosexual as that word is known in the 21st century. Again, this is interjecting a 19th century word into a 1st century document. Therefore, it has to be disregarded.

The English word “homosexual” is a composite word made from the Greek term (homo, meaning “the same”) and a Latin term (sexualis, meaning “sex”), therefore, same sex. As stated above, the word “homosexual” is of modern origin and was not known or used until a little more than 100 years ago. Neither Biblical Greek nor Hebrew has a word that is parallel to the English word “homosexual.” The word “homosexual” was not used in any Bible translation until the RSV of 1946. So then, how has this come to be such an issue of the mid twentieth century and following?

The word translated as “homosexual” or “sexual pervert” or other similar terms is the Greek arsenokoites. This word is formed from two words meaning “male” and “bed.” This Greek word is not found anywhere else in the Bible or in the original manuscripts from which the Bible is translated. Nor is it found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul’s time. The meaning is unknown. It is obscure and uncertain. Therefore, attaching it to one particular and specific thing again poses great problems and should be discontinued.

Even worse, is applying word/s only identified nearly 2,000 years after the fact is a travesty of justice to the text and the ORIGINAL writer/s. How sad for a culture to corrupt a document such as the Hebrew & Christian scriptures. Yet, the same people who tout the “adding to or taking away” from scripture statements do this continually when the verse mentioned in the previous paragraphs is used in error as I have stated they been done so.

Shalom

PS - Now for the next Attempt

Since St. Paul makes it perfectly clear in Romans 1 that homosexuality is contrary to God’s will and is grievous sin, one should not be at all surprised that he would include it on such a list as is found in the I Cor. 6 passage; especially after he refers to “adulterers” immediately before, covering the hetero issue. Biblical Greek, while written in the common or Koine language of the time, also occasionally devises new words for theological purposes, or to use a term, such as “logos,” in a Christian manner. One of the rules of biblical interpretation is not to use only one passage to establish a doctrine, if at all possible.

Regardless of how gay interpreters try to bend and twist the meaning of certain clear passages, the entire Bible acknowledges only one model as the moral absolute of sexual relations. Polygamy was only allowed as a temporary divergence – heterosexual at any rate. Faithfulness is used in the prophetic writings to illustrate Israel’s sin of unfaithfulness to Jehovah (Hosea 1, et al.) - one wife for one God. And, of course, there is there is the Genesis 3 ideal model. And in the N.T. there is the concept of the Bride of Christ (Ephesians, Revelation). As I said in my previous entry, it is utterly futile to attempt to support perversion – of any sort – from the Bible. Most intelligent gay advocates have abandoned it, or never bothered to start with.
The only reason anyone would wish to use Scripture to support perverse relations is that they recognize its authority, or are debating with someone who does. I assume the latter is the case here.

Even apart from the bible, it should be obvious to any intelligent and informed person that perversion is not compatible with human anatomy. I won’t go into all the gory details of my research, but suffice it to say it is gruesome – as it is also with heterosexual promiscuity, in different ways. The only model that prevents disease, injury and spiritual death is one man and one woman in covenant union under God’s blessing. What people do in private cannot be stopped or controlled, but the public arena must be free from advocating and promoting that which God has pronounced to be both sin and injurious to the common welfare, because it is contrary to his holy creation model.

Nikos, perversion from scripture has already been supported. It was done when scripture was read with a closed mind!

Anyone ready to submit the next passage?

Shalom

Darryl:

I realize that language changes over time and that new words are created. The question is did the Corinthians to whom Paul wrote the letter understand what what he was talking about and what his intent was? Also, it is the activity that we now use the word "homosexuals" to describe that is important in this passage, not the modern word itself.

Darryl, Please explain exactly what you mean by this vague statement. You offered no real reply. The issue, as I indicated, can be addressed even apart from scripture. You offered nada.

Like all efforts today to circumvent the moral prosciptions of God for man, advocates siimply deny all transcndant moral standards and opt for anything goes, or moral anarchy. Just because gays or abortionists get to do thier thing does not mean that other moral rebels, of a more sinister and ghastly sort, will not seek to do thier own thing based on the same relatavistic "absolute," since no moral boundaries or standards exist. If all is realtive, why not? "What difference does it make" a terrorist might assert, "if I blow up a few hundred innocent people if it advances my cause? I see it as right!"

If there really were no moral absolutes, his assertion is perfectly plausible. If you propose A N Y moral boundaries you are doing exactly what the Bible does, and your argument fails. And you have - and it does fail. The only real argument is which set of absolute values is correct, not that moral standards of some sort are not necessary.

Unfortunately for your argumentation, but fortunately for humanity, there IS a moral universe, created by the almighty Creator, and to which we must all yield. This provides a moral basis for all law and moral restraint, and thus, protection for inncent people.

The mad rush to bend public legal standards to the preferences of special interest groups and lobbies is merely the attempt to indulge the particular practice THEY are driven to fulfill, regardless of the consequences for themselves or others in the future. God's Law and moral system are NOT meant to spoil our fun but to protect us and reserve only the best for us all.

Rather than repent of his sin, modern man is driven to indulge it whether or not God or other people accept it. "Their god is thier belly," the rustic KJV puts it; meaning that all they can think about and see (and worship) is thier lust object. It is very much like the drug addict who will do anything to fill the aching void. But godly desries are fulfilled in such a way that there is not this myopic lust drive, but a circumspect balance to all of life. For God has said that He has given us "all things richly to enjoy" (I Tim. 6.17) - His way!

So, no real refutation of the information I posted.

Nikos...I stand by the words posted. If there is a problem with/of sin, check the basic definition from Christian scripture. That should be all the clarity needed to define sin.

Shalom