For clarification!

[Tarheel Baptist]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing  indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26-7

I've said it before. I'm sure I'll say it a hundred times again...people who want to use this as a clobber passage really need to keep reading the rest of the chapter.

I'm sure no one but you ever read Romans 1 in its entirety! 
The point, Scripture declares Sodomy/homosexuality as sin!

 

[rsc2a]

Two different meanings. One is quaint. The other erroneous.

You're being dishonest with me and I'm not going to play your game. Yiu know very well that the vey link you referenced included "old fashioned". I asked a sincer question. You made no distinction in your use of the word.

Sure...and it was completely clear from the context that I was referring to the second meaning.

[quote author=praise_yeshua]

Now how many people use the word to mean either oral sex or bestiality? Because, in my experience, the people who are referring to those acts when they say sodomy are zero. Ergo...yes, the meaning has changed.

You're being dishonest again. I referenced the source for the English word Sodomy. You then point to a modern English definition of Sodomy. Sodoma has long generally referred to anal sex. It has for thousands of years. I wonder where someone got anal sex from?[/quote]

Anal sex. Oral sex. Sex with animals. Any type of unnatural sexual relations. You are the one who is appealing to the historical meaning of the word while limiting it to the modern definition.

[quote author=praise_yeshua]

I wouldn't remove anything from either passage. I'm not in the habit of either adding or removing from Scripture.

Sure you are. You're removing it via your interpretation!!! You're the one saying it redundant, thus.... you derive a different meaning from the text. Stop being dishonest.[/quote]

So by not saying the passage says something it doesn't say I'm adding to the text while reading something into the text that isn't in the text is legitimate hermeneutics? Sheesh...

As an aside, you are the one who started talking about removing things from the text, explicitly so. I don't see redundancy as a reason to ignore something, quite the opposite. The emphasis is generally a reason to pay particular attention to the item(s) in question.

 

[rsc2a]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing  indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26-7

I've said it before. I'm sure I'll say it a hundred times again...people who want to use this as a clobber passage really need to keep reading the rest of the chapter.

I'm sure no one but you ever read Romans 1 in its entirety! 
The point, Scripture declares Sodomy/homosexuality as sin!

I don't disagree; committing a homosexual act is a sin.

What I find shocking (not really) is how much energy church folk want to put into this issue that isn't even a challenge to them instead of the rampant sin that is in their very midst. Nothing like hard preaching on something your people never struggle with rather than the pride, complete lack of compassion, greed, and lust plaguing the congregation.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing  indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26-7

I've said it before. I'm sure I'll say it a hundred times again...people who want to use this as a clobber passage really need to keep reading the rest of the chapter.

I'm sure no one but you ever read Romans 1 in its entirety! 
The point, Scripture declares Sodomy/homosexuality as sin!

I don't disagree; committing a homosexual act is a sin.

What I find shocking (not really) is how much energy church folk want to put into this issue that isn't even a challenge to them instead of the rampant sin that is in their very midst. Nothing like hard preaching on something your people never struggle with rather than the pride, complete lack of compassion, greed, and lust plaguing the congregation.

Thank you!
Me too!

 

[LongGone]

How is saying my comments were in response to Smellin, blaming him?
Those comments were correct, if homosexuality can be said to be genetic, so can pedophilelia, based on the same line of reasoning.

Your willful disregard for the plain meaning of scripture is so laughable, you must resort to Hail Marys...dodge and deflection. I have stated exactly what I believe. As have you.
The difference, to believe what you believe requires a willful disregard for Scripture...Stevie Wonder can see that.
[/quote]


You refer to cliches such as Hail Marys, dodge and deflection and Stevie Wonder can see along with your willful disregard for the plain meaning of scripture is so laughable.  It would appear you do this because you can't make a real argument for your position. When someone disagrees with you...you call names and make fun in lieu of real substance. You don't have to agree with me but name calling adds nothing to your argument.  Also continuing to try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia continues to demonstrate your gay bashing love that you started over on the HAC thread. Stay with your cliches and gay bashing...it is much easier than actually studying scripture to see what it actually teaches. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

LongGone
You refer to cliches such as Hail Marys, dodge and deflection and Stevie Wonder can see along with your willful disregard for the plain meaning of scripture is so laughable.  It would appear you do this because you can't make a real argument for your position. When someone disagrees with you...you call names and make fun in lieu of real substance. You don't have to agree with me but name calling adds nothing to your argument.  Also continuing to try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia continues to demonstrate your gay bashing love that you started over on the HAC thread. Stay with your cliches and gay bashing...it is much easier than actually studying scripture to see what it actually teaches.

When the plain sense of scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.
Your position requires you to explain why scripture didn't really say what it says.

IF saying that Sodomy is sin is gay bashing, then I'm a gay basher.
You miss the point about pedophilelia.
If homosexuality can be said to be genetic in nature...the same arguments can be made to say pedophila is genetic in nature.

Your gay bashing accusations are, IMO the equivalent to a Hail Mary pass.....it dodges the issue.

 

[subllibrm]

Honest question. Is there agreement that anal and oral sex are unnatural (sin)?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What I find shocking (not really) is how much energy church folk want to put into this issue that isn't even a challenge to them instead of the rampant sin that is in their very midst. Nothing like hard preaching on something your people never struggle with rather than the pride, complete lack of compassion, greed, and lust plaguing the congregation.

Some preachers want to demonstrate a persona of bravery in attacking "their sins" or "sins of America" from the pulpit when in reality, they are simply seeking an echo chamber.

 

[subllibrm]

What I find shocking (not really) is how much energy church folk want to put into this issue that isn't even a challenge to them instead of the rampant sin that is in their very midst. Nothing like hard preaching on something your people never struggle with rather than the pride, complete lack of compassion, greed, and lust plaguing the congregation.

Some preachers want to demonstrate a persona of bravery in attacking "their sins" or "sins of America" from the pulpit when in reality, they are simply seeking an echo chamber.

Unless giving is down then they will "preach hard" about the sins of their congregation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Honest question. Is there agreement that anal and oral sex are unnatural (sin)?

No. Its about the historical definition of the word Sodomy. Rsc2a is all messed up...

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sure...and it was completely clear from the context that I was referring to the second meaning.

No it wasn't. Not even close.

Anal sex. Oral sex. Sex with animals. Any type of unnatural sexual relations. You are the one who is appealing to the historical meaning of the word while limiting it to the modern definition.

I'm limiting it to a modern definition. I am saying historically, over thousands of years the word "sodomy" and its various source words across multiple languages, has been defined as "anal sex" and more specifically..... anal sex among same sex males. You can't possibly deny this. Even SM is admitting it. He's just taking the typical talking point that its related to the act of "rape". Not "consensual" anal sex.

So by not saying the passage says something it doesn't say I'm adding to the text while reading something into the text that isn't in the text is legitimate hermeneutics? Sheesh...

Sometimes I forget how difficult at times it is to have a conversation with you.

As an aside, you are the one who started talking about removing things from the text, explicitly so. I don't see redundancy as a reason to ignore something, quite the opposite. The emphasis is generally a reason to pay particular attention to the item(s) in question.

If the redundancy narrows the focus... Yes. If not, then it means nothing. Just what do you see in Jude that narrows the focus of fornication?

 

[praise_yeshua]

What I find shocking (not really) is how much energy church folk want to put into this issue that isn't even a challenge to them instead of the rampant sin that is in their very midst. Nothing like hard preaching on something your people never struggle with rather than the pride, complete lack of compassion, greed, and lust plaguing the congregation.

Some preachers want to demonstrate a persona of bravery in attacking "their sins" or "sins of America" from the pulpit when in reality, they are simply seeking an echo chamber.

This is true but you can't ignore the fact that this happens on both sides of the issue. Its not exclusive to anyone. In general, everyone does this to some degree.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What I find shocking (not really) is how much energy church folk want to put into this issue that isn't even a challenge to them instead of the rampant sin that is in their very midst. Nothing like hard preaching on something your people never struggle with rather than the pride, complete lack of compassion, greed, and lust plaguing the congregation.

Some preachers want to demonstrate a persona of bravery in attacking "their sins" or "sins of America" from the pulpit when in reality, they are simply seeking an echo chamber.

This is true but you can't ignore the fact that this happens on both sides of the issue. Its not exclusive to anyone. In general, everyone does this to some degree.

Hence, the generic terminology in my post, not pointing to homosexuality exclusively. What is interesting, however, is that being a Christian for 45 years, I have yet to hear a single sermon about the sin of domestic abuse. I would imagine that is more problematic in churches than is homosexuality.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Honest question. Is there agreement that anal and oral sex are unnatural (sin)?

No. Its about the historical definition of the word Sodomy. Rsc2a is all messed up...

So are you suggesting that the historical meaning trumps the biblical meaning? Because nobody has yet to prove from the Bible that the sin of Sodom (hence, sodomy) was consensual homosexual relations. In essence, Christians are using Sodom as an illustration for a particular sin which is actually not biblical in basis.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree. Except you never have proven from the Bible where consensual homosexuality was one of the sins.

I thought Jude did that? I thought Jesus said that from the beginning God created male and female for marriage and the continuation of the species? Not male on male. Not male on animal.

Jeremiah in Lamentations clearly compared Israel's sin to that of Sodom: allowing their children to starve. He also said in his namesake book that Sodom "walked in lies" and "committed adultery". This was a good chance for him to narrow it down to homosexuality, but alas, he didn't.

You're insisting that Jeremiah get into the "details"??? Israel didn't have a rampant problem with homosexuality. The Gentile world, Yes. They have for many thousands of years. Just who was Jeremiah talking to? Know your audience.

Ezekiel said that Sodom was punished for their pride, extravagance and their failure to take care of the marginalized in their society. In fairness, Ezekiel also mentions that they did "an abomination before Me (God)" but again, consensual homosexuality is not mentioned.

Ransom has already made the point that your argument is basically one from "silence". Here you go again. Its not mentioned and I'm not the one using the silence of Jeremiah to try and prove a point.

Isaiah compares Israel to Sodom calling them to repentance to "do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause. Elsewhere, Isaiah references their sins as "splendor and pomp". Jesus? He mentions Sodom in that the towns that were not hospitable to the disciples and their message would receive judgement as did Sodom.

Sodom is used as an example to ISRAEL. What did SODOM and ISRAEL have in common? Exactly what Isaiah referenced. Israel didn't tolerate homosexuals very well. They didn't have a HUGE problem with same sex relationships. THUS, no mention. Usually....when you compare two things, you talk of how they are similar not how.... THEY ARE DIFFERENT!!!!

Plenty of times for the prophets to introduce consensual homosexual sex but nary a mention, unless one chooses to label it as a form of immorality.

They had the law. They knew the law of God. It was clear in the law what they shouldn't do when it came to sexual relations. They generally killed homosexuals. That usually took care of the problem for a while. Not advocating for such a thing today. Just explaining the conditions. You already know this. You're just ignoring that information.

the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

[/quote]

Bystanders. Everyone wanted to see what would happen. I'm not even advocating for a completely homosexual society in Sodom. I'd say it was about the same as today. Maybe a few more.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Honest question. Is there agreement that anal and oral sex are unnatural (sin)?

No. Its about the historical definition of the word Sodomy. Rsc2a is all messed up...

So are you suggesting that the historical meaning trumps the biblical meaning? Because nobody has yet to prove from the Bible that the sin of Sodom (hence, sodomy) was consensual homosexual relations. In essence, Christians are using Sodom as an illustration for a particular sin which is actually not biblical in basis.

I never said the biblical meaning was different. Exactly what do you see as being different?

By the way, the English word "Sodomy" isn't found in most any English translation. Historically, its used as a means to reference sexual activity among homosexual men.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What I find shocking (not really) is how much energy church folk want to put into this issue that isn't even a challenge to them instead of the rampant sin that is in their very midst. Nothing like hard preaching on something your people never struggle with rather than the pride, complete lack of compassion, greed, and lust plaguing the congregation.

Some preachers want to demonstrate a persona of bravery in attacking "their sins" or "sins of America" from the pulpit when in reality, they are simply seeking an echo chamber.

This is true but you can't ignore the fact that this happens on both sides of the issue. Its not exclusive to anyone. In general, everyone does this to some degree.

Hence, the generic terminology in my post, not pointing to homosexuality exclusively. What is interesting, however, is that being a Christian for 45 years, I have yet to hear a single sermon about the sin of domestic abuse. I would imagine that is more problematic in churches than is homosexuality.

I agree with you completely. I'm not preaching sermon series on "Sodomy".

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Honest question. Is there agreement that anal and oral sex are unnatural (sin)?

No. Its about the historical definition of the word Sodomy. Rsc2a is all messed up...

So are you suggesting that the historical meaning trumps the biblical meaning? Because nobody has yet to prove from the Bible that the sin of Sodom (hence, sodomy) was consensual homosexual relations. In essence, Christians are using Sodom as an illustration for a particular sin which is actually not biblical in basis.

I never said the biblical meaning was different. Exactly what do you see as being different?

By the way, the English word "Sodomy" isn't found in most any English translation. Historically, its used as a means to reference sexual activity among homosexual men.

Go back to my posts the last 3 pages. There is no biblical basis that the major sin of the people of Sodom was homosexuality. Nor is there a biblical basis that God destroyed them because of homosexuality. Historically, the word sodomy is a misnomer because it has taken a sin, named it after a biblical city with no biblical basis. So to use Sodom as an example of consensual homosexuality is textually wrong and to preach such is also textually wrong. God clearly condemned Sodom for other sins and never mentioned consensual homosexuality as being one of the reasons.

This is one of those pet things people accept on tradition rather than reality. (Another example is the idea it never rained before Noah's flood - another thing for which there is no biblical basis.)

How can there be intellectual honesty when certain scriptures are taken out of context in order to clobber those who commit those sins which have no affect on our own personal behavior?

 

[ubyy]

Uhhg.  No they are not born with an inclination to a particular sin.  They learn it....they think on it...  they then act on it.  Your attempt to blame God...it seems to me is rediculous.  It is sin no matter which sin and you are responsible to God for it..period. 

 

[subllibrm]

Honest question. Is there agreement that anal and oral sex are unnatural (sin)?

No. Its about the historical definition of the word Sodomy. Rsc2a is all messed up...

So are you suggesting that the historical meaning trumps the biblical meaning? Because nobody has yet to prove from the Bible that the sin of Sodom (hence, sodomy) was consensual homosexual relations. In essence, Christians are using Sodom as an illustration for a particular sin which is actually not biblical in basis.

How are we supposed to determine the biblical definition of "sodomy" when that word does not even appear in scripture? The sin of Sodom may have "only" been gang rape, that does not eliminate the consensual nature of the sin mentioned in the Romans passage.

While this red herring has been fun to drag down the rabbit hole, we could cut off the wild goose chase by just admitting that scripture does speak against same sex sex (Romans) and the "sin of Sodom", which may or may not include such (it does but I will cede you the semantic ground) and was bad enough that God found it worthy of destroying an entire city over.