Ouroboros Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I was just pointing out some verses from NT, involving sexual immorality. All those verse were retranslated in the NKJV, the word fornication was changed to sexual immorality. Strong's definition is 4202 porneia (por-ni'-ah); ... Ah, you're right. I didn't look it up, and see what happens. I found an article on Wiki, which gives a little bit more light on the subject of homosexuality during that time. It seems like homosexuality was accepted in the higher levels, while it was "porneia" in the lower classes. It was a somewhat taboo before, but no laws existed against it, not until Christianity made it a sin. With the arrival of Christianity, all kinds of same-sex love became increasingly taboo. In 390, the first law banning same-sex love was enacted, making it punishable by death.[18] source --- But then again, porneia has to do with the sexual act, and not the lifestyle or people feeling love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looking4Answers Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The typical Christian view is that sex is only authorized in marriage. All other sex is "porneia". The Bible condemns homosexuality (in both the OT and NT) and, as a result, a homosexual relationship could not be considered marriage by biblical terms. As a result, homosexuality would be considered "porneia" (at least when they were engaging in sexual activity) because they could not be biblically married. Some Christians take this even further. If the marriage is between a believer and an unbeliever, some would say that was "porneia" as well (despite some passages by Paul advising the believing spouse to allow the unbelieving spouse to remain in the home and married). Some certainly consider a divorced and remarried couple to be committing "porneia." What was it god was doing when he impregnated Mary, who was legally another man's wife at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I know you are gay Neon. I don't know what to say to you really. We could be talking all night. I will say it's probably the same as when people tell me I shouldn't smoke because Paul said our bodies are the temple of God?? I am not judging you Neon. I was just discussing the topic.I never said that you were. I am simply saying that you're holding your beliefs to a double standard. You use skepticism towards commandments the bible gives when it's inconvenient for you to follow but you don't use it for others. You claim that Jesus' silence on the issue of women's rights is proof he supports them but don't apply the same standards to homosexuality even though a gay Christian could easily use the same exact argument. If you blindly accept everything Jesus says on faith, then why don't you accept what Jesus said on faith when he said to sell all your possessions or to hate your family if you want to follow him? Because you know subconsciously that such ideas are out-dated and not worth following, so why be skeptical to Jesus in these areas but not to others? You seem to be going out of your way to juggle your approach to the bible to hold onto these out-dated beliefs about homosexuality for some unknown reason. It just seems to me it would make more sense for you to simply let go of the bible if you have to go to such lengths to justify ignoring 90% of the bible on some things but you can't ignore 91% of the bible because that 1% means you'd have to accept gays as equal human beings and for some reason that's unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Birdstrike Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 If God was unable to change, and adapt to today's generation, then He isn't God. Am I reading the "believer" correctly here? Morality, as a theist sees it, is an immutable, fixed law. Aren't you all really talking about "Ethics" rather than "morality"? Certainly, a theist should believe in an unchangeble standard of good and evil, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Am I reading the "believer" correctly here? Morality, as a theist sees it, is an immutable, fixed law. Then lets hear the law. What is that immutable, fixed law? Aren't you all really talking about "Ethics" rather than "morality"? What's your definition on ethics, and morality? I think most people have different opinions on what those two words mean, so I'd like to hear how you define them. Certainly, a theist should believe in an unchangeble standard of good and evil, no? Is it so? So what is the standard of good? And what is the standard of evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Am I reading the "believer" correctly here? Morality, as a theist sees it, is an immutable, fixed law.So, why don't you stone people for eating shellfish then if morality is a fixed law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 If God was unable to change, and adapt to today's generation, then He isn't God. Am I reading the "believer" correctly here? Morality, as a theist sees it, is an immutable, fixed law. Are you scolding YoYo for not being a True Believer? But it says "Authentic Believer". We need to take him at his word. Aren't you all really talking about "Ethics" rather than "morality"? Certainly, a theist should believe in an unchangeble standard of good and evil, no? Did the Greeks? Or do you mean theists who are Christian? In which case the other theist are not "Authentic Theists"? How are you making a distinction between Ethics and Morality? Just a quick look yielded this: "[Ethics is] is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples." John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995 from here: http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs...ics-and-morals/ So what do you mean? Plus, are you saying YoYo is not an Authentic Believer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts