Ok, I'm tired of this!!

Discussion in 'Family, Relationships, and Single Life' started by Gio, Aug 5, 2017.

  1. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Homosexuality, like any form of sexuality outside of the bonds of Christian marriage (meaning one man and one woman cleaving to each other and forsaking all others for life) is a sin. But it is also an abomination, an unatural act or orientation, therefore it is gravely perverse, whether actively dwelt upon in the mind or acted out physically. The Church cannot bless what God condemns, nor can it remain silent when the culture calls evil good and good evil. Those who find themselves dealing with sexually perverse temptations must pray for release and follow Scriptures' command to "flee from sexual immorality". It is a cross to bear to be sure. But the Church and Christians in general do no service to those bearing the cross of homosexual temptations by deluding them into believing the Church does anything--can do anything--but condemn such acts and thoughts as sinful and an afront to God's created order. Much worse, there is a deceptive heresy circulating in our culture that dares to say that God actually approves of the homosexual lifestyle and that those who engage in it are in no danger. All too often, this lie is told from Anglican/Episcopalian pulpits. And yet, to those erring priests, to the culture, and even to the whole world St. Paul responds with God's truth: "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, emphasis added).

    God is neither a geni nor Santa Claus who gives you what you wish for, no matter how destructive to you it may be, just because you wish for it or because he's so darn lovable. He is God, the eternal Soveriegn of the Universe. He is its Creator, Sustainer, and Sanctifier. He is also the Father to those who are baptized in His name and live by faith. We fool ourselves if we believe that we can accept God only on our own terms. That it is our choice what we do no one else's business. We are not our own.

    Like any good Father, He will not withold from us any good thing, but He will not give His blessing to things which are not good for us and He demands our obedience to His determinations because He knows what's best for us, even when we can't see it.

    So, while we are invited to come to Christ just as we are, sins and all; we must never believe that God is ok with us staying as we are. There is a way that seems good to man, but in the end it leads to destruction. We must follow God's way in this life if we are to reach God's planned destination for us in the next.

    Now, to point out God's truth can sometimes be unpleasant to the sinner, especially when the sinner is not ready to repent, to give up his sin and commit to do all in his power with God's help to live a new life. I am sure everyone here knows this feeling all too well. I certainly do. I struggle against the flesh like anybody. But it is not bullying to preach the whole Gospel, even the unpleasant bits, and it is only arrogance to those who do not believe. Nevertheless, God's truth must be proclaimed by God's people. Otherwise, what good are we? The single greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring the lost and mired in sin to the saving truth of the Gospel. Alternatively, to remain silent and allow others to continue down the destructive path of sin, or to even approve of it, when one knows where the road will ultimately lead them if unrepented, is, to my mind, just about the worst evil a person can commit against someone else. The import of what we are talking about here is nothing less than heaven and hell.

    Therefore, the Christian response to the homosexual is the same as to any sinner struggling with a persistent temptation: Take up your cross and follow Christ in humble obedience to God. He will help you bear your burden. As will we.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
    JoeLaughon, Aidan and Shane R like this.
  2. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I had hoped to avoid this topic, it usually generates more heat than light, and more than its fair share of publicity.

    about the Arsenkoitos word:

    It may surprise some Bible students that this word coined by St. Paul and used only twice in the New Testament, therefore difficult to contextualize and define specifically, might not be referring to 'homosexuals' at all.

    The compound word is made up of the Greek words, 'man' and 'beds', as has become apparent. It may be that Paul had linked two aspects spoken of in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. But Paul could have been easily more specific in his definition, there were other more general descriptive terms he could have used that would have been less enigmatic.

    The word itself appears, incongruously it might seem, slap in the middle of a list of unpleasant 'professions' or 'criminal activities':

    neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit. And certain of you were these! Youngs Lit. Translation.

    Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - NRSV.

    fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners. NKJV

    neither the sexually immoral,
    Dictionary Definition g4205. πόρνος pornos; from πέρνημι pernēmi (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analogy) a debauchee (libertine): — fornicator, whoremonger.
    AV (10) - fornicator 5, whoremonger 5;
    a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire a male prostitute a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

    nor idolaters,
    Dictionary Definition g1496. εἰδωλολάτρης eidōlolatrēs; from 1497 and the base of 3000; an image- (servant or) worshipper (literally or figuratively): — idolater. AV (7) - idolater 7;
    a worshipper of false gods, a idolater used of any one even Christian, participant in any way in the worship of the heathen, esp. one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of offered victims, a covetous man as a worshipper of Mammon

    nor adulterers,[/B]
    Dictionary Definition g3432. μοιχός moichos; perhaps a primary word; a (male) paramour; figuratively, apostate: — adulterer.
    AV (4) - adulterer 4;
    an adulterer metaphor. one who is faithless toward God, ungodly

    nor men who practice homosexuality,
    Dictionary Definition g3120. μαλακός malakos; of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite: — effeminate, soft.
    AV (4) - soft 3, effeminate 1; soft, soft to the touch metaphor. in a bad sense effeminate of a catamite of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness of a male prostitute -

    And:
    Dictionary Definition g0733. ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoitēs; from 730 and 2845; a sodomite: — abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.
    AV (2) - abuser of (one's) self with mankind 1, defile (one's) self with mankind 1;
    one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.


    nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers. ESV.

    Quite a list, and none more heinous or greater an abomination than any other in the list. And there is no reason to suppose the list is a fully comprehensive one either.

    Arsenokoitēs
    though has a Strongs Definition which is rather dishonestly specific and certain in its particulars. No one can be certain that this word meant 'homosexual', as we understand its meaning today, that is a FACT.

    Paul lived and wrote, deeply embedded in Roman Society. He was in fact a Roman citizen, a great privilege, (from a Roman point of view), for a Jew. Roman society was in fact astonishingly riddled with sexual perversion and licentious behaviour. Sex, debauchery and excess of all sorts permeated Roman Religion and social interaction to a degree unimaginable to a 21st century Christian.

    Paul recognised that many of his Pagan Christian converts were drawn from Roman society and therefore were previously steeped in its religious and social customs. In fact to the average Roman, 'religion and social and sex of all sorts' were all one and the same thing. Christianity has separated the three, so sex, of all sorts and religion of all sorts, now seem to belong in two quite separate categories. Not for the average Roman.

    It is highly possible etymologically, but by no means certain, as explained previously, that "Man"-"Bed(s)" may have been a reference, not to homosexuals but to a particular kind of Pimp who arranged both homosexual and heterosexual, and child slave copulation, in brothels specifically licensed for such activity. The "Bed"-"Man" would, for a fee, hire out a small cubicle with a bed in it, where his clients could indulge themselves however they wished. If his client was an aristocratic woman, he might supply her with young male slaves, previously castrated against their will, in order that she not risk pregnancy. The whole lucrative enterprise was an exercise in power abuse and sexual domination for the pleasure of the powerful.

    Such "Man"-"Bed(s)" became often extremely wealthy, influential individuals.

    Whatever the case may actually be though, there is no certainty that Arsenokoitēs can be accurately translated by the word 'homosexual', especially since Paul, (as suggested by the NKJV), would be repeating himself if he also included 'sodomites' along with 'homosexuals' in the list. Why repeat himself? Probably because the translation of this passage in NKJV, is inaccurate.

    For faithful Anglicans, I would suggest it would be wise for each of us to be sure that we know what each of these anathemas actually were, so that we can best avoid ever doing any of them ourselves.

     
  3. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    Tiff,

    I am curious why you imagine that we moderns are so much more equipped to parse Paul's words than those receiving his letters and the ancient Church?
     
  4. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Is there evidence then that the ancient church has left us a definition of Arsenokoitēs somewhere, so that we can be sure what they understood it to mean? This issue is not about knowing what Paul meant by the word he used. It is about NOT knowing exactly what he meant because we simply have not enough uses of the word to guess by the contexts. Which is what happens with most other words Paul rarely used. In this case only twice, and only in lists of various reprobate activities.

    Whatever it actually means, it's not complementary.

    The problem is not that us 'moderns' are more equipped. With only two examples in practically the entire Greek corpus we are spectacularly less equipped. Hence the dishonesty of merely assuming Arsenokoitēs definitely must mean homosexual. There are other possibilities.

    That is not to say it does not mean homosexual. It simply means we can't be certain.

    But as to whether we are generally better placed to discover the truth, we probably are. We now have far more manuscripts available to us than did the compilers of the canon. Their advantage was in being closer than us in time to the original events and documents. Between us modern investigation can stand on the shoulders of giants and perhaps see a little further.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2018
  5. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    The ancient Church had an early, consistent and thorough sexual ethic that interpreted Romans 1 extremely different. This novel interpretation is basically a child of the last century. To suggest that Christians did not uniformly interpret New Testament when it came to human sexuality is simply ahistorical.

    To your second point, that is simply untrue. We have a partial recovery of texts available at that time, whereas clearly those who received such texts throughout the Christian Church had a fuller compilation as naturally not every copy of the early NT canon was preserved for all time. There is not a shred of historical or textual evidence to suggest that permissiveness towards homosexual acts was allowable either by Paul, the rest of the apostles or the Church.

    It would be far more honest to simply say we do not like what St Paul or the Epistle to the Romans (or elsewhere in the Word) say about sexuality and thus we will disregard.
     
  6. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    526
    Likes Received:
    482
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian, APA
    I have struggled with the issue of homosexuality for some time, since it has become such a divisive issue in the Church. The conclusions I have personally reached would not please either party. I agree with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches that same-sex attraction is a disorder. Most homosexuals are born that way (they didn’t choose to have those attractions, and despite what some claim, there appears to be little evidence that God changes their orientation when they become Christians).

    Where I disagree is when those Churches tell their homosexual members “just don’t act on your orientation. Live a celibate life.” That, to me, is entirely unrealistic. I feel that through an act of economia we can accept homosexuals who are prepared to be in committed and monogamous relationships (though I would prefer not to redefine marriage, but term it a civil union).

    This position would not be acceptable to those who believe any homosexual behavior is sin, nor would it be acceptable to homosexuals who would not like feeling “tolerated” or called “disordered,” but that is how I honestly feel. We can be accepting of individuals born with this disorder, dealing with it in a compassionate and realistic manner. But this does not mean that we, as Christians, need to “celebrate” the disorder, or participate in “pride” parades.

    Through economia, our Orthodox brethren recognize that while marriage is intended for life, due to the sin which exists in the fallen world, it is sometimes necessary to accept divorce. In like manner, telling individuals with same-sex attraction that it’s alright to have those feelings, just don’t act on them and live a celibate life, is unrealistic and impractical.
     
    utilitymonster and Tiffy like this.
  7. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    To me the argument of "unrealistic and impractical" belies the lived experience of fellow Christians (some of whom my friends) who do live faithful, celibate lives. The Church has never held that celibacy was unrealistic or impractical.

    To equate Orthodox toleration for divorce with this novelty is gravely incorrect. Telling people that they may live in sin is not love, regardless of how we dress it up. It is especially dangerous given our Eucharistic theology.
     
  8. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    So are you able to offer an unambiguous definition of the word Arsenokoitēs that can demonstrably be shown to have been understood by the ancient church? One that can be uniformly understood and accurately translated into English terminology.

    That is what is at issue. I have said nothing regarding 'human sexuality' one way or another. I have been discussing the meaning of the word translated 'Homosexual' and how it is not as certain a translating task, from Paul's Greek, as might appear to English readers.

    Whether the church was permissive of homosexuality is not the issue under discussion. I have been concerned with the meaning of the word Arsenokoitēs, and the difficulty of discovering its original meaning in Paul's mind, since it seems to be a word peculiar to Paul alone.

    The case for honesty cuts both ways. There are those it seems who would prefer Arsenokoitēs did not mean homosexual. There are conversely others who prefer that Arsenokoitēs definitely meant homosexual. Neither would be a quest for truth, both would simply be wishful thinking. Because no one actually knows what it means.
     
  9. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    526
    Likes Received:
    482
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian, APA
    I understand your position, Joe. I am moved both by having had homosexual friends, as well as recognizing that we have an issue that needs to be dealt with logically and with compassion.
     
  10. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    526
    Likes Received:
    482
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian, APA
    P.S. Expanding on my earlier remarks, the RCC states that:

    "While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency. Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently, the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful."

    What if a person comes to a priest and says, "Father, I lust after my neighbor's wife and I want to kill my boss." Would the priest say, "It's alright to have those feelings, as long as you don't act on them." I don't think so. For the RCC and the Orthodox to tell homosexuals then that it is alright to be oriented that way, just don't act on it, is nonsensical.

    As I stated, I agree with those Churches to the extent that they say homosexuality is a disorder, that homosexuals don't choose to have the orientation they have, but I disagree with them when they say just don't act on that orientation. That doesn't work, and it doesn't make any sense when applied to things like murder, adultery, greed, etc. They are not in the same category.
     
  11. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    Thayer's Greek Lexicon has the simplest and really quite historical definition which is similar to Strong's. This is due to the fact that

    a) It is consistent with how the Church interpreted Paul's letters to Corinth
    b) It is consistent with Paul's and the Church's theology of sexuality (ex. Romans 1, which is so extremely simple and specific, it requires immense levels of sophistry or revisionism to pretend otherwise)
    c) The pairing of the words arsenos and koite is taken from the Septuagint in Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 both use Paul's pairing of these words (themselves just a translation of mishkab zakur, used to mean the exact same thing).

    It really isn't that mysterious nor was it to those who received Paul's letter.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  12. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    907
    Likes Received:
    734
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Sure. I'm glad you are quoting Ancient Greek here. So here you go, some instances of the word in other instances. By the way this is an exceedingly filthy and gruesome topic, so I sincerely apologize to everyone if your eyes are blemished by the following discussion. You are warned.

    First, some context, from St. Paul himself in English:

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (NKJV)
    "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 [.a]homosexuals, nor [.b]sodomites.."

    Footnotes:
    [.a] catamites, those submitting to homosexuals
    [.b] male homosexuals

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV, online)
    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]...

    Footnotes:
    [a] The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

    This would answer your question for "why would St. Paul repeat himself". The answer is that there are actually two kinds of homosexuals: and he is at paints to list and condemn both kinds, according to two widely different, unrelated, English translations (and the NIV is pretty liberal, so...).

    Now, to the Greek. Here is how the passage appears in Greek:

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (Scrivener 1894 ed.)
    • η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται
    • μαλακοι means literally, 'the effeminate' or 'catamites'.
    • αρσενο-κοιται means literally, 'the man-bedders'. The idea behind 'κοίτην' (koiten, bed) being not just a place to rest on, but to have a 'coitus' on.

    Does the latter word find usage in the ancient culture? Sure it does.

    Here is Leviticus 18:22 in the Septuagint Translation:
    • (Greek): καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν
    • (English): You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Here is Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint Translation:
    • (Greek): καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν
    • (English): If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

    Here is St. Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 5.4-5
    • (Greek): καλὸν γὰρ τὸ ἀνακόπτεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ὅτι πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος στρατεύεται καὶ οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν
    • (English): for it is good to be cut off from the lust of the things in the world, because every lust warreth against the Spirit, and neither fornicators nor the effeminate nor sodomites shall inherit the Kingdom of God

    Apology of Aristides the Philosopher (2nd century AD)
    Hyppolitus, Refutation Of All Heresies (3rd century AD)
    • Sorry can't find the Greek text at the moment, but here is a convenient summary:
      "A meaning reflecting homosexual rape appears in the second century Apology of Aristides (chapters 9 and 13) and the third century Refutatio Omnium Haeresium of Hippolytus. The Apology tells of the rape by Zeus of the mortal boy Ganymede; in a somewhat similar tale in Hippolytus (chapter 5), a fallen (male) angel named Naas forcibly rapes Adam in the Garden. Both of course share the common thread of an aggressor forcing himself on a weaker individual"
      https://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/arsenokoites.html

    Eusebius Pamphilius, Praeparatio Evangelica VI.10.25 (4th century AD):
    • (Greek): ἀπὸ Εὐφράτου ποταμοῦ καὶ μέχρι τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ ὡς ἐπὶ ἀνατολὰς ὁ λοιδορούμενος ὡς φονεὺς ἢ ὡς κλέπτης οὐ πάνυ ἀγανακτεῖ, ὁ δὲ ὡς ἀρσενοκοίτης λοιδορούμενος ἑαυτὸν ἐκδικεῖ μέχρι καὶ φόνου
    • (English): From the river Euphrates, and as far as the Ocean towards the East, he who is reviled as a murderer, or a thief, is not at all indignant: but he who is arsenokoites avenges himself even to the death

    Canons of the Holy Fathers
    , by John IV of Constantinople (aka John the Faster); circa 6th century AD:
    • (Greek): Τὸ μέντοι τῆς ἀρσενοκοιτίας μῦσος πολλοὶ καὶ μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν αὐτῶν ἐκτελοῦσιν
    • (English): many men even commit arsenokoitia with their wives.

    And later adds,
    • (English): If any man perform arsenokoitia upon his wife, he shall be penanced for eight years.

    Since I don't want to offend pious ears, the discussion of this filth has been too detailed enough as it is, so I'll stop there. From http://www.almostheresy.com/2014/02/gay-theology-part-2/:

    Some other early uses of arsenokoitai are found in the writings of Polycarp (69-155 CE), Teucer of Babylon (1st cent.), Aristides of Athens (138 CE), Tertullian (160-220 CE), Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 CE), Origen (182-254 CE), Eusebius (263-339 CE), Macarius of Egypt (300-391 CE), as well as the Sibylline Oracles (1st cent.), the Acts of John (late 2nd century), and even later Patriarch John IV of Constantinople (6th century) and Rhetorius of Egypt (late 6th and early 7th cent.). While it is true that some of theses writers were either citing or referencing Paul, many (most?) of them were not. Like I said before, there is some variance about the specifics of arsenokoitai in these early church writings (boy rape, male prostitution, anal sex in general, etc.); however, the overall usage still revolves closely around the idea of homosexuality.


    Finally:
    I'll end with a Church of England document from 2003. The (very liberal) House of Bishops issued a Report on homosexuality in 2003, where it still accepts the 'standard' translation, and cites no less than three Biblical Greek experts:

    cofe.jpg
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2018
    Tiffy and JoeLaughon like this.
  13. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Thank you for your time and effort in putting that information together for us.

    Paul's use of the word seems to have been some sort of prototype, upon which others later on imposed their own embellishments.

    I agree that Pauls use of the word is anything but complimentary, but remain convinced that it was intended to describe either actual deeds, or actual profession rather than an affectionate emotional attachment to persons of one's own gender, (as is implied by the word Homosexual). Although I have to concede that many people habitually, but discriminately and wrongly, associate anal intercourse exclusively with males engaging with only males in intimate sexual activity.

    Your research, I quote above, that seems to have mined the most 'gold', seems to imply that my original contention might have been 'near the mark' when I suggested that the word may well imply the Pimping of both male and female slaves, for the pleasure of the rich and powerful, in Roman licensed brothels. Either that or the Greek custom of mature men using youths for sexual entertainment, rather than bother their wife with that sort of thing. I think the aspect of violent force, enslavement, compulsory castration and exploitation is an important component in the possible meaning of the term though, which implies the former rather than the latter probably being uppermost in Paul's mind.

    All this is quite far from the notion of two men or two women wanting to be faithful to one another in a lifelong monogamously affectionate partnership.

    It is not automatically assumed by the church that all couples coming for blessing on their union together, will be engaging in anal sex as soon as they can possibly get their clothes off in private. In any case, not only is this practice 'unnatural', it is also medically inadvisable. So the same degree of reluctance to pry should be afforded to same sex couples, who wish to bind themselves with vows of monogamy. Indeed, it is assumed rather that, in the case of heterosexual couples, "The mutual society, help and comfort, one to another", afforded in physical expressions of affection, will result in the procreation of children. That is often the natural result of such expressions of affection. Though producing children is by no means a command of the church for every heterosexual couple, nor in every case even possible, and admittedly biologically impossible by any normal means for single sex couples.

    My own objection to the notion of same sex "Marriage" is more to do with the meaning of the word, than the Godly principle that monogamous relationships are greatly preferable to fornication or adultery, which is and has always been sinful. Fornication, and adultery, as you will be well aware, applies equally to both heterosexual and gay relationships.

    Personally I would much have preferred any 'Affirmation', (I would avoid the word blessing, but admit that relatively speaking it actually would be a blessing), of a 'Pledge of Fidelity' between same sex couples, to not be labeled 'Marriage'. The Church of England still does not formally recognise same sex relationships as "Marriage".

    The notion of marriage, 'betwixt man and wife', has metaphorical associations with Christ and his church, which it would probably be better not to confuse with "Vows of Fidelity" between couples of the same sex. Though having said that, marriage is "A Metaphor" not an actuality, when it is used to symbolise the relationship between Christ and The Church.

    Any ignorant, crude and literal interpretation of that holy metaphor, to the carnal mind, can wrongly imply a forbidden sexual coupling between Christ and male disciples. UNTHINKABLE!

    Even Historical Analytical exegesis could not come up with such a grossly ignorant interpretation of the marriage of The Lamb, one might hope.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  14. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    This interpretation poses a peculiar problem. As I have mentioned earlier, there were numerous legally licensed brothels in the Roman Empire. These brothels dealt in all sorts of sexual perversion.

    The people involved were by no means all 'volunteers', either female salves or male slaves were routinely Pimped by "Bed Men", to the Roman aristocracy. Women used these brothels as much as men, and the slaves they subjected to their various sexual preferences, had no say in the matter, other than committing suicide if they could not tolerate it or being sent to the arena to die as entertainment for their very aristocratic abusers, if they objected.

    Paul well knew that some of his Christian converts were slaves themselves, not only ex-sex-slaves, but current-sex slaves. Most slaves were not sex slaves, but some undoubtedly were.

    Would Paul have used a word that implied involuntarily being forced to accept sexual abuse for someone else's profit, would completely disinherit them from the Kingdom of God, which would have been their only hope of deliverance from the hell they were forced to endure by Roman Law?

    I don't think so. If you think so, then you would have to accept that there are another class of 'Damned', besides those who have blasphemed The Holy Spirit. i.e. Damnation for any slave so unfortunate to be forced to undergo compulsory castration, to protect the 'clients' from pregnancy, and compelled, under threat of death, to engage in anal sex, either penetrative or receptive.

    These prohibitions and condemnations of St. Paul, when seen in the context of common, contemporary Roman society, are not directly applicable to the society we live in today, though sexual slavery still exists even in the American and European continents today, and is rife in Asia.

    I still feel inclined to think St Paul was referring to sexual "Pimps", and their "Customers", rather than their victims.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  15. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    907
    Likes Received:
    734
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Jesus Christ, that's not called homosexual, Tiffy. That's called being friends. Do you realize that in your quest to normalize the sin of Sodom, you would destroy the most wholesome institution of friendship and affection between men?

    You are wrestling in a losing battle Tiffy. It's not about males + males. It is about sodomy, with anyone, male or female. Even in the sanctity of marriage, many carnal acts are forbidden, and sodomy (arsenokoiteia) is one of them.

    So St. Paul bars people who 'do' sodomy, i.e. the 'top' in a gay relationship. And he also bars those men who 'receive' sodomy, ie. the 'bottoms'. He specifically lists, and excludes, both halves of that infernal activity.


    Again, it is not a prototype, for the concept has already been coined in the Septuagint, in the 2nd century BC, as I have shown above.

    @JoelLaughton provides the conclusive response:
    St. Paul takes arsenokoiteia from the Septuagint; and the Septuagint takes it as a literal translation from the Hebrew.

    Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew)
    mishkab zakur

    Leviticus 18:22 (Septuagint)
    arsenos koite

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (St. Paul)
    arsenokoiteia
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
    JoeLaughon likes this.
  16. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Ex.20:7, Deut.5:11, Careful!

    With David and Johnathan it was 'friends', and Jesus called his disciples 'friends', but as far as I can tell, that is not what 'Gay' people actually feel when they 'fall in love'. Even heterosexual people are open to the accusation that they are merely 'infatuated' or consumed with lust for each other. That does not mean it is acceptable for a stranger to make such accusations without some irrefutable evidence to back it up.

    When two people declare to me that they "are in love" I'm inclined to put as good an interpretation on that assertion as I am able. Who am I to say whether they actually are or not. I am unaware of any spiritual gift that equips us with the ability to discern whether two people have fallen in love with each other or not.

    By what logical reasoning do you arrive at the conclusion that Gay lovers or heterosexual lovers, necessarily engage in sodomy? Are you a voyeur of their most intimate moments? Or are you jumping to conclusions, you have no evidence to logically support?

    I am inclined to think that collecting the evidence to bring a successful prosecution for buggery, (between consenting adults in private), is almost as voyeuristically perverted and as hypocritically legalistic, as the act itself. What self appointed moralist would put himself forward for the position of Buggery Finder General? Only some kind of pervert I imagine.
     
  17. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    907
    Likes Received:
    734
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You can try using the Divinely revealed word of God, and the thousands of years of the most pious and holy saints and suffering martyrs and prophets, to guide your understanding.

    Just sayin'.
     
  18. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Valuable as that may be, it does not, I think, enable us to see into man's hearts. Do you imagine that you can do that then?
     
  19. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    907
    Likes Received:
    734
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Of course I can. The experience of countless saints and martyrs is more valuable than my experience, or yours; or, the person's in question. Say the person in question is male, but claims he is a woman. Should I trust him? Or maybe he claims he is two people, both male and female, and his desire is really just to be married to himself. Or may be zhe claims zhe refuses to be bound by binary genders, and therefore you must accept all 47 genders they claim as theirs.

    What now?

    You forget the essential truth: there is no limit to the sin and deceitfulness of man. Trusting men, even about themselves, is to forget that all of humanity is beset with original sin, and therefore we all constantly incline to evil, in everything we think and do. It is wrong to grant an inherent moral goodness, or even a moral neutrality, to human beings.

    It sounds like you would rather baptize everything human as inherently good. That is the core difference between the worship of God, and the worship of Man.

    You have seen the apotheosis of Man, and I just don't think it can be reconciled with the Faith of the Ages. I think you would just adjust what you believe, so as to baptize the world, because in your mind the world is not inherently evil, and so if the world WANTS something, that inherently makes it okay (because humanity as a whole wouldn't want anything bad); and if Christianity at that moment disagrees, then you just have to catch up Christianity with the wind of the world.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
    JoeLaughon likes this.
  20. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I wrote:
    You replied confidently:
    Then:
    Is the above your best attempt to "See into my heart". If so I think you did a very poor job of it. Then again anyone who thinks they can do what God alone can do with accuracy, is going to do a poor job of it I suppose.

    Ps.44:21, Acts.15:8. 1 Jn.3:20.

    Acts.5:4 records the only instance of a human being reading the intention of another man's heart. Are you claiming the power of an Apostle?

    You wrote:
    Jer.17:9. Do you mean?

    I have by no means forgotten it. I am however not such a cynical old reprobate that I assume every person I meet has a "desperately wicked heart" and so treat them as such. Do you? I try to see the best in people. Everyone I have ever met have a little of the image and likeness of God in them, if perhaps a bit 'smudged' and slightly 'foxed'.
     

Share This Page