I agree, and in fact think this is the route we need to go, however a large portion of the gay marriage movement isn't actually interested in acquiring equal rights*, but are rather interested in acquiring societal acceptance -- which is a whole separate ballpark.
*or rather, it's not their primary concern.
They want both, just like other civil rights movements wanted both legal equality and for there to be less racists.
If there is one thing the Bible is clear about, and that is not refuted in later revisions that I know about, it's that marriage is a property arrangement. As far as the writers were concerned, calling modern marriages "marriage" would be like calling a car a motorcycle.
If there is one thing Paul is clear about, it's that nobody should be getting married. He only begrudgingly accepts that people already involved in it can continue, and recommends that everyone else stay away from it. This isn't limited to one passage in a letter either, it is a consistent theme in all sorts of writings about the teachings of Paul.
What part of "drive out the wicked person from among you" did you find ambiguous?
The part where Paul was, as mentioned, writing a letter specifically about a single case of incest. If the Apostle meant that line as an instruction in general about every wicked person, why use the singular? Every line up to that one is plural. He's talking, in that last line, about the single wicked person he mentioned in the second verse:
Quote from Paul »
And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?
It's absolutely not an injunction referring to all wicked people being cast out of all places that believe in God. That would be literally impossible.
To Paul, porneia, sexual immorality meant any sexual act outside of marriage.
As I said: show me, in the text of the Bible, anywhere that Paul actually says that. You can assume it, but the Bible doesn't back it up in the text, and Paul clearly treats porniea as a different thing from arsenokoitai.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
If there is one thing the Bible is clear about, and that is not refuted in later revisions that I know about, it's that marriage is a property arrangement. As far as the writers were concerned, calling modern marriages "marriage" would be like calling a car a motorcycle.
Can you provide your argumentation for this? I'd like to refute it, but I don't know where your coming from so don't know where to start.
If there is one thing Paul is clear about, it's that nobody should be getting married. He only begrudgingly accepts that people already involved in it can continue, and recommends that everyone else stay away from it. This isn't limited to one passage in a letter either, it is a consistent theme in all sorts of writings about the teachings of Paul.
Paul doesn't say nobody should be getting married, in fact he openly says that people who are incapable of leading a celibate life *should* get married. Yes, he thinks of marriage as a distractoin and a non-maximal situation -- he does not, however, say that it is *wrong* to get married... I dunno, I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say...
4202porneía (the root of the English terms "pornography, pornographic"; cf. 4205/pórnos) which is derived from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a selling off (surrendering) of sexual purity; promiscuity of any (every) type.
This includes homosexuality.
See also 1 Corinthians 7, which, by the way, is where we get the concept of marriage being between one man and one woman. Do you see how much trouble would be alleviated if you'd just read 1 Corinthians already?
It's absolutely not an injunction referring to all wicked people being cast out of all places that believe in God.
Actually, that's precisely what it is:
Quote from 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 »
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’
Paul is saying to expel all people who are wicked from inside the community of the Christ movement.
What part of "drive out the wicked person from among you" did you find ambiguous?
The part where Paul was, as mentioned, writing a letter specifically about a single case of incest. If the Apostle meant that line as an instruction in general about every wicked person, why use the singular? Every line up to that one is plural. He's talking, in that last line, about the single wicked person he mentioned in the second verse:
Quote from Paul »
And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?
It's absolutely not an injunction referring to all wicked people being cast out of all places that believe in God. That would be literally impossible.
First, it would be helpful if you provided support for your interpretations instead of just blindly assuming everyone will agree with your interpretations, and then acting like they are incompetant for not agreeing with your assumed interpretation.
Second, Christians are often called to do things that are literally impossible to do. The fact that we cannot do them does not mean we should not try. (The chief among these would be that Christians are called to live a sinless life, yet even the most embittered anti-christian person out there has to admit that hte bible is clear that all have sinned.)
4202porneía (the root of the English terms "pornography, pornographic"; cf. 4205/pórnos) which is derived from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a selling off (surrendering) of sexual purity; promiscuity of any (every) type.
This includes homosexuality.
No, it doesn't. You want it to include homosexuality, but I don't see it in there. You might equate homosexuality with 'surrendering sexual purity', but so is heterosexual sex -- once you have sex at all, you're not pure anymore. You might equate homosexuality with promiscuity, but there are hundreds of thousands of monogamous, loving gay couples out there who would disagree.
Porneia includes homosexuality because a bunch of people decided, long after the Bible was put together, that they wanted it to. Paul treats homosexuality as it's own object with it's own word, and he does so explicitly in multiple places.
See also 1 Corinthians 7, which, by the way, is where we get the concept of marriage being between one man and one woman. Do you see how much trouble is alleviated if you'd just read 1 Corinthians already?
Your turn. Go back and read the article I linked to at the beginning of this whole thread. Come back when you're done.
It's absolutely not an injunction referring to all wicked people being cast out of all places that believe in God.
Actually, that's precisely what it is:
Then why the switch between plural and singular when the only singular person referred to anywhere earlier in the passage is the one incestuous person who inspired the letter in the first place?
Paul is saying to expel all people who are wicked from inside the community of the Christ movement.
No, he's not. He said "don't eat with these people". He didn't say "expel them". He said "expel that guy." That's different. And then you open up the entire can of worms where America is not the Christ movement, so even if you do interpret that passage that way, you STILL can't use it to justify hating gay people that aren't trying to force themselves into your church.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
4202porneía (the root of the English terms "pornography, pornographic"; cf. 4205/pórnos) which is derived from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a selling off (surrendering) of sexual purity; promiscuity of any (every) type.
This includes homosexuality.
No, it doesn't. You want it to include homosexuality,
Considering Highroller's stance on homosexuality, no, I'm pretty sure he doesn't want it to include homosexuality.
No, it doesn't. You want it to include homosexuality, but I don't see it in there. You might equate homosexuality with 'surrendering sexual purity', but so is heterosexual sex -- once you have sex at all, you're not pure anymore.
Exactly. Which is why the definition also extends to heterosexual sex. Again ALL sex outside of a married wife and husband is porneia according to Paul.
You might equate homosexuality with promiscuity, but there are hundreds of thousands of monogamous, loving gay couples out there who would disagree.
I would disagree as well, but we're not talking about my definition, your definition, or the definition of numerous gay couples. We're talking about Paul. And when Paul says that any sexual act outside of a married union between a husband and wife is porneia, that includes homosexuality.
Now, you can disagree with Paul, I know I do. But saying you disagree with Paul doesn't change what Paul said.
Porneia includes homosexuality because a bunch of people decided, long after the Bible was put together, that they wanted it to. Paul treats homosexuality as it's own object with it's own word, and he does so explicitly in multiple places.
No, because the word porneia means sexual impurity and promiscuity, which Paul defines as that which is outside of sex between a husband and wife who are married.
Unless you're denying that homosexual sex is in fact sex?
Your turn. Go back and read the article I linked to at the beginning of this whole thread. Come back when you're done.
No, when I say read 1 Corinthians 7, I mean actually read it. Paul's view of marriage is not the same as that of the Old Testament.
Then why the switch between plural and singular when the only singular person referred to anywhere earlier in the passage is the one incestuous person who inspired the letter in the first place?
Obviously the change is because Paul is not only addressing the case of that one wicked, immoral person, but what the community should do in the case of all wicked, immoral people.
No, he's not. He said "don't eat with these people". He didn't say "expel them". He said "expel that guy."
Quote from 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 »
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’
Dude, it's right there in front of you. No, this does not apply to solely one individual, it applies to ANY individual within the community who demonstrates wickedness, such as those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, revilers, etc.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’
Dude, it's right there in front of you. No, this does not apply to solely one individual, it applies to ANY individual within the community who demonstrates wickedness, such as those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, revilers, etc.
That is all well and good but why single out homosexuals and marriage for this issue? Not a single other "wicked" person is denied the ability to get married. Sure go ahead and "shun" them. But what does that have to do with letting them get a legal marriage? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.
Can you provide your argumentation for this? I'd like to refute it, but I don't know where your coming from so don't know where to start.
In some cultural contexts, marriage was and still is an agreement about property and inheritance arrangements, up to and including the bride herself as a commodity to be bought and sold.
I bring it up because your insistence that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman and can't be a marriage otherwise confuses me. Marriage is such a widespread and varied institution that to claim it "has to include" one thing to count seems ridiculous, no different from me saying "it's not really marriage unless you paid for your bride" or "it's not a legal marriage if the races are different."
The idea that certain "moral laws" count while other ceremonial ones for Israel don't is so hard to understand because none of these laws resemble anything moral. "Men can only marry women" makes as much sense from a moral perspective as "don't eat shellfish."
That is all well and good but why single out homosexuals and marriage for this issue? Not a single other "wicked" person is denied the ability to get married.
Because according to Paul, a marriage constitutes a husband and a wife. See 1 Corinthians 7.
In some cultural contexts, marriage was and still is an agreement about property and inheritance arrangements, up to and including the bride herself as a commodity to be bought and sold.
I bring it up because your insistence that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman and can't be a marriage otherwise confuses me.
See above. We're not talking about marriage in its numerous different traditions throughout human history. We're talking specifically about marriage in the Christian context from the Bible. See Paul's views on marriage in 1 Corinthians.
And to clarify my position, just in case it's unclear: I have no objections to gay marriage, I have no objections to Christians supporting gay marriage, and I have no objections to people disagreeing with Paul.
I do, however, object to people saying that the Bible says things it doesn't say.
ALL sex outside of a married wife and husband is porneia according to Paul.
Chapter and verse, man. You keep saying this like it's in the Bible somewhere, but you can't actually establish that, because there is nowhere in the Bible where porneia is actually given a strict definition. And again, like you keep blithely ignoring, Paul makes a very clear distinction between porneia and homosexuality in more than once place in the NT.
There's no doubt that Leviticus puts homosexuality pretty firmly in the realm of porneia -- but there's no evidence that Paul applied the laws in Leviticus to anyone that wasn't Jewish, and thus no evidence that Paul considers homosexuality to be porneia if you're a Gentile. Combine that with his consistent separation of the two in his own writings, and I don't think you can really make the argument that Paul considered porneia to include homosexuality. (Not even mentioning the whole 'fulfilling of the laws'/New Covenant which could well have made Paul explicitly wrong even if he was of the opinion that the two were one in the same, which he didn't, because you don't make a list that includes the same item twice.)
No, because the word porneia means sexual impurity and promiscuity, which Paul defines as that which is outside of sex between a husband and wife who are married.
No. You keep telling me to read 1 Corithians 7, but you're not reading it yourself.
But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command.
You're looking at this and saying "obviously, then, the only thing that isn't 'sexual immorality' is the relationship that Paul describes afterwards." Except that isn't at all actually obvious. If I catch my son spraying shaving cream all over the bathroom wall, I'm quite likely to say "Tell you what, since you're making a mess here, I'm going to restrict you to only using the soap and the water and leaving all of the other implements on the bathroom counter alone."
That by no means defines "making a mess" as "touching those things on the bathroom counter that aren't soap or water".
I'll say it again, and with complete confidence: there is nowhere in the Bible that Paul defines 'sexual impurity' (or however you want to define 'porniea') as explicitly including homosexuality, period.
That is all well and good but why single out homosexuals and marriage for this issue? Not a single other "wicked" person is denied the ability to get married.
Because according to Paul, a marriage constitutes a husband and a wife. See 1 Corinthians 7.
Actually, again, reading that verse, there's nothing in it that actually defines marriage. It uses the words "marriage", "husband", and "wife", but nowhere does anything Paul says exclude other potential arrangements -- and we know for a fact that other arrangements weren't uncommon at the time. Paul's entire point here isn't even about the definition of marriage, it's about how to control your passions and still be able to serve the Lord -- to which he makes the concession that getting married and then only having sex with your spouse is acceptable practice. There's nothing exclusionary or definitional in any of his mentions of marriage. At all.
Furthermore, Paul explicitly lays out the only part of the entire verse that actually comes directly from the Lord: " wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." Everything else is explicitly Paul's words, not God's, and thus can and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Just like we take him saying "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Then why the switch between plural and singular when the only singular person referred to anywhere earlier in the passage is the one incestuous person who inspired the letter in the first place?
Obviously the change is because Paul is not only addressing the case of that one wicked, immoral person, but what the community should do in the case of all wicked, immoral people.
Except now you're just being dense. Paul goes from referring to one specific person in the earliest verses of that chapter, to making broad pronouncements in the middle -- at the same point, he goes from referring to a singular person to referring to plural people. Then, at the end, he goes back to referring to a singular person again because he's done making general pronouncements. He's back to talking about the one dude he's talking about at first, restating the same judgement call he made in verse 2 -- kick that one dude out.
Quote from 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 »
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’
Dude, it's right there in front of you. No, this does not apply to solely one individual, it applies to ANY individual within the community who demonstrates wickedness, such as those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, revilers, etc.
You can keep quoting the text at me all you want. Every time I read it, I see how wrong you are. Oh, and let me point out another massive problem with your argument here: verse 9. Paul explicitly says that he's not directing this imperative to disassociate with people toward everyone in the world. He's directing it strictly toward people who claim to be a part of Christ's church -- which (AGAIN!) out-and-out forbids Christians from condemning gays unless those gays are claiming to be a part of Christ's church.
Which (AGAIN!) totally destroys a literalist's case for banning gay marriage on a societal level.
Again.
How many ways do you need to be proven wrong before you admit that there's simply no way to read the entirety of the Bible literally and use it to build a case against gay marriage?
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Chapter and verse, man. You keep saying this like it's in the Bible somewhere, but you can't actually establish that, because there is nowhere in the Bible where porneia is actually given a strict definition. And again, like you keep blithely ignoring, Paul makes a very clear distinction between porneia and homosexuality in more than once place in the NT.
There's no doubt that Leviticus puts homosexuality pretty firmly in the realm of porneia -- but there's no evidence that Paul applied the laws in Leviticus to anyone that wasn't Jewish, and thus no evidence that Paul considers homosexuality to be porneia if you're a Gentile. Combine that with his consistent separation of the two in his own writings, and I don't think you can really make the argument that Paul considered porneia to include homosexuality. (Not even mentioning the whole 'fulfilling of the laws'/New Covenant which could well have made Paul explicitly wrong even if he was of the opinion that the two were one in the same, which he didn't, because you don't make a list that includes the same item twice.)
This is a pretty basic "argument from silence" fallacy, man. In the absence of any indication that Paul didn't understand porneia to mean what it means everywhere else (we're really talking the dictionary definition, here), it's perfectly reasonable--indeed, necessary--to assume it means what it usually means.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Chapter and verse, man. You keep saying this like it's in the Bible somewhere, but you can't actually establish that
I've been saying 1 Corinthians 7 for how many posts now?
... What is even the point in talking to you?
And again, like you keep blithely ignoring, Paul makes a very clear distinction between porneia and homosexuality in more than once place in the NT.
And you keep ignoring what that word means. Good job.
You're looking at this and saying "obviously, then, the only thing that isn't 'sexual immorality' is the relationship that Paul describes afterwards." Except that isn't at all actually obvious.
It is if you read it. Paul states that to ward off sexual immorality, one should be celibate. However, recognizing most people can't handle celibacy, Paul advocates, as a form of damage control, marriage between a husband and wife in order that the sex not be immoral. All other forms of sex are immoral.
I'll say it again, and with complete confidence: there is nowhere in the Bible that Paul defines 'sexual impurity' (or however you want to define 'porniea') as explicitly including homosexuality, period.
Yes he does. He does so by saying the word "porneia." It's what that word means.
Actually, again, reading that verse, there's nothing in it that actually defines marriage. It uses the words "marriage", "husband", and "wife", but nowhere does anything Paul says exclude other potential arrangements -- and we know for a fact that other arrangements weren't uncommon at the time.
Are you trying to argue that Paul would have condoned a male-male marriage? If not, what the heck is the point of this paragraph?
Everything else is explicitly Paul's words, not God's, and thus can and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Just like we take him saying "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Again, if you want to disagree with Paul, that's fine. You can disagree with Paul until you're blue in the face.
But whether or not we should accept or reject Paul is an entirely separate topic of discussion from what Paul said.
Except now you're just being dense. Paul goes from referring to one specific person in the earliest verses of that chapter, to making broad pronouncements in the middle -- at the same point, he goes from referring to a singular person to referring to plural people. Then, at the end, he goes back to referring to a singular person again because he's done making general pronouncements. He's back to talking about the one dude he's talking about at first, restating the same judgement call he made in verse 2 -- kick that one dude out.
What, you mean the phrase "‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’"? That's a quote. Hence the quotation marks. It's a reference to Deuteronomy 17. It's not about that specific guy.
Oh, and let me point out another massive problem with your argument here: verse 9. Paul explicitly says that he's not directing this imperative to disassociate with people toward everyone in the world. He's directing it strictly toward people who claim to be a part of Christ's church -- which (AGAIN!) out-and-out forbids Christians from condemning gays unless those gays are claiming to be a part of Christ's church.
You stated that nowhere does Paul say that Christians should shun gay people. I posted the above, which clearly states that Christians should shun gay people.
So, by posting this, and thus changing the topic and moving the goalposts, can I assume that you are retracting your previous statement and conceding that Paul does indeed say that Christians should shun gay people?
Which (AGAIN!) totally destroys a literalist's case for banning gay marriage on a societal level.
I'm not sure how. A literalist would agree with Paul that homosexuality is a damnable offense, and that people who engage in homosexuality are sinful. From this mindset, how is it not the morally correct course of action to oppose gay marriage?
How many ways do you need to be proven wrong before you admit that there's simply no way to read the entirety of the Bible literally and use it to build a case against gay marriage?
Are you joking? I've been refuting you constantly.
For ****'s sake, you didn't even know about Paul was until I pointed him out to you. You change the goalposts constantly after each and every "unassailable claim" you make about what Paul said or what the Bible argues gets torn down. Your original post regarding shrimp consumption being equatable to homosexuality is ridiculous and has been exposed as such.
And you're going to act like you've been winning this entire time? This is comedy.
This is a pretty basic "argument from silence" fallacy, man. In the absence of any indication that Paul didn't understand porneia to mean what it means everywhere else (we're really talking the dictionary definition, here), it's perfectly reasonable--indeed, necessary--to assume it means what it usually means.
Except Paul wasn't silent on the matter. For the umpteenth time, he makes lists -- two of them -- that clearly separate "porneia" from "homosexuality." That's not silence. It's a very active and clear indication that the two are not the same thing -- why else would they appear separately in a list of 'things to avoid' in multiple places?
Quote from Highroller »
Paul states that to ward off sexual immorality, one should be celibate. However, recognizing most people can't handle celibacy, Paul advocates, as a form of damage control, marriage between a husband and wife in order that the sex not be immoral. All other forms of sex are immoral.
No one is arguing any of that. The argument here is that Paul uses different words for 'sexual immorality' and for 'homosexual', and then leaves out 'homosexual' when he puts out his list of 'people to not eat with'. And that STILL doesn't touch the fact that his list of 'people to not eat with' only counts people who 'call themselves brother or sister' (i.e. are part of the Church), leaving Church people no option whatsoever to disassociate with any kind of fornicator that openly claims no part of the Church, and thus gives Church people no leave at all to claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
He does so by saying the word "porneia." It's what that word means.
Then answer the question I keep asking. If 'porneia' includes homosexuality, why did Paul repeatedly separate the two things in his own writing? If you can explain that away without just saying 'because he did', I'll be happy to concede the point. (Even if I do, it still won't allow any Christians to justify banning gay marriage Biblically, though.)
Are you trying to argue that Paul would have condoned a male-male marriage? If not, what the heck is the point of this paragraph?
The point is that people are using the passage as though it defines marriage, and it doesn't. End of point.
It's a reference to Deuteronomy 17. It's not about that specific guy.
Citation?
You stated that nowhere does Paul say that Christians should shun gay people. I posted the above, which clearly states that Christians should shun gay people.
"Shun gay Christians" =!= "Shun gay people.
A literalist would agree with Paul that homosexuality is a damnable offense, and that people who engage in homosexuality are sinful. From this mindset, how is it not the morally correct course of action to oppose gay marriage?
Because, for the umpteenth time, Paul and Jesus and basically everyone else in the NT insist that you forgive people and not judge them for their sins. Paul even explicitly in the very verse you're focusing on tells you that you can't shun non-Christians for their sins. You cannot oppose gay marriage without judging the gay people you're denying marriage to, therefore you fail.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
If you want to get into considerations of time and place and culture, let's talk about the fact that the concept of 'homosexuality' in terms of 'a devoted monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender' didn't even exist in Paul's time. He saw a lot of sexual misconduct to be sure, but homosexuality as we understand it wasn't seen at the time. He men he saw laying with other men were sleeping generally with slaves or with young boys (in the form of pederasty.) If you're going to make an argument that we should ignore some of Paul's words because they apply differently now than they did then, why would you not apply that argument in every case that it applies?
There's no way out here. Either you're a literalist and you think that women should be silent (because, remember, he said it outside of the context of church, too), or you're a contextualist and you need to actually do the work to understand the context of the word 'homosexuality' in Paul's time and how what we're seeing today is actually not the same thing at all.
People were having sex within the bounds of marriage and out and with people from their own and opposite gender for as long as humanity has existed
I do not see why a religious figure preaching abstinence offends you so much. A person that is not bound by the shackles of hedonism is greatly liberated. It is a great way to live your life.
Except Paul wasn't silent on the matter. For the umpteenth time, he makes lists -- two of them -- that clearly separate "porneia" from "homosexuality." That's not silence. It's a very active and clear indication that the two are not the same thing -- why else would they appear separately in a list of 'things to avoid' in multiple places?
I'm sorry, but I can't find these lists in your previous posts; I see references to Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:15, neither of which have anything to help your case.
Edit: wait, you're talking about Romans 1? How can you not read that as a straight condemnation of homosexuality? It's true that he uses akatharsia instead of porneia, but that's not really any help to you; they're virtually synonyms. Moreover, when he does use porneia in 1:29, it's clearly referring back to the people he was just describing, ie. those who have given themselves over eis akatharsian.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
That is all well and good but why single out homosexuals and marriage for this issue? Not a single other "wicked" person is denied the ability to get married.
Because according to Paul, a marriage constitutes a husband and a wife. See 1 Corinthians 7.
Yes a christian marriage. I however am not talking about Christian marriage I am talking about legal marriage. My argument has been and will always be that the court house has nothing to do with the bible. Therefore the real issue is that a bunch of pig headed Christians dont want to admit that their bible has nothing to do with what should be legal or illegal.
Christian marriage= a union between a husband and wife and God which grants privileges like having sex without it being sinful
Legal Marriage= a series of rights and contracts between 2 people and the state which grants rights like being considered family for visitations rights, tax breaks, streamlined shared property ownership and has absolutely nothing at all to do with sex
Except Paul wasn't silent on the matter. For the umpteenth time, he makes lists -- two of them -- that clearly separate "porneia" from "homosexuality." That's not silence. It's a very active and clear indication that the two are not the same thing -- why else would they appear separately in a list of 'things to avoid' in multiple places?
Except this fails when you consider the definition of the word.
No one is arguing any of that.
You argued it just now.
The argument here is that Paul uses different words for 'sexual immorality' and for 'homosexual', and then leaves out 'homosexual' when he puts out his list of 'people to not eat with'. And that STILL doesn't touch the fact that his list of 'people to not eat with' only counts people who 'call themselves brother or sister' (i.e. are part of the Church), leaving Church people no option whatsoever to disassociate with any kind of fornicator that openly claims no part of the Church, and thus gives Church people no leave at all to claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
It does, however, destroy the claim that Paul didn't say to shun gay people, which is what you argued. Remember? That part where you said, "Paul never said that"? Are you now conceding that he does?
Then answer the question I keep asking. If 'porneia' includes homosexuality, why did Paul repeatedly separate the two things in his own writing? If you can explain that away without just saying 'because he did', I'll be happy to concede the point. (Even if I do, it still won't allow any Christians to justify banning gay marriage Biblically, though.)
Maybe he's doing it for emphasis. Regardless, the point stands. Paul also lists male prostitutes in there, despite a prostitute being unambiguously something that falls under the category porneia. As is sodomy. As is adultery.
The point is that people are using the passage as though it defines marriage, and it doesn't. End of point.
It does define marriage. It says marriage is between a husband and a wife. Unless you're saying Paul would have condoned male-male or female-female marriage, which is ridiculous, the point stands.
It's a reference to Deuteronomy 17. It's not about that specific guy.
Citation?
... Deuteronomy 17.
Or are you talking about the fact that it's a quote? I'm citing the fact that it's in quotes.
You stated that nowhere does Paul say that Christians should shun gay people. I posted the above, which clearly states that Christians should shun gay people.
"Shun gay Christians" =!= "Shun gay people.
Except that's just it, isn't it? Paul is arguing you cannot be gay and be a Christian. To be gay means a turning away from God.
Because, for the umpteenth time, Paul and Jesus and basically everyone else in the NT insist that you forgive people and not judge them for their sins.
Notice how this is the exact same person who is condemning homosexuality as being sinful against God and wicked. So clearly, Paul's position is not that we cannot proclaim others to be sinful against God and wicked, because Paul does this all of the time.
Paul even explicitly in the very verse you're focusing on tells you that you can't shun non-Christians for their sins.
He's not saying you shouldn't. He's saying that it would be physically impossible to expect one to never associate with such a person due to the fact that they're simply too many to avoid. That's not the same thing as condoning them, or to actively associate with them. It's no different from promoting a healthy lifestyle while at the same time acknowledging it's impossible to avoid bacteria.
You cannot oppose gay marriage without judging the gay people you're denying marriage to, therefore you fail.
Except for the parts staring you right in the face where Paul says that being gay is evil and to expel people.
I would it were that simple. I would if we could look at the terrible things fundamentalists do and say, "Well, that's because they're interpreting the Bible wrong." But unfortunately, no they're not. Their campaigns against homosexuality very much do have root in the Bible. You simply cannot preach tolerance of gay people and not run against Paul.
Which is not to say one cannot go against Paul, I don't have any problems with that. But it's completely different to disagree with Paul than it is to say that Paul agrees with you.
A person that is not bound by the shackles of hedonism is greatly liberated. It is a great way to live your life.
A person that is not bound by the shackles of religion is greatly liberated. Hedonism is a great way to live your life.
I don't understand the point of this debate outside of an interpretation of the bible. If it is just to see what the bible qualifies as marriage for its own sake, I guess that makes sense.
The argument here is that Paul uses different words for 'sexual immorality' and for 'homosexual', and then leaves out 'homosexual' when he puts out his list of 'people to not eat with'. And that STILL doesn't touch the fact that his list of 'people to not eat with' only counts people who 'call themselves brother or sister' (i.e. are part of the Church), leaving Church people no option whatsoever to disassociate with any kind of fornicator that openly claims no part of the Church, and thus gives Church people no leave at all to claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
It does, however, destroy the claim that Paul didn't say to shun gay people, which is what you argued. Remember? That part where you said, "Paul never said that"? Are you now conceding that he does?
But let's go even deeper into this. Paul tells you that he's NOT telling you to "not even eat with" the sinful that aren't already part of the Church, because to do so would be to "retreat from the world". That tells you right off that what Paul is talking about here isn't discriminating againstanyone whatsoever. He's talking about avoiding the company of those people who claim to be Christians but don't follow the law. Because you could totally be a complete dick to everyone that wasn't a "true Christian" without "retreating from the world".
He's talking about staying away from a group of people -- that's not in any way the same thing as giving you leave to discriminate against that group of people.
Then answer the question I keep asking. If 'porneia' includes homosexuality, why did Paul repeatedly separate the two things in his own writing? If you can explain that away without just saying 'because he did', I'll be happy to concede the point. (Even if I do, it still won't allow any Christians to justify banning gay marriage Biblically, though.)
Maybe he's doing it for emphasis. Regardless, the point stands. Paul also lists male prostitutes in there, despite a prostitute being unambiguously something that falls under the category porneia. As is sodomy. As is adultery.
OK, point conceded. Paul does in fact mean to include homosexuals (who claim to be Christians) in his "please avoid these people" rant. Conveniently, a literal reading of the passage even if you include homosexuals in the 'porneia' umbrella still doesn't give people the right to go gay-bashing, for a few different reasons.
The point is that people are using the passage as though it defines marriage, and it doesn't. End of point.
It does define marriage. It says marriage is between a husband and a wife. Unless you're saying Paul would have condoned male-male or female-female marriage, which is ridiculous, the point stands.
No, it does not, in fact, anywhere say "marriage is between a husband and a wife." Let's read it again:
But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
There is nothing in that passage that says "marriage". It refers to marriage, certainly, and it discusses husbands and wives, certainly. You can tell that Paul implies that his idea of marriage consists of one husband and one wife -- but implication and definition are two very different beasts, and the beautiful thing about Biblical literalists is that by their own admission, they require everything to be literal.
There is no literal reading of this passage that you can use to say "marriage is defined in the Bible as one man with one woman." In fact, there is no actual place anywhere in the entire Bible where the term 'marriage' is actually defined in any way, shape, or form. It's implied in a couple of places -- there's a verse that says Bishops should marry a woman if they can't keep in in their pants, too -- but saying "marriage is defined in the Bible" at all is a simple falsehood.
In fact, there's an even larger problem with this passage being used to define marriage -- the fact that this passage is explicitly not directed at everyone in the Church. It's explicitly directed to those people who "burn with passions" that they cannot keep in check -- the ones who "lack self control".
In other words, there's a great big gaggle of homosexuals out there who aren't sexually active to whom this passage explicitly doesn't apply. Every homosexual that is abstaining from sex is explicitly not covered by this passage.
It's a reference to Deuteronomy 17. It's not about that specific guy.
Citation?
... Deuteronomy 17.
Or are you talking about the fact that it's a quote? I'm citing the fact that it's in quotes.
No, I mean "please site the source that tells you he's specifically citing Deuteronomy 17."
You stated that nowhere does Paul say that Christians should shun gay people. I posted the above, which clearly states that Christians should shun gay people.
"Shun gay Christians" =!= "Shun gay people.
Except that's just it, isn't it? Paul is arguing you cannot be gay and be a Christian. To be gay means a turning away from God.
You're missing the point. Christians are using the passage as an excuse to discriminate against non-Christian gays. That's specifically contrary to what Paul is saying here.
Because, for the umpteenth time, Paul and Jesus and basically everyone else in the NT insist that you forgive people and not judge them for their sins.
Notice how this is the exact same person who is condemning homosexuality as being sinful against God and wicked. So clearly, Paul's position is not that we cannot proclaim others to be sinful against God and wicked, because Paul does this all of the time.
Again: proclaiming that someone is wicked and treating them differently because they are wicked are two different things. Jesus hung out with wicked people, and he told everyone to love them. Paul goes out of his way to exclude non-brethren from his 'avoid these people' concept. You're absolutely free (in fact, fairly obligated) to acknowledge sinful people as sinful -- but unless they're claiming to be Christian, you're specifically obligated NOT to treat them differently from anyone else, except possibly to love them even more than normal, as per Jesus' example.
You cannot oppose gay marriage without judging the gay people you're denying marriage to, therefore you fail.
Except for the parts staring you right in the face where Paul says that being gay is evil and to expel people.
Except the parts staring you in the face where Paul says that being gay is evil and to expel gay people from the Church. At which point, them being no longer part of the Church, you're explicitly forbidden from discriminating against them, and thus it's your Christian obligation to allow them to marry (as long as they do so without the blessing of the Church.)
There is, once again, absolutely no way to interpret this passage using the exact literal words that are in it and come away with the notion that we as Christians have any grounding whatsoever in the Bible to deny gay people the right to get married.
I would it were that simple. I would if we could look at the terrible things fundamentalists do and say, "Well, that's because they're interpreting the Bible wrong." But unfortunately, no they're not. Their campaigns against homosexuality very much do have root in the Bible. You simply cannot preach tolerance of gay people and not run against Paul.
Absolutely I can. I just did, using a strictly literal interpretation of every word Paul said on the matter. People who are gay-bashing are absolutely and deliberately misinterpreting the Bible to back up their own hateful ways. They're reading definitions into Corinthians 7 that simply aren't in the literal text, and they're not reading the words and meanings in Corinthians 6 with enough detail.
Literalism requires actually citing the text word for word and showing where it actually says the things you're saying it says. None of the passages you've pointed at give Christians the right to deny gay people the ability to marry, period.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
So is it your position that Christians should not react negatively to liars, disobedient children, braggarts, gossips, and misers, or seek to avoid being such a person themselves? Because if you were to think that a Christian should dislike liars and avoid lying, then surely it'd be consistent that they dislike homosexuals and avoid homosexual behavior.
There's a huge difference between "disliking" or "reacting negatively" and "banning them from participating in one of the fundamental acts of sociopolitical union in our country." I don't like the fact that people are gay -- but I strongly advocate for their equality and for their complete acceptance by all.
You evaded the question. But let me put it another way: are you for or against perjury laws? Do you think liars should be banned from lying in our fundamental legal proceedings? Do you think liars should be treated as equal and completely accepted by all? And do you think the fact that you have yourself lied in the past has any relevance?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is nothing in that passage that says "marriage". It refers to marriage, certainly, and it discusses husbands and wives, certainly. You can tell that Paul implies that his idea of marriage consists of one husband and one wife -- but implication and definition are two very different beasts, and the beautiful thing about Biblical literalists is that by their own admission, they require everything to be literal.
I don't understand this. If you agree that Paul is implying this, it means that he understands that to be the case... and if he does, any biblical scholar worth his weight in doctorates would tell you that you ought to interpret any potential uncertainty of grammar (and I disagree with you that there are any in the Greek, but even so) in light of what is clearly understood by the author.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Yes, actually it does. Again, there is no such thing as a gay Christian according to Paul. Being gay is inherently a turning away from God. And the company of the sexually immoral is not one a Christian is meant to keep.
But let's go even deeper into this. Paul tells you that he's NOT telling you to "not even eat with" the sinful that aren't already part of the Church, because to do so would be to "retreat from the world". That tells you right off that what Paul is talking about here isn't discriminating againstanyone whatsoever.
It tells me nothing of the sort. I imagine many people during Jim Crow associated with black people because they didn't have a choice. That doesn't mean they didn't discriminate against them.
Not to mention, and I'm having difficulty understanding why I need to point this out, for Paul to claim that people are wicked and abhorrent to God and wicked and worthy of damnation and provoke God's anger because they engage in homosexuality IS discrimination against gay people. And no, he's not just saying that about gay Christians, which to Paul would be an oxymoron, he's saying that about all homosexuals.
He's talking about staying away from a group of people -- that's not in any way the same thing as giving you leave to discriminate against that group of people.
... What definition of discriminate are you using exactly? I'm wondering how a person can say that people are wicked and sinful and terrible and abhorrent to God because they have a particular quality and not be, by definition, discriminating against that quality.
No, it does not, in fact, anywhere say "marriage is between a husband and a wife."
Despite that it describes marriage as being between a husband and a wife?
There is nothing in that passage that says "marriage". It refers to marriage, certainly, and it discusses husbands and wives, certainly. You can tell that Paul implies that his idea of marriage consists of one husband and one wife -- but implication and definition are two very different beasts, and the beautiful thing about Biblical literalists is that by their own admission, they require everything to be literal.
Well let's use your tactic against you: find me any other passage from Paul in which he states that marriage is anything other than between a husband and wife.
Or we could just use our brain cells: what other combinations are there? Male-male marriage? Female-female marriage? No, genders lusting for one another as opposed to having heterosexual intercourse is considered unnatural and abhorrent to God, so obviously Paul is against those.
There is no literal reading of this passage that you can use to say "marriage is defined in the Bible as one man with one woman."
Again, as opposed to?
I mean, whether or not Paul was against polygamy is an argument that could go either way. That being said, you cannot possibly argue he was in favor of either male-male or female-female marriage, so how exactly this pointless quibbling benefits you in anyway is beyond me.
In fact, there is no actual place anywhere in the entire Bible where the term 'marriage' is actually defined in any way, shape, or form.
You don't think Torah has marriage defined?
In fact, there's an even larger problem with this passage being used to define marriage -- the fact that this passage is explicitly not directed at everyone in the Church. It's explicitly directed to those people who "burn with passions" that they cannot keep in check -- the ones who "lack self control".
In an epistle. To the Church.
In other words, there's a great big gaggle of homosexuals out there who aren't sexually active to whom this passage explicitly doesn't apply. Every homosexual that is abstaining from sex is explicitly not covered by this passage.
Yeah, because homosexuals who abstain from any sex whatsoever are fine.
No, I mean "please site the source that tells you he's specifically citing Deuteronomy 17."
The fact that what he says is in quotes, and what is in quotes is from Deuteronomy 17.
It should be noted even if it weren't Deuteronomy 17, and were instead from a totally different passage from Scripture, it would still remain a quote from Scripture, and wouldn't be referring specifically to that one guy. So I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by pressing this point.
You're missing the point.
Yes, because the point doesn't work. Saying, "No, he's saying you should shun gay people within the community, not outside of it," is both wrong and nonsensical.
Christians are using the passage as an excuse to discriminate against non-Christian gays. That's specifically contrary to what Paul is saying here.
Ok, stop. Actually think about this for a second here.
Does Paul believe that only Christians can sin and no one else can? No. No he most certainly does not.
Does Paul believe that when someone leaves the Christian community, he ceases to be a sinner? No, most certainly does not. In fact, the fact that someone has sinned irreparably and will not inherit the kingdom of God is specifically why Paul is advocating casting such individuals out.
Does Paul believe that gay people are sinful, abhorrent to God, and cut off from God? Absolutely.
Therefore, what can we gather about what Paul thinks, and in turn what he teaches everyone else to think through his Epistles, about homosexuals? Well, we know for certain it's not they're perfectly ok people as long as they're not a part of the Christ movement.
Again: proclaiming that someone is wicked and treating them differently because they are wicked are two different things.
And Paul is advocating both. See also the long tirade about treating people who are wicked differently.
Jesus hung out with wicked people, and he told everyone to love them. Paul goes out of his way to exclude non-brethren from his 'avoid these people' concept.
No, he doesn't say "Do not avoid them." He's saying that one cannot hold oneself to the expectation of never interacting with such people, because they are too numerous in number. There's huge difference.
You're making it sound like Paul is perfectly ok with homosexuals as long as they don't try to be part of the Christ movement. We know better than that.
Except the parts staring you in the face where Paul says that being gay is evil and to expel gay people from the Church. At which point, them being no longer part of the Church, you're explicitly forbidden from discriminating against them, and thus it's your Christian obligation to allow them to marry (as long as they do so without the blessing of the Church.)
Unless, of course, you believe that the definition of marriage is specifically between men and women, and not between men and men, and not between women and women. In which case, it becomes a problem of definitions, doesn't it? If something is not marriage, it cannot be called marriage, and to those who follow the Bible, homosexual marriage is not marriage.
Furthermore, there's the other matter: why would a Christian who genuinely believes in the same punishment/reward system as Paul does not believe that the laws of the country they are in should mirror what they believe are the laws of God as much as possible?
Again.... what does the religious definition of marriage have to do with the set of legal contracts that we call a legal marriage?
Nothing.
We know they have nothing to do with each other because there is no religious requirement for getting a legal marriage. Atheists can get married and do so all the time. If they dont believe in God why would they enter into a religious contract? They dont. They enter into a legal contract. It doesnt matter what the damn religious book says because our laws should not be based on a religious text.
Find me one good reason to not let homosexuals get married that is not based on religion and then maybe we can have a discussion but when it comes down to it it does not matter at all whether or not religion supports the law.
If there is one thing the Bible is clear about, and that is not refuted in later revisions that I know about, it's that marriage is a property arrangement. As far as the writers were concerned, calling modern marriages "marriage" would be like calling a car a motorcycle.
If there is one thing Paul is clear about, it's that nobody should be getting married. He only begrudgingly accepts that people already involved in it can continue, and recommends that everyone else stay away from it. This isn't limited to one passage in a letter either, it is a consistent theme in all sorts of writings about the teachings of Paul.
The part where Paul was, as mentioned, writing a letter specifically about a single case of incest. If the Apostle meant that line as an instruction in general about every wicked person, why use the singular? Every line up to that one is plural. He's talking, in that last line, about the single wicked person he mentioned in the second verse:
It's absolutely not an injunction referring to all wicked people being cast out of all places that believe in God. That would be literally impossible.
As I said: show me, in the text of the Bible, anywhere that Paul actually says that. You can assume it, but the Bible doesn't back it up in the text, and Paul clearly treats porniea as a different thing from arsenokoitai.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Can you provide your argumentation for this? I'd like to refute it, but I don't know where your coming from so don't know where to start.
Paul doesn't say nobody should be getting married, in fact he openly says that people who are incapable of leading a celibate life *should* get married. Yes, he thinks of marriage as a distractoin and a non-maximal situation -- he does not, however, say that it is *wrong* to get married... I dunno, I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say...
It's also a correct reading, seeing as how that's what the word means.
To Paul, porneia, sexual immorality, meant any sexual act outside of marriage.
This includes homosexuality.
See also 1 Corinthians 7, which, by the way, is where we get the concept of marriage being between one man and one woman. Do you see how much trouble would be alleviated if you'd just read 1 Corinthians already?
Actually, that's precisely what it is:
Paul is saying to expel all people who are wicked from inside the community of the Christ movement.
First, it would be helpful if you provided support for your interpretations instead of just blindly assuming everyone will agree with your interpretations, and then acting like they are incompetant for not agreeing with your assumed interpretation.
Second, Christians are often called to do things that are literally impossible to do. The fact that we cannot do them does not mean we should not try. (The chief among these would be that Christians are called to live a sinless life, yet even the most embittered anti-christian person out there has to admit that hte bible is clear that all have sinned.)
No, it doesn't. You want it to include homosexuality, but I don't see it in there. You might equate homosexuality with 'surrendering sexual purity', but so is heterosexual sex -- once you have sex at all, you're not pure anymore. You might equate homosexuality with promiscuity, but there are hundreds of thousands of monogamous, loving gay couples out there who would disagree.
Porneia includes homosexuality because a bunch of people decided, long after the Bible was put together, that they wanted it to. Paul treats homosexuality as it's own object with it's own word, and he does so explicitly in multiple places.
Your turn. Go back and read the article I linked to at the beginning of this whole thread. Come back when you're done.
Then why the switch between plural and singular when the only singular person referred to anywhere earlier in the passage is the one incestuous person who inspired the letter in the first place?
No, he's not. He said "don't eat with these people". He didn't say "expel them". He said "expel that guy." That's different. And then you open up the entire can of worms where America is not the Christ movement, so even if you do interpret that passage that way, you STILL can't use it to justify hating gay people that aren't trying to force themselves into your church.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Considering Highroller's stance on homosexuality, no, I'm pretty sure he doesn't want it to include homosexuality.
Exactly. Which is why the definition also extends to heterosexual sex. Again ALL sex outside of a married wife and husband is porneia according to Paul.
I would disagree as well, but we're not talking about my definition, your definition, or the definition of numerous gay couples. We're talking about Paul. And when Paul says that any sexual act outside of a married union between a husband and wife is porneia, that includes homosexuality.
Now, you can disagree with Paul, I know I do. But saying you disagree with Paul doesn't change what Paul said.
No, because the word porneia means sexual impurity and promiscuity, which Paul defines as that which is outside of sex between a husband and wife who are married.
Unless you're denying that homosexual sex is in fact sex?
No, when I say read 1 Corinthians 7, I mean actually read it. Paul's view of marriage is not the same as that of the Old Testament.
Obviously the change is because Paul is not only addressing the case of that one wicked, immoral person, but what the community should do in the case of all wicked, immoral people.
Dude, it's right there in front of you. No, this does not apply to solely one individual, it applies to ANY individual within the community who demonstrates wickedness, such as those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, revilers, etc.
That is all well and good but why single out homosexuals and marriage for this issue? Not a single other "wicked" person is denied the ability to get married. Sure go ahead and "shun" them. But what does that have to do with letting them get a legal marriage? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.
I bring it up because your insistence that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman and can't be a marriage otherwise confuses me. Marriage is such a widespread and varied institution that to claim it "has to include" one thing to count seems ridiculous, no different from me saying "it's not really marriage unless you paid for your bride" or "it's not a legal marriage if the races are different."
The idea that certain "moral laws" count while other ceremonial ones for Israel don't is so hard to understand because none of these laws resemble anything moral. "Men can only marry women" makes as much sense from a moral perspective as "don't eat shellfish."
Because according to Paul, a marriage constitutes a husband and a wife. See 1 Corinthians 7.
See above. We're not talking about marriage in its numerous different traditions throughout human history. We're talking specifically about marriage in the Christian context from the Bible. See Paul's views on marriage in 1 Corinthians.
And to clarify my position, just in case it's unclear: I have no objections to gay marriage, I have no objections to Christians supporting gay marriage, and I have no objections to people disagreeing with Paul.
I do, however, object to people saying that the Bible says things it doesn't say.
Chapter and verse, man. You keep saying this like it's in the Bible somewhere, but you can't actually establish that, because there is nowhere in the Bible where porneia is actually given a strict definition. And again, like you keep blithely ignoring, Paul makes a very clear distinction between porneia and homosexuality in more than once place in the NT.
There's no doubt that Leviticus puts homosexuality pretty firmly in the realm of porneia -- but there's no evidence that Paul applied the laws in Leviticus to anyone that wasn't Jewish, and thus no evidence that Paul considers homosexuality to be porneia if you're a Gentile. Combine that with his consistent separation of the two in his own writings, and I don't think you can really make the argument that Paul considered porneia to include homosexuality. (Not even mentioning the whole 'fulfilling of the laws'/New Covenant which could well have made Paul explicitly wrong even if he was of the opinion that the two were one in the same, which he didn't, because you don't make a list that includes the same item twice.)
No. You keep telling me to read 1 Corithians 7, but you're not reading it yourself.
You're looking at this and saying "obviously, then, the only thing that isn't 'sexual immorality' is the relationship that Paul describes afterwards." Except that isn't at all actually obvious. If I catch my son spraying shaving cream all over the bathroom wall, I'm quite likely to say "Tell you what, since you're making a mess here, I'm going to restrict you to only using the soap and the water and leaving all of the other implements on the bathroom counter alone."
That by no means defines "making a mess" as "touching those things on the bathroom counter that aren't soap or water".
I'll say it again, and with complete confidence: there is nowhere in the Bible that Paul defines 'sexual impurity' (or however you want to define 'porniea') as explicitly including homosexuality, period.
Actually, again, reading that verse, there's nothing in it that actually defines marriage. It uses the words "marriage", "husband", and "wife", but nowhere does anything Paul says exclude other potential arrangements -- and we know for a fact that other arrangements weren't uncommon at the time. Paul's entire point here isn't even about the definition of marriage, it's about how to control your passions and still be able to serve the Lord -- to which he makes the concession that getting married and then only having sex with your spouse is acceptable practice. There's nothing exclusionary or definitional in any of his mentions of marriage. At all.
Furthermore, Paul explicitly lays out the only part of the entire verse that actually comes directly from the Lord: " wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." Everything else is explicitly Paul's words, not God's, and thus can and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Just like we take him saying "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Except now you're just being dense. Paul goes from referring to one specific person in the earliest verses of that chapter, to making broad pronouncements in the middle -- at the same point, he goes from referring to a singular person to referring to plural people. Then, at the end, he goes back to referring to a singular person again because he's done making general pronouncements. He's back to talking about the one dude he's talking about at first, restating the same judgement call he made in verse 2 -- kick that one dude out.
You can keep quoting the text at me all you want. Every time I read it, I see how wrong you are. Oh, and let me point out another massive problem with your argument here: verse 9. Paul explicitly says that he's not directing this imperative to disassociate with people toward everyone in the world. He's directing it strictly toward people who claim to be a part of Christ's church -- which (AGAIN!) out-and-out forbids Christians from condemning gays unless those gays are claiming to be a part of Christ's church.
Which (AGAIN!) totally destroys a literalist's case for banning gay marriage on a societal level.
Again.
How many ways do you need to be proven wrong before you admit that there's simply no way to read the entirety of the Bible literally and use it to build a case against gay marriage?
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
This is a pretty basic "argument from silence" fallacy, man. In the absence of any indication that Paul didn't understand porneia to mean what it means everywhere else (we're really talking the dictionary definition, here), it's perfectly reasonable--indeed, necessary--to assume it means what it usually means.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I've been saying 1 Corinthians 7 for how many posts now?
... What is even the point in talking to you?
And you keep ignoring what that word means. Good job.
It is if you read it. Paul states that to ward off sexual immorality, one should be celibate. However, recognizing most people can't handle celibacy, Paul advocates, as a form of damage control, marriage between a husband and wife in order that the sex not be immoral. All other forms of sex are immoral.
Yes he does. He does so by saying the word "porneia." It's what that word means.
Are you trying to argue that Paul would have condoned a male-male marriage? If not, what the heck is the point of this paragraph?
Again, if you want to disagree with Paul, that's fine. You can disagree with Paul until you're blue in the face.
But whether or not we should accept or reject Paul is an entirely separate topic of discussion from what Paul said.
What, you mean the phrase "‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’"? That's a quote. Hence the quotation marks. It's a reference to Deuteronomy 17. It's not about that specific guy.
You stated that nowhere does Paul say that Christians should shun gay people. I posted the above, which clearly states that Christians should shun gay people.
So, by posting this, and thus changing the topic and moving the goalposts, can I assume that you are retracting your previous statement and conceding that Paul does indeed say that Christians should shun gay people?
I'm not sure how. A literalist would agree with Paul that homosexuality is a damnable offense, and that people who engage in homosexuality are sinful. From this mindset, how is it not the morally correct course of action to oppose gay marriage?
Are you joking? I've been refuting you constantly.
For ****'s sake, you didn't even know about Paul was until I pointed him out to you. You change the goalposts constantly after each and every "unassailable claim" you make about what Paul said or what the Bible argues gets torn down. Your original post regarding shrimp consumption being equatable to homosexuality is ridiculous and has been exposed as such.
And you're going to act like you've been winning this entire time? This is comedy.
Except Paul wasn't silent on the matter. For the umpteenth time, he makes lists -- two of them -- that clearly separate "porneia" from "homosexuality." That's not silence. It's a very active and clear indication that the two are not the same thing -- why else would they appear separately in a list of 'things to avoid' in multiple places?
No one is arguing any of that. The argument here is that Paul uses different words for 'sexual immorality' and for 'homosexual', and then leaves out 'homosexual' when he puts out his list of 'people to not eat with'. And that STILL doesn't touch the fact that his list of 'people to not eat with' only counts people who 'call themselves brother or sister' (i.e. are part of the Church), leaving Church people no option whatsoever to disassociate with any kind of fornicator that openly claims no part of the Church, and thus gives Church people no leave at all to claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Then answer the question I keep asking. If 'porneia' includes homosexuality, why did Paul repeatedly separate the two things in his own writing? If you can explain that away without just saying 'because he did', I'll be happy to concede the point. (Even if I do, it still won't allow any Christians to justify banning gay marriage Biblically, though.)
The point is that people are using the passage as though it defines marriage, and it doesn't. End of point.
Citation?
"Shun gay Christians" =!= "Shun gay people.
Because, for the umpteenth time, Paul and Jesus and basically everyone else in the NT insist that you forgive people and not judge them for their sins. Paul even explicitly in the very verse you're focusing on tells you that you can't shun non-Christians for their sins. You cannot oppose gay marriage without judging the gay people you're denying marriage to, therefore you fail.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
People were having sex within the bounds of marriage and out and with people from their own and opposite gender for as long as humanity has existed
I do not see why a religious figure preaching abstinence offends you so much. A person that is not bound by the shackles of hedonism is greatly liberated. It is a great way to live your life.
I'm sorry, but I can't find these lists in your previous posts; I see references to Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:15, neither of which have anything to help your case.
Edit: wait, you're talking about Romans 1? How can you not read that as a straight condemnation of homosexuality? It's true that he uses akatharsia instead of porneia, but that's not really any help to you; they're virtually synonyms. Moreover, when he does use porneia in 1:29, it's clearly referring back to the people he was just describing, ie. those who have given themselves over eis akatharsian.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Yes a christian marriage. I however am not talking about Christian marriage I am talking about legal marriage. My argument has been and will always be that the court house has nothing to do with the bible. Therefore the real issue is that a bunch of pig headed Christians dont want to admit that their bible has nothing to do with what should be legal or illegal.
Christian marriage= a union between a husband and wife and God which grants privileges like having sex without it being sinful
Legal Marriage= a series of rights and contracts between 2 people and the state which grants rights like being considered family for visitations rights, tax breaks, streamlined shared property ownership and has absolutely nothing at all to do with sex
Except this fails when you consider the definition of the word.
You argued it just now.
It does, however, destroy the claim that Paul didn't say to shun gay people, which is what you argued. Remember? That part where you said, "Paul never said that"? Are you now conceding that he does?
Maybe he's doing it for emphasis. Regardless, the point stands. Paul also lists male prostitutes in there, despite a prostitute being unambiguously something that falls under the category porneia. As is sodomy. As is adultery.
It does define marriage. It says marriage is between a husband and a wife. Unless you're saying Paul would have condoned male-male or female-female marriage, which is ridiculous, the point stands.
... Deuteronomy 17.
Or are you talking about the fact that it's a quote? I'm citing the fact that it's in quotes.
Except that's just it, isn't it? Paul is arguing you cannot be gay and be a Christian. To be gay means a turning away from God.
Notice how this is the exact same person who is condemning homosexuality as being sinful against God and wicked. So clearly, Paul's position is not that we cannot proclaim others to be sinful against God and wicked, because Paul does this all of the time.
He's not saying you shouldn't. He's saying that it would be physically impossible to expect one to never associate with such a person due to the fact that they're simply too many to avoid. That's not the same thing as condoning them, or to actively associate with them. It's no different from promoting a healthy lifestyle while at the same time acknowledging it's impossible to avoid bacteria.
Except for the parts staring you right in the face where Paul says that being gay is evil and to expel people.
I would it were that simple. I would if we could look at the terrible things fundamentalists do and say, "Well, that's because they're interpreting the Bible wrong." But unfortunately, no they're not. Their campaigns against homosexuality very much do have root in the Bible. You simply cannot preach tolerance of gay people and not run against Paul.
Which is not to say one cannot go against Paul, I don't have any problems with that. But it's completely different to disagree with Paul than it is to say that Paul agrees with you.
A person that is not bound by the shackles of religion is greatly liberated. Hedonism is a great way to live your life.
I don't understand the point of this debate outside of an interpretation of the bible. If it is just to see what the bible qualifies as marriage for its own sake, I guess that makes sense.
But extended beyond that, this seems pointless.
So Pro I have an alpha Volcanic Island
"Shun gay Christians" =!= "Shun gay people." Again.
But let's go even deeper into this. Paul tells you that he's NOT telling you to "not even eat with" the sinful that aren't already part of the Church, because to do so would be to "retreat from the world". That tells you right off that what Paul is talking about here isn't discriminating against anyone whatsoever. He's talking about avoiding the company of those people who claim to be Christians but don't follow the law. Because you could totally be a complete dick to everyone that wasn't a "true Christian" without "retreating from the world".
He's talking about staying away from a group of people -- that's not in any way the same thing as giving you leave to discriminate against that group of people.
OK, point conceded. Paul does in fact mean to include homosexuals (who claim to be Christians) in his "please avoid these people" rant. Conveniently, a literal reading of the passage even if you include homosexuals in the 'porneia' umbrella still doesn't give people the right to go gay-bashing, for a few different reasons.
No, it does not, in fact, anywhere say "marriage is between a husband and a wife." Let's read it again:
There is nothing in that passage that says "marriage". It refers to marriage, certainly, and it discusses husbands and wives, certainly. You can tell that Paul implies that his idea of marriage consists of one husband and one wife -- but implication and definition are two very different beasts, and the beautiful thing about Biblical literalists is that by their own admission, they require everything to be literal.
There is no literal reading of this passage that you can use to say "marriage is defined in the Bible as one man with one woman." In fact, there is no actual place anywhere in the entire Bible where the term 'marriage' is actually defined in any way, shape, or form. It's implied in a couple of places -- there's a verse that says Bishops should marry a woman if they can't keep in in their pants, too -- but saying "marriage is defined in the Bible" at all is a simple falsehood.
In fact, there's an even larger problem with this passage being used to define marriage -- the fact that this passage is explicitly not directed at everyone in the Church. It's explicitly directed to those people who "burn with passions" that they cannot keep in check -- the ones who "lack self control".
In other words, there's a great big gaggle of homosexuals out there who aren't sexually active to whom this passage explicitly doesn't apply. Every homosexual that is abstaining from sex is explicitly not covered by this passage.
No, I mean "please site the source that tells you he's specifically citing Deuteronomy 17."
You're missing the point. Christians are using the passage as an excuse to discriminate against non-Christian gays. That's specifically contrary to what Paul is saying here.
Again: proclaiming that someone is wicked and treating them differently because they are wicked are two different things. Jesus hung out with wicked people, and he told everyone to love them. Paul goes out of his way to exclude non-brethren from his 'avoid these people' concept. You're absolutely free (in fact, fairly obligated) to acknowledge sinful people as sinful -- but unless they're claiming to be Christian, you're specifically obligated NOT to treat them differently from anyone else, except possibly to love them even more than normal, as per Jesus' example.
Except the parts staring you in the face where Paul says that being gay is evil and to expel gay people from the Church. At which point, them being no longer part of the Church, you're explicitly forbidden from discriminating against them, and thus it's your Christian obligation to allow them to marry (as long as they do so without the blessing of the Church.)
There is, once again, absolutely no way to interpret this passage using the exact literal words that are in it and come away with the notion that we as Christians have any grounding whatsoever in the Bible to deny gay people the right to get married.
Absolutely I can. I just did, using a strictly literal interpretation of every word Paul said on the matter. People who are gay-bashing are absolutely and deliberately misinterpreting the Bible to back up their own hateful ways. They're reading definitions into Corinthians 7 that simply aren't in the literal text, and they're not reading the words and meanings in Corinthians 6 with enough detail.
Literalism requires actually citing the text word for word and showing where it actually says the things you're saying it says. None of the passages you've pointed at give Christians the right to deny gay people the ability to marry, period.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't understand this. If you agree that Paul is implying this, it means that he understands that to be the case... and if he does, any biblical scholar worth his weight in doctorates would tell you that you ought to interpret any potential uncertainty of grammar (and I disagree with you that there are any in the Greek, but even so) in light of what is clearly understood by the author.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Yes, actually it does. Again, there is no such thing as a gay Christian according to Paul. Being gay is inherently a turning away from God. And the company of the sexually immoral is not one a Christian is meant to keep.
It tells me nothing of the sort. I imagine many people during Jim Crow associated with black people because they didn't have a choice. That doesn't mean they didn't discriminate against them.
Not to mention, and I'm having difficulty understanding why I need to point this out, for Paul to claim that people are wicked and abhorrent to God and wicked and worthy of damnation and provoke God's anger because they engage in homosexuality IS discrimination against gay people. And no, he's not just saying that about gay Christians, which to Paul would be an oxymoron, he's saying that about all homosexuals.
... What definition of discriminate are you using exactly? I'm wondering how a person can say that people are wicked and sinful and terrible and abhorrent to God because they have a particular quality and not be, by definition, discriminating against that quality.
Despite that it describes marriage as being between a husband and a wife?
Well let's use your tactic against you: find me any other passage from Paul in which he states that marriage is anything other than between a husband and wife.
Or we could just use our brain cells: what other combinations are there? Male-male marriage? Female-female marriage? No, genders lusting for one another as opposed to having heterosexual intercourse is considered unnatural and abhorrent to God, so obviously Paul is against those.
Again, as opposed to?
I mean, whether or not Paul was against polygamy is an argument that could go either way. That being said, you cannot possibly argue he was in favor of either male-male or female-female marriage, so how exactly this pointless quibbling benefits you in anyway is beyond me.
You don't think Torah has marriage defined?
In an epistle. To the Church.
Yeah, because homosexuals who abstain from any sex whatsoever are fine.
The fact that what he says is in quotes, and what is in quotes is from Deuteronomy 17.
It should be noted even if it weren't Deuteronomy 17, and were instead from a totally different passage from Scripture, it would still remain a quote from Scripture, and wouldn't be referring specifically to that one guy. So I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by pressing this point.
Yes, because the point doesn't work. Saying, "No, he's saying you should shun gay people within the community, not outside of it," is both wrong and nonsensical.
Ok, stop. Actually think about this for a second here.
Does Paul believe that only Christians can sin and no one else can? No. No he most certainly does not.
Does Paul believe that when someone leaves the Christian community, he ceases to be a sinner? No, most certainly does not. In fact, the fact that someone has sinned irreparably and will not inherit the kingdom of God is specifically why Paul is advocating casting such individuals out.
Does Paul believe that gay people are sinful, abhorrent to God, and cut off from God? Absolutely.
Therefore, what can we gather about what Paul thinks, and in turn what he teaches everyone else to think through his Epistles, about homosexuals? Well, we know for certain it's not they're perfectly ok people as long as they're not a part of the Christ movement.
And Paul is advocating both. See also the long tirade about treating people who are wicked differently.
No, he doesn't say "Do not avoid them." He's saying that one cannot hold oneself to the expectation of never interacting with such people, because they are too numerous in number. There's huge difference.
You're making it sound like Paul is perfectly ok with homosexuals as long as they don't try to be part of the Christ movement. We know better than that.
Unless, of course, you believe that the definition of marriage is specifically between men and women, and not between men and men, and not between women and women. In which case, it becomes a problem of definitions, doesn't it? If something is not marriage, it cannot be called marriage, and to those who follow the Bible, homosexual marriage is not marriage.
Furthermore, there's the other matter: why would a Christian who genuinely believes in the same punishment/reward system as Paul does not believe that the laws of the country they are in should mirror what they believe are the laws of God as much as possible?
Nothing.
We know they have nothing to do with each other because there is no religious requirement for getting a legal marriage. Atheists can get married and do so all the time. If they dont believe in God why would they enter into a religious contract? They dont. They enter into a legal contract. It doesnt matter what the damn religious book says because our laws should not be based on a religious text.
Find me one good reason to not let homosexuals get married that is not based on religion and then maybe we can have a discussion but when it comes down to it it does not matter at all whether or not religion supports the law.