 |
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 11:37 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by asking
Bobbalina,
Yes. It is right to be gay.
God has a differing view.
1 Cor 6:9-11
O not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Each of us has the choice to submit to God's view or the opposing view.
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 01:26 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
Wow - what a story.
Scripture is quite clear about the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction:
Jude 5-8
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
NKJV
Strange flesh from the talmud and the torah both translates to bestiality. Flesh in itself is often a misnomer for sex which is a modern way of describing sex but in the greek histories, hebrew works including the Talmud and other works at the time flesh has a very specific meaning. Biblically before translation when describing the eating of meat they describe it as flesh Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 7:19, that same term is also used to describe the eating of a fig, or the internal workings or a human (like an open wound) leviticus 13:24. However it is not used when they are describing one's nudity Exodus 20:26. They have a different word to describe that. So contextually the bible almost always uses the term for flesh to mean animal. The exceptions to this are the interpreted meanings of strange flesh in Jude and another time in the NT which also relates back to Sodom and Gammorah. Strange that the term used to describe animal and sometimes fruit everywhere else in the bible replaces the term used everywhere else in the bible to describe sex. Possible conclusions you could derive from this are that the writers of that particular passage are taking poetic licensure and not using the standard wording or more likely strange flesh refers to bestiality. Now going back to the laws in the OT you find that bestiality is very specifically mentioned and in that passage the original term is not beast but the reflected term that is the same for flesh, unfortunately I don't have access to an online version of the hebrew otherwise I'd show you. Exodus 22:19 And lest I forget here are the sex laws very specifically discussing whom you cannot have sex with using the euphemism uncover their nakedness meaning Leviticus 18:6-18.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 01:32 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by CSlager
Strange flesh from the talmud and the torah both translates to bestiality. Flesh in itself is often a misnomer for sex which is a modern way of describing sex but in the greek histories, hebrew works including the Talmud and other works at the time flesh has a very specific meaning. Biblically before translation when describing the eating of meat they describe it as flesh Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 7:19, that same term is also used to describe the eating of a fig, or the internal workings or a human (like an open wound) leviticus 13:24. However it is not used when they are describing one's nudity Exodus 20:26. They have a different word to describe that. So contextually the bible almost always uses the term for flesh to mean animal. The exceptions to this are the interpreted meanings of strange flesh in Jude and another time in the NT which also relates back to Sodom and Gammorah. Strange that the term used to describe animal and sometimes fruit everywhere else in the bible replaces the term used everywhere else in the bible to describe sex. Possible conclusions you could derive from this are that the writers of that particular passage are taking poetic licensure and not using the standard wording or more likely strange flesh refers to bestiality. Now going back to the laws in the OT you find that bestiality is very specifically mentioned and in that passage the original term is not beast but the reflected term that is the same for flesh, unfortunately I don't have access to an online version of the hebrew otherwise I'd show you. Exodus 22:19 And lest I forget here are the sex laws very specifically discussing whom you cannot have sex with using the euphemism uncover their nakedness meaning Leviticus 18:6-18.
Very nice posts, CSlager. Thanks so much for your contributions to the discussion.
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 01:59 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
God has a differing view.
1 Cor 6:9-11
o not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Each of us has the choice to submit to God's view or the opposing view.
Strange but I just looked in the NKJV and my version doesn't even have that exact quote. However the online version does.
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Corinthians 6 ;
this shall get you to Corinthians. Here is the problem with the text. Go to the New Standard Version, to the NKJV now to the KJV, now try the NLT, notice the difference? That's what happens when a version adds words. Catamite wasn't even in the pretranslated text that the NKJV used for its translation, it extended the original words to include catamites. The original text has arsen koite which if you read koine you'd know could mean about ten dozen things. However in this case interpretation has often been left to a certain group who always believed it meant homosexuality. Here's what else it could mean or allude: rapist, adulterer, male concubine, someone who ignores his sexual responsibilities to his race and generation (which is very much a sin dating back to genesis, but is somehow missed in this group), someone who commits incest. See all of those things are evil in someone's eyes and they could all be the translation of arsen koite, however it seems that translations often shorten it to mean exclusively singular man but the original was meant to represent a group of men, so if you take it that way it means those who violate the couch of mankind. That sounds suspiciously like the hebrew text from Genesis which uses a similar term to go forth, be fruitful and multiply. Then again if you look in 1 corinthians then you have to look no further to find the point where many biblical scholars sa you can pretty much ignore everything in the old testament that was a law except fornication (which is between a married man and a married woman or unmarried woman) But I don't need to continue this discussion despite it being interesting I need to eat lunch
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 03:15 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by CSlager
Strange flesh from the talmud and the torah both translates to bestiality. Flesh in itself is often a misnomer for sex which is a modern way of describing sex but in the greek histories, hebrew works including the Talmud and other works at the time flesh has a very specific meaning. Biblically before translation when describing the eating of meat they describe it as flesh Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 7:19, that same term is also used to describe the eating of a fig, or the internal workings or a human (like an open wound) leviticus 13:24. However it is not used when they are describing one's nudity Exodus 20:26. They have a different word to describe that. So contextually the bible almost always uses the term for flesh to mean animal. The exceptions to this are the interpreted meanings of strange flesh in Jude and another time in the NT which also relates back to Sodom and Gammorah. Strange that the term used to describe animal and sometimes fruit everywhere else in the bible replaces the term used everywhere else in the bible to describe sex. Possible conclusions you could derive from this are that the writers of that particular passage are taking poetic licensure and not using the standard wording or more likely strange flesh refers to bestiality. Now going back to the laws in the OT you find that bestiality is very specifically mentioned and in that passage the original term is not beast but the reflected term that is the same for flesh, unfortunately I don't have access to an online version of the hebrew otherwise I'd show you. Exodus 22:19 And lest I forget here are the sex laws very specifically discussing whom you cannot have sex with using the euphemism uncover their nakedness meaning Leviticus 18:6-18.
Actually the word is not in hebrew but in Greek and the word can be translated either as "flesh" or as "meat", so it could potentially refer to either, but in the context of fornication and in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah where we know what their acts were, the meaning is clear.
Further, this was in response to a person claiming that the sin was inhospitality, so your post agrees more with what I was saying since bestiality would also be a sexual sin.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 03:17 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by CSlager
Strange but I just looked in the NKJV and my version doesn't even have that exact quote. However the online version does.
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Corinthians 6 ;
this shall get you to Corinthians. Here is the problem with the text. Go to the New Standard Version, to the NKJV now to the KJV, now try the NLT, notice the difference?
I don't use various versions to find the one that I like - I don't think that is the right way to do it. The right way, if there is a question, is to go back to the original languages which I did in an earlier post, and that validates what I posted.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 03:43 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
So you are trying to tell me that one can have a desire for sin without a sinful desire.
I guess that Jesus must have gotten it wrong.
What is lust? And how do you understand the relation between lust and desire?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 03:47 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
What is lust? And how do you understand the relation between lust and desire?
Desire is a generic term, lust is a specific kind of desire.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 03:52 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
Desire is a generic term, lust is a specific kind of desire.
Again, not very explanatory. What makes a desire lust? What distinguishes lustful desires from non-lustful desires? How do we tell them apart?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 03:58 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
Again, not very explanatory. What makes a desire lust? What distinguishes lustful desires from non-lustful desires? How do we tell them apart?
Akoue,
As I have told you before, I don't play 20 questions. If you don't know what the word lust means, then get thee to a dictionary.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 04:18 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
Akoue,
As I have told you before, I don;t play 20 questions. If you don't know what the word lust means, then get thee to a dictionary.
Well, you've done your fair share of asking questions. You've asked them of me, and you've asked them of Wondergirl (way more than twenty times). It appears you're more than fine with "20 questions" so long as you're the only one asking. You told me I was confused about desire and lust. So it's incumbant upon you to explain the nature of my confusion. Don't make claims you can't back up. If "desire" is a generic term, that there must be something in virtue of which a desire counts as a lustful desire. You ought to be able to explain what that is.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 04:28 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
Well, you've done your fair share of asking questions. You've asked them of me, and you've asked them of Wondergirl (way more than twenty times).
And still waiting for some answers.
So it's incumbant upon you to explain the nature of my confusion.
I don't know the nature of your confusion. If you are confused, you are going to have to sort that out, and a dictionary is a good start since you are asking about definitions.
If you don't know where to find a dictionary or what that is, let me know. But I am not going to play games answering questions that could be answered simply by picking up a dictionary. If you are too lazy to do that, then you're probably confused about more things than I could ever help you with.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:07 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
And still waiting for some answers.
I don't know the nature of your confusion. If you are confused, you are going to have to sort that out, and a dictionary is a good start since you are asking about definitions.
If you don't know where to find a dictionary or what that is, let me know. But I am not going to play games answering questions that could be answered simply by picking up a dictionary. If you are too lazy to do that, then you're probably confused about more things than I could ever help you with.
A bit acerbic. I wonder how much of that is "Biblical".
In any event, here's what the OED says:
Desire
1. The fact or condition of desiring; the feeling that one would derive pleasure or satisfaction from possessing or attaining something; a longing.
2. spec. Sexual appetite; lust.
3. An expressed wish, a request.
5. Something desired or longed for.
Lust
1. Pleasure, delight (also foll. By in, to, unto). Also (poet.), a source of pleasure or delight.
2. Desire, appetite, inclination; an instance of this.
3. A sensuous appetite or desire considered as sinful or as leading to sin.
4. Strong (esp.uncontrollable) sexual appetite or desire.
5. Vigour, life.
6. A passionate desire for, to do; a passionate enjoyment of.
So, according you, consulting a dictionary should clear up any confusion regarding the distinction between desire and lust. You've already claimed that lust is a kind of desire, that not all desires are lusts. Now according to the definition of "lust", a strong, uncontrollable sexual desire counts as lust. But you don't seem to think of lust as something that is limited only to certain sorts of sexual desire (i.e. the strong, uncontrollable ones). Lust is sinful desire, you've been clear about that. But presumably pleasure and delight isn't always sinful. Neither is desire, appetite, or inclination always sinful. Vigour and life don't appear sinful. A passionate desire or enjoyment isn't always sinful.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to explain what you take the defining characteristics of a lustful desire to be, since the OED doesn't appear to be able to clear this up. In fact, as #2 of the definition of "desire" makes plain, the words "desire" and "lust" can be used synonymously (in some cases, at least). But you seem to think that the difference between desire and lust is so plain to see that I must be kind of dim-witted to have missed it. Perhaps it's not quite as obvious as you would have me think. Why don't you give us all your take on the distinction between non-lustful desires and lustful desires. Unless you don't know, in which case some of your earlier claims would be cast in a rather different light.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:13 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
So, according you, consulting a dictionary should clear up any confusion regarding the distinction between desire and lust. You've already claimed that lust is a kind of desire, that not all desires are lusts. Now according to the definition of "lust", a strong, uncontrollable sexual desire counts as lust. But you don't seem to think of lust as something that is limited only to certain sorts of sexual desire (i.e., the strong, uncontrollable ones). Lust is sinful desire, you've been clear about that. But presumably pleasure and delight isn't always sinful. Neither is desire, appetite, or inclination always sinful. Vigour and life don't appear sinful. A passionate desire or enjoyment isn't always sinful.
You seem to think that you are good at mind reading. You aren't.
Rather than trying to mind-read (which you are very poor at, why don't you just put forward your position and we can see where we differ and discuss.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:20 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
You seem to think that you are good at mind reading. You aren't.
Rather than trying to mind-read (which you are very poor at, why don't you just put forward your position and we can see where we differ and discuss.
I did put it forward, and you told me I was confused. Since then I've just been asking you to explain what I got wrong, and the very best way to do this would be to explain the distinction between lustful desire and non-lustful desire. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you can explain it. Maybe I'm wrong to do so; maybe you don't know what you're talking about. There are others reading this thread; you have an audience. It's a great chance for you to set us all straight. Or are you just blowing smoke?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:23 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
I did put it forward, and you told me I was confused.
It was you who said that you were confused. You keep asking me for dictionary definitions.
Since then I've just been asking you to explain what I got wrong, and the very best way to do this would be to explain the distinction between lustful desire and non-lustful desire.
I thought that you just looked in the dictionary. Do you know what the prefix "non" means?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you understand the English language and can read a dictionary. You claim to be a professor. Maybe I'm wrong to do so; maybe you don't know what you're talking about. There are others reading this thread; you have an audience. It's a great chance for you to set us all straight. Or are you just blowing smoke?
Like I said, I am always interested in helping those who care but when a person starts asking me dictionary definitions after I have answered their multiple questions. And yet claims to be a Greek expert and professor, then I find it hard to believe that they cannot figure out a dictionary.
|
|
 |
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:41 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
It was you who said that you were confused. You keep asking me for dictionary definitions.
I also am confused as to what you mean by lustful desire and nonlustful desire. I learned in grade school that there is a terrific way to clarify: examples. Please provide us with examples of each. Those certainly will help us understand your thinking in this matter.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:47 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I also am confused as to what you mean by lustful desire and nonlustful desire. I learned in grade school that there is a terrific way to clarify: examples. Please provide us with examples of each. Those certainly will help us understand your thinking in this matter.
Dictionary.com
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:49 PM
|
|
Wow, I just got hit by such a wave of nostalgia. Not since grade school have I had somebody parrot me back to myself. That's a couple of times on this very thread.
So the dictionary definitions have been offered above. They don't clearly demarcate lustful desires from non-lustful desires. Don't you have a "biblically-based" answer, Tom?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Feb 16, 2009, 05:50 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
Wow, I just got hit by such a wave of nostalgia. Not since grade school have I had somebody parrot me back to myself. That's a couple of times on this very thread.
It seemed appropriate. Some of the behaviour have seen on here reminds me of grade school also.
So the dictionary definitions have been offered above. They don't clearly demarcate lustful desires from non-lustful desires. Don't you have a "biblically-based" answer, Tom?
Read Matthew 5.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Check out some similar questions!
Catholic belief
[ 46 Answers ]
Hello,
Could you please inform me of Catholic beliefs, and how the differ from Christian belief?
Thank You!
browneyedfaith:)
What are your feelings, belief and thoughts about Christian unity?
[ 38 Answers ]
Today's Gospel (Mk 3:7-12): Jesus and His disciples withdrew to the lakeside and a large crowd from Galilee followed Him. A great number of people also came from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, Transjordan and from the region of Tyre and Sidon, for they had heard of all that He was doing. Because of the...
Catholic Belief
[ 5 Answers ]
Hello,
I am new to this site, but I have had something bothering me, and I am trying to find some answers...
We had a Chathlic Gentlemen to visit us the other day, and my niece goes with him and he called her his... he said that is what the Catholics believed and his children are Bastards......
Belief-O-Matic
[ 5 Answers ]
I had originally posted this under another thread, but NeedKarma suggested it could be its own thread, so here it is! I found a fun quiz online called Belief-O-Matic. You answer 20 questions and depending on your answers, your results tell you which religious beliefs you are most in agreement with....
View more questions
Search
|