Grapevine Pastor Tells Followers To Bone 7 Days A Week...

[Mean Green 93-98]

Tasty, I'm fairly well-studied in Koine Greek, and yes, languages do change. Classical Greek has marked differences from Attic Greek, which has marked differences from Koine Greek, all of which are very different from modern Greek. This is why it is important to consider Biblical Greek not primarily from a diachronic, but synchronic approach; that is, how the language was actually used at the time.

There are more than two words used in the New Testament to refer to the practice of homosexuality; but I assume you refer to I Corinthians 6:9, the two words translated in the KJV as "effeminate" (malakoi) and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (arsenokoitai). The first word, as evidenced by its translation, has various shades of meaning. While some might debate which meaning is used here, it is not difficult to discern a general idea of what "effeminate" means. In contemporary extrabiblical works, the word to the best of my knowledge is used exclusively, when referring to persons as in I Cor. 6:9, to refer to recipients of sodomy. It was certainly not a word that people hundreds of years later randomly (or deceitfully) decided to refer to homosexuality.

The second word is universally used in Koine Greek to refer to "a male who has intercourse with a man as with a woman" (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Ginrich 135). It refers to "one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity," whether forcibly or by consent (ibid.). If you can find documentation showing any serious dissent among Koine scholars regarding this word, I would very much like to see it.

When Paul speaks in Romans against homosexuality, there are no possible ambiguities in the language: ". . . for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (1:26-27). There really is no dissent on the meaning of the passage (although there may be with regard to its modern application).

[forevereagle]

What does any of this have to do with married couples "Boning 7 Days A Week?"

[Censored by Laurie]

Vegas has the over/under of closeted homosexuals posting scripture against homosexuality because they are so wraught with shame and denial from years of religious repression and social anxiety at 3.5.

Gonna wait this one out and see which way the line moves.

[Censored by Laurie]

What does any of this have to do with married couples "Boning 7 Days A Week?"

Proud of my new state

[GreenMachine]

Proud of my new state

definitely sausage!

[oldguystudent]

definitely sausage!

Bangers?

[Eagle1855]

Bangers?

[Quoner]

What a malakoic thing to say...

[Mean Green 93-98]

Nice one, Quoner.

Tasty, I appreciate your courteous response. You don't sound like you want to drag this out, so I won't go chasing those rabbits on women's roles in worship. I do believe the first verses of I Cor. 11 and I Cor. 14 are talking about two different scenarios.

I'm not sure I follow what you say about my using an English translation. Yes, the KJV was originally translated in 1611, and the revision commonly in use today was actually done around 1780 (I forget the exact year). But I do believe it gives an accurate translation of the passage in Romans.

The lexicon I cited (BDAG) is considered authoritative among all koine students and scholars; conservative, liberal, and downright Christ-bashing. I don't know the theological background of its editors, but it has never been accused of conservative bias to my knowledge. But I checked a few other sources I have on arsenokoitees. Mounce: "A male engaging in same-gender sexual activity, a sodomite, pedarest." Harper: "One who lies with a male, a sodomite." Strong: "A sodomite: abuser of (that defile) self with mankind." Thayer: "One who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual." This is all I really have on the word, authoritatively speaking, which I why I asked if you could refer me to a dissenting source.

As far as Paul's letters being merely correspondence, in just a couple of verses following those you reference, he says, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (14:37). That's what I honestly believe. I know in this day such a view seems "quaint" at best; more likely "naive," "gullible," or "ignorant." But if moral men wrote the Bible, they could not have claimed to be writing by inspiration if it weren't true.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Mean Green 93-98

[UNT_playmaker]

I posted this a few days ago and am shocked at the response level. I just wanted to post this so I can say the word "bone" in the thread subject....

For anyone who didnt catch it I say bone instead of whoppee...

[NT03]

I posted this a few days ago and am shocked at the response level. I just wanted to post this so I can say the word "bone" in the thread subject....

For anyone who didnt catch it I say bone instead of whoppee...

I prefer knockin the boots or bumpin the uglies!!

[oldguystudent]

mouni diving

[Eagle1855]

not to bring this thread back up (but to totally do that), here's the update on the week-long pork-a-thon (not to cheapen the union between man and woman).

[UNTFan23]

Why is it married people get to have all the fun?

[Censored by Laurie]

Why is it married people get to have all the fun?

Doesn't have to be that way...

Edited November 25, 2008 by Censored by Laurie

[yyz28]

Stirring some more...

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Again, marriage has nothing to do with religion.

If it did you'd have to go to a church to get a divorce. Marriage is contract b/w two people. Contracts are legal matters. Marriage is a legal matter, not a religious matter. Most ceremonies are religious but not exclusively. A marriage performed by a JP is just as valid as one done by a preacher.

Anyone who would make the argument that marriage isn't a religious institution is either a fool or ignorant of history. I'll assume the latter in your case - you're on here, you can't possibly be a fool.

Marriage clearly has its basis in religion, and not just Christianity, and the word Marriage does have a meaning, which shouldn't be modified simply because we don't like it or don't happen to agree with it. Too often we find ourselves willing to distort and modify language and beliefs to fit out own political views or opinions. I find this especially true among those who are in my "religious" community of those who identify themselves as Atheists or Agnostics. I, frankly, wish these people would shut the hell up and quit giving us all a bad name. Marriage DOES mean something and DOES have religious basis. Just because we've don't do a very good job of actually honoring our spouses with the promises we make in our vows, and because we've ALLOWED the government to have its claws in everything, including our relationships, doesn't mean that the basis of Marriage isn't religious.

While we're at it, let's cover a few other bases. It is NOT meant to be offensive when someone says "MERRY CHRISTMAS!!". They aren't wishing your beliefs would go away, they are simply wishing you have a good season and specifically an extra special day on December 25th. Don't get miffed, just say "thank you, you too!" and be on your F'in way. It is confusing to children to tell them they can't say "Merry Christmas" in school because it might offend someone, while shoving "tolerance" down their throats. What we're doing there is demanding the Christian kids be tolerant of others, no matter how intolerant others are of them. This is a bad and dangerous lesson.

Oh, look over there - there's that Atheist guy trying to get "Under God" removed from the Pledge. Christ on a Crutch, buddy - are you trying to make us ALL look bad?!?!? 96% of the people in this country believe in a God or a supreme being. Here's an idea - LET'S PISS 'EM ALL OFF! Yeah, that's a good strategy to get broader acceptance of our thoughts! Let's do everything we can to piss off the other 96% of the country. Let's try and pretend that the country WASN'T founded on Judeo Christian principals. Let's try and pretend that our laws and values are not based on these same principals. Let's argue that freedom OF religion REALLY means freedom FROM religion. Let's DEMAND that all historically accurate religious references in any government building or document be erased from view. Do you REALLY have to be Christian to find the Ten Commandments to be wise planks by which to live your life and on which to base a system of laws and justice?

As a former Atheist and current Agnostic (for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, an Atheist doesn't believe in ANY GOD or SUPREME BEING, an Agnostic is someone who is open to the idea, but doesn't really think any religion has got it figured out), I really wish the community of people who think like I do would STFU when it comes to religious matters and stop trying to de-religion EVERYTHING that they are faced with.

...which brings me back around to Marriage thing - Marriage, as defined by history and the institutions that created the word and its place in our society, should not be modified to fit the desires of someone who feels "left out". I'm not one of these a-holes who think gay and lesbian couples should be treated differently by the GOVERNMENT which is where the meaning of the word stops. Government isn't in the biblical or Webster's definition of the word marriage. I really have no problem with gay and lesbian couples getting all of the same benefits (and bearing the same costs) of other "married" couples in this country. ...but if you don't partner with someone of the opposite sex, you simply can't get "married" as the word's definition and history simply don't allow for it. This isn't discrimination. Newsflash: EVERYONE CAN GET MARRIED, but it must be to a member of the opposite sex to qualify. It can't be to a member of the same sex. It can't be to multiple people. It can't be to that real 'perty goat on the Sander's farm (for those of you in College Station). If you're a man, its gotta be a woman. If you're a lady, its gotta be a guy. These aren't my rules, I didn't make them up. It's very simple, if you want to take part in an institution, then you have to meet the qualifications. If not, then I wish you a happy life, I'll be right there next to you fighting for your "rights" should the government discriminate against you because of your sexuality, but leave the word and institution of marriage alone.

...now, to the REAL topic here - If I WERE a Christian, I'd be in this guy's church. Despite not attending this sermon, I like this guys' way of thinking. I've gotta go get to work.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Sure, religions all talk about marriage and they play a big part in their values, but does that mean they *are* religious. The bible talks about pork, but does that make pork religious?

Christianity defines marriage differently than Islam. Islamic marriage is different than Taoist marriages. So on and so forth. Why should our country only recognize a Christian based marriage? Simple answer is, that we don't. We recognize a legally defined marriage, which isn't religious. That isn't hard to understand. I don't know why that is offensive.

And not all marriage is defined as "man and woman" throughout history. That is just plain false.