NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't know where you got the 98% thing, but thats beside the point. I actually agree that God's laws have reasons and that its good to follow them.

I still think your main priority is spreading love and fighting sin is only secondary. But your approach to fighting sin is ineffective.

You have to ask yourself why are you protesting homosexualities? Is it really out of concern for them? I doubt that.

But lets assume it is out of concern for them. Then what? It's one thing to encourage people not to sin and another to yell at them for sinning. It just simply doesn't work. Are you going to change your mind because some stranger is yelling at you? Wouldn't it be better if someone loved you, got to know you, shared genuine concern for you?

So if you really want to help people. Befriend them (don't just pretend but actually be their friend). Then out of genuine concern (they must realize this is out of concern) you explained to them what is right and why you think it will lead to a better life. You don't demand they change. You don't force them to. You just suggest it from one friend to another. Not only that, but if they don't listen to you then as a friend you need to be there for them when there are consequences for whatever sin it may be. Don't yell at them or abandon them. Love them. That's what Christ would do. See how Jesus Christ delt with sin. I don't recall him waving picket signs in front of tax collectors and telling them they were sinners. Instead he talks to them as equals. He eats with them. He basically becomes their friends and gains their trust. And not surprisingly they are more responsive this way.
truer words never spoken! I am quite sure that their concern is for their own offended sensibilities, and the "ick factor" that we GLBT folk represent for them...rather than any genuine concern for us or our well-being!

You know, Jesus never said anything about not being circumcised, Paul did, and I agree. There is no individual salvation reason that requires circumcision. However, I bet Jesus and Paul were both circumcised and to say that it has no medical benefits (as you mentioned elsewhere, unquoted here) that the AMA does not endorce the practice then The Mayo clinic must disagree with the AMA?

Mayo Clinic's Infancy and Circumcision Advice…
Potential benefits of circumcision

Some research suggests that circumcision has health benefits, including:
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). Although the risk of UTIs in the first year is low, various studies suggest that UTIs may be as much as 10 times more common in uncircumcised baby boys than in those who are circumcised. Uncircumcised boys are also more likely to be admitted to the hospital for a severe UTI during the first three months of life. Severe UTIs early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.

Decreased risk of cancer of the penis. Although this type of cancer is very rare, circumcised men show a lower incidence of cancer of the penis than do uncircumcised men.

Slightly decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Some studies have shown a lower risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in circumcised men. Still, safe sexual practices are much more important in the prevention of STDs than is circumcision.

Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may narrow to the point where it's difficult or impossible to retract, a condition called phimosis. Circumcision may then be needed to treat the problem. A narrowed foreskin can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis (balanitis).

Ease of hygiene. Circumcision makes it easier to wash the penis. An intact foreskin, however, isn't really an obstacle to cleanliness. Normally the foreskin adheres to the end of the penis in a newborn, then gradually stretches back during early childhood. Until the foreskin retracts, all you have to do is wash your baby's genital area gently with soap and water. Later, your son can learn to gently pull the foreskin back and cleanse the tip of the penis with soap and water.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=PR00040&bucket=staged

Although it is starting to look like infant circumcision is required for the primary benefits to take place as some studies are apparently starting to show that adult (post adolescence) circumcision does not produce the same benefits…

With that in mind: Researchers have attempted to learn more about whether circumcision prevents infection and certain types of cancer, but more studies need to be done to answer some of these questions. It is known that circumcision prevents infection and inflammation of the foreskin. And it seems to decrease the risk of cancer of the penis.

Studies have shown a greater risk of cervical cancer in female sexual partners of uncircumcised men who are infected with human papillomavirus (warts). Circumcision might also have a role in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Practicing safe sex is a far more important factor in preventing these diseases than whether a man is circumcised.

Recent studies suggest that infants who are not circumcised may be more likely to develop urinary tract infections. These infections early in life may lead to kidney problems later in life. Infants who have abnormalities of the kidney or bladder are at higher risk for urinary infections, so circumcision may be advised for these babies.

Occasionally, problems can occur with the uncircumcised penis which require circumcision at an older age. These problems include inflammation of the foreskin or adherence of the foreskin to the tip of the penis. These problems occur in about 2 to 6 percent of uncircumcised males. Circumcision in infancy eliminates the possible need for the procedure at an older age.

Cleanliness: Circumcision makes it easy to keep the end of the penis clean. However, the shedding skin cells that naturally accumulate on the glans of an uncircumcised boy are not harmful. Do not force the foreskin back to clean the penis of an infant or young boy. Washing with soap and water is all that's necessary. After you son's foreskin is fully retractable, then washing under the foreskin during a bath or shower is part of good hygiene habits. The risk of penile cancer appears to be linked to personal hygiene.

Jesus did a lot of things that they considered very radical at the time, but I'd bet good money that if we saw him today he would look more like an Orthodox Jew following orthodox rules and customs and dress and prayer methodologies with the bands on the wrists and head etc., that to act like he dismissed all cultural heritage is misconstruing the facts we do know and possibly deceiving on your part.

Again, I reiterate, there is no reason to be circumcised from a Christian point of view, but neither is there reason NOT to be circumcised. Paul was mostly talking to adult uncircumcised men who had a hang-up with becoming a Christian and told them that there was no requirement for them to do it. But he also had an adult friend become circumcised because he was to travel to a town that expected circumcision…

You can bet good money that Jesus and all of the apostles were circumcised AND circumcised their male children as well (even after the resurrection)…

[/end thread hi-jack] :D

Paulians never get tired of lying. I wasn't just talking about circumcision. I pointed out that Jesus directly addressed the point that people thought things that had a tendency to cause illness like not being circumcised and like not washing your hands, like eating pork prepared a certain way, etc, were causing sickness because they were evil. Jesus said that this stuff has nothing to do with God. I quoted it. My point was obvious and clear until you snipped the part out and mislead everyone. I love how you're so quick to point out the 'sins' of others, as YOU see it, and you're sin to do it. Like being misleading. How about quoting the important parts. Misrepresenting my argument to argue against it is silly. The poster I was replying mentioned several things and I pointed out the fallacy of arguing that disease is evidence of sin. You suggested I said Jesus directly addressed circumcision and I didn't say he did. Burn, strawman, burn.

As far as the circumcision bit from the Mayo Clinic. Let's look at your rather lame points.

Although this type of cancer is very rare,
Although the risk of UTIs in the first year is low,
Slightly decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases
It is known that circumcision prevents infection and inflammation of the foreskin.
Hey, we can just start cutting things off so we can stop rare diseases. And hey, wanna stop inflamation of the foreskin from being possible, just cut it off. Notice it doesn't list the incidence of any of these things or talk about ANY of the drawbacks of getting a circumcision.

Phimosis - .6%
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/shankar1/

Cancer of the penis and cervical cancer -
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

Gellis (1978) said there are more deaths from circumcision than from cancer of the penis.8

UTI's CAUSED by circumcision - Here's the study
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/goldman/

American Academy of Pediatrics policy on circumcision -
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

UTI Incidence is around 7 per 1000 in the first year. So if you circumcised 1000 boys for this reason you would be circumcising 993 in order to prevent a easily treated infection in 7. And any following disorders are only if left untreated which is HIGHLY uncommon.

Paulians never get tired of lying.

And you never get tired of relentlessly attacking fellow Christians. You'd rather try to shame them in public and ridicule them to catch the favors of the secular world people that agree with you :rolleyes:

I wasn't just talking about circumcision.

Yes you were telling the guy that the AMA says there is no reason for circumcision AND you challenged him and essentially called him a liar because the mistake he made you accused him of doing on purpose...

I pointed out that Jesus directly addressed the point that people thought things that had a tendency to cause illness

They were talking about whether or not it defiled person, with Sin, would be a more truthful way of putting it...

I love how you're so quick to point out the 'sins' of others, as YOU see it, and you're sin to do it. Like being misleading. How about quoting the important parts. Misrepresenting my argument to argue against it is silly.

I didn't point out anyone’s sin. I never even mentioned sin. As a matter of fact I even said at the beginning and again at the end of the post that circumcision is NOT required as a religious practice by the Christian religion.


The poster I was replying mentioned several things and I pointed out the fallacy of arguing that disease is evidence of sin. You suggested I said Jesus directly addressed circumcision and I didn't say he did. Burn, strawman, burn.

You seem to be able to build very quick Strawmen all on your own with no help from me and I’m sure that there is no rule against burning the labor of your own hands... ;)

As far as the circumcision bit from the Mayo Clinic. Let's look at your rather lame points.

Not my points, the Mayo clinic's points. However, afterwards, I mentioned a few other points for clarification as well. Sorry for any confusion you may have had.


Hey, we can just start cutting things off so we can stop rare diseases. And hey, wanna stop inflamation of the foreskin from being possible, just cut it off. Notice it doesn't list the incidence of any of these things or talk about ANY of the drawbacks of getting a circumcision.

Sure, we cut out tonsils to avoid ear infections, we cut off the Appendix whenever we are performing surgery in the area anyway to avoid appendicitis, things like that happen all the time, I don’t see the problem.


*snipped medical percentages etc.,*

So don't get it done, problem solved. I didn't say you needed to do it, nor did I say you should do it to your son. I only pointed out that the Jewish and Early Christians did indeed practice it even after Christ, and that they agreed you didn't need to do it.

But you also tried to convey the medical world as having a single negative opinion about it, and I helped you understand your misconception on the matter because I’m sure you are like me in being the kind of persons that we are in that we would like to be ‘right’ rather than just ‘win’ an online argument, next time you’ll be better prepared...

You're welcome.

A few questions to all my brothers and sisters in Christ;

Where have we went wrong? How did we let the world get so bad? Why have we let the church become part intertwined witht the flesh? We need to figure out soon and revive the church in the name Of the Lord our Saviour :)

Christ himself asked these questions, except he probably asked when we let the synagogue get so corrupted.

Since he didn't find the answer, how can we mere mortals?

Christ himself asked these questions, except he probably asked when we let the synagogue get so corrupted.

Since he didn't find the answer, how can we mere mortals?

No one can argue with your analyses, it's right on. But neither should we be discouraged.

We should aim for realistic expectations of achievement as we strive to ever improve ourselves as individuals and our churches in our communities. The garden will always be just a dirty old garden, but it would be an over-run and useless muck if we never pull the weeds, till the soil and didn’t water it regularly.
:)

And you never get tired of relentlessly attacking fellow Christians. You'd rather try to shame them in public and ridicule them to catch the favors of the secular world people that agree with you :rolleyes:

I attack hypocrites. I attack people who trump Christ's word with the words of a man. I attack people who are intentionally deceptive about the wrod of God. You know, like people who cut the meat out of a post and then argue against the fact that the post was vegetarian. When you stop doing things like that, I think you'll find much more agreeable. However, so long as you choose to follow me from thread to thread preaching against the message of Christ I will continue to correct you and call you on your deception.

Yes you were telling the guy that the AMA says there is no reason for circumcision AND you challenged him and essentially called him a liar because the mistake he made you accused him of doing on purpose...

I don't think it's possible to not understand the implications of 98% cancer rate.

They were talking about whether or not it defiled person, with Sin, would be a more truthful way of putting it...

Ah, so it's a good thing that I did put it that way. More specifically I said -
[/b]He [Jesus] pointed out that what was unclean on earth (what caused disease) had nothing to do with what makes us unclean to God. Matthew 15.
Oh, wait I didn't use the words defiled or Sin, but then neither did Jesus and you managed to get the drift.

I didn't point out anyone’s sin. I never even mentioned sin. As a matter of fact I even said at the beginning and again at the end of the post that circumcision is NOT required as a religious practice by the Christian religion.

So, you've never pointed out anyone's sin or we going to pretend like you've never made another post on this forum and I've never read any of those posts? I corrected you on what my post actually said before you editted it in a deceptive way then I told you to address the plank in your eye.

You seem to be able to build very quick Strawmen all on your own with no help from me and I’m sure that there is no rule against burning the labor of your own hands... ;)

So you are suggesting you DIDN'T misrepresent my post. Let's see if that's true.
*snip*
You know who didn't agree with your argument? Jesus. He pointed out that what was unclean on earth (what caused disease) had nothing to do with what makes us unclean to God. Matthew 15. Learn it, love it, live it and stop arguing against it.

You know, Jesus never said anything about not being circumcised, Paul did, and I agree. There is no individual salvation reason that requires circumcision. However, I bet Jesus and Paul were both circumcised and to say that it has no medical benefits (as you mentioned elsewhere, unquoted here) that the AMA does not endorce the practice then The Mayo clinic must disagree with the AMA?

The actual original post point out that men though several things that at the time caused disease were proof that they were sinful. The important part you cut out follows -

And the fact that most of "God's laws" coincide with man's needs actually negates the argument that they are divine rather than just laws made by men. Men thought that disease was evil so things that made you sick, like pork, like not being circumcised (back then, not now), like washing your hands, etc.

I was responding the poster's original point not just talking about circumcision. You cut out the meat of the post to make it appear like it said something else. That's a strawman if I ever saw it.

Not my points, the Mayo clinic's points. However, afterwards, I mentioned a few other points for clarification as well. Sorry for any confusion you may have had.

And Mayo Clinic actually doesn't make its points very clearly since it actually takes no real stance and doesn't educate parents on the actual incidence of those illnesses. And when you post things I assume you believe them to be true, unless of course you'll just post anything that argues against me.

Sure, we cut out tonsils to avoid ear infections, we cut off the Appendix whenever we are performing surgery in the area anyway to avoid appendicitis, things like that happen all the time, I don’t see the problem.

Do we do those things at birth? No. Do you know why we don't? Because if we did we would be needlessly performing surgery on millions of children that would have no reason to have those surgeries simply to keep a small percentage of them from having those diseases.

I'm not against circumcising a penis where the foreskin has become a problem, but performing surgery on 1000 children to prevent a easily cured disease in 7 of them doesn't make any sense. I suppose if it did we would remove the appendix and tonsils(generally also the adnoids) at birth as well.

And to be more truthful we cut off the Appendix to address appencitis. They are removing a healthy appendix.

So don't get it done, problem solved. I didn't say you needed to do it, nor did I say you should do it to your son. I only pointed out that the Jewish and Early Christians did indeed practice it even after Christ, and that they agreed you didn't need to do it.

I wasn't given that option. People decieved my parents by making them think that circumcision is necessary for medical reasons like the original poster was doing on this forum. None of the arguments my parents heard were as ridiculous as circumcision prevents a 98% likelihood of cancer of the penis, but deceptive none-the-less.

I will continue to fight to allow you boys to have the choice of undergoing ritual male genital mutilation, so, as you stated THEY will get to decide to have it done.

But you also tried to convey the medical world as having a single negative opinion about it, and I helped you understand your misconception on the matter because I’m sure you are like me in being the kind of persons that we are in that we would like to be ‘right’ rather than just ‘win’ an online argument, next time you’ll be better prepared...

The medical community is not of a singular mind and if you can show where I said that it was, I would be happy to retract the statement. What I actually implied was that routine circumcision for medical benefits is no longer generally accepted by the medical community and I actually posted a link to it when you questioned me on it. I was happy to help you understand your misconceptions on the matter. It was fun teaching that it is actually a barbaric religious practice that somehow made into the mainstream and that will be defended by individuals such as yourself without actually displaying any real information, like the importance of showing the incidence of the diseases it has a small chance of preventing. Anything less than that is an incomplete post at best and a deceptive post at worst. I'm relatively certain that yours was both.

I love that you post an incomplete post and I post the information that it is missing and then you suggest that I was unprepared. I love that you claim to not support the evidence that you presented("Not my points, the Mayo clinic's points.") and you claim that it is ME that posts simply to win rather than be right. But again, I like it when your true nature comes out so continue to follow me around the threads and show it off. Hopefully, you'll continue to do so.

You're welcome.

Actually, I do appreciate your post. Anytime I get a chance to show people true nature who teachings the word of Christ or claims to I think it is a benefit, whether you truly behave as a Christian or no. That way they can weigh that into their message. That's why I think how we personally live is more imporant than telling others how to live, something you call 'being an enabler'.

May I present a possible hypothesis here?
I think, perhaps, what the 98% referred to is perhaps those who are uncircumcised have a 98% greater risk of contracting penile cancer than those who have been circumcised...meaning that an uncircumcised man is nearly twice as likely as a circumcised man of contracting this very rare cancer.

I think it was worded badly, and possibly thus the statistic may have been misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

If my words are true, then this is the end result...

Say that 1 in a million circumcised men will contract penile cancer (and it probably isn't even that high, but let's just use this for easy figures.)
That means that 1 in 500,000 (or just TWO in a million) uncircumcised men will contract penile cancer.

I think THAT puts the 98% figure into the proper perspective, and probably also into the context originally intended, yet poorly worded.

May I present a possible hypothesis here?
I think, perhaps, what the 98% referred to is perhaps those who are uncircumcised have a 98% greater risk of contracting penile cancer than those who have been circumcised...meaning that an uncircumcised man is nearly twice as likely as a circumcised man of contracting this very rare cancer.

I think it was worded badly, and possibly thus the statistic may have been misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

If my words are true, then this is the end result...

Say that 1 in a million circumcised men will contract penile cancer (and it probably isn't even that high, but let's just use this for easy figures.)
That means that 1 in 500,000 (or just TWO in a million) uncircumcised men will contract penile cancer.

I think THAT puts the 98% figure into the proper perspective, and probably also into the context originally intended, yet poorly worded.


Lyric, really now, you are supposed to be on Jacobia's side. Now you're just going to get him all riled up about circumcision statistics again and here he just finished his great big post of trying to call me names without using names, again. :D

May I present a possible hypothesis here?
I think, perhaps, what the 98% referred to is perhaps those who are uncircumcised have a 98% greater risk of contracting penile cancer than those who have been circumcised...meaning that an uncircumcised man is nearly twice as likely as a circumcised man of contracting this very rare cancer.

I think it was worded badly, and possibly thus the statistic may have been misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

If my words are true, then this is the end result...

Say that 1 in a million circumcised men will contract penile cancer (and it probably isn't even that high, but let's just use this for easy figures.)
That means that 1 in 500,000 (or just TWO in a million) uncircumcised men will contract penile cancer.

I think THAT puts the 98% figure into the proper perspective, and probably also into the context originally intended, yet poorly worded.
"Did you know that those not circumcised have like a 98% chance of getting cancer in the penis?"

I qppreciate the attempt to understand the person who posted the above but more likely it was he who misunderstood a statistic that was similar to what you were saying. What he said however was that men have a 98% chance of getting cancer if they are uncircumcised. That's not a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of what he posted. It's what he posted.

Lyric, really now, you are supposed to be on Jacobia's side. Now you're just going to get him all riled up about circumcision statistics again and here he just finished his great big post of trying to call me names without using names, again. :D

Getting back on topic -

I know you think calling yourself Christian earns yourself some kind of pass, but as long as you think attacking me because I want Christians to be more Christian and less aggressively judgemental and not attacking those that make people spit the word Christian out like a swear word, you do more damage to Christians and Christianity than you realize. I know it upsets you, but I simply will not tell people what God thinks is right and what God thinks is wrong unless it was written explicitly in the word's of Jesus. I tell people to open their hearts to Jesus and let him tell them what is right or wrong for them in their life. You call that enabling sin. I call what you do enabling this -
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Christians are known for hate and intolerance and you find a Christian who simply will not judge others to be the problem. The fact that you find me a priority says more about you than it does about me. So continue your attacks on me. But if you do so can you please not use the word Christian, because it just continues to reinforce the stereotype.

To the originator - Until Christians stand up against the vocal majority of Christians that take rights and oppress and attack and condone hate and violence then you will find that it will difficult for the church as a whole to improve in the view of many Christians and non-Christians alike.

I know you think calling yourself Christian earns yourself some kind of pass, but as long as you think attacking me because I want Christians to be more Christian and less aggressively judgemental and not attacking those that make people spit the word Christian out like a swear word, you do more damage to Christians and Christianity than you realize. I know it upsets you, but I simply will not tell people what God thinks is right and what God thinks is wrong unless it was written explicitly in the word's of Jesus. I tell people to open their hearts to Jesus and let him tell them what is right or wrong for them in their life. You call that enabling sin. I call what you do enabling this -
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Christians are known for hate and intolerance and you find a Christian who simply will not judge others to be the problem. The fact that you find me a priority says more about you than it does about me. So continue your attacks on me. But if you do so can you please not use the word Christian, because it just continues to reinforce the stereotype.


Gee, that whole post doesn't make it look you judge people at all now does it... :rolleyes:

Gee, that whole post doesn't make it look you judge people at all now does it... :rolleyes:

I'm not judging them spiritually, I'm judging as people who spread hate in the name of Jesus Christ. I'm judging them in human terms. As far as right or wrong, it is not my charge to address such things. My problem with them is not as a Spiritual agent but as a Rational agent.

It's sad that you as a rational agent would not condemn their message. Your immediate response to reading the link is to condemn me. Says something doesn't it.

Can't allow tolerance, it's more important to condone this -
At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

And yes, if you don't speak out against it, particularly when I brought it to you, you condone it.

The End of the Age is at hand. Never since the birth, death and subsequent resurection of Christ have Biblical prophesies been fulfilled than the Apocolyptical prophesies are being fulfilled now.


Something I agree with

Christ himself asked these questions, except he probably asked when we let the synagogue get so corrupted.

Since he didn't find the answer, how can we mere mortals?


He knew the solution to solving the problem and thats part of the reason He died a gruesome death on the cross.

"Did you know that those not circumcised have like a 98% chance of getting cancer in the penis?"

I qppreciate the attempt to understand the person who posted the above but more likely it was he who misunderstood a statistic that was similar to what you were saying. What he said however was that men have a 98% chance of getting cancer if they are uncircumcised. That's not a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of what he posted. It's what he posted.

I know. I suspect someone...whoever the hell it was...who originally posted that...misunderstood the statistic....or possibly worded it badly when he posted it, so it looked like something it wasn't...whether intentional or not, I have no way of knowing.

At any rate, if there was any truth to the notion that 98 percent of uncircumcised men would get penile cancer, believe me, there would be a major backlog at day-surgery centers immediately, as men RAN to the surgery centers to get themselves circumcised.

I mean...I may not understand it, but I DO know that men put an inordinate value on what I always considered a birth defect, and I got rid of mine in a surgical procedure under general anasthesia...but, I guess I can relate in terms that I'd go bonkers if I got breast cancer.

I would because it is disfiguring to a woman. Somehow, (and I know Jocabia will hate me for saying this, even though there seems to be truth in it) I believe men think that their IQ and their manliness is somehow attached to the penis. God knows, I constantly get treated as if I'd lost fifty IQ points by men who once respected me, but, no longer do, now that I'm a woman. And I am speaking from my own personal experience, so, before you jump, Jocabia, realize that I am speaking FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and not necessarily about ALL MEN, since I have never met all men, I can't know about them. Just the ones I have encountered. And they all really DO seem to think that loss of penis goes hand-in-hand with a 50-point IQ drop. In fact, I think most men would prefer to take a 50-point IQ drop than lose their penis.

Getting back on topic -

I know you think calling yourself Christian earns yourself some kind of pass, but as long as you think attacking me because I want Christians to be more Christian and less aggressively judgemental and not attacking those that make people spit the word Christian out like a swear word, you do more damage to Christians and Christianity than you realize. I know it upsets you, but I simply will not tell people what God thinks is right and what God thinks is wrong unless it was written explicitly in the word's of Jesus. I tell people to open their hearts to Jesus and let him tell them what is right or wrong for them in their life. You call that enabling sin. I call what you do enabling this -
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Christians are known for hate and intolerance and you find a Christian who simply will not judge others to be the problem. The fact that you find me a priority says more about you than it does about me. So continue your attacks on me. But if you do so can you please not use the word Christian, because it just continues to reinforce the stereotype.

To the originator - Until Christians stand up against the vocal majority of Christians that take rights and oppress and attack and condone hate and violence then you will find that it will difficult for the church as a whole to improve in the view of many Christians and non-Christians alike.


I have to agree. In 1998, according to Lee Strobel, (who, by the way, is very much a Christian apologist,) in a 1998 word-association study at an East Coast university, fully 73 percent of the respondents associated the word "Christian" with the word "intolerant." Ph33rdom, you got your work cut out for you, Jocabia is right...many people DO spit out the word Christian as if it is a swear word, and, quite frankly, I think they have good reason to.

After all the vocal social regressives in the neo-Christian movement have given Christianity two black eyes and a bloody nose.

I'm not judging them spiritually, I'm judging as people who spread hate in the name of Jesus Christ. I'm judging them in human terms. As far as right or wrong, it is not my charge to address such things. My problem with them is not as a Spiritual agent but as a Rational agent.

It's sad that you as a rational agent would not condemn their message. Your immediate response to reading the link is to condemn me. Says something doesn't it.

Can't allow tolerance, it's more important to condone this -
At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

And yes, if you don't speak out against it, particularly when I brought it to you, you condone it.


Yep. Good ol' Paul Cameron. I know my enemy well. Pat Robertson also advocated for "the summary rounding up and execution of all gays" in his 1988 book. And, by extension, I'm sure he also meant the extermination of all lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders. How can we NOT hate people who want us dead, and have clearly stated so, and for the record?

How could we NOT spit out the word "Christian" as if it were a swear word...when that is basically the only image of Christianity most of us are ever shown?

Me, I'm a Christian only because I was shown something else. Something most would not believe if I told them. And it matters not, because I believe. But, I am a Unitarian Christian. I wish to separate and distance myself from the mainstream Christianity, because I think the mainstream Christianity has acquired a rotten name for itself...at the hands of social regressives who use Christianity as an excuse to carry out their own, personal, bloody hatred of people different than they are (and, maybe not even so different - I think WE threaten them, because, deep down, they think that they might be like us.)

I know. I suspect someone...whoever the hell it was...who originally posted that...misunderstood the statistic....or possibly worded it badly when he posted it, so it looked like something it wasn't...whether intentional or not, I have no way of knowing.

At any rate, if there was any truth to the notion that 98 percent of uncircumcised men would get penile cancer, believe me, there would be a major backlog at day-surgery centers immediately, as men RAN to the surgery centers to get themselves circumcised.

I mean...I may not understand it, but I DO know that men put an inordinate value on what I always considered a birth defect, and I got rid of mine in a surgical procedure under general anasthesia...but, I guess I can relate in terms that I'd go bonkers if I got breast cancer.

I would because it is disfiguring to a woman. Somehow, (and I know Jocabia will hate me for saying this, even though there seems to be truth in it) I believe men think that their IQ and their manliness is somehow attached to the penis. God knows, I constantly get treated as if I'd lost fifty IQ points by men who once respected me, but, no longer do, now that I'm a woman. And I am speaking from my own personal experience, so, before you jump, Jocabia, realize that I am speaking FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and not necessarily about ALL MEN, since I have never met all men, I can't know about them. Just the ones I have encountered. And they all really DO seem to think that loss of penis goes hand-in-hand with a 50-point IQ drop. In fact, I think most men would prefer to take a 50-point IQ drop than lose their penis.

Since you mentioned my name like eighty times I'll say that I actually enjoyed reading that post. I almost wish I could say the IQ drop people are putting on you is because of chauvanism as opposed to bigotry towards transgenders, but I suspect it's bigorty. Chauvanism isn't any better really, but wouldn't be nice if once people actually treated you like a woman since you are one. I'd say that the majority of men that consider women inferior are inferior to most women and thus have to somewhere in their brains dismiss women as a whole. Much like the post above where you mentioned how many of the people who would oppress you fear having something in common with you, or worse (in their minds) might be inferior to you.

Wow....You guys are STILL going at it...amazing LOL

Wow....You guys are STILL going at it...amazing LOL

Actually, once you left and stopped making up statistics and ignoring canonical writings in order to support your condemnation of others, we've been having a very civil conversation. But thanks for not adding anything to the discussion.

Whew, that was a loooong read... As for my views, I think we need to look at ourselves. We need to, as has been mentioned by others in this thread, stop putting stumbling blocks in the way of others, we need to stop ostracising others for their sins.

Yes, we need to point them out in a friendly manner (after all, if one does not know they have sinned, how can they correct it?) but we also need to not be constantly on people's backs. I find that an occasional reminder helps (occasional meaning no more than once a month) to keep things fresh in the other party's mind. If they tell you to stop, stop.

I KNOW I've made mistakes. In fact, I'll fess up right here: I keep falling over on pr0n. I'm not perfect. I falter, but I stand again. I may be having troubles right now, but by goodness, I will not let this defeat me! This is one of the things that lacks in the people of the Church today: a desire to follow God's TRUE ways.

One of the things we need to do is be humble (this being an art which seems to be sadly disappearing from the world). I know that I personally want to be responsible for significant change in this world, but I know that I have to start with the small steps first. I strugge, by heavens, do I.

But I was not born to give up - I tell you, no matter how many times I fall down, I refuse to not get up. I do not swear. No matter how annoyed at my brother I get. I do need to deal with the shouting, but I'm working on it.

I have not spoken a swearword in years that has not come out by accident.

To the person who asked about what was wrong with the "flesh". The term "flesh" is a Christian byword that means human desires (sex before marriage, etc).

And for the record, one of my good mates is a homosexual, and I appreciate him for who he is - it is his choice, and I can NOT force him to turn (though I do suggest it from time to time - in a friendly way of course).

Finally, one thing I find helps in the Christian walk is personal accountability - support your fellow Christian! In fact, we all need to stand together, not divided, and then, if there are any false denominations, they shall be found out of their own volition.

Whew, that was a loooong read... As for my views, I think we need to look at ourselves. We need to, as has been mentioned by others in this thread, stop putting stumbling blocks in the way of others, we need to stop ostracising others for their sins.

Yes, we need to point them out in a friendly manner (after all, if one does not know they have sinned, how can they correct it?) but we also need to not be constantly on people's backs. I find that an occasional reminder helps (occasional meaning no more than once a month) to keep things fresh in the other party's mind. If they tell you to stop, stop.

I KNOW I've made mistakes. In fact, I'll fess up right here: I keep falling over on pr0n. I'm not perfect. I falter, but I stand again. I may be having troubles right now, but by goodness, I will not let this defeat me! This is one of the things that lacks in the people of the Church today: a desire to follow God's TRUE ways.

One of the things we need to do is be humble (this being an art which seems to be sadly disappearing from the world). I know that I personally want to be responsible for significant change in this world, but I know that I have to start with the small steps first. I strugge, by heavens, do I.

But I was not born to give up - I tell you, no matter how many times I fall down, I refuse to not get up. I do not swear. No matter how annoyed at my brother I get. I do need to deal with the shouting, but I'm working on it.

I have not spoken a swearword in years that has not come out by accident.

To the person who asked about what was wrong with the "flesh". The term "flesh" is a Christian byword that means human desires (sex before marriage, etc).

And for the record, one of my good mates is a homosexual, and I appreciate him for who he is - it is his choice, and I can NOT force him to turn (though I do suggest it from time to time - in a friendly way of course).

Finally, one thing I find helps in the Christian walk is personal accountability - support your fellow Christian! In fact, we all need to stand together, not divided, and then, if there are any false denominations, they shall be found out of their own volition.

I agree with most of your post and I particularly agree with the style of your post. A couple of things, I stand by all of my brothers and I do not condone hatred and thus will not support a person who uses Christianity as an excuse for hatred and bigotry any more than I would support a Muslim or an Atheist for the same things. I choose the people I unite with and I choose them based on whether their actions are good or bad from a human perspective. I leave God-stuff to God. I do not decide what is or is not sin and I do not agree that much of what people call sin is clearly defined in the Bible. I lead people to Christ and let Christ lead them to the life He wishes for them.

For example, can you show me where the Bible condemns sex before marriage rather than sleeping with another person's spouse, cheating on your spouse or prostitution?

For example, can you show me where the Bible condemns sex before marriage rather than sleeping with another person's spouse, cheating on your spouse or prostitution?


Merriam Webster: Fornication ~ consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.

And your own favorite verse says as much…

Matthew 15 18-19

But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

Merriam Webster: Fornication ~ consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.

And your own favorite verse says as much…

Matthew 15 18-19

But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

Um, since the word fornication has changed meaning and it didn't mean that when it was originally chosen I would think you would want to use the original meaning, the meaning that was meant when they first used fornication in the texts. Do you know the origin of the word fornication? Do you know that the change in the meaning of fornication is most likely as a result of the change in the meaning of the Bible quotes as Christians evolved that meaning? Here, I'll help. The term originally derived from a place called a fornix, an archway, where prostitutes offered their services. Fornication referred to the acts of prostitutes where money changes hands. It has nothing to do with acts of love between people who are not yet married. As people started to associate promiscuity with whores the term became more general and eventually became the term for all sex outside of marriage. Want support of this from the Bible?

1 Corinthians 6 - 13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Basically he talks about fornication and while talking about it, without changing the subject, he talks of the person one commits fornication with, a prostitute.

The term has evolved in our language much like whore has, but it is clear that both terms when they originate ONLY referred to prostitutes.

Next.

Oh, and I have several favorite versuses ha, that's a ridiculous misspelling and that is not one of them. My favorite verse is where Jesus, himself, sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

That also happens to be my favorite chapter.

The term has evolved in our language much like whore has, but it is clear that both terms when they originate ONLY referred to prostitutes.



You are attacking the meaning of the wrong word when you refer to the ‘root’ heritage of the word Fornication. The meaning of the greek word translated as fornication in the NT is often found in a lists of other vices. Frequently, however, fornication is not the only word in those lists that refers to sexual deviations.

In the long list of vices in Mt 15:19 and in Mk 7:21-22, Jesus mentions adultery (moicheia) and (porneia).

Quite often the apostle Paul uses similar enumerations. In 1Cor 6:9-10 “fornicators,” “idolaters,” “adulterers,” “effeminate,” “homosexuals” and others are referred to. Twice fornication is found next to impurity (akarthasia)––Eph 5:3,5 Col 3:5 and twice next to impurity and sensuality (aselgeia) – 2Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19.

In the list of 1Tim 1:9-10, again fornicators and arsenokoitai are mentioned. The latter term is translated “sodomites” by the NRSV and “homosexuals” by the NASB.

Thus, in these lists of vices fornication is distinguished from adultery, impurity, and homosexuality and may not include these other sexual deviations. The two lists in 1Cor 5:9-11 use only one sexual term, namely porneia. Certainly, the context of incest is very important, but probably porneia is used here in a wider sense including all sexual vices, especially since Paul’s admonition was already given in a previous letter to the Corinthians before the case of 5:1 was known to Paul.

The Book of Revelation contains three lists of vices in 9:21; 21:8; and 22:15 in which the word family -porn- occurs. Probably, the terms in these lists, especially those in Rev 21 and 22, must be understood literally. Only one sexual deviation is named among all the other sins and that is fornication. It seems that in these cases fornication is a broad term including all other sexual evils, because other terms pointing to sexual misconduct are absent.

The word -porn- in extra-biblical Greek literature, in the OT, and in the NT, in all sources, porneia, and the related terms refer to sexual acts only. Though the OT favors the figurative sense and the NT the literal meaning, the different aspects of porneia are found in both testaments. Yes they include prostitution, premarital sexual relations, adultery, incest, and homosexuality, in short, sexual relations outside of the marriage en mass, et al. Thus the modern understanding of fornication is the proper meaning of the original intent of the word it translates, -porneia. In scripture fornication/porneia is a broad term describing all kinds of sexual aberrations, but it can also be used in a more restricted sense as you said but more often it is used to refer to illicit sexual acts outside of the marriage relationship, that is, between persons not married to each other.

Perhaps it is time we look up the meaning of the word licentiousness…

You are attacking the meaning of the wrong word when you refer to the ‘root’ heritage of the word Fornication. The meaning of the greek word translated as fornication in the NT is often found in a lists of other vices. Frequently, however, fornication is not the only word in those lists that refers to sexual deviations.

In the long list of vices in Mt 15:19 and in Mk 7:21-22, Jesus mentions adultery (moicheia) and (porneia).

Quite often the apostle Paul uses similar enumerations. In 1Cor 6:9-10 “fornicators,” “idolaters,” “adulterers,” “effeminate,” “homosexuals” and others are referred to. Twice fornication is found next to impurity (akarthasia)––Eph 5:3,5 Col 3:5 and twice next to impurity and sensuality (aselgeia) – 2Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19.

In the list of 1Tim 1:9-10, again fornicators and arsenokoitai are mentioned. The latter term is translated “sodomites” by the NRSV and “homosexuals” by the NASB.

Thus, in these lists of vices fornication is distinguished from adultery, impurity, and homosexuality and may not include these other sexual deviations. The two lists in 1Cor 5:9-11 use only one sexual term, namely porneia. Certainly, the context of incest is very important, but probably porneia is used here in a wider sense including all sexual vices, especially since Paul’s admonition was already given in a previous letter to the Corinthians before the case of 5:1 was known to Paul.

The Book of Revelation contains three lists of vices in 9:21; 21:8; and 22:15 in which the word family -porn- occurs. Probably, the terms in these lists, especially those in Rev 21 and 22, must be understood literally. Only one sexual deviation is named among all the other sins and that is fornication. It seems that in these cases fornication is a broad term including all other sexual evils, because other terms pointing to sexual misconduct are absent.

The word -porn- in extra-biblical Greek literature, in the OT, and in the NT, in all sources, porneia, and the related terms refer to sexual acts only. Though the OT favors the figurative sense and the NT the literal meaning, the different aspects of porneia are found in both testaments. Yes they include prostitution, premarital sexual relations, adultery, incest, and homosexuality, in short, sexual relations outside of the marriage en mass, et al. Thus the modern understanding of fornication is the proper meaning of the original intent of the word it translates, -porneia. In scripture fornication/porneia is a broad term describing all kinds of sexual aberrations, but it can also be used in a more restricted sense as you said but more often it is used to refer to illicit sexual acts outside of the marriage relationship, that is, between persons not married to each other.

Perhaps it is time we look up the meaning of the word licentiousness…

Actually, the enumerated sexual acts that in almost every case were related to acts that affect someone who can't consent, didn't consent or was paid to consent. There is a lot of translators that believe that homosexuality in the translations was meant to mean sex with male prostitutes (by men as the passages are clearly directed at men). As you pointed out fornication does relate to prostitution and was meant to. Premarital was never an assumed part of any of the words you listed, until people decided it meant that. Extramarital is obviously a part of adultery (which many assume to mean all sex acts too). And in an extramarital act, the other party is damaged by the act as they have not consented to someone sleeping with their wife. Why do I only say wife, because as you know generally it only directs people not to sleep with the wives of other men. It is rare that there is any such consideration afforded to wives and there are even some stories in the Bible where men take more than one wife.

The only way one finds premarital in the Bible is if one ASSUMES it should be there. Even when one mentions the 'sexual evils' the only way someone can get to some of them is to decide they're there. Most of what you would call sexual evils is never outlined as such in the Bible or even implied. The only sexual evil anyone can find stated by Jesus is prostitution and extramarital sex.

Perhaps it's time you answer the question "what's the penalty for making up God's law just because you want it to be God's law so you can condemn people and ignore Matthew 7 altogether?"

Perhaps it's time you answer the question "what's the penalty for making up God's law just because you want it to be God's law so you can condemn people and ignore Matthew 7 altogether?"


LOL :p That's funny. You're the one that is trying desperately to convince us to change the very meanings of the words themselves, both the meaning of the Greek and English words to fit your meanings, and yet, you accuse me of being the one that's trying to change the law? :p


According to your definition, unmarried people can't sin via sex unless they pay for it or do it with a married person :rolleyes: How's that working out for ya? Get many to fall for it?

I went ahead and confirmed the following for anyone that might be tempted to think that Fornication ONLY means prostitution… Some words translated in the NT as Fornication…

Porneia
1. illicit sexual intercourse
a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b. sexual intercourse with close relatives;
c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2. metaphorical. the worship of idols
a. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

Used 25 times in the NAS: fornication 4, fornications 2, immoralities 1, immorality 16, sexual immorality 1, unchastity 1

(Mt 15:19 Joh 8:41 and as you so convienently ignored: 1Co 7:2 But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. ~ instead of have sexual relations outside of marriage)

Porneuo
1. to prostitute one's body to the lust of another
2. to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse
a. to commit fornication
3. metaph. to be given to idolatry, to worship idols
a. to permit one's self to be drawn away by another into idolatry

Used 8 times in the NAS: act immorally 1, commit...immorality 2, committed...immorality 3, did 1, immoral 1
(1Co 6:18 1Co 10:8 for example)

Porne
1. a woman who sells her body for sexual uses
a. a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain
b. any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust
2. metaph. an idolatress
a. of "Babylon" i.e. Rome, the chief seat of idolatry

Used 12 times in the NAS: harlot 6, harlots 1, prostitute 2, prostitutes 3
(Mt 21:31 Mt 21:32 for example)

I went ahead and confirmed the following for anyone that might be tempted to think that Fornication ONLY means prostitution… Some words translated in the NT as Fornication…

Porneia
1. illicit sexual intercourse
a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b. sexual intercourse with close relatives;
c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2. metaphorical. the worship of idols
a. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

Used 25 times in the NAS: fornication 4, fornications 2, immoralities 1, immorality 16, sexual immorality 1, unchastity 1

(Mt 15:19 Joh 8:41 and as you so convienently ignored: 1Co 7:2 But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. ~ instead of have sexual relations outside of marriage)

Porneuo
1. to prostitute one's body to the lust of another
2. to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse
a. to commit fornication
3. metaph. to be given to idolatry, to worship idols
a. to permit one's self to be drawn away by another into idolatry

Used 8 times in the NAS: act immorally 1, commit...immorality 2, committed...immorality 3, did 1, immoral 1
(1Co 6:18 1Co 10:8 for example)

Porne
1. a woman who sells her body for sexual uses
a. a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain
b. any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust
2. metaph. an idolatress
a. of "Babylon" i.e. Rome, the chief seat of idolatry

Used 12 times in the NAS: harlot 6, harlots 1, prostitute 2, prostitutes 3
(Mt 21:31 Mt 21:32 for example)

Source? Other than what you want it to mean?

Isn't that lucky? That there is this word in Greek from nearly two thousand years ago that just so happens to embody all these different meanings that aren't directly related, but just so happen to mean what we say fornication means today even though the translation several hundred years ago used exactly the same term - fornication - and back then it only referred to prostitution. And then magically the term fornication evolved to mean exactly the same term it replaced. How convenient?

Or maybe fornication and porneia/porneuo meant the same thing when they originally translated and used the word fornication and this is why they used it. You do realize the KJV is over 400 years old and from before the term evolved to its current use. Otherwise it would be strange that they intentionally mistranslated the Bible to confuse people back then, just because they could foresee that it would change to have the meaning they wanted it to have.

LOL :p That's funny. You're the one that is trying desperately to convince us to change the very meanings of the words themselves, both the meaning of the Greek and English words to fit your meanings, and yet, you accuse me of being the one that's trying to change the law? :p


According to your definition, unmarried people can't sin via sex unless they pay for it or do it with a married person :rolleyes: How's that working out for ya? Get many to fall for it?

Really? So are you suggesting that the English word didn't evolve to mean something completely different from when it was first used in the translation to mean only prostitutes? Did the meaning of the text change since then or are you suggesting it was wrong at one point and it just happened to evolve into the correct term?

And according to the correct definition of the word when the text was written, sexual acts that have the potential to be hurtful to individuals either because coercion (a person is poor and has to have sex to earn enough money to survive), others outside the act are affected (extramarital), children could be damaged (incest), etc. This just happens to coincide with the words of Jesus about the sum of the Law and the Prophets and the words of Paul about being kind to your neighbor. How interesting that mine actually presents a consistent message and well yours requires a lot of reworking of the words themselves.

I think that you guys got lost in swamps that don't fit the problem.

The problem is in the human nature and in the Nature itself.

We are the only terrestrial form of life that thinks at itself.

And this can be a useful process, when we think about our life and choose a fate, and don't wake up in the morning only to eat and fuck (that are, indeed, the most natural activities that every human can do, with sleeping)

But can be also a dangerous process, when we see that no other form of life seems to be smart as we do. So we start wondering why, when, where, what, but if ...
And, unable to give a better reply to the questions, we invent one or more gods, shaped on humans, that think in human way to think:
GOOD OR EVIL

Good and evil are the simplest concepts we can imagine.
And so unnatural.
When a cat catches a mouse, who can say what is good and what is evil?
By the cat's point of view is good, by the mouse's it's evil.

Every fact can be reduced to these 2 concepts, depending of the points of view, but both will fail in the try to describe the fact itself exactly.

This happens only because of one reason.
Good and evil don't exist except that in our minds.

Like God.

If you believe that we come from a creation (Adam and Eva) please, stop reading this post, go to the first church you find, say 30 Pater Noster, give 10$ to the priest for the poors, wash your eyes with salty water, and your soul will be saved.

If you believe that we come from monkeys, and monkeys came from marsupials, and marsupials came from reptiles, and reptiles from anphibians, and anphibians from fishes, and fishes from lobsters, and lobsters from bacteria, and bacteria from proteins, and proteins from the minerals in water .............

If you believe in evolution (that means, pretty CASUAL continuous attempt, 99,99% of times failed) then you don't need any god.

Nature is the god, and it's law is only one, electromagnetical attraction.

When you will die, your soul, that does not exist in the way you think at it, will dissolve, and the athoms will return casual part of the evolution.

Nature has made sex nice not for us to enjoy it, but to preserve the specie.
Passively: the monkeys that didn't proove pleasure having sex, would not propagate this character and died without sons.
This is an attempt that failed.
When you desire a new car, you desire it because, at the end, lets you take an advantage against competitors.
Competitors on food, power, and then women. To propagate you seed.

That's all.

Nature does not want to know what you do in your life. Nature is not interested if you live or die. Nature made you different from everyone, just casually. Just to see if it works.

Don't waste your life thinking about what's there after. We have so few time.

Best regards

Felix

And according to the correct definition of the word when the text was written, sexual acts that have the potential to be hurtful to individuals either because coercion (a person is poor and has to have sex to earn enough money to survive), others outside the act are affected (extramarital), children could be damaged (incest), etc. This just happens to coincide with the words of Jesus about the sum of the Law and the Prophets and the words of Paul about being kind to your neighbor. How interesting that mine actually presents a consistent message and well yours requires a lot of reworking of the words themselves.

Your twisting of the words sure doesn't add up to much.

They talked about virgins before weddings and your words are that we can copulate with everyone we want to whenever we want to, so long as we don't pay them and they aren't already married' LOL :rolleyes: (I still can't believe you are even trying to pretend that you alone have seen fit to translate these words to new meanings for us?!?! Total and utter denial of reality... :p )...

For the rest of you, you know what's right...

1 Thessalonians 4:2-8
For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that is this manner no one should cheat his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

Your twisting of the words sure doesn't add up to much.

They talked about virgins before weddings and your words are that we can copulate with everyone we want to whenever we want to, so long as we don't pay them and they aren't already married' LOL :rolleyes: (I still can't believe you are even trying to pretend that you alone have seen fit to translate these words to new meanings for us?!?! Total and utter denial of reality... :p )...

For the rest of you, you know what's right...

1 Thessalonians 4:2-8
For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that is this manner no one should cheat his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

In other words you don't have a link. I suspected as much. How about the rest of you don't let him or me tell you what's right or wrong but you look at what Jesus wrote on your heart. Some people try their best to not let that shine through because then they'd be required to stop passing judgement. However, unless you're trying to excuse your unChristian actions feel free to actually lean upon your relationship to the Lord.

In other words you don't have a link. I suspected as much. How about the rest of you don't let him or me tell you what's right or wrong but you look at what Jesus wrote on your heart. Some people try their best to not let that shine through because then they'd be required to stop passing judgement. However, unless you're trying to excuse your unChristian actions feel free to actually lean upon your relationship to the Lord.

A link to what? A link that shows that your crazy claim is entirely without precedent? That you are totally off your rocker and without a leg to stand on? That you are making stuff up and utterly without actual understanding of what you speak?

You mean I have to actually refute your unsubstantiated claims that the Greek and English words do not mean what the dictionary says they mean???

:rolleyes: LOL :p :D :p

Whatever, Silliness never ends when one is self deceived.

F. Wilbur Gingrich defines porneia as "unchastity, prostitution, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse" (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, p. 180).

John Groves defines porneia as "fornication, adultery, incest, whoredom, all kinds of lewdness" (A Greek and English Dictionary, p. 480).

A. T. Robertson, the great Baptist scholar, when commenting on Matthew 5:32, made the following comments: "Saving for the cause of fornication (parektos logou porneias). An unusual phrase that means 'except for a matter of unchastity.' 'Except on the ground of unchastity' (Weymouth), 'except unfaithfulness' (Goodspeed), and is equivalent to me epi porneiai in Matt. 19:9." (Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 47).

Ralph Earle wrote an excellent New Testament word study book for English readers. On Matthew 19:9 he wrote, "Except for Fornication. This exception is found only in Matthew. Porneia does not here mean 'fornication' (KJV) but 'immorality' (NASB) or 'marital unfaithfulness' (NIV)." (Word Meanings in the New Testament, p. 18).



Perhaps it's time you substantiated your claims. Go find a link that says the Bible says it's okay to have sex outside of marriage. :rolleyes: :p

A link to what? A link that shows that your crazy claim is entirely without precedent? That you are totally off your rocker and without a leg to stand on? That you are making stuff up and utterly without actual understanding of what you speak?

My crazy claim? Are you actually trying to argue that I'm incorrect about the origin of the word? So either link to your translation of those words on anything other than a heavily radical Christian website that simply wishes for that to be the translation and you might have a leg to stand on.

You mean I have to actually refute your unsubstantiated claims that the Greek and English words do not mean what the dictionary says they mean???

The dictionary says that at the time they were first used in the translation they meant something different than they do today. Are you actually trying to tell me that fornication wasn't used until the modern day use of it was prevelent? That goes against the dictionary actually says and not what you want it to say. Do you know anything about how words evolve over time? Do you know anything about the fact that English speakers have been heavily Christian for a very long time? Do you think maybe the word evolved to become match the prior nonsensical use of the term by a large portion of Christianity that was of course completely uneducated about the actual translation and most of whom could not read.

Whatever, Silliness never ends when one is self deceived.

Yes, I've noticed. Yet, you continue to do so. I notice that it's hard to be consistent when one worships a man rather than the Son of God.

F. Wilbur Gingrich defines porneia as "unchastity, prostitution, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse" (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, p. 180).

How about a site that just concentrates on the language and doesn't translate according to their faith? Or are you claiming the only ones knowledgable about ancient languages are 'Christians'?

John Groves defines porneia as "fornication, adultery, incest, whoredom, all kinds of lewdness" (A Greek and English Dictionary, p. 480).

What's the full name of that book? A Greek and English Dictionary, Comprising All the Words in the Writings of the Most Popular Greek Authors; with the Difficult Inflections in Them and in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Designed for the Use of Schools and the Undergraduate Course of a Collegiate EducationApparently, it's very important to mention the New Testament in the title of a Linguistics book. Strange coincidence that is. I'm looking over at my Greek to English dictionary and it doesn't mention any books at all in the title. Let me see if I can find my Spanish to English dictionary. Nope, that one doesn't mention the name of any books in it at all. Maybe because the majority of the New Testament was written in the common tongue it would make sense for you to be able to translate it just by knowing the common tongue. But I guess you can only translate it if you know special 'New Testament' language.

A. T. Robertson, the great Baptist scholar, when commenting on Matthew 5:32, made the following comments: "Saving for the cause of fornication (parektos logou porneias). An unusual phrase that means 'except for a matter of unchastity.' 'Except on the ground of unchastity' (Weymouth), 'except unfaithfulness' (Goodspeed), and is equivalent to me epi porneiai in Matt. 19:9." (Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 47).

Oh, hey, a Baptist. Now there is an unbiased source. Can you find anyone that didn't start with a premise and bent the information to fit? Oh, wait, why would you do that? That's exactly what you did. That's why the words just happen to mean exactly what you want to mean even when the concepts hardly make sense to be included in one word. Especially at a time when Christianity wasn't that popular, so the concept of wrapping all of those ideas together wouldn't have made any sense at all.

Ralph Earle wrote an excellent New Testament word study book for English readers. On Matthew 19:9 he wrote, "Except for Fornication. This exception is found only in Matthew. Porneia does not here mean 'fornication' (KJV) but 'immorality' (NASB) or 'marital unfaithfulness' (NIV)." (Word Meanings in the New Testament, p. 18).

Four sources and none of them unbaised. And your knew source says that it only relates to marital infidelity. What does that have to do with how you defined the words? And again, not a link in the lot. Is it just that no one wants people to have online access to these greatly unbaised translations or that you can't find a single online source for your spurious claims that isn't obviously trying to sell the same ideology that you do. The ideology of putting yourself above Jesus Christ in judgement of man. Sorry, that happens to just not quite fit with teachings of Christ. I tend to take them over any man.

Perhaps it's time you substantiated your claims. Go find a link that says the Bible says it's okay to have sex outside of marriage. :rolleyes: :p

I didn't say it says that. The Bible doesn't have to give you permission. You can't find what isn't there. Find a link that shows the Bible says it's okay to drive a car? Show me a link where the bible says it's okay to fish for sport. Show me a link where the Bible says it's okay to study science. Hmmm... guess they must all be sins.

Also, I've noticed that as the quality of one's argument goes down the number of smilies goes up. I guess when you're trying to appeal to people who ignore the irrefutable evidence of the origin of the word fornication and its meaning when first used in the KJV 400 years ago and how it was not the meaning we ascribe to it today, it's best to use small words and smilies.

Oh, hey, a Baptist. Now there is an unbiased source. Can you find anyone that didn't start with a premise and bent the information to fit? Oh, wait, why would you do that?
is there something wrong with Baptists that I don't know about?

is there something wrong with Baptists that I don't know about?

Nothing is wrong with Baptists. However, the science of translation should be applied without a bias. There should not be an intent to get an answer other than the one offered by the text. For centuries this has been the problem, that many who ever even had the OPPORTUNITY to translate the texts already knew what they wanted them to say.

Until I was an adult I considered myself a Baptist, because they celebrate their faith. I loved going to their churches. However, I don't agree that the basic message of any of the churches I've attended is keeping with the spirit of what I believe to be the message of Christ.

Nothing is wrong with Baptists. However, the science of translation should be applied without a bias. There should not be an intent to get an answer other than the one offered by the text. For centuries this has been the problem, that many who ever even had the OPPORTUNITY to translate the texts already knew what they wanted them to say.

Until I was an adult I considered myself a Baptist, because they celebrate their faith. I loved going to their churches. However, I don't agree that the basic message of any of the churches I've attended is keeping with the spirit of what I believe to be the message of Christ.
oh just asking because I am Southern Baptist, and I see Baptist bashing around a lot and didn't expect you to be the one who would "follow the crowd"
so anyway I thought if you had a problem with Baptists it would probably be an actual problem and was just curious....

that made no sense..... sorry.....

oh just asking because I am Southern Baptist, and I see Baptist bashing around a lot and didn't expect you to be the one who would "follow the crowd"
so anyway I thought if you had a problem with Baptists it would probably be an actual problem and was just curious....

that made no sense..... sorry.....

No, I have nothing against Baptists and very much enjoy their company. I just occasionally get attacked by them because of some core disagreements. For example, I don't really believe that's necessary to celebrate one's good works and people often get mad when I tell them that left hand isn't supposed to know what the right hand is doing. I realize that this celebration is for the purpose of gathering money to support the church and to let the members of the parish know what's going on with that money, but I, of course, think it's more altruistic to consider the work itself the reward rather than recognition of the work.

Where I differ most with many Christians is that I believe there is such a thing as a mature and an immature Christian just like there are those immature in body and/or immature in mind, there are those immature in the Spirit. Immature people in mind and Spirit have a tendency to be driven by consequences. Mature people are driven by a sense of right and wrong. A lot of immature Christians and even whole sects of Christians operate on the principle of avoiding punishment or gaining rewards in heaven. Mature Christians do things not because of how they will be judged by God and Jesus Christ or how it affects them on Earth, but because it is what their heart and conscience tells them is right and avoid doing what they know to be wrong. Mature Christians do not lament others getting away with or being allowed to do things they themselves would not do or will not do. Mature Christians don't think of things as unfair. Mature Christians lead people to the faith rather than try to force them to follow the tenets by law rather than by Spirit.

I will not do what I know to be wrong not because I fear the reprisal of our Lord or a lake of fire and brimstone, but because it is the wrong thing to do and I would not do it even if offered all the rewards of Heaven. I will do what I know to be right not because I seek rewards from our Heavenly Father or because know it pleases Him or because I know He is watching, I do what is right because it is the right thing and doing the right thing pleases me. It so happens that my sense of right and wrong was created by our Lord, was written on my heart and thus what I see to be right and wrong matches up entirely with the Lord's path for me so long as I listen to my heart and my conscience.

The thing I find hardest to watch is when I see people of the faith doing what they so clearly know to be wrong in their hearts because they are immature in the faith and don't want people to get away with things they can't, particularly things that don't hurt anyone else. I fear that people who would condemn, judge and persecute, even if they happen to be right about the objective sinfulness of an act, succeed only in hardening the heart of the sinner rather then softening it and opening it to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It has always been my belief that bringing someone away from what is wrong has nothing to do with condemning them or using the law to prevent the act (unless the act cause direct harm to another, e.g. drunken driving, murder, spreading hate, denying people basic rights) and more to do with showing the positive effects of faith and getting them to open their hearts to Jesus Christ and the Lord. Faith and an open heart and mind can do more to prevent and destroy sin than the law, the Bible or I could ever do.

No, I have nothing against Baptists and very much enjoy their company. I just occasionally get attacked by them because of some core disagreements. For example, I don't really believe that's necessary to celebrate one's good works and people often get mad when I tell them that left hand isn't supposed to know what the right hand is doing. I realize that this celebration is for the purpose of gathering money to support the church and to let the members of the parish know what's going on with that money, but I, of course, think it's more altruistic to consider the work itself the reward rather than recognition of the work.

Where I differ most with many Christians is that I believe there is such a thing as a mature and an immature Christian just like there are those immature in body and/or immature in mind, there are those immature in the Spirit. Immature people in mind and Spirit have a tendency to be driven by consequences. Mature people are driven by a sense of right and wrong. A lot of immature Christians and even whole sects of Christians operate on the principle of avoiding punishment or gaining rewards in heaven. Mature Christians do things not because of how they will be judged by God and Jesus Christ or how it affects them on Earth, but because it is what their heart and conscience tells them is right and avoid doing what they know to be wrong. Mature Christians do not lament others getting away with or being allowed to do things they themselves would not do or will not do. Mature Christians don't think of things as unfair. Mature Christians lead people to the faith rather than try to force them to follow the tenets by law rather than by Spirit.

I will not do what I know to be wrong not because I fear the reprisal of our Lord or a lake of fire and brimstone, but because it is the wrong thing to do and I would not do it even if offered all the rewards of Heaven. I will do what I know to be right not because I seek rewards from our Heavenly Father or because know it pleases Him or because I know He is watching, I do what is right because it is the right thing and doing the right thing pleases me. It so happens that my sense of right and wrong was created by our Lord, was written on my heart and thus what I see to be right and wrong matches up entirely with the Lord's path for me so long as I listen to my heart and my conscience.

The thing I find hardest to watch is when I see people of the faith doing what they so clearly know to be wrong in their hearts because they are immature in the faith and don't want people to get away with things they can't, particularly things that don't hurt anyone else. I fear that people who would condemn, judge and persecute, even if they happen to be right about the objective sinfulness of an act, succeed only in hardening the heart of the sinner rather then softening it and opening it to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It has always been my belief that bringing someone away from what is wrong has nothing to do with condemning them or using the law to prevent the act (unless the act cause direct harm to another, e.g. drunken driving, murder, spreading hate, denying people basic rights) and more to do with showing the positive effects of faith and getting them to open their hearts to Jesus Christ and the Lord. Faith and an open heart and mind can do more to prevent and destroy sin than the law, the Bible or I could ever do.

yeah I can agree with pretty much all of that. I think you and I have different beliefs when it comes to translating certain verses but, it doesn't really matter. (as I am not one to try to force my beliefs on others)

I didn't say it says that. The Bible doesn't have to give you permission. You can't find what isn't there. Find a link that shows the Bible says it's okay to drive a car? Show me a link where the bible says it's okay to fish for sport. Show me a link where the Bible says it's okay to study science. Hmmm... guess they must all be sins.

Hey, while we are at it, how about if we ask Ph33rdom to provide Scripture that shows the Bible says it is okay to pass judgement on other people? That won't be found, but I can think of at least three places in the Bible where we are admonished NOT to pass judgement on other people (all conveniently ignored by fundamentalists like Ph33rdom, because it does not support their worldview, their agenda, and does not allow them to continue to spew hatred!)

1. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
2. He who is without sin may cast the first stone
3. Take care of the plank in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your brother's eye.

Of course, these particular bits of Scripture have no value to fundamentalists, because it admonishes THEM to change THEIR ways...and it does not support their agenda, nor does it support their continued hatred and bigotry against enemies of their own choosing. It doesn't support their worldview.

I have, time and again advanced the theory that those like Ph33rdom, who seek to "save" people like myself...do so, not out of any genuine concern for US...but, rather, out of a genuine concern for their own offended sensibilities, and the "ick factor" that we engender in them.

oh just asking because I am Southern Baptist, and I see Baptist bashing around a lot and didn't expect you to be the one who would "follow the crowd"
so anyway I thought if you had a problem with Baptists it would probably be an actual problem and was just curious....

that made no sense..... sorry.....

Well, generally, I DO have a problem with Baptists...and Southern Baptists in particular. Not that you could blame me for hating the people who seem to have such a deep hate-on against me and people like me.
However, when I lived in Louisville, Kentucky, my next-door neighbors were Southern Baptists. They lived what they lived, they believed what they believed, and they never tried to force it on anyone else, and they always treated me decently. The wife in that family even used to babysit kids. I would come home from work, the kids would be playing in her front yard, I would pull up, get out of my car, and wave, "Hi, Mrs. Moody!" and she would, in turn, greet me pleasantly. She never saw a need to hide the children from the blood-sucking Grendel that wanted to burn down the village, kill the men, and eat the women and children...which is how I believe most Southern Baptists view a person like myself.
Now, I was very much involved in the civil rights struggle in Louisville, to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and was eventually successful. I was well-known in that town. Mrs. Moody certainly did not share my politics, and would not support my efforts, but she never treated me poorly.
On the other hand...my brother...also a Southern Baptist...is the biggest redneck asshole anyone could find on either side of the Mississippi River! The foulest hypocrite that ever walked the face of the earth, and the most hate-spewing son of a bitch there ever was.
From my own personal experience, I'd say more southern Baptists were like my brother...rather than like Mrs. Moody.

Hey, while we are at it, how about if we ask Ph33rdom to provide Scripture that shows the Bible says it is okay to pass judgement on other people? That won't be found, but I can think of at least three places in the Bible where we are admonished NOT to pass judgement on other people (all conveniently ignored by fundamentalists like Ph33rdom, because it does not support their worldview, their agenda, and does not allow them to continue to spew hatred!)

1. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
2. He who is without sin may cast the first stone
3. Take care of the plank in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your brother's eye.

Of course, these particular bits of Scripture have no value to fundamentalists, because it admonishes THEM to change THEIR ways...and it does not support their agenda, nor does it support their continued hatred and bigotry against enemies of their own choosing. It doesn't support their worldview.

I have, time and again advanced the theory that those like Ph33rdom, who seek to "save" people like myself...do so, not out of any genuine concern for US...but, rather, out of a genuine concern for their own offended sensibilities, and the "ick factor" that we engender in them.

I see myself as a fundamentalist, and I don't see myself casting any stones. Care to show me where I show hatred and bigotry towards you or the way you are, Lyric?

The thing I find hardest to watch is when I see people of the faith doing what they so clearly know to be wrong in their hearts because they are immature in the faith and don't want people to get away with things they can't, particularly things that don't hurt anyone else. I fear that people who would condemn, judge and persecute, even if they happen to be right about the objective sinfulness of an act, succeed only in hardening the heart of the sinner rather then softening it and opening it to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It has always been my belief that bringing someone away from what is wrong has nothing to do with condemning them or using the law to prevent the act (unless the act cause direct harm to another, e.g. drunken driving, murder, spreading hate, denying people basic rights) and more to do with showing the positive effects of faith and getting them to open their hearts to Jesus Christ and the Lord. Faith and an open heart and mind can do more to prevent and destroy sin than the law, the Bible or I could ever do.

Nail. Head. Direct hit.

yeah I can agree with pretty much all of that. I think you and I have different beliefs when it comes to translating certain verses but, it doesn't really matter. (as I am not one to try to force my beliefs on others)

And I respect that even if others would call that enabling. You're right that it truly doesn't matter so long as I don't to force people to adhere to my translation. Again, my beef with people is with people who force their personal translation onto others rather than accepting that those translations are fallible, thus the amount of disagreement that surrounds so many passages. I don't have a problem with ph33rdom believing what he chooses to believe. I have a problem with him forcing his beliefs on others through use of the government, through deception, through attacking the character of others, through attacking the beliefs of others, through coercion, etc. The only time attacking others can be justified is when it is necessary to protect yourself or others. Jesus used none of these methods and they are unnecessary. I simply encourage people to open their hearts to the Lord and to create a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I encourage people to not listen to me or ph33r or to anyone other than our Savior. We are all fallible and Jesus was not. Jesus has written the answers on our hearts on how we are to live and worship but he never gave us permission to force that on others. Even Paul discourage such things. It is clear that our path is a personal one and our relationship with our Savior is also personal.

Jesus continually pointed out how simple it all really is. I simply encourage people to hear that message and encourage people to reject anyone who would attempt to generalize that which is personal and to set your path when your path is unknown to them.

Be led along the path of your faith by the only Rabbi and not by posers, not by me and not by those that amend the message of our Savior. That is my consistent message because I believe we are tasked only with leading people to the Lord, how they are to deal with sin and the judgement for that sin is not our duty and never was. I let the Lord have that which is the Lord's. Our souls once we become brothers and sisters in Christ are in the Lord's hands and to suggest that ANY man, woman or child should override the will of our Lord and Savior is simply laughable and sad. To attempt to control the personal relationship one has with their salvation is hubris.

I would hope that it is apparent that my only goals in discussion of faith here are to encourage people to soften their hearts and open them to the message, and to discourage those that would harden the hearts of those that have not yet heard or who would attack the personal relationship that people have with salvation.

If your goals are the same then there is nothing important that we disagree on. I wish you the best of luck in accomplishing those goals.

I see myself as a fundamentalist, and I don't see myself casting any stones. Care to show me where I show hatred and bigotry towards you or the way you are, Lyric?

you don't fit MY definition of a fundamentalist, then.

In MY book, fundamentalists are evil, horrible, hateful people who spew shit in the name of Christianity, and ignore the fact that the Bible says they are not supposed to do that. They only follow and know those parts of the Bible that support their worldview and their agenda. They are Christian only by convenience...as long as it is convenient for them, they will be Christians. And they hold those parts of the Bible to be infallible...because those parts happen to validate what they already believe (and can be twisted to validate those beliefs) but anything that directs THEM to change, or points a finger at THEM...must be ignored...it's not in the Bible.

THAT is my definition of a fundamentalist...and that definition does not fit you. why would you want to mix yourself with poeple like that? why would you want to confuse yourself with people like that?

The very reason I openly refer to myself as a Unitarian Christian...is to differentiate myself from the mainstream of Christianity, which has acquired two black eyes and a bloody nose, thanks to the fundamentalists. Thanks to the haters. Thanks to the finger-pointers and Bible-thumpers.

you don't fit MY definition of a fundamentalist, then.

In MY book, fundamentalists are evil, horrible, hateful people who spew shit in the name of Christianity, and ignore the fact that the Bible says they are not supposed to do that. They only follow and know those parts of the Bible that support their worldview and their agenda. They are Christian only by convenience...as long as it is convenient for them, they will be Christians. And they hold those parts of the Bible to be infallible...because those parts happen to validate what they already believe (and can be twisted to validate those beliefs) but anything that directs THEM to change, or points a finger at THEM...must be ignored...it's not in the Bible.

THAT is my definition of a fundamentalist...and that definition does not fit you. why would you want to mix yourself with poeple like that? why would you want to confuse yourself with people like that?

The very reason I openly refer to myself as a Unitarian Christian...is to differentiate myself from the mainstream of Christianity, which has acquired two black eyes and a bloody nose, thanks to the fundamentalists. Thanks to the haters. Thanks to the finger-pointers and Bible-thumpers.


You have a twisted definition of "fundamentalist". The definition you use does not fit me, but the commonly accepted one does.

Fundamentalist does not equal hater. Does not equal finger pointer. There's nothing wrong with reading the Bible.

I've been to Unitarian services in this area before. Most of the people who were in attendance had come from various other churches (not just Christians) who felt they had a horrible experience in their first religion. They spent 99 percent of the time badmouthing their previous religion (whatever it might have been), and expecting me to tell a similar tale of woe.

Some of the services openly mocked the idea that anyone would have a central tenet of belief, especially in God, so I walked out.

Hey, while we are at it, how about if we ask Ph33rdom to provide Scripture that shows the Bible says it is okay to pass judgement on other people? That won't be found, but I can think of at least three places in the Bible where we are admonished NOT to pass judgement on other people (all conveniently ignored by fundamentalists like Ph33rdom, because it does not support their worldview, their agenda, and does not allow them to continue to spew hatred!)

1. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
2. He who is without sin may cast the first stone
3. Take care of the plank in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your brother's eye.

Of course, these particular bits of Scripture have no value to fundamentalists, because it admonishes THEM to change THEIR ways...and it does not support their agenda, nor does it support their continued hatred and bigotry against enemies of their own choosing. It doesn't support their worldview.

I have, time and again advanced the theory that those like Ph33rdom, who seek to "save" people like myself...do so, not out of any genuine concern for US...but, rather, out of a genuine concern for their own offended sensibilities, and the "ick factor" that we engender in them.

To be fair, 1 and 3 are the same chapter and in fact the same paragraph. I see 2 to be more about letting God deal with sin rather than the law.

However, there is a better passage not to far from what you referenced in 2.

John 8 14Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

Well, generally, I DO have a problem with Baptists...and Southern Baptists in particular. Not that you could blame me for hating the people who seem to have such a deep hate-on against me and people like me.
However, when I lived in Louisville, Kentucky, my next-door neighbors were Southern Baptists. They lived what they lived, they believed what they believed, and they never tried to force it on anyone else, and they always treated me decently. The wife in that family even used to babysit kids. I would come home from work, the kids would be playing in her front yard, I would pull up, get out of my car, and wave, "Hi, Mrs. Moody!" and she would, in turn, greet me pleasantly. She never saw a need to hide the children from the blood-sucking Grendel that wanted to burn down the village, kill the men, and eat the women and children...which is how I believe most Southern Baptists view a person like myself.
Now, I was very much involved in the civil rights struggle in Louisville, to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and was eventually successful. I was well-known in that town. Mrs. Moody certainly did not share my politics, and would not support my efforts, but she never treated me poorly.
On the other hand...my brother...also a Southern Baptist...is the biggest redneck asshole anyone could find on either side of the Mississippi River! The foulest hypocrite that ever walked the face of the earth, and the most hate-spewing son of a bitch there ever was.
From my own personal experience, I'd say more southern Baptists were like my brother...rather than like Mrs. Moody.

In my experience southern baptists tend to be more like your neighbor than like your brother.

To be fair though, I would assume that you would attract more of the idiots than I would (seeing as how the idiots tend to look for people to be mean to)
I have been a member of the southern baptist church for nearly 20 years now though and have met thousands and thousands of southern baptists and have really only met about 6 rednecks that claimed to be southern baptist and that is saying something considering where I live.

it's like I have said before the minority is really loud these days.

you don't fit MY definition of a fundamentalist, then.

In MY book, fundamentalists are evil, horrible, hateful people who spew shit in the name of Christianity, and ignore the fact that the Bible says they are not supposed to do that. They only follow and know those parts of the Bible that support their worldview and their agenda. They are Christian only by convenience...as long as it is convenient for them, they will be Christians. And they hold those parts of the Bible to be infallible...because those parts happen to validate what they already believe (and can be twisted to validate those beliefs) but anything that directs THEM to change, or points a finger at THEM...must be ignored...it's not in the Bible.

THAT is my definition of a fundamentalist...and that definition does not fit you. why would you want to mix yourself with poeple like that? why would you want to confuse yourself with people like that?

The very reason I openly refer to myself as a Unitarian Christian...is to differentiate myself from the mainstream of Christianity, which has acquired two black eyes and a bloody nose, thanks to the fundamentalists. Thanks to the haters. Thanks to the finger-pointers and Bible-thumpers.

He may not, I may or may not....
that is kinda an interesting definition of fundamentalist though....

The only real reason that I indentify my self as a fundamentalist is that I think there are so many churches trying to change the basic message of the bible these days to be more "inclusive" they are ignoring the bulk of what the bible says so they can get thier attendance up.

I don't ignore any of the bible. All of it is important, I do believe it to be without error, I don't think that God is everchanging, the bible says he is the same in the begining that he is in the end.

The fact that I have seen some who say "well, God can change to make things easier for people today" makes me very worried about the direction of the church. Christianity isn't supposed to be easy and God isn't going to change for humanity, humanity is supposed to change for Him.

* I am not telling you to change, I am just trying to help you understand why I consider my self fundamentalist.

In biblical times, society tried to protect its virgin women from premature and wrongful sexual intercourse, as virginity was for them a prized possession. They punished those that ‘stole’ their daughter’s virginity out of wedlock and it was expected that virginity/chastity/virtue would be maintained until their weddings. And even knowing this you want to confuse the gullible, you want us to ‘ask our hearts’ if we think they thought it was alright to have sex before marriage? :p :rolleyes:

It’s an idiotic supposition to begin with and it is based on nothing but a word from the Latin that you don’t like and from it's usage in a translation only four hundred years ago.

Your argument regarding the root meaning of the word ‘Fornication’ has already been thoroughly and utterly debunked in this thread, one has to use and argue with the language of the scripture was written in NOT the language of the KJV to understand what they were talking about (you are barking up the wrong tree entirely). But truth be told, you are also wrong about the usage of the word fornication in English as well, it's the perfect word to translate the 'porn...' family of words from the ancient Greek, meaning - promiscuous sex between unmarried people.

But you ignore this essential bit of fact (about arguing over the wrong word) and continue to berate the dead horse of the root meaning in Latin of the word Fornication because you have no other argument and you would rather spend time trying to remove the writings currently in the NT and replace them with your own modern day, and secular world approved version, of what we should call Jacobia’s letters. :rolleyes:

I think not.

Rather, we'll keep the New Testament we already have thank you very much, you can go write your own and live by that if you like....

I Cor 6:18-20
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

These verses contain the justification for Paul's statement in the latter part of verse. The body, as the "temple of the Holy Ghost," is the present habitation of God’s holy spirit. He also points out that they were "bought with a price" (Gal 3:13; 4:5) and God’s exclusive ownership would not permit such activity. Paul wants them to comprehend that their bodies are not their own and that they should not sexually abuse it.

But you argue that we should again become the people of Corinth, and you need to try and discredit Paul before that can happen, so people don’t see that your argument was already faced and defeated nearly two thousand years ago.

Would you have us believe next that ‘virginity’ really means sexually exploited. :p

...
1. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
2. He who is without sin may cast the first stone
3. Take care of the plank in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your brother's eye.

Of course, these particular bits of Scripture have no value to fundamentalists, because it admonishes THEM to change THEIR ways...and it does not support their agenda, nor does it support their continued hatred and bigotry against enemies of their own choosing. It doesn't support their worldview.

I have, time and again advanced the theory that those like Ph33rdom, who seek to "save" people like myself...do so, not out of any genuine concern for US...but, rather, out of a genuine concern for their own offended sensibilities, and the "ick factor" that we engender in them.

*raises mirror*

*raises mirror*

I think you meant to say, "Pot. Kettle. Black."

I think you meant to say, "Pot. Kettle. Black."

Umm, perhaps. But perhaps you mention so here only because you're upset that we are talking about all the words you wish weren't in there either, you know, the words like Adultery, Fornication and Sexual Immorality or Lust (for your neighbors wife) etc., so I’ll take it with a grain a salt. ;)

Umm, perhaps. But perhaps you mention so here only because you're upset that we are talking about all the words you wish weren't in there either, you know, the words like Adultery, Fornication and Sexual Immorality or Lust (for your neighbors wife) etc., so I’ll take it with a grain a salt. ;)

Well, the traditional meaning of adultery applies only to women being defiled by men who are not their husband. And that applies if you believe that women are property - not people.

And as far as I'm concerned, I've dealt with enough domestic violence situations to realize where the men get the idea that it's ok to beat women - directly from the idea that women are property.

If I had to pick an "evil" to fight, I'd fight the domestic violence. And fight the idea that women are property.

Domestic violence? I've already posted my views on that around here and I was called a Puritan (:p ).

I say; don't accept it. Don't let your friends do it, don't let your co-workers do it, don't let your siblings do it, don't let your neighbors do it. Don't look the other way, don't pretend it isn't happening and don't ignore it as none of your business.

Walk over there and collectively kick their ass, if they do it again, press charges and get them locked up for assault, the word 'domestic' assault should not exist if it means it's somehow a lesser crime from a normal assault case. Treat them like the criminals they are.


However, what does that have to with the obligation sexual purity in the marriage? Nothing, it's just a distraction to change the topic now isn't it?

Domestic violence? I've already posted my views on that around here and I was called a Puritan (:p ).

I say; don't accept it. Don't let your friends do it, don't let your co-workers do it, don't let your siblings do it, don't let your neighbors do it. Don't look the other way, don't pretend it isn't happening and don't ignore it as none of your business.

Walk over there and collectively kick their ass, if they do it again, press charges and get them locked up for assault, the word 'domestic' assault should not exist if it means it's somehow a lesser crime from a normal assault case. Treat them like the criminals they are.


However, what does that have to with the obligation sexual purity in the marriage? Nothing, it's just a distraction to change the topic now isn't it?


The obligation for sexual purity was only required of the woman - and only if you consider the woman to be property.

The obligation for sexual purity was only required of the woman - and only if you consider the woman to be property.
uh... where did you get that exactly? can you provide me with scriptural backing for that veiw?

The obligation for sexual purity was only required of the woman - and only if you consider the woman to be property.

Not according to the NT.

1 Corinthians 7 4-7
…the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except 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 men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Matt 5:28
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

That sure doesn’t look like it was meant for the woman only.

uh... where did you get that exactly? can you provide me with scriptural backing for that veiw?

OT Passages
Exodus 22:16 - 17, "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins."
(no stoning to death or Hell here...)

Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29, "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."
(pay the money and walk - no stoning or death here...)

This Exodus passage is one of the few passages that deal directly with the issue of premarital sex. There are a couple of important points concerning this passage. First, neither the man or woman is rebuked or punished for any sin (compare with Deut. 22). The man is required to seek marriage but can be refused by the father. The key here is that there is no punishment for the man and woman having sex. The punishment is for the change in value of the woman as bride. The term "virgin's dowry" implies that there was a special dowry (probably of greater compensation) for her virgin status and since she is no longer a virgin, the father is still payed the dowry as compensation regardless of whether she marries the guy or not. Also note that there is no law concerning the pre-marital sexuality of men or unbetrothed non-virgin women.

The passage in Deut. refers to a rape not consensual pre-marital sex. In order to remedy this crime, the man must take the woman into his household and care for her. He cannot divorce her. The rape of a married or engaged woman carried the death penalty. The rape of a virgin who is not engaged carries a lesser penalty. And while the penalty may seem unjust by our culture's standpoint, the penalty was probably very just for that culture.

In Deut. 22 there is a clear example of what happens to a woman who has had sex prior to her marriage but deceives her parents and husband into believing that she was a virgin and accepted money ("playing the harlot in her father's house") for her virgin status. Although the severe penalty for such a deception is stoning, the husband can show love, forgiveness and mercy.

There are two other examples of pre-marital sex in the OT. In Deut. 21:10 there is another case study of how a man is to handle a captive woman. If he desires her as a wife, he must follow the conditions and then sleep with her. If she is found pleasing, he has the option to marry her or he can send her away. The book of Esther also describes how Esther is brought into the King's household to become a part of the King's harem.

In every case of pre-marital sex in the Bible there is no punishment for the sexual act. The only penalty is the compensation to the father for the woman's change in status.

Writers Comments:
G. Rattray Taylor, author of Sex in History: [The adultery Commandment, essentially a property offense against another's mate, does not require] that a man should restrict his attentions to his wife; indeed, when a wife proved barren, she would often give one of her handmaidens to her husband that she might bear children for him. Nor was there any ban on premarital sex; it is seldom appreciated that nowhere in the Old Testament is there any prohibition of unpremeditated fornication--apart from rape, and subject to a father's right to claim a cash interest in a virgin. Once a girl had reached the age of 12 1/2 years, she was free to engage in sexual activity, unless her father specifically forbade it.

Note carefully that David had many wives. And he was one of God's favorites.

There is nothing said about premarital sex in the New Testament.

The scriptures were not written in English. "Fornication" is a great example of the lies in translation of some bibles. Some English bibles say that, others say the more correct translation "sexual immorality". The koline Greek word that has been mistranslated as fornication is porneia. There is no biblical basis whatsoever to translate porneia into fornication (singles sex).

Porneia meant sexual immorality which included:

1) Sex during women's menstruation.

2) Adultery which biblically was understood by the Hebrews to mean wrong for a married women to have sex with another man since violated her husbands property rights. It was never understood to be wrong for a married man since his wife had no such rights. The married man could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as he wished as long as not married (another man's property. Nothing ever was wrong with singles sexuality. "Fornication" is a total mistranslation of Greek "porneia"

3) Pagan sex goddess prostitution. Porneia as used in I Cor 6-9, falsely translated in some bibles as fornication was actually the practice of the prostitutes in the Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of pagan fertility goddess worship which was what Paul was warning against. Not even specifically about prostitution (still legal and very popular in Israel today) but used as a pagan sexual goddess worship.

4) Pederasty - one of the worst of all sexual sins that took various forms: The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct styles. First is the relationship between an older man and a young boy. Second is the practice of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another heterosexual male by anal intercourse after capturing them in battle. Another practice was heterosexual's using anal intercourse to drive out other heterosexual strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story. It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today, which is simply being as God designed some people to be.

Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means to us today. Clearly there was never a word said about the fact Hebrew men could have as many wives, concubines (breeders) and "other women" as they could afford. THIS IS NOT ADULTERY, in the Hebrew understanding of the Adultery Commandment of Moses. Adultery as understood by what Moses said was only wrong for married women, never a married man.

In biblical times, society tried to protect its virgin women from premature and wrongful sexual intercourse, as virginity was for them a prized possession. They punished those that ‘stole’ their daughter’s virginity out of wedlock and it was expected that virginity/chastity/virtue would be maintained until their weddings. And even knowing this you want to confuse the gullible, you want us to ‘ask our hearts’ if we think they thought it was alright to have sex before marriage? :p :rolleyes:

I don't believe I said that. I said premarital sex is never mentioned in the Bible and you've still not shown it. Where is it mentioned anywhere? It isn't unless you lump premarital sex into a words that to you means any sex YOU consider to be a sin or anyone who engages in that sex. Strange that the KJV agreed with me when it was [properly] translated , which you quoted.

Let's see what I can find about virgins from Paul -

1 Corinthians 7 25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Wait, wait, does that say what I think it says. The Lord said nothing of virgins. But, but that would be impossible. It would mean all this stuff Paul was supposedly saying about staying a virgin until marriage or sinning would be COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE. The only thing he says about marrying is that as a man of good judgement (and not from the command of God) that if one were going to engage in sex that they should probably marry. Oops.

It’s an idiotic supposition to begin with and it is based on nothing but a word from the Latin that you don’t like and from it's usage in a translation only four hundred years ago.

If you would like to post a link to an unbiased source that seeks to properly address the source material rather than push forward their agenda I would be glad to examine it. You have yet to cite anything that is actually available to me. Maybe there is just hardly any information on the web. And if you believe that...

I have already established what the meaning was at the time of the translation of the terms you are talking about to fornication and harlot and you've as much as admitted they meant that. So what are you saying? That the KJV was an unrealiable translation? Answer that question is KJV reliable or not? If it is then you can't claim that my examination of the term at the time is spurious. If it isn't well, I guess you were being disingenuous when you quoted it, huh?

Your argument regarding the root meaning of the word ‘Fornication’ has already been thoroughly and utterly debunked in this thread, one has to use and argue with the language of the scripture was written in NOT the language of the KJV to understand what they were talking about (you are barking up the wrong tree entirely). But truth be told, you are also wrong about the usage of the word fornication in English as well, it's the perfect word to translate the 'porn...' family of words from the ancient Greek, meaning - promiscuous sex between unmarried people.

Really? So now you are suggesting I'm incorrect about the usage of the term? Let's see if I can find some links for your little line of utter nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication
"The etymology of the English word leads to the Latin word fornix, meaning "an archway" or "vault" (a reference to a location in Rome where prostitutes could be solicited)."
"The origin of the word leads to a common usage to specifically mean 'whoredom' rather than general extra-marital sex."

See? Proper usage in late Middle English (very close to the time KJV was written) was in reference to prostitutes. It has only changed after the translation of the KJV to mean what it does today.

But you ignore this essential bit of fact (about arguing over the wrong word) and continue to berate the dead horse of the root meaning in Latin of the word Fornication because you have no other argument and you would rather spend time trying to remove the writings currently in the NT and replace them with your own modern day, and secular world approved version, of what we should call Jacobia’s letters. :rolleyes:

No, I would never be so bold as the amend the words of Jesus Christ. Would that the world were full of more like me. Or even just the people involved in this discussion.

I think not.

Rather, we'll keep the New Testament we already have thank you very much, you can go write your own and live by that if you like....

I Cor 6:18-20
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

These verses contain the justification for Paul's statement in the latter part of verse. The body, as the "temple of the Holy Ghost," is the present habitation of God’s holy spirit. He also points out that they were "bought with a price" (Gal 3:13; 4:5) and God’s exclusive ownership would not permit such activity. Paul wants them to comprehend that their bodies are not their own and that they should not sexually abuse it.

First he didn't explain what he means by sexual immorality. You read into it. Certainly there are things that he clearly listed as sexually immoral. Sex with female prostitutes. Sex with siblings. Sex with male prostitutes. Sodomy. You have shown nowhere that he adds premarital sex. It's funny that you claim the terms included all of these things already but oddly, even when using the terms you listed he still listed out these acts. That doesn't make sense, now does it?

And why don't you say what else Paul believed. He said it was 'okay' to marry, but that he preferred that people remain unmarried and devote every bit of their being to God. This would make sense if God's intent for us wasn't to be fruitful and multiply. If people actually followed Paul into his beliefs on defiling the body, Christianity would completely die out because we would have no children.

But you argue that we should again become the people of Corinth, and you need to try and discredit Paul before that can happen, so people don’t see that your argument was already faced and defeated nearly two thousand years ago.

Strawman. I suggest that people follow the leadership of Christ as he said he was the last Rabbi, the last Father. He was sent to lead us and just because you reject his leadership and rather subject to the leadership of Paul does not mean that I will.

Don't be fooled. Jesus was clear. There is but one teacher for you, one Father, one Rabbi and Jesus is that teacher, that Father, that Rabbi. If you need to be taught ask your Savior. If you need to understand, ask your Savior. If you need to be led, ask your Savior. And rebuke any who would stand before your Savior and say, "no, follow me for I have been sent by the Savior to lead you. I am a teacher of your faith." Rebuke them and remind them that there is no teacher save your Savior.

There. How's that for a letter? But then you don't really need my word. How about we look at the words of Jesus.

Matthew 23 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Would you have us believe next that ‘virginity’ really means sexually exploited. :p

No, I would people read the Bible and see that Paul said he is no position to judge whether people should or should not be virgins. Paul said and it's quoted above. Paul stated his beliefs and admitted that they were only his beliefs and not the word of God and you hold them up as if they were. Worse, you would twist even Paul's meaning of those words. And you would condemn those who offer the words of Jesus and show that Jesus said that his is the only one qualified to teach you of the Lord and that your relationship is personal.

Don't listen to me or any man. Read for yourselves. Ask the Lord for guidance. Seek and ye shall find, ask and ye shall receive. Jesus gave you a clear path for answering your questions and ph33rdom would try to keep you from asking those questions in prayer and listening to the responses because once you have them it will be IMPOSSIBLE to be led astray. Do not ask me. Do not ask any man. For questions of the Spirit ask the only one who has the answers and He will gladly answer them.

Or don't. Go ahead and ask those questions of ph33rdom and call him teacher, but in doing so you will be ignoring the words that came out of the mouth of our Savior.

And your argument appears to continue to slide. Four smilies this time. One wonders what they did before smilies came into being. I suppose they just rested on the value of their points without silly little pictures.

OT Passages
*snip*

Note carefully that David had many wives. And he was one of God's favorites.

Matthew 5: 27-28
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Just because God loves you in spite of your Sins (David) it doesn’t mean your actions are condoned.

-snip-
okay so you are quoting jewish law. I know for a fact that you don't believe that those laws are valid for today's Christian. You don't live by them, they were society laws not God's law. Is that all you have to prove your point?

okay so you are quoting jewish law. I know for a fact that you don't believe that those laws are valid for today's Christian. You don't live by them, they were society laws not God's law. Is that all you have to prove your point?

I've been Jewish before. Those are God's laws, and Jesus said he came not to change one word of the law.

I do believe they are valid for today's Christian.

okay so you are quoting jewish law. I know for a fact that you don't believe that those laws are valid for today's Christian. You don't live by them, they were society laws not God's law. Is that all you have to prove your point?

His point is that by those laws still being in the Bible they are still used to justify the behavior. People still quote Levitical law today. People often bring up Jewish law and try to apply it to today's Christian. And it damages the faith as a whole.

I have to give ph33rdom this credit. He is one of the few I ever encounter that restricts his argument, as much as I disagree with it, to the New Testament. He doesn't fall into the fallacy of justifying actions with Jewish laws that no longer apply. Actually, I should give you that credit as well. However, you must admit that there are a vast number of churches and religious leaders that use Jewish laws to endorse horrific behaviors by people who call themselves 'Christians'.

ews (the group out of which Jesus preached) do not have the same sexual hang ups that today's traditional Christians (vs Biblical) have. They view sex in a much more wholesome way than most Christians. Christians borrow their negative view of sex from the Greeks and also from St. Augustine who over-reacted to his previous sexual progligacy with his ascetic responses that mad sex totally evil even when it was used in marriage for sexual reasons. It was only valid if it was for the purpose of procreation. Now, if that is the only use you make of sex then you are in sympathy with St. Augustine. That is a sorry place to put your loyalty.

Regarding Christ, I believe that his silence indicates a wholesome acceptance of Jewish openness about the subject. Christians(?) are too often in tune with negativism and not open to honesty about their own sexuality and, as a result, so many of them end up in deviancy. Sex is not a disease. It is a gift from God. That does not mean that we use it carelessly. Many traditional Christians have a lot to work out on a psychological level sexual issues, before they can engage in dialogue with honest, searching Christians eager to find solutions to the errors created by organized religious fanatics.

The Emperor Constantine (354-430 A.D.) was perhaps the world's most important convert to the new religion of Christianity. Christianity was perhaps the only thing left to try to hold the Roman Empire together. While the political empire fell in the next century, the Church stepped in as the new central authority. Threats of burning in hell were even more effective than the army for controlling large and diverse populations.

Augustine was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families. Likewise, clerical celibacy was in part shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property.

Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy -whatever the Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good; sex was dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy. And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to the Church for repentance, which required a donation to demonstrate your faith. What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital; make everyone a sinner because of their innate sexual desires and then offer to absolve them for a sizeable donation.

The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances.

Making polygamy a "sin" was a slow process. It was even common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Later, with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway).

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality (multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times), but it was about MONEY!

Polygyny (many wives for 1 man) was the norm due to the male-dominated society and the fact a man's status was determined by the number of children he fathered. Today, women should enjoy equal rights and sex can be for pleasure and an expression of sincere love. This makes polyamory a more equal and loving lovestyle.

For much more detailed historic information on how sex became a sin see:
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm in addition to the overall site, http://www.patriarchywebsite.com which has a great deal of historical sexual information especially related to Jews.

I've been Jewish before. Those are God's laws, and Jesus said he came not to change one word of the law.

I do believe they are valid for today's Christian.

I stand corrected.

Explain the point that Jesus made about working on the Sabbath or washing one's hands or food restrictions. He pointed out that these are the laws of man and not the laws of God. As far as God's law is concerned he said he came not to destroy it but to fulfill it. There is a difference. It is significant.

Due to the widespread illiteracy of the scriptures, especially that of the Gentile believers who were totally ignorant of the Torah, whatever the Catholic priests said were considered as God’s Law and divine truths. One area of total distortion was that of marital relationship. Surprising to almost all of us, it was common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. In 726AD, it was acceptable for a man with a sick wife to take a second wife so long as he looked after the first one. With concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance however, offspring could not inherit church property and it was later declared that all sons of priests were illegitimate. In 1022, Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages for priests (monogamous or polygamous). Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. All these were done to possess and protect money and church property. Making polygamy a sin and marriage unacceptable for a priest was a slow and purposeful process.

The rich, the thoughtful ones who understood that their earthly goods were barriers to heaven, were delighted to hand over chunks of wealth to the priests and bishops as a down payment on easier transmission from one place to the next. (The soul’s equivalent, the wealthy presumed, of time-sharing a jet instead of having to stand in line at a purgatorial Southwest counter.)

Not only were priests and bishops becoming wealthier, they were becoming worldier. Many were married, others just had “open marriages” -- concubines. Worse than that -- in the church’s eyes -- the priests and bishops begetting sons regarded the endowments being made to the church as personal property. So the same rollicking clerics were setting themselves up as landed gentry and passing the fortunes along to their primogenitor sons and heirs.

In the 11th century, five popes in a row said: “Enough already.” Then came tough Gregory VII. He overreacted. He told married priests they couldn’t say Mass, and ordered the laity not to attend Masses said by married priests and naughty priests. The obvious happened. Members of the laity soon were complaining they had nowhere to go to Mass.

The edict was softened a bit to allow Mass-going. As usual, the women were blamed. Concubines were ordered scourged. Effectively though, the idea of priestly celibacy was in -- though not universally welcomed among the clerics themselves. And handing over church money to sons of priests and bishops was out.

The early, reforming religious orders, Franciscans and Dominicans, were scandalized by the licentious priests. And that’s the point -- it was the concubinage scandal and money, not the marriage that was at issue.

Indeed, at two 15th-century church councils, serious proposals were made to reintroduce clerical marriage.

These proposals were fought back -- how modern it all seems -- by a group of ultra-orthodox church leaders (for whom marriage was probably too late a possibility anyway) because they’d come up with a better idea. They’d started to give out the impression that celibacy was of apostolic origin -- that it had been built in at the beginning.

That’s power. Reinvent history.

I stand corrected.

Explain the point that Jesus made about working on the Sabbath or washing one's hands or food restrictions. He pointed out that these are the laws of man and not the laws of God. As far as God's law is concerned he said he came not to destroy it but to fulfill it. There is a difference. It is significant.
Romans 13:8-10: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; you shall not covet'; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."

I've been Jewish before. Those are God's laws, and Jesus said he came not to change one word of the law.

I do believe they are valid for today's Christian.
all of them? really? most of the Jewish people I know don't follow all those laws.

Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

Deuteronomy 17:2 "If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you."

Romans 13:8-10: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; you shall not covet'; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."

Exactly, that is God's Law. She was referring to the Jewish laws that are outlined in the Old Testament. How does this post address that point at all?

As she said and I did, Jesus pointed out that these laws were laws of man. But later he pointed out that he is the fulfillment of God's law not the destroyer of it. You just quoted a passage that agrees with what both Smunk and I said. How about supporting your original point?

all of them? really? most of the Jewish people I know don't follow all those laws.

Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

Deuteronomy 17:2 "If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you."


I don't see too many people literally following the Ten Commandments (actually, the first few aren't even commandments under Jewish law - just admonitions and statements).

We're following the example laid down in Romans. Love your neighbor.

Exactly, that is God's Law. She was referring to the Jewish laws that are outlined in the Old Testament. How does this post address that point at all?

As she said and I did, Jesus pointed out that these laws were laws of man. But later he pointed out that he is the fulfillment of God's law not the destroyer of it. You just quoted a passage that agrees with what both Smunk and I said. How about supporting your original point?

We're loving our neighbors. That's my point.

We're loving our neighbors. That's my point.

But it doesn't answer the question. You brought up a bunch of old laws from the old Testament that were Jewish law but are no longer held. She pointed out that they no longer apply and you said they do.

okay so you are quoting jewish law. I know for a fact that you don't believe that those laws are valid for today's Christian.

I've been Jewish before. Those are God's laws, and Jesus said he came not to change one word of the law.

I do believe they are valid for today's Christian.

So do the laws you quoted today still apply or not? She said they don't and you said they do, which is why we questioned you. You appear to now agree with us. So which is it?

I don't see too many people literally following the Ten Commandments (actually, the first few aren't even commandments under Jewish law - just admonitions and statements).

We're following the example laid down in Romans. Love your neighbor.
When it is said to love your neighbor I really doubt that Jesus was promoting mass orgie.

and no I don't see many literally following the Ten Comandments either, but luckily I am not bound by what "others" do. I am responisble for my own actions, and I try to make sure that I have scriptural backing for everything I do, the 'other people' defense doesn't work well with me. It is almost the same as the "they started it" or the "I am not doing things nearly as bad as the things they are doing" defense. Wrong is wrong and you are personally responisble for your own actions.

But it doesn't answer the question. You brought up a bunch of old laws from the old Testament that were Jewish law but are no longer held. She pointed out that they no longer apply and you said they do.

If you want to say what we're doing is adultery, then you have to look at the Jewish laws concerning adultery and sex.

Otherwise, you can look at Romans - and we're not doing anything that isn't done out of love.

I might add the following:

The Church is always talking about David’s adultery with Bathseba, but never talks about God solution in 2 Samuel 12:8 where God told David that instead of stealing another man wife away from him and killing him, that he should have prayed to God and ask for as many women as he wanted and God would have given him as many women as he wanted, as long has he did not steal and betray another man by stealing his wife. This show clearly that God is not hung up with how many women you have as long as you are not stealing other men wives from them.

In both the OT and NT they would use their sexual to worship a sex, fertility deity, “god” and that was fornication and evil. Sex is not evil. But praising some other man made deity god for creating sex and worshipping so that god would give you good farm crops is what is evil (that is adultery against God). In the Bible adultery against God was worshipping another deity other then Him. Sex had nothing to do with it at all. Betrayal is what adultery is about not sex.

If I say you could have sex with my wife all day long, that is not an offence or betrayal, that would be with permission and a love gift to you and my wife to enjoy and have fun.

Even Abraham gave his wife, Sarah, up to have sex with another kings 2 different times that was not sin, But God stepped in and used it to help Abraham gain more wealth. Abraham sold his wife to these kings. What was bad about it was it was permanent sale. God stepped in to reverse the permanent sale part of it and Abraham got to keep the things and got his wife back on top of it. 2 different times this same thing happen. Both times God blessed them for it.

Another even simplier question is how about all the great men of the bible that had so many wives, not just concubines. There was nothing wrong with this in the OT and never mentioned as bad in the NT other than the elders of Timothy and Titus due probably to local problems were told by Paul to only have one wife.

And Paul is not Jesus.

I don't believe I said that. I said premarital sex is never mentioned in the Bible and you've still not shown it.

I don't have to show it or find those words. I've shown that sex is for marriage, alone. You need to find that it is for ANYTHING else. Anywhere.


I have already established what the meaning was at the time of the translation of the terms you are talking about to fornication and harlot and you've as much as admitted they meant that. So what are you saying? That the KJV was an unrealiable translation?

No you didn't. The KJV wasn't written in Latin. Your argument is about root latin origins of an english word. The root came from ancient Roman usage, the English word is the one the KJV uses, a thousand years later. Nice distraction though, not :rolleyes:


Really? So now you are suggesting I'm incorrect about the usage of the term? Let's see if I can find some links for your little line of utter nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication

Yes, That's what I'm saying, and your link says the exact same thing I said.


See? Proper usage in late Middle English (very close to the time KJV was written) was in reference to prostitutes. It has only changed after the translation of the KJV to mean what it does today.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]
First he didn't explain what he means by sexual immorality. You read into it. Certainly there are things that he clearly listed as sexually immoral. Sex with female prostitutes. Sex with siblings. Sex with male prostitutes. Sodomy. You have shown nowhere that he adds premarital sex.

All those things are talked about, and also, getting married if you can't live without it.


And why don't you say what else Paul believed. He said it was 'okay' to marry, but that he preferred that people remain unmarried and devote every bit of their being to God. This would make sense if God's intent for us wasn't to be fruitful and multiply. If people actually followed Paul into his beliefs on defiling the body, Christianity would completely die out because we would have no children.

Entirely grabbing at straws for your strawman or what? LOL :p Jesus said, "Give everything away and follow me." Not a word about having children, does that make him defy God's commandment to go forth an multiply as well :rolleyes: LMAO

I suggest that people follow the leadership of Christ as he said he was the last Rabbi, the last Father. He was sent to lead us and just because you reject his leadership and rather subject to the leadership of Paul does not mean that I will.

Jesus most definitely set up a priority of leadership before he left, you simply choose to ignore them.



Or don't. Go ahead and ask those questions of ph33rdom and call him teacher, but in doing so you will be ignoring the words that came out of the mouth of our Savior.

Wowsers, you've entirely lost your mind haven't you? Do you see ghosts in the corners and aliens in your attic? Perhaps you should call someone for this sort of paranoia? It can't be fun to live in a self-made artificial reality...



And your argument appears to continue to slide. Four smilies this time. One wonders what they did before smilies came into being. I suppose they just rested on the value of their points without silly little pictures.

Aww, you don't even like the way post smileys :( :rolleyes:


:p :D

If you want to say what we're doing is adultery, then you have to look at the Jewish laws concerning adultery and sex.

Otherwise, you can look at Romans - and we're not doing anything that isn't done out of love.

That wasn't the discussion. You changed the subject in the middle of the conversation. You listed a lot of information about the Old Testament about women being property and about fidelity only applying to the woman. She pointed out correctly that those passages which represent Jewish law no longer apply. You said no, they do still apply. And now you say that you love your neighbor. What happened to the original point about the laws only applying to women and them being property?

I don't have to show it or find those words. I've shown that sex is for marriage, alone. You need to find that it is for ANYTHING else. Anywhere.

You haven't shown anywhere that it says sex is for marriage alone. NOWHERE. You've claimed it by changing the meaning of the word. You've been shown time and again that you are changing the meaning of the word, but you don't care. There is no where that it says, sex is only for marriage. In fact, it is noticably absent.

As far as other kinds of sex being mentioned, I think you should read you Bible again. If you go by the Old Testament, there are multiple mentions of sex outside of marriage and it is not required in the Old Testament to marry someone because of sex. In the New Testament, Jesus does not endorse any kind of sex but suggest that we not engage in sex with prostitutes or adultery. Paul suggests that we avoid sex AND marriage if we want to be the best Christians, but if we're too weak then he supposes it would be okay to break down and commit these acts. And he says that when people are married that they should give of each other freely to prevent them from sinning by going outside the marriage. That is the closest he ever comes to actually endorsing sex. He basically suggests that people never engage in either sex or marriage (that is not the same as calling either a sin). To suggest otherwise is a complete and utter twisting of the facts.

No you didn't. The KJV wasn't written in Latin. Your argument is about root latin origins of an english word. The root came from ancient Roman usage, the English word is the one the KJV uses, a thousand years later. Nice distraction though, not :rolleyes:

HA! I love when you just plain lie and excuse it by defending the Bible. I know the hypocrisy is apparent to more than just myself. I showed that you that it is a Middle English word with an origin in Latin. It meant in Middle English and for some time afterward to engage in sex with a whore as I showed in the link. And the origin of the term fornication is not a thousand years before KJV unless KJV isn't going to be written until several hundreds years in the future.

Yes, That's what I'm saying, and your link says the exact same thing I said.


See? Proper usage in late Middle English (very close to the time KJV was written) was in reference to prostitutes. It has only changed after the translation of the KJV to mean what it does today.

The change of the term wasn't immediate (notice I didn't say "at the time of the translation"). It changed over time or do you not get how language development works? In the translation they didn't say, "hey, you know what, let's use a word that means something else and then we'll just hope that everyone understands that we meant for it to be 'this'." It was related to prostitution when the term was first used in KJV and after people decided the passage should include other acts they changed the word to apply to their change in beliefs. Your argument is like saying if that I start a sect that believe fornication means eating pencil lead and we become so popular as to change the popular usage of the word that it somehow has an effect on the KJV usage as it was intended at translation or on the meaning of the word it translates. It's ridiculous.

All those things are talked about, and also, getting married if you can't live without it.

Any things that are talked about are listed seperately. You try to claim they were embodied in one word. If they were embodied in one word why would they need to be listed seperately. Maybe because they weren't and people who want the passage to mean that tried to deceive people into believe it says something it does not say.

Entirely grabbing at straws for your strawman or what? LOL :p Jesus said, "Give everything away and follow me." Not a word about having children, does that make him defy God's commandment to go forth an multiply as well :rolleyes: LMAO

That message wasn't to everyone. Paul's message was to everyone. You're again being intentionally deceptive. But don't worry, the smily makes your point so much more reasonable.

Jesus said marriage was our purpose. I'd say that's a hearty endorsement if I've heard one. -

Matthew 19 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Jesus most definitely set up a priority of leadership before he left, you simply choose to ignore them.

Really? So I guess he was lying then when he said that. Jesus, the liar, according to your beliefs. Or was he just wrong? Lying or wrong? I don't know that I like those choices. I'll just settle on infallible. How's that? Jesus was infallible. So if what you say contradicts him (and you saw me quote him), I'm gonna have to go with Jesus. Sorry, bud.

Can you show me where he said that there would again be religious leaders? Because he actively denounced them and their role as a group who puts forth the desires of God. He was very clear about our personal relationship and how that relationship should be cultivated.

Did he suggest praying in churches or in closets? Did he suggest judging or to not judge? Did he suggest humilty or holier-than-thou attitudes? Did he suggest that all men are equal in the eyes of God and that our relationship is direct and personal through Jesus or that we must subjugate our faith to other MEN? I know the answers to these questions. Do you?

Wowsers, you've entirely lost your mind haven't you? Do you see ghosts in the corners and aliens in your attic? Perhaps you should call someone for this sort of paranoia? It can't be fun to live in a self-made artificial reality...

Are you suggesting that they follow what you say or search for answers from their Savior as I am? Are you suggesting the passages they read from the Bible should only be interpreted by the reader or that you or others should help them come to the 'right' conclusions about the passages. I recommend they go to Jesus for the answers and you recommend yourself and others like you and then suggest that I am the one who wishes to replace the teachings within the Bible. I say no man can replace the words of Jesus and you have openly admitted to disagreeing with me. It's not paranoia when you admit it.

I love how you qualify me. I'm an enabler because I direct people to their Savior rather than to the teachings of men. Then I'm a conspircy nut because I direct people to their Savior instead of the teachings of men. What else am I? Unlike you I don't pretend to have any answer save two, and that is that Jesus is the personal Savior of each and every one of us if we accept him and the only no one on Earth is qualified to tell you what His purpose is. I direct people to Jesus Christ while you purport to be able to tell them what is right and wrong for them and you pretend that I am the one with difficulty being humble. It would be amusing if you were kidding.

Aww, you don't even like the way post smileys :( :rolleyes:


:p :D
Only seven. I like the smilies actually. That way I can quickly browse the post and decide the quality. Without them I'd have to actually read this nonsense before I knew it was nonsense.

Has anyone noticed how this happens in every thread? I tell people to listen to the message fo their Savior and ph33rdom suggest that they listen to the teaching of men while claiming the title that includes the name of that Savior. I tell people not to judge and to concentrate on their own sin and their own deeds and ph33rdom says no, no, Paul said I could judge even if Jesus told me not to. I quote the words of our Savior and tell people to treat others as they wish to be treated and ph33rdom tries to give you permission to condemn and to spread hate. I tell people that Jesus put us all as equals and said that our relationship with Him is personal and ph33rdom says you must bow to the authority of the church (just like the hypocrites tried to tell Jesus, I believe). I tell people to pray privately in a closet and ph33rdom tries to make it mandatory that we pray in class. Is anyone else getting tired of this? Yeah, me too.

I offer the same message to each of you. Don't worry about which of us is right only worry about your soul and your relationship with your Savior. If you wish to have answers do not ask for those answers of any man. Soften your heart and listen to what an open heart receives. If you do so, you can not help but be kind, be humble, be loving and be Saved. The message is there for those that would like to hear it and it has nothing to do with telling others what to do or condemning for subjective and inaccurate translations. Do not the let the actions of false prophets frighten you from softening your heart and hearing the message. It is there for you. And when you've heard it you'll have no question what Christianity really is and who around you truly embodies it.

And to those who are tired of seeing what goes on between ph33rdom and I, I apologize for my part. I have a difficult time allowing those, that would hear, to have their hearts hardened by those who use Christianity to slay what they decide are demons rather than save souls.

Has anyone noticed how this happens in every thread? I tell people to listen to the message fo their Savior and ph33rdom suggest that they listen to the teaching of men while claiming the title that includes the name of that Savior. I tell people not to judge and to concentrate on their own sin and their own deeds and ph33rdom says no, no, Paul said I could judge even if Jesus told me not to. I quote the words of our Savior and tell people to treat others as they wish to be treated and ph33rdom tries to give you permission to condemn and to spread hate. I tell people that Jesus put us all as equals and said that our relationship with Him is personal and ph33rdom says you must bow to the authority of the church (just like the hypocrites tried to tell Jesus, I believe). I tell people to pray privately in a closet and ph33rdom tries to make it mandatory that we pray in class. Is anyone else getting tired of this? Yeah, me too.

I offer the same message to each of you. Don't worry about which of us is right only worry about your soul and your relationship with your Savior. If you wish to have answers do not ask for those answers of any man. Soften your heart and listen to what an open heart receives. If you do so, you can not help but be kind, be humble, be loving and be Saved. The message is there for those that would like to hear it and it has nothing to do with telling others what to do or condemning for subjective and inaccurate translations. Do not the let the actions of false prophets frighten you from softening your heart and hearing the message. It is there for you. And when you've heard it you'll have no question what Christianity really is and who around you truly embodies it.

And to those who are tired of seeing what goes on between ph33rdom and I, I apologize for my part. I have a difficult time allowing those, that would hear, to have their hearts hardened by those who use Christianity to slay what they decide are demons rather than save souls.

If all christians were like you, the world would be a MUCH better place.

Keep spreading your message, especially to those who would usurp your faith to fulfill their own desire for power and domination over others.

Biblical disapproval of sexual relations outside (or before) marriage is profusely, lavishly clear, only in your twisted attempt to change the meanings of the words used to match your intended purpose can any confusion occur.

The NT goes beyond the OT, as you and I both know, and the whole sexuality of a person is placed within the context of motivation. Jesus emphasized that to entertain lustful desires toward a person of the opposite sex outside marriage means to be guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28) and adultery (sexual intercourse between a married women or a married men and someone other than their marital partner), was known as a serious sin. When Jesus spoke of ‘lusting’ being enough to be guilty of the Sin, it must have shocked and appalled his audience at the time because not only were they all guilty, adultery was forbidden in the OT and punishable as a capital offense.

But what Jesus spoke of, the reason for this level of defilement being sufficient as cause of the Sin, comes not only from the outward act but also from inward thoughts, which comes from the heart, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man" (Matt 15:19-20).

The world Jesus spoke to was a Hellenized Hebrew world, and his message continued via the spreading of the good news to other places as well that existed then as sexually lax and acceptable of the pervasions of the Greco-Roman world of the times. Thus, one of the conditions the Jerusalem council made for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian Church was that they should abstain from all forms of "unchastity" (Acts 15:20,29). Paul's letters reveal the difficulties the apostle had in leading Gentile converts away from sexual immorality. To the Thessalonians, he wrote: "For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God" (1 Thess 4:2-5).

The NT instructs those who have sexual urges to gratify them (if they can’t control them) by entering NOT into temporary relationships "in the passion of lust like the heathen who do not know God," but into permanent marital relationships. Such relationships are characterized as "holiness and honor." Paul is even more explicit in his condemnation of prostitution but it is in no way the ONLY perversion he speaks of when the word Fornication is used in the English translations. He asks the Corinthians who lived in the celebrated sex center of the Mediterranean world: "Do you now know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two shall become one flesh.' But he who is unified to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.” There is just no way, none whatsoever, that a reasonable person could think that only prostitution was spoken of or that pre-marital sex was not prohibited (it is beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Well, according to Jesus, if you so much as loook at a woman with lust, and you are committing adultery, or if neither of you is married, it is as bad as sex before marriage.

Has anyone noticed how this happens in every thread? I tell people to listen to the message fo their Savior and ph33rdom suggest that they listen to the teaching of men while claiming the title that includes the name of that Savior. I tell people not to judge and to concentrate on their own sin and their own deeds and ph33rdom says no, no, Paul said I could judge even if Jesus told me not to.

Nice strawman! :rolleyes: Ad hominene to boot as well. :p

I've directed people to read the Bible, to read the NT, to listen and believe the messages that Jesus through the Holy Ghost as seen fit to bring down to us.

Rather you would attack Paul and the teachings of the Bible's NT, by attacking me. Nice.

I quote the words of our Savior and tell people to treat others as they wish to be treated and ph33rdom tries to give you permission to condemn and to spread hate. I tell people that Jesus put us all as equals and said that our relationship with Him is personal and ph33rdom says you must bow to the authority of the church (just like the hypocrites tried to tell Jesus, I believe). I tell people to pray privately in a closet and ph33rdom tries to make it mandatory that we pray in class. Is anyone else getting tired of this? Yeah, me too.
.

More strawmen,
What you do is tell them that they can do whatever they want. That their lives of secular wantonness is just fine, they have nothing to worry about. You play the Nero and fiddle as the world burns.

Nice strawman! :rolleyes: Ad hominene to boot as well. :p

I've directed people to read the Bible, to read the NT, to listen and believe the messages that Jesus through the Holy Ghost as seen fit to bring down to us.

Rather you would attack Paul and the teachings of the Bible's NT, by attacking me. Nice.



More strawmen,
What you do is tell them that they can do whatever they want. That their lives of secular wantonness is just fine, they have nothing to worry about. You play the Nero and fiddle as the world burns.

Ha. Quote me. Tell me where I said any of the actions you claim I've said are acceptable. What I've said is that what is acceptable or not acceptable is not decided by you or I but by our Savior. I'm sorry you disagree. They need to listen to the lessons written on their heart by our Savior and follow those lessons. I will not pretend to know what the message on their heart is. Only the message on mine is available to me. I let Jesus choose there path. Again, I'm sorry you disagree with this. I tell them to put their faith in Jesus Christ and not me or you or any man. I'm sorry you disagree with this.

As far as arguing what is and is not in the Bible, this is to suggest that such acts are necessarily right, only that they are not condemned in the Bible and thus you cannot know what is allowed for others only for you in regards to such things. You are not in a position to judge sin. You simply aren't and no amount of arguing with me will ever change this. You say that because I refuse to condemn their actions that encourage them to continue in sin. However, I encourage to use their faith to figure out what is acceptable for them. How can I shout in their ear any clearer than Jesus writes on their heart?

Ascribe whatever you like to me, but I can never lead anyone astray because I lead people to NO PLACE except for to faith and to a personal relationship with our Savior. You agree that they should have a relationship with our Savior, but they should ignore what that relationship tells them if a man or a misinterpretation of a passage tells them so. Which of us carries the greatest danger of being wrong? I think the answer is obvious.

Which of us carries the greatest danger of being wrong? I think the answer is obvious.


Yes, I agree, it is obvious. You think the Bible is wrong and tell people not to believe it, I think it is right and tell them they should read it and believe it.

Biblical disapproval of sexual relations outside (or before) marriage is profusely, lavishly clear, only in your twisted attempt to change the meanings of the words used to match your intended purpose can any confusion occur.

The NT goes beyond the OT, as you and I both know, and the whole sexuality of a person is placed within the context of motivation. Jesus emphasized that to entertain lustful desires toward a person of the opposite sex outside marriage means to be guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28) and adultery (sexual intercourse between a married women or a married men and someone other than their marital partner), was known as a serious sin. When Jesus spoke of ‘lusting’ being enough to be guilty of the Sin, it must have shocked and appalled his audience at the time because not only were they all guilty, adultery was forbidden in the OT and punishable as a capital offense.

Wow, some people don't understand the definition of adultery. Jesus accepted that adultery refers to married men so that message was toward married men. Or did you not understand that? You changed the meaning to deceive people. I don't understand how you can justify amending the words of Jesus. For those that would like to read it. Here you go.

Matthew 5 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It is clear that he is suggesting that committing the same sin in your heart is equivalent. Not a different sin as you'd have people believe, ph33r.

But what Jesus spoke of, the reason for this level of defilement being sufficient as cause of the Sin, comes not only from the outward act but also from inward thoughts, which comes from the heart, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man" (Matt 15:19-20).

Yep, we agree on that. But then I agree with everything Jesus said. This is why I don't believe in laws to address sin. The only way to combat sin is to encourage people to listen to the message of the Lord on their hearts. One cannot escape their conscience once they begin to listen to it and it directs when our actions occur outside of the purview of men.

The world Jesus spoke to was a Hellenized Hebrew world, and his message continued via the spreading of the good news to other places as well that existed then as sexually lax and acceptable of the pervasions of the Greco-Roman world of the times. Thus, one of the conditions the Jerusalem council made for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian Church was that they should abstain from all forms of "unchastity" (Acts 15:20,29). Paul's letters reveal the difficulties the apostle had in leading Gentile converts away from sexual immorality. To the Thessalonians, he wrote: "For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God" (1 Thess 4:2-5).

The NT instructs those who have sexual urges to gratify them (if they can’t control them) by entering NOT into temporary relationships "in the passion of lust like the heathen who do not know God," but into permanent marital relationships. Such relationships are characterized as "holiness and honor." Paul is even more explicit in his condemnation of prostitution but it is in no way the ONLY perversion he speaks of when the word Fornication is used in the English translations. He asks the Corinthians who lived in the celebrated sex center of the Mediterranean world: "Do you now know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two shall become one flesh.' But he who is unified to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.” There is just no way, none whatsoever, that a reasonable person could think that only prostitution was spoken of or that pre-marital sex was not prohibited (it is beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Again, I love how one can believe a MAN is infallible but that man is unable to clearly state his message. Odd, that argument is. "I know he said this, but he meant this." I prefer to think of Paul as a religious scholar who very articulately made his points until people bastardized them to their own purposes. There is an easy way around this though. I just ask for the right answers.

Matthew 7 7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."

In other words, if you want to truly know what God intends for you ask. It will be answered if you are still enough. ph33rdom doesn't know the answer and does not have access to it as much as he'd like to. No one can legislate or design your path for you save the Lord and our Savior.

See, some people get angry with me because they are afraid that you will ask and get an answer that they don't approve of. I seek not to approve of the answers given you by God. I am in no place to do so.

Yes, I agree, it is obvious. You think the Bible is wrong and tell people not to believe it, I think it is right and tell them they should read it and believe it.

No I tell them to read the Bible and ignore you. I tell them to read and adhere to the words of our Savior and to have their questions answered by Him and Him alone. Paul was not infallible (by his own admission) and did not have the same protections on his words that Jesus did. Jesus told the Apostles clearly that His words could not be bastardized and that they would be passed down. I tell all to read his words and hear them and create a personal relationship with our Savior and let that relationship drive them rather than the immature ramblings of people who want to decide what you should and should not do. Once we accept our Savior, our Spirit answers to no mere human. I know it upsets you that I free them from any spiritual control on Earth by letting them have faith in guidance from the heavens. I know it makes you jealous because you yourself are not free of spiritual control by men. But, seriously, grow up. I'm quite certain that you can't yell enough to drown out that voice inside you that will eventually be heard. And when it is you will be freed from the guidance of men and submit all guidance to your faith in your Savior and then all jealousy and anger will fade away. The only time we are lost is when we stop looking at the moral compass we have within. Unless you're honestly suggesting that you cannot find in the scripture that we are filled with the holy spirit when we accept the Savior.

... I know it upsets you that I free them from any spiritual control on Earth by letting them have faith in guidance from the heavens. I know it makes you jealous because you yourself are not free of spiritual control by men. But, seriously, grow up. I'm quite certain that you can't yell enough to drown out that voice inside you that will eventually be heard. And when it is you will be freed from the guidance of men and submit all guidance to your faith in your Savior and then all jealousy and anger will fade away. ...

OMGosh.. Okay :rolleyes:

Maybe next we can hear about how I just can't stand other people being happy? :p And you can tell us all how there is no evil in the world and everyone treats everyone just great because we all instinctively know how to be ever so nice to each other.

But no, nice try, but sorry. HippySecular-Fantasy-Love crap doesn't really work, and neither does faerie dust, sugar plums nor good intentions.

People can and do have real and personal relationships with their Savior. There is no doubt, but you would have them do it, that is, direct the rest of their lives after meeting their savior, without the benefit of the owner’s manual he provided, you say that they should be able to do it without their map, without the directions given, without their guide nor their how-to book. And after all the trouble the Holy Ghost went through making sure it was here for them, saving it for them, you just want them to throw it away so that they are ever more susceptible to the wiles and tricks of those that would deceive them. :rolleyes:

You have a twisted definition of "fundamentalist". The definition you use does not fit me, but the commonly accepted one does.

Fundamentalist does not equal hater. Does not equal finger pointer. There's nothing wrong with reading the Bible.

I've been to Unitarian services in this area before. Most of the people who were in attendance had come from various other churches (not just Christians) who felt they had a horrible experience in their first religion. They spent 99 percent of the time badmouthing their previous religion (whatever it might have been), and expecting me to tell a similar tale of woe.

Some of the services openly mocked the idea that anyone would have a central tenet of belief, especially in God, so I walked out.
Well, in my book, that is EXACTLY what a fundamentalist is. A hater. A finger-pointer. A smug, self-righteous, holier-than-thou self-satisfied jerk.
And that is what I mean when I refer to "fundamentalists."

*raises mirror*
Yeah. Have you got the guts...the intestinal fortitude to look into that mirror yourself? can you point that finger at YOURSELF, oh, holier-than-thou??

Has anyone noticed how this happens in every thread? I tell people to listen to the message fo their Savior and ph33rdom suggest that they listen to the teaching of men while claiming the title that includes the name of that Savior. I tell people not to judge and to concentrate on their own sin and their own deeds and ph33rdom says no, no, Paul said I could judge even if Jesus told me not to. I quote the words of our Savior and tell people to treat others as they wish to be treated and ph33rdom tries to give you permission to condemn and to spread hate. I tell people that Jesus put us all as equals and said that our relationship with Him is personal and ph33rdom says you must bow to the authority of the church (just like the hypocrites tried to tell Jesus, I believe). I tell people to pray privately in a closet and ph33rdom tries to make it mandatory that we pray in class. Is anyone else getting tired of this? Yeah, me too.

I offer the same message to each of you. Don't worry about which of us is right only worry about your soul and your relationship with your Savior. If you wish to have answers do not ask for those answers of any man. Soften your heart and listen to what an open heart receives. If you do so, you can not help but be kind, be humble, be loving and be Saved. The message is there for those that would like to hear it and it has nothing to do with telling others what to do or condemning for subjective and inaccurate translations. Do not the let the actions of false prophets frighten you from softening your heart and hearing the message. It is there for you. And when you've heard it you'll have no question what Christianity really is and who around you truly embodies it.

And to those who are tired of seeing what goes on between ph33rdom and I, I apologize for my part. I have a difficult time allowing those, that would hear, to have their hearts hardened by those who use Christianity to slay what they decide are demons rather than save souls.

Why do you think Ph33rdom is on my fucking ignore list, and has been there forever? Because I can't stand the hypocrisy.

If all christians were like you, the world would be a MUCH better place.

Keep spreading your message, especially to those who would usurp your faith to fulfill their own desire for power and domination over others.

Agree. now if only you could get the loudmouth false Christians to STFU, and get more Christians like you to SPEAK UP...I bet christianity would be looked upon much more favorably than it corrently is...fewer people would spit the word "Christian" out as if it were a swear word.

OMGosh.. Okay :rolleyes:

Maybe next we can hear about how I just can't stand other people being happy?

Pretty much, that is the case with people like you. You use the Bible to rob other people of the happiness of life, you use it to condemn and to judge others...especially, enemies of your own choosing. Which is why you have been, and shall remain, on my ignore list.

No I tell them to read the Bible and ignore you. I tell them to read and adhere to the words of our Savior and to have their questions answered by Him and Him alone. Paul was not infallible (by his own admission) and did not have the same protections on his words that Jesus did. Jesus told the Apostles clearly that His words could not be bastardized and that they would be passed down. I tell all to read his words and hear them and create a personal relationship with our Savior and let that relationship drive them rather than the immature ramblings of people who want to decide what you should and should not do. Once we accept our Savior, our Spirit answers to no mere human. I know it upsets you that I free them from any spiritual control on Earth by letting them have faith in guidance from the heavens. I know it makes you jealous because you yourself are not free of spiritual control by men. But, seriously, grow up. I'm quite certain that you can't yell enough to drown out that voice inside you that will eventually be heard. And when it is you will be freed from the guidance of men and submit all guidance to your faith in your Savior and then all jealousy and anger will fade away. The only time we are lost is when we stop looking at the moral compass we have within. Unless you're honestly suggesting that you cannot find in the scripture that we are filled with the holy spirit when we accept the Savior.

OMGosh.. Okay :rolleyes:

Maybe next we can hear about how I just can't stand other people being happy? :p And you can tell us all how there is no evil in the world and everyone treats everyone just great because we all instinctively know how to be ever so nice to each other.

But no, nice try, but sorry. HippySecular-Fantasy-Love crap doesn't really work, and neither does faerie dust, sugar plums nor good intentions.

People can and do have real and personal relationships with their Savior. There is no doubt, but you would have them do it, that is, direct the rest of their lives after meeting their savior, without the benefit of the owner’s manual he provided, you say that they should be able to do it without their map, without the directions given, without their guide nor their how-to book. And after all the trouble the Holy Ghost went through making sure it was here for them, saving it for them, you just want them to throw it away so that they are ever more susceptible to the wiles and tricks of those that would deceive them. :rolleyes:

This one was great. I can't wait to show my friends. I nearly choked on my quesadilla. Yeah, I can't find where I'm allowed to eat those in the Bible either, but my faith is strong enough that I have complete certainty that it's acceptable. I especially loved that part where you suggested messages of peace and love that Jesus taught and suggested that one accents their relationship to him is "hippySecular-fantasy-love" crap. I'm sorry that you have so little faith.

I'll just let your post stand on it's own, only I'll put back the parts you cut out of your quote of me and bold your lies.

FYI: Top quote is yours, not mine, yet it highlights like I said it. You might want to fix that. You're welcome

FYI: Top quote is yours, not mine, yet it highlights like I said it. You might want to fix that. You're welcome

Hey, you're not only right, but you're being honest. I'm so proud.

A lot of talk here about the sex before marriage issue, with special emphasis of the meaning of the word "fornication".

Even if fornication did mean sex with prostitutes and by force, etc., this does not on its own endorse premarital relations. Marriage is a commitment between two people; as Jesus said, what God has joined together, none shall separate.

Thus sex between these two people is in its perfect, most beautiful form. Premarital monogamistic sex, if both parties are true to each other, has no reason to not become marriage.

If it's not monogamy, and each is sleeping around with multiple partners... well, that might be considered "whoring". :(

Thus, fornication. So please, no more of this pre-marital sex for Christians nonsense.

A lot of talk here about the sex before marriage issue, with special emphasis of the meaning of the word "fornication".

Even if fornication did mean sex with prostitutes and by force, etc., this does not on its own endorse premarital relations. Marriage is a commitment between two people; as Jesus said, what God has joined together, none shall separate.

Thus sex between these two people is in its perfect, most beautiful form. Premarital monogamistic sex, if both parties are true to each other, has no reason to not become marriage.

If it's not monogamy, and each is sleeping around with multiple partners... well, that might be considered "whoring". :(

Thus, fornication. So please, no more of this pre-marital sex for Christians nonsense.
Whoring was only prostitution until we changed the meaning of the word. No one said Christians should engage in premarital sex. We just said that premarital sex is not condemned in the Bible. You cannot find it in there.

Whoring was only prostitution until we changed the meaning of the word.

Fornication, not prostitution. That's the word whose evolving definition has been discussed.

No one said Christians should engage in premarital sex. We just said that premarital sex is not condemned in the Bible. You cannot find it in there.

Not specifically, though Jesus speaks *very* highly of marriage, and he condemns fornication. You could interpret this to mean that there was no problem with monogomous love-sex; but, if that is the case, then why are the two not married in this modern scenario?

I went ahead and confirmed the following for anyone that might be tempted to think that Fornication ONLY means prostitution… Some words translated in the NT as Fornication…

Porneia
1. illicit sexual intercourse
a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b. sexual intercourse with close relatives;
c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2. metaphorical. the worship of idols
a. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

Used 25 times in the NAS: fornication 4, fornications 2, immoralities 1, immorality 16, sexual immorality 1, unchastity 1

(Mt 15:19 Joh 8:41 and as you so convienently ignored: 1Co 7:2 But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. ~ instead of have sexual relations outside of marriage)

Porneuo
1. to prostitute one's body to the lust of another
2. to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse
a. to commit fornication
3. metaph. to be given to idolatry, to worship idols
a. to permit one's self to be drawn away by another into idolatry

Used 8 times in the NAS: act immorally 1, commit...immorality 2, committed...immorality 3, did 1, immoral 1
(1Co 6:18 1Co 10:8 for example)

Porne
1. a woman who sells her body for sexual uses
a. a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain
b. any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust
2. metaph. an idolatress
a. of "Babylon" i.e. Rome, the chief seat of idolatry

Used 12 times in the NAS: harlot 6, harlots 1, prostitute 2, prostitutes 3
(Mt 21:31 Mt 21:32 for example)

I'm sure you are well aware of the fact that, JUST because it is translated a certain way, a number of times.... there is no necessary reason to assume that that 'certain way' is right.

The classic example being 'arsenokoites'... which is translated one way in scripture... but appears nowhere else.

It is dishonest to pretend that the 'accepted' translations are the 'meanings' of the words. All they are, at best, is words that SEEM to fit in the context.

WAIT, i can't have sex with dogs!!!!! And lesbians arn't allright? It says man with another man, it don't say anything about to hot chicks doing it. (I am just in denile)

Can you show me where he said that there would again be religious leaders? Because he actively denounced them and their role as a group who puts forth the desires of God.

Actually, church authority is one of my big things.

Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place." Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task . . . (continues to describe the role)

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

This next one is a personal favourite. It is the first recorded time that the Church council has met together, made a decision based on practicalities of the times, and made other church communitites enforce it. All through the power of the Holy Spirit.

"Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell."

And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter. When the people read it, they were delighted with exhortation.

And, let's not forget just exactly what every book after Acts is doing. Each epistle is Paul (or someone else), with church authority, instructing others on matters of faith and practice.

He was very clear about our personal relationship and how that relationship should be cultivated.

Yes, but he was also very clear about our communal relationship with God:

Amen, amen, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Did he suggest praying in churches or in closets?

After I had returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and . . . (continues his story)

A lot of prayer in the New Testament is done in households, but this is because the Christian communities were new. The entire concept of a church is to have a location where everything is focused toward prayer and the greater glory of God, with a minimum of distractions.

Did he suggest judging or to not judge? Did he suggest humilty or holier-than-thou attitudes?

The judging prohibition does not apply to us who know the truth:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside.

Did he suggest that all men are equal in the eyes of God and that our relationship is direct and personal through Jesus or that we must subjugate our faith to other MEN?

Well, we do have the direct and personal relationship, but it's not exactly just that simple:

I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.

If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone . . . If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.

It's a very tricky thing, finding our personal relationship with Christ amongst our communal relationship with His Church. But the concept of a united, authoritative church does exist in the Bible.

We just have to be better, more loving people.

I'm sure you are well aware of the fact that, JUST because it is translated a certain way, a number of times.... there is no necessary reason to assume that that 'certain way' is right.

The classic example being 'arsenokoites'... which is translated one way in scripture... but appears nowhere else.

It is dishonest to pretend that the 'accepted' translations are the 'meanings' of the words. All they are, at best, is words that SEEM to fit in the context.

Hi Graven, I was wondering why you hadn't chirped in yet on a translation discussion thread, I needn't have worried eh ;)

As to your post, your statement is rational (however, I don't want to address the 'arsenokoites' word in this thread, we can't even agree on a word used dozens of times how could we even begin to talk about a word used only once :p ), but rational statement or not, you did not state YOUR translation/opinion of what the word(s) means.

Would you care to share with us your translations of the 'Porn--' words being discussed here (or entire verses if you prefer)? I'm interested in hearing how you read them (even if it turns out to be something about phallic symbols and lunar oppression of women or something like that) :p

Fornication, not prostitution. That's the word whose evolving definition has been discussed.



Not specifically, though Jesus speaks *very* highly of marriage, and he condemns fornication. You could interpret this to mean that there was no problem with monogomous love-sex; but, if that is the case, then why are the two not married in this modern scenario?

Fornication at the time it began being used in translations of the Bible meant sex with female prostitutes. So fornication was directly related to prostitution and gets it's origins from prostitution. Keep in mind that prostitution was generally people who were poor and desperate. If you think no one's suffering in prostitution, you are wrong. Jesus condemn hurting each other. Condemning using prostitutes is very consistent with his message.

Fornication at the time it began being used in translations of the Bible meant sex with female prostitutes. So fornication was directly related to prostitution and gets it's origins from prostitution. Keep in mind that prostitution was generally people who were poor and desperate. If you think no one's suffering in prostitution, you are wrong. Jesus condemn hurting each other. Condemning using prostitutes is very consistent with his message.

Hmm. This is a very sound point. But I don't think it changes the overall situation:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ's members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not! [Or] do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For "the two," it says, "will become one flesh."

The relationship between marriage and sex in the Bible is strong, considering the reasons Paul condemns prostitution in his letter to the Corinthians. More or less, that sort of intercourse is considered a mockery of marriage. The same could be cross-applied to someone having sex with a number of partners over his/her lifetime.

Of course, it would also seem to have little trouble with two people who have sex with each other exclusively even if they aren't legally married. Perhaps the act itself marries them in the eyes of God?

Actually, church authority is one of my big things.

Too bad it wasn't Jesus'. I tend to listen to him over you or even Paul. I'm weird like that. Worshipping the Son of God rather than men.


This next one is a personal favourite. It is the first recorded time that the Church council has met together, made a decision based on practicalities of the times, and made other church communitites enforce it. All through the power of the Holy Spirit.


And, let's not forget just exactly what every book after Acts is doing. Each epistle is Paul (or someone else), with church authority, instructing others on matters of faith and practice.


Yes, but he was also very clear about our communal relationship with God:



A lot of prayer in the New Testament is done in households, but this is because the Christian communities were new. The entire concept of a church is to have a location where everything is focused toward prayer and the greater glory of God, with a minimum of distractions.

The judging prohibition does not apply to us who know the truth:

Well, we do have the direct and personal relationship, but it's not exactly just that simple:

It's a very tricky thing, finding our personal relationship with Christ amongst our communal relationship with His Church. But the concept of a united, authoritative church does exist in the Bible.

We just have to be better, more loving people.

I agree with that last part, but let's see what Jesus has to say about some of your points. Jesus didn't have a Church. Paul did.

Matthew 23 5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.' 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. 13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.


Hmmm... Jesus didn't believe in church authority, but if you want to, that's fine so long as you don't force that belief on others.

Now, what did He think about praying in Church -

Matthew 6 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Strike two. Jesus called men who prayed in Church hypocrites. That's a hard one to miss. It's says to conduct your prayers in private. Does that mean men should not gather and celebrate the Lord? Of course not. It's just how you do it that matters.

How about judging? I think Jesus was pretty clear on that one.

Matthew 7 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

It is always amazing to me how someone could think it is acceptable to cross off the words of the Son of God with the words of a biblical scholar even one as influential and as important as Paul. Whom do you worship? I choose to worship Jesus and thus take his word above all others.

And here's a little more from Matthew 7 -

Matthew 7 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

You wonder why people have a problem with the Church but the Church is covered with thorns and has famously born bad fruit for centuries. Death, hatred, condemnation and bigotry is fruit from these trees. Why is it surprising to you that so many would like to cut it down and throw it in the fire? Your attentions should aimed at the bad fruit if you wish to save the tree.

And finally, I leave you with this -
Matthew 7 24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

I hear the words of Jesus and put them into practice. Any word goes against those of Jesus is rejected by me and will continue to be so that my foundation may remain strong. Now if you can make your arguments against me with words of Jesus I will rethink my argument. But if you intend to use the words of a man to try to convince me to change my stance expect to be spit out like rotten fruit.

EDIT: I missed two of the passages you brought up. My translation has it as anything you ask for together, not pray for. I don't believe the intent was for it to be outloud. Jesus gave a lot of power to faith, a recurring theme in the story of Jesus, and I believe the passage is stating that if you and your brethren are of one mind and one heart and your methods pure that you will receive what you ask for. In other words, if you truly have faith in the glory of God and that you will be cared for, you will be. I doubt this applies to getting a car or a lottery ticket (you weren't implying that, I just wish to be understood.) The other passage that was very near this one is the one about going to the Church, notice he said if your brother trespasses or sins AGAINST YOU. Not if your brother sins. I think Jesus was clear that addressing the actions of another against you is not judgement. Addressing the actions of another that does not affect you or anyone else is judgement and Jesus was clear about His position on judgment.

Hmm. This is a very sound point. But I don't think it changes the overall situation:







The relationship between marriage and sex in the Bible is strong, considering the reasons Paul condemns prostitution in his letter to the Corinthians. More or less, that sort of intercourse is considered a mockery of marriage. The same could be cross-applied to someone having sex with a number of partners over his/her lifetime.

Of course, it would also seem to have little trouble with two people who have sex with each other exclusively even if they aren't legally married. Perhaps the act itself marries them in the eyes of God?

Great, so we have adultery and prostitution. Both clearly sins according to the Bible. Again, you've not said anything I didn't stipulate to in the beginning of the conversation. All sex with prositutes is wrong whether inside or outside of a marriage. Marital partners cheating on each other is wrong whether with or without prostitutes. They are not related. They are both condemned whether done simultaneously or seperately. That hardly makes your point.

Jesus didn't have a Church. Paul did.

If you only use the Gospels, the Gospel quotes still hold. I already posted the ones about Jesus telling his apostles that whatever they bound/loosed on earth would be bound/loosed in heaven, and whatever sins they forgived/retained Christ would also forgive/retain. Regardless of how you interpret the "on this rock I will build my church" verses, the surrounding verses indicate that the apostles have more authority than others.

Besides, Jesus infers in the Gospels that various aspects of Church life would differ after he ascended into heaven:

Then the disciples of John approached him and said, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast [much], but your disciples do not fast?" Jesus answered them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast."

Now, you have several valid points to remember:

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.' 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. 13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

But look at the examples he condemns. Pharisees, rabbis, and followers of the law. He is condemning pride, hypocrisy, and strict adherence to the old law over love and the overall message; through these things we fail to serve our fellows humans. We are all brothers, so we are not to think ourselves superior to anyone else.

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

He does not call people who pray in church hypocrites. He calls the ones who pray "to be seen by men" as hypocrites.

What about Daniel in the Old Testament, who was thrown in the lions' den for praying where he could be seen? It all concerns your own quote: "It's just how you do it that matters."

A lot of people who pray in churches fall under this hypocrisy category. Likewise, a lot of people who meet for *house groups* also fall under this category. I don't think that necessarily condemns either. Church buildings are set off as buildings to where people can pray together and focus on God; that is the only reason they should exist.

After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions, and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety." And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"

Then Jesus entered the temple area and proceeded to drive out those who were selling things, saying to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.'" And every day he was teaching in the temple area.

Hypocrisy is so terrible in this case because the institution is so good, but those in power had perverted it.

It is always amazing to me how someone could think it is acceptable to cross off the words of the Son of God with the words of a biblical scholar even one as influential and as important as Paul. Whom do you worship? I choose to worship Jesus and thus take his word above all others.

Well, I do agree completely with the quote from Jesus you cited about judgment. But I also believe that those after him, whom he gave the authority of his church to, are trustworthy in interpreting his words. I believe Paul was interpreting Jesus's judgment command, not trying to cross it off.

You wonder why people have a problem with the Church but the Church is covered with thorns and has famously born bad fruit for centuries. Death, hatred, condemnation and bigotry is fruit from these trees. Why is it surprising to you that so many would like to cut it down and throw it in the fire? Your attentions should aimed at the bad fruit if you wish to save the tree.

He does warn about false prophets, and his warning signs to look for all involve hypocrisy. Christians have born bad fruit in many instances, but they have also born good fruit over all. I mean, look at the Gospels! Most of the apostles run off, away from Jesus, when he is taken away. Peter strikes a man's ear, and he later denies Christ three times openly, but he is the one whom Jesus seems to give the most authority to. And what of the demons that the apostles could not exorcise until Jesus did so himself? This did not mean they were following a false doctrine; in fact, they were later able to cure these possessions in the book of Acts.

I hear the words of Jesus and put them into practice. Any word goes against those of Jesus is rejected by me and will continue to be so that my foundation may remain strong. Now if you can make your arguments against me with words of Jesus I will rethink my argument. But if you intend to use the words of a man to try to convince me to change my stance expect to be spit out like rotten fruit.

But, in the Bible, the words of man are the inspired words of God. The Gospels were written through man, just as the epistles were. What about this Jesus quote:

In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

You won't find that Jesus quote anywhere in the Gospels. Even though it is written in the book of Acts, can we believe that Jesus actually said it? It goes along with the belief that Jesus in the Gospels does not comment specifically on every single thing Jesus believed:

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

And what about Jesus speaking after the Ascension?

((Saul)) said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what to do."

Jesus was instructing Paul personally on what should be done.

Holding to only the Gospels over any other New Testament book is a faith in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John over the other servants of Christ. Many scholars believe that the epistles were written before the Gospels in the accepted Christian canon, anyway.

And what of the book of Acts? All the church activity that occurs in the book of Acts seems to be blessed by God and Christ. Most accepted belief is that the author of Acts is the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke, so that Gospel may have to be rejected if its sequel is likewise removed from canon.

With only the Gospels, the whole picture of Christ's message cannot be seen. His people were not meant to die off after he ascended, after all.

Great, so we have adultery and prostitution. Both clearly sins according to the Bible. Again, you've not said anything I didn't stipulate to in the beginning of the conversation. All sex with prositutes is wrong whether inside or outside of a marriage. Marital partners cheating on each other is wrong whether with or without prostitutes. They are not related. They are both condemned whether done simultaneously or seperately. That hardly makes your point.

Hold on. Perhaps we agree, once semantics are removed. :D

I think I found your initial challenge:

For example, can you show me where the Bible condemns sex before marriage rather than sleeping with another person's spouse, cheating on your spouse or prostitution?

Are you talking about two people having sex before they are married?

Or, are you talking about two people having sex, and then they move on with their lives and have sex with other people (thus not making it adultery), and then they move on to have sex with other people, and so on before finding a person to marry?

If you only use the Gospels, the Gospel quotes still hold. I already posted the ones about Jesus telling his apostles that whatever they bound/loosed on earth would be bound/loosed in heaven, and whatever sins they forgived/retained Christ would also forgive/retain. Regardless of how you interpret the "on this rock I will build my church" verses, the surrounding verses indicate that the apostles have more authority than others.

Besides, Jesus infers in the Gospels that various aspects of Church life would differ after he ascended into heaven:



Now, you have several valid points to remember:



But look at the examples he condemns. Pharisees, rabbis, and followers of the law. He is condemning pride, hypocrisy, and strict adherence to the old law over love and the overall message; through these things we fail to serve our fellows humans. We are all brothers, so we are not to think ourselves superior to anyone else.



He does not call people who pray in church hypocrites. He calls the ones who pray "to be seen by men" as hypocrites.

What about Daniel in the Old Testament, who was thrown in the lions' den for praying where he could be seen? It all concerns your own quote: "It's just how you do it that matters."

A lot of people who pray in churches fall under this hypocrisy category. Likewise, a lot of people who meet for *house groups* also fall under this category. I don't think that necessarily condemns either. Church buildings are set off as buildings to where people can pray together and focus on God; that is the only reason they should exist.





Hypocrisy is so terrible in this case because the institution is so good, but those in power had perverted it.



Well, I do agree completely with the quote from Jesus you cited about judgment. But I also believe that those after him, whom he gave the authority of his church to, are trustworthy in interpreting his words. I believe Paul was interpreting Jesus's judgment command, not trying to cross it off.



He does warn about false prophets, and his warning signs to look for all involve hypocrisy. Christians have born bad fruit in many instances, but they have also born good fruit over all. I mean, look at the Gospels! Most of the apostles run off, away from Jesus, when he is taken away. Peter strikes a man's ear, and he later denies Christ three times openly, but he is the one whom Jesus seems to give the most authority to. And what of the demons that the apostles could not exorcise until Jesus did so himself? This did not mean they were following a false doctrine; in fact, they were later able to cure these possessions in the book of Acts.



But, in the Bible, the words of man are the inspired words of God. The Gospels were written through man, just as the epistles were. What about this Jesus quote:



You won't find that Jesus quote anywhere in the Gospels. Even though it is written in the book of Acts, can we believe that Jesus actually said it? It goes along with the belief that Jesus in the Gospels does not comment specifically on every single thing Jesus believed:



And what about Jesus speaking after the Ascension?



Jesus was instructing Paul personally on what should be done.

Holding to only the Gospels over any other New Testament book is a faith in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John over the other servants of Christ. Many scholars believe that the epistles were written before the Gospels in the accepted Christian canon, anyway.

And what of the book of Acts? All the church activity that occurs in the book of Acts seems to be blessed by God and Christ. Most accepted belief is that the author of Acts is the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke, so that Gospel may have to be rejected if its sequel is likewise removed from canon.

With only the Gospels, the whole picture of Christ's message cannot be seen. His people were not meant to die off after he ascended, after all.

Not sure what you're arguing against. I said the words of Jesus, not the Gospels. Peter has as much authority to pass the words of Jesus as John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. I only said that I take the words of Jesus above all else because Jesus protected his words in the minds of his Apostles and their descendents but he did not protect anyone's interpretations. In fact, I believe he intended for us to interpret his words not to allow others to do it for us.

I do believe that Jesus was concerned with motivation. If you keep your prayer private, then you have no need to worry of motivation of you or others. Jesus directed you to keep in private. He didn't only mention the motivation, he told you what to do and say when you pray. He was remarkably consistent in His message. The only inconsistencies that can be found are in the interpretations of others.

And examples from the Old Testament are poor examples. Jesus clearly changed things when he came, unless we still stone women for adultery and men can take the virginity of women so long as they pay for it.

Again, I have to ask what are you arguing against. I didn't say you shouldn't worship together or explore the word together. I said prayer is private and in all questions of the faith one should subjugate himself to only one authority, the only authority there is and it's not any man.

Paul has no authority to amend the words of Jesus. He said often that he was voicing opinions not the authority of God.

And you comment like with only the words of Jesus would could not continue. Are the words of Jesus not enough? Did he fail in his mission only for it to be salvaged by Paul? I accept that people were saved before Paul, because the words and exploits of Jesus were made available to them through the Apostles and their descendents. I don't listen to the opinions of men. Period. If you read a history book which would you consider more reliable and a description of what happened and what was said or someone's opinion of what the events and statements meant? Now what if in some cases those opinions did not follow the actual statements and events. It's clear that Paul was a biblical scholar and important person in the spread of Christianity but even he didn't regard himself as infallible and said as much. He said things to contradict Jesus. Jesus said finding a mate is our purpose and Paul suggested that finding a mate distracts us from our purpose. Jesus said not to judge, and Paul said judge people so long as you feel justified in doing so. Jesus said treat others as you would wish to be treated and Paul endorsed slavery. Do these things dismiss Paul as a biblical scholar or as a source of knowledge about scripture? Of course not. I read what he has to say, but if it contradicts what Jesus said I look upon it with an appropriate amount of apprehension. I truly believe that if only the words and actions of Jesus were taught rather than opinions of men the Church would not have the poor reputation it does with so many ,I think Christianity would be seen in a much more positive light and many of the evils perpetrated by men in the name of Christ would unjustifiable.

The good part about all this is that you and I end at the same point. That we have an obligation to be better, more loving people. If this is your message, I have no objection, and I wish you all success in spreading it. To do otherwise is an abomination to use a term Paul liked to use.

Hold on. Perhaps we agree, once semantics are removed. :D

I think I found your initial challenge:



Are you talking about two people having sex before they are married?

Or, are you talking about two people having sex, and then they move on with their lives and have sex with other people (thus not making it adultery), and then they move on to have sex with other people, and so on before finding a person to marry?

I think as humans we are flawed. I think having sex with a person who you do not intend to marry is pointless. However, I think many intend to marry who do not do so. So I am talking about two people having sex before they are married essentially. The fact is I'm not actually endorsing or condemning any of the acts you listed above, simply suggesting that it is neither condemned nor condoned in the NT. I encourage people to explore that question through their faith rather than listening to the opinions of man on the subject, including my own opinion.

I know that in my heart, sleeping around feels wrong so I do not do it. However, if I met a woman and fell in love, while I would be willing to wait until we were married to have sex if she felt this was the right thing do, my personal decision would be based on how I was feeling in my heart after asking Jesus for direction. I am not currently sexually active because I am not currently seeing a woman with whom I am in love and who is in love with me.

I have had sex in the past and I lost my virginity to a woman that I fully intended to marry when I was 21 and as far as I knew fully intended to marry me. We were together for three years (until I was nearly 24). If that made us married in the eyes of the Lord then she committed adultery and we are divorced. I don't that that matters to a general discussion, but I am not embarrassed of my history nor do I believe what is right for me is right for all others.