The Church does not understand the problem of sexuality. A well-known visiting priest asked to be allowed to celebrate mass one Sunday having been sent by the powers that be.
It was on sexual deviation. The church was full. Everyone hoped for directions. The church has all the anwers, or so they were being told time after time. At the end of the sermon he tested the congregation.
"All those who have been guilty of he-heing please leave the building now."
half walked out guilty as hell.
"And now , please also leave the building if you've been she-sheing."The other half walked out. There remained one solitary soul. The priest gave God the glory forsuch a good man.
"Thank God,son, for you goodness."
"hold on father You've got rid of all the he-he'ers and the she-she-ers but you havent said anything about the me-me-ers."
There you go!!

socratease

(1Co 6:9-10)

runner, Tues, 8 March, 12:15:02 PM

The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:

If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

The second term is "arsenokoitai" in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. "Arsen" means "man" in Greek. So there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul's condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males.

Truth is best.

Any religious limitations on marriage do not matter in this question. No one is suggesting that the churches be subject to civil law on who they will marry. That can be decided by the religious institution itself.

It doesn't matter what the Bible or any other religious text says since the marriage regulations will apply only to civil marriage. Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious groups simply have no business deciding who should be married under civil law. That puts them in the position of specifying marriage qualifications for people who don't share their beliefs. That is none of their business.

Rhian
'As you describe homosexuality as “unnatural” I think it’s a fair question to ask how you distinguish the “natural” from the “unnatural”, and I propose a definition of “natural” as including “that which occurs in nature”. So the behaviour of animals is entirely relevant'

We are talking about homosexual behaviour between humans not animals. The apostle Paul could not of made it clearer.
' For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

I know the author of the arguement has twisted this passage to say what it does not but it could not be much plainer. What bit don't you understand. Forget about animals who have no conscience. It nis natural for them to kill each other.

You can argue with God's word about what is natural and what is not. My view is that He has the right to decide.

David f quotes Scripture wrongly and then decides it does not matter anyway.

Paul gives specific intructions to husbands and wives throughout the new testament. Peter does likewise. Nowhere does he address a man being married to a man or a woman a woman.It was unthinkable to the writers of Scripture.

By all means if the majority of Australians want civil ceremonies let them have it but don't pervert marriage.

Dear runner,

You want us to forget about the other animals? We are just another kind of animal. Animal mothers can love their babies. No conscience? Did you ever see a cat or dog slink around when they know they have done something wrong? What we call conscience is just a feeling of having done something that we shouldn't, and we are not the only animals with such feelings. What other animals don't have is your superstition. Humans don't need it either.

You wrote that I quote scripture wrongly. I quoted it exactly as it is written. Please cite any instance where I misquoted it. I draw different conclusions from it than you do. That could mean that you really don't understand the meaning or don't want to recognise the meaning. However, you cannot prove your interpretation is anything more than your interpretation. I get the idea that you really are so filled with superstition that you can't understand what scripture clearly says.

The nature of marriage changes. King Solomon had a number of wives in addition to concubines. Did he pervert marriage? Was he breaking the law? No. Marriage in ancient Israel was defined differently from the way it is in today's Australia. In Muslim countries men can have more than one wife. They are not perverting marriage either. They just define it differently from the way you define it. King Solomon, Muslims and you differ on the definition of marriage. There is no hard and fixed definition. It is defined differently in different times and places. It was changed before in our society. It can be changed again. That doesn't mean that your superstition has to change it. However, your superstition has no right to tell others how they should define marriage.

Runner

Read the article. Paul’s words need to be read in context, both of what he was saying (which has more to do with the respective failings of Jews and Gentiles than an attack on any particular behaviour), and of the culture and practices of the time. At the very least, surely you recognise this passage can be interpreted different ways.

And even if Paul was attacking the same kind of stable and loving homosexual relationships under discussion in this forum, this does not necessarily mean that God agrees with Paul. Christians do not take scripture to be verbatim transcripts of divine instructions, but the writings of people inspired by the encounter with God but subject to the same prejudices, foibles and cultural blind spots as we are. We don’t take Paul’s instructions as definitive on women’s dress and silence in church, any more than we take literally the instructions in the Pentateuch on disobedient children, wearing clothes of blended fabric and destroying buildings with mouldy walls.

Paul’s word is not necessarily God’s word.