nebula Posted April 4, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted April 4, 2005 I am not a "christian". So, what "are you"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esh Posted April 5, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 20 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2005 Ummmm. You need to read the creation story. Ummmm. You need to read the thread. The issue of ishah being translated as wife has already been discussed. Jesus, in mark's Gospel, translated the Hebrew in such a way that "Twain" or "two" was borne out. In Other words, Marriage IS between one man and one woman. This verse in response to a question about divorce, which is always between one man and one woman. Therefore it cannot be applied to the more general issue of polygamy. You use the FAILURES of one man to justify sin. Really? The only failure of David that is germane to this dicussion is the death of Uriah, and that failure is independent of the issue of polygamy or extramarital sex. My defintion is sin is based upon the Torah, not Christian dogma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 "fornication", according to Strongs includes, but is not limited to: adultery. Premarital sex. Lust. Harlotry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fornication is not defined by the Strongs definition of zanah. The meaning of fornication is derived from fornix, meaning brothel. There is no reference to premarital sex or lust in the Strongs definition. Paul's fornication is derived from the Greek porneo, meaning sexual immorality. The code of sexual morality is defined by the Torah, which does not forbid sex outside of marriage. This is evidenced by the lack of any explicit commandment to this effect and the fact that David had both wives and concubines, and this was not considered to be an offence per 1 Kings 15:5. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Boy Esh, I don't know what Planet you're from, but you are way off base. You really do not understand how God looks at sex, and your responses are evidence of this. In ancient Israel, as well as in other places in the Middleeast in ancient times, virginity was extremely important. Exodus 22:16-17 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. If God felt that sex outside of marriage was acceptable, then he would not have provided consequences for such an act. Sex outside of marriage damaged a young woman's chances of finding a husband on her own given how important virginity before marriage was in those days. He was required to pay the monetary price for a Bride to the Father, and take her as her wife. Even if the Father did not let her marry him, he was still obligated to pay. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. Interesting. This speaks of the ancient Israelite marriage. If there was no problem with sex outside of marriage, then the bride would be stoned to death for sleeping with another man before her marriage. In Old Testament times, a marriage was a blood covenant. That is why having blood on the "wedding sheets" was so important. Blood covenants are still the most binding and most important covenants you can make. You many not find a commandment that says, "Thou shalt not have sex before marriage," but as with anything in life, we can judge an action by the fruit it produces. What is the fruit of premarital sex? Chalmydia, Herpes, Crabs, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, AIDS, Cancorid etc. There are reasons why God called for absolute sexual purity. You are also wrong about zanah. The English word fornication comes from the Latin "Fornicor, from the word Fornix," and it does mean brothel. Zanah carries the same connotation as fornication. It's a word that speaks of cult prostitution and adultery. So the word "brothel" would certainly fit. Paul's fornication is derived from the Greek porneo, meaning sexual immorality. Yeah which carries the same basic meaning as zanah or "fornix." That really doesnt help your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esh Posted April 5, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 20 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2005 Boy Esh, I don't know what Planet you're from, but you are way off base. You really do not understand how God looks at sex, and your responses are evidence of this. And you seem to have trouble comprehending what I wrote. In ancient Israel, as well as in other places in the Middleeast in ancient times, virginity was extremely important. I don't dispute that. But I deny that extramarital sex, polygamy, and female homosexuality are sins according to the Torah. Exodus 22:16-17 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. If God felt that sex outside of marriage was acceptable, then he would not have provided consequences for such an act. The act in question is sex with a virgin, not extramarital sex. Sex outside of marriage damaged a young woman's chances of finding a husband on her own given how important virginity before marriage was in those days. Again, you are confusing the issue of loss of virginity with extramarital sex. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is about a woman who was given in marriage to a man who expected her to be a virgin. If there was no problem with sex outside of marriage, then the bride would be stoned to death for sleeping with another man before her marriage. What are you talking about? The bride would have been stoned for zanah, which is not the same as sex outside of marriage. In Old Testament times, a marriage was a blood covenant. Proof please. What is the fruit of premarital sex? Chalmydia, Herpes, Crabs, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, AIDS, Cancorid etc. There are reasons why God called for absolute sexual purity. V.D. is associated with promiscuity more than with premarital sex. You are also wrong about zanah. I simply quoted the lexicon. How does that make me wrong? The English word fornication comes from the Latin "Fornicor, from the word Fornix," and it does mean brothel. Yes, that is what I said: Fornication is not defined by the Strongs definition of zanah. The meaning of fornication is derived from fornix, meaning brothel. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esh Posted April 5, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 20 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) I would have addressed this issue in the previous post, but the board only handles a maximum of 10 embedded quotations per post. Paul's fornication is derived from the Greek porneo, meaning sexual immorality. Yeah which carries the same basic meaning as zanah or "fornix." No, the meanings are quite different. Sexual immorality includes incest and bestiality, which are unrelated to zanah. Edited April 5, 2005 by Esh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 >>Ishah can mean woman or it can mean wife depending on the context. When it says wife it means wife in Genesis 2. The context distinguishes between woman and wife in that chapter. What is it about the context, which makes you think that eshah should be interpreted as wife and not woman? >>Because when ishah is used to denote her gender in Gen. 2:22-23, She is woman or literally "man with a womb." Your stated reason supports the interpretation of woman rather than wife. In verses 22-23, yes, but that is not the where the question lies. We are talking about verse 24 where the word wife is used. That is where the translation issue lies. It is also the verse that shows that you don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gothic Christian Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 John Boswell explained religious beliefs can hide or include intolerance. There is a difference between applying religious ethics and using religion to justify oppressing certain types of people. The Biblical Books some say condemn homosexual acts also condemn hypocrisy, yet hypocrites have not been segregated and punished in the same way as homosexuals, although Jesus and the Church repeatedly and clearly condemned hypocrisy. Christian states have selectively used the Bible, e.g. in the late medieval states they burned homosexuals but licensed prostitutes, even though the New Testament includes much more renunciation of prostitution than homosexuality. Also the greedy have never been burned at the stake, despite the greedy being excluded from heaven in the same lists some say homosexual acts are. McNeill added that the majority of moralists appeal to tradition as stating homosexuality is wrong. However, they also indicate Christian tradition has been wrong before due to historical circumstances. For example, any deviation from Jewish law was seen as a loss of morality because of idolatry. So I believe the Church is being hypocritical by condemning homosexuality and not so actively condemning these other things that are clearly stated as wrong in the Bible. Also people who use Christian tradition to condemn homosexuality need to uphold everything Christian tradition dictates otherwise they are being hypocritical. McNeill explained there is no mention of female homosexuality in the Bible, apart from Romans 1.26 could be seen as referring to lesbianism by referring to unnatural female practices. Also writings from tradition hardly mention lesbianism at all. We know in the past people did not know the biological process of conception. Until about the 16th century when investigations into this began, people thought men had the seed that was to become the baby and women were just the containers to store the baby. Bailey stated this explains why male homosexuals were punished and lesbians basically ignored. This idea still holds today, as John Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted April 5, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted April 5, 2005 John Boswell explained religious beliefs can hide or include intolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted April 5, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2005 Gerioke: "Ok so let's all condemn each other and not look at the truth of the matter. We are all sinners and as such we should all be punished. Every body give yerself a slap in the head and stop picking on the poor blasphemers." WELL SAID, G!!!! Fellow Sinner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted April 5, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 733 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 3,017 Content Per Day: 0.42 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/09/1966 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Oh yes, homosexuals adore the word "tolerance". That's because they've warped the meaning of the word in our society. (Just as they have "marriage", "gay" and "rainbow".) When a homosexual screams out for tolerance (and they do scream for it), what they really are screaming for is acceptance. Tolerance used to mean that I don't have to like or accept your views and opinions, but I must allow you to have them. Today, in schools even, tolerance now means that not only must I keep my mouth shut if I don't like them, but I am forced to accept them as the truth in my own life, too. Tolerance and Acceptance are two completely different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts