News: Bishop abandoned in Africa over gay views

[Bob Dole]

I have too much work to do right now than to go and look up my references again (I knew I should have bookmarked them.) They use what was happening at the time to show why Paul meant homosexual sex but I'll leave that for another time. I will respond to this though,

I will, however, answer with a hypothetical question. What if a 40 year old man and a 14 year old boy are in a relationship that is not sexual? They've very affectionate towards each other, and they both love each other very much. Is this pedophilia even though there is no sex or heavy touching involved? Why or why not?

No, that's not pedophilia. My father loved me when I was 14, he was 36, we had a loving relationship. We were (and still are) affectionate towards each other. If he had not been my father, and was just a kind man who took care of me and not out of sexual desire, then it is still not pedophilia. Once the man has a sexual attraction to the boy it is pedophila. If the man knew he was a pedophile and was attracted to young boys, but he was not attracted to this one, and was just in a loving relationship, it is still not pedophilia.

[apothanein kerdos]

I have too much work to do right now than to go and look up my references again (I knew I should have bookmarked them.) They use what was happening at the time to show why Paul meant homosexual sex but I'll leave that for another time. I will respond to this though,

You're going to bring up sources that show how male prostitutes at the temple engaged in sexual acts and that Paul was forbidding pagan sexual practices or looseness among men. That is what your sources are going to say. They will even go further to tell us that homosexuality, even a sexual relationship, is okay if involved in a monogomous relationship. If they do not do that, then they will focus solely on the Greek word and its use in secular Greek texts. However, I have already more than handled that to show the Hebraic paradigm this word was used in, thus it's not going to work.

As for the historical argument that you're going to attempt to bring up with your sources, though they are correct this went on, they are wrong that Paul was refering exclusively to this. It was not uncommon for a man in Greece (or under a Hellenistic worldview) to be married to a woman for economic purposes but be in a relationship with one male. Even Alexander the Great did this. The reason is that:

1) Women were considered to be inferior, men superior

2) Sex with a female brought about procreation only, though enjoyable, was not at a higher level as sex with a man

3) This later brought on that to love man more than woman was to love the higher more than the lower, thus was considered a "purer" love

At this point you'll ask, "Why were there no homosexual marriages then?" In Greece there were dowries and economic reasons to get married, as well as procreation. A man married a woman to collect money off of her dowry and so that he could produce children. He did not necessarily marry for love (though I am sure some did in the lower classes). Two men marrying would have nullified any dowry and thus no money woudl be gained, likewise procreation would have been impossible.

Though this practice died out somewhat in the Roman era (not the sexual act, the act of loving), it was still prevalent in Greece and modern day western Turkey....the areas Paul happened to be writing about homosexuality. With that in mind, was Paul addressing temple practices or homosexuality in general? This brings us right back to the Greek word, with the Hebraic paradigm that I presented.

With this information, bringing up sources that are going to adress what I just wrote is going to be extremely useless at this point. You would do better to stick to original thought (for the most part) or provide analysis off sources and respond to my previous post. I am going to keep going back to it as a reference.

No, that's not pedophilia. My father loved me when I was 14, he was 36, we had a loving relationship. We were (and still are) affectionate towards each other. If he had not been my father, and was just a kind man who took care of me and not out of sexual desire, then it is still not pedophilia. Once the man has a sexual attraction to the boy it is pedophila. If the man knew he was a pedophile and was attracted to young boys, but he was not attracted to this one, and was just in a loving relationship, it is still not pedophilia.

Your father loved you but never in a sexual way, thus was not a pedophile. If two men love each other and care for each other but not in a sexual way (in other words, they would never desire to have sex with each other) then there is no sexual attraction and thus it isn't homosexuality. By your definition of "attraction" and "love" everyone on this earth would be a homosexual.

As for a man knowing he's a pedophile but not being attracted to this one kid, thus not making it pedophilia, this is absurd. A man who is attracted to children will look at all children in a sexual way. It is a sickness of the mind. Thus, no matter what, even if he is attracted to these little children, he is comitting pedophilia.

[Bob Dole]

There's something horribly wrong with a forum if you can only put a certain number of quotes in post. Anyway...

Sorry for not responding for a while, I was very busy, and I actually had a response typed up that I spent a lot of time on but then I lost it when my computer was shut off (flipped the wrong circuit breaker switch :'( )

The child referenced might be a state of being (although it's a child, a physical, living, breathing, child, I'm not going to argue that point though) but the immorality is a sexual act. If it were "Child of sin" and the sin was just sin in general, and meant a bad child that sinned a lot, the sin refers to a state of being. Sin is both physical and mental. In this case it's a "Child of immorality" the immorality being the word porneia refers to fornication. The entire sentence as a whole isn't a sexual act, but the word porneia in that sentence is a sexual act, if two people think about fornicating with each other for 10,000 years they will never produce a "child of immorality."

You are still missing the point. You keep saying that porneia is a sexual act (though I doubt your qualifications to make such a statement) when this sentence shows how it can be a state of being as well. The statement is the equivalent to saying, "this is not a bastard child." Though a sexual act brought him into being, it is stating that his state of being is not just an act. It is used as more than a sexual act. This is quite a simple concept.

The word porneia isn't describing the child's state of being, it's describing the act that brought him into being. The full sentence describes the state of being. I thought I've said that before.

Fornication is a physical act, you can't fornicate by thinking about it really hard. Also, most of the translations of the word porneia I've found say it means fornication, could you give me an example where porneia isn't referring to fornication?

Your first statement is absolutely wrong.

My first statement is "Fornication is a physical act, you can't fornicate by thinking about it really hard." I'm fairly certain it is but let us check some definitions -

Fornication - Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

Hmmm, didn't pay much attention during sex ed, maybe sexual intercourse means thinking about sex? Let's look that one up -

Sexual Intercourse -

1. Coitus between humans.

2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

Well the second one involves contact so it must be physical, but that word coitus confuses me.

Coitus - Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.

Then I guess that one's physical as well. Maybe a history of the word involves something not physical?

The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin word fornix, from which fornicti, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant \u201ca vault, an arch.\u201d The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicr, \u201cto commit fornication,\u201d from which is derived fornicti, \u201cwhoredom, fornication.\u201d Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303.

Hmm it seems to come from a word that describes the place where fornication would have been commited. It doesn't say anything about there being a different meaning although it includes prostitution. Although sexual intercourse with a prostitute you're not married to is still fornication and it's still a physical act.

Again, I point you to the words of Christ where He directly says that sex is not just an outward act but begins on the inside. All sin begins inwardly and thus anytime you refer to a physical manisfestation you are also refering to what took place inside that person prior to acting out the sin.

Well I know he describes lusting over a woman as having commited adultery with her in your mind. Although I don't see how lusting over a woman is commiting a physical act (fornication.) It shares the same punishment as the physical act of adultery but it is not the same act.

As for porneia, you are probably looking at the King James. Likewise, you aren't looking to the actual word but instead to the translation, a common mistake. 1 Thessalonians 4:3 translates it as "sexual immorality." The reason "fornification" is used is that, in 1611, it was broader in its definition than it is today. It meant sexual immorality, moreso than just sex before marriage.

Well, you told me that I needed to read the original greek, so I did, and I looked up the word and I found it to mean sexual acts except in biblical translations where the person would look to the english version of the bible, and interpret what they think "sexual immorality" is. The problem is that fornication is sexual immorality (according to the bible) but sexual immorality is not fornication. Sexual immorality can be any sexual act that is found immoral. Slamming your genitals in a car door can be considered sexual immorality, but that would not fit any deffinition of fornication, not in 1611 and deffinitely not in 2006.

[Bob Dole]

Even in turning a commentary we find:

The first instruction designed to produce greater holiness is abstinence from sexual immorality. Paul called his readers to avoid it, implying the need for exercising self-discipline, enabled by God\u2019s Spirit. Christians are to avoid and abstain from any and every form of sexual practice that

 lies outside the circle of God\u2019s revealed will, namely adultery, premarital and extramarital intercourse, homosexuality, and other perversions. [u]The word porneia, translated \u201csexual immorality,\u201d is a broad one and includes all these practices. [/b][/u]The Thessalonians lived in a pagan environment in which sexual looseness was not only practiced openly but was also encouraged. In Greek religion, prostitution was considered a priestly prerogative, and extramarital sex was sometimes an act of worship. To a Christian the will of God is clear: holiness and sexual immorality are mutually exclusive. No appeal to Christian liberty can justify fornication.

[/i]

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Victor Books: Wheaton, IL

I post this in case you were doubting my interpretation of the word. I know koine Greek and I will tell you right now the word refers to more than "fornication" Though translated that way, that is an inadequate translation.

Looking at another commentary we find:

Several passages in the Gospels condemn porneia. This word carried a number of different meanings. At times porneia means prostitution, at other times it refers to non-marital sex in general.[17] It is difficult to be certain, for example, whether the term applied to premarital intercourse between persons betrothed to one another or, indeed, to any type of non-commercial, heterosexual relations of the kind conventionally labeled fornication. Since neither the Torah nor rabbinical teachers contemporary with Jesus prohibited intercourse between unmarried partners as a moral offense, perhaps porneia referred primarily to sex with prostitutes, adultery, and other promiscuous relationships [18] (Brundage 1987: 58).

And from Strong's Greek Dictionary -

4202

porneia

porneia

por-ni'-ah

from porneuw - porneuo 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.

It is a bit more broad than just fornication but it still seems to be physical acts and this definition doesn't include homosexuality.

Well you haven't shown that the bible condems two guys kissing, you've just said it without providing an example. Also, I can and have seen girls who I thought were attractive without thinking sexual things about them. It's not that I don't want to have sex with the girl, it's just that the bible tells us lustful thoughts are a sin so I try not to think them. Sure they might pop in every once in a while but that's rare and as long as these thoughts leave as quickly as they came it's ok.

*sigh* Yes I have. The problem is you are having a difficult time following proper interpretation and connotations. Again, when "sex" is mentioned under a Hebrew paradigm, it is refering to more than just the act. It is refering to everything that leads up to it: foreplay, kissing, hugging (out of sexual desires, not out of just a greeting), lusting, the initial attraction. You are looking at it through a hellenistic lense which tells us sex is a purely physical act that only refers to penetration. This, however, is not what Paul had it mind. Paul was Jewish, he thought in a Hebraic mindset. The entire New Tesatment is based upon a Hebrew paradigm. Yes, it is written in Greek but we see that it is the Hebrew way of thinking that shines through. With this in mind, when Paul refers to homosexuality, he is refering to the entire process that I mentioned above, not just having sex.

You couldn't have possibly shown that the bible condems two guys kissing because if you did, that means that most of the world, including many christians, are going to hell. It's common for my family, and every family that I know of, to great each other with a kiss. I was speaking of a kiss of affection, and the bible doesn't condem affection. The act only becomes sin when it is accompanied by sexual desire.

Anyway, the old testament was written through a hebraic mindset. The new testament is a mix of greek and hebrew cultures and thought. It isn't purely hebraic, and it even addresses the clash of cultures (between the hebrew christians and the greek christians.) From the context of the text, the historical meanings of the words, and the culture of the time of it's writing, I believe Paul meant nothing more than physical sexual acts and was not speaking of a person's sexual preference.

Well in context in the bible, the word porneia makes more sense as "fornication" and the word arsenokoites makes more sense as "male partner in homosexual sex." From all the reading I've done they also seem to be the agreed upon ancient meanings of these words. I haven't found much to the contraty (and the stuff I did find was usually from someone who was just stating the translation found in newer bibles and not touching on the original greek translation based on the meaning of the word at the time.)

Honestly mate, this is why I'm getting frustrated with you. You are looking solely to the definition and not the context, the worldview behind the writing, the background of the writer, etc. If you are going to translate from Greek into English, or any language into English, you have to take all of this into account. By simply looking at the definition (which is what most "scholars" unfortunately do) you get an incomplete picture of what is being presented.

Well I'm looking to the definition, the context, what other people have had to say about the subject and the culture at the time. That's what a scholar would usually do.

Not one of the deffinitions I've found described either one of those words as meaning a sexual thought. They've all refered to something physical. It was never "a man who lusts for another man" or anything like that. It was either fornication or a male who has sex with other males or something similar. Also, I thought the New Testament was most likely written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Again, it's going through a Hebrew paradigm. If you read the NT in Greek you still see Hebraic thought prevalent. With this in mind, we interpret the Greek words through a Hebrew lense. In other words, yes, a Greek word says this but what did the writer mean by using that Greek word? Such as with John 4:10 -

[i]Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."[/i]

Is Jesus refering to the strict definition of [i]eido[/i] which meant to see through knowledge, or did He mean it in the hebraic way? It is obvious, from the context, He meant it in a Hebraic way...that if she knew intimately the gift, she wouldn't ask. This is an example of Hebraic thought being passed on through the Greek. Now the Greek word is still close to the Hebrew thought, but we only get a complete translation when we apply the Hebrew paradigm to the interpretation. Interpreting the New Testament is not simply an act of looking at a dictionary and going from there; it is looking at the context and thinking like an ancient Hebrew.

I'm a little confused by that. Where is the word used? What part of the english is the word related to?

[Bob Dole]

Thus, when we look to porneia we know that it is refering to MORE than the physical act. Matthew 5:22, Exodus 20:17, Romans 7:7-9, Matthew 15:11 are just a few passages in the Bible to show how sin is an internalized process that manifests itself in physical activity. Thus, when Paul tells us to stay away from sexual immorality, it is quite clear he is refering to an internalized process as well as an extrenal manifestation.

But we don't know that it's refering to more than the physical act. Just because some instances refer to more than just physical doesn't mean all of them do.

Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms 103:8; \u201cThe LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger, abounding in love\u201d. As you noticed I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not abstract thoughts, but here we have such abstract concepts as compassionate, gracious, anger, and love in a Hebrew passage. Actually these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English.

Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. Anger, an abstract word, is actually the Hebrew word (awph) which literally means \u201cnose\u201d, a concrete word. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as \u201cthe flaring of the nose (nostrils)\u201d. If the translator literally translated the above passage \u201cslow to nose\u201d, it would make no sense to the English reader, so a nose, is translated to \u201canger\u201d in this passage.

The word nose is used to describe the anger, it doesn't mean every time the word nose is used it means anger. Porneia can be used to describe just the physical and I haven't seen where it could describe a person's inner thoughts.

This becomes even more clear when we turn to Ephesians 5:1-5

\ufeffTherefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and \ufeffwalk in love, just as Christ also \ufeffb\ufeffloved \ufeffyou and \ufeffc\ufeffgave Himself up for us, and \ufeffoffering and a sacrifice to God \ufeffas a \ufefffragrant aroma. But \ufeffimmorality \ufeffor any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among \ufeffsaints; and there must be no \ufeff\ufefffilthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which \ufeffb\ufeffare not fitting, but rather \ufeff\ufeffgiving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that \ufeffa\ufeffno \ufeff\ufeffimmoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom \ufeffof Christ and God.

This passage is refering to both internal actions and exteral ones as well. We are told to walk in love, however this is a completely interal action. Though we show manisfestations of it, love begins from within (Matthew 22:37-39). Likewise, the immorality, purity, and greed are also internal actions. Greed especially...greed is almost completely internal. Why then, is it listed among what you want to call "completely external"? Though Paul refers to physical manifestations of these things he teaches us that to be on guard is to protect our internal aspects. If fornification is purely an external act, why would our internal acts matter at all? It would be completely plausible to have good internal actions but filthy outward onces. Instead, we see that what we commit on the outside, whether good or bad, began inside...again...according to a Hebrew paradigm.

All of the internal actions are described as what they are. They don't say you shouldn't be wealthy and leave out mentioning that you shouldn't desire money. The new testament tells us that it is good to be celibate but it doesn't fail to mention we shouldn't lust. Why does the bible tell us that homosexual sex is wrong, lusting over women is wrong and unmarried sex is wrong, but it fails to mention that a man shouldn't desire another man.

Thus, we come back to porneia. You can say the definition is refering to a purely physical act, but you are wrong in the broad context of the Bible. Paul, being Jewish, is refering to both the internal and external. When we apply this to homosexuality we then come to a point where we realize that in order to realize we are attracted sexually to the same sex, we have to lust in some form. I can look at a man and realize he is attractive, but this does not make me sexually attracted to him. I will address this a bit more later.

In the context that the word is used in for the rest of the bible, porneia sounds like it's describing a purely physical act. Just because Paul thinks with a hebraic mindset (which obviously has some hellenistic influence if he were writing in greek) doesn't mean every word he uses reflects the inner thought. Obviously sin originates from the inside, your body isn't just going to sin without you thinking about it, but the sin is in the action and not in the thought. Some thought is sin, but if a jew thinks about eating some clams, that's not sin. The thought that is sin is described in the bible, greed and lust are both described as sinful.

Sure, lust is mental, fornication is physical. Except the bible condems both of those acts specifically. It doesn't say "Lust is wrong" and leave out fornication and it doesn't say "Fornication is wrong" and leave out lust. It mentions both because both are considered wrong. With homosexuality, the bible seems to just condemn the behavior (homosexual sex) and NOT the mental part (being attracted to another man.)

It doesn't just condemn them both, it says they are both the same exact same. Fornication, under a hellenistic idea, is seperate from internal actions. However, as shown above, fornification is the same as internal lust, there is no difference to God. Thus, when the Bible condemns homosexuality it is condemning EVERYTHING. The Bible is wholistic in its meaning, it is refering to the act, the acts leading up to the acts, the lust behind the act and that caused the act, and the attraction. Again, attraction goes against God's original plan for mankind. God intended man to either have desires after his wife or to have none at all. There is no exception.

Ok, a jewish person is told not to eat shellfish. I don't believe it is a sin for a jewish person to pick up a snail on the beach. I also don't believe it's a sin to think about eating pork. These acts lead up to the acts that are sins but neither one of them is a sin itself. The bible doesn't even use the word homosexuality. I don't think they had a word to describe homosexuality, there would be homosexual sex acts, but the people were doing it more out of social status and physical enjoyment than an attraction to the same sex. The word you brought up before describes a male partner in homosexual sex, not a male that is attracted to other males.

I've never been attracted to someone in a "friendly" way, I don't even know what that would mean. I've seen people as being attractive but I'm not attracted to them. I'd say Brad Pitt is attractive but I'm not attracted to him. That isn't a friendly attraction that's just an observation.

It means attracted to a person's personality or just presense, this is not necessarily homosexual though. It isn't a sexual attraction. My best friend and I are "attracted" to each other via personality, but I've never had a desire to be with him in a sexual manner (his wife sure would object to that I'm sure!). The personalities match, however, and thus there is an attraction. Attraction is not always in refernce to a sexual attraction. However, at the point I went, "Wow, I would like to be with him" I have at that point violated God's plan and indulged in the first step of homosexuality which, if we take the wholistic approach which is what the Bible takes, is a sin. The first step towards a sin, according to the Jewish thought, is like taking the last step in a sin.

Again, I bring up the point, the first step to eating shellfish is thinking about it. Then you gotta find some shellfish, open it up, prepare it. I don't believe any of those steps are considered a sin. I could ask my jewish friend to go to ask rabbi but I think they'd say the same thing.

[Bob Dole]

You haven't really acknowledged my original hypothetical situation. What if two men are in a relationship that is not sexual. They're very affectionate towards each other, and they both love each other very much. Most people would consider there relationship homosexual but they abstain from sex because the bible says it's wrong. Are they still sinning because they are considered homosexuals or do they have to have some type of lustful thought or some type of sexual intercourse for that to happen? My argument is that they have not sinned yet because the bible is only against homosexual sex.

I did answer it, I said it was a sin. I won't explain myself again as if you apply the above analysis in my post to this hypothetical, we see how it is a sin.

I will, however, answer with a hypothetical question. What if a 40 year old man and a 14 year old boy are in a relationship that is not sexual? They've very affectionate towards each other, and they both love each other very much. Is this pedophilia even though there is no sex or heavy touching involved? Why or why not?

Well I did answer the hypothetical question and you responded with -

Your father loved you but never in a sexual way, thus was not a pedophile. If two men love each other and care for each other but not in a sexual way (in other words, they would never desire to have sex with each other) then there is no sexual attraction and thus it isn't homosexuality. By your definition of "attraction" and "love" everyone on this earth would be a homosexual.

As for a man knowing he's a pedophile but not being attracted to this one kid, thus not making it pedophilia, this is absurd. A man who is attracted to children will look at all children in a sexual way. It is a sickness of the mind. Thus, no matter what, even if he is attracted to these little children, he is comitting pedophilia.

I'm a heterosexual, I'm attracted to women, I don't see all women in a sexual way. Do you? Now why would a pedophile be any different? Do you believe all women are attracted to you? How about gay men?

But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death James 1:14-15

One thing we can be sure of is that James is refering to a sequential pattern, which means all things are essentially the same. Though chronologically things happen at a certain pace, James is saying that at the point we entertain a temptation (which is what same-sex attraction would be) we have began a process of giving birth to sin...which means we have sinned. Again, going back to the commentary:

The source of temptation is from within a person; it is his own evil desire, lust, or inner craving. He is dragged away and enticed. This inner craving draws a person out (exelkomenos) like a fish drawn from its hiding place, and then entices him (deleazomenos, from the verb deleaz\u014d \u201cto bait, to catch a fish with bait, or hunt with snares\u201d). So a person both builds and baits his own trap.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Victor Books: Wheaton, IL

Again, just thinking about sinning isn't a sin unless the bible says it is. Lust and greed are both sins and inner thoughts. Thinking about eating shellfish, working on the sabboth, or killing someone are not sins. It's the act, if you decide not to eat the shellfish, or not to work on the sabboth, or you decide not to kill the person, you haven't sinned.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Bob Dole