News: Bishop abandoned in Africa over gay views

[Bob Dole]

Err sorry, "Porneia describes sexual acts, sure that is a more fitting word for" pornography today, pornographos fits with the origins of pornography perfectly since it was really just stories of men who had sex with these loose women.

[apothanein kerdos]

Pornographos, the writing of harlots. Men would write of their tales with these women and that was an early form of pornography. That's where the name came from. Porneia describes sexual acts, sure that is a more fitting word for pornography to come from, but it just isn't the word. Also, it describes sexual acts, being attracted to men is not a sexual act. Homosexual sex is considered porneia, but I wouldn't describe a man who has a sexual preference towards men as someone who has commited porneia.

No no no no, it doesn't just describe sexual acts. You can look it up in a dictinoary all you want (or what you would call a concordance) but any lexicon is going to put this away from just sexual acts and more towards an inner morality that manifests itself in outward acts.

For instance, if you came across a Greek phrase that read something like this:

έκ πονείας ού γεγένημαι

It means "not a child of immorality" which would be a state of being, not a literal action. It is refering to the chlid not being illigitimate. Thus, porneia does not always refer to the action but also to the inner thoughts. When we take this in accordance with the Bible we see a few things:

1) Inner thoughts are where sin begin

2) Attraction to the same sex means that you felt a sexual thrust or thought towards them

3) This has begun inside and can only manifest itself in physical actions

4) All sin begins from the inside and works its way out, thus if a thought is sinful we have already committed a sin

5) Thus, attraction to the same sex which can only be realized with a sexual thought has crossed the mind concerning the same sex is a sin

Your interpretation of the Greek word fails because it ignores context, secular use, use within the Bible, and the overall context of the Bible concerning sin. For instance, Jesus states that if a man so much as lusts after a woman he has committed adultery. This means it is our thought process, not necessarily the action, that is a sin. If you are to say a man can be attracted to other men, in a sexual way, but so long as he does not act on it he does not sin, you go against the entire grain of the Bible concerning how sin opperates.

I think at this point you need to justify your interpretation, because it is highly faulty. Likewise, you need to justify how a man can have a sexual attraction to another man and not be guilty of sin by internal actions.

Oh, and as a side note, pornographos was not developed until later, as I said, in the early Byzantine era. We are discussing Koine Greek, not later Greek. Likewise, it comes from two root words (graphos and pornos), which makes it more akin to porneia in a biblical manner because of the lust that is invovled in the action. You are not going to find a single Greek scholar that disagrees with me, so it would be wise to drop this point and stick to what I wrote above.

[Bob Dole]

Pornographos, the writing of harlots. Men would write of their tales with these women and that was an early form of pornography. That's where the name came from. Porneia describes sexual acts, sure that is a more fitting word for pornography to come from, but it just isn't the word. Also, it describes sexual acts, being attracted to men is not a sexual act. Homosexual sex is considered porneia, but I wouldn't describe a man who has a sexual preference towards men as someone who has commited porneia.

No no no no, it doesn't just describe sexual acts. You can look it up in a dictinoary all you want (or what you would call a concordance) but any lexicon is going to put this away from just sexual acts and more towards an inner morality that manifests itself in outward acts.

For instance, if you came across a Greek phrase that read something like this:

έκ πονείας ού γεγένημαι

It means "not a child of immorality" which would be a state of being, not a literal action. It is refering to the chlid not being illigitimate.

Not a child of immorality. The immorality it refers to is a sexual act (fornication.) Perhaps you should try again?

Thus, porneia does not always refer to the action but also to the inner thoughts. When we take this in accordance with the Bible we see a few things:

1) Inner thoughts are where sin begin

2) Attraction to the same sex means that you felt a sexual thrust or thought towards them

3) This has begun inside and can only manifest itself in physical actions

4) All sin begins from the inside and works its way out, thus if a thought is sinful we have already committed a sin

5) Thus, attraction to the same sex which can only be realized with a sexual thought has crossed the mind concerning the same sex is a sin

Your interpretation of the Greek word fails because it ignores context, secular use, use within the Bible, and the overall context of the Bible concerning sin. For instance, Jesus states that if a man so much as lusts after a woman he has committed adultery. This means it is our thought process, not necessarily the action, that is a sin. If you are to say a man can be attracted to other men, in a sexual way, but so long as he does not act on it he does not sin, you go against the entire grain of the Bible concerning how sin opperates.

I think at this point you need to justify your interpretation, because it is highly faulty. Likewise, you need to justify how a man can have a sexual attraction to another man and not be guilty of sin by internal actions.

The sexual thought is considered lust and that's a sin no matter who you lust over. I've gone over that before. No one has yet to show me anything in the bible that says if you prefer a man to a woman you're a sinner. If you lust that is a sin, but what if you know that's your preference from one time you've lusted over another man, then some time maybe a month later you meet a man you think is really great. He has all the same interests, he's like a great friend, but you're affectionate towards each other. You think no sexual thoughts and the two of you do not fornicate. Perhaps you kiss on the lips when you great each other but that's it. Do you believe those two people are sinners?

Oh, and as a side note, pornographos was not developed until later, as I said, in the early Byzantine era. We are discussing Koine Greek, not later Greek. Likewise, it comes from two root words (graphos and pornos), which makes it more akin to porneia in a biblical manner because of the lust that is invovled in the action. You are not going to find a single Greek scholar that disagrees with me, so it would be wise to drop this point and stick to what I wrote above.

I'm sorry, I've referenced every encyclopedia I own and I've checked tons of websites, they all say the word pornography came from pornographos which was the one of the earliest forms or pornography. Perhaps I should head to NYU and find some greek scholar's and ask them.

[apothanein kerdos]

Not a child of immorality. The immorality it refers to is a sexual act (fornication.) Perhaps you should try again?

No, not at all. I am guessing that you looked this up and did not do it from your own knowledge. Regardless, a child cannot be a sexual act. Being a person and not an action (a noun and not a verb in clearer terms) he cannot be an act. The word is being used to refer to a state of being, not to an act. It is not even refering to an act that brought him about. It is instead a description of his being, that he is not a child of immorality.

The sexual thought is considered lust and that's a sin no matter who you lust over. I've gone over that before. No one has yet to show me anything in the bible that says if you prefer a man to a woman you're a sinner. If you lust that is a sin, but what if you know that's your preference from one time you've lusted over another man, then some time maybe a month later you meet a man you think is really great. He has all the same interests, he's like a great friend, but you're affectionate towards each other. You think no sexual thoughts and the two of you do not fornicate. Perhaps you kiss on the lips when you great each other but that's it. Do you believe those two people are sinners?

Yes, I do believe they are sinners. I once again point you back to the word which can refer to both internal and external actions. The internal action of the Greek word is refering to anything that is sexually immoral. With this in mind, when a man likes a man and has that attraction in a sexual way, especially to the point of kissing not in a greeting manner but in a sexual manner, then at this point sin has most definately occured. As I also pointed out, to realize you are attracted to the same sex you have to begin with a lust, or with a sexual desire to that person. There has to be sexual attraction or there is no attraction at all. Furthermore, if you are attracted to a man, or even a woman, of the same sex and spend enough time around him, you are eventually going to lust and give into that lust. However, as we have seen from Biblical examples, sin begins from within. Even lust must have a seed, because lust does not simply develop on its own. WHat is that seed? The seed is attraction. Whereas attraction is okay in some cases for straight people (I think once married or even seriously dating, the attraction needs to be brought under control, or an affair will occur), it is not for homosexuals because:

1) It is controled, as I have shown and this has gone uncontested

2) At the point we gain attaction, we have caused it and subsequently gone against God's plan.

What you are advocating is simply not realistic, and even if attraction isn't a sin you still have a useless point because it is impossible to be around peole you are attracted to for a prolonged period of time and not act on that attraction.

I'm sorry, I've referenced every encyclopedia I own and I've checked tons of websites, they all say the word pornography came from pornographos which was the one of the earliest forms or pornography. Perhaps I should head to NYU and find some greek scholar's and ask them.

Wonderful. You should also stop by and talk to John Sexton, he's a new friend of mine. I got to lecture at NYU a couple of months back, though not on the Greek language. Instead, it was on the early Gnostics and then a brief summarization on modern Gnosticism. Regardless, him and I hit it off. He's a Jew from the same area as my grandfather was (who was also Jewish), so we got along. Don't agree on everything (obviously, he's a libera) but he's still a good man with a big heart. Get a hug while you're at it, he's famous for them.

Regardless, you are using encyclopedias and that is wonderful, but they are not giving you the entire story. I'm using my own knowledge of the Greek language. WHo do you think is going to be more correct on this one, you who are relying on what other people have said, or someone who has done a word study on it that is applicable to this situation?

Now, as I have said, pornographos is a composition of pornos and graphos. pornos is also the root word for porneia which refers to sexual thoughts as well as actions. pornos merely refers to prostitution. Thus, if we are doing a contextual translation, porneia, though not the direct root word, is still closer to what we consider "pornography" because of what it stands for (sexual thoughts and actions) than pornos (writing about sex with prostitutes). THe literal root word is pornos but a contextual root word is going to be porneia because of what it represents, the idea of pornography in the modern world is closer to the idea presented in porneia which represents a wide variety of sexual acts, more than "sex with male prostitutes."

So, go ask those professors, that's fine by me. Some might have been at my lecture because I was challenged a few times on my interpretation of Greek words in reference to the Gnostics...so who knows. Anyway, good luck searching.

[Bob Dole]

Not a child of immorality. The immorality it refers to is a sexual act (fornication.) Perhaps you should try again?

No, not at all. I am guessing that you looked this up and did not do it from your own knowledge. Regardless, a child cannot be a sexual act. Being a person and not an action (a noun and not a verb in clearer terms) he cannot be an act. The word is being used to refer to a state of being, not to an act. It is not even refering to an act that brought him about. It is instead a description of his being, that he is not a child of immorality.

Actually I did it from my own knowledge, I didn't look it up. A child is not a sexual act, but it's "Not a child of immorality" it's not refering to an immoral child. It's stating "This child has not been brought to life through immorality. The act that it's reffering to would have be fornication, sex outside of marriage.

The sexual thought is considered lust and that's a sin no matter who you lust over. I've gone over that before. No one has yet to show me anything in the bible that says if you prefer a man to a woman you're a sinner. If you lust that is a sin, but what if you know that's your preference from one time you've lusted over another man, then some time maybe a month later you meet a man you think is really great. He has all the same interests, he's like a great friend, but you're affectionate towards each other. You think no sexual thoughts and the two of you do not fornicate. Perhaps you kiss on the lips when you great each other but that's it. Do you believe those two people are sinners?

Yes, I do believe they are sinners. I once again point you back to the word which can refer to both internal and external actions. The internal action of the Greek word is refering to anything that is sexually immoral. With this in mind, when a man likes a man and has that attraction in a sexual way, especially to the point of kissing not in a greeting manner but in a sexual manner, then at this point sin has most definately occured. As I also pointed out, to realize you are attracted to the same sex you have to begin with a lust, or with a sexual desire to that person. There has to be sexual attraction or there is no attraction at all. Furthermore, if you are attracted to a man, or even a woman, of the same sex and spend enough time around him, you are eventually going to lust and give into that lust. However, as we have seen from Biblical examples, sin begins from within. Even lust must have a seed, because lust does not simply develop on its own. WHat is that seed? The seed is attraction. Whereas attraction is okay in some cases for straight people (I think once married or even seriously dating, the attraction needs to be brought under control, or an affair will occur), it is not for homosexuals because:

1) It is controled, as I have shown and this has gone uncontested

2) At the point we gain attaction, we have caused it and subsequently gone against God's plan.

What you are advocating is simply not realistic, and even if attraction isn't a sin you still have a useless point because it is impossible to be around peole you are attracted to for a prolonged period of time and not act on that attraction.

I meant kissing in an affectionate manner and it doesn't say going against God's plan was a sin or that being attracted to a member of the same sex is going against God's plan. Plus you can be around someone you're attracted to without doing anything about it. I've been around plenty of females I've been attracted to without acting on the attraction. Mostly it's the girlfriend of a friend, or perhaps a much younger co-worker. I'd find the girl cute, but I wouldn't think anything past that, there weren't any lustfull thoughts. It was "Hey she seems cute, and she's into the same music and hobbies, that's cool" and we were like a couple of good friend's, nothing more.

I'm sorry, I've referenced every encyclopedia I own and I've checked tons of websites, they all say the word pornography came from pornographos which was the one of the earliest forms or pornography. Perhaps I should head to NYU and find some greek scholar's and ask them.

Wonderful. You should also stop by and talk to John Sexton, he's a new friend of mine. I got to lecture at NYU a couple of months back, though not on the Greek language. Instead, it was on the early Gnostics and then a brief summarization on modern Gnosticism. Regardless, him and I hit it off. He's a Jew from the same area as my grandfather was (who was also Jewish), so we got along. Don't agree on everything (obviously, he's a libera) but he's still a good man with a big heart. Get a hug while you're at it, he's famous for them.

Regardless, you are using encyclopedias and that is wonderful, but they are not giving you the entire story. I'm using my own knowledge of the Greek language. WHo do you think is going to be more correct on this one, you who are relying on what other people have said, or someone who has done a word study on it that is applicable to this situation?

Now, as I have said, pornographos is a composition of pornos and graphos. pornos is also the root word for porneia which refers to sexual thoughts as well as actions. pornos merely refers to prostitution. Thus, if we are doing a contextual translation, porneia, though not the direct root word, is still closer to what we consider "pornography" because of what it stands for (sexual thoughts and actions) than pornos (writing about sex with prostitutes). THe literal root word is pornos but a contextual root word is going to be porneia because of what it represents, the idea of pornography in the modern world is closer to the idea presented in porneia which represents a wide variety of sexual acts, more than "sex with male prostitutes."

So, go ask those professors, that's fine by me. Some might have been at my lecture because I was challenged a few times on my interpretation of Greek words in reference to the Gnostics...so who knows. Anyway, good luck searching.

But unless you were around during the time the word came into use, you are also relying on the word of other people. The difference is that in the encyclopedia there's a whole team going over the statement, checking it for accuracy, asking many different people.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Bob Dole

[Arthur Durnan]

Bottom Line - the ONLY sexual act ever permitted by the Lord Jesus Christ is sexual relations between a married man & his wife. The KEY to defeating AIDS is to refrain from sexual relations until marriage, then stay faithful to your spouse! Zowie, a poster with understanding!AMEN & AMEN!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[apothanein kerdos]

Actually I did it from my own knowledge, I didn't look it up. A child is not a sexual act, but it's "Not a child of immorality" it's not refering to an immoral child. It's stating "This child has not been brought to life through immorality. The act that it's reffering to would have be fornication, sex outside of marriage.

This, once again, ignores what the Greek word means. You have consistently ignored it. When it refers to a "child of immorality," this is a state of being and not a sexual act. The entire point that I am stating here is that the word porneia does not just refer to sexual acts but states of being and thoughts as well.

I meant kissing in an affectionate manner and it doesn't say going against God's plan was a sin or that being attracted to a member of the same sex is going against God's plan. Plus you can be around someone you're attracted to without doing anything about it. I've been around plenty of females I've been attracted to without acting on the attraction. Mostly it's the girlfriend of a friend, or perhaps a much younger co-worker. I'd find the girl cute, but I wouldn't think anything past that, there weren't any lustfull thoughts. It was "Hey she seems cute, and she's into the same music and hobbies, that's cool" and we were like a couple of good friend's, nothing more.

You have too broad a definition for what attraction is. When I refer to attraction I am speaking of a desire to be with a person in a sexual or partially sexual manner. Likewise, you were refering to two guys, who are both attracted to each other, hanging out and kissing. This is inevitably a sin because it refers to what the Bible explicitly condemns. Here's the problem you are having is that you are missing the enitre context and historical meaning behind the word porneia and even arsenokoites. These were written by Hebrews and later translated (or possibly written in) to the Greek language. Thus, when we interpret these words we understand what is said in the Greek (which is still refering to thought) but take this a step further and put it in a Hebrew paradigm. To Hebrews, especially under the teachings of Jesus, sex was not a purely physical act. There was a thought process involved leading up to the act. The thought process was the sin and the act was the manifestation of this sin. To be clear, it does not simply begin with lust, but a desire towards another person. We get this in the Greek word epithumeo which clearly indicates an internal action that begins with a desire. Now, not all desire is wrong. For instance, if a man desires after his wife, this is a good thing.

Now, how does this relate to what we are talking about. Again, going back to the analysis that I used that you seemed to ignore, we see that lust begins with a sexual attraction to a person. As I have stated time and time again without any refutation, attraction is a controlable aspect of who we are. We can look to someone and be attracted in a friendly way but we can control who we are attracted to in a sexual way. If this were not the case, then no one could remain married. All relationships begin with a hopeful friendly attraction. I believe that once a couple has been dating seriously or been friends for quite some time and marriage is a distinct possibility, it then okay to have a sexual attraction. However, this is a completely controlable instance. Though certain philosophies and movies would have us to believe otherwise, the simple fact is, someone who is sexually attracted to a person he should not be attracted to is a person that lacks self control.

With this in mind, two men could have a friendly attraction, but this would nullify them from being homosexual. At the point they have a sexual attraction lust has inherently occured (again, going back to the Greek word and the connotation give to it by a Hebrew paradigm) and thus it is a sin. In fact, a person can only be labled a homosexual once he/she has felt this sort of attraction, which makes it inherently sinful. At the point a man goes, "I like guys" he only realizes this because there was a sexual attraction to males.

But unless you were around during the time the word came into use, you are also relying on the word of other people. The difference is that in the encyclopedia there's a whole team going over the statement, checking it for accuracy, asking many different people.

I am not sure if this is frustrating me or entertaining me. Unless I was around during that time, I am relying on other people's words? I guess in a technical sense, yes. However, I have also looked at this words in the ancient manuscripts to see how they work in the context. Thus, the other people's words that I have learned from lately have been those who did live in that time and did speak that language. Secondly, the encyclopedia, if this is truly all it says about the word, is highly inadequate. It does not explain that it is a contraction of two words (which I dare you to disprove) or that the modern idea of pornography is more akin to porneia than to pornographos. I did miswrite in my last one by saying graphos was part of the root, but I added the end sigma on accident. It should instead end with the omega. My apologies.

The simple fact of the matter is you are relying on something that is giving you an icomplete history of the word. I challenge you to find evidence proving what I have said concerning this word is wrong. You will not find a single iota, but it should be interesting to see how you try to prove me wrong on this. The simple fact is, it is a contraction of two Greek words (this is not disputable at all, to try and dispute it shows me that you know nothing of Greek as you claimed earlier in your post), and that our modern term pornography, though it comes from pornographos is more akin in idea and connotation to porneia.

[Bob Dole]

Bottom Line - the ONLY sexual act ever permitted by the Lord Jesus Christ is sexual relations between a married man & his wife. The KEY to defeating AIDS is to refrain from sexual relations until marriage, then stay faithful to your spouse! Zowie, a poster with understanding!AMEN & AMEN!

Well the key to defeating AIDS is through finding a cure and educating people on how they get AIDS. If somoene refrained from all sexual acts, became a doctor, and treated a bleeding patient with AIDS, they could get the disease through an open wound. Sex isn't the only way to get the virus but it's deffinitely the easiest and most frequent cause.

Actually I did it from my own knowledge, I didn't look it up. A child is not a sexual act, but it's "Not a child of immorality" it's not refering to an immoral child. It's stating "This child has not been brought to life through immorality. The act that it's reffering to would have be fornication, sex outside of marriage.

This, once again, ignores what the Greek word means. You have consistently ignored it. When it refers to a "child of immorality," this is a state of being and not a sexual act. The entire point that I am stating here is that the word porneia does not just refer to sexual acts but states of being and thoughts as well.

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." The child can only come about when they do fornicate. 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?

I meant kissing in an affectionate manner and it doesn't say going against God's plan was a sin or that being attracted to a member of the same sex is going against God's plan. Plus you can be around someone you're attracted to without doing anything about it. I've been around plenty of females I've been attracted to without acting on the attraction. Mostly it's the girlfriend of a friend, or perhaps a much younger co-worker. I'd find the girl cute, but I wouldn't think anything past that, there weren't any lustfull thoughts. It was "Hey she seems cute, and she's into the same music and hobbies, that's cool" and we were like a couple of good friend's, nothing more.

You have too broad a definition for what attraction is. When I refer to attraction I am speaking of a desire to be with a person in a sexual or partially sexual manner. Likewise, you were refering to two guys, who are both attracted to each other, hanging out and kissing. This is inevitably a sin because it refers to what the Bible explicitly condemns.

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.

Here's the problem you are having is that you are missing the enitre context and historical meaning behind the word porneia and even arsenokoites.

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.)

These were written by Hebrews and later translated (or possibly written in) to the Greek language. Thus, when we interpret these words we understand what is said in the Greek (which is still refering to thought) but take this a step further and put it in a Hebrew paradigm.

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.

To Hebrews, especially under the teachings of Jesus, sex was not a purely physical act. There was a thought process involved leading up to the act. The thought process was the sin and the act was the manifestation of this sin. To be clear, it does not simply begin with lust, but a desire towards another person. We get this in the Greek word epithumeo which clearly indicates an internal action that begins with a desire. Now, not all desire is wrong. For instance, if a man desires after his wife, this is a good thing.

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.)

Now, how does this relate to what we are talking about. Again, going back to the analysis that I used that you seemed to ignore, we see that lust begins with a sexual attraction to a person. As I have stated time and time again without any refutation, attraction is a controlable aspect of who we are. We can look to someone and be attracted in a friendly way but we can control who we are attracted to in a sexual way. If this were not the case, then no one could remain married. All relationships begin with a hopeful friendly attraction. I believe that once a couple has been dating seriously or been friends for quite some time and marriage is a distinct possibility, it then okay to have a sexual attraction. However, this is a completely controlable instance. Though certain philosophies and movies would have us to believe otherwise, the simple fact is, someone who is sexually attracted to a person he should not be attracted to is a person that lacks self control.

With this in mind, two men could have a friendly attraction, but this would nullify them from being homosexual. At the point they have a sexual attraction lust has inherently occured (again, going back to the Greek word and the connotation give to it by a Hebrew paradigm) and thus it is a sin. In fact, a person can only be labled a homosexual once he/she has felt this sort of attraction, which makes it inherently sinful. At the point a man goes, "I like guys" he only realizes this because there was a sexual attraction to males.

Hmmm, attraction in a friendly way?

You have too broad a definition for what attraction is. When I refer to attraction I am speaking of a desire to be with a person in a sexual or partially sexual manner.

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. Also, lust applies for everyone, the bible doesn't say "homosexual lust is wrong" it says all lust is wrong. 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.

[Bob Dole]

This forum doesn't seem to be able to handle over a certain number of quotes so -

But unless you were around during the time the word came into use, you are also relying on the word of other people. The difference is that in the encyclopedia there's a whole team going over the statement, checking it for accuracy, asking many different people.

I am not sure if this is frustrating me or entertaining me. Unless I was around during that time, I am relying on other people's words? I guess in a technical sense, yes. However, I have also looked at this words in the ancient manuscripts to see how they work in the context. Thus, the other people's words that I have learned from lately have been those who did live in that time and did speak that language. Secondly, the encyclopedia, if this is truly all it says about the word, is highly inadequate. It does not explain that it is a contraction of two words (which I dare you to disprove) or that the modern idea of pornography is more akin to porneia than to pornographos. I did miswrite in my last one by saying graphos was part of the root, but I added the end sigma on accident. It should instead end with the omega. My apologies.

The simple fact of the matter is you are relying on something that is giving you an icomplete history of the word. I challenge you to find evidence proving what I have said concerning this word is wrong. You will not find a single iota, but it should be interesting to see how you try to prove me wrong on this. The simple fact is, it is a contraction of two Greek words (this is not disputable at all, to try and dispute it shows me that you know nothing of Greek as you claimed earlier in your post), and that our modern term pornography, though it comes from pornographos is more akin in idea and connotation to porneia.

You've just said what I've been arguing. The word pornography comes from pornographos. That was my point, I wasn't arguing that porneia had nothing in common with pornography I was just saying it wasn't where the word came from.

[apothanein kerdos]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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