Why is the nationalist right hallucinating a ‘communist enemy’?

[thormas]

So you don't believe in the virgin birth, you don't think the bible is the word of God, you think Jesus was just a man and not God incarnate.. You really need to change your faith designation to "Unorthodox Christian"

Unorthodox Christian doesn't resonate with me. However, Liberal or Progressive Christian or simply Christian does and I'm the best one to make that decision:+} But thanks for the concern.

The virgin birth, as you must know, is found in 2 of the 4 gospels and not in the earliest NT writings of Paul. I take it as myth, as is Genesis/Creation which presents a truth which is not literal. However my disbelief in the virgin birth goes more to my Christian understanding of God and the human experience of God. That also goes to my understanding of the Bible. Revelation, properly understood, is not the revealing or giving of information about God (as it is traditionally understood), rather it is the self-revealing or the self-giving of God which takes place in the ordinary, everyday moments of life and which is essential to our humanization (or as some of the Earliest Church Fathers put it, our divinization). Regarding the incarnation- it is not that Jesus is 'just a man' but that he is a man. The Christian belief is that Jesus is fully human, like us in all ways (except in our self-centeredness or sin). If he is not, it all falls apart. I do believe Jesus 'incarnates' or embodies God........but probably not in the traditional, theistic way that you might. I further believe that we are all called to be embodiments or incarnations of the Father or simply to be in his image and likeness. Actually, I believe the only way we can be fully Human is if we incarnate the Divinity: the only way to be man (i.e. human) is to 'be' what God is and do what God does - to be and do Love. If we incarnate Love then we are humanity doing divinity; we are man living in God (Paul).

All these concepts deserve there own thread but they are all for another day.

[Sparko]

Unorthodox Christian doesn't resonate with me. However, Liberal or Progressive Christian or simply Christian does and I'm the best one to make that decision:+} But thanks for the concern.

The virgin birth, as you must know, is found in 2 of the 4 gospels and not in the earliest NT writings of Paul. I take it as myth, as is Genesis/Creation which presents a truth which is not literal. However my disbelief in the virgin birth goes more to my Christian understanding of God and the human experience of God. That also goes to my understanding of the Bible. Revelation, properly understood, is not the revealing or giving of information about God (as it is traditionally understood), rather it is the self-revealing or the self-giving of God which takes place in the ordinary, everyday moments of life. Regarding the incarnation, it appears you don't understand the Christian belief that Jesus is fully human, like us in all ways (except in our self-centeredness or sin). If he is not, it all falls apart. I do believe Jesus 'incarnates' or embodies God........but probably not in the traditional, theistic way that you might. I further believe that we are all called to be embodiments or incarnations of the Father or simply to be in his image and likeness. Actually, I believe the only way we can be fully Human is if we incarnate the Divinity: the only way to be man is to do what God is and do what God does - to be and do Love. If we incarnate Love then we are humanity doing divinity; we are man living in God (Paul).

All these concepts deserve there own thread but they are all for another day.

I sent you a PM. Please read it.

[thormas]

Of course there is, Arsenokoitai (1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1) is derived from the Greek Septuagint passages found in Leviticus 18 & 20. Never mind Romans One. And what do you mean by orientation? We are all orientated toward sin by nature. My orientation is to bed a different woman every week. And orientation does not excuse that.

You miss the point, what they understand and what we understand is different. If interested I'll provide some quotes from the scholar I mentioned so you can check them out yourself. And orientation is sexual orientation.

BTW, the scholar was talking about the Greek.

If your orientation is to bed women weekly and if you succeed then you are as bad as the homosexuals that you mistakenly condemn - according to the Bible. Ruh-roh!

Actually orientation does provide an 'excuse.' Assuming you are heterosexual, you can't help being attracted to women. So too, if one is a homosexual s/he cannot help being attracted to the same sex. Orientation removes culpability; one is not blameworthy for to whom they are attracted. However if the homosexual or heterosexual 'abuses or simply uses another human being as a thing to get pleasure, devoid of love, that is a self-centered act and by definition sin.

Again, I take the Bible as insights taken from a particular individual in community's 'experience of God.' Even if some of the verses int the Bible 'condemn' homosexuality, if our experience of God in Jesus leads us to a different insight that is as valid as the biblical view. In addition, there seems to be no basis on which to base an opinion that Jesus would condemn the mere fact that one is a homosexual.

[thormas]

Well perhaps the man Jesus was wrong about the love your neighbor or throwing stones parts too...He knew that God created human sexuality to be shared between a married man and woman.

Seemingly you might be mis-understadning the true humanity of Jesus. If you think he was wrong about the 2 great commandments, it seems you have moved outside of Christianity??? Where did he say he knew that God created sexuality to be shared between a married man and woman? Did he specifically also say that he condemned homosexual love?

[Starlight]

As a one critical biblical scholar said: there is not a Greek word for our term “homosexuality,” ............. there was no ancient *concept* of homosexuality, there was no ancient concept of sexuality. There was no understanding of sexual orientation.

From what I've read of the scholarship on the subject, I would tend to disagree with all those ideas. The ancients regularly show awareness that different people (usually men) can specifically have a sexual attraction one sex only, or to both sexes. There do seem to have been particular words Greek words that were used for this. There do seem to have sometimes been streets or areas where such people hung out.

The bible doesn't ever use the Greek words used by the society of the time for this, so it's fair to say the NT doesn't mention homosexuality in that sense.

Of course there is, Arsenokoitai (1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1) is derived from the Greek Septuagint passages found in Leviticus 18 & 20.

That claim seems totally implausible. To claim a Greek word has its origins in obscure parts of the Hebrew bible is pretty absurd. And the idea that Paul, writing to churches where scholars don't think the adherents had much background themselves in the Hebrew bible, would expect readers to instantly understand a reference to one of the more obscure portions of the OT law that Paul had told them not to follow, is very absurd.

The word arsenokoitai is never used in any other ancient Greek sources to refer to homosexuality, and homosexuality was a subject other Greek sources do talk about a fair bit. The oldest Latin translations of the New Testament translate arsenokotai to mean "paedophile". That appears to me to be its most probable meaning. Multiple early Christian writings show quite an intense opposition to paedophilia, which is interesting given that on the whole the isn't much in the NT on the topic, unless they were understanding this word to refer to paedophilia, which their translations suggest they were.

[seer]

Seemingly you might be mis-understadning the true humanity of Jesus. If you think he was wrong about the 2 great commandments, it seems you have moved outside of Christianity??? Where did he say he knew that God created sexuality to be shared between a married man and woman? Did he specifically also say that he condemned homosexual love?

Christ did not say that he came not to destroy the law (Torah) but to fulfill it (which include the definition of marriage, and condemnation of homosexuality)? And Christ said nothing about rape or bestiality - does that mean those are acceptable?

[thormas]

Christ did not say that he came not to destroy the law (Torah) but to fulfill it (which include the definition of marriage, and condemnation of homosexuality)? And Christ said nothing about rape or bestiality - does that mean those are acceptable?

If Jesus was not married and he came to fulfill the law, including marriage - seemingly he failed. I do love an unmarried person telling a married person what real marriage is:+}
Nor did he condemn homosexuality - so another fail. At least according to your understanding.

Was beatiality a big issue among the people of God? Was it necessary for Jesus to address it? Where do you get this stuff?

[seer]

That claim seems totally implausible. To claim a Greek word has its origins in obscure parts of the Hebrew bible is pretty absurd. And the idea that Paul, writing to churches where scholars don't think the adherents had much background themselves in the Hebrew bible, would expect readers to instantly understand a reference to one of the more obscure portions of the OT law that Paul had told them not to follow, is very absurd.

Really and what do you think the churches thought arsenokoitai meant?

The word arsenokoitai is never used in any other ancient Greek sources to refer to homosexuality, and homosexuality was a subject other Greek sources do talk about a fair bit. The oldest Latin translations of the New Testament translate arsenokotai to mean "paedophile". That appears to me to be its most probable meaning. Multiple early Christian writings show quite an intense opposition to paedophilia, which is interesting given that on the whole the isn't much in the NT on the topic, unless they were understanding this word to refer to paedophilia, which their translations suggest they were.

Nonsense, arseno means male and koitai mean mat or bed. Bed for males, nothing to do with pedophilia unless it is male on male..

[seer]

If Jesus was not married and he came to fulfill the law, including marriage - seemingly he failed. I do love an unmarried person telling a married person what real marriage is:+}
Nor did he condemn homosexuality - so another fail. At least according to your understanding.

You don't understand, nothing in the law of God said you had to marry. The point is Christ did not sin (fulfilling the law), and that the Torah was the word of God. And that includes the the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.

Was beatiality a big issue among the people of God? Was it necessary for Jesus to address it? Where do you get this stuff?

It is condemned in the OT like homosexuality. And homosexuality wasn't a glaring problem in Jesus time among the Jews. But as Paul reached out to the gentiles it had to be addressed.

[thormas]

You don't understand, nothing in the law of God said you had to marry. The point is Christ did not sin (fulfilling the law), and that the Torah was the word of God. And that includes the the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.



It is condemned in the OT like homosexuality. And homosexuality wasn't a glaring problem in Jesus time among the Jews. But as Paul reached out to the gentiles it had to be addressed.

I know that but you said Jesus came to fulfill the law including marriage - how else does one fulfill marriage other than getting married? What specific law are you talking about?
However it is not simply that Jesus did not sin (self-centeredness) but that he was the very embodiment of the law, he was the 2 great commandments of Love lived perfectly, i.e. fulfilled. How did he then fulfill marriage?
Again, we have to really study the prohibitions against homosexuality.
How do you know that homosexuality wasn't a glaring problem in the time of Jesus? Was it glaring when Lev. was written? How and why did things change? What is your source for this conclusion?

[Starlight]

Really and what do you think the churches thought arsenokoitai meant?

Paedophilia.

Nonsense, arseno means male and koitai mean mat or bed. Bed for males, nothing to do with pedophilia unless it is male on male.

"Bedder" (koitai) of "boys" (arseno) = paedophilia, makes sense as the literal meaning of the parts of the word. That's how all the early Christian translations into latin render it.

Though I would note that it's a straight-out error to think a word has to have the meaning of its component parts. "Understand" doesn't mean to "stand" "under" anything.

And homosexuality wasn't a glaring problem in Jesus time among the Jews.

??? We know from Roman sources of that time that homosexuality was pretty common. We know bisexuality was very common, and that the average heterosexually-married Roman man might use his male servants for sex. The Roman centurion who sends for Jesus to heal his "beloved" servant is probably being absolutely literal about the beloved part. We know that was common. Jesus heals him without asking questions and praises the centurion. Elsewhere Jesus tells us some people are born eunuchs (a term that other ancient sources use to describe people we would call LGTQ).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well as this is my thread I feel bound to join in to this discussion on homosexuality and biblical texts.

The word arsenokoitai appears to have been first used by Paul and is used very infrequently by him. Authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones, have traditionally contented themselves with corroborating the inference of biblical translators by giving this definition as “sodomite”. The assertion that this word “obviously” means “homosexual” would appear to be an over-statement. As a point of information the word homosexual was coined in the nineteenth century .

The second half of the compound koitai is a vulgar word generally denoting base or licentious sexual activities [see Romans 13:13] and in this and other compounds corresponds to the English word that I am not at liberty to use on this forum! The connation being the person that takes the active role in intercourse by ‘insertion’. The prefix arseno simply means male. Its relationship to the second half of the compound is unclear.

A similar English expression, lady killer, exhibits, when written, the same ambiguity. If used in speech , then emphasis would indicate whether lady designates the victim or the gender of the killer but when printed there is no way to distinguish whether this phrase means a lady who kills or a person who kills ladies. This is an especially revealing parallel, since a third, and largely unrelated meaning of a wolf or Don Juan is, in fact, the most common usage of the phrase.

However, this could not be deduced from the constituent parts. This example highlights the inadequacies of lexicographical inference when unsupported by contextual evidence.

[See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, J Boswell, University of Chicago Press 1980]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Paedophilia.

"Bedder" (koitai) of "boys" (arseno) = paedophilia, makes sense as the literal meaning of the parts of the word. That's how all the early Christian translations into latin render it.

Though I would note that it's a straight-out error to think a word has to have the meaning of its component parts. "Understand" doesn't mean to "stand" "under" anything.

??? We know from Roman sources of that time that homosexuality was pretty common. We know bisexuality was very common, and that the average heterosexually-married Roman man might use his male servants for sex. The Roman centurion who sends for Jesus to heal his "beloved" servant is probably being absolutely literal about the beloved part. We know that was common. Jesus heals him without asking questions and praises the centurion. Elsewhere Jesus tells us some people are born eunuchs (a term that other ancient sources use to describe people we would call LGTQ).

I fear we have overlapped slightly in our replies.

Another important point to bear in mind is that both Roman and Hebrew society were male dominated. Indeed Hebrew men offered up prayers giving thanks they were not women. Hence if men had sex together one would effectively be playing the role of the culturally inferior female during sex.

The same attitude is found in Roman society. For a Roman man to penetrate another man (invariably a slave) was considered neither immoral nor shameful. However, for a Roman man to be penetrated by another man was an act of humiliation because he would be renouncing his masculine role and subordinating himself to another, as did a woman.

This attitude towards male dominated sex explains why the Hebrew bible is silent on lesbianism. Given the inferior status of women in society neither woman could be perceived as adopting a dominant role during sexual encounters.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You don't understand, nothing in the law of God said you had to marry. The point is Christ did not sin (fulfilling the law), and that the Torah was the word of God. And that includes the the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.



It is condemned in the OT like homosexuality. And homosexuality wasn't a glaring problem in Jesus time among the Jews. But as Paul reached out to the gentiles it had to be addressed.

Well there again we have to consider the text within its historical and social context and the cultural mores of the society in which it was created. The work reached the form in which we have it today between 500 and 300 BCE and Persian influences on the Hebrew texts that were finally redacted after the exile cannot be ruled out.

Furthermore, various behaviours in ancient Hebrew society carried the death penalty including repeated disobedience of parents by children, or the picking up of sticks on the Sabbath.

As to Jesus' marital status it would certainly have been unusual for a man of his years not to be married, in Judaism then as now, marriage and children are a blessing. So the possibility remains that either his wife and family life was airbrushed out of those later gospel texts or that he was going through a temporary period of celibacy which was not unknown among certain Jewish sects at the time [see the Essenes].

[Whateverman]

you said Jesus came to fulfill the law including marriage - how else does one fulfill marriage other than getting married?

Over at the "other" Christian forum, I posted an informal poll, asking how one would fulfill a law like a speed limit. Most of the Christians who answered said that obeying it would constitute fulfillment