Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[shunyadragon]

Slavery of the form that we term slavery is not in view, and I find it difficult to believe you do not know how slavery played out in practice during the late Roman Republic/early Empire.

Actually no, slavery is still playing out today in the human theater. because of the lack of definitive spiritual laws in Hebrew, Christian and Islamic scripture prohibiting slavery, and these scriptures actually prescribed laws governing slavery.

Slavery actually persisted in the Southern States until well into the 20th century as penal servatude slavery' in the USA to rebuild the industry and infrastructure of the South.

[Tassman]

I know this may cause some frustration but I would like to ask why only male prostitutes are mentioned?

Sacred prostitution (male and female) was a pagan religious activity in some classical cultures, including during Paul's time. It has been argued that when Paul rails against homosexuality, he's actually referring to the pagan religion as wrong rather than the homosexuality itself.

[Sparko]

Sacred prostitution (male and female) was a pagan religious activity in some classical cultures, including during Paul's time. It has been argued that when Paul rails against homosexuality, he's actually referring to the pagan religion as wrong rather than the homosexuality itself.

wrong. He just posted an odd translation:

KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

NIV: 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Footnotes:

[a] The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

[JimL]

wrong. He just posted an odd translation:

KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

NIV: 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Footnotes:

[a] The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

I think Paul was probably a repressed homosexual anyway, don't you think?

[Sparko]

I think Paul was probably a repressed homosexual anyway, don't you think?

No. Are you?

[JimL]

No. Are you?

No, but Paul sure did seem to hate himself, didn't seem to like women much, stayed clear of them, never did marry, and some of the things he said concerning himself, self loathing and the like, makes me wonder.

[Sparko]

No, but Paul sure did seem to hate himself, didn't seem to like women much, stayed clear of them, never did marry, and some of the things he said concerning himself, self loathing and the like, makes me wonder.

Many believe Paul was married. He argues in 1 Cor 9:5 "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

And Paul never self-loaths. he merely recognizes that he is a sinner and needs God. Every Christian does. In fact it is a requirement before you will even seek God for Salvation to know you are a sinner and cannot do it on your own. That is not self-loathing. That is knowing you require mercy and God's Grace which he freely gives because he loves us.

[One Bad Pig]

Many believe Paul was married. He argues in 1 Cor 9:5 "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

I don't think that's a very good indication of Paul's actual status, though it does indicate that he's not against marriage.

[Tassman]

wrong. He just posted an odd translation:

KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

NIV: 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Footnotes:

[a] The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

All of which is consistent with temple male prostitution, which was commonplace in classical times, particularly in Corinth to which is this admonition was addressed. In short it is an argument against participating in pagan practices of all kinds. BTW: How does the Donald fare with that bit about adulterers?

I don't think that's a very good indication of Paul's actual status, though it does indicate that he's not against marriage.

He's not particularly for it either. Rather he saw it as acceptable only to those who could not maintain celibacy..."if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". Not exactly a ringing endorsement!

[JimL]

All of which is consistent with temple male prostitution, which was commonplace in classical times, particularly in Corinth to which is this admonition was addressed. In short it is an argument against participating in pagan practices of all kinds. BTW: How does the Donald fare with that bit about adulterers?



He's not particularly for it either. Rather he saw it as acceptable only to those who could not maintain celibacy..."if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". Not exactly a ringing endorsement!

Apparently Paul didn't burn with passion for the opposite sex. It does make one wonder why.

[One Bad Pig]

He's not particularly for it either. Rather he saw it as acceptable only to those who could not maintain celibacy..."if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". Not exactly a ringing endorsement!

The entire passage on marriage in 1 Cor. 7 is about as diffident as Paul gets. He does not do more than recommend celibacy, and is careful not to couch it as a commandment. He does not impugn marriage in any way, just observes that married couples need to keep their spouses in mind.

[KingsGambit]

The entire passage on marriage in 1 Cor. 7 is about as diffident as Paul gets. He does not do more than recommend celibacy, and is careful not to couch it as a commandment. He does not impugn marriage in any way, just observes that married couples need to keep their spouses in mind.

Side question:

I grew up with a guy who ended up becoming religious later on and is now a top Catholic apologist. On his Facebook wall, I saw the argument advanced that the ECFs interpreted this as meaning that married church figures needed to stay celibate. No citation was given. Do you have any idea what this would be talking about? (The context was defending priestly celibacy.)

[One Bad Pig]

Side question:

I grew up with a guy who ended up becoming religious later on and is now a top Catholic apologist. On his Facebook wall, I saw the argument advanced that the ECFs interpreted this as meaning that married church figures needed to stay celibate. No citation was given. Do you have any idea what this would be talking about? (The context was defending priestly celibacy.)

Not specifically, but the idea developed quite early and universally that bishops should be celibate - to the point where, if a married person (usually, but not always, already a priest) was chosen to be a bishop, he and his wife would take monastic vows and she would enter a monastery. By the time that priestly celibacy became relatively well-established in the West (sixth century or so, IIRC, despite the 4th-century Council of Elvira), only monks and widowers were eligible to be nominated as bishop - and scriptural support was found in this passage.

[KingsGambit]

Not specifically, but the idea developed quite early and universally that bishops should be celibate - to the point where, if a married person (usually, but not always, already a priest) was chosen to be a bishop, he and his wife would take monastic vows and she would enter a monastery. By the time that priestly celibacy became relatively well-established in the West (sixth century or so, IIRC, despite the 4th-century Council of Elvira), only monks and widowers were eligible to be nominated as bishop - and scriptural support was found in this passage.

Interesting, thanks.

[Sparko]

All of which is consistent with temple male prostitution, which was commonplace in classical times, particularly in Corinth to which is this admonition was addressed. In short it is an argument against participating in pagan practices of all kinds. BTW: How does the Donald fare with that bit about adulterers?

No it doesn't Tassman. Yes it was against prostitution of any kind, but the clear translation shows that the bible is against any form of homosexuality. It is a liberal lie that the bible is only against temple prostitution. And not a particularly good lie.

As far as Trump goes, he will either have to pay for his sins like any unbeliever or he will be forgiven like any other believer. I know he professes to be a Christian but I haven't seen much evidence of it. I have a thread on the topic somewhere around here.

He's not particularly for it either. Rather he saw it as acceptable only to those who could not maintain celibacy..."if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". Not exactly a ringing endorsement!

He knew that the Christians were being persecuted and hunted down. He was advising Christians to live for Christ and not get tied down. He thought it better to devote their lives to spreading the gospel than to be married. He was not against marriage.