New Gay Bible Angers Christians

[Aquila]

It should be mentioned that ancient Rome was far more debased than American culture....and Christianity spread like wild fire. We need to be more spiritual and less political. Let the world do their thing...they're going to anyway. It's a waste of money, time, and energy trying to control them. I say...we need to focus on being the church. That means loving unconditionally, serving the lost, being honest, patient, kind, never bitter or shrieking, gentle, peacemakers. When the world sees the contrast in all it's glory...they will have seen Christ in us. I cannot control gays. For example if they want to marry and some confused church wants to marry them....that's their business. However, as a Christian, I could never perform, recognize, or bless a gay wedding. Should the state try to force me...that's where I take my stand.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It should be mentioned that ancient Rome was far more debased than American culture....and Christianity spread like wild fire. We need to be more spiritual and less political. Let the world do their thing...they're going to anyway. It's a waste of money, time, and energy trying to control them. I say...we need to focus on being the church. That means loving unconditionally, serving the lost, being honest, patient, kind, never bitter or shrieking, gentle, peacemakers. When the world sees the contrast in all it's glory...they will have seen Christ in us. I cannot control gays. For example if they want to marry and some confused church wants to marry them....that's their business. However, as a Christian, I could never perform, recognize, or bless a gay wedding. Should the state try to force me...that's where I take my stand.

Good post!! Excellent!

[Pressing-On]

Thought some would be interested in this information. I can't find my password for this forum, but still get discussion in my e-mail. This discussion happens to be on the very subject of Romans 1:26-27.

26Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν
φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν,
26 DIA TOUTO PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EIS PAQH ATIMIAS, hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN METHLLACAN THN
FUSIKHN XRHSIN EIS THN PARA FUSIN

I would render:

"For this reason God remanded them to dishonorable passions for even their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature."

Both TE and GAR and discourse particles and their function is not always easy. I have a somewhat different analysis from Steve.

We discussed the TE solitarium recently, and here we have two of them, one in 26b and one in 27a.

In my view TE here has the function it always has, namely to tie the clause in which it occurs more tightly to part of the previous clause than would otherwise have been the case. I called them "overlapping events".

Underlyingly, we have a common Hebrew style where the writer first gives a
general reference and then adds details about that general reference. Here that general statement includes πάθη ἀτιμίας PAQH ATIMIAS dishonorable passions.

TE indicates that the writer still has something to say about this topic and he urges you not to stop the mental processing of it before you have ALSO read what the TE introduces. In this case the dishonorable passions are described in more detail as what the women are doing in 26b, and the
second TE describes what the men are doing, again as part of those dishonorable passions. The concept of dishonorable passions is not complete until you have read everything introduced by TE.

The GAR is an explanatory particle independent from TE. As Steve said, it supports what came before (this expression is from Relevance Theory jargon, and is not very clear.) It explains further some element of the preceding clause (It does not go all the way back to v. 25). In this case, the GAR
also connects to PAQH ATIMIAS and it explains further what is meant by this phrase, what these passions are and why they are dishonorable.

So, in this particular construction the TE and the GAR have somewhat similar functions, but they are still different particles with each their focus and usage. You could say that TE adds to the content, and GAR explains the background. The explanation continues in v. 27a, and here there is no
GAR here, because the scope of the first GAR is both 26b and 27. IF there had been another GAR in 27, it would have introduced an explanation to something in v. 26b, and that is not the intention.

It is still the words in 26a that are being explained in v. 27.

[tv1a]

Great point. A friend of mine was delivered from homosexuality. I knew him before his deliverance. I didn't have to bash him over the head. It never came in my conversations with him.

At last count there are an estimated 2 million homosexuals in the USA. That less than 2 percent of the USA population. Reaching the gay community isn't going to happen if we are going to be spewing vitrol on every front.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It should be mentioned that ancient Rome was far more debased than American culture....and Christianity spread like wild fire. We need to be more spiritual and less political. Let the world do their thing...they're going to anyway. It's a waste of money, time, and energy trying to control them. I say...we need to focus on being the church. That means loving unconditionally, serving the lost, being honest, patient, kind, never bitter or shrieking, gentle, peacemakers. When the world sees the contrast in all it's glory...they will have seen Christ in us. I cannot control gays. For example if they want to marry and some confused church wants to marry them....that's their business. However, as a Christian, I could never perform, recognize, or bless a gay wedding. Should the state try to force me...that's where I take my stand.

[soldoutochrist]

Straight from the website provided

Mitchell claims the gay Bible is divinely inspired. According to Mitchell, "There are scholars who say that like many priests, Jesus was gay. In Biblical times homosexual relationships were so commonplace that no one gave it a second thought. It was heterosexuality that was considered sinful."


Sickening....

[KWSS1976]

if it was god that stated it is ok to be gay then what was Genesis 19...... about the thought just make me sick that it is ok to be gay. Just read what god did in Genesis 19 to gay people.....