NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this as a reply to another thread, but hopefully this will settle discussion of this most often ridiculously debated subject.

Not sure why I am jumping into this, but I always defend minorities.....
Read this http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/BIBLE-TOP-10.htm

If you TRULY want a GOOD drawn out explanation of why homosexuality is NOT condemned by the Bible look at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm



But here is a generla overview.

Leviticus
For starters, Leviticus has possibly one of the most cited references to homosexuality,but no one refers to the verses that deal with one nation being able to take slaves from another nation, the verse concerning not eating shellfish, and the verse concerning not wearing clothing woven of two cloths. When shellfish is referred to as an abomination as well.
PLUS it is a Old Testament book, which most Christians say they no longer follow, and only the New Testament applies after Jesus Christ, right?

Romans
Paul was referring, obviously, by the words used to temple prostituion which was a form of idolatory. This has been stated several times, the actual Greek words used in the original verse were referring to men who do such.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Their sin was inhospitality, and greed which is made clear in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed because it was full of gays or lesbians. The main theme of the story was that Sodom and Gomorrah were greedy, etc.

Jesus Christ NEVER spoke of homosexuality, or condemned homosexuals.


Quoted From a Website

Romans 1:26 and 27 has St. Paul criticizing sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. This passage has been variously interpreted to refer to all homosexual behavior, to orgiastic activity, to temple prostitution, or to heterosexuals who were engaging in same-sex exchanges. The meaning is unclear.
I Corinthians 6:9 contains a lists of activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One was translated as referring to masturbation, and is now sometimes translated as "homosexual". The true meaning is lost.
1 Tim 1:9 is similar to I Corinthians.
Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". The latter has been variously translated as women engaging in sexual intercourse with angels and as homosexuality. The exact meaning is lost.

Ask any knowledgable preacher. Paul condemned sexuality in general, saying that a man should only get married if he cannot control himself, etc. His recommended lifestyle was one where sex was absent. Who mentions this?


MANY who profess to be Christians commit many other sins in the Bible mentioned MUCH more than homosexuality, and condemned MUCH worse than homosexuality. How about Thou Shalt Not Tell a Lie? Why are people specifically targeting homosexuality? Perhaps it is more that it is just "different"? Why not target the many physical, mental, and verbal abuses that go on every day in households across the country?

Why not put all this talk, and energy against gay marriage into talking about why the divorce rate among straight couples is so high?

Why criticize gays so much when there is a high rate of violence, and abuse in our schools? In our homes?

So think, are you condemning homosexuality because of your culture/society's outlook on it, or truly because of your religion?

I posted this as a reply to another thread, but hopefully this will settle discussion of this most often ridiculously debated subject.

Not sure why I am jumping into this, but I always defend minorities.....
Read this http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/BIBLE-TOP-10.htm

If you TRULY want a GOOD drawn out explanation of why homosexuality is NOT condemned by the Bible look at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm



But here is a generla overview.

Leviticus
For starters, Leviticus has possibly one of the most cited references to homosexuality,but no one refers to the verses that deal with one nation being able to take slaves from another nation, the verse concerning not eating shellfish, and the verse concerning not wearing clothing woven of two cloths. When shellfish is referred to as an abomination as well.
PLUS it is a Old Testament book, which most Christians say they no longer follow, and only the New Testament applies after Jesus Christ, right?

Romans
Paul was referring, obviously, by the words used to temple prostituion which was a form of idolatory. This has been stated several times, the actual Greek words used in the original verse were referring to men who do such.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Their sin was inhospitality, and greed which is made clear in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed because it was full of gays or lesbians. The main theme of the story was that Sodom and Gomorrah were greedy, etc.

Jesus Christ NEVER spoke of homosexuality, or condemned homosexuals.


Quoted From a Website

Romans 1:26 and 27 has St. Paul criticizing sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. This passage has been variously interpreted to refer to all homosexual behavior, to orgiastic activity, to temple prostitution, or to heterosexuals who were engaging in same-sex exchanges. The meaning is unclear.
I Corinthians 6:9 contains a lists of activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One was translated as referring to masturbation, and is now sometimes translated as "homosexual". The true meaning is lost.
1 Tim 1:9 is similar to I Corinthians.
Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". The latter has been variously translated as women engaging in sexual intercourse with angels and as homosexuality. The exact meaning is lost.

Ask any knowledgable preacher. Paul condemned sexuality in general, saying that a man should only get married if he cannot control himself, etc. His recommended lifestyle was one where sex was absent. Who mentions this?


MANY who profess to be Christians commit many other sins in the Bible mentioned MUCH more than homosexuality, and condemned MUCH worse than homosexuality. How about Thou Shalt Not Tell a Lie? Why are people specifically targeting homosexuality? Perhaps it is more that it is just "different"? Why not target the many physical, mental, and verbal abuses that go on every day in households across the country?

Why not put all this talk, and energy against gay marriage into talking about why the divorce rate among straight couples is so high?

Why criticize gays so much when there is a high rate of violence, and abuse in our schools? In our homes?

So think, are you condemning homosexuality because of your culture/society's outlook on it, or truly because of your religion?

Have you even read what it says? Or are you just pasting quotes?

Lying is NOT more condemned than "laying with a man as with a woman" is. And besides, even if "good Christians" don't do what the Bible teaches, it doesn't change what's in there.

Have you even read what it says? Or are you just pasting quotes?

Lying is NOT more condemned than "laying with a man as with a woman" is. And besides, even if "good Christians" don't do what the Bible teaches, it doesn't change what's in there.


Roman soldiers began a practice of having sex with young boys who were training to become soldiers, sort of like a demented mentor program.. this was a common practice elsewhere in the area (sodom & gomorrah for example...). paul was against this practice because the men were actually straight. most were even married.

I liked it, *clap clap clap*

that was a good showing of knowledge of material and research... I guess. sadly no arguement will be put to rest since in such a topic people play the blind game. (I can't see what he just posted cause it made me seem like an idiot, and if he brings it up I'll just yell at him or call him a faggot.)

I like that game, it's not very fun though :(

Talking about Leviticus, not Paul. To lay with a man carnally is called an abomination, and is punished by death. And yes so is picking up sticks on a saturday, but like I said, it's what's in there, not whether people do it now.

Roman soldiers began a practice of having sex with young boys who were training to become soldiers, sort of like a demented mentor program.. this was a common practice elsewhere in the area (sodom & gomorrah for example...). paul was against this practice because the men were actually straight. most were even married.

You know I'd heard about that practice previously, but I'd never thought about it in that context.

Isn't Leviticus meant to be things that God doesn't like us to do, not actually condemn? It's like I don't like pasta, it doesn't mean I think it's evil, just that I'd rather not eat it.

Anyway, lying with a man as with a woman doesn't apply to gay men, since they don't lie with women, and perhaps it refers to "as if" with a woman, i.e. pretending, which was much more relevant to the time? Doesn't that also condemn lesbians who try to act straight and sleep with men? As a bisexual, I know that I don't lie with women in the same way as I lie with men, there are definite differences in the course of events.

Lying is NOT more condemned than "laying with a man as with a woman" is. And besides, even if "good Christians" don't do what the Bible teaches, it doesn't change what's in there.


Yes it IS more condemned? It is one of the Ten Commandments, are those not held higher than the laws of Leviticus? Read what else is condemned "Equally" along with "laying with a man as with a woman" (Even though that passage probably does not even refer to homosexuality in how it is presently presented)

Why do you just refer to that ONE passage in Leviticus (In the Old Testament, whom's laws no longer apply) where it says "laying with a man as with a woman is an abomination" when the following is listed as an abomination EQUALLY along side, using the SAME word...

Leviticus 11
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: (Shellfish such as lobster, crab, etc.)

Leviticus 11
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11
42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.


Leviticus Permitting Slavery...
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

So how can you POSSIBLY reference Leviticus, and that verse from Leviticus to condemn homosexuality and ignore all other laws in Leviticus that no one follows?

I am not ignoring other laws. I am telling you that to say that the Bible does not forbid per se homosexuality is untrue. Yes it also forbids eating shellfish. So?

So you can't condemn homosexuality that way when A) Most Christians say that the Old Testament laws do not apply to present time and B) That passage may not even be referring to homosexuality in present conception, but rather the Roman Soldier note listed above or other etc.

So, Druthulhu, are you saying it's irrelevant to us whether the Bible condemns it, or something like that with more qualifiers? I certainly feel it's much more relevant to me whether Christians condemn it, since I don't follow the Bible. Anyway, I've already said my piece about the Leviticus statement.

Well I'd say your argument was thorough and logical if I felt like lying (which I do, sometimes, because I'm human). I'm going to begin by agreeing with you that ALL CHRISTIANS SIN. We're not perfect, we're just forgiven. I have yet to meet a person, Christian or not, who does not commit a 'sin' of one type or another every single day. And, for your information, all sins are equal in the eyes of God so lying is not worse than homosexuality but neither is homosexuality worse than lying. All have the same effect on one's relationship with God, all are therefore equal in His eyes. JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS SO THAT ALL OF THEM COULD BE FORGIVEN.
Speaking of God, did you think to ask Him wether or not He meant to condemn homosexuality in His Word? If you want the truth, go to the source; God will give you a straight, direct answer without all the 'misinterpretation' you claim people have done. As for Romans 1:27, here's what it says:
'Men comitted indecent acts with other men and recieved the due penalty for their perversion' Clear enough?
Luckily we have Jesus who has taken the punishment for us. Beyond having read the passages you mentioned, have you read the Bible? Have you ever talked to God? Its entirely up to you wether you do or not, but if you want the absolute truth, I suggest you ask God, either in prayer or by reading His Word. At least show Him that respect.
I will close by saying that God loves you and wants you to talk to Him. His message is not about wether you're homosexual, or a liar, theif or constantly standing in judgement of people. We're all sinners. God created and loves all that He created, man sinned therefore seperating himself from God, Jesus died on the cross so that the sins we will inevitably commit for the rest of our lives are forgiven and we can have a personal relationship with God. All we need do is ask. Its as simple as that, only people complicate it.

So, Druthulhu, are you saying it's irrelevant to us whether the Bible condemns it, or something like that with more qualifiers? I certainly feel it's much more relevant to me whether Christians condemn it, since I don't follow the Bible. Anyway, I've already said my piece about the Leviticus statement.

No. I have been and continue to be saying only this: it is false to state that the Bible does not condemn per se homosexuality.

Well I'd say your argument was thorough and logical if I felt like lying (which I do, sometimes, because I'm human). I'm going to begin by agreeing with you that ALL CHRISTIANS SIN. We're not perfect, we're just forgiven. I have yet to meet a person, Christian or not, who does not commit a 'sin' of one type or another every single day. And, for your information, all sins are equal in the eyes of God so lying is not worse than homosexuality but neither is homosexuality worse than lying. All have the same effect on one's relationship with God, all are therefore equal in His eyes. JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS SO THAT ALL OF THEM COULD BE FORGIVEN.
Speaking of God, did you think to ask Him wether or not He meant to condemn homosexuality in His Word? If you want the truth, go to the source; God will give you a straight, direct answer without all the 'misinterpretation' you claim people have done. As for Romans 1:27, here's what it says:
'Men comitted indecent acts with other men and recieved the due penalty for their perversion' Clear enough?
Luckily we have Jesus who has taken the punishment for us. Beyond having read the passages you mentioned, have you read the Bible? Have you ever talked to God? Its entirely up to you wether you do or not, but if you want the absolute truth, I suggest you ask God, either in prayer or by reading His Word. At least show Him that respect.
I will close by saying that God loves you and wants you to talk to Him. His message is not about wether you're homosexual, or a liar, theif or constantly standing in judgement of people. We're all sinners. God created and loves all that He created, man sinned therefore seperating himself from God, Jesus died on the cross so that the sins we will inevitably commit for the rest of our lives are forgiven and we can have a personal relationship with God. All we need do is ask. Its as simple as that, only people complicate it.

God created homosexuals, most of whom feel they were born homosexual. It is not settled, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality in my view, and you cannot say the Bible clearly defines all sin as equal to other sins, or at least Christians do not consider it. If all sins are equal, then why do Christians only target certain sins? Why are homosexuals not accepted in a church along side adulterers, and others who sin daily? I understand the gest of your address to me, I do have a personal relationship with God, but still I am talking what is going on day to day practically, not my personal relationship with God.

Anyway, lying with a man as with a woman doesn't apply to gay men, since they don't lie with women, and perhaps it refers to "as if" with a woman, i.e. pretending, which was much more relevant to the time? Doesn't that also condemn lesbians who try to act straight and sleep with men? As a bisexual, I know that I don't lie with women in the same way as I lie with men, there are definite differences in the course of events.

Druthulhu, could you argue against this statement, then? All other instances in the Bible which are used against homosexuality are about paedophilia, gang rape, prostitution and orgiastic ceremonies to please false gods.

Don't tell us to 'ask God'. Firstly, many of us don't *believe* in your God and are simply resorting to discussing the bible because so many of you bible quoters absolutely *refuse* to listen to anything that disagrees with your views... heck, even when faced with alternate views of the bible, you still pick and choose what you listen to. (General 'you' here, not aimed at anyone in specific).

And how, exactly, would any of you react if I said "I talked to God, and he told me that homosexuality is *not* condemed in the bible". I'd like to take a wild guess here

a) you'd claim I was 'not Christian, and so never mind that 'God loves me'
b) you'd claim I was lying/confused/being a smart arse.

Don't make suggestions unless you mean them - it makes you sound somewhat (ha) pig-headed.

Anyway, lying with a man as with a woman doesn't apply to gay men, since they don't lie with women, and perhaps it refers to "as if" with a woman, i.e. pretending, which was much more relevant to the time? Doesn't that also condemn lesbians who try to act straight and sleep with men? As a bisexual, I know that I don't lie with women in the same way as I lie with men, there are definite differences in the course of events.Druthulhu, could you argue against this statement, then? All other instances in the Bible which are used against homosexuality are about paedophilia, gang rape, prostitution and orgiastic ceremonies to please false gods.Why should I argue against that? It's shallow sophistry. Do you really think the Bible forbids men from putting their penises into other men's vaginas? It is clearly a euphamism for male-male sex, no matter who else somebody fucks and what their gender is.

Oh yes, *clearly*.

Assuming the translators got it right, and that the *men* who wrote it (you know, because men are flawed, and may have faulty hearing when it comes to God's words) got it right.

Oh, and let's not forget that just about anything in the bible can 'clearly' support you if you want it to badly enough - and know which version to look in.

I'll have to get the Homocratic Manifesto written, just to post it here. What fun that will be.

Aerion,

One major fact I wish to point out to you is that Christians and God are not one and the same. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Word of Christians. Christians are flawed human beings, which is why they see some sins as worse than others and focus in on particular sins. This in itself is a sin because it is contradicting the Word of God by judging and not treating you fellow man with respect. Therefore, you cannot 'accuse' the Bible on the basis of what Christians say, only on the basis of what God says. This is unfortunate, but a fact. You have still neglected to comment on the suggestion that you ask God about this. If you don't believe in God then I put this to you: Why get so riled up about a book and a group of people belonging to something you don't even believe in?

Because those people insist on forcing their views on everyone within earshot? AND YES, SAYING A GROUP CANNOT BE MARRIED BECAUSE OF YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IS FORCING YOUR VIEWS ON SOMEONE ELSE.

Caps because no one fricken' listens.

The Bible is the word of God, *filtered* not only through ancient man who took the original notes but *translators*. God did not write it. There are no autographed copies. Deal with it.

Aerion,

One major fact I wish to point out to you is that Christians and God are not one and the same. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Word of Christians. Christians are flawed human beings, which is why they see some sins as worse than others and focus in on particular sins. This in itself is a sin because it is contradicting the Word of God by judging and not treating you fellow man with respect. Therefore, you cannot 'accuse' the Bible on the basis of what Christians say, only on the basis of what God says. This is unfortunate, but a fact. You have still neglected to comment on the suggestion that you ask God about this. If you don't believe in God then I put this to you: Why get so riled up about a book and a group of people belonging to something you don't even believe in?

Because these people are trying to use the Bible to legislate against homosexuals? Been looking at the gay marriage battle lately? Because these "Christians" use the Bible to exclude gay people from regular society, or attempt to.

Shaed,

I'm serious, ask God. If He tells you that He didn't mean to condemn homosexuality in His Word then you have every right to alter the Bible accordingly. Fair enough that you don't believe in God, many people don't and I never used to. But like I said before, if you don't believe in Him then why do his Word and people bother you so much? If He doesn't exist, then aren't we the crazy/confused ones? Why get so aggro about things from a God you don't even believe exists?

Oh yes, *clearly*.

Assuming the translators got it right, and that the *men* who wrote it (you know, because men are flawed, and may have faulty hearing when it comes to God's words) got it right.

Oh, and let's not forget that just about anything in the bible can 'clearly' support you if you want it to badly enough - and know which version to look in.

with that said, I give you this gem...

If two Israelite men are fighting and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the testicles of the other man, her hand must be cut off without pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NLT)
:D

Notgniklaw

Because people use him and his 'word' to spread hatred and discrimination, ignoring everything rational and logical thrown in their way.

That is enough for me to hate everything about organised religion, and turn me off ever finding God. If finding religion means losing the ability to be open-minded and care for others, then I'd rather remain an athiest, thanks all the same.

And yes, there are a few who do *not* let religion dictate their entire brain. But you know what? For every *one* of those non-pushy, non-loud people, there are 5 arse holes shouting "GOD SUPPORTS US IN OUR DISCRIMINATION! BOW BEFORE OUR ILLOGICAL CLAIMS AND UNFAIR RULES".

Religion affects me even though I don't believe in God because God's people refuse to accept that *others have rights too*.

I've explained it twice now, any further questions will just recieve quotes of this, and the previous, answers.

Aerion,

You have every right to fight people who refuse same-sex couples marriage rights. The Word of God was meant for use by the church, not in secular law and this is misuse of it. I can see I'm going to be here all night and still not get through to you that God still loves you and its people who are doing the wrong, not God. Please don't accuse Him because of what people do. He commands us to treat each other with love and respect but I don't see too much of that happening.

I do remember reading somewhere in the bible stone the homosexuals (paraphrased!) that is old testament, admittedly, so we should not stone homosexuals, however, surly that does show how the Lord disaproves of homosexuals? Thats does not mean that God hates or detests homosexuals, just not what they practise. God does not like some of the things I do, but he still loves me!

Moss Side, I think your being sarcastic here, as there is no where in the Bible that says that and in fact Jesus keeps a prostitue from being stoned. ;)

Aerion,

You have every right to fight people who refuse same-sex couples marriage rights. The Word of God was meant for use by the church, not in secular law and this is misuse of it. I can see I'm going to be here all night and still not get through to you that God still loves you and its people who are doing the wrong, not God. Please don't accuse Him because of what people do. He commands us to treat each other with love and respect but I don't see too much of that happening.

I do believe in God, and love God. What I am debating here is that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality, and that those who profess to follow the Bible are wrong in attacking it so visciously.

Shaed,

I'm serious, ask God. If He tells you that He didn't mean to condemn homosexuality in His Word then you have every right to alter the Bible accordingly. Fair enough that you don't believe in God, many people don't and I never used to. But like I said before, if you don't believe in Him then why do his Word and people bother you so much? If He doesn't exist, then aren't we the crazy/confused ones? Why get so aggro about things from a God you don't even believe exists?

Speaking as a bisexual, it bothers me that people bitch at me and people like me about what it says in the Bible. It matters for that reason and that reason alone. Isn't that enough?

Being able to offer an alternative and logically valid view of the parts of the Bible they cite, I have a defence against this. If I can show them that they are basing their opinions on false or unstable grounds, I have a hope of making them rethink their bigotry, or at least getting them to shut the fuck up. Fat chance of that in place like this, but at least it's a good test of method on hostile ground.

Shaed,

I will pose no more questions but simply say its unfortunate that what you described is the only experience you have had of God's people. Its unfortunate that people use Him and His Word as an excuse to spread hatred. And its unfortunate that human behaviour has caused you to have such an aversion to religion of any description. Despite the fact that you most likely think me insincere, I do apologise for the treatment you've suffered at the hands of those who are commanded to treat you better than that.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Moss Side, again, just for emphasis and so people do not lose this in the thread

Why do you just refer to that ONE passage in Leviticus (In the Old Testament, whom's laws no longer apply) where it says "laying with a man as with a woman is an abomination" when the following is listed as an abomination EQUALLY along side, using the SAME word...

Leviticus 11
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: (Shellfish such as lobster, crab, etc.)

Leviticus 11
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11
42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.


Leviticus Permitting Slavery...
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

So how can you POSSIBLY reference Leviticus, and that verse from Leviticus to condemn homosexuality and ignore all other laws in Leviticus that no one follows?

Aerion (and edited to include Notgniklaw :D), I just thought I'd point something out, since from this thread (and the others :p) you'll probably think I'm anti-Christian:

One of my very closest friends is Christian. Not only that, but he opposes gay marriages. I'm also a baptised Catholic, even though I have chosen to wait until after death to decide if there is a God (and if there is, and he is the Christian God, I'm assuming I shall be forgiven for not accepting Him on no evidence... and if there is some other god I'm sure they'll also appreciate me not blindly following).

I don't have any beefs with religion, but I do have a problem with the way it makes people act. Personally, my only faith is in a small group of people that I know. And, just like many people's belief in God, it's based on pure belief rather than fact. So I can relate to people who Believe with a capital B. But, when I hear anyone, ever, saying "I believe this because I am part of a group, and the group believes it" I want to beat my head against a wall.

It's like people who say "I voted for Bush because I'm a republican" or "I hate men because I'm a feminist". All it shows is ignorance. So I have very little respect for people who say "I'm against gays because the bible tells me to be". Faith shouldn't cut off higher brain functions, and I know plenty of religious folk who can carry a stimulating argument, that doesn't involve the bible at all, for why homosexuality is wrong. The fact that not one single person here has come up with any other reason besides "The bible says it's wrong" (and they all boil down to that) is really, really depressing.

So... umm, yea. I don't want you thinking I'm anti-religion, or that I'm going to ignore your points because you believe in God. If I get frustrated, it's more because I usually rely heavily on body language in these kinds of debates (I'm Italian, go figure :p), so it does get a little frustrating ;).

And Notgniklaw, I don't think you're insincere at all. I know not everyone uses religion as a shield for hatred - and for the people who practice it because they believe it, it truly is a good thing for everyone - it's just the people who use it for evil that turn it into something detestible for me.

Notgniklaw,

I can't speak for Shaed, but I have met Christians who are reasonable and nice people. After one break up I was feeling down and wanted to let off steam, so I called someone I knew who was from the bible belt, over at my uni in England for a semester, looking for one. I didn't get my fight, but I did get a long and very therapeutic conversation. So there are Christians who are nice people and believe it's more important to help and nuture people to grow into whatever God has put it in them to be. Thank you for your apology.

Your sexual orientation seems to be 'gay', in other words your unchosen feelings and the attractions you have. But that's the point - they're unchosen - you have not decided to feel this way.

YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT CONDEMNS THE WAY YOU ARE FEELING.

It is only your response to those feelings which could be wrong.


Sinful behaviour in this area consists of those acts of the will, when you decide to act on how you feel. Homosexual practise is condemned in the Bible along with many other things.


I believe the good news for you is that the temptations that you feel can be overcome. Check this out...

"No temptation is irresistable. You can trust God to keep the temptation from becoming so strong that you can't stand up against it, for he has promised this and will do what he says. He will show you how to escape temptation's power so that you can bear up patiently against it". (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Did you get that?...

You can have victory over this area of your life. If you stand firm in wanting to please God, He may or may not take away these feelings you have, but His promise to you is that you can overcome each moment of temptation to act on how you feel.


So, embrace God's offer of help, set your mind on having victory over your actions, and don't feel condemned. God's love for you is massive...His power to help you is infinite...and His compassion for your specific situation is more than you can imagine!

Moss Side II, I think most homosexuals would be much more willing to accept God if the Christian morals (or should I say 'followers') weren't the largest and loudest opposition of their right to be treated as human beings - to express their *love* for one another.

Let them marry, and you'll find them much more willing to discuss your views with an open-mind. While they are oppressed, many won't feel any need to take your opinions as anything more than a subversive attack.

Sorry, but I'm still pro-Gay Marriages.

The fact is plain: Regardless of whatever else the Bible does or does not condemn, the passages of Leviticus condemn homosexuality. IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT OTHER TRIVIAL MATTERS IT CONDEMNS. As far as I can tell, the point of the thread was the homosexuality bit. Just because it condemns eating shellfish, and we do that anyway - it doesn't negate the condemnation. It just means we ignore it. As many ignore the homosexuality. The Bible condemns it, but it doesn't mean we have to listen. End of.

And by the way, I don't condemn homosexuality, it's just not for me. THERE IS NO NEED TO JUSTIFY HOMOSEXUALITY AGAINST THE BIBLE. Like I said, it's just a simple fact that the Bible condemns it, and just because it condemns/permits other bunkum doesn't change it. Stop playing blind.

Um... I think the point is "If you don't give a toss about all the *other* condemnations, why comment on homosexuality?"

Someone said ealier that all the sins are equal in God's eyes - so I think it's a very valid point to make that some Christians complain about gays while eating lobster and sitting with their pant-wearing wives.

You can't pick and choose which rules to follow, and you can't tell some of the people to follow some of the rules some of the time.

It's called being hypocritical, yo.

in that context... true dat...

Ok before I right this, Iam NOT religious. But I do not hate religion.

Right, the way that I see it, what does it matter what some old book says. Are you saying that just because it is a religious text it must always be looked at and obyed. In the time of Jesus etc.. people believed in most things, yet if you were to be there and say that transportation through the skys on great machienes would happen in the future. No-one would want to believe you. The world has changed, and so most of these discussions dont matter, these rules were created for a different time.

To prove my point watch Americas Dumbest criminals. the have a section about dumb rules. Yet the were all put there for a purpose, and even though that purpose is not there the rule is still there, but I bet youpeople break it now. So rules that were made years ago cant be used today because though they may still hold ground, they are not s relevant in a world that has changed so much.

This is the one reason I am not religious because if I was and if I followed everything in it, tchnically I would be a saint yet if I was to follow EVERYTHING about christianity from the beginnning and where it came from, would I be able to do some of the things it tells me to do???

Just some food for thought there.

Personally following a book that wasnt even writtin down prorperally since years after Jesus' life I think is just silly. i respect religion but I think it is time to move on, look at it and change it. After all religion has changed constatly from worshipping of Gods to just a single god.

In Matthew 19 Jesus was asked about divorce and whether it is lawful or not, He did not answer the question immediately, He said these words first,

Matthew 19:5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' " He goes on to say that divorce is only permissable in the case of infidelity between man and wife.

But back to the issue of homosexuality, Jesus is quoting from Genesis 2:24, and it is pretty clear that homosexuality is not allowed from just those words alone.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"

How is this arguing against homosexuality?

Shaed,

I'm serious, ask God. If He tells you that He didn't mean to condemn homosexuality in His Word then you have every right to alter the Bible accordingly. Fair enough that you don't believe in God, many people don't and I never used to. But like I said before, if you don't believe in Him then why do his Word and people bother you so much? If He doesn't exist, then aren't we the crazy/confused ones? Why get so aggro about things from a God you don't even believe exists?
I asked god, he said bible thumpers are really annoying to him. He also asked that you stop it with the purple, as it makes his eyes hurt.

Because....Jesus isn't making any exceptions to the rule. He doesn't say its alright for woman and wife to marry, or man and husband to marry, or even if its ok to have intimate relations with each other. He clearly states man and wife, and unless you want to take the whole historical and contextual meaning of the word "wife" and switch it around.

Or question the transcriptors/translators?

Or point out that the bible is a collection of moral stories that should be *adapted* to the current time period.

It's ironic that a religion based on the words of an open-minded, humane, forward-thinking individual is one of the most close-minded, anti-progression, callous ones around (practiced by the masses, anyway. There are plenty who *are* open-minded, humane and foward-thinking... they just tend to get drowned out in the sea of idiocy)

Either you accept this statement or not...

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

I do not. Man is flawed. It says that in the bible. And pretty much anyone can translate the bible.

Just because *you* believe they are not flawed, doesn't mean anyone has to agree.

I do not. Man is flawed. It says that in the bible. And pretty much anyone can translate the bible.

And that is one of the main reasons for the teaching authority of the magisterium in the Catholic Church.

... for reproof, for correction...17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."I rest my case. (well, after this post)
Seriously, you can not take anything in the bible at face value. One, it is full of poetic imagery. Do you REALLY think Noah managed to round up two of every species of animal when he never left the middle east? Two, it has been translated many times. First it was translated from the word of God into hebrew. This is when human falibility first tainted the work. Then, it was translated into Latin. Seeing as human beings can't decide on a translation for a fricken cartoon, I find it hard to believe that they can accurately translate a HUGE religious work. Then, years after latin was a dead language, the bible was finally translated into the vernacular. We can't translate properly if we actually have someone that speaks the language sitting there, how can we translate if the language is used SOLELY for religious services, and is mainly just memorized. Also, Lavaticus (sp?) was never supposed to be the word of god, it was/is Jewish law, and Jesus (or jebus on that one page) said he came to free us from Jewish Law.

Why do you just refer to that ONE passage in Leviticus (In the Old Testament, whom's laws no longer apply) where it says "laying with a man as with a woman is an abomination" when the following is listed as an abomination EQUALLY along side, using the SAME word...

Leviticus 11
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: (Shellfish such as lobster, crab, etc.)

Leviticus 11
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11
42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Dietary regulations are not applicable in the New Testament context. Remember in Acts when Peter receives the vision of the large sheets revealing all the animals of the earth, accompanied by a voice basically saying "Eat them". Peter's following proclamation was that it doesn't matter what you eat.

Leviticus Permitting Slavery...
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

In the Old Testament, the Jews were God's chosen people. In the New Testament, Christ's covenant is extended to the Gentiles (everybody else). Just as the Jews of old (God's chosen people) could not own each other, the chosen ones of the new covenant with Christ are not to own one another.

Moss Side, I think your being sarcastic here, as there is no where in the Bible that says that and in fact Jesus keeps a prostitue from being stoned. ;)

Yeah, he keeps her from being stoned, but in no way does he proclaim that prostitution isn't a bad thing. Likewise, he would have kept a homosexual from being stoned, but that doesn't mean he condoned the action.

Also, Lavaticus (sp?) was never supposed to be the word of god, it was/is Jewish law, and Jesus (or jebus on that one page) said he came to free us from Jewish Law.

I believe the word you are looking for is 'fulfill', not 'free'. Big difference.

lots of good stuff on this subject can be found at http://www.liberalslikechrist.org

Oh yeah, oh yeah, everyone's here to defend Homosexuals, but what all of you fail to realize is that youre all hypocrites.

I am willing to bet that every single person who has posted a message here defending Homosexuals has at least once in their life called someone a "homo" or has said a phrase such as "you're gay", or "this is gay", or "thats gay", "Shut up, Homo", etc. as if it's an insult to another person. And when does something become an insult? When it seems as if the word (in this case the word Homo and Gay) is a bad thing. If you've ever done that to someone or made a remark like that whether it was a joke or not, you dont deserve and shouldnt be defending Homosexuals here. You're all hypocrites. Period.

And what about people that hate Homosexuals not because they listen to the bible, but because they are homosexuals. I know a guy who wants to kill everything that isn't him. He hates Jews, Christians, Homosexuals, George Bush, Saddam Hussein and everything. He says that Homosexuals should all burn in hell and die because they are a minority, and minorities should all die just because they are a minority. I don't see any of you here defending against those people, do I?

Well let me tell you what I think about this topic: I don't care. That's right. I don't care about Homosexuals any more than I care about heterosexuals. If a bunch of Homosexuals are murdered, I won't care. If a bunch of Homosexuals gain the right to get married, I won't care. If a bunch of heterosexuals get murdered (which happens every day), I won't care. Why are you guys wasting your time argueing about this meaningless garbage? Just go out and live life, do what you like, do what you feel makes you happy.

Yes, let's just not care about any of this and just do what everyone else says to do. What happens then, you say? Then the racist, insensitive, insane bastards (sorry for my fowl language) you mentioned will take control. Unless we can explain and exchange knowledge about a topic, then we are giving into idiocy and ignorance. We stop thinking, which allows others to fill our empty heads with propoganda and falicies. I'm tired of everytime that I speak my mind on a contreversial topic, every want's me to "settle down" and "stop talking about that". If that is what had happened, where would would be? Every leader would be a dictator, every person would be a rotten, brainless, nearderthal, and we would never have the rights or the technology or the knowledge we have today. What if we hadn't argued that the Sun was the center of the universe, not the Earth? What if we hadn't stood up to the Nazis? What if we hadn't branched out, and formed the religions of today? That is how all knowledge started. Someone disagreed with a way of thought, and sought to make their own way of thought. That is why I encourage free-thinking and debate of all kinds. Let your voice be heard and listen to others' points of view. That is how true knowledge is aquired.

By the way, if what you are saying is true, then we are all hypocrites. Christians hated Hitler. He was Christian. Muslims hated Osama bin Laden. He was Muslim. Some Christians hate Jews. Jesus was a Jew. You hate that guy who cut you off in traffic. He is a human being. So you see, all of us are hypocrites, not just homosexuals. If you hate anyone, or anything, you are a hypocrite, and everyone hates something. Don't deny it. You may not show it or say it, but you do. So don't tell me who is a hypocrite, because you are, as well.

I'm not saying that I don't watch, listen, or think. I watch the news and see all this gay marriage stuff here and there and I think, listen, and watch. I just don't choose to get involved because I believe won't benefeit me in any way. I just avoid it, therefore I don't care.

This is one of those topics that people argue about on and on and on and it never ends. So why should I get involved in the arguement? It will just waste my time.

By the way, if what you are saying is true, then we are all hypocrites. Christians hated Hitler. He was Christian. Muslims hated Osama bin Laden. He was Muslim. Some Christians hate Jews. Jesus was a Jew. You hate that guy who cut you off in traffic. He is a human being. So you see, all of us are hypocrites, not just homosexuals. If you hate anyone, or anything, you are a hypocrite, and everyone hates something. Don't deny it. You may not show it or say it, but you do. So don't tell me who is a hypocrite, because you are, as well.

Exactly, what the heck do you think I was saying? Of course i'm a hypocrite. I was saying we are ALL hypocrites.

Why do you think that i'm choosing to not care about all of this? Because yes, I have called people a homo, gay, a fag, etc. so I am not going to defend homos. So I choose not to care as opposed to other people here who call others fags yet they defend homosexuals.

Let me ask you this, then. If you still do not care, why are you still arguing with me about this topic? If you're done prattling on about how you do not care, then run along and let the adults talk.

Exactly, what the heck do you think I was saying? Of course i'm a hypocrite. I was saying we are ALL hypocrites.

Why do you think that i'm choosing to not care about all of this? Because yes, I have called people a homo, gay, a fag, etc. so I am not going to defend homos. So I choose not to care as opposed to other people here who call others fags yet they defend homosexuals.

So? We, homosexuals, call each each other queer, so there no reason heteros should be excluded from defending us for calling someone gay- it's just another symptom of our fucked up society. If heteros want to repent and help us out, that's all good, and it's not said with real malice towards us. We don't exclude anyone who's ever uttered the word '******' from supporting black equality- that cuts out a hell of a lot of black folk.

Exactly, what the heck do you think I was saying? Of course i'm a hypocrite. I was saying we are ALL hypocrites.

Why do you think that i'm choosing to not care about all of this? Because yes, I have called people a homo, gay, a fag, etc. so I am not going to defend homos. So I choose not to care as opposed to other people here who call others fags yet they defend homosexuals.

I can promise you I have never called ANY ONE that in a derogatory way. It is immature to think everyone uses those terms for degrading another.

Continuing to hope that others read this. I feel it is important, especially for Christians

So think, are you condemning homosexuality because of your culture/society's outlook on it, or truly because of your religion?

Because of my religion. But I don't hate homosexuals, I just condemn homosexuality. If homosexuality is so harmless, why has it been denounced by virtually every civilization and society throughout history?

Because of my religion. But I don't hate homosexuals, I just condemn homosexuality. If homosexuality is so harmless, why has it been denounced by virtually every civilization and society throughout history?


coz it freaks the hell out of you so much it became such a big religious deal ;)

Because of my religion. But I don't hate homosexuals, I just condemn homosexuality. If homosexuality is so harmless, why has it been denounced by virtually every civilization and society throughout history?

Because of ignorance? The same reason violence has been upheld? And I would disagree that every pre-monotheistic (Muslim, Jewish, and Chrisitan) culture, and society condemned it. We are not even sure what certain cultures, and societies believed.

The bible should not be the sole guide to religion.

Because of my religion. But I don't hate homosexuals, I just condemn homosexuality. If homosexuality is so harmless, why has it been denounced by virtually every civilization and society throughout history?No it hasn't. Essentially it's been denounced by Christian, Jewish and Muslim societies, and they're all originally Middle Eastern religions, which suggests to me the reasons are largely sociological. I defy you to find a quote from the Ancient Greeks that denounces it.

As well as other cultures accepted homosexuality.

Why are people coming here to post, essentially to say "I'm not arguing here, this is stupid and I don't care about it". Don't care about it? Don't post. You're adding nothing, and seeming childish. I quite honestly don't care if *you* don't care. I do. I shall debate it with others that do. I may not change their minds, but hopefully they will leave and think about things, and reach a greater understanding of why *I* care.

When people come here and say "I disagree with you, but I understand where you're coming from" I go "Great, I'm always glad to meet enlightened people (except on the rare occasions when I totally misunderstand their posts... Whittier- :p... but once I *do* understand their points I'll say it :D)

When someone comes in and says "I believe this and all who disagree are wrong" I will react with physically illness. Seriously. That sort of ignorance makes me feel like I'm going to throw up.

Um... anyway, /tangent, /rant and back to the schedualed debate :D

Talking about Leviticus, not Paul. To lay with a man carnally is called an abomination, and is punished by death. And yes so is picking up sticks on a saturday, but like I said, it's what's in there, not whether people do it now.

Are you saying that people don't pick up sticks on a Saturday? And what about the shellfish thing. I know lots of people who eat shellfish. Do we have to kill them?

Oh yes, *clearly*.

Assuming the translators got it right, and that the *men* who wrote it (you know, because men are flawed, and may have faulty hearing when it comes to God's words) got it right.

Oh, and let's not forget that just about anything in the bible can 'clearly' support you if you want it to badly enough - and know which version to look in.

I am not concerned here with the truth or falsehood of the Biblical Inerrency/Devine Inspiration dogma/theory. And although I am aware that the modern Hebrew Tenach (OT) differs from its oldest extant copy by one letter, and that all major biblical translation revert back not to the previous translation but to the oldest extant copies of the respective books, my initial statement also has nothing to do with the same tired old arguments of "all those translations".

What I said and all I continue to say is this: it is not true to say that the Bible does not condemn per se male-male homosexuality. Man shall not lie with man as with woman, it is an abomination before the Lord, and those who do so before two or more witnesses are commanded, in the Bible, to be stoned to death with stones, started by the witnesses.

If anybody has access to some ancient per-homophobicized text, please feel free to share it with us here. If I find it and its provenence convincing, I will :) JOYOUSLY :) retract what I have said :)

:fluffle:

It might also help some in wrapping their squishy frontal lobes around what I am saying to note that I have also said nothing about whether I believe God "Him"Self has actually commanded those things, and, if so, whether or not I agree with God's judgement.

It's just what's in there, dudes :eek:

.

.

.

Are you saying that people don't pick up sticks on a Saturday? And what about the shellfish thing. I know lots of people who eat shellfish. Do we have to kill them?

Nope. I'm not saying either of those things either ;)

...but as for those of you who insist on doing everything the Bible says:

1) yes, they do, but if it happens within the land of Israel the Bible says that they are to be stoned by two or more witnesses, joined by the congregation;

2) no, but such a person is unclean and thus not allowed in the temple; I can recall no punishment for defiling the temple while unclean; if I had to guess I would think they believed that the Arc would strike down anyone defiling the Sanctuary while unclean.

.

.

.

In Matthew 19 Jesus was asked about divorce and whether it is lawful or not, He did not answer the question immediately, He said these words first,

Matthew 19:5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' " He goes on to say that divorce is only permissable in the case of infidelity between man and wife.

But back to the issue of homosexuality, Jesus is quoting from Genesis 2:24, and it is pretty clear that homosexuality is not allowed from just those words alone.

Didn't he also say that "the hard heartedness of your forfathers" caused divorce to be put into the Law?

.

.

.

Moss Side, again, just for emphasis and so people do not lose this in the thread

Unclean foods are called an abomination to man.

Guy-guy sex is called an abomination before God.

One was to result in ritual uncleanness, the other, in ritual stoning.

Plus of course in the Christian testement there is Peter's double-vision of a sheet full of all foods and a command from On High to "eat".

THERE!!! YOU GOT ME TO JOIN IN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT TRIVIAL TRIVIAL STRAW MAN!!! :mp5: :mad: :headbang:

ARE YOU ALL F***ING HAPPY NOW????? :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:

Wow....you must have ties to an "Alternative Lifestyle" to speak like that....

How about "Men must not lie with men"....or...."Men, changing the natural use for themselves to be violently inflamed with one another". I guess that means that Homosexuality is ok....oh, wait.

Homosexuality is being deemed acceptable by main-stream churches so that they don't lose money in the collection plate. Homosexuality is not a right. It is something overlooked by preists and clergy in order to attract young people so that they can have their wage paid. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, what is old or not (besides, it's not the Old Testament that is no longer followed, it is the Mosaic Law. The Old Testament is bible books Genesis through Micah), or what God wants, it is all about Man's greed and pride in doing what they want, not what God wants.

Perhaps a study in the scriptures may actually help you to see what it says instead of posting what other people think, or what you want to hear.

Why do you think there are so many religions if there is only one God? If people would read the bible and apply it, there would only be one true religion, one that doesn't kill it's fellowman, one that doesn't follow what "man" wants, and one that actually cares what God tells us. :headbang:

Peace out! :D

Everyone here seems to assume that the Bible has some validity with regard to laws and morality.

Has anyone here ever heard that during the 5th or 6 century "the Church" made a few little changes in the Bible? They edited it heavily. Added a little here, deleted a little there. A great deal of "religion" is based on Fear. If you can scare the masses enough you can control them. "Do what we say, or into the lake of fire!" At that time the Church was a political entity.

Do you really believe that the Creator gives a damn about your sex life?

one thing to think about, God isn't (wasn't) stupid.

All of the old testament laws had a purpose of one kind or another. The laws against the consumption of unclean foods were there for the health and safety of his people. Man didnt know about ecoli, salmonela or any of the host of other problems that could arise from eating improperly prepared shellfish or chicken. Man didnt know about trichinosis (how do you spell that?) that can develope from eating improperly prepared pork. God knew.

Who can say for certain that the prohibition against homosexual acts wasn't an attempt to prevent AIDS or some other malady. Now I know AIDS isn't an homosexual disease, but homosexual acts between men has an extremely high risk of transmitting the disease. Perhaps that's why the bible doesnt address lesbian issues, as lesbian sex has a lower risk of transmitting AIDS?

Everyone here seems to assume that the Bible has some validity with regard to laws and morality.

Has anyone here ever heard that during the 5th or 6 century "the Church" made a few little changes in the Bible? They edited it heavily. Added a little here, deleted a little there.

Feel like backing your claim up with a source or two? What did they add, and what did they delete?

Everyone here seems to assume that the Bible has some validity with regard to laws and morality.


Not me, I just find it's the main cause(not source) of trouble and do my best to shoot the shit down, which is why I've started reading it. In Polari, of course.


TOR, the injunctions against homosexuality were more likely simply to stimulate population growth.
Gay sex being the main transmitter of AIDS is an unfortunate myth that's been propogated far too long. The most common instances of it's spread are through injecting drugs with used needles, and it probably spread from monkeys and apes to human through the food chain.
We aren't significantly more at risk, not by any sensible measure. Even with the higher percentage of current infection in gay men, straight women are getting infected at a much much faster rate than we are. But, at any rate, protection, common sense and knowledge of the dangers negates this risk pretty effectly.

Gay sex being the main transmitter of AIDS is an unfortunate myth that's been propogated far too long. The most common instances of it's spread are through injecting drugs with used needles, and it probably spread from monkeys and apes to human through the food chain.
We aren't significantly more at risk, not by any sensible measure. Even with the higher percentage of current infection in gay men, straight women are getting infected at a much much faster rate than we are. But, at any rate, protection, common sense and knowledge of the dangers negates this risk pretty effectly.

No, not saying the main transmitter, but you cant argue that it's a potent transmitter. And I belive that sharing of IV drug needles was an uncommon practice in the BCE age and so not a concern. Also, as you point out, with man's increasing knowledge, awareness, and scientific advances, we are now protecting ourselves in areas where before in our own ignorance God had to do the protection for us.

*edit* posted from a diff country... cant remember pw to TOR :(

AIDS is irrelevant to to discussions of Biblical culture, since AIDS only developed and spread to humans in the last century. Most other STDs are pretty indifferent to gender mix, or prefer hetero.

It's funny, everyone always points to Leviticus when they're talking about this issue when the majority of Leviticus is simply rules for the correct slaughtering and burning of sacrifices such as bulls, goats and doves to atone for sin. Basically, you can do whatever you want to in Leviticus so long as you know what to kill, where to kill it and how to BBQ it afterward to creat "a sweet savor for the LORD." There's also a lot of fingers being dipped in blood and shaken seven times at the door of the tabernacle and so on.

Funny how the only difference between right and wrong is a bull big enough.

Here's a hot tip, chief:

AIDS can be transmitted to and from heterosexuals too.

Leviticus is still NOT Followed by Modern Christians, so when you use it to reference homosexuality, it is bullshit. I have not seen one Christian I know follow all the laws in Leviticus, and Leviticus counts as one of those books that modern Christians no longer follow. So to reference it for the purposes of saying that homosexuality is wrong is wrong period. Christians no longer consider people "ritually unclean" or w/e if they eat those specific foods, and not allow them in the Church. So the point was, the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality in the modern day, as Christians follow it. Plus, the verse in Leviticus may not even be talking about "homosexuality" in regular form, it may be dealing with as has said before temple prostitution, older soldier-boy relationships, and other such things.

Feel like backing your claim up with a source or two? What did they add, and what did they delete?

I'm not very knowledgable about biblical things, but aren't there several different versions of the bible? Each somewhat different from the others? I think that would imply over time, some "editing" has been done. Not to mention translation errors, things of that sort.

Also the bible says things like Selling your daughter to slavery..........What's a good price for her? :P

In other words, the Bible is to be taken METAPHORICALLY not LITERALLY.

Also the bible says things like Selling your daughter to slavery..........What's a good price for her? :P

In other words, the Bible is to be taken METAPHORICALLY not LITERALLY.

...or else in terms of archaic mankind, not modern.

If you take the Bible completely, 100% literally, the Bible only mentions male homosexuality.

It's funny, everyone always points to Leviticus when they're talking about this issue when the majority of Leviticus is simply rules for the correct slaughtering and burning of sacrifices such as bulls, goats and doves to atone for sin. Basically, you can do whatever you want to in Leviticus so long as you know what to kill, where to kill it and how to BBQ it afterward to creat "a sweet savor for the LORD." There's also a lot of fingers being dipped in blood and shaken seven times at the door of the tabernacle and so on.

Funny how the only difference between right and wrong is a bull big enough.

How you get to that conclusion is a mystery to me. Laws concerning ritual sacrifice are contained there as well as laws concerning punishments for crimes*. And such sacrifices do not absolve one of the corporeal punishments for such crimes.

* I am also not saying that I agree that homosexuality should be considered a crime, only that in the Bible it is



It seems to me that at the root of this whole discussion is people who believe on Christianity and at the same time believe in acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle that is not inherrently sinful. Since most denominations teach some form of the Biblical Inerrency dogma and the Bible as the foundation of all faith, this causes great conflicts in what they, what some of you who have posted here, apparently, want to believe.

When I was baptised Seventh Day Baptist by my father's father a part of my oath was to take the Bible as the source of my fiath. This caused enourmous spiritual problems until I realized that Y'shua was teaching that one must seek the truth in one's own spirit, with an open mind and heart, and not stop until the householder pulls HimSelf out of bed and comes down and opens the door, and that he taught that we must compare his words with the Law and the Prophets and decide their worth for ourselves. So how much more so than the words of his followers? When it was pointed out to me that Matthew (1:6-16) and Luke (3:23-32) give entirely different linea for the hereditary connection between David and Yoseph (Y'shua's earthly father), I laid the Biblical Innerency myth aside altogether.

Of course this doesn't help as much with the things found in the Tenach (OT), such as Leviticus, since this is what Y'shua was telling his listeners to compare his words against. However, considering his words that "the hard heartedness of your forfathers" caused such laws as those regulating divorce, I can certainly see that it is possible that the Law concerning homosexuality might have been a concession as well.

Largely all that the ancient Israelites knew of homosexuality was rape and the form of Dominance/submission enforced by certain of the pagan religious states of the day. In the four examples of homosexual occurences in the Bible, one is of the people stoning two men after they had received the Law. The other three are Ham's "uncovering the nakedness" (later used as a euphamism for incest) of his passed-out father Noah, the attempted gang-rape of Lot's visitors by the men Sodom, and the gang-rape of a visitor in a Danite city that led to the civil war that whiped out the tribe of Dan.

Now I have no problem with God seeing homosexual rape and gang-rape (not to mention any kind of rape) as being an abomination in His sight, as well as temple prostitution, especially of the young. I can also easily envision the hard hearted forfathers saying "its those gay pagans and their rape culture! Moses you must outlaw all of it in the strongest way!" As far as I can see, all of the rape laws in the Tenach are messed up ... the rapist of an unmarried maiden can be made to marry her, or else pay off the depreciation on her bride price, and if a married woman is raped in a city and does not cry for help, it is considered not rape but adultery and both are executed - the only exception is if it happened in the wilderness, and nothing is said about things like a knife to her throat, heavily sedating drugs, latex ball-gags*, etc.

* yeah, I know... STFU ;)

Seems pretty fucked up to me. And now we have Y'shua saying, in the same event where he announces that God's intention has always been monogamy ("one flesh"), that certain of the Law's laws, specifically certain of those governing marital matters, were placed there as a concession to the mysogenistic people of the day. ...is it hard to imagine that concessions were also made to the homophobia of the day?

.

.

.

I'm not very knowledgable about biblical things, but aren't there several different versions of the bible? Each somewhat different from the others? I think that would imply over time, some "editing" has been done. Not to mention translation errors, things of that sort.

Traditionally and almost universally, if not entirely universally, biblical translations are made from the oldest extant copies of the books contained therein. You do not get a translation of a translation to the nth power, you get one that comes from as close to the original as still exists.

I recommend a modern English <-> Hebrew pony translation for the Tenach... the Rabbis have kept up with that letter for letter since the Second Temple period.

.

.

.

Leviticus Chp 18: 22-23
(God is speaking to Moses)

22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”

In other word 22 says:
OR With the male you shall not lie as one lies with the woman.

The Bible DOES condemn homosexuality

Do you not even read the Bible or do you not just understand it. If you actually read it and think about what it says you will see that it is condemning it.

If you take the Bible completely, 100% literally, the Bible only mentions male homosexuality.
So lesbianism is OK by the Bible??

Are you sure about that?

Reminds me of that bumper sticker: "If you're going to live like there is no God, you better pray you're right!"

Everyone here seems to assume that the Bible has some validity with regard to laws and morality.

Has anyone here ever heard that during the 5th or 6 century "the Church" made a few little changes in the Bible? They edited it heavily. Added a little here, deleted a little there. A great deal of "religion" is based on Fear. If you can scare the masses enough you can control them. "Do what we say, or into the lake of fire!" At that time the Church was a political entity.

Do you really believe that the Creator gives a damn about your sex life?

Revelations 22:18-19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

You see there? The Bible says that you can not add or delete anything without punishment. Your arguement there is moot.

You say that the Bible only mentions homosexuality in the Old Testament? Well that is not true.

Romans 1: 26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Well like it here. It is in the New Testament. It says what it says. When women abandoned natural relations, there were penalized, as are men. Saying that homosexuality is not in the Bible is wrong. Pau is saying that it is a punishment. As you can see it is mentioned. I don't see anything about Roman guards here.

People who say Christains "hate" homosexuals are wrong and do not understand Christanity. I have seen 7 pages of nothing. If you read Johhn 3:16 you will see God's message. He sent his only begotten son because he loved the world.

You people are going surprise later on in life...

Revelations 22:18-19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

You see there? The Bible says that you can not add or delete anything without punishment. Your arguement there is moot.

. . .



Not at all. Its being forbidden does not mean it hasn't happened. Just compare a Roman Catholic version of the Ten Commandments to virtually any other if you don't believe it has.

.

.

.

"Jesus Christ NEVER spoke of homosexuality, or condemned homosexuals."

Jesus also upheld the old laws and NEVER condemmned the laws against homosexuality.

I accept homosexuals but I consider their practice a sin. The Bible clearly forbids homosexuality and arguments to the contrary are tenuous and mostly (as in this case) ridiculous. It's not my place to condemn or judge people because of their sexual behaviour but trying to justify it from a Christian perspective is just insulting.

I am sure I could justify murder or beastiality using the same methods as people like Spong.

i agree

Romans 1: 26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Well like it here. It is in the New Testament. It says what it says. When women abandoned natural relations, there were penalized, as are men. Saying that homosexuality is not in the Bible is wrong. Pau is saying that it is a punishment. As you can see it is mentioned. I don't see anything about Roman guards here.

Where else does the bible mention Sodom?

Do you not even read the Bible or do you not just understand it. If you actually read it and think about what it says you will see that it is condemning it.

So everyone who disagrees with that conclusion is either lying or did not think about it?

Reminds me of that bumper sticker: "If you're going to live like there is no God, you better pray you're right!"

Ah, Pascal's Wager, which conveniently ignores the fact that there is theoretically, an infinite amount of gods that can exist... Your chances with atheism are just as good as any other religion.

If you're going to live like there is no <Insert Random Deity>, you better pray you're right!

What I really don't understand is why people insist on consulting the Bible for everything instead of thinking for themselves. Other than screaming "TEH BIBLE SAYS SO!", fundamentalists don't seem to have any other reason for condemning homosexuality/bisexuality/etc.

Paul makes it very clear that homosexuality is wrong. Gays and liberals just have to question the Bible's authority and what it really means even when it can't be anymore clear cut. The Bible is the infallible Word of God. It is not a translation by men. As for questioning the translations, St. Jerome in 380 A.D. took Hebrew and Greek texts that are no longer available today and translated it word for word into Latin as the Latin Vulgate Bible. That was the only Bible of the world until the 1500s when the Catholic Church translated the Latin Vulgate into English. This Bible is older than the King James Version, and the King James Version borrows a lot from it. This edition is called the Douay-Rheims Bible.

About all sins being equal, they are not. There are mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins are much more major offenses, and you know you are sinning as you are performing the action. 1 John 5:17 it says: 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. These sins that do not lead to death are venial sins. Homosexuality is a MORTAL sin because it violates the natural law of God. God created men and women for each other. The natural law is for men and women to be together, not men and men. Anything violating natural law is a mortal sin. Therefore, homosexuality is worse than just telling a white lie.

. . .

The Bible is the infallible Word of God.

. . .



So... read Matthew 1:6-16 and then Luke 3:23-32, and then tell me, who was Joseph's, father of Jesus, own father? If you call the Bible the infallible word of God, you are calling God a liar.

Not that I am against homosexuality but some one mentioned that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of greed. Not accurate, it was also other acts that were committed there. As well as a horde of men turning up wanting to have sex with the ‘male’ angels that turned up to do the deed, even after the mob was offered the hosts virgin daughter. Hence the angels turned them blind and we have that old chestnut of going blind being trotted out.

To say that God has condemned homosexuality is akin to saying that God is capable of hatred toward his own creations.

Personally, I believe that God's original messages in the bible have been altered beyond recognition. Mans influence on the bible has warped it and added opinions and rulings that are 'less than divine'.

So, can anyone come up with any anti-gay reasons other than

a) unnatural (debunked - go read the other two threads about homosexuals - and then go read up on the science involved, if you have any interest in broadening your mind)

or

b) something to do with the Bible (not relevant. You can believe that yourselves, but it is not a valid point in a debate where probably at least 50% of the debaters DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. It's like me saying "Well, the Egyptians believed in many gods, as did the Greeks and the Romans, so your God is false. It's just an opinion, and of no valid use in a moralistic debate)

Anyone?

Its A Thret To Famliy And The Sacred Institution Of Marriege!

How exactly? More so a threat to the sanctity of marriage than divorce? What about all those drunken Vegas marriages?

Oh, and what about all the *straight* child abuses, spouse abuses, child molestors (the majority are straight)?

How about you go rethink that?

Jesus also upheld the old laws and NEVER condemmned the laws against homosexuality.

I accept homosexuals but I consider their practice a sin. The Bible clearly forbids homosexuality and arguments to the contrary are tenuous and mostly (as in this case) ridiculous. It's not my place to condemn or judge people because of their sexual behaviour but trying to justify it from a Christian perspective is just insulting.

We still haven't been given a quote of Jesus abolishing the dietary laws. It does look like you only follow Jesus' teachings when they suit your own personal prejuduces.

Jesus did not condemn the dietart laws, however, it does state in the bible that while some things may not be prohibited, they are not beneficial.

lets apply this to the example of diet. If we choose not to follow the bibles dietery laws, it does not exclude us from Gods salvation cause salvation is through grace. Yes, we try to please God through everything we do, but as paul said, nothing made by God is unclean. the consequences of not following the dietery laws would probably be that our health would be alot worse than it could be.

However, when it comes to homosexuality, the Bible in many places condemns homosexuality and says that God hates those who practice it. if a person says that he is a christian and he is homo, i would seriously doubt it. WHy?
cos if he has a relationship with God, then he would want to please God, not do something that God hates.

you make the comparison of homosexuality to dietery rules.
My question to you is this.
to you, which is worse, a bad diet or sexual immorality
which do you think God will find more repulsive

Leviticus Chp 18: 22-23
(God is speaking to Moses)

22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”

To go further with this, read Leviticus 18: 1-21. It contains a huge list of sexual acts that were also wrong, such as sleeping with your mother, sister, etc. Does anybody not find these acts morally wrong? If none of Leviticus is to be taken seriously because of outdated dietary laws, then our society needs to reshape its views about incest as well.

Oh, and if you want to hear secular arguments against homosexuality, maybe you should look in a thread that doesn't contain the word 'Bible' in the title.

. . .

However, when it comes to homosexuality, the Bible in many places condemns homosexuality and says that God hates those who practice it.

. . .



Just where, chapter:verse, does the Bible say that God hates people who commit any sin? :rolleyes:

.

.

.

We still haven't been given a quote of Jesus abolishing the dietary laws. It does look like you only follow Jesus' teachings when they suit your own personal prejuduces.

Acts chapter 10:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.

10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.

11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.

12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air.

13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

.

.

.

So... read Matthew 1:6-16 and then Luke 3:23-32, and then tell me, who was Joseph's, father of Jesus, own father? If you call the Bible the infallible word of God, you are calling God a liar.

23 "Who was of Heli"... St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.

There's your explanation for the supposed discrepency. In another post someone said that 50% of people in this forum don't believe in the Bible. This country is 75% Christian, so how can 50% of people not believe in the Bible? Are you saying that there are proportinally more Hindus, Muslims, and Jews in these forums than there are in the country as a whole?

Well I'd say your argument was thorough and logical if I felt like lying (which I do, sometimes, because I'm human). I'm going to begin by agreeing with you that ALL CHRISTIANS SIN. We're not perfect, we're just forgiven. I have yet to meet a person, Christian or not, who does not commit a 'sin' of one type or another every single day. And, for your information, all sins are equal in the eyes of God so lying is not worse than homosexuality but neither is homosexuality worse than lying. All have the same effect on one's relationship with God, all are therefore equal in His eyes. JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS SO THAT ALL OF THEM COULD BE FORGIVEN.
Speaking of God, did you think to ask Him wether or not He meant to condemn homosexuality in His Word? If you want the truth, go to the source; God will give you a straight, direct answer without all the 'misinterpretation' you claim people have done. As for Romans 1:27, here's what it says:
'Men comitted indecent acts with other men and recieved the due penalty for their perversion' Clear enough?
Luckily we have Jesus who has taken the punishment for us. Beyond having read the passages you mentioned, have you read the Bible? Have you ever talked to God? Its entirely up to you wether you do or not, but if you want the absolute truth, I suggest you ask God, either in prayer or by reading His Word. At least show Him that respect.
I will close by saying that God loves you and wants you to talk to Him. His message is not about wether you're homosexual, or a liar, theif or constantly standing in judgement of people. We're all sinners. God created and loves all that He created, man sinned therefore seperating himself from God, Jesus died on the cross so that the sins we will inevitably commit for the rest of our lives are forgiven and we can have a personal relationship with God. All we need do is ask. Its as simple as that, only people complicate it.


ok....first of all...god doesn't speak in words....god "speaks" in actions....."god" didn't write down the bible....some person did. so there.

23 "Who was of Heli"... St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.

There's your explanation for the supposed discrepency. In another post someone said that 50% of people in this forum don't believe in the Bible. This country is 75% Christian, so how can 50% of people not believe in the Bible? Are you saying that there are proportinally more Hindus, Muslims, and Jews in these forums than there are in the country as a whole?

No, this does NOT explain it. There are two lineages from David to Joseph, both entirely different except for the appearence in both, of different father/grandfather, of Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel.

Maybe that somebody is saying it's possible to believe in Christ without holding onto the idea of biblical infallibility?

.

.

.

BTW I find it interesting that whenever proofs against biblical inerrency arise, those who support that dogma come up with totally extracanonical explainations, things that we are expected to insert into the scriptures in order to preserve the illusion of their infallibility. Where is your historical or biblical documentation, if any, that Jacob and Hali were brothers?

I have seen so many different verses listed i can't remember most of them. I think most of the people here need to read the Bible front-to-back, cover to cover, before continuing with this.

How exactly? More so a threat to the sanctity of marriage than divorce? What about all those drunken Vegas marriages?

Oh, and what about all the *straight* child abuses, spouse abuses, child molestors (the majority are straight)?

How about you go rethink that?

It was a parody of some of the really thoughtless arguments people put fourth. Note the clear absurdity and poor spelling. :D

Man, sorry New Fuglies. I remember thinking after posting "Wait... New Fuglies isn't.... normally.... unable to type.... words.... hmmmmmm"

Sadly, there are so many people who a) type like that and b) actually *use* that argument, that I just took it seriously.

It's so hard to tell when people are being smart-arses online :p

Deepest apologies, anyway :D

God is infallible? True?

If this is the case, then he could NOT have made a mistake when he created homosexuals.

God did not create homosexuals?

Then who did?

Does Love thy neighbour REALLY mean love thy neighbour unless he is a homosexual, because that is just eeew?

IF the bible does condemn homosexuality, which i do not believe it does, it was probably added at a later date by a human who did NOT recieve it from god. Either that or it was mis-translated.

I believe that God loves his children. I refuse to accept that I am NOT one of Gods children. I understand the importance of the bible in the modern day world, but I am appalled at the hate-mongering that people use it for. God is NOT vengeful and does not harbor hatred. Unfortunately, the people who follow him are extremely efficient at casting the first stone. I know this does not answer the thread title, but i felt it was a collection of valid points. This will probably be my last post in this thread as I am content to live in my little world of semi-religious homosexuality, free from the hatred of the fanatical.

Isn't Leviticus meant to be things that God doesn't like us to do, not actually condemn? It's like I don't like pasta, it doesn't mean I think it's evil, just that I'd rather not eat it.


You don't like pasta!? Well, that's ok. I'm from Connecticut and it's full of Italians, so it's kinda forced on me at times.

MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteous- ness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and per- secute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

what the Bible doesn't condemn, doesn't mean it's not wrong.

I believe that God loves his children. I refuse to accept that I am NOT one of Gods children. I understand the importance of the bible in the modern day world, but I am appalled at the hate-mongering that people use it for. God is NOT vengeful and does not harbor hatred. Unfortunately, the people who follow him are extremely efficient at casting the first stone. I know this does not answer the thread title, but i felt it was a collection of valid points. This will probably be my last post in this thread as I am content to live in my little world of semi-religious homosexuality, free from the hatred of the fanatical.

There is a difference between unavoidable homosexual thoughts and desires and acting out on those desires. It is the homosexual action that is sinful. Homosexuals are called to chastity, just like all other single Christians.

There is a difference between unavoidable homosexual thoughts and desires and acting out on those desires. It is the homosexual action that is sinful. Homosexuals are called to chastity, just like all other single Christians.

Why am I obliged to chaste for my entire life? It's not like I'm mentally disabled and can't get my head around consent. If I find love with a man who loves me, what's wrong with having a commitment ceremony and getting it on? Isn't love supposed to be the most important thing?

All right, if you're taking the Bible literally, homosexuality is wrong, but then so is masturbation or any sexual activity that doesn't lead to procreation, so in the modern world, consistency dictates that we allow homosexuals to marry, the same as we allow wankers to marry. It's like the argument to legalise cannnabis when more addictive substances like alcohol, tobacco are freely available.

Why am I obliged to chaste for my entire life? It's not like I'm mentally disabled and can't get my head around consent. If I find love with a man who loves me, what's wrong with having a commitment ceremony and getting it on? Isn't love supposed to be the most important thing?

Well, if you really believe in God and your faith is more than going to church on Sunday, sex isn't the most important thing in your life.

All right, if you're taking the Bible literally, homosexuality is wrong, but then so is masturbation or any sexual activity that doesn't lead to procreation, so in the modern world, consistency dictates that we allow homosexuals to marry, the same as we allow wankers to marry. It's like the argument to legalise cannnabis when more addictive substances like alcohol, tobacco are freely available.

Yes, masturbation and many other sexual acts are immoral in a Christian perspective. However, you wrongly assume that I was using this as an argument against homosexual marriage, which I'm not.

So you're saying that because a book doesn't like homosexuals, we should restrict their most basic rights?

If you even read the web resources listed at the beginning of this post, or read the FIRST post instead of requoting Leviticus, you will understand why Leviticus is NOT applicable to condemning homosexuality BECAUSE the other laws of Leviticus are NOT followed by modern Christians. How can you say, when modern Christians do not follow the other laws of Leviticus, that only the law of that verse applies to modern day Christians, and the others are to be conveniently ignored? How can you even use that as condemning homosexuality, when your not using the law forbidding certain foods to condemn those people eating those foods? Or the other myriad laws, including concerning clothing being woven of two different types of cloth. It is foolish to point out the one law.

Also, the first post explains why Paul's mentioning of it is not necessarily talking of the homosexuality in terms of relationships. It is talking about temple prostituion, etc. Clearly. The words used even are such

EXPLANATION OF PAUL (quoted from religioustolerance.org)

The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.


"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5


Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.

I accept homosexuals but I consider their practice a sin.



Then what makes them Homosexuals then?

If homosexuals ain't "doing it" then are they homosexuals?

ALSO, one little thing, chrsitians DO NOT, THAT'S RIGHT, DO NOT own marriage.
So what allows Christians to decide who gets married and who doesn't?
ALSO, other religions other than Christianity have a marriage type celebration.
For example my Mum and Dad's religion, Buddhism.

That's what a lot (not all) christians don't seem to understand.

e.g. G.W. Bush and the US Army.

The Bible also does NOT condemn being pro-choice. Back on the Old Forums I started a topic titles 'Argue PRO-Choice using the Bible'

There is a difference between unavoidable homosexual thoughts and desires and acting out on those desires. It is the homosexual action that is sinful. Homosexuals are called to chastity, just like all other single Christians.

The difference is barely worth acknowledging. I have not acted upon my desires for 8 years, but I still class myself as a homosexual.
Your wording is interesting too. You claim that homosexuals are called to chastity, just like all OTHER SINGLE CHRISTIANS.

a) Christianity is not a pre-requisite for being homosexual. Indeed, christianity is not the only religion which quotes from the bible. I believe in religion and accept that it has an important part in the world, however I do not think that christianity has conducted itself very well over the last 2000 years. It is one thing to take the moral high ground, but do not forget that spurious translations and interpretations from the bible have led to many instances of persecution throughout history. Your persecution of me simply gains me access to heaven, if you wish to take the bible literally. I have posted this passage before, and I will do so again.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
b) Marriage is not accepted for homosexuals, as people are so fond of quoting, so what you are actually saying is that homosexuals can NEVER have a meaningful relationship. I cannot understand why any merciful, loving god would tell his people to not do something that affects nobody but the people involved. Permiscuity, I could understand. Again I will state that I believe any restrictions that have been made, have been made by a bigoted human and NOT a divine being.
c) Unavoidable homosexual thoughts? If you are having these then i suggest that you are more gay than you are willing to accept. I have NEVER had any unavoidable heterosexual thoughts, so I can only assume that the reverse would be applicable for someone content with their heterosexuality.
d) I have never seen a quote from the bible which claims that homosexuals are called to chastity. I have seen many vague references to homosexuality which have many vague interpretations, but none that include chastity. Please post the passage that you refer to, so we can all see.

e)
Well, if you really believe in God and your faith is more than going to church on Sunday, sex isn't the most important thing in your life.

Homocracy actually said the most important thing was supposed to be love. NOT sex. Love and sex are two completely different things. I love God, my little sister and my dog. I have sex with none of these. I hope that God loves me, but again, I am sure he wouldn't want to 'get jiggy' with me.

f) Have a nice day.

Your wording is interesting too. You claim that homosexuals are called to chastity, just like all OTHER SINGLE CHRISTIANS.

a) Christianity is not a pre-requisite for being homosexual. Indeed, christianity is not the only religion which quotes from the bible. I believe in religion and accept that it has an important part in the world, however I do not think that christianity has conducted itself very well over the last 2000 years. It is one thing to take the moral high ground, but do not forget that spurious translations and interpretations from the bible have led to many instances of persecution throughout history. Your persecution of me simply gains me access to heaven, if you wish to take the bible literally. I have posted this passage before, and I will do so again.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Let me clarify myself. Homosexual Christians or homosexuals looking to become Christian are called to chastity just like single heterosexual Christians or single heterosexuals looking to become Christian.

How have I been persecuting you? Have I left threatening messages for you? Have I called you degraded names or said that you disgust me? Have I spoken evil against you? No, I have only been explaining why I believe homosexual acts to be immoral and sinful. That is not persecution. I am not any better than you or any one else here - I have plenty of sins of my own, but they are not the topic of this thread.

b) Marriage is not accepted for homosexuals, as people are so fond of quoting, so what you are actually saying is that homosexuals can NEVER have a meaningful relationship. I cannot understand why any merciful, loving god would tell his people to not do something that affects nobody but the people involved. Permiscuity, I could understand. Again I will state that I believe any restrictions that have been made, have been made by a bigoted human and NOT a divine being.

Why is marriage necessary to have a meaningful relationship? I have very close friends of both male and female. I feel comfortable talking with them about anything, and I know that I can depend on them when necessary. Just because I'm not physically intimate with them doesn't mean the relationships are meaningless.

c) Unavoidable homosexual thoughts? If you are having these then i suggest that you are more gay than you are willing to accept. I have NEVER had any unavoidable heterosexual thoughts, so I can only assume that the reverse would be applicable for someone content with their heterosexuality.

I mentioned unavoidable homosexual thoughts in reference to people who claim that it is their very nature to be attracted to members of the same sex.

d) I have never seen a quote from the bible which claims that homosexuals are called to chastity. I have seen many vague references to homosexuality which have many vague interpretations, but none that include chastity. Please post the passage that you refer to, so we can all see.

There is also no quote from the Bible saying that it is to be the sole teaching authority for Christians. Likewise, not everything I believe can or needs to be quoted directly from the Bible. Christians existed for 1500 years before the concept of Sola Scriptura, or the Bible as the final teaching authority, came about.

e) Homocracy actually said the most important thing was supposed to be love. NOT sex. Love and sex are two completely different things. I love God, my little sister and my dog. I have sex with none of these. I hope that God loves me, but again, I am sure he wouldn't want to 'get jiggy' with me.

I agree with both you and Homocracy on this point. Physical intimacy is not required for love.

f) Have a nice day.

You too :)

I suppose no one has a comment on the Bible explanation left here?

I suppose no one has a comment on the Bible explanation left here?

Which one?

Where I posted in detail the in-depth study of Paul's verses. #132

Why is marriage necessary to have a meaningful relationship? I have very close friends of both male and female. I feel comfortable talking with them about anything, and I know that I can depend on them when necessary. Just because I'm not physically intimate with them doesn't mean the relationships are meaningless.

Marriage is important for us because, quite simply, you need a united family unit to bring up children, in this case adopted children or the result of donor sperm/surrogacy.

The relationship one has with friends and the relationship one has with one's significant other are completely different. Physical intimacy wasn't just intended for procreation, why else would it be so pleasurable and such a uniting experience. And as I'm fond of saying, what in the hell is a woman supposed to do to get at the prostate? It's got to be there for someone to stimulate.

I'd be interested to know how a Christian would react to the idea of allowing gay marriage if the couples were encouraged to adopt babies who would otherwise have been aborted?

BTW I'm not Christian at all, but as an infidel I think it's sensible to look over all available data, within reason, aswell as the Bible being the main source of shit I have to deal with. So I see a better understanding of the text as useful, regardless of my faith, or lack thereof.

I want someone to really read through my comments on the Bible and why it does NOT condemn homosexuality, and try to refute it. No one has come up with a solid refusal, other than just the same old same old. Leviticus is the most commonly quoted, but is part of the Mosaic Code (The Jewish Holiness Law) and NO LONGER APPLIES to Modern Christians, and the majority of Christians do not follow the Mosaic Code. And on page 9 I explained why Paul was not talking about homosexuality, he did not even use the Greek word for homosexuality in his writings (The word he used that has been translated into homosexual does NOT appear in ANY Greek homosexual writings themselves! It was not the word at the time that even referred to homosexual, as explained in my post on the last page)

So it is time for Christians to admit: The Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but Christians do because of our society.

Aerion, it's only been up there for two hours. I don't refute it and I'm not inclined to try. Be patient. You'll definately get flames, but I'm not sure you'll get good arguments.

Still wondering if any of the others have read the interpretation of Paul on the page before this.

Homosexuality IS condemed by the bible, just deal with it and stop twisting the bibles words around.

Homosexuality IS condemed by the bible, just deal with it and stop twisting the bibles words around.

I am not twisting them at all, Many Christians are twisting them around. Explaining how the Bible has been intentionally Mistranslated is NOT twisting it around, if you read the explanation it is QUIET clear.

Plain fact: Christians are in fact condemning homosexuals because of what society tells them, because of their personal predjudice, because homosexuals are "different". Many think their condemning homosexuality because of the Bible, when in fact the Bible does not condemn it.

The topic of gay marriage isn't -- well, shouldn't be -- a political issue. The president shouldn't have any more say in the gay marriage issue than I do, because it has nothing to do with the presidency. Gay marriage, whether you think it is right or wrong, should still be legal. The case against gay marriage is a religious one, it is that gay marriage wrong because it goes against the bible, against God. While that may be, I don't think the White House needs to tell us what is right by the bible. That's the church's job, and the church should have a say in whether they marry gay couples, not the government. People say that it should be illegal because it is unchristian -- well, sorry to break it to you, but in case you hadn't heard, there are quite a few people out there who, amazingly, don't believe in the same things that you do. That means that a large part of the population is (gasp!) not christian. I don't know of too many atheists who worry about whether what they are doing is OK with God, and they shouldn't have to, because religion is a choice. You say gay marriage isn't Christian, well neither are a lot of people. Even if I thought gay marriage was wrong, unholy, (which I don't) I would still believe that it should be legal.

Homosexuality IS condemed by the bible, just deal with it and stop twisting the bibles words around.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all fakements; hold fast that which is bona.

Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. You're statement is condemned by the Bible. Our attempts to see every possible side and determine which is most plausible is specifically encouraged. All I've seen in the Bible is a lot of condemnation of male prostitution, orgies and rape- I and the vast majority of homosexuals don't do any of that and find them as morally suspect as anyone- and one little bit in Leviticus, which is otherwise taken up with how to perform sacrifices, how bats are birds you musn't eat and hares are cud-chewers(And thus not to be eaten), oh, and that stuff about pork. I don't eat pork, I've picked my little bit of Leviticus to obey, I'm absolved. Nya!

bump