NationStates Jolt Archive

Our knowledge is limited, to trust in our own knowledge above that of God's is foolish. He gave us wisdom, but our wisdom, in comparison to His, is infinitessimal.
Then why do you not accept all faiths documentation? they all think they are god inspired

I do not believe for a second the homosexuality is a sin, as individuals cannot help who they are attracted to. Fetishes would not be seen as a "sin" and again the argument stands, one can not help what it is that 'floats their boat' as it were. Why should a person be persecuted for something they physically and psychologically can't help. As far as cheating, robbery and any other sin that could be brought to mind is concerned; we have a chioce, the option to carry out this "wrong doing". Whereas one cannot be blamed for the fact that they are not sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex.

Yes, but once again you are using human wisdom to judge the medium through which God speaks and that is a dangerous thing.

And yet there is no way around it.

After all, are you not using your human abilities when you read the translation that either you have chosen or someone else has told you is best?

There is no way to cut the human factor out of religion. That is why there are so many arguments about these things and so many different ways of looking at it. All we can do (those of us who believe in God) is ask for guidance and hope that we interpret the guidance correctly.

And yet there is no way around it.

After all, are you not using your human abilities when you read the translation that either you have chosen or someone else has told you is best?

There is no way to cut the human factor out of religion. That is why there are so many arguments about these things and so many different ways of looking at it. All we can do (those of us who believe in God) is ask for guidance and hope that we interpret the guidance correctly.
Exactly there is always the human component making the decision what do believe and follow with all the different suposedly god inspired messages out there

This is true, in which case it is pointless carrying out such discussions. Well maybe not so much carrying them out, but having our own strong opinions on the subject, especially if, by having this opinion it is hurting other people, with no real just cause; as we do not really know what is right or wrong.

I would like to start out by saying that this discussion has been a fascinating read.

Despite my own atheism, the only entity that could possibly confirm or deny whether Homosexuality is a sin would be the Judeo-Christian god itself. However, throughout the ages, all gods have been pretty hush-hush on these matters. I mean, let's face it: Scripture is not to be trusted, considering the sheer amount of revisions, translations, and additions that have been made to the documents comprising the 'book' known as the Bible. Personally, I'd consider the entire text more of an anthology than an actual book, but I digress.

I mean, the widespread edition of the Bible is subtitled the KING JAMES VERSION... Not the KING JAMES AS INSPIRED BY GOD VERSION. God doesn't even get a crummy underwrite credit or anything. Though, that raises the interesting mental image in my mind of the NEW BIBLE FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, WITH SHOUT-OUTS TO THE LORD AND JESUS. Urbanization of the Bible aside, maybe I should get back on topic, hmmm?

Now where was I...oh yeah, Morality is not a concrete, fixed ideal. Why, just a few hundreds of years ago, slavery was considered a moral and upstanding thing in most countries around the world. See how morality changes? In those days, no one batted an eye at marijuana or cocaine. People grew it...or rather, their slaves planted, grew, and harvested it, while they sat and smoked it in a fine leather chair in front of a warm fireplace, at the same time siring illegitimate children with their slaves. ...That sounds like the Thomas Jefferson Reality Show, doesn't it?

Personally, I think that religions are very potentially dangerous. Instances of the dangers of religion are visible throughout history, and varely rarely do you see instances of TRULY pious people, but all too often do you see instances of corrupt religious people, or tyrants using religion for political or territorial gain. You can witness it right now, if you'd like. It's a terrible polarizing issue, and not just in the United States. Unfortunately, and I'm guilty as it as well, many of us Americans have a very Ameri-centric view of the world. But that's another topic for another time.

To bring my nonsensical, rambling discourse to an end, let's make things a little more personal. I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. It is a non-issue to me. I can't say whether it's a sin or not, because...quite frankly, I don't care. I don't believe in sin. In my mind, actions are divided into:

"Things that you can do at all times" Such as, walking down the street, eating pie, breathing, etc. etc.
"Things that no one cares if you do" Such as, chewing with your mouth open, pirating software, etc...
"Things that you can get away with doing" Such as, Drinking alcohol (Personally, I abstain), speeding on the highway.
"Things you probably shouldn't do" Such as, smoke weed, smoke cigarettes in public (I HATE SECOND HAND SMOKE, RARGHARTARARARA!), speeding in residential areas, listening to Linkin Park.
and
"Things that you should, under no circumstances, do." Such as rape, mass genocide, murder, drunk driving, that sort of thing.

Yep. That's my philosophy.

Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultry, lying, cheating, etc. In the end there is only one answer to sin, regardless of the sin, and that is the saving blood of Christ. Good loves and does forgive homosexuals, just like liar's, cheats, adulters, etc...but gays, like anyone else, must first see their actions as sinful and want to repent and change. That seems to be the real issue. Lack of acceptance of the sin and the desire to be redeemed and saved.

this is why i find the idia of reeligion just that little bit silly, who is he to judge a lying cheating poof? im sure there are more serios issues that harm people more like those guys who eat two thirds of the earths food and produce less tha half of it, chistian american filththats whos goona go to hell :eek:

I would like to start out by saying that this discussion has been a fascinating read.

Despite my own atheism, the only entity that could possibly confirm or deny whether Homosexuality is a sin would be the Judeo-Christian god itself. However, throughout the ages, all gods have been pretty hush-hush on these matters. I mean, let's face it: Scripture is not to be trusted, considering the sheer amount of revisions, translations, and additions that have been made to the documents comprising the 'book' known as the Bible. Personally, I'd consider the entire text more of an anthology than an actual book, but I digress.

I mean, the widespread edition of the Bible is subtitled the KING JAMES VERSION... Not the KING JAMES AS INSPIRED BY GOD VERSION. God doesn't even get a crummy underwrite credit or anything. Though, that raises the interesting mental image in my mind of the NEW BIBLE FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, WITH SHOUT-OUTS TO THE LORD AND JESUS. Urbanization of the Bible aside, maybe I should get back on topic, hmmm?

Now where was I...oh yeah, Morality is not a concrete, fixed ideal. Why, just a few hundreds of years ago, slavery was considered a moral and upstanding thing in most countries around the world. See how morality changes? In those days, no one batted an eye at marijuana or cocaine. People grew it...or rather, their slaves planted, grew, and harvested it, while they sat and smoked it in a fine leather chair in front of a warm fireplace, at the same time siring illegitimate children with their slaves. ...That sounds like the Thomas Jefferson Reality Show, doesn't it?

Personally, I think that religions are very potentially dangerous. Instances of the dangers of religion are visible throughout history, and varely rarely do you see instances of TRULY pious people, but all too often do you see instances of corrupt religious people, or tyrants using religion for political or territorial gain. You can witness it right now, if you'd like. It's a terrible polarizing issue, and not just in the United States. Unfortunately, and I'm guilty as it as well, many of us Americans have a very Ameri-centric view of the world. But that's another topic for another time.

To bring my nonsensical, rambling discourse to an end, let's make things a little more personal. I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. It is a non-issue to me. I can't say whether it's a sin or not, because...quite frankly, I don't care. I don't believe in sin. In my mind, actions are divided into:

"Things that you can do at all times" Such as, walking down the street, eating pie, breathing, etc. etc.
"Things that no one cares if you do" Such as, chewing with your mouth open, pirating software, etc...
"Things that you can get away with doing" Such as, Drinking alcohol (Personally, I abstain), speeding on the highway.
"Things you probably shouldn't do" Such as, smoke weed, smoke cigarettes in public (I HATE SECOND HAND SMOKE, RARGHARTARARARA!), speeding in residential areas, listening to Linkin Park.
and
"Things that you should, under no circumstances, do." Such as rape, mass genocide, murder, drunk driving, that sort of thing.

Yep. That's my philosophy.



:rolleyes:

What? Don't like it? Well, I don't like yours, so :P

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Lol what an insightfull post

:rolleyes:
Care to elaborate on that? :p

I'd like to see what people think of this site (http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf)

I do not believe for a second the homosexuality is a sin, as individuals cannot help who they are attracted to. Fetishes would not be seen as a "sin" and again the argument stands, one can not help what it is that 'floats their boat' as it were. Why should a person be persecuted for something they physically and psychologically can't help. As far as cheating, robbery and any other sin that could be brought to mind is concerned; we have a chioce, the option to carry out this "wrong doing". Whereas one cannot be blamed for the fact that they are not sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex.

Thats precisisely why the sin is the action, not the attraction.

I'd like to see what people think of this site (http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf)
Hmm... I haven't even read the whole thing, but I've already spotted an error. If I'm not mistaken, arsenokoitai actually translates to "male temple prostitutes".

Now, why are you lumping true Christianity in the same category as those hypocrites? A bit unfair, wouldn't you think? After all, if you associated the message from every ideology and religion with every person who espouses it, then you would not be able to have ANY beliefs! As for your deeming women "second-class citizens", have you not read the Bible in its entirety, or are you just picking the part that places restrictions on women during church? Are men also not subject to submission? Try to give something an honest assessment, it sounds to me like you were looking for an excuse to renounce your faith.

Perhaps I spoke rashly this morning. *note to self, have first cup of coffee before responding*

True christianity...that is an interesting term. I think that means different things to many people. My opinion is that it is a matter of the spiritual connection. I choose to not associate myself with people that run around talking about turn the other cheek and then gossip behind someone's back, or to not be associated with hate mongers.

I did not 'deem' women as "second-class citizens". There are groups such as the promise keepers who would say that a woman's place is in the home. There are other groups who would say that women should have no say in important matters, because it is beyond a woman's emotional comprehension. I should also clarify here that my issue with these arguments and placement of women is that I remember somewhere in the bible (can't remember where for the life of me right now) that it says women are to be held as a precious jewel. But the husband (and I am not saying all men are evil/abusive types) who beats her regularly is repeatedly forgiven or believed over the wife. And there are many ways to beat someone, emotional, mental, physical.

As for my reasons for leaving christianity, I got fed up with the in-fighting and how no one can agree about stuff.

Thats precisisely why the sin is the action, not the attraction.
Fine let us get married and you can pretend we dont have sex
Whats the difference in letting us get married? We are still committing your "sin" either way

Hmm... I haven't even read the whole thing, but I've already spotted an error. If I'm not mistaken, arsenokoitai actually translates to "male temple prostitutes".

Yes and the other Greek word (the one that begins with an m), from what I've read, is literally translated simply as "effeminent". They have extrapolated that to mean that it referred to a male taking the "feminine" role in a relationship, but there is no reason to make that assumption.

The problem, from what I've read, with arsenokoitai is that no one is completely sure what it was supposed to mean. It was not in widespread use at the time. Paul's use of it is the first use seen in ancient writings. So, we basically have to look at the society of the time and try to get a definition out of that. Many have looked upon it as referring to temple prostitutes, or to young male prostitutes, because those were both practices very prevalent at the time.

Fine let us get married and you can pretend we dont have sex
Whats the difference in letting us get married? We are still committing your "sin" either way

Marriage is the blessing of a relationship by God. Sin is disobdience of God. The idea of homosexual marriage is effectively asking God's blessing of a sin. It would be like a Muslim saying the muslim equivlent of grace before eating pork.

Marriage is the blessing of a relationship by God.

That is religious marriage, which is separate from civil marriage. Civil marriage is simply a statement that two people wish the government to treat them as a single entity under the law, with all of the regulations that go along with that.

The idea of homosexual marriage is effectively asking God's blessing of a sin.

A marriage license says absolutely nothing about God.

It would be like a Muslim saying the muslim equivlent of grace before eating pork.

Interestingly enough, there are religions which sanctify same-sex unions. Obviously, their concept of God is fine with such unions. Are you going to deny them the freedom to worship as they see fit?

Marriage is the blessing of a relationship by God. Sin is disobdience of God. The idea of homosexual marriage is effectively asking God's blessing of a sin. It would be like a Muslim saying the muslim equivlent of grace before eating pork.

Only if a Christian of a Christian denomination that beleives homosexuality is a sin (not all do) were to perform the wedding. If say a Wiccan High Preist(ess) or a Discordian Pope were to marry the couple then your analogy flys out the window and lands in five tons of flax . . .

It's ironic, then, how many scholars and historians rely upon the Bible entirely for their research and archaelogists used it to find the locations where they would excavate.
Well, they don't rely on it entirely. Unless their Vatican scientists, and that is hardly real archeology.
It is also true that those excavations are helped (sometimes!) by certain references in the Bible. It may also be added though that
a) Priests don't have an interest in changing the location of an event that may have occured in some village in ancient Israel.
b) They rely just as much on the chronicles of the various other peoples that lived all over the place.
But just look at the bible. If you really think it is god's word, unchanged over more than 2000 years, after for more than 1000 years it was only copied by the same people that burned witches on the stake - then isn't there at least a huge margin for error when someone translated it into English?
Hebrew, or even Greek is a completely different form of language to English. There are words that cannot be accurately translated.

Marriage is the blessing of a relationship by God. Sin is disobdience of God. The idea of homosexual marriage is effectively asking God's blessing of a sin. It would be like a Muslim saying the muslim equivlent of grace before eating pork.
Bullshit ... the marrige we are talking about is a social and legal contract nothing more
God has nothing to do with it

The problem, from what I've read, with arsenokoitai is that no one is completely sure what it was supposed to mean. It was not in widespread use at the time. Paul's use of it is the first use seen in ancient writings. So, we basically have to look at the society of the time and try to get a definition out of that. Many have looked upon it as referring to temple prostitutes, or to young male prostitutes, because those were both practices very prevalent at the time.
Arsenokotai was a word invented by Paul, and has been translated by taking the root words (arsenokotai is similar to modern compound words) and translating them. Male temple prostitute would be the most accurate translation.

Bullshit ... the marrige we are talking about is a social and legal contract nothing more
God has nothing to do with it

I believe that both conditions are possible. Some marriages are indeed blessed and governed by God, namely those that asked for God's guidance and permission.

But another kind of marriage exists, which is the purely legal and social construct. These marriages are not governed by God, but by human law. You still can't do whatever you want with it, because there are social considerations, but these marriages do not involve God.

Marriage is the blessing of a relationship by God. Sin is disobdience of God. The idea of homosexual marriage is effectively asking God's blessing of a sin. It would be like a Muslim saying the muslim equivlent of grace before eating pork.

Okay. So let's look at history.

Factoid:
Marriages were originally not allowed in churches. In fact, it wasn't until the realization that the church could make money by charging for the bans to be read that they became popular. (This is talking about christianity, not judaism.)

Must sex be between male and female? One act of sex must be. Is that all of sex, or for heterosexuals does sex--let's think only of beautiful sex--involve many other acts, some of which sometimes become more important than that one act? Does marriage make sex beautiful and moral? Even those who insist that sex must be only in marriage admit that there is often immoral sex within marriage--selfishness, exploitation, even rape. So the marriage certificate is not what determines whether sex is moral or immoral. Then we must say that if legality is not the criterion for the morality of sex, lack of legality cannot be the criterion for its immorality.

It would seem that a sound scriptural argument against requiring celibacy would be Paul's writing clearly in I Cor. 7:9 that he does not expect all the church people to be able to be celibate even for the brief time before the (expected) return of Christ. Some commentators suggest that I Tim. 4:1-4, in speaking of marriage being good and not to be denied because "everything created by God is good," would include homosexual marriage because God created homosexuality.

Noting Paul's advice that it was better to marry than to burn, Theology professor Daniel C. Maguire points out as long as homosexual couples are denied marriage, "there is no alternative to burning.

Was it not God who said, "It is not good for man to be alone." (Gen. 2:18)? James Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, believes that "same-sex relationships are fully capable of expressing God's humanizing intentions," and views the "homosexual problem" as "more truly a heterosexual problem" (of homophobia), just as the "woman problem" is a problem of "male sexism."

Jeffrey S. Siker has pointed out in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, to argue that the creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible, the argument from silence....It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem. The creation story is not, after all, a paradigm about marriage, but rather about the establishment of human society.

I believe that both conditions are possible. Some marriages are indeed blessed and governed by God, namely those that asked for God's guidance and permission.

But another kind of marriage exists, which is the purely legal and social construct. These marriages are not governed by God, but by human law. You still can't do whatever you want with it, because there are social considerations, but these marriages do not involve God.
Correct ... thoes "social considerations" though absolutly do not justify denying equality

Correct ... thoes "social considerations" though absolutly do not justify denying equality

That is open to debate simply because no two persons can absolutely agree with each other on "social considerations" and "equality". Oh well...

That is open to debate simply because no two persons can absolutely agree with each other on "social considerations" and "equality". Oh well...
Equality as I reffer to it is no legal difference in standing
(only exceptions should be if there is obectivly provable harm to others to a resonable extent)

But another kind of marriage exists, which is the purely legal and social construct. These marriages are not governed by God, but by human law. You still can't do whatever you want with it, because there are social considerations, but these marriages do not involve God.

Who do you think instituted marriage?

Genesis 2:24 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

aka Marriage!

Must...not...reply....

By all means, reply. I need a good chuckle. :p

Who do you think instituted marriage?

Genesis 2:24 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

aka Marriage!

Yes. That kind of marriage has been blessed and will be governed by God Himself.

Many other marriages are simply human and legal. God has been deliberately or not deliberately left out. There are many other actions which operate on two levels, for example parenting. You can parent a child with God's involvement or no God's involvement, but you're still parenting.

Yes. That kind of marriage has been blessed and will be governed by God Himself.

Many other marriages are simply human and legal. God has been deliberately or not deliberately left out. There are many other actions which operate on two levels, for example parenting. You can parent a child with God's involvement or no God's involvement, but you're still parenting.
True ... and we dont limit parenting to "god involved" parenting for a reason
Neither should the legal status of marrige be withheald

True ... and we dont limit parenting to "god involved" parenting for a reason
Neither should the legal status of marrige be withheald

If you're talking about gay marriage, I have to say that I am not in support of a God-sanctioned gay marriage. But, 1. I guess you can have purely legal marriages and 2. I am in no position to say for God what kind of marriages He accepts and does not.

If you're talking about gay marriage, I have to say that I am not in support of a God-sanctioned gay marriage. But, 1. I guess you can have purely legal marriages and 2. I am in no position to say for God what kind of marriages He accepts and does not.
Fair enough ... most of us honestly dont care of your faith accepts it
The legal is the important part

And if my god accepts my marrige I have every right to think / believe/ call it a god scanctioned marrige

Who do you think instituted marriage?

Genesis 2:24 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

aka Marriage!

You are aware of the fact that, in human language, words often have more than one meaning?

You are aware of the fact that, in human language, words often have more than one meaning?

This is very true. And it isn't just that it is a human language, it's that words change over time as well.

I will never forget being in bible study and having a teacher explain that when it say that god made the world in 6 days and on the 7th day he rested that the term 'day' is how we use the word 'moment' today. In other words it was defined as an indifinite amount of time taken to complete a given or specific task.

Interesting, huh?

A major point here. No one has yet found a Biblical endorcement of homosexuality by God yet, in the same way they have with hetrosexual relations.

A major point here. No one has yet found a Biblical endorcement of homosexuality by God yet, in the same way they have with hetrosexual relations.


And people say there's no such thing as straight pride. :D

A major point here. No one has yet found a Biblical endorcement of homosexuality by God yet, in the same way they have with hetrosexual relations.

Why would god have to endorse homosexuality?

Does he at any one point endorse shaving the way he endorses long hair and beards? I don't think so, and still people don't go around holding rallies agianst Gilette and badmouthing every clean-shaven person they see, do they?

Why would god have to endorse homosexuality?

Does he at any one point adorse shaving the way he endorses long hair and beards? I don't think so, and still people don't go around holding rallies agianst Gilette and badmouthing every clean-shaven person they see, do they?
Lol, wouldn't that be fun though? Stop Gilette! Shaving is kissing the Devils *ss! :D

Lol, wouldn't that be fun though? Stop Gilette! Shaving is kissing the Devils *ss! :D

:D Burning shavers, pouring shaving creams down the drain, sticking false beards to passing CEOs...

Why would god have to endorse homosexuality?

Does he at any one point endorse shaving the way he endorses long hair and beards? I don't think so, and still people don't go around holding rallies agianst Gilette and badmouthing every clean-shaven person they see, do they?

The Bible is, whenever it discusses the rights or wrongs of homosexuality, condeming. Now there has been a level of discussion as to whether or not it is condemning but if you disprove it being condeming then you are left with the Bible saying nothing on an issue, which it extremely rarely does.

Jesus was not shy about disagreeing and setting straight the holiness code. The point being that the parts that he made unnessecary with his life and teachings did not include the parts about sexual imorality. Paul himself refers to the mosiac code on sexual imorality in 1 Corinthains

Long story short, Paul was a bigoted asshole, and in no way believable.

In fact, the only way I would not believe that Jesus was a fictional character was if Paul was, created by later kings and priests in order to control the population.

But yes, here's an interesting interpretation on Romans 1:26-27.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

The Bible is, whenever it discusses the rights or wrongs of homosexuality, condeming. Now there has been a level of discussion as to whether or not it is condemning but if you disprove it being condeming then you are left with the Bible saying nothing on an issue, which it extremely rarely does.

Jesus was not shy about disagreeing and setting straight the holiness code. The point being that the parts that he made unnessecary with his life and teachings did not include the parts about sexual imorality. Paul himself refers to the mosiac code on sexual imorality in 1 Corinthains


True, but the same could be said about the shaving issue. The only part where the bible says anything about it is to condemn it, at no point is shaving being pointed out to be positive, not even by good ole hit-my-head Paul.

This is very true. And it isn't just that it is a human language, it's that words change over time as well.

I will never forget being in bible study and having a teacher explain that when it say that god made the world in 6 days and on the 7th day he rested that the term 'day' is how we use the word 'moment' today. In other words it was defined as an indifinite amount of time taken to complete a given or specific task.

Interesting, huh?

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/marriage_history.html:
"In addition to the lack of sociological data, there is also a lack of historical knowledge. Marriage is frequently characterized as a religious institution laden with old prejudices. It is true that Judaism and Christianity have contributed much to the Western understanding of marriage. But it is also true that they absorbed parts of the secular marital codes of Greek law, Aristotelian philosophy, Roman law and German law. Even in ancient secular systems, legal marriage was seen as a way to help society regulate and achieve a complex set of desires and goals: sexual activity, procreation, mutual help and affection, and parental care and accountability."

Interesting, huh?

Why focus on shaving? You can interpret any part of the Bible to say anything you want. Now, as I'm at school, I don't have a Bible handy - understandably in the French rooms - but I seem to remember it says "Any issue from the body is unclean" or something to that extent. I'm sure someone will quote Leviticus and say "That's obviously talking about masterbation" but that is just your interpretation. That could be talking about anything from the aforementioned activity to crying. Water from the eyes is an issue from the body.

Now I realise that I'm probably wrong and people are going to start saying that loudly and clearly, but I am merely using it to demonstrate my point. I'm sure someone has a better example. Please don't start going into the original Greek/Hebrew to prove me wrong, as I cannot speak either of those languages, and it would - ironically - be fruitless. And if you do, then it is an ambiguous translation, isn't it? And hence, us ne'er-do-wells who never had the decency to sit down and learn how to speak Hebrew, are never going to be told the real message, are we?

I like the DVD idea, personally. Of course, if I were Him, I would have hired a market researcher to help with the PR.

Why focus on shaving? You can interpret any part of the Bible to say anything you want. Now, as I'm at school, I don't have a Bible handy - understandably in the French rooms - but I seem to remember it says "Any issue from the body is unclean" or something to that extent. I'm sure someone will quote Leviticus and say "That's obviously talking about masterbation" but that is just your interpretation. That could be talking about anything from the aforementioned activity to crying. Water from the eyes is an issue from the body.

Now I realise that I'm probably wrong and people are going to start saying that loudly and clearly, but I am merely using it to demonstrate my point. I'm sure someone has a better example. Please don't start going into the original Greek/Hebrew to prove me wrong, as I cannot speak either of those languages, and it would - ironically - be fruitless. And if you do, then it is an ambiguous translation, isn't it? And hence, us ne'er-do-wells who never had the decency to sit down and learn how to speak Hebrew, are never going to be told the real message, are we?

I like the DVD idea, personally. Of course, if I were Him, I would have hired a market researcher to help with the PR.

So... basically, what you're saying is that you can't be bothered to learn Greek or Hebrew so you know what you're talking about and will listen to a pastor or priest or other religious figure who 'has read the bible', but you're not willing to listen to someone who is debating the subject with you who tells you that the pastor or priest, etc, are wrong in their interpretation.

... Well, isn't that... oh, I can think of a few words, none appropriate.

Why focus on shaving? You can interpret any part of the Bible to say anything you want. Now, as I'm at school, I don't have a Bible handy - understandably in the French rooms - but I seem to remember it says "Any issue from the body is unclean" or something to that extent. I'm sure someone will quote Leviticus and say "That's obviously talking about masterbation" but that is just your interpretation. That could be talking about anything from the aforementioned activity to crying. Water from the eyes is an issue from the body.

Now I realise that I'm probably wrong and people are going to start saying that loudly and clearly, but I am merely using it to demonstrate my point. I'm sure someone has a better example. Please don't start going into the original Greek/Hebrew to prove me wrong, as I cannot speak either of those languages, and it would - ironically - be fruitless. And if you do, then it is an ambiguous translation, isn't it? And hence, us ne'er-do-wells who never had the decency to sit down and learn how to speak Hebrew, are never going to be told the real message, are we?

I like the DVD idea, personally. Of course, if I were Him, I would have hired a market researcher to help with the PR.


It just was the first example that popped into my head, there's plenty more where that came from.

The thing is, people keep hiding behind that book and are trying to justify their own injustice with the words of others. That's an attitude I find incredibly annoying.

If you have any social concerns about gay marriage, if you have any personal problems accepting gays, if you have legal issues with same-sex couples, if you have spiritual doubts about same-sex marriages, name them. But don't hide behind the views and opinions of others.

A major point here. No one has yet found a Biblical endorcement of homosexuality by God yet, in the same way they have with hetrosexual relations.

As I pointed out, the Bible tends to address the majority. For instance, most of its instructions are towards men. However, we do not take that to mean that only men are to follow them. We apply those same rules to women and children, except where the rules have been explicitly stated to be different. Many feel that the same can be said for hetero- and homosexual couples - that the rules applied to heterosexual couples in the Bible were meant for both hetero- and homosexual couples, but were addressed to heterosexuals, as they are in the majority.

On top of that, your reasoning is very similar to that of a Jehovah's Witness on birthday celebrations. They don't allow birthday parties because every time a birthday party is mentioned in the Bible, something bad happens (like John the Baptist's head on a plate). Does that mean it is bad to celebrate your birthday? I don't think so - I figure we just aren't supposed to ask for people's heads as presents.

Who do you think instituted marriage?

Genesis 2:24 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

aka Marriage!

Who did Abel marry?

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Now that's in the context of God telling Moses what laws to give to the people. There are many more examples, but that's the strongest one I know of where God says directly, "I don't like it." Also, the original Hebrew words for "lie" in the first phrase and "lieth" in the second phrase both have a clear sexual connotation, so don't try to say it means not telling the truth, or simply lying down. And don't try to tell me it doesn't apply anymore, because if it's an abomination back then, it doesn't somehow cease being an abomination. We have simply changed how we deal with it, namely, we don't execute homosexuals anymore. God has not changed how He feels about it. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

As I pointed out, the Bible tends to address the majority. For instance, most of its instructions are towards men. However, we do not take that to mean that only men are to follow them. We apply those same rules to women and children, except where the rules have been explicitly stated to be different. Many feel that the same can be said for hetero- and homosexual couples - that the rules applied to heterosexual couples in the Bible were meant for both hetero- and homosexual couples, but were addressed to heterosexuals, as they are in the majority.



:D :p

OMGosh... that's funny. The word 'Man' when it applies to mankind, could be translated in many different ways, such as human, flesh, humanity etc., but it in no way is dependent on majority. :eek:

That is just about the most twisted and distorted example of trying to justify changing what the scripture says to what you want it to say as I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

As I pointed out, the Bible tends to address the majority. For instance, most of its instructions are towards men. However, we do not take that to mean that only men are to follow them. We apply those same rules to women and children, except where the rules have been explicitly stated to be different. Many feel that the same can be said for hetero- and homosexual couples - that the rules applied to heterosexual couples in the Bible were meant for both hetero- and homosexual couples, but were addressed to heterosexuals, as they are in the majority.

On top of that, your reasoning is very similar to that of a Jehovah's Witness on birthday celebrations. They don't allow birthday parties because every time a birthday party is mentioned in the Bible, something bad happens (like John the Baptist's head on a plate). Does that mean it is bad to celebrate your birthday? I don't think so - I figure we just aren't supposed to ask for people's heads as presents.
Awww but I wanted a head!

:D :p

OMGosh... that's funny. The word 'Man' when it applies to mankind, could be translated in many different ways, such as human, flesh, humanity etc., but it in no way is dependent on majority. :eek:

That is just about the most twisted and distorted example of trying to justify changing what the scripture says to what you want it to say as I've ever seen. :rolleyes:
Says you ... I personaly think the whole of scripture is BS but thats my opinion

Why focus on shaving? You can interpret any part of the Bible to say anything you want. Now, as I'm at school, I don't have a Bible handy - understandably in the French rooms - but I seem to remember it says "Any issue from the body is unclean" or something to that extent. I'm sure someone will quote Leviticus and say "That's obviously talking about masterbation" but that is just your interpretation. That could be talking about anything from the aforementioned activity to crying. Water from the eyes is an issue from the body.

Now I realise that I'm probably wrong and people are going to start saying that loudly and clearly, but I am merely using it to demonstrate my point. I'm sure someone has a better example. Please don't start going into the original Greek/Hebrew to prove me wrong, as I cannot speak either of those languages, and it would - ironically - be fruitless. And if you do, then it is an ambiguous translation, isn't it? And hence, us ne'er-do-wells who never had the decency to sit down and learn how to speak Hebrew, are never going to be told the real message, are we?

I like the DVD idea, personally. Of course, if I were Him, I would have hired a market researcher to help with the PR.

Of course, the DVD would be awesome, think of the special features. God commenting on random historical events

God: Yea, about the Dark Ages, I sorta needed a mental health time period there....

And frequently asked questions

Q: What's your view on the bible?
God: Touchy subject, haven't spoken with the authors since the plagarism lawsuit.

Best seller right there.

Now that's in the context of God telling Moses what laws to give to the people. There are many more examples, but that's the strongest one I know of where God says directly, "I don't like it." Also, the original Hebrew words for "lie" in the first phrase and "lieth" in the second phrase both have a clear sexual connotation, so don't try to say it means not telling the truth, or simply lying down. And don't try to tell me it doesn't apply anymore, because if it's an abomination back then, it doesn't somehow cease being an abomination. We have simply changed how we deal with it, namely, we don't execute homosexuals anymore. God has not changed how He feels about it. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
As has been mentioned many times, the passage is horrifically mistranslated. It forbids having sex with a menstruating woman, which is why it is surrounded by passages about how menstruating women are unclean.

Even if it condemn homosexual acts, why do you listen to that passage, and not the other passages in Leviticus that condemn eating any aquatic animal without fins and scales, wearing clothing made out of mixed fabrics, and woman wearing men's clothes. (Like pants and shirts.) Have you ever eaten pork? Then you have committed an abomination. Have you ever eaten rabbit? Another abomination right there.

A major point here. No one has yet found a Biblical endorcement of homosexuality by God yet, in the same way they have with hetrosexual relations.
The love between Jonathan and David. I win. You lose.

OMGosh... that's funny. The word 'Man' when it applies to mankind, could be translated in many different ways, such as human, flesh, humanity etc., but it in no way is dependent on majority.

Men were the ruling gender in the society of the time. Thus, the majority of rules were directed at men.

In much the same way, Christ's teachings were directed at the culture of the time. In order for us to understand many of them, we must interpret them as such. An example would be the "turn the other cheek" passage - one of the most misused ideas to come out of Christ's teachings. Because our culture today is different, most people think that it means you should take whatever abuse is given to you and still just sit there. In Christ's time, turning the other cheek meant that your assailant could no longer strike you, unless they were willing to put you on an even level with them - which would legally allow you to fight back.

In much the same way, Christ's teachings were directed at the culture of the time. In order for us to understand many of them, we must interpret them as such. An example would be the "turn the other cheek" passage - one of the most misused ideas to come out of Christ's teachings. Because our culture today is different, most people think that it means you should take whatever abuse is given to you and still just sit there. In Christ's time, turning the other cheek meant that your assailant could no longer strike you, unless they were willing to put you on an even level with them - which would legally allow you to fight back.
The same applies to the whole carrying things an extra mile if someone asks you to carry something for a mile. Roman soldiers could only make someone carry their belongings for a total of one mile. Carrying the belongings further would get the soldier in trouble.

Now that's in the context of God telling Moses what laws to give to the people. There are many more examples, but that's the strongest one I know of where God says directly, "I don't like it." Also, the original Hebrew words for "lie" in the first phrase and "lieth" in the second phrase both have a clear sexual connotation, so don't try to say it means not telling the truth, or simply lying down. And don't try to tell me it doesn't apply anymore, because if it's an abomination back then, it doesn't somehow cease being an abomination. We have simply changed how we deal with it, namely, we don't execute homosexuals anymore. God has not changed how He feels about it. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Good to know that you personally know the mind of God.

So, do you also believe that God endorses slavery, but we have simply started dealing with it differently by independently deciding that slavery is bad?

Do you believe that God agrees with the denigration of women, but we have simply started dealing with it differently by independently deciding that women should be afforded the same respect as men?

Do you believe that God really thinks that crickets and other insects have four legs? Or that God really believes that rabbits chew the cud, when they actually eat their own poo?

The same applies to the whole carrying things an extra mile if someone asks you to carry something for a mile. Roman soldiers could only make someone carry their belongings for a total of one mile. Carrying the belongings further would get the soldier in trouble.

Yay! Someone else knows!

And, while we're on it - the same thing goes for giving your undergarment as well when sued for your outer garment. In the culture of the time, nudity did not shame the naked person, but everyone who saw them was shamed. Thus, if you got naked and gave all your clothes to the one suing you, you shamed him, the court, everyone in the court, etc.

Yay! Someone else knows!

And, while we're on it - the same thing goes for giving your undergarment as well when sued for your outer garment. In the culture of the time, nudity did not shame the naked person, but everyone who saw them was shamed. Thus, if you got naked and gave all your clothes to the one suing you, you shamed him, the court, everyone in the court, etc.
That was the one I couldn't remember.

Ya know what I like best about every single one of these arguments? They don't matter. Why? Because we are not a Theocracy. And I don't think even the most devout person would really want us to be. After all, just because your particular vision of xianity was in power at the time doesn’t mean it will stay in power. Wasn't that the fear when JFK was elected pres. He'll bring in the pope to rule America! Run for the hills Margie!

Anywho, fun fact, the country of Bhutan (prob. spelled that wrong) made there constitution in the mold of Buddhism. So it says things like free speech, personal rights etc. but it also says that it is the duty of the state to promote happiness and it is the duty of the people to be good Samaritans and help in times of crisis. Isn't that cool?

And just remember kids, it's your god, they're your sins, you burn in hell. :)

In the culture of the time, nudity did not shame the naked person, but everyone who saw them was shamed. .

I always liked that part of the Moses story. When Moses got drunk and fell down naked in his tent and one son did nothing, one son pointed and laughed, and one son went in to cover his father. (now in darker stories one son tries to castrate him, but....what are ya gonna do). And to our eyes it is the son who covers him that is good, but he was punished the most for seeing daddy naked.
My African History teacher (he was Kenyan) always said that that is why Africans are always so happy, because their founder was the son who pointed and laughed.

:D :p

OMGosh... that's funny. The word 'Man' when it applies to mankind, could be translated in many different ways, such as human, flesh, humanity etc., but it in no way is dependent on majority. :eek:

That is just about the most twisted and distorted example of trying to justify changing what the scripture says to what you want it to say as I've ever seen. :rolleyes:


Translating "man" as humanity does only work in English, most other languages have a very clear distiction between man and humanity, and "man" only refers to that part of society blessed with a penis between their legs.

So, whenever the bible talks about "man" or "men", it really is an assumption and an interpretation to take it to mean "humantiy" instead

The Bible is, whenever it discusses the rights or wrongs of homosexuality, condeming. Now there has been a level of discussion as to whether or not it is condemning but if you disprove it being condeming then you are left with the Bible saying nothing on an issue, which it extremely rarely does.

Jesus was not shy about disagreeing and setting straight the holiness code. The point being that the parts that he made unnessecary with his life and teachings did not include the parts about sexual imorality. Paul himself refers to the mosiac code on sexual imorality in 1 Corinthains

This is untrue. Please see previous posts regarding 1 Corinthains.

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/marriage_history.html:
"In addition to the lack of sociological data, there is also a lack of historical knowledge. Marriage is frequently characterized as a religious institution laden with old prejudices. It is true that Judaism and Christianity have contributed much to the Western understanding of marriage. But it is also true that they absorbed parts of the secular marital codes of Greek law, Aristotelian philosophy, Roman law and German law. Even in ancient secular systems, legal marriage was seen as a way to help society regulate and achieve a complex set of desires and goals: sexual activity, procreation, mutual help and affection, and parental care and accountability."

Interesting, huh?

I find it interesting that this is the first time a sight by such a well known group has been used. Although, I disagree whole heartedly with the majority of what this group promotes as truth.

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/marriage_history.html
"Rather than expanding the status and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples and then gradually to other kinds of caring relationships, as logic would soon require, society should find alternative ways of meeting the needs not only of same-sex couples but also interdependent friends, and dependent but unmarried kin. Tax benefits, legal adoption, welfare transfers, and more refined and accessible legal contracts should all be used to meet these needs — but not the institution of marriage itself."

Here is the problem with the argument. There are legal documents called Living Wills that are supposed to enable a partner with certain rights during certain situations. Unfortunately, these are more often then not ignored because although it is a legal document there is no real legislation that protects it in a lot states. For example, one of those rights with that document would be getting into a hospital sick room as a SIGNIFICANT OTHER. Now. To protect this type of document there would need to be legislation passed saying it was recognized and valid blah blah blah. This WILL NOT happen though. Because if we give up on marriage and try to meet half way with this the argument will change. These documents will then be the target of the religious right because (and I can hear it already) 'First it's this, then they will go after marriage.' Oh, wait, that argument was what has been used repeatedly when people were trying to get Domestic Partnership laws.

The problem here is that there is no middle ground, the christian right is to afraid of marriage being corrupted and we in the GLBT community want to be recognized as loving, caring individuals capable of raising children (we've been doing it for as long as we have been around) and forming lasting bonds in a relationship. If someone pro-gay does research it gets debunked. If someone anti-gay does research it gets debunked. Because although the results are real, the people doing the research are not necessarily coming from a clinical point of view.

i'm no christianity buff [i'm a hindu] but aren't there a LOT of things people overlook when they read the bible? like doesn't it say something about selling your daughter to slavery? and working on the sabbath? and all kinds of other things?
i agree with whoever said that they don't care what someone's beliefs are, just don't go shoving them down others' throats.
however, i do get a tad angry when people who say they're like devout christians go judging people. isn't the whole "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" thing in there multiple times?
sorry if i've made any factual errors... i'm not really a bible guy, though i do plan on reading it one of these days

since marriage is generally a religious thing, why don't we just scrap it from government entirely? we could do as ravyns said, and just extend those legal privileges to couples who applied. the "institution of marriage" could stay with the church. if people wanted to get married only for the symbolic aspect, they could do that. if people wanted to get married only for the legal benefits, they could go to the courthouse. that way, same-sex couples, unmarried kin, and all manner of other relationships could have a standing with the law and get tax breaks or whatever.

Now that's in the context of God telling Moses what laws to give to the people. There are many more examples, but that's the strongest one I know of where God says directly, "I don't like it." Also, the original Hebrew words for "lie" in the first phrase and "lieth" in the second phrase both have a clear sexual connotation, so don't try to say it means not telling the truth, or simply lying down. And don't try to tell me it doesn't apply anymore, because if it's an abomination back then, it doesn't somehow cease being an abomination. We have simply changed how we deal with it, namely, we don't execute homosexuals anymore. God has not changed how He feels about it. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Again...

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God."B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)

God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has."

Another reason they are not pertinent to our discussion is that these laws were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given. If you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord. A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. You must not harvest a field to its edge. We readily dismiss most of them as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them, including the sexual regulations, for that same reason.

When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today.

The love between Jonathan and David. I win. You lose.

Thank you! I was trying to find that!

since marriage is generally a religious thing, why don't we just scrap it from government entirely? we could do as ravyns said, and just extend those legal privileges to couples who applied. the "institution of marriage" could stay with the church. if people wanted to get married only for the symbolic aspect, they could do that. if people wanted to get married only for the legal benefits, they could go to the courthouse. that way, same-sex couples, unmarried kin, and all manner of other relationships could have a standing with the law and get tax breaks or whatever.
While I understand 2 things
1) Marriage is NOT even now a purely Religious thing much less a purely Christian thing
2) This wont stop gay couples from being “married” as to be fair there is no way around letting a religious institution other then Christianity say what is married as well … and some of them will give that title to gay people as well.

This is untrue. Please see previous posts regarding 1 Corinthains.

Those posts just said "He was refering to male temple prostitutes" and gave no backing.

i'm no christianity buff [i'm a hindu] but aren't there a LOT of things people overlook when they read the bible? like doesn't it say something about selling your daughter to slavery? and working on the sabbath? and all kinds of other things?
i agree with whoever said that they don't care what someone's beliefs are, just don't go shoving them down others' throats.
however, i do get a tad angry when people who say they're like devout christians go judging people. isn't the whole "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" thing in there multiple times?
sorry if i've made any factual errors... i'm not really a bible guy, though i do plan on reading it one of these days
There is a lot of stuff that they do leave out … or they talk away but just saying “but now there is a new testament” like somehow that made it right for all the years that they were following the old laws. (just because you don’t have to follow it now does not negate the things that people were forced to do before god changed his mind and removed those laws, somehow that makes it better that he made people follow them before)

As I pointed out, the Bible tends to address the majority. For instance, most of its instructions are towards men. However, we do not take that to mean that only men are to follow them. We apply those same rules to women and children, except where the rules have been explicitly stated to be different. Many feel that the same can be said for hetero- and homosexual couples - that the rules applied to heterosexual couples in the Bible were meant for both hetero- and homosexual couples, but were addressed to heterosexuals, as they are in the majority.

You miss the point. There are admonishments made to homosexual sex and wherever they are found, they are universally negative. There is no positve endorcemnt anywhere to be found, unlike hetrosexuality.


On top of that, your reasoning is very similar to that of a Jehovah's Witness on birthday celebrations. They don't allow birthday parties because every time a birthday party is mentioned in the Bible, something bad happens (like John the Baptist's head on a plate). Does that mean it is bad to celebrate your birthday? I don't think so - I figure we just aren't supposed to ask for people's heads as presents.

No, my reasoning is in no way simmilar, because the JW reasoning focuses on "bad things happen when we do X, therefore we mustent do X" but I said "God says not to do X so we shouldnt do it"

Thank you! I was trying to find that!


One word: agape

since marriage is generally a religious thing, why don't we just scrap it from government entirely? we could do as ravyns said, and just extend those legal privileges to couples who applied. the "institution of marriage" could stay with the church. if people wanted to get married only for the symbolic aspect, they could do that. if people wanted to get married only for the legal benefits, they could go to the courthouse. that way, same-sex couples, unmarried kin, and all manner of other relationships could have a standing with the law and get tax breaks or whatever.

Let me clarify this a little.

I do not believe that a civil union should be allowed between people that are not of age and/or involved with a human (no animals!) that is NOT their kin.

But I do think that if we seperated, truly made a division, between the religious aspect and the legal, there would be less problems.

So let me ask this.

Would those opposed to homosexual marriage be willing to agree to there being a LEGAL (NOT RELIGIOUS) form of, let's say, UNION specifically for homosexual relationships that would give all of the same legal rights and recognition as a marriage? I say specifically for homosexual because this then restricts it to one group of people as well as keeping people such as heterosexuals from participating, since they can get married.

OR

Would it, in your opinion, be better to just say that a marriage is not legally recognized until there has been seperately performed in a court house by a judge? That the church ceremony is something completly seperate and would be something to be recognized by the church, but not recognized by the state/government until the court had performed a secondary procedure?

No, my reasoning is in no way simmilar, because the JW reasoning focuses on "bad things happen when we do X, therefore we mustent do X" but I said "God says not to do X so we shouldnt do it"
God says nothing of the sort … a much interpreted highly suspect translated copy of what people said (or what people remember people said or thought they said) about the possible will of a man that may or may not be who he claimed said about his fathers wishes possibly says about it

Those posts just said "He was refering to male temple prostitutes" and gave no backing.

I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:
9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.

New International Version
9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.

Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."

Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.

Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."

One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, "homosexuals." Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even though "of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts."

So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.

One word: agape

Why?

Why?


Because strong brotherly love =/= sexual acts.

Because strong brotherly love =/= sexual acts.
Well sometimes …

:p

Who did Abel marry?

Cain.

Hot homo necro sex!

Because strong brotherly love =/= sexual acts.
Two naked men embracing and then having sex is sexual. It's clear that you haven't actually read a good portion of the book you hold so dear.

Why would God create homosexuals, since he supposedly creates us all in our personalities and Ourselves, if he was only to make those homosexuals burn in Hell? Makes no sense, and for those who believe it, get a reality check. People happen to be born gay.

Why would God create homosexuals, since he supposedly creates us all in our personalities and Ourselves, if he was only to make those homosexuals burn in Hell? Makes no sense, and for those who believe it, get a reality check. People happen to be born gay.
Some … but remember a lot of Christianity things of us as more of an open slate (god does not play with personality development IE)

I don’t agree with their view but that negates the “god making me who I am” argument

I think they just find that easy because their natural inclination is towards what they say god says people should be like (highly convenient and suspect)

Pretending the Christian God is true, let's assume everything the Bible says is true, etc. Now, let's think about people in general. When we are born, we are of a certain perception, i.e. two babies exposed to spiders will not always develop arachniphobia. But, the Christian God made their perceptions. The Christian God would have also made the first DNA, which directly went down through the lines to give babies a sense of perception to create a unique personality which God intended. Now, as I said again, it is completely irrational to say that God creates perceptions and sexuality if he creates homosexuals, only to condone abuse and maltreatment of them.

Two naked men embracing and then having sex is sexual. It's clear that you haven't actually read a good portion of the book you hold so dear.

Even if David and Johnothan were gay lovers (Which is extremely debateable) all youve proved by finding it is that there is a gay man in the Bible. Whoop de do. So what. David was, by no standards, perfect.

So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.

Except, there was an open homosexual on the translation team of the NIV.

You miss the point. There are admonishments made to homosexual sex and wherever they are found, they are universally negative. There is no positve endorcemnt anywhere to be found, unlike hetrosexuality.

None of those "admonishments" are clear. In some English translations, they seem clear, but in the actual text, not so much. In the end, it boils down to which translators you believe.

Or, if you don't want to place your faith in human beings, it boils down to asking for God's guidance in reading the text. Of course, some people seem to think that a personal relationship with God is impossible.

No, my reasoning is in no way simmilar, because the JW reasoning focuses on "bad things happen when we do X, therefore we mustent do X" but I said "God says not to do X so we shouldnt do it"

Your reasoning was "The only time anything remotely related to homosexuality is mentioned, it is an admonishment. Therefore, anything at all to do with homosexuality must be bad."

*snip*

And that's, what? The 4th time you've posted that now?

Except, there was an open homosexual on the translation team of the NIV.

During the translation that took place which year?

And that's, what? The 4th time you've posted that now?

Something like that. Are you objecting?

Something like that. Are you objecting?

Not in the least. I just find it interesting that Sanx made the statement that no support whatsoever has been posted, when I know I've seen that post several times.

Looks like Sanx either isn't actually reading anything he/she doesn't like, or is flat-out lying.

Not in the least. I just find it interesting that Sanx made the statement that no support whatsoever has been posted, when I know I've seen that post several times.

Looks like Sanx either isn't actually reading anything he/she doesn't like, or is flat-out lying.

It seems to be the case that some are kind of jumping into the conversation in the middle and not looking back through the pages. Or, make an assumption when they see a biblical quote that it only justifies a stance of homophobia. In the mean time, I will just keep reiterating what I have said before.

Two naked men embracing and then having sex is sexual. It's clear that you haven't actually read a good portion of the book you hold so dear.



Where does it say they embrace naked? Show me.

Where does it say they embrace naked? Show me.
Lol ok *hugs CthulhuFhtagn naked*

Where does it say they embrace naked? Show me.

I notice that you're not arguing that they did not have sex, only that they did not embrace while naked, why is this?

For point three, I would like to point out that every human has a choice. No matter how pervasive the Church was, every single man or child who went on crusade chose to do it. On a related note, the Crusades weren't really about advancing Christianity or defeating the infidels. The popes who ordained crusades generally were advancing a political agenda, so Christianity still cannot be considered responsible.

And for point one, when did I say that Jesus was blonde-haired and blue eyed? Did you read? Can you read? I said he would look more Arabic than anything. Dark, curly hair, and a swarthy complexion. Dark eyes. A beard. That's what I meant when I said he was Hebrew/Israeli/Arab.

Oh, and one other thing. Do not insinuate that any point that I'm making resonates with anything Hitler said. I will gut you. Do not try my patience on this matter.

Your questions of did/can I read are obviousely misplaced, since not only am I responding to your statements, I am typing back coherent, non-violent and calm remarks in return.

Point 3 is correct. However, the reason the church stood by for a long time with the point that this was the reason for the crusades...but, you are only repeating what I said in a different way.

I am not implying that any point you are making resonates with Hitler. Although the 'I will gut you' statement is somewhat extreme.... Do not make threats like this. They win you no quarter with many people and only seperate you more from your comrades.

If I was to compare statements about Hitler with anything it would be by referencing this site...

www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, [Dr. Paul] Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

I notice that you're not arguing that they did not have sex, only that they did not embrace while naked, why is this?



1. Because they never did, they infer it from David stating he loved Jonathan more than a woman. It meant a brotherly love that far surpassed any romantic love. It was NOT sexual.

2. I'm going to bed, nighty night!

1. Because they never did, they infer it from David stating he loved Jonathan more than a woman. It meant a brotherly love that far surpassed any romantic love. It was NOT sexual.

2. I'm going to bed, nighty night!
1. Hit
2. Run
:p

Your questions of did/can I read are obviousely misplaced, since not only am I responding to your statements, I am typing back coherent, non-violent and calm remarks in return.

Point 3 is correct. However, the reason the church stood by for a long time with the point that this was the reason for the crusades...but, you are only repeating what I said in a different way.

I am not implying that any point you are making resonates with Hitler. Although the 'I will gut you' statement is somewhat extreme.... Do not make threats like this. They win you no quarter with many people and only seperate you more from your comrades.

If I was to compare statements about Hitler with anything it would be by referencing this site...

www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

My argument was perfectly calm and coherent, except for the part where I was enraged at something I interpreted as a comparison of the people who are arguing that homosexuality is a sin (which I am not) to people like Hitler. Most of them are not nearly that violent, radical, or flat-out evil. So when it seemed to me that you were implying that I agreed with Hitler on anything, I became understandably angry. Sue me. Oh, and why do you post a link like that if you're not implying that it has a place in this argument. That's called praeteritio. Latin for "I pass over," meaning to emphasize a point by saying that you "aren't saying anything like that. If I was..." So, unless you do mean to imply a connection between me, or any of the people here who don't believe in homosexual acts, why would you post the link?

My argument was perfectly calm and coherent, except for the part where I was enraged at something I interpreted as a comparison of the people who are arguing that homosexuality is a sin (which I am not) to people like Hitler. Most of them are not nearly that violent, radical, or flat-out evil. So when it seemed to me that you were implying that I agreed with Hitler on anything, I became understandably angry. Sue me. Oh, and why do you post a link like that if you're not implying that it has a place in this argument. That's called praeteritio. Latin for "I pass over," meaning to emphasize a point by saying that you "aren't saying anything like that. If I was..." So, unless you do mean to imply a connection between me, or any of the people here who don't believe in homosexual acts, why would you post the link?

There have been a couple of times in this thread where statements have been made that are one's off of that list of comparison's...some of them containing more than one. There have been links to sites posted in here where groups are using those same arguments.

I am not trying to say that this is you. And I will admit that sometimes I have re-read my own posts and realized to late that there was a whole thought left out while I was typing. Sometimes, this type of communication is not the best for that reason specifically.

There have been a couple of times in this thread where statements have been made that are one's off of that list of comparison's...some of them containing more than one. There have been links to sites posted in here where groups are using those same arguments.

I am not trying to say that this is you. And I will admit that sometimes I have re-read my own posts and realized to late that there was a whole thought left out while I was typing. Sometimes, this type of communication is not the best for that reason specifically.

Fine. We'll call it even.

I agree on the Hunting part... to a point. the Fight for ... (Queer Rights doesn't sound right...) Equal Rights has always been a long hard fight. The Blacks and Women had to fight for decades for their rights, but the attitude of the Homosexuals is "we want it now!" thus they are picking up the targets and holding against their own backs. to change the views of society is not direct confontation, but get small victories and slowly use those victories to get the ultimate prize... Equal Rights.

My personal stand against Homosexuality is that it is a sin. I can only try to pursuade people against it, but once their choice is made, I'll accept their choice. I do not judge people by their sins, for that is not my job. I hate the sin, not the sinner. a very thin line but a line nonetheless.

It may be unfair to pick this post out of the thread to which to respond, but I believe you are trying to be just, JuNii, and I think you are amenable to reason.

I was also stricken by your statements about patience in the struggle for Equal Rights and their similarity to those statements to which Martin Luther King, Jr., responded to in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail (http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html). I implore you to read the whole letter and to think while you do about how long homosexuals have been denied equal rights.

In the meantime, consider the following:

You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

...

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

...

...My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "******," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
...

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

....

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

...

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

...

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action.

...I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

...

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

1. Romans 1....not 1 Corinithians.....Romans 1! Sheesh.

2. You're taking a theory advanced by more liberal biblical scholars and establishing it as fact. That is wrong. Is it possible? Yes, but do not say it is a fact. We do not seek what we want to be the truth, but the actual truth.


:eek:

This has got to be the most ironic statement in this entire thread. :p


ROTFLASTC. :D

*bump*

:eek:

This has got to be the most ironic statement in this entire thread. :p


ROTFLASTC. :D
http://geek.upwardthrust.us/roflcopter.gif

*bump*
Hey Cat-Tribe, TG'd you.