NationStates Jolt Archive

Since discussion has moved on to whether or not Homosexual sex is a sin, I assume you all agree with my main point, which was that if you do believe it to be a sin, that does not mean you should hate homosexuals

Since discussion has moved on to whether or not Homosexual sex is a sin, I assume you all agree with my main point, which was that if you do believe it to be a sin, that does not mean you should hate homosexuals

I think the consensus of opinion is that: It's pretty dumb to hate people for being what they are.... regardless of your 'religion'.

So - yes.

However, I think it has yet to be proven that the Bible really IS as anti-gay as the modern church seems to believe.

Most of the homophobia seems to stem from either mistranslation of scripture, or misunderstanding of what is presented.

Personally, if Jesus thought it was okay to get a quick smooch from another guy, who am I to say no?

Indeed... I believe that the earliest I've seen is about 1500/1600 BC. Certainly, earlier than anything I've seen for Hebrew.

I don't have the knowledge to disagree with you.
But honestly I can't find evidence to that. I will admit what I learned on this subject is well over 12 years old. But I would hope I was not deaf to new discoveries since that time. Can you direct me in the right direction for a refresher?


Regards,

JMayo

One of the primary teachings of the bible (at least the old testament) is that crimes against God are answerable only to God - if you choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin that is your choice, but in attempting to hold homosexuals accountable, or even in holding their sexual orientation against them, you have stepped beyond the realm of duty into somewhere you aren't supposed to go.

Sorry for the long length, but you asked for it. ;)

I see no reason to accept your assertion that the Gospel of John was written by the man you call "John the Beloved". I wonder if you can show me where, in the Gospel of John, this claim is made?

Very well. *cracks knucles* Look at the very last chapter of John, 21. This is the account of the first time Jesus returns to visit Peter after his resurrection. Jesus pulls Peter aside from the others to discuss with him. However, in verse 20:

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Now, it is not disputed that in the early centuries it was customary to leave "signatures" within one's writing to attest witness to certain events, yet not mention their name. This is one such case. "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?" We know in this case, it is John the Beloved that the passage is referring to, as we can see if we go back to John 13, which says this:

One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.
Joh 13:24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."
Joh 13:25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?"

Now it isn't disputed as to who the one "whom Jesus loved" is, as Jesus himself has called John "beloved" on more than one occassion. But this is twice in the same book that it eludes to mentioning John's name, yet makes it so blatant as to who it is that the passage is referring to. Why would that be? Well, as we already know, authors back in the Greco-Mediterranean culture elude to themselves in their own writings as a testament of "I was here, look at me! I'm a witness!" in the oh so subtlest of ways.

But we're not done with John 21 just yet. We wonder why there are two endings to the book of John, as it could have ended at John 20 quite well. Many scholars and theologians agree that this is in fact an addendum by the same hand. Almost a "Oh! Wait! I forgot!". Historically, the church around the time around the writing of the Book of John (circa AD 90) knew of a rumor about the disciple of John. The rumor was centered around Jesus' testament about John to Peter, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" Some believed this to mean that Jesus would most certainly return before John died (and, let's face it, the man was getting pretty old come the turn of the AD 90's--most surely he is coming soon! Woohoo!). So John wrote this in to dispel that rumor, setting them straight.

There is a lot of reason to believe that the Apostle John did NOT write the "Gospel" accounted to him... not least the fact that the Gospel of John is the ONLY one of the four Canonical Gospels with fairly clear 'Gnostic' leanings.

This is because it's considered "non-synoptic", which no one disputes. The purpose of the Book of John was to fill in on what the other three missed. Mark, the first of the four, wrote to the early church outside of Palestine (a Jewish majority), so his recalling was specified to that of Jewish leanings. Luke, the second, focused on the Gentile audience in the days of the early church spread, so his stories were written in such a way that Gentiles could understand them. This meant a lot of the Jewish law and connections were either omitted or hinted at, rather than fully displayed. It would have been a turn off to his audience had he not done so. Matthew wrote to the Jewish audience of after the fall of Jerusalem and their temple. They were disheartened so he focused on the side of Jesus being the Messiah of Israel.

John looked at all three and noticed that they were missing the details. Sure they got all of the great miracles and His entire lifespan, but what about the intimate Jesus? What about the rest of the parables they left out? He'd better do something about that to let everyone know. Disciples were running out quick, what with all of the beheadings and martyrdoms. So he did. His audience was the entire empire-wide later church. Not just Jews, not just Gentiles, but the entire church. And since the first three already include many of Jesus' main life stories, why just repeat what the rest of them have already said?

So he filled us in on what hadn't been said. This included the genealogy of the Word (showing us that Jesus was more than just the son of Abraham and the song of Adam, but the very spoken Word of God), the accounts of all three trips to Jerusalem, rather than the last, which the others made so clear to mention, and, of course, the main theme of John: Jesus is the I AM, the Word of the Father. Which leads us into your next quote.

The Gospel of John is the ONLY Gospel that claims Jesus used the title for himself "I am". It also misses any discussion of Satan, anything about 'endtimes', anything about the exorcisms... it fails to have any apocalyptic teachings, it fails to have any 'ethical' teachings and it fails to account for the Sermon on the Mount. The Gospel of John is the only Gospel where Jesus eats a Passover meal... and Jesus dies on a different day in John's Gospel to all three of the others.
The first isn't true. Lookie:

Luk 22:67 "If you are the Christ,[4]" they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me,
Luk 22:68 and if I asked you, you would not answer.
Luk 22:69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
Luk 22:70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

And

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"
Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[5] the Son of God."
Mat 26:64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

And

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"
Mar 14:61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[6] the Son of the Blessed One?"
Mar 14:62 "I am," said Jesus.
Now, if you look at the last one, Mark, the Greek for his bolded statement is "εγω ειμι" or "Ego Eimi". This is the same statement made by God to Moses at the burning bush, which translates into Hebrew "YHVH", the unspoken name of God. Why do you think all of the Sanhedrin went ballistic after that? It's because he spoke the name of God, which is blasphemy in Jewish tradition. Not only this, but he spoke the name of God as his own. It wasn't contested by the disciples and the early church that His "εγω ειμι" was a clear admittance to godhood. So why would it be a surprise to you that John would write about it?

Because John wrote more stories and speeches made by Jesus, there would be more "I AM" statements included. This is a surprise? Notice that all of his "I AM" statements are made following a sign or a parable (notice that I don't say miracle, as John didn't use the word miracle, yet another example to make it stand out from the other three). After feeding the five-thousand (chapter 6) he claims "I AM the bread of life." After healing the blind man (ch. 8) he says "I AM the light of the world." After the parable of the lost sheep, he says both "I AM the gate for the sheep," and "I AM the good shepard." Shall I go on? I think you may have gotten it.

And I think I already explained to you why much of what was written in the previous gospels was omitted. ;)

The Gospel of John is also, by far, the most anti-Semitic Gospel.
WTF? Anti-semitic? More truthful, maybe. But he was in no way anti-Semitic, considering that he was a Jew himself. He exposed more of the corruption within the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees. All of them show it, he just expanded on it. So it's not like he brought something new to the table. Even the Jews of the early church recognized the corruption within the Pharisees. They were power-hungry and perverted the Law to fit their needs. In fact, they made the Law their idol, as Jesus enjoys poking them about with.

The Gospel of John ALSO contains material validated nowhere else in the canon, but verified in Apocryphal writings... such as the 'farewell discourses'.
As I already stated, he wanted to show a more personal side of Jesus, of which the other three didn't. As for where it's verified...does it matter? Aprocryphal books may not be canonical, but that doesn't mean they don't hide bits of truth in them either. And just because the first three don't verify something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Even the early church saw difference in the Gospel of John - which is why, as early as 200 AD, the church had dubbed John's Gospel "the Spiritual Gospel"... to differentiate between John and the other Canonical Gospels. John's Gospel claims more than just inspiration... it claims the knowledge of 'god'... in as much as it retells the Genesis story. Obviously, this claims more 'authority' than a mere Apostle might have had.[quote]
Different audience, different story. There's no doubt in my mind that all of the apostles knew exactly who Jesus was. But in their recallings of his life, they spoke to different audiences. Matthew's genealogy traced him back to Abraham for the Jews, as the Jews looked up to Abraham as their respected "father", and his take on who Jesus was was that He is the Messiah of Israel (and for an audience of Jews, this shouldn't be surprising). Luke's genealogy traced him back to Adam, as his audience was to the Gentiles, who could care less about Abraham. It showed the connection between Jesus and the Gentiles, and his take on who Jesus was was that he is the Savior of the World. Mark didn't have a genealogy, but all throughout his book you see people figure out who Jesus is, then Jesus turns around and tells them not to tell anyone. His take is that Jesus is the son of God.

John, as already mentioned, traced Jesus back all the way to being the Word of the Father, the maker of all things in Heaven and Earth. As his audience was to both Jew and Gentile, this made sense, as it was a unifying statement: Everything is connected to Jesus. His main take was that Jesus is he eternal Word of God, and the Son of the Father.

His was indeed the "Spiritual Gospel", as it revealed more of Christ's divinity. That, to me, isn't a problem. That, to the early church, wasn't a problem either. They didn't contest who it was written from.

As for claiming authority? They all claimed authority. To their respected audiences. And, for both our sakes, I won't repeat what they are.

[quote=Grave_n_idle]There are other reasons to doubt the validity of John the Apostle, as author of the story. Not least, is the fact that his testimony makes Jesus' ministry a three-year jaunt, with three separate journeys to Jerusalem... while each of the other Gospels has him visiting only one time.. in a ministry on Earth of about a year.
As to where you get their interpretations to being a year, I don't know. But yes, John does include the three trips to Jerusalem. This is because his expected audience was more focused at and around Jerusalem and Judea; a more southern focus. It wasn't crucial to the other three's audiences that they knew of three trips to Jerusalem. It probably wouldn't have held them captive. But since John's audience started in Jerusalem, he thought that maybe they'd like to know.

Also - Acts tells us that the John of the Apostles was an illiterate... and yet, the Gospel of John is written in fairly good Greek... possibly with some Aramaic.
Uh. Scribes, anyone? That wasn't an uncommon practice for anyone. Even Paul, who is self-acclaimed literate and even wrote by his own had on some occassions, had a scribe for most of his letters. Not uncommon at all.

Indeed - the most logical assessment of the Gospel of John, is that it was added after the founding of the Church, in order to cement the new church belief in Jesus-as-God, which is never as explicitly stated in the synoptic texts.

There is almost damning evidence to this effect, in the discourses of the early church: Dionysius of Alexandria, for example, in writings in the mid-200's AD, refers to the Gospel of John. Heracleon commented on John's Gospel in around 160 AD. However, Papias (who died in about AD 130) failed to mention the Gospel of John, although he does refer to the letters of John.

I could go on....

Need I requote the three times in the previous gospels where Jesus attests to who He is? Look in Mark specifically, who depicts on more than one occassion Jesus telling those who found out to be silent about it.

Papias' records had nothing to do with John's attestments. He mentioned Matthew the most, with some of Mark. He didn't mention Luke either, by the way. Does that make Luke's gospel invalid also?

Yeah, after taking a full semester a class solely devoted to the gospels, I think I feel confident in what I just said. :)

I don't have the knowledge to disagree with you.
But honestly I can't find evidence to that. I will admit what I learned on this subject is well over 12 years old. But I would hope I was not deaf to new discoveries since that time. Can you direct me in the right direction for a refresher?


Regards,

JMayo

Well, off the top of my head, I find sites like: http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm quite useful... although this particular one seems pretty adamant about a 1300-1400 BC era.

:eek:

I'm gone for awhile and I come back to find this thread has grown quite a bit, and nicely done too, surprise, surprise. JMayo, Grave_n_idle and Romanore (and others), nicely done :D Good stuff!

If you use the admoniations mentioned in Levitcus to condemn homosexuality then you must also condemn football players, or women where clothes made with two types of thread, or burn the houses of those who have skin desease, etc.

Sorry for the long length, but you asked for it. ;)


It's all good - I'd rather have a decent attempt at a response, rather than some healf-hearted attempt by someone to brush it off with 'because God said so'... or some similar.


Very well. *cracks knucles* Look at the very last chapter of John, 21. This is the account of the first time Jesus returns to visit Peter after his resurrection. Jesus pulls Peter aside from the others to discuss with him. However, in verse 20:

Now, it is not disputed that in the early centuries it was customary to leave "signatures" within one's writing to attest witness to certain events, yet not mention their name.


It is not disputed? However, most people DID attest to who they were, did they not? After all, how can one attest to one's validity as a witness, if one never proves one was a witness?

Surely, just as valid an interpretation is... it wasn't John who wrote it?

In fact - since it says John NOWHERE in the text... are we not basing ALL of our assumptions of John-as-author... on the fact that that is the name written on the book, so to speak?

This is one such case. "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?" We know in this case, it is John the Beloved that the passage is referring to, as we can see if we go back to John 13, which says this:


No - we don't know that. You can surmise that all mentions of the disciple Jesus loved MIGHT mean the same disciple (although that is not certain... and, in fact, apocryphal texts would paint a VERY different picture of who that 'beloved' might be)... and you can ASSUME that the 'disciple Jesus loved', and references to 'beloved' mean the same person.

However, none of that is EXPLICIT. In order to come to either conclusion, you have to extrapolate from what IS in the text.


Now it isn't disputed as to who the one "whom Jesus loved" is, as Jesus himself has called John "beloved" on more than one occassion.


Not true - for the reasons I just cited.

But this is twice in the same book that it eludes to mentioning John's name, yet makes it so blatant as to who it is that the passage is referring to. Why would that be? Well, as we already know, authors back in the Greco-Mediterranean culture elude to themselves in their own writings as a testament of "I was here, look at me! I'm a witness!" in the oh so subtlest of ways.


It doesn't mention Johns' name, does it. For all your talk of allusion, it never actually NAMES him, does it?


But we're not done with John 21 just yet. We wonder why there are two endings to the book of John, as it could have ended at John 20 quite well.


Because the latter church realised that the John account was contradictory, and added another little bit on, to cover their mistakes?


Many scholars and theologians agree that this is in fact an addendum by the same hand. Almost a "Oh! Wait! I forgot!". Historically, the church around the time around the writing of the Book of John (circa AD 90) knew of a rumor about the disciple of John. The rumor was centered around Jesus' testament about John to Peter, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" Some believed this to mean that Jesus would most certainly return before John died (and, let's face it, the man was getting pretty old come the turn of the AD 90's--most surely he is coming soon! Woohoo!). So John wrote this in to dispel that rumor, setting them straight.


Many believe this conflict has yet to be answered. Many believe that the church wrote the John Gospel AND/OR the addendum part.

In fact -the whole "Historically, the church around the time around the writing of the Book of John (circa AD 90) knew of a rumor about the disciple of John"... part of your response is PURE speculation. The Gospel has yet to be mentioned at that point.. so where is your evidence?


This is because it's considered "non-synoptic", which no one disputes. The purpose of the Book of John was to fill in on what the other three missed.


Yes - the fact that the latter church had decided to worship Jesus as God - removing all traces of his family and humanity. In order that this be supportable, scripturally, it is necessary that a Gospel state such EXPLICITLY... and voila, coincidentally, a 'gospel of John' mysteriously turns up... one that HASN'T previously been mentioned by chuch scholars, even though OTHER johannite writings HAD been mentioned.


Mark, the first of the four, wrote to the early church outside of Palestine (a Jewish majority), so his recalling was specified to that of Jewish leanings. Luke, the second, focused on the Gentile audience in the days of the early church spread, so his stories were written in such a way that Gentiles could understand them. This meant a lot of the Jewish law and connections were either omitted or hinted at, rather than fully displayed. It would have been a turn off to his audience had he not done so. Matthew wrote to the Jewish audience of after the fall of Jerusalem and their temple. They were disheartened so he focused on the side of Jesus being the Messiah of Israel.


Of course, Matthew and Luke are almost certainly different accounts from the same "Q" text, and Mark seems to bear it's prints, also. So - the other three Gospels all share an earlier (almost canonical) inspiration.


John looked at all three and noticed that they were missing the details. Sure they got all of the great miracles and His entire lifespan, but what about the intimate Jesus? What about the rest of the parables they left out? He'd better do something about that to let everyone know. Disciples were running out quick, what with all of the beheadings and martyrdoms. So he did. His audience was the entire empire-wide later church. Not just Jews, not just Gentiles, but the entire church. And since the first three already include many of Jesus' main life stories, why just repeat what the rest of them have already said?

So he filled us in on what hadn't been said. This included the genealogy of the Word (showing us that Jesus was more than just the son of Abraham and the song of Adam, but the very spoken Word of God), the accounts of all three trips to Jerusalem, rather than the last, which the others made so clear to mention, and, of course, the main theme of John: Jesus is the I AM, the Word of the Father. Which leads us into your next quote.

The first isn't true. Lookie:


First - you conflict yourself... later you say John was writing for a Jerusalemite audience... hence the repeat mention of Jerusalem. Now, you claim his audience is the entire world.

Second - you must see that, the fact that John does not corroborate so much, and is uncorroborated on so much - MUST introduce doubt into the reading of this ONE scripture, above all others? You say it doesn't need to duplicate... and that is fine, IF you are willing to blindly accept a source with no basis and no corroboration.

Third - The John account actually contradicts other accounts - such as the actual chronology of events... or who went where. If the account cannot be corroborated, AND conflicts other MORE-corroborated accounts... the least defended MUST be considered suspect.


Now, if you look at the last one, Mark, the Greek for his bolded statement is "εγω ειμι" or "Ego Eimi". This is the same statement made by God to Moses at the burning bush, which translates into Hebrew "YHVH", the unspoken name of God. Why do you think all of the Sanhedrin went ballistic after that? It's because he spoke the name of God, which is blasphemy in Jewish tradition. Not only this, but he spoke the name of God as his own. It wasn't contested by the disciples and the early church that His "εγω ειμι" was a clear admittance to godhood. So why would it be a surprise to you that John would write about it?


I disagree. Mark cites Jesus as saying, basically... I am (or, alternatively, "I... I am"). That doesn't equate directly to the Hayah Hayah of the Old Testament... in fact, such a direct parallel would be hard to make in the translation between Hebrew and Greek (and back again). It would be even harder to PROVE that this was what upset the Sanhedrin... especially since the comments made would be sufficient incrimination without reading 'extra godiness' into it.

"It wasn't contested by the disciples and the early church"... again - you speculate. You provide NO evidence for a lack of speculation... indeed, such a thing would be hard to prove... and you make an assumption based on what you THINK the early church might have believed.

Considering the time in which Jesus lived - and the closeness of extended families, and the time in which the Gospels were written (a time of persecution, and people being forced to give up their biological families to join the 'family of god') - it is no surprise that Jesus' mortality has been largely overlooked, and his godhood expanded... it would CERTAINLY be no surprise that records of dissent are not held in the canonical scripture.


Because John wrote more stories and speeches made by Jesus, there would be more "I AM" statements included. This is a surprise? Notice that all of his "I AM" statements are made following a sign or a parable (notice that I don't say miracle, as John didn't use the word miracle, yet another example to make it stand out from the other three). After feeding the five-thousand (chapter 6) he claims "I AM the bread of life." After healing the blind man (ch. 8) he says "I AM the light of the world." After the parable of the lost sheep, he says both "I AM the gate for the sheep," and "I AM the good shepard." Shall I go on? I think you may have gotten it.

And I think I already explained to you why much of what was written in the previous gospels was omitted. ;)


To me - the 'sign' or parable, followed by the "I AM" seems like a device.... an artistic mechanism. The Jesus revealed in the other scriptures was above such petty showmanship.


WTF? Anti-semitic? More truthful, maybe. But he was in no way anti-Semitic, considering that he was a Jew himself. He exposed more of the corruption within the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees. All of them show it, he just expanded on it. So it's not like he brought something new to the table. Even the Jews of the early church recognized the corruption within the Pharisees. They were power-hungry and perverted the Law to fit their needs. In fact, they made the Law their idol, as Jesus enjoys poking them about with.


You are right... how could the 'real' John be anti-Semitic... and yet, this 'author' speaks dismissively of the Jews... in fact, his very phrasing of 'the Jews' is significant.


As I already stated, he wanted to show a more personal side of Jesus, of which the other three didn't. As for where it's verified...does it matter? Aprocryphal books may not be canonical, but that doesn't mean they don't hide bits of truth in them either. And just because the first three don't verify something doesn't mean it didn't happen.


On the other hand... just because ONE source says it happened, doesn't mean it does... yes?

And, regarding the apocrypha... not a problem for me... but certainly a problem for anyone who wants to deny Jesus' special relationship with Mary...


Different audience, different story. There's no doubt in my mind that all of the apostles knew exactly who Jesus was. But in their recallings of his life, they spoke to different audiences. Matthew's genealogy traced him back to Abraham for the Jews, as the Jews looked up to Abraham as their respected "father", and his take on who Jesus was was that He is the Messiah of Israel (and for an audience of Jews, this shouldn't be surprising). Luke's genealogy traced him back to Adam, as his audience was to the Gentiles, who could care less about Abraham. It showed the connection between Jesus and the Gentiles, and his take on who Jesus was was that he is the Savior of the World. Mark didn't have a genealogy, but all throughout his book you see people figure out who Jesus is, then Jesus turns around and tells them not to tell anyone. His take is that Jesus is the son of God.


I deny you the authority to tell me what Mark believed... if he even was the author of the scripture attributed to him.

Also - The disciples DID know who Jesus was... they travelled the land in the company of members of his very own biological family. It is the latter day followers who do NOT know... and have had to base ALL of their understanding on a collection of scribblings.


John, as already mentioned, traced Jesus back all the way to being the Word of the Father, the maker of all things in Heaven and Earth. As his audience was to both Jew and Gentile, this made sense, as it was a unifying statement: Everything is connected to Jesus. His main take was that Jesus is he eternal Word of God, and the Son of the Father.


Not a surprising view - if the text was written AFTER the formation of the early church, as a device BY THE CHURCH, to unify belief around the unbelievable... i.e. that the Christ was ALSO 'god' incarnate.


His was indeed the "Spiritual Gospel", as it revealed more of Christ's divinity. That, to me, isn't a problem. That, to the early church, wasn't a problem either. They didn't contest who it was written from.


There is no evidence that the 'early' church even SAW the Gospel of John. The later church, that followed the 'godman' version of Jesus, OBVIOUSLY would not contest a scripture that supported such views.

Also - it being something of the order of AT LEAST half a century, between the alleged death of Jesus, and the writing of the John Gospel... OF COURSE the church couldn't contest it.... how many of them had had first hand acquaintance with John 50 years earlier?


As to where you get their interpretations to being a year, I don't know. But yes, John does include the three trips to Jerusalem. This is because his expected audience was more focused at and around Jerusalem and Judea; a more southern focus. It wasn't crucial to the other three's audiences that they knew of three trips to Jerusalem. It probably wouldn't have held them captive. But since John's audience started in Jerusalem, he thought that maybe they'd like to know.


I don't buy it. It conflicts with your earlier assertion, and it's... well, it's just kind of... twee.


Uh. Scribes, anyone? That wasn't an uncommon practice for anyone. Even Paul, who is self-acclaimed literate and even wrote by his own had on some occassions, had a scribe for most of his letters. Not uncommon at all.


And yet, the 'scribe' DOES allow for broken Aramaic... it seems more likely that the 'scribe' is far removed from John, and is trying to construct an account from disparate sources.


Need I requote the three times in the previous gospels where Jesus attests to who He is? Look in Mark specifically, who depicts on more than one occassion Jesus telling those who found out to be silent about it.


Exactly. And yet, you don't see it...


Papias' records had nothing to do with John's attestments. He mentioned Matthew the most, with some of Mark. He didn't mention Luke either, by the way. Does that make Luke's gospel invalid also?


If one mentions Matthew, one hardly needs to mention Luke... the two scriptures being basically the offspring of the same earlier text.

However, when history DOES mention the writings of John (letters, at least), but fails to mention a Gospel... it is a little more suspect.


Yeah, after taking a full semester a class solely devoted to the gospels, I think I feel confident in what I just said. :)

Feel confident, all you like. It won't bear one iota more of evidence.

:eek:

I'm gone for awhile and I come back to find this thread has grown quite a bit, and nicely done too, surprise, surprise. JMayo, Grave_n_idle and Romanore (and others), nicely done :D Good stuff!

Glad you are enjoying it. :D

Of course, Matthew and Luke are almost certainly different accounts from the same "Q" text, and Mark seems to bear it's prints, also. So - the other three Gospels all share an earlier (almost canonical) inspiration.

hey grave, ever heard of a book called "Gospel Parallels"? Its a great book because it divides the gospels in columns next to each other so that you can see the similaries and differences of the texts. its amazing to see the same stories in the gospels that add, omit and completely change some parts of the passages. you can also see what sources each gospels may be using, like the "Q" source. if you ever get the chance to check it out i would recommend it.

:eek:

I'm gone for awhile and I come back to find this thread has grown quite a bit

That does tend to happen when you leave threads.

Well, off the top of my head, I find sites like: http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm quite useful... although this particular one seems pretty adamant about a 1300-1400 BC era.

as i was reading this, i was thinking to myself, this sounds so familiar. this page is what i read on a different website: http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html

as i was reading this, i was thinking to myself, this sounds so familiar. this page is what i read on a different website: http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html

Indeed! The site I had found, was basically just a project, I think... obviously the Phoenicia site is the basis for it. :)

Indeed! The site I had found, was basically just a project, I think... obviously the Phoenicia site is the basis for it. :)

is amazing how much information is shared over the net... :)

hey grave, ever heard of a book called "Gospel Parallels"? Its a great book because it divides the gospels in columns next to each other so that you can see the similaries and differences of the texts. its amazing to see the same stories in the gospels that add, omit and completely change some parts of the passages. you can also see what sources each gospels may be using, like the "Q" source. if you ever get the chance to check it out i would recommend it.

Sounds like an interesting little read - I'll keep my eyes open. I have to admit, my (sometimes flawed) work is mainly from my own direct reading.... and what I remember :)

It'd be nice to have a handy source that summed it all up.

is amazing how much information is shared over the net... :)

Indeed... and we just shared it again... twice. :D

Hard to be sure how accurate that is. If one looks at words in Hebrew, and similar words in Ugaritic, the one often seems to be evolved forms of the other... and yet the chart has Ugaritic off on it's own...

i havnt studied the ugaritic language so i dont know how similar the actual words are with hebrew. from what i know, which is subject to rebuttal, is that phoenician uses the cuneiform of ugaritic, and from what ive read, ugaritic is a close language to phoenician, but hebrew and other languages decend from phoenician, and not ugaritic...

I understand the difference between hating acts and hating people. Fewer practice it than preach it -- which is the reality I was talking about, particularly when they rant about one particular act and not any of the other thousands of alleged sins.

But you are ignoring that homosexuality is not so easily divided into acts versus people. Thus, hating the acts often leads to hating the people to whom such acts are an essential part of who they are.

"often" is not "does"....

There is no necessitation to hate someone for their acts.... And one can (as people do) consider an act a "moral wrong"; without hating the perpetrators of said act.

Murder is a moral wrong, that does not mean I hate murderes....

But to take it further, or rather, to lesser extents [in a manner of how civil law interprets things]; Lust is a moral wrong, that does not mean I hate people who lust.... Promiscuity is a moral wrong, that does not mean I hate the promiscuous....

Your initial statement was, lacking any limitations: "Preaching that the root of someone's very existence -- who they are -- is sinful lead to, if not is, hate and is itself a sin."

Now it's altered to include "often".... As it is an operation "most" people do [I don't consider "most" people, however, as my guage between "right" and "wrong".... "Most" people will do things I consider wrong, morally...]...

And I've already specifically expressed my opposition to the "most people"'s exercizing of these "pet" sins, that they go on about... I don't believe in "pet-sins" where any one is any more particularly "wrong" that others...

Homosexuality is very easy to differentiate between acts and people... "Most people" don't do it....

However, "most" is not "all".... And whether or not "most" do, does not indicate how easy it is to do it.... I find it very easy to differentiate... especially from the fact that here, I have vocalized my belief in homosexuality as sinful (not that it is the only, nor that it is "worse" than any other sin... including what "most" consider "small" sins such as lust, promiscuity, etc...); while I have also, time and tiem again, supported homosexual rights, etc... Nor, that I myself am not a sinner (I most certainly am, as indeed I wish "most" would recognize their own sins)...

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you mean is it up to the person to accept the truth for what it is?

Yes, do you believe that a human being must accept the truth - must accept God and God's guidance, of their own free will - in order to receive salvation?

But to take it further, or rather, to lesser extents [in a manner of how civil law interprets things]; Lust is a moral wrong, that does not mean I hate people who lust.... Promiscuity is a moral wrong, that does not mean I hate the promiscuous....

These are all things you do, not parts of who you are. One can choose not to be promiscuous. One cannot choose not to be attracted to men, or not to be attracted to women - it pretty much just happens one way or the other (or sometimes both ways).

Homosexuality is very easy to differentiate between acts and people... "Most people" don't do it....

Sexuality is not something you do, any more than "blue eyes" is something you do or "intelligence" is something you do. It is a trait of a person - it describes who they are (and are not) attracted to. A homosexual person is attracted exclusively (or almost exlcusively) to members of the same sex. A heterosexual person is the opposite. A bisexual person is attracted to members of both sex. There is no conscious action here - it is all natural attraction.

Saying that homosexuality is a sin is like saying that the menstrual cycle is a sin, or that sweating when you work out is a sin - it simply doesn't make any sense.

Saying that homosexuality is a sin is like saying that the menstrual cycle is a sin, or that sweating when you work out is a sin - it simply doesn't make any sense.

Those things are both biological attractions. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is naturally biological. Moreover it is not homosexuality that is a sin, it is homosexual sex. And there are many examples of homosexual Christians who live lives of celibacy as a result

Those things are both biological attractions. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is naturally biological.

On the contrary, all of the evidence points to physical attraction being both natural and biological. There isn't a shred of evidence that it isn't. Of course, if you would like to tell us when the sexuality fairy visited you and asked you which sex you wished to be attracted to, you can certainly do that. Also please tell us what criteria you used in making this important decision.

Moreover it is not homosexuality that is a sin, it is homosexual sex.

Ok, that is a slightly more defendable position.

And there are many examples of homosexual Christians who live lives of celibacy as a result

Yes, there are. However, if, as you suggest, sexuality is not a result of natural biological processes, why don't those Christians just up and stop being homosexual? Then they wouldn't have to be celibate, right?

Jesus seems to think we can control our own desires. When he said that we have already committed a transgression for just having lust in our hearts."

You have a habit of suggesting that we should abdicate the individual homosexual’s responsibility for their homosexual attraction because it is the same as heterosexual attraction. Well if so, then why should we be relieving them of their burden to control it? Jesus expects everyone equally to control their own desires, he said so when he said if we look upon a women with lust we are already guilty via the lust itself.

I don't know how to stop it (lusting desire and temptation of the flesh etc.,) but we are told to control it. Lust, outside of marriage between a husband and wife, is itself a sin for heterosexuals, why then wouldn't it then also be true for homosexuals? It would be true. They are held to at least the same standards as everyone else, to control our own lusts.

Jesus expects everyone equally to control their own desires, he said so when he said if we look upon a women with lust we are already guilty via the lust itself.

Then you're just as guilty as a homosexual, whenever you see a woman and think to yourself, "hey, she's hot".

So worry about your own sins, and stop haranguing everyone else about theirs.

Jesus seems to think we can control our own desires. When he said that we have already committed a transgression for just having lust in our hearts."

Attraction != Lust

You have a habit of suggesting that we should abdicate the individual homosexual’s responsibility for their homosexual attraction because it is the same as heterosexual attraction.

There is no "responsibility for attraction" anymore than there is a "responsibility for menstruating." It is a natural process that happens no matter what you do.

Well if so, then why should we be relieving them of their burden to control it?

One cannot control one's attractions. One can only control what one does about them.

I don't know how to stop it (lusting desire and temptation of the flesh etc.,) but we are told to control it. Lust, outside of marriage between a husband and wife, is itself a sin for heterosexuals, why then wouldn't it then also be true for homosexuals? It would be true. They are held to at least the same standards as everyone else, to control our own lusts.

You are confusing attraction and lust. They are hardly the same thing.

Of course, it is a little difficult to hold homosexuals to the same standard, when they are told that they can't get married.

Then you're just as guilty as a homosexual, whenever you see a woman and think to yourself, "hey, she's hot".

So worry about your own sins, and stop haranguing everyone else about theirs.


That's what the scripture says isn't it? We ALL have to control our own lusts. We are NOT given loopholes because we are heterosexual, homosexual, married or single, we are all individually responsible and directed to 'cool it,' and control it, we are not at liberty to 'make excuses.'

That's what the scripture says isn't it? We ALL have to control our own lusts. We are NOT given loopholes because we are heterosexual, homosexual, married or single, we are all individually responsible and directed to 'cool it,' and control it, we are not at liberty to 'make excuses.'

I think you're using your attention to our sins as a means to deflect working on your own. Get back to work on your own.

*snip (multiple lust=/=attraction)*

You are confusing attraction and lust. They are hardly the same thing.

Of course, it is a little difficult to hold homosexuals to the same standard, when they are told that they can't get married.


The summary of your point is that Lust =/= Attraction? Or so you suggest.

If so, if your point is correct, then I can be attracted (appreciate the beauty alone etc., without to the desire for sexual copulation/contact) to men or women, animals and trees and all of nature because it is not a desire that calls for an act at all. Attraction without lust is non-sexual. If you are right in calling it that then, being a non-sexual homosexual would be easy. They wouldn’t need to have sex because it would be the appreciation of beauty and God’s design of another persons body without lusting after it. And your second statement then, of them not being allowed to marry each other not being fair etc., would be irrelevant, if lust was not involved.

However, I suggest that your statement is wrong. Attraction does indeed equal lust for the purposes of this debate. Jesus was talking about sexual desire, called lust. Homosexual desire is sexual desire, therefore, it, like heterosexual sexual attraction, is lust. Jesus directed us to control it, to not do it, that it is a transgression.

I think you're using your attention to our sins as a means to deflect working on your own. Get back to work on your own.


We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, lest any man should boast.

But we are told to go out and share the scripture and the Good News.

However, I suggest that your statement is wrong. Attraction does indeed equal lust for the purposes of this debate. Jesus was talking about sexual desire, called lust. Homosexual desire is sexual desire, therefore, it, like heterosexual sexual attraction, is lust. Jesus directed us to control it, to not do it, that it is a transgression.

You are still misunderstanding me.

I can be sexually attracted to someone, without the desire or intent to have sex with them. This is pretty much how romantic relationships - of any sort - begin. I find some of my male friends (and even some of my female friends) sexually attractive. Should there be a deeper relationship between us, I might find myself wanting to have sex with them. But that relationship is not there, so I don't.

Lust is a desire and intent to actually have sex with someone, not simply a sexual attraction towards them. Looking at someone and thinking that they are hot is not lust - it is attraction. Looking at somenoe and thinking, "Damn, I'd like to have hot monkey-sex with them tonight," is lust.

Now, I won't lie and say I have never felt lust - but it is something that you can control much more so than attraction. You do this by setting boundaries for when you will and will not have sex. For some, those boundaries are after they are married in a church. For others, marriage is simply a lifetime committment to another person (something more backed up Biblically, I think, than "You have to go to church and get some priest to marry you"). For some, sex is sex and there is no line in the relationship that first must be met, except for perhaps knowing the other person's name.

Because I have set my line at my concept of marriage - ie. a lifetime committment to another - I do not desire to have sex with random guy 001 I see on the street, no matter how sexually attractive I may find him. Thus, I do not lust after him.

We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, lest any man should boast.

But we are told to go out and share the scripture and the Good News.

Stop boasting then. I, at least, have already had the Good News.

Stop boasting then. I, at least, have already had the Good News.

I'm certainly not boasting. I've made no claims of being any better than anyone else.

As Christians we are to strive to try and control our desires, to stop our shortcomings as much as possible, to desire evermore to improve ourselves to become more perfect in Christ’s love, even as we know we will fail as long as we are still in the flesh. However, neither are we to make excuses for ourselves by blaming our flesh, we are not to Sin and accept it, nor pretend that we do not commit transgressions so that we can continue in them while we yet live. We have been directed to do otherwise.

We do too much of trying to make excuses for our shortcomings and absolving with a wave of our hand a dismissal of our transgressions, heterosexuals and homosexuals, as human beings in Christ, we are told to do better.

You are still misunderstanding me.

Nah, I understand, I just don't always agree. Most of this post I agree with, how we act upon it after agreeing is the difference here though.

I can be sexually attracted to someone, without the desire or intent to have sex with them. This is pretty much how romantic relationships - of any sort - begin. I find some of my male friends (and even some of my female friends) sexually attractive. Should there be a deeper relationship between us, I might find myself wanting to have sex with them. But that relationship is not there, so I don't.

As you are supposed to. I agree. We do it, we are to continually remember it and resist it actively, not just casually accept it and dismiss it. (I'm sure you know that, I'm posting that for clarity of all the readers though)

Lust is a desire and intent to actually have sex with someone, not simply a sexual attraction towards them. Looking at someone and thinking that they are hot is not lust - it is attraction. Looking at someone and thinking, "Damn, I'd like to have hot monkey-sex with them tonight," is lust.

Sexual attraction is when the lust starts. It needs to be controlled at the first level and stopped then, if it gets to the second level, even by casual day-dreaming, the transgression may occur. I don't think Jesus meant 'Intent' to try, I think he meant 'desire or wish one could' even though you won't...

Now, I won't lie and say I have never felt lust - but it is something that you can control much more so than attraction. You do this by setting boundaries for when you will and will not have sex. For some, those boundaries are after they are married in a church. For others, marriage is simply a lifetime committment to another person (something more backed up Biblically, I think, than "You have to go to church and get some priest to marry you"). For some, sex is sex and there is no line in the relationship that first must be met, except for perhaps knowing the other person's name.

I agree with the boundaries. That seems to be the only possible way to do it, or else someone else has had more of an epiphany that I have, yet. But the other stuff, the Christian is not to participate in the anyone with a name stuff (as I'm sure you agree, you've said as much). The middle part I saved for last. I will not rebuke the unmarried in court, married in spirit, but I will not condone either. There is no 'real' reason to not get married. You know you should, I know you should, you should just do it. It would be 'more' right, even if the other is not 'wrong' the appearance of impropriety can be detrimental to the viewer (you might harm someone else’s faith who does not understand as well). As a Christian, take a deep breath, resolve, and get married. If you cannot, perhaps you should not be living together?


Because I have set my line at my concept of marriage - ie. a lifetime committment to another - I do not desire to have sex with random guy 001 I see on the street, no matter how sexually attractive I may find him. Thus, I do not lust after him.

/agreed

We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, lest any man should boast.

But we are told to go out and share the scripture and the Good News.
Then you have absolutely no justification for bitching about the response it generates when you have the ability to stop .


And you wonder why people pick on Christians. When your very core doctrine causes you to be in a position to push your faith (not saying force ) on others it causes an annoyance factor

You reap what you sow

If everything is God's will then is it not God's will that some people are homosexual? If they deny what they are they are breaking God's will. If they embrace what they are then they are saved. And all those people who are busy being bigots have damned themselves because they forgot one key piece. Everything is God's will.

If everything is God's ...

You can end that thought process right there. Everything is NOT God's will, thus the rest of the thought exercise is moot because the original premise is in error.

Then you have absolutely no justification for bitching about the response it generates when you have the ability to stop .


And you wonder why people pick on Christians. When your very core doctrine causes you to be in a position to push your faith (not saying force ) on others it causes an annoyance factor

You reap what you sow

*Hands UpwardThrust a catcher's mitt*

Perhaps next time you can catch a clue and figure out what game we are playing before you start posting. I have NO idea what you are even talking about, perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

This is a 'Christian Interpretation Thread' on the topic isn't it? I'm talking about the Christian aspect of it, how and when was I bitching about the response I get? When was I mad about how people are angry at my words? I'm not even surprised by it actually, they don't like it but doesn't mean it's not scriptural.

Well, off the top of my head, I find sites like: http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm quite useful... although this particular one seems pretty adamant about a 1300-1400 BC era.

Thank you very much for the info. 34 years since College. But never to late to learn.

Regards,

JMayo

Jesus seems to think we can control our own desires. When he said that we have already committed a transgression for just having lust in our hearts."

You have a habit of suggesting that we should abdicate the individual homosexual’s responsibility for their homosexual attraction because it is the same as heterosexual attraction. Well if so, then why should we be relieving them of their burden to control it? Jesus expects everyone equally to control their own desires, he said so when he said if we look upon a women with lust we are already guilty via the lust itself.

I don't know how to stop it (lusting desire and temptation of the flesh etc.,) but we are told to control it. Lust, outside of marriage between a husband and wife, is itself a sin for heterosexuals, why then wouldn't it then also be true for homosexuals? It would be true. They are held to at least the same standards as everyone else, to control our own lusts.

I'm just thinking here... didn't Jesus say that those were truly blessed, who had been castrated? Or words to that effect...

In fact, didn't he say something along the lines of how we should be castrated, for preference?

Jesus understood the flesh. He understood the hunger of the flesh... and that it was pretty much beyond the person to combat it.

I'm also thinking about the Pauline admonition to marry if you are horny... which hardly sounds like a good reason to marry to today's ears... and certainly doesn't sound like the bedrock of a lasting marriage...

The message of the early church COULD be summed up as: if you don't want sex, go you... but if you do, try to be fairly consistent about your partner.

Jesus knew we fall short. Jesus knew we ALL fall short. That's why he asked us to try to be good people. That's why he DIDN'T ask us to be perfect.

You can end that thought process right there. Everything is NOT God's will, thus the rest of the thought exercise is moot because the original premise is in error.

How can you claim to know, better than another, God's will?

I've read the same scripture you have (and more besides, perhaps), and I don't think any man (or woman) has the capacity to say for sure that they can even BEGIN to understand God's will.

Do you not believe that things happen for a reason? Do you not believe that "these things are sent to try us"? Are you claiming that shit happens, basically... and that God has no input?

I don't recall you ever proclaiming to believe in a non-interventionist god before, I wonder why you seem to be doing so now?

Thank you very much for the info. 34 years since College. But never to late to learn.

Regards,

JMayo

Always welcome... although Secluded posted a link to the site my link was copying from... so, if you wanted more depth, that might be the place to look.

It's only about a decade since university, for me, but my 'hunger' to know has just kept on increasing since then...

I'm just thinking here... didn't Jesus say that those were truly blessed, who had been castrated? Or words to that effect...

In fact, didn't he say something along the lines of how we should be castrated, for preference?

Jesus understood the flesh. He understood the hunger of the flesh... and that it was pretty much beyond the person to combat it.

I'm also thinking about the Pauline admonition to marry if you are horny... which hardly sounds like a good reason to marry to today's ears... and certainly doesn't sound like the bedrock of a lasting marriage...

The message of the early church COULD be summed up as: if you don't want sex, go you... but if you do, try to be fairly consistent about your partner.

Jesus knew we fall short. Jesus knew we ALL fall short. That's why he asked us to try to be good people. That's why he DIDN'T ask us to be perfect.

Thanks for posting that. You have an excellent grasp on early Christian history (moreso as a pagan-- if I remember correctly).

That is exactly the point I am dispelling here. People shouldnt hate homosexuals, they should hate homosexual sex. People shouldnt hate thives, they should hate stealing, people shouldnt hate blaphemers, they should hate blasphemey. Belief it is a sin does not constitute hating the commiters of said sin.

That is one of the most intelligent things I have ever heard.:)

Thanks for posting that. You have an excellent grasp on early Christian history (moreso as a pagan-- if I remember correctly).

Why, thank you.

Personally, I prefer the term "Godless Heathen". :)

That is one of the most intelligent things I have ever heard.:)

Thank you.

Why, thank you.

Personally, I prefer the term "Godless Heathen". :)
It definitely has more sex appeal than pagan. Conversely, I find that preferable to atheist as well.

I'll have to drop that casually in conversation sometime. :D

If everything is God's will then is it not God's will that some people are homosexual?

It is debatable if people can "be" homosexual (IE that it is a unchangable fact about their existance)

It is debatable if people can "be" homosexual (IE that it is a unchangable fact about their existance)
Can you change your heterosexuality

by the same logic as you are using people may not be able to "be" heterosexual:rolleyes:

Can you change your heterosexuality

by the same logic as you are using people may not be able to "be" heterosexual:rolleyes:

No one has conclusively proven that being homosexual is a biological fact of a person.

No one has conclusively proven that being homosexual is a biological fact of a person.
Can we use you as a test subject?

No one has conclusively proven that being homosexual is a biological fact of a person.
And that matters how?

I'm just thinking here... didn't Jesus say that those were truly blessed, who had been castrated? Or words to that effect...

In fact, didn't he say something along the lines of how we should be castrated, for preference?

This? Matthew 5 29-30
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Yes, it says what it says. And unlike many people today that think that it doesn’t mean exactly what it says, I do not agree with them. It says and means exactly what it says. But, it has many meanings, and only one of which is the basic ‘cut the flesh off.’

A member of the church that continually sins and brings the congregation down with them needs to be cut out from the body of Christ, like cancer from the body, to make the rest of the body more healthy.

OR Second: if on a personal level we find that our old temptations are too strong for us, that we are too accustomed to our old ways and we cannot change some sort of behavior that we should not be doing (Adultery, Fornication, Drug Addiction, Gambling or Pornography etc.,) then we might have to ‘cut off’ some aspect of our old selves. Quit our jobs, move to another place, get rid of our computer, throw away our friends that don’t assist us to do what is right but keep us in our old ways, etc., then we need to ‘cut off’ what leads us to sin. We need to leave our families of the world if they are not Christians, etc., it is hard, but is better to cut if off and start the healing instead of living with a fatal wound in our lives.

OR Third: Even the ultimate, unlike many others, I think that the critical meaning is taught here as well. If, for example, a thirty year old would be child molesting drug-addict finds that they have suddenly heard the Holy Ghost and for the first time they want to become a Christian but they are having a really hard time controlling their bestial flesh and they fear of what they will do, the scripture speaks for itself. Better that they should mutilate themselves than allow themselve to ever molest a child. Perhaps they should try many, many other things first, but in the end, if all else fails, the scripture says what the scripture says...

Matthew 19:12
"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage* because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

(*Make themselves eunuchs is the proper interpretation.) If they become eunuchs by their own hand with a knife or if they just become celibate with a strong will and leave their bodies alone, it works out the same and they live their best faith for God by not being married a person but to the works of God (they prove this better without the knife I think, consistent will over a decision made only once) but maried to the works of God instead of being distracted by worldly concerns like having a spouse and worldly distractions that come with that...

Jesus understood the flesh. He understood the hunger of the flesh... and that it was pretty much beyond the person to combat it.

It is beyond our ability to be perfect at it, but as he said about a rich person going to heaven, without God’s help, it can’t be done. Without God’s help, we can’t be perfect. As we are in the flesh, we will not succeed, but we can as for the spirit to assist us and we can change the ‘us’ that we don’t like, at the very least, we can control it, with God’s help.

I'm also thinking about the Pauline admonition to marry if you are horny... which hardly sounds like a good reason to marry to today's ears... and certainly doesn't sound like the bedrock of a lasting marriage...

The bedrock of a lasting marriage comes from being devoted to your spouse and meeting their needs before you meet your own needs.

The message of the early church COULD be summed up as: if you don't want sex, go you... but if you do, try to be fairly consistent about your partner.

Close, but no cigar. It says, if you can do without sex, than good, go and word for the Love of Christ, but if you do need sex, then a husband should take a Christian wife (and a woman should take a Christian husband) and get themselves married and each should then become a slave to God first and then a slave to their spouse and children second.”

“Fairly consistent,” isn’t good enough. ;)


Jesus knew we fall short. Jesus knew we ALL fall short. That's why he asked us to try to be good people. That's why he DIDN'T ask us to be perfect.

He didn’t ‘EXPECT’ us to succeed at being perfect. He expects us to spend everyday trying to be perfect, and asking for forgiveness for the things/times that we do not succeed at being perfect. We are not to ever say, “ah, that’s close enough,” and stop trying by saying, “God can just forgive me for the other stuff I’m about to do.”

How can you claim to know, better than another, God's will?

I've read the same scripture you have (and more besides, perhaps), and I don't think any man (or woman) has the capacity to say for sure that they can even BEGIN to understand God's will.

Do you not believe that things happen for a reason? Do you not believe that "these things are sent to try us"? Are you claiming that shit happens, basically... and that God has no input? I don't recall you ever proclaiming to believe in a non-interventionist god before, I wonder why you seem to be doing so now?

I’m saying that God doesn’t want us to wait around for God to intervene before we decide to act to solve a problem ourselves. I’m saying that for all things there is a season (including the acceptance of things we cannot change), but that when we can help, via technology, medicine or good old fashioned hard work, that God expects us to get off our butts and do it.

We are directed to be the helper, not the needy, whenever God puts us in a position that can help.

If a child is born with an irregular heart beat (for example) and the modern day doctor thinks that it can be helped to allow the child survive longer, than the parents would be negligent for not letting the doctors do it.. We cannot take the attitude that we are allowed to sit back and pray really hard and say, “let God’s will be done, he made the child and he controls all things, etc., etc., etc.,” because God’s will was done when He gave them a doctor that could have helped.

The same argument was applied by that short thesis, that people are born the way God wants them to be, therefore it must be a good thing and we should just accept it. Nonsense, we don’t have to disprove an intervening God to argue that we are expected to assist, cure or help everyone we can, birth condition produced by God is irrelevant.

You dont understand

About 40 years ago, homosexuality was considered exceptionally taboo, institutional homophobia was the norm, it was even considered illegal by the national govenrmnets of some countries. Now the climate has completely inverted, and anything less than a postive endorcement of a homosexual lifestyle is considered exceptionally prejudiced. The climate has changed in 40 years quite spectacularly.
So we should go back to forcing homosexuals to stay in the closet lest they be blackballed (I think that's the term) and ostracized, or worse still, jailed? Is that what you're suggesting?

Nobody says one has to be positive about homosexuals in order to not be a homophobe... hell, neutrality won't get you that label either. It's only going about proclaiming how wrong it is that get that sort of label.

You caught it on the head. No, we can't actively choose to believe in God. It's vitrually impossible due to our nature. That job is left to the Holy Spirit. He alone knocks on our hearts, and this is a door that we can only open when it's knocked on. However, this isn't to say that the Spirit picks some over others. That in itself would be unjust. There's not a time in anyone's life, past, present or future, where the Spirit hadn't or will not allow the opportunity for them to know truth.

To make it easier, He even assures that if we but ask for revelation, we will receive it.

At least, this is what Scripture promises.
And reality fails to deliver the promise of the scripture.

Believe me, I've tried, I sinceerely tried. I opened my heart to this lord of yours and -- nothing.

It was actually slightly emotionally traumatic when that happened too. You think this deity could have let me down a little easier, right?

No one has conclusively proven that being homosexual is a biological fact of a person.

The evidence seems to support the fact that we are ALL of something less than 'pure' sexuality... and that it just varies from individual to individual how that manifests itself.

But, there is a fair wealth of evidence that seems to suggest that the STRONGEST argument IS that we are 'born' with our gender orientation largely defined.

I think you missed the point UpwardThrust was making...

Nobody has 'conclusively proved' that being heterosexual is a 'biological fact' of a person, either.

As UT posited... did you CHOOSE to become heterosexual? Or have you always been that way? Either way - can you PROVE it?

I am a lesbian. I work at a hosptial 60+ hours a week. I help in homeless shelters and I donate quite a bit of money to charity. So does that make me a bad person?
Everyone’s a bad person. Face it, you all suck.

See, this is why I love debating with you, Ph33rdom... because, even when we disagree, you actually know what you are talking about... and can back it up.

The specific quote I was looking for was the Matthew 19:12 one, but the Matthew 5 passage is also relevent. :)

This? Matthew 5 29-30
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Yes, it says what it says. And unlike many people today that think that it doesn’t mean exactly what it says, I do not agree with them. It says and means exactly what it says. But, it has many meanings, and only one of which is the basic ‘cut the flesh off.’



I agree with you, by the way... I accept that much of the scripture hits MANY levels, rather than just one visible interpretation... but I think it is missing the point to suggest that whole 'right eye' thing is PURE metaphor.

The way I see it (prepare for another voyage into Grave_n_idle Heresy, perhaps?) - this is a reference to Old Testament values... but, instead of demanding an eye from another, for an injury to oneself... this is about demanding an eye from ONESELF for an 'injury' to oneself.

Ah well... possible bizarre Bible interpretations? You wouldn't believe it was me, ootherwise.... :)


A member of the church that continually sins and brings the congregation down with them needs to be cut out from the body of Christ, like cancer from the body, to make the rest of the body more healthy.

OR Second: if on a personal level we find that our old temptations are too strong for us, that we are too accustomed to our old ways and we cannot change some sort of behavior that we should not be doing (Adultery, Fornication, Drug Addiction, Gambling or Pornography etc.,) then we might have to ‘cut off’ some aspect of our old selves. Quit our jobs, move to another place, get rid of our computer, throw away our friends that don’t assist us to do what is right but keep us in our old ways, etc., then we need to ‘cut off’ what leads us to sin. We need to leave our families of the world if they are not Christians, etc., it is hard, but is better to cut if off and start the healing instead of living with a fatal wound in our lives.

OR Third: Even the ultimate, unlike many others, I think that the critical meaning is taught here as well. If, for example, a thirty year old would be child molesting drug-addict finds that they have suddenly heard the Holy Ghost and for the first time they want to become a Christian but they are having a really hard time controlling their bestial flesh and they fear of what they will do, the scripture speaks for itself. Better that they should mutilate themselves than allow themselve to ever molest a child. Perhaps they should try many, many other things first, but in the end, if all else fails, the scripture says what the scripture says...

Matthew 19:12
"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage* because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

(*Make themselves eunuchs is the proper interpretation.)


Again - right with you on the interpretation - it's straight from the Greek, and there's no real messing with it - it says "Eunouchizo"... it's probably meaning "Eunouchizo", right?


If they become eunuchs by their own hand with a knife or if they just become celibate with a strong will and leave their bodies alone, it works out the same and they live their best faith for God by not being married a person but to the works of God (they prove this better without the knife I think, consistent will over a decision made only once) but maried to the works of God instead of being distracted by worldly concerns like having a spouse and worldly distractions that come with that...


I disagree here, though... I don't think that the 'passive resistence' is an option here.

The way I read it, there are three classifications of Eunuchs that are described: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"...

Those that are born 'castrated', those that are 'castrated' by another (i.e. in slavery), and those that CHOOSE to castrate themselves as a religious devotion... a literal, physical mortification.

I don't think Jesus even suggests 'self-control' here, I think he is very clear about the very REAL castration process, as evidenced by the fear he attaches to the action (in italics) "He that is ABLE to receive it"... which sounds to me, like we are talking about those who are brave (or devoted) enough to physically castrate themselves.


It is beyond our ability to be perfect at it, but as he said about a rich person going to heaven, without God’s help, it can’t be done. Without God’s help, we can’t be perfect. As we are in the flesh, we will not succeed, but we can as for the spirit to assist us and we can change the ‘us’ that we don’t like, at the very least, we can control it, with God’s help.


Hard to be sure here. The Baptists teach that once you are saved, you are always saved... the Catholics teach that you can have your sins absolved through ritual (much like the old Hebrew practise). James taught that the works are important... Paul suggested a purer spirituality, perhaps.

For me - as you may know - the secret is to try to make the world a better place for others, unselfishly... to live a Beatitude life, perhaps... to avoid the sin of Sodom (inhospitability to strangers).

The flesh IS mortal, and it is 'sinful', and it is corrupt. The secret (for me) isn't to change or dominate that... but to accept it, and to try to be better DESPITE it.


The bedrock of a lasting marriage comes from being devoted to your spouse and meeting their needs before you meet your own needs.


I'd be inclined to agree with you.... which is kind of why the whole 'marry or burn' thing rings so hollow for me.


Close, but no cigar. It says, if you can do without sex, than good, go and word for the Love of Christ, but if you do need sex, then a husband should take a Christian wife (and a woman should take a Christian husband) and get themselves married and each should then become a slave to God first and then a slave to their spouse and children second.”

“Fairly consistent,” isn’t good enough. ;)


My version's close enough, I think... I'm simplifying.

Also - my version works for the 'logic' of the situation WITHOUT the spirituality... it works as a valid model for Christian OR non-Christian.


He didn’t ‘EXPECT’ us to succeed at being perfect. He expects us to spend everyday trying to be perfect, and asking for forgiveness for the things/times that we do not succeed at being perfect. We are not to ever say, “ah, that’s close enough,” and stop trying by saying, “God can just forgive me for the other stuff I’m about to do.”


Again... not sure I buy this. I appreciate that we are to strive to be good... but I don't buy the idea that God wants everyone to spend each day trying to 'be perfect'. The Beatitudes are a book of gentle admonitions, certainly far removed from 'striving to be perfect'... and, for me, that's part of the believability of that section. Jesus (or Jesus as God) would realise that we are corrupt flesh... and would give a set of general policies... rather than a set of embedded strictures.

Also - of course... if we never sin, what was the point of the vicarious substitution?


I’m saying that God doesn’t want us to wait around for God to intervene before we decide to act to solve a problem ourselves. I’m saying that for all things there is a season (including the acceptance of things we cannot change), but that when we can help, via technology, medicine or good old fashioned hard work, that God expects us to get off our butts and do it.


And, sex doesn't change. We want. It is human nature. We have to accept the things that we cannot change.

See, this is why I love debating with you, Ph33rdom... because, even when we disagree, you actually know what you are talking about... and can back it up.

Well, once I figured out that you seem to actually believe what you are saying I stopped being angry at you… Whereas previously I thought you were saying goofy claptrap just to piss me off :p

The way I see it (prepare for another voyage into Grave_n_idle Heresy, perhaps?) - this is a reference to Old Testament values... but, instead of demanding an eye from another, for an injury to oneself... this is about demanding an eye from ONESELF for an 'injury' to oneself.

Ah well... possible bizarre Bible interpretations? You wouldn't believe it was me, ootherwise.... :)

I still don’t believe it is you, because this one isn’t all that goofy. Interesting insight actually, I’ll remember and be influenced by this one. Interesting.


The way I read it, there are three classifications of Eunuchs that are described: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"...

Those that are born 'castrated', those that are 'castrated' by another (i.e. in slavery), and those that CHOOSE to castrate themselves as a religious devotion... a literal, physical mortification.

I don't think Jesus even suggests 'self-control' here, I think he is very clear about the very REAL castration process, as evidenced by the fear he attaches to the action (in italics) "He that is ABLE to receive it"... which sounds to me, like we are talking about those who are brave (or devoted) enough to physically castrate themselves.

I still agree with your premise, it’s the same one I used for twenty years. Only recently (recently by comparison, not recently as in ‘yesterday or anything like that) have I come to the realization that non-physical castration would be harder to pull off. Castration would only take a single minute of devotion to the idea of celibacy for life, ‘choosing’ to be a eunuch would require the same devotion every day for the rest of your life… Much harder, IMO. For ‘those that are able to hear, let them hear’ (and as Paul says later) it is better to be unmarried ‘if you can.’

In any event, you and I are not really at odds here by my reckoning.

Hard to be sure here. The Baptists teach that once you are saved, you are always saved... the Catholics teach that you can have your sins absolved through ritual (much like the old Hebrew practise). James taught that the works are important... Paul suggested a purer spirituality, perhaps.

For me - as you may know - the secret is to try to make the world a better place for others, unselfishly... to live a Beatitude life, perhaps... to avoid the sin of Sodom (inhospitability to strangers).

The flesh IS mortal, and it is 'sinful', and it is corrupt. The secret (for me) isn't to change or dominate that... but to accept it, and to try to be better DESPITE it.

Despite it … or In spite of it. We aren’t going to have anything to argue about if you keep this up… :)

I'd be inclined to agree with you.... which is kind of why the whole 'marry or burn' thing rings so hollow for me.

I think ‘burn’ in this case is more than just hell fire, I think it is the ‘burning of lustful desire’ that since the only outlet for sexual tension is via the confines of husband and wife relationships, Paul was pointing out that you are running around ‘lusting in the heart’ even if you are celibate you are failing (as Jesus said in Matthew and we already discussed).

Again... not sure I buy this. I appreciate that we are to strive to be good... but I don't buy the idea that God wants everyone to spend each day trying to 'be perfect'. The Beatitudes are a book of gentle admonitions, certainly far removed from 'striving to be perfect'... and, for me, that's part of the believability of that section. Jesus (or Jesus as God) would realise that we are corrupt flesh... and would give a set of general policies... rather than a set of embedded strictures.

You are right, we are corrupt flesh, and God did/does realize it. He said as much when he talked about Moses allowing divorce because of it and the hardness of our hearts… But when Jesus had come and then would send the Holy Spirit later, that all of the believers afterwards would be better off and more could be expected of them than any who had come before (as he said about John the Baptist being the best of the old and that the believers later would be greater still).

Also - of course... if we never sin, what was the point of the vicarious substitution?

That’s putting the cart before the horse. Only because of the vicarious substitution, as you call it, are we capable if doing better than those that lived before Christ, because now we have God’s constant help as he is now continually inside of us, whereas before the vicarious substitution, it would never have been possible because we were without the Holy Ghost and the temple was not then within us (as it is now).


And, sex doesn't change. We want. It is human nature. We have to accept the things that we cannot change.

Let those who are ‘Able,’ as they say…





*wanders off to consider internal doctrine and ensure that it is still intact and hasn't been corrupted ~ because Gave N Idle sounds rationale and that could be a sign that internal doctrine is damaged* :p :D LOL j/k

I fail to see how the bible can classify it as a sin, since it contravenes none of the legislation imparted to Moses by God.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery". Not much chance of that happening in a gay relatiopnship.
It isn't one of the Ten Commandments, but God did tell Moses that it is a sin in Leviticus. IIRC it was Chapter 20. I'm a Jew and I can tell you over 75% of the Jewish Community including myself honestly don't see anything wrong with it. I'm a Republican who is not against gay marraige. Amazing huh?

Well, once I figured out that you seem to actually believe what you are saying I stopped being angry at you… Whereas previously I thought you were saying goofy claptrap just to piss me off :p

...

*wanders off to consider internal doctrine and ensure that it is still intact and hasn't been corrupted ~ because Gave N Idle sounds rationale and that could be a sign that internal doctrine is damaged* :p :D LOL j/k

I'll be coming back to this. :)

Just... don't have time right now.... :(

Well, once I figured out that you seem to actually believe what you are saying I stopped being angry at you… Whereas previously I thought you were saying goofy claptrap just to piss me off :p


Nope. I say 'goofy claptrap' because I'm a twisted-fire-starter... or something. :)

I just have my own approach to the subject, I guess.


I still don’t believe it is you, because this one isn’t all that goofy. Interesting insight actually, I’ll remember and be influenced by this one. Interesting.


Don't worry - I let the occassional insight through to mask the heresy. :)


I still agree with your premise, it’s the same one I used for twenty years. Only recently (recently by comparison, not recently as in ‘yesterday or anything like that) have I come to the realization that non-physical castration would be harder to pull off. Castration would only take a single minute of devotion to the idea of celibacy for life, ‘choosing’ to be a eunuch would require the same devotion every day for the rest of your life… Much harder, IMO. For ‘those that are able to hear, let them hear’ (and as Paul says later) it is better to be unmarried ‘if you can.’

In any event, you and I are not really at odds here by my reckoning.


I'm inclined to agree with you that 'castration' is 'easier' in a way. However:

1) It does take something of an insane level of devotion to lop off your pride and joy... I still think this is perhaps the greater act of devotion.

2) The 'harder' way isn't always the 'wrong' way... but it isn't always the right one, either... I'm just thinking in terms of salvation, for example. You believe, you are saved... kind of thing.

Baptists THRIVE on the idea of immediate spiritual gestures.


Despite it … or In spite of it. We aren’t going to have anything to argue about if you keep this up… :)


Yeah - sorry about that... maybe I can return you to your normal programming before too long. :)


I think ‘burn’ in this case is more than just hell fire, I think it is the ‘burning of lustful desire’ that since the only outlet for sexual tension is via the confines of husband and wife relationships, Paul was pointing out that you are running around ‘lusting in the heart’ even if you are celibate you are failing (as Jesus said in Matthew and we already discussed).


Oh - I agree.... the 'burn' Paul talks about must be considered MAINLY to be the 'burning of the flesh', if one looks to the context. Although - obviously, as multilevelled as the tet is, it would be folly to assume just ONE interpretation might be valid).



That’s putting the cart before the horse. Only because of the vicarious substitution, as you call it, are we capable if doing better than those that lived before Christ, because now we have God’s constant help as he is now continually inside of us, whereas before the vicarious substitution, it would never have been possible because we were without the Holy Ghost and the temple was not then within us (as it is now).


I'm thinking about this - and it's leading me to another heretical rationale... if the Spirit doesn't move you to resist your lust, then there is no sin to following it...


*wanders off to consider internal doctrine and ensure that it is still intact and hasn't been corrupted ~ because Gave N Idle sounds rationale and that could be a sign that internal doctrine is damaged* :p :D LOL j/k

Don't worry, it is allowable to agree with me occasionally. :)

(No offense taken, my friend).

I'm inclined to agree with you that 'castration' is 'easier' in a way. However:

1) It does take something of an insane level of devotion to lop off your pride and joy... I still think this is perhaps the greater act of devotion.

2) The 'harder' way isn't always the 'wrong' way... but it isn't always the right one, either... I'm just thinking in terms of salvation, for example. You believe, you are saved... kind of thing.

Baptists THRIVE on the idea of immediate spiritual gestures.


Agreed.


Oh - I agree.... the 'burn' Paul talks about must be considered MAINLY to be the 'burning of the flesh', if one looks to the context. Although - obviously, as multilevelled as the tet is, it would be folly to assume just ONE interpretation might be valid).

I try to always assume multiple levels of interpretations, but not be open to 'every' interpretation... (not actually directed at you, it just might seem like it was so).

I'm thinking about this - and it's leading me to another heretical rationale... if the Spirit doesn't move you to resist your lust, then there is no sin to following it...

No because the spirit is liable to 'abandon us' to our self made addiction (sex, drugs etc.,) as Romans 1 21-24 says:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires...

So even when we DO know God, if we insist on sinning anyway, the spirit might stop repeating the same message to us over and over again. If it's written down in the scripture and we dismiss it, for example, and we try to claim that we know 'better' than the scripture does (we might say or thing that we are, 'more modern,' or, 'more accepting,' than the spirit that wrote the scripture, etc.,) then we may be putting ourselves in a position where we have caused our own misunderstanding of the message and the 'way to life.' If we counter the scripture and we don't feel guilty about something we are actively doing, it's probably time to sit down and start praying really hard for the Spirit to not abandon us to our own self made delusions.


Don't worry, it is allowable to agree with me occasionally. :)

(No offense taken, my friend).

;)

No because the spirit is liable to 'abandon us' to our self made addiction (sex, drugs etc.,) as Romans 1 21-24 says:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires...

So even when we DO know God, if we insist on sinning anyway, the spirit might stop repeating the same message to us over and over again.


See, what I get from Romans 1:21-22 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened... Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...", is that it is those who KNOW of God, but deny it, and do not offer prayer and thanks... are liable to be abandoned by the Spirit... left alone BECAUSE of their poor faith, to their own sins.

Whereas, you seem to be reading it backwards (that's how it seems to me)... in that you seem to see it as the Spirit abandoning us BECAUSE of our sins.


If it's written down in the scripture and we dismiss it, for example, and we try to claim that we know 'better' than the scripture does (we might say or thing that we are, 'more modern,' or, 'more accepting,' than the spirit that wrote the scripture, etc.,) then we may be putting ourselves in a position where we have caused our own misunderstanding of the message and the 'way to life.' If we counter the scripture and we don't feel guilty about something we are actively doing, it's probably time to sit down and start praying really hard for the Spirit to not abandon us to our own self made delusions.


And yet, does Jesus not teach discernment? Is that not the core of the Christian message? A personal relationship with God, through Jesus?

Second Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

The WORDS of scripture are unimportant, it is how we see God, THROUGH them, no?

See, what I get from Romans 1:21-22 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened... Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...", is that it is those who KNOW of God, but deny it, and do not offer prayer and thanks... are liable to be abandoned by the Spirit... left alone BECAUSE of their poor faith, to their own sins.

Whereas, you seem to be reading it backwards (that's how it seems to me)... in that you seem to see it as the Spirit abandoning us BECAUSE of our sins.

I agree about it being a grave error to not give thanks to God nor offer our prayers, but that wasn’t what I was referring to here. What I was saying is not so much backwards as not completed, I seem to have quit too soon and I didn’t make it clear.

I do not think that we are left on their own because of our 'sin or sinning,' if that were the case all of us would have been abandoned/discarded by now and unsalvageable... No, I mean to say that I think the flaw being warned about in those verses is in not accepting the Spirit's instructions on whatever we are doing that is a transgression, we might even be ‘arguing’ with the spirit that it is a transgression at all.

If we become accustomed to our sin (pick one, it doesn’t matter what one for this discussion), we become so familiar with it that we live with it every day (etc.,). And the more time we spend with it the less and less we think of it as a sin anymore... but because it IS sin in the scripture we should know better. We have a guide-post in the scripture by which to steer by, but if we ignore the message in the scripture and act like we know better and continue/insist on continuing in that behavior, we will not accept instruction from the spirit anymore (a sin of vanity/pride). THAT then is the moment when the spirit in us "gives us over to our sinful desires."

The transgression we are doing doesn’t become less of a transgression, we just make ourselves deaf to the spirit in that regard (and this is one of the many reasons we need to study the scripture constantly, so that we keep our paths on track AND remember where the track is lest we deceive ourselves (or are deceived, as the case may be).


And yet, does Jesus not teach discernment? Is that not the core of the Christian message? A personal relationship with God, through Jesus?

Second Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

The WORDS of scripture are unimportant, it is how we see God, THROUGH them, no?


Yes, we have discernment, for testing the spirits, etc., and for acting upon the events of our lives as they occur and so that we can know when to do all those things listed in the Timothy 3:16 (good verse) you quoted... But we do not have discernment for the purpose of changing the message nor are we given the right of discernment when the scripture is clear, we are not to change the lessons, nor ignore them. It is true that we are 'free' in Christ, but we are free to do well, not free to continue in our Sins (as if we want to crucify Jesus again and again so that we can intentionally continue to live in sin).

The scripture, is not itself the focus of our worship, but it is the method we use to test the spirits in our lives, there is more than one spirit afterall we are told to test the spirits, it is another reason we were given the scripture, so we need to be careful to not be led astray. The scripture can be misused though, and mis-applied, I know and I agree with that aspect of what you are saying.

I would like to point out the gross mistranslation of the Leviticus quote. People often think that when it says lie it means to sleep with or otherwise engage in sexual activities. Unfortunately this simply is not true. what it's really saying is that guys just shouldn't lie to each other like they do with women. In other words they should be much more honest and open with each other.

If we become accustomed to our sin (pick one, it doesn’t matter what one for this discussion), we become so familiar with it that we live with it every day (etc.,). And the more time we spend with it the less and less we think of it as a sin anymore... but because it IS sin in the scripture we should know better.


But, what if we are not talking about becoming accustomed to sin. What if we are talking about approaching 'sin', fresh, and finding the Spirit not active in us - even though it IS active in us at other times?

Yes - it may mean that we are not following the letter of the scripture (at least, in some translations)... but did Jesus not spend a great deal of time admonishing the Pharisees because they placed TOO much stock in the scripture... and not enough in individual faith and guidance?


Yes, we have discernment, for testing the spirits, etc., and for acting upon the events of our lives as they occur and so that we can know when to do all those things listed in the Timothy 3:16 (good verse) you quoted... But we do not have discernment for the purpose of changing the message nor are we given the right of discernment when the scripture is clear, we are not to change the lessons, nor ignore them. It is true that we are 'free' in Christ, but we are free to do well, not free to continue in our Sins (as if we want to crucify Jesus again and again so that we can intentionally continue to live in sin).


I don't see why we would 're-crucify' Christ.... surely the whole point of the Viacarious Substitution, was the forgiveness of ALL sins, past, present and future?

I would like to point out the gross mistranslation of the Leviticus quote. People often think that when it says lie it means to sleep with or otherwise engage in sexual activities. Unfortunately this simply is not true. what it's really saying is that guys just shouldn't lie to each other like they do with women. In other words they should be much more honest and open with each other.

Actually - the way I read it, it is an admonition for men not to sleep with a menstruating woman, or on her 'bed', at least.... which is certainly in keeping with the rest of Leviticus around it.

There are two things I would like to make clear before this thread begins in earnest. Firstly, this thread is about the CHRISTIAN idea of sin. You cannot therfore argue against it by saying "The Bible is rubbish" becasue we are not discussing the validity of the Bible, that is another thread. Secondly it is not for people to insult the notion of homosexuality as a sin in the Christian mind. You may think its backward, stubbon and close-minded but thats not what the thread is about. This thread is about whether or not it is a sin and the Christian response to homosexuality if it is

To adress the first point, I refer people to the following website

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

I do believe that argues the case for it being a sin very well

Now to the second point. What is the correct Christian response to homosexuality. The answer is simple. With love. Christians should never hate anyone, its that simple. Homophobia is completely unjustified in terms of the Bible. The fact that the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin does not mean that you can hate those people who practise it. You are entitled to hold the view that it is a sin of course, but you are not entitled as a Christian to hate them for it. Jesus told us not to judge. We are not to hate others on the basis of sin, since we all are sinners. Thus we are all the same. So how should a Christian treet a homosexual? In the same way they treet anyone else.

With a greater deal of attention than other sinners (with the exception of abortion seekers)?

Actually - the way I read it, it is an admonition for men not to sleep with a menstruating woman, or on her 'bed', at least.... which is certainly in keeping with the rest of Leviticus around it.

Meh, believe what you want.

No one has conclusively proven that being homosexual is a biological fact of a person.

Nothing in science is "proven", but it can be pretty sure. We have amassed a huge amount of evidence that sexuality is a biological trait of a person (or other animal). Thus far, there is no evidence (other than a few instances of self-diagnosis, which cannot be used in a truly scientific inquiry) that it is otherwise.

Have you thought about the consequences of a statement like this? You do realize that this would mean that no sexuality was a trait of a person - that all human beings would have to be asexual and then make a conscious choice on sexuality?

So, I ask again: Exactly when did the sexuality fairy visit you and ask what sexuality you wanted to be? What criteria did you use to make your choice? At what point did you say, "Wow, that person is hot, but I don't want to be attracted to them anymore, so I'm gonna be teh straight."?

Meh, believe what you want.

Didn't say I 'believed' it, my friend... just that that seems the strongest translation, based on the actual text of the Hebrew, and the surrounding context of Leviticus.

If you have a specific argument against my translation, feel free to air it.

I'm always willing to learn.

Just one thought after wading through 20+ pages on this.

It seems to me that the point many of the protagonists on this thread are missing is the sheer, unadulterated (please pardon the pun) joy of sleeping with someone who wants to sleep with you.
Now I have absolutely no idea what it feels like to want another man, but I know that the idea of not being able to love someone physically and mentally ever again because someone else tells me that it's wrong is about as cruel a prospect as I can imagine.
Given that it appears that the biblical evidence is debatable, wouldn't it be pretty human, and pretty loving, to let other people worry about how they behave in relation to everyone else they meet, and not just in a sexual context? And concentrate on your own life and behaviour rather than those of others?

Just imagine what it would be like to be told that what you are is sinful if you act it out, but if you repress it then it's OK.

This is not flamebait in any way, but isn't it at least possible that this kind of practice is what has the Catholic church in such turmoil today?

Nothing in science is "proven", but it can be pretty sure. We have amassed a huge amount of evidence that sexuality is a biological trait of a person (or other animal). Thus far, there is no evidence (other than a few instances of self-diagnosis, which cannot be used in a truly scientific inquiry) that it is otherwise.

Have you thought about the consequences of a statement like this? You do realize that this would mean that no sexuality was a trait of a person - that all human beings would have to be asexual and then make a conscious choice on sexuality?

So, I ask again: Exactly when did the sexuality fairy visit you and ask what sexuality you wanted to be? What criteria did you use to make your choice? At what point did you say, "Wow, that person is hot, but I don't want to be attracted to them anymore, so I'm gonna be teh straight."?

The research indicates far more that it is a set of biological/genetic factors, further influenced by social and enviromental factors.

The research indicates far more that it is a set of biological/genetic factors, further influenced by social and enviromental factors.

There is pretty much 0 evidence that social factors have much, if anything, to do with it. Psychological studies suggest that sexuality is pretty much set by the time a person reaches the toddlers stage. Studies that have suggested that someone can "change" their sexuality have been badly staged (yes, staged, not studied), and most of their "successes" have come out later that they were simply gay (or bisexual) and trying to force themselves to live otherwise. The range of sexuality has existed throughout human history, both in societies that tolerated it and in societies that did not. The range of sexuality exists in other creatures, most with very different social structures to those of humans.

Now, the rest is simply semantics. Pretty much every biological trait is influenced by a set of biological and environmental (which can be seen as biological themselves) factors.

There is pretty much 0 evidence that social factors have much, if anything, to do with it. Psychological studies suggest that sexuality is pretty much set by the time a person reaches the toddlers stage. Studies that have suggested that someone can "change" their sexuality have been badly staged (yes, staged, not studied), and most of their "successes" have come out later that they were simply gay (or bisexual) and trying to force themselves to live otherwise. The range of sexuality has existed throughout human history, both in societies that tolerated it and in societies that did not. The range of sexuality exists in other creatures, most with very different social structures to those of humans.

Now, the rest is simply semantics. Pretty much every biological trait is influenced by a set of biological and environmental (which can be seen as biological themselves) factors.

I think you overstate the significance of the gender orientation, or you confuse gender identification with sexual orientation, which I do not believe you would do. You surely know the difference so why do you state that sexual orientation is determined at a stage when gender identification is still formalizing? You don’t have a political reason for suggesting that sexual orientation can’t be affected by environmental conditions do you? Because neither the medical field nor the psychological field have made the statement that you have here – that it looks like it’s all determined by 2.

Note that gender development and sexual development are not interchangeable terms. The sexual identity that emerges beyond childhood is very clearly a separate entity from gender identity. Aspects of physical sexual growth, eroticism, and eventual sexuality, although closely related to gender, should not necessarily be used to draw conclusions about a patient's gender definitions.

http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2789.htm
(there are several different types of infant conditions that can cause gender identification problems at that site ~ for those of you that care)

And for those that think otherwise, treatment can help various gender identification problems if diagnosed early enough. And that there are negative results for non-treatment.

Both retrospective and prospective data indicate an unusually high incidence of depression and suicide attempts in adult males who developed a gender identity disorder in childhood and remained untreated. For instance, in a 20-year follow-up of gender-disturbed boys, Zuger (1978) reported that 25% attempted suicide and 6% completed a suicide. The prospective data further indicate that 5% to 12% of untreated boys develop adulthood transsexualism, whereas approximately 1% to 5% develop heterosexual transvestism (Rekers, 2001; Rekers and Kilgus, 1995). Another 64% to 75% of boys whose gender identity disorders are untreated develop homosexual or bisexual orientation during their adolescence (Bailey and Zucker, 1995; Rekers, 2001, 1999). The remaining 6% to 23% develop a heterosexual orientation in adulthood. A small minority of girls who have a gender identity disorder retain a masculine identification, with some also developing a homosexual orientation (Rekers, 2001).

Dr. Rekers is professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the chief psychologist for the child inpatient unit of an affiliated teaching hospital. He is the editor of the Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p011244.html

I think you overstate the significance of the gender orientation, or you confuse gender identification with sexual orientation, which I do not believe you would do.

I'm not confusing anything. Sexuality refers to what genders you are attracted to, not what gender you identify yourself as - that is a separate issue indeed.

You surely know the difference so why do you state that sexual orientation is determined at a stage when gender identification is still formalizing?

One does not need to identify oneself with a particular gender (much of which, as far as gender roles go anyways, may be purely social) in order to have a sexual orientation that will lead you to be attracted to one gender or the other. Most of sexual attraction has to do with physiological responses.

You don’t have a political reason for suggesting that sexual orientation can’t be affected by environmental conditions do you?

I have never suggested any such thing. In fact, if you had bothered to read my post, it stated very clearly that sexuality, like most human traits, is certainly affected by environmental factors.

Because neither the medical field nor the psychological field have made the statement that you have here – that it looks like it’s all determined by 2.

Actually, the papers I was reading put it more like 3, but yes, they have. Do a pubmed search.

Note that gender development and sexual development are not interchangeable terms. The sexual identity that emerges beyond childhood is very clearly a separate entity from gender identity. Aspects of physical sexual growth, eroticism, and eventual sexuality, although closely related to gender, should not necessarily be used to draw conclusions about a patient's gender definitions.

Oh look, exactly what I just said. You are the one trying to confuse gender identity and sexuality here. I have noted them as very separate things.

I dun care about what a book tells me to believe. If you believe in something. TRULY believe in something do you really need a book? Do you really need to go to a building every sunday and listen to someone? If God is all around you, can see what you do every moment of everyday then why does that matter? And if you LOVE someone then does that matter as well? If you truly love someone more than life itself, would do anything for that person, is that not enough.

In the afterlife when I die and I stand before what ever divine being there is and I am judged on my actions. After all the good that I have helped bring, after the lives I helped to save, I go to hell because I chose to LOVE someone of my own gender? That to me makes no sense.

Sexuality refers to what genders you are attracted to, not what gender you identify yourself as - that is a separate issue indeed.

... in order to have a sexual orientation that will lead you to be attracted to one gender or the other.

Actually, the papers I was reading put it more like 3, but yes, they have. Do a pubmed search.


Since you know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identification, then you are simply wrong.

3 year olds do not have sexual attractions, they are incapable of desiring sexual copulation for it's own merits. They can feel the need for love and physical companionship etc., but by your definition of sexual orientation, 3 year olds do not have one. They have gender identification and association issues going on, without the sexuality aspect to it. Time to do your own pre-med research again.

Since you know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identification, then you are simply wrong.

3 year olds do not have sexual attractions, they are incapable of desiring sexual copulation for it's own merits. They can feel the need for love and physical companionship etc., but by your definition of sexual orientation, 3 year olds do not have one. They have gender identification and association issues going on, without the sexuality aspect to it. Time to do your own pre-med research again.

When something develops and when it manifests itself are not the same thing, but then you knew that, no? Unless you're actually suggesting that being molested as young child has no abilty to affect your adult sexual relationships since as a young child you don't have adult sexual relationships.

3 year olds do not have sexual attractions, they are incapable of desiring sexual copulation for it's own merits.

I never said they did. That doesn't mean that the gender that they will be sexually attracted to at puberty isn't already pretty much set, anymore than the color that their pubic hair will grow out at isn't already pretty much set.

I never said they did. That doesn't mean that the gender that they will be sexually attracted to at puberty isn't already pretty much set, anymore than the color that their pubic hair will grow out at isn't already pretty much set.

It can't be. They don't have any, you silly, silly girl.

When something develops and when it manifests itself are not the same thing, but then you knew that, no? Unless you're actually suggesting that being molested as young child has no abilty to affect your adult sexual relationships since as a young child you don't have adult sexual relationships.


You should be talking to Dem., I've stated no opinion about what causes sexual orientation in this thread. Although I do believe predisposition to sexual orientation can be developed or caused by events that occur in the womb, Dem is the one that says orientation is determined by 3, not I.

I never said they did. That doesn't mean that the gender that they will be sexually attracted to at puberty isn't already pretty much set, anymore than the color that their pubic hair will grow out at isn't already pretty much set.


You're the one that goes around saying hair and eye color are not genetic traits but are influenced by nurturing aspects. You seem to have a scientific/agenda to favor your pre-determined outcome. So which is it 3 years olds or puberty? You seem to be changing stances on when we finalized sexual orientation.

You should be talking to Dem., I've stated no opinion about what causes sexual orientation in this thread. Although I do believe predisposition to sexual orientation can be developed or caused by events that occur in the womb, Dem is the one that says orientation is determined by 3, not I.

No, I'm disputing your argument that because it hasn't manifested it hasn't developed. It's a ridiculous argument very much along the lines of the pubic hair analogy she used. So, no, I should not be talking to Dem. I agree with her (for once). And she is very much right that the only person who confused gender identity and sexual identity is you. She was very clear that she was talking about sexuality and your retort to her claims on sexuality was to address gender identity. Now would you like to address the actual point or are you going to continue to avoid it?

You're the one that goes around saying hair and eye color are not genetic traits but are influenced by nurturing aspects. You seem to have a scientific/agenda to favor your pre-determined outcome. So which is it 3 years olds or puberty? You seem to be changing stances on when we finalized sexual orientation.

We're on a forum. Would you care to quote where she changed her stance? I've seen her maintain virtually exactly the same stance since I first saw her on the forum. Support your claims.

We're on a forum. Would you care to quote where she changed her stance? I've seen her maintain virtually exactly the same stance since I first saw her on the forum. Support your claims.


There is pretty much 0 evidence that social factors have much, if anything, to do with it. Psychological studies suggest that sexuality is pretty much set by the time a person reaches the toddlers stage. ...


That's what she said. That is wrong. Social factors ARE environmental factors. There is evidence, I've linked to some already.

That's what she said. That is wrong. Social factors ARE environmental factors. There is evidence, I've linked to some already.

Evironmental does not equal social. You should keep your terms straight. She never said there were no environmental factors only that it is not a choice nor determined significantly by socialization.

That's what she said. That is wrong. Social factors ARE environmental factors. There is evidence, I've linked to some already.
Just to clarify, social factors are one type of environmental factor, but not all environmental factors are social factors.

In other words, all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.

There is pretty much 0 evidence that social factors have much, if anything, to do with it. Psychological studies suggest that sexuality is pretty much set by the time a person reaches the toddlers stage.

I dunno about that. I've seen some monozygotic twin studies that suggest social cues play at least some role. Of course they're not conclusive, since it's goddam hard to separate social cues from all other environmental cues, but still...I don't think we've heard the last word on this subject yet.

You're the one that goes around saying hair and eye color are not genetic traits but are influenced by nurturing aspects. You seem to have a scientific/agenda to favor your pre-determined outcome.

Depends on how you define "nurturing aspects." I don't think a parent saying, "Don't have blonde hair, have brown hair!" changes a child's hair color, nor do I think social suggestions that blonde is better than brown will change a person's hair color. I don't think a parent telling a child how much she loved his blue eyes as a baby will make them change back if they have gone to brown, nor do I think a child with brown eyes is going to will their eyes to turn blue because heroes in movies typically have blue eyes.

However, it is very evident that physical environmental effects certainly do affect both traits. Amount of sun, nutrition, hormone levels, age, stress, etc. (as well as the basic genetic determinants) can all affect the eye and hair color of a person. Then we add in epigentic changes and other factors we may not even have measured yet... Well, biology is rather complicated, now isn't it?

Sexuality seems to be much the same. It doesn't seem to matter how or where a person is raised (ie. social factors). It doesn't seem to matter how accepted homosexuality is (or is not) within a given society. Religion doesn't seem to matter - homosexuals raised in all religions can be found. People have tried very hard to come up with corrolations there, and found none, other than the "No duh," conclusion that homosexuals are more likely to be open about their sexuality in societies in which it is more accepted.

The things that do seem to matter, at least that we have evidence of at present time, are genetic contributions, hormone balances in the womb, birth order (younger sons are more likely to be homosexual in families with more than one male child), and other such factors. Homosexual men respond male, rather than female pheremones - very differently from their heterosexual counterparts. Brain topology seems to be different depending on sexuality. It is abundantly clear that sexuality is determined sometime before puberty (some research, as I said, pointing to it being fairly concrete even at the toddler stage), and is not due to any conscious choice on the part of the person. It is also fairly clear that attempts to "cure" homosexuality simply don't work, and do much more harm than good.

If you would like to point me to any peer-reviewed journal article that you think disputes anything that I have said, feel free to do so. But know that I have no agenda in this. The fact that sexuality isn't a choice was all I needed to form my views on the subject. The rest of it I found merely out of interest in the subject - being in the field of biology, I find it interesting to read up on all sorts of developments. I have read quite a bit on this, and thus far have seen "scientific" arguments for the social or choice factors only from rabid conservatives with very little (if any) understanding of the scientific method or, you know, the idea of evidence. If you have something, I would be glad to look at it.

Just to clarify, social factors are one type of environmental factor, but not all environmental factors are social factors.

In other words, all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.

Yes, exactly.

Dem:I don't like any dogs.
GL:Yes, you do and I can prove it.
Dem:Huh?
GL:You have a cat, don't you?
Dem: Yes
GL:Would you say then you like some mammals?
Dem:Well, yes, of course.
GL:Oh, see, you change your tune!
Dem:Huh, what the hell does that even mean?
GL:Dogs are mammals and so you admit you like some dogs.
Dem:Um, no, dogs and mammals are not the same thing.
GL:Man, you don't understand biology at all.

I actually enjoy it when he does these things. It amuses me.

I dunno about that. I've seen some monozygotic twin studies that suggest social cues play at least some role. Of course they're not conclusive, since it's goddam hard to separate social cues from all other environmental cues, but still...I don't think we've heard the last word on this subject yet.

I don't think so either, but at this point, I haven't seen anything that could really lead to any conclusion that social aspects play a large role. The only thing I have gleaned from monozygotic twin studies is that sexuality is probably not 100% genetic - which wasn't surprising to me anyways, considering that it is a rather complex trait.

Do you have any links to studies suggesting a social effect? How did they attempt to separate the social aspects from other environmental factors?

Yes, exactly.

Dem:I don't like any dogs.
GL:Yes, you do and I can prove it.
Dem:Huh?
GL:You have a cat, don't you?
Dem: Yes
GL:Would you say then you like some mammals?
Dem:Well, yes, of course.
GL:Oh, see, you change your tune!
Dem:Huh, what the hell does that even mean?
GL:Dogs are mammals and so you admit you like some dogs.
Dem:Um, no, dogs and mammals are not the same thing.
GL:Man, you don't understand biology at all.

I actually enjoy it when he does these things. It amuses me.
Lol that got a chuckle out of me

I don't think so either, but at this point, I haven't seen anything that could really lead to any conclusion that social aspects play a large role. The only thing I have gleaned from monozygotic twin studies is that sexuality is probably not 100% genetic - which wasn't surprising to me anyways, considering that it is a rather complex trait.

I think we've pretty much concluded that sexual orientation is definitely not 100% genetic...but the problem is that people define "sexual orientation" differently. Some people say that if you make out with a person of the same sex ONCE then you are gay, while other people say that a little "experimentation" is natural and doesn't necessarily reflect your "real" sexual orientation. Until we clear up those definitions, we're going nowhere fast :).

Do you have any links to studies suggesting a social effect? How did they attempt to separate the social aspects from other environmental factors?
Hmm, not on me...let's see if I can find any links that don't require pay etc...

Just to clarify, social factors are one type of environmental factor, but not all environmental factors are social factors.

In other words, all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.

Exactly

I think we've pretty much concluded that sexual orientation is definitely not 100% genetic...but the problem is that people define "sexual orientation" differently. Some people say that if you make out with a person of the same sex ONCE then you are gay, while other people say that a little "experimentation" is natural and doesn't necessarily reflect your "real" sexual orientation. Until we clear up those definitions, we're going nowhere fast :).

Actually, I think it's pretty clearly defined that your actions are not the same as sexuality. I can only have sex with men and be heterosexual (though that is hard to imagine). My sexual activities while they may evidence my sexuality do not determine my sexuality. Sexuality is set by attraction only. I know you know this, but your post in a way defends people who define it otherwise.

Exactly

Exactly? You just suggested that by rejecting social factors she rejected environmental factors. That's exactly the opposite of the point that Bottle made.

Exactly? You just suggested that by rejecting social factors she rejected environmental factors. That's exactly the opposite of the point that Bottle made.

Your limited scope of awareness does hinder your ability to back a position in a discussions doesn't it…

I think we've pretty much concluded that sexual orientation is definitely not 100% genetic...but the problem is that people define "sexual orientation" differently. Some people say that if you make out with a person of the same sex ONCE then you are gay, while other people say that a little "experimentation" is natural and doesn't necessarily reflect your "real" sexual orientation. Until we clear up those definitions, we're going nowhere fast :).

I use "sexuality" or "sexual orientation" to describe who a person is sexually attracted to (well, specifically, what gender they are attracted to). Homosexuals are almost exclusively attracted to members of the same gender, heterosexuals almost exclusievly to members of the opposite, and bisexuals fall somewhere in the middle. An asexual person is truly not sexually attracted to anyone. I don't really attempt to define exactly how close "almost exclusively" has to be - as far as I can tell, sexuality is much more of a spectrum than two or three distinct points, but we have to label things somehow.

Who you do (or do not) actually have sexual encounters with is irrelevant. A celibate person still has a sexuality, and a homosexual person can have sexual encounters with a member of the opposite sex because he/she feels it is expected.

Hmm, not on me...let's see if I can find any links that don't require pay etc...

I'm in the office right now, so if it is a relatively well-used journal (ie. if Emory University or Georgia Tech would subscribe to it), I can get to it without paying. =)

Your limited scope of awareness does hinder your ability to back a position in a discussions doesn't it…
And how does your ad-hominim refute his point?

And how does your ad-hominim refute her point?

His, but thank you.

His, but thank you.
Sorry I keep forgeting and after all the spanish I took back in the day it is somehow natural to think of names ending with a as feminine

My bad

One may not say that the Bible is "rubbish", but a Christian with a brain certainly should question the validity of a literal view of all, or at least certain parts of the Bible.



Sure, if you've never ever spoken to anyone who can read Hebrew or Greek and has actually looked into the words in question.



Ahem. There is quite a bit of debate over this "fact".



This is certainly true.

The "fact" that is supposedly under a "bit" of "debate" ie. That homosexual life is a sin according to the Bible, is really a talk by those who are homosexual and want the Bible to support their claim. If by some strange event homosexual life was "found" to be ok by the Bible, then how would they explain Sodom and Gomorra? The whole wiping out two cities where they had exchanged natural relationships for unnatural ones? To me if someone wants to say that they have talked to someone who "knows" Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic and then say that the Bible doesn't say that homosexuals are sinning obviously does not know what the Bible says, and does not seem to know that the Ten Commandments are not the only laws that God gave to Moses.

I highly doubt that said person has ever taken the time to notice what the Bible says let alone do a word search, or talk to anyone who is a Biblical scholar. Said people should then shut up, until they can walk their talk and show proof that the Bible does not say that Homosexual life is a sin.

Furthermore to say that a smart person should not take the Bible literally might as well say that everything you read should not be taken literally. Yes some things like the Psalms and Proverbs, Revelations and possibly Job, should be seen as literary divices, however the rest of the Bible, which includes many references to the deplorable actions of Homosexuals is just as firm in its interpitation as reading a text book on History or Science. What it says is what it means.

I use "sexuality" or "sexual orientation" to describe who a person is sexually attracted to (well, specifically, what gender they are attracted to).

See, but here's the thing: research has shown that people who claim to only be attracted to members of the opposite sex will still often show sexual response when shown pornographic images of same-sex individuals. So who's judgment do we trust? Some people swear up and down that they are exclusively heterosexual, yet are physiologically aroused by homosexual stimuli...are they lying? Are they "repressing"? Are their bodily responses an invalid measurement of "real" arousal?


Homosexuals are almost exclusively attracted to members of the same gender, heterosexuals almost exclusievly to members of the opposite, and bisexuals fall somewhere in the middle. An asexual person is truly not sexually attracted to anyone. I don't really attempt to define exactly how close "almost exclusively" has to be - as far as I can tell, sexuality is much more of a spectrum than two or three distinct points, but we have to label things somehow.

Why do we have to label these things at all? Why should it matter? Personally, I think "homosexual" is as silly a classification as "heterosexual," since primate research on our nearest genetic cousins suggests that only a very tiny percentage of humans are exclusively one or the other of these.

EDIT: I should have specified..."only a very tiny percentage of humans are INNATELY exclusively heterosexual or homosexual."


Who you do (or do not) actually have sexual encounters with is irrelevant. A celibate person still has a sexuality, and a homosexual person can have sexual encounters with a member of the opposite sex because he/she feels it is expected.

Ok, can everybody agree that (for the purposes of this discussion) we will use this definition? It is one that I can agree with, but we need to make sure everybody is on the same page.


I'm in the office right now, so if it is a relatively well-used journal (ie. if Emory University or Georgia Tech would subscribe to it), I can get to it without paying. =)
Well yeah, but I want to share with the whole class!

Consider: IF Dem is correct, in that sexual orientation is simply and always a side effect of a physical condition, there could/would/will-be someday a full-proof blood test to determine those that are 'gay' or not, whether they know it themselves or not. Like testing a person to see if they've been 'exposed' to a disease, it would leave a trail.

There is nothing at this time to suggest a pure genetic cause, though, the test cannot exist by what we know so far. But androgen imprinting on the fetus cells in the womb does seem to be a promising indicator of increasing probability or inclination of orientation likelihood, even that though is not all inclusive...

The "fact" that is supposedly under a "bit" of "debate" ie. That homosexual life is a sin according to the Bible, is really a talk by those who are homosexual and want the Bible to support their claim.

That's funny. I'm not homosexual. In fact, I am in a committed relationship with an opposite-sex partner. Go figure.

If by some strange event homosexual life was "found" to be ok by the Bible, then how would they explain Sodom and Gomorra? The whole wiping out two cities where they had exchanged natural relationships for unnatural ones?

If you had actually read the story, you would see that it was rather clear that the major sin of S&G was inhospitality, not homosexual sex. Then there is also the fact that the townspeople were wanting to rape their guests....

To me if someone wants to say that they have talked to someone who "knows" Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic and then say that the Bible doesn't say that homosexuals are sinning obviously does not know what the Bible says, and does not seem to know that the Ten Commandments are not the only laws that God gave to Moses.

Good to know that you are infallible. Care to enlighten us all with your infinite knowledge?

I highly doubt that said person has ever taken the time to notice what the Bible says let alone do a word search, or talk to anyone who is a Biblical scholar.

Read from more than one version of the Bible, took several theology classes (with *gasp* Biblical scholars), read articles by people on both sides of the debate..... Yeah, you're right, I haven't done my homework at all! :rolleyes:

Said people should then shut up, until they can walk their talk and show proof that the Bible does not say that Homosexual life is a sin.

We aren't talking about something for which absolute proof can be shown. Everything in Scripture is relative to the particular translation and particular interpretation used by the person reading it. That's why personal reading and reflection on it are so important - you know, instead of just taking someone else's word for it.

Furthermore to say that a smart person should not take the Bible literally might as well say that everything you read should not be taken literally.

Yeah, it is about the same thing, isn't it?

Yes some things like the Psalms and Proverbs, Revelations and possibly Job, should be seen as literary divices, however the rest of the Bible, which includes many references to the deplorable actions of Homosexuals is just as firm in its interpitation as reading a text book on History or Science. What it says is what it means.

How do you determine which are literary devices and which are not? I don't agree with your determinations. For instance, much of Genesis seems to me to obviously be literary device. Many other stories, Ruth for instance, might be more of a literary device, or at the least an exaggeration of an old story. Jonas could definitely be a literary device. Goliath might not have been a particular man, or even a giant, but may have seemed a giant among men - or represented a large army.

Seriously, if you are going to claim infallibility, you should be able to back it up with something a little more. Otherwise, you have to admit that you might be wrong.

Consider: IF Dem is correct, in that sexual orientation is simply and always a side effect of a physical condition, there could/would/will-be someday a full-proof blood test to determine those that are 'gay' or not, whether they know it themselves or not. Like testing a person to see if they've been 'exposed' to a disease, it would leave a trail.

Not necessarily. Can you use a blood test to determine an individual's intelligence?

If there is a genetic component to sexuality, which there pretty much definitely is, it is quite likely that we will never have an efficient way to identify this component through a blood test. This is because sexuality, like intelligence, is not simply a matter of one gene being expressed...it's a complex pattern of expressions, with many very different combinations giving rise to similar phenotypes, and is also largely dependent on the particular structures in question. Expression of a "smart gene" in your pancreas probably won't do much, but expression of a "smart gene" in your developing nervous system probably will. That's a gross oversimplification, of course, and I apologize to the scientists reading that example and groaning :).


There is nothing at this time to suggest a pure genetic cause, though, the test cannot exist by what we know so far. But androgen imprinting on the fetus cells in the womb does seem to be a promising indicator of increasing probability or inclination of orientation likelihood, even that though is not all inclusive...
Indeed, we have data that indicates sexuality CANNOT be 100% genetic, since there are plenty of cases of genetically identical individuals expressing different sexual orientations.

See, but here's the thing: research has shown that people who claim to only be attracted to members of the opposite sex will still often show sexual response when shown pornographic images of same-sex individuals. So who's judgment do we trust? Some people swear up and down that they are exclusively heterosexual, yet are physiologically aroused by homosexual stimuli...are they lying? Are they "repressing"? Are their bodily responses an invalid measurement of "real" arousal?

If they are physically aroused by it, it would seem that they are either lying or repressing, but I suppose it is difficult to tell.

Why do we have to label these things at all?

Because we label everything! =)

Why should it matter?

It shouldn't. But, for some reason, to many people, it does.

Personally, I think "homosexual" is as silly a classification as "heterosexual," since primate research on our nearest genetic cousins suggests that only a very tiny percentage of humans are exclusively one or the other of these.

EDIT: I should have specified..."only a very tiny percentage of humans are INNATELY exclusively heterosexual or homosexual."

This I can agree with, which is why I generally say "almost exclusively." I do think some people fall over on the 90/10 section of the scale - and such people probably won't end up in a relationship in the 10 portion. A lot of us (maybe even most of us) fall somewhere in between.

Greenlander Consider: IF Dem is correct, in that sexual orientation is simply and always a side effect of a physical condition, there could/would/will-be someday a full-proof blood test to determine those that are 'gay' or not, whether they know it themselves or not. Like testing a person to see if they've been 'exposed' to a disease, it would leave a trail.

Hardly. Even if sexuality were purely genetic, which none of us has even come close to suggesting that it is, this wouldn't necessarily be true. Bottle already explained it, so I won't go in depth, but a trait as complicated as sexuality is very unlikely to be something we can determine from a blood test.

There is nothing at this time to suggest a pure genetic cause, though, the test cannot exist by what we know so far.

And nothing I have said in any way suggests a pure genetic cause. You are aware that there are other physical factors than genetics? Epigenetics? Nutrition? Hormone levels?

But androgen imprinting on the fetus cells in the womb does seem to be a promising indicator of increasing probability or inclination of orientation likelihood, even that though is not all inclusive...

Yes, which is still a physical environmental effect, not a social one - unless you think that there is a whole society that exists within every woman's womb?

If they are physically aroused by it, it would seem that they are either lying or repressing, but I suppose it is difficult to tell.

How do we know if physiological response matches "real" feelings?


Because we label everything! =)

It shouldn't. But, for some reason, to many people, it does.

I don't see why we should give in to them. Classifying lovers based on the shape of their genitals is silly.


This I can agree with, which is why I generally say "almost exclusively." I do think some people fall over on the 90/10 section of the scale - and such people probably won't end up in a relationship in the 10 portion. A lot of us (maybe even most of us) fall somewhere in between.

Well, if you're looking at ADULTS then the distribution will be all mucked up. I'm talking about innate orientation, or "built-in attraction" if you will, and that's going to get completely buried under the weight of our wonderful, befuddling human consciousness.

And nothing I have said in any way suggests a pure genetic cause. You are aware that there are other physical factors than genetics? Epigenetics? Nutrition? Hormone levels?

And all of those things are testable. If it's a result of hormones, or nutrition etc., it would leave a trail.

Bottle's assertion that an intelligence blood test would be just is essentially what I am talking about is correct. I do not believe we will have a 'gay' test. Although we might be able to come up with a 'probability' test...


Yes, which is still a physical environmental effect, not a social one - unless you think that there is a whole society that exists within every woman's womb?

Not all androgen deprived males result in homosexual orientation, even if they turn out the be heterosexuals who are transgender. It (androgen starvation to a XY chromosomes fetuses) increases the likelihood of homosexual orientation later in life, but not even half of them end up as such). It simply increases the odds, but is not the end all. It opens more people to the suggestion of homosexual attraction (consciously or unconsciously is not my point) later but does not ‘cause’ it..

And all of those things are testable. If it's a result of hormones, or nutrition etc., it would leave a trail.

What part of "MANY FACTORS" do you not understand? I have said nothing to suggest it is the result of any single factor, or that there is a single set of combined factors that have to come into play. If it were purely a result of hormones, we could test for it. If it were purely a result of a given gene, we could test for it. However, the likelihood of finding a "silver bullet" control-switch of sexuality is pretty damn small. And since we can't even determine all of the factors that are involved, much less how many different combinations of factors might lead to a given sexuality, there is no way to test for it.

Not all androgen deprived males result in homosexual orientation, even if they turn out the be heterosexuals who are transgender. It (androgen starvation to a XY chromosomes fetuses) increases the likelihood of homosexual orientation later in life, but not even half of them end up as such). It simply increases the odds, but is not the end all. It opens more people to the suggestion of homosexual attraction (consciously or unconsciously is not my point) later but does not ‘cause’ it..

It seems to be a contributing factor, which is exactly what I said. Please point to any post in which I so much as briefly suggested that homosexuality is completely caused by androgen levels in the womb? Oh wait, you can't, since I never have! No, as with all of the factors we have identified as possible contributions to sexuality, it seems to help determine sexuality, not determine it completely.

What part of "MANY FACTORS" do you not understand? I have said nothing to suggest it is the result of any single factor, or that there is a single set of combined factors that have to come into play. If it were purely a result of hormones, we could test for it. If it were purely a result of a given gene, we could test for it. However, the likelihood of finding a "silver bullet" control-switch of sexuality is pretty damn small. And since we can't even determine all of the factors that are involved, much less how many different combinations of factors might lead to a given sexuality, there is no way to test for it.

Absolutely correct. All that is far more probable than your earlier statements that claimed sexual orientation is established by three... Not very likely now is it seeing as all the probabilities can't be covered?


It seems to be a contributing factor, which is exactly what I said. Please point to any post in which I so much as briefly suggested that homosexuality is completely caused by androgen levels in the womb? Oh wait, you can't, since I never have! No, as with all of the factors we have identified as possible contributions to sexuality, it seems to help determine sexuality, not determine it completely.

You do get huffy don't you?

You do get huffy don't you?
I would too if you were misrepresenting my statements as well

Absolutely correct. All that is far more probable than your earlier statements that claimed sexual orientation is established by three... Not very likely now is it seeing as all the probabilities can't be covered?




You do get huffy don't you?

She didn't sound mad. Did it offend you that she point out your strawman?

Absolutely correct. All that is far more probable than your earlier statements that claimed sexual orientation is established by three... Not very likely now is it seeing as all the probabilities can't be covered?

I never said that it is established by 3. I said that there are studies that suggest that it is pretty well established by 3. You do see the difference between the two statements, don't you?

You do get huffy don't you?

I simply don't appreciate it when people try to misrepresent what I have (and haven't) said. If that makes me "huffy", then so be it.

Now let's also address some obvious and intentional twisting of Dem's posts.

There is pretty much 0 evidence that social factors have much, if anything, to do with it.
*snip*
Pretty much every biological trait is influenced by a set of biological and environmental (which can be seen as biological themselves) factors.

*Snip*You don’t have a political reason for suggesting that sexual orientation can’t be affected by environmental conditions do you?
*Snip*

So essentially you argued that because she said social factors are not likely to be significant that she was rejecting environmental factors even though she specifically states otherwise. Since you claim to know that social and environmental are not equal terms then one must wonder why you would make such an arguement. Clearly the only one confusing her unusually clear statements is you.

I would too if you were misrepresenting my statements as well

Interesting that three people in a row said exactly the same thing. One might conclude that this is because we are witnessing what is occurring, but I suspect that it is not the conclusion Greenlander will reach. "You don’t have a political reason for suggesting" that Dem is saying something different then she actually is, would you, GL?

lie with a male as though lying with a woman” is “an abomination” or “detestable act”

This could refer to:

(a) No sodomy, does not explicitly refer to homosexuality
(b) No vaginal penetration, i.e. no sex with Eunichs
(c) No sex with a woman and then with a man, i.e. no bisexual shenanigans
(d) Eating shellfish is also an abomination as defined in:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

So if you selectively quote the bible you can prove hatred for gays and until all christians also boycot clothes from two different fields

do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

After all hate is easy

Think homophobes think

(b) No vaginal penetration, i.e. no sex with Eunichs
Since when do Eunichs have vaginas?

Since when do Eunichs have vaginas?
it was ajoke in a medieval context, I'm sorry you missed it!

it was ajoke in a medieval context, I'm sorry you missed it!
Don't joke about that kind of thing, man...some feller could get a naaasty surprise...

Yes, exactly.

Dem:I don't like any dogs.
GL:Yes, you do and I can prove it.
Dem:Huh?
GL:You have a cat, don't you?
Dem: Yes
GL:Would you say then you like some mammals?
Dem:Well, yes, of course.
GL:Oh, see, you change your tune!
Dem:Huh, what the hell does that even mean?
GL:Dogs are mammals and so you admit you like some dogs.
Dem:Um, no, dogs and mammals are not the same thing.
GL:Man, you don't understand biology at all.

I actually enjoy it when he does these things. It amuses me.

This is gold. :D

The "fact" that is supposedly under a "bit" of "debate" ie. That homosexual life is a sin according to the Bible, is really a talk by those who are homosexual and want the Bible to support their claim. If by some strange event homosexual life was "found" to be ok by the Bible, then how would they explain Sodom and Gomorra? The whole wiping out two cities where they had exchanged natural relationships for unnatural ones? To me if someone wants to say that they have talked to someone who "knows" Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic and then say that the Bible doesn't say that homosexuals are sinning obviously does not know what the Bible says, and does not seem to know that the Ten Commandments are not the only laws that God gave to Moses.

I highly doubt that said person has ever taken the time to notice what the Bible says let alone do a word search, or talk to anyone who is a Biblical scholar. Said people should then shut up, until they can walk their talk and show proof that the Bible does not say that Homosexual life is a sin.

Furthermore to say that a smart person should not take the Bible literally might as well say that everything you read should not be taken literally. Yes some things like the Psalms and Proverbs, Revelations and possibly Job, should be seen as literary divices, however the rest of the Bible, which includes many references to the deplorable actions of Homosexuals is just as firm in its interpitation as reading a text book on History or Science. What it says is what it means.

1) The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. I believe there are even Jesus references to support this... so it WAS known 2000 years ago.

2) Homosexual connotations can be found in many 'positive' potrayals in the Bilble - from Noah, through David, even up to Jesus.

3) Don't lets start making accusations... some of us here have, not ONLY "talked to someone who "knows" Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic"... but have actually READ the scripture in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc.

4) I, personally, have read the Bible more times than any Christian I've met, and in far more translations/languages, etc. You should not assume that people who disagree with you are automatically less familiar with the material.

5) There IS no book called "Revelations"... not a good start for someone debating the perceived ignorance of others, my friend.

6) How do you 'pick' which parts of the scripture are 'literal'? Surely, if Job is a metaphor, there is no justification for belief in a LITERAL Vicarious Substitution?

Seriously, my friend... if you wish to get into it, we can debate the scripture as much as you like. However, I'd advise you not to materialise in the Forum ASSUMING you are the best qualified person to discuss it...

3) Don't lets start making accusations... some of us here have, not ONLY "talked to someone who "knows" Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic"... but have actually READ the scripture in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc.
Yup we have our own sexy little biblical scholor right here!
YOU! :)

3) Don't lets start making accusations... some of us here have, not ONLY "talked to someone who "knows" Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic"... but have actually READ the scripture in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc.
Yup we have our own sexy little biblical scholor right here!
YOU! :)


Eww, you have to be careful there, you don't want to go around worshiping any Graven Idols... Famines, Earthquakes and Powerful invading armies are brought about by such wickedness :D :p




*You see Grave, you do have to be careful what you say ;) You don't want to cause one of the 'young ones to stumble and sin,' or the next time you get near a body of water a magical anchor might pull you down :eek:

5) There IS no book called "Revelations"... not a good start for someone debating the perceived ignorance of others, my friend.

No need to nitpick....

Long Title/Short Title/Abbreviation
The First Book of Moses called Genesis/Genesis/Ge.
The Second Book of Moses called Exodus/Exodus/Ex.
The Third Book of Moses called Leviticus/Leviticus/Le.
The Fourth Book of Moses called Numbers/Numbers/Nu.
The Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomy/Deuteronomy/De.
The Book Of Joshua/Joshua/Jos.
The Book of Judges/Judges/Jud.
The Book of Ruth/Ruth/Ru.
The First Book of Samuel/First Samuel/I S. - The First Book of The Kings/First Kings/I K.
The Second Book of Samuel/Second Samuel/II S. - The Second Book of The Kings/II K.
The First Book of The Kings/First Kings/I K. - The Third Book of The Kings/Third Kings/III K.
The Second Book of The Kings/Second Kings/II K. - The Fourth Book of The Kings/Fourth Kings/IV K.
The First Book of The Chronicles/First Chronicles/I. Chr.
The Second Book of The Chronicles/Second Chronicles/II Chr.
Ezra/Ezra/Ezr.
The Book of Nehemiah/Nehemiah/Ne.
The Book of Esther/Esther/Est.
The Book of Job/Job/Jb.
The Book of Psalms/Psalms/Ps.
The Book of Proverbs/Proverbs/Pr.
The Teacher/Ecclesiastes/Ecc.
The Song of Solomon/Song of Solomon/Song.
The Book of The Prophet Isaiah/Isaiah/Is.
The Book of The Prophet Jeremiah/Jeremiah/Je.
The Lamentations of Jeremiah/Lamentations/Lam.
The Book of The Prophet Ezekiel/Ezekiel/Eze.
The Book of Daniel/Daniel/Da.
Hosea/Hosea/Ho.
Joel/Joel/Joel.
Amos/Amos/Am.
Obadiah/Obadiah/Obad.
Jonah/Jonah/Jona.
Micah/Micah/Mi.
Nahum/Nahum/Na.
Habakkuk/Habakkuk/Hab.
Zephaniah/Zephaniah/Zep.
Haggai/Haggai/Hag.
Zechariah/Zechariah/Zec.
Malachi/Malachi/Mal.
The Gospel According to Saint Matthiew/Matthew/Mt.
The Gospel According to Saint Mark/Mark/Mk.
The Gospel According to Saint Luke/Luke/Lu.
The Gospel According to Saint John/John/Jn.
The Acts of The Apostles/Acts/Ac.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans/Romans/Ro.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians/First Corinthians/I Co.
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians/Second Corinthians/II Co.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians/Galatians/Ga.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians/Ephesians/Ep.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians/Philippians/Ph.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians/Colossians/Col.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians/First Thessalonians/I Th.
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians/Second Thessalonians/II Th.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy/First Timothy/I Ti.
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy/Second Timothy/II Ti.
The Epistle of Paul to Titus/Titus/Tit.
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon/Philemon/Phm.
The Epistle to the Hebrews/Hebrews/He.
The General Epistle of James/James/Ja.
The First Epistle General of Peter/First Peter/I Pe.
The Second Epistle General of Peter/Second Peter/ II Pe.
The First Epistle General of John/First John/I Jn.
The Second Epistle General of John/Second John/II Jn.
The Third Epistle General of John/Third John/III Jn.
The General Epistle of Jude/Jude/Jude.
The Revelation of Saint John the Divine/Revelation[s]/Rev.

Eww, you have to be careful there, you don't want to go around worshiping any Graven Idols... Famines, Earthquakes and Powerful invading armies are brought about by such wickedness :D :p




*You see Grave, you do have to be careful what you say ;) You don't want to cause one of the 'young ones to stumble and sin,' or the next time you get near a body of water a magical anchor might pull you down :eek:
Too bad he already has my engine revved :p :fluffle:

No need to nitpick....

Long Title/Short Title/Abbreviation
The First Book of Moses called Genesis/Genesis/Ge.
The Second Book of Moses called Exodus/Exodus/Ex.
The Third Book of Moses called Leviticus/Leviticus/Le.
The Fourth Book of Moses called Numbers/Numbers/Nu.
The Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomy/Deuteronomy/De.
The Book Of Joshua/Joshua/Jos.
The Book of Judges/Judges/Jud.
The Book of Ruth/Ruth/Ru.
The First Book of Samuel/First Samuel/I S. - The First Book of The Kings/First Kings/I K.
The Second Book of Samuel/Second Samuel/II S. - The Second Book of The Kings/II K.
The First Book of The Kings/First Kings/I K. - The Third Book of The Kings/Third Kings/III K.
The Second Book of The Kings/Second Kings/II K. - The Fourth Book of The Kings/Fourth Kings/IV K.
The First Book of The Chronicles/First Chronicles/I. Chr.
The Second Book of The Chronicles/Second Chronicles/II Chr.
Ezra/Ezra/Ezr.
The Book of Nehemiah/Nehemiah/Ne.
The Book of Esther/Esther/Est.
The Book of Job/Job/Jb.
The Book of Psalms/Psalms/Ps.
The Book of Proverbs/Proverbs/Pr.
The Teacher/Ecclesiastes/Ecc.
The Song of Solomon/Song of Solomon/Song.
The Book of The Prophet Isaiah/Isaiah/Is.
The Book of The Prophet Jeremiah/Jeremiah/Je.
The Lamentations of Jeremiah/Lamentations/Lam.
The Book of The Prophet Ezekiel/Ezekiel/Eze.
The Book of Daniel/Daniel/Da.
Hosea/Hosea/Ho.
Joel/Joel/Joel.
Amos/Amos/Am.
Obadiah/Obadiah/Obad.
Jonah/Jonah/Jona.
Micah/Micah/Mi.
Nahum/Nahum/Na.
Habakkuk/Habakkuk/Hab.
Zephaniah/Zephaniah/Zep.
Haggai/Haggai/Hag.
Zechariah/Zechariah/Zec.
Malachi/Malachi/Mal.
The Gospel According to Saint Matthiew/Matthew/Mt.
The Gospel According to Saint Mark/Mark/Mk.
The Gospel According to Saint Luke/Luke/Lu.
The Gospel According to Saint John/John/Jn.
The Acts of The Apostles/Acts/Ac.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans/Romans/Ro.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians/First Corinthians/I Co.
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians/Second Corinthians/II Co.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians/Galatians/Ga.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians/Ephesians/Ep.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians/Philippians/Ph.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians/Colossians/Col.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians/First Thessalonians/I Th.
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians/Second Thessalonians/II Th.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy/First Timothy/I Ti.
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy/Second Timothy/II Ti.
The Epistle of Paul to Titus/Titus/Tit.
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon/Philemon/Phm.
The Epistle to the Hebrews/Hebrews/He.
The General Epistle of James/James/Ja.
The First Epistle General of Peter/First Peter/I Pe.
The Second Epistle General of Peter/Second Peter/ II Pe.
The First Epistle General of John/First John/I Jn.
The Second Epistle General of John/Second John/II Jn.
The Third Epistle General of John/Third John/III Jn.
The General Epistle of Jude/Jude/Jude.
The Revelation of Saint John the Divine/Revelation[s]/Rev.

Whenever someone says "not to nitpick" they are about nitpick, "to tell you the truth" = a huge lie, "I don't mean to be rude" = "this is about to hurt", "No offense but" = "In other words, I'm a jackass and can't keep crap from leaking out of my mouth".

I guess this goes to show that the "perverted, promiscuous lifestyle" of gay males isn't as true as some right-wing Christians would seem to believe. I don't see why not. Before you roast me, look at it this way:
Most men are pretty damn promiscuous and perverted anyway. It's only the (relative) lack of perversity on womens' part that prevents them. But if women aren't in the equation to slow things down… :p

Anyway, as to the topic at hand… yeah I reckon it's a sin, but frankly I can't be bothered with it at the moment. Too many other important nasty things happening in the world…

I don't see why not. Before you roast me, look at it this way:
Most men are pretty damn promiscuous and perverted anyway. It's only the (relative) lack of perversity on womens' part that prevents them. But if women aren't in the equation to slow things down… :p

Anyway, as to the topic at hand… yeah I reckon it's a sin, but frankly I can't be bothered with it at the moment. Too many other important nasty things happening in the world…

You must be quite young. Look, if you wish to find a promiscuous perverted woman that matches up with any many you've ever met it's not that hard to do. They are EVERYWHERE. The difference is as men we don't generally want a woman with no limits with everyone just a woman with no limits with us. To assume that would suddenly change because you're interested in men and not women is spurious.

Whenever someone says "not to nitpick" they are about nitpick, "to tell you the truth" = a huge lie, "I don't mean to be rude" = "this is about to hurt", "No offense but" = "In other words, I'm a jackass and can't keep crap from leaking out of my mouth".

My "nitpick" is only directed in so far as someone trying to argue over particular book "titles" which may or may not be valid, only in dependence of which particular sets of generally accepted biblical translations one is using...

My contention is that there is a generally accepted book in the bible titled "Revelations"... And it is also called Revelation[with no 's'], or the Revelation of John, or the Revelation of Saint John the Divine...

The same with The First Book of Samuel/First Samuel/The First Book of The Kings/First Kings... and Song of Solomon/Song of Songs/Songs... All are generally accepted titles for the books, accepted by wide audiences. And since most titles have been "assigned" for convenience, arguing that Title "X" does not exist, is moot....

Generally I only need to say "First Thessalonians" to address a crowd towards such book, I don't need to say "The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians"... Equally I can direct people using "Revelations"/"Revelation" without needing to say "The Revelation of John", "Revelation of John the Apostle", or "The Revelation of Saint John the Divine"...

Yup we have our own sexy little biblical scholor right here!
YOU! :)

Why, thank you, my friend.... :) :fluffle:

And, "sexy", no less??? :D

Why, thank you, my friend.... :) :fluffle:

And, "sexy", no less??? :D
Would you preffer beautifull

No need to nitpick....

Long Title/Short Title/Abbreviation
The First Book of ..... <blah blah blah>..../Revelation[s]/Rev.

Which Bible did you find a book called 'Revelations' in?

I just flipped through about 3 dozen Bibles, in a variety of languages, and didn't find a single "Revelations".

In fact, I did a quick web-search, and only found a couple of (almost cultish) references to a book called "Revelations"...

Now - I KNOW that sometimes the WHOLE Bible is referred to as a book of 'revelations'... or sometimes just the New Testament is referred to as a 'book of revelations'.... but I've not (that I recall) ever encountered the last book of the Bible being called "Revelations".

Which Bible did you find a book called 'Revelations' in?

I just flipped through about 3 dozen Bibles, in a variety of languages, and didn't find a single "Revelations".

In fact, I did a quick web-search, and only found a couple of (almost cultish) references to a book called "Revelations"...

Now - I KNOW that sometimes the WHOLE Bible is referred to as a book of 'revelations'... or sometimes just the New Testament is referred to as a 'book of revelations'.... but I've not (that I recall) ever encountered the last book of the Bible being called "Revelations".
Actually, Grave, I've heard it called that and seen it called that in RL. Baptist churches sometimes call it that.

Would you preffer beautifull

Sigh... you flatterer, you....

Ah, be still my beating heart.... :D

Actually, Grave, I've heard it called that and seen it called that in RL. Baptist churches sometimes call it that.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've BEEN to Baptist Churches here in sunny ol' Jaawja, and I've encountered people TALKING about a "book of Revelations"... but, when you LOOK at their Bible, they are talking about "Revelation"... they are just saying it wrong.

I think you're all missing some pretty important points here. First off, this is the same book that says not to wear clothes made from different fabrics/fibers/materials/whatever, since the word of god doesn't really always come out the same. Second off, what the scripture does seem to agree upon is that man should not sleep with another man as he would sleep with a woman. In my opinion, this does not forbade homosexuality, but instead bisexuality, as true homosexuals would not have sex with women, so they don't really compare as far as sleeping arangements are concerned.

Sigh... you flatterer, you....

Ah, be still my beating heart.... :D
:-D yup thats me

:-D yup thats me

You little tease, you. ;)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've BEEN to Baptist Churches here in sunny ol' Jaawja, and I've encountered people TALKING about a "book of Revelations"... but, when you LOOK at their Bible, they are talking about "Revelation"... they are just saying it wrong.

Oh, didn't catch the s. I didn't realize that was your point. Carry on.

Oh, didn't catch the s. I didn't realize that was your point. Carry on.

:)