NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.

In many ways and for many reasons back then, people equals power. More people equals more power. Not for the people obviously, but for the leaders they blindly follow.

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares, 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping people quiet."

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."

"If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god."

"The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it."

"In victory, you deserve Champagne; in defeat, you need it."

Compare the law that if a widow dies childless, it is the responsibility of the family to provide her a male and get her pregnant as quickly as possible, doesn't matter if the male relative is already married to somebody else.
What I find funniest about "creationists" is that the Old Testament really is a RELENTLESSLY Darwinian book: there was originally no notion of an afterlife, rather, your reward for being good was that your descendants would be multiplied, while your punishment for being evil was that your descendants would be extincted. You did not have to teach those people anything about "relative reproductive success": they lived and breathed that principle, and it never occurred to them to imagine that anyone would think the world worked any other way.

I find it more likely that it was a small startup religion, and like all clubs needed to be able to exclude someone to be a real club. So they looked around and picked a minority that was sufficiently small as to never be a threat militarily, rare enough to not put off most folks, but common enough to play a good target.

Yay for queers.

In many ways and for many reasons back then, people equals power. More people equals more power. Not for the people obviously, but for the leaders they blindly follow.

This gets me wondering: Have you ever seen a theatrical production of Jesus Christ: Superstar? If not I'd recommending looking to see if there's a production going on in your area.

Must you open your mouth to reveal the vacuum of your mind?

Ok ok, I don't actually think you're that ignorant, I just think that sometimes you should wait until a thread on a topic is open rather than making these slightly vague and occasionally insightful posts to 'begin' discussions that rarely take off.

(And a cookie for whoever can name where my first sentence comes from).

I find it more likely that it was a small startup religion, and like all clubs needed to be able to exclude someone to be a real club. So they looked around and picked a minority that was sufficiently small as to never be a threat militarily, rare enough to not put off most folks, but common enough to play a good target.

Yay for queers.

sooooo, you want to see a gay army come to power and finally revenge the wrong done to them 2007 years ago because they weren't invited into the he man gay-haters club? I bet you'll get the contract to provide the uniforms.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.

It's willful mistranslation by people that want to use the Bible as a tool of hatred and bigotry.

because the guy who wrote leviticus got rejected by his gay lover and had a grudge. what a dick, eh?

This gets me wondering: Have you ever seen a theatrical production of Jesus Christ: Superstar? If not I'd recommending looking to see if there's a production going on in your area.

Actually, I haven't. Does it have a happy ending? old joke :p

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.

You theory fell apart at that bolded spot... Everything after that is based on false premise and therefore irrelevant.

We have copies of the book you are talking about specifically, Leviticus, that are older than the group you accuse of changing the wording of Leviticus. Thus, we need simply to read the oldest copy and compare it to the newest copy and see if it has been changed. We can, we did, it wasn't. Your theory fails at that bolded assumption because it turned out to be a false accusation.

• 'The Reception of the Book of Leviticus in Qumran' presented at An International Congress The Dead Sea Scrolls - Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Major Issues and New Approaches in Jerusalem, July 20-25,1997.
[Abstract: In Qumran there exist 18 scrolls with Leviticus texts (incl. 3 RP-scrolls). Additionally, the importance of the Book of Leviticus in Qumran is emphasized by the existence of more than 80 quotations. Two copies in 11Q and several copies in palaeo-Hebrew handwriting show canonical dignity. The distribution of the quotations demonstrates that the book of Leviticus as a whole was well known in Qumran, but special attention was given to Lev 2-5 (sacrifices and offerings), Lev 10-11 (purity /impurity) and parts of the Code of Holiness. On the other hand the wide-spread RP-texts are significant in excluding main parts of the book (Lev 1-10; 14; 17 and 21s.), while now preponderance is given to the purity laws (Lev 11-13). The Temple Scroll (nearly 50 quotations) points out the lasting importance of the priestly laws for the Sanctuary Torah.
Unexpectedly the people of 1QS did not know what to make of the book, while the community of CD accepted at least the laws of leprosy (Lev 13) and of social behavior (Lev 19). The important quotations of Leviticus laws in 4QMMT and Toharot need special attention.
With regard to textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible the Leviticus scrolls show special affinities to pre-masoretic and pre-septuagintic textual traditions, but, after all, the extremely careful and precise reception of the texts evidences what we call "canonical dignity".]
http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/bibliog.htm

because the guy who wrote leviticus got rejected by his gay lover and had a grudge. what a dick, eh?

*quotes this awesome line about Plato conceiving the whole concept of Platonic Love in a state of love-sick drunkenness after Socrates rejected his romantic advances*

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jyIiY2wtzNQ

The book of Leviticus is full of shit. Anyone who reads that and takes it seriously as God's Word(tm) needs to go see a psychanalyst.

Jesus didn't give a damn who got who into their bed as long as they didn't cheat on their spouse. Paul and Leviticus can say or think whatever they want, but if Big J didn't care, neither should we.

Actually, I haven't. Does it have a happy ending? old joke :p

:p It's worth seeing.

The book of Leviticus is full of shit. Anyone who reads that and takes it seriously as God's Word(tm) needs to go see a psychanalyst.

Jesus didn't give a damn who got who into their bed as long as they didn't cheat on their spouse. Paul and Leviticus can say or think whatever they want, but if Big J didn't care, neither should we.

That's not what Jesus said, He said...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Two people come together and create a new flesh, the two combined into one flesh, we call that one flesh new creation children.

I thought that the reason that there was such a strong anti-homosexuality sentiment in the Bible was because the Canaanites and Israel's other enemies indulged in homosexuality, and the two became inextricably linked in the minds of the Israelites?

That's not what Jesus said, He said...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Two people come together and create a new flesh, the two combined into one flesh, we call that one flesh new creation children.

Around here, we call it the two-backed beast.

The book of Leviticus is full of shit. Anyone who reads that and takes it seriously as God's Word(tm) needs to go see a psychanalyst.

Jesus didn't give a damn who got who into their bed as long as they didn't cheat on their spouse. Paul and Leviticus can say or think whatever they want, but if Big J didn't care, neither should we.

What makes you so certain He didn't?

Around here, we call it the two-backed beast.

Reverse-siamese twins?

That's not what Jesus said, He said...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Two people come together and create a new flesh, the two combined into one flesh, we call that one flesh new creation children.

That passage describes heterosexual marriage, it doesn't condemn homosexual anything.

Reverse-siamese twins?

You know what I'm talking about.

That passage describes heterosexual marriage, it doesn't condemn homosexual anything.

That passage describes marriage. Period. It doesn’t mention the possibility of any other kind of marriage or any other kind of permissible sexual relationship.

You know what I'm talking about.

*gets out a needle and thread* Not sure...to be honest.

That passage describes marriage. Period. It doesn’t mention the possibility of any other kind of marriage or any other kind of permissible sexual relationship.

That hardly makes any sense. An omission from the Bible doesn't necessarily mean that the omitted thing isn't allowed, or it wouldn't be permissible to drive a car.

That hardly makes any sense. An omission from the Bible doesn't necessarily mean that the omitted thing isn't allowed, or it wouldn't be permissible to drive a car.

It describes marriage. It's real clear and didn't omit anything. When it says, thou shall not steal, it doesn't need to define 'everything' that could be stolen, all things are covered by the statement... Here we have Jesus describing marriage, period, and when it started and by whom, and He said we shouldn't change it.

It describes marriage. It's real clear. when it says, thou shall not steal, it doesn't need to define 'everything' that could be stolen, all things are covered by the statement... Jesus described marriage and when it started and by whom, and He said we shouldn't change it.

So, if the Bible describes modes of transportation, and automobiles are omitted, you shouldn't drive a car?

Whenever I've read the piece about 'two becoming one flesh' in the Bible I've always interpreted it to represent the sanctity of marriage and to put it into simple terms marriage is a big deal.:confused:

So, if the Bible describes modes of transportation, and automobiles are omitted, you shouldn't drive a car?

It doesn't say Though shall not hack another person's credit card number and use it online... Was it omitted, does that mean I can do it because it doesn't specifically say I can't? Of course not. Stealing is defined, marriage is defined.

That passage describes marriage. Period. It doesn’t mention the possibility of any other kind of marriage or any other kind of permissible sexual relationship.

It doesn't mention that there isn't either. These aren't Jesus's exact words. This was written after his death. Who knows how that was phrased specifically. Could have been time colored the author's recllection. Could be the actual person who wrote this down heard the story second hand. The wording could have been intentionally exclusive or accidentally exclusive.

It doesn't say Though shall not hack another person's credit card number and use it online... Was it omitted, does that mean I can do it because it doesn't specifically say I can't? Of course not. Stealing is defined, marriage is defined.

Again, are modes of transportation defined? Do you therefore not drive a car around?

It doesn't say Though shall not hack another person's credit card number and use it online... Was it omitted, does that mean I can do it because it doesn't specifically say I can't? Of course not. Stealing is defined, marriage is defined.

It's not a command, it's a description. That's the difference. Jesus isn't saying "Men shall marry women," he's describing marriage. And ommission in a description doesn't prove anything.

*gets out a needle and thread* Not sure...to be honest.

You haven't read enough Conan.

The quotation that Balderdash used can be interpreted several different ways. He assumes that the 'one flesh' alluded to in the quotation is children. It need not be. It could also describe two people joined in the intimate and physical act of sex. The two become one flesh.

This one flesh has been called the two backed beast because of the fact that the one flesh has two backs if the two coital partners are engaged in something resembling the missionary position.

Whenever I've read the piece about 'two becoming one flesh' in the Bible I've always interpreted it to represent the sanctity of marriage and to put it into simple terms marriage is a big deal.:confused:

How does a big deal become one flesh? One flesh has to be the children created from the union, the two don't remain 'one flesh after death' what if they are widowed and had many husbands? How many 'one fleshes' would they be in heaven? In fact, someone asked Jesus just that...

Mark 12:18-
And they asked him a question, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife."

Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong."

No, they are not married in heaven, but they could have become 'one flesh' with each of her husbands by having a child with each one in his turn...

It's not a command, it's a description. That's the difference. Jesus isn't saying "Men shall marry women," he's describing marriage. And ommission in a description doesn't prove anything.

It's not a command for people to get married, they don't have to get married at all, they can stay single if they don’t want to participate in marriage. Jesus said God created marriage and he described what God created. Who gets to create a different kind of marriage? Where in the scripture does Jesus say we are allowed to do that?

Sorry about the post length, but I think an argument this complex deserves a response of reasonable length; any less would be doing my viewpoint an injustice.

To be honest, I think discrimination of homosexuality in history was derived from the concept of private property. My argument is based on a somewhat parallel concept: discrimination against women.

The consensus today seems to be that before human settlement and during hunter-gatherer times, women were treated equally because there was no good reason to discriminate them (and in fact, they were respected because of their role as child-bearers and mothers). Private property didn't exist during this period, beyond self-made weapons, clothing, and maybe basic decorative textiles. Food was generally shared with the group.

As private property emerged with settlements and agriculture, however, families needed a way to keep their wealth with the bloodline - hence the laws of inheritance. Now, here's the key: a woman is much easier to control sexually than a man. A man can have kids all over the place, whereas a woman can only have one child at a time; therefore, any illegitimate children of men could simply be turned away, while the illegitimate children of women had to be accepted. So women were controlled for the sake of money, and it then became an actual issue of sexism (just as slavery gave rise to racism in the US, and not the other way round).

Homosexuality obviously does not fit with the philosophy of inheritance as it is not passed down the "true" bloodline; ergo, discouragement of homosexuality, ergo: orientationism (if that's a word).

In irreligious moral thinking, there's no good reason to slam homosexuality. After all, it doesn't hurt anyone, and as for inheritance, married homosexuals often have no problem adopting or using a surrogate mother. Personally, I think the Bible issue comes from the outdated notion of God as a "punisher" because of His Old Testament reputation. Nowadays, with the legacy of Jesus, God is seen as more of a forgiver than a punisher, and Satan is the punisher - just like you have the kind parent and the disciplinarian parent, the good cop and the bad cop, you have God and the Devil.

Of course, opponents of homosexuality will quote passages from their respective Holy Books. I say: those books were written hundreds of years ago. We've already changed most of our moral beliefs to fit with the trappings of modern society; why not accept this change as well?

So many people read the Bible and come up with their own meaning. I guess it is still a good thing that you are intellectually examining historic religious texts, but that's not what it is there for primarily. Comparing following some of the Bible's laws to creationism? Some people are so afraid of spirituality that they insinuate stupidity when someone follows codes of conduct/religious laws. I see where people get to thinking that the creation story is an example and not literal history, but the Bible is not there so that we can interpret it anyway we please. If you are not a Christian, fine. But it is ridiculous to believe that if the "church wrote the Bible, the church can interpret or even change the Bible." It is just as ridiculous to ridicule people for being a Christian. One is participating in prejudice at that point. I have never even debated creationism. WHO CARES? If Adam and Eve and their surroundings really were created in 6 days, and the story proceeds with Cain killing Able...fine. Why should I interpret it? And if it didn't really happen, but I am a better person for learning from the Bible stories...then great! Take it or leave it. Don't try to change or read too far into it. Maybe people are just weirdos and they try to feel better about themselves by misusing scripture. Be an adult, take responsibility. There is no need to use the Bible as a reason for your lifestyle...

Who gets to create a different kind of marriage?

Legislatures, that's who, since marriage is not religious nor Christian but legal, no matter what some book of falsehoods says.

And as for why the Bible condemns gay people - it was written and assembled by bigots and has fed bigotry since. Tada.

It's not a command for people to get married, they don't have to get married at all, they can stay single if they don’t want to participate in marriage. Jesus said God created marriage and he described what God created. Who gets to create a different kind of marriage? Where in the scripture does Jesus say we are allowed to do that?

Where in the scripture does Jesus condem homosexual relationships? You are assuming based on your interpretation of certain passages. That's all.

And like I said in the post you ignored, there is no way to know what Jesus's exact words were.

Legislatures, that's who, since marriage is not religious nor Christian but legal, no matter what some book of falsehoods says.

I'm always amused at how seperation of church and state is selectively applied.

...The quotation that Balderdash used can be interpreted several different ways. He assumes that the 'one flesh' alluded to in the quotation is children. It need not be. It could also describe two people joined in the intimate and physical act of sex. The two become one flesh.
....


That wouldn’t even make sense then if it meant that… "let not anyone perform coitus interruptus because God made them penetrate one another?"

I'm always amused at how seperation of church and state is selectively applied.

That's because these people generally see it as separation of someone else's church.

That's because these people generally see it as separation of someone else's church.

That's obviously because the church the president or the congressman attends is the correct church.

<<


>>


At least as long as we don't let any more Catholics become president.





Or Mormons.:eek:

Where in the scripture does Jesus condem homosexual relationships? You are assuming based on your interpretation of certain passages. That's all.

Jesus doesn't say it's wrong to beat your wife, in no way does that ommision mean he allowed it...

And like I said in the post you ignored, there is no way to know what Jesus's exact words were.

You mean this one?

It doesn't mention that there isn't either. These aren't Jesus's exact words. This was written after his death. Who knows how that was phrased specifically. Could have been time colored the author's recllection. Could be the actual person who wrote this down heard the story second hand. The wording could have been intentionally exclusive or accidentally exclusive.

I ignored this one because you've embarrassed your argument. This isn't an argument at all, this is a statement that says, even if you prove your point with the quotes of what that books says, I don't accept the words recorded in the book at being his words. But you forgot (or seem to) that you are the one that made the original statement of what Jesus taught and that was when I pointed out that he didn't say what you said he said...

Now you say you don't believe the book with his words in it anyway, so, unless you have another source of Jesus’ words, you are already admitting that you have no idea what Jesus said because you don’t think anyone can know what he said. So you should simply retract your statement that you think you know what Jesus taught or had opinions about.

Legislatures, that's who, since marriage is not religious nor Christian but legal, no matter what some book of falsehoods says.

Different topic. The topic here was specifically Biblical words and why it says them.

Again, are modes of transportation defined? Do you therefore not drive a car around?

Where does it say I can drive anything? Sometimes it limits when I can drive something but when does it describe driving? I can show you where Jesus described marraige, and I already did.

That wouldn’t even make sense then if it meant that… "let not anyone perform coitus interruptus because God made them penetrate one another?"

As opposed to your 'children' interpretation, which would put an even crazier spin on 10:9 (What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder); implying that you shouldn't cut kids in half. This would be a dumb thing to say because Jesus is discussing divorce:

10:1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So, looking at the whole context, it would appear that Jesus is specifically discussing heterosexual divorce. To turn this into a theological justification for homophobia is a bit of a stretch.

I would sooner believe that the ancient Judaic prohibitions against homosexuality had their roots in family planning practices suitable for a tribe of desert nomads: i.e. attempts to breed as many male warriors as possible in the shortest amount of time. My theory also conveniently explains the subordinate roles of women in such cultures.

Jesus doesn't say it's wrong to beat your wife, in no way does that ommision mean he allowed it...


It says to abide by the laws of the land.

Where does it say I can drive anything? Sometimes it limits when I can drive something but when does it describe driving? I can show you where Jesus described marraige, and I already did.

So he says nothing about riding horses, nothing about horse-drawn vehicles? Then you should probably be walking everywhere, right?

This gets me wondering: Have you ever seen a theatrical production of Jesus Christ: Superstar? If not I'd recommending looking to see if there's a production going on in your area.

I've been in a theatrical production of Jesus Christ, Superstar.

Jesus doesn't say it's wrong to beat your wife, in no way does that ommision mean he allowed it...
Okay, it looks like you need a lesson in logical fallacies. I'll write them down in English, since the proper Latin names will probably be over your head.

*Proof By Lack Of Evidence- This is your claim that since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the marriage passage that homosexuality must be condemned by Jesus.

If Jesus was silent on an issue, then he was silent. It doesn't automatically make something right or wrong. It means he's silent.


I ignored this one because you've embarrassed your argument. This isn't an argument at all, this is a statement that says, even if you prove your point with the quotes of what that books says, I don't accept the words recorded in the book at being his words. But you forgot (or seem to) that you are the one that made the original statement of what Jesus taught and that was when I pointed out that he didn't say what you said he said...

Now you say you don't believe the book with his words in it anyway, so, unless you have another source of Jesus’ words, you are already admitting that you have no idea what Jesus said because you don’t think anyone can know what he said. So you should simply retract your statement that you think you know what Jesus taught or had opinions about.
Errrr.... do you not understand what literal means?

The general idea is there. The main points are there. Breaking down passages into their component parts doesn't make sense for a number of reasons.

I've been in a theatrical production of Jesus Christ, Superstar.

That sounds like fun. I can't act, but it seems like a really fun play to be a part of.

Out of curiosity, who did you play?

That sounds like fun. I can't act, but it seems like a really fun play to be a part of.

Out of curiosity, who did you play?

I did double duty as on of the mendicants accosting Jesus for healing in the Temple scene and as one of the people in Peter's denial scene. It was a great experience, and still my favorite production that I've been involved in.

As opposed to your 'children' interpretation, which would put an even crazier spin on 10:9 (What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder); implying that you shouldn't cut kids in half. This would be a dumb thing to say because Jesus is discussing divorce:

So, looking at the whole context, it would appear that Jesus is specifically discussing heterosexual divorce. To turn this into a theological justification for homophobia is a bit of a stretch.

It's because marriage produces children that Jesus is against divorce... They joined together and they became one flesh (married with kids), let no one break them up...

I would sooner believe that the ancient Judaic prohibitions against homosexuality had their roots in family planning practices suitable for a tribe of desert nomads: i.e. attempts to breed as many male warriors as possible in the shortest amount of time. My theory also conveniently explains the subordinate roles of women in such cultures.

Family planning? What would that have to do with it? People who participate in homosexual relations can and do can have children, they do it all the time. Child rearing doesn’t stop just because the society allows people to participate in homosexual acts. Obviously societies don't just disappear when they allow homosexual relations... I think you don't really believe your own theory?

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.
My theory is that homosexuality undermines the gendered hierarchy which has always been ever-so-beneficial for the patriarchs who write religious texts. It's hard to claim that a woman's place is serving her man if she's with a woman, after all, and pretty hard to claim that a patriarch rules by virtue of his mighty phallus when his spouse is another phallus-bearer.

My theory is that homosexuality undermines the gendered hierarchy which has always been ever-so-beneficial for the patriarchs who write religious texts. It's hard to claim that a woman's place is serving her man if she's with a woman, after all, and pretty hard to claim that a patriarch rules by virtue of his mighty phallus when his spouse is another phallus-bearer.

I almost never agree with you (sometimes, but certainly not here) but at least you use logical steps to reach your conclusions. I can't 'prove' you are wrong here, even though I don't believe it myself. ;)

My theory is that homosexuality undermines the gendered hierarchy which has always been ever-so-beneficial for the patriarchs who write religious texts. It's hard to claim that a woman's place is serving her man if she's with a woman, after all, and pretty hard to claim that a patriarch rules by virtue of his mighty phallus when his spouse is another phallus-bearer.

You Psychologist, you. Muddying the waters with your "soft" science. :p

The next topic should be, 'Why gays don't care what the bible says'.

So Christianity promoted heterosexuality because they wanted people to go forth, multiply, get their chilren working and bring more human beings into the fold.

Here it comes...

... DUH!

Come on dude, it's been 2000 years, most of us caught on a long time ago.

The next topic should be, 'Why gays don't and shouldn't care what the bible says'.

Added my own two cents.

all I have to say is, I'm a Christian, please don't use KJV translations, and :rolleyes:, in that order.

and obviously there's nothing wrong with gay people, God loves them all the same, as everyone's supposed to do as well.

You Psychologist, you. Muddying the waters with your "soft" science. :p
In this case the blame actually rests with my 12th grade English teacher, Mrs. Mooney. She was this huge Perry Mason fan, and whenever we were analyzing a text she would insist that we "examine the motive." We were always reminded that the text was written by a person, and every person has their own motives and beliefs and biases and issues. We had to not only place the text in its historical context, but also use what we knew of the author to make educated guesses about their personal motivations.

When it comes to studying the Bible, my own internal Perry Mason becomes instantly suspicious when confronted with the standard dogma about how the Bible was "divinely inspired" and is the "word of God" rather than the work of human beings. It really seems like all that dogma is aimed specifically at stopping anybody from examining the authorship of the text and the human motivations of the authors. Which, naturally, leads me to wonder what they're hiding.

In this case the blame actually rests with my 12th grade English teacher, Mrs. Mooney. She was this huge Perry Mason fan, and whenever we were analyzing a text she would insist that we "examine the motive." We were always reminded that the text was written by a person, and every person has their own motives and beliefs and biases and issues. We had to not only place the text in its historical context, but also use what we knew of the author to make educated guesses about their personal motivations.

When it comes to studying the Bible, my own internal Perry Mason becomes instantly suspicious when confronted with the standard dogma about how the Bible was "divinely inspired" and is the "word of God" rather than the work of human beings. It really seems like all that dogma is aimed specifically at stopping anybody from examining the authorship of the text and the human motivations of the authors. Which, naturally, leads me to wonder what they're hiding.

Nifty. English my senior year was British Lit, and consisted in part of watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail and comparing it, in an essay, to an actual documentary on King Arthur. Considerably less insightful, but fun, nonetheless. Darn you and your inability to be properly pigeonholed as a "soft scientist." j/k :D

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.

I don't think it does. I've never seen a passage in the bible condemning gays, anyway. Seems to be a bunch of political bullshit.

It's because marriage produces children that Jesus is against divorce...They joined together and they became one flesh (married with kids), let no one break them up...

What are you saying? Are you saying that the one flesh is the children? Or is the marriage the one flesh? I think it's the latter. Reading the verses 10:2 to 10:4, I think it is clear that Jesus is discussing divorce. Thus when he is speaking of 'rending asunder' in 10:9, he is speaking of the marriage as being rent asunder. And since that is also the one flesh of which he speaks, we can logically conclude that he is speaking of the marital relationship as the 'one flesh'. Your interpretation may vary.

Family planning? What would that have to do with it? People who participate in homosexual relations can and do can have children, they do it all the time. Child rearing doesn’t stop just because the society allows people to participate in homosexual acts. Obviously societies don't just disappear when they allow homosexual relations... I think you don't really believe your own theory?

And I think you don't understand it.

Child rearing would slow down if people would be allowed to engage in sex for any reason other than procreation. If you are trying to raise an army, you want as many soldiers as you can get, as fast as possible. Consequently, you pass laws saying women have to sex only with men, and men only with women.

It is important to look at these laws in the context of other laws as well. My theory also explains why polygyny is also supported in the Bible. If a warrior dies, his breeding women then become the property of another warrior, who then is obligated to impregnate her (see Onan).

The Bible may condemn gays due to homosexuality being the part of many 'heathen' religions at the time. Sorta like the Genesis story knocking the Sumerian snake God as the devil tempter.

Nifty. English my senior year was British Lit, and consisted in part of watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail and comparing it, in an essay, to an actual documentary on King Arthur. Considerably less insightful, but fun, nonetheless. Darn you and your inability to be properly pigeonholed as a "soft scientist." j/k :DIt's funny to me when I hear folks sobbing about how the Bible is banned from American public schools or whatever, because we spent a whole unit on the Bible during Mooney's class. Clearly she didn't get the memo. Her reasoning was, pretty much all the AP lit items include Christ figures or Biblical allusions anyhow, so we might as well read the primary source right off the bat. However, she didn't see any reason to let the Bible off the hook, either, and we had to do the same critical readings of it that we did for any other text.

She had trichotillomania, too, and would tug compulsively on her wild spiky gray hair while she taught. This was particularly alarming when she read the Song of Solomon to us.
Your puny mortal efforts cannot contain me.

Okay, it looks like you need a lesson in logical fallacies. I'll write them down in English, since the proper Latin names will probably be over your head.

*Proof By Lack Of Evidence- This is your claim that since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the marriage passage that homosexuality must be condemned by Jesus.

Actually, what you are doing, is putting words into my position so you can attack them instead of what I said and what I quoted. Jesus described marriage, simple enough, he said who created it and why. You want to find a way to allow a different type of marriage than the one Jesus defined, then fine, do that, like Fass said, legislatures define marriages too. But if you want to pretend that Jesus allowed homosexual marriages somehow, then you will have to show us where and how that works because Jesus defined marriage as something God created and it is certainly was not inclusive of anything other than what it said.

If Jesus was silent on an issue, then he was silent. It doesn't automatically make something right or wrong. It means he's silent.

Jesus is not silent on the description of what Marriage is. I’ve already posted it.


Errrr.... do you not understand what literal means?

The general idea is there. The main points are there. Breaking down passages into their component parts doesn't make sense for a number of reasons.

I didn't break the passages down at all, you are trying to break them down to mean things not including (like saying he might have recognized homosexual marriages simply because he didn’t condemn it directly).

It's funny to me when I hear folks sobbing about how the Bible is banned from American public schools or whatever, because we spent a whole unit on the Bible during Mooney's class. Clearly she didn't get the memo. Her reasoning was, pretty much all the AP lit items include Christ figures or Biblical allusions anyhow, so we might as well read the primary source right off the bat. However, she didn't see any reason to let the Bible off the hook, either, and we had to do the same critical readings of it that we did for any other text.

She had trichotillomania, too, and would tug compulsively on her wild spiky gray hair while she taught. This was particularly alarming when she read the Song of Solomon to us.
Your puny mortal efforts cannot contain me.

In my school we had the choice of taking Bible studies as an English course.

What are you saying? Are you saying that the one flesh is the children? Or is the marriage the one flesh? I think it's the latter. Reading the verses 10:2 to 10:4, I think it is clear that Jesus is discussing divorce. Thus when he is speaking of 'rending asunder' in 10:9, he is speaking of the marriage as being rent asunder. And since that is also the one flesh of which he speaks, we can logically conclude that he is speaking of the marital relationship as the 'one flesh'. Your interpretation may vary.

The 'one flesh' of a marriage IS the children. The children ARE the combined flesh of both parents are they not? It's rather simple.

And I think you don't understand it.

Child rearing would slow down if people would be ...

Child rearing does NOT need to slow down just because people have unproductive sex while their wives are pregnant, again, rather simple.

Jesus described marriage, simple enough, he said who created it and why. ...because Jesus defined marriage as something God created and it is certainly was not inclusive of anything other than what it said....Jesus is not silent on the description of what Marriage is. I’ve already posted it.

Actually, the Bible quotes you posted were Jesus's discussion on heterosexual divorce, and need not be interpreted as an all-inclusive definition of marriage.

That's not what Jesus said, He said...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Two people come together and create a new flesh, the two combined into one flesh, we call that one flesh new creation children.

Oh, ye of little faith.

The passage describes the sanctity of marriage - with regard to divorce (and what a big deal that is now, eh?)

So - why does Jesus say anything about leaving the mother and father and the two becoming one? Because he is quoting an earlier text.

You completely miss the POINT of the thing.

Jesus wanted us to follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of it. (Mark 2 and Mark 3). Your rules lawyering simply shows that you completely miss the point of the living ministry.

Actually, what you are doing, is putting words into my position so you can attack them instead of what I said and what I quoted. Jesus described marriage, simple enough, he said who created it and why. You want to find a way to allow a different type of marriage than the one Jesus defined, then fine, do that, like Fass said, legislatures define marriages too. But if you want to pretend that Jesus allowed homosexual marriages somehow, then you will have to show us where and how that works because Jesus defined marriage as something God created and it is certainly was not inclusive of anything other than what it said.
And that's based on an author's interpretation of what Jesus said. In the Gospels, Jesus doesn't really mince words. He doesn't imply. He doesn't condemn something by omission. He's so direct in the rest of his non-parable teachings, I don't understand why he'd condemn by omission in this instance.


Jesus is not silent on the description of what Marriage is. I’ve already posted it.
You were talking about spousal abuse, remember?


I didn't break the passages down at all, you are trying to break them down to mean things not including (like saying he might have recognized homosexual marriages simply because he didn’t condemn it directly).

You are using circumstatnial evidence provided by this one tiny passage to prove your case. You can't rely on the words being a 100% correct transcription, because the Gospels aren't a transcription. Like previously stated, they are the author's reflection. The general idea is intact yes, but whether Jesus was defining marriage as that and only that can't be determined from that passage alone.

The 'one flesh' of a marriage IS the children. The children ARE the combined flesh of both parents are they not? It's rather simple.

You keep repeating this as if mere repetition will make me think you are right. It won't. You have to back it up. Use sources and logic, please, as I did.

Child rearing does NOT need to slow down just because people have unproductive sex while their wives are pregnant, again, rather simple.

I like how you separated wives and people. I assume you believe wives are not people, then.

Would nonheteros have as much heterosexual sex as heteros if they didn't have to? No, they wouldn't. This means they would breed less overall. Thereby reducing the rate of new soldiers. I fail to see how you can not comprehend the logic.

Oh, ye of little faith.

The passage describes the sanctity of marriage - with regard to divorce (and what a big deal that is now, eh?)

So - why does Jesus say anything about leaving the mother and father and the two becoming one? Because he is quoting an earlier text.

You completely miss the POINT of the thing.

Jesus wanted us to follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of it. (Mark 2 and Mark 3). Your rules lawyering simply shows that you completely miss the point of the living ministry.

Exactly.

My favourite view on religion is something I think Richard Dawkins said (although I think he's a bit rabid and over the top at other times). It was something along the lines of how nobody with religious belief can rationally criticise atheism.

After all, if you're a Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or anything else, you're an atheist about an awful lot of gods: Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Amun-Ra, Marduk, every other current religion's pantheon... the list goes on into (at least) the high thousands.

So by not buying into any religion at all, I'm only applying the same thinking to every religion, including yours, that you yourself apply to every single religion except your own!

It's because marriage produces children that Jesus is against divorce... They joined together and they became one flesh (married with kids), let no one break them up...


If only it were scriptural.

Where in the scripture does it tell us that sterile people can't marry? Where does Jesus negate the marriages of those who fail to have children? Where does it suggest that old people don't 'count' as married?

Nowhere - because marriage isn't about babies, it's about fucking. What did Paul say about marriage? It's better to marry than to burn, eh? Lust outside of marriage is a sin, withing marriage it's a blessing.

Curiously - that logic works just as well with hetero- or homo- sexuality.

My favourite view on religion is something I think Richard Dawkins said (although I think he's a bit rabid and over the top at other times). It was something along the lines of how nobody with religious belief can rationally criticise atheism.

After all, if you're a Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or anything else, you're an atheist about an awful lot of gods: Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Amun-Ra, Marduk, every other current religion's pantheon... the list goes on into (at least) the high thousands.

So by not buying into any religion at all, I'm only applying the same thinking to every religion, including yours, that you yourself apply to every single religion except your own!
We aren't debating religion in general in this thread, nor are we debating Christianity in general. This thread is specifically about if or why the Bible condems gays.

Jesus is not silent on the description of what Marriage is. I’ve already posted it.


Jesus largely taught to Jews. In teaching to Jews, he constantly referred to the Hebrew scripture, to show where his teachings come from.

Jesus didn't 'describe' marriage in the text you posted - he referred to an earlier description that would be salient to his audience, and act as a basis for his projected outcome - not the same thing, at all.

As has been pointed out several times - Jesus wasn't teaching about 'marriage' - but about 'divorce'.

Actually, the Bible quotes you posted were Jesus's discussion on heterosexual divorce, and need not be interpreted as an all-inclusive definition of marriage.

As much as it pains me, I must agree with Gift-of-god. To again shed light on the mind of Jesus, you need only look at the conversation with the woman at the well. Jesus spent little time criticizing her actions or lifestyle, simply stating they were factual. He then proceeded to show his love for her.

Remember also that David sent his friend to be killed in battle, in order that he might sleep with his friend's wife. David was not banned from God's plan afterwards. God still blessed David with a nation.

1 Timothy 3:2 "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Utilizing your interpretation, this verse would suggest that deacon's should be male and monogamous. However, most have somehow decided it also means not divorced?, and many churches allow single older men to be deacons.

In reality, it seems obvious that, based solely on bible stories, sexual orgy's, affairs, parties, etc. were existent, if not somewhat prominent, in that day and time. It would also seem reasonable that Jesus would not have "skirted" his conversation/laws with such vague rhetoric if he truly meant to encompass these other topics. I wouldn't have.

Please, for the sake of others, let the Word speak for itself. Surely, if Gods grace can cover adultery, murder, theft, envy, etc., it can handle a little gay! Personally, based on my readings, grace is available to all who come short of his glory.

Next.

Sorry, that was just my view of the merit and relevance of this discussion as a whole. Apologies for not being clear enough.

Jesus largely taught to Jews. In teaching to Jews, he constantly referred to the Hebrew scripture, to show where his teachings come from.

Jesus didn't 'describe' marriage in the text you posted - he referred to an earlier description that would be salient to his audience, and act as a basis for his projected outcome - not the same thing, at all.

As has been pointed out several times - Jesus wasn't teaching about 'marriage' - but about 'divorce'.

OH I'm so sorry I don't have more time! I come back and find all these posts to debate with but I don't have enough time...

But a quick note for your post here, YOU, of all people, should be able to share with us the common knowledge of what the Jews knew then when Jesus was speaking to them. So for the sake of my brevity here, if marriage wasn’t about children why (in the quoted passage I posted before, about the wife with many brothers as husbands) did the questioners make a point of telling Jesus that the woman had No children from her husband when her husband died and she would marry his brother? They made a point of telling it that way because they knew that when a woman got married she depended on producing children. IF she did not have children and her husband died, her husband’s brother would be responsible to help her produce a child. You know it, I know it, and the people trying to trick Jesus with that question took it as common knowledge that Jesus would know it too. The ‘one flesh’ of the marriage was the children, it’s as biologically true then as it still is today. Two flesh come together and produce a new one flesh. The women in the story needed a child to validate her marriage in the eyes of the Jews.

As to Paul, yes, we can talk about him too. Paul shows us that sexual urges are to be directed into our marriage, solely and singularly. There is no acceptable outlet for our sexual urges outside of marriage, and he said we can only have one wife or husband, and since we already know what God’s creation of marriage is, we can see that what Paul said reinforces what Jesus said.

As to the ‘divorce’ or marriage conversation, divorce was the topic that made them discuss the parameters of marriage. That is a silly and pointless of objection and attempt at misdirection when discussion how Jesus defined marriage. Why Jesus defined marriage is a non-issue.


In any event, I'm sorry I'm out of time for today. I read threads for days sometimes looking for something good to jump into without finding anything and then when I do find oun it seems like I'm busy doing something else that day. :(

Sorry, that was just my view of the merit and relevance of this discussion as a whole. Apologies for not being clear enough.

This discussion is relevant to the participants. And feel free to start a thread on the relevance of religion or Christianity. It's hard enough to keep a thread on topic at times, so comments like yours can totally derail a thread.

No apology necesssary, I was just pointing it out.

...
Please, for the sake of others, let the Word speak for itself. Surely, if Gods grace can cover adultery, murder, theft, envy, etc., it can handle a little gay! Personally, based on my readings, grace is available to all who come short of his glory.

Next.


God's grace can cover everything relevant in this discussion. Something covered or common though does not mean that it is permitted or overlooked.

Those that pretend their sins are 'more' forgivable than someone elses are wrong.

Jesus largely taught to Jews. In teaching to Jews, he constantly referred to the Hebrew scripture, to show where his teachings come from.

Jesus didn't 'describe' marriage in the text you posted - he referred to an earlier description that would be salient to his audience, and act as a basis for his projected outcome - not the same thing, at all.

As has been pointed out several times - Jesus wasn't teaching about 'marriage' - but about 'divorce'.
Yeah, but that completely invalidates his argument.:p

Back when the Bible is translated

In the untranslated Hebrew, it has the same meaning.

... if marriage wasn’t about children why ...did the questioners make a point of telling Jesus that the woman had No children from her husband when her husband died and she would marry his brother? ...

To show that all the marriages in such a n example would be qualitatively similar. It need not have anything to do with children.

As to the ‘divorce’ or marriage conversation, divorce was the topic that made them discuss the parameters of marriage. That is a silly and pointless of objection and attempt at misdirection when discussion how Jesus defined marriage. Why Jesus defined marriage is a non-issue.

So then, rather than address our arguments showing that Jesus was addressing divorce, you are going to simply dismiss them? I'm going to call bullshit.

We aren't debating religion in general in this thread, nor are we debating Christianity in general. This thread is specifically about if or why the Bible condems gays.

The Bible does.

Jesus doesn't.

I don't give a fuck what Paul or Leviticus says. If it had been such a huge issue, Jesus would have said "being gay is wrong" or "sex between people of the same sex is wrong". He didn't.

He mentions adultery (cheating on your spouse), violence, greed, theft, and a host of other things. But of sex in general, he never speaks (with the exception of adultery, but it's not about the sex per se, it's about the breech of trust and the betrayal of vows).

Jesus doesn't care who gets into your bed. And Jesus is the only one worth listening to anyway.

A reasonable theory and it holds up well, but it is not from leviticus that most anti homosexual religious opinions are solely drawn from, in fact it is from Genesis
that the first action of the lord against homosexual extremes is found, Sodom and Gomorrah most notably though Admah and Zeboim are also mentioned. (Genesis 19)

however, the emphasis is not on the homosexual desires of the village people, nor for thier murderous rage but in the fact that they did not welcome the travellers.

of course things can be extrapolated quite a bit from thier original meaning....

Jesus doesn't.

You're deluding yourself.

*bakes cookies for Wilgrove*

I approve of this thread.

*nods greatly*

Jesus doesn't say it's wrong to beat your wife, in no way does that ommision mean he allowed it.
What he gave was a general standard for deciding moral questions, based on loving one another. Is wife-beating wrong? Of course: it does hurt to another.
Unfortunately, Christians tend to substitute a different moral standard "Do whatever you're told, in this book here" when it comes to certain questions. Ironically, that is the moral standard of those who crucified Jesus, not of Jesus.

You're deluding yourself.

No, I most certainly am not.

Go read your Gospels.

The Bible does.

Jesus doesn't.

I don't give a fuck what Paul or Leviticus says. If it had been such a huge issue, Jesus would have said "being gay is wrong" or "sex between people of the same sex is wrong". He didn't.

He mentions adultery (cheating on your spouse), violence, greed, theft, and a host of other things. But of sex in general, he never speaks (with the exception of adultery, but it's not about the sex per se, it's about the breech of trust and the betrayal of vows).

Jesus doesn't care who gets into your bed. And Jesus is the only one worth listening to anyway.
I misspoke. I should have said Jesus.

The Bible argument is seperate and I try not to go down that road because bigots will be bigots and really don't care if they are interpreting things correctly or not.

I misspoke. I should have said Jesus.

The Bible argument is seperate and I try not to go down that road because bigots will be bigots and really don't care if they are interpreting things correctly or not.

Precisely.

If Paulites or Leviticusish want to condemn homosexuality, all the more power(and stupid bigotry) to them. But for those who like to call themselves "Christians", one would believe following the teachings of the Christ would be more important than listening to what a bigoted, sexist man or an outdated book with rules of hygiene from 6000 years ago had to say.

No, I most certainly am not.

You convince only yourself, but that's sort of what self-delusion is all about, so it's fitting.

Go read your Gospels.

Something you should've already done - "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law". Jesus is not pure love in that religion - such nonsense is something one would believe only children could be fed so as not to frighten them with the truth about it, no matter how falsely and deceptively comforting and easy it is to worship tolerant goodness incarnate - he is an instrument of the apocalypse whose role is to return with a sword to violently strike down workers of iniquity such as yourself.

The best part of watching people criticise Christians and Christianity is that they're actually criticising their interpretation of Christianity.

The best part of watching people criticise Christians and Christianity is that they're actually criticising their interpretation of Christianity.

The best way to criticise/insult the Bible (and its associated religions) is to quote it directly, true.

*bakes cookies for Wilgrove*

I approve of this thread.

*nods greatly*

I will not be having any. *scrutinizes Ruffy's appendages*

The best way to criticise/insult the Bible (and its associated religions) is to quote it directly, true.

Then you will undoubtedly be able to quote the relevant parts of the BIble that support your interpretation.

You convince only yourself, but that's sort of what self-delusion is all about, so it's fitting.

Fass, the vacuity of your rhetoric is unequaled. Sometimes I even wonder if you can delude yourself into thinking the whole world is wrong and you're the only one who's not crazy.

What you're doing here is called projection, by the way. Or trolling, in the case you don't truly believe what you write.


Something you should've already done - "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law". Jesus is not pure love in that religion - such nonsense is something one would believe only children could be fed so as not to frighten them with the truth about it, no matter how falsely and deceptively comforting and easy it is to worship tolerant goodness incarnate - he is an instrument of the apocalypse whose role is to return with a sword to violently strike down workers of iniquity such as yourself.

Jesus' answers about the law are always aimed at fucktards from the temples who pass their time trying to trick him into disagreeing with the law so they could have him arrested/killed/discredited, in no particular order.

Jesus never cared for the more stupid of the ancient laws. He never prompts discussions about the laws. What he tries to drill into everyone's head is to love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, share your worldly possessions, and generally be swell to each other. The only times he speaks of the law, instead of broad moral principles, is when other people start to get anal retentive about the small characters and pester him to tell what he thinks about it.

If you think otherwise you haven't been reading your Gospels.

Then you will undoubtedly be able to quote the relevant parts of the BIble that support your interpretation.

I did. The fancy bit about my "interpretation" is that it based only on what is written - not what I wish were or some such nebulous numen. The part about Jesus' gruesome and bloody part in the apocalypse, you need only read Revelations for. That they can reconcile such a butcher with "the lamb" and "love"... :rolleyes:

I did. The fancy bit about my "interpretation" is that it based only on what is written - not what I wish were or some such nebulous numen. The part about Jesus' gruesome and bloody part in the apocalypse, you need only read Revelations for. That they can reconcile such a butcher with "the lamb" and "love"... :rolleyes:

I see. You are one of those who insist on a literal interpretation of Revelations. Do you have any Biblical support for such a position?

And you didn't actually provide the Biblical quotes that support your position. Just to clarify, it is your position that Jesus implicitly condemns gays due to his blanket support of Old Testament laws, right?

It doesn't say Though shall not hack another person's credit card number and use it online... Was it omitted, does that mean I can do it because it doesn't specifically say I can't? Of course not. Stealing is defined, marriage is defined.

We're not talking about stealing. We're talking about whether or not it's permissable to drive a car.

Fass, the vacuity of your rhetoric is unequaled. Sometimes I even wonder if you can delude yourself into thinking the whole world is wrong and you're the only one who's not crazy.

Of course I'm not crazy. For one, I don't believe that fairytales about cosmic zombie Jews are true. Also, I don't delude myself that a homophobic religion somehow becomes anything else if only I can click my heals together hard enough and repeat the mantra "Jesus is swell!".

What you're doing here is called projection, by the way. Or trolling, in the case you don't truly believe what you write.

As I said, all I've done is quote the Bible directly. Its ugliness doesn't come from me - it comes from itself. You call that projection? I call your reaction servile cowardice.

Jesus' answers about the law are always aimed at fucktards from the temples who pass their time trying to trick him into disagreeing with the law so they could have him arrested/killed/discredited, in no particular order.

Jesus never cared for the more stupid of the ancient laws. He never prompts discussions about the laws. What he tries to drill into everyone's head is to love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, share your worldly possessions, and generally be swell to each other. The only times he speaks of the law, instead of broad moral principles, is when other people start to get anal retentive about the small characters and pester him to tell what he thinks about it.

"Jesus loves me! Honest he does! When he says the law still applies - even the parts about killing fags such as me - I go *lalalalala* and insert that cross, by which I shall be impaled like so many before me, further." Sure, honey, sure.

If you think otherwise you haven't been reading your Gospels.

Or not drinking the kool-aid® as diligently as you've lapped it up.

I see. You are one of those who insist on a literal interpretation of Revelations. Do you have any Biblical support for such a position?

Ah, the old "don't read the Bible as it's actually written! Read it as you imagine that it's written, because otherwise I can't defend its nastiness"-nonsense.

And you didn't actually provide the Biblical quotes that support your position. Just to clarify, it is your position that Jesus implicitly condemns gays due to his blanket support of Old Testament laws, right?

The only part of the Bible that the Jesus character does support is the OT. The NT comes chronologically after him and bears no mark of his approval. The OT (the NT does, too, but again, Jesus didn't have that to support) wants fags killed dead. Also, Jesus is pretty much supposed to be the one who kills a whole bunch of people in the end. So, not much leeway there to fool myself into thinking that there is anything redeeming to it for people such as me. That hasn't stopped others though, what with the "don't read it as it's written" fad.

Ah, the old "don't read the Bible as it's actually written! Read it as you imagine that it's written, because otherwise I can't defend its nastiness"-nonsense.

I am not defending anything in it. I am asking you to explain yourself. I think even a cursory reading of Revelations shows that it could not possibly be taken literally by any sane and intelligent individual. So I am wondering why you want me to accept that a literal interpretation is the correct one. You said you base your interpretation on what the Bible actually says. Therefore, I want to know which quotes you used to come to such a conclusion.

The only part of the Bible that the Jesus character does support is the OT. The NT comes chronologically after him and bears no mark of his approval. The OT (the NT does, too, but again, Jesus didn't have that to support) wants fags killed dead. Also, Jesus is pretty much supposed to be the one who kills a whole bunch of people in the end. So, not much leeway there to fool myself into thinking that there is anything redeeming to it for people such as me. That hasn't stopped others though, what with the "don't read it as it's written" fad.

So you don't have those Bible quotes then.

I am not defending anything in it. I am asking you to explain yourself. I think even a cursory reading of Revelations shows that it could not possibly be taken literally by any sane and intelligent individual.

That can be said about the Bible, full stop. That's sort of the point. It's so nasty, it is repugnant to take it literally. So, we see all these "don't read it as it's written, read it as you imagine that it's written" exclamations. Once one falls for that one, then I can most certainly see why it's easy to delude oneself about all sorts of things in it. I don't fall for it, though, so I don't entertain such wishful thinking and apologist tripe. I see it for the used loo paper that it is.

So I am wondering why you want me to accept that a literal interpretation is the correct one. You said you base your interpretation on what the Bible actually says. Therefore, I want to know which quotes you used to come to such a conclusion.

I use sanity to come to such a conclusion.

So you don't have those Bible quotes then.

I don't need an excuse to read something as it's written. I need only read it. What you need to read it as it's not written, though, is so much imaginative self-delusion, that one wonders why you even bother reading the book when you apparently have its meaning all in your head and not on its pages. Perhaps you should write a new one prefaced with the text "codswallop not actually meant to be read!".

It describes marriage. It's real clear and didn't omit anything. When it says, thou shall not steal, it doesn't need to define 'everything' that could be stolen, all things are covered by the statement... Here we have Jesus describing marriage, period, and when it started and by whom, and He said we shouldn't change it.

He said a lot of things, like Judge not, lest ye be judged, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Amazingly, those are almost universally forgotten by those who start pulling out the Bible verses to justify their own brand of bias.

How does a big deal become one flesh? One flesh has to be the children created from the union, the two don't remain 'one flesh after death' what if they are widowed and had many husbands? How many 'one fleshes' would they be in heaven? In fact, someone asked Jesus just that...

Mark 12:18-
And they asked him a question, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife."

Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong."

No, they are not married in heaven, but they could have become 'one flesh' with each of her husbands by having a child with each one in his turn...

One flesh clearly implies that the married couple is to be considered one person. "What God has put together, let no man put asunder."

There is nothing about children there.

http://wvvw.tiu.edu/psychology/Twelker/BDFMChap4.htm
Bailey makes the point that the union, once established, is ontologically complete but "socially imperfect". Children, who are uniquely the couple's own creation and who represent the "expression of their love in its complete self-giving", are the result of the one flesh union, not the union itself. In other words, the one flesh union is the nucleus around which the family is created. The family is an extension of the one flesh union.

Some people have taken the statement in Genesis, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28; 9:1) as a commandment as well as an indication that procreation is the purpose of sexual union. Piper (1953) clearly rejects this notion as suggests that children should be considered as "a further blessing added by God" to sexual union. "We have here a promise of children and not an obligation to beget them" since in the same passages, fruitfulness is spoken of as blessing, addressed both to creatures of the sea and air as well as to Noah.

That can be said about the Bible, full stop. That's sort of the point. It's so nasty, it is repugnant to take it literally. So, we see all these "don't read it as it's written, read it as you imagine that it's written" exclamations. Once one falls for that one, then I can most certainly see why it's easy to delude oneself about all sorts of things in it. I don't fall for it, though, so I don't entertain such wishful thinking and apologist tripe. I see it for the used loo paper that it is.

So you are trying to say that the only accurate Christians are the fundamentalists? What about those moderate Christstians who are genuinely good people and who care about others. Although I find it hypocritical to say the Bible is the literal word of God, most moderate and liberal Christians admit that it was authored by humans and therefore not perfect. They take the symbols from it and ignore the blatantly evil and immoral parts. Moderate and liberal Christians also rarely have a problem with homosexuality, therefore to you insult them is to say that Christians should be bigoted, which in turns betrays more than minor bigotry on your own part.

Back on topic however. The Bible contains two or three (depending on how you wish to interpret it) passages that denounce homosexuality but dozens more that support the idea of loving one's neighbor and the pardoning of sins. To a fundamentalist, all the passages advocating violence against those who are different outweigh the messages of peace. It all falls down to what parts of the Bible you think outweigh the others. The Bible contradicts itself on issues such as this, meaning it is up to the person.

As to why the Bible would include homophobic sentiment, that is rather simple. The Bible was composed in around the 4th century CE (current era), where Christianity had just about taken over Rome. As was said earlier, orgies with people participating in both heterosexual and homosexual sex were common in Roman forms of Paganism. Since Christianity had a vested intrest in putting these people down (it had jus suffered through 300 years of persecution by them) that was one of the ways to do so. As was involving a lot of Pagan mythology. The story of the Virgin Mary was adopted from paganism, as was the idea for several holidays. Christianity sought to put down all that lead its followers away from the path, one way of doing that was outright condemnation of those in power (since rich Romans at the time routinely participated in both heterosexual and homosexual sex). Jesus in his life also condemned the Roman authorities (he invented Hell for a reason).

As I said earlier, Christianity only denounces homosexuality if you interpret it that way, unfortunately many fundamentalists believe every word within the bible to be perfectly true, even when contradictory.

You convince only yourself, but that's sort of what self-delusion is all about, so it's fitting.



Something you should've already done - "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law". Jesus is not pure love in that religion - such nonsense is something one would believe only children could be fed so as not to frighten them with the truth about it, no matter how falsely and deceptively comforting and easy it is to worship tolerant goodness incarnate - he is an instrument of the apocalypse whose role is to return with a sword to violently strike down workers of iniquity such as yourself.

Not even close to true.

If Jesus was the Messiah that Israel was waiting for, you might have a point. But he wasn't - he is discluded from possibly being Messiah in several ways (Not least the fact that one of his ancestors is cursed that none of his descendents can ever sit on the Throne of David).

You are making the mistake of buying into the Christian press, whilst at the same time trying to debate it.

If you take Jesus for what he is (supposed to be), his message is love, ignoring the ways in which others teach religion, following the spirit of the holy laws, rather than the letter, and a personal relationship with your maker.
If you ignore the claims of him as Messiah (which don't work), his message is at odds with the teachings of earlier Israel, and the militancy of Paul.

I did. The fancy bit about my "interpretation" is that it based only on what is written - not what I wish were or some such nebulous numen. The part about Jesus' gruesome and bloody part in the apocalypse, you need only read Revelations for. That they can reconcile such a butcher with "the lamb" and "love"... :rolleyes:

Revelation is a prophetic vision, allegedly. It's origin is attributed to 'John' (although there are, as always, arguments about it's true provenence), not to Jesus. He is a character in someone else's vision in Revelation.

I don't need an excuse to read something as it's written. I need only read it. What you need to read it as it's not written, though, is so much imaginative self-delusion, that one wonders why you even bother reading the book when you apparently have its meaning all in your head and not on its pages. Perhaps you should write a new one prefaced with the text "codswallop not actually meant to be read!".

The problem is - the version you sell isn't how it is written. You are pushing an apologists's wetdream version, where Jesus CAN amend the law of Israel, where he IS Messiah, and where that would matter in a question of divinity. Further, in your rendition, you seem to be treating Paul as more than a commentator, and assuming that Revelation is of equal weight to the Gospel (red-letter) text. Both of which ONLY hold true if you assume that the entire book is inspired and inerrant, and that the whole text is to be treated as one unified document of equal significance.

Must you open your mouth to reveal the vacuum of your mind?

Ok ok, I don't actually think you're that ignorant, I just think that sometimes you should wait until a thread on a topic is open rather than making these slightly vague and occasionally insightful posts to 'begin' discussions that rarely take off.

(And a cookie for whoever can name where my first sentence comes from).

Personally, I think it's a very insightful opinion, and it's good to see that others feel the same way, and are open to expressing it. It doesn't have to come off as a 'great debate topic', he's very welcome to express his own opinion as he sees fit, and see where the discussion goes from there (Also a great way to see any others who have the same, or similar beliefs in the condemnation of homosexuality). I see plenty room for a discussion involving political influences throughout history, on religion, and in this particular discussion, the Bible.

Fassitude, when you quote "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law" you are quoting half a sentence. What Jesus said was actually "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law until all is fulfilled". The word here rendered "fulfilled" is a difficult one in Greek, presumably representing a difficult word in Aramaic, which makes it hard to be sure what the precise meaning is; the conventional Christian interpretation is that the "fulfillment" was the crucifixion, after which the law did not stand; what is clear whether you accept that reading or not is that Jesus most decidedly did NOT think the O.T. laws were eternal. In the divorce passage which has been discussed in other contexts, Jesus explicitly states that the O.T. was WRONG to allow a man to throw out his wife whenever he was tired of her: "Out of hard-heartedness that was written." He also deliberately broke the Sabbath law, instructing his disciples to gather food on that day (the first commandment given to the party of Hebrews under Moses, well before they even got to Mt. Sinai, was "don't gather food on the seventh day") and explained that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". It is good for people to have a day off; that is why the Sabbath law was given; the law has no justification except that it is good for people, and should be set aside whenever it ceases to serve that purpose; to think that the law comes first, and what is good for people should be set aside if it conflicts with the law, is the direct opposite of what Jesus taught.

I would sooner believe that the ancient Judaic prohibitions against homosexuality had their roots in family planning practices suitable for a tribe of desert nomads: i.e. attempts to breed as many male warriors as possible in the shortest amount of time. My theory also conveniently explains the subordinate roles of women in such cultures.

Family planning? What would that have to do with it? People who participate in homosexual relations can and do can have children, they do it all the time.

??? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stork)

As opposed to your 'children' interpretation, which would put an even crazier spin on 10:9 (What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder); implying that you shouldn't cut kids in half.

1 Kings 3:25??

Why does the Bible condemn gays? Simple.

First, major world religions besides Christianity have traditionally opposed homosexuality, so this isn't just about Christianity but also about many religions.

The reason religions have tended to oppose homosexuality is because homosexuals engage in sex purely for pleasure. This leads to the next observation, which is that religions have tended to oppose pleasure in general, not just gay sex, but also acts of heterosexual sex, or even revealing clothing, gluttony, even music in some cases.

The reason why traditional religions tend to be so opposed to pleasure is because the founders of the religions promoted the ideal of self-sacrifice above all other ideals. The cynics will argue that people were taught to sacrifice themselves so that the founders of the religions can use them like tools, while the idealists will argue that people were taught to sacrifice themselves because the founders of the religions genuinely believed people should help each other out no matter what the cost, even if death is on the line.

The founders of the religions realized that a person who indulges in worldly pleasure - or any other strong ties to the material world - is less likely to sacrifice himself than a person who has little ties to the material world. Think about it: the person who has a lot to live for - a bright future, or maybe knowledge that he's going to get laid tonight, etc. - would probably be more hesitant of jumping into a dangerous river to save a drowning stranger, than, say someone who consciously avoided worldly things so that he can be ready to pursue the ultimate ideal of self-sacrifice when the time comes.

Therefore it occurred to the founders of the religions that pleasureful things like sex (whether gay or not), lusts, hedonism, etc. would stand in the way of pursuing what the founders believed was the most important ideal - self-sacrifice. The cynics and the idealists can argue over whether the founders intended for the self-sacrifice to mean piloting a kamikaze plane, or jumping into a river to save a drowning stranger.

First, major world religions besides Christianity have traditionally opposed homosexuality1. Such as?
2. The bible itself as well as the condemnation of homosexuality in it is primarily a Jewish thing, only taken over by Christianity. And the basis of this condemnation is - as the OP correctly stated - the urge to produce offspring. All other sexual rules in the bible also have the sole aim of increasing the number of Jews and possible Yhvh-worshipers. Orthodox Jews even consider people without children murderers. Ethnocentric religion is just an euphemism for an ideology of racial supremacy.

The OT (the NT does, too, but again, Jesus didn't have that to support) wants fags killed dead.
Well, I suppose that when you run out of Biblical arguments, you can always settle for homophobic insults. Yay for free speech!

Well that was uncalled for and inaccurate.

Condemning homosexuality is ignorant - especially since sexual orientation is determined at while in the womb and it isn't a choice.

Condemning homosexuality is ignorant - especially since sexual orientation is determined at while in the womb and it isn't a choice.Which would make it God's mistake...

Which would make it God's mistake...

Nope, it would fall into 'shit happens'.

Sometimes shit happens and its no bodies fault.

Honey, you don't get it. If homosexuality is not a choice and it is against God's will, then it is the proof against God's omnipotence. Burn the churches!

As long as you remember that not all religions condemn homosexuality, then go ahead.

Nope, it would fall into 'shit happens'.

Sometimes shit happens and its no bodies fault.Honey, you don't get it. If homosexuality is not a choice and it is against God's will, then it is either the proof against God's omnipotence or the proof against God's benevolence. Burn the churches!

As long as you remember that not all religions condemn homosexuality, then go ahead.I consider the abrahamic religions complete and utter dirt, as well as most of their followers. Most other religions are fine by me.

I consider the abrahamic religions complete and utter dirt, as well as most of their followers. Most other religions are fine by me.

Wow.

You and me should be bestest friends

Why the Bible condemns Gays

Who cares what the Bible states of Gays? can't you create an opinion for yourself about gays

Who cares what the Bible states of Gays? can't you create an opinion for yourself about gays

Looks like someone didn't even read one post of this thread.

Wow.
You and me should be bestest friendsWell, I suppose mine is the most extreme position in all NSG. And I suppose I am on more ignore-lists than anybody else. I don't know whether you want such friends.

Well, I suppose mine is the most extreme position in all NSG. And I suppose I am on more ignore-lists than anybody else. I don't know whether you want such friends.

Most extreme position on all NS? Coming across as intermediately anti-semitic, in a forum that has had posters claiming to be pro-abortion, or anti-human... or our current occassional pseudo-nazis...?

I think you give yourself too much credit, maybe.

He said a lot of things, like Judge not, lest ye be judged, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Amazingly, those are almost universally forgotten by those who start pulling out the Bible verses to justify their own brand of bias.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hope you don't think that's what I have been doing here? If I've been judging others here at all and especially harder than I judge myself, then I apolgoize for that, but I don't see where I've done that, my purpose here has been to discuss what the scripture says, or not...



One flesh clearly implies that the married couple is to be considered one person. "What God has put together, let no man put asunder."

There is nothing about children there.

http://wvvw.tiu.edu/psychology/Twelker/BDFMChap4.htm

I disagree. The couple are to be 'joined' and sexual relations is to be entirely contained within the confines of marriage, yes, and let no one separate what God has joined together. Sexual relations are not for adultery or fornication etc., but are to be kept sacred for your spouse alone. However, your link also says what I've been saying all along, about children being the ‘one-flesh’ aspect of the marriage description provided by Jesus and the scriptures in general ... From your link:

Köstenberger explains the term, mystery, in this way:
Rather than focusing on typology or allegory, Paul takes the Gen.2:24 quote literally as referring to the fact that "the two" become "one flesh" in human marriage. He then implies that, in the union between Christ and the Church also, "the two" become "one flesh." It is this spiritual union itself that Paul calls a "mystery," not the typological correspondence between marriage and the relationship between Christ and the Church (Köstenberger, 1991, pg. 20).
Both Klingler (1984) and Lewis (1983) argue that the passage is about the husband-wife relationship as well. They point out that the context clearly is concerned with husband-wife relationships, and that a literal and natural reading requires that the subjects are a man, a wife, and the parents.


And further down it says this, which agrees with what I've been trying to say:
That is the Scriptural conception: that is the Christian conception. This is sexual union. For this purpose God created the two sexes. It was for the sake of marriage, not for harlotry and fornication (I Cor. 6: 16), the great crime against marriage. With his mind still unclouded by sin, Adam saw this and expressed it, and Paul with his mind enlightened, found no more adequate expression" (Lenski, 1946, pg. 642).

Wood (1978) also limits the term to sexual intercourse.

Another interpretation claims that the one-flesh union is attained in the offspring from the marriage. Carter (1965) points out that a child is a combination of characteristics from both the man and the woman, attributes that are permanently united in a new, unique person. This view implies that the highest purpose of marriage is procreation, since the one flesh union cannot be attained in any other way.

So with just the link you provided, it has many different sides of the itnerpretation of the verses we are talking about, but it has provided me with allies for my side as well. Katganistan's Link (http://wvvw.tiu.edu/psychology/Twelker/BDFMChap4.htm)

With this support I will continue to posit my position that 'one flesh' is the offspring of the couple who are married. But I also agree that the marriage bond is much more than just becoming one flesh, it is a union that is joined together by God in more ways than just that.

...
I don't need an excuse to read something as it's written. I need only read it. What you need to read it as it's not written, though, is so much imaginative self-delusion, that one wonders why you even bother reading the book when you apparently have its meaning all in your head and not on its pages. Perhaps you should write a new one prefaced with the text "codswallop not actually meant to be read!".

In other words, you have no justification for your interpretation of the Bible. Tell you what, why don't you go read it a bit and then come back when you are more informed and have something to add to the debate?

Thanks.

Most extreme position on all NS?I've not come across anyone who shares my opposition to the abrahamic religions. Have you?

I've not come across anyone who shares my opposition to the abrahamic religions. Have you?

Most of the like-minded bigots seem to focus solely on Islam. Only you seem to focus on the other two. But it is more of a difference in target than a difference in ignorant bigotry.

Must you open your mouth to reveal the vacuum of your mind?

Ok ok, I don't actually think you're that ignorant, I just think that sometimes you should wait until a thread on a topic is open rather than making these slightly vague and occasionally insightful posts to 'begin' discussions that rarely take off.

(And a cookie for whoever can name where my first sentence comes from).
Huh? Who are you saying that to?

I've not come across anyone who shares my opposition to the abrahamic religions. Have you?
Sure you have. I'm one, for example. There are lots of us out there who think all the "book-worshippers" are basically of a piece.

I would like to say that such open expressions of bigotry are refreshing, but they're not. They are unoriginal and mildly nauseating, to be honest.

1. Such as?
2. The bible itself as well as the condemnation of homosexuality in it is primarily a Jewish thing, only taken over by Christianity. And the basis of this condemnation is - as the OP correctly stated - the urge to produce offspring. All other sexual rules in the bible also have the sole aim of increasing the number of Jews and possible Yhvh-worshipers. Orthodox Jews even consider people without children murderers. Ethnocentric religion is just an euphemism for an ideology of racial supremacy.

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. No major religion or culture, besides maybe the ancient pagan Greco-Roman religion, has failed to condemn pleasure in general or homosexuality specifically.

Oh. A religious debate.

*leaves*

I consider the abrahamic religions complete and utter dirt, as well as most of their followers. Most other religions are fine by me.

The typical ignorant western atheist who romanticizes eastern religions.

Which would make it God's mistake...

Except that it isn't a mistake at all.

I've not come across anyone who shares my opposition to the abrahamic religions. Have you?

Good grief, do you ever read your own posts? You honestly think you're the baddest atheist in the room? I assure you that you are not.

Why is there all this discussion? The Bible condemns homosexuals because it is an abomination unto the LORD to lie with a man as one does with a woman. It is unnatural and just plain evil. Gays do not love each other, they only have lust.

The OT (the NT does, too, but again, Jesus didn't have that to support) wants fags killed dead.

Big Rule #1: thou shalt not kill.

If you're going to pick and choose quite so blatantly and hopelessly, you're clearly not worth any attempt at rational debate.

"Thou shalt not kill" is actually the sixth of the Decalogue, but yeah, normally people's toweringly biased selective reading of the Bible is not generally quite so blatant.

To be fair, the meaning is closer to "Thou shalt do no murder," not an absolute injunction against killing. Remember, the Bible specifically lists quite a number of people that you're supposed to kill, including witches, adulterers, idolaters, and people who wear more than one type of fabric at the same time.

It's much easier to avoid these problems if you realize the Bible is just a load of made up nonsense. :p

Well, considering that the Council of Nicaea (in about AD 309) was formed by the early-ish Church in an attempt to standardise the Bible and consolidate their power, I'm not really surprised about the Bible.

Then again, I've always said that reading the OT is far more fun than the NT - all those assassinations, wars, adulteries, miracles by Elijah and Elisha and so forth. If you compare that to the works of Jesus and his apostles, I know that a film of the OT is much more heart-pounding!

Big Rule #1: thou shalt not kill.

No reasonable interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" argues that it is meant to apply to civil punishment.

In other words, you have no justification for your interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, since I'm not "interpreting". The entire point is that I am reading it as it's written. So your demands for justification of an "interpretation" are a non sequitur, but that is par for the course with all your posts, really.

Well, considering that the Council of Nicaea (in about AD 309) was formed by the early-ish Church in an attempt to standardise the Bible and consolidate their power, I'm not really surprised about the Bible.

Then again, I've always said that reading the OT is far more fun than the NT - all those assassinations, wars, adulteries, miracles by Elijah and Elisha and so forth. If you compare that to the works of Jesus and his apostles, I know that a film of the OT is much more heart-pounding!

Yeah, but the God character is kinda an asshole in the original. He's a lot nicer in the sequel, though. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceTurn)

But Fassitude, which version of the Bible are you reading? The KJV has a radically different intention in some parts to, say, the Philips or Good News Bibles. At no point anywhere will you find the word "homosexual" (or anything vaguely related to it) in the KJV, yet in some of the more, let's say, interpretative Bibles, colourful biased phrases such as "homosexual offenders" start cropping up.

Not even close to true.

Then you've never read the Bible.

Well, I suppose that when you run out of Biblical arguments, you can always settle for homophobic insults,

And the homophobic insult was? Apart from a figment of your imagination, that is.

Yay for free speech!

Yay, indeed.

The OT (the NT does, too, but again, Jesus didn't have that to support) wants fags killed dead.
Oh I dunno, maybe the very comment that I quoted in the post you are quoting...

But Fassitude, which version of the Bible are you reading?

www.bibeln.se

The KJV has a radically different intention in some parts to, say, the Philips or Good News Bibles.

Why would I be reading it in English?

At no point anywhere will you find the word "homosexual" (or anything vaguely related to it) in the KJV, yet in some of the more, let's say, interpretative Bibles, colourful biased phrases such as "homosexual offenders" start cropping up.

The straws you clutch at are precarious indeed, but amount again to nothing more than "don't read it as it's written - not only must you imagine together things in it that least insult your sensibility (but all the more your sense in return), you must also claim it is so riddled with mistranslations as to have no meaning on its own so that all those imaginings can be even more detached from what it actually says".

Oh I dunno, maybe the very comment that I quoted in the post you are quoting...

Where is the homophobic insult? The OT (and NT) do want us fags dead. That's the truth.

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

That's my theory anyways.


I guess you are completely unfamiliar with the Kelvecchio hermeneutic.

Us fags? Are you a homosexual trying to defend the Bible's right to supposedly kill homosexuals? That's free speech, certainly! (The quote is still both homophobic and insulting though.)

By all means, please read the Bible in Swedish. I certainly can't, so I'll leave you to it. As for mistranslations, well I can't answer for them, but it is certainly true that humans will read into anything precisely what they want to read and no more.

Or, perhaps the bible was just compiled and edited by centuries' worth of heterosexual men who felt threatened by the concept of homosexuality. It's not that far-fetched.

Us fags?

Yup.

Are you a homosexual trying to defend the Bible's right to supposedly kill homosexuals?

I defend its right to be published, yes, but that's because I'm big on freedom that way. I do not delude myself into thinking that the wretched and horrible book propagates for anything else than the extermination of gay people, though. Look at it like a Jew not going "well, you know, Mein Kampf really could be 'interpreted' to not really want us dead after all, if I just disregard what it actually says". Or a fag.

(The quote is still both homophobic and insulting though.)

Which quote?

By all means, please read the Bible in Swedish.

Well, gee willy, thank you for your permission - I never would've dreamt using my native language without it.

I certainly can't, so I'll leave you to it. As for mistranslations, well I can't answer for them, but it is certainly true that humans will read into anything precisely what they want to read and no more.

And some will just read instead of inventing.

Nope, it would fall into 'shit happens'.

Sometimes shit happens and its no bodies fault.

Now while I do not think it is a BAD thing to be homosexual, if we are dealing from the position that it is bad

And someone with the power to stop a bad thing stands idly by they would be in the wrong, I dont care who it is

Could it be that homosexual acts where seen by the early church as a decadence of the rich, pagan Romans. Homosexual acts between males was common in the upper classes with the higher status taking dominance. Roman Emperors from Caesar to Hadrian where known to be bisexual. Female-female relations was considered an abomination because it conflicted with the Roman view on gender roles.

"Of course, since I'm not "interpreting". The entire point is that I am reading it as it's written. "
No, chopping a sentence in half to make it appear that Jesus was saying the opposite of what he meant is not "reading it as it's written". With equal honesty, I can quote Fassitude's opinion as "kill fags dead".

Then you've never read the Bible.


About what I expected.

I spent the time explaining why it was so, and you gave me playground silliness. Well, I already wasted more time on it than it was worth.

I feel no need to discuss my 'bible reading' credentials with you.

Somehow Fass, I suspect that you thrive on any notion of hatred from the bible.
As if that would give direct reason to hate them right back.
Wich, essentially, makes you no better than them.

*shrug*

It doesn't say Though shall not hack another person's credit card number and use it online... Was it omitted, does that mean I can do it because it doesn't specifically say I can't? Of course not. Stealing is defined, marriage is defined.

Actually, no stealing ISN'T defined. It just says don't do it.

Good grief, do you ever read your own posts? You honestly think you're the baddest atheist in the room? I assure you that you are not.

This would largely be because he's NOT AN ATHEIST.

Big Rule #1: thou shalt not kill.

The problem is that's followed up with instruction on exactly HOW people guilty of certain sins are to be killed.

The typical ignorant western atheist who romanticizes eastern religions.

Absolutely.

Those silly folks and thier religions that are over 3000 years old, and have billions of followers.
How very inferior to your comparative upstart religion, whose basis of guilt and fear mongering continue to oppress others around the globe.
What the hell would they know? They've only been practicing thier faiths twice as long as you guys.

Hey...heres an idea...

Just for kicks maybe you should wonder why exactly so many folks lose heart in YOUR imaginary sky-man, and look at other religions?

Hmmm..maybe its demonstrations such as the one you displayed, and the continuous condecending attitudes you people give anyone who raises questions you cant answer.
I wonder just how far away folks like you seem to be, from becoming Fred Phelps overnight.

The typical ignorant western atheist who romanticizes eastern religions.1. I am not an atheist.
2. I do not romanticize "eastern religions". And there are more religions, past and present, than just the abrahamics and the "eastern religions".
3. Abrahamic religions have always been cheap crap and ideological dirt. With or without my ignorance.

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and honestly I think I came up with a pretty good reason why in the Book of Leviticus and in various other parts of the Bible that it condemns Homosexuality, and the more I think about it, the less I think it has to do with divine message. We all know that the Bible is used as a political tool, even today it's used as a political tool. Throughout the ages it has been translated several times by several people, some in secrecy away from the government of the time, and some with government sanctions. Back when the Bible is translated, many of the populations were farmers, and worked off the land. The more people you have on your farm, the better off you were. Back then the only way you can get more hand was to either be wealthy enough to own slaves or buy the hands, or you and your wife have as much sex as possible! Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do. So in order to make sure that people reproduce as often as possible for their farm, they essentially outlaw homosexuality in the Bible, say that it's a Divine Message and everyone (well close to it) steps in line.

That's my theory anyways.

I think exactly the same way actually. And untill today, I met more over 200 people thinking this way... This is not written any where but it is very obvious.

The condemnation of homosexuality, specially remarked at the Romans I, where Paulus condemns the Roman aristocracy; as being punished by God, having pleasure on each others bodies (same sex).

It is the case of production and reproduction. As we see Paulus, a modest Apostle; trying to live in a good Christ Faith with his Jewish roots and Roman Life; WE ALSO RECOGNIZE SOMETHING!!! How many Jewish people had Roman Citizenship at the same time????? Was Jesus a ROMAN CITIZEN himself?

What is more interesting in case of Paulus was, his way of defence. Did you recognize also in the Bible, how he defended himself when being sent to prison? He said that he was a Roman Citizen, and the Officers were afraid of him...

As we look through the history only a few jewish families have been candidated to have Roman Citizenship which was the sign of Aristocracy and be able to benefit from the means of so called, priviledged Roman Democracy.
THE JEWISH FAMILIES WHO HAD LAND AND FARMS.

LANDLORDS WITH FARMS NEED SLAVES...

Or?

Faithfull families...

They produce with the belief of God! They take their part, they buy their goods and sell their products ( 20%) and pay their taxes... As family consisting of many members, these members even had their limits of being used :) Up to 80 years old an average farmer was working... But then again, he could reproduce his working class...

So it was expected from the poor to produce and when not reproduce...

It should be condemned...

Where as Landlords should have no problems with feeding and caring about slavery. Everyone was free.

But what I still can not understand is nowadays.

Today.

Landlords and slaves still exist...

But Landlords do less.

It is the other slaves banning, condemning the slaves refusing to reproduce.

For?

God?

Christian Faith?

or Christianity that Paulus established, which has nothing to do in particular with Faith?

Governments?

Companies?

Who hates homosexuals at most?

The producers or the reproducers????? :confused:

I feel no need to discuss my 'bible reading' credentials with you.

Nor do I, since that discussion would be even shorter than this.

<snip> Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, <snip>

And now it does? Two guys having sex can produce a child? Two girls having sex can produce a child?

Nor do I, since that discussion would be even shorter than this.Grave_n_idle thinks he knows it all because he reads Hebrew. The Massoretes' Hebrew... :rolleyes:

And now it does? Two guys having sex can produce a child? Two girls having sex can produce a child?

Yes. Gay sex doesn't magically make you sterile, you know. All those people can conceive if they want to. It's really not that hard to get someone knocked up, you know, and heterosexuality is in no way needed.

Yes. Gay sex doesn't magically make you sterile, you know. All those people can conceive if they want to. It's really not that hard to get someone knocked up, you know, and heterosexuality is in no way needed.

No Fass it doesn't. Two guys or two girls having sex cannot produce a child. There are other options where as they can have a child adoption, etc. But gay sex cannot result in a child.

And I know that it doesn't make you sterile

No Fass it doesn't. Two guys or two girls having sex cannot produce a child. There are other options where as they can have a child adoption, etc. But gay sex cannot result in a child.

Nobody said anything about gay sex. All that was mentionned is homosexuality.

Gay men and lesbian woman can have children just fine. They're not infertile.

Yes. Gay sex doesn't magically make you sterile, you know. All those people can conceive if they want to. It's really not that hard to get someone knocked up, you know, and heterosexuality is in no way needed.

I think he meant sex as an insemination process, which like you said could also be done artificially.

Nobody said anything about gay sex. All that was mentionned is homosexuality.

Gay men and lesbian woman can have children just fine. They're not infertile.

Actually, yes somebody did. hint, hint It was me (in the post that Fass was responding to)

<snip> Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring,
No, no they didn't.

Methinks you do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

Gays and Lesbians can have children just fine. They just won't necessarily enjoy the process of making them.

No Fass it doesn't. Two guys or two girls having sex cannot produce a child.

Yes, they can. Add a fifth, sixth or seventh person to that foursome and they still will be able to. For some reason you seem to think that if I have sex with a guy, I will somehow be barred from depositing my spunk in some woman's cloa... I mean vagina.

There are other options where as they can have a child adoption, etc. But gay sex cannot result in a child.

He didn't say gay sex. He said homosexuality. And still, there is nothing about gay sex that makes me incapable of fathering a child.

And I know that it doesn't make you sterile

So far your display of understanding the birds and the bees has been abysmal, so allow me to doubt your knowledge still.

Ah yes, the discussion about homosexuality. Lovely. More debates over areas people have gone over, and more people who have a chance to show the pits within their souls.

And just so I have something meaningful to say, yes I agree that the Bible segment on Christianity was simply politically motivated. Not in the way the OP suggested it, which I find intriguing, but it still doesn't surprise me.

Yes, The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but you people are forgetting that judging people is wrong too. You are supposed to treat everyone with love. Just because the Bible condemns it, doesnt mean that it is a reason to make people feel bad and hurt them. Let God take care of what is wrong.

Nor do I, since that discussion would be even shorter than this.

Of course. You clearly pointed out you don't even feel the need for the English translation. So... you might have read the whole thing in one language. Given your sunday-school grasp of the text, however... it wouldn't be a bet I'd want to take.

Grave_n_idle thinks he knows it all because he reads Hebrew. The Massoretes' Hebrew... :rolleyes:

I don't claim to 'know it all'. While I have read the text in Hebrew, I don't claim that as some kind of grant for omniscience. But I do think it gives better insight into the text than relying only on the Vulgate or other translations.

That passage describes marriage. Period. It doesn’t mention the possibility of any other kind of marriage or any other kind of permissible sexual relationship.

This is the one that was called to task, eh?

This is the one that was called to task, eh?

Oh, good show, Mr Holmes!

Oh, good show, Mr Holmes!

Thank you thank you!
One hand tied behind my back, too! Or, at least, otherwise occupied. :eek:

This would largely be because he's NOT AN ATHEIST.

Here's an idea -- how's about you let him answer for himself?

Anyway, this has become a sort of devolved holier/unholier-than-thou series of "sez yous". Not that anyone was going to be convinced of anything to begin with, but suffice it to say that the Bible has, is and will be an alarmingly vague document given how much is decided based on the words in its pages.

I think the best that I can say is that it has brought, brings, and likely will continue to bring untold direct and indirect comfort and joy to multiple millions, and untold direct and indirect misery and persecution to similar numbers.

You'd think at some point, we'd overcome our sectarian nature and live and let live, but no. That might be something Christ would do.

...Now back then homosexuality and lesbianism didn't produce any offspring, which is counter-productive to what people who were living on the land were trying to do....

Leviticus 20:13 forbids male, not female homosexuality.
My guess is that whoever wrote that had an unpleasant experience in the male showers...

For what concernes the rest

"Why?"
"How should I know? I don't know!" lied the tortoise.
"But you... you're omnicognisant," said Brutha.
"That doesn't mean I know everything."
Brutha bit his lip. "Um. Yes. It does."
"You sure?"
"Yes."
"Thought that was omnipotent."
"No. That means you're all-powerful. And you are. That's what it says in the Book of Ossory. He was one of the Great Prophets, you know. I hope," Brutha added.
"Who told him I was omnipotent?"
"You did."
"No I didn't."
"Well, he said you did."
"Don't even remember anyone called Ossory," the tortoise muttered.
"You spoke to him in the desert," said Brutha. "You must remember. He was eight feet tall? With a very long beard? And a huge staff? And the glow of the holy horns shining out of his head?" He hesitated. But he'd seen the statues and the holy icons. They couldn't be wrong.
"Never met anyone like that," said the small god Om.
"Maybe he was a bit shorter," Brutha conceded.
"Ossory. Ossory," said the tortoise. "No... no... can't say I-"
"He said that you spoke unto him from out of a pillar of flame," said Brutha.
"Oh, that Ossory," said the tortoise. "Pillar of flame. Yes."
"And you dictated to him the Book of Ossory," said Brutha. "Which contains the Directions, the Gateways, the Abjurations, and the Precepts. One hundred and ninety-three chapters."
"I don't think I did all that," said Om doubtfully. "I'm sure I would have remembered one hundred and ninety-three chapters."
"What did you say to him, then?"
"As far as I can remember it was 'Hey, see what I can do!' " said the tortoise.
Brutha stared at it. It looked embarrassed, insofar as that's possible for a tortoise.
"Even gods like to relax," it said.
"Hundreds of thousands of people live their lives by the Abjurations and the Precepts!" Brutha snarled.
"Well? I'm not stopping them," said Om.
"If you didn't dictate them, who did?"
"Don't ask me. I'm not omnicognisant!"
Brutha was shaking with anger.
"And the Prophet Abbys? I suppose someone just happened to give him the Codicils, did they?"
"It wasn't me-"
"They're written on slabs of lead ten feet tall!"
"Oh, well, it must have been me, yes? I always have a ton of lead slabs around in case I meet someone in the desert, yes?"
"What! If you didn't give them to him, who did?" "I don't know. Why should I know? I can't be everywhere at once!"
"You're omnipresent!"
"What says so?"
"The Prophet Hashimi!"
"Never met the man!"
"Oh? Oh? So I suppose you didn't give him the Book of Creation, then?"
"What Book of Creation?"
"You mean you don't know?"
"No.
"Then who gave it to him?"
"I don't know! Perhaps he wrote it himself!"
Brutha put his hand over his mouth in horror.
"Thaff blafhngf!"
"What?"
Brutha removed his hand.
"I said, that's blasphemy!"
"Blasphemy? How can I blaspheme? I'm a god!"
"I don't believe you!"
"Hah! Want another thunderbolt?"
"You call that a thunderbolt?"
Brutha was red in the face, and shaking. The tortoise hung its head sadly.
"All right. All right. Not much of one, I admit," it said. "If I was better, you'd have been just a pair of sandals with smoke coming out." It looked wretched. "I don't understand it. This sort of thing has never happened to me before. I intended to be a great big roaring white bull for a week and ended up a tortoise for three years. Why? I don't know, and I'm supposed to know everything. According to these prophets of yours who say they've met me, anyway. You know, no one even heard me? I tried talking to goatherds and stuff, and they never took any notice! I was beginning to think I was a tortoise dreaming about being a god. That's how bad it was getting."
"Perhaps you are," said Brutha.
"Your legs to swell to tree trunks!" snapped the tortoise.
"But-but," said Brutha, "you're saying the prophets were... just men who wrote things down! "
"That's what they were!"
"Yes, but it wasn't from you!"
"Some of it was, perhaps," said the tortoise. "I've... forgotten so much, the past few years."
"But if you've been down here as a tortoise, who's been listening to the prayers? Who has been accepting the sacrifices? Who has been judging the dead?"
"I don't know," said the tortoise. "Who did it before?"
"You did!"
"Did I?"

To be fair, the meaning is closer to "Thou shalt do no murder," not an absolute injunction against killing. Remember, the Bible specifically lists quite a number of people that you're supposed to kill, including witches, adulterers, idolaters, and people who wear more than one type of fabric at the same time.

It's much easier to avoid these problems if you realize the Bible is just a load of made up nonsense. :p
*applauds*

Of course, since I'm not "interpreting". The entire point is that I am reading it as it's written. So your demands for justification of an "interpretation" are a non sequitur, but that is par for the course with all your posts, really.

From the OED:

interpretation

• noun 1 the action of explaining the meaning of something. 2 an explanation or way of explaining. 3 a performer’s representation of a creative work.

Something you should've already done - "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law". Jesus is not pure love in that religion - such nonsense is something one would believe only children could be fed so as not to frighten them with the truth about it, no matter how falsely and deceptively comforting and easy it is to worship tolerant goodness incarnate - he is an instrument of the apocalypse whose role is to return with a sword to violently strike down workers of iniquity such as yourself.

Here you make several claims about Jesus; i.e. you are explaining the meaning of the Christ figure in Judeo-Christian mythology as a harbringer of homopĥobia and skewed justice. That is called an interpretation. See above for the definition.

Now, I asked you to support such an interpretation. You were unable to do so. You may wish to dismiss it as a non-sequitur, but it seems to follow quite logically from our little conversation.

Compare the law that if a widow dies childless, it is the responsibility of the family to provide her a male and get her pregnant as quickly as possible, doesn't matter if the male relative is already married to somebody else.
What I find funniest about "creationists" is that the Old Testament really is a RELENTLESSLY Darwinian book: there was originally no notion of an afterlife, rather, your reward for being good was that your descendants would be multiplied, while your punishment for being evil was that your descendants would be extincted. You did not have to teach those people anything about "relative reproductive success": they lived and breathed that principle, and it never occurred to them to imagine that anyone would think the world worked any other way.

Hey, I am a creationist as was both Darwin and Mendel. A lot of us creationists believe in evolution. We just do not believe that life spontaneously originated by some chemical event.

I just read Small Gods last month. Nice quote.

Hey, I am a creationist as was both Darwin and Mendel. A lot of us creationists believe in evolution. We just do not believe that life spontaneously originated by some chemical event.

Nor Darwin neither Mendel were creationists. Creationist do beleive God has created Adam first from Mud then Eva from Adams ribs... Creationists just oppose with the idea of Evolution Theory... No Amphibians, no cells. Darwin is Darwin, I am a Darwinist.:headbang:

Nor Darwin neither Mendel were creationists. Creationist do beleive God has created Adam first from Mud then Eva from Adams ribs... Creationists just oppose with the idea of Evolution Theory... No Amphibians, no cells. Darwin is Darwin, I am a Darwinist.:headbang:

So then you agree that all that science is, is the torch by which we shed light on the mystery of the Lord's creation and the mystery of his ways?

Creationist do beleive God has created Adam first from Mud then Eva from Adams ribs... Creationists just oppose with the idea of Evolution Theory... No Amphibians, no cells.
Not all of them.
Darwin is Darwin, I am a Darwinist.:headbang:

What a foolish thing to be. They theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin.

Not all of them.


What a foolish thing to be. They theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin.

really, which way than???

Heredity

For more details on this topic, see Introduction to genetics, Genetics, and Heredity.

DNA structure. Bases are in the center, surrounded by phosphate–sugar chains in a double helix.
DNA structure. Bases are in the center, surrounded by phosphate–sugar chains in a double helix.

Inheritance in organisms occurs through discrete traits – particular characteristics of an organism. In humans, for example, eye color is an inherited characteristic, which individuals can inherit from one of their parents.[9] Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype.[10]

The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behavior of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.[11] As a result, not every aspect of an organism's phenotype is inherited. Suntanned skin results from the interaction between a person's genotype and sunlight; thus, a suntan is not hereditary. However, people have different responses to sunlight, arising from differences in their genotype; a striking example is individuals with the inherited trait of albinism, who do not tan and are highly sensitive to sunburn.[12]

Genes are regions within DNA molecules that contain genetic information.[10] DNA is a long molecule with four types of bases attached along its length. Different genes have different sequences of bases; it is the sequence of these bases that encodes genetic information. Within cells, the long strands of DNA associate with proteins to form structures called chromosomes. A specific location within a chromosome is known as a locus. If the DNA sequence at a locus varies between individuals, the different forms of this sequence are called alleles. DNA sequences can change through mutations, producing new alleles. If a mutation occurs within a gene, the new allele may affect the trait that the gene controls, altering the phenotype of the organism. However, while this simple correspondence between an allele and a trait works in some cases, most traits are more complex and are controlled by multiple interacting genes.[13][14]

Variation

For more details on this topic, see Genetic variation and Population genetics.

Because an individual's phenotype results from the interaction of its genotype with the environment, the variation in phenotypes in a population reflects the variation in these organisms' genotypes.[14] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.[15] The frequency of one particular allele will fluctuate, becoming more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Evolutionary forces act by driving these changes in allele frequency in one direction or another. Variation disappears when an allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[16]

Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction. Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species; for example, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants.[17] Despite the constant introduction of variation through these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[18] However, even relatively small changes in genotype can lead to dramatic changes in phenotype: chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.[19]

Mutation

For more details on this topic, see Mutation and Molecular evolution.

Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[20][21][22] These mutagens produce several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that about 70 percent of mutations are deleterious, and the remainder are either neutral or have a weak beneficial effect.[23] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[20] Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for a species is a trade-off between short-term costs, such as the risk of cancer, and the long-term benefits of advantageous mutations.[24]
Duplication of part of a chromosome
Duplication of part of a chromosome

Large sections of DNA can also be duplicated, which is a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years.[25] Most genes belong to larger families of genes of shared ancestry.[26] Novel genes are produced either through duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions.[27][28] For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for color vision and one for night vision; all four arose from a single ancestral gene.[29] An advantage of duplicating a gene (or even an (entire genome) is that overlapping or redundant functions in multiple genes allows alleles to be retained that would otherwise be harmful, thus increasing genetic diversity.[30]

Changes in chromosome number may also involve the breakage and rearrangement of DNA within chromosomes. For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. [31] The completion of both the human genome project and the chimpanzee genome project has allowed the identification of the relevant chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by preserving genetic differences within populations.[32]

Sequences of DNA that can move about the genome, such as transposons, make up a major fraction of the genetic material of plants and animals, and may have been important in the evolution of genomes.[33] For example, more than a million copies of the Alu sequence are present in the human genome, and these sequences have now been recruited to perform functions such as regulating gene expression.[34] Another effect of these mobile DNA sequences is that when they move within a genome, they can mutate or delete existing genes and thereby produce genetic diversity.[35]

Recombination

For more details on this topic, see Genetic recombination and Sexual reproduction.

In asexual organisms, genes are inherited together, or linked, as they cannot mix with genes in other organisms during reproduction. However, the offspring of sexual organisms contain a random mixture of their parents' chromosomes that is produced through independent assortment. In the related process of genetic recombination, sexual organisms can also exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes.[36] These shuffling processes can allow even alleles that are close together in a strand of DNA to be inherited independently. However, as only about one recombination event occurs per million base pairs in humans, genes close together on a chromosome may not be shuffled away from each other, and tend to be inherited together.[37] This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together, which is called their linkage disequilibrium. A set of alleles that is usually inherited in a group is called a haplotype, and this co-inheritance can indicate that the locus is under positive selection (see below).[38]

Recombination in sexual organisms helps to remove harmful mutations and retain beneficial mutations.[39] Consequently, when alleles cannot be separated by recombination – such as in mammalian Y chromosomes, which pass intact from fathers to sons – harmful mutations accumulate.[40][41] In addition, recombination can produce individuals with new and advantageous gene combinations. These positive effects of recombination are balanced by the fact that this process can cause mutations and separate beneficial combinations of genes.[39] The optimal rate of recombination for a species is therefore a trade-off between conflicting factors.

Mechanisms

There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. Natural selection favors genes that improve capacity for survival and reproduction. Genetic drift is random change in the frequency of alleles, caused by the random sampling of a generation's genes during reproduction, and gene flow is the transfer of genes within and between populations. The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in a population varies depending on the strength of the selection and the effective population size, which is the number of individuals capable of breeding.[42] Natural selection usually predominates in large populations, while genetic drift dominates in small populations. The dominance of genetic drift in small populations can even lead to the fixation of slightly deleterious mutations.[43] As a result, changing population size can dramatically influence the course of evolution. Population bottlenecks, where the population shrinks temporarily and therefore loses genetic variation, result in a more uniform population.[16] Bottlenecks also result from alterations in gene flow such as decreased migration, expansions into new habitats, or population subdivision.[42]

Natural selection

For more details on this topic, see Natural selection and Fitness (biology).

Natural selection of a population for dark coloration.
Natural selection of a population for dark coloration.

Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:

* Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
* Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
* These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.

These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.

The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism. This measures the organism's genetic contribution to the next generation. However, this is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness measures the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.[44] Consequently, if an allele increases fitness more than the other alleles of that gene, then with each generation this allele will become more common within the population. These traits are said to be "selected for". Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival, and increased fecundity. Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious allele results in this allele becoming rarer — they are "selected against".[2] Importantly, the fitness of an allele is not a fixed characteristic, if the environment changes, previously neutral or harmful traits may become beneficial and previously beneficial traits become harmful.[1].

Natural selection within a population for a trait that can vary across a range of values, such as height, can be categorized into three different types. The first is directional selection, which is a shift in the average value of a trait over time — for example organisms slowly getting taller.[45] Secondly, disruptive selection is selection for extreme trait values and often results in two different values becoming most common, with selection against the average value. This would be when either short or tall organisms had an advantage, but not those of medium height. Finally, in stabilizing selection there is selection against extreme trait values on both ends, which causes a decrease in variance around the average value.[46] This would, for example, cause organisms to slowly become all the same height.

A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.[47] Traits that evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent in males of some animal species, despite traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls or bright colors that attract predators, decreasing the survival of individual males.[48] This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these hard to fake, sexually selected traits.[49]

An active area of research is the unit of selection, with natural selection being proposed to work at the level of genes, cells, individual organisms, groups of organisms and even species.[50][51] None of these models are mutually-exclusive and selection may act on multiple levels simultaneously.[52] Below the level of the individual, genes called transposons try to copy themselves throughout the genome.[53]

CREATIONIZM
is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2]

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community. The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[7][8][9][10]

They are from Wikipedia... It is not the same thing at all!

May be you are to much fixed of somebody changing these articles and putting sentences like this "Then they found mud in an organisms mythocindria... They were amazed. No there is nothing like that. Amaze yourself at Harun Yahaya.org lol