Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 01:31 Profile Homepage #225 quote: Originally written by Sizzlin' CPU: Overwhelming: Your Hebrew translation is not only piecemeal, it is incorrect. The word mishkab does, in fact, mean bed. It is used metaphorically to mean sleep, and by extension that has come to imply sex. That's reading a little to far between the lines, though. The Bible says quite clearly that it's talking about a bed. It's clearly about sexual content. Even Cav. recognizes that looks absurd if it meant bed litteraly. Also you must have into account the context of the verse. It's in the middle of a chapter that says you can't have sex with animals, etc... I think it woud be twisting a lot the Scriptures to make the reading Cav did. It's trying to make it suit what you want it to mean, not what it really means. quote: If God forbids homosexuality (...) That's what He does. What's being discussed is that some people are trying to speculate and interpret in a very different and incoherently way so that it looks like it isn't forbidden, or at least not important, although failing to do so in a convincing, coherent and factual way. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 02:22 Profile Homepage #226 quote: Leviticus 20:13 - This appears to be identical to Leviticus 18:22 except that the death penalty is added Rad my answer to the other verse. And read what I wrote in my post above. quote: Deuteronomy 23:17 Nothing to say. It's not directly about homosexuals, but prostitution. Just a note: qadesh = male temple prostitute quote: Judges 19:14-29 If rape was the only evil thing, then why would the levite give her virgin daughter and the concubine to be raped? You say it's because it is worse to rape a man than a woman. Now, is it because it would be more humiliating? Or was it because of homosexuality? It's true that women were treated like property in those times. So the levite, doing his own justice (read c17:6, in those times they did their own justice, as there was no ruler), he prefered to avoid homosexual rape and give the women. Would he give his own daughter just to avoid the man's humiliation? Anyway, these verses were not pointed by me i my posts. There are other more clear. quote: Romans 1:26-27 quote: (...) Now you don't let the Bible interpret the Bible. You say what others think. Try to discredit Paul, etc. But no Bible evidence or support. It's clearly trying to discredit the verses, instead of understanding them. But let's continue: quote: So they abandoned what was their normal behavior and tried gay sex. Here, you (or who wrote the article) tries to say that if you born gay, then that's your natural sexual orientation, so it can't be compared to those who go agains't nature, because being gay it's natural for that gay born. (Or something). But you are not judged by your own rules, but by God's Justice. God made man to unite women and have children. Jesus repeated that man unites with woman. That's the natural way. So it doesn't matter if you born gay. It's not natural. Remember that the Bible remembers us that we born corrupted, we don't born from God. That's why we have to be baptized, so that we may "born again". This time following the God's natural way (in many subjects). quote: As far as the word "against nature" the Greek phrase para physin is inaccurately translated into English as "unnatural" or "against nature" which implies that it is something to be morally condemned. However the word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. M. Nissinen defines para physin as The word used is phusikos, which means: 1) produced by nature, inborn 2) agreeable to nature 3) governed by (the instincts of) nature But remember what's the PURE nature of things, as God planned. And remember that we live in a corrupted world, so our own nature isn't the original nature God planned to us. That's why we must "born again". But I don't even know why all these explanations, as the verses are clear about this: quote: (...) men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error* which was meet.* quote: If homosexuality were a horrible sin Paul would have certainly discussed it in depth He wrote that was an error an abomination to God. Do you think he should have written a whole chapter about it, so that it would be really an rrror and abomination to God? quote: Their basic error was to leave Pauline Christianity, and engage in idolatry. That was an error, but the verse about homosexuality refers to homosexuality itself. And all other subjects are enumerated, and all are wrong. If they weren't, Paul wouldn't have wrote them in there. You're trying to throw sand to the eyes... quote: The reference to what was, for them, unnatural homosexual behavior seems almost incidental, to the story. Lol. The apostle is listing errors and abomination. But not homosexuality! He just wrote that there as a mistake, he didn't intended to! Well... That's ridiculous to think that way. Just pay attention, from this: quote: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. He concludes this: quote: This verse has NOTHING to do with two members of the same sex being in a loving committed relationship. Lol. Don't be offended by my laugh. It just seems so obvious... I'll conclude my reply later. Until then, please, don't reply. Not only because you still not know my full answer, but because I just can't be answering many posts at the same time. Bare with me, please. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 02:35 Profile Homepage #227 quote: If you define "pro-homo" as homosexual relationships being as societally acceptable as heterosexual relationships, then yes, I think that language otherwise is, in my mind's eye, bashing, because you are in your mind condemning their rights to be happy in an intimate way, a right they likely don't begrudge you and your hetero partner. I'm not condemning, just showing what th Bible says about the subject. I'm sorry it isn't what you expected or what you wanted. Anyway, I even said in a previous post that I agree with civil marriage between homosexuals. Homosexuals have the same civil rights and it's up to them how they want to live. But when they say that the Bible says it's ok, then I have to interfere, as that's a lie. God condemns homosexuality. If you say: I don't care, then that's alright, just as I won't be bashing people who don't believe in God. But if you say you care, and then try to make it look like it's aceptable to God, when it's clear that isn't, then I have to interfere, as I just can't see a lie uncontested. That's going agains't my beliefes, that's bashing the Word of God. So it's nothing personal, it's not gay-bashing, it's just trying to seek the truth. quote: Where does Jesus say this is sin? Jesus is God. God says it's a sin. But if you say Jesus is not God, then you should take in consideration 2 factors: 1 - Jesus told us what is natural: man + woman. If it's not like that, that's not like Jesus thinks it's natural. 2 - If you think Jesus is not God, then you should respect more God's word (which is the same as Jesus, but even more clear): homosexuality is an error and an abomination. quote: But would you have a constitutional amendment prevent their marriage, or have it be illegal in a state? What harm do they do you? What do you fear? Again, it's clear you didn't read all my posts. As I said: homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. No discrimination. I favour civil marriage between homosexuals (but not religious, as it would be hypocrisy to religiously marry what is an abomination to God). Etc. It just looks like that you don't even care about what I say. You just labeled me as a gay basher, with no reason, an flame me. You're the basher here. You're the one who's giving a bad example. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 02:38 Profile Homepage #228 ef, please, quote everything: quote: No direct mention of homosexuality. There's nothing that says there wasn't either. So let's stay true to the Word of God: Rom 1:26-27. Remember that MEN tried to rape men (they didn't knew they were angels), so there was homosexualism in Sodom, so it's likely that that was one of the motives for Sodom's condemnation. Now let me imitate you: quote: No direct mention of homosexuality. Oh dear. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 02:51 Profile Homepage #229 quote: 2Sa 1:26 I am distressed over you, my brother Jonathan. You were very delightful to me; your love was wonderful to me, more than the love of women. So? Are you trying to imply here that there was a gay relationship here? From here we could ask one thing: what kind of love would surpass the love of a woman? (And note that he doesn't say it like the love of a woman, that would indeed be more ambiguous) The loyalty and intense compromise that moulded Davi's and Johnathan's friendship were rare between men and pratically inexistent between women and men. For men, in general, women were inferior, being wifes considered property. Johnathan loved Davi as his own soul and shared with him his belongings - mantle (cloack?), tunic and even his bow and sword, valious belongings for a warrior (I Sam 18:1-4). The pact of friendsip that they firmed stood unshakeable, even when Johnathan had to defend Davi from his father, the king Saul (I Sam 19:4,5). Now, when Jesus said we have to love eachother, will you say we have to love like a man loves his wife? quote: Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Eph 2:9 not of works, that not anyone should boast; That's right. We are saved by Jesus. So that's why we have to have faith in Him. Who sinns and doesn't repent doesn't have faith in Jesus. The condmnable thing here is not only the sins in itself, but the fact that there is no repentance. There's no sin that God can't forgive, except the one you don't repent. About the remaining, I'll post the article I've been talking about lately. So that we can clarify the law issue. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 04:37 Profile #230 Overwhelming, I'm happy that you're for civil unions, but by your own hard and fast beliefs, isn't that hypocritical of you? You infer a lot in justifying your opinion. My mistake is doing the same, when instead I should concede the argument, as I don't take the Bible literally and think that nittering over individual verses misses the point, and change to my preferred playing fields, reason and civil law. Those grounds, however, are outside of the bounds of this topic. I withdraw. Sorry for bringing my own judgment so strongly into this topic, folks. It has been impossible, however, for everyone else not to as well, it would seem. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Cavanoskus Warrior Member # 4414	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 04:42 Profile Homepage #231 It seems, Overwhelming, that I've done you a big favor by so thoroughly constructing a soapbox for you to stand on. -------------------- AIM: Cavanoskus My Homepage The Wildlife Research Team SnakeNetMetalRadio "We, who are about to die, salute you." Posts: 86 \| Registered: Friday, May 21 2004 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 09:10 Profile Homepage #232 No worries, Cav, he's been doing this for a few pages now. Overwhelming, I wouldn't complain about the length of your posts except that such a high percentage of them is dead weight. We already know that you think that God forbids homosexuality, so you don't need another general paragraph explaining that in every post. I tend to agree that Cav's interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 sounds like a bit of a stretch -- despite that it is what the verse literally means -- given that the preceding verses have defined incest in incredible detail and then banned it, and also banned bestiality. Unless... shoot. Is that what was really going on in the earlier verses of Leviticus? The version I have uses a phrase, "uncover the nakedness," which I took to mean something sexual, but then, is that what it really means? And either way, given Alorael's description of "ritually unclean," this sounds like, well, not that big of a deal. If homosexual people bathe daily, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.... Overwhelming, I'm a little unclear on how saying that we should interpret Paul carefully is an attempt to discredit him. Moreover, the verse in Romans is far clearer in English (and I'm assuming in Portuguese) than in Greek, especially in context. Your only argument against Cav's interpretation was that homosexuality is unnatural according to God, and therefore "changing" from one way to an unnatural way applies to everyone who has any same-sex intercourse (note what I said about dead weight). And for all the absoluteness in your statement, you didn't back that up with a reference to somewhere else in the Bible that demonstrates that God genuinely thinks homosexuality is unnatural. Well, and then you add that the verse is about homosexuality, not paganism, but you don't provide any support. And huh. This is curious: the major Greek texts of the NT differ noticeably near these verses. The verses immediately prior involve paganism, and the verses immediately following also involve paganism, and although the standard English translations add in "sexual immorality" among the sins listed in v. 29, the phrase is not in the original Greek in some (namely the Critical) versions of the NT. It appears this may have been something of an afterthought. Either way, everything surrounding the verses in Romans deals with pagan practices, which implies to me that the burden of proof is on the person who says that Romans 1:26-7 deals with homosexuality, rather than the other way around. It seems to me that we're pretty much down to Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-7 -- everything else does not refer to homosexuality, or does not refer to it clearly enough to make any difference. Given the state of Biblical textual criticism -- and having read a bit more about it, I realize now that it is in far worse a state than I thought before -- I don't know that we can rely on three verses of the Bible for any sort of judgment on anything. But meh. This still bears some thinking about. -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM, newly updated to v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Djur Revolutions Babelicious Member # 3149	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 09:25 Profile Homepage #233 You know, Overwhelming, you haven't yet proven that homosexuality is outside of God's plan. Adam and Eve may have been a man and a woman, but they also did not fly, use computers, travel outside a small area, plow the earth, or many other things we take for granted. Are these sins, just because some ancient story doesn't describe them? Your entire argument is "the Bible forbids homosexuality wherever it mentions sin because homosexuality is evil." It is you who is interpreting the Bible to your own ends, as are we are; it is an extremely vague and provincial work. The reason that it was more acceptable to the man that his concubine be raped than his visitors is threefold. First, women were considered as property. Second, as mentioned early, it was considered much more shameful to rape a man because it was to treat them as a woman. Third, Mosaic Judaism puts much weight on treatment of strangers. It's less terrible to rape one of your own than a stranger, in their moral universe. Kel, re "nakedness": Remember Genesis 9:20-27. It's considered a terrible thing to even see your father naked, much less have sex with him. "uncover the nakedness" is likely literal. Which would also incidentally ban incest, I'd assume. [ Wednesday, July 14, 2004 09:30: Message edited by: Andrea ] -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 \| Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 10:21 Profile Homepage #234 quote: Originally written by Andrew Miller: [QB]Overwhelming, I'm happy that you're for civil unions, but by your own hard and fast beliefs, isn't that hypocritical of you?[QB] No. I clearly say that I think homosexuality is unnatural, in te sense that it goes agains't God's plan and will. But I also defend we all have the same rights, and that religious beliefs should not be mixed with civil laws. I wouldn't like that the State would force me to be part of a religion, for example, or that forbid me to be part of a certain religion, another example. Second, we are all God's children, we are all imperfect, we all sin. But that's not a motive to not love each other. And who loves, respects, even if we don't agree with certain aspects. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Djur Revolutions Babelicious Member # 3149	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 10:25 Profile Homepage #235 You have yet to explain how homosexuality is against God's plan. -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 \| Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 10:30 Profile Homepage #236 quote: Originally written by Just Call Me Kel: [QB][/QB] Surely I don't agree with what you said, and could explain why, but I (finally ) noticed that no one cares. And this is a game forum, not theology or religious, so I won't bother (me and you) anymore writting about this subject. Let's just say that what is said is said, anyone can reflect on this. This ends my participation in this topic. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Djur Revolutions Babelicious Member # 3149	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 10:34 Profile Homepage #237 -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 \| Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Morgan Shaper Member # 22	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 10:34 Profile #238 WE HEAR THE SOUND OF A DEFEATED MAN [ Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:38: Message edited by: Morgan ] -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 10:35 Profile Homepage #239 quote: Originally written by Andrea: You have yet to explain how homosexuality is against God's plan. Sorry, read my post above. This topic, for me, it's closed. Lol, it seems that it made me less popular around here -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Wednesday, July 14 2004 10:38 Profile Homepage #240 quote: Originally written by Morgan: WE HEAR THE SOUND OF A DEFEATED MAN Thank you for trying to convince me to continue posting here, but the decision is taken. -------------------- Visit the BoA Center! Blades of Avernum Center Your Avernum Design Haven Brand new and powerful forum! Check it out now! Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00