Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual
Pages
| Author | Topic: Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual |
|---|---|
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, July 11 2004 12:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've already asked: tell me where is written this relationship, so that I can comment it. Don't you know? Or are you just written what you read/heard from somebody else, without really verifying if it's true? quote:It's noe me or any men that convince you about the sin, it's God. It's up to you if you will study this and search the facts. It's up to your conscience. You can be sincere in your beliefes, but wrongly sincere. Just as I might, by the way. That's why I'll not convince you: it's you who has to search and learn about it. Or just not care about it. I have an opinion, but I won't judge you. quote:I think homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else. No discrimination. I even don't oppose civil marriage, as it's up to you what you want to do. Now don't expect a christian marriage, for example. We respect you chosen path, you respect God's will. Just don't try to convince/lie that God approves homosexuality. About your remaining post, read what I wrote just the post above. Also, I have that article I mentioned earlier, that I can send (pm).  -------------------- 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 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, July 11 2004 14:17
Profile
Homepage
There are churches which allowed gay marriage before legislation against it became in style. I know that it takes place in 1 Samuel, although I'm not sure where the famous line after Jonathan's death is. -------------------- They want to have a war to keep their factories They want to have a war to keep us on our knees They want to have a war to stop us buying Japanese They want to have a war to stop industrial disease They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind They want to suck your energy, incarcerate your mind Give you Rule Brittania, gassy beer, page three Two weeks in Hispania and sunday striptease Meanwhile, the first Jesus says, "I'll cure it soon Abolish Monday mornings and Friday afternoons" The other one's out on hunger strike, he's dying by degrees How come Jesus gets industrial disease? Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, July 11 2004 17:07
Profile
Homepage
Overwhelming, for someone who is so emphatic about studying the actual texts and finding out what they say, you certainly tend to agree with the medieval Christian interpretation, not the scholar's interpretation. For instance: the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Yes, the Devil is portrayed as a snake in various places, and yes, it would make sense that the serpent is him, but the Bible does not explicitly say so, and if you look carefully at the quote that you cited, you'll notice that. More to the point, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sins, and I think the Bible even says something about sexual immorality being involved, but to the best of my knowledge, it does not explicitly say that homosexual practices of any kind were involved in its destruction. Also, as for anti-homosexual Biblical passages, I think you just cited the passages to which Xan Kreigor's earlier post referred. You may wish to re-read the interpretations he presented, as those interpretations are founded in the context of the passages and the original Greek. I just want to say I'm surprised at the level of civility here in this thread. I started it because I was bored and expected it to degenerate into a flame war by page 4 and be locked on page 5. Good job, everyone! EDIT: Apologies for lacking details in the above references. I don't have time right now to write out a full post. [ Sunday, July 11, 2004 17:09: Message edited by: Just Call Me Kel ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4162
|
written Sunday, July 11 2004 21:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. Ezekiel 16 : 48 - 50 In context the Israelites are charged with the "abomination" of idolatry. It's fair to maintain that the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality per se, nor the certain catalyst. Whereas excess pride and lack of charity are specified. A fateful combination given the accentuation of both throughout the Bible. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 00:10
Profile
quote:Let me quote Matt. 19:9-12: "Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery. Mat 19:10 His disciples said to Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. Mat 19:11 But He said to them, Not all make room for this Word, but those to whom it is given. Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. He who is able to receive, let him receive it." The word used in the original is 'eunouchos': 'From εὐνή eunē (a bed); literally: a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed chambers); by extension: an impotent or an unmarried man; by implication: a chamberlain (state officer): - eunuch.' (Strong's Greek and Hebrew dictionairies) No condemnation here that I can see. quote:What I've been taught when I was young is the following: that we have to differentiate between Jesus - the human man, and Christ - the God consciousness. That Jesus was human, as we are all human, that he suffered and feared, as we all suffer and fear. That he was crucified, as we feel crucified. That Christ was not the man, but the achievement - the release of the soul from its earthly bondage. Mankind being relentlessly pushed down the long difficult road towards the Christhood - the Realisation of Self. That life in man is eternal as all life is eternal, that the soul of man is immortal as God is. That these truths were known to all religions throughout time and lie at their base. 'The oldest wisdom in the world tells us that we can consciously unite with the Divine while in the body, for this is man really born. If he misses his destiny Nature is not in a hurry; she will catch up someday and compel him to fulfil her secret purpose.' Radhakrishnan Mind, I was taught by christian pastors. [ Monday, July 12, 2004 01:48: Message edited by: ef ] -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 05:18
Profile
I think everyone who holds up the Law in condemning homosexuality should also stop eating pork, immediately, and never engage in premarital or recreational sex, lest ye condemn thyself to the abyss! I say this half-jokingly, but my point is that you can't pick and choose from the Law if you're going to cite it as truth. How can one bit of it be more valid than another? No one here who has demonstrated a Biblically-based anti-homosexuality stance has addressed this issue. I believe I read somewhere in the Bible that all sins are equal. Is that not the case? Homosexuality was accepted in ancient Greece - most certainly in Sparta, and for the most part in Athens - and was not openly condemned in Rome, both of which were major cultures in the region at the time of the birth of Christianity. Oh, and what makes anyone more correct in their interpretation today than in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, or any other Age? Is it because everyone has a chance to see the Bible? Looks like it's done nothing more than vastly increase the number of sects of Christianity, all claiming to be authoritative. Hmmm... And some say that homosexuality is okay, and others don't. Interestingly enough, you can look at it from an almost entirely geographical perspective - Heavy anti-gayness in the Southeastern and Midwestern U.S., a more liberal perspective in the Northeast and West. Could religion be malleable, subject to other cultural factors like finances, education, occupation, racial diversity? Hmm. The whole thing, boys and girls, smacks to me of bigotry. During the fight for civil rights in the U.S., the Bible was repeatedly cited for reasons why it was against God for the races to mix. The Bible even refers to relations between slaves and their masters - the Bible sanctions slavery! But these are things our culture (for the most part) has acknowledged as wrong, and I believe with good reason. I do not believe, likewise, that a person's sexual orientation is anyone else's business. If God's going to have an issue with it, then by golly, let the homosexuals deal with God when the time comes. But don't make their lives any harder or less fair than yours just because you hate them for no reason - they've done NOTHING to you. [ Monday, July 12, 2004 06:50: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 09:03
Profile
Homepage
AM, while I am not a Christian, and even if I were, I would not be in favor of Biblical literalism, I still have yet to see a counter-argument to what I posted near the beginning of this thread. The whole pork issue is moot. Peter says in Acts (3 times!) that Gentiles need only follow a few simple rules before becoming Christians: refrain from idolatry, avoid sexual immorality, and avoid eating blood or things that have been strangled. While I don't know if the latter rule applies in the case of pork, the idea here was that most of the Law was thrown out at this point. Chapter 18 of Leviticus (concerning sexual morality) was not, at least not right here. And I have not heard anyone arguing with specific evidence that it was thrown out anywhere else, either. Well, unless you take one of a few outs: the Law is symbolic anyway; the whole "love everyone" thing takes precedence; Jesus's words are from God but the disciples were fallible; or the whole thing is outdated anyway. None of these seem to be firmly Biblically grounded. The question that I presented was about the Bible and what it actually says, not about what we should do in consequence, and while this thread has taken a life of its own (as I figured it would), that is still the question at hand. -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4414
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 10:20
Profile
Homepage
I might step a little out of line here in this reply or say something that someone else has already said, but I didn't feel like reading the whole thread, since I couldn't even get through the first page without getting annoyed. Rather than read the whole thing and get so angry at the ignorance and arrogance that I ended up posting a pointless rant, I opted to just skip the deluge of B.S. and post something informative. So please excuse me if someone else has already posted the stuff I'm about to say. There are several passages in the Bible that are considered to discuss homosexuality. I'm going to address each one of them and hopefully give both the Christian-haters and f*g-haters something to chew on. Following is a short essay written by a friend of mine who investigated the issue. She and I look forward to answering any questions that may come up. ~~~~~~~~ DISCUSSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE Genesis 19 The very first reference in the bible that may point to homosexual behavior is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. quote:This chapter of Genesis refers to the story of how two angels visited the City of Sodom. The city was just recovering from war, and was most likely on high alert and wary of outsiders. Lot welcomed the angels into his house. These angels were sent to warn Lot that God was angry with the wickedness of the people of the people in Sodom. God planned to destroy the city. All of the people from the city gathered around Lot?s house and demanded that he send out his visitors that they might ?know? the angels. This Hebrew verb meaning ?to know? is very ambiguous. It appears over 900 times in the bible and only about 10 times does it mean "have sexual relations with". It was translated in the sexual sense because the mob appeared to be less than friendly. It is unclear whether they wanted to rape the angels, assault the angels, meet with the angels, or have voluntary sex with the angels. Considering the demeanor of the mob, the latter is probably not correct nor is it likely that they just wanted to meet with them. This is because Lot offers up his two daughters to be heterosexually raped if that would appease the mob. The first consideration is most likely the correct one. They wanted to rape the angels. This is unrelated to same-sex consensual behavior because it is related to homosexual rape which is just as loathsome as heterosexual rape. The controversy over this passage as a condemnation of homosexuality really shouldn?t hold any water anyway because God does not destroy the town because of this incident. He was already planning to destroy the town for other offenses. quote:Whenever it is unclear as to what a passage in the Bible is actually saying, it is an intelligent move to let the Bible interpret the Bible. So looking at other places in the Bible which refer to the story of Sodom may provide a clue. Isaiah 1: This entire chapter is a condemnation of Judah. It is compared numerous times with Sodom and Gamorrah in regard to its evildoing and wickedness. The prophet Isaiah lists many sins of the people. Homosexuality is not among them. Jeremiah 23:14: ...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah. Again, no mention of homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 : Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Here from the mouth of God, clearly stated that he destroyed the city because of the people?s pride, and excess of food while the poor suffered. Sexual activity of any kind is not mentioned. Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implies that the sin of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. Luke 10:7-17: a parallel to the verses in Matthew. 2 Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the men, women and children of the city because they were ?ungodly, unprincipled, and lawless?. Jude verse 7: Jude was the only one who disagreed with Jesus and Ezekiel. He said that Sodom?s sins were sexual in nature. Different translations of Jude describe the sin as fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality (but not until the 1940s--the word "homosexual" did not appear in the Bible until then), lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust. Many different translations here, and they all mean something different. Going after strange flesh implies bestiality since angels are not human. quote:Leviticus 18:22 This is the first one-liner verse in the Bible that conservative Christians use to condemn homosexuals. In Hebrew it reads: V?et zachar lo tishkav mishk?vey eeshah to'ebah hee. It is translated as follows: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind: it is an abomination. (KJV) There are several problems with the English translation of this verse. First is the word "abomination". The hebrew term used is to'ebah which was a word used to describe something that was "ritually unclean". Other things in the Bible that are referred to as to'ebah are things like eating shellfish and touching dead bodies. To'ebah, or "abomination" in this case, is a religious term used to define something as unclean, not as a sin or moral evil. If Moses had wanted to refer to a moral evil or sin he would have used the word zimah. The second problem is that this part of the Bible lays down what is known now as the "Mosaic Holiness Code" which was set down by Moses. The New Testament clearly states repeatedly (from both the mouth of Paul AND Jesus) that this Holiness code is no longer in effect; the new dispensation of Christ Jesus replaced it. This is why Christians today are allowed to eat rare meat, wear clothing made of two different fabrics, plant more than one thing in the same soil, wear tattoos, and cut their hair. All of these things are forbidden in the holiness code. Oddly, out of over 600 restrictions put forth in the Holiness Code, the only restriction that Fundamentalist Christians actually still pay attention to is the one that has to do with homosexual behavior. There is yet another problem with this verse, and that is that in-depth study and word-for-word interpretation has shown that the actual word for word translation from the Hebrew is : And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. Or more clearly in modern day English: Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination. This sounds like a strange restriction (not forbidding homosexual acts but only dictating where they can occur), but if you look at the obsession of the Israelites with not mixing things up that they believed should be kept separate, it makes a little more sense. This same chapter forbids wearing clothing made of two different materials, sowing different crops in the same field, plowing a field with both ox and ass. In this light it makes more sense. A woman's bed is her own and therefore only her husband should occupy it, so it would be "ritually unclean" (or would mix things up that should not be mixed) for two men to have sexual relations there. Notice it is still not a moral evil, only ritually unclean. Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (KJV) Again close, but not quite...word-for-word: "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them." This appears to be identical to Leviticus 18:22 except that the death penalty is added. Onward... Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (KJV) The translators made an error in this verse when they said "sodomite." The Hebrew word was qadesh, which was a word used by the Hebrews to refer to temple prostitutes, also known as shrine prostitutes or cult prostitutes. Qadesh referred specifically to the male prostitutes, and the word that is translated "whore" is the word that referred to the female ones. Note that there is no evidence that qadeshes serviced men. But even if they did, it is clear that this verse is not condemning the possible homosexuality, but the act of prostitution. This is warning against prostitution by both genders here, and there is no reference at all to homosexual behavior. The same Hebrew word is used and causes the same translational difficulties in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, & 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7. Judges 19:14-29 This story is similar to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where a man (in this story a Levite) has a visitor in town and a mob comes and demands to "know" the visitor. So the mob probably wanted to either homosexually rape the visitor or assault him in some way. (Raping men in biblical times had nothing to do with lust, it was the ultimate act of humiliation, because raping a man was analogous to treating him like a woman, and women were seen as inferior). Now, why so many people see this as God condemning homosexuality is beyond me. It is quite clear that God is condemning their monstrous inhospitality (as well as the following rape and murder)--They threaten to rape the visitor, and then to protect the visitor the man offers up his daughter and concubine to appease the mob, and it does: they gang-rape the concubine and as a result she dies. It is very obvious why this whole incident angers God, and it CERTAINLY isn?t because the mob has homosexual desires. Next: 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7 These contain the same mistranslation of the word qadesh. Onward to the New Testament: Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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. (KJV) Okay, one must be very careful when interpreting the writings of Paul because, as stated by Dr. R.S. Truluck, quote:The first words to look at are "vile affections". Scholars agree that in the original Greek the phrase probably does not mean passion or lust as we experience in normal living (the type of emotion that would apply to marriage or a sexually active relationship). But they say that it is more like the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs, and music". It seems more to do with ritual sex orgies that were performed in many of the Pagan settings of the day. quote:As far as the words "exchanged", "leaving", "change", and "abandoned" are concerned, they are important because they describe the people that Paul is talking about. It is referring to heterosexual women who have "exchanged" their normal behaviors for same-sex activities, in other words they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and instead engaged in something that wasn't natural FOR THEM. He says a similar thing about men. In both cases he is describing people with a heterosexual orientation, who get involved in homosexual activities for one reason or another, probably the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time. So they abandoned what was their normal behavior and tried gay sex. About the word "natural": 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 quote:The same word is used elsewhere in the bible to describe men who wear long hair...saying it is unusual or not ordinary. 1 Corinthians 11:14. In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together. About the phrase "just reward" in verse 27: It refers to idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due". According to my research this appears to be a reference to the transmission of STDs which was an epidemic among pagan fertility cults. It is also important to look at the context in which this verse appears. It appears in the middle of a chapter about idolatry. Romans 1 concerns "Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals." He was writing an epistle to all of the Christians in Rome. These Christians would have been submerged in Roman culture where homosexuality was very widespread. If homosexuality were a horrible sin Paul would have certainly discussed it in depth because the receivers of his letter would have been committing the sin in a HUGE way (also Jesus would have had the opportunity to address homosexuality had it been a horrible sin, but he never does). However his letter concerns other behaviors. Verses 21-28 include the following topics: quote:This verse has NOTHING to do with two members of the same sex being in a loving committed relationship. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind... The word effeminate here is translated from the Greek word malakoi which is traditionally translated in English as "effeminate." It may mean exactly that (unmanly or lacking virility), or it could also mean "soft." Paul was a Jewish theologian. Someone from a Jewish background would consider "unmanly" or "effeminate" behavior etc. to be unacceptable. Greeks did not feel this way about effeminate behavior. However the part of this that is actually used against homosexuals in today?s Fundamentalist Christian society is the part that refers to ?abusers of themselves with mankind?. The Greek word used for this is arsenokoitai. This word is made up of two parts, arsen, meaning ?man," and koitai, meaning "beds." An ancient pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek translated the Hebrew word qadesh as arsenokoitai. We already know the meaning of quadesh from before. It meant male temple prostitute. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought it meant temple prostitutes. quote:There are others who believe it means ?masturbators?. Also some that believe the word refers to catamites (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with older men -- these were usually slaves). Now there are so many different theories about the word because the original meaning has been lost. There is no way to know what it is actually referring to, but I am certain that it does not refer to consensual, committed homosexual relations as we know them today. quote:Last but not least: 1 Timothy 1:9-10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers ,For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine... These verses also refer to malakoi arsenokoitai which has been variously translated as "effeminate," "homosexuals," "sexual perverts," "pederasts," etc. As in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which I?ve already discussed, the original meaning of the text as been lost. In conclusion, anyone reading a translation of the Bible must keep in mind that every translation is, by nature, an interpretation. Unless you are reading the text in its original language, you are not reading God's word: you are reading an interpretation of God's word that has been filtered through the minds of generations of mortals, twisted and distorted with time and poor substitutions for uncertain words. ~~~~~~~~~~ I hope that helps you all in your search for truth. [ Monday, July 12, 2004 10:48: Message edited by: Cavanoskus ] -------------------- 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 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 13:11
Profile
I defer to Cav, who has taken the time to generate a comprehensive answer. Kel, I will opt for the Jesus "love" argument. I think that the correct interpretation of the Gospels is the "love" argument, esp. with regard to all the stuff such as (paraphrased badly) "when you aided the [sinner], you helped me." Recoursing to Paul is poor form: not only is a fair amount of Paul not necessarily attributable to Paul (on solid stylistic grounds), but Paul was even of questionable relevance to many members of the church, and his writings weren't in many renditions of the Bible prior to the creation of the King James version - he made it in on a wing and a prayer, so to speak. Paul also frequently refers to the fact that while what he says doesn't come from the Lord, it does come from him, who is pretty close with old JC (again, poorly paraphrased). AKA not the authoritative word of God. WWJD should hold more water than it does. Let's not forget that the righteous man didn't throw a stone either. Sorry for becoming inflamed. I just hate intolerance. While I cannot speak with authority on anyone's Christian journey, based on what I know from my own, it seems a lot of people turn off their brains and buy what they're given because they're too afraid to contemplate complex alternatives. It's also unfortunately the sort of thinking that has mired the US in Iraq, inspired individuals to murder doctors outside of abortion clinics, and when the flames are fanned enough, inspires young men to strap bombs to themselves, board buses, issue their last words - "God is great" - and push a button. [ Monday, July 12, 2004 13:13: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 01:36
Profile
That is awesome, Cav. Reading it, I begin to remember. That Origines knew greek, latin, and hebrew, and translated a lot. But Augustinus knew hardly any greek at all, and never read the originals, because he wasn't able to. Also, considering the very rigid position of the catholic church, I'm asking myself, if that could have been initiated or at least inforced by their vehement opposition to the Albigensians in the 12. and 13. centaury. The Albigensians believed that matter was evil per se, so a prolonged stay on earth was nothing anyone could wish for, and procreation should consequently be avoided. They frowned on marriage as well as on any kind of sexual relationship that would lead to the bearing of children. While their leaders, the 'Perfects' were expected to stay chaste, they didn't ask the same of the followers, as long as they avoided the 'normal' procedure. Meaning that they more or less tolerated a lot, that would have been opposed elsewhere. I'm not sure but wouldn't wonder, if the church had gone on to feel the shock of that threat for a very long time. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 09:45
Profile
Homepage
Thank you, Cav. That is much what I thought was true of most of those passages. The one that intrigued me was Leviticus 18:22, because while I had read most of this information before (NT references to "homosexuality" were actually references to temple prostitution and pagan rituals and pederasty), the bizarre sophistry I had seen around Leviticus 18:22 did not make any sense. What you wrote made sense. However, I have a few points that need clarifying. First, whether something is a sin or is ritually unclean seems to me a point of small distinction. They're still both things that are not done. And for that matter, in the part of Numbers that I'm reading right now, being ritually unclean meant that you couldn't take part in various ceremonies -- it was almost like excommunication. Being ritually unclean was a pretty big deal, as far as I can tell. Is that a correct understanding of the phrase? Second, I am STILL looking for the place in the NT where Jesus or anyone else dismisses this part of the Law. See the above reference to Acts for the reason (as I understand it) that modern Christians don't follow the kosher laws and so on. I believe you that this reference exists, but no one has bothered to cite it yet. As for the third paragraph of explanation... that literal translation is interesting. The question in my mind is how likely that is, that this verse was banning only same-sex intercourse in a woman's bed. While the explanation about not mixing things makes sense -- it very much fits with the context of the verse -- I wonder a little. I shall have to read more on this. It would be interesting to know the counter-arguments. After my previous post, it occurred to me that there was at least one other interpretation that held water: that the "as you would with a woman" part made absolutely no sense and thus the whole thing was moot anyway. It appears that is the case. Oh, and AM: quote:Careful that you don't become what you hate. An anti-gay stance may be bigoted, but it may also simply be uninformed (or misinformed, as the case may be). Many of the people on these boards are quite young and haven't had time to develop their own ideas separate from their parents' teachings. You got into an argument with at least one person who I suspect is barely in his teens. Just keep in mind to whom you are speaking. -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 09:55
Profile
Homepage
That's a big post, Cavanoskus, so I won't be able to answer everything right now, but I will later. Here's first part of my reply: quote:But it's part of what Sodom was: among other perversions, it looks like there was homosexuality too. It was one of the motives for destroying the city. But you could say that we can't be sure homosexuality is part of those perversions for which sodomites were punished. Then read Rom 1:26-27, to know what the Bible says about homosexualism. It's an abomination, so there's more logic to assume homosexualism counted as one of the perversions for what sodomites were punished. Anyway, men trying to rape the angels (which they thought they were men), so they would engage in homosexual sex if they had the oportunity. So there was homosexualism in Sodom. quote:Of course. Sodomites didn't turn homosexuals in that day. There was already homosexualism, and that's one of the motives why the city was condemned. quote:Wise words. I could start to mention that God planned us to unite as a male and femmale, just as Jesus repeated fo us. So, logically thinking, homosexualism goes agains't God's plans. It would be strange and contraditory to say the opposite. But let's talk about your quotes: Isaiah 1 - You say there no mention to homosexualism. There's no mention that there wasn't homosexualism either. So let's stay true to the Word of God: Rom 1:26-27. Jeremiah 23:14 - 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. Ezekiel 16:49-50 - BUT... Read verse 51: abomination. Read rom 1:26,27 --> homosexuality is an abomination to God. Matthew 10:14-15, 2 Peter 6-8 and Luke 10:7-17 - Read my coments above. Jude verse 7 - Read coments above. quote:One more verse saying that homosexualism is an abomination. quote:Just notice that adultery, bestiality and incest are included in that passage (read verses before and after that verse). So, in the minimum, homosexuality is in that same cathegory.  quote:This is not true (I think i'll have to post here an article explaining this). Maybe that's why you don't justify it with Bible quotes, etc. Having in consideration how thorough you were above, I wonder why you didn't continue like that here. quote:Sorry, but that's... wrong. Check this out:  As you see, that's a false information. Now I'll do a pause, I'll continue to read and answer your post later (can't promise it for today). Please don't reply until then. [ Tuesday, July 13, 2004 09:59: Message edited by: Overwhelming ] -------------------- 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 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 09:57
Profile
Homepage
edit: sorry, quoted instead of editing the post. [ Tuesday, July 13, 2004 09:58: Message edited by: Overwhelming ] -------------------- 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 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 10:17
Profile
Homepage
Overwhelming, two small points and then I'll go away for a bit: first, the word is homosexuality, not homosexualism. Second, she quoted and interpreted Romans 1:26-27 in that post. You should probably read and analyze the whole thing, rather than doing it piecemeal. -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 10:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've read it (in general) the whole post before starting to reply, don't worry. And thanks for the correction. -------------------- 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 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 10:41
Profile
Fair enough, Kel - I know I've been a bit harsh. I'm just tired of seeing people continue to be hurt because of the bigotry, whether misinformed or conscious, of others. The consequences of these beliefs are real, unfortunately, and affect the lives of their victims much more than their victims' supposed sin affects them. While I don't accuse anyone here of openly gay-bashing, I find some of the discourse disheartening, especially when it uses what I figure to be a very loving God as justification. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 10:48
Profile
Homepage
BTW, just as I told Cav, i'll post an article about the laws issue, that Kel and others mentioned. But I'll do it another day. Busy, busy, busy. -------------------- 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 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 10:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:I hope I'm not one of those you're talking about. If I am, then I can only say that for you, any opinion that isn't pro-homo, is gay-bashing. About the "love" argument you show us, let's look at Jesus' example: He forgiven sins, and always added "don't sin anymore" (or something like that, in english). When Jesus said that, do you think He was not showing love? Another example: A father doesn't let his little kid play with knives. Is that because he doesn't love his child? The only difference is that people are not our "childs", so we can just advise. Everyone does as he thinks it's right and should not be mistreated for that. Anyway, just as I said, homosexuality is a sin. But there are many other sins. None of us is sinless. So there should be no discrimination. We all have the same rights. I know gay people, and I don't treat them differently than any other people. But remember Jesus' example above: "don't sin anymore". One thing is to commit a sin, unwilling. Other is to commit, repeat and make that a living, without repent. And we must repent to be forgiven. [ Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:58: Message edited by: Overwhelming ] -------------------- 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 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 11:32
Profile
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. quote:Where does Jesus say this is sin? quote:You insist on this, but did Jesus? 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? I guess a lot of people see homosexuals as people who "need to be helped," and so try to prevent them from pursuing their lifestyles "for their own good." I'm not really certain how to take this on, except to refer to the old "speck in the eye - log in the eye" parable, and assert that we all have enough going on in our own lives without being concerned with others. EDIT: I would also add that sodomy and rape have historically been tactics of war used to disgrace the conquered, and it didn't matter whether the victims were male or female. This even occurs today - in the first Iraq War, Kuwaitis who were with U.S. forces that captured Iraqi units and probably had wives wanted to rape the Iraqis in order to humiliate them (though we prevented them from doing so). Non sequitor that depraved soldiers/Sodomites are therefore homosexual. Note also that this behavior is not the equivalent of a loving, consentual relationship. Homosexual acts do not equal rape any more than heterosexual acts do, necessarily. It's about the intent. Biblically speaking, I'm sure the Sodomites wouldn't have left the angels alone if they were female, either. [ Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:25: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4506
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 12:09
Profile
Homepage
:confused: Does it really matter if the Bible says you're allowed to or not? :confused: I mean, people have been doing it for the last 100 years or so, granted, yes, that more people do it now, but the point is, the Bible isn't that relevent to it anymore. The Bible is an interesting read - yes, but it doesn't work as a life's guideline in the 21st century. The bible was written a long, long, long time ago, and the people then hadn't even heard, or dreamt of what we could do today. And if God knew about it - why didn't he tell his scribes (Moses, etc.) all about computers, and subways, and September 11, Bin Laden, and so on. The bible simply isn't relevent anymore. It's the religious people who decide it now. If the majority of Christians say it's okay, then religiously for Christians, it's okay, and vice versa... -------------------- "You dare trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 12:34
Profile
quote:Oh dear. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 12:40
Profile
Homepage
"Homosexuality is wrong! It might not be mentioned in all of these places, but it's wrong, so that's probably part of it!" You can't say "it might have included homosexuality" as part of your argument. I could as easily say that the wrongs committed by Sodom involved wearing silly hats. And you can't use Romans to retroactively impose Christian morality on pre-Christian scripture. And your concordance is pointless. It's just showing what bits of the English translation correspond to what Hebrew; it's not showing a word-by-word translation of the Hebrew. [ Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:42: Message edited by: Andrea ] -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 13:42
Profile
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. 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; Rom 8:2 For the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set me free from the law of sin and of death. Gal 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is no slave nor freeman, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives to Me shall come to Me, and the one coming to Me I will in no way cast out. Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Lo and behold, I found God in the Bible. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 14:19
Profile
Homepage
Kel: Ritual uncleanliness isn't excommunication by any means. Immersion in the mikvah bath was and is the re-purifying experience of choice, and after one is purified there is no further problem. 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. You're also falling back on circular reasoning. If God forbids homosexuality, than you can stick condemnation for homosexuality everywhere. If He doesn't, however, you can't. Since that's exactly the topic under debate right now, assuming your conclusion as a given creates holes in your logic. Micael: Right or wrong, your view doesn't add to the discussion. Right now we're going into semantics and etymologies in order to "prove" whether or not the Bible forbids homosexuality and, if so, how strongly. ?Alorael, who could also make a case for God giving everyone the right to make his or her own choice by leaving so much ambiguity in His words. Essentially, he allowed anyone to say that He said to do anything. What each individual does with such free license is the true measure of that person's worth. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, July 14 2004 00:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:And I think that's what lies at the root of the problem in solving this argument... -------------------- Visit The Santharian Dream and its RP board. Or the Encyclopaedia Ermariana! Got a brain? Go to Polaris! "It is as if everyone had lost their sense To a conspiracy for downfall and desperance And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey (freely translated). Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |