06-26-2006, 03:11 PM | #41 (permalink) | |
Mad Philosopher
Location: Washington, DC
|
I'm sorry, it's been a long day at work, but I don't see how what you say follows from what I say.
Quote:
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
|
06-26-2006, 04:39 PM | #42 (permalink) | |
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Gilda |
|
06-27-2006, 04:39 AM | #43 (permalink) |
Mad Philosopher
Location: Washington, DC
|
That's not what I'm saying; I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. What I mean is that we cannot judge who is going to heaven. We shouldn't assume that Hitler isn't getting in, and we shouldn't assume that Mother Theresa is. And we certainly shouldn't assume that someone who is a homosexual isn't going to make it. But we can judge that Mother Theresa's life was better than Hitler's, and that helping the poor is a good action while gassing Jews is a bad action.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
06-27-2006, 05:03 AM | #44 (permalink) |
I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot!
Location: Upper Michigan
|
The only reference that I can find so far in the New Testament, that most Christians will point to as a statement against homosexuality is:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." The word 'effeminate' here was translated from the Greek "Malakoi". It is usually interpreted as 'soft', 'fine', 'loose', 'pliable'. None of these specifically refer to homosexual behavior. The phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' is translated from, "Arsenokoitai". Literally translated, "arsen" meaning 'man'; "koitai" meaning 'beds'. In the Septuagent, the translation of the Old Testament laws (Torah), the translators chose to translate the Hebrew "quadesh" as "Arsenohoitai". The subject they use the word in referred to male temple prostitutes serving in Pagan worship. It seems the word was also used in referrence to "catamites" who were generally boy slaves kept for the purpose of sexual satisfaction. This phrase then could be understood as either male prostitution for the purpose of pagan worship, or pedophilia. I have not found other referrences in the New Testament to 'homosexuality' as some people choose to translate it. As for the Old Testament laws. How many people can you think of who obey the 3rd and and 4th commandments?? Some might say that the temptation is too great and people are just incapable of resisting. But yet I cannot think of many who attempt to resist the temptations to work on Sunday or not swear using the name of Jesus or God. So what makes the the 7th commandment more important than the 3rd or 4th? Not the temptation surely. If a person wants to draw the condemnation of homosexuality from the Old Testament rules then they should return to a Kosher diet. A woman who is menstrating would have to be 'cleased' post menses before she could have sex with her husband. And numerous others petty laws. We cannot pick and choose if what we adhere by simply because its easy. I believe that we do not need to be concerned about the Old Testament laws. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40). If we love our neighbor then we will not steal from him, or lie to him, or steal his wife, etc. We do not have to be concerned with the small petty laws of the old Jews. We will take the time to worship on Sunday because we LOVE him but we do not have to avoid cooking ourselves lunch simply because it would be breaking God's Old Testament laws.
__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma. Last edited by raeanna74; 06-27-2006 at 04:13 PM.. Reason: typo and grammer |
06-29-2006, 05:35 PM | #45 (permalink) |
Mad Philosopher
Location: Washington, DC
|
The OT arguments don't work well either way. The problem is that, unlike the kosher laws, it's unclear whether the proscriptions on homosexuality are part of the purity laws (in which case they wouldn't apply), or are part of the moral law (in which case they would). Like you say, the NT is also ambiguous. "Homosexuality" as we understand it today either didn't exist or wasn't recognized in the first century world. So the proscriptions in the NT can be read as simply proscribing, say, visiting a temple prostitute or being effeminate, as you note.
The simplest argument, for those who believe that scripture also prohibits premarital sex, is to show that Christian marriage is only between a man and a woman, so any homosexual sexual activity must be illicit.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
06-30-2006, 04:49 AM | #47 (permalink) |
I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot!
Location: Upper Michigan
|
I found another reference used to arue against homosexuality.
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: 27 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. In the original Greek the phrases which were translated as passions or lust were usually used in reference to pagan ceremonial drug induced ecstasies. "para physin" which is usually translated as unatural or against nature in this particular text is defined as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." If this is the technical definition of the phrase then a better translation could be unconventional. The phrase is used in other parts of the Bible in reference to men wearing long hair, and also bringing Jews and Gentiles to work together. It seems even this passage could be interpreted in mulitple ways. One of which is that it deals with Christians who participated in pagan ceremonies. Worship in a pagan way would in a sense be 'unnatural' for a Christian to do. The fact that 'Christian marriage' is not common for homosexuals is not because most homosexuals don't desire it but because of a religious prejudice against giving a 'Christian blessing' to the union. Maybe this needs to change?
__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma. |
06-30-2006, 01:58 PM | #48 (permalink) |
Mad Philosopher
Location: Washington, DC
|
I'm not saying that the Christian teaching on marriage is unambiguous. I'm saying that it's easier to argue that Christian marriage is only between a man and a woman than it is to argue that homosexual activity is sinful. The passages suggesting that marriage is between a man and a woman are generally less ambiguous than those suggesting that sex between a man and a man is wrongful.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
07-11-2006, 06:19 PM | #49 (permalink) |
You had me at hello
Location: DC/Coastal VA
|
Let me throw some useless wood on the fire.
Gilda is right. I offer up as an example Luke 12:51. He offers up division, and a whole lot of problems. The verse starts "do you think I've come to give you peace?" And that just starts the war. Sorry, lets keep it short. I've studied at a religious school for years. And I've believed acceptance for years. Still waiting for a MIRACLE.
__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet Last edited by Poppinjay; 07-11-2006 at 06:23 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
09-05-2006, 07:58 PM | #50 (permalink) | |||
Artist of Life
|
Its difficult to use passages from the Bible in such a way. Examples:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-01-2006, 09:43 PM | #51 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Period.
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11 This isn't even taking into account the Old Testament, in which homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin. For the life of me I can't understand why people are trying to purposely contort what the Bible says for the sake of their own argument.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 10-01-2006 at 09:50 PM.. |
10-02-2006, 04:37 AM | #52 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
|
|
10-02-2006, 05:21 AM | #53 (permalink) | |||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. On a personal note, I'm neither male, nor a prostitute, nor a sodomite. I'm married and have sex exclusively with my wife, so I'm neither a fornicator nor an adulterer. I'm free across the board here. Woo hoo! Quote:
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner Also, with the new covenant brought by Jesus, the laws of the old testament no longer apply, unless you happen to be Jewish. Quote:
Gilda
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert Last edited by Gilda; 10-02-2006 at 05:23 AM.. |
|||
10-02-2006, 07:28 PM | #55 (permalink) | |||||||||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Go figure! Anyway, I offer up the NIV version of the aforementioned passages of scripture, which is a bit more clearer and easier to understand: 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
...But that's just a guess. Quote:
According to Christian belief, Jesus came to Earth to die for all of our sins. In the Old Testament one had to offer up sacrifices to receive forgiveness (Assuming your sin didn't lead to instant death, such as being stoned for homosexuality). Jesus brought with him a new covenant; One which wasn't as harsh as its predecessor. According to Jesus, all sins could be forgiven through him. This is why Christians today no longer engage in such practices as elaborate sacrifices or public stoning. Most (Almost all) Christians today will tell you that the moral and civil laws of the old Testament (Such as the Ten Commandments) are still applicable. To say that none of the laws of the Old Testament apply is not only hogwash, but it's a blatant attempt at miscontruing the Bible. How about this? Why don't you find me a passage of Scripture in which God, Jesus, any of the prophets or any of the disciples condones homosexuality? Quote:
I don't care if you're a heterosexual or a homosexual, but don't take any religious book out of context to justify that action. Quote:
But, to answer your question, I don't take everything the Bible says at face value.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 10-02-2006 at 07:32 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||||||||
10-02-2006, 07:38 PM | #56 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
The funny thing about christianity is that even if you're christian, you can't claim anything on behalf of christianity in general. The term christian is an umbrella term for over a thousand different denominations that all follow the teachings of jesus in their own way. So please, if anyone's going to claim that christians are this and that christians believe that, please qualify your statement and stop acting like any one person or group of people has cornered the market on christian thought.
That way we can end fruitless discussions like this by acknowledging that different people interpret different manifestations of dieties in different ways. |
10-02-2006, 09:21 PM | #57 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Arsenokoitai, translated in your version as "homosexual offenders" and in mine as "sodomites" is likewise unclear. It literally means "man lying in bed". The homosexual reference is, dare I say it, projected onto the original text by translators. The precise meaning is unclear, though it may be a holdover from leviticus where two smaller words arseno and koitai, are What this means in this context is unclear. It might mean a male prostitute, differentiated from a female, but who might service either sex, but it seems most likely to be a reference to the Greek practice of pederasty, a specific context no longer relevant and which does not translate easily into a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, just one specific sex act as practiced between a grown man and a young boy in a specific culture. Quote:
Quote:
Certain male-male homosexual acts are addressed, but homosexuality itself is not, and discussiono female homosexual acts is absent. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Show me a passage where driving a car is condoned, or eating barbequed potato chips or running the high hurdles. Are we to assume those things are sinful because the aren't condoned? Of course not. Endorsement in the bible is not a requirement for an act to be permitted. However: Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ Also, Matthew 8: 5-13 Quote:
The disagreement here is in who is doing this. Quote:
Quote:
Gilda
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert |
||||||||||||
10-02-2006, 09:30 PM | #58 (permalink) | |
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
Quote:
Christianity has been a "buffet religion" for centuries. "Hmmm...that looks good, I'll have a little of that, some of this, oooh I'm piling up on that, but that stuff looks a little stale, I think I'll pass." Hence, all of the denominations. That's my 2 cents...and that's about what it's worth.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
|
10-02-2006, 10:55 PM | #59 (permalink) | |||||||||||||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
You know what else isn't addressed in the Bible? The state of being attracted to an animal or family members. When you make an argument such as the aforementioned, you assume that there was no absolutely no knowledge of homosexuality as a feeling. Could it be that the act was of more importance? And, as I'm curious, could you find me one translation of the Bible which doesn't see homosexuality as a sin? Quote:
Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, but look up the word "Sodomy". One of it's meaning will be "Intercourse between two members of the same sex". Notice that I didn't say that it only had one meaning (In reference to an earlier post). Quote:
*Further explained a bit below* Quote:
Now, I'm going to assume that since you're arguing from a Biblical standpoint that you believe that the Bible is the absolute truth and that God is omnipotent. If both the latter are true and if God doesn't show disdain for homosexuality, then why are there no passages of scripture stating as much? Quote:
Take the story of Adam and Eve, for example. While God never explicitly commanded Eve not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was expected to follow the rules that God had layed down upon Adam. Therefore, she was prone to the same penalties as Adam when she broke them. It's the same same concept. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Matthew 23: 2-3 Matthew 23: 16-22 Mark 7: 7-13 Luke 10: 25-28 Leviticus 18: 22, one of the "Laws of Moses", clearly prohibits homosexual encounters. If Jesus promoted the "Laws of Moses" and the they, in turn, prohibited homosexuality, then is Jesus' stand on homosexuality not clear? Quote:
Quote:
And, as you are aware, Christians are commanded to love their neighbour but hate the sin, the sin in this case being homosexuality. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. |
|||||||||||||
10-03-2006, 12:31 AM | #60 (permalink) |
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Infinite_Loser, you act like abomination is such a clear-cut term, biblically speaking. I'd be interested to know whether or not you consume shellfish. After all, they're an abomination too. (Lev 11:10-12)
I'm actually not sure you're comprehending anything Gilda is saying though. At the core of her posts lies one important fact: the bible has been translated over...and over...and over again. This doesn't necessarily devalue it. What it does mean, however, is that it takes a certain level of bullheadedness to claim one is certain of the message intended to be conveyed. In fact, Gilda utterly trounced your repeated claims that the bible blanketly condemns homosexuality - and I'll add nothing she stated is anything I haven't heard said before, both in my numerous classes focusing on religious studies, and from a number of clergy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you haven't gone out of your way to read each book of the bible in the original language they were written in (sometimes more than one per book!). That's OK. I wouldn't expect you to, and neither have I. However, I do recognize that there are people who HAVE studied the bible with careful consideration of both language and context, and every person I have come across that has done so has echoed Gilda's primary points. You also conveniently ignore Gilda's point that lack of support does not equal condemnation. You're right that the bible does not expressly condone homosexuality. Seeing as how it also does not universally condemn it, it is impossible to draw a clear and certain teaching on the issue. However, there is one predominant thread in Christianity, and that is love. With that in mind, a well-educated person would be hard-pressed to claim the bible explicitly and universally condemns homosexuality, especially with regard to committed, monogamous relationships. Perhaps it's time I revived an old signature of mine which serves to point out, among other things, that relying strictly on the face value of words is a highly flawed method of understanding a message that is being conveyed: "There is always a gap between what is experienced within the cave of the human heart and what is expressed through words and symbols." - Stanley J. Samartha Finally, this is all setting aside the very important point that what is appropriate for Christians in one cultural context is not necessarily appropriate for Christians in another. Regardless of the debate over how clear the bible is on homosexuality and what exactly it's trying to say, there is something the bible is very clear about: women ought to cover their heads when in church (1 Cor 11). I hope you speak out against uncovered female heads in church with the same kind of dedication as it seems you speak out against homosexuality. Of course, I'm being facetious. I know full well the odds are you don't believe women are required to cover their heads in church. It just goes to show, no matter how explicitly clear the text of the bible is, there are other factors to be considered as well. Most significantly, cultural context. Even if we accept that the bible is clear in its condemnation of homosexuality - which it is not - it then follows that that is not necessarily a condemnation for our time. And that leads us to an entirely different debate altogether. ---------------------------- As an aside, while I enjoy debate that has a point, the fact is there's nothing you're going to say which will convince persons such as Gilda or myself that what you are saying is correct. No offense intended to you - I'm sure you're a nice guy - but in this particular case, I frankly think your view is uneducated. Likewise, I must also recognize that it seems nothing that is said, no matter how much is cited to support it, will serve to alter your viewpoint. So, let's just agree to disagree and allow this thread to either die, or be continued with the efforts of another member who is interested in mutual discussion and understanding as opposed to proselytizing.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling |
10-03-2006, 04:22 AM | #61 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Acts 10:9-16 But, to answer your question, I dislike all seafood. Quote:
Quote:
A.) While it's true that Jesus never once outright mentioned homosexuality, one of the main focal points of Jesus' teachings was that he was born to fulfill the "Law of Moses"; Not to end or change it. Those people who claim that the Old Testament is no longer valid and thusly can be ignored are mistaken. While many practices of the Old Testament are now obsolete (Such as religious sacrifices and stoning), many of the moral and civil laws continue to predominate themselves in modern day Christian sects. Upon examining and studying the Old Testament, we conclude that the Biblical aversion to homosexuality stems from the "Law(s) of Moses", typically referred to as the Torah. The Torah's attitude concerning homosexuality is definite-- It's a perversion and a sin before God. In fact, the word it uses to describe homosexuality is "to'evah" (Or "Abomination", meaning "To cause to stray from"). If you don't believe me, then read it for yourself. Better yet, pick it up and read it in Hebrew. B.) You trying to challenge the interpretation of the Bible's view on homosexuality is like me trying to challenge the meaning of "Thou shalt not steal"-- It's not up for debate. If you took a look at the original Hebrew text regarding homosexuality, you would notice that homosexuality in all forms was condemned and punishable by death. C.) The majority of religious scholars do NOT make that claim that perhaps the interpretation of the Torah or the Bible on homosexuals is wrong. In fact, it's quite the opposite. During the past thirty or fourty years, what you see is a number of religious groups either rejecting doctrine or trying to redefine homosexuality so it conforms with previous teachings rather than trying to redefine religious doctrine. No offense to you or anyone else, but you're not the only person who has ever taken religious studies classes or done studies yourself. Quote:
You can't look at one side of the equation while utterly ignoring the other one. A one-sided argument doesn't prove much, now does it? Quote:
Condemnation equals condemnation. Both in the Hebrew texts and the translated books of the Bible, homosexuality as a whole is condemned. You are assuming that God didn't mean all forms of homosexuality and the problem you have is that there is no evidence that this is what was meant. Quote:
I suppose it's just me, but when something is called "An abomination unto God", it doesn't have a positive connotation (The accepted meaning of the word being "To cause to stray from"). Anything which causes a person to stray away from God is considered a sin and instantly condemned. Quote:
The love of which you speak would probably be more closely related to the love between a man and a woman (I suspect you're talking marriage). Marriage, according to the Torah/Old Testament is a sacred unity of a man and a woman before God and, as such, the idea of a marriage between homosexuals (Two men or two women) directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian doctrine concerning marriage. Quote:
I believe that explains it better than I could. Hapy reading! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, there is no such thing as tolerance. Love the person, but hate the sin-- That is a paramount teaching of Christianity. Most people seem unable to grasp the concept.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 10-03-2006 at 04:40 AM.. Reason: Wanted to add... |
||||||||||||
10-03-2006, 03:19 PM | #62 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for the religious groups...well, so what? Scriptures are living documents, holding not only the spiritual history of a people, but evolving with the people in the here and now. Nothing shows this more than the fact it took the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to clearly define biblical canon. And of course that's not to mention that they did so in response to the fact other Christians had different views of biblical canon. So, maybe they're rejecting doctrine, or maybe they're choosing a new interpretation, that may or may not be historically based, of an old text. Either way, what they are doing is being active participants in their spiritual history. To steal a phrase from a Catholic studies professor I once had, they are "changing to preserve the changeless." Namely, they are changing an archaic view of homosexuality (if we assume, for the moment, that your interpretation is historically correct), to preserve the changeless message of Jesus' mission: acceptance and love. Add into the mix the mounting evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis, and you've got a recipe for reform. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 10-03-2006 at 03:43 PM.. |
||||||||||||||
10-03-2006, 05:21 PM | #63 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
|
|
10-03-2006, 06:17 PM | #64 (permalink) |
Mistress of Mayhem
Location: Canton, Ohio
|
Now, now some religions are very non violent and dont recruit!
But yeah, for the most part youre right.
__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths. Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open. It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch. |
10-03-2006, 07:35 PM | #65 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You know what else isn't addressed in the Bible? The state of being attracted to an animal or family members. When you make an argument such as the aforementioned, you assume that there was no absolutely no knowledge of homosexuality as a feeling. Could it be that the act was of more importance? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, it does endorse feelings and manifestaions of it. One of those feelings, one of the manifestations of homosexuality is love. I love my wife. That is a part of my homosexual feelings for her. It is in fact so fully intertwined with my sexual attraction to her that I am incapable of separating the two. I'm told that there are heterosexuals who do the same thing. The bible is pretty cool with the concept of love, and endorses it pretty regularly, all over the place, with no restrictions as to who is allowed to love whom. There are all kinds of restrictions on who gets to have sex with whom, on both homosexuals and hetersexuals (and more on y'all than on us), but no restrictions on who gets to love whom. Are you familiar with the concept of lesbian bed death? It refers to the phenomenon of lesbian couples ceasing to having sex after becoming monogamous. It's not rare in middle aged couples. There are good sociological and even better biological reasons for it, but there are such couples. Now, since the sex act isn't involved, what form might homosexuality take in the case of a celibate homosexual couple? I'm thinking it's about love. Which is endorsed quite frequently in the bible. Now, as to an endorsement, Paul does say that it's a sin for people to give up what is natural for what is unnatural, so the logical conclusion from that would be that it would be that I shouldn't have sex with a man (which would be unnatural for me) but that I should be free to act on my attraction to women. Quote:
Quote:
God, in the form of Jesus, does not address homosexuality. His prophets, human men, address certain homosexual acts, but not all homosexuality in the current meaning of that word (the state of being homosexual). Indeed, it would be strange if that were addressed as it's a modern concept that first became widely understood only in the last century. Quote:
I'm being facetious of course. It's a an admonition against a man taking the female role in the sex act. There's no way this is gender neutral. In addition, sex is inheretly diffeerent for men and woman and the roles as understood at the time were much different. Extrapolating from rules specified for male-male sexual behavior to females does not work logically. Quote:
Quote:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. First, notice no condemnation of homosexality, just a specific sex act, and taken in context, this refers specifically to a temple prostitute. Now, let's look at "abomination". It's a translation of to'ebah, which usually refers to things that are ritually unclean, not violations of moral laws, it can be either, but even if we assume that it it's referring to moral law rather than procedural, it's still addressing specific acts, not homosexuality itself. Quote:
There are numerous possible transalations of this passage, especially given the original context, which does not apply to most modern homosexual couples of either sex. It addresse one specific act in one specific context, not all homosexuality. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, even if homosexual acts are a sin, they don't separate one from God: Romans 8: "No sin can separate us from God, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day Quote:
Quote:
For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ I see no call to hate there. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is: John 3:16: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. No exception for homosexuals. No exceptions period. Gilda
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert |
||||||||||||||||||||||
10-03-2006, 08:28 PM | #66 (permalink) | ||
Loser
|
Quote:
I think you will find that extreme nonviolent philosophies are just as bad as extremely violent ones, since it leaves you at the whim of those who are cruel and vicious. Example, the Jews in Europe during world war two. They were quite peaceful people, not anymore, good thing they learned their lesson. To teach that all violence is wrong is foolishness, and will lead to victimization and wrongs not being righted. There is such a thing a righteous anger, anger that is right, and if you must kill or be killed, kill to make the world a better place, then yes, you kill, become violent. That is just reality, and pacifism is just an excuse not to face reality. You can indeed choose to be non-viloent, but then you have no right to complain about the state of affairs, or about how wrong violence is. Let's just remember, all it take for evil to rule is for good men to do nothing. Pray you don't become too pious and good, then your philosophy may be to do nothing at the expense of all. Religion is dogmatic, and often a form of extremism. It is a brach of philosophy, and each religion has it's own philosophy. The problem is that religion preaches itself to be universal truth. Better to be philosophical then religious, it's a far better way to attain a higher level of spirituality then praying to some arbitrary hunk of wood shaped like a cross, or an ankh. Look within, not without, for your path to the divine, to understanding the universe better, cause religion just doe's it all as backwards, promotes intolerance, and just creates a lot more wrong then right in the world. Quote:
I think you will find that extreme nonviolent philosophies are just as bad as extremely violent ones, since it leaves you at the whim of those who are cruel and vicious. Example, the Jews in Europe during world war two. They were quite peaceful people, not anymore, good thing they learned their lesson. To teach that all violence is wrong is foolishness, and will lead to victimization and wrongs not being righted. There is such a thing a righteous anger, anger that is right, and if you must kill or be killed, kill to make the world a better place, then yes, you kill, become violent. That is just reality, and pacifism is just an excuse not to face reality. You can indeed choose to be non-viloent, but then you have no right to complain about the state of affairs, or about how wrong violence is. Let's just remember, all it take for evil to rule is for good men to do nothing. Pray you don't become to pious and good,then your philosophy may be to do nothing at the expense of all. Last edited by Kensei; 10-03-2006 at 08:33 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
10-03-2006, 10:15 PM | #67 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Quote:
2.) I'm slightly curious. It seems to me that you are saying that homosexuality in males is unacceptable but homosexuality in females is acceptable, as it's not explicity condemned. Am I right in my assumptions? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, because I'm curious, under what category would the love between two homosexuals fall under? Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and if you would have read the Bible the nature of God is clearly defined. Quote:
If the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, then it can be inferred that all homosexual practices are a sin. Why would the Bible need to elaborate on a concept which it has already condemned? Quote:
If I tell you to follow the "Ten Commandments", then that would mean that I expect you to abide by the rules listed there. Why is it any different in this case? It shouldn't be. Quote:
Quote:
A classic example of this is the story of Adam and Eve. Eve was not told by God to not partake of the tree of wisdom (He told Adam), yet she was expelled from the Garden of Eden just like Adam. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's an excerpt from an article describin the underlying meaning behind the term "Arsenokoita" which, when translated into Hebrew means "To lie with men". http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html Quote:
Quote:
Ezekiel 14:11 Quote:
Which statement appears in the Bible: A.) Homosexuality is an abomination to me or B.) Some forms of homosexuality are an abomination to me. It's not rocket science nor is the choice hard. There is no clause in the Bible which states that some forms of homosexuality are acceptable to God; It is, in fact, quite the opposite. The statement is starkingly unambiguous. Quote:
Although, I have to say that I see where you're coming from. The Bible states that killing (Murder) is unacceptable. Obviously what God really meant was that you shouldn't kill (Murder) unless you really feel the need to. The Bible also states that stealing is an unacceptable behaviour. You see, though, what God really meant was that it's okay to steal just so long as you don't do it on the Sabbath. You see? I can turn a concrete statement into a matter of assumptions, too! Quote:
Isaiah 5:20 Psalms 45:6-7 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As you were quick to point out, the Biblical definition of the word tolerance is different than the definition we use today. The Bible teaches us that we shouldn't condemn one another, but that we shouldn't accept sin as a daily part of our lives. Christians aren't supposed to condemn their brethern but, at the same time, they're not supposed to be accepting of sinful practices, either. Ezekiel 3:18 Isaiah 5:20 Psalms 45:6-7 (Posted for the second time.) Quote:
Romans 12:9-13 Quote:
God loves everyone equally, hence him sending his only begotten son to die for the sins of humanity. However, not everyone is a child of God (1 John 3:10). Simply because you believe that Jesus' died for your sins doesn't mean that you are guaranteed eternal life; You must also adhere to God's word. In every language translated, there is almost a unilateral concensus that God's stance towards homosexuality is not a favorable one, regarding it as an "Abomination". As I illustrated earlier, the Hebrew word for abomination is "To'evah" which literally means "To cause to stray from". Anything which causes you to stray from God is considered a sin and, as any Christian will know, sin causes a divide between humans and God.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 10-03-2006 at 10:43 PM.. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10-04-2006, 02:58 AM | #68 (permalink) |
Loser
|
Lets face it , persecution of a minority by the majority has always been a way to bring people together, and unite people under one banner. Hitler did it to the Jews, and the Jews of Jesus time did it to homosexuals, and other such folks.
Listen, your longer then needed post, I mean talk about a tirade, is really just a pack of lies. It is loaded with intolerance, and basically you are argueing that something is wrong because some old book said so. Perhaps your not aware that the bible was written by a bunch of old men who wanted to have power over the people, so they called it God's word. This is the case with most religion. I could realy care less if the bible claims being gay is wrong, or that eating meat on Friday is wrong, that rule was rescinded by the church, so much for the almight universal truth of the bible, lol. I have no problem with gay people, to each his own I say, live and let live. it is your kind of close minded, biggoted intolerance thought that led to many o the worst atrocities committed by man. If you want to pidgeon hole a group, why don't you pidgeon hole the religious zealots out there, who take bible verse as gospel and discriminate wantenly in the name of God. As if some being who created the heavens and the earth gicves a hoot what some ant amoung countless ant's doe's with his genitalia, I think God has more important things to do, sad that you don't, you should. |
10-04-2006, 03:59 AM | #69 (permalink) |
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
I'd be careful what kind of assumptions you make, Kensei. You can tell I certainly don't believe it proper simply to take the bible literally, nor do I believe that followers of the bible don't have the right to critically evaluate it and what it means for them today. I certainly don't believe that a writing being "inspired" and "commanded by God" are synonymous. Faith communities - whether they're Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else - are ultimately the ones who decide what is and is not "inspired." It is because of this process that a book of what used to be bar songs is now part of Jewish and Christian scripture: not because God commanded anyone to write them (I may be mistaken, but I've never heard of God being characterized as a heavy drinker ), but because someone in the Jewish faith community looked at the songs and realized that they could be interpreted to mean something about his peoples' relationship with God, and his community ultimately accepted that viewpoint.
That said, I think it's very important to not be hasty regarding how we view the bible or the people who wrote the books in it. The authors of the books of the new testament were in no position to be writing for power. In fact, for a significant number of them, being associated with the early Christian movement was not only not a source of power, but a source of potential danger to their life. When it comes to power, they didn't see much of it. In fact, Paul gave up a fair amount of power in order to join the early Christian movement. This is not to say that there have not been and are not people who manipulate scriptures of any sort for their own gain, but let's not confuse the authors with people of a later time. The bible - along with most other scriptures - has a lot of good things to say about life, provided one reads it with an eye for context and relevance, and remembers that its position as scripture does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of spiritual wisdom. Indeed, while the western view of scripture tends to be of a singular collection of documents, set in stone, the eastern view of scripture is much more fluid.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 10-04-2006 at 07:17 AM.. |
10-04-2006, 05:23 AM | #71 (permalink) |
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
????
Did you read my posts? I've never made any argument against homosexuality (far from it), and I've constantly made statements to the effect that, while the bible is a significant book, it should not and cannot be taken at face value. I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that I've made contradictory statements
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling |
10-04-2006, 05:32 AM | #72 (permalink) |
Loser
|
I was speaking of infinite loser, in all of my posts, why would you thiink I was speaking to you ever. Someone else looking for conflict. Please don't respond when I clearly have no spoken to you, and I won't make the mistake of thinking it is you who posted the post I initially responded to, ok. Good bye.
|
10-04-2006, 06:04 AM | #73 (permalink) |
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Sorry, since I was the only person to post between your post #68 addressed to Infinite_Loser and your post #70, and since I don't recall Infinite_Loser ever saying the bible shouldn't be taken all that seriously, I was under the impression you were responding to me. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding, I certainly wasn't looking for any conflict.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling |
10-04-2006, 09:43 AM | #74 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
My point is that if you're a Christian and you're going to conform to the Christian lifestyle, that you'd be wrong to assume/say that the Bible doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, as this claim has been largely disproved by theologins over the past few hundred years. Seriously. Have you read any of my posts? Oh, and before I forget. I like being verbose
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. |
|
10-04-2006, 01:42 PM | #75 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Look at the wording of Leviticus: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. This is unambiguously specific to men. It cannot be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality because, as you admit above, that concept did not exist at the time. Also, if it is equally applicable to both sexes, then it says that women are not to lie with men as they do with woman. If it applies to both sexes, it actually becomes an endorsement of lesbianism. Woo hoo! Another endorsement. I’m going to tell my wife about this. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A. everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. B. everyone who believes in him may not perish, except for those dirty homosexuals. This is fun! Let’s try some more: A. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. B. For everyone who asks receives, except if they‘re homosexual; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. A. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. B. Dear friends, let us love one another, except for those damn homos, for love comes from God. Hee hee. This is really delightful. Quote:
Quote:
Interpretation based on context is rather a different thing from assumptions. I’m doing the former. Quote:
Quote:
That’s my lifestyle. If that’s a homosexual lifestyle, there are plenty of straight people living one. Homosexual is my orientation. Quote:
Quick quiz. Does Romans 12:10 say: A: love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour. B: love one another with mutual affection, unless you‘re homosexual; outdo one another in showing honour, unless you‘re homosexual. Quote:
Quote:
That said, though I’m not perfect, I do adhere to the teachings of the bible as best I can. Do I observe all of them strictly? Nah. I wear my hair short (see my profile picture), don’t cover my head in church, eat shrimp and shellfish (a lot of it actually), wear fibers made of two different threads, and my garden has more than one crop in it. All of those are abominations in the biblical sense, but I seriously doubt that those things are going to have much of an impact on God’s love or my relationship with him. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gilda
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert Last edited by Gilda; 10-04-2006 at 03:33 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10-04-2006, 03:23 PM | #76 (permalink) | |
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Also, please try to make a distinction between secular and non-secular scholars. There is a large difference in the general credibility of both groups (although I will freely admit that there are secular scholars who are not credible and non-secular scholars who are).
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling |
|
10-04-2006, 06:54 PM | #77 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-04-2006, 09:15 PM | #78 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
Windbag means your long winded, it's not biggoted, but an observation that someone just talks too damn much to say something that they could really say with a lot less breathe. Usually this is because they like the sound of their own voice, and are overly impressed with themselves. Windbag, understand now, Take care |
|
10-04-2006, 09:35 PM | #79 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
If someone were to hypothetically call you an asshole or an idiot, then explain the meaning of each term and how using the term was "an observation", would that make it any less of an insult?
Homosexuality could very well be wrong, but we do live in a world where the Christian denomonations can't agree on the meaning of something as important as baptism or communion...what that suggests to me is the word of God is something subjective. I've said it before: I, personally, think that the Bible, and even religon in general can act as a mirror to the reader/believer. When I read my Bible or my Qu'ran, I see reflections of my own morality played out in prables and tales. I'm not just talking about general morality, like "do on to others as you would have them do unto you", I am talking about specific things like "God does not declair war on nations anymore" or "BET is racist". |
10-04-2006, 09:47 PM | #80 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
belief, christian, homosexuality |
|
|