Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Kaosgirl]

Gho the Girl

linaloki

Gho the Girl

On topic:

Has anyone else read the Gospel of the Infancy of Thomas? If so, why do you all think it wasn't included within the orthodoxy?

I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas... I don't know if anything about infancy was added in...

Most likely, if it's the same thing, it'd be because Thomas was a doubter. Or something. neutral I think there was a Gospel of Peter that didn't make it either, so...

Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings that Jesus said, if you accept the gnostic perspective. (although some of the sayings were added in later)

The Gospel of Infancy Thomas is a collection of stories about the child Christ. It basically "fills in" the years of Jesus's life that the Bible doesn't cover, i.e. his childhood and adolescence. It's interesting mythos.

I haven't read it. But if I had to guess, I'd wager it simply didn't hit the right 'buttons' for the people who were trying to discern what was Gospel (ie the word of God) and what was simply non-inspired writings from God's disciples.

Which may have been because the language sounded 'off,' or because it was more of historical than moral interest, or because it contained ideas that weren't consistent with what they'd already decided qualified as gospel.

[linaloki]

Kaosgirl

Gho the Girl

linaloki

Gho the Girl

On topic:

Has anyone else read the Gospel of the Infancy of Thomas? If so, why do you all think it wasn't included within the orthodoxy?

I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas... I don't know if anything about infancy was added in...

Most likely, if it's the same thing, it'd be because Thomas was a doubter. Or something. neutral I think there was a Gospel of Peter that didn't make it either, so...

Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings that Jesus said, if you accept the gnostic perspective. (although some of the sayings were added in later)

The Gospel of Infancy Thomas is a collection of stories about the child Christ. It basically "fills in" the years of Jesus's life that the Bible doesn't cover, i.e. his childhood and adolescence. It's interesting mythos.

I haven't read it. But if I had to guess, I'd wager it simply didn't hit the right 'buttons' for the people who were trying to discern what was Gospel (ie the word of God) and what was simply non-inspired writings from God's disciples.

Which may have been because the language sounded 'off,' or because it was more of historical than moral interest, or because it contained ideas that weren't consistent with what they'd already decided qualified as gospel.

People will be people, after all. neutral

[XxXLovely RoseXxX]

ty_ping

XxXLovely RoseXxX

Honestly, I acknowledge Christians and all, but Im not really a Christian at all.

That's okay, I'm a Brahman Taoist and considered to be one of the "Authorities" in this thread.

But that's more due to a formal education in the subject than an adherant to the faith. Funny how that works huh?

Quote:

I lack the faith and the undying loyalty to protect God's name to the very end. Though if i were, I'd still not belive in the bible which was written by man which as you know had no sort actual knowing of God's persoality and intentions.

Yea but if we start from the premis that the Bible is fallible then we got nothing.

Quote:

If there is a powerful being out there, we are just as powerful as himself. In fact, we are perfect as who we are and we are not in need such a term as insignificant and restraint as sin which is used by others to enforce their own perspectives and control over others such as laws and morals.

Welcome to Taoism young grasshopper

Quote:

God wants you to have your own genuine belifs in him and in that way can you shape your own philosophy and values and guide your life in that way, free from command and enforcing of the intents of others. It is rather by everyones own each and every own unuiqe values that one can lead a how you would call "sinless" life and lead a life in which God accepts.

You might want to start this thought with "I think" as you're kind of speaking for God here and you earlier were claiming a lack of belief in him

Quote:

Knowing this, If everyone were to acknowledge each and every individual's sole pursuit, your path would not only benefit yourself, but everyone else's personal journey. therefore, through one's egositic pursuit will everyone be able to coexist happily.

Oh and if you were curious, I do have a religion. I belive in waves!
This is a wave arrow ~

A belief in the existance of something does not a religion make, but yare yare I must be high on cough syrip to have replied to this when it really wasn't makeing an argument and I had nothing to say to it anyway.

I love your accuracyy! but if i truely feel God is that way otherwise we wouldnt be the way we are. ^_^

[IcarusDream]

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

Even so, even only discussing men, we have some discrepancies.

Then list them...

Why add "as with women"? That suggests specificity. Why change the word from one that definitively meant "sex" to one that didn't?

Euphemism. It was done often enough when referring to sexual things, even in the Law; where modern legislators try to be as direct as possible, tending not to euphemize, the Jews didn't seem to take such care.

Secrets = Testes in Deut 25:11.

Stones = Testes in Deut 23:1

Fountain = v****a in Lev 20:18

Flowers = Menstrual flow in Lev 15:33

Tell me if you need more.

Quote:

I'm talking the problems with translation. Just because two verses both talk about love doesn't mean they talk about the same love. English wimps out. So, there is deeper research to be taken with the original language, especially with the Hebrew. Unfortunately, I'm not really well versed in Hebrew, less so than Koine Greek, which is often why I defer to Ty and Media Res, as they've had better study. They both tell me there's suggestion of idolatry in Leviticus 18:22. It might not've been to'evah. Like I said, I need to check.

IcarusDream

Quote:

As I said, I need to look up the words specifically. As we BOTH know, there was more than one word for abomination.

I checked and rechecked. These references are ALL to'ebah.

Well, I like to self check. Just for my own purveyance.

Get on it, please?

There are tons of resources online that make that task an easy one. I'm obviously in no hurry with this discussion, but there's no need to post a response when there's still research to do.

Quote:

IcarusDream

Let's just read it like it says. Doing that, I find a**l sex is an abomination to the Lord.

Male-to-male a**l sex. Got to be specific.

And are we reading it like it currently says in the English, or like it says in the Hebrew?

Our focus is gleaning the right meaning from the Hebrew and then making the right interpretation in English. So, both?

[Kaosgirl]

IcarusDream

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

Even so, even only discussing men, we have some discrepancies.

Then list them...

Why add "as with women"? That suggests specificity. Why change the word from one that definitively meant "sex" to one that didn't?

Euphemism. It was done often enough when referring to sexual things, even in the Law; where modern legislators try to be as direct as possible, tending not to euphemize, the Jews didn't seem to take such care.

The problem with euphemism is that it creates at least two plausible interpretations - the literal and the implied (ie. that which is presumably being referred to euphemistically.) Possibly more, if the euphemism is used for multiple scenarios.

[IcarusDream]

Kaosgirl

IcarusDream

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

Even so, even only discussing men, we have some discrepancies.

Then list them...

Why add "as with women"? That suggests specificity. Why change the word from one that definitively meant "sex" to one that didn't?

Euphemism. It was done often enough when referring to sexual things, even in the Law; where modern legislators try to be as direct as possible, tending not to euphemize, the Jews didn't seem to take such care.

The problem with euphemism is that it creates at least two plausible interpretations - the literal and the implied (ie. that which is presumably being referred to euphemistically.) Possibly more, if the euphemism is used for multiple scenarios.

I'd think that, with the verses involved, there's little chance for misunderstanding.

[linaloki]

IcarusDream

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

Even so, even only discussing men, we have some discrepancies.

Then list them...

Why add "as with women"? That suggests specificity. Why change the word from one that definitively meant "sex" to one that didn't?

Euphemism. It was done often enough when referring to sexual things, even in the Law; where modern legislators try to be as direct as possible, tending not to euphemize, the Jews didn't seem to take such care.

Secrets = Testes in Deut 25:11.

Stones = Testes in Deut 23:1

Fountain = v****a in Lev 20:18

Flowers = Menstrual flow in Lev 15:33

Tell me if you need more.

You seem to be suggesting "as with women" was a metaphor... Since all your examples are metaphors. But a metaphor for what? The point is, if they just wanted to have a simple, blanket ban on male homosexual sex, they needed not to add "as with a woman", much less switch words from "sex" to "lie with".

IcarusDream

Get on it, please?

There are tons of resources online that make that task an easy one. I'm obviously in no hurry with this discussion, but there's no need to post a response when there's still research to do.

So impatient. razz

Ty's posted something about what I was talking about since last you came... I think it was a toevah combined with another word in there... I'll try to find that, too.

Besides, how are we to know what God feels is idolatrous just by comparing what we read to the way things are now? Crossdressing now may not seem anything but lulzy, but back then it could have had more serious connotations. Paul says in Colossians, I believe, that lust, greed, and other sins are idolatrous. I can find that, too.

Quote:

IcarusDream

Let's just read it like it says. Doing that, I find a**l sex is an abomination to the Lord.

Male-to-male a**l sex. Got to be specific.

And are we reading it like it currently says in the English, or like it says in the Hebrew?

Our focus is gleaning the right meaning from the Hebrew and then making the right interpretation in English. So, both?

So you feel that the Hebrew gives a blanket condemnation on male a**l sex?

[Mari Makinami Illustrious]

Thank you, linaloki! I love these explaining-misconceptions threads in the ED. <3

[Kaosgirl]

IcarusDream

Kaosgirl

IcarusDream

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

Even so, even only discussing men, we have some discrepancies.

Then list them...

Why add "as with women"? That suggests specificity. Why change the word from one that definitively meant "sex" to one that didn't?

Euphemism. It was done often enough when referring to sexual things, even in the Law; where modern legislators try to be as direct as possible, tending not to euphemize, the Jews didn't seem to take such care.

The problem with euphemism is that it creates at least two plausible interpretations - the literal and the implied (ie. that which is presumably being referred to euphemistically.) Possibly more, if the euphemism is used for multiple scenarios.

I'd think that, with the verses involved, there's little chance for misunderstanding.

The mere existence of this discussion should have challenged that assumption long ago. In this case, it doesn't help that neither interpretation breaks the context; one merely challenges accepted doctrine.

One would think a book supposedly divinely inspired by a Perfect God would do better; unless that potential for multiple interpretations was in fact part of His plan?

[Maiafay]

Kaosgirl

IcarusDream

Kaosgirl

IcarusDream

linaloki

Why add "as with women"? That suggests specificity. Why change the word from one that definitively meant "sex" to one that didn't?

Euphemism. It was done often enough when referring to sexual things, even in the Law; where modern legislators try to be as direct as possible, tending not to euphemize, the Jews didn't seem to take such care.

The problem with euphemism is that it creates at least two plausible interpretations - the literal and the implied (ie. that which is presumably being referred to euphemistically.) Possibly more, if the euphemism is used for multiple scenarios.

I'd think that, with the verses involved, there's little chance for misunderstanding.

The mere existence of this discussion should have challenged that assumption long ago. In this case, it doesn't help that neither interpretation breaks the context; one merely challenges accepted doctrine.

One would think a book supposedly divinely inspired by a Perfect God would do better; unless that potential for multiple interpretations was in fact part of His plan?

I think that's it right there. A test to see who will use His word for evil rather than good. If things were stated plainly, verses would be hard to manipulate for the bigoted, insane and misguided folk. I believe He had the Bible written the way He intended, probably even mistranslated the way He intended. Only God knows why.

[IcarusDream]

Kaosgirl

The mere existence of this discussion should have challenged that assumption long ago.

I was rather subtly lamenting the bias of the thread.

Quote:

One would think a book supposedly divinely inspired by a Perfect God would do better; unless that potential for multiple interpretations was in fact part of His plan?

God is not beyond misleading his creations in order to show his power.

[IcarusDream]

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

Even so, even only discussing men, we have some discrepancies.

Then list them...

Why add "as with women"? That suggests specificity. Why change the word from one that definitively meant "sex" to one that didn't?

Euphemism. It was done often enough when referring to sexual things, even in the Law; where modern legislators try to be as direct as possible, tending not to euphemize, the Jews didn't seem to take such care.

Secrets = Testes in Deut 25:11.

Stones = Testes in Deut 23:1

Fountain = v****a in Lev 20:18

Flowers = Menstrual flow in Lev 15:33

Tell me if you need more.

You seem to be suggesting "as with women" was a metaphor... Since all your examples are metaphors. But a metaphor for what? The point is, if they just wanted to have a simple, blanket ban on male homosexual sex, they needed not to add "as with a woman", much less switch words from "sex" to "lie with".

I know that. My main point is that legislation back then isn't like it is today. Laws today regulating sex don't mention penetration of a woman's "cooter/hoo ha/poon/na na/punani/vajayjay/beaver/cooch" and certainly not "fountain," because today's legislators have learned that vague laws can be overturned easily simply because they are vague. The Hebrew scribes (or God, whoever you think wrote it) had no such stigmas against them, and were thus able to be more poetic in legal documentation, as their euphemizing demonstrates.

I know that if our legislators wrote laws using more colloquial terms and phrases, I'd have no problems understanding exactly what they meant, but all laws are only one lawsuit away from the wastebasket these days, and they have to be careful.

Quote:

Besides, how are we to know what God feels is idolatrous just by comparing what we read to the way things are now? Crossdressing now may not seem anything but lulzy, but back then it could have had more serious connotations. Paul says in Colossians, I believe, that lust, greed, and other sins are idolatrous. I can find that, too.

Straight lying is called to'evah. And Paul might as well call every sin idolatrous, because being a slave to sin is not being a slave to God, and you are thus not worshiping God in what you do, and therefore idolatrous, etc. You might be able to find a direct quote on that somewhere.

Quote:

So you feel that the Hebrew gives a blanket condemnation on male a**l sex?

At least. I'd think it'd condemn a man laying with another man in any way a man can lie sexually with a woman.

[!Mr.Hated!]

homosexuality is wrong.

look up the bible.
well according to christianity its wrong.

[Yoshpet]

IcarusDream

Kaosgirl

The mere existence of this discussion should have challenged that assumption long ago.

I was rather subtly lamenting the bias of the thread.

Quote:

One would think a book supposedly divinely inspired by a Perfect God would do better; unless that potential for multiple interpretations was in fact part of His plan?

God is not beyond misleading his creations in order to show his power.

A bias in one direction is no worse than a bias in the other. Two interpretations and the one you disagree with is "biased"?

Confusing your followers into failure is not only a very poor method of demonstrating power, it's nigh on evil and will only lead humans to destruction and immorality instead of the path that God apparently intends for them.

For some reason, I doubt that is the case.