Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Maiafay]

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.

Maybe Icarus can show the class how this thread is biased and how that proves what "point?"

[Anakha the Silver]

Maiafay

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.

Maybe Icarus can show the class how this thread is biased and how that proves what "point?"

Yoshpet's right. Icarus is basically claiming that this thread is biased because it seems to conflict with what he believes.

[linaloki]

Well, Icarus may be correct. I do hold a slightly larger bias toward my side of the argument. I represent the other side, but not nearly as in depth as I do mine.

However, that being said, few that argue the other side go any more in depth than I have represented them. I believe I have shown the majority of the opposing argument and simply set out to disagree with them. And, by the amount and content of the dissenting opinions that have appeared in this thread, only a small handful have contained more than what my original posts contain and represent as the opposition.

[linaloki]

IcarusDream

linaloki

IcarusDream

linaloki

IcarusDream

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.

So, you're defending the phrase as a Hebrew "colloquialism," yes? The question is, what does that colloquialism mean? Considering the many customs they had, even dealing with the beds appropriate for sex, it seems to suggest less that there was poetry and more that there was something specific going on. Why would they have settled for poetry in that single verse when every other verse quite verily got to the point?

And an interesting point I had brought to my attention... is there not a list of rules similar to Leviticus 18 and 20 in Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy 27 repeats the incest and bestiality laws... but not the one supposedly dealing with homosexuality. And, even stranger, there is no law in Leviticus dealing with temple prostitutes, but there is in Deuteronomy. I find it strange, because the KJV uses the word "sodomites" in the same place in 1 Kings (I think, I can look it back up) that the NIV translates as "temple prostitutes". And, when I look at Deuteronomy 23:18-19 on this Hebrew/English website, I see this:

Deuteronomy 23:18-19

There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Now, if someone could read this for me...

יח לֹא-תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה, מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ, מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
יט לֹא-תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב, בֵּית יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ--לְכָל-נֶדֶר: כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, גַּם-שְׁנֵיהֶם.

I bet we'd find toevah in there. Note here where it talks of sodomites, but is equated to temple prostitutes in the NIV. The similarities are a little too coincidental, I think, to ignore.

IcarusDream

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.

And what ways are those? Would that include snuggling? Hugging? Kissing? Where does "sexually" actually enter the equation in the original language, as opposed to simple "lying with"?

[Maiafay]

linaloki

Well, Icarus may be correct. I do hold a slightly larger bias toward my side of the argument. I represent the other side, but not nearly as in depth as I do mine.

However, that being said, few that argue the other side go any more in depth than I have represented them. I believe I have shown the majority of the opposing argument and simply set out to disagree with them. And, by the amount and content of the dissenting opinions that have appeared in this thread, only a small handful have contained more than what my original posts contain and represent as the opposition.

Well, to be frank, I've heard enough of the traditionalist's side to last me a lifetime. All my life I've heard how gays are horrible and going to hell. To read a viewpoint differing from what I've been taught was not only surprising, but a relief. I had nothing to back my instincts until I read this thread, and began researching on my own.

I don't tolerate ignorance, least of all in myself. As I said, I had no idea there had been another side to this debate - and I'm thinking neither did Icarus. This is why Christians need to research and study God's word from all viewpoints and choose which one feels right.

[Isaac488]

Anyone else hear of Codex Sinaiticus (other than loki because I'm pretty sure he did)
I guess it's the world's oldest bible that's written in greek and I heard that it now has it's own site

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

[Isaac488]

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.

Biased? Explaining the Bible correctly is biased?

[zebppir]

Isaac488

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.

Biased? Explaining the Bible correctly is biased?

didn't you know that being against fundementalists is inherently biased? *scarcasm* neutral

if you really want to get to the deepest truth possible everyone's biased one way or another

Peter and the disciples are no exception

since he viewed sex as evil or was it Paul?

[ty_ping]

linaloki

ty_ping

linaloki

ty_ping

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 know it's Roman Catholic Cannon since it is avalible in my Bible but not "Officially part of the Bible" but I think the reason it wasn't is because it makes Jesus out to be a little too "Godlike" and a bit of a d**k at points. (He killed a kid because the kid called him a freak for turning a clay bird into a real one, and then raised the kid from the dead because his mom gave him s**t for killing him in the first place. That's a little bit TOO magical for him to be 100% man and 100% God methinks)

Well, I believe it was Elijah that had a bear kill, what, 40 kids for taunting him and calling him a baldy.

Yea but that was Old Testament.
Jesus is supposed to be all perfect and full of love and rightiousness and acceptance.

Killing a kid and then raising him from the dead so he doesn't get a spanking? Not really up the Jesus street the Church has been trying to sell since they threw the Bible togeather.

Well... he did get kinda pissy at the merchants in the temple and at the fig tree. That second one always threw me for a tiny loop.

Well we can either assume that the tree was really asking for it, or it was ment to be a lesson (the merchants in the temple made sense.)

Or we assume that maybe Jesus wasn't Christ and possibly he was just CRAZY LIKE A COCONUT! And went off his ever loving top every once in a boo.

Either that or he was just hung over from all the "water" he drank.

[ty_ping]

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. ^_^

There are a lot of socio... blah what's the work I'm looking for here. The evolution of scociety reasons and biological reasons for us being the way we are.

The fact that we have changed over time in every way shape and form (Even if you believe in Adam and Eve how we looked 6000 years ago is VASTLY different to how we look now. Evolution... still get's yah. surprised ) kind of veers away from the whole "God had a hand in it" unless you're willing to admit to the possibility of multiple Gods.

(which is Biblical as in the Bible it aknowledges that there are Multiple Gods and those Gods ARE Gods just not the Jewish God, so they're like, not as elitest or something, if you've devoted yourself to that one. Or the Jewish God through Christ.)

[zebppir]

ty_ping

linaloki

ty_ping

linaloki

ty_ping

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 know it's Roman Catholic Cannon since it is avalible in my Bible but not "Officially part of the Bible" but I think the reason it wasn't is because it makes Jesus out to be a little too "Godlike" and a bit of a d**k at points. (He killed a kid because the kid called him a freak for turning a clay bird into a real one, and then raised the kid from the dead because his mom gave him s**t for killing him in the first place. That's a little bit TOO magical for him to be 100% man and 100% God methinks)

Well, I believe it was Elijah that had a bear kill, what, 40 kids for taunting him and calling him a baldy.

Yea but that was Old Testament.
Jesus is supposed to be all perfect and full of love and rightiousness and acceptance.

Killing a kid and then raising him from the dead so he doesn't get a spanking? Not really up the Jesus street the Church has been trying to sell since they threw the Bible togeather.

Well... he did get kinda pissy at the merchants in the temple and at the fig tree. That second one always threw me for a tiny loop.

Well we can either assume that the tree was really asking for it, or it was ment to be a lesson (the merchants in the temple made sense.)

Or we assume that maybe Jesus wasn't Christ and possibly he was just CRAZY LIKE A COCONUT! And went off his ever loving top every once in a boo.

Either that or he was just hung over from all the "water" he drank.

well in his defense imagine what you'd be like if you see people defiling your father's house?

and the tree totally deserved it xp

[zebppir]

ty_ping

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. ^_^

There are a lot of socio... blah what's the work I'm looking for here. The evolution of scociety reasons and biological reasons for us being the way we are.

The fact that we have changed over time in every way shape and form (Even if you believe in Adam and Eve how we looked 6000 years ago is VASTLY different to how we look now. Evolution... still get's yah. surprised ) kind of veers away from the whole "God had a hand in it" unless you're willing to admit to the possibility of multiple Gods.

(which is Biblical as in the Bible it aknowledges that there are Multiple Gods and those Gods ARE Gods just not the Jewish God, so they're like, not as elitest or something, if you've devoted yourself to that one. Or the Jewish God through Christ.)

The bible says there is just one GOD Who made everything that and he's a jealous god (but lets not get into that shall we?) so I guess it could be true that their ARE multiple gods but he is the OVERGOD the one they all are subject too

So I guess In a way if we fallow this line of thought it goes in a direction that is confusing

[linaloki]

ty_ping

linaloki

ty_ping

linaloki

ty_ping

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 know it's Roman Catholic Cannon since it is avalible in my Bible but not "Officially part of the Bible" but I think the reason it wasn't is because it makes Jesus out to be a little too "Godlike" and a bit of a d**k at points. (He killed a kid because the kid called him a freak for turning a clay bird into a real one, and then raised the kid from the dead because his mom gave him s**t for killing him in the first place. That's a little bit TOO magical for him to be 100% man and 100% God methinks)

Well, I believe it was Elijah that had a bear kill, what, 40 kids for taunting him and calling him a baldy.

Yea but that was Old Testament.
Jesus is supposed to be all perfect and full of love and rightiousness and acceptance.

Killing a kid and then raising him from the dead so he doesn't get a spanking? Not really up the Jesus street the Church has been trying to sell since they threw the Bible togeather.

Well... he did get kinda pissy at the merchants in the temple and at the fig tree. That second one always threw me for a tiny loop.

Well we can either assume that the tree was really asking for it, or it was ment to be a lesson (the merchants in the temple made sense.)

Or we assume that maybe Jesus wasn't Christ and possibly he was just CRAZY LIKE A COCONUT! And went off his ever loving top every once in a boo.

Either that or he was just hung over from all the "water" he drank.

How much would that suck if he couldn't control that water-wine ability? He tries to drink enough water to prevent the hangover, and oops it's just more wine...

But the lesson was probably where it was going.

@Isaac: I was going to suggest everyone mosey over there... but I can't seem to get the site to work. >.<

[ty_ping]

zebppir

ty_ping

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. ^_^

There are a lot of socio... blah what's the work I'm looking for here. The evolution of scociety reasons and biological reasons for us being the way we are.

The fact that we have changed over time in every way shape and form (Even if you believe in Adam and Eve how we looked 6000 years ago is VASTLY different to how we look now. Evolution... still get's yah. surprised ) kind of veers away from the whole "God had a hand in it" unless you're willing to admit to the possibility of multiple Gods.

(which is Biblical as in the Bible it aknowledges that there are Multiple Gods and those Gods ARE Gods just not the Jewish God, so they're like, not as elitest or something, if you've devoted yourself to that one. Or the Jewish God through Christ.)

The bible says there is just one GOD Who made everything that and he's a jealous god (but lets not get into that shall we?) so I guess it could be true that their ARE multiple gods but he is the OVERGOD the one they all are subject too

So I guess In a way if we fallow this line of thought it goes in a direction that is confusing

Well it does say there is one God that made everything but...

The way they refer to God in Gen 1 changes in Gen 2 (Could be due to a change in Author or is it due to a change in God?)

((אלהים is a generic and plural term for any divine body where יהוה is GOD God's name YWHW. Who wasn't mentioned until Adam and Eve were specifically made. Which considering the "Untitled Text" on the origins of the world (part of the dead sea collection) YWHW wasn't the creator of the universe but instead just the creator of a specific line of humans who would become the Jews.))