If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Yoru Kurosawa]

Rika Nemendi

Ok in my opinion I don't ever care to have sex when I am on my period it holds diseases and that's why it says that you shouldn't and I actually agree with that so I'm not picking and choosing I'm agreeing with it all. Besides the things that are biblically approved of, like eating pig.

Ummmm... yeah, you're picking and choosing. 'cause you know, the Levitical laws were tossed out. But if you're going to follow them... you're going to follow ALL of them. So no eating pork! =D No wearing synthetic clothing! =D And you gotta go into a pit when you're on your period. 3nodding

or you could accept that Levitical law was thrown out, and Leviticus 18 with it.

[Yoru Kurosawa]

Rika Nemendi

Yoru Kurosawa

Rika Nemendi

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor the idolaters nor the adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

I bolded the key word for you. =D

Besides the fact that in the bible it doesn't say offenders. What version bible are you taking this out of?

Am I taking this from? My dear, I quoted YOU... YOU quoted that passage, so if your bible didn't have that word, then where in the hell did YOU quote from?

Besides, you know, there wasn't a word for "homosexual" back then. Really, there wasn't... so that passage would be, um, WRONG. =D

[Boxy]

Rika Nemendi

Ok in my opinion I don't ever care to have sex when I am on my period...

That's nice. Considering it's in the same section of Leviticus, though, shouldn't people be complaining just as loudly, if it's still relevant?

Rika Nemendi

...it holds diseases and that's why it says that you shouldn't...

It holds no more diseases than you do. If one cleans herself up rather regularly, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

Yet, it's explicitly laid out in the Bible that one shouldn't. Many people do, whether ignorantly or because they just want to have sex. By the logic of referring to Leviticus to speak against homosexuality, shouldn't you be speaking just as loudly about wearing clothing of two types of fabric (i.e. a polymer-cotton blend?) and having sex on your period?

And if it's easy enough to overlook poly-cotton fibers and menstrual sex, why not overlook homosexuality?

Rika Nemendi

...and I actually agree with that so I'm not picking and choosing I'm agreeing with it all.

Okay, then you should be out legislating against me having sex with my wife on her period.

Ready... go!

Rika Nemendi

Besides the things that are biblically approved of, like eating pig.

The thing is it never said specifically that it was all right to eat pig. It said that you shouldn't judge people based off what they eat, or what holidays they practice, etc. etc. In fact, there's a passage in Acts where they say that there's only a couple of requirements on Gentile converts - such as not engaging in ritualistic sex/prostitution, eating blood, eating meat offered to idols, and so on and so forth. By that logic, everything's good as long as it's not violating agape. Which, around here, is the gold standard of Christian practice.

[Marshal67]

Rika Nemendi

Do you mind telling me where exactly it says it's okay to have sex with a woman on her period? Because, y'know, that was part of the whole Levitical law about sexual purity that Christians tend to gloss over quite a bit.

you are very right about that Christians to gloss over that. And I'm really not sure that it says anywhere that it is ok

That's is an argument from silence, and is the second time I have seen you do it. It is a logical fallacy, please stop. This is a debate forum after all.

[Militant Christian]

Rika Nemendi

Ok in my opinion I don't ever care to have sex when I am on my period it holds diseases and that's why it says that you shouldn't and I actually agree with that so I'm not picking and choosing I'm agreeing with it all. Besides the things that are biblically approved of, like eating pig.

First, look where it says it's okay to eat pig.

Second, you're okay with people taking troubled teens to the gates of the city to be stoned to death? Forcing Women out of the populace during their periods? Here's a good one in Leviticus 19:13:

Leviticus 19:13

"You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.

[Rika Nemendi]

Yoru Kurosawa

Rika Nemendi

Ok in my opinion I don't ever care to have sex when I am on my period it holds diseases and that's why it says that you shouldn't and I actually agree with that so I'm not picking and choosing I'm agreeing with it all. Besides the things that are biblically approved of, like eating pig.

Ummmm... yeah, you're picking and choosing. 'cause you know, the Levitical laws were tossed out. But if you're going to follow them... you're going to follow ALL of them. So no eating pork! =D No wearing synthetic clothing! =D And you gotta go into a pit when you're on your period. 3nodding

or you could accept that Levitical law was thrown out, and Leviticus 18 with it.

Yes. the Leviticus laws were abolished. They do still hold a lot of truths. That's all I'm saying. Pigs
hold toxins in their muscle and fat. The fact is, they're just not good for you. Another thing brought up in Leviticus is that scavengers (shellfish) aren't good to eat. It's because they eat the crap other animals drop. It's gross and not at all good for you. The reason for not having sex with a woman on her period is that the blood would go bad and could cause disease. They had no ways to sanitize the women, that's about all they could do then, just send them to a hole. Things changed when the new testament cam around. That's true. It doesn't mean things like eating pigs or shellfish is any better for you.

[Yoru Kurosawa]

Rika Nemendi

Yoru Kurosawa

Rika Nemendi

Ok in my opinion I don't ever care to have sex when I am on my period it holds diseases and that's why it says that you shouldn't and I actually agree with that so I'm not picking and choosing I'm agreeing with it all. Besides the things that are biblically approved of, like eating pig.

Ummmm... yeah, you're picking and choosing. 'cause you know, the Levitical laws were tossed out. But if you're going to follow them... you're going to follow ALL of them. So no eating pork! =D No wearing synthetic clothing! =D And you gotta go into a pit when you're on your period. 3nodding

or you could accept that Levitical law was thrown out, and Leviticus 18 with it.

Yes. the Leviticus laws were abolished. They do still hold a lot of truths. That's all I'm saying. Pigs
hold toxins in their muscle and fat. The fact is, they're just not good for you. Another thing brought up in Leviticus is that scavengers (shellfish) aren't good to eat. It's because they eat the crap other animals drop. It's gross and not at all good for you. The reason for not having sex with a woman on her period is that the blood would go bad and could cause disease. They had no ways to sanitize the women, that's about all they could do then, just send them to a hole. Things changed when the new testament cam around. That's true. It doesn't mean things like eating pigs or shellfish is any better for you.

So by posting this, you acknowledge that Leviticus 18 is an obsolete and irrelevant point, yes? If not, than show me how my having sex with my boyfriend is detrimental to ourselves.

[Militant Christian]

Rika Nemendi

Yoru Kurosawa

Rika Nemendi

Ok in my opinion I don't ever care to have sex when I am on my period it holds diseases and that's why it says that you shouldn't and I actually agree with that so I'm not picking and choosing I'm agreeing with it all. Besides the things that are biblically approved of, like eating pig.

Ummmm... yeah, you're picking and choosing. 'cause you know, the Levitical laws were tossed out. But if you're going to follow them... you're going to follow ALL of them. So no eating pork! =D No wearing synthetic clothing! =D And you gotta go into a pit when you're on your period. 3nodding

or you could accept that Levitical law was thrown out, and Leviticus 18 with it.

Yes. the Leviticus laws were abolished. They do still hold a lot of truths. That's all I'm saying. Pigs
hold toxins in their muscle and fat. The fact is, they're just not good for you. Another thing brought up in Leviticus is that scavengers (shellfish) aren't good to eat. It's because they eat the crap other animals drop. It's gross and not at all good for you. The reason for not having sex with a woman on her period is that the blood would go bad and could cause disease. They had no ways to sanitize the women, that's about all they could do then, just send them to a hole. Things changed when the new testament cam around. That's true. It doesn't mean things like eating pigs or shellfish is any better for you.

Yet nobody's up in arms to have Bacon or seafood Outlawed.

But choosing other peoples lifestyle for them is fair game.

[Yoru Kurosawa]

Militant Christian

Rika Nemendi

Yoru Kurosawa

Rika Nemendi

Ok in my opinion I don't ever care to have sex when I am on my period it holds diseases and that's why it says that you shouldn't and I actually agree with that so I'm not picking and choosing I'm agreeing with it all. Besides the things that are biblically approved of, like eating pig.

Ummmm... yeah, you're picking and choosing. 'cause you know, the Levitical laws were tossed out. But if you're going to follow them... you're going to follow ALL of them. So no eating pork! =D No wearing synthetic clothing! =D And you gotta go into a pit when you're on your period. 3nodding

or you could accept that Levitical law was thrown out, and Leviticus 18 with it.

Yes. the Leviticus laws were abolished. They do still hold a lot of truths. That's all I'm saying. Pigs
hold toxins in their muscle and fat. The fact is, they're just not good for you. Another thing brought up in Leviticus is that scavengers (shellfish) aren't good to eat. It's because they eat the crap other animals drop. It's gross and not at all good for you. The reason for not having sex with a woman on her period is that the blood would go bad and could cause disease. They had no ways to sanitize the women, that's about all they could do then, just send them to a hole. Things changed when the new testament cam around. That's true. It doesn't mean things like eating pigs or shellfish is any better for you.

Yet nobody's up in arms to have Bacon or seafood Outlawed.

But choosing other peoples lifestyle for them is fair game.

Of course! 'cause you know, we totally dictate to others exactly how they shall live their lives! You're gonna grow up, go to THIS school, have THIS job, marry THIS person, and have THIS many children! DO IT! NOW! scream

[icedove777]

Boxy

icedove777

Ok, well Leviticus 18:22 says:

Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.

This is a grossly disingenuous translation for a number of reasons. However, ReligiousTolerance.org summed it up quite nicely:

ReligionTolerance.org

Translations and interpretations of Leviticus 18:22

Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

• All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
  
• All sexual behavior between two men, or
  
• Only a**l sex between two men, or
  
• Only a**l sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
  
• Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Also, is the behavior forbidden to ancient Israelites, or modern-day Jews, or all males regardless of their religion, or some combination of the preceeding.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.

English translations of this verse:

These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit. If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian and Jewish liberals.

Some translations are:

• ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
  
• KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
  
• LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
  
• Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
  
• NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
  
• NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."
  
• RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:

• The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
  
• The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
  
• The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

icedove777

There you go, plain and simple.

No, it's neither "plain" nor "simple." The Living Bible - the specific translation you posted - is a paraphrase, meaning that the text should never in any way, shape, or form be used to settle disputs. To wit:

Wikipedia

The Living Bible (TLB) is an English version of the Bible created by Kenneth N. Taylor. It was first published in 1971. Unlike most English Bibles, The Living Bible is a paraphrase. Mr. Taylor used the American Standard Version of 1901 as his base text.[2]

Taylor never intended for his paraphrase to be used as the reader's sole source of Biblical knowledge, or as an aid to scholarly study. Rather, his goal was to put the basic message of the Bible into modern language that could readily be understood by the typical reader without a theological or linguistic background. He never represented his work as a translation. Rather, the word "Paraphrased" was used on the front cover to show very clearly that this was a paraphrase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Bible

icedove777

I don't know what sort of Christian you are, if you're deliberately ignoring what the Bible says.

I don't know what sort of Christian you are if you're deliberately using a paraphrase of the Bible and then complaining about people not subscribing to the same set of biases.

Well my bad for using a paraphrase. If you use, let's just say, the KJV, it still says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination". Are you saying that it's ok according to the Bible for gay people to be together?

[error-dot-tar]

I'm just going to point out real quick that there's more than one translation to shakab. Not all of which are sexual. Hell, it even includes lodging. And dying.

[deadmanjay]

icedove777

Boxy

icedove777

Ok, well Leviticus 18:22 says:

Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.

This is a grossly disingenuous translation for a number of reasons. However, ReligiousTolerance.org summed it up quite nicely:

ReligionTolerance.org

Translations and interpretations of Leviticus 18:22

Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

• All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
  
• All sexual behavior between two men, or
  
• Only a**l sex between two men, or
  
• Only a**l sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
  
• Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Also, is the behavior forbidden to ancient Israelites, or modern-day Jews, or all males regardless of their religion, or some combination of the preceeding.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.

English translations of this verse:

These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit. If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian and Jewish liberals.

Some translations are:

• ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
  
• KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
  
• LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
  
• Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
  
• NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
  
• NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."
  
• RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:

• The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
  
• The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
  
• The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

icedove777

There you go, plain and simple.

No, it's neither "plain" nor "simple." The Living Bible - the specific translation you posted - is a paraphrase, meaning that the text should never in any way, shape, or form be used to settle disputs. To wit:

Wikipedia

The Living Bible (TLB) is an English version of the Bible created by Kenneth N. Taylor. It was first published in 1971. Unlike most English Bibles, The Living Bible is a paraphrase. Mr. Taylor used the American Standard Version of 1901 as his base text.[2]

Taylor never intended for his paraphrase to be used as the reader's sole source of Biblical knowledge, or as an aid to scholarly study. Rather, his goal was to put the basic message of the Bible into modern language that could readily be understood by the typical reader without a theological or linguistic background. He never represented his work as a translation. Rather, the word "Paraphrased" was used on the front cover to show very clearly that this was a paraphrase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Bible

icedove777

I don't know what sort of Christian you are, if you're deliberately ignoring what the Bible says.

I don't know what sort of Christian you are if you're deliberately using a paraphrase of the Bible and then complaining about people not subscribing to the same set of biases.

Well my bad for using a paraphrase. If you use, let's just say, the KJV, it still says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination". Are you saying that it's ok according to the Bible for gay people to be together?

If you are still using Leviticus, then you better read Collosians 2, with special note on 2:14 and Acts 15. Unless you are going to do like some others have recently and say that Jesus' teachings/death did not fulfill the Old Laws so that the new followers of god wouldn't have to try them.

[HNGMD]

A lot of this "oh, but so-and-so translation actually said "male prostitutes" instead "homosexuals" and this translation says "inhospitality was a sin" and not homosexuality" stuff really just strikes me as people trying their hardest to talk themselves out of believing that homosexuality is a sin. It's desperately trying to piecemeal a counterargument together that makes Christians look mean-spirited for thinking homosexuality is unnatural, goes against what God wants, and serves to satisfy the flesh only.

It's fascinating to me how eager people are to bastardize the Bible to give personhood to homosexuality. This isn't about homosexuals. This is about legitimizing homosexuality.

Even the most anti-gay Christians would agree that homosexuals -- persons who identify themselves as being homosexuals -- deserve the baseline of human dignity. Christians have consistently said their problems aren't with the person, but with the sin. Of course, many people make their sin their person.

[Temba]

Hrer is a comment made to CNN by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage," Perkins said.

"The radical left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so. The marriage amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex 'marriage' movement," Perkins added.

Two questions:
1) How will same sex marriage destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman?
2) How will same sex marriage destroy democracy? HOW?

("Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. " wink Proof?

[Militant Christian]

HNGMD

A lot of this "oh, but so-and-so translation actually said "male prostitutes" instead "homosexuals" and this translation says "inhospitality was a sin" and not homosexuality" stuff really just strikes me as people trying their hardest to talk themselves out of believing that homosexuality is a sin. It's desperately trying to piecemeal a counterargument together that makes Christians look mean-spirited for thinking homosexuality is unnatural, goes against what God wants, and serves to satisfy the flesh only.

It's fascinating to me how eager people are to bastardize the Bible to give personhood to homosexuality. This isn't about homosexuals. This is about legitimizing homosexuality.

Even the most anti-gay Christians would agree that homosexuals -- persons who identify themselves as being homosexuals -- deserve the baseline of human dignity. Christians have consistently said their problems aren't with the person, but with the sin. Of course, many people make their sin their person.

Ananel and Chiewn did not piecemeal the argument together from varying translations...they went to the original text. And We're bastardizing it? The Republicans and the so called 'Christian Right" are doign everything in their power, spending every dime they can to remove as many liberties from these people as they can, and using scriptures to support their argument. Think about that. They are using the Testament of Christs love to disable peoples lives.

And the most Anti-Gay 'Christians'...you ever seen Bill O'reilly? Westboro Baptists? They don't accept anyone who isn't hard-line elitist mirroring their own beliefs exactly. And, read the original posts. Actually Read them without your preconceptions, first. It's not a sin, and it's not your call to make on whether it's allowed, anyway. Secular state, anyone?