Rookherst[KOS]
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](http://a2.cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c_flip.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
Offline
ty_ping
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:25:36 +0000
EDIT reread fixed some things
finally read the ED rules huh?
Well nice to know you're not a compleat douchbag.
I almost missed the "first" and thought you were not going to address it at all. Nevermind.
Watch the word abomination though. Original language,
Levidicus 18:22 or 20:13
...
Wait.
Ananel uses Col, Rom, Acts and Gal to say not just that one line but ALL of the laws of Moses are gone. Irregardless of what that last line says and irregardless of the punishment list.
Their nailed to the cross, plus if they were not, what did Jesus die for? (So the punishment list irregardless is moot, hell it is to the Jews now-a-days too considering the temple is gone.)
In either aspect, The word rendered here as "abomination" comes from "tow'ebah" (in Strong's, it's # 8441), and is said in Strong's to mean "idolatry" or "idolaters". In the Hebrew it is very clear that it does not mean "Sexual Sin" "Homosexuality" or even really "Abomination" in the thought that we see abomination as, and it makes sense since in the bible God clearly states that the ONLY thing he consistantly hates, is Idolitary a concept which is reinforced by Jesus stating that one cannot serve two masters.
What else it Tow'ebah?
Statues of other Gods (so if you go into a Hindu temble and don't try to light it up. you've commited Tow'ebah by looking on them)
Museums with Greek statues of Gods in them are Tow'ebah
The Vatican itself, is Tow'ebah.
(Deu 7)
Shellfish and Pigs and anything not Kosher? Tow'ebah.
(Deu 14)
Women wearing Jeans? Tow'ebah and a death penalty for that too.
(Deu 22)
A woman trying to stop a fight by shaming her husband? you guessed it.
(deu 25)
Anyone who try's to convert you to another religion is commiting Tow'ebah, and to NOT kill him, is also Tow'ebah.
This is conversion from Judaism, which means Christ himself commited Tow'ebah for turning people away from Judaism. (hence the reason they killed him) So christianity itself, is the SAME KIND OF ABOMINATION that Homosexuality is.
(Deu 7... Or 10 s**t I forgot.)
Now I have another argument against Levidicus 18 itself, however if it stands, if Col and acts and romans don't stand, then ALL those laws there stand as well.
Now we have a serious problem. The sins written about in this chapter were sins that god had already harshly judged other nations for. That means God either is judging other nations by the Hebrew law (before it was given, mind you) or these are sins that are universal. You never hear of God destroying nations because they mixed the wrong kind of fabric in their ceremonial gowns.
Most of these destoryed nations however are ones of Gods people. After all Genisis came before Levidicus and yet thats where the stories of God smiting nations is in.
Plus considering the mixing of fabric is a sin too then God could be smiting for the same reason there too.
All the men of the damn city were not gay. >< You seriously are not paying attention to what Ananel said, Gay sex or sexuality at all does not corrilate with rape whatsoever, their desire to ******** those men has nothing to do with their sexuality. There is no evidence ANY of the men in the city were Gay, Hell the entire mob there could have been women all it takes is one man in the group and with Hebrew writing the group is not refered to in the Masculan.
And hetrosexuals, so why is the homosexuals only the sinfull ones? Maybe they're just there coincidently.
They're not really mentioned as even being there.
Sure, if you will give equal weight to the possibility it was their hetrosexuality that got them smited as well.
O RLY?
Yay Jude...
going BACK to the assumption that Sodom and Gomorrah magically means homosexual sex, lets take another look shall we?
ως σοδομα και γομορρα και αι περι αυτας πολεις τον ομοιον τουτοις τροπον
εκπορνευσασαι και απελθουσαι οπισω σαρκος ετερας προκεινται δειγμα πυρος αιωνιου δικην υπεχουσαι
hos Sodoma kai Gomorrha kai polis peri autos homoios toutois tropos ekporneuo kai aperchomai opiso heteros sarx prokeimai deigma hupecho dike aionios pur
I will be focusing on the words Ekporneuo and Heteros Sarx here.
The word translated as "fornication" here is ekporneuo, which comes from the root, ek referring to the place from whence a thing comes, i.e. the motivation for the act; and porneuo which refers to any type of unlawful lust, sexual or otherwise.
Thayer's Lexicon indicates it is a lust in which one Gluts themselves, adding for one to "Go a-whoreing" (Searching for hookers)
Not all lust is sexual of course, The word is also often used in scripture for the act of idolatry, the lustful passions invoked in Pagan rites (as Strong's Greek Dictionary, entry 4203, confirms). This would include the lusts that comes from mistrust and the refusal to show hospitality based thereon, as was the case in Sodom and Gomorrah. Jews are strictly required by the the Torah to show hospitality to strangers. (see above) Failure to do so would be infidelity to God's Law, habitually failing to do so would be spiritual whoring since throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the command is that the Hebrews are not to "follow the ways of the nations." The refusal of the people of Sodom to show the biblically mandated hospitality to the visiting "strangers" arose from - "ek" - their lustful fear of strangers.
That this understanding is correct is supported by Jesus of Nazareth, who clearly said the cities were destroyed due to their inhospitably to strangers Mark 6:11 and Matthew 10:14-15
Heteros Sarks quite simply means "Other Flesh" While some may argue that this could verily imply same sex copulation taken into context with Angels being refered to as "Other Flesh" it is an obvious referance to them.
Because we're running under the assumtion that Adam and Eve were the only humans and therefore there not only IS no one else for them to be homosexual, But also Hermaphrodites are never mentioned once in the Bible, what about them?
There is also the question of "What is Adam really?" In Gen 1 God makes Man and Woman at the same time, which is confirmed by the people of Nob with whom Eve's children mate with.
Adam "him"self is also refered to at the begining in a gender neutral term I believe (Adam meaning person unlike Adar which is man isn't it?) Adam in a sense, is the worlds first Hermaphrodite, Not a God, Not a man or woman, s'he stands alone from the rest of humanity and yet as a creature of God (unlike Jesus who is a son of God and never alone being part of the divine) is alone even in the Garden.
This whole story taken differently could simply be the worlds first metaphysical sex change.
anyway...
The heart of God towards the Adam (and towards every person today) is voiced in Gen 2:18
"The Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone: I will make a helper suitable for him"
So at that point, God made all the animals and birds and paraded them before Adam, but they were no good probably because in a sense as attributed above, they were not enough like Adam, so God created Eve from Adams rib.
However the picture here is not of a God who threw a man and a woman together and commanded them to start having sex. In fact sex isn't an issue, Help-mate did not mean mate-mate if it did God would not have bothered to see if the animals might have made a suitable help-mate. God certainly wasn't suggesting that Adam have sex with the animals considering Deuteronomy...
It also says that before the fall Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed, Gen 2:23,"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." - in other words they were innocent. It is only after the fall that sexuality is now implied, eating the apple in the garden of Eden is an obvious and long-established metaphore for sexual relations between Adam and Eve. Only a blindly literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve could miss the point the author was making that sex, or more specifically "heterosexual" sex, was involved in the fall.
John Chrysostom wrote in Genesium Homiliae, " In keeping with God's will man and women dwelt in Paradise like angels, enflamed by no sexual lustfulness. There was no desire for intercourse, there was neither conception, nor birth, not any sort of corruption." Marriage was not created for the purpose of creating children – it was created to fulfill a need for companionship that God saw in all people - including homosexuals.
So if we still want to claim that God intends men only to pair up sexually with women, and visa versa, we first of all need to acknowledge that He originally didn't intend for them to pair up sexually at all. They paired themselves up in that style. Those looking to the story of Adam and Eve in order to sanctify their own sexual prefferance need to humble themselves and look a little closer at what actually occurred.
As well as Adultry, and men marrying their mothers and sisters and daughters and well, basically breaking alot of marrage and sexuality laws. After all when he goes into the part on marrage he addresses specifically a situation where a Man marries his mother saying how even Pagens don't practice this. And yet the corithians are celebrating and boasting their immorality.
It was part of life. If there is any place Paul wrote to where there would have been homosexual couples in the church, wouldn't it have been Corinth? The fact is that while there are verses in Pauls letters that may very well refute homosexual sex,
While this does get address later they MAY very well be addressing homosexual sex, they MAY very well be addressing pedestry, orgys, adultry, promiscuity, or a dozen other things as well.
Proof it was Alot. Or even any they were talking about.
Plus his "They didn't have computers" was addressing someone who said "If they didn't have it then we shouldn't have it now" so they didn't have computers then, does that mean we shouldn't have them now?
Debatable considering how many familys may have been torn apart with Children turning Chrstian and getting killed, stoned or kicked out of their community for it.
Jesus himself called people to leave their familial duties for him. Let the dead bury themselves. I say to you any who does not hate their mother and father is not worthy of me.
God and Jesus and Humanity was a central part of Christianity back then, sadly not like it is today.
Now once we go to Cor, Tim and Rom I fall heavaly on Ananel and Paradox so I'm gonna leave these for more research and let the others step in.
I fall heavaly on the OT not even talking about Homosexuality and leave the New Testament to the belief of
Jesus > Paul
Jesus says Love everyone and don't judge unless you can do so rightiously
Jesus establishes no one is rightious
Paul outlines what love is in 1 Cor 13
Paul corrilates in many points to not judge anyone including yourself.
Past that, it comes down to You do not stand for their decision, for it is not your decision to approve.
You do not stand against their decision for it is not your decision to dis-aprove.
To judge them is to judge some aspect of God's creation imperfect and to then judge God.
To hate what they are or what they do or anything about them is to hate a flaw in the hevenly creator for you cannot look upon a man and say "Brother I love you but I hate your existance" How can you love someone yet hate their actions? How can there ever be love when they have been marred by that hate? Love is not approval, love is not permission, love is not saying "do this or do that" Love simply IS. And to pesonally or even with any justification say something is right or wrong in your or even God's view is to make a Judgement call on God.
This is a very tough decision to make, because it not only compels a Christian not to judge wheather something like lieing, stealing or yes, even homosexuality is right or wrong, but simply love them.
Oldillo
Here goes something.....
I was told I needed to back my points with some evidence or at least a clear argument.
I was told I needed to back my points with some evidence or at least a clear argument.
finally read the ED rules huh?
Quote:
So here goes. First of all, I should mention that although my views on homosexuality are conservative in the religious sense, they aren't at all in a political sense. I don't believe gay marraige should be illegal. I can't find any evidence that Christians were ever supposed to impose their morality on the world, nor should they try to use the governement to force repentance on people. That's impossible and silly. I also think that the way many Christians are handling homosexuality today is quite wrong. If I treated everyone I know who has a problem with porn or bad language the way alot of Christians treat gay people, I'd be very lonely. Their is a serious lack of love shown towards homosexuals in our society and I can understand their distrust of Christians.
Well nice to know you're not a compleat douchbag.
Quote:
I will not deal with the OP first.
I almost missed the "first" and thought you were not going to address it at all. Nevermind.
Quote:
The second post goes into greater detail and so I will start there.
A) Ananel claims that the acts mentioned in Leviticus 18 fall into the category of laws that no longer apply. But he fails to mention what is said at The end of the chapter.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you;
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26 Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you;
27 (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled);
We see a the same thing in 20
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Lev 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
A) Ananel claims that the acts mentioned in Leviticus 18 fall into the category of laws that no longer apply. But he fails to mention what is said at The end of the chapter.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you;
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26 Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you;
27 (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled);
We see a the same thing in 20
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Lev 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Watch the word abomination though. Original language,
Levidicus 18:22 or 20:13
...
Wait.
Ananel uses Col, Rom, Acts and Gal to say not just that one line but ALL of the laws of Moses are gone. Irregardless of what that last line says and irregardless of the punishment list.
Their nailed to the cross, plus if they were not, what did Jesus die for? (So the punishment list irregardless is moot, hell it is to the Jews now-a-days too considering the temple is gone.)
In either aspect, The word rendered here as "abomination" comes from "tow'ebah" (in Strong's, it's # 8441), and is said in Strong's to mean "idolatry" or "idolaters". In the Hebrew it is very clear that it does not mean "Sexual Sin" "Homosexuality" or even really "Abomination" in the thought that we see abomination as, and it makes sense since in the bible God clearly states that the ONLY thing he consistantly hates, is Idolitary a concept which is reinforced by Jesus stating that one cannot serve two masters.
What else it Tow'ebah?
Statues of other Gods (so if you go into a Hindu temble and don't try to light it up. you've commited Tow'ebah by looking on them)
Museums with Greek statues of Gods in them are Tow'ebah
The Vatican itself, is Tow'ebah.
(Deu 7)
Shellfish and Pigs and anything not Kosher? Tow'ebah.
(Deu 14)
Women wearing Jeans? Tow'ebah and a death penalty for that too.
(Deu 22)
A woman trying to stop a fight by shaming her husband? you guessed it.
(deu 25)
Anyone who try's to convert you to another religion is commiting Tow'ebah, and to NOT kill him, is also Tow'ebah.
This is conversion from Judaism, which means Christ himself commited Tow'ebah for turning people away from Judaism. (hence the reason they killed him) So christianity itself, is the SAME KIND OF ABOMINATION that Homosexuality is.
(Deu 7... Or 10 s**t I forgot.)
Now I have another argument against Levidicus 18 itself, however if it stands, if Col and acts and romans don't stand, then ALL those laws there stand as well.
Quote:
Now we have a serious problem. The sins written about in this chapter were sins that god had already harshly judged other nations for. That means God either is judging other nations by the Hebrew law (before it was given, mind you) or these are sins that are universal. You never hear of God destroying nations because they mixed the wrong kind of fabric in their ceremonial gowns.
Most of these destoryed nations however are ones of Gods people. After all Genisis came before Levidicus and yet thats where the stories of God smiting nations is in.
Plus considering the mixing of fabric is a sin too then God could be smiting for the same reason there too.
Quote:
B) I would agree with Ana on the point that the sin of Sodom was more serious that mere homosexuality. I do think that the fact that all of the men in the city were gay is good evidence that homosexuality should be seriously taken into account.
All the men of the damn city were not gay. >< You seriously are not paying attention to what Ananel said, Gay sex or sexuality at all does not corrilate with rape whatsoever, their desire to ******** those men has nothing to do with their sexuality. There is no evidence ANY of the men in the city were Gay, Hell the entire mob there could have been women all it takes is one man in the group and with Hebrew writing the group is not refered to in the Masculan.
Quote:
The fact is, the only parts the Bible that are agreed upon as being unarguably anti-homosexual (the story of Sodom and Gamorrah and the ones mentioned above) mention cities that are judged and that contain homosexuals.
And hetrosexuals, so why is the homosexuals only the sinfull ones? Maybe they're just there coincidently.
They're not really mentioned as even being there.
Quote:
Of course I realize that this is not solid evidence that Sodom and Gamorrah may have been distroyed for reasons not involving mere homosexuality, but I think they are worth mentioning.
Sure, if you will give equal weight to the possibility it was their hetrosexuality that got them smited as well.
Quote:
Also, the arguement that the issure was mainly one of hospitality and brutality doesn't work.
O RLY?
Quote:
Jude 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
No matter how you translate 'strange flesh', it still pertains to a sexual issue and has nothing to do with hospitality.
No matter how you translate 'strange flesh', it still pertains to a sexual issue and has nothing to do with hospitality.
Yay Jude...
going BACK to the assumption that Sodom and Gomorrah magically means homosexual sex, lets take another look shall we?
ως σοδομα και γομορρα και αι περι αυτας πολεις τον ομοιον τουτοις τροπον
εκπορνευσασαι και απελθουσαι οπισω σαρκος ετερας προκεινται δειγμα πυρος αιωνιου δικην υπεχουσαι
hos Sodoma kai Gomorrha kai polis peri autos homoios toutois tropos ekporneuo kai aperchomai opiso heteros sarx prokeimai deigma hupecho dike aionios pur
I will be focusing on the words Ekporneuo and Heteros Sarx here.
The word translated as "fornication" here is ekporneuo, which comes from the root, ek referring to the place from whence a thing comes, i.e. the motivation for the act; and porneuo which refers to any type of unlawful lust, sexual or otherwise.
Thayer's Lexicon indicates it is a lust in which one Gluts themselves, adding for one to "Go a-whoreing" (Searching for hookers)
Not all lust is sexual of course, The word is also often used in scripture for the act of idolatry, the lustful passions invoked in Pagan rites (as Strong's Greek Dictionary, entry 4203, confirms). This would include the lusts that comes from mistrust and the refusal to show hospitality based thereon, as was the case in Sodom and Gomorrah. Jews are strictly required by the the Torah to show hospitality to strangers. (see above) Failure to do so would be infidelity to God's Law, habitually failing to do so would be spiritual whoring since throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the command is that the Hebrews are not to "follow the ways of the nations." The refusal of the people of Sodom to show the biblically mandated hospitality to the visiting "strangers" arose from - "ek" - their lustful fear of strangers.
That this understanding is correct is supported by Jesus of Nazareth, who clearly said the cities were destroyed due to their inhospitably to strangers Mark 6:11 and Matthew 10:14-15
Heteros Sarks quite simply means "Other Flesh" While some may argue that this could verily imply same sex copulation taken into context with Angels being refered to as "Other Flesh" it is an obvious referance to them.
Quote:
C) I think that the argument about creation, although giving no solid evidence against homosexuality, still can be used. If homosexuality was ever in Gods eyes a valid alternative to heterosexuality, why isn't it mentioned?
Because we're running under the assumtion that Adam and Eve were the only humans and therefore there not only IS no one else for them to be homosexual, But also Hermaphrodites are never mentioned once in the Bible, what about them?
There is also the question of "What is Adam really?" In Gen 1 God makes Man and Woman at the same time, which is confirmed by the people of Nob with whom Eve's children mate with.
Adam "him"self is also refered to at the begining in a gender neutral term I believe (Adam meaning person unlike Adar which is man isn't it?) Adam in a sense, is the worlds first Hermaphrodite, Not a God, Not a man or woman, s'he stands alone from the rest of humanity and yet as a creature of God (unlike Jesus who is a son of God and never alone being part of the divine) is alone even in the Garden.
This whole story taken differently could simply be the worlds first metaphysical sex change.
anyway...
The heart of God towards the Adam (and towards every person today) is voiced in Gen 2:18
"The Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone: I will make a helper suitable for him"
So at that point, God made all the animals and birds and paraded them before Adam, but they were no good probably because in a sense as attributed above, they were not enough like Adam, so God created Eve from Adams rib.
However the picture here is not of a God who threw a man and a woman together and commanded them to start having sex. In fact sex isn't an issue, Help-mate did not mean mate-mate if it did God would not have bothered to see if the animals might have made a suitable help-mate. God certainly wasn't suggesting that Adam have sex with the animals considering Deuteronomy...
It also says that before the fall Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed, Gen 2:23,"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." - in other words they were innocent. It is only after the fall that sexuality is now implied, eating the apple in the garden of Eden is an obvious and long-established metaphore for sexual relations between Adam and Eve. Only a blindly literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve could miss the point the author was making that sex, or more specifically "heterosexual" sex, was involved in the fall.
John Chrysostom wrote in Genesium Homiliae, " In keeping with God's will man and women dwelt in Paradise like angels, enflamed by no sexual lustfulness. There was no desire for intercourse, there was neither conception, nor birth, not any sort of corruption." Marriage was not created for the purpose of creating children – it was created to fulfill a need for companionship that God saw in all people - including homosexuals.
So if we still want to claim that God intends men only to pair up sexually with women, and visa versa, we first of all need to acknowledge that He originally didn't intend for them to pair up sexually at all. They paired themselves up in that style. Those looking to the story of Adam and Eve in order to sanctify their own sexual prefferance need to humble themselves and look a little closer at what actually occurred.
Quote:
Obviously the Old Testament is to and from the Jews, who were under Law, and couldn't have homosexual sex. There's no argument there. But what about the New Testament? Paul goes into great detail in talking about the roles of marraige in his letter to the Corinthians. The city of Corinth was, as I've studied, rampant with homosexuality.
As well as Adultry, and men marrying their mothers and sisters and daughters and well, basically breaking alot of marrage and sexuality laws. After all when he goes into the part on marrage he addresses specifically a situation where a Man marries his mother saying how even Pagens don't practice this. And yet the corithians are celebrating and boasting their immorality.
Quote:
It was part of life. If there is any place Paul wrote to where there would have been homosexual couples in the church, wouldn't it have been Corinth? The fact is that while there are verses in Pauls letters that may very well refute homosexual sex,
While this does get address later they MAY very well be addressing homosexual sex, they MAY very well be addressing pedestry, orgys, adultry, promiscuity, or a dozen other things as well.
Quote:
there are not at all that confirm it or even mention it as an option. TrunksTheSlayer said earlier, "So when did they write about computers?" Well, they didn't have computers back then. But they did have alot of homosexuals.
Proof it was Alot. Or even any they were talking about.
Plus his "They didn't have computers" was addressing someone who said "If they didn't have it then we shouldn't have it now" so they didn't have computers then, does that mean we shouldn't have them now?
Quote:
The family was a central part of Christianity back then just as it is today.
Debatable considering how many familys may have been torn apart with Children turning Chrstian and getting killed, stoned or kicked out of their community for it.
Jesus himself called people to leave their familial duties for him. Let the dead bury themselves. I say to you any who does not hate their mother and father is not worthy of me.
God and Jesus and Humanity was a central part of Christianity back then, sadly not like it is today.
Now once we go to Cor, Tim and Rom I fall heavaly on Ananel and Paradox so I'm gonna leave these for more research and let the others step in.
I fall heavaly on the OT not even talking about Homosexuality and leave the New Testament to the belief of
Jesus > Paul
Jesus says Love everyone and don't judge unless you can do so rightiously
Jesus establishes no one is rightious
Paul outlines what love is in 1 Cor 13
Paul corrilates in many points to not judge anyone including yourself.
Past that, it comes down to You do not stand for their decision, for it is not your decision to approve.
You do not stand against their decision for it is not your decision to dis-aprove.
To judge them is to judge some aspect of God's creation imperfect and to then judge God.
To hate what they are or what they do or anything about them is to hate a flaw in the hevenly creator for you cannot look upon a man and say "Brother I love you but I hate your existance" How can you love someone yet hate their actions? How can there ever be love when they have been marred by that hate? Love is not approval, love is not permission, love is not saying "do this or do that" Love simply IS. And to pesonally or even with any justification say something is right or wrong in your or even God's view is to make a Judgement call on God.
This is a very tough decision to make, because it not only compels a Christian not to judge wheather something like lieing, stealing or yes, even homosexuality is right or wrong, but simply love them.
Rookherst[KOS]
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:27:52 +0000
I'm thinking of taking this and Loki's Thread and Making a You tube Vid out of it, so we can just Post the Video and demand that People watch it. ALL OF IT. Clockwork Orange style if we must.
PoeticVengeance
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:12:37 +0000
Oldillo
Here goes something.....
I was told I needed to back my points with some evidence or at least a clear argument. So here goes. First of all, I should mention that although my views on homosexuality are conservative in the religious sense, they aren't at all in a political sense. I don't believe gay marraige should be illegal. I can't find any evidence that Christians were ever supposed to impose their morality on the world, nor should they try to use the governement to force repentance on people. That's impossible and silly. I also think that the way many Christians are handling homosexuality today is quite wrong. If I treated everyone I know who has a problem with porn or bad language the way alot of Christians treat gay people, I'd be very lonely. Their is a serious lack of love shown towards homosexuals in our society and I can understand their distrust of Christians.
I was told I needed to back my points with some evidence or at least a clear argument. So here goes. First of all, I should mention that although my views on homosexuality are conservative in the religious sense, they aren't at all in a political sense. I don't believe gay marraige should be illegal. I can't find any evidence that Christians were ever supposed to impose their morality on the world, nor should they try to use the governement to force repentance on people. That's impossible and silly. I also think that the way many Christians are handling homosexuality today is quite wrong. If I treated everyone I know who has a problem with porn or bad language the way alot of Christians treat gay people, I'd be very lonely. Their is a serious lack of love shown towards homosexuals in our society and I can understand their distrust of Christians.
Well, if Christianity does indeed show homosexuality as a sin, then you are following an admirable path of religious tolerance.
You have my respect for that at least.
Quote:
I will not deal with the OP first. The second post goes into greater detail and so I will start there.
Fair enough.
Quote:
A) Ananel claims that the acts mentioned in Leviticus 18 fall into the category of laws that no longer apply. But he fails to mention what is said at The end of the chapter.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you;
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26 Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you;
27 (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled);
We see a the same thing in 20
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Lev 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Now we have a serious problem. The sins written about in this chapter were sins that god had already harshly judged other nations for. That means God either is judging other nations by the Hebrew law (before it was given, mind you) or these are sins that are universal. You never hear of God destroying nations because they mixed the wrong kind of fabric in their ceremonial gowns.
Remember, these are mentioned at the end of each verse in Leviticus. This means they apply to all of each verse of Leviticus that they come after.
The word "things" is plural, and assuming no translational issues (a hefty assumption yes, but one you are making too) it is referring to far more then male homosexual sex.
Note too that it only appears to condemn male on male homosexual sex. Christianity's mistreatment of all homosexuals is wrong just from that standpoint.
I will get to the crux of it however.
All of that is irrelevant however.
It does not matter if a sin was universal or if other nations were held to it, if it is no longer a sin now.
I can't tell you why God would change his mind (although there are many explainations, and quite a few that work beautifully knowing the supposed mindset and actions of YHWH, especially later on in the bible)
Since all of Mosaic Law was fulfilled (i.e. replaced as per the prophecies by the teachings of the Messiah due to his coming to Earth for that express purpose) all of the OT's laws are no longer used as moral guidelines, provided one is a Christian.
That means that no matter what is said in Leviticus, it is no longer law for us to follow.
So its irrelevant if homosexuality was forbidden to all nations or only 5 and a half. It is no longer forbidden.
Quote:
B) I would agree with Ana on the point that the sin of Sodom was more serious that mere homosexuality. I do think that the fact that all of the men in the city were gay is good evidence that homosexuality should be seriously taken into account.
Actually there is no biblical proof that all the men in Sodom and Gomorrah were gay.
Not only did they attempt to rape genderless angels, but even if you can argue that they percieved the angels to be men, rape never has had a single thing to do with sexual attraction.
Men rape men all the time in jail, and most of these rapists are heterosexual males who have no attraction to men.
They are raping for control, power, and physical pleasure. Virtually all intentional rape is done for that purpose. (Unintentional rape generally arises from apathy towards others and neglect of others, and can involve sexual attraction. I sincerely doubt that gang rapists that specifically find all outsiders to the city for the purpose of having sex with them whether they want it or not are unintentional rapists.)
So you really can't establish that the group of men in the verses are homosexual at all. Even attempting to claim that them not raping Lot's daughters doesn't work.
Lot's daughters were given willingfully (in Old Hebrew society if a daughter was given by the father, that was consent) making it not rape (and these men were rapists) also, these daughters were not outsiders.
That's the most important part. All of the crimes of Sodom were perpetrated against outsiders. So if the angels were percieved as being part of Sodom, they wouldn't have been targeted. Much like Lot's daughters were not.
Therefore, any arguement involving Lot's daughters simply doesn't cut it.
Quote:
The fact is, the only parts the Bible that are agreed upon as being unarguably anti-homosexual (the story of Sodom and Gamorrah and the ones mentioned above) mention cities that are judged and that contain homosexuals.
So?
Quote:
Of course I realize that this is not solid evidence that Sodom and Gamorrah may have been distroyed for reasons not involving mere homosexuality, but I think they are worth mentioning.
It really doesn't aid your case at all. All the cities destroyed also involved humans, yet being human is not a sin (some Catholics might disagree, but ah well)
Don't read too much into it.
Quote:
Also, the arguement that the issure was mainly one of hospitality and brutality doesn't work.
Jude 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Angels are not human. And based on other verses, one can tell YHWH is not fond of humans attempting to have sex with angels.
Rape == sexual immorality
Angels being not human == strange flesh
Without the Leviticus verse you would have no reason to even think homosexuality is a sin with those verses. And there are some serious translational issues with Leviticus, that could change its meaning to dealing with Temple based Prostitution of males. So I wouldn't be so quick to assume.
Quote:
No matter how you translate 'strange flesh', it still pertains to a sexual issue and has nothing to do with hospitality.
Actually it could also mean eating impure or unusual meats.
Were there reason to believe cannabilism was involved, I would immediately point to it as the strange flesh part.
Quote:
C) I think that the argument about creation, although giving no solid evidence against homosexuality, still can be used. If homosexuality was ever in Gods eyes a valid alternative to heterosexuality, why isn't it mentioned?
It isn't mentioned because its considered irrelevant. It doesn't need to be mentioned for it to be valid.
Wearing sandals or wrapping your feet are both two ways to walk. Yet wrapping your feet is not mentioned in the Bible as a method of protecting them.
Is wrapping your feet not a valid alternative in God's eyes to wearing sandals?
It would be silly to say so. There is no logical justification for it.
Quote:
Obviously the Old Testament is to and from the Jews, who were under Law, and couldn't have homosexual sex. There's no argument there. But what about the New Testament?
Easily dealt with.
Quote:
Paul goes into great detail in talking about the roles of marraige in his letter to the Corinthians. The city of Corinth was, as I've studied, rampant with homosexuality. It was part of life. If there is any place Paul wrote to where there would have been homosexual couples in the church, wouldn't it have been Corinth?
All this says is homosexual couples are irrelevant to the church. It means they do not require the same rules as heterosexual couples.
And why do you ask?
Reproduction was still very sacred even in Jesus' teachings. So those that could reproduce back then (straight couples) needed special rules to keep that sacredness intact.
Quote:
The fact is that while there are verses in Pauls letters that may very well refute homosexual sex, there are not at all that confirm it or even mention it as an option.
None of the verses of Paul's letters refute homosexual sex. Its probably the most horrendous of misconceptions, so saying "may very well" is a pretty big stretch.
Quote:
TrunksTheSlayer said earlier, "So when did they write about computers?" Well, they didn't have computers back then. But they did have alot of homosexuals. The family was a central part of Christianity back then just as it is today. And as Ana himself said, Paul isn't one to leave out details.
Paul isn't one to leave out details and he's also concise.
He would've said something about homosexuality if there was something to say.
Since he said nothing specifically about homosexuality, it is irrelevant to God. Much like your shoes or color hair.
And they did have plenty of homosexuals for Paul to rant about. He loved to mention what was sinful to people, that tended to be his letters to everyone.
Don't you think he would've told his audiences, directly and concisely, "Don't be homosexual"?
Quote:
D) Ana is right about the words mentioned in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. These words are a huge part of this debate, and it really just comes down to what scholars you listen to. I personally believe these verses to condem basic homosexual acts as well as more serious sin, but I can't make a solid argument from them.
If you can't make a solid argument then why believe they condemn it?
Its not like you need a bunch of condemnations in the NT to make it stick. Only one is really needed. Drop the ones you know are false and concentrate on the ones you don't.
Quote:
As for Romans...
1. Ana is right about one thing. The central point of this passage is not homosexuality. This passage describes the result of the worlds deliberate unbelief. It goes beyond rejecting the Gospel. It goes back way before that. The sinful results mentioned are not limited to the culture Paul is writing to. The book of Romans is a very universal book. It makes little sense to claim that the acts mentioned here apply specifically to the citizens of Rome.
Paul was writing to the Romans. Its pretty simple. If you write something to Romans, its meant for the Romans.
If Paul meant it to be universal, he would've used a universal title, sent it to lots of different cultures and been far more concise since he wasn't stupid and realized that different cultures think different ways.
This is a very weak argument.
Quote:
2. Let's say these verses, as Ana claims, ARE based on Roman culture.
That would mean that the end result of constant unbelief and rebelion and idolatry would be God giving them over to the horrible desire to put Roman citizens on 'bottom'. And let's go so far as to say that that IS what this verse means.
Alrighty.
Quote:
Well, since when has the Gospel, or more specifically Paul, ever promoted an increase in social status? The message of Jesus was, 'If you want to be great, you must become a servant.' If anything, Paul would have incouraged this practice among the local Christians. He would have ancouraged them to be submissive, to be 'on bottom'. It would go right along with 'If someone asks you to go one mile, go with him two.' Futile thinking would more likely cause someone to be proud and self seeking, not submissive.
You don't seem to understand human nature.
Paul was engaging in the motions that would one day make Christianity the primary religion of much of the known world.
Playing on people's fears.
The Romans thought a citizen being on the bottom was abhorrant. If Paul stated that not believing in God would cause such an abhorrant thing, the Roman Christians would be rather unlikely to commit idolatry wouldn't they?
And don't claim that Paul wouldn't do such a thing. Christianity was in trouble. It was persecuted from all sides, and in danger of constant extinction. Paul needed to do a lot to spread the word and keep it stable.
Paul also thought he was saving their immortal souls.
Playing on someone's fears to save them wouldn't be all that much of an issue. Parents do it for their children all the time.
Quote:
I can't see how a man who was rejected by the culture of his time and severely persecuted for his outragous teaching would have written something like this.
I just explained how. Desperation and a need to save others.
Quote:
3 & 4. If the passage said 'they gave up the natural function of the woman' and left it at that, or 'they burned in their lusts towards one another, male with male...' and left out the first part, there could possibly be a small argument to be made. But the passage covers all the bases.
It actually doesn't.
It implies quite heavily that men stopped breeding with women.
Like I said before, reproduction was sacred to all cultures. Women were meant for breeding in the eyes of those times and even though homosexuality was fine in a lot of cultures, if everyone stopped breeding (i.e. all the men became homosexual) their cultures would die.
They knew it, and Paul knew it.
This is yet another brilliant example of fear tactics.
Quote:
There is absolutely no other thing he could be talking about here that would make any sense at all. I challenge anyone to make an argument for homosexuality based on this passage in its full use that makes sense and comes close to being as serious as this passage implies.
See above for my answer to your challenge.
Quote:
I will not address Chiewn's Opening post at this time. It's very late. Also, I don't think he really gives any evidence that hasen't been covered. I will address his 'Bad Christian' comments at a later time though.
Fair enough. I look forward to your post.
Quote:
This is a hot topic right now. I have people very close to me who struggle with the question of the Biblical perspective on this issue. As I said in my earlier post, I also was unconvinced for awhile.
I'm well aware of this. I actually was still rather hard pressed to figure it out while I was still a Christian.
I can assure you however, that I left Christianity with my current views on what the Scriptures say about homosexuality (that it is not condemned, but instead irrelevant).
So no matter which way this debate falls, my reasons for becoming an apostate, abandoning even the concept of the Abrahamic God and eventually becoming an Etherist will remain standing.
I can take comfort in that I suppose, no matter which way the dice fall.
Quote:
And believe it or not, even with the beliefs I hold, I think this should remain in debate. Anyone who struggles with this, especially if they are homosexuals, should be able to hear both sides of this issue discussed and defended.
Agreed actually. No religion should become stagnant, no beliefs allowed to remain immoble or crystalized.
Every religion should be in a state of flux as the beliefs are debated and reshaped to reflect new information.
Quote:
I pray that at least something I have said may have a possitive effect on some of you.
You restored a small amount of respect for the opposition. That I think is a positive effect.
PoeticVengeance
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:13:52 +0000
That was a ******** of typing.
OW.
OW.
Rookherst[KOS]
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](http://a2.cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:26:02 +0000
PoeticVengeance
That was a ******** of typing.
OW.
OW.
Yet....you type more to inform us of your pain. I suspect masochistic tendencies.
Half Baked SF
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:28:08 +0000
Rookherst[KOS]
PoeticVengeance
That was a ******** of typing.
OW.
OW.
Yet....you type more to inform us of your pain. I suspect masochistic tendencies.
PoeticVengeance
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:29:54 +0000
Rookherst[KOS]
PoeticVengeance
That was a ******** of typing.
OW.
OW.
Yet....you type more to inform us of your pain. I suspect masochistic tendencies.
Maybe.... ow
^_^
Rookherst[KOS]
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:34:16 +0000
PoeticVengeance
Rookherst[KOS]
PoeticVengeance
That was a ******** of typing.
OW.
OW.
Yet....you type more to inform us of your pain. I suspect masochistic tendencies.
Maybe.... ow
^_^
As My mentor, best Friend, and Spiritual brother Jack Land Said to me once....
"Pain don't hurt!"
PoeticVengeance
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:13:28 +0000
Rookherst[KOS]
PoeticVengeance
Rookherst[KOS]
PoeticVengeance
That was a ******** of typing.
OW.
OW.
Yet....you type more to inform us of your pain. I suspect masochistic tendencies.
Maybe.... ow
^_^
As My mentor, best Friend, and Spiritual brother Jack Land Said to me once....
"Pain don't hurt!"
Quoth the raven, "Lawl"
jaden kendam
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:23:54 +0000
Shift and Element
Well, like I said, I BELIEVE, yes, I, that is a lifestyle, I didn't say the bible said it. From my knowledge and standpoint, I think it is. And Leviticus- I have to check my bible really quickly. Hold on. But the fact that its the Bible, God's word, and Christians are supposed to live by it according to Jesus, I'm sure its quite clear.
Collosians 2:14 calls you a liar.
Oldillo
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:52:05 +0000
There seems to be a lack of understanding about the law. We all agree that God has certain 'laws' that are universal and go way beyond the law of the jews. Don't kill anybody, don't commit adultery, etc. Hopefully we can all agree on that. Now the hebrew law of the Old Testament contained many laws that were specific to them, but it also covered the things that God had already set in peoples hearts as wrong. Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind soul and strength. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. At no point did God require the jews to kep the rediculous ceremonial laws without also keeping his universal moral laws. If you say, "ALL the law was nailed to the tree." Well, your right. But it doesn't mean that just because it's written in the law that it's moot. If that's the case, then after I'm finished typing I can just go out and blast everyone who doesn't agree with me with a shotgun. You can't just throw out everything written in the law because it happens to be in the law. And you still can't account for God destroying previous nations for commiting these sins, no matter how you translate 'abominations'.
Oldillo
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:14:09 +0000
Keep in mind Sodom and Gamorrah were already on the choping block before Lot's angels showed up. To say that the sin of sodom could have been sex with angels would mean that sodom, gamorrah, and the other three cities mentioned were all sleeping around with angels. Also there was no Torah at the time of Lot, so once again you have God destroying nations because they disobeyed Jewish law before it was given.
I would never just walk up to a homosexual and say "hey, you're an awful guy." I don't believe they are. Keep in mind that, in responding to this post, I'm only defending my point of view in a mature conversation as well as responding to claims that I'm a bad Christian. I love homosexuals. I am justified in not accepting their actions because I am convinced they are sinful. Do you believe you should love Hitler? Should you also love his actions? Are his actions part of Gods creation, therefore are you judging God?
Quote:
Past that, it comes down to You do not stand for their decision, for it is not your decision to approve.
You do not stand against their decision for it is not your decision to dis-aprove.
To judge them is to judge some aspect of God's creation imperfect and to then judge God.
To hate what they are or what they do or anything about them is to hate a flaw in the hevenly creator for you cannot look upon a man and say "Brother I love you but I hate your existance" How can you love someone yet hate their actions? How can there ever be love when they have been marred by that hate? Love is not approval, love is not permission, love is not saying "do this or do that" Love simply IS. And to pesonally or even with any justification say something is right or wrong in your or even God's view is to make a Judgement call on God.
This is a very tough decision to make, because it not only compels a Christian not to judge wheather something like lieing, stealing or yes, even homosexuality is right or wrong, but simply love them.
You do not stand against their decision for it is not your decision to dis-aprove.
To judge them is to judge some aspect of God's creation imperfect and to then judge God.
To hate what they are or what they do or anything about them is to hate a flaw in the hevenly creator for you cannot look upon a man and say "Brother I love you but I hate your existance" How can you love someone yet hate their actions? How can there ever be love when they have been marred by that hate? Love is not approval, love is not permission, love is not saying "do this or do that" Love simply IS. And to pesonally or even with any justification say something is right or wrong in your or even God's view is to make a Judgement call on God.
This is a very tough decision to make, because it not only compels a Christian not to judge wheather something like lieing, stealing or yes, even homosexuality is right or wrong, but simply love them.
I would never just walk up to a homosexual and say "hey, you're an awful guy." I don't believe they are. Keep in mind that, in responding to this post, I'm only defending my point of view in a mature conversation as well as responding to claims that I'm a bad Christian. I love homosexuals. I am justified in not accepting their actions because I am convinced they are sinful. Do you believe you should love Hitler? Should you also love his actions? Are his actions part of Gods creation, therefore are you judging God?
ClivusMultrum
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:44:08 +0000
Oldillo
I would never just walk up to a homosexual and say "hey, you're an awful guy." I don't believe they are. Keep in mind that, in responding to this post, I'm only defending my point of view in a mature conversation as well as responding to claims that I'm a bad Christian. I love homosexuals. I am justified in not accepting their actions because I am convinced they are sinful. Do you believe you should love Hitler? Should you also love his actions? Are his actions part of Gods creation, therefore are you judging God?
That assumes that Hitler was created to be evil, and that he had no choice but to become evil. Unless homosexuals have as much choice in being homosexual as Hitler had in slaughtering innocents, that analogy is not a very persuasive one.
