Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
Homosexuality and the Bible (1/5/06) Goto Page: [] [<<] [<] 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Submit

IcarusDream

IcarusDream's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:44 pm
nightshade213126 Wrote:
I don't like the fact that you are trying to slander me and say that I did a "copy and paste" job. In that you are bearing false witness against me.


Well, like it or not, you did copy and paste it. And unless your name is Matthew J. Slick then you are a plagiarist.

http://www.carm.org/issues/homosexuality.htm

Quote:
The main defense I can place on my response is I know what the Holy Spirit has placed on my heart. You accuse me of not reading my bible and not knowing what I am talking about.


This whole idea of mine is really based on one claim: "Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible."

I don't mind if someone doesn't know some obscure reference to Ezekiel or Habbakuk, but missing something that is blatantly stated in Luke (and perhaps the other synoptics) is quite hard to forgive when done in a "scholarly" context.

Quote:
But my argument is sound in and of itself, based on a hard fought faith. No matter what anyone says they will not change your mind and no matter what you say you will not change my faith.


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

Quote:
Just to give you more ammunition against me I believe in the Holy Spirit, I believe in prophesy and dreams, miraculous healing, and speaking in tongues.


I have no qualms with these except the whole speaking in tongues bit.

"When praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words." - Matthew 6:7

Unless you're actually speaking the languages of Acts 2, then you are babbling.

Quote:
I have experienced things in the Spirit that I cannot explain. I come from an agnostic/pagan background so every argument you have put forth I have also put forth also. Christ changed my heart years ago and has been working in my heart ever since. And I see His undying love for me everytime I look in my son's eyes.


I was raised Catholic. I am agnostic now.

It's interesting to think about the whole Christ dying thing. He did not die in love, he died in bloodsweating agony. The "Jesus Loves You!" attitude annoys me. If what Christ says in John 10:30 is true, then he must be quite like his father.

He is capable of abhorring you for eternity. Malachi 1:4

He is jealous. He is very selective. He does NOT necessarily love you. He loves the κόσμον (kosmos, from John 3:16), sure, but this is not universally inclusive, obviously.  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:30 pm
To be honest i like to avoid this issue usually... but being in a Christian forum i feel allows me to speak out a bit. Mostly because i feel this is a very touchy issue and hopefully most people within this forum would be more "open-minded".

I believe that SEXUAL attraction between male/male, female/female is wrong, not the temptation but the carrying out and infatuation with. Love, of course i have no problem with but there are many types of love. I bet if David and Johnathan's personalities were reborn into today's society, they would believe themselves homosexual because society would dictate that they were. People today tend to think that you cannot be "one in soul" with someone as David and Johnathan were and not love them as gf/bf bf/bf gf/gf etc...

As for all the translation picking etc... I've always felt it was a little... feeble. Anyone who trusts that God's hand was with those who wrote the books of the bible would also trust that God's hand was with those who translated the bible. True there are things that cannot be perfectly translated. There is always a little lost or even a little added with every translation but i trust that God would keep the main message intact.
Honestly having read the bible from start to finish, i cannot say that God would like the homosexual relationship and pursuing anything God doesn't like is pretty much a sin. Even in the Levitican laws which i know don't apply today, the issue of homosexuality is shed in a different light. It isn't the same as the other laws like what to eat/not to eat etc... Someone did point out to me that the word translated as "detestable" (used alot around the whole sexual immoral chapter) was the same as the word translated into "unclean" (used alot in the other chapters/laws) but i still don't think that makes all that much of a difference even if it were true (i don't know how to read Hebrew unfortunately so i can't really check myself). Replacing all the "detestable"s with "unclean"s still gives off the same kind of vibe. I think the difference in punishment also says a little something.

Translations are always a bit of an unclear area. Even if you know the languages in a textbook manner you'll still mis-interpret/miss/add bits simply because you weren't there. Just because a particular word that is not directly translated as that word is not used it does not mean the passage doesn't refer to the topic. The reason it was translated the way it was was because it best conveyed the idea (at least the NIV version and most others were). You have to know the culture as well as the person who wrote it. Which is why i believe alot of the time non-Christians simply misunderstand and will not understand because they don't believe in or know our God. The God who the authors of the books in the bible believed in and devotedly followed, thus making up pretty much their entire life/mind-set etc...

Anyway that's my two cents. I know most of it is faith but then again this is a Christian forum and this topic does involve the bible... and the bible is all about faith. You simply cannot read the bible truthfully without the holy spirit guiding you. Which is why most non-Christians will always misunderstand. (i say most because the holy spirit does work in a few non-Christians)  

The Urban Elf

The Urban Elf's avatar


Tarrou

Tarrou's avatar

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:14 am
Well, whether it the English word used is 'detestable', 'unclean', or 'abomination', (I'm partial to the somewhat non-standard translation 'taboo') the fact remains that the Hebrew word toevah is used to describe both gay sex and the eating of shellfish, which to my mind implies that both are matters of Jewish ritual purity rather than absolute morality. If that's true, then it lends credence to the theory, oft posted here, that the OT injunction against homosexuality was abolished along with all the other ritual laws (as in Colossians 2:14).

As for God guiding the translators, I'm a bit dubious. I'm willing to grant my Christian friends that, for the sake of argument, the very first editions of the Gospels were divinely inspired and inerrant (that is, the manuscripts that were produced when the apostles themselves put pen to paper), but I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that any current edition of the New Testament is completely true to its authors' intent, inspired or not. Just looking at the process by which biblical canon was developed is enough to make one suspect that something might have been omitted or excluded by simple human error. And then there's the fact even the oldest extant copies of the Gospels are copies of copies of the originals (even the oldest usable manuscripts post-date Christ's death by around 200 years), which probably means that at least a couple of orthographic errors managed to sneak in there somewhere. Finally there's the King James Bible, an argument against divinely inspired translating in and of itself.

'Course, I'm probably not reading the bible truthfully, at least not by Christian standards—though I would submit to you that not every Christian manages that feat, either, as often as some of them seemed to forget the second of the two most important commandments. I blame Paul for adding too many layers of doctrine to Christ's simple injunction to love God and one's fellow man. Sometimes I think Dostoevsky's Elder Zossima distilled the heart of Christianity more clearly than the bible does, but then I'm a heretic with no patience for doctrine, so of course I'd feel that way, wouldn't I? I think I'm rambling. Anyway...

I'm not picking on you, by the way, Elf. I'm just bored (and a little sleep deprived) and you're the only one posting in the two threads I really bother with. So it's not personal or anything.  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:09 pm
FYI

King James authorized the revision of the previous version on the grounds that it was "wrong"... and then he banned the old version on pain of death. I would like to believe that he banned the books because there were too many to burn. (common practice between revisions)  

lordstar

lordstar's avatar


The Urban Elf

The Urban Elf's avatar

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:09 pm
Tarrou Wrote:
Well, whether it the English word used is 'detestable', 'unclean', or 'abomination', (I'm partial to the somewhat non-standard translation 'taboo') the fact remains that the Hebrew word toevah is used to describe both gay sex and the eating of shellfish, which to my mind implies that both are matters of Jewish ritual purity rather than absolute morality. If that's true, then it lends credence to the theory, oft posted here, that the OT injunction against homosexuality was abolished along with all the other ritual laws (as in Colossians 2:14).

As for God guiding the translators, I'm a bit dubious. I'm willing to grant my Christian friends that, for the sake of argument, the very first editions of the Gospels were divinely inspired and inerrant (that is, the manuscripts that were produced when the apostles themselves put pen to paper), but I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that any current edition of the New Testament is completely true to its authors' intent, inspired or not. Just looking at the process by which biblical canon was developed is enough to make one suspect that something might have been omitted or excluded by simple human error. And then there's the fact even the oldest extant copies of the Gospels are copies of copies of the originals (even the oldest usable manuscripts post-date Christ's death by around 200 years), which probably means that at least a couple of orthographic errors managed to sneak in there somewhere. Finally there's the King James Bible, an argument against divinely inspired translating in and of itself.

'Course, I'm probably not reading the bible truthfully, at least not by Christian standards—though I would submit to you that not every Christian manages that feat, either, as often as some of them seemed to forget the second of the two most important commandments. I blame Paul for adding too many layers of doctrine to Christ's simple injunction to love God and one's fellow man. Sometimes I think Dostoevsky's Elder Zossima distilled the heart of Christianity more clearly than the bible does, but then I'm a heretic with no patience for doctrine, so of course I'd feel that way, wouldn't I? I think I'm rambling. Anyway...

I'm not picking on you, by the way, Elf. I'm just bored (and a little sleep deprived) and you're the only one posting in the two threads I really bother with. So it's not personal or anything.

No offense taken ^^
This is a debate/discussion thread after all.
Also again, this really just does come down to faith whether or not you trust that God would take care of his word.  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:16 pm
IcarusDream Wrote:
Tia_Valentine Wrote:
what makes homosexuality wrong isn't men loving men and women loving women......what makes it wrong is the oral and a**l sex that is engaged in by homosexuals on a regular basis

and the Bible does speak out against immoral sex


And where does it call a**l and oral sex immoral?

Quote:
so by Homosexuals continually engaging in these immoral sexual acts, they have created an idol in their lives


The only type of homosexuality I see in the bible refers to actual temple practices...not just sex as a ritual of love.

Quote:
Homosexuals continually choose to go against God and by doing so they are rejecting God and his will for them to not engage in immoral sex.


Immoral sex is defined where?


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 [English Standard Version]

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

It does state that homosexuality is immoral, after all. smilies/icon_stare.gif  

Lady Ironarm

Lady Ironarm's avatar


Tarrou

Tarrou's avatar

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:00 pm
Undiscovered Artist Wrote:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 [English Standard Version]

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

It does state that homosexuality is immoral, after all. smilies/icon_stare.gif

That's kind of a strange translation. The ESV seems to have rammed together two categories that other translations have rendered separately. Usually that verse refers to male prostitutes/effeminate men as well as homosexuals/abusers of themselves with mankind. Very strange. Further, 'homosexual' is a curious word to use in translation, given that it was invented in the 19th century and probably doesn't have an ancient equivalent as the idea of exclusive homosexuality implied by the word didn't exist until very recently.

But let's get down to the language. The Greek work malakos, which the ESV seems to have ignored altogether, literally means 'soft' and is probably best translated as 'male prostitute'. The word from which modern biblical translations derive the phrase 'homosexual offenders' and its equivalents is arsenokoites, which is very nearly a hapax legomenon; it seems that Paul may have invented it himself. A combination of the words for 'male' and 'sexual intercourse', arsenokoites seems at first glance to refer explicitly to homosexual sex, but there are problems with that interpretation. Firstly, since it appears only in two places in the bible and nowhere else in the written record, we can't divine its meaning through looking at its historical usages. Secondly, if arsenokoites does refer to homosexual sex its construction would imply that it only covers male homosexual sex, making 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 only a half-condemnation of homosexual relations. The omission of female homosexuality from Paul's list of condemned behavior seems very unusual in this scenario, which to my mind suggests that it has a more specific meaning than just 'homosexual sex'. 'Pederasts' seems a likely candidate, although as I've said, there's really no way of knowing for sure.  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Yes, Undiscovered Artist...arsenokoites are immoral people. Who are they?  

IcarusDream

IcarusDream's avatar


The Real Little Demon

The Real Little Demon's avatar

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:31 pm
Tarrou Wrote:
Looks like the thread's going to be kicked off with a discussion of the applicability of ceremonial law post-Christ.

Alumnus Wrote:
"22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
Leviticus 18:22

"He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code [i.e. the ceremonial laws of Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy], with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." - Colossians 2:13-14 (Emphasis mine.)


Or, to put it another way, do you, per chance, eat shellfish?


Dude he doesn't want you to continue sinning after you have been saved sure you might slip sometimes but he doesn't want you to sin just because you know you will be forgiven do you think it's right to sin even if you know you will be forgiven?  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:58 pm
AstaOfNakromare Wrote:
Dude he doesn't want you to continue sinning after you have been saved sure you might slip sometimes but he doesn't want you to sin just because you know you will be forgiven do you think it's right to sin even if you know you will be forgiven?

Unless you're saying that eating shellfish is a sin after all, I think you missed the point of the post: Not everything in the ceremonial laws is a sin; most of the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus concern Jewish taboos (toevah) relating to cleanliness. These laws, which include prohibitions against eating shellfish and wearing clothes sewn of more than two fabrics, deal primarily with things that Jews should not do in order to remain ritually pure rather than with acts that are objectively right or wrong. It is our contention (myself and a few other posters, that is) that the ceremonial condemnation of homosexuality was a cleanliness taboo and so it, like the ban on pork, disappeared when Christ replaced the old laws with the 'Law of Love'.

According to this argument, a Christian condemning homosexuality based on the OT is illogical if they do not abide by the other 600 some rules regarding cleanliness. Thus, 'Do you, perchance, eat shellfish?'  

Tarrou

Tarrou's avatar


scotch0069

scotch0069's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:43 am
I will have to agree in this society day and age a lot of things have been corrupted and misconstrued. i mean if you have a bible for every person... something had to be edited... but ill use the opinion that if in the least bit the early christians dared to see the bible as the Jews did, and that is that it is a text soley written by God and that to manipulate would a punishment worse than death, then a lot had to be preserved. the argument i would think when it comese to translation would come when the later catholics used the religion for power more than bringing people to God. and if that was the case and they did alter it.... why did they ban and kill so many for trying to reproduce it so all may read it.. i mean if they altered it why worry? unless you take the stance that the people reporoducing the Bible was infact altering it for people to read for only the popes and priests I THINK had the sole copy. in either case a copy had to be maintained and with Martin Luther's revolt some truth had to come out somewhere. If you have anything i could look at THAT IS NOT WEB BASED. (Im bias against web based information, id rather goto a library and look it up rather point and click...after all you dont need a publisher's liscence and defend your words online unless your popular....my opinion.) id be glad to read it.  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:23 pm
scotch0069 Wrote:
I will have to agree in this society day and age a lot of things have been corrupted and misconstrued. i mean if you have a bible for every person... something had to be edited... but ill use the opinion that if in the least bit the early christians dared to see the bible as the Jews did, and that is that it is a text soley written by God and that to manipulate would a punishment worse than death, then a lot had to be preserved. the argument i would think when it comese to translation would come when the later catholics used the religion for power more than bringing people to God. and if that was the case and they did alter it.... why did they ban and kill so many for trying to reproduce it so all may read it.. i mean if they altered it why worry? unless you take the stance that the people reporoducing the Bible was infact altering it for people to read for only the popes and priests I THINK had the sole copy. in either case a copy had to be maintained and with Martin Luther's revolt some truth had to come out somewhere. If you have anything i could look at THAT IS NOT WEB BASED. (Im bias against web based information, id rather goto a library and look it up rather point and click...after all you dont need a publisher's liscence and defend your words online unless your popular....my opinion.) id be glad to read it.



HISTORY:

In the centuries immediately following Christ's ascension and the writing of the original texts of the Bible, we did not have printing presses or peer review processes. In order to get copies of texts sent to all the Churches, people had to transcribe the texts by hand. Most of the people transcribing these texts could not read; at best, they would have the equivalent of a 2nd grade education today. These people would transcribe the texts out again and again, not word by word, but "symbol by symbol". If they missed a symbol, or a space, a spelling mistake, or grammar mistake would show up in the texts and be copied again and again by the NEXT people. At worst, the entire meaning of a word or sentence could be altered.

Take "arsenokoites", for example. It is presently translated in most Bibles as "homosexual offender" (under debate, by the way), but if someone ages ago has put a space in there and made it "arsen koites", we would now ban both the male gender and sofas from Christians and Christianity.

My point is that it is exceedingly easy to create errors in these texts.  

Mein Kulturkampf

Mein Kulturkampf's avatar


-xXGodslayer_RaiXx-

-xXGodslayer_RaiXx-'s avatar

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:37 pm
Honestly I don't think its a sin. I have a friend who is Catholic and is bi. My boyfriend is bi and a Christian and my other best friend is lesbian (she believes in different things besides Christianity). Are the sinners no?

Honestly I think you're misinterpreting the bible. The Bible teaches us to love one another and not to hate. Gays are also God's children if they weren't then they did he make them?

I think that the Bible shouldn't be trusted because it is written by MAN and not God. It was written by men who claimed to hear God's words and misconstrued them. Or that's what I think. I think God never intended for gays to be hated so much. I think he wanted us to love them as equally as we love each other.  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:31 pm
-xXGodslayer_RaiXx- Wrote:
Honestly I don't think its a sin. I have a friend who is Catholic and is bi. My boyfriend is bi and a Christian and my other best friend is lesbian (she believes in different things besides Christianity). Are the sinners no?

Honestly I think you're misinterpreting the bible. The Bible teaches us to love one another and not to hate. Gays are also God's children if they weren't then they did he make them?

I think that the Bible shouldn't be trusted because it is written by MAN and not God. It was written by men who claimed to hear God's words and misconstrued them. Or that's what I think. I think God never intended for gays to be hated so much. I think he wanted us to love them as equally as we love each other.


your post just made my day  

lordstar

lordstar's avatar


-xXGodslayer_RaiXx-

-xXGodslayer_RaiXx-'s avatar

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:42 pm
lordstar Wrote:
-xXGodslayer_RaiXx- Wrote:
Honestly I don't think its a sin. I have a friend who is Catholic and is bi. My boyfriend is bi and a Christian and my other best friend is lesbian (she believes in different things besides Christianity). Are they sinners? No.

Honestly I think you're misinterpreting the bible. The Bible teaches us to love one another and not to hate. Gays are also God's children if they weren't then they did he make them?

I think that the Bible shouldn't be trusted because it is written by MAN and not God. It was written by men who claimed to hear God's words and misconstrued them. Or that's what I think. I think God never intended for gays to be hated so much. I think he wanted us to love them as equally as we love each other.


your post just made my day

This may seem a little off topic but how did it make your day? Could you explain it? Sorry if I don't get what you're trying to say I'm really tired..and I'm totally out of it..  
Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: [] [<<] [<] 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games