You are wrong.

[zz1000zz]

Now for the actual responses:

-Sunset Wahine-

First Post: Genesis 2:20-23 HOMOSEXUALITY IS SIN.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

God made man for woman. NOT man for man or woman for woman.

First, if anything God made woman for man. Nowhere does it say man was made for woman. If we are going to discuss God's word, it would be best if we tried not to misrepresent God's word.

More importantly, nowhere does this passage say homosexuality is a sin. Even if we accept that "God made woman for man," that does not inherently make homosexuality a sin.

-Sunset Wahine-

Second Post: Proverbs 6:29 Having sex with different women is sin.

29 So is he who sleeps with another man's wife;
no one who touches her will go unpunished.

I wonder at using Proverbs to determine what is and is not a sin, but in this case it does not matter. This passage says having sex with a married woman is a sin. It says nothing about having sex with with a single woman.

-Sunset Wahine-

Fourth Post: Proverbs 6:16-17 Abortion is shedding innocent blood; therefore, is sin.

16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:

17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,

I believe we can agree the "innocent blood" mentioned here is in reference to human blood. By this i mean it would not include animals. If so, this does not mean anything to abortion, as it does not tell us a fetus is a human. Unless it can be shown that God takes fetuses to be humans, there is no basis in calling abortion a sin.

-Sunset Wahine-

There are many, many, many more passages in the Bible that prove what your saying is sin. But you have to choose to read it.

Something else to throw out:
Proverbs 12:1

1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates discipline is stupid.

Simple and clear.

That is nice, but simply saying it is there does not prove anything. The passages you offered do not answer my questions, so this passage means nothing.  

[zz1000zz]

I did not make this topic as a form of attack, nor did i do it to be mean. I did intentionally make it inciteful.

Idly standing by and saying, "Everyone has their own opinions," should not be tolerated. If you believe God has strict moral guidelines that everyone should follow, you should do everything you can to learn what those guidelines are. Too many people condemn actions by saying they are "against the Bible" despite not knowing any passages that support what they say.

Many things have been justified by the Bible. People supported slavery with the Bible. People supported burning people at stakes with the Bible. Even more recently, people opposed marriage between blacks and whites with the Bible.

Nothing can be gained by hiding from discussions. However, many things can be lost.  

[Tarrou]

A couple of points:

Sunset, the 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' argument is a bit tired by now, don't you think? The only thing implied by Genesis is the goodness of heterosexual relations; it makes no comment whatsoever on homosexual relations, negative or otherwise. Saying that Genesis 2 speaks against homosexuality requires that one make inferences that the text does not support.

zz1000zz, there is a good (biblical) case to be made against sex outside of marriage. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states that 'fornicators' (NASB) will not inherit the kingdom of God, with 'fornicators' most likely referring both to those who engage in adultery as well as simple fornication.

As to abortion and whether or not an unborn child is considered to be a person, I would point out Exodus 21:22. Note that the penalty for causing a pregnant woman to give birth prematurely/miscarry (translations differ) is just a fine. If the unborn child were considered a person, then causing the woman to miscarry would be an act of murder and the penalty, according to the laws of the Old Testament, would be death. Therefore, it seems that we can extrapolate that the unborn are not, in fact, fully recognized people.  

[zz1000zz]

I agree with you on the Adam and Steve point as well as abortion. However, the other one i disagree with. As i posted in another topic in this guild:

Quote:

Quote:

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 idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

The response:

Quote:

One of the condemned behaviors is "malakoi arsenokoitai" in the original Greek. Malakoi means soft. It was translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Each Bible translating team seems to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they usually do not have the decency to indicate by a footnote that the actual meaning of the word is unknown, and that they are merely guessing its meaning.

There are 25 different translations of the passage you cited, and there is no way to tell which is correct.

It is also worth noting that the Old Testament has different morals than modern morals, and nowhere does Jesus repudiate them. To my knowledge, Jesus never condemned many of the practices of the OT. Abram had sex outside of his marriage, and it seems to have been accepted, if not blessed. Unless there is some NT passage that condemns it, i do not see where the modern morals come from.  

[Atarashi No Sensei]

Sinners are twisting around God's word today to make sin actually look okay. I believe that the person itself knows what is right or wrong. If a person does something that may look right but is actually sin, he/she is still sinning. But let's not make each other judge one another's hearts. God is the only judge.  

[zz1000zz]

-Sunset Wahine-

Sinners are twisting around God's word today to make sin actually look okay. I believe that the person itself knows what is right or wrong. If a person does something that may look right but is actually sin, he/she is still sinning. But let's not make each other judge one another's hearts. God is the only judge.

No.

I will not sit quietly while people condemn "sinners" for doing things God never forbade. If you decide what is a sin, not God, you are a heretic. So either support your points, or quit spreading your heresies.  

[Tarrou]

zz1000zz

There are 25 different translations of the passage you cited, and there is no way to tell which is correct.

I agree that the meaning of arsenkoites is a little vague at best, seeing as how Paul seems to have just made it up. Perhaps he should have thought more carefully about whether his neologism would actually translate properly 2000 years down the road, but so it goes. However, arsenkoites isn't what's being translated as 'fornicators'—porneia is, and the translations of porneia in 1 Corinthians 6 do not differ much in their treatment of the word, which is almost invariably translated as either 'fornicators' or 'the sexually immoral'. In fact, arsenkoites is really the only controversial part of that verse.

Quote:

It is also worth noting that the Old Testament has different morals than modern morals, and nowhere does Jesus repudiate them. To my knowledge, Jesus never condemned many of the practices of the OT.

Actually, those morals are vastly more draconian and, dare I say, repressive than anything in modern society. Are you at all familiar with the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament? Just read Leviticus 15 if you don't believe me. And Jesus did, in fact, repudiate the ceremonial laws of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus; or at least he cancelled them (Colossians 2).
And the ancient Jews most certainly did not approve of pre-marital sex. Consider the religious laws of Yichud and Negiah, for example. Also, see Deuteronomy 22, wherein it proscribes stoning for brides who lose their virginity prior to marriage.  

[zz1000zz]

Perhaps Jesus abolished some/many/all of the old laws, unless he created new laws it hardly matters for this topic. After all, unless new laws were created, it does not change anything.

While i agree the ritualistic laws were repudiated, the moral beliefs were rarely mentioned, and certainly no clear decision was given.

(Paul's writings are not clear on what he meant in that passage. While only one of the words is completely unclear, the other's meaning is uncertain. Just was acts would make one a 'fornicator'? There is no clear answer on that, though it may be more clear than the other word. Either way, there is enough uncertainty to keep it from being decisive, which is all that matters to me at the moment. Though it is worth pointing out that this controversy is what is actually immoral, and that part of the passage does nothing to describe such.)  

[Tarrou]

zz1000zz

Perhaps Jesus abolished some/many/all of the old laws, unless he created new laws it hardly matters for this topic. After all, unless new laws were created, it does not change anything.

He didn't repudiate all of them. He retained 'do not murder', 'do not commit adultery', 'do not steal', 'do not give false testimony', 'honor your father and mother', and 'love your neighbor as yourself'. (Matthew 19.) See also Matthew 22:36-40.

Quote:

While i agree the ritualistic laws were repudiated, the moral beliefs were rarely mentioned, and certainly no clear decision was given.

I would be shocked if the ancient Jews did not believe that their religious laws were moral. I would have to say that the two were one and the same.

Quote:

Just was acts would make one a 'fornicator'? There is no clear answer on that, though it may be more clear than the other word.

Well, if you translate the word as 'fornicator', then it's very clear: having sex with someone to whom you are not married. Very simple. If you translate it as 'sexual immorality', on the other hand, then it's less clear; although given that the Jewish tradition from which both Jesus and Paul came from, it would be a reasonably safe bet that they considered sex outside of marriage to be immoral.

Quote:

Though it is worth pointing out that this controversy is what is actually immoral, and that part of the passage does nothing to describe such.

How could controversy possibly be immoral? Insamuch as it is the opposite of monolithic dogma, I would say that controversy is a good thing.  

[LadyAmbrosia]

zz1000zz- Why don't you prove us wrong? Your arguments so far have centred around us mis-translating the Bible. If that is the only argument you've got then you really don't have one... no disrespect meant.  

[Tarrou]

LadyAmbrosia

zz1000zz- Why don't you prove us wrong? Your arguments so far have centred around us mis-translating the Bible. If that is the only argument you've got then you really don't have one... no disrespect meant.

Mistranslation is a reasonable argument, actually. It's very much a relevant issue in biblical study. Take for example 1 Timothy 3:16: originally translated as 'God was manifest in the flesh' (see the King James Bible), it is now translated as a variant of 'he appeared in the flesh' pursuant to the discovery of an error in the Codex Alexandrinus. (Specifically, someone had mistaken the word OΣ (who) for an abbreviation of the word ΘEOΣ (God), hence the mistranslation.) There is a significant difference in meaning between the two translations, so issues of translation are anything but minimal.  

[LadyAmbrosia]

Tangled Up In Blue

LadyAmbrosia

zz1000zz- Why don't you prove us wrong? Your arguments so far have centred around us mis-translating the Bible. If that is the only argument you've got then you really don't have one... no disrespect meant.

Mistranslation is a reasonable argument, actually. It's very much a relevant issue in biblical study. Take for example 1 Timothy 3:16: originally translated as 'God was manifest in the flesh' (see the King James Bible), it is now translated as a variant of 'he appeared in the flesh' pursuant to the discovery of an error in the Codex Alexandrinus. (Specifically, someone had mistaken the word OΣ (who) for an abbreviation of the word ΘEOΣ (God), hence the mistranslation.) There is a significant difference in meaning between the two translations, so issues of translation are anything but minimal.

Mabey, but I still don't think it's valid in this case. I, personally think the Bible is very clear... but I also feel no need to justify that to anyone. I just wanted to know if that was her only point.  

[Tarrou]

LadyAmbrosia

Mabey, but I still don't think it's valid in this case. I, personally think the Bible is very clear... but I also feel no need to justify that to anyone. I just wanted to know if that was her only point.

But that's the thing: it isn't always clear. It's clear in many places, but through interpolation, copying errors, mistranslation and the like, there are parts that really are rather ambiguous.  

[LadyAmbrosia]

Tangled Up In Blue

LadyAmbrosia

Mabey, but I still don't think it's valid in this case. I, personally think the Bible is very clear... but I also feel no need to justify that to anyone. I just wanted to know if that was her only point.

But that's the thing: it isn't always clear. It's clear in many places, but through interpolation, copying errors, mistranslation and the like, there are parts that really are rather ambiguous.

Such as?  

[Tarrou]

LadyAmbrosia

Such as?

• The word arsenkoites in 1 Corinthians 6:9, frequently translated as 'homosexual offenders' or some such even though the exact meaning of the word is as-yet unknown.
  
• The word malakos, meaning 'soft', but often translated as 'homosexual', despite there being little valid reason to do so.
  
• The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark, which some believe was the first of the synoptic gospels, are considered an interpolation and not part of the original document. This would obviously have doctrinal ramifications for certain charismatic churches.
  
• The story of the adulteress in John 8 is considered an interpolation, being found in different places in different versions of the gospel (and one time even turning up in a copy of the Gospel of Luke.
  The afore-mentioned changes to 1 Timothy 3:16 wherein OΣ was mistaken for and abbreviation of ΘEOΣ.
  
• The difficulty of figuring out based on Paul's epistles just what the author actually believes about the applicability of the OT Law (reasonable people differ on this question).