 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5705
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| StElsewhere wrote: | | Now you are starting to sound silly... you know full well the word ...homo...anything was never used... |
Well, yes. I didn't claim it was.
| StElsewhere wrote: | The behavior was described very cleary...so clearly that through more than 5000 years through ancient languages ...His Word is still the same...and clear enough for all who don't have a problem with the truth  |
If it's so "clear" why is it supposedly "don't have sex with a man as you would a woman, it is an abomination"? Why isn't it "men must not have sex with men, it is an abomination" unless there's something that was missed? None of the other condemnations have such wording, they are all clear prohibitions. It's not "don't have sex with an animal as you would a woman." It is insensible to believe that "you must not have sex with a man as you would a woman" means that all homosexuality is an abomination, clearly at the very least having sex with men in other ways would not be.
No. There is simply cultural and linguistic context you aren't aware of that instead has been replaced with bigotry. The same is true of the conversion of "Lucifer" into "Satan," there is cultural and linguistic context which was left out via translation. That is, of course, a completely different argument. I'm pretty sure I made a thread about it if you want to take on another topic I can completely obliterate you in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Well, the letter of the scripture says that one shouldn't have sex with men who have vaginas (or that it's ok to sodomize one's wife). |
I would hope you are just being silly for the sake of trying to start an argument. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know that scripture does NOT say this, anywhere.
|
If you interpret the scripture LITERALLY, then yes, it does say this:
| Quote: | | If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination |
There are only two possible ways this verse can be interpreted, if you are reading it LITERALLY. By "lieth with a woman", it's either talking about vaginal intercourse or it's talking about anal intercourse.
If it's talking about vaginal intercourse, then the whole "If a man also lie with mankind" part would only apply to a man having vaginal intercourse with a man who has a vagina.
On the other hand, if it's talking about anal intercourse, then it is implicitly condoning sodomy between men and women.
Now, do I think that this is what they meant when they wrote this? No, probably not. It's just another example of how people shouldn't read the Bible LITERALLY.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | And one major context is that people who use quote Leviticus in order to condemn homosexuality tend to be more than happy to ignore all sorts of other commandments in Leviticus. |
True, but irrelevant. Leviticus isn't the only place where homosexuality is deemed sinful.
|
Now you've got a rebuttal going. Exactly how many verses in the Bible condemn homosexuality? Could you please cite them?
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | RevJP, do you you obey ALL of the scriptures in Leviticus? |
Relevance in light of the above?
| Quote: | | So EVEN IF Leviticus really does condemn homosexuality, then why on Earth should we obey that particular verse when there are so many other verses which NOBODY obeys? |
I've not seen anyone suggest that one should obey one part of scripture and ignore the rest. I have seen people try to justify certain acts because others are not regarded, however, that does not mean diddly. Sin is sin and simply because one falls in one area does not provide license to fall in all areas, does it?
|
No, but you do raise an interesting question here: Do you consider the fact that you do not obey ALL of Leviticus to be a shortcoming on your part? Should you try harder to obey ALL of it?
| RevJP wrote: |
Ultimately it is irrelevant when speaking to people not of the faith, for they are condemned in their sin regardless. |
Yeah, but let's not forget that you're a sinner as well, and so is everyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P, I'm not going to respond to most of your post because it is largely a pile of rubbish.
| Quote: | | Now you've got a rebuttal going. Exactly how many verses in the Bible condemn homosexuality? Could you please cite them? |
Do I really need to cite them again? They have been posted in this forum numerous times. You know this as well as I do as you have participated in many of the discussions where they were posted. So I will chalk this up to more silliness for the sake of senseless argumentation.
| Quote: | | No, but you do raise an interesting question here: Do you consider the fact that you do not obey ALL of Leviticus to be a shortcoming on your part? Should you try harder to obey ALL of it? |
I see no relevance to the discussion at hand. Nor do I see relevance to ANY discussion currently in progress. An attempt to derail this thread perhaps...
| Quote: | | Yeah, but let's not forget that you're a sinner as well, and so is everyone else. |
another attempt to derail the thread. You're wasting our time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StElsewhere
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="FFT"] | StElsewhere wrote: |
If it's so "clear" why is it supposedly "don't have sex with a man as you would a woman, it is an abomination"? Why isn't it "men must not have sex with men, it is an abomination" unless there's something that was missed?
Why? I don't know why God made His Word so...Who know the mind of God?... The reality is that He did
None of the other condemnations have such wording, they are all clear prohibitions. It's not "don't have sex with an animal as you would a woman."
This is what the WOG has to say on that matter:
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.
Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
It is insensible to believe that "you must not have sex with a man as you would a woman" means that all homosexuality is an abomination, clearly at the very least having sex with men in other ways would not be.
What is meant by ..."All" homosexuality? Can a woman be slightly pregnant? ...Is the moon almost round? ... either she is or she isn't... Homo either is or isn't!...and when you say "other ways" what are you referring to? Look...whatever a man can do to a woman... is not to be done to a man in the same manner!...what is it ...exactly what are you seeking to find justification for?
No. There is simply cultural and linguistic context you aren't aware of that instead has been replaced with bigotry. The same is true of the conversion of "Lucifer" into "Satan," there is cultural and linguistic context which was left out via translation.
It was all God's doing... It is His devil and he will deal with Him!
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
That is, of course, a completely different argument. I'm pretty sure I made a thread about it if you want to take on another topic I can completely obliterate you in. |
"Obliterate" ...WOW that sounds like something the Yugio cartoon characters say...Cool!
The WOG only mentions the name Lucifer only once... God changed His creation from the glorified " Lucifer"...to the abominable satan... No man did that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StElsewhere
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | StElsewhere wrote: | Now you are trying to split hairs!  |
An accurate understanding of what the Bible actually says is important when it comes to condemning people (especially considering we're not supposed to condemn people in the first place but HEY WHERE'S THE FUN IN THAT, RIGHT?). |
Well let's see what the WOG says about condemnation:
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
If you are at peace with all your deeds and right before the True and Living God......what is there for you to feel condemned about?... There would absolutely be nothing or no one who could...Right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5705
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | If it's so "clear" why is it supposedly "don't have sex with a man as you would a woman, it is an abomination"? Why isn't it "men must not have sex with men, it is an abomination" unless there's something that was missed? |
Why? I don't know why God made His Word so...Who know the mind of God?... The reality is that He did |
The reality is quite clear when one has an understanding of Hebrew and an understanding of the cultural situation when Leviticus 18 was written.
And it's not that God was saying homosexuality was a sin. It's condemning a specific act as ritually unclean. Thus it must be referring to a ritual of some sort (and it is: hetero- and homosexual prostitution in temples).
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | None of the other condemnations have such wording, they are all clear prohibitions. It's not "don't have sex with an animal as you would a woman." |
This is what the WOG has to say on that matter:
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.
Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. |
Well, yes. Exactly. Did you think you were refuting my point?
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | It is insensible to believe that "you must not have sex with a man as you would a woman" means that all homosexuality is an abomination, clearly at the very least having sex with men in other ways would not be. |
What is meant by ..."All" homosexuality? Can a woman be slightly pregnant? ...Is the moon almost round? ... either she is or she isn't... Homo either is or isn't!...and when you say "other ways" what are you referring to? |
It could easily just be saying not to have sex with another man in the missionary position.
The issue, here, is that it is not the clear, concise outright condemnation of homosexuality you wish it was. You have nothing but your bias to say otherwise.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | No. There is simply cultural and linguistic context you aren't aware of that instead has been replaced with bigotry. The same is true of the conversion of "Lucifer" into "Satan," there is cultural and linguistic context which was left out via translation. |
It was all God's doing... It is His devil and he will deal with Him!
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
| FFT wrote: | | That is, of course, a completely different argument. I'm pretty sure I made a thread about it if you want to take on another topic I can completely obliterate you in. |
"Obliterate" ...WOW that sounds like something the Yugio cartoon characters say...Cool!
The WOG only mentions the name Lucifer only once... God changed His creation from the glorified " Lucifer"...to the abominable satan... No man did that! |
Figured as much. You do not know enough about the cultural background of the Bible to have any idea what you're talking about.
Read this thread. All of it. Feel free to respond to it, but it will be abundantly clear whether you've actually read it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StElsewhere
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reality is quite clear when one has an understanding of Hebrew and an understanding of the cultural situation when Leviticus 18 was written.
It is amazing to what lengths of pretzel contortions... people will twist the WOG
And it's not that God was saying homosexuality was a sin. It's condemning a specific act as ritually unclean.
Look ...you can twist:
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.
into whatever to make to condemnation of this behavior less of a condemnation...and that is fine by me... I believe this way...Do what you need to do to find acceptance/love from whatever deity you worship...I support that 100%...But... Don't take the Word of the True and Living God and lie on it by saying it doesn't mean what it says... That I will come against from every quarter... This is what the WOG say about turning the truth into a lie:
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Thus it must be referring to a ritual of some sort (and it is: hetero- and homosexual prostitution in temples).
Care to back that up in scripture?
It's not "don't have sex with an animal as you would a woman Well, yes. Exactly. Did you think you were refuting my point?
You have yet to make one!
Watch...Here again comes the pretzel twist
It is insensible to believe that "you must not have sex with a man as you would a woman" means that all homosexuality is an abomination,
You See...see the Double Speak!...Just like when satan beguiled Eve...by twisting what God had told them... "Surely you shall not die"... Double Speak began back then...and is just as deceptive today...Men are not to lie with Men...neither Women with Women... it is cut and dry...and there isn't one scripture you can give that states we are to consider any "Cultural" aspects of anything when it comes down to rightly dividing the WOG... If you have one ore two...please share!
...clearly at the very least having sex with men in other ways would not be.
More Double Speak...Having sex with a Man is Having sex with a Man... Positions Notwithstanding!
It could easily just be saying not to have sex with another man in the missionary position.
If this wasn't so twisted...it would surely be funny...So having sex with a man facing him is forbidden...but it's ok to do it from behind?...(Everybody's an auditioning comedian('')
The issue, here, is that it is not the clear, concise outright condemnation of homosexuality you wish it was. You have nothing but your bias to say otherwise.
Again...The WOG doesn't mean what the WOG says!
No. There is simply cultural and linguistic context you aren't aware of that instead has been replaced with bigotry.
There goes the "B" word...(I was actually counting the number of posts it would take to bring it out) every time anyone says anything against the "Gay Lifestyle" ... by pointing it out chapter and verse in the WOG...they are labeled a bigot ... You act as if I wrote it... Let me put that nasty little rumor to rest...I didn't!... If you consider me a Bigot...I guess you consider God one too?('
The same is true of the conversion of "Lucifer" into "Satan," there is cultural and linguistic context which was left out via translation.
So let me guess this one...There wasn't a battle in heaven... Lucifer didn't get kicked out... I get it...
You [i]do not know enough about the cultural background of the Bible to have any idea what you're talking about.
The WOG says what it means ...and means what it says!(I know...you have your own concordance of meanings)
Feel free to respond to it, but it will be abundantly clear whether you've actually read it.
The abundant difference between you and I concerning the WOG... you consider it to be some historical novel ...and I believe it in my heart of hearts that it is Holy Scripture and the Word of the True and Living God... and that it means exactly what it says! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5705
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | The reality is quite clear when one has an understanding of Hebrew and an understanding of the cultural situation when Leviticus 18 was written. |
It is amazing to what lengths of pretzel contortions... people will twist the WOG |
Agreed.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | And it's not that God was saying homosexuality was a sin. It's condemning a specific act as ritually unclean. |
Look ...you can twist:
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.
into whatever to make to condemnation of this behavior less of a condemnation...and that is fine by me... I believe this way...Do what you need to do to find acceptance/love from whatever deity you worship...I support that 100%...But... Don't take the Word of the True and Living God and lie on it by saying it doesn't mean what it says... That I will come against from every quarter... This is what the WOG say about turning the truth into a lie:
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. |
Hey, if you're serious about getting worked up about making the Bible say something it doesn't say, blame the translators. It's not like it's my fault they didn't have the cultural background to understand all of the Bible and it's not like it's my fault they let their biases get in their way.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Thus it must be referring to a ritual of some sort (and it is: hetero- and homosexual prostitution in temples). |
Care to back that up in scripture? |
I can back it up linguistically (in the original language) and historically (the region).
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | It is insensible to believe that "you must not have sex with a man as you would a woman" means that all homosexuality is an abomination, |
You See...see the Double Speak!...Just like when satan beguiled Eve...by twisting what God had told them... "Surely you shall not die"... Double Speak began back then...and is just as deceptive today...Men are not to lie with Men...neither Women with Women... it is cut and dry... |
1. There is a flat out outlawing of having sex with animals, with no disclaimers whatsoever. But it says one is not to have sex with a man as with a woman. Clearly something is missing, or it would have just said "A man must not have sex with another man."
2. There are no scriptural prohibitions against lesbians.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | and there isn't one scripture you can give that states we are to consider any "Cultural" aspects of anything when it comes down to rightly dividing the WOG... If you have one ore two...please share! |
So? Is there any scripture which says not to? It is amazing the silly things people can believe when they lack the perspective to understand them.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | No. There is simply cultural and linguistic context you aren't aware of that instead has been replaced with bigotry. |
There goes the "B" word...(I was actually counting the number of posts it would take to bring it out) every time anyone says anything against the "Gay Lifestyle" ... by pointing it out chapter and verse in the WOG...they are labeled a bigot ... You act as if I wrote it... Let me put that nasty little rumor to rest...I didn't!... If you consider me a Bigot...I guess you consider God one too?(' |
You are a bigot because you are doing everything you can to ignore the facts and instead wish to stick to your ridiculously false interpretation of specific passages in the Bible.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | The same is true of the conversion of "Lucifer" into "Satan," there is cultural and linguistic context which was left out via translation. |
So let me guess this one...There wasn't a battle in heaven... Lucifer didn't get kicked out... I get it... |
No, there wasn't. It's completely unsupported by the text and is only one of many Christian doctrines that are unbiblical. Again, feel free to read the thread and respond to it, I'm not going to respond to any more of this specific topic in this unrelated thread.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | You do not know enough about the cultural background of the Bible to have any idea what you're talking about. |
The WOG says what it means ...and means what it says!(I know...you have your own concordance of meanings) |
It does say what it means and mean what it says. You simply don't understand what it's saying because you're missing the cultural background and instead relying on basically nothing but thickheadedness to stay with your interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StElsewhere
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, if you're serious about getting worked up about making the Bible say something it doesn't say, blame the translators. It's not like it's my fault they didn't have the cultural background to understand all of the Bible and it's not like it's my fault they let their biases get in their way.
So now it is King James that has your mind screwed on backwards?...Yeah Right...Don't blame the translators...they did their level best ... it is those who read what is written ... don't like what it says...then they come up with all kinds of explanations why what it says it says...doesn't mean what it says... Double Speak!
1There is a flat out outlawing of having sex with animals, with no disclaimers whatsoever. But it says one is not to have sex with a man as with a woman. Clearly something is missing, or it would have just said "A man must not have sex with another man."
[b] 1.The word "SEX" was never used anywhere in the WOG ever...but the activity was clearly defined... throughout 6000 years of recorded history...a man with a man ...is a man with a man...a woman with a woman ...is exactly what it says...a woman with a woman...and it is an abomination before the True and Living God...slice or dice it anyway you need to misfit the WOG around your life decisions...so that the condemnation is says it has ...doesn't really mean what it says it really means ...FINE...this is still America ...for now!...say whatever you want... But don't lie on God and say His Word isn't his Word ...and that it doesn't mean what it say it means... Say you don't believe it ...say you won't believe it...one of which is obviously that case... But I will defend to the last finger stroke ...the TRUTH of the WOG!
2. There are no scriptural prohibitions against lesbians.
2. A woman with woman ...is woman with woman!
So? Is there any scripture which says not to? It is amazing the silly things people can believe when they lack the perspective to understand them.
Here we go again!...I ave them already...they haven't changed since our last visit...Now ...do you have any in support of you contention that the WOG doesn't mean qhat it says?...I make it easy on you...NO!
You are a bigot because you are doing everything you can to ignore the facts and instead wish to stick to your ridiculously false interpretation of specific passages in the Bible.
So you say ...over and over again...show me what passage is falsely interpretated !
No, there wasn't. It's completely unsupported by the text and is only one of many Christian doctrines that are unbiblical.
Huh...I showed you the scripture that says what happened in heaven... please show me the scripture that says it didn't!...Again ...I'll make it easy on you... You can't!...moving on...
Again, feel free to read the thread and respond to it, I'm not going to respond to any more of this specific topic in this unrelated thread.
FYI...You brought up "Lucifer" ...check back...next...
It does say what it means and mean what it says.
Oh! really...and no this from mister... "a man with a man as a woman doesn't mean that but the position"? WOW!('')
You simply don't understand what it's saying because you're missing the cultural background and instead relying on basically nothing but thickheadedness to stay with your interpretation.
You just said the WOG means what it says... your spinning has gone warp speed... you change sentence to sentence... either it means what is says or it doesn't...fine 1 position and stick with it... I've got a headache a(' ') If I held to the "cultural" background argument ...you would really be pissed... My mom is a renowned Anthropologist...still teaching ar 2 universities today... "Culturally" ... Albeit Judaism or Islam ... "homosexuality" is punished by death... no reprieve...no second chance ...instant "STONING"... I didn't go there... and you don't need to either (' ') ...It is only in Christ is there forgiveness for it...and NOT immediate death... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5705
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| StElsewhere wrote: | | Yeah Right...Don't blame the translators...they did their level best ... |
I'm sure they did, but it wasn't enough to get an actual good English translation.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | it is those who read what is written ... don't like what it says...then they come up with all kinds of explanations why what it says it says...doesn't mean what it says... Double Speak! |
And when they can justify their stance using the older texts and you can't, what does that say about you?
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | There is a flat out outlawing of having sex with animals, with no disclaimers whatsoever. But it says one is not to have sex with a man as with a woman. Clearly something is missing, or it would have just said "A man must not have sex with another man." |
1.The word "SEX" was never used anywhere in the WOG ever...
[and so on and on] |
Blah, blah, blah. You're missing the point, possibly deliberately.
There is a clarification in Leviticus 18:22 which is not present in the other prohibitions. Why.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | 2. There are no scriptural prohibitions against lesbians. |
2. A woman with woman ...is woman with woman! |
Yes, yes, you can say this, but you don't have any scriptural support for it.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | So? Is there any scripture which says not to? It is amazing the silly things people can believe when they lack the perspective to understand them. |
Here we go again!...I ave them already...they haven't changed since our last visit...Now ...do you have any in support of you contention that the WOG doesn't mean qhat it says?...I make it easy on you...NO! |
Again, missing the point, possibly deliberately.
You asked for scripture which encouraged people to examine the cultural background of the Bible. I pointed out the silliness of this by asking for scripture which said not to—and you claim to "ave them already." This is absolute nonsense.
So I'll ask again: what about the Word of God makes you think that we shouldn't try to understand its cultural context before making sweeping generalizations?
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | You are a bigot because you are doing everything you can to ignore the facts and instead wish to stick to your ridiculously false interpretation of specific passages in the Bible. |
So you say ...over and over again...show me what passage is falsely interpretated ! |
 I already did, for all of the passages you used to support your false interpretation
Romans 1 is not a condemnation of homosexuality, homosexuality is simply used as a punishment for otherwise straight men for false worship.
Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of the practices of a regional fertility cult.
The two lists aren't in any way a strong condemnation of homosexuality unless you look at the badly-translated KJV. The word typically translated "effeminate" in fact only means "weak" with no connotation of femininity at all, and "abusers of themselves with men" could actually be anything from pimps to prostitutes, the word is literally "sex men" and doesn't show up in any Greek homoerotic literature.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | No, there wasn't. It's completely unsupported by the text and is only one of many Christian doctrines that are unbiblical. |
Huh...I showed you the scripture that says what happened in heaven... please show me the scripture that says it didn't!...Again ...I'll make it easy on you... You can't!...moving on...
| FFT wrote: | | Again, feel free to read the thread and respond to it, I'm not going to respond to any more of this specific topic in this unrelated thread. |
FYI...You brought up "Lucifer" ...check back...next... |
I brought up the subject to prove a point (which has been abundantly proven); that most Christians today prefer dogma over sound theology. That point is, again, proven, and if you'd like to discuss this specific topic more I'll happily do so in that thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StElsewhere
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure they did, but it wasn't enough to get an actual good English translation.
WHAT(' ')It was the English King who commissioned and supervised the whole work... C'mon... surely you're going to need your tongues surgically removed from your cheek(' ')
And when they can justify their stance using the older texts and you can't, what does that say about you?
You've lost me...what text?...I used KJV 1611?(' ')
1.The word "SEX" was never used anywhere in the WOG ever...
...you are so right...but the WOG is had to use descriptive
terms that couldn't be misunderstood by a reasonable person...so the LORD had the activities described and "TO LIE" is the best they could come up with! ...and throughout time... when a man and a woman "LIE" together they are having what has come to be known as "SEX"!...
There is a clarification in Leviticus 18:22 which is not present in the other prohibitions. Why.
Yes, yes, you can say this, but you don't have any scriptural support for it.
Noooo ...I have ...you just don't want to accept what is written ...and to keep it from meaning exactly what it says...as it relates to you and the decisions you have made for your life...YOU want to make it sound otherwse!
You asked for scripture which encouraged people to examine the cultural background of the Bible. I pointed out the silliness of this by asking for scripture which said not to—and you claim to "ave them already." This is absolute nonsense.
After that statement ...I'm almost tempted to ask you to share what's being smoked...but I won't('')
So I'll ask again: what about the Word of God makes you think that we shouldn't try to understand its cultural context before making sweeping generalizations?
The WOG is written as a general text for ALL people in ALL generations!
Yada ..Yada ...Yada!
Romans 1 is not a condemnation of homosexuality, homosexuality is simply used as a punishment for otherwise straight men for false worship.
Hot Diggity...Now THAT'S what I call " SPIN"
Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of the practices of a regional fertility cult.
The two lists aren't in any way a strong condemnation of homosexuality unless you look at the badly-translated KJV. The word typically translated "effeminate" in fact only means "weak" with no connotation of femininity at all, and "abusers of themselves with men" could actually be anything from pimps to prostitutes, the word is literally "sex men" and doesn't show up in any Greek homoerotic literature.
Like I said...You desperately want the WOG not to have said what it means ... and to mean what it says... ever heard of what happens when one put "Lipstick on a Pig"? ...well consider it said!!
I brought up the subject to prove a point (which has been abundantly proven); that most Christians today prefer dogma over sound theology. That point is, again, proven, and if you'd like to discuss this specific topic more I'll happily do so in that thread.
Whatever! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5705
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote most of this post once but then the power went out while I was out watching a movie with my girlfriend. Ah well. Let's try this again.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | I'm sure they did, but it wasn't enough to get an actual good English translation. |
WHAT('')It was the English King who commissioned and supervised the whole work... C'mon... surely you're going to need your tongues surgically removed from your cheek('') |
You think that just because an English king authorized the translation that it's a perfect English translation?
I mean, to say nothing of the fact that the "translators" were instructed to go with Protestant directions with any possibly contentious translations no matter what was actually said, and the fact that the KJV isn't so much a translation as it is a compilation of earlier translations, they simply didn't have the older source texts that are available now. They weren't aware that the Greek was a different dialect than Classical Greek.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | And when they can justify their stance using the older texts and you can't, what does that say about you? |
You've lost me...what text?...I used KJV 1611?('') |
The older source texts. You know, those things that Bibles are translated from?
And I highly doubt you're actually using a 1611 (a real 1611, anyway) since it looks like this:
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gaue them vp to vncleannesse, through the lusts of their owne hearts, to dishonour their owne bodies betweene themselues:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the trueth of God into a lye, and worshipped and serued the creature more then the Creatour, who is blessed for euer. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gaue them vp vnto vile affections: for euen their women did change the naturall vse into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leauing the naturall vse of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another, men with men working that which is vnseemely, and receiuing in themselues that recompense of their errour which was meet.
| StElsewhere wrote: | 1.The word "SEX" was never used anywhere in the WOG ever...
...you are so right...but the WOG is had to use descriptive
terms that couldn't be misunderstood by a reasonable person...so the LORD had the activities described and "TO LIE" is the best they could come up with! ...and throughout time... when a man and a woman "LIE" together they are having what has come to be known as "SEX"!... |
Um. Yes, I know. Why are you responding to yourself?
| FFT wrote: | | There is a clarification in Leviticus 18:22 which is not present in the other prohibitions. Why. |
Just throwing this out there again since you apparently missed it.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Yes, yes, you can say this, but you don't have any scriptural support for it. |
Noooo ...I have ...you just don't want to accept what is written ...and to keep it from meaning exactly what it says...as it relates to you and the decisions you have made for your life...YOU want to make it sound otherwse! |
Are you attempting to insinuate that I care about this issue because I am gay? I have a girlfriend I'm quite enamored with.
And you avoided the point of what I said. There is absolutely no scriptural prohibition against lesbianism. The only thing you've got is in Romans 1, and it doesn't actually apply (as I have pointed out to you over and over).
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | You asked for scripture which encouraged people to examine the cultural background of the Bible. I pointed out the silliness of this by asking for scripture which said not to—and you claim to "ave them already." This is absolute nonsense. |
After that statement ...I'm almost tempted to ask you to share what's being smoked...but I won't('') |
Careful, your paralepsis is showing.
Do you, in fact, have scripture which states that we should not examine the cultural context of the writings in the Bible?
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | So I'll ask again: what about the Word of God makes you think that we shouldn't try to understand its cultural context before making sweeping generalizations? |
The WOG is written as a general text for ALL people in ALL generations!
Yada ..Yada ...Yada! |
Funny, then, that it was written in Hebrew and Greek.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Romans 1 is not a condemnation of homosexuality, homosexuality is simply used as a punishment for otherwise straight men for false worship. |
Hot Diggity...Now THAT'S what I call " SPIN" |
I assume you're a heterosexual man. How would you like it if God turned you gay?
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of the practices of a regional fertility cult.
The two lists aren't in any way a strong condemnation of homosexuality unless you look at the badly-translated KJV. The word typically translated "effeminate" in fact only means "weak" with no connotation of femininity at all, and "abusers of themselves with men" could actually be anything from pimps to prostitutes, the word is literally "sex men" and doesn't show up in any Greek homoerotic literature. |
Like I said...You desperately want the WOG not to have said what it means ... and to mean what it says... ever heard of what happens when one put "Lipstick on a Pig"? ...well consider it said!! |
So in other words, you have no actual rebuttal to my complete obliteration of your justifications and are instead relying on ridiculous pithy statements? I mean, it's not like I wasn't expecting it but it's still disappointing.
| StElsewhere wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | I brought up the subject to prove a point (which has been abundantly proven); that most Christians today prefer dogma over sound theology. That point is, again, proven, and if you'd like to discuss this specific topic more I'll happily do so in that thread. |
Whatever! |
Yep, there it is.
Enjoy your bigotry! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StElsewhere
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
WHAT('')It was the English King who commissioned and supervised the whole work... C'mon... surely you're going to need your tongues surgically removed from your cheek('')
And when they can justify their stance using the older texts and you can't, what does that say about you?
I wrote the above ...you responded with this...WHAT? Ah C'mon just when it started getting good ...you go and get "fruit loop" on me...no fun!
.[b]..you are so right...but the WOG is had to use descriptive terms that couldn't be misunderstood by a reasonable person...so the LORD had the activities described and "TO LIE" is the best they could come up with! ...and throughout time... when a man and a woman "LIE" together they are having what has come to be known as "SEX"!...
There is a clarification in Leviticus 18:22 which is not present in the other prohibitions. Why.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
How you or anyone else can read this verse...and come up with some other interpretation...when a man lies with a woman he penetrates her...men are not to penetrate other men..."AS WITH" can very correctly be parenthetically replaced with " AND PENETRATE"and be rightly dividing the WOG.
Yes, yes, you can say this, but you don't have any scriptural support for it.
No this is starting to get scary('')you want me to give you scripture in support of scripture...for most of us... the scripture is stands alone...it is what is is!...But with you...Noooooo
You asked for scripture which encouraged people to examine the cultural background of the Bible. I pointed out the silliness of this by asking for scripture which said not to—and you claim to "ave them already." This is absolute nonsense.
And great nonsense was given by all!!
So I'll ask again: what about the Word of God makes you think that we shouldn't try to understand its cultural context before making sweeping generalizations?
What generalizations? Men have been penetrating women...when they lay with them ... Men are not to penetrate other men as they would a woman... I can't break it don and further...and keep it PG!
Romans 1 is not a condemnation of homosexuality, homosexuality is simply used as a punishment for otherwise straight men for false worship.
"False Worship" ...now what tangent is this?...and far a punishment...the recompense (payback) for those who do such things ...the WOG speaks of it being...received into themselves...(it can't be good) THAT alone is punishment.
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. What we have come to call " homosexuality" or "same-sex"...was rampant in Rome at this time...and Paul was establishing NT doctrine against those practices...period...paragraph!
Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of the practices of a regional fertility cult.
Care to back your understanding up with scripture? I'll make it easy on you again... NO!
The two lists aren't in any way a strong condemnation of homosexuality unless you look at the badly-translated KJV.
Sooo it is a condemnation ...but not a "strong" condemnation??? Hummmmmm?
The word typically translated "effeminate" in fact only means "weak" with no connotation of femininity at all,
Look at the words you just rote... you don't see the root of "FEMIN"... in both word? You should have stayed awake in H.S. English('')...what do you mean no connotation?...the roots mean the same thing...Look it up
...and "abusers of themselves with men" could actually be anything from pimps to prostitutes, the word is literally "sex men" and doesn't show up in any Greek homoerotic literature.
Anything "could actually" be anything... Now look...I'm not going down any "homoerotic" anything....with you...conversation or otherwise...your tangents are becoming frighteningly more obtuse('') |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Key of Twilight
Big Guppy
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Words should be chosen carefuly |
|
|
"Def: Oxymoronic: Being Gay and A Child of Christ"
This is a very hurtful and inaccurate statement. Regardless of your position on whether or not homosexuality is a sin, most everyone who considers homosexuality a sin is in agreement that the sin is in the act not in the orientation.
So, saying that just being gay means you cannot be a child of Christ is a detestable thing to say. You cannot assume that all people with a homosexual orientation are out acting on their urges. I myself am celibate, so your misuse of words says to me regardless of my abstinence I will not be welcomed into the kingdom of Heaven.
Imagine what a statement like that would do to a gay child far from the age of even thinking about sex. You would be telling them that "You are broken, God does not love you, God Hates you, and you are going to burn in the fires of Hell for eternity." It only takes an impressionable child hearing this once to destroy them psychologically and spiritually through very important developmental years when they should be growing closer to Christ not running in fear away from Him. If this happened for real would you not be a sower of bad seeds?
As a Christian I am sure this was not your intention, and I am not trying to "call you out" over this, but please consider a little more prudence in your choice of words in the future. I understand what you were trying to say, but just like everything else it can be taken in whatever context the person reads it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zathrus
King Kong
Joined: 28 Aug 2002
Posts: 2035
Location: WI USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Key of Twilight,
I have not seen St Elsewhere or John R Nolan here for probably 6 months. You may be responding to people who have long since moved on.
But you have a good point. We're born the way we're born. I have known several homosexual people in my life. I don't think they decided to be the way they are.
Mother Nature doesn't draw straight lines (no pun intended). Analog is nature's way. Digital (yes/no, black/white, etc) is man's invention.
So what do we do with the situation, that some folks are born gay? Many Christians like to find an easy answer. I don't think there is one. I don't believe God makes mistakes. I don't believe anyone is shut out from God's kingdom because of something about themselves that they had no choice in. I think the gates of the kingdom are open to everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
