Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
What the hell are you talking about? What`s this rubbish you`re talking about Doctor Who jews writing the Torah?
The text you quote is not Leviticus 18:22. It is one of many inaccurate versions of it in English, creatively interpreted to make the statement people with power wanted it to make, millenia after it was written.
Transliterated to this alphabet, Leviticus 18:22 reads "V`et zachar lo tishkav mishk`vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
I have already given an accurate translation into English.
You can make anything up you like and label it "Leviticus 18:22".
I don`t know about you, but this really doesn`t need any "creative interpretation" to say being gay is a sin for me.
You say there are verses in which God talks about how being a homosexual is a sin.
That is not true. There are no such verses. Not a single one.
As an example, you cite an incorrect translation of a letter from Paul (note: Paul is not God), which doesn`t say that being a homosexual is a sin anyway.
I would bet good money that you have never even heard the word `arsenokoitai` (transliterated Greek) or why it`s crucial in this context.
I suggest *you* read the Christian bible, because your ignorance of it is making a fool of you. The shellfish thing is covered by Leviticus 11:10-11 Not far from the main verse creatively interpreted against homosexuality (that`s 18:22).
Would you like to try again on the stoning and general killing thing?
No, it does not. It`s not even mentioned all that often, and even those passages are open to dispute. For example, the infamous Leviticus verses might simply be forbidding Jewish men from engaging in ritual sex in pagan temples. I`m not joking - look at the context. Or it might be forbidding Jewish men from having sex with each other in a woman`s bed. That isn`t silly - there are many Jewish rules about things deemed ritually unclean (which is what the relevant word really means, not `abomination`).
"Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because it was rampant in those cities."
No, they weren`t (assuming you believe the account in the Christian bible).
"It`s blatanly called an "abomination in the eyes of God"
It`s called that by people who want to do so, but it is not called that in the Christian bible.
On what authority do you pick one, just one, Jewish rule, pretend it`s clear when it isn`t, pretend it says something other than what it really says, claim that`s the word of God and must be obeyed...and ignore all the other Jewish rules?
You`re not making any sense when you do that. You`re just mindlessly doing what you`re told, even though it makes no sense even in the context of your own religion.
True, but the specific point was what Jesus said and that isn`t it.
That is what *you* are doing.
If you care about what the relevent verse of the Christian bible *really* says, here is an accurate English translation:
And with a man you shall not lay lyings of a woman. It is ceremonially unclean.
I have seen a number of people stating other things as that passage and claiming it`s clear. Sure it is...when you make it up yourself.
If you want what is actually written, there it is.
If you want to make something up that suits you better, don`t pretend it`s that verse from Leviticus (either of them).
Then there`s the question of context - in this case, it`s ritual sexual practices of other religions. Maybe it`s just those that the verse is re
1) I "chose" to be gay the same day you "chose" to be straight. Which, perhaps, also coincides with the day that you decided to include that yellow phallus as your profile pic.
2) "Man shall not lie with man as he does woman"... Hmmm, the next time I "lie" with a man that has a vagina, you`ll be the first one to know. And what does "lie" mean anyway? Your god seems to have a strange sense of humour and a penchant for non-specificity.
3)According to your Bible, eating shellfish is also a grievous sin. Along with pork consumption. And a host of other things not even vaguely related to being a good person. As a matter of fact, if you follow the Bible word for word, then half the people on the plant would be stoned to death, burned to death, or otherwise killed.
Maybe you should read it sometime. :)
I do. Sorry that you lack the intelligence to read 1000 characters.
"And, because I can`t resist a good ad-hominem,"
"This book explicitly condones slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, etc etc etc etc, in both old and new testament."
For about a year now i`ve posted reasons of why we dont follow some of those things.... apparently no one like to read what I`ve read
christians dont ONLY believe in christ. All the books are there for a reason
Oh yes, there would be a fight.
It wasn`t the butt-sexin` that got them hellfired, it was `godlessness`, the sexual deviancy (not necessarily limited to or including homosexuality) probably played a part but wasn`t the entire reason for it.
its gonna be domination on hardcore christians.
God saw you do that!
This book explicitly condones slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, etc etc etc etc, in both old and new testament.
If in two thousand year`s time millions of people are using Mein Kampf as their moral guide, they`d still be nowhere near halfway as insane as those using the Bible as their guide today.
I`m not a huge supporter of gay people, but your comments, like Dragonlord has already pointed out, just states things that happen in the bible. The bible is not a reliable source. If you`ve learned anything in English classes, one of the main things is to take arguments from a reliable source. The bible is not one. Which makes everything you say null and void, and not even worth arguing against.
"uneducated, belligerent, foul mouthed people"
Being called uneducated by someone who quotes stuff from the bible doesn`t really make sense imo. And you call us foul-mouthed after calling us uneducated and belligerent. That`s... really brilliant of you.
For someone who supposedly reads and follows what the bible says, and saying the pastors have lost their way and all that crap, you really don`t sound very, for lack of a better word, holy, at all.
Full of hypocrisy is what you are.
It still completly shocks me that today there are people as close minded as this, really?I mean... you just can`t be serious saying that, i can`t believe it.
Wait, isn`t the Bible just a case of people hearing things down the grape vine? It wasn`t written by God, it wasn`t written by Jesus, and much of it wasn`t written by people who were at the events they claim to speak about. I think this alone can be shown in the first line, Genesis 1:1. There is hypocrisy in your statement, which immediately puts your argument into question.
However, even assuming that the Bible is a source of true information (which is a seemingly unlikely assumption, albeit not impossible), you can`t just go around quoting it, because quotes can be taken out of context. If you wish to form a valid argument, you must argue using full excerpts, not just single statements.
And, because I can`t resist a good ad-hominem, you should consider changing your name to "Lostinfantasyland." But this is just a remar
Before I even glanced at the `Comments` column, I thought ... religion... gay... in the one post!? No need to invite comment on that one, try stopping them LOL.
No, it isn`t. There are no contempory records. There are a handful of later references, and they are accounts of what some people believed. Also, some sections of the sparse references that Josephus makes to Jesus were added later by Christian clerics.
What, like Paul`s letters to the Corinthians? What does that have to do with what Jesus said about anything?
You admit yourself that there are no originals left. So you fail to counter the point you were replying to - what you have is some things written a long time afterwards that you *have faith* are copies of something written prior to 110AD.
Secondly, the idea that the translations of modern verses are accurate is simply wrong. Even if you have faith that the oldest extant copies are the same as older alleged written texts (that might not have existed), they don`t confirm accuracy at all. It is, for example, common to "translate" a Greek word that has no known meaning but which is explicitly male-specific as referring to all homosexuals, regardless of sex.
The Book of Italian BreadCh. 5 Verse footlong
"For the guts of Christianity, for any topic, I think the key question is "What did Jesus say about it?"
In the case of homosexuality, the answer is nothing."
There are passages in the new testament that talk about it. And Jesus did say something about Racca but the translation isn`t clear yet
The Corinthian verse hinges on the unknown meaning of a word made up by the author. Had they meant to refer to homosexual men, they would probably have used an appropriate word. They were writing in Greek - it`s not as though it was so unknown for men in ancient Greece to have sex with each other that there wasn`t a word for it in the language.
I can`t find *genuine* clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Christian bible. Lots of rubbish made up later and passed off as the Christian bible...sure, there`s condemnation of homosexuality in that.
For the guts of Christianity, for any topic, I think the key question is "What did Jesus say about it?"
In the case of homosexuality, the answer is nothing.
If it wasn`t important enough for Jesus to mention it, why should Christians attach such importance to it?
You are aware that there are actual copies of the Gospel of Matthew dated between only 35 and 75 years of Christ`s death? These are COPIES mind you, not originals. And these copies do nothing but confirm the accurate translating of our modern verses.
Also, the life and death of Jesus is well recorded in non-Christian sources (the historian Josephus for instance).
Seriously - the usual English versions of those verses are essentially made up. Extra words have been added, words have been removed, sentence structure has been changed, different words have been given the same "translation", the same word has been given different "translations"...every trick in the book has been used to "translate" them to create something to fit a specfic message.
For starters, both those verses are male-specific. So any application of them to women is, to be blunt, a lie.
Then there`s the inconvenient fact that the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 doesn`t make any sense. It could mean a variety of things. One interpretation, for example, is that it forbids men to have sex with each other in a woman`s bed (and only in a woman`s bed).
The Corinthian vers
So, so wrong. Kalitivcus 35: 36 - 47 tells of Jesus` luch at Subway #6 (In Nazareth) with six of the 12 Apostles.
i believe it`s because homosexual sexuality isnt centered around raising a family or having kids. this isn`t to say that gay couples can`t raise children and have a healthy family life. simply that the essence of sexuality surrounding a union of two souls, being strictly taboo in certain religious circles, i seen as a sinful thing. and there`s very little way of converting most of these believers by any other means than pop culture, degrading as it is. thus, at least 51% certain people who are opposed to homosexuality by dictum of their holy book and creed are currently saying: BAD. bold headlines indeed.
i guess the only way is through sex. drugs. and violence. lead on boys!
was there anything in the bible about following the bible word for word?you are aware that the bible(new testamet) `occured` 2000 years ago. was passed through orature for the following hundred years or so. was finally written down in a foreign language. then translated. destroyed many times and further translated back and forth.you`re copy of the bible is most likely different than what had actually happened had it happened at all. there is no physical proof of the existence of jesus and friends
since the ultimate goal of a species is to procreate, doesn`t being homosexual mean that in the end the individual has failed and ensuring the survival of the species? ive got nothing against gay people, nor do i think it is wrong btw.
Oh, and give them something to take care of them (robots, monkey butlers, I don`t give a poo).
See what happens.
Secondly, science hasn`t proven that homosexuality is purely genetic. I personally believe that you can be born with natural predilections towards homosexual behaviors, just like you can with addiction to alcohol or aggression. You still have a choice, however.
Thirdly... well there is nothing left to say without getting off topic.
In other words what dignifies homosexuality as a sin that heterosexuality does not include?
I`m not sure how you got that. We`re still free to make sinful choices; just because we have freewill doesn`t mean we will use it use it wisely.
kinda says everything right there in those two verses, so it doesn`t make since how a christian pastor could believe that.
What? I read what he said over and over again... I don`t get what you are saying at all.
It`s STUPID. BRAINLESS. IDIOTIC. SENSELESS. WORTHLESS. MEANINGLESS. VALUELESS. DRIVEL.
It might have made sense thousands of years ago when they thought that blob of spunk was half of a baby, and that throwing it on the ground was like half of a murder. But we know better now.
Well, most of us, anyway.
Completely untrue. God is allowing me to make my own choices.
you have to look at it from both perspectives. and seeing from both sides I come to the same conclusion; that being gay is a gift. From a non-religious perspective usually there is nothing wrong with being gay, unless your homophobic. hence no issue with being homosexual.If you believe in God you have to know that from the moment you are born you are fated into a pre- determined life. being Gay is a part of that determination. Whether some people look as it as a burden or as a gift is up to them. If you still think it was not set by God then consider this; It woudldnt be the first time God has thrown strife into the mix of humanity. Consider Original Sin the reason humans die today. Also consider what Jesus was when he was alive In the time of the Romans, he was a Jew; one to get segregated against, and this added to Jesus` sacrifice to us. Is being a Jew that is prejudiced against that much different from being gay and prejudiced agai
...uh... yeah. Thats not the debate. Its whether its a sin or not, not whether we should love them
THAT being said. I believe Oprah is completely willing to further her own schedule by only putting guests on that will endorse that vision. And while the end may be just. The means are not.
Oh, and before anyone says ANYTHING, yes, i see how the chapter and passage numbers could be "taken the wrong way."
there are several X`s and Y`s. The first two just decide gender. Let me look for the thing that book said I`ll get back to you on that.
ok this book is confusing me but this is what I sort of picked up. It wasnt that there are more X`s or Y`s but that a certain region of that is missing. and something about gay men not receiving andrenogen at a certain time
sorry, but that`s very incorrect.
a straight male has two chromosomes: XYa straight female has two chromosomes: XXa gay male has two chromosomes: XYa gay female has two chromosomes: XX
the genetic mutations that occur when there is an abnormal amount of sex chromosomes are:Turner`s syndrome (a female has one X)metafemales (a female gets three X`s)Klinefelter syndrome (a male has more than one X)and XYY syndrome ( a male gets an extra Y)
absolutely none of these result in homosexuality
And even if, it seems like to much of a mention is placed on the natural vs. choice.
The Bible says that by nature we are sinners (notice the we).
oh wait I said that already.
Now there is one important thing to remember. The main scientific studies i`ve read on it are that a male lacks sufficient Y chromosomes (they have XYY instead of XYYY) and that their brain structures are a certain way.
That leaves two problems. In the first case it would be a disease that you are describing. In the second case, people forget that your neuron connections arent developed when your young. Your brain changes until you are 24. The brain you are bron with is not the same brain you have later on.
And lets say that it is natural. The Bible also says that its one man and one woman. Yet biology tells us that Men are naturally polygamist. I don`t see as many people saying that married men should sleep around
"God is love" my a$$. And just for s#*ts and giggles... the Bible is total b^ll$h*t."
pooptart i do believe you have contradicted yourself. how can the bible be clear about anything if its "total b^ll$h*t"?
trp712 got it right: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. the bible also says judge not lest ye be judged. so basically, mind your own damn business and if at all possible help out those who are in need, whether they be gay, straight or a-sexual.
God definitely exists, he made you, but f*cked up, so now pay for it b*tch. This is religion.
First of a lot of the things in the Old Testament are "Mosaic Law" or law that was a covenant between Moses and God. In Matt ...something... it says that all the things in the Bible are to be followed until heaven and earth pass away. That was considered the death of Jesus. So christians aren`t bound to mosaic law. Thats why I can eat pork.
"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
That is in the new testament and what is normally the basis for believing homosexuality is a sin
Pooptart, the test is for the people, not for God. If you do good stuff and leave out the bad, you go to heaven and if you don`t it`s hell.
God also doesn`t set us up as good or bad, we`re the ones making the decision. The concept of fate is, from my own perspective, is more for the benefit of `accepting the things you cannot change` like death than `oh you`re fated to be be a rapist, have gay sex, etc`.
Disclaimer: These are my own views on the matter, and it may conflict with others sharing similar views. Religion is a personal matter anyway.
2. According to the bible: God created us all, God loves us all.
3. Homosexuality, according to the bible, is a sin.
And here is my question: Because being homosexual is biological, then GOD must have created them that way. Why would a God who loves all of his creations create a person as a sinner? Sinners go to hell right? Then why would GOD create someone if he KNEW they were going to go to hell anyway?
Get over your self. I`m flattered whenever someone hits on me.
Um... I have a friend who is gay and has two daughters... made the way nature makes things happen.
Fancylad, don`t wait for the best when you die, try to live the best while you`re still here. :)
Why take one rule and discard the other? Why interpret and contextualize one and not the other?
I`m not doubting the possibility of a God existing, but we really shouldn`t base our whole belief system on the first religious text we read.
Anyway more to the point, being Gay isn`t wrong because there is not absolute concept of wrong and right. It`s all cultural and relative. The Romans saw nothing wrong with being gay but religious teachings are trying to persuade us otherwise.
The important thing is for everyone to strive to be happy. We only live once so enjoy it. Being gay harms no one, so be happily gay if your gay.
Is it ok for you to clarify what you mean by that, before I go off ranting in a direction that`s not the same as yours?
The overriding "rule" in life is "treat thy neighbour as you would wish to be treated."
furthermore i believe that the quote is actually, "God hates that (homosexuality)."
You can not win with the Bible--it`s designed to confuse. And God is always angry and he`s always happy.
I`m going to break out the liquor in my desk and hope for the best when I die.
on the other hand, if they tell you you ought to do something, i`d advise stepping back and thinking about it first.
It`s a test of your devotion to leave things which are wrong and do things that are good.
Though maybe if I pass the test, and is rewarded for it, then I guess it is a gift.
And I`m not taking sides, but if you breakdown the Bible that these pastors preach from, there`s somewhere in there that says "a man laying down with another man" is wrong or something.
although there are some religions that believe in the old testament and not the new and vice versa.
maybe that`s what they`re doing.
Davy, nice use of homophobia in its true sense.... but do you think it it is really "Borderline?"
And WTF is with that pastor? The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong to Yahweh... and that they should be killed. They seem to forget the second part more often than the first.
"God is love" my a$$. And just for s#*ts and giggles... the Bible is total b^ll$h*t.
Have a nice day. : D
reidcook, in the same book of the bible, it also says that people who gather sticks on a sunday should be put to death. Do you also agree with that? Surely this deserves a little bit of historical leeway given the times it was written in. After all, didn`t Jesus preach about love and acceptance?
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mohandas Gandhi
"Okay were still dealing with being gay... is... a gift... It`s a gift..."
What should be clear is that spirituality is one thing and the bible is another thing. Some people use the bible to guide their spirituality, some use other books and others no book at all.
ElDavo, 327 posts, member for nearly two years. Come on, you should know better than "first" posting. I`d let it go, but I`m mildly offended by your bordeline homophobia. What gay people do you know that never shut up about describing the intricate details of gay butt-sex and are always trying to get you involved? Are you afraid you might like it?
Have a 24-hour ban for the "first"- it`ll give you some time to think about how to come out to your parents that you`re secretly gayer than Brokeback Mountain`s make-up artist.