Not Often Enough [Pic]

Submitted by: SweepOfDeath 3 years ago

This looks precisely like what 1000 characters or less will resolve.
There are 54 comments:
Male 12,365
[quote]Speaking of being uninformed, if it`s not so bad (following the New Testament) and you`re so much more informed than "Christians", why do you hate it so much yourself?[/quote]

Would you explain what you mean, because I`m not following you. Are you replying to me or using a generic `you`?
0
Reply
Male 676
Speaking of being uninformed, if it`s not so bad (following the New Testament) and you`re so much more informed than "Christians", why do you hate it so much yourself?
You see, ALL people bend and twist things to serve their individual purpose.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The words used in that translation were as CrakrJak described.[/quote]

Except that they weren`t.

But I admit that they`re close enough for a plausible speculative etymology.

So why did Paul make up a new word rather than using existing words? He was well educated in Greek - he would have known them. Homosexuality was hardly unknown in ancient Greece (although they viewed it differently to the modern idea of it).

Paul`s writing is notoriously open to interpretation (and notoriously unpleasant).
0
Reply
Male 195
Christ did talk about marriage as being between a man and a woman. The new testament talks about sexual immorality. Which was sex among unmarried people. The bible talks about spouses submitting to one another. And as too slavery it was not that God wanted slavery (God didnt want Kings by the way) it was that slaves could inherit the kingdom and everlasting life and that was more important that this life.
0
Reply
Male 6
@Angilion
Yes, I am sure CrakrJak was aware that the OT was originally written in Hebrew (he said "Greek translation").

Whenever Paul or any of the Gospel writers references Old Testament scripture in their writing, they use the Septuagint (a very popular Greek translation). The words used in that translation were as CrakrJak described.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Also, that verse in Leviticus doesn`t condemn a man lying with a man. One interpretation of it condemns a man lying with a man *as if with a woman*.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The Greek translation of the Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno). Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, arsenokoitai.[/quote]

The word `arsenokoitai` appears in 1 Corinthians and in Timothy (in a copy of the list in 1 Corinthians).

That`s a book in the new testament.

Leviticus is a book in the old testament.

1 Corinthians and Timothy were orginally written in Greek.

Ancient Greek translations of Leviticus do not contain the word `arsenokoitai`.

You are making things up in order to make your bible condemn what you have decided it should condemn.

Back in the real world, the meaning of arsenokoitai is unknown. There are no uses of it prior to 1 Corinthians. The handful of uses afterwards go back to 1 Corinthians. We don`t know its meaning. We don`t know its roots (you are *assuming* that they are "men" and "bed").
0
Reply
Female 1,803
Is it really any surprise that there were homophobe authors in those days, too? The men who wrote the bible books put anything they wanted to happen in them, including making women submissive (except for a couple they elevated to untouchable status) and the right to kill and make slaves the eople they thought were beneath them.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
The Greek translation of the Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno). Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, arsenokoitai.

Which is no much different than the joining of the English words "who" and "ever" to make "whoever". Today we have dictionaries, the ancient greeks did not. Today when a new word becomes well known it`s often added to our dictionaries, there was no such thing back in Paul`s day.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s only very recently have other interpreter`s versions, began to change wordings to such an extent that it`s inaccurate and in some cases downright deceptive.[/quote]

Rubbish. People have been doing that right from the first translations. You are doing it - you are taking a word *with no known meaning* and pretending that it means what you want it to mean in order to create biblical condemnation for something you want your bible to condemn.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: The term "homosexual" was not created until the 20th century. So if you`re trying to find a direct equivalent word in ancient greek you won`t find it.[/quote]

That`s true, but it`s sophistry. Ancient Greek does have some words describing what we would nowadays call homosexuality. The difference was they viewed it as something a person did rather than something a person is. They did have several words that meant "a person who does homosexuality". There`s quite a lot of ancient Greek writing refering to homosexuality between men, since it wasn`t taboo.

Arsenokoitai is not one of those words.

[quote]Just because you, don`t interpret the words that way, doesn`t change what it originally meant.[/quote]

But nobody knows what that word meant. That`s an important point.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: The term "homosexual" was not created until the 20th century. So if you`re trying to find a direct equivalent word in ancient greek you won`t find it. Just because you, don`t interpret the words that way, doesn`t change what it originally meant.

The Latin translators, scribes mostly, did the very best they could with much guidance from priests and scholars. Then again later, the Bible was translated to German, then English and other languages. They all took great care to not add or subtract from the word of God, and despite all it`s translations it has remained remarkably accurate to the ancient texts.

It`s only very recently have other interpreter`s versions, began to change wordings to such an extent that it`s inaccurate and in some cases downright deceptive.

That is why I have and use a Strong`s Concordance, when something questionable is quoted.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Do the big bad Christians still stone gays? Hmmmm mabey we should fix the groups that still do the murder thing for that. Then work on the smaller stuff baby steps guys.

We also need a new subject here religion, police brutality in US and US politics have been beaten to death.
0
Reply
Male 837
@Fwoggie2
Nah, I`d say that goes to Pride. "I deserve that land." "I deserve his wife." "I deserve better." "He is unworthy of that."

@Draculya
Very colorful.
0
Reply
Male 1,104
you`re telling me jesus was living with 12 young, strong, handsome fellows and they never had a bit of fun together after hours? c`mon ...
0
Reply
Male 14,774
People can stuff each other up the poop chute all they want. We have no right to say otherwise; nor should we.
0
Reply
Male 1,803
Ah, religion, by far the greatest source of angst, violence and death...
0
Reply
Female 179
Nope! Jesus said that he came to uphold the law, not throw it out.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So...men are fine having sex with each other as long as they don`t act like one of them is a woman (in which cultural context - their own or early imperial Rome or Greek or iron age Judean?) and homosexuals who engage in the rituals of a long-dead religion that nobody follows any more might suddenly find themselves having heterosexual lust.

Not that I believe in it, anyway. I try to use morality, not religion.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So what is being condemned in the passage in Romans is Christians returning to older religions (or at least some of the rituals of them), not homosexual lust. The *change* in sexual orientation is the punishment, the thing that would be wrong for the people targeted, not the sexual orientation itself. People who are heterosexual would be likely to be bothered by feeling homosexual lust but people who were bi- or homosexual wouldn`t.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]As for the passage in Romans, I cannot see how it could point to anything other than a heterosexual abandoning relationships with the opposite sex (which Paul says to be natural) in favor of that with the same sex (which Paul describes as "shameless"). [/quote]

No, because he was writing in ancient Greek and the nuances are different. The same phrase used to described homosexual lust in that phrase is used, for example, to describe Jews and Gentiles meeting peacefully (Romans 11:24).

The passage in Romans is about a group of Christians who returned to an older religion and were punished by the Christian god by having homosexual lust imposed on them, which was not usual (`para physin`, often misleadingly translated as `unnatural`) *for them*. The *unfamiliarity* of it is the punishment - it would make no sense as a punishment otherwise.

Bah, out of space again.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
There`s a particularly famous example from somewhat later - Gaius Julius Caesar. His political career was hampered by rumours about the relationship he had with the king of Bithynia while he was in self-imposed exile from Rome as a young man (he backed the loser in a civil war and the winner had habit of killing people).

It wasn`t that it was a homosexual relationship - hardly anyone in 1st century BC Rome cared about that. What was damaging to Caesar`s reputation was the allegation that he wasn`t manly enough in his homosex - or to put it another way, that the king of Bithynia lay with Caesar like a woman.

Cultural context can make a lot of different when interpreting things.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]reflecting on the passage in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Taken in context of sexual immorality, these clearly point to the active and passive roles in a homosexual relationship. [/quote]

No, they don`t and they`re not linked to the verse in Leviticus, which isn`t as clear as it`s made out to be anyway. It`s possible to interpret the original Hebrew as forbidding men to have sex in a woman`s bed, for example. Sounds silly to us, but so does a lot of stuff from the iron age.

Taking the common interpretation as accurate but placing it in the correct cultural context shows another possible interpretation - sexed roles. Note that it doesn`t say "man lie with a man". It explicitly adds "as with a woman". Sexed roles were far more rigid back then and breaking them was highly taboo.

More to follow...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]In fact, the two words of note in 1 Corinthians are translated as such: the former meaning "effeminate", and the latter a combination of "man" and "bed"[/quote]

`malakoi` is not translated as `effeminate` anywhere else in the bible, and it was a fairly common Greek word.

`arsenokoitai` has no known meaning. Even translating it as "bed men" is a highly speculative backformed etymology and it doesn`t have a clear meaning anyway. Why would "bed men" mean "homosexual men"?

[quote]There is the common temptation of the interpreter to add something that follows the way of current thought.[/quote]

And they are stretching a very great deal to fit those two words into it.
0
Reply
Female 1,478
As an explanation of the way things in the Bible might be interpreted and followed, I like it. It makes sense.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
one question: 12 or 13 guys are wandering around the countryside sans women. which one starts the sausage celebration?
0
Reply
Male 6
(continued)
Just as people can contort the language to condemn certain morals, they can likewise do the same to elevate their own.
0
Reply
Male 6
@Angellion
In response to the first comment: yes, there are still those who hold to "the traditional interpretation".

There is the common temptation of the interpreter to add something that follows the way of current thought. In fact, the two words of note in 1 Corinthians are translated as such: the former meaning "effeminate", and the latter a combination of "man" and "bed", reflecting on the passage in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Taken in context of sexual immorality, these clearly point to the active and passive roles in a homosexual relationship.

As for the passage in Romans, I cannot see how it could point to anything other than a heterosexual abandoning relationships with the opposite sex (which Paul says to be natural) in favor of that with the same sex (which Paul describes as "shameless").

Just as people can
0
Reply
Male 837
@Angellion
714 Laws, actually. I don`t have further numbers for the breakdown - Jewish Law isn`t my area of expertise, but there are Cultural Laws, Laws of the Covenants, and Laws for the Nation.

Somewhere on my shelf, I`ve got a few books about them, just haven`t read them recently enough to go into greater detail.
0
Reply
Male 653
Can someone explain how someone abandoning their own son to die magically means we don`t have to lay off the pork and lobster and buggery?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Gerry1of1:

Very limited interpretation of Matthew 5:17.[/quote]

But at least it`s internally consistent, which very few Christians are on this issue. In fact, I`d go as far as to say that hardly any Christians are even aware of it. I`ve never even met a Christian who has done any studying to attempt to answer which Jewish rules Christians should obey and which they shouldn`t. They just follow the golden rule of religion - obedience to whatever clerics tell them, without thought or knowledge.

There are over 900 Jewish rules. Why is that one (which may be a misinterpretion or mistranslation anyway) matter when so many others don`t? It`s not about how seriously they`re described in the Torah - many other things are also described as being to`ebah. Cheeseburgers, for example. Why aren`t they as strongly condemned by as many Christians as homosexual sex is?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
If anyone cares, I can do chapter and verse and interpretations of the Greek in context. I can`t do the ancient Hebrew...but nobody can for sure. Modern Hebrew isn`t exactly the same. I`ve run it past modern Hebrew speakers, though.

I can state with absolute certainty that there is nothing in the new testament that clearly condemns homosexuality, homosexual sex or homosexual sex between men.

I can also state that the verse which appears to do so in the old testament is open to other valid interpretations when judged in the context of iron age Judea.

There are only a handful of verses in the Christian bible (both testaments) which refer to homosexual sex between men, only 1 which refers to homosexual sex between women and none which clearly refer to homosexuality in general and every one of those handful is either wrongly translated and interpreted or open to other interpretations.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]1 Corinthians 6:9-10 & Romans 1:26-28 [/quote]

Is there anyone else who believes that the traditional interpretation of those verses is correct?

If there is, I`ll explain why it isn`t. Those verses do not condemn homosexuality, homosexual sex or homosexual sex between men. Corinthians (and the copy of it in Timothy) don`t even mention anything to do with homosexuality! People just made it up and put it in there because they wanted to have their bible condemn homosexuality. ~100 years ago, they put "masturbators" in there instead because masturbation was at the time seen as being worse.

I`m not joking with any of this - it is just simply made up and added in. There`s no doubt about that at all. It`s not a controversial opinion.

The verse in Romans doesn`t really make sense as a condemnation of homosexual sex and the usual English translations are wrong. Again, not a controversial opinion.
0
Reply
Male 1,558
Don`t be afraid of the dark scary things, you idiots
0
Reply
Male 2,332
I`d like to smoke some weed with Jesus sometime. He seems like a pretty chilled out dude, you know?
0
Reply
Male 1,692
The bible is not complex its just been written by the victors. If you read the Old Testament in Hebrew there is not one mention of hell. There is Sheol which means grave, i.e. you die and await ressurection. Or if your bad, you stay on in Gehenna which is wandering the earth as penance until you are allowed to rest in your grave, but you get the Jewish holidays off or if your truly bad you and your corpse burns until you`re nothing.

Now what gets me is the new testament in the greek, the use the word Hades as depicted as the underworld. In English Hades is translated to the Viking word Hel or Hell. So, to me the new testament is neither Jewish but solely a Hellenic construction i.e. Paul`s big religion creation with later large helpings of Catholic colloquial charm.
0
Reply
Male 379
uuummm... how about this?
it`s all bulls*it.

the end.
0
Reply
Male 837
continued
But I have no fear of it.

I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, and I shall fear no evil.

I have nothing to fear from Hell nor Death.
0
Reply
Male 837
@LordJim
We all have our failings, and we often hurt many people without realizing it. While most of us are generally nice people, we all fail.

@McGovern
We do still have persecution coming from the Christian Church, and it should be addressed. These are important discussions to have, unfortunately most of the Christians on IAB understand what the Bible says, and aren`t the ones that need to hear the debate.

@whodat
I am sorry, I seem to have not been clear - it was never my intent to suggest that I live in fear of God`s Wrath - quite the contrary. I know that I am deserving of it, but I know that His love and forgiveness are given to me.

I do not know a single Christian who lives in fear that they will suffer the flames, but many do fear that non-believers will. My destination is known, what I do not know is when I will be called - but I look forward to the day that I am called home.

Yes, there is hellfire, there is brimstone, but I
0
Reply
Male 633
Gerry1of1:

Very limited interpretation of Matthew 5:17.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
"We are all condemned by our Sin, but our Sins are forgiven. This does not mean that they are no longer Sins, but that the price has been paid."

You guys love all that fire & brimstone sh*t! What a horrible way to live, in constant fear that you`ll piss off an invisible man.
0
Reply
Male 1,294
All people like to oversimplify things. Gerry oversimplifies by quoting a single line from Matthew without bothering to analyze how Jesus "fulfilled" the law, thereby modifying how what Christian obligations exist under the Law. Baphxiii oversimplifies by incorrectly assuming that Christian churches are trying to teach Christians how "not to sin."

The Bible is crazy complex, as are most of the world`s religions, since they were created to deal with LIFE, and LIFE is crazy complex and can`t be easily summarized.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Do the big bad Christians still stone gays? Hmmmm mabey we should fix the groups that still do the murder thing for that. Then work on the smaller stuff baby steps guys.

We also need a new subject here religion, police brutality in US and US politics have been beaten to death.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
JadesDitoyr,

If you start with the assumption that we are all deserving of hell, of eternal agony, then you have a moral system based on the most servile and debased master-slave relationship. Add to that the requrement to love the feared master and, well, count me out.

Even if there were a hell I would not be deserving of it. I don`t even deserve six months in Pentonville. I`m a nice guy. I don`t need to be forgiven except for mundane failings and that forgiveness can only come from those I have harmed. And there`s only a few of them and they all seem pretty cool about. Water under the bridge. We can all be thoughtless, clumsy dolts now and then. No call for eternal living torment. A fruit basket and a not would generally cover it.

No blood sacrifice required. No vicarious redemption. No inherited sin.

Just personal responsibility for your actions.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 & Romans 1:26-28

We Christians still have morals and rules to live by. Yes, Christ died for our sins, he paid a heavy and very painful price for us. The sins we commit add to that burden. If you`re a Christian that claims to love Jesus, don`t hurt him further with willful sin.
0
Reply
Male 91
There is no such thing as sin. It is nothing more than religious organizations selling people an invisible product. They convince you that sin is real and you are a piece of crap because of it. But if you come to our church and give us money, we can teach you how to not be sinful. It is the oldest scam on the planet. If someone came up and stabbed you, would you buy bandages from that person??? That`s religion.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
blah blah blah.

again.
0
Reply
Male 837
@Gerry1of1
We are all condemned by our Sin, but our Sins are forgiven. This does not mean that they are no longer Sins, but that the price has been paid.

You and I are both deserving of Hell, absolutely! We are in agreement on that. God`s Forgiveness falls evenly upon us as well. That the Church makes an effort to shun homosexuals is in violation of James` teachings against partiality.
0
Reply
Female 7,833
**** gets snacks***
0
Reply
Male 7,123
The whole `The Law was fulfilled by Christ`s sacrifice and so no longer applies` thing was Paul. He was all about the marketing and selling that new religion to the gentiles was a problem with circumcision and dietary laws attached. So he ditched them.

But he made a point of keeping the bit about gays. And women being inferior. And slavery being OK as long as you don`t make a beast of yourself.

Most christian sects give more weight to Paul than they do to Jesus.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
I love the rational that Christians use for things. What ever works for me, that`s the way it is.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

Matthew 5:17 {Jesus speaking} "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil."

Which means the old laws are still in effect, He didn`t cancel them. Which means christians can continue to condemn gays...but they better start keeping kosher or they are going to hell right next to me.

I`ll save you a seat, bitches.
0
Reply
Female 7,833
Do I need to grab popcorn about now? Usually these ones kick off after I am in bed? I can stay up... for a bit..
0
Reply
Male 938
Link: Not Often Enough [Pic] [Rate Link] - This looks precisely like what 1000 characters or less will resolve.
0
Reply