If you are a bible believer, than you should know that homosexuality is a sin. If you are not a bible believer then why even argue the issue with someone who is? Why bible non-believers and believers fight over homosexuality is beyond me.
There's nothing wrong with debate. But why fight over something when there are two completely different belief systems. It boils down to believing in the bible or not.
-
Homosexuality is Wrong in the Eyes of the Bible-based God27% Voted for by endsofbread, mudgod, Energizer Bunny, pnktrky, Dwn.
There are several scriptures (both Greek and Hebrew) to back up the belief that homosexuality is a sin. I know just about any Christian could bang those up for you if you asked. If you don't believe in the whole bible in the first place as God's word then there is no argument here. If you do claim to believe in the bible then there is no choice but to accept homosexuality as wrong. It is a sin just like fornication between a man and a woman. According to the scriptures, God instituted marriage as wedlock between a man and a woman. Therefore, men cannot be wed together and women cannot be wed together. Thus, homosexual sex is always fornication. (Besides... even though same-sex marriage is a fairly new installment in some governments, i bet you'd be very hard pressed to find me one homosexual couple that is saving themselves for marriage... just one)
However, if you don't believe in the bible as the truth than you most likely find homosexuality as nothing more than a harmless choice.
-
What?22% Voted for by Weydon, bob2314, Spade-Dragon, London Calling.
"Why bible non-believers and believers fight over homosexuality is beyond me.
There's nothing wrong with debate. But why fight over something when there are two completely different belief systems. It boils down to believing in the bible or not."
How is that even a question?
1. People interpret the Bible differently. That's how there are dozens of different sects that follow the same infallible Word of God, each with their own different practices. Some of them weird cults (others are larger, weird cults
) that believe in aliens and suicide pacts. Why argue with them? You either believe in the Bible or don't, right?2. This idea of "believing in the Bible or not" could be extended to ANY set of beliefs. You either believe the KKK (who follow the Bible) or don't. You believe the Nazi's or don't. You believe NAMBLA or don't. Why debate? It's pointless! Who cares about persecution and abuse--the debate is pointless.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
because it is fun. i'm not the one who seid my word was final
-
Allow Me To Better Illustrate My Point
i was trying to show how for many of the homosexual debates, it often boils down to belief in the bible or not. If two persons cannot agree over belief in the bible then it is especially hard and exceptionally pointless to discuss principles based on the bible. This debate was more about whether the bible explicitly denounces homosexuality as a sin, just like heterosexual fornication. I believe for certain that it does. That's all. As far as point #1 is concerned: I'm not talking about other issues, I'm talking about homosexuality. Of course I know there are many interpretations of the bible. I was focusing however on homosexuality since it seems to be such a hot ticket lately. As far as point #2 is concerned: I agree that the idea of "believing in something or not" can be extended to any set of beliefs. I believe it depends on how much you have in common to start a debate. Example: If one disagrees with the concept of Newton's Laws then why would I even bother having a debate about physics? Instead of debating physics... I would debate Newton's Laws. Do you understand my point? Its about boiling down to more of a core issue and tackling that. If one disagrees with the concept of homosexuality in the Bible then why would I bother having a debate about the morality of homosexuality? Instead I would debate the concept of homosexuality in the Bible. In all, while debates may end up changing nothing, they sure are interesting. -
-
*As far as point #1 is concerned: I’m not talking about other issues, I’m talking about homosexuality. Of course I know there are many interpretations of the bible. I was focusing however on homosexuality since it seems to be such a hot ticket lately.* Why though? What about homosexulaity makes it the only part of the Bible that can boil down to "either you believe in it or don't"? Not thaqt it really matters, as there are those who follow the Bible but don't believe it is against homosexuality. *As far as point #2 is concerned: I agree that the idea of “believing in something or not” can be extended to any set of beliefs. I believe it depends on how much you have in common to start a debate. Example: If one disagrees with the concept of Newton’s Laws then why would I even bother having a debate about physics? Instead of debating physics… I would debate Newton’s Laws.* We're debating homosexuality. *Its about boiling down to more of a core issue and tackling that. If one disagrees with the concept of homosexuality in the Bible then why would I bother having a debate about the morality of homosexuality? Instead I would debate the concept of homosexuality in the Bible.* Because that's the problem. I'm not going to let someone tell me, "Yeah, well my religious book says this, so I'm just going to go on believing these people are evil" anymore that I'd let someone say "Yeah, well this is what I believe so I'm going to eat this live baby".
-
-
Thing about it is , bob is a christain and from what Ive seen, a child of God.I could elaborate further but bob doesnt see things exactly as I do. It really doesnt matter in the end.When Jesus returns and the lambs book of life is opened, the elect will face only one verdict, not guilty, by the covering of the blood.
-
***When Jesus returns and the lambs book of life is opened, the elect will face only one verdict, not guilty, by the covering of the blood*** very well said
-
-
lol, I thought it was a little creepy
-
-
Who said homosexuality was the ONLY part of the bible that boils down to if you believe the bible or not? Certainly not me. I am debating the Bible's position on homosexuality. I think I am having a difficult time illustrating my point to you. My example apparently did not sink in or make enough sense. Here's the deal. Lets take your example of someone wanting to eat a baby. I can argue with you that, Hey! you can't eat a baby because it is morally wrong! But if you solidly believe that a baby is food then how would you understand that it is wrong? We first need to discuss how a baby is not food. Its about shaving down to more of a core issue. So again with my illustration about homosexuality. We can't really discuss the morality of it until we discuss the more core issue of what the Bible says about it because I profess to believe in the Bible. If my mind does not change on the Bible's stand of homosexuality then my stance on homosexuality will NEVER change. So (for me) we have to tackle the Bible's position on homosexuality first if we are to have a debate at all on homosexuality. I hope this is a simple and fairly agreeable idea to grasp. It seems you have not understood my point yet. Please continue to ask me questions if you still do not understand.
-
*Who said homosexuality was the ONLY part of the bible that boils down to if you believe the bible or not? Certainly not me.* "As far as point #1 is concerned: I’m not talking about other issues, I’m talking about homosexuality. " - you * Here’s the deal. Lets take your example of someone wanting to eat a baby. I can argue with you that, Hey! you can’t eat a baby because it is morally wrong! But if you solidly believe that a baby is food then how would you understand that it is wrong? We first need to discuss how a baby is not food. Its about shaving down to more of a core issue. So again with my illustration about homosexuality. We can’t really discuss the morality of it until we discuss the more core issue of what the Bible says about it because I profess to believe in the Bible.* No. The idea is, if it said eating a baby is good in the Bible that would be your entire reasoning. I could discuss how a baby is not food and needs to be cherished, but you'd just say "Either you believe the Bible or don't", just as I can discuss how homosexual love is just as genuine as heterosexual love, but you'd just say "Either you believe the Bible or don't."
-
so by your reasoning endsofbread, we should be debating if homosexuals are capable of love or not? this, i assume from your morality of eating the baby "_We first need to discuss how a baby is not food_" my question to you is: how is homosexual love less than that of heterosexual love?
-
To me endsofbread your stance on homosexuality is wrong. for me this is a matter of faith. Just as your stance that it is a sin is for you. So where does that leave us? Should we stand across the bible from one another and stick out our tongues? I Could tell about all the times I drank my self in to a stupor because I absolutely hated myself. Or I could tell you how I tried to follow every religion in central mass. I mean I went to them all. I spent ten years trying to be the right kind of Christian but it got me nowhere. How I tried to hide who I am to my fellow Christians, to my wife but most of all to myself. So tell me endsofbread how do I stop being me. I’ve tried every thing I know how to do. I guess it must be a lack of faith on my part. I wake up some mornings look in the mirror and say you are a lie you suck and you’re a waste of skin and this is after 4 years of sobriety. The bible says seek and the door will be open on to you. What if this is my door that you are trying to close.
-
kazrith, i believe the core issue is always the bible for me, not whether homosexuals can love or not. a man is capable of having a deep-rooted love for many things. that is not what i'm questioning. and bob... i'm trying to impart what i believe is truth. i am only trying to open doors for everyone. Paul said, "yet that is what some of you were." God never gives us a challenge too great. Its' true, if you seek Him, He will give you strength and open the door to truth. No matter how difficult that truth may be He will give you the strength.
-
People interpret the Bible differently.
I have refrained form putting my 2 cents in long enough. It is not a matter of interpretation. I have listed the scripture that speaks for itself, there is only one way to interpret it. No matter how you look at it for 2 people of the same sex to lay together “have sex” is a sin. Just as adultery, murder, pride, or even theft. They are all sins there are none that are any more of a sin or less of a sin. Period. Entering into a life with Christ requires repentance for your sins. So if I am a man that likes to sleep around on my wife, I must stop, it is a sin, just as homosexuality is a sin therefore it to must be stopped. There is no need to debate it. Neither you nor I can change what is a sin and what isn’t; only God has this right. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Lev. 18:22 (NKJV) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Lev. 20:13 (NKJV) "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Rom. 1:27 (NKJV) God chooses to love you and requires that I too love you, but God has no love for anyone’s sin therefore I don’t have to love the sin. God bless you all. I hope to not have offended any of you. -
Weydon
I'm sorry you interpreted “As far as point #1 is concerned: I’m not talking about other issues, I’m talking about homosexuality. ” to mean homosexuality was the ONLY part of the bible that boils down to if you believe the bible or not. It was not my intention. Exactly! If you choose not to believe in the bible and I choose to believe in the bible then any debate we could possibly have would go absolutely NOWHERE unless we discuss what the Bible says. Or we could debate the more core issue of the validity of the Bible. I hope you understand what I mean now. -
-
But people interpret the Bible differently (from accepting gays to the KKK), and the idea of "either you believe or don't" extends to any set of beliefs.
-
-
Leviticus
The two verses in Leviticus condemning men lying with men do not apply today. Gasp! I must be a blasphemer... Actually, I'm not. How? Simple. The word "abomination" used in these two verses is "toevah" in Hebrew. "Toevah" is not sin. "Toevah" refers to something that is impure, unclean, etc., just as it is "toevah" to: shave a man's beard, a woman to menstruate, sow two kinds of seeds in a field, wear a garment made from two types of clothing, for a man to lie in bed (not even sexually) with a woman who is menstruating, and for a man to have a seminal admission. The word for "sin," referring to things such as idoltary, cheating, murder, etc., is "het." So you cannot argue that homosexuality is a sin as stated in Leviticus, because the word used, translated as abomination, "toevah," refers to something that is impure...NOT SIN. Christians do not follow these purity laws nor the sacrifical laws of Leviticus, as stated mostly in the third chapter of Galatians. By faith we live in Christ, not in Leviticus. If you want to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, then you would have to condemn shaving, oyster-eating, and menstruating as sin as well, for these all are "toevah," abominations. On a final note, many people, including myself, believe that the purity laws were instituted to seperate the sacred people of God, the Israelites (or Jews) from their Gentile neighbors. In that time period, homosexuality (when I say homosexuality I am referring to male-male sex acts) was practiced mostly for two reasons: Caananite fertility cult worship of idols and to demonstrate the dominance of one man over another, an act of humiliation and inhospitality, as shown in the example of Sodom and Gormorrah. Anyone who still believes that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for "homosexuality" (which never even occurred in the instance of the men of Sodom attempting to gang rape the angels) I reccommend you refer to Ezekiel 16:48-50, which is only of a handful of verses that tell of Sodom's true sins of inhospitality, greed, and idolatry. -
Spade-Dragon
I can no longer discuss the issue of homosexuality because Spade-Dragon has made an attack on my doctrine, which I believe to be Biblical doctrine. And that must first be addressed. Spade-Dragon stated that the Torah, more specifically the book of Leviticus, does not apply to Christians. And then he listed many good examples. The problem with this assumption is that he has listed ceremonial laws, civil laws, and moral laws all together. I myself and other Christians DO adhere to ALL moral laws of Leviticus. The reason for the confusion is the same now as it was almost 2000 years ago. The Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the law, (Luke 6) but what law was it? Legalistic views of the Civil Laws of Leviticus. And for this reason Jesus rebuked them. And then we move on to the ceremonial laws. In Acts 15 we see that Christianity hit a big obstacle. How are we to follow the laws as Christian’s? The elders of the church and the Apostles came together in Jerusalem to figure this out and they wrote a letter and in this letter they listed 4 things that we as Christians should follow. This was done in response to the Judaizers who insisted that the WHOLE law should be kept perfectly. As the case in Galatians. And one of the 4 things that they listed in the letter was sexual immorality now we can agree to disagree on what that term includes. Please if you would find me one place in the new NT where a moral law is disregarded. And as far as your claim of “this is not a sin because of the word abomination” I invite you to look at Numbers 15: 22-31. I will paraphrase for you. Breaking any command is a sin. And I ask you to also read 1 Cor. 6: 12-20 and especially verse 20 “You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. -
Ragman
1 Cor 6:12-20 deals with prostitution. Paul is telling his listeners that since two people become one in sexual union, and Christ is part of the believer, then they should not join Christ to a prostitute. I will continue to emphasize the use of the word "toevah" to describe male-male sex acts. "Toevah" refers to something impure or taboo. IT IS NOT SIN. Sin is a different Hebrew word, "het." So "toevah" is not equilvalent to "het." They are not the same. The law against homosexuality was instituted as a purity law, not a moral law. The word "toevah" shows this. It is just as toevah for a man to eat a cheeseburger or an oyster as it is for him to lie with a man. On one note, the "sin" of homosexuality is only listed in the book of Leviticus, which is known as the purity book for the priests of Israel. Surely if it truly was a sin just as murder, theft, etc. is then it would be mentioned somewhere else. Alas, it is not. The same word used to describe why it is prohibited is the same word that would prohibit use from eating a Big Mac. If that doesn't put into perspective and demonstrate the difference between toevah and het, I don't know what will. No offense meant, but if one desires for others to follow the purity laws of Leviticus, then one must follow ALL. You cannot pick and choose. If you say it is a sin for a man to lie with a man (as "stated" in Leviticus) then you must also say it is a sin to eat pork, shellfish, or milk with meat (cheeseburgers, etc.) if you wish to remain "true" to the laws of Leviticus. Galatians also states that if we wish to be saved by following the Jewish laws, then we must follow ALL of them and not break them. -
Weydon
yes Weydon, I said I agreed with you in that aspect already. The reason I entitled the Thread as it is was so that only people who claimed to believe in the Bible would respond. I only wanted the opinions of people who claimed to believe in the Bible. Whether or not I feel they actually do is another story. I know people have many different interpretations and I know you can say, "you can believe it or not" to just about anything. The point was and still is that I only want to talk to supposed Bible believers in this thread because talking with someone who isn't means that we'd have to tackle the issue of the validity of the bible (because the bible is what i believe in), which is not the purpose of this Thread. -
I also believe in the Bible, I just realize that many people who believe in the Bible interpret it differently. That's why we have so many different sects. Even the KKK believe in the Bible.
-
Weydon
That's scary...Religion gone bad!
-
-
No it doesn't11% Voted for by TeChNoWC, Weydon.
I know plenty of atheists who disregard homosexuality as well as plenty of christians who accept and even endorse it. I myself am a christian, but have no definitive stance on the issue.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Thats fine if atheists disregard homosexuality. But true Christians would not endorse homosexuality because the Bible makes it absolutely clear that fornication is a sin. Whether it be same-sex or not. The Bible also set up marriage as between a man and a woman. So ALL homosexual relations would be considered fornication. So, without even looking up focused scriptures on homosexuality, we can conclude that homosexual fornication is a sin.
-
I am not going to fight this with you, but the Bible is seemingly specific on many issues that can be taken out of context. A recent one that nearly prompted me to start a cult was 1 Corinthians 14:34 I think. Have a read. You simply need to understand the context in which it speaks. The church of Corinth were initially worshippers of the Goddess Diana and this corruption stayed on after empowerment. Their women had taken on the manly role; it was as if the whole place was filled with a bunch of cross dressers (by both sexes). Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament, however, I am inclined to see it as a form of fornication gone wrong, but as of yet I am not going to hold to the claim unless you can get me some pretty definitive Bible verses. I am willing to follow wherever God leads me :)
-
Answer
You have a great attitude and I think a great mind. Although, I can't tell if you are agreeing with me that homosexuality can be categorized as fornication and is thus a sin? I agree that the Bible needs to be read in context. If one does not do so then the Bible can appear to clearly contradict itself. It is all part of reading the bible with an open heart and a true desire of seeking the truth. Anyway, the scripture you want is 1 Cor. 6:9-10. "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR MEN KEPT FOR UNNATURAL PURPOSES, NOR MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN... will inherit God's Kingdom." I don't see how men lying with men can be interpreted to anything else but homosexuality. So with this scripture, the back-up story of Soddom & Gomorrah, and of course the fact that all homosexual acts fall under fornication anyway, we can see that the Bible puts homosexuality as a sin. -
MEN kept for unnatural purposes. Sounds like slave prostitutes to me. i have seen this quote many times. each time it has a different ending. Once it was homosexuals (which was weird cause the word homosexual wasnt actually created until the late 1800's). you know, i have read about the story of David and Johnathan. Interesting story really. it sounds like they love eachother, and have laid with eachother. Even the varying translations are all different for which ever bible you read. Its like they are trying to hide something there....
-
Not every man that loves another man has to lay with him, Kazrith. It is only our twisted world that has denied same sex intimacy (mateship) and replaced it with 'well then, I must love you, so we gotta have sex'. I have read the verse endsofbread, and it is fairly convincing, but it is still subject to confliction as Kazrith has pointed out. The NIV does use the word homosexual and this is stupid. I want to see what the original interpretation says, not what it may mean to some. Until I see a more original version of the text, my opinion on the matter will remain reserved. You almost got me, but not quite yet, dear friend. Corinth, as I said earlier, was the home of role reversals. As God does abhor this type of behaviour I would also be inclined to believe that he would abhor homosexuality and the verses do support this, however, it may be contentious as to what is morally acceptable ie role reversal, flaunting and lust based versus commited relationship. Most relationships these days are fairly unGodly anyway, homosexual or not, and I try not to condone this sort of behaviour.
-
Now i never said that every man that loves another man must lay with him. not every homosexual enjoys the sex you think they do. actually about 80% of homosexual men DO NOT practice anal sex (shocker!! hehe) anyways, technowc, i think your relaxing your barriers to the homosexual position, which makes me extremely happy! :D anyways, i'm glad we can agree on this.
-
Lust in all forms is a lifestyle I do not condone, for spiritual and sometimes even ethical purposes. If you can prove to me that a) homosexuality is not ethically wrong b ) Criteria for homosexual biological nature does not conflict with ideas on the biological nature of other said 'criminal' minorities c) Arguments that do conflict with this are not used in homosexual defence, but rather a more convincing approach that does not lead to hypocrisy d) Verses in the Bible that refer to homosexuality in any way are purely contextual e) It is possible for homosexuals to have a relationship that is not restricted to lustful practices or stereotypical 'gay' culture (that is responsible for ruining the image of my favourite music) f) Homosexuals are capable of leading a healthy, spirit filled (christian) lifestyle, according to other Biblical foundations but most importantly harbouring and maintaining the presence of the Holy Ghost without substantial opposition and confliction between the supposed soulish quality and their spiritual entanglement (although it is understandable that the mere presence of christian denial of homosexuality is enough to bring conflict to one's mental state). If these basics are fulfilled, I will be willing to stick up for homosexuals when christians bag them out, but further acknowledgement would be needed before I not just condoned it but also fully supported the movement. This would be more to do with my own personal deliberations and following God prompts. I feel as if, of present, that criteria's a) and e) have been largely supported, however the other four are yet to be examined thoroughly. My point concerning the issue of love prevention between two men is that deterence of homosexual practice does in no way deter the love between two men, only the sexual contact between these two men. In terms of religion, sex is a privilege. It is necessary for the continuation of species and is in compliance with the command 'go forth and multiply' however, homosexuality does not fulfill this commandment and basic role of sex, and sex, by many of its constituents, is regarded as a right. Sure it is lawfully, as Paul said, 'everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial'. So, in regards to all this, homosexual practice appears to be a form of fornification, as it is only the very pracitice of men lying with men that is, seemingly disallowed (or of extreme disbenefit) by doctrine. Having an intimate relationship with the opposite sex is itself regarded as of less benefit (within a given criteria; that criteria being that one is spiritually in control of such infatuations and lusts) than celibacy; however it is still regarded as less of benefit to try and pursue celibacy for those who are feeling as though they are unable to fulfill such a role adequately (given their infatuation and risk of adultery with said other). Thus, I consider that one professing their right to simply 'lay with men' as well as one professing their right to 'lay with the opposite sex' is as if both were to profess their right to engage in lustful activities. Both are not condoned by myself. However, if one wished to marry a said individual to avoid adultery and comply with one's right to and one's obligation towards continuation of species, then they may do so, and so it is PLAUSIBLE that 'homosexuality' as such is acceptable in this way. But claiming that you are hindered in your right to love another individual is bollocks. You are only restricted in your right to engage in promiscouity (while out of marriage). Those who are not happy with laws as they are maybe should be inclined to change them, but as it stands it might be simply of spiritual benefit if homosexuals were for now to simply remain in connection with their 'beloved', but simply remain celibate.
-
Human Governments Make it OK?
Are you saying that God only accepts homosexuality in this day and age because some worldly governments have decided to allow it? First of all, they allowed it because they are trying to seperate government from the Bible. God only instituted one kind of marriage. He would have instituted gay marriage as well if he found absolutely nothing wrong with it or He at least would have purposefully allowed some kind of CLEAR leeway for same-sex marriage. But he did not. We could reason that He is also accepting of marriage between man and beast because He didn't explicitly denounce such a marriage. It is true that mankind is able to love and share emotions. It is natural that two men and two women can share powerful emotions with another. And it is possible for chemical imbalances to create men and women that are especially attracted to their own gender just like chemical imbalances can create persons who are attracted to many other sorts of things. However, God never gives us a trial too great to overcome. Just because some people are naturally predisposed to commit a certain behavior does not mean that they must follow through with it. I hope you do look up the original Greek translation of that scripture because it is really important you have an accurate understanding of the scriptures. Its not good to remain on the fence for too long. Homosexuals cannot marry and thus can never have a morally clean sexual relationship in God's eyes. God does not want "men to lie with men" even if they have a worldly government sanction saying that it is OK. -
It has nothing to do with the government, or society, or whatever. It has to do with God's Will. If I made any reference to politics it was in regards to the notions held by current such governments. I can't get off the fence unless someone helps me down. Are you going to stand there and point the finger at me, or actually lend me a hand? When I get the chance I will look into it. If you have it handy it might be of benefit if you simply quoted it, even though I probably will check it out just for assurance.
-
Sorry i don't mean to point the finger. But I will lend you a hand. The two words that I emboldened for you out of 1 Corinthians are taken from Malakos and Arsenokoites. You'll find them to be about as accurate a translation as you can get. I did some research online and found this site. http://www.dtl.org/ethics/article/homosexuals.htm I found that it used completely relevant research and posted logical conclusions. Take a look.
-
alright, i am reading your page here. i have noticed that Homosexuality is refrenced many times. this is weird because the actual word homosexual was not created until the late 1800's and therefore cannot be the word of god. now male prostitutes is the more likely translation. _malakos,_ here is a weird word. why would they use this word to refrence the "bottom" member in a homosexual relationship when they actually had their own word _eromenos? Malakos_ is just translated to soft, unless this is some slang refrence (which is hard to prove since it was such a long time ago). Sodomy actually refers to all the sins of Sodom, which include rape, theift, ect ect. which, if you really wish to interpret it the way i see it, as unconcentual sex. I may be wrong with this assumption but did paul not also say that slavery was acceptable? did he not say wife beating was acceptable? *** Now technowc, b)Im not sure what you mean by other "Criminal" minorities butit is believed that homosexuality is present to either control the human population and/or raise the young of other heterosexual couples who are no longer able to raise them(ie, they died or something along those lines). biologically, this is a decient stand point. c)not really sure what you mean by this. d)such was proven by endsofbread with the shakie translation of the bible. f)I cannot prove this explicitly because it differs with every person, but it is possible, but i will not refrence people due to keeping id's secret
-
Its not as confusing as some people like to believe
Kazrith, lets pretend you wrote something along the lines of... "I think homosexuals are great." However, one certain language does not have a word that means "great". So, one day in the future someone in the language creates a word that does mean "great". Would you refuse the use of this word because it was created after you had written? Clearly, the answer is no. Nonetheless, if you read through the entire website you can see that he concluded not to use the word "homosexuals" for his translation and it made no appearance in the translation that I provided either. Malakos does not strictly mean male prostitutes. Male prostitutes is included in the definition as it means all men who allow themselves to be abused homosexually. Or technically the passive partner in the relationship. Paul did not use eromenos because he wanted to include every person who allows homosexual acts to be committed upon them. Not only in loving relationships, but also including male prostitutes as you mentioned. Arsenokoites is also a word that it is not limitted to simply to mean Sodomy. It means a man who commits homosexual acts and sometimes may be referred to as the dominating partner in the homosexaul act. It does not have a strict solitary meaning of forcing one to have sex. That definition is included but not restricted to it. Arsen means male and koite means bed. It really makes sense when you think about it. There is nothing shaky about this translation. The reason why Paul referred to both partners of homosexuality was so that they wouldn't be left an "out". Without malakos, the recieving partner could claim he was absolved of guilt. And without arsenokoites, the dominating partner could claim he was absolved of guilt. So Paul, the wise man he is, included both. -
as you said, not every word can be translated perfectly. I know this. this is the reason i am saying we cannot know the exact meaning of anything that has been said back then. coqualisms used today are almost never understood by people just learning the language. "dont hang the dirty laundry in public" is litterally taken as hanging the dirty laundry in public, whereas, to me and you it means family problems should stay in the family. same with "dont wear your heart on your sleeve." due to these translation bloopers, you cannot completely understand what they meant 100 years ago, never mind 1800 years ago.
-
*"Im not sure what you mean by other “Criminal” minorities butit is believed that homosexuality is present to either control the human population and/or raise the young of other heterosexual couples who are no longer able to raise them"* This is not evolutionarily possible, if this is what you are inferring to. This still raises the issue that percieved criminal fetishes are therefore supported by your definiton. Evolution does not play favourites, even to percieved ethics. In regards to point c): It is to say that arguments sustained for reasonable acceptance and tolerance should not conflict with ideas on criminal sexual fetishes, and therefore avoid creating ethically induced bias. This often results in people creating comfort arguments, not factual arguments. One could say that bestiality would reduce the population also, thus having the same effect as homosexuality, and if homosexuality were to be justified by such an argument, so would bestiality. It is rationally contradictory. As of yet, nothing seperates homosexuality from other fetishes, except for the ethical issue raised, and NAMBLA itself could rationalise a stance for ethical, consenting behaviour between minors and adults, as well as backing this up with biological evidence. The trap works both ways, my friend. I do not wish to make myself a hypocrite. I do believe we have been over this before, and although you have convinced me of the ethical argument to a degree, the implications of this must be resolved with further reasoning, or NAMBLA will win via your given definitions. I am more convinced than before of the arguments put forward concerning the logical issues and correlations between the sexual forms. Sexuality is, even by law, not a given right in the societies of today. In fact, I don't think there is one country in the world of present that would condone this. Sexuality is restricted, and Biblical and rational evidence needs to be given to support the acceptance of one form of sexuality over another.
-
evolutionarily speaking, it does work. the young of others are protected from the harsh elements (death) and are allowed to grow up in a loving enviroment (usually) (also a required setting for someone to be raised psychologically speaking). We will continue to disagree on homosexuality being on the same level as beastiality and (appearently) pedophila and if no charter atually doesnt accept homosexuality, it wont be long before it actually happens since it will be used as a defense at one point in the near future.
-
-
wow, the grammar in that sucks
-
-
*"evolutionarily speaking, it does work. the young of others are protected from the harsh elements (death) and are allowed to grow up in a loving enviroment"* But this has nothing to do with the passing on of characteristics through inherency. Wow, maybe you got a great theory on male on male bonding tactics and its ability to pull kids through, but this does not denote the passing on of the homosexual gene or anything. In regards to its social benefit, with this argument in mind, as I said earlier, bestials would have, potentially, the same effect.
-
All I have is your word, Kazrith, that because homsexual preference suits yourself and your given lifestyle, that it differs biologically, by chance, from all other criminal fetishes, yet not accepted ones. This seems too coincidental to be true, coming from an evolutionary point of view.
-
technowc, may i remind you that i am not homosexual?
-
You do not need to be a homosexual for it to necessarily suit your lifestyle. Your acceptance of homosexuality may be of benefit to your social dealings. Plus, you are bisexual. Same rules apply. Let me try a little test with you. Get a peice of paper out and some sort of marker. Write these words on the peice of paper, spreading them out evenly over the page in random locations; homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, heterosexuality, incest, bisexuality. Incest may be, according to your opinions, not a good example in this case, but I am still willing to go with it. Maybe you could use necrophilia instead. Anyway, now, draw a circle around all of the words on the page that you think are ethically acceptable. I would wager that three words would now be circled: homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. Now, draw a square (the squares will have to go over the circles if necessary) over all the words that you think are a lifestyle, caused by genetic pre-disposition. I would again wager that what is now seen on the page are three words with squares and circles and three words without either. Odd. The circles represent the social factors at play. The squares represent the biological factors at play. It is a rather profound discovery to find that the two, (from an evolutionary point of view) even though one created by man and the other not, and without us meaning to, have simply become, purely by 'chance', attributed to one another. That is, that if a form of sexuality is ethically correct, then it is most likely biologically determined, and vice versa. Unless we are to profess that God had a role to play in our biological make-up as well as the governor of ethical actions, this system would seem ludicrous, and wishful thinking at best. This was what I was trying to point out in my above comment. You cannot proscribe the benefits of one characteristic (evolutionarily) and then disregard a bunch of other people in terms of scientific endeavour simply because they are considered unethical. Evolution does not play favourites, and it does not have the capacity to keep homosexuality as a recessive backdrop for raising children. Homosexuality, if considered as a type of characteristic in its own evolutionary right, would have to pass on this genetics in order to survive, yet this would be seemingly impossible, since homosexuals don't make more of their own kind. In fact, some unethical practices do, and would have more argument in terms of being genetic and hereditary then it would seem homosexuality would.
-
technowc, i donno how much you know about genes, but i believe that homosexuality is more like a ressesive gene. which means you need both recessive genes from both parents to "become" homosexual. this way, even if you have one recessive gene and one dominate gene, the gene of homosexuality will continue on. this way you will never "run out" of the gene, it will just be hiding in the background ready for a gene like it to come out. **** oh, and i really have no idea what you were trying to get at with the circle and the squares thing....
-
*"oh, and i really have no idea what you were trying to get at with the circle and the squares thing…."* Basically, you have these gene theories that you will manufacture out of a desire to see a socially accepted form of sexuality be supported by biological factors, yet you disregard the fact that this in turn would support the notion that unacceptable forms of sexuality are also biological in nature. This would mean that the biological factor cannot be used to support its correctness, because it is also (then) a factor involved in forms of criminality. And to say that criminal sexualities are not biological but mental would be wishful thinking, considering that ALL your socially acceptable sexualities would be supported by the biological factor and ALL criminal ones would not, and this would be a mathematical improbability, considering that social norms do not instigate biological truths. Supposedly, biological truths are biological truths, saddening or not.
-
i have yet to disregard it. i use a combination of ethics and biology. ethics being both members are consentual (meaning they love the other person(person being a key word) and that other person loves them(meaning they are above the age of consent)) no one knows what causes people to lust after children (both homosexual and heterosexual). love is more than just sex and sexual stimulation and that is what pedophiles want, not a life long companion.
-
*"love is more than just sex and sexual stimulation and that is what pedophiles want, not a life long companion."* Wrong again. These are the ignorant views that cause your sense of justice to stumble. Of course they are bad, if they are what you concieve them to be. I can tell you with overwhelming empirical conviction that you are faulted in your thinking, and the comparisons between heterosexuality and pedophilia are astonishing, empirically. Need I say anymore or do you get the point (hopefully)? I wish I could elaborate, I really do, but you're gonna have to fill in the blanks with this one on your own.
-
-
The Unsaved Spend Eternity in HellVoted for by GaryCGibson.
Well, the statement/premise of the thread is true enough (see below), and many will attack that point and say it isn't, and some might write that no that isn't so.
The pro-homosexual lobby at allphilosophy.com attempt to obfuscate the truth of the Bible as a demographic political policy evidently in their atheistic conclusion that its all about worldliness and like Lenin's method anything to advance their cause is valid including making truth the first casualty.
It is interesting that attacking the opinion by attacking subjective epistemoligical paradigms such as in (there isn't an objective truth, truth is subjective and only in the believer or disbeliever's belief that truth or falsehood is found) is a secondary polemical/rhetorical technique surpassed only by the ignoble ad hominem."FINALE: Bible Believers Know Homosexuality is a Sin"
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
well i am glad you are off the F....t refences.
-
Kazrith, I hope this comment was not intended as provocation. GaryCGibson's liberties were removed for YOUR benefit and discretion, so don't push it.
-
-
well next time i WONT show some appreciation.
-
-
that is so true. oh no wait... there is no truth. nevermind.
-
Yeah, Kazrith. It was for YOU, not because it's wrong. It was a favor for YOU.
-
Let me re-state, because that could be taken wrong, as if it were some sort of 'mafiaistic' favour. It was reprimanded because it was wrong, but the reprimand was to your benefit, as implied by your voicings, and the fact that it was removed due to personal harassment, not because it's a 'bad word'. And the person that was getting harassed was, admittedly, YOU. Had site policy not taken the rights of YOU into consideration, we would of let GaryCGibson blast away. Weydon and Gary especially are treading on thin ice of present, and fueling another rage induced 'insult contest' is not necessary. Due to your close involvement in this 'insult contest', offender or victim, we do not propose that you patronise those involved. If your comment was indeed intended as mere appreciation, we do apologise.
-
-
The Christian VoteVoted for by josh86.
well, most christians vote on issues that effect the lives of others in america. Most christians would vote whatever their pastor said to. and the pastor definately wouldnt like the idea of homosexuality. so with a large christian vote in the population, not that it should, but is heavily effecting everyone. Im not gay but i dont care what you do. Now a good christian would try to help those about to burn in hell from their gayness so would vote against it. So what people get from the bible actually effects a gay persons everyday life. and im sure if you were gay, and someone said you will burn for eternity for it, you would argue too.
-
The scales have fallen from my eyesVoted for by bob2314.
There are several scriptures (both Greek and Hebrew) to back up the belief that homosexuality is a sin. I know just about any Christian could bang those up for you if you asked ____ yes endsofbread I can quote those scriptures too I would however give a radically different interpretation of them I think. I suggest you check out whosoever.com If you want the true interpretation of them.____ If you don't believe in the whole bible in the first place as God's word then there is no argument here. If you do claim to believe in the bible then there is no choice but to accept homosexuality as wrong. ___ I do believe in the whole bible I just reject your uninformed interpretation of it. ____ God instituted marriage as wedlock between a man and a woman. Therefore, men cannot be wed together and women cannot be wed together. _____ I’ve read the Adam & eve story and I don’t remember God saying that this example of marriage will be the only one he accepts.___ homosexual sex is always fornication___ I beg to differ, in my state of Massachusetts gay people are getting married in the church. Having their marriages blessed by God and the clergy thus they are not fornicating.____ (Besides... even though same-sex marriage is a fairly new installment in some governments, I bet you'd be very hard pressed to find me one homosexual couple that is saving themselves for marriage... just one)___ sadly, I find this assertion to be true however I’m sure there are some. just as I’m sure some fundamentalist Christians save them selves for marriage. ___ However, if you don't believe in the bible as the truth than you most likely find homosexuality as nothing more than a harmless choice. ___ I will not debate choice with you at this time. I will say that your beliefs on scripture to this point are based on misinterpretation. Go to whosoever.com they have laid the case out in a much more extensive way than I can here. I have faith that having seen the proper interpretation of the scripture you will walk away changed as Paul was.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Kazrith
November 11, 2006
Edit | Reply
Weydon
November 11, 2006
Edit | Reply
Energizer Bunny
November 11, 2006
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
November 12, 2006
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
November 12, 2006
Edit | Reply
November 20, 2006
Edit | Reply
Oh, the scriptures said so! Must be true then.
Yeah, I think you can find scriptures to back up not eating meat on a Friday too.pnktrky
November 27, 2006
Edit | Reply
the question now is
there is mortal sin and the unoffensive oops sin... which one of these is it?Please register or login to comment! It's totally free