First, Zeb is still wrong, dead wrong and has yet to comeup with a single passage that condemns homosexuality, And in fact by not relying on the scripture, he proves my point over and over again by inserting his own opinion of bias.
Second, as for bonehead weren’t you the one that “proved” our nation was founded on christian principles by using the dollar bill? I’m guessing you’ve since discovered your error?[/quote]
There is no more argument. Let it go. You clearly lost this one.
BTW, I bet you’re a “Glass is half-empty” kind of guy. Am I right?!?!
You argue that homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible because the word was not inserted until 1946. Your illogical conclusion from this fact is that since the word “homosexual” was not mentioned then it must be an act that God is pleased with.
[/quote]
Well since hundreds of sins are mentioned and the bible NEVER mentions homosexuality, and the best you can do is provide the typical classic 6 “anti-gay passages” I would argue that god doesn’t seem to care about sexual orientation.
Using your example, the words that would have referred to homosexuals—aren’t there! Let me repeat this for the last time. No existing text version in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic have a word that corresponds to homosexual! The words that could have been used are not present! The bias present is not in the text (i.e. effeminate, homosexual) it has been added—most likely as a reflection of bias. I’m not hung up on the word, I’m hung on that there’s NOTHING like it in the bible!
Actually as I’ve demonstrated I’m relying on the text, you are adding opinion–your best example all the men young and old from all over town = homosexual men…THAT IS STUNNING!
Your using heterosexual men’s (there is no combination, there just straight men) actions to condemn homosexuals and asking me if it matters? Uhhh…yea it matters.
to know means to know. Simple context lesson for you here ZEB. One of the sins of sodom was unkindness to strangers. The sodomites shunned strangers, they were “inhospitable” to strangers. Now Lot wasn’t a citizen of Sodom, he was a sojourner and thus may have needed permission to have visitors. Two strangers appear, the inhospitable men show up and ask to know the strangers. In 943 instances of yada 10 have a sexual reference, NEVER in a homosexual way! And I’m assuming you’ll take Jesus’ word for it
“Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city” (Does it appear that Jesus thinks the sin of Sodom was inhospitablity? YEP!)
In fact, ZEB in dozens of mention of the sins of sodom, painfully for you none, zip, nada, mention homosexuality.
Your
just
dead
wrong.
see above! DOZENS of mentions in the bible post genesis—NOT ONE MENTION, not a hint,not an inkling of your misguided take! Jesus says lack of kindness to strangers—ZEB says gays, Guess I’ll be going with Jesus on this one. Again READ THE BIBLE, FIND THE REFERENCES TO SODOM, and then admit to yourself its not about homosexuality.
I’ll have it one way, the right way.
Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (KJV)
toevah translated here abomination never signifies something intrinsically evil (rape, murder) but instead something ritually unclean (for the millionth time). Toevah sometimes means just “idol” making it crystal clear for scholars to understand the context of leviticus. A reference to the Greek translation sure enough reveals these passages to mean ceremonially unclean, just like eating pork or having sex on woman’s period, NOT inherently evil.
Not to mention it still is talking about heterosexual people performing forbidden rituals. The orientation of sexuality is simply not mentioned. Sorry ZEB.
Homosexuality, not a sin, murder a sin (see 10 commandments or the one commandment)
Again Paul is not attacking any specific form of sexuality here, he’s condemning their rejection of God (they knew of God) and the resulting infidelity. The message is that they were off the path, lost their way (by now you noticed that again these are straight men and women)The sin is not following the truth that they already knew. If these were gays, it would undermine Paul’s whole point. Unfortunately, as it stands it DOES undermine yours.
NOPE! They were not referred to as Malokoi. The word was NEVER used in the greek to designate gay groups or gay behavior(You just added that yourself). Actual translations have been:
“liquid,” “cowardly,” “refined,” “weak willed,” “delicate,” “gentle,” and "debauched. or morally: “licentious,” “loose,” or “wanting in self-control.”
In writings contemporary with Paul it is always used in reference to heterosexual behavior or activities. So much for your “hot” analogy.
Even more damning is that it has been the tradition of the church to use this word in reference to masturbation. Only recently has it made the shift to a new universally condemned act—homosexuality. Zeb, this is too easy. So using your “hot” analogy, does masturbating = homosexuality? Nice try ZEB!
The master of out of context…ZEB!
This is Jesus’ answer to can a man divorce his wife for any reason? And Jesus answers them with scripture. Only you could use Jesus’ condemnation of divorce as a condemnation of homosexuality.
Your claim that it still utterly debunked even using your “hot” analogy.
By dim, you mean no view? Cause you got zip going here Zeb, temple prostitutes, passages previously used to condemn masturbation, the story of Sodom (debunked by Jesus no less) oh Zeb! Stick with the bible next time, and in the meantime please feel free to research all of my translations, realize they are honest and report back your apology.
God’s not petty, he just hates gays…ok
Zeb. I think the scripture that would help you best is
James 3:17 the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Apply this with no exceptions and with absolute perfection, and you’ll see the error in your ways.
Funny that you’d quote galatians…
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Zeb, its pretty clear go with what you recieved, not with what you’ve been misled to believe.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
First, Zeb is still wrong, dead wrong and has yet to comeup with a single passage that condemns homosexuality, And in fact by not relying on the scripture, he proves my point over and over again by inserting his own opinion of bias.
Second, as for bonehead weren’t you the one that “proved” our nation was founded on christian principles by using the dollar bill? I’m guessing you’ve since discovered your error?
Is a 45 year-old man raping a 10 year-old boy a sin? I can’t find anywhere in the Bible that says molesting children is a sin. But most logical folks think it is wrong. Maybe we’re just imposing our biases on pedophiles. [/quote]
First, Zeb is still wrong, dead wrong and has yet to comeup with a single passage that condemns homosexuality, And in fact by not relying on the scripture, he proves my point over and over again by inserting his own opinion of bias.
Second, as for bonehead weren’t you the one that “proved” our nation was founded on christian principles by using the dollar bill? I’m guessing you’ve since discovered your error?
There is no more argument. Let it go. You clearly lost this one.
BTW, I bet you’re a “Glass is half-empty” kind of guy. Am I right?!?!
OD
[/quote]
Zeb has no argument. None. Second Zeb (i’m assuming) unknowningly just constantly makes my point…a bias towards homosexual orientation has to be inserted into the bible, cause it’s just not there…Like our founding on christian principals OD…just not there.
Also I’m a protein shaker half full kind of guy. (everying liquid goes in that thing)
[quote]100meters wrote:
Is a 45 year-old man raping a 10 year-old boy a sin? I can’t find anywhere in the Bible that says molesting children is a sin. But most logical folks think it is wrong. Maybe we’re just imposing our biases on pedophiles.
so you’re conceding my point?[/quote]
If you are saying that pedofiles are not criminals, then yes. Maybe we should change the laws so that NAMBLA can have their way with 10 year-old boys.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Is a 45 year-old man raping a 10 year-old boy a sin? I can’t find anywhere in the Bible that says molesting children is a sin. But most logical folks think it is wrong. Maybe we’re just imposing our biases on pedophiles.
so you’re conceding my point?
If you are saying that pedofiles are not criminals, then yes. Maybe we should change the laws so that NAMBLA can have their way with 10 year-old boys. [/quote]
I just wanted to point out one small detail in your line of thinking. In our ancient past, it was not uncommon to get married around the age of 12. Outside of America, the age of consent is much younger than 18. Our society has placed restrictions on age that many do agree with, especially since changes in society have changed the ages at which someone is more aware or conscious of responsibility. Hell, some could argue that most guys today don’t actually grow up until around 25-30 years of age and much of that is a function of how our society has “progressed”.
With that in mind, why would the Bible feel the need to point out restrictions that many societies have only relatively recently put in place due to our own inefficiency at accepting personal responsiblity? I don’t follow NAMBLA and don’t know what they stand for. I would think the goal here is to reach the truth, not perpetuate the same arguments simply because someone told you things were done one particular way once.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
With that in mind, why would the Bible feel the need to point out restrictions that many societies have only relatively recently put in place due to our own inefficiency at accepting personal responsiblity? I don’t follow NAMBLA and don’t know what they stand for. I would think the goal here is to reach the truth, not perpetuate the same arguments simply because someone told you things were done one particular way once.
[/quote]
I have no freaking clue what it is you are trying to say, but what’s new?
I will say this - If you don’t know who NAMBLA is, or what they stand for - I wouldn’t post anymore until you did.
Short of that, You and 100M are doing a bang up job of proving Thunderbolt’s and Zeb’s assertions that gay marraige won’t stop at gay marraige. According to what you said it is perfectly fine for a 40 year-old man to molest 10 year-old boys.
If you have done nothing else, you have shown what a slippery slope the liberal side of the mountain has.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With that in mind, why would the Bible feel the need to point out restrictions that many societies have only relatively recently put in place due to our own inefficiency at accepting personal responsiblity? I don’t follow NAMBLA and don’t know what they stand for. I would think the goal here is to reach the truth, not perpetuate the same arguments simply because someone told you things were done one particular way once.
I have no freaking clue what it is you are trying to say, but what’s new?
I will say this - If you don’t know who NAMBLA is, or what they stand for - I wouldn’t post anymore until you did.
Short of that, You and 100M are doing a bang up job of proving Thundebolt’s and Zeb’s assertions that gay marraige won’t stop at gay marraige. According to what you said it is perfectly fine for a 40 year-old man to molest 10 year-old boys.
If you have done noyhing else, you have shown what a slippery slope the liberal side of the mountain has.
[/quote]
Molest? That isn’t what I wrote at all. You are discussing the difference between absolute right and wrong and much more minor laws created by a society. You are on illegal drugs now, right? Well, isn’t that a sin? Do you think God really cares coinsidering it used to be legal? The truth is, there are scriptures in the bible that relate to following the laws of the land. However, in the line of what God finds right or wrong, I was under the impression that this is what the Ten Commandments were for. You adding crap to them doesn’t make anything more right or less wrong. We were given a law to abide by. I would go as far as to assume that in the effort to get into heaven, that is what we will be judged by.
Is it necessary to make crap like this up? I don’t think that is what 100m is trying to say…
If there was no biblical basis for banning gay marriages, then some other rationale should be found if one wanted to ban them. Could you provide another such rationale?
There are very good reasons to ban the other behaviors that are thought to be part of a slippery slope. I’m certainly not for any of the other notions that are tagged on to the argument when discussing gay marriages.
Any other disclaimers needed here, or am I just getting paranoid about people jumping to their own conclusions about what I’m saying?
That’s not the argument. At least it wasn’t. I’m sure that you will now make that the argument.
The debate was about the biblical basis for making homosexuality a sin. 100M is of the opinion that God would probably prefer gays to heterosexuals. [/quote]
He hasn’t written anything like that. why add things to what he actually wrote just to make it sound worse?
[quote]
Since there is no biblical basis for the banning of gat marraiges - they should be legal.[/quote]
You are the one who brought up age related sexual offenses…to which I reminded you that these laws are a symptom of our society and were not always in place. That means one could easily question whether God sees it as a sin the same way our current society does. If the human race survives another 1,000 years and the age is changed again to being much younger, will those of this time period be released accordingly of their soul’s obligation? You could make the argument that God is above our own petty laws that we have only recently put into place…which is exactly what 100m has been arguing when he wrote that the change was added in the 1940’s to represent a bias of the times.
[quote]
That was the argument. I introduced NAMBLA and child rape because there is no biblical basis on which these should be outlawed either. Same argument. [/quote]
And just like I wrote above, if this were 200AD, would it be “child rape”?
I am not done reading all of it yet, let alone read it twice. However, if you are saying that this is not the goal of Christians, could you back that up with more than simply saying so?
[quote]
And what point does bringing up my “illegal drug use” serve? [/quote]
The same point that bringing up “child molestation” serves…a crime based on when you were born.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Any other disclaimers needed here, or am I just getting paranoid about people jumping to their own conclusions about what I’m saying?[/quote]
It seems to be a disease with them. They won’t even quote you directly. They simply make shit up about what they “think” you are trying to say.
[quote]vroom wrote:
100M is of the opinion that God would probably prefer gays to heterosexuals.
Is it necessary to make crap like this up? I don’t think that is what 100m is trying to say…
[/quote]
Fair enough. How about this? 100M is of the opinion that God doesn’t prefer one type of relationship over another. In His eyes Love is Love regardless.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you think we are going to be judged on how well we uphold the 10 commandments - you need to re-read the bible.
[/quote]
Also, just to make it clear, I understand complertely that we will be judged on our eacceptance of Christ and that our sins were taken care of by Christ. However, in terms of what is right and what is wrong, that was the original foundation.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
Any other disclaimers needed here, or am I just getting paranoid about people jumping to their own conclusions about what I’m saying?
It seems to be a disease with them. They won’t even quote you directly. They simply make shit up about what they “think” you are trying to say.[/quote]
Yeah - the Prof’s never done anything like that - ever.
I hope you limbered up - I’d hate to see you pull a muscle patting yourself on the back that hard.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
And what point does bringing up my “illegal drug use” serve?
The same point that bringing up “child molestation” serves…a crime based on when you were born.[/quote]
You haven’t been to the NAMBLA website yet, have you? Your ignorance of who they are and what they stand for makes you look stupid. But please - keep speaking from total ignorance. It hasn’t stopped you before.
Maybe you have and you see something that intrigues you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
And what point does bringing up my “illegal drug use” serve?
The same point that bringing up “child molestation” serves…a crime based on when you were born.
You haven’t been to the NAMBLA website yet, have you? Your ignorance of who they are and what they stand for makes you look stupid. But please - keep speaking from total ignorance. It hasn’t stopped you before.
Maybe you have and you see something that intrigues you. [/quote]
I did visit the web site and, considering what I wrote earlier about my own beliefs as far as maturity based on our society, I don’t agree with their position. That doesn’t mean that God will find all of their notions abnormal. I already wrote above why this would be the case. Once you get back to arguing the issue instead of personal attacks, perhaps the discussion could continue. I wasn’t aware that knowledge of NAMBLA meant jack shit. Their existance changes nothing in this thread. You simply threw them in because many see that group in a negative light. You do that a lot.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I already wrote above why this would be the case. Once you get back to arguing the issue instead of personal attacks, perhaps the discussion could continue. I wasn’t aware that knowledge of NAMBLA meant jack shit. [/quote]
My point is as it has been. There is behavior in society that is unacceptable. The anti-gay marraige side wants to draw the line right here. Everything from gay marraige on is bad for society. Bad for families. Bad for the institution of marraige.
The pro gay marraige side thinks that gay marraige is as normal as puttiong on your shoes, and that we on the right are paranoid. Homo-phobes. Religious fanatics.
But move the argument a little further to the left and start talking about allowing NAMBLA to marry 10 year-old boys, or at least accepting the fact that homosexual rape of kids in acceptable practice - and the argument changes.
But the only thing that has changed is whose rights are being denied. I find it hard to believe that any logical thinking adult would advocate the homosexual rape of 10 year old boys.
And you can pull out the paranoid flag and wave it all you want. That is what follows legalizing gay marraige. Polygamy, beastiality, child rape. There are no biblical reasons not to allow these - therefore it must be a societal thing, and once you open the door, you can’t control what comes in.
That’s my opinion.
If you want to get into a pissing contest over personal attacks - that is another thread.
I have debated with devout “Christian” homosexuals before who want very badly for there to be exclusions to their sin in the Bible. This is nothing new. If you cannot give up the sin, then you must, at least in your own mind rationalize it.
I think that any red blooded male who is married could easily put a spin on the Bible in order to rationalize cheating on his wife. He might begin with: “Solomon had many wives, it?s right in the Bible!”
Yes, sin is a strange thing. What some enjoy doing they want to keep doing. In order to do so they will use any sort of argument, even though it?s illogical and faulty (such as yours). Others admit their sin, and simply continue to do it. Still others realize where they have gone wrong and at least make attempts to (repentance) to go in another direction.
The word games that you play can work both ways, you stated: "God doesn’t seem to care about “sexual orientation.” “Sexual orientation” is a common phrase of the past 20 years or so. How can you use it to rationalize what God wants? By your logic if a specific word was not used then it becomes null and void, with no meaning, as in the word “homosexual.” There was no specific word for “orientation” and certainly no phrase for “sexual orientation.”
I just wanted to make a point before moving on. Oh, and God does indeed care about “sexual orientation” as you will see upon our further examination of the scriptures.
You call the passages that I gave you “the six classic anti-gay passages.” But, what does that really mean? I suppose that there are anti-murder" passages and “anti-theft” passages and many other “anti” passages as well.
Because they are “anti” something does that make them inherently wrong? Perhaps to a pro homosexual who wants badly to see God in one dimension, loving, and forgiving it makes sense. He is all of that, but more as the Bible clearly depicts him. The Bible is in fact “against” quite a lot of certain behaviors. How can a loving God put constraints on human beings? Why doesn’t a loving God allow us to do all things? Why are there any rules at all? In your world perhaps you can rationalize other sin as well, not sure.
Does every passage which is “anti” something deserve to be dissected, twisted and misinterpreted with as much zeal as the anti-homosexual scripture does? I suppose it would if you were a thief. If you were a thief then stealing would probably be fine. We will address the fact that any biblical passage can be twisted to mean pretty much whatever you want it to. Keep in mind that we had a President who wanted to debate the meaning of “is.”
Your argument is weak and very transparent. You attempt to twist scripture to suit your needs. I suppose a child rapist could claim that there is no specific commandment or law that prevents him from raping a child. Can you hear him now: “Where does it state in the Bible that I cannot rape a child?” Your argument makes about as much sense.
Unlike child rape the homosexual act is mentioned several times in the Bible, always under the context of it being WRONG! If something is mentioned six times (or more) in the Bible as being wrong and or a sin, then I suppose that is exactly what the author intended in his meaning.
My next post will attempt to at least begin to unravel the faulty logic and the self serving twist that the pro homosexuals have the audacity to subject the Bible to.