[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
With gay dudes there is no gatekeeper. The gate is always open. Of course this does not apply to all, but it applies to many.
[/quote]
Hmm. Maybe we’re getting closer to the root of the resentment here.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
The bible also says not to wear mixed fabrics… and here I am wearing scrubs that are a polyester blend. [/quote]
I guess this means we also can’t use exorcism to rid ourselves of those dreadful credit card companies that actually charge interest?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
With gay dudes there is no gatekeeper. The gate is always open. Of course this does not apply to all, but it applies to many.
It is truly amazing how fast a gay guy can hook up (as long as other gay guys are in the area.)
[/quote]
It’s funny, because I have a number of gay male and female friends too. All of them are either single and not getting any or in monogamous relationships (where level of getting some varies). One lesbian couple I know goes at it upwards of three times a day. They don’t have dicks, though, so they don’t really fit that stupid and obviously wrong statistic.
As far as I can tell, their activities are actually pretty analogous to everyone else I know. Go figure. Individual differences. Who’d have thought those exist in sexuality?
Oh, and how fast can a guy hook up with a girl if he looks for the right kind of chick?
Fed up with broad stereotypes being ascribed to any group -
Dan
Hehe… you’d think that after gays get married, then the sex will drop down a bit, just like in a hetero marriage.
So if y’all are so fired-up about reducing gay sexuality (it’s so sinful!), why aren’t you voting to support gay marriage? 
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Although I don’t believe that homosexuality is right, I am not going to judge anyone who is gay.[/quote]
I just thought I’d point out the irony in your two sentences here.
Reread what you wrote above.
If you didn’t judge gay people, wouldn’t you be ambivalent about homosexuality?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
There is a difference between knowing something is not right and judging someone for what they are doing. Don’t you know that?
[/quote]
But you are judging gays, and that’s okay. We judge people by their actions and other ways all the time. I assumed you meant judging them as in “looking down on them”, which seems to be the norm for religious bible-types. I’m glad that you’re open-minded enough to not let your beliefs make you hold an unwarranted prejudice against someone who is different from yourself.
Too often people use their religious beliefs to separate themselves from others, when we should be trying to work together for the common good for all people. Ask an islamic terrorist how open-minded he is.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
ZEB wrote:
rising_hope
Do you think you are going to spend all of your time in the Political Forum, or will you be visiting other areas as well?
By the way, I think your style will fit in quite well with many of the liberals on this board.
Welcome aboard!
Zeb
This post might have hit a hot button for me, but you bet I will. I’m relatively new to body building. I started back in February, at 27% bodyfat, 184#s, and today am at 17.4% and 175#s. Christain Thibaudeau or however his name is spelled, has an awesome tale of success, and I hope to repeat it!
Chris[/quote]
How old are you? Did you start late in life or still have plenty of time to ahead of you?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Aw c’mon, ZEB… what would a gay marriage thread be without you and I slinging shit at each other?[/quote]
Yea, but I have been at this for about 6 weeks now and am sort of tired of the topic. You know like any good party you want to move to another group of people and talk about something else other than say the latest Steelers game over and over again.
I have heard from many (you might be one I don’t recall) that Gay people would rather be straight, if they had their choice. Well, since we don’t know how they became Gay to begin with then why chance placing a perfectly normal child in a Gay home? How do you know that the influence of two Gay “parents” will not turn the child Gay? How can anyone know these things at this point?
There are many theories as to why people become Gay. One is certainly genetic. However there are others
http://www.narth.com/docs/fathers.html
I was debating the Bible with 100meters as that is where the thread took us. I have many different thoughts and beliefs outside of Biblical ones. Are you now stereotyping me? Furthermore, why would an atheists opinion seem to count more than a Christians opinion? Is that logical? Should they not both be valued the same?
The problem is that you take a huge leap of faith and assume that Gay people are in fact stable! I think the record shows that Gay people are less stable. From the facts that I have read they have a multitude of partners. I know, I know your friends are all Gay, every dang one of them. And furthermore they have all been with each other 12 years and are the finest people to walk the earth. But, that (stability) is probably not “average” for a typical Gay person.
“Monogamy is rare among Gay males. One study showed that 66% of Gay couples had sex outside of the “permanent” relationship with in the first year.”
“Almost 90% of the Gay relationships lasted only five years.”
Those are only two frightening statistics!
Read the following white paper. Gay couples are not as stable as you claim. Regardless of what you might be seeing regarding your very stable friends:
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
No I don’t think they are second class citizens. There are a multitude of people who for one reason or another are “different” in some way. That does not make them “second class citizens.”
However, we have to make sure that before we change a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population that it is the correct move. Remember, it’s not just about homosexuals who happen to want to get married. It’s about the family unit, children and social norms.
Now hold on there lothario, one of us is wrong right now. I am willing to say that it might be me. Are you willing to say the same thing? I am far from claiming to truly understand all of the complexities regarding this, and most other topics. Someone is not “closed” simply because they take up an opposing opinion. I do give these things much thought (just as you do) and I always arrive at the same conclusion:
-
Marriage is primarily for the propagation of the species. Not for two people of the same gender to gain financial benefits.
-
If we throw the Bible out the window (now I have your attention) the natural order of things does not dictate that two people of the same gender have sex. Did it ever occur to you that anal sex is not the natural order of things? I can hear the opposition now: “What do you care what two people do in the privacy of their own home.” Ahh…And there is the rub! I don’t care as long as it does not change societal norms! If you walk away with nothing else please remember that one. Again, it’s not tolerance that homosexuals desire, it’s acceptance! Acceptance into society as a legitimate married couple.
Call me conservative on this issue, but my eyes are not closed!
And if I supplied several “horror” stories of kids who were raised in Gay households would that change your mind? No…I guess not.
Divorce is a good example of statistics not being a good measure of how kids turn out. Some kids seem unaffected by divorce, some go through therapy for years because of their parents divorce. All agree at this point that divorce is not the best thing for kids. Are you ready to tell me that children adopted by two Gay people will turn out better than if they were adopted by a married couple in a traditional home? I’m not buying it, and I hope you are not selling it! At least not until I see rock solid evidence.
Let’s get something straight (no pun intended) you mischaracterize my views when you say the following:
- “(Zeb thinks) they’re (Gay people) dirty!”
I never said that and I don’t think that. I will tell you once more: As a Christian we are all sinners! I don’t view the sin of homosexuality as any worse than any other sin that can be committed. Love the sinner hate the sin, if you have children you know what I mean! (how many times have I typed that?)
I treat everyone with dignity and respect. I have hired homosexuals in the past. I have had business dealings with homosexuals. What someone does in thier private life, does not affect how I treat them.
- “All Zeb has provided is his muddled understanding of an old book.”
I have a decent (not expert) understanding of the Bible. Also, for you to refer to it as an “old book” is somewhat insensitive. However, it does seem politically correct to attack anything Christian, I mean there are no consequences to such behavior.
- “He is stubborn”
I am less stubborn than you may imagine and very open to change if that change is going to be a positive one! However, I would never advocate rushing out to channge a 5000 year old institution on a whim. Is that being stubborn? I think not.
More than any one specific statement is your overriding attitude that anyone who opposes Gay marriage is somehow a closed minded and homophobic. I think your actual mindset is no different than the one which you accuse me of having.
That is perhaps the single most disappointing argument which is continually launched by the pro homosexual marriage crowd. Why can’t anyone oppose them without being labeled? Have you ever read of me labeling homosexuals? Have I ever stated that they were all hairdressers, or interior decorators? How foolish that would be!
One can take up opposition to Gay Marriage without hating anyone. I am a perfect example of that. Certainly there are those who hate people who are Gay, does it then logically follow that anyone who speaks out against Gay Marriage is also hateful? Of course not! Just as your friends are not typical of the entire Gay population, I and many others are not what you think is typical of those who oppose Gay Marriage.
I have no hate in my heart for anyone who might be homosexual. Do most homosexuals feel the same way toward those who oppose Gay Marriage? Think it over lothario, you are to bright to continually play the “hate card.”
Yes, I would hate to miss out on being called all of those wonderful names which seem to find their way onto the keyboard by those who are unaware that there can be two legitimate sides of a debate argued by two opposing factions where neither is filled with hate!
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zeb, this is not necessarily directed specifically at you, I am just going to have a good old fashioned fit of pique here.[/quote]
This is the Internet you are entitled.
On the contrary, God is quite prolific regarding direct teaching. Regardless of which book (in the Bible) you turn to it will be filled with “direct teachings.”
Please back this assertion up with specifics. Otherwise, I think you are blindly quoting…the blind!
[quoteWhy should we be impressed? Safe inside that little black book, waiting, is what will have to come out when next we need to have a witch hunt: advice on what to do with witches. There is also a bunch more advice nobody wants to take anymore, even fundamentalists.[/quote]
If you can read Proverbs (only one example) and not be impressed, then I think you need to reasses your own self importance. There are indeed rules for living in the Bible. Like any other rules, when someone does not like them, they want to change them. When it comes to the Bible, they can’t change the rules so they try to twist them (those that care that is).
I will say this about the Bible: It’s the only book that I know of where people are allowed to question whether the author(s) really meant what they said. Think about it.
I don’t want to make assumptions as I don’t know you. However, as a Christian and someone who also enjoys history, the Bible has enormous importance. Marriage being only one of the important things handed down directly from God: One man, one woman, Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve, sorry had to say it).
I think a book which has survived over 2000 years deserves more than what you seem to offer. Have you read the Bible, all of it?
Imporvement is good. Allowing two homosexuals marriage rights and the right to adopt children is not an improvement in my opinion. If I were to become an atheist I would believe the same thing. I simply want a demonstration as to how homosexuals marrying improves society.
Our “notion” of marriage might be different, but our “structure” is the exact same: One man, one woman!
[quote]Finally, anyone who drags the Bible into this discussion, who doesn’t absolutely live by all its literal directives, well it seems to me they lay themelves straight open to charges of hipocrisy. Jesus was very down on the h-thing, you may recall.
[/quote]
I agree hypocrisy is not a good thing. However, what’s even worse (according to Christ) are those who turn away from the Lord.
Since we are all sinners we know that we are destined to fail. That is a sort of paradox of Christianity. When you become a Christian you don’t automatically become “holier than thou.” I know some think they are, but they are dead wrong!
What does occur are two things:
The first is that from that point forward you actually try not to sin. It’s that simple! I’m not talking about how most people try to workout. I’m talking about a real effort not to sin. You turn from it, get away from it: “Flee.”
The second part is the part I like best. Even if (okay when) I do sin I know I’m forgiven. Once you accept Christ and his great sacrifice you are automatically forgiven for any sins which you have committed.
I know you might not be in agreement with all of this (see how perceptive I am). However, place your disbelief on hold for just one minute.
If Christ is the son of God and he came to earth in human form and did die for our sins, tell me who else who has ever lived can match that greatest gift to humanity?
How would you feel if you came with a great gift for someone and they turned away?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
On the contrary, God is quite prolific regarding direct teaching. Regardless of which book (in the Bible) you turn to it will be filled with “direct teachings.”
[/quote]
I’m guessing then that you ascribe to the notion that everything in the Bible was “Divinely Inspired.” This is an honest question here - how was it decided which books were put into the version of the Bible you use, and why are other versions different? How do you handle the disagreement in construction?
I do kinda like the notion that the Song of Solomon is full of direct teachings, though.
To do so would be a recount of the entire history of Christianity, Zeb, as it has gone through many revisions. My mother has her Master’s in Catholic theology - she told me depending on which historical accounts are accurate, it’s about 15.
[quote]Why should we be impressed? Safe inside that little black book, waiting, is what will have to come out when next we need to have a witch hunt: advice on what to do with witches. There is also a bunch more advice nobody wants to take anymore, even fundamentalists.
If you can read Proverbs (only one example) and not be impressed, then I think you need to reasses your own self importance. There are indeed rules for living in the Bible. Like any other rules, when someone does not like them, they want to change them. When it comes to the Bible, they can’t change the rules so they try to twist them (those that care that is).
[/quote]
Or, as 100meters has pointed out, they mistranslate in order to serve a purpose.
Ever read Leviticus? How much of that still applies? Made any grain offerings to the Lord lately? I don’t say this to be disrespectful, but to point out that much of what was written in the Bible was written for a specific audience with specific needs in a specific sociopolitical climate. To understand what it is that God was saying, you must examine the human author of each book, his motivations, and who he was writing for.
I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this, but people are encouraged to question philosophical texts, historical texts, physical training texts, etc.
So then you do ascribe to everyone descending from two original human beings? And thus tons of inbreeding leading us to where we are today genetically?
See my point about Church history above - some versions are very recent.
Demonstrate to me how heterosexuals “marrying” improves society.
You have missed his point entirely. The portion of this debate that has centered on the Bible has offered some (be they scant and incorrect) passages condemning homosexuality and homosexual practices. Okay, let’s say those passages are right. What about the other specific rules set up in the Bible? Many are written much more clearly than the passages on homosexuality, but when did you check the tag of a shirt to check its construction or decide not to have a cheeseburger because it mixes meat and dairy?
If you’re going to so strictly choose to believe one passage of the Bible, how can you not do the same for ALL of them?
Thousands of other martyrs who died for the betterment of mankind, some of whom died far more gruesome and painful deaths than Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m actually a little fuzzy on the specifics of “dying for our sins,” it’s a bit of doctrine that has never made a lot of sense to me. Is it a correct synopsis to say that God was pissed at mankind for their sins, came down to earth, talked for a while, saw that that wasn’t going very well, then sacrificed himself to appease himself?
-Dan
Hey your are not “endgamer.” LOL, okay what the heck…
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
I’m guessing then that you ascribe to the notion that everything in the Bible was “Divinely Inspired.” This is an honest question here - how was it decided which books were put into the version of the Bible you use, and why are other versions different? How do you handle the disagreement in construction?[/quote]
As an atheist, (I’m assuming here, forgive me if I’m wrong) if you wanted to get your point across I’m sure that you are able to do it. If you, as a mere man (again an assumption you might be a woman, if so I’m sorry) are able to get your point across, I’m sure that the creator of the Universe is also able to get his point across. Yes, the Bible is the word of God in my opinion.
Yes, I bet you would. However, even books that you have not read, or may not like are also full of direct teachings!
I mean this as no disrespect to your mother, however there are thousands of very well educated theologians who have looked very closely at the scripture. In fact, they have made it their lifes work. People like:
James Barr Distinguished Professor of Hebrew Bible Emeritus, Vanderbilt University.
John Barton Oriel And Laing Professor of The Interpretation Of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford.
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P. Professor of New testament Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem.
And many, many more!
They all have a rich history in Biblical interpretation. They all have multiple degrees. In fact, it is probably foolish for someone like me to even be debating on such a topic given my extreme lack of education in this area. Perhaps that’s one reason I feel so uncomfortable debating the topic, over and over again.
Yes, that’s the sweet part about the Internet. Anyone can claim anything. The many pro-homosexual Internet sites have proven this. While I don’t know for sure it seemed 100meters was simply quoting from the many homosexual sites that have popped up attempting to twist the word of God.
For example, the word “homosexual” is used in 1 Corinthians 6:9
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.”
The pro homosexual crowd will say “nonsense the word homosexual was not even invented until 1845. Therefore, how could it be in the Bible?”
Good talking point, but weak upon deeper examination!
The answer is very simple. The ancient Greek word (one of them) for “homosexual” was “arsenokoitai.” This is taken from two words: “Arethen” meaning “men” and “Koitai” meaning “to lie with.” In short, it means “men lying with men.”
Something strictly prohibited in both the Old and New Testaments.
Other interpretations will use the word “bugger” Etc. The point is that there were homosexuals thousands of years ago. And homosexual behavior is condemned by the Bible. That is only one passage there are others.
There is no “mistranslation” involved. It’s very obvious and quite accurate!
[quoteEver read Leviticus? How much of that still applies? Made any grain offerings to the Lord lately? I don’t say this to be disrespectful, but to point out that much of what was written in the Bible was written for a specific audience with specific needs in a specific sociopolitical climate. To understand what it is that God was saying, you must examine the human author of each book, his motivations, and who he was writing for.[/quote]
I’ll give you the short answer here: When Christ came to earth he wiped the slate clean relative to “burnt offerings” (after all he was the offering there need be no other).
When it comes to the “rules of living” (for want of a better term) I like to stick to the New Testament. Homosexuality was indeed condemned in the Old Testament. However, it is also condemned in the New Testament as well!
A very quick look:
“vile affections” Rom 1:26
“without natural affection” Rom 1:31
“effeminate” 1 Cor 6:9
“abusers of themselves with mankind” 1 Cor 6:9
“inordinate affection” Col 3:5
“defile themselves with mankind” 1 Tim 1:10
“without natural affection” 2 Tim 3:3
In fact the New Testament is even stricter in many ways than the Old Testament. Two examples of this are divorce, where we are instructed in the New Testament to only divorce if our spouse is unfaithful, no other reason. Also, we are cautioned in the New Testament about “lusting in the heart.” There was no such cautionary note sounded about such a thing in the Old Testament.
Christ brought with him love, but that “love” does not give anyone the right to sin! Why then would God have sent his only sone as a sacrifice? Certainly not to promote sin!
Yes “questioning” is good! twisting the truth to in order to rationalize sin is not so good.
There are two Biblical theories regarding your point (and it’s a very good point). The first is that God did in fact create two human beings first. He then created others in other parts of the world. Not a bad theory as the Bible never claims that Adam and Eve were the only created beings. And in fact I subscribe to this theory as it makes perfect sense relative to how the other accounts in the Bible play out.
The second theory claims that there could not be any genetic defects at that point in time as the “gene pool” was clean. Hence, in theory one could marry their sister, brother etc. I do not subscribe to this theory. I only present it as I have heard it.
There are many, many quality interpretations of the Bible. I posted a list on this very thread a few weeks ago. All of the major versions are of the highest quality relative to interpretation etc. NIV KJ, NKJ, NAS, ESV, NCV the list is endless. All of them are quite sound, well researched and backed by some of the finest translators in the world of theology.
I think the very fabric of our society is based upon marriage. Propagation of the species and sound order with in the “brood” based upon structure. That structure is the family!
Perhaps you have missed my point entirely. I am in no way posting simply to answer questions.
As to your assertion that there are “scant and incorrect passages” please point out where I have erred. There are several passages clearly condemning homosexuality. I have read each of them carefully. I have also turned back to ancient Hebrew and Greek and made sure that each was indeed based upon the authors original intent. Furthermore, on several occasions I have researched the actual ancient word (root words etc.).
I have given you one example above with one word. There are many more similar to this. Again, if I have erred please point out exactly where. In all sincerity I would like to know.
I have covered this in your query regarding the Old Testament rules versus the New Testament.
The passages written in the New Testament are very clear regarding the practice of homosexuality. It was condemned! If you like I will go through each passage with you, verse by verse using ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as our guide. However, I think this would be better done using PM. I am sincere in my offer!
Do not be deceived the passages on homosexuality are indeed very very clear!
[quote] Thousands of other martyrs who died for the betterment of mankind, some of whom died far more gruesome and painful deaths than Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m actually a little fuzzy on the specifics of “dying for our sins,” it’s a bit of doctrine that has never made a lot of sense to me. Is it a correct synopsis to say that God was pissed at mankind for their sins, came down to earth, talked for a while, saw that that wasn’t going very well, then sacrificed himself to appease himself?
-Dan
[/quote]
All very good questions! I will step up to the plate and do my best to answer them. Keep in mind that you would probably be better off talking to someone in the clergy.
Here goes:
The thousands of martyrs which you speak of who died a more horrible death than Christ did so for a cause, or a group of other people. That is all very commendable. However, it falls dramatically short of what Christ did for us humanity!
When man fell in the Garden of Eden he was without redemption. There needed to be some sort of sacrifice from that point forward. That’s why we read about all of the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. There needed to be something to account for the sin of man.
When Christ came to earth he did so in order to take all of the sins away from those who would accept this gift.
The Bible is very clear (yes every interpretation!) that without accepting Christ we are bound for an eternity away from God. The Bible is also clear about where we are bound. No one wants to hear it and a sure fire (no pun intended) way to be mocked is to start talking about it. However, that place is Hell.
It is a difficult concept, that God does not like sin. The next logical question is usually: “Then why did he create sin.” The answer: he created free will and we choose to sin.
Someday when you have a child of your own ( I assume you have none at this point, sorry If I am wrong) you will see that you want your child to do what is right of his/her own free will. You don’t want to force him. You also want him to love you of his own accord.
Next question: How can a loving God send someone to Hell? Answer: he sends no one! You send yourself. In fact, consider for one moment that the Bible is the word of God. How many warnings are present regarding accepting Christ? How many warnings are there about Hell? Many, many!
Not unlike you warning your child about drinking and driving. You might give warning after warning. If he suddenly dies in a car accident because he was drinking, did you kill him? Of course not! In fact you warned him time and again. Free will!
Because he didn’t heed your warnings he died! Free will!
Not much different (in some respects) to what the Bible teaches us about God. Christ died for your sins (as there had to be a sacrifice after the fall of man). You either accept his gift as some of us have freely chosen to do, or you turn away.
Your free choice!
But there are consequences with that choice. Just like any other choice.
If you would like to continue this conversation please PM me. I honestly tried to answer your questions as best that I could.
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey your are not “endgamer.” LOL, okay what the heck…
[/quote]
Ha ha, and off they go. No Zeb, you misinterpreted what I meant by “direct teachings”. I mean from God’s mouth to our ears. Or even better, the written testimony: I’m good to go with the ten commandments.
And no, I don’t see how anyone who believes in the Christ can take all of what is in the Bible as divinely inspired. It is full of human error. And unless you’re divinely inspired, how can you tell what’s what? That is why God sent Jesus to us. Just taking it in the neck for our sins wasn’t good enough, he was here to teach us also, which he did from an early age. If God had felt that homosexuality was an important matter, Jesus would certainly have mentioned it.
As for the apostles, sometimes they are witnesses and sometimes they are interpreters, you have to watch out for those guys. Jesus had to pull them up on their leashes practically every time he turned around.
Now all of this is as to what I believe, so you really don’t need to reply. But I still hope you watch your step with the h-thing.
To those against gay marriage, gay sex, gay acceptance or anything else for religious reasons, whatever happend to Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged?
Heh, really, why don’t you let the big guy worry about judging right and wrong? Since when does he need your assistance in assigning the rules? We all get to read the big book, we all get to take our chances on our interpretations.
So, maybe you can simply mind your own business and make your own choices, instead of restricting the choices of others based on your own interpretations.
(post deleted by author).
I actually have a fairly decent understanding of most of what I was asking - most of my questions were rhetorical to provoke examination A couple of them didn’t get across the way I wanted though, so I’ll try to clarify. I’d reply in PM, but I’d like most of it to be publicly available as it strongly pertains to the basis of banning homosexual marriage in a legal sense too.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey your are not “endgamer.” LOL, okay what the heck…
As an atheist
[/quote]
Agnostic ex-Catholic, no offense taken though.
I think this is the main sticking point in where my questions were unclear - which Bible, who decided what to include, and why? Or are you referring to the 4 Gospels that were included as “The Bible?” Why not the book of Timothy, for example? Don’t get me wrong, I think a lot of what’s in the Bible is fantastic. Love thy neighbor and whatnot is great stuff, I’m a big proponent. When it comes down to specific matters of doctrine and practice, however, I’ve found that much doesn’t hold up.
I’ve read them all, actually - KJV mostly. I see direct teachings as written by men who were followers of Jesus in the Christian Gospels. Did their political motivations shape what they wrote? Did they employ certain literary techniques to make a point that were later skewed a little as a matter of time passing? Did they say some things due to pragmatic concerns over ethical concerns? Referring to male-male sex as “unclean” reminds me of the Kosher law not to eat pork because pigs were “unclean” due to what they were fed. Maybe the writer was just worried about getting the wang a little dirty in unprotected anal intercourse. They didn’t really have colonics back then.
I’m not familiar enough with the work of the people you mentioned to comment. My Latin teacher in high school was actually involved in the original translations of a number of religious documents found in the past 40 years or so - Dan Triulzi if you’re interested. He’s a Marionist priest, nonalingual, and extremely intelligent. He was willing to admit that much of the translation they do is a little bit fuzzy because of possible colloquialisms and meaning we may be ascribing to terms that simply might not have been there to the author. We didn’t really talk about the issue of homosexuality as it was an all-male Catholic high school and the topic made most of the guys pretty uncomfortable. In retrospect, I wish we had.
Wow, they knew how to write in modern English then? I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here, though most linguists I know tend to fall in the murky meaning camp.
100m discussed this very thoroughly. The fact that he’s able to put up such a strong argument leads back to the fact that all translation can be tricky. Sure, a lot is certain, but much isn’t. This is one of the uncertain ones. I do side with 100m here, though.
Okay, so you think the 600-some odd laws of the Torah are obsolete. That makes sense, from a pragmatic standpoint, many of them are. Have you applied the same critical eye to the laws of the Christian scriptures? Bear in mind that the writers were coming from the Jewish tradition here, where the first law is to “Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.” Might the negative eye that may be cast on homosexuality be merely coming from not having condoms or the act of homosexual sex not adding to the population of the faithful?
These are all NOT straightforward to a translator. This is exactly the kind of problem Padre Dan was telling us about - are these statements literal? Are they colloquialisms that mean something totally different than what we think? How will translators 500 years from now interpret the saying “That’s tight, dawg?” or “That’s one sick trick G?”
Yeah, well, that’s another tangent to the gay marriage discussion unfortunately, begging the question "What, then, is “unfaithful?”
I think that’s because the Jews are a lot more straightforward in their rules and realistic of the human condition. They don’t try to whitewash who they are.
One man’s rationalization is another man’s reasoning. Rationalization specifically means that necessary factors in an argument are ignored. Unfortunately, I see a lot more rationalization happening on the conservative side of the issue of gay marriage than on the liberal side.
Yup, saw it.
How about translators who don’t come from a Judeo-Christian background? As neutral a third party as one can get; how would they translate it?
Not in a lot of cultures. A more communal upbringing is fairly common. Sure, it used to take a man and a woman to make a child through intercourse. Not only is that not necessary now, but having teachers, day care workers, etc. all contributes to the actual raising of the child. Do they need people to love them and show them how to live? Sure. Does it have to be a married man and woman? Nope. A great many studies show this - I’d link you to the ones I’ve seen, but they’re in a password protected database. And pasting them here would be a pretty severe copyright violation. If you’d like some info about communal upbringing and growing up in a household with homosexual parents, though, I’d be happy to post the citations if you can get to them elsewhere.
I understand that, but some of the questions asked by me and others are rather crucial to the anti-homosexual marriage front and need to be addressed in order to be credible.
Sorry, should have said “probably” or “maybe” incorrect passages. Translation problem as stated before.
I’m sorry, but if Padre Dan, a respected translator and fluent speaker of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, admits that some meanings are murky, I’m gonna go with that.
Yup, and it’s a respectable stance, so I’ll let this go with my question that was above.
The martyr thing was a bit off topic, I’ll drop that for now. I still don’t get how God can sacrifice himself TO himself. It’s like grading your own test. But enough of that for now…
-Dan
Hey glad you showed up!
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hey your are not “endgamer.” LOL, okay what the heck…
Ha ha, and off they go. No Zeb, you misinterpreted what I meant by “direct teachings”. I mean from God’s mouth to our ears. Or even better, the written testimony: I’m good to go with the ten commandments.[/quote]
But I wonder how you can have faith in those ten commandments when they have come from a book that is (to your mind) quite flawed.
Yes, I have heard the “human error” claim before. Please tell me specifically what the
“human errors” are? I consider myself a student Ha ha a forty something student. What I mean is that I am always trying to learn. With no malice in my heart please point out the errors so that I can be better informed.
Here is where I think many in the homosexual community twist the message. If Christ were against homosexuality he would have stated it, they say emphatically. Really, do you think Christ was for rape? Do you think he was for adults having sex with children? Do you think that he thought bestiality was appropriate? He never mentioned any of them (and many, many more).
There is a list of sins that Christ does not specifically mention. Does that make them any less sinful? No.
Furthermore, that is why we have the Bible. The fact is that homosexuality is mentioned many times in both the Old and New Testament. Each time it is mentioned it is condemned very clearly!
Christ was even against thinking lustful thoughts:
Matthew 5:28 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
With that mindset (against sin) how in the world can anyone claim that Christ is for homosexuality simply because he personally never mentioned it?
[quote]As for the apostles, sometimes they are witnesses and sometimes they are interpreters, you have to watch out for those guys. Jesus had to pull them up on their leashes practically every time he turned around.
Now all of this is as to what I believe, so you really don’t need to reply. But I still hope you watch your step with the h-thing.[/quote]
The Apostles were in fact witnesses to Christ’s work on earth. Can you imagine seeing some of the things that these men saw?
Many times they had no idea what Christ was saying, especially in various parables. They were humble men plucked from (mostly) working class backgrounds. Ordinary men selected for an inordinate job!
However, the Apostle Paul (not an original Apostle) was a well educated man who was quite familiar with Christ’s teachings.
He states several times in the Bible that homosexuality is indeed a sin:
“Rom 1:26, Rom 1:31, 1 Cor 6:9, 1Cor6:9, Col 3:5, 1 Tim 1:10 and
2 Tim 3:3”
Again, we live in an age of tolerance. For this I am grateful. However, no one should try to rationalize any homosexual act by making such outlandish claims as it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is simply nonsense and meant to deceive those who are vulnerable!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey glad you showed up!
[/quote]
and on, and on.
As to what lesson Jesus actually did have for us, it was to love one another. And there were never any limits placed on that love, other than the standard injunctions in the commandments.
Have you done the Lord’s lesson?
Now go thump your Bible a few thousand more words.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
I actually have a fairly decent understanding of most of what I was asking - most of my questions were rhetorical to provoke examination A couple of them didn’t get across the way I wanted though, so I’ll try to clarify. I’d reply in PM, but I’d like most of it to be publicly available as it strongly pertains to the basis of banning homosexual marriage in a legal sense too.[/quote]
Fair enough!
[quote]Agnostic ex-Catholic, no offense taken though.[quote]
I too am an “ex-Catholic.”
Perhaps you could shed some light on what you mean when you say “which Bible?” I thought I was pretty clear with the very long list of Bible translations that have been around a long time and they are very well respected by all but the Internet quacks (not referring to you please don’t misunderstand). By the way “Timothy” is in the Bible, both the Catholic and Protestant versions.
I would like to know what exactly “doesn’t hold up” in your opinion. Please be specific.
As I stated and which there is sound Biblical teaching to support: I believe the Bible to be the word of God.
Timothy 3:16
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”
I know that the world rejects this, that too is spoken of.
Levitical law was certainly interesting. There is obviously no need to not wear certain fabrics (as stated in part of Levitical law) and many other “laws” which were obviously directed at the people of the day.
However, I would like to mention that the “laws” set forth in Leviticus 18 as “Sexual Laws” are still upheld today. Everyone of them, but one. Can you guess which one that is? Homosexuality!
There are several “Sexual” laws which God spoke to Moses about.
Briefly:
Don’t have sex with a relative.
Don’t have sex with your mother
Don’t have sex with your fathers wife (stepmother).
Don’t have sex with your sister (step sister etc.).
Do not have sex with your offspring’s daughter.
Do not have sex with the daughter of your fathers wife.
Do not have sex with your father’s sister.
Do not have sex with your mother’s sister.
Do not have sex with your Aunt.
Do not have sex with your daughter in law.
Do not have sex with your brothers wife.
Do not have sex with both a woman and her daughter.
Do not have sex with your wifes sister while your wife is still living.
Do not have sex with your neighbor’s wife.
DO NOT LIE WITH A MAN AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN.
Do not have sex with an animal.
Tell me which of these is now acceptable and very much appropriate in our society? The sexual laws of Leviticus are still respected to this day! Well, all but one.
I mean this as no disrespect, however the many dedicated men and women who have spent a lifetime in interpreting scripture are probably better suited than your High School teacher. Again no slam against your teacher. You are fortunate to have a teacher which you hold in such high esteem.
[quote]For example, the word “homosexual” is used in 1 Corinthians 6:9
Wow, they knew how to write in modern English then? I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here, though most linguists I know tend to fall in the murky meaning camp.[/quote]
I thought I was clear that the word “homosexual” did not come into popular usage until the 1800’s. :)However, just because the word was not around does that mean that the action did not take place.
As I stated the ancient Greek word (one of them) for “homosexual” was “arsenokoitai.” This is taken from two words: “Arethen” meaning “men” and “Koitai” meaning “to lie with.” In short, it means “men lying with men.” Please don’t take my word for it. Go online find a credible ancient Greek source and see for yourself! There is no other interpretation for that word. It means men having sex with other men.
Not to purposely be argumentative, however this is one of the ones which there is no doubt about! 100meters entire argument was based upon the word “arsenokoitai” meaning “male whore.” This was proven to be completely false! The word for “male whore” was “Pornos.”
This word “Pornos” is used to describe “male whores” several times in the Bible. Rev 21:3, Rev 22:15, Hebrews 13:4 etc. Again, do the research as I did, you will come to the same conclusion.
Paul was very clear in his condemnation of homosexuality in 1Corinthians 6:9 when he stated:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.”
The above is the American Standard Bible. As already stated twice the word “homosexual” was not yet in use. However the Greek word “arsenokoitai” was in use. Hence, I give you the ancient Greek scripture:
“h ouk oidate oti adikoi qeou basileian ou klhronomhsousin? mh planasqe; oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moixoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai.”
Again, please don’t take my word for it. Don’t even take the word of the countless thousands of credible Bible interpreters who all agree that the word “arsenokoitai” translates to men having sex with other men, simply look it up yourself!
There is simply no debate on this word!
Again, look at the ancient sexual laws in Leviticus. Are they outdated? Is sleeping with your sister now acceptable? Is having sex with animals now acceptable? Is having sex with your child now acceptable?
We have already discussed one New Testament track there are many others. Homosexuality was simply not acceptable in either the Old Testament or the New.
Again, no offense to your High School teacher, but many have come before him who were very well educated in translation and did a great job.
Those who really want homosexuality to be just fine, will pick and twist and turn until they get what they want. To the rest of the world it’s really quite obvious.
Could be, but it’s also because of who Christ was (and is). He was speaking to us from a different position.
I’m sorry but that’s simply not the case! Again, there have been tens of thousands of Bible interpreters who have given their lives to the cause of a just translation. Believe it or not they were not homophobics, but serious professionals doing a job. They saw a word like “arsenokoitai” went to great lengths in researching ancient Greek and came to the sound conclusion that it basically means “homosexual” men having sex with men.
In comes the Internet and the pro homosexual sites and out goes 2000 years of quality translation? All in the name of equal rights for homosexuals? I can’t agree, sorry. Their argument should be “we don’t care what the Bible states we are going to do this anyway.” Now that makes sense. Not from a theological position, but from a logical one.
Also, concepts and ideas can certainly be debated. However, just as you and I know exactly what the word “homosexual” means, the people of Pauls day were well aware of what the word “arsenokoitai” meant. There is really no debate regarding that word (and many many others). The pro homosexual crowd simply wants it to be a different way, but the truth is the truth. 2000 years from now the word “homosexual” as it is used today will have the same meaning. Their arguments are quite foolish!
I have no idea why don’t you find one and ask him/her. I don’t think that there is much doubt that while they may disagree that Jesus Christ was the son of God, a the definition of a word is still quite simple to figure out.
I think the very fabric of our society is based upon marriage. Propagation of the species and sound order with in the “brood” based upon structure. That structure is the family!
Please give me specific examples of which cultures you are referring to. Were these “cultures” successful relative to social development? Were they progressive? Did they achieve the greatness that this culture has achieved? I really want to know more about these cultures that do not respect marriage, or our sense of traditional family.
And you are claiming that this is better than a mother and father who loves them?
Strongly disagree! I think statistics also prove that when a child is raised with a mother and father who loves them they have a better start in life.
I wouldn’t want you to get in trouble. I do have statistics which prove the contrary and I will post them:
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=IS01J3&f=WU05A06&t=e
This final “white paper” is truly exceptional. Please read it if you have the time.
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
No problem.
I’m sorry, but if Padre Dan, a respected translator and fluent speaker of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, admits that some meanings are murky, I’m gonna go with that.[/quote]
No slam to this individual but you will have to agree he is not the final word on world Biblical translations. Neither am I that’s why I went directly to the experts! Thousands of them!
[quote]The martyr thing was a bit off topic, I’ll drop that for now. I still don’t get how God can sacrifice himself TO himself. It’s like grading your own test. But enough of that for now…
-Dan[/quote]
He sacrificed himself for every man and woman who will believe!
I still find it hard to imagine why God would do such a thing. I think the overriding reason was love.
If he did in fact do this, I would not want to be the one to deny this great gift!
Zeb
Speaking of human error, the apostles invented the church. When they’re quoting the Man they’re serving their purpose. Beyond that expect nothing from them but error, and make damned sure they got the quote half way right. The rest of it is nothing but political pragmatics of their era.
BTW, I come at my Christianity as somewhat of a Krishnamurti fan. I am completely unimpressed with the edifices constructed around God’s words, and that goes double for Revelations. God figures we’re bright enough to solve practical problems in reasonable ways.
I will say that for me, more and more, this last aspect of God truly surpasses understanding.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But I wonder how you can have faith in those ten commandments when they have come from a book that is (to your mind) quite flawed.
[/quote]
Actually, I expect good old Moses probably made them up too. I have faith in them because they are minimal, and line up with Christ’s teachings.