But not sex between homosexuals. The Bible, or more specifically the people who wrote it, had no concept of homosexuality.
This has various translations and not all translate any words to homosexuality.
Again, this is also translated from Greek and translations will vary.
Nope
.I’ll edit
So what do you think the Bible was forbidding in those verses?
The Greek basically breaks it down to pitcher/catcher, top/bottom.
Maybe that’s crystal clear if you’re on a time voyage from the beginning of the world-2010ish, but we know better now.
All right,
Plenty of threads on religion here already. Can we get this one back to the topic?
Especially curious on people’s thoughts on equality vs equity.
A thought: definitions for each word might help, as you can find different ones for each - especially in the current discourse. Or maybe just limit the dialogue to the concepts of same outcome vs. same treatment and opportunity. Might keep the convo from getting bogged down in tangential semantics.
This is what I mean when I say equity vs equality.
It’s a way of thinking that betrays a commie mindset pushing a narrative where the winners are evil and the losers are the good guys.
It comes from people who never lived in the real world. People who have an awareness of the world know that you can give someone everything, and they will still fail, and you give someone nothing, and they will succeed. It really is about wealth redistribution.
WTF? I gotta copy and save this list for the near future lol.
Agreed. It took A LOT of balls(Oh shut up SJWs, it’s just a figure of speech.) in the past with some bloody expensive law suits to change legislation and public perception. Fuck, you know what some of the assholes I knew in the 90s did when they had a bad day?
They’d go to the more isolated areas of town where freelance transsexual streetwalkers - which means they paid “protection money” to the gangs that “owned” the territory but had no pimps - did their business and beat the shit out of one of them for fun. It was the fucking gangsters who stopped them when they saw that shit happening. Talk about irony lol.
Try convincing fuckers like these to change their perceptions with the kind of screaming and shit the more extreme idiots are doing these days.
Check out the works of Geoffrey Robertson if you’re interested in the legal stuff. I’d highly recommend The Justice Game if you’re also interested in stuff like freedom of speech and detention without trial in different countries along with homosexual rights several decades ago. Not much real legal language but quite a few interesting excerpts from actual court transcriptions. I believe the dude’s an Australian but he’s a QC in the UK.
I agree. It’s a very insidious way to start shifting the beliefs of small/weak minded folks.
The Social Security one is my favorite. It says “it doesn’t matter that you broke laws to get into this country”.
You could say the same of reality. Why can various people have their own reality? If everyone really has his/her own reality then absolutely nothing can be real.
If you wouldn’t mind me saying - there is or should be a claim on your part, it’s more like there is a Truth that has you rather than that big ole’ swole you has It.
From Rumi
“The truth was a mirror in the hands of God. It fell, and broke into pieces. Everybody took a piece of it, and they looked at it and thought they had the truth.”
I think it would be fair enough to say we all have a tiny little sliver of Truth in some vague sense, usually. Fortunately it’s small and vague enough to usually be irrelevant. It can really suck tho when it gets ignored, denied, dishonored, disrespected at times when it becomes neither vague nor small.
The idea doesn’t need to automatically present systematic philosophical failure any moreso than the idea that people can have different realities or that we can’t know what’s true or real.
It would be a problem if people were overly simplistic or dishonest about it tho. Which is probably the case. I live under a rock, deep inside of a cave, so I haven’t even noticed.
Your post here is well thought out. Thanks for the great response.
As to the reality, I don’t think a person can have their own reality either.
The claim that I make to the truth is that I believe Jesus and God exist and I will be saved by following him. But regardless of what I believe this is either the absolute truth or it’s not. Looking at it objectively, it’s just as likely to not be the truth. I believe it to be the objective truth, but I cannot say for absolute certain that it is.
I do think most people are overly simplistic about all of this due to the innate desire for us humans to be right. Being right has been equated to the Truth nowadays in what I think is a false equivalence.
As did the Romans. Moreover, the poet Ovid was ridiculed as “effeminate” for having sex only with women. The question of sexual roles was primarily a question of wealth/social standing, regardless of gender.
I am not religious and there are large parts of both the Old and New testament that I have never read.
But
Leviticus Verse 22
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
There are 613 Mitzvot (commandments in the Torah).
According to Jewish scholars to break those commandments is to sin. Leviticus verse 22 is one of them.
Granted performing sorcery and conversing with wizards is also in there.
I should have read through the rest of the thread to see that people already responded to you.
I think thats a bit pedantic.
My counter to that would be what could be inferred about their views regarding homosexuality simply by them condemning the act itself. But thats certainly not concrete.
Homosexuals don’t lie with other homosexuals as if they are women. If they were to lie with a woman it would as if she were a man.
Again I think thats pedantic. Most people would interpret that line as homosexual sex. Of what sort who is to say. But I interpret as man expressing himself sexually with another man in. That sort of expression being meant for a women.
What do you think it means?
I think the people who wrote the Bible had no concept of homosexuality.
It’s funny, I’m actually annoyed by people insisting in an absolute or “objective” truth. As someone that studied math and physics for years I abandoned this notion very early into my college career, as no data can ever be collected except through observation and one’s own reference frame. Both quantum physics and general relativity have told us for over a century that no two observers will even read the same measurement for the exact same attribute of the exact same object, since they are always in different reference frames (i.e. moving at different speeds, positioned differently relative to a massive body like the earth, etc.)
Moreover, even a cursory glance into neuroscience will tell you just how unreliable our perceptions and memory really are, and how much we can effectively “choose” what we want to see or rewrite our own memories to fulfill a consistent schema we’ve developed to define our own identities.
All a long winded way to say, I never understood the issue with acknowledging one’s own relative perception or “truth” to use your favorite buzzword. Throughout human and scientific history, we’ve really only ever experienced through our own observation of the world, so everything we see is through our own relative lens. To believe in an absolute truth exterior to us, we have yet to access and can only take on faith.
It’s faulty premise to say “if everyone has his/her own truth than absolutely nothing can be true.” That’s binary thinking with nothing to substantiate that they’re mutually exclusive. The guy standing still and the guy moving at 1/2 the speed of light get different measurements for the length of a football field, but they are both “right.” Multiple truths exist simultaneously. Like photons being both particles and waves at the same time, until you do an experiment (i.e. observation from a particular reference frame) that forces it to be one or the other TO YOU.