[quote]ZEB wrote:
WMD wrote:
harris447 wrote:
For the bible people out there:
Is there any tangible, archeaological evidence that Sodom and/or Gomorrah actually existed? And were then destroyed?
Yes, to both. However, whether or not that destruction was heaven sent is an entirely different question.
There are excavations at a site that may correspond to the Biblical Gomorrah and a burn layer has been found that indicates some sort of destruction. However it also appears to have been rebuilt shortly thereafter.
Stay in denial wmd…[/quote]
Denial of what, exactly? Just becaue you don’t keep up with current Biblical archeology doesn’t mean I don’t.
I thought you knew the Bible, ZEB. And why don’t you quote all the places in the Bible that you think clearly and expressly condemn homosexuality. Just so I can pick you apart like the lying punk you are.
You are so full of crap, your eyes are baby poop green.
WMD
wmd one of the things about you which is not very attractive is that you immediately resort to name calling. I wonder why all the insecurity? Hey…not trying to pry. But it’s never about debate with you as much as it is your usual attempts at degrading others.
I put forth many verses which condemn the act of homosexuality (they are on this thread). Now why don’t you do us all a favor and post all of the verses in the Bible which promote the specific act of homosexuality…they are there right? NO guess not. The reason that there are verses which condemn the act and none which promote the act is because according to the Bible (that book which you seem to hate) homosexuality is wrong!
Again, that has nothing to do with what we allow in our current free society. But if you want to debate what is allowed in the Bible then you are sadly mistaken!
Oh, I get it now, you are going with mistranlations of the word qadesh in the Hebrew and malakoi arsenokoitai in the Greek. Not that most scholars on the matter agree that the words were mistranlated by the authors of the KJV. If ZEB says it’s so, then it is the Werd of Gawd.
“Qadesh” means “male temple prostitute.” Not a good thing in those days (not all that good right now either huh?) Certainly not the strongest word for homosexuality. I won’t even argue that it truly means homosexuality. However, ask yourself this: who hired male prostitutes? Was it females? Well could be, but I think not. The Bible once again speaks out against male on male sex. This version happened to be paid for.
The word “malakoi” means effeminate. Pro homosexual web sites will tell you that Malakoi simply means “soft.” Thereby dodging the literal meaning of the word…they think. However, it was used to describe men who had sexual relations with other men. Today a similar derogatory term might be “fairy” “limpwrist” “faggot.” In other words, it was indeed a nasty slang term which not unlike the three above had a double meaning.
The Greek word for homosexual was in fact arsenokoita. This means: “for one man to defile himself with another man.” Or, “one who lies with another male as he does with a female.”
All of this is pretty clear.
Keep in mind this has nothing to do with what “I think.” To deny the meaning of the words above is to attempt to refute the tens of thousands of Bible scholars who spent lifetimes studying ancient text. Every single credible interpretation of the Bible (based upon the original text) agrees relative to these words. I give them far more credence than the few pro homosexual web sites which are trying desperately to legitimize homosexuality through the Bible. As I have stated previously: it can’t be done! HOwever, it won’t stop them from trying…and trying and trying…
Besides the obvious proof from the early scripture words above, it would seem that there is a certain logic that you fail to grasp: The Bible speaks out against all sorts of “moral sin.” Heterosexual sex before marriage, orgies etc.Yet. for some reason you want desperately to hold to the illusion that for some strange reason homosexuality was perfectly fine. Why would sex between two of the same sex be promoted or even allowed at all especially outside of marriage? Keep in mind that this is the Bible. It does not have to be politically correct. Nor, can it be twisted to become politically correct!
By the way did you look up all of those verses that are pro homosexual behavior yet? I can find plenty that speak to the love between one man and one woman. If it was well accepted and promoted, as you imply then they should be in the Bible.
ZEB is a fucktard.
WMD
Ouch.
[/quote]
Qadesh means “holy one”. There is a city called Qadesh in Syria-Palestine. I’m sure its name does not mean “male prostitute”. A qadesh could be male or female and it was common to go to them with gifts and have sex with them in return for favors from the god they served. This was common among the Canaanites and other Near Eastern cultures. You know, the people the early Hebrews lived among. What is so terrible about that? People didn’t hire temple prostitutes, they went to them as intermediaries between them and the god.
Malakoi means, (according to the LSJ)soft, delicate, weakness, want of patience, effeminate. This at least is how Herodotus or Thucydides used the term. Caesar used it to mean the calmness of the sea.
Arsenokoites appears only in a couple of Paul’s letters in the New Testament. The LSJ defines it as lying with men. The LSJ assigns no sexual meaning to it and most scholars debate its true meaning since we have no other use of term to make comparisons. The ending is in the feminine, by the way, so it could easily be referring to women who lie with men, like hetairai.
YOu might actually want to study a language before you try to pass yourself off as an expert.
I’m waiting for you to show me all those places where homosex is condemned. I know Jonathan and David were into each other, at least according to Samuel. They were even joined in a marriage ceremony. But like all those passages I quoted you regarding slavery in the Bible, you probably haven’t read any of that. Or if you did, your brain exploded and this crap you spew is the result.
okay, tell me where it says in the new testament that it is evil.
Evil? Did I say evil? It is simply sin. No different than any other sin.
Okay here we go (again):
Name Reference
vile affections Rom 1:26
without natural affection Rom 1:31
effeminate (homosexuals) 1 Cor 6:9
abusers of themselves with mankind 1Cor 6:9
inordinate affection Col 3:5
defile themselves with mankind 1 Tim
1:10
without natural affection 2 Tim 3:3
going after strange flesh Jude 1:7
And actually I think there are others. But these are the ones which I happen to have on hand. My advice is that you read them in their entirity yourself, don’t take my word for it. And in case you want to use the “interpretation” defense that won’t work as they have all been cross referenced with original text. Each word has also been traced back to it’s original meaning.
Oh…and the “there was no such word as homosexual back then” defense won’t work either. You know what they say: a rose by any other name…yada yada yada.
I did all this last summer when I was debating another on the same topic. It was quite interesting.
And yes, I do think I have the right to do whatever I want. I also live that way, a lot of people know it, noone has reported me to the authorities so far. You wouldn?t have either, because you?d know I would not harm you or your familiy.
It is comforting to know that you would not harm me or my family
So, what is your problem, with me disregarding Austrian law?
It is further comfort to know that you live in Austria…
Oh, I get it now, you are going with mistranlations of the word qadesh in the Hebrew and malakoi arsenokoitai in the Greek. Not that most scholars on the matter agree that the words were mistranlated by the authors of the KJV. If ZEB says it’s so, then it is the Werd of Gawd.
Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the early church performed same-sex unions. We even have copies of the liturgies. It was in the 14th century that the church began its vicious campaign against homosexuals, which ZEB is now happy to continue.
ZEB is a fucktard.
WMD
Living proof that to get really screwed up mentally, liberal views combined with an interest in Christianity are in order. Never mind that the new scholarship making the case for same sex marriages in the Middle Ages, has to READ THINGS INTO THE TEXTS THAT ARE NOT THERE! These brother making and sister making ceremonies still exist in the Eastern Church and are non sexual in nature. Never mind that Athanasius in his Incarnation of the Word was condemning homosexuality in the FOURTH century, and was quoting Paul to do it. Regardless of what you believe about homosexuality and morality, to believe that orthodox Christianity thought homosexuality was just fine until the fourteenth century is dumb as hell.[/quote]
I’m so surprised. Because I believe in the rights of all human beings, I am a liberal. I ceretainly could not be a libertarian or anything. And I’m screwed up mentally because there is evidence for the early church performing same-sex unions. Not my fault it’s there, even though I know you just hate it that your views have proven to be fucked in the ass. Just because you don’t know the social history of your own religion, doesn’t mean you gotta get all hostile and stuff. I mean I’m sure you’ve actually looked at the manuscripts themselves, you just didn’t know what you were reading.
Living proof that to get really screwed up mentally, liberal views combined with an interest in Christianity are in order. Never mind that the new scholarship making the case for same sex marriages in the Middle Ages, has to READ THINGS INTO THE TEXTS THAT ARE NOT THERE! These brother making and sister making ceremonies still exist in the Eastern Church and are non sexual in nature. Never mind that Athanasius in his Incarnation of the Word was condemning homosexuality in the FOURTH century, and was quoting Paul to do it. Regardless of what you believe about homosexuality and morality, to believe that orthodox Christianity thought homosexuality was just fine until the fourteenth century is dumb as hell.[/quote]
Seriously, I think if some on this board started throwing around terms that were less than respectful to …let me think…how about homosexuals some would be upset. And furthermore they would have a right to be upset.
Christianity is a fairy tale might be equal to saying that homosexuals are__________fill in the blank. Get the idea?
Good debate does not have to include name calling and demeaning others beliefs. [/quote]
So is that what this all boils down to…his (and, through allusion, my) reference to the term “fairy tale?”
Because, if so, it really does come across as “thin-skinned.” I’m sure his use of the term was merely shorthand for: an old, often re-told work of fiction, frequently presented to teach lessons of morality, of which there is no basis in fact. Which is kind of wordy, no?
And really, since when is “fairy tale” a pejorative anyway?
Christianity is a fairy tale might be equal to saying that homosexuals are__________fill in the blank. Get the idea?
Good debate does not have to include name calling and demeaning others beliefs. [/quote]
that is not the same.
One is demeaning a person, the other is “demeaning” an idea if such a thing is even possible.
Not that you have not been personally attacked, which I think is wrong, but your religious ideas are fair game if you use them to justify to deny gay people rights.
A qadesh could be male or female and it was common to go to them with gifts and have sex with them in return for favors from the god they served. This was common among the Canaanites and other Near Eastern cultures. You know, the people the early Hebrews lived among. What is so terrible about that? People didn’t hire temple prostitutes, they went to them as intermediaries between them and the god.[/quote]
“Qadesh” means “male temple prostitute.” In the King James version it’s used five times to describe (basically) “male prostitute.”
You even stated: “A qadesh could be male or female and it was common to go to them with gifts and have sex with them in return for favors from the god they served.”
Um…what do you think a prostitute does? You have proven my case and I thank you.
The following is exactly what I predicted would be the comeback by wmd for the word “Malakoi.”
If the above were correct then the tens of thousands of Biblical interpreters through the past 2000 years would be wrong and wmd (and the pro homosexual web sites) would be right. I know who I am betting on!
The following is the proper usage as stated previously:
The word “malakoi” means effeminate. Pro homosexual web sites will tell you that Malakoi simply means “soft.” Thereby dodging the literal meaning of the word…they think. However, it was used to describe men who had sexual relations with other men. Today a similar derogatory term might be “fairy” “limpwrist” “faggot.” In other words, it was indeed a nasty slang term which not unlike the three above had a double meaning.
“Only” in a couple of Pauls letters? I think that is very significant since there are many things that Paul was trying to concentrate on. Exactly how much time and energy should he be giving to the (Biblical) sin of homosexuality?
How many times did Paul mention stealing, rape, incest, murder, bestiality etc. (Note to liberals I am not stating the homosexuality is or should be a crime-Think Bible debate).
The fact that he mentioned homosexuality “a couple of times” is indeed noteworthy!
Men lying with me does not have a sexual connotation? What were they doing sleeping or playing checkers? “Lying with” meant having sex with. Different times and different vernacular. You have now become entertaining…and I thank you.
Um…nice try. Arsenokoitai is actually two words: The first word is “arsen” which comes from the word “arrhen” meaning “males.” The second half of this ancient word is “koitai” this word comes from the word “koite” meaning "bed chamber or to lie with (not alone).
If you put the ancient words together you come up with the exact same meaning that tens of thousands of professional (as in paid to dedicate your life to this) interpreters have come up: HOMOSEXUAL! Which is exactly what Paul meant.
Men having sex with someone of the same gender. That was the clear language of the day for homosexual. I know you don’t like it but it simply happens to be fact.
There is no legitimate debate regarding this word with anyone familiar with the scriptures and ancient Greek (as the Bible interpreters are). There is however much debate among the pro homosexual web sites on how to turn this into some sort of victory for their side. Not happening!
The good part is I don’t have to be an expert in order to follow along on what the actual experts have interpreted and written about for hundreds of years. And since I know you are not an expert I suggest that you stop swallowing the homosexual party line relative to the Bible (even though I understand your lack of respect for the scriptures. It’s still wrong to try to twist them to suit your need).
And I am waiting for you to show me all of the scriptures that promote homosexuality (note to readers: there are none).
Okay, I’ll go first:
The text in Romans 1:24-27 is worth quoting at length:
“because of the desires of their hearts God gave them over” that is, those who chose not to worship God as God “to an uncleanness” that is, filthy conduct "consisting of their bodies being dishonored among themselves…
God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Now what do you suppose that these “dishonorable passions” were? (starting with females here in honor of your gender)
“for even their females exchanged the natural use” that is, of the male as regards sexual intercourse “for that which is contrary to nature” that is, sexual intercourse with other females “and likewise also the males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another, males with males committing indecency and in return receiving in themselves the payback which was necessitated by their straying” that is, from the truth about God evident in nature.
Again, every credible interpretaTion of the ancient scriptures comes up with a similar version as above.
There is far more scripture which condemns the act of homosexuality. But since I am geared up for the long haul I want to take them one at a time!
Respond to this one first!
LOL…this is probably your most ridiculous comment (and that’s saying a lot considering what you have written). I hope this is not your answer to my question: “Show me all of the pro homosexual verses in the Bible.” On the one hand you twist and turn obvious Greek and Hebrew words which mean “homosexual” into something else. And on the other hand you reach oh so far to try to make two straight men into homosexuals. There is absolutely no passage in the Bible where Jonathan and David were joined in a marriage ceremony!
Seriously, I think if some on this board started throwing around terms that were less than respectful to …let me think…how about homosexuals some would be upset. And furthermore they would have a right to be upset.
Christianity is a fairy tale might be equal to saying that homosexuals are__________fill in the blank. Get the idea?
Good debate does not have to include name calling and demeaning others beliefs.
So is that what this all boils down to…his (and, through allusion, my) reference to the term “fairy tale?”
Because, if so, it really does come across as “thin-skinned.” I’m sure his use of the term was merely shorthand for: an old, often re-told work of fiction, frequently presented to teach lessons of morality, of which there is no basis in fact. Which is kind of wordy, no?
And really, since when is “fairy tale” a pejorative anyway?[/quote]
No, it comes down to having civil discourse regarding something that many people consider sacred. Asking for to much?
Has anyone else noticed that many (certainly not all and not you Boscobarbell) who do not believe in God feel a need to not only be vocal about it, but to be profane, judgemental, accusatory and basically pretty nasty.
They in essence become (at least one thing) what they despise about some Christians who boast about their own beliefs.
Christianity is a fairy tale might be equal to saying that homosexuals are__________fill in the blank. Get the idea?
Good debate does not have to include name calling and demeaning others beliefs.
that is not the same.
One is demeaning a person, the other is “demeaning” an idea if such a thing is even possible.
Not that you have not been personally attacked, which I think is wrong, but your religious ideas are fair game if you use them to justify to deny gay people rights.
[/quote]
No actually they are quite similar in nature. They both demean a belief of sorts.
I thank you for your kind words regarding the personal attacks. However, I have come to expect them from many vocal Atheists. It seems that many are very bitter and hateful. I think sometimes how we disagree is as important as what we disagree about.
[quote]WMD wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t have a problem with gay people.
I believe gay people should have the same rights as straight people and should have some sort of civil partership that allows them to share health benefits, etc. This is not the same as marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
While I support gay rights I also believe the promiscuity of active young gay is incredibly high and that is not a good thing for society due to the spread of disease etc.
A lot of pro-gay marriage people want to minimize the problems that go along with homosexuality. They are almost as close minded as the anti-gays.
Because the hetero kids aren’t having sex like little bunnies and they can’t spread disease, anyway, because they’re straight. Right.
I’m almost afraid to ask, but what exactly are the problems that go along with homosexuality?[/quote]
I am sure you are aware of the higher rate of HIV among gay men. I am also sure you are aware that gay men and women have much more difficulties in society.
Being gay is tough. I don’t think it is something that should be celebrated, nor do I think it is something that should be discriminated against.
[quote]WMD wrote:
…YOur “simple facts” are neither. Let’s just say there are about 2-4 million gay people in this country (1-2 % of about 200 million people). Your assertion is that the vast majority of those 2-4 million are going to bathhouses and parks to have anonymous sex with multiple partners. And of course there’s the assumption that straight people are less promiscuous than gay people and therefore less likeley to get AIDs or other diseases.
Please.[/quote]
To deny the reality that sexually active gay men are far more promiscuous than sexually active straight men is silly and does any argument you make more harm than good.
This kind of wishful thinking and hiding the problem is the type of thing that helps the spread of AIDS.
I focus on gay men because they are far more promiscuous than gay women.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WMD wrote:
…YOur “simple facts” are neither. Let’s just say there are about 2-4 million gay people in this country (1-2 % of about 200 million people). Your assertion is that the vast majority of those 2-4 million
are going to bathhouses and parks to have anonymous sex with multiple partners. And of course there’s the assumption that straight people are less promiscuous than gay people and therefore less likeley to get AIDs or other diseases.
Please.
To deny the reality that sexually active gay men are far more promiscuous than sexually active straight men is silly and does any argument you make more harm than good.
This kind of wishful thinking and hiding the problem is the type of thing that helps the spread of AIDS.
I focus on gay men because they are far more promiscuous than gay women.
I blame testosterone.[/quote]
Yeah, and those damn fags obviously had sex with monkeys in the first place and caused the whole epidemic, I’m sure God put that disease in place in order to punish them, and that is why heterosexuals don’t get AIDs in the first place.
Zap you obviously are not part of the current dating scene if you don’t realize that men and women of both sexual persuasions are very promiscuous these days, shockingly so even to me in many cases.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WMD wrote:
…YOur “simple facts” are neither. Let’s just say there are about 2-4 million gay people in this country (1-2 % of about 200 million people). Your assertion is that the vast majority of those 2-4 million are going to bathhouses and parks to have anonymous sex with multiple partners. And of course there’s the assumption that straight people are less promiscuous than gay people and therefore less likeley to get AIDs or other diseases.
Please.
To deny the reality that sexually active gay men are far more promiscuous than sexually active straight men is silly and does any argument you make more harm than good.
This kind of wishful thinking and hiding the problem is the type of thing that helps the spread of AIDS.
I focus on gay men because they are far more promiscuous than gay women.
I blame testosterone.[/quote]
I blame you. Not your views, or beliefs, or ideas; you, personally.
You (and you alone, by the way) are reponsible for promiscuity in gay men.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
WMD wrote:
…YOur “simple facts” are neither. Let’s just say there are about 2-4 million gay people in this country (1-2 % of about 200 million people). Your assertion is that the vast majority of those 2-4 million are going to bathhouses and parks to have anonymous sex with multiple partners. And of course there’s the assumption that straight people are less promiscuous than gay people and therefore less likeley to get AIDs or other diseases.
Please.
To deny the reality that sexually active gay men are far more promiscuous than sexually active straight men is silly and does any argument you make more harm than good.
This kind of wishful thinking and hiding the problem is the type of thing that helps the spread of AIDS.
I focus on gay men because they are far more promiscuous than gay women.
I blame testosterone.
I blame you. Not your views, or beliefs, or ideas; you, personally.
You (and you alone, by the way) are reponsible for promiscuity in gay men.
Nice work, buddy.
[/quote]
I can’t help it I am so good looking that gay men get incredibly horny.
Yeah, and those damn fags obviously had sex with monkeys in the first place and caused the whole epidemic, I’m sure God put that disease in place in order to punish them, and that is why heterosexuals don’t get AIDs in the first place.
Zap you obviously are not part of the current dating scene if you don’t realize that men and women of both sexual persuasions are very promiscuous these days, shockingly so even to me in many cases.[/quote]
I know you are being sarcastic, but the whole monkey fucking, god hates gays bullshit pisses me off.
I am simply trying to make the point that the gay community has far more problems than the red herring of gay marriage. Some of their problems are of their own creation, some are due to intoleration in society.
I am a bit out of touch with the dating scene today. We were pretty promiscuous back when I was younger.
It still pales in comparison to what my gay friends tell me they see and do. Statistics tend to bear this out.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Do you think God even wants you speaking for him?
Do you think God wants you asking me if God wants me to speak for him?
Possibly, considering the “wonderful” job you are doing.[/quote]
Well then I would say that that is quite a giant leap of faith on your part.
By the way, instead of simply sitting on the sidelines and throwing your usual rotten tomatoes. Just jump in and correct me wherever you feel that I have not quoted the scriptures accurately. I only ask that you be specific.
Keep in mind that this is an Internet message board and I would hazard a guess that none of us are Bible scholars. But it is fun to debate participate in the debate. Do you think God is mad about that? LOL
On another note:
For those who still don’t get it: God does not hate Gay people at least not according to the Bible. I never said that, and I don’t for a second believe that. However, that is the next illogical jump that most liberals take when they run short on facts. It’s called “the hate card.”
Personally, the only thing that I hate is paying to high a tax rate…I originally wanted Steve Forbes but that’s another thread…
