The Word “Homosexual” Does Not Appear In The Bible [Pre-1946]
![The Word “Homosexual” Does Not Appear In The Bible [Pre-1946]](https://thenewstalkers.com/discussion/image/discussion_image/40214/xxxlarge/_v=63f541529249723)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As I prepare for an online debate on the topic “Is It A Sin To Be Gay?” I realized something profound: No Christians could have possibly debated this topic previous to 1946 because their Bibles didn’t contain the word “Homosexual” before that.
It’s true.
Go look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 in your King James Bible and you’ll see this:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenoikotai]…”
But if you read that same verse in any modern English translation published after 1946 you’ll read something very different, for example:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality…”
What happened?
Well, according to these researchers:
“The intention of the RSV team and publishers was to create a version of the Bible that was more readable and accessible in its updated language. As the translation team labored throughout the years, they based their work mainly on the King James Version (1611), the English Standard Version (1885), and the American Standard Version (1901).
However…”During the 1930s and 1940s, the time when the RSV team was doing their work over a fifteen years span, it was during a time in medical professions and in the culture where people still did not understand what same-sex attractions even meant. There were burgeoning theories, but it was seen as a mystery, then as a pathology, and a mental illness.”
“Specifically regarding 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, the translation team relied mainly upon a fairly recent translation of arsenokoitai and malakos as catamite and sodomite, respectively, that had appeared in the Moffat Bible (1925). James Moffatt, a Scottish theologian, was a member of the RSV translation team, and second in seniority to Dr. Weigle.
“Those two words, although still problematic in the Moffatt translation, were actually somewhat more reflective of the actual meaning of arsenokoitai and malakos than “homosexual.”
[Note: The same problem occurs when you look at 1 Timothy 1:10]
So, here’s the deal: Today, most Christians in America are reading modern English translations that have since carried over this mistake of translating the words “malakos” and “arsenokoitai” as “Homosexuality”.
This is a mistake.
Prior to 1946, no Christian had a Bible with the word “Homosexuality” printed in it. This means that no Christians were debating whether or not someone could be a homosexual Christian or not. Why? Because their Bibles didn’t condemn homosexuality.
As New Testament scholar David Bentley Hart points out in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:9:
“A man who is malakos is either “soft” – in any number of senses: self-indulgent, dainty, cowardly…physically weak – or “gentle” – in various largely benign senses: delicate, mild, etc. Some translators of the New Testament take it here to mean the passive partner in male homoerotic acts, but that is an unwarranted supposition.
“Precisely what an arsenokoites is has long been a matter of speculation and argument. Literally, it means a man who “beds” – that is, “couples with” – “males.” But, there is no evidence of its use before Paul’s text.
“…It would not mean “homosexual” in the modern sense of a person of a specific erotic disposition, for the simple reason that the ancient world possessed no comparable concept of a specifically homoerotic sexual identity; it would refer to a particular sexual behavior, but we cannot say exactly which one.”
Bentley Hart goes on to mention that the Clementine Vulgate interprets the word “arsenokoitai” as those who use male concubines [prostitutes] and that Luther’s German Bible interprets the word as referring to paedophiles.
Further, he says:
“My guess at the proper connotation of the word is based simply upon the reality that in the first century the most common and readily available form of male homoerotic sexual activity was a master’s or patron’s exploitation of young male slaves.”
So, when we read the word “Homosexuality” in our English New Testament Bibles, we need to remember that this is not what Paul had in mind when he wrote those words that are – today – translated as such.
What he meant, most likely, was either those who sexually abuse young boys, or those who engaged in pagan temple sex rituals.
What’s more, when Paul used the term “malakos” – which simply means “effeminate” – he was referring to men who shaved their beards or grew long hair, or who otherwise acted in a manner that could be culturally interpreted as being “unmanly.”
But, hopefully, none of us today would agree with Paul’s conviction that a man who shaves his beard or has long hair will not enter the Kingdom of God. Rather, we should place that statement in the same basket with a few of Paul’s other statements [in the very same Corinthian epistle] that women should cover their heads when they pray or that everyone should greet one another with a holy kiss. These are cultural norms that Paul could ask those first century Corinthians to observe, but that we, living in the 21st Century, are free to disregard.
If we do this for head-coverings and holy kisses, we should feel no shame doing so for men who shave their beards or wear long hair.
[For more on this, read “The Abomination of a Close Shave” ]
The bottom line is this: We have made this issue – homosexuality – one of the main tenets of the Christian faith. As if Jesus and the Apostles did little more than argue the subject day and night. [Of course, they never mention it at all].
But, because of this distortion of the Gospel by modern American Christians, many actually believe that they cannot preach the Gospel because they are being persecuted whenever they speak out against homosexuality. They point to legislation that forbids hate speech against the LGBTQ community and quake with fear because they believe this means that very soon Bibles will be confiscated and pastors arrested in the pulpits for “preaching the Word of God” or “standing for the truth of the Gospel.”
Even though the Christian church has been preaching and living out the Gospel for nearly 2,000 years without mentioning homosexuality specifically. [With a few exceptions along the way, of course].
This argument about what is, or is not, a sin is a distraction. Worse, it’s an unnecessary pivot from loving others as Christ has loved us to pursue the condemnation of a certain group of people who deserve nothing but love and acceptance.
The Gospel is that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting men’s sins against them.” [2 Cor. 5:19]
We have been given this ministry of reconciliation. What have we done with it?
Keith Giles is the author of several books, including the forthcoming “Jesus Unbound: How the Bible Keeps Us From Hearing the Word of God”, available July 4th, 2018.
He is also the author of the Amazon best-seller, “Jesus Untangled: Crucifying Our Politics To Pledge Allegiance To The Lamb” . He is the co-host of the Heretic Happy Hour Podcast on iTunes and Podbean. He and his wife live in Orange, CA with their two sons.
Tags
I was being sarcastic. Most people know that the majority of teavangelical projectionists are tops. Awesome to see you again.
That’s what happens when you live in rebellion to God
Or follow your sexual orientation in spite of what ancient men with pens wrote thousands of years ago.
I’ve yet to ever be surprised that someone I’ve met is engaged in that lifestyle
You'd have to be pretty ignorant to say no one you ever met was gay. In 70 years of life, there's no way you never met a gay person. you just didn't know it.
I never made any such statement. Quite opposite. I said that none of those living that lifestyle that I’ve met acted masculine
I’m 70 and I’ve never met someone engaged in that lifestyle choice who acted like a man.
Well obviously you're hangin' with the wrong sort of crowd! Why not have a little more fun in your life-- you could start by looking for a "leather bar" in your area!!!
The "Leather Subculture":
Today, the leather subculture is one of many facets to semi-organized alternative sexuality . . . gay men are the most visible symbol of the leather community'
The more specifically homoerotic aesthetics of men's leather culture drew on other sources as well, including military and police uniforms.
This influence is particularly evident in the graphical illustrations of leathermen found in the work of Tom of Finland. The pornographic films of one of his models Peter Berlin from Berlin, such as his 1973 film Nights in Black Leather, also reflected and promoted the leather subcultural aesthetic.
The more specifically homoerotic aesthetics of men's leather culture drew on other sources as well, including military and police uniforms. This influence is particularly evident in the graphical illustrations of leathermen found in the work of Tom of Finland .
Today, while some may still use the term strictly in the old-fashioned sense (i.e., the romanticized Old Guard), more than ever the leather subculture in the 21st century represents the activities of several major sub-communities. [1] These include BDSM practitioners, and people who have a preference for aggressive or masculine sexual styles . . .
The more specifically homoerotic aesthetics of men's leather culture drew on other sources as well, including military and police uniforms. This influence is particularly evident in the graphical illustrations of leathermen found in the work of Tom of Finland.
For example:
Certainly no one engaged in homosexual behavior is acting masculine. I’m 70 and I’ve never met someone engaged in that lifestyle choice who acted like a man.
That's strange. Certainly if you are over 70 you must've heard of The Village People-- and their hit song "Macho* Man":
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* Note: Contrary to what you apparently believe, the the word "Macho" is not a synonym for "effeminate".
I know two men in their fifties who have lived together for half their lives. If you meet either of them solo, you would notice nothing. If you meet them together... well... they are a long-time couple, with all the little things and big things that make a couple...
Regarding boys who don't act masculine enough for god fearing heterosexuals:
LOS ANGELES — A Southern California mother has been sentenced to life in prison and her boyfriend was sentenced to death in the killing of an 8-year-old boy who prosecutors say was punished because the couple believed he was gay.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge George Lomeli sentenced the couple on Thursday, calling the 2013 death of 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez “beyond animalistic.”
Gabriel’s mother, 34-year-old Pearl Fernandez, pleaded guilty to murder in the death of her son in February. A jury found her boyfriend, 37-year-old Isauro Aguirre, guilty of murder last year and found that he intentionally tortured the boy.
Gabriel’s injuries included a fractured skull, broken ribs and burns across his body.
Prosecutors also have filed charges of child abuse and falsifying records against four county social workers in Gabriel’s death.
... the inevitable consequence of labeling people as "abominations"...
"the inevitable consequence of labeling people as "abominations"..."
That's the Christians word for those who don't walk in lock step with their own beliefs. When they have a lot of those kind of people in their own 'flocks' that they choose to turn a blind eye to.
Nonsense. There is no teaching by Jesus or the Apostles to murder or commit violence against someone for committing any sin other than murder
There is no teaching by Jesus or the Apostles to murder or commit violence against someone for committing any sin other than murder
I didn't say that.
you did by inference that any Christian who agrees with God’s moral standards will as you said inevitably engage in violence against homosexuals
you did by inference
You do that a lot. You infer from what people say, you infer from what the Bible says, ...
Basically, you make stuff up. That's OK. Lots of adults still fantasize.
But don't expect others to participate.
Nonsense. There is no teaching by Jesus or the Apostles to murder or commit violence against someone for committing any sin other than murder
Did you not recognize the word abomination in Bob's comment? That clearly leads to the OT, not the NT. Here is Leviticus 20:13:
also interestingly enough:
if you start there and go to verse 32 - the bible states that homosexuals should be put to death .
Plus :
that one is to put your disobedient child to death by village elders stoning him
there's two more examples for you. It seems that some of these religious posters don't know what's actually written in their beloved bible .
the bible states that homosexuals should be put to death.
Do you realize that you are reading the Bible in exactly the same manner as do inerrantist fundamentalists ? Is that really the company you wish to keep?
In your opinion, should we speak of the "Epistle to the Romans"... or the "Letter to the Romans"? What's the difference?
No intelligent public speaker addresses a crowd without knowing the situation of that crowd. Do you know when Romans was written? What were Paul's circumstances? What do you know about Christians in Rome at that moment?
Is Paul just giving advice, or is he speaking in God's name? He does the former quite often in his letters, but very rarely the latter...
Lastly... the verse you cite does not - at all - say what you pretend it says. You have extracted one single item from a long Pauline diatribe about events that had occurred previously.
------------------
There are lots of arguments to be made for or against the existence of God. "Why does God allow evil?" is a fascinating question, deserving of careful thought. Religion has been important to people since they lived in caves, and is still important today.
One may address the subject with intelligence... or not . In my not at all humble opinion... reading the Bible literally, word for word, is intellectual rubbish.
But hey!
You can do whatever you wish with your brain...
Again, Christians are not under the Laws of Moses.
Romans 1:32 and the preceding verses are speaking of spiritual not just for homosexual behavior, but all those sins listed
Everyone who has not been born again lives in spiritual death
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”
John 5:24
"Everyone who has not been born again lives in spiritual death"
You better watch your ass in 'heaven,' Larry, virtually every hardened con in the penitentiaries is a 'born again' Christian!
Again, Christians are not under the Laws of Moses.
So Christians don't have to follow the 10 commandments then? Funny how god has rules for some, and different rules for others.
Again, Christians are not under the Laws of Moses.So Christians don't have to follow the 10 commandments then?
For once, livefreeordie is right... but of course instead of clarifying, he expressed himself in a way that leads directly to your error...
Christ replaced Old Testament law with ONE Commandment: "Love God and your fellows". So, as livefreeordie says, Christians are not under the laws of Moses.
But... it is impossible to live according to Christ's One Commandment without following all the really important laws from the OT.
- Do not murder,
- Do not steal,
- Do not bear false witness,
- ... and so on...
Christ replaced Old Testament law with ONE Commandment: "Love God and your fellows". So, as livefreeordie says, Christians are not under the laws of Moses.
Sounds like Christians didn't like the way things were done in the OT so they simply made up something new as they went along. And expecting one group to follow a different set of rules than another shows an inherent inequity. It's like god plays favorites.
But... it is impossible to live according to Christ's One Commandment without following all the really important laws from the OT.
That just reinforces my point. But it also shows the fallacy of a god. Besides, I like the George Carlin version better.
Sounds like Christians didn't like..
No.
Christ Himself. He was asked which of the laws (by definition OT, in His time...) was the most important, He answered "Love God and one another". This isn't something that later followers decided.
Christ Himself. He was asked which of the laws (by definition OT, in His time...) was the most important, He answered "Love God and one another".
If one believes Christ was "god in flesh" or the "son of god," ect., then either way it still shows that god screwed up with his OT rules and had to make changes.
This isn't something that later followers decided.
Apparently, some followers decide that rule wasn't good enough either.
If one believes Christ was "god in flesh" or the "son of god," ect., then either way it still shows that god screwed up with his OT rules and had to make changes.
You need to decide whether you believe or not. You can't have it both ways.
As for "screwed up"... You are forgetting that there was almost as much time past between the epoch of Abraham and that of Jesus as between Jesus and us...
It's silly to ignore the passage of time.
You need to decide whether you believe or not. You can't have it both ways.
Simple: Not! I don't go by belief. Certainly not in Bronze Age mythology and fairy tales.
As for "screwed up"... You are forgetting that there was almost as much time past between the epoch of Abraham and that of Jesus as between Jesus and us... It's silly to ignore the passage of time.
Irrelevant. If god is timeless and "perfect," as he is often described, then the passage of time should make no difference. His supposed rules and works should apply constantly and uniformly. Anything else means the initial effort was not perfect.
If god is timeless and "perfect,"
This is exactly my point.
Your premise is adopted from the dogma you are trying to disprove. All you actually prove is that there are incoherences in the Bible, which all reasonable observers agreed on long ago.
If you contend that the Bible is "just" a collection of texts from a Bronze Age pastoral society... then it's nonsense to use it as a reference.
Irrelevant. If god is timeless and "perfect," as he is often described
God is, man is not. That said one of God's greatest gifts to man was the gift of free will.
God ..... the original and ultimate purveyor of liberty and freedom
God is, man is not.
Prove there is a god!
That said one of God's greatest gifts to man was the gift of free will.
If there was a god, there would be no such thing as free will.
God ..... the original and ultimate purveyor of liberty and freedom
That's nice. Prove it!
Your premise is adopted from the dogma you are trying to disprove.
I don't know where you get that idea. I'm not trying to disprove anything.
All you actually prove is that there are incoherences in the Bible, which all reasonable observers agreed on long ago.
Glad we agree then.
If you contend that the Bible is "just" a collection of texts from a Bronze Age pastoral society... then it's nonsense to use it as a reference.
I'm pointing out the nonsense in it.
I'm not trying to disprove anything. ...
...
I'm pointing out the nonsense in it.
??
I know Gordy, this is your thing here on NT. Your reality. It's always your fall back position and we've been down this road before. I don't care to revisit that circle jerk of a conversation another time since it's an absolute waste of time but regardless, it changes nothing of what i said.
Here is where you claim you've won .... enjoy .......
Romans 1:32 and the preceding verses are speaking of spiritual not just for homosexual behavior, but all those sins listed
absolutely nothing in those passages indicates this "death" is a spiritual death. the exact wording is:
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
nothing states that it is a "spiritual death" - unless you can point out the wording to everyone ?
Everyone who has not been born again lives in spiritual death
how very "christian" of you to condemn everyone who doesn't believe in the same manner as you do
As for "screwed up"... You are forgetting that there was almost as much time past between the epoch of Abraham and that of Jesus as between Jesus and us...
It's silly to ignore the passage of time.
i'm not sure where "passage of time" has to do with anything since i'm repeatedly told that "God's" word is unchanging, which means that time should have no effect whatsoever on his viewpoint, correct ?
You didn't react to my post yesterday...
You seem not to have taken any note at all. Did you not see it?
i'm not sure where "passage of time" has to do with anything since i'm repeatedly told that "God's" word is unchanging, which means that time should have no effect whatsoever on his viewpoint, correct ?
Are disagreeing with " 'God's' word is unchanging"? If so, then you can't use it as an argument! You're taking both sides, here.
If, OTOH, you contend that the Bible is a collection of texts written by men, then the fact that they were written in the Bronze Age is obviously significant. It is totally ludicrous to expect men from that epoch to write modern texts.
So... do you read the Bible in the same manner as fundamentalists, or do you read it intelligently?
Do you realize that you are reading the Bible in exactly the same manner as do inerrantist fundamentalists ? Is that really the company you wish to keep?
i'm reading the words from the bible - if you think that is the same manner as an "inerrantist fundamentalist" then you should let everyone know the "correct" way to read the bible , eh ?
In your opinion, should we speak of the "Epistle to the Romans"... or the "Letter to the Romans"? What's the difference?
hmmm... those are the words on the page and i have no secret decoder ring that you apparently have to decipher some secret meaning and secret words that the non religious supposedly cannot see.
No intelligent public speaker addresses a crowd without knowing the situation of that crowd. Do you know when Romans was written? What were Paul's circumstances? What do you know about Christians in Rome at that moment?
Is Paul just giving advice, or is he speaking in God's name? He does the former quite often in his letters, but very rarely the latter...
Lastly... the verse you cite does not - at all - say what you pretend it says. You have extracted one single item from a long Pauline diatribe about events that had occurred previously.
oh good - then you could explain it to everyone and apparently reveal the secret hidden meanings and words with this letter from the beloved Holy Book. The verse clearly states that they shall be put to death - there's no qualifiers as in "spiritual" or otherwise . Let's see if you can clear things up 
There are lots of arguments to be made for or against the existence of God. "Why does God allow evil?" is a fascinating question, deserving of careful thought. Religion has been important to people since they lived in caves, and is still important today.
I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God - it's irrelevant currently. I'm pointing out the exact words written in the bible and you are claiming i'm basically illiterate .
One may address the subject with intelligence... or not . In my not at all humble opinion... reading the Bible literally, word for word, is intellectual rubbish.
so, you read other books - text books, novels, etc word for word (literally) but make an exception for this one ? Do you pick up a dictionary and ignore it word for word but decide to use your own interpretation instead ? What other books do you ignore reading word for word and substitute your own interpretation of what the words should be, their meanings, etc, instead ?
(That sounds like intellectual rubbish to me, but hey ! you can do whatever you wish with your brain, correct ?)
Are disagreeing with " 'God's' word is unchanging"? If so, then you can't use it as an argument! You're taking both sides, here.
sorry, i'm just letting you know what i've been repeatedly told - i hold no such belief in either direction. Care to try that again ? your efforts to pigeon hole me are amusing at best
If, OTOH, you contend that the Bible is a collection of texts written by men, then the fact that they were written in the Bronze Age isobviouslysignificant.
absolutely not if i'm told that they are supposed to be the divine word of God and his word is never changing, correct ? so which is it ?
It is totally ludicrous to expect men from that epoch to write modern texts.
so why do the religious revere the book so much ?
so, you read other books - text books, novels, etc word for word (literally) but make an exception for this one ?
Excellent approach!
I've never encountered any other book written by several (divergent) authors in a pastoral Bronze Age society. If I did... it would not occur to me to imagine that I could read the book without massive explanations. It's obvious that I have nothing whatsoever in common with the authors. I'll miss stuff they thought obvious, and I'll misunderstand half of everything. (For example, I live in a monogamous society, while they were accustomed to several wives, plus concubines. We surely do not imagine family relationships in a like manner.)
I remember looking at Beowulf way back in college. I cannot say "read" because the English was too difficult. I needed (ahem, ahem) explanations...
Serious books often require decoding. Including the Bible.
so why do the religious revere the book so much ?
Excellent question!
Because they are heretics! ... ... although they're unaware of it...
There's even a word for it: bibliolatry. When respect for an inspirational text slides too far and becomes worship of the book.
That's the case for many, many self-styled Christians in America. They are far more attached to the words than to the message.
Excellent approach!
so you don't read the words of books ? excellent approach !
I've never encountered any other book written by several (divergent) authors in a pastoral Bronze Age society.
If I did... it would not occur to me to imagine that I could read the book withoutmassiveexplanations.
you should probably read the words first instead of trying to explain everything away and making it palatable.
It's obvious that I have nothing whatsoever in common with the authors.
i read many books whose authors i have nothing in common with - makes no difference. I still read the words on the page and got the ideas from there, don't you ?
I'll miss stuff they thought obvious, and I'll misunderstand half of everything. (For example, I live in a monogamous society, while they were accustomed to several wives, plus concubines. We surely do not imagine family relationships in a like manner.)
looks like you understand that part quite well - doesn't take a lot of research for it either. it also looks like you read the words first, saw an idea, questioned it and found an explanation. that's a bit different than rewriting it according to your interpretation and then inserting words (like many of the religious do). Oddly, for such a supposedly concrete book that is the "word" of God - there are just so many different interpretations, i'm not sure i've ever encountered another book with some many different interpretations based upon it's time period and the information available, seems to be a lot of "making things palatable" involved. (a great example - calling for the death of homosexuals is now suddenly ---- a "spiritual" death, when in fact that qualifying word doesn't appear anywhere in the passages)
I remember looking at Beowulf way back in college. I cannot say "read" because the English was too difficult. I needed (ahem, ahem) explanations...
wow... you didn't read it ? i read it, then researched what i may have misunderstood based upon the words in the book for any further explanations i may have required. I certainly didn't try rewriting it first or "soften" the battles and deaths contained within Beowulf - did you ?
Serious booksoftenrequire decoding. Including the Bible.
share your decoder ring with everyone so we can all see your interpretation. It's not hard to read the words in the bible (they aren't "old English" so you should have no problems with "reading" it instead of "looking" at it) and see the calls for death and other negatives contained within (along with positives as well)
Because they are heretics! ... ... although they're unaware of it...
*sigh* 
There's even a word for it: bibliolatry. When respect for an inspirational text slides too far and becomes worship of the book.
That's the case for many, many self-styled Christians in America. They are far more attached to the words than to the message.
interesting .... the religion many adher e to, you are now attacking ? yet the "atheists" are the "haters" i'm told ? what exactly is the "message" when the written words are to put homosexuals to death ?
OK...
I've tried to explain. You refuse to hear. Your problem.
Have a great life.
OK...
I've tried to explain. You refuse to hear. Your problem.
Have a great life.
oddly, i've looked through your posts - no explanation to the written words in question, yet you claim you tried to explain... interesting... sounds like you aren't able to explain and would rather place the blame on everyone else for "not listening". At least you gave it a shot - i give you credit for that. Not my problem since i don't really care one way or the other. I'm just reading the words
I'm having a great life, thanks
I know Gordy, this is your thing here on NT. Your reality. It's always your fall back position and we've been down this road before.
It's called logic and reasoning.
I don't care to revisit that circle jerk of a conversation another time since it's an absolute waste of time but regardless, it changes nothing of what i said.
You're entitled to your beliefs and that's all they are.
Here is where you claim you've won .... enjoy .......
I've made no such claim. But your surrender is noted.
Lol, yeah Gordy, i know you feel you have to win these so whatever helps you sleep at night there buddy.
I've made no claim of victory or anything. You're the one who seems hung up on my "victory."
Faith is an extremely difficult concept to grasp for those with none.
For those without faith, it's just wishful thinking. For those with faith, it's still just wishful thinking. I prefer logic and reasoning.
I've made no claim of victory or anything.
Sure you haven't .....
For those without faith, it's just wishful thinking. For those with faith, it's still just wishful thinking. I prefer logic and reasoning.
As a practicing engineer for the last 35+ years i am very familiar with logic and reasoning. I don't make a practice of using faith in my engineering calculations nor do i have much need for logic or reasoning when it comes to my faith. A place and time for everything.
Someday i hope you learn to make the distinction.
With that i leave you to your ministrations ....
Sure you haven't .....
That's right, I haven't. By all means, point out where I specifically claimed victory. Otherwise, your inference that I claimed any sort of victory is a lie!
As a practicing engineer for the last 35+ years i am very familiar with logic and reasoning.
I am not impressed.
nor do i have much need for logic or reasoning when it comes to my faith.
Faith is an anathema to logic and reasoning. I simply do not suspend those in favor of wishful thinking.
Someday i hope you learn to make the distinction.
I already noted what the distinction is.
With that i leave you to your ministrations ....
How kind of you.
The Word “Homosexual” Does Not Appear In The Bible
I realized something profound: No Christians could have possibly debated this topic previous to 1946
a semantic argument at best. when the main idea is clear enough. the text is also clear enough and is contrary to your epiphany.
Passages in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament have been interpreted as involving same-sex sexual acts and desires.
question...
why do homosexuals seem so interested in what the bible says about it to begin with?
and if they are. they should remember that instead of throwing rocks as leviticus would suggest? jesus told the adulterer to "go and leave her life of sin." jesus did not say adultery was suddenly OK.. why would he think different about same-sex sexual acts? he would not.
before anyone goes off the hook.
personally, I have no interest in what others do and who they do it to. that is their decision.
however the suggestion that lacking a word defeats a whole notion?
see: ludicrous: chapter 1 verse 1 (and in the beginning, there was BS)
why do homosexuals seem so interested in what the bible says about it to begin with?
Perhaps it because the Bible is used to justify denying gays basic human rights...
It is still legal to discriminate against LGTB people in over half the United States.
It is still legal to discriminate against LGTB people in over half the United States.
and that sucks.
the Bible is used to justify denying gays basic human rights.
they are not going to find leverage to support their cause in the bible no matter how hard they look. kick a dead horse much?
from the hebrew bible / old testament all the way to new testament, the bible is consistent about same-sex sexual acts being a sin. the bible not having the word "homosexual" does not change anything.
they are not going to find leverage to support their cause in the bible no matter how hard they look. kick a dead horse much?
from the hebrew bible / old testament all the way to new testament, the bible is consistent about same-sex sexual acts being a sin. the bible not having the word "homosexual" does not change anything.
Secular law is not determined by the Bible, any more than it is determined by the Koran or the Bhagavadgita. Cops in the US cannot arrest anyone for sinning. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment creates a strict separation of church and state, so all people have equal religious rights and not just those in the Christian majority.
Not all Christian sects agree with your idea that being LGBT is a sin, so you lack even a consistent religious claim for your belif.
The only ones who do not agree are those who rebel against Jesus and go by the worlds standards instead. They will join the unrepentant in hell unless they repent
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:20
John 8:31-32 Jesus said to the people who believed in him, “You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy. 1 Peter 1:13-16
The only ones who do not agree are those who rebel against Jesus and go by the worlds standards instead. They will join the unrepentant in hell unless they repent
Your comment brings this to mind:
Matthew 7:1-3
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Oooops!)
(Oooops!)
E.A Oooops Indeed the WHOLE chapter is about Judging, so WHY are you taking it out of Context?
A Tree and its Fruit
(Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45)
15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Colour added by E.A
Cops in the US cannot arrest anyone for sinning.
never said they did sweetheart..
and I am not using the bible to justify any laws or actions against the lgbt community as you may imply.
this conversation is about a so-called profound epiphany about using the bible to justify lgbt behavior - which fails right out of the box. there is nothing profound about it.
never said they did sweetheart..
Kindly keep your sexist pandering to yourself.
Thanks.
Kindly keep your sexist pandering to yourself.
no thanks.
but thanks for your concern
Locked as the seeder is unavailable and cannot defend himself.
Gotta love the circumlocution... I was not "unavailable". I was suspended... and the fact that the Mod assumes I must "defend" myself is kinda amusing!
I took advantage of the suspension to finally get started on a couple projects that I've been putting off... and they're taking more time than I imagined. So I'll be busy and not present very much. But I'm unlocking the articles on the presumption that everyone has already forgotten them.
Who is online
474 visitors
For clobbertexters...
Do we have to read the article Bob?
That is an erroneous assumption, since it only takes into account the " Anglophones " Since most of the world is not in that Gender, and the Bible Is translated from the Aramaic and Greek mostly, and indeed Words that have the meaning of " Unacceptable sex " are used and easily comprehended, I do not see any difficulty is saying that it would make it clear that " Unnatural Sex " would fall under the Forbidden Rule!
" This argument about what is, or is not, a sin is a distraction. Worse, it’s an unnecessary pivot from loving others as Christ has loved us to pursue the condemnation of a certain group of people who deserve nothing but love and acceptance."
Matthew 15
10Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “Listen and understand. 11A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.”
12Then the disciples came to Him and said, “Are You aware that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
13But Jesus replied, “Every plant that My Heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by its roots. 14Disregard them! They are blind guides.d If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
15Peter said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.”
16“Do you still not understand?” Jesus asked. 17“Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. 20These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”
Bold and Colour Added by E.A
What would fall under " Sexual Immorality "?
Would it not be " Slander " to call Moral what God Defines as Immoral?
The horrible truth is that you - anyone - can find texts in the Bible that can be interpreted to say whatever is desired.
The text you cite is obviously about speech.
You are forcing it to mean something else. That's your problem, not the Bible's
E.A so is not the " Written Word " about " Speech "?
If one is unwilling to look at ALL the possible interpretations, then what is one doing?
There is virtually nothing said in the bible that isn't contradicted somewhere else in the bible. You can use the bible to back up any point of view, or the opposite of that point of view. It is chock full of false history and ludicrous nonsense from cover to cover. Trying to claim it's the inspired word of an all-knowing creator of the universe is beyond ridiculous.
E.A False I have challenged YOU and others in the past to PROVE that and have failed, YOU are challenged again!
From Wikipedia
The negative interpretations of homosexuality in the New Testament have long been at the heart of the condemnation of homosexuality by many Christian Churches and denominations.
Contents
Views on inspiration
The attitude of Pauline and sola scriptura Christians to the Bible is based on 2 Timothy 3:16 (TNIV):
Fundamentalists interpret this to mean that the bible is God's actual words and therefore not meant to be interpreted.[citation needed]
Fornication
James the Just, whose judgment was adopted in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19-29, c. 50 AD: "...we should write to them [Gentiles] to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood..." (NRSV)
Matthew 15; Mark 7: What defiles
In Matthew 15: 19-20 (KJV) Jesus is reported as saying:
In Mark 7: 20-23 (KJV) it says:
Whether these lists include homosexuality depends on the translation of porneia (sexual impurity). Translations of these passages generally translate porneia incorrectly as fornication rather than sexual impurity (see Leviticus). As Jesus does not specifically include homosexuality, it has been argued that he did not condemn it. However, it has been pointed out that this is an argument from silence which has also been criticized on the grounds that the rabbis of the 1st century generally included homosexuality within their condemnations of sexual immorality (Satlow 1995), although Jesus did not necessarily agree with the conclusions of the Jewish authorities of the time (e.g. his views on divorce).
Porneia appears a number of times in Paul's letters, always with arsenokoitais. In, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality", John Boswell argued that the word 'arsenokoitais' in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refers to male prostitution specifically. Various conservative scholars have presented countering arguments.[1][2][3]
There are entire websites that show all the contradictions in the bible, a simple Google search would keep you busy for quite a long time.
“Those two words, although still problematic in the Moffatt translation, were actually somewhat more reflective of the actual meaning of arsenokoitai and malakos than “homosexual.”
E.A That also is erroneous, lets look at the Meaning of the word Arsen - Male koitai - Look at now compare Homo - Self Sexual - Gender of " Self Gender " or Look at " self gender " else " Interested in the " same Gender ".
Now lets look at the " Twisted Definition of " Homophobia " Homo - Self Phobia Fear - Fear of Self or " Fear of what One Is ".
The only twisting i can see if you twisting Homophobia to mean "Fear of Self" while Homosexual means "Same Gender" when they both have the same prefix of "Homo". If one means "Same Gender" (assumed from "self gender") then the other is "Fear of Same" which also refers to Gender. Care to try your twisted definition again and be more honest about it this time ?
Well, they weren't known by that particular name back in the day, but if memory serves, I think they were referred to as an "abomination"
Are you referring to those who eat shellfish? I agree that they should be stoned to death.
According to the bible...."God" created "Adam (man) and Eve (Women)".
maybe the "Snake" was homosexual ?
Not "Steve" and "Steve" or "Sarah" and "Sarah".
Just sayin'.....since this is a Bible Thingy !
Yeah, and Jesus really loved Peter, too. That is right there in the Bible, also...
Please post pertinent to the seed. Thank you.
And ?
I did..…. pertaining to this part of the article:
Go look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 in your King James Bible and you’ll see this:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenoikotai]…”
But if you read that same verse in any modern English translation published after 1946 you’ll read something very different, for example:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality…”
In the beginning….there was "MAN" and "WOMEN" !
Just sayin' is all.
Do gay people scare you or are you jealous that they are happy?
What if he was? Love is Love.
...............
No comment.
I NEVER said anything about gay people one way or another.
The article is about what's in the bible and it's so-called interpretation now. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, you did say something,
What is the conservative hangup with LGBT people? Jesus didn't have a problem with people being gay, so why do you? Psychologists suggest that people who have a problem with LGBT people are repressed LGBT people themselves. It isn't normal for you to hate other people with such vengeance.
Oh I thought Jesus really loved John. Jesus was quite the cad, wasn't he?
so, you have a problem with Jesus loving Paul?
Ok, now, what exactly do you mean by 'loving' Mango?
E.A That alone says so much about " A Twisted and Wicked Generation " that Language itself is so TWISTED simple words need explaining!!!
I am Sure magnolia did not mean that Jesus was in a Sexual relationship with Paul, so why make that as an insinuation?
What a Wicked Slide Hateful ...
Jesus never spent a night with a woman, but he did spend nights with young boys 'in his tent.' The love Jesus had for John was oddly overstated in the bible. There is nothing conclusive about Jesus' sexual orientation in the bible, but what IS there suggests that Jesus was gay.
And according to the Jesus mythology, just before he croaked he ordered his mother to treat his beloved John as her son-in-law.
According to the Jesus mythology, Paul never actually met Jesus and seems to have known little or nothing about him.
Ummm... They never met in this world.
Are you speaking of Jesus's love for all His fellows?
Why do you have a problem with love? Why do you always think about sex? A relationship is about love and togetherness - not sex. It's not all about sex. It's about LOVE.
Wicked?
E.A Thank YOU that is the POINT I was making, someone here seems to be confused and it is NOT me!
I Still have NEVER said I did !
Deleted, skirting {SP}
Loving you is easy 'cause you're beautiful . . . doo do doo do dooo
Little known fact: Minnie Riperton, the renowned contralto with a four octave singing range who sang Loving You, was the mother of Saturday Night Live alum comedian Maya Rudolph. Off Topic - "Sorry"...
You got the reference!!!! I remember hearing that - interesting little known fact. I think Maya Rudolph is a great actress.
Love is not love. The Greeks had four words for love - agape, eros, philia, and storge - and they all mean different things.
Please post pertinent to the seed. Thank you.
Indeed. According to the bible, Eve is a transgender clone made from some dude's rib. So why do all the bible-babblers hate LGBT folks?
That's kinda sorta anachronistic... but it's funny...
is it?
So you do not see the " Scientific " and " Legal " reasoning behind that accurate DNA statement?
That's even more anachronistic.. and even funnier!
E.A Ahh I see so then a Statement written on a " Cave Wall " that Archaeologist, Linguists and associated Scientist studied, and then all agree that it was " relevant " as it was based on Factually demonstrable Science and Historic " events " is what?
Look, EA... I was joking about anachronism... but now you're being seriously anachronistic. The terms you use are modern.
E.A " What ever rocks your Boat " or makes your " Cave wall Brighter " :_)
You tell me.
I just noted what the bible notes.
Eve's DNA is male so apparently she is transgendered.
There is no legal reasoning in the Bible. Its a book of mostly borrowed mythology. You can believe that myths are true but that doesn't change the fact that they are still myths.
The myths did serve nefarious purposes, and continue to do so. There is a reason that Eve is said to be made from Adam's rib. It establishes that woman would be helpless without man, and must therefore accept their subservience. Otherwise, God would have just made her out of dirt too.
Aught Oh you might have exposed Epistte.
That goes under the assumption that Adam & Eve actually existed as depicted in the bible, for which there is not a shred of evidence for.
I'm obviously not a Christian, so I do not believe the story of Genesis to be true.
I had my yearly poke and prod' appointment with my Ob-Gyn, so obviously I am not trans.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Epistte is the one that said " Eve's DNA is male so apparently she is transgendered" not Iceman
According to our DNA, the biblical Eve does not exist. Humans evolved from higher primates more than 14 million years ago, so there is no definitive first human female.
That doesn't change what I said.
Of course not. Adam and Eve is just a silly religious myth.
If you believe the Biblical story of Genesis to be a fact, then Eve is transgendered because she would have the same DNA as Adam, unless Adam was intersexxed or a transman. Obviously, DNA was not understood when the story of Genesis was concocted around a fire.
Genesis is a 3rd rate myth, just like +75% of the Bible. Most of it was borrowed/plagiarized from previous religions.
E.A Please Specify what " makes no sense " what I stated or ?
Quick Explanation :::
Today we have Killings Wars, many on the bases of " US vs THEM " we have the " First war " Females Vs Males " in that very Scientific Statement written in that very OLD book, it made an effort Geneticist and Legalist will attest as Very WISE .. in that it JOINED the DNA of Both " TWO " individuals, so that for ALL eternity they be as later also indicated in the act of " Marriage " that they both be " Of One Flesh " United in Scope and Values and Goals!
Now as to DNA while it might not have been known to Scientist for many Generations , that OLD book attested to it a number of times!
Addition See also Circadian Clock, Need for Night time for Chemical consolidation
E.A Ahhh OK thanks now I get to WHOM you where referring to, and also note that that same " persona" does not find any fault with other " religions " just with Christianity @ makes one wonder!
It is not required to be a believer to discuss religion.
How so? Just because someone is not a believer doesn't mean they are automatically not knowledgeable about the bible or religion itself.
E.A that is equally applicable to ALL of Sciences, where any Scientist that takes Funds or a position in education to research or teach something that they " do not believe " in, hence it is amazing that we have so many here claiming to be of " Scientific Orientation " that do not understand that the very foundation of ALL sciences is " Faith , and Belief, marinated with Hope " !
As an example of Proof, go to a NASA site, read any past , present or Future science concept, experiment, endeavour and see how often the word " Believe/Hope " appear!
You're not allowed to talk about fright club if you're not a member of fright club.
LOL. Sane folks cite the bible in order to ridicule the bible rather frequently.
Why should I need to be a believer to discuss the Bible? Is there a biblical translation device that is only available to Christians?
Does that also apply to you discussing other religions sush as Islam, Satanism and Humanism?
E.A I think the Problem here is the lack of understanding as to the meaning of WORDs and or the TWISTING of the meaning to suit one prejudice. Bigotry, Hatred!
Dictionary.com
See what I posted earlier about NASA and ALL sciences!
Valid points are based on logical analysis and/facts. Therefore, mere "belief" is irrelevant to that. So that doesn't negate the fact that anyone knowledgeable in religion doesn't need to be a believer to discuss or argue the points suurounding religion or religious matters. As far as your astronomy example goes, astronomy is based on objective observation and mathematics. So belief is neither required or necessary. Belief does not equal fact either.
I was raised Roman Catholic and I was required to take a formal course in theology as part of my minor, so I am well versed in what the Bible says. I do not need to believe that the Bible is fact to understand the text and what Christian beliefs are.
Very interesting thread.
I think you (plural) are talking at cross-purposes, though, mixing two notions: belief and understanding.
One may use all sorts of scholarly tools in the exegesis of the Bible... in order to understand it... without believing it. And one may have faith despite having very little knowledge.
One of the few college courses I remember (it was so-o-o-o long ago
) was Bible. The prof sliced and diced each Testament for a semester, using all the tools of linguistics, archaeology, and so on to give us a good understanding of the book - how it began and developed, how the Canon books were chosen and other books excluded... At the same time, he was always respectful of the Book. We got to the end of the year not knowing if he was a Believer or not, and he refused to tell us. The last day, he confirmed that he believed in God. ... but gave us no details of his belief system.
God may or may not exist. Neither case can be proven in the scientific sense. A matter of faith carries no evidence and it is impossible to prove a negative.
Disproving the scientific exactitude of the Bible is child's play. Of course. It was written in a pastoral society at a time when the Sun orbited a flat Earth. Disproving the Bible in no way disproves God.
Unless one is discussing religion with someone who follows the God of Abraham - from before the Ten Commandments - disproving the Bible has little impact on belief... on the condition that the Believer understands the Bible rather than believes in it.
A couple months ago, I seeded an article about bibliolatry that seems to have evaporated. If I come across it, I'll re-seed.
One can discuss God or religion from the historical perspective, the psychological aspect of religious belief, the sociological aspect of religious belief.
Two believers can discuss religious belief but those discussions I almost always stay out of because to me they are incoherent gibberish. I have tried to understand them and take part a respectful way but from my perspective people discussing god as believers are akin to 2 blind men arguing over the color purple. Apparently, my brain is quite logical because the logical freedoms people take in those discussions make my head spin. I feel the same about reading fiction.
Yes.
I think it is equally possible to discuss "belief", as long as all parties understand and accept the topic as theoretical.
IMNAAHO, many believers make a fundamental mistake in their thinking about faith. Faith (shorthand for belief in God) is spontaneous. It is not evidence-based. It arises from within. (Yes... there is a serious danger of auto-hypnosis here!)
Some would say that faith is a grace/gift from God. I'm a bit leery of that... just as I wonder about our gene-deep tendency to aspire to divinity.
Whatever its origin, faith is independent of evidence, both as proof and as disproof.
So... in any conversation about God, there may be believers (who cannot prove) and non-believers (who cannot prove). If they're intelligent and of good will, they should be able to get along!
What the fuck is astrometry??
Do you know Google?
Oops, sorry Bob. Reading, right?
That's a lie.
Yes.
For example, referring the the Genesis myth as "scientific".
Maybe you can't. What's to be validated in a myth? Why do you and folks like Tex just have to be adversarial?
Live and let live.
You seem to post a lot of nonsensical stuff that has nothing to do with the topic on hand . . . or anything else for that matter.
Have you ever seen Hidden Figures? Mathematics had a LOT to do with astronomy (as you say).
Mostly it's cuz they're such bad drivers, as a general rule.
Apparently, they need their own LGBT traffic accident attorneys . Talk about finding your niche!
Tell that to Hurley Haywood. He has won almost every race available in sports car racing. He is one the class acts of the sport.
LGBT people have their own attorneys because many LGBT people aren't comfortable with heterosexual lawyers who do not understand their community.
BY your logic Christians must be legal scofflaws,
The majority of people in prison are some sect of the Christian faith.
What's up with all this "skirting" stuff? "Skirts obviously refer to womyn gender-persons. We need to invent a new term-- one that's more politically correct -- and more "gender neutral"!(NT must once again become the safe space that it used to be in days of your!)
...Lot was never punished or even admonished for sleeping with his daughters. So I guess that means homosexuality is bad but incest is good?
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, so sleeping with a 1000 different women is A-Okay according to the bible.
"Just sayin'.....since this is a Bible Thingy !"
Got me !
I haven't said anything was good or bad in any of my comments.
As the article notes, there is nothing about Homosexuality in the Bible. Just "Man" and "Women".
E.A Sure so tell me " Who is the God Of this world" from " The Bible Thingy "?
Only if daddy pretends to be drunk or asleep while he's having sex with his kids.
Plus those girls were the guy's property anyway......
Where can I get some of that stuff that Solomon was smoking? :^)
Sounds like it was better than Viagra.
What he meant, most likely, was either those who sexually abuse young boys, or those who engaged in pagan temple sex rituals.
One would think that a book of holy standards would include pedophilia in its top ten list of “shall nots”, but alas …
I don't understand, Hal. You just cited a passage that condemns pedophilia...
while they may be true - it wasn't in the "top ten" or the ten commandments , was it ?
My point is that pedophilia should not be a biblical offense so ambiguous that its condemnation is up for speculation. There is more biblical certainty about the offense of being jealous of your neighbor's donkey than sexually abusing a child.
It appears to me that the original text was quite clear, but that later translations lost that clarity.
Most of the commandment are all about their worship of a jealous God.
Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me, I'm jealous beatch!
Thou shalt not worship graven images or idols, I'm jealous beatch!
Don't you take my name in vain, I'm jealous beatch!
Remember the day I took a break after creating the universe, I'm jealous beatch!
He did remember to add "Thou shalt not commit adultery" which ALL Christians ALWAYS follow to the letter and never break because it's such an important law and was included in the top 10, right? /s
I mean, if Christians didn't always follow that law but chose to vilify and demean homosexuals that would make them enormous hypocrites, right? So I'm sure the baker in Colorado always asks the couples he's making wedding cakes for whether they are virgins and have always been faithful, right? He wouldn't want to make a cake for sinners, right? He wouldn't want to go against his religious faith, right?
Same type of people that revised the bible then are the same type of people revising it now.
Incest and pedophilia are 2 of the original cornerstones of that religion.
nope - their response (as i've heard this a million times before) would be "i'm only human and not perfect" which excuses any responsibility for their "sins" and gives an implicit free pass and thumbs up on committing the act since they won't be "scolded" or "punished" (if they will be) until after their nervous system ceases to function.
I think you're being a bit harsh. And anachronistic.
Before the Hebrew God gave His people a list of rules, the behavior of the gods was random. For the new rules to be accepted, they had to have authority, so that first commandment, making God the only god, was necessary.
The "name in vain" commandment is usually mis-translated. It is actually "Do not swear falsely in God's name." It's a legal thing, very much like swearing in court with one hand on the Bible.
I assume you agree with "Do not murder", "Do not steal", ...
I do, though those and the other sane laws in the 10 commandments can be found in much older civil laws such as the Code of Hammurabi and even Egyptian laws at the time which Moses would have studied growing up as a Prince in Egypt. He also studied Egyptian mythology and their creation myths which likely gave him the core framework on which to build his own Genesis account while wandering the wilderness for forty years. Atum became Adam, Set who kills his brother Osiris becomes the Cain and Able fable, even the flood myths were well known in Egypt at the time of Moses training.
At least the new sky fairy kept up the tradition of a deity raping a virgin.
Note that an historical Moses is even less likely than an historical Jesus, but there's no doubt that the Mosaic Code and those early Jewish fables are drawn from a number of sources including Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian and Canaanite. The flood myth is pretty much a direct steal from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
No one (well... except the fundies, and we all know they're somewhat crazy) thinks the Hebrew faith developed in a vacuum.The similarities with other ME religions are too great to be coincidence.
It's just that most of those religions died out, while the Hebrew religion survived. Some present-day religions are descended from it. So we pay it more attention. We study those disappeared religions precisely to know what our own tradition may have borrowed from them.
Whether or not there actually is a God, our perception is man-made, constructed from faith and glimpses and thought. Man's perception of God has been an on-going project since the day after Lucy was born.
as many times as it has been revised and rewritten how do we know what was written to start with?
Same as what we know about all " Other Historical Events " it is called archaeology, and no one can debate that the " Bible " is one of the most " researched and validated books known ".
Validated? Do you mean because a few references actually have been verified as having existed, there really was a Troy and Jerico. Neither of these indicate that the stories attributed have any factual standing. I would fully expect that sheepherder stories would have some semblance of truth even if it is only the name of a place. Homer used real places so I guess the Iliad and Odyssey are factual documents. Where is talking snake land?
E.A if that is all you are aware off, then I recommend some fruitful reading, take the time and look up any Museum that deals with this issue, and let me know if it is just a " number " or a " Plethora " of evidence
Where is this museum that you speak of? There is no proof that the biblical Jesus ever lived, despite the number of people who belive that myth of a dying and rising savior.
Validated? Really? So where's the validation for Adam and Eve? The Great Flood? Jesus being divine, ect..? There's certainly no validation that god even exists.
Great question! I doubt that anyone has an accurate answer.
My own personal conclusion is to doubt any and all direct quotes from the Bible. IMNAAHO, any argument about any verse, or worse, about any particular word, is futile.
OTOH, there's enough repetition of ideas in Christ's sermons and parables that His message comes through clearly, regardless of particular words.
Centuries of refining and twisting the work has a tendency to do that
That's actually a relevant point to the topic since the idea of sexual orientation didn't exist in any middle eastern or western culture until the mid to late 1800s. It definitely didn't exist in Bronze and Iron age cultures, or at least there's no evidence of that in any historical record. Everyone was assumed to be the same (ie naturally attracted to the opposite-sex) but some of those folks behaved *badly*.
So if anything the bibles which were printed after 1946 and contain some variation of "homosexual" are the true anachronism. Of course that merely maintains a long traditional of biblical texts getting rewritten and reinterpreted to represent the biases and bigotries of the transcribers.
Curiously... the doubt concerning particular words should liberate us from clobbertexting. Being freed of analyzing the text word-by-word, we may step back and observe the ideas. Which are so much more important...
Where would be the fun in that? Bible-babblers would have nothing to rant about!
True. Frantic word searches are so-o-o-o much fun...
I need to qualify that a bit since a number of native American and Pacific island cultures did have a concept which roughly aligns with the current notion of sexual orientation (and that really freaked out the Christian missionaries). I guess it depends on whether you consider the aboriginal New World cultures to be "western", but in the cultures dominated by Abrahamic cults the idea simply didn't exist until the later 1800s and even then was rejected by those cults and those cultures until just a few decades ago.
Love between men, even to the point of physical intimacy, was ordinary in the Greek world.
I think it was in the Roman world as well.
Yes. Greek culture leaked all across the Mediterranean basin.
While Jesus undoubtedly spoke a local Nazarene dialect of Aramaic as his native tongue, He had a lot of contact with people from elsewhere. It is entirely possible that He spoke at least some koinè Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean for a thousand years.
That's sort of what I was thinking as well. A lot of people from the different countries in those areas did have a good bit of contact with other countries for many, many years, so other countries cultures were sure to get mingled. But, the Romans were very base for a long time during that period of time, with a good deal of incest and homosexuality, so it is not hard to figure that it rubbed off on other countries as well.
In fact, it was Greek culture that flooded the Romans.
The Greeks thought a lot about love, and had several different words for filial love, sexual love, et cetera...
Obviously LGBT folks have been part of all societies (except Iran LOL), but the Greeks saw same-sex male behavior only as a developmental phase or as a form of mentoring. Men were expected to marry a woman and neither the Greeks or the Romans had a term which corresponds to our notion of "sexual orientation".
Of course that doesn't mean that all those societies and cults equally persecuted gays. The greatest love story in the bible is about a same-sex affair, but note that even David was expected to settle down with a woman.
Excellent point but let's take it a little further and ask how much the campfire tales of illiterate men changed in the couple to many centuries before someone decided to write it down
We all know that verbal stories change with each retelling.
you are right
Makes sense that ancient men looked at homosexuality simply in terms of the physical act and would deem that act to be wrong. They would have no concept of how the mind works - their world was entirely physical.
Imagine though if the Bible contained content that showed insights that can only be had with an understanding of genetics and human psychology. Now that would have been something!
I bet there's a million zealots who would love to spend half your day trying to convince you that this is already evident. I once got into a very protracted discussion with a newsviner who would have fit that bill nicely. If you can delude yourself into thinking that a cracker is the flesh of 2000 year old dead guy, you can convince yourself of anything.
Regardless of what iteration, the base meaning of the bible has always been very clear to me. Try to love and support your fellow man, the best you can ..... all of them, not just this group or that. Anyone can try to fake it but they are only fooling themselves. But since as human beings we are all imperfect, too much hate is held in too many hearts for too many of the wrong reasons. We are all guilty of it. The ones who say they aren't, are usually the most guilty.
It's humbling really ..... trying to love everyone. Look no further than NT for proof of that. All the people here trying to force their narrative down other peoples throats and for what really?
Very hard to love people like that.
Absolutely Sparty, and this message is embraced by many people, including atheists. It is also ignored by many people, including Christians. I don't, however, see anyone debating against the idea that we should love our fellow man. What is argued is the existence of a supernatural being and/or that the bible has a connection with said being.
Well, not in this seed. From what i've read the debate here is about whether Christians, based on the bible, can accept people who are LGBT. We can debate God vs the Flying Spaghetti monster in another thread.
Yes, well, Christians definitely seem to have a hard time accepting their fellow human beings. Like I always say, the average atheist is far more Christ-like than the average Christian.
Not this one and not most that i know but they certainly are out there. Or better put i honestly try to be accepting ..... admittedly unsuccessfully at times .....
Not sure i agree with that. Most Atheists i know seem to be pissed off all the time. Not you of course ......
Dear Friend Sparty On: Very well said.
All great religious, spiritual and/or humanitarian traditions got that way because their central message is this.
Care for, look out for, be there for and care about all others.
The ones it is hardest for whom to do that most need it.
Super post.
We are as impressed as we are grateful.
Peace and Abundant Blessings to Us All.
Enoch.
The number one, most important thing seems to 'believing,' Enoch, it's the very first commandment. If there really is a god who cares about human morality, I totally reject the idea that this god would be so petty and insecure that it would require humans to constantly praise and honor it. The idea that a god would angrily punish someone for simply, honestly not thinking it exists, seems to me to be a blasphemy against that god.
So true and the truest test of character if one can do that all the time.
I'm still a work in progress ..... too much pride i suppose .....
Dear Friend Sparty On: From where I stand you are doing just fine.
Count on my support.
Peace and Abundant Blessings.
Enoch.
absolutely agree and have asked the same thing - short of cop-out answers like "God works in mysterious ways" or things along the lines of "humans aren't meant to understand God's plan", i usually get silence.
That's a misunderstanding of the commandment, Lenny.
God (or the people who "managed" Him) had to have authority if His commandments were to be obeyed. Therefore, He had to be the Boss.
Today, recognize that the state must be respected if its laws are to be respected. Same-same....
… unless he is a slave, or worse yet a woman.
That might be how some interpreted it but i have no doubt that was not the intent.
I get ostracized in here all the time as a Christian, a Christian who doesn't feel what i'm being ostracized for.
There is plenty of blame to go around and it's not all on the bible or Christians.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
You can pick it apart all you want and i will continue to refer you back to the first line in post # 9.3.1
Save yourself some time and bandwidth.
well i guess that's one way to get the "woman of your dreams", assuming she is not engaged, just rape her and pay off her family and then marry her. Doesn't seem very fair to women and it's a bit amazing that so many revere this book with these phrases in it - definitely makes one wonder about the book, the religion that it is contained in and those who earnestly follow it. I guess "raping" isn't really a "sin" as long as you marry the victim ?
Christ's parable often demonstrate the opposite. They show inclusion of the despised. The good Samaritan...
That some (many) self-styled Christians have not followed... is not Chist's fault. Free will.
Christ should have just written his own book, instead of staring in one that includes levels of violence suitable for a snuff film.
One would also think that centuries of rewriting, editing, deconstructing and reconstructing would have produced something other than a boatload of contradiction, stolen myth and fictional tales of woe.
Oh yes!
Cute .... not remotely applicable but cute just the same.
I offered you a quote from the Bible that is crystal clear, and your response was basically that under no circumstances will you allow that clarity to cloud your wildly false interpretations of such a quote.
.
.
.
Sophomoric GIF spacer .......
Refer to post # 9.3.3 and have a nice day Hal ..... hope you feel better.
Maybe you should do all of us confused members a favor, and express what you think the 'intent' of that quote actually was?
what do you think the intent was and how did you come to that conclusion ? what did you base your conclusion on that it was not the intent ?
At least if you're going to be forcing yourself on women, it motivates you to be highly selective about it. Fifty pieces of silver was probably a lot of money that 99% of young men didn't have. And if you broke the law and didn't have the money, you were probably beaten or killed.
It's not so different from today. Civil courts still award money damages for all sorts of harms that don't really have anything to do with money - everything from offending someone to losing a limb. Money can't replace dignity or a leg, and it doesn't feel like an exact justice, but what else can you do about it? Prisons were not as ubiquitous as they are now, and even where they existed, they were more for temporary detainment than long-term punishment.
Is that supposed to be a justification?
Jesus H. Christ
That's a pretty mild one compared to some of the justifications I've seen some die hard theists make for their god, given god's proclivity towards infanticide, genocide, terrorism, ect., because, you know, it's god.
No. Just read the words. Nowhere did I say rape is ok. Geez! Next?
I am saying it was not a justification. The rest of your comment is irrelevant and based on a straw man.
Well, it sure sounds like an attempt at justifying punishing a rape victim with repeated rape, and treating women like animals, which is obscene.
But so long as the words came from Moses and not Muhammed, I guess all is well, then.
Only if you ignore actual words and just want to live in your own sick fantasy world. Do you have an adult contribution to make to the conversation?
Then what is it supposed to be?
So, justifying a law prescribing repeated rape of a rape victim isn't justifying rape?
Ok.
Please read the law you're rationalizing here, and think about what it means for the victim. It means repeated rape.
Adults are able to reason that out.
Well if you’re confused, perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I’ve been very clear as to what I believe the main intent of the Bible is here on this thread.
i also understand Atheists like to point to the few passage like that to reinforce their beliefs or lack thereof I should say. Meanwhile bypassing the plethora of passages that reinforce more positively interpretable messages.
That tactic is convenient for reinforcing a hateful message towards such things but not realistic in any meaningful or positive way. But it’s okay, I understand ones need to justify their belief system so whatever floats your boat .....
Lol. Ok. Raping a woman is okay then, as long as the rapist marries her against her will.
I observed that there was punishment for the act. If the Bible actually excused rape, there would be no consequences for it. We can debate whether or not it was sufficient punishment, but I doubt there is much point in that. Historians disagree wildly on how we might relate to the severity of that punishment. It's hard to say what it would be like to come up with the money. Pretty much everyone was poor in those days and in some places, something like a third of the population was a slave. But the appropriateness of the punishment was not the focus of my observation - only that a punishment existed.
Deleted, skirting {SP}
I'm curious where you got this translation. I have looked at several and none of them use the word "rape."
It merely says that rape is an inexpensive way to acquire a wife or a child sex slave. It's certainly not something the great sky fairy would prohibit or condemn.
I have looked at several and none of them use the word "rape."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Deuteronomy+22:28-29&version=NIV&interface=amp
Lol, alrighty then ..... i’m Christian and I know rape is wrong.
How about you?
Yeah, for a few shekels, a rapist can buy a wife (slightly used). That seems like a good deal and not much of a consequence. It's hardly a condemnation by the bible or god.
Have you tried considering this issue from the perspective of say, the 15th century BCE?
Women couldn't work or own property in those days. And if they had lost their virginity, it might be very difficult for her to marry. A man takes advantage of a young woman, robbing her of her virginity (no small thing in those days) and he becomes responsible for her for life, under penalty of death. He would also then be under the constant scrutiny of her father and family if he felt like mistreating her. Probably not a smart idea at that point.
Anyway, the point is that whatever was envisioned in this passage, whether it was rape, or simply illicit sex with a virgin, there was a consequence for the behavior that was life altering and expensive.
But a god who could apparently tell grown men to cut off their foreskins and be obeyed couldn't tell people to be a bit more fair-minded and less hypocritical about women who weren't virgins on their wedding nights, and expect to be obeyed in that?
Ok.
God has high expectations, except when he doesn't, I guess.
There are numerous reasons why a girl/woman might not have a hymen when she marries, without having had intercourse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... hymens can break without women knowing it. Strenuous activities, such as bicycleriding, horseback riding, stretching, or dancing, can also cause the hymen to break. Lastly, a woman's hymen could have already been broken or stretched by sexual activity, even if she has not had a penis inside of her. It can also be broken by Masturbation.
Source:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People who are not aware of the facts listed above will naturally consider that the woman/girl has had intercourse with a man because her hymen has been broken.
I'm sure most rape victims back then didn't mind becoming the sex slave and property of their rapist. It's only those feminazis today who object to that.
Of course a more enlightened sky fairy would have said that rapists should be stoned to death, and then either said that virginity is irrelevant or that it matters regardless of one's gender.
Sorry, but I'm much more enlightened and intelligent than my Middle Ages counterparts. So I don't need to make excuses or rationales for such antiquated and downright appalling social structure and beliefs.
BCE
My mistake. But then, that only reinforces my statement.
How so?
That's Bronze Age. Do you really want to debate with persons dead for three and a half millennia? Do you truly reproach them to not be modern?
Funny how some people abide by the writings or accept as absoluter "truth" of Bronze Age people who have been dead for millennia.
Considering I'm more socially evolved, I can certainly point out how screwed up those people really were.
I have often wondered about the same thing. I have finally come to the conclusion that most of the people who actively participate in online political discussions are . . . ummm . . . not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer . . .
Perhaps, but I think it’s more folks who have an agenda to push. They’ll grasp on to anything to that can be spun to remotely justify what they’re pushing at the moment
Just as a disclaimer: I think homosexuality gets way too much attention (both pro and con). It's an absurd thing to celebrate, but it might be the least important "sin." Unfortunately, it's really easy to condemn because the great bulk of the population (something like 96%) is not tempted in this way. It's easy to be all judgy about behavior that doesn't tempt you. It certainly cannot separate you from the love of God. For a really important sin, see: Pride.
But since this seed is about homosexuality and the Bible, I guess we're talking about it, at least as an intellectual exercise.
This piece appears to be a somewhat tortured attempt to find some biblical validation for homosexuality. I think that's a misguided goal, but I digress already.
Sure you can. You just defined it in the previous sentence. i.e.:
That's pretty clear. Next,
Sorry, but you don't get to declare "what Paul had in mind" without evidence. The best evidence we have for what was in his mind is what he wrote. Similarly, there is no basis for continuing to declare "what he meant, most likely" without specific evidence, which would primarily come from the text. Next,
There is no justification for this claim. In fact, the context contradicts it. The context is explicitly declared as sexual sin, not grooming.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. Nothing you can do, or refrain from doing, will ever measure up to God's judgment. Fortunately, God is forgiving. Do your best in life. Love God. Love your neighbors and your enemies. If you're actually worried about your sin and how it affects your salvation, then I feel like you missed the point of Jesus' sacrifice.
On the other hand, if you think get to treat homosexuals rudely or as lesser people because the Bible proscribes the behavior, you missed the point of pretty much everything Jesus was trying to teach.
E.A to me it seems an attempt to " Twist " what is untwistable so as to excuse a obviously condemnable behaviour, where even Evolution makes that clear!
Spot on .... great post!
Bed time.
Locking for the night.
Good morning
E.A No comments on what has already been posted?
And yet complaints about the Merit of the posts?
L.L. No merit=no comments, makes perfect sense!
E.A lol Ouch!!! That Hurt
E.A so what part do you WANT to debunk?
L.L. Don't cry EA!
That wasn't a gay hug by the way...
E.A Thank GOD I do not have to worry about all those Viri and Pathogens
E.A a Guy Happy Hug is OK, it is the other ones one has to be concerned about
No. I have not requested anything from any Mod.
E.A No??
So those number of line on this seed pertaining to that was for whom? some mythical Perrie ?
Dunno. Not me, in any case.
E.A OK Many thanks, this must be as " The Rest of the Bible " that one simple " forgets "
…..
8.1.54 Bob Nelson replied to Texan1211 @8.1 2 days ago
Perrie,
If you are still keeping an eye on this seed... This thread is a great example of why an author needs more control over their seeds.
I doubt anyone intended to derail... but here we are with over fifty comments in this one thread... not a single one of which is pertinent to the seed.
If a seed is frivolous, then it's OK for the comments to be frivolous. But when the seed is both serious and specific, it should be possible for the author to keep the conversation on the right rails.
Many before this one, but this will suffice till one ask for more...
I don't give a damn what gays do. I leaned about them when I was doing threatre. They were the effeminate ones. I still don't care. The only ones who turns me off is when they play up.....gross.
Please explain how gays "play up"?
Yeah....the straight players affect me that way too.....gross.
Tell me about it! All those straight pride parades! Gross!
In the US you are assumed to be heterosexual unless you say otherwise.
Do LGBTQ pride parades make you nauseous?
Like Mardi Gras?
Or maybe you should just count your blessings that you've never had the need to march in the streets in order to secure the same civil rights everyone else enjoys. I guess that's what's meant by "straight privilege" and "white privilege".
They're not all effeminate dear. A lot of gay folks, you wouldn't know, unless they told you.
Imagine - gay folks in theatre!!!!!
" Imagine - gay folks in theatre!!!!!"
And in Alabama yet!
Certainly no one engaged in homosexual behavior is acting masculine. I’m 70 and I’ve never met someone engaged in that lifestyle choice who acted like a man.
I've met quite a few from my circles of friends - it seems many like to view the world from indulged stereotypes
Acting masculine? Do guys need to scratch their balls and spit to earn your respect?
My stepson and his husband are a fucking riot to hang out with. They have ten times as many friends as my wife and I do, and I would rather hang out with them than just about anyone - especially more than some homophobic manly man.
C'mon! They're easy to identify by their lisp.
I knew a chaplain who spent thirty years waiting to be thrown out. He eventually retired, but the thousands of hours of worry left him a nervous wreck.
... a good chaplain.
Why are you concerned about how gay men act?
Yeah. I always have doubts about guys who look good.
I mean.... Who ever heard of a grungy gay?
That's why I'm careful to never be elegant...
I’m not concerned in the slightest. I merely commented on someone else’s post
Deleted, sweeping generalization {SP}
That’s what happens when you live in rebellion to God
Judge not lest you be judged.
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
Love one another.
You can follow Christ or the Old Testament. You can't do both. You seem to have chosen the Old Testament. That's your right... but you shouldn't call yourself "Christian".
Absolutely agree as god is a myth created by uneducated goat herders who were frightened by and had no understanding of their natural world. Everything since is just perpetuation and organization of those original campfire tales.
No need to tell me I'm going to hell, you've said it before and you'll still be wrong this time.
Try switching positions.
Or, as I often say... Christ gave us One Commandment: "Love God and your fellows."
No escape clauses. No fine print.
For a Christian, that's it. End of story. "Love one another." No exceptions.
E.A so John 17: 1-3 is what and are you laying down a " different Foundation to Jesus Christ "?
Jesus Prays to Be Glorified
John 17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Whom did he Address as " Father " What Power did that one have and why?
How could ANY Human Attain " Eternal life " Contrary to the LIAR as seen in Genesis 3 ?
Nonsense I never reference Old Testament law applying to anyone but Jews
Jesus who is the same YHWH who gave the Noachidic law to Noah, the Torah to Moses, gave the same moral teachings 2000 years ago. This same moral teaching that sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman defiles you before God. This moral absolute was repeated by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem
as to judging
Jesus never forbade judging, in He commands it. What He did warn of here is judging by our own standards or as hypocrites rather than with God’s righteous judgment
"It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning." 1 Corinthians 5:12
"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7:24
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
15 Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you. Titus 2:11-15
Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Bible Commentary
“Judge not, that ye be not judged—To "judge" here does not exactly mean to pronounce condemnatory judgment, nor does it refer to simple judging at all, whether favorable or the reverse. The context makes it clear that the thing here condemned is that disposition to look unfavorably on the character and actions of others, which leads invariably to the pronouncing of rash, unjust, and unlovely judgments upon them. No doubt it is the judgments so pronounced which are here spoken of; but what our Lord aims at is the spirit out of which they spring. Provided we eschew this unlovely spirit, we are not only warranted to sit in judgment upon a brother's character and actions, but in the exercise of a necessary discrimination are often constrained to do so for our own guidance. It is the violation of the law of love involved in the exercise of a censorious disposition which alone is here condemned. And the argument against it—"that ye be not judged"—confirms this: "that your own character and actions be not pronounced upon with the like severity"; that is, at the great day.”
No thanks
I don't have the time... and even less the desire... to clobbertext with you. You are ignoring Christ's essential message. I have no desire to converse with a self-styled Christian who turns his back on Christ.
Have a great life.
Medical science says that you are incorrect.
So does the Pope.
Religion is a choice because nobody has ever been born a Christian. Your parents commonly indoctrinate people into a particular religion, even if some people's personalities do have a penhcant for relgious belief.
I agreed with you on lots of things you've said, in the above statement you're acting foolish. Do you ask everyone you meet if they're homosexual? All your statement says is: I can't identify a homosexual by the way they act.
I personally know 3 gay men that behave as a man in every aspect of their lives, The only reason I know they're gay is they told me. I probably know more I don't know are gay and I don't care if some are their good people.
So you have invented a different Bible and a different Jesus
He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him. John 14:21
John 8:31-32 Jesus said to the people who believed in him, “You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
that’s plural not singular
Then he spoke to them all. “If anyone wants to follow in my footsteps, he must give up all right to himself, carry his cross every day and keep close behind me. For the man who wants to save his life will lose it, but the man who loses his life for my sake will save it. For what is the use of a man gaining the whole world if he loses or forfeits his own soul? Luke 9:23-25 Phillips NTTranslations
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’
You must produce fruit (soul harvest) for the kingdom
John 15:5-6 “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned.
As I understand that verse, there's no jugement, in that there's no condemnation. "If someone won't listen, don't waste your time. Move on."
As I just did with someone in another conversation...
Great point. You get to the bottom of things, don't you?
Funniest thing ever! Nothing can top that ...
I’ve yet to ever be surprised that someone I’ve met is engaged in that lifestyle
and secondly the very fact that they engage in that lifestyle shows they have chosen to not act like a man
E.A If I may, he felt " Judging "(
Judging Others
Mat 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
) was a fundamental part of ALL Life that is spend a Whole Chapter in Matthew Seven, to make that point and show HOW it is to be done, and what the consequences would be for those that for NOT follow that " template "
( True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ )
E.A Hence why it is important that one comes to " accurate Knowledge " before the " Final Judgment "
proselytizing nonsense!
... switching positions... bottom... top...