Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing. There's nothing to say. Yes we do know what homosexuality is, it was practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah or at least that's what was taught. I'm not myself tonight, someone is talking for me. I got no problem with homosexuals.
No where does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah mention homosexuality. That's a lie spread by Sunday schools. In fact, the Bible specifically states Sodom was destroyed for being arrogant, haughty, and not helping those in need.
1 Cor 6:9 states men having sex with other men. So it is not a big jump to use the word homosexual. And it states that such men who do this are wrongdoers. Suggesting that the Bible is not against homosexuality is simply ignoring the obvious. No matter how you play with words, the Bible views men having sex with other men as both evil and wrong.
No it doesn't Campbell. 1 Cor 6:9 states Arsenokoites, which did not mean men having sex with men, unless it was pagan prostitution or pederasty. And it is a big leap to use homosexual, since that's not what Arsenokoites means, and homosexual includes women, where as Paul never mentions women in that verse. An obvious sign of translator corruption and bias.
The Bible also condemns being a self-righteous know it all, but you seem to have to problem with that one.
No where does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah mention homosexuality. That's a lie spread by Sunday schools. In fact, the Bible specifically states Sodom was destroyed for being arrogant, haughty, and not helping those in need.
I remember reading this story over and over back in college and couldn't figure out where anyone gets that this was all about homosexuality. Maybe I wasn't reading between the lines while wearing my hate goggles.
I remember reading this story over and over back in college and couldn't figure out where anyone gets that this was all about homosexuality. Maybe I wasn't reading between the lines while wearing my hate goggles.
Or maybe you were.....still are reading the story while wearing your hate goggles towards God.
The problem is that homosexuality is inherantly on the short end of the stick when it comes to biblical interpretation because they cannot get married, so even if two homosexuals are monogomous and live with the intent of staying together it can be construed as adultery because , well, they are not married.
The old testament is silent on both male and female homosexuality as an orientation, it does talk about a male sex act in context with a passage that is speaking primarily about physical cleanliness. I'll be the first to ruffle feathers towards any orientation that doesn't see the uncleanliness of certain behaviors. There are many homosexuals who never engage in the act described in the old testament. And no matter what you believe a culture may have thought about it, the old testament wording cannot be applied to lesbians.
In the new testament the closest the definitions may come to talking about homosexuality is male prostitute, you do not have to be a homosexual to be a male prostitute. You may believe otherwise, but writers of a translation that use the word homosexual or homosexuality are in error for using those words, it is just a fact.
The new testament is gear towards helping people understand the spiritual nature of things, this includes the understanding that male and female has more to do with a persons spirit than it does what they look like physically. It also helps us understand the nature of loving relationships. It is mighty convenient that Christians inherantly categorize homosexuality as adultery to justify the implication when if the law of the land allowed them to get married that rationalizatioon evaporates and places them on the same leval as heterosexual unions.
Your comment about revisionism is the key point, it is as if traditional views are absolute truth and cannot be wrong. Well, that can depend upon a persons perspective I suppose. I grew up around a long line of generational thinking that infered the unequally yoked verses to mean that whites marrying blacks was against God. But revisionism is fun and all, but perhaps they are correct simply because generation after generation believed it huh?
Leviticus 18:22 has nothing to do with cleanliness. It tells you outright that men who have sex with other men are doing something that is detestable.
Leviticus 18:22 has nothing to do with cleanliness. It tells you outright that men who have sex with other men are doing something that is detestable.
It does not say outright anything about lesbianism so to infer that verse to the whole of sexual orientation is a misunderstanding of what is intended. To extract that one verse and say in the midst of other verses that it has nothing to do with cleanliness is a misunderstanding of the intent as well.
Leviticus 18:22 has nothing to do with cleanliness. It tells you outright that men who have sex with other men are doing something that is detestable.
Do you wear clothes that have more than one fabric? Do you shave?
What about if your priest's daughter is a hooker? Are you going to help burn her at the stake? How about if someone curses God, will you do your duty as part of the community to stone that person to death?
Do you wear clothes that have more than one fabric? Do you shave?
What about if your priest's daughter is a hooker? Are you going to help burn her at the stake? How about if someone curses God, will you do your duty as part of the community to stone that person to death?
and where does anybody think God will be understanding about accusations of injustice towards a just God?
Who has the right to find certain lifestyles destestable .... the created or the Creator?
and where does anybody think God will be understanding about accusations of injustice towards a just God?
Who has the right to find certain lifestyles destestable .... the created or the Creator?
The Creator, that is why saying what you just said also does not excuse you from not following all of the laws. But of course the question is not about whether the creator gets to decide, it is if people in religion have interpreted the meaning correctly in the first place. Many are pointing out the greater evidence that they have not.
But, just in case they have, you had better get your own crap together because right now your not gettin in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about if someone curses God, will you do your duty as part of the community to stone that person to death?