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.
Yes of course anti-gay people disagree. However that doesn't mean that their "scholarship" is correct. It clearly isn't.
I don't see how you, or a couple professors, can really define that.
Until, at earliest, the late nineteenth century there was really no disagreement that sodomy/homosexuality was verboten for Christians. A good deal of revisionists have tried to change the thinking on that, but the history of Christianity is fairly clear on this. As soon as Christianity was official in Rome you began having rules against homosexuality. Much of this was against prostitution in specific, but at least some of it was against all homosexuality.
And the "passive partner" in Roman sexual thinking often was deemed in negative terms. I don't know if the term means that or not, but I don't find you citing a couple people that persuasive on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
PS: Why do you all keep quoting Gandhi' "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?
Gandhi was likely adapting from St. Augustine's City of God. I've tried to encourage them to switch to "Hate the fault but love the man" as that's more directly what he said, but that one does have the difficulty of being gender-specific. I guess it's also not "as catchy."
Granted St. Augustine isn't the Bible, and he was wrong on certain things, but he's mostly respected within Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, and Catholicism. I grant that he's largely irrelevant to Eastern Orthodoxy though and probably some Protestant denominations.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 09-07-2011 at 08:57 PM..
8What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in passive submissive/homosexuals clothing? Behold, those who wear passive submissive/homosexuals clothing are in kings’ houses
rather than:
8What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft (malakoi) clothing? Behold, those who wear soft (malakoi) clothing are in kings’ houses
I don't see how you, or a couple professors, can really define that.
Until, at earliest, the late nineteenth century there was really no disagreement that sodomy/homosexuality was verboten for Christians. A good deal of revisionists have tried to change the thinking on that, but the history of Christianity is fairly clear on this. As soon as Christianity was official in Rome you began having rules against homosexuality. Much of this was against prostitution in specific, but at least some of it was against all homosexuality.
And the "passive partner" in Roman sexual thinking often was deemed in negative terms. I don't know if the term means that or not, but I don't find you citing a couple people that persuasive on the matter.
Gandhi was likely adapting from St. Augustine's City of God. I've tried to encourage them to switch to "Hate the fault but love the man" as that's more directly what he said, but that one does have the difficulty of being gender-specific. I guess it's also not "as catchy."
Granted St. Augustine isn't the Bible, and he was wrong on certain things, but he's mostly respected within Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, and Catholicism. I grant that he's largely irrelevant to Eastern Orthodoxy though and probably some Protestant denominations.
Thomas, I'm only referring to flawed modern translations of two Koine Greek words -malakoi and arsenokoites - as "homosexuals".
Not the whole history of the dogma of the church.
The modern translations are biased and flawed BECAUSE of the Church's "traditional" views since early church writers like John Chrysostom and Augustine.
Don't you find it interesting that neither of them used "arsenokoites" or "malakoi" to describe men who had male/male sex? Or that none of the early church fathers used 1 Cor 6-9 against male/male sex?
Yet clearly, if Paul had used these words to mean "homosexuals", or 1 Cor 6-9 against homosexuals, why wouldn't they? Simple. Because that's not what Paul meant when he used "malakoi" and "arsenokoites".
Why would 1 Cor 6-9 be used to condemn masturbators for centuries? Yet suddenly, around the 1950's, a couple of translators decided to use the word "homosexuals" in that verse.
8What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in passive submissive/homosexuals clothing? Behold, those who wear passive submissive/homosexuals clothing are in kings’ houses
rather than:
8What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft (malakoi) clothing? Behold, those who wear soft (malakoi) clothing are in kings’ houses
BINGO!!!!!! To say that God "hates" anyone is the most ridiculous thought to come out of Christianity...or any religion for that matter. God cannot hate...God is PURE UNCONDITIONAL AGAPE LOVE...nothing more, nothing less. If there be any human egoic qualities or characteristics attributed to God in any scripture...it is a clear and definite indication that it is a man made addition and not the least bit inspired by anyone, let alone God.
BINGO!!!!!! To say that God "hates" anyone is the most ridiculous thought to come out of Christianity...or any religion for that matter. God cannot hate...God is PURE UNCONDITIONAL AGAPE LOVE...nothing more, nothing less. If there be any human egoic qualities or characteristics attributed to God in any scripture...it is a clear and definite indication that it is a man made addition and not the least bit inspired by anyone, let alone God.
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Ann Lamott
Here's an interesting article about some studies showing how people project their own views onto what they think are "God's" views.
"Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions."
"The results suggest that similar parts of the brain are involved when we consider our own beliefs and those of God - Epley thinks this is why we end up inferring a deity's attitudes based on those we hold ourselves."
As a Jew, I'm well aware of the difference. But until fundie Christians stop quoting Leviticus 18 and 20 to condemn gay people, I will continue to show their hypocrisy in cherry picking the law.
Most Jews don't even follow those laws anymore, so for your average Christian who doesn't even understand the Bible, it's absurd that they use Mosaic law to condemn gay people.
Considering I've spent many years studying this issue, whereas most conservative Christians just spew the same lies their pastor tells them, or what they read from out of context 21st Century butchered English translations... yes.
Of course the concept existed. The word "gay" may not have existed, but means nothing.
Here is the Biblical definiton of gay sex:
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."
You are aware that you are quoting that in English, and it wasn't written in English right?
Did you know that the 2 words for "lies" in that verse have different meanings in Hebrew? Did you know that "lies with a woman" is not accurate and doesn't quite translate correctly in English? It's closer to "in the lyings of or in the beds of woman". Did you also know, detestable (more commonly quoted as abomination) is a mistranslation from the KJV? To'evah (which is the Hebrew word translated as detestable) means ritually taboo. Something to separate the Israelites from their surrounding cultures.
Did you also read the context of the chapter you ripped that verse out of? Did you notice that chapter starts by discussing incestuous relationships, and then abruptly switches to discuss pagan worship rituals to the god Molech and how Israelites should not prostitute themselves like the Caananites?
No doubt, you didn't know any of that. Because all you people can do is rip verses out of context in the wrong language, and claim "see God hates gays!"
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.
