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.
Gay marriage is an experiment born of selfishness - these people want to force acceptance of their immoral lifestyle, no matter the damage it does to society - and to children.
In the dozens of threads I've seen you exhibit your bigotry and hatred, I have yet to see you justify your position that homosexuality is immoral. Care to give it a shot?
The Sodomites only claim "oppression" because the government recognizes marriage. If the government stopped doing so - they would have nothing to complain about.
Gay marriage is an experiment born of selfishness - these people want to force acceptance of their immoral lifestyle, no matter the damage it does to society - and to children.
It's all about them - and their lifestyle choice - and they want to be granted special "rights".
I don't care if you accept me or my marriage. Your acceptance is neither requested or required in my life.
King James himself had homosexual tendencies and homosexuality wasn't particularly a hot political issue in early 17th century England, so what motive would they have to alter the translation to be harsher against sodomy than the original texts? Why isn't there a single English translation that translates Romans 1 in the way you think is correct?
Why does it matter?
First of all, the New Testament was written anywhere from 200-500 years after the life of Jesus Christ. Even with the best of oral traditions, there is no way that the words that were written down were the same as the words that were said at the time. Since that time, it has been translated and retranslated into different languages, making the validity of most quotations suspect at best. The King James version was translated from half a dozen or more different bibles, including the Bishop's, Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, and Geneva Bibles, as well as the Masoretic and Septuagint texts.
Second, there were many books of gospel that were conveniently left out of the New Testament by the male dominated church (the Gospel of Mary, to name just one). If they were willing to leave books out, isn't it likely that they were also perfectly willing to change the ones that they included? In other words, any negative view of homosexuality that shows up in the New Testament could be there simply because one of the prelates who was putting the gospels together had a personal prejudice against homosexuality. Similar to the way that the Church taught for years that Mary of Magdelane was a prostitute, when the Bible actually makes no mention of her being a prostitute at all.
As for your claim that homosexuality was not a "hot" political issue in 17th century England, you couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the Middle Ages and as recently as the 1800s, homosexuality was called sodomy in Europe, and was punishable by death. Not just a simple beheading or hanging, but forms of death that made my toes curl when I read about them as I studied the time period. Do a little bit of research into the history of the period before making spurious claims about what the people did or did not believe.
King James himself had homosexual tendencies and homosexuality wasn't particularly a hot political issue in early 17th century England, so what motive would they have to alter the translation to be harsher against sodomy than the original texts? Why isn't there a single English translation that translates Romans 1 in the way you think is correct?
Actually, he was believed to be bisexual, however it wasn't him that had the bias, it was those who perceived that as a threat to his royal position, and thus his translators were attacking him.
Most English translations show Romans 1 the way I perceive it. But unlike you, I'm not reading it in a vacuum based on modern day culture. I'm basing it on the culture Paul directed it to, and the fact that sexual orientation was a non-existent concept. And besides which, gays make up less than 5% of the human population. The entire city of Corinth (or any Greco-Roman city for that matter) was not full of gays. Meaning Paul's audience was almost exclusively heterosexuals. And Paul specifically says he's directing it to pagan worship rituals of the Greco-Romans. Nothing he's referring to has anything to do with same-sex relations outside of pagan temples despite your attempt to warp the passage to suit your agenda.
On top of that, Paul says in Romans 2 (which you conveniently ignore) that the very people who condemn those Paul is referring to (like yourself) do the EXACT same things and thus will not escape God's judgement.
So if your argument is that Paul is directing Romans 1 at 21st century gay people, Romans 2 means Paul is calling you gay and God will judge you for that.
Another passage? You mean you didn't already know that Romans 1 is abused by anti-gays? Where have you been? It's not going to work on us liberals/gay supporters. I've studied Romans 1 for over a decade on this issue. You aren't pulling any fast one on us.
The fact that, not only did you not know about it, but that your lack of knowledge knowing it even existed proves you don't have the foggiest clue what it actually means is so pathetic I have no words.
Try reading Romans 2. If you use Romans 1 to condemn gays, Paul himself is saying you are gay.
Good job on your Biblical comprehension.
Fundies are such an embarrassment to Christianity.
Haha... I clicked on the OP's link, just to see which VERSION of that passage was quoted. Did you happen to notice the pull-down menu, where it gives you options to see other translations? I didn't bother to count, but there were probably 30 or 40 different translations available, not all of which even suggest homosexuality. So again I ask, why do you think this ONE particular translation you chose is the "right" one? And would you like me to pull up some other passages, to see if you & other Christians agree/disagree with them? I don't think you want me doing that, or you may be exposed as a hypocrite too.
Some of us read the Bible in print - if you want to waste your time with online Bibles - knock yourself out.
Whoops! As I said earlier, I am a Jew who works almost every Sabbath (Saturday - and Sunday, for that matter). So all of you so-called Christians who aren't plotting my stoning, now that you have this information, are officially BAD Christians. How can you call yourselves Christian and not advocate my execution?
You have just demonstrated that you don't understand the first thing about Jesus and his purpose - "God so loved the world that He gave His only son, so that whomever shall believe in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
What did Jesus say to the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery? "Go and sin no more".
The LORD desires mercy, not sacrifice.
No Christian would "plot your stoning".
I think that you don't understand your Bible as much as you claim.
Just don't try to get the government make laws that apply to everybody based on what you choose to do because of your religious beliefs.
So we should not have any laws against murder? Theft? Bigamy?
I thought that you were a lawyer.
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.
People need to keep their morality to themselves.