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.
Your link was interesting I hadn't thought of it that way. I did use the wrong wording I should have said, "how is he going to change the many years of this view." The Bible clearly states do not have sex with the same sex, believe it's in Leviticus. Not sure how this can be taken any other way.
Maybe, they can change the word, I've heard "young women" will be used rather than "virgins", so it's not confusing people. Thought word changing was wrong, guess people don't read the last page of their Bible.
It was also noted that King James was a flaming gay...so when it was translated for him...it might have been in the translators best interest to not condemn gays too much. Or it may have cost them their heads. Kings weren't the exactly bastions of understanding in those days
Your link was interesting I hadn't thought of it that way. I did use the wrong wording I should have said, "how is he going to change the many years of this view." The Bible clearly states do not have sex with the same sex, believe it's in Leviticus. Not sure how this can be taken any other way.
By putting it in context of the surrounding verses, how it links to other similar verses, what the cultural practices were at the time, how the words are used in other contemporaneous non-biblical texts etc. I don't doubt that the biblical writers condemned male anal sex, but the only mentions of it are in the context of male temple prostitution, using and selling male sex slaves, or male rape of strangers- none of which is a blanket descriptor for gay men, any more than female temple prostitution is a blanket descriptor for heterosexual women.
There is good reason to think that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were most likely referring to male temple prostitution.
You can check this out for yourself if you are interested:
Verse 21, is a command not to give your offspring over to the Canaanite god Molech. (Molech is associated in several places in the OT with mentions of giving over sons and daughters to be male and female temple prostitutes)
In that context, verse 22 likely refers to male temple prostitutes, then verse 23 to female temple prostitutes (who also had anal sex with men as well as with animals to worship the gods)
Leviticus 18:21- not giving sons and daughters over to worship of Molech
Leviticus 18:22 -about males temple prostitutes (qadesh).
Leviticus 18:23 - about female temple prostitutes (qadesha)
Leviticus 18:24 -warning that other nations (Egypt and Canaan) became defiled by worshipping other gods so don't follow their practices.
There are more than half a dozen verses in the OT about not giving over sons and daughters to be temple or cult prostitutes, yet never again outside Leviticus will you find a verse that states that men should not lie with a male and women should not lie with an animal.
eg Deut 23:17: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute (6948), nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult (6945) prostitute.
To me, it's so obvious that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are references to male temple prostitutes when you follow simple honest Biblical hermeneutics. That's not a blanket description of homosexuals or 21st century gay men
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Maybe, they can change the word, I've heard "young women" will be used rather than "virgins", so it's not confusing people. Thought word changing was wrong, guess people don't read the last page of their Bible.
The very nature of translating from different languages means that words and meanings will be changed. Especially in completely different cultures.
The last page of the Bible you refer to is only about not changing any word in the book of Revelations, not the whole Bible.
Your link was interesting I hadn't thought of it that way. I did use the wrong wording I should have said, "how is he going to change the many years of this view." The Bible clearly states do not have sex with the same sex, believe it's in Leviticus. Not sure how this can be taken any other way.
Maybe, they can change the word, I've heard "young women" will be used rather than "virgins", so it's not confusing people. Thought word changing was wrong, guess people don't read the last page of their Bible.
There are actually no verses in the biblical texts that say anything at all about women having sex with other women - despite what some people try to claim with Paul's letter to the Romans (1:26). The women were having anal sex with men.
If one reads the whole letter and doesn't just take a single verse of out the context of the letter, Paul was referring to heterosexual gentiles who had known his God then reverted back to their previous pagan religions worshipping fertility gods and goddesses. He wrote the letter from 1st century Corinth- where there were many temples to pagan fertility gods and goddesses.
Notice that first, these men and women Paul were referring to were having 'degrading' idolatrous sex with each other (males with females - Verse 24) and worshipping idols made in the likeness of mankind, birds, reptiles etc. (This would only be happening in the temples dedicated to fertility gods and goddesses in Corinth where Paul wrote the letter, otherwise the whole idolatry thing doesn't make sense)
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (males with females) 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator
So it was BECAUSE these men and women were having degrading idolatrous sex with each other (ie women with men) while worshipping pagan idols that:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Anyone who thinks this letter is about gay and lesbian people hasn't given it any thought at all and has their prejudice well in place. These were heterosexual people engaged in idolatrous sex acts with each other while worshipping their old pagan gods. Then the men 'exchanged' their 'use' of women and penetrated each other, and the women exchanged their 'natural' sex for sex 'contrary' to their nature- which was anal sex with the men (according to early church fathers like St Augustine).
St Augustine (354–430 C.E.)
"But if one has relations even with one’s wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about the women, For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature (Rom 1:26).
Augustine, Marriage and Desire 20.35 (trans. Roland Teske; ed. John E Rotelle; Answer to the Pelagians, II; New York: New City Press, 1990), 75-76.
It was also noted that King James was a flaming gay...so when it was translated for him...it might have been in the translators best interest to not condemn gays too much. Or it may have cost them their heads. Kings weren't the exactly bastions of understanding in those days
The King James translators actually translated the Hebrew word 'qadesh" to 'sodomite' in 23 places. 'qadesh' actually means male temple prostitute, cult prostitute, shrine prostitute.
KJV: Deut 23:17 "There shall be no w-h-o-re (6948) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (6945) of the sons of Israel".
However most modern translations use the correct translation of the Hebrew:
Deut 23:17: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute (6948), nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult (6945) prostitute.
This is nothing revolutionary. This was the theme many Bishops had before the Church sex scandal.
Francis opposed the gay marriage in Argentina. The problem here is that people are utterly clueless about the Catholic Church and Catholicism. The clergy and leaders of the Church tend to be a lot less judgmental than conservative lay Catholics.
Pope Francis statements are not instructional or offering gay priests protection from the hierarchy per se. He's instructional to, and offering protection from, conservative lay Catholics.
Francis was not the only Latin American Catholic in the hierarchy to be sympathetic to the poor.
Hoyos, supposedly, used to walk the nights to protect the street kids and prostitutes.
He irked many people when he was moved to Rome I believe, and publicly addressed the the media about the sex scandal in words that more or less was not what they wanted to hear. I say that because I suspect he has views about gay priests similar to Francis and much of the hierarchy before the Church sex scandal.
Are you trying to associate gay priests with the child sexual abuse scandals just because most of the victims were boys? That's not consistent with all the evidence about child molesters. The majority of males who have an adult sexual orientation and sexually abuse boys, are heterosexual, not homosexual. A small percentage are pedophiles with no adult sexual orientation.
It's also not consistent with the findings the independent John Jay College of Criminal Justice investigation into the child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church.
"The data do not support a finding that homosexual identity and/or preordination same-sex sexual behavior are significant risk factors for the sexual abuse of minors."
"There has been widespread speculation that homosexual identity is linked to the sexual abuse of minors by priests, largely because of the high number of male victims identified in the Nature and Scope study, however the clinical data do not support this finding"
we need more leaders in the world like this pope..
You ain't seen nothin' yet! Just wait!!
The Catholic Church has been steadily losing "customers" for some time now (in Latin America to the evangelicals who will have you dancing/singing in the aisles) and they're desperate. The IBM of religions is losing money! Isn't it all about $$$ and power?
Are you seriously wishing death on the pope?
The more familiar I become with the right, the more disgusted I get.
There are so few redeeming qualities.
It took the Catholic Church almost 400 years to apologize to Galileo for torturing and imprisoning him for life for his (correct) view that the earth revolved around the sun.
I imagine the Church still has a way to go to get the facts straight about sexual orientation and apologize for the harm the Church's dogma has caused to gay and lesbian people.
The Church still pushes the old Freudian 1950's psychoanalytic view that homosexuality is 'caused' by a boy having a distant father etc
Despite the fact that there is zero evidence to support this and a whole lot of evidence against it.
"When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency (to homosexuality) is not the problem ... they're our brothers."
It's refreshing to hear a catholic official (espec the pope) not breathing fire on us for a change. But let's see if he puts his words to action. He's got to do a lot more than just sweet words to overcome the injustices and humiliations foisted on gays by the Catholic Church.
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.
