(May 13, 2012 at 8:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your verses deal with prostitution Stat. "That which is filthy" would be whoring. Try again.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, scripture is silent. You are obviously free to interpret whatever passage you wish any way you wish to reinforce your own personal bigotry. There are multiple possible reasons that scripture is silent on this issue, some no more flattering than your interpretations, but none having anything to do with a god.

"27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, "

Are you seriously trying to say that this isn't talking about homosexuality? You would have to be seriously refusing to see the wood for the trees on this one! hock:

You're reading it with your conclusion already in mind, which is what leads you to bold the portion you did (and de-emphasize the portion you did not). Nevertheless, "that which is filthy" would be prostitution. There are a few mentions of homosexuality in scripture, all indirect (as this one is) and at the very worst it seems to be seen as a sort of bundled effect of where the path of sinfulness leads. It is never directly stated to be sinful in and of itself, and is in fact never directly addressed.

Look, I think the whole book is bullshit cover to cover, so it wouldn't change my opnion on the matter either way. On the other hand (and I've mentioned this before) I'd really love for scripture to just come out and say "God hates fags" because that would be the icing on the cake for me. Sadly, it just isn't there.

Scripture.....is....silent. Clearly, the faithful are not. I think this is important to understand, because it removes any front a person can put forward in trying to justify their animosity or bigotry towards homosexuals. Without the excuse of god (and that's all it is in this context, because again, scripture is silent) people would be forced to come to terms with their own motivations. To put it simply, god isn't the one being an ass in this situation, all that remains is to explain why you feel the need to be. We've also been down the road of completely granting the gay hating crowd their pet translations, and then asking for reasons that god might decree such a thing in the first place. I haven't seen a competent response to that one either. Now, it's up to you. You can concede that god is not a douche (with regards to homosexuality) as I've stated, or, you can decide that for some reason to which you are unable to explain gay people make god feel wrathful (and so justify your very obvious animosity towards the same).

(May 13, 2012 at 8:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: You're reading it with your conclusion already in mind, which is what leads you to bold the portion you did (and de-emphasize the portion you did not). Nevertheless, "that which is filthy" would be prostitution. There are a few mentions of homosexuality in scripture, all indirect (as this one is) and at the very worst it seems to be seen as a sort of bundled effect of where the path of sinfulness leads. It is never directly stated to be sinful in and of itself, and is in fact never directly addressed.

Look, I think the whole book is bullshit cover to cover, so it wouldn't change my opnion on the matter either way. On the other hand (and I've mentioned this before) I'd really love for scripture to just come out and say "God hates fags" because that would be the icing on the cake for me. Sadly, it just isn't there.

Scripture.....is....silent. Clearly, the faithful are not.

I think its blatantly obvious to anyone what is being said in that verse. My understanding of English is that "filthy" and "prostitute" are two entirely distinct words, how do you get to simply replace one word with another and claim that is the meaning? for example this is what you are doing,

"The girl ate an ice cream" would become "The girl ate a cake" then you could claim the original sentence was really about a girl eating a cake. Nice way of interpreting....

The bigot thinks that the motivations behind his bigotry are obvious. Surprise surprise. Go learn a little bit about your own scriptures. Why stop at whatever point is comfortable for you?

(May 13, 2012 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: The bigot thinks that the motivations behind his bigotry are obvious. Surprise surprise. Go learn a little bit about your own scriptures. Why stop at whatever point is comfortable for you?

"27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving." Youngs literal translation

Please show me where the term "prostitute" appears. Or is that just you making it up to change the meaning of the verse?

Fuck it, I spend so much time spoonfeeding you lot your own beliefs I may as well help you out.

There are compelling reasons to conclude that the authors of scripture looked down upon homosexuality. It is never mentioned or referred to in anything other than a negative light. This makes them a bit of a oddball in ANE cultures (where we don't see the sort of sexual hangups we currently suffer from -and have a tendency to blanket all of humanity for all time with-). Now, as I've mentioned, homosexuality is never directly referred to as a sin, nor is it ever handled directly at all, but it is commonly found in passages that amount to what I like to call "a voyeurs tour of sinfulness". It would seem that the authors felt that homosexuality was either a punishment for or result of sinfulness. Specifically wantoness. The idea that a person who was completely consumed by their sexual desires (which are constantly referred to as sinful regardless of the object of obsession) would somehow def facto turn to blowing their buddy Joe is amusing to me as it has a hell of alot to say about the various authors comfort level in their own heterosexuality. But again, our hangups were not their hangups, so to them, the idea of succumbing to desire leading to bathroom handies and whoring was probably as evident as your defense of the BigotGod. Like I said, many possible reasons, this being only one, and again, none of which having anything to do with a god.

The verse does not need to be translated or changed from that form. It's a cautionary verse "If you stop screwing women you'll end up taking it up the ass". What do you think "working shame" might be? How does one go about working shame? What do you imagine the difference between lewd wantonness and prostitution was to the authors of the text? The meaning need not be changed, just show me where in that verse that homosexuality is coined as a sin? Or are we changing shame to sin, error to sin?

Scripture....is....silent. You are not.

(May 13, 2012 at 4:50 am)Justtristo Wrote: These are from the same scriptures which advocate that god approves of those who castrate themselves for his kingdom (Matthew 19:12).

Nope, This is what it actually says:
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

---

(May 13, 2012 at 6:07 am)Gooders1002 Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 5:38 am)StatCrux Wrote: "27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;"

Romans 1 27-28, you need to be pretty inventive with your interpretation of this to say it doesn't condemn homosexuality. This is the New Testament, so any comparisons with the Old Testament, trying to say we no longer follow laws in the Old Testament is pathetic.

How do you feel about eating shellfish or wearing more then one type of cloth, or eating raw meat, or tounching a dead animal? there all sins that are just as bad a being gay
here is a list of Forgotten Abominations:

Deuteronomy.22:5.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Cross dressing is out!
Don't matter if its your husbands fave jumper or if your off to fancy dress party,it aint allowed.As is a woman wearing jeans.Don't matter if its freezing and a icy wind is whipping up your dress,you can't change into jeans to keep warm.You suffer young lady!


Proverbs 12:22.
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD:but they that deal truly are his delight.

Better a lie that heals than a truth that wounds!
Not so to God.If you child dies in agony,you gotta know about it.None of that,'Your child was in no pain.' Instead,'Your child was in agony...for hours!'


Proverbs.17:15.
He that justifieth the wicked,and he that condemneth the just,even they both are abomination to the LORD.

I would agree with this,if God could only make up his/her mind on what is actually 'wicked.'

In Leviticus 11,there's a list of food you are not allowed to eat!

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.

You do know there is a difference between OT jewism and Christianity do you not? why would a Christian seek to worship as an OT jew?

(May 13, 2012 at 9:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: The verse does not need to be translated or changed from that form. It's a cautionary verse "If you stop screwing women you'll end up taking it up the ass". What do you think "working shame" might be? How does one go about working shame? What do you imagine the difference between lewd wantonness and prostitution was to the authors of the text? The meaning need not be changed, just show me where in that verse that homosexuality is coined as a sin?

Scripture....is....silent. You are not.

The verse is talking about people who refuse to believe in God, the type of mentality that appears in people who refuse to believe in God and their resultant behavior.

"they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened,

22 professing to be wise, they were made fools,"


"29 having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoredom, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil dispositions; whisperers,

30 evil-speakers, God-haters, insulting, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 unintelligent, faithless, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful;"Youngs literal translation

So it isnt saying that if you stop being with women you turn to men, it is saying that if you deny God you are given over to this type of behavior. As for it being specifically named as a sin, the verse ends by saying,

"that those practising such things are worthy of death -- not only do them, but also have delight with those practising them"youngs literal translation.

Fairly clear I think.

(May 13, 2012 at 9:25 am)Drich Wrote:

---

(May 13, 2012 at 4:50 am)Justtristo Wrote: These are from the same scriptures which advocate that god approves of those who castrate themselves for his kingdom (Matthew 19:12).

Nope, This is what it actually says:
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

---

(May 13, 2012 at 6:07 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: How do you feel about eating shellfish or wearing more then one type of cloth, or eating raw meat, or tounching a dead animal? there all sins that are just as bad a being gay
here is a list of Forgotten Abominations:

Deuteronomy.22:5.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Cross dressing is out!
Don't matter if its your husbands fave jumper or if your off to fancy dress party,it aint allowed.As is a woman wearing jeans.Don't matter if its freezing and a icy wind is whipping up your dress,you can't change into jeans to keep warm.You suffer young lady!


Proverbs 12:22.
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD:but they that deal truly are his delight.

Better a lie that heals than a truth that wounds!
Not so to God.If you child dies in agony,you gotta know about it.None of that,'Your child was in no pain.' Instead,'Your child was in agony...for hours!'


Proverbs.17:15.
He that justifieth the wicked,and he that condemneth the just,even they both are abomination to the LORD.

I would agree with this,if God could only make up his/her mind on what is actually 'wicked.'

In Leviticus 11,there's a list of food you are not allowed to eat!

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.

---

You do know there is a difference between OT jewism and Christianity do you not? why would a Christian seek to worship as an OT jew?

Well I took it from a Christian site

That would be the "as punishment" or "as a result of" category, still not a sin, but a punishment for/result of sin. Take a look a few posts back to see how you've slowly come to agree with me..lol.

Do you, btw, agree with the authors ending thoughts on the matter? Are those who refuse to believe and are thusly afflicted with this terrible range of "ailments" (homosexuality being only one) "worthy" of death? What of the homosexual who does believe in God?