Silence day for homosexuals

[Chief]

The bigger whole in some of the arguments is, on day one of Jesus' teachings (and we're operating on the premise that these are true and the only truth for my question) the Old Testament begins to be rewritten. Or re-codified. Not broadcast worldwide on TV, spread over the Internet, or even published weekly in Newsweek and delivered via airmail. It took weeks to spread across one country, and longer to spread across the region. Then the grapevine missed people in the process. It was hundreds of years before the bible was finalized, translated, retranslated, edited, censored, retranslated. Hundreds more before missionaries made it to distant cultures and learned their languages so that the translated words from one culture could be studied by a holy man of another culture and travel around the world to learn another culture and present the faith to the poor heathens. In that process, I find it hard to believe that that many souls were lost. I don't think that Jewish souls are at jeopardy for continuing to put their faith in the first version of God. And I definitely know that there are problems with more than just translating words--we're translating the meaning of words across cultures. And relying on word of mouth over the course of years to give us the words we go on these days.

 

The truth is not in the words, I think that the truth is in the meaning and the action.

 

I agree with the insert tab A thing personally, but I still think that they can contribute to society in a generally productive (though not reproductive) way. The bible seems more to be condemning sexual predators like molestors, rapists, and those of that ilk. I am certainly not going to rely on my ability to select a translation of translations after this many years. I think that falls into the trap of treating the bible as a religious token and taking it more seriously than the messages it contains.

 

I believe that absolutism on the words in the bible is dangerous. When the bible says that its message will take care of itself and preserve its integrity, I think that they were referring to the message and not the actual words. If you want to go for the actual words bit, then you certainly cannot have anything against homosexuals as a broadgroup. You'd have to use those words in the ancient texts.

 

But it will be years before new translations of the Dead Sea scrolls are out and complete. And it will then be millenia between the words and our best guess at understanding them. Until then, I believe the harm done by molestors will guarantee their mortal jeopardy...but I think that homosexuals need to do something more perilous than an act that doesn't quite fit into nature in a practical way regarding procreation.

 

I don't have or make many friends of that persuasion, but I think that it's a bit presumptious to damn them. Not to mention casting the first stone.

 

Chief

[Guest TF_FSoul]

Actually it is not my opinion on the flood. It is fact. It is fact that during the time of the flood in the bible the Egyptians had a long established civilization. It is fact that they did not experience a flood. It is fact that what is known as the Dead sea flooded. It is fact that this flood covered towns, hills, everything. All of that is still in the dead sea, go down a certain level in teh Dead Sea and there is NO life at all, not even marine life, hence the name Dead Sea.

 

I understand that this is your life. My main point on the homosexual thing is that the original language did not mean what it means today. I posted several quotes above that give better translations of the word. You have your opinion on the subject and I have mine. I just choose not to take what has changed in the language since the 1960's and use that as a basis for hate or derision or dislike.

[Chief]

I checked out that link, but it's just rhetorical questions and not facts. I know that there is a lot of work down in Kentucky by Christian Scientists trying to demonstrate a global flood with facts. Facts as in measurable, verifiably and repeatable.

 

A rhetorical question, even a good and thought provoking one is not a fact.

 

I think that the fist step is figuring out a good way of reckoning WHEN the flood happened. Something that scholars are hard pressed to do due to some of the ages and methodologies of how they even counted years back then. It's just tough to settle on when these things happened. From there we can try and figure out where that much water came from and where it went. Also if we know when it happened, we can sort through the layers of the earth and find evidence supporrting a global/worldwide flood that went over mountains and wiped away sinners and left us with homosexuals and commies.

 

Chief

[Fatty]

Oh boy look what I started.

 

This one always goes forever.

 

Agree to disagree is the only way, you can only say what you believe, there will be no conversions here.

 

I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I belive this is very clear, and I believe it in my heart.

 

I do not hate homosexuals, but I believe they are living in sin.

 

I believe sin is what separates us from God.

 

I believe that without repentence, without accepting the life-changing love of Jesus, who is the ONLY WAY, the truth, and the life, then one will continue to be separated from God.

 

I believe that we are becoming tolerant as a society, and we are bending more and more.

 

I believe this is the reason I do not allow Will and Grace to air in my house.

 

What I stated above was, I guess, something to get this started, but I did not mean for anyone to get worked up.

 

For me to get worked up about homosexuality is rediculous, even know I believe very strongly about it being a sin.

 

I have presented nothing for you to argue with, so please don't argue with me, and I will not argue with you. Feel free to tell me what you believe on this topic, that's obviously not going to be the source for any more threads...believe what you will.

 

The Bible is perfect, not even sure who above mentioned it was written by man. It was inspired by God, it is unflawed, and again, these are my beliefs and the beliefs of many. For each scientist that you find that says one thing, another can be found to contradict him.

 

The Bible is so perfect that it even speaks about the above long before people started trying to disprove it.

 

Don't post "good post" or "bs" to me, cause it truly matters not what anyone thinks here, for me personally that is. This is one topic that is very clear to me, and that the Bible is very clear about. I choose to accept the Bible.

 

In the end, we'll all be on the same page, no matter what you think right now. I'm willing to not bother debating and let the Judge decide.

[Guest TF_FSoul]

Glad that those are your beliefs. Mine are different and I am also a christian. Although I believe the Bible is as flawed as a Bill Clinton for Sainthood campaign.

 

Chief -

 

Good points all around. To say that we can determine what the bible originally meant it incorrect. To say we live by the inherent beliefs, faith and moral code represented by the bible is the correct thing. To use its stories as a basis for your faith and to take its overall meaning is also a good thing.

 

To take the bible at face value is just wrong in my opinion. To say that something through countless languages and translations and hand rewrites is still original is just wrong I believe, especially when meanings of words change to reflect the times we live in, the bible was not written in current times, it was started in 230ish AD and finished around 350ish AD.

[Fatty]

Glad that those are your beliefs

Now, this is where we fall down. It's called sarcasm. It's sad that I can't post up something to promote some peace around here without you sliding back in with a sarcastic post.

[Playaa]

I've come across all wrong on this thread, so I will go the way of Fatty.

 

I believe the Bible is perfect, it was written by man but inspired by God. I believe if there is something in the Bible that I can't explain, it means I can't explain it...nothing more. (call me stupidly faithful, cause it's true)

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong. Based upon that verse in Leviticus and other things (among them the time in Soddam when the men of the town wanted to....do things....with the angels visiting and it was called "wicked").

 

I believe for me to be hateful or evil toward a homosexual because they were a homosexual, is just as wrong.

 

I believe this world has no idea what absolutes are, we think we know but our minds cannot fathom. I find it utterly depressing and hilarious at the same time that no one here can tell me with 100% certainty where they will be and what they will be doing 1 year from now, and yet we all think we know the answers to lifes greatest mysteries and the best ways to run the universe.

I KNOW I am wrong in things, I KNOW my answers are not always right...but I also know that there are answers to all the questions and I do my best to find them all.

[Guest TF_FSoul]

As far as the homosexual thing goes:

 

I guess we will all have to agree to disagree. Some will view the act as a sin, some as an abomination, others as natural, etc....

 

I am not a homosexual, nor do I even like the idea of two men going at it (Two women I just love though haha). I, do however, have a hard time thinking that God would think two people in love is an abomination. If he does then I am sure I will find out someday, until then I will stand by my beliefs.

[Guest TF_FSoul]

Actually Fat - that was not sarcasm. I was saying I am glad they are YOUR beliefs and not everyones. I am glad you recognize them as such and that you do not demand your way has to be the right way. If you took it as sarcasm I guess that is also your opinion.

[Fatty]

I can go for that, though.

[Fatty]

If you took it as sarcasm I guess that is also your opinion.

No, Soul. If I took it as sarcasm, it was either my error in interpretation, or your error in wording. Either way, all you have to do is tell me you weren't being sarcastic. But now, what you've done is placed me as having used an opinion, rather than interpretation. Now all of a sudden we have to figure out how to hold a conversation.

 

If you weren't being sarcastic, simply say so, but giving our two completely different stances on such a serious topic, I have a hard time seeing an opening statment like that being very sincere.

 

BTW, I liked your post pervious to this one, which is what I meant.

 

There's a poll up on this now. I'm very interested in seeing how our community views this. No replies in it, however...just a poll.

[Fatty]

BTW, here's the poll for all you readers. You may feel free to vote in total anonymity.

[dwEEziL]

Hebrews 6:11

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Edited April 14, 2003 by dwEEziL

[AceMcbanon]

First of all if you are a christian that preaches against Homosexuals and even go as far as hate them then you're a terrible hypocrite. People need to worry about their own sins if they are gonna feel the need to obsess over others.

 

Second, every refrence in the bible refers to the social situation at that time. When the bible and new testament was written it was common practice for men to own boys for sexual orientation. As well as numerous orgies involving children of the same sex. All of those refrences you can quote can be easily applied to the events of that day. People just like to pretend they mean more to suit their own insecurities of the people around them.

 

I don't find it amazingly hard to believe one individual can fall in love with another. I would hate to think that a penis and Vagina are the ultimate trigger of love. If two men feel they love eachother then why bother harrassing them? I'm sure some of you will bring up the stereotypical Homosexual you saw marching down the street in San francisco flaunting his body or something feminime. Fact is everyone of every prefrence have people that act ravishly so please don't use that as an insult.

 

I think that happy couples get more gruff then any other group of people. Why? Because people want to lash out at others to make up for thier own problems.

[Playaa]

Ace you need to learn more before you speak so harshly.

If a Christian "preaches" against homosexuals they are not a hypocrite in any way. If they HATE them then yes they are. If you meant that distinction it didn't come across that way.

 

Both of the passages referred to here were from the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Hundreds of years seperated them. During New Testament times it is true that it was considered "popular" to have same sex lovers (especially young children). The philosophers were well known for this. However I still don't see what that hasta do with the "current society". What's the difference in early jews and christians condemming homosexuality and me condemming it now? Times may have changed but right and wrong have not.

 

What it comes down to is this. I do not and never will know a persons heart. I cannot know what they are inside. For all I know there are true Christians out there that are homosexual, so I may be wrong. For all intents and purposes thought; I have seen no evidence that it is right. Therefore I believe it is wrong. I've said it before (and I'm sure I'll hafta say it again since ppl refuse to believe I can hate a sin but not a sinner) I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS, I hate homosexuality.

Edited April 14, 2003 by Playaa/Pselus

[Guest TF_FSoul]

Actually Playaa - the first quote by Fatty was from the New Testament.

 

If a christian preaches against homosexuals it is wrong. If he preaches against homosexuality then it is his opinion, that is it.

 

Also - they quotes I put up talking about the definition of homosexuality were from the New Testament. They talked ab out the fact that it is not homosexuality in the original translation but Catamites. In fact, it was not even translated to mean homosexuality until 1967.

 

I do know several lesbians that are Christians, 2 of them attend our church. I love lesbians hehe (oops, this is not the adult forum is it?). I guess I just do not see how you say homosexuality is wrong. Further up the ladder from that....why does it even matter if they are homosexuals, should we not judge a person on their acts and deeds and contributions?

 

Once again, the quotes from the New Testament, when translated from Ancient Hebrew to modern english means Catamites or boy lovers, not homosexuals as defined by modern society. You can intrepret it however you wish as I stated above in another post.

[Playaa]

ok, sorry bout the New Testament things......that was an error on my part.

on another note Soul, I still would like to hear your definition of how one becomes a Christian.....however I'm going to start a topic in the religion forum and stop cluttering this one.

[ConGregation]

wow.

 

So much discussion. A lot of good points made, too.

 

To Mr. X and Soul: I understand your position that the Bible cannot be taken at face value because of all the translations. But I have to give you how I believe. Textual criticism is a huge thing among Bible scholars. Obviously I am no scholar on languages but have read after the whole debate. I believe God preserved His Word for man today. He pormised that He would. So I feel the translation (specifically the KJV) is an accurate translation. I know a lot of Christians who dont agree with me on that specific point and am not going to make big issue about it. But the "Textus Receptus" was the translation that was taken from the so called "Majority Texts". This is a HUGE group of texts that pretty much agree with one another. The KJV was taken straight from that. So the translations are not so far removed as you would think and have been thoruoghly researched. Intellectually, I dont have a hard time accepting that my Bible is accurate. Plus I add the fact that God promised preservation and I am just tinkled pink with "my" Bible.

 

This is an interesting debate (as I said earlier) and one very pertinent to any christian. If a christian doesnt like the verses pertaining to sexual morality, than how can they be sure that God really loves and offers saving grace to man? Your foundations of your beliefs is completely ruined.

 

And like Playaa said, God loves the homosexual. For me to hate him would be a very great sin on my part. And like Dweezil said, I can be their friend. Just like Jesus is their friend.

[dwEEziL]

Soul, your whole "educated" argument gets thrown out the window by your repeated references to the New Testament's definition of "homosexual" being the Hebrew word "catamites". The New Testament's original language is Greek, not Hebrew.

 

Also, people forget that while God is Love, He is also Just. And being Just, He can not stand to look upon sin of any kind, whether this be adultery, lying, stealing, sexual perversian, etc. Sin is not what keeps a person from going to heaven. Unacceptance of Jesus' sacrificial act on the cross does. Without His unblemished blood, we are doomed.

 

Also, the Bible doesn't condemn a person for a sin. Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. What is specifically spoken against is the "practice" (continual participation in/lack of repentance (which means turning away from the sin and turning to God)) of sin. Does "practicing homosexuality" prevent a person from going to heaven? Not sure, I don't know the person's heart. But I do know that 1 John 2:4-6 says this:

4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:

6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

[Chief]

The New Testament's original language is Greek, not Hebrew.

Can we get some validation on this? I am looking, but I have to go to work, so I guess I am being lazy or just putting it off until I get home. But the Greeks were wellll-replaced by the Romans and their Latin by the time of the New Testament and then Jesus was a Jew and many of his followers would have spoken Hebrew.

 

I always like Rev's moderate answers to these things. Well, his presentation is so moderate--absolutely unconfrontational and comfortable in themselves. Anyway, Rev, I know we have broached this discussion a bit before. But I don't think we got real in depth on it. I know that the bible says its truth will be preserved, but is the preserved truth the message or the word? While I have faith, I suppose that I still have weak skepticism in me--which I readily admit. I have a hard time not asking why? or how? type questions on some of things. In this particular case: 1. When there have been two translations, how do we know which one to go with? and 2. How will we deal with the new versions of books and the books that have been edited out of current versions?

 

This dead sea scroll thing is fascinating to me. There are supposed to be quite a few books that are no longer in the bible...which is fine when we say that the bible takes care of itself. But what about now that new(actually old) things are going to be returned to the scripture. Have vital truths been hidden from us by those who compiled the text? Were they supposed to be hidden? Are they supposed to be returned?

 

By buddy that is in the army that I'm always mentioning is totally at peace with all this stuff like Rev is, but I go crazy with the questions.

 

Chief

Edited April 14, 2003 by Chief

[Playaa]

Chief there's nothing wrong with having questions, and I myself go crazy at times with them. I look at it this way. There is 1 way to get into Heaven, and that's through Jesus Christ. (if you have knowledge of him) If I mis-interpret the other things and end up sinning, God is going to look at me as a parent would to an unknowingly disobedient child, explain what I did wrong and tell me to not do it again. But he's not going to disown me (i.e. keep me out of heaven) because of little mistakes and sins. The best I can do is learn learn learn learn learn, and keep learning. I WILL screw up, I WILL mis-interpret...but I will also learn from mistakes. And wanting to learn from my mistakes is what truly sets me apart.

[Guest TF_FSoul]

I thought we were keeping this a relatively flame free conversation.

 

Ok Dweezil. The Old Testament was originally Hebrew, the New Testament was part Koine Greek, Part Arabic and part Chaldean. So I put in Hebrew and meant Greek. It does not change the fact that the translation is still correct, I just mis-spoke the sentence.

 

On another tangent though for Playaa and Rev and anyone but dwee:

 

If stealing is a sin, who determines what exactly is involved with stealing? For instance, I go to a store and take something and put it under my coat and leave, that is stealing in my mind.

 

You sit at home and decrypt satellite signals for free DTV. Is this stealing? In my mind it is not, but our government says yes, but Canada's says no, who is right? (golly gee! - I actually like something canada does).

[ConGregation]

True Playaa. It is so very hard to explain what I feel as a christian to others... especially in this format. But God is just sooo good to me that its amazing. I enjoy grace continually. It is the inner peace of my life.

 

Now on to that skeptic, infidel - Chief

 

 

Did it mean God would preserve the meanings or the words? Hmmm. How to tackle this... For now, Im not going to even touch it. I know what I believe but I would probably be considered a radical even in Bible believing circles So Im just going to quote the verse and let you draw you own conclusions (which is what God did). "And I will preserve my Word unto every generation".

 

Number 2 first

2. How will we deal with the new versions of books and the books that have been edited out of current versions?

Good question. Why are the apocryphal books not considered part of the Bible? These were not really N.T. books but ancient Jewish writings. I do know that early translations started to omit these books. They were just left out in many of the "Majority" texts. You have to understand, the N.T. was formed, I would assume, over a period of time and the compilation would be haphazard at first. Many of the books were just letters written to churches or even other people. There is supposedly a book written by Stephen (the first Christian martyr). But was never really included. I remember someone in class asking a teacher why the apocraphyl books werent really the Bible. He basically said because they just werent . I personally have never read them, but from what I understand they are not on the same level of writing that the rest of the Bible is. The same would go for all the extra books found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Over time these were left out but God preserved "His Word" Im sure that some scholar somewhere could give you a MUCH better answer.

 

1. When there have been two translations, how do we know which one to go with?

Touchy subject. Contraty to what many christians would tell you, the different translations are not really the same. There are whole verses left out of many of them. I will give a brief explanation of where I fall on this issue. Again, Im a rogue.

 

Every modern English translation draws its substance from the "Revised Version" of Wescott and Hortt (I think I got that right). The "RV" was in turned based on the "Minority Texts" or "Alexandrian Text". The Alexandrian Text is composed of basically four or five texts that scholars initially claimed were older. Now from what I have read, I have serious issues with these texts. Now the "Majority Texts" which I mentioned before were not considered oldest (there is some debate on this) but "younger" than the minority texts. There are over 5000 of these texts in which there is major agreement (something that cant be said for the Alexandrian Texts).

 

So from my skewed little textual criticism I would say that the modern translations are corrupt. Therefore I use the King James Version which come directly from the Textus Receptus which in turn came from the Majority Texts.

 

I explained my position on this (for the most part). I feel the need to reiterate that these views are not the broad veiws of the christian realm but what I personally believe.

[ConGregation]

On another tangent though for Playaa and Rev and anyone but dwee:

 

If stealing is a sin, who determines what exactly is involved with stealing? For instance, I go to a store and take something and put it under my coat and leave, that is stealing in my mind.

 

You sit at home and decrypt satellite signals for free DTV. Is this stealing? In my mind it is not, but our government says yes, but Canada's says no, who is right? (golly gee! - I actually like something canada does).

How is this pertinent to the Homosexual conversation?? I would feel this is a totally different topic. You can argue about what constitutes stealing, but I dont think there is much debate about what constitutes Homosexuality (maybe Im wrong).

 

But its an interesting thing to debate. Obviously the right answer would be... whatever GOD would constitute as stealing. As a christian, God doesnt deal in all of the specifics we face today. Nowhere in the Bible will you find verses dealing with satellite encryptions. But I would feel that there are "Bible principles" to help you determine what is right and wrong for everything we face. But I'm not stupid enough to tell you whether its right or wrong. Just search the scriptures and come to your own personal acceptance about how God feels about it and then live your life.

 

The problem we (mainly I) get into is just not ever 1.Actually looking for a principle and 2. Prayerfully seeking God's will in the matter.

[AceMcbanon]

I don't mind if someone thinks something is a sin or wrong. I just don't enjoy the type of people who act on that and lash out at that particular person. I don't think a lany of you are like that but we all know some christians are. I remember watching Matthew Shepards funeral with all these people holding rot in hell homo and it just made me sick. I know there is branches in denominations that go out of their way to make homosexuals life that much harder. No matter what you believe I will not respect anyone who tries to convert or get their ideals across using fear. My religion will always be Joy and to celebrate my savior not to wield as a weapon towards those who follow another lifestyle.