Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity, homosexuality and pig meat.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
The "scripture" of"judgment" is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Some translations have "homosexual from what the King James translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" from the Greek:
ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs)

which is from two Greek words
ἀρσην=male
κοίτη=bed

from there it is extrapolated to mean homosexual sex.

btw…. fornicator (pornos) does not mean those who have sex outside of marriage it is someone who has sex for money.Notice idolaters is right there with the supposed "sex" offenses that should be a HUGE clue the meaning of those words are not modern meanings. Pauls context is actually about "people" that lack the discernment of rightful judgement!

….as Paul Simon the "songwriter" wrote very aptly….
"All lies and jest still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

The fact is even in context Paul is NOT saying those in his "evil" list are going to hell.That is an extrapolation also.He said they would not be "inheriting The Kingdom Of God"…and that goes into a whole other very,very,very poor doctrine of men extrapolation.

A poster in this thread has Mary Magdalene or Magdalen (and it is even spelled very wrong) as the woman caught in the act of adultery when that is not true at all.Another judgmental extrapolation…and on that note Mary M was not a whore…..that is extrapolation also.

The common sense approach to pigs and sex would be.Don't eat food that will make you sick and don't have sex with someone you aren't attracted to.
edit on 26-4-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'm a gay...
"Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."

hipster...
Leviticus 19:19 "nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

with a crazy haircut...
Leviticus 19:27 “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads.”

and a groomed beard...
Leviticus 19:27 “Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.”

who loves oysters...
Leviticus 11:10 “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.”

and works as a gardener...
Leviticus 19:19 “Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed.”

on the weekends...
Leviticus 23:3 “Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.”


True story




posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity




It amuses me endlessly that you had to clarify your prejudice.


It amuses me endlessly just how many atheists and other God haters you can find in the Faith & Theology forum and just how regularly you can find them here.

Trolling or Daddy issues?



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

This one passage covers homosexuality AND food... Mark 7:14-23

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear.

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

This one passage covers homosexuality AND food... Mark 7:14-23


20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”


If you think that covers homosexuality, you are more ignorant than you would think. Matthew 19:12 covers homosexuality




For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it


In the ancient world eunuch is a term that also encompassed gay people




Prominent evangelical professor, Dr. Robert Gagnon who believes all homosexual practice is sinful, put it this way,

Probably “born eunuchs” in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions…


source


Not that any hard headed fundies will believe it, because if us gays aren't evil then who do we have to blame the demise of society on? Ourselves? God forbid that for an idea because it doesn't fill pews when instead of inciting hatred you tell your flock that the rot in society starts with them now does it.....



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines an Eunuch as follows....

1 : a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace 2 : a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals 3 : one that lacks virility or power

If you choose to believe that it is defined as anything else then that is your problem. You can call an apple a banana if you want to... that still doesn't make it a banana. Here's a more detailed definition of homosexuality...

Romans 1:18-32

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

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 sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. 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. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

So there you have it... I'm not calling homosexuals/sodomites evil, God is, through His apostle Paul. By the way, that last verse also speaks to not only those who practice sodomy, but those people who accept and condone it as well. By the way... please stop using the word gay... that word means happy, and had a common use and meaning long before those described in the aforementioned passage hijacked it and redefined it.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: lupodigubbio
I'm a gay...
"Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."

hipster...
Leviticus 19:19 "nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

with a crazy haircut...
Leviticus 19:27 “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads.”

and a groomed beard...
Leviticus 19:27 “Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.”

who loves oysters...
Leviticus 11:10 “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.”

and works as a gardener...
Leviticus 19:19 “Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed.”

on the weekends...
Leviticus 23:3 “Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.”


True story



This same old, tired, and very ignorant argument. The Old Testament laws are obsolete. They were fulfilled through Christ. That is why there is an OLD Testament and a NEW Testament. One would think that is pretty self explanatory. There are numerous places in the NT where this concept is explained in great detail, but Hebrews 8:13 sums it up pretty well..

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

True Story



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, the New Testament reiterated homosexuality as being sinful, but it also includes all other types of sexual sin in the mix.
The difference being that judgment happens on the way to Heaven, rather than on earth with a bunch of people throwing stones.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I'm gay and don't consider myself a practicing Christian.
While I'll criticize aspects of Christianity, I still consider myself a "cultural Christian", and will side with it broadly when it is attacked.
After all, Christianity was also the cultural milieu of Da Vinci and Michelangelo.

When I was younger I almost joined ISKCON (the Hare Krishnas) and here I was introduced to vegetarianism - a choice that I have never regretted.
They also had many Bible verses to defend their position, especially Genesis 1:29.
I eat fish and eggs since then, but pork seems unappetizing to me.
Strangely, about two decades back vegetarianism was still a novelty in South African culture, which is largely based on social barbecues (or "braais").
Then it seemed my being gay was strongly suspected to be connected to being vegetarian, and there were associations between meat and masculinity (especially pork).
The Krishnas also saw a connection between diet and lust, although their main issue is firstly with the barbarism of cow slaughter.

Now I see that some Muslim scholars even say that eating pork leads to homosexuality!
sheikyermami.com...

I'd say that according to the Bible's New Testament one first had to become a circumcised and kosher Jew to become a Christian (rather than just a "God fearer"), but eventually these issues became more metaphorical as a "circumcision of the heart", and it became more important to consider what comes out of man's mouth; rather what he eats with it.
To that effect there is also Peter's vision in Acts 10.
I know some fundamentalist sects are not in agreement with mainstream views, and there are Christians who stick to the dietary laws.

What surprised me more were some of the scandals involving the Muslim Judiciary Council in SA, and that the false labeling of pork products that were sold to Muslims happened under their watch.
This seemed like blatant corruption.
islam.ru...

I'd also like to ask (no offense intended) that if Muslims consider European habits like alcohol consumption, eating pork, keeping dogs, people dressing "immodestly" or gay rights so offensive, then why are 44 million of them living in Europe, and why do they want to keep coming?
Wouldn't they feel more comfortable in their own countries with their own customs?
edit on 27-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I am ignorant when it comes the Bible and religion so i am not claiming anything as 100% just my limited understanding.

But i think people need to start really thinking how they truly feel, hypothetical s are always hard to get around, but hypothetically the Bible was found to be fake tomorrow, and Religion was found with proof to be fake... would you still think I am an abomination? or not me personally but my sexuality? would you still believe i should't get married or allowed to be discriminated against?

is that you thinking or is that what you have to think because a Book told you too?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: halfoldman
I'm gay and don't consider myself a practicing Christian.
While I'll criticize aspects of Christianity, I still consider myself a "cultural Christian", and will side with it broadly when it is attacked.
After all, Christianity was also the cultural milieu of Da Vinci and Michelangelo.



And that's the difference. Some of us are Faith Christians who have a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ.

As Jesus taught regarding marriage "As a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife, they become one flesh". I would assume then that Jesus taught that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Jewish law also forbid marriage between siblings, first cousins and with aunts and uncles. We could then say the Jews broke that because Abraham and Sarah were uncle and niece and Isaac was the first cousin of Rebeccah. But it could also be said that through the recognition of genetic diseases that the law was instituted. However, those were pre-Judaic persons.

I don't think we should do away with the laws against sibling marriage, unless you like your sibling that much. I think also that Moses understood that pharaohs of Egypt were also siblings and suffered genetic disorders. That would be the reason for the restrictions.

About eating pork or pig meat, the dietary laws also restricted dairy and meat along with shellfish and other kinds of animals, not just pork. BTW, camels were also restricted but Mohammed missed that one. The reason for this is because pigs, carrion birds and shellfish, along with catfish, was because they eat waste products. The Jewish laws were about purity, and eating animals that ate waste was just like taking waste into your body. It had nothing to do with food storage.

Jewish law forbade touching dead bodies, unless you were specifically designated to, and carrion birds ate dead animals, so it is the same as touching them. Now the part of not wearing mixed material clothing, that was for the priests only. The same was in regard to marriages. It was simply part of keeping clean in all things.

Jesus advocated marriage between a man and a woman, He even used the law when making that statement. To say it no longer applies is simply wrong, because Jesus Himself said that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all things are fulfilled. Not all things have been fulfilled yet.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I never advocated gay marriage in this thread, and I rarely bother because in SA we've had legal same-sex marriage since 2006, as well as customary laws for polygamist cultures.
Suffice it to say that marriage is also a civil procedure, and it's not only for religious people.

Jesus also taught that remarriage after divorce is unrepentant adultery, and social laws hardly stigmatize that.
There's also no compulsion to marry, as both Jesus and St Paul made clear.

I respect your paradigm, but actually came to the thread to find out more about Islam and to pose my questions to the OP's initial query and discussion.
edit on 27-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: WarminIndy

I never advocated gay marriage in this thread, and I rarely bother because in SA we've had legal same-sex marriage since 2006, as well as customary laws for polygamist cultures.
Suffice it to say that marriage is also a civil procedure, and it's not only for religious people.

Jesus also taught that remarriage after divorce is unrepentant adultery, and social laws hardly stigmatize that.
There's also no compulsion to marry, as both Jesus and St Paul made clear.

I respect your paradigm, but actually came to the thread to find out more about Islam and to pose my questions to the OP's initial query and discussion.


Actually Jesus taught that in cases of adultery then a person could seek a divorce and be remarried. But it was just that if a man put away (divorced) a woman then it was he who caused her to become an adulteress.


Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


That means he couldn't just divorce her because he felt like he wanted another woman or that she burned his dinner. The marriage contract is called a Kettubah that they both signed and was mediated by the rabbis in which it gave her broader freedom and rights. He was to uphold the conjugal laws regarding her. If a man divorced a woman without reason, violated the Kettubah. But he also has to provide her with a get, otherwise she becomes chained, or stuck in a marriage. This is called agunah

This is what Jesus was referring to, the get. Without that, there was no formal divorce, even if a bill of divorcement were given. It had to be recognized by the rabbis.

Jesus taught the marriage relationship was between a man and a woman, and how this relates to the post is because marriage was signified by the blood of the breaking of the hymen, which could not happen in an homosexual relationship.

People who lived then were well-aware of homosexuality, it was nothing new. The Greeks and Romans both practiced it openly and freely, to say that sodomy is anything else is just naive. But you are right, there is no compulsion to marriage.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Just wanted to say flag for the title of the thread..made me chuckle a bit.

As for the content, it doesn't really concerne me so i'll just leave it at the flag.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
Well, I'd be interested on the views of other members on your particular interpretation on divorce and remarriage.
I'd guess the remarried woman can't break her hymen (signifying marriage according to your post) twice or more times.

I'd agree that the nation described in the Bible were also very aware of their neighbors, and at times their conquered vassals or colonial conquerors.
To me the narrative has much distancing and possibly demonizing of their habits and beliefs, perhaps to reinforce identity, or to prevent the loss of identity.

While some cultures practiced open homosexuality, I doubt this was all egalitarian or chosen.
As with heterosexuality past cultures weren't too bothered about human rights regarding sexuality.
The New Testament is already quite restrictive for heterosexuals (any non-procreative sex act could fall under "sodomy"), so if it wasn't actively anti-gay in (rather minor) parts one could have interpreted that as an endorsement.

The Bible is for Christians, and the Koran for Muslims, but in most Western countries we have a separation of church and state, and people who don't want to be bound by religion should not be forced to.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Romans 14 tells us what to eat and that giving thanks and asking for GOD to bless it will cleanse any food. I have been doing much study about food recently and that is my answer. As far as the homosex part, in timothy it tells us how we should conduct ourselves...



1 Timothy 2:12

A woman is not permitted to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.


Tell me more about the endless, unfaltering wisdom to be found in the book of timothy that we clearly accept accross the board in modern society.

I must say, it worries me greatly that anyone in 2014 would reference this scripture:



1 Timothy 1:10

for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine


"Sound doctrine" is an interesting choice of words to use to describe a book that has -- more than any other book in history -- been on the losing end of peer review so consistently over several centuries of study.

Looking into Timothy, though, I do find the single most pertinent scripture to this issue that applies to the overwhelming majority of religious people I have met in my lifetime:



1 Timothy 1:7

They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
edit on 28-4-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Moreover, can someone explain to me why is it that this happens to be a commandment:

"THOU SHALT NOT KILL"

And this doesn't:

"THOU SHALT NOT BE GAY"

Yet Christian and Jewish law has consistently -- over the course of history -- defied the commandment against killing in order to murder people for disobeying the not-commandment against being gay?

Things like this make me realize that the people who make it most impossible to believe in a religion are the intellectually depraved jackasses who already believe it.
edit on 28-4-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka
Book of Levicticus was written somewhere 1400 BC.. the rules of Abrahamic religions had their purpose at the time. One was to be able to survive as a religion among other mainstream religions/beliefs at the time. Roman beliefs and Egyptian beliefs mainly. To be able to compete was to make rules which would increase procreation and therefor more believers of their own religion, no seed to be wasted and homosexuality as forbidden. Seed of a man contained the whole child ( female eggs were not known and womb was only hatchery of the child ), wasting seed was criminilized.

Hygiene was not so good those days so its only understandable that actions and rules which would keep people healthy was made.. What meat is unclean and what carcasses are not to be touch etc. Rotten meat was not uncommon in dinner tables.. to hide the taste and smell people started to use spices. Most spiced food is found in those warm countries. They did not have fridgerators or good systems to preserve the food. All those rules was made for survival and survival of the religious belief.

Mythbusters
You cannot preserve the meat -- busted
Man seed has the whole child --- busted
Homosexuality is killing babies ( seed holding whole child so wasting seed is killing a baby )--- busted
Abrahamic laws needed today -- busted


This post bears repeating. Masturbation was also thought of as wasting precious seed, thus it was considered a sin. We know better now.

In ancient times, people got married solely for the purpose of procreating. I'll bet you never saw a couple of senior citizens getting married back then - they wouldn't see the point. You would also never see a young couple getting married and saying "you know, I don't think we'll have kids." It just wasn't done. It's a different culture today. A young couple may marry with no intention of having children. Seniors get married to each other all the time today. Marriage is no longer thought of as solely for procreation. Today, marriage can mean different things to different people. It can be about starting a family, but it can also be simply a formal commitment to the person you love and want to be with for as long as possible - with no children involved. It makes no sense to be against gay marriage in this day and time, any more than it would make sense to be against two elderly people getting married, or two young people getting married who don't want children.

It doesn't make sense to be against homosexuality any more than it makes sense to be against masturbation. While there may be a few absolutes in the Bible that stand the test of time, there are many, many things in the Bible that just don't make sense anymore in our day and time.
edit on 28-4-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: markosity1973

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines an Eunuch as follows....

1 : a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace 2 : a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals 3 : one that lacks virility or power

If you choose to believe that it is defined as anything else then that is your problem. You can call an apple a banana if you want to... that still doesn't make it a banana. Here's a more detailed definition of homosexuality...



Relying on a 2014 definition of a word that was used over 2000 years ago is a pretty shaky premise to base an argument upon. Language, and more importantly the definition of words change over time.

Think I'm making it up?

From the very same dictionary you quote;


gay adjective ˈgā
: sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex
: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals
: happy and excited
: cheerful and lively


Sadly I don't have the old dictionary I once used to from 1920 but I can assure you that the word Gay was defined as Cheerful and lively, colourful and happy. Nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality at all....

Then there is this word



1sick
adjective ˈsik

: affected with a disease or illness
: of or relating to people who are ill


A colloquialism used by Australian and New Zealand youth has not even made the dictionary yet, but in slang terms, sick means something good. i.e. 'Aww bro, that's fully sick' actually means that something is pretty awesome or amazing.

Therefore your dictionary definition of the word Eunuch is completely invalid. Eunuch was a coloquialism in Jesus' time for gay people.

Again I present a Christian website that reaffirms the correct meaning of Eunuch in the context of what Jesus said.



A EUNUCH SPECIFICALLY WAS A MALE WHO WOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN


These were the three kinds of Eunuchs as so defined in Biblical times.

There was the Eunuch who would not have sex for religious purposes, and entered a monastery.

There was the Eunuch who was castrated to work in harems.

There was the Eunuch who was born with feminine traits, and had no sexual interest in women.


Source



So there you have it... I'm not calling homosexuals/sodomites evil, God is, through His apostle Paul. By the way, that last verse also speaks to not only those who practice sodomy, but those people who accept and condone it as well. By the way... please stop using the word gay... that word means happy, and had a common use and meaning long before those described in the aforementioned passage hijacked it and redefined it.


Well actually, no you don't quite have it.

Jesus said that homosexuals aka Eunuchs were born that way and in so indicated that they too are part of God's grand plan.

Jesus did not however mention anything on sexual activity, which is where all the confusion lays. The Catholic church probably has one of the best possible stances from a Christian and therefore bible respecting viewpoint on the issue; to be gay is not a sin in iteself, but sexual activity is considered adultery because marriage is not possible.

Pope Francis himself recently said this on the issue;


In his interview with journalists on the flight back from Rio’s WYD Pope Francis has spoken for the first time since becoming pope about homosexuality in which he has re-affirmed the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s presentation of sexual ethics. The BBC reports: He was responding to questions about whether there was a “gay lobby” in the Vatican. ”If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?” ”The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well,” Pope Francis said in a wide-ranging 80-minute long interview with Vatican journalists. ”It says they should not be marginalised because of this but that they must be integrated into society.” But he condemned what he described as lobbying by gay people. ”The problem is not having this orientation,” he said. “We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem.”


Source

You'll notice that he says gay people should not be judged and should be integrated into society. He comdemns lobby groups however, and compares them other lobby groups. i.e. Groups of people who are one track minded pushing for something without thinking it through.
edit on 28-4-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
The "scripture" of"judgment" is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Some translations have "homosexual from what the King James translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" from the Greek:
ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs)

which is from two Greek words
ἀρσην=male
κοίτη=bed

from there it is extrapolated to mean homosexual sex.

btw…. fornicator (pornos) does not mean those who have sex outside of marriage it is someone who has sex for money.Notice idolaters is right there with the supposed "sex" offenses that should be a HUGE clue the meaning of those words are not modern meanings. Pauls context is actually about "people" that lack the discernment of rightful judgement!

….as Paul Simon the "songwriter" wrote very aptly….
"All lies and jest still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

The fact is even in context Paul is NOT saying those in his "evil" list are going to hell.That is an extrapolation also.He said they would not be "inheriting The Kingdom Of God"…and that goes into a whole other very,very,very poor doctrine of men extrapolation.


Rex282, you beat me to it. This happens to be a subject of personal fascination for me, partly due to the fact that it showcases just how easily you can cherry pick things to suit your own personal religious beliefs. But also, because most people who bring this verse up (and the scant couple of other passages that some use to try to justify their own vilification of homosexual people) have absolutely no idea about the many different translations of these verses, their accuracy, or how to understand them in terms of comparing them to the accepted values, culture, laws and restrictions of the time period.

The fact is, as you rightly say, this verse in many later translations of the Bible has been changed to include the word 'homosexuals'. The problem with this travesty of an alteration is that it actually has no basis in fact whatsoever, so much so, that most earlier translations use so many different words or phrases and none of them directly infer homosexual relationships. The other inherent problem with this section of Corinthians is that if you have studied the history of the original texts, this is actually one of the sections of the New Testament that has grammatical errors in it and also contains words that didn't actually exist in language beforehand (indicating strongly that Paul actually made some words up as he wrote things down). There is nothing wrong with that in theory, of course, but it does make it very difficult to actually fully understand what Paul was trying to express. After all, how can people claim to be 100% accurate about their own personal interpretation of a text that contains errors in its inception!? It's ludicrous! Just think about how much the intrinsic meaning of a sentence can be altered simply by moving or changing a comma or a full stop. With this in mind, how can we possibly hold up Corinthians as "gospel"? Additionally, an older translation of this passage has the term 'wantons' instead of homosexuals! Now I ask you: what is a 'wanton?' It is just a person who is lewd, vulgar or otherwise lacks morals. Now, how the flipping heck did this word get turned into homosexual? Shoehorning, much!?

The word arsenokoitēs that you rightly refer to is actually a composite word that appears to have been invented by Paul. It seems that his creation of this word can actually be traced back to his own misinterpretation of the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22. This is the infamous: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Now, intriguingly all of the various English translations of the Bible conveniently MISS entire WORDS out from this verse. Yes! The passage in Corinthians that has been used constantly to try to justify ideas about God condemning homosexuality is a miswritten, mistranslated passage that comes from an older miswritten, mistranslated passage! You couldn't make it up. So, let's examine what's missing, shall we and see if we can come to a more accurate conclusion about what may be intended with this verse. As it turns out the word 'bed' is missing. A far more accurate translation of this verse is actually: "A man shall not lie down with another man in a woman's bed, for it is prohibited." Now, what is the significance of this? Well, the short answer is that culturally during the time period that this was written, there were a number of ridiculous laws and restrictions relating to married couples. A husband actually could only share his wife's bed at very specific times! And God forbid if a woman was found to be in her bed with two men at the same time. See where this is going yet? Because the two men in the verse are not in her bed alone, having sex with each other. They are in her bed with her, and all having sex together. The only thing this verse can be inferred to be condemning is promiscuity and a woman having multiple sexual partners at one time. But, a condemnation of homosexual behaviour? Nope. Sorry.
edit on 28-4-2014 by 8BitOperator because: Typo correction






top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join