It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sorry you believe that. But I seem to remember a bit of that wonderful book that quotes God as saying "slaves obey your masters". You believe that nonsense? Over that I will take a compassionate humanist any day of the week.
Originally posted by Acidtastic
Quite frankly the opinion of the humanist is quite irrelevant to the council of God.
but god made these humanists,and as we all know God is perfect and EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE IS PERFECT according to you Bibley types. That includes us poofters by the way. He/she/it made us,apparently. And you blathering on about how bad we are,highlights how bad YOU are for going against your god.
shame on you,oh,and you don't half chat alot of BS.
[edit on 24/11/2008 by Acidtastic]
Remember they are translated from languages that didn’t necessarily have words to define homosexuality as it exists as an orientation, nor did they understand this or the complexity of sexuality.
Mark 10 absolutely applies today for Christians but you are wrong to think that this passage in mark 8 is new covenant. The Sadducees were Jews asking a question about the Moasic law... massive fail.
The change in vocabulary only reflects the depths of depravity in which we have sunk!
They didn't have specific words for those either. But they sure did say "vile affections".
I don't hate anyone - I hate the suppression of the truth.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
LOL - there was no vocabulary word for a homosexual untill the 19th century -- yeah sorry but funny how the scholars that translate the passage do not agree with you.
In the last two decades of the 19th Century, a different view began to predominate in medical and psychiatric circles, judging such behavior as indicative of a type of person with a defined and relatively stable sexual orientation. Karl-Maria Kertbeny coined the term homosexual in 1869 in a pamphlet arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law.[16][17] Richard von Krafft-Ebing's 1886 book Psychopathia Sexualis elaborated on the concept.[17]
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
Be specific what is this generalized "morality" you speak of - that is so non specific? - your just playing games...
The Bible
Malakos is listed among other vices in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians. 6:9. Translations use different terms to express this: "The JB (1966) chooses 'catamite,' the NAB (1970) renders arsenokoités and malakos together as 'sodomite,' others translate malakos as 'male prostitute' (NIV 1973, NRSV 1989), and again some combine both terms and offer the modern medicalised categories of sexual, or particularly homosexual, 'perversion' (RSV 1946, TEV 1966, NEB 1970, REB 1992)." (Martin, 1996). The word malakos, #3120 in the Greek Dictionary of The New Testament of James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to The Bible translates: "of uncertain affinity"
"Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold those who wear soft raiment are in kings' houses." (Matthew 11:8; similar passage at Luke 7:25.)
The point is the same term was used because all were unacceptable.
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I'm re-asking my question because you failed to answer it. No matter how many ways I ask it you dismiss it or dance around it. Do you agree with the morality or not? You said you did. So you must agree with the morality expressed about divorce and heirs, or else you, like the bible, contradict yourself. Which is it?
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I'm re-asking my question because you failed to answer it. No matter how many ways I ask it you dismiss it or dance around it. Do you agree with the morality or not? You said you did. So you must agree with the morality expressed about divorce and heirs, or else you, like the bible, contradict yourself. Which is it?
I answered that! The teaching on divorce is right on the money and still in effect today. I also told you are dead wrong on the one about heirs- you have no understanding of the passage - The passage is a question asked by the Sadducees it refers to the OT customs of the Jews only! It does not apply to Christians today. This is a trite manipulation you attempt to use to muddy the waters on inexperienced Christians - it is a demonic tactic.
Flame away if you must - you will bring me blessings.