What undermimes marriage more?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And what did he say?  That they could translate it into "homosexuality" with any level of true certainty?  What was his logic?

Who?  My main Bible teacher said it was a debated passage, but b/c of the context, and previous discussions in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong + the fact that Paul wasn't an expert of Greek, leads him to believe that it means homosexual.

How does Paul's lack of Greek expertise imply that?  And certainly the context - which I believe mentions prostitution (Al or whomever, correct me if I'm wrong) - seems to not indicate that it would be referencing homosexuality.

And if it's a debated passage, why are you so utterly certain about it?

Because he wouldn't necessarily know the word that (I think afleitch) said earlier was a "better" word for gay.  I disagree about the context.

Because I'm a stubborn brick wall whose motto is "I can admit when I'm wrong, I'm just never wrong"--I have admitted being wrong before and have changed some opinions, but I'd have to be pretty much beaten over the head to even think about considering changing this one.

[afleitch]

And what did he say?  That they could translate it into "homosexuality" with any level of true certainty?  What was his logic?

Who?  My main Bible teacher said it was a debated passage, but b/c of the context, and previous discussions in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong + the fact that Paul wasn't an expert of Greek, leads him to believe that it means homosexual.

It's a cop out. If you look at the previous supposed mentions of homosexuality you will see that its not about that at all. In fact dig out a facsimile of a surving early Christian translation of the Bible in local non-Greek langauges. They didnt translate it to condemn homosexuality either - they also said prostitute. It only changed its translation when social attitudes in the later Roman Empire/Byzantine empire changed. It was changed by man to suit his own desire.

I have to get to bed. Night everyone!

EDIT- And not admiting when you are wrong (particularly when faced with a barrage of evidence to the contrary) will not set you up well in life. But you are 16. I know what its like not wanting to admit to getting things wrong or mixed up back then

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is the basis for my beliefs and interpretations of the NT,

Well it shouldn't be. The OT and NT are seperate collections of books; one is the core of the Christian religion, the other is the early history of the Jews (amongst other things).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A publishing company?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well this seems to be the usual collection of taking things grossly out of context and spinning them out of all proportion. And a nasty little jibe at the end.
It does not address the criticisms I have made of their interpretation of Leviticus. Not once.

But it sets a precedent that homosexuality is wrong.  Things that no longer apply in the NT (pork, two-material clothes, etc...) is expressly stated that it' OK now; however, homosexuality is not.
Let's put it this way, why did God make those laws?  They ARE common sense--pork isn't the healthiest for you, etc...  Homosexuality, is just wrong, not unhealthy (unless you get into AIDS, but I DON't want to debate that right now--another day)

It's a Reference Bible commentary by Kenneth Barker & John Kohlenberger III if you really care.

I see no nasty little jibe, just the truth.  What criticisms do you refer to?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And what did he say?  That they could translate it into "homosexuality" with any level of true certainty?  What was his logic?

Who?  My main Bible teacher said it was a debated passage, but b/c of the context, and previous discussions in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong + the fact that Paul wasn't an expert of Greek, leads him to believe that it means homosexual.

It's a cop out. If you look at the previous supposed mentions of homosexuality you will see that its not about that at all. In fact dig out a facsimile of a surving early Christian translation of the Bible in local non-Greek langauges. They didnt translate it to condemn homosexuality either - they also said prostitute. It only changed its translation when social attitudes in the later Roman Empire/Byzantine empire changed. It was changed by man to suit his own desire.

I have to get to bed. Night everyone!

EDIT- And not admiting when you are wrong (particularly when faced with a barrage of evidence to the contrary) will not set you up well in life. But you are 16. I know what its like not wanting to admit to getting things wrong or mixed up back then

I just have to still disagree w/ you--we aren't going to agree on the Gree0.  I said that an hr. ago.  For the record, i've admited i;ve been wrong before--I just have to be pushed.,

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Are we done for the day, b/c if we are, I'll go check my other posts, but if there's 10 of you all posting @ the same time, I'll wait?

[Alcon]

Are we done for the day, b/c if we are, I'll go check my other posts, but if there's 10 of you all posting @ the same time, I'll wait?

This goes into a realm where I don't have much knowledge, so I'll wait for Al's comments -- he's the resident theologian.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

After afleitch and Alcon (if he posts) post, I'm gonna reply, get off for a bit & call my girlfriend so she doesn't yell @ me, then I'll have to be off until my mom calls from FL, and then I'll be back on later tonight.

EDIT: I guess he did post.

[© tweed]

After afleitch and Alcon (if he posts) post, I'm gonna reply, get off for a bit & call my girlfriend so she doesn't yell @ me, then I'll have to be off until my mom calls from FL, and then I'll be back on later tonight.

EDIT: I guess he did post.

You have dial-up? 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

After afleitch and Alcon (if he posts) post, I'm gonna reply, get off for a bit & call my girlfriend so she doesn't yell @ me, then I'll have to be off until my mom calls from FL, and then I'll be back on later tonight.

EDIT: I guess he did post.

You have dial-up? 

Ya & no cable TV.  oh well.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

All right.  I'll be back in an hr.-1 & 1/2.  And we can all discuss tomorrow.  I'm starting work on Thursday, so I won't be on Mid-day as much anymore, but I'll still do my 3:00 A.M. posts (but I miss the drama like we had today )
Talk later!

[Rob]

What a pointless thread. Why waste time with this silly theological debate when Inks is clearly determined to hate gays?

Oh, and Option 1.

[© tweed]

What a pointless thread. Why waste time with this silly theological debate when Inks is clearly determined to hate gays?

I don't think that's fair at all.  Look, he's probably from a very conservative christian family and he goes to a religious private school.  He's been taught the same things over and over again for a decade and a half.  Now that he's exposed to other viewpoints, he got a little overwhelmed.  Deep down, he's reconsidering.  Take it easy on him.

[Rob]

I don't think that's fair at all.  Look, he's probably from a very conservative christian family and he goes to a religious private school.  He's been taught the same things over and over again for a decade and a half.  Now that he's exposed to other viewpoints, he got a little overwhelmed.  Deep down, he's reconsidering.  Take it easy on him.

I was going on this post of his:

I'd have to be pretty much beaten over the head to even think about considering changing this one.

But that does leave open the future possibility of change, so you may be right.

[jokerman]

Obviously Option 1, though that doesn't mean Option 2 isn't a factor.

[Josh/Devilman88]

The second, though both should be illegal.

^^^^^^^

[MaC]

The second, though both should be illegal.

^^^^^^^

why?

[Jake]

why?

Both pervert the idea of marriage away from its original purpose.

[Virginian87]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

[Boris]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

Yes. It's pure common sense, nothing more.

EDIT: Which of course, is a good thing.

[Jake]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

I agree with everything you wrote after your comment on civil unions.

[opebo]

why?

Both pervert the idea of marriage away from its original purpose.

What purpose was that?  Controlling women and limiting the supply of poontang in order to increase its price?

[MaC]

What's your opinion of gay marraige opebo?  I mean you can say that gays are freedom fighting against the establishment and that a same sex couple shouldn't be rejected by the state from loving eachother, but on the other hand you probably hate the idea of anyone marrying as it kills a perfectly healthy libido and limits the amount of partners one can procreate with.

[adam]

You know what really undermines marriage? The debate and rhetoric that is vomitted all over it in the name of politics. I mean, go back and really think about it. How many gays wanted marriage rights before the troubled social right-wingers made it an issue to win elections? How many conservatives woke up every morning trying to think of ways to stop gay marriage before the gays started their crusade for marriage rights? The answer to both questions is; not that many.

If you really want to protect this cultural brownspot on the underpants of our society, just leave it alone. Keep it away from the grime that is politics.

[Joe Republic]

Going back to whether being gay is a conscious choice or not, and it seems that Inks is still clinging desperately to that argument, here's another two little nuggets.

First, if being gay is such a sinful and terrible thing to do, why would somebody 'choose' it?  I mean, some gay people grow up in deeply religious areas, where they have been indoctrinated to hate gay people.  Many gay people who are already 'out' are also deeply ashamed of it, or would at least prefer to be straight.

For example, my former co-worker is gay, but said that if he'd actually had a choice, he would have been straight.  He's not necessarily ashamed of what he is; he said that he's perfectly happy being gay, but would be happier being straight.  So if he 'chose' to be gay in the first place, why can't he then change back?

Second, I found this article on today's BBC website.  Apparently scientists now believe that there are certain conditions in the mother's womb that determine whether the baby will become gay; it seems to have a lot to do with the number of older biological siblings.  Nothing to do with conscious decision making.

[Q]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

I agree with a lot of what you said there, but why do you still feel that marriage between two people of the same gender is threatening to this "sacred bond" notion?