What undermimes marriage more?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sodom & Gomorah

Which is in the Old Testament, not the New. But I'll run with this anyway...

It seems to me that the sins of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were the fact that they tended to rape newcomers to their cities, rather than homosexuality...

That's how I interpret it. Again the key word is disputed, the Hebrew- 'yada' - which means to know, to have knowledge of. It doesn't really have much sexual connotation to it.

men prostitutes could be written as gay men (I don't know the word).

I suggest you read this; it will clear up the misconceptions regarding the Greek translation.

Your New Testament example is flawed, and the language translation that is most commonly accepted by Biblical scholars (even many conservative ones!) does not state that homosexuality is wrong.

We both have sources on our sides--we aren't going to agree.  Can we move on?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

or homosexual practices during idol worship--but drop it--we won't agree on the greek translation.

Do you actually know anything about the greek translation? (that isn't creamed from google) And yes homosexual practices were condemned during idol worship...as were heterosexual practices elswhere in the NT. It doesn't mean he sees them as wrong, but only wrong in context- ie idol worship and prostitution. Not long term, stable gay relationships.

We discussed this in Bible class, but no, I don't have my personal Greek translation as I'm debating here.

In took Theology for six years and we encountered this They are not covering the issues well, or not wanting to delve into controversy.

I'm not following your point here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Does anybody else here feel like we talking to a brick wall?

A very stubborn brick wall--who just happens to be standing between you and you being correct.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But 'arsenokoiten' can mean gay men.

No, It does not. Thats what the word 'homophilia' is there for the word arsenokoiten is also used in the Sybilline Oracle and does not mean gay men, it means prostitute.

It CAN mean gay.  I'm looking at a Grekk NT now.  What is 'malakoi'?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, hold up.  You don't need to reply to every post immediately.  Please take the time to read the link I gave you.

Why do you believe your sources to be more accurate?  You are simply re-stating that it could mean "gay man" in general.  I provide evidence that it was probably not, and you just say that it "could be" again.  You aren't even bothering to explain why you believe this to be the true interpretation.

It's OK to slow down in replying to our posts and articulate your reasons more clearly.  No harm, no foul.  But what you are saying is directly, strongly contradicted by the link I just provided.  If you just keep repeating the assertion would addressing my counter-assertion, you are the one putting up that "brick wall."

I still just disagree w/ you.  I don't see Greek as that cut and dry to translate.  I can't translate Greek, so I'm relying on what I've heard from my teachers and pastors (combined w/ OT examples) to reach the conclusion that Paul IS referring to homosexuals here.  Just curious, what translation is everyone using, b/c NIV, KJV, and NASB all say homosexual.  I can't find my RSV, or NRSV.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

Ah. Leviticus. Oh dear. First things first... Leviticus is in the Old Testament, not the New. As such it has little bearing on the Christian religion (beyond very interesting background reading; not that Leviticus is much use for that, but some books in it are really fascinating. Job for instance) in most respects... but I'll let you run with this as well.

It is the basis for my beliefs and interpretations of the NT, thus it is necessary, by backing up my I Cor. claims.

[/quote]This particular part of Leviticus (the worst written book of the Bible by far, but that is by the by) is taken out of all context more often than any part of any book ever written in the entire history of humanity (well... maybe not. But grant unto me the right for a little hyperbole).

First off, it is literally taken out of context. The acts described are part of a long list of various sins, generally of a sexual nature (although the first few aren't) and the recommended punishments are pretty brutal throughout (with execution being the favoured solution). Man lying as with woman is the fifth in the list of sexual sins. And it's not entirely sure what is meant by man-lying-with-another-man-as-wIt's actually lower than having sex with certain in-laws.
And it's not certain what lying-as-with-woman actually means, for several reasons. But that is also by the by.

let's consult Zondervan about 18:22:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and 20:13:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leviticus is a set of rules for a society that we do not live in anymore (unless you happen to live in a tight-knight nomadic society... which I doubt). And they are a set of, well more than rules, laws, which are no longer obeyed. Unless you live your life according to the book of Leviticus (if so that means no clothes made of mixed fibres, no pork and so on. Just thank the Lord that you aren't female; there's a lot of weird stuff on menstruation there. And plenty of ever useful information about how to sacrifice a goat) then you really have no right to complain that others don't... and here's the thing. There is no requirement for Christians to follow the laws in the book of Leviticus.
[/quote]

But it provides basis for explaining Romans and I Cor.; however, nowhere in the NT does it say no mixed fibers, and Paul says that we can eat pork.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It CAN mean gay.  I'm looking at a Grekk NT now.  What is 'malakoi'?

It means to be feminine, to display feminine traits. Its the greek equivalent of name calling somone a 'sissy' or a 'p-ssy'

EDIT- and really, arsenokoiten doesnt mean gay. It would be helpful to alot of people if it did, as they could justify their anti-gay position. But it doesn't- not in the NT, or the Oracle or to a basic scholar of Greek.

But what is your basis of this?  Paul was not a Dr. like Luke, so his Greek wouldn't be up to the great standards of others @ his time.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The question you are asking makes me think that you still have not read the link provided, regardless of the subsequent translations.

I have read the link.  See my last post talking about Paul to afleitch.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I still just disagree w/ you.  I don't see Greek as that cut and dry to translate.  I can't translate Greek, so I'm relying on what I've heard from my teachers and pastors (combined w/ OT examples) to reach the conclusion that Paul IS referring to homosexuals here.  Just curious, what translation is everyone using, b/c NIV, KJV, and NASB all say homosexual.  I can't find my RSV, or NRSV.

Take time to learn things yourself. It can be really interesting delving into Greek. You have to understand that the translation of the word arsenokoiten to mean homosexual is a, probably purposely, sustained mistranslation.

Give the passages to a Greek scholar (as I did) and they wont translate them that way. I am a more contented Christian for doing that, as it's important to remain true to the source.

It has been discussed @ school by 3 people who have translated at least 1/2 of the Bible from Greek, as well as my Pastor (who has only done a few books).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But what is your basis of this?  Paul was not a Dr. like Luke, so his Greek wouldn't be up to the great standards of others @ his time.

He would know what the word arsenokoiten meant! Particularly if he was inspired or guided by God, He would make sure he got things right Even disgregarding the translation of the word itself, you really have to look at Romans 1:25 to understand it's context.

He knew what arsenokoiten meant, but he perhaps didn't know what the other word you said before (homosexual) meant.  He was inspired by God, and God inspired him to use this word.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK, I'm all caught up now, you can go back to the major bombardment.  How many posts do you need to get to YaBB God status?

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK, I'm all caught up now, you can go back to the major bombardment.  How many posts do you need to get to YaBB God status?

500

That's what I thought.  I was at 389 when we started this an hr. ago.  Speaking of which, I only have about 1 more hr., b/c my mom & sister are flying in to FL, and wanted to call when they got in.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

Oh, and Option 1.

I don't hate gays--I hate their sin and thinking, but not the person--God hates nobody, so I try my hardest not to.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

The only reason I would change my thought is if Paul or God came directly to me and told me I'm wrong, or I heard some EXTREMELY compelling arguments that my version of the Greek interpretation is wrong (@ least 20x's more compelling than yours).  Just a side note, my avg. posts per day went from 9.3 something to 10.84 something.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

1st: Being gay as a sin may not be that clear to people, just like people who deny Christianity--that is the ultimate "sin"--saying, "God, I'm OK on my own," but they don't say that that's a sin.

2nd: That article is ridiculous

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Antibodies against your own child would probably just kill the child, not alter it's brain.  And if it did alter the brain, it wouldn't be that subtle.  It would be like rejecting a kidney from a transplant.  The kidney doesn't turn purple, it DOESN't Work!  So rejecting your child wouldn't change it subtly, it would either harshly debilitate the child, if not killing it!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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?

I believe that marriage is a religious institution and should be treated as such.  Thus the government has no right to define what marriage is; it should be up to the churches.  If a church allows gays to marry, that's their business and I don't disagree with their decision.  I will also reiterate that I have no problem with legalized civil unions.  But I personally view the institution of marriage from the prevailing Christian standpoint as between a man and a woman. 

But marriage isn't a religious institution.  A marriage certificate is a legally binding document.  Polygomy is illegal.  A 30 yr. old and a 11 yr. old getting married is illegal.  If the gov't takes a completely hands-off aproach to marriage, it would be disastrous.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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?

I believe that marriage is a religious institution and should be treated as such.  Thus the government has no right to define what marriage is; it should be up to the churches.  If a church allows gays to marry, that's their business and I don't disagree with their decision.  I will also reiterate that I have no problem with legalized civil unions.  But I personally view the institution of marriage from the prevailing Christian standpoint as between a man and a woman. 

But marriage isn't a religious institution.  A marriage certificate is a legally binding document.  Polygomy is illegal.  A 30 yr. old and a 11 yr. old getting married is illegal.  If the gov't takes a completely hands-off aproach to marriage, it would be disastrous.

How so? From the government's perspective, they are confering benefits to a man and a woman who want to live together and spend their lives together. The question naturally arises: why do the genders of the people in question matter to the government?

What is your question?