Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : Post deleted

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

You were a pansexual Hegelian Calvinist.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Back on topic. Does this devout gay Christian acknowledge he is violating his God's rules about sex? Or is he in denial?

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

When I was Christian I accepted that I was rebelling against god. I didn't care. I felt I was right and god was wrong.

What I don't like are liberals and gays who try to whitewash Christianity's complete intolerance of homosexuality.

They'll say things like the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Lol. That's ludicrous. That's denial.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

That's not complex enough and too easy a fix.

God requires confusion, contradictions and hypocrisy in order for him to exist in his self-righteous scriptural form.

Wow that sounded almost as bitter as I was about 3 weeks ago. I was cursing God and everything. Strangers were feeling sorry for me..

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Poor God!

Gets blamed for many things, even when folks don't believe in him and then ask for God's help too, even though they never wanted a darn thing to do with him in the first place.

This God dude is nothing but trouble. The devil seems easier to deal with.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article


Stfu smart asshole. Not even Christ felt empathy or sympathy for God.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Have your medications run out? I am not getting any sense out of you and your responses.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The Bible was written by a bunch of men with an agenda, so it is impossible for me to take the bible any more seriously than any other heartfelt piece of literature. In times of grief or stress, I am more likely to seek comfort and piece of mind in Tennessee Williams than the Bible.

Of course, everybody needs something (and I guess science counts for something), and far be it from me to discredit something so personally felt by another. Unless that something is designed to judge me, and the Bible seems to be chalk full of judgment.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Unless that something is designed to judge me, and the Bible seems to be chalk full of judgment.
Hence, back down to the bunch of men with an agenda.

If only they knew the gay way….

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Homosexuality is clearly a sin according to Leviticus. There's no two ways about it.

Kindly point to where Leviticus mentions "homosexuality" - and underscore where the term "sin" occurs in connection with it. Thanks in advance.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

A sin, an abomination, detestable to god, an act worthy of the death penalty. Are we going to play semantics?

Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13 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.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

A sin, an abomination, detestable to god, an act worthy of the death penalty. Are we going to play semantics?
Well, if you want to understand words used in the bible, it's important that you understand their meaning and context. The Hebrew word 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh' merely denotes a ceremonial or ritual taboo which one must avoid in order to remain a Jew in good standing. It's most typically used of idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:26), but can also mean a violation of the Jewish dietary laws (Deuteronomy 14:3). Practices labeled 'abomination' were characterized as being done by gentiles, hence impure or unclean. The New Testament firmly put this distinction to rest in Acts 10:28: "He (Peter) said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean." Simply put, "abomination" has - or should have - no relevance for Christians.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
That's a pretty tendentious rendering; there's nothing explicit in the Hebrew about "sexual relations." A word-for-word translation runs something like this: 'And with male not lay/lyings beds of woman; abomination it.' The exact meaning of this is inscrutable, likely that of an idiom now lost to us, in the same way the meaning and context of Deuteronomy 14:21b ('not do boil a young goat milk of his mother') was lost to the medieval rabbis who eventually concluded - almost certainly mistakenly - that it was somehow banning the mixture of meat and dairy products.

If one is going to kill somebody, one had better make damn sure one knows what for, and neither of these passages are sufficiently clear or coherent. There are other possible readings, centering around "beds" [of] "woman." This could prohibit lying with a man in a bed belonging to a woman, or alternatively, with a man who is committed to said woman by marriage. Like this:
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/71/1/1/5810142

Even if Leviticus 18:22 and its penalty analogue at 20:13 were talking about same-sex sexual relations (and that is by no means clear, since it may have been written as a form of halakhic commentary. Nor is it clear that it was ever enforced, or even intended to be enforced), the book in which the passages appear was for Jews only, specifically the priesthood, not for general readership.

In short, if one isn't an early Common Era Jew having special access to a Temple-centric book, and the privilege to follow its rituals, the passages aren't for you.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Yes there are a few Hebrew words in the Bible that are translated to "Abomination" depending on what their contexts are.

One is specifically used for mostly unclean foods. I think here, God is saying, don't touch these, you could get diseases.

Another rarer one translates to "end" or "final." This one is used to forbid eating of sea creatures without scales, and birds such as Bald Eagles and Ravens: I have a personal theory that God was trying to protect the endangered species. Don't eat these or it'll be the end of their species.

The last one is used to describe extremely wicked behaviours often relating to human relations such as sex, lying, killing.

Hebrew word 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh' merely denotes a ceremonial or ritual taboo which one must avoid in order to remain a Jew in good standing

No תֹּועֵבָה (tawv-evah) means vile. You're mixing this up with תשובה (a different second character character and one less character - ש (shiv) not ועֵ (vav + silent vowel), which means "repentance" or "ritual unto God."

I wonder if the Marvel Comics villain "Abomination" is just unclean, or he lies with men? Who knows.

"Homosexuality" is not in the Bible because it's a world term. God does not recognise sexual orientations and gender identities.

It is not necessarily a sin to self-identify or call one's self a homosexual (meaningless world term), but it is a sin to have sex with the same sex.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

I'll stick to the the KJV translation as is the only English translation that matters. The Geneva Bible is also acceptable as this preceded KJV in 1559 but it wasn't authorised by the King of England. Newer versions like the NIV and ESV don't count anyway.

That's a pretty tendentious rendering; there's nothing explicit in the Hebrew about "sexual relations." A word-for-word translation runs something like this: 'And with male not lay/lyings beds of woman; abomination it.' The exact meaning of this is inscrutable

It isn't really inscrutable.

All language literal sentence translations are going to jumbled around unless you're translating something basic as "I am boy," because they put their pronouns, adjectives, subjects in different places.

You've already had the KJV translated for you, in the 1600s, by professionals translators.

The Geneva in 1559 reads "Thou shalt not lie with the male as one lieth with a woman: for it is abomination" yet the KJV translators were not influenced by this version yet came up with a similar translation.

If you question this, that because it's inscrutable to you, that Hebrew-speaking scholars cannot translate it either when they've studied the context and phrasing of Hebrew, or you a conspiracy theorist who believes 50+ Hebrew and English-speaking scholarly revisers intentionally translating it wrong to disparage same sex relations.


23 For they turned the glory of the [an]incorruptible God to the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and four footed beasts, and of creeping things.

24 [ao]Wherefore [ap]also God [aq]gave them up to their hearts lusts, unto uncleanness, to defile their own bodies between themselves:

25 Which turned the truth of God unto a lie, and worshipped and served the creature, forsaking the Creator which is blessed forever, Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

Including but not limited to birth control, pregnancy termination, radical feminism, gender equality, lesbianism.

27 And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such [ar]recompense of their error, as was meet.

28 [as]For as they regarded not to acknowledge God, even so God delivered them up unto a [at]reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,

God was tired of people denying him, so he said "fuck it" and turned them over to over to a reprobate mind. The men turned to sex with other men (a desire you're only cursed with when you deny God) and wrought filthiness (HIV, STDs) and received their recompense of their error of rejecting God and continuing to sin freely without guilt.


Being full of all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, of murder, of debate, of deceit, taking all things in the evil part, whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, doers of wrong, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, [au]covenant breakers, without natural affection, such as can never be appeased, merciless.

Once you sleep with the same sex and enjoy it, your mind has been "turned over" and you are likely to commit any malicious act toward others, lie without losing sleep, cheat without the guilt, child molestation. These are worse than sinners: sinners try to do well, but fuck up sometimes. They are reprobate. A reprobate sins knowingly and carelessly because they reject God and the concept of sin. Ted Bundy was a reprobate. Once a repropate, God has given up on you, and chances of salvation are not likely.

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

One is specifically used for mostly unclean foods.

I'm talking about the one specifically used in Leviticus 18:22/20:13, 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh'.
https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/18-22.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/20-13.htm

Here's the same word, 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh,' used with reference to idols:
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/7-26.htm

And here's 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh' used with reference to diet:
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/14-3.htm

There's not any confusion here about the word in question. It's the same.

I think here, God is saying, don't touch these, you could get diseases.
Well, that cuts right to the heart of your trouble, right there - the notion that "God" is "saying" anything. This is a text written by human beings, not by "God." It contains no foreknowledge, hidden wisdom, or perspective otherwise unavailable to people at the time it was written - which, incidentally, was not by "Moses" at the end of the Bronze Age, but by anonymous Jewish sectarians, likely after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, late 1st century/early 2nd century.

'Leviticus' was a meditation/commentary on other passages of scripture - Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, etc - outlining a kind of ideal Temple service (post-70 CE, after they'd lost the temple) which was never carried out in practice - sort of like Ezekiel's outline for a temple which was never built. What Leviticus proposes is simply preposterous, detailing ritual instructions that could never have been actually followed (sin offerings/animal slaughter on that kind of scale?), sort of like how Bishop John Colenso demonstrated through mathematics that the Jewish Wandering in the Wilderness accounts could never have happened. It is likely that Jews at large never knew about Leviticus until two or three centuries further on, when the radically sectarian writing, formerly intended only for the eyes of priests and scribes, entered the Masoretic and was replicated, being given a place among the supposed 'Mosaic' corpus, once Jewish religion transitioned into a scripture-centric form.

Another reason for placing Leviticus later is how spare the New Testament is in citing it - clear quotes from it only occur in texts from the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries (i.e. 1 Peter 1:16). The reason it isn't cited is because it wasn't available at that point.
The last one is used to describe extremely wicked behaviours often relating to human relations such as sex, lying, killing.
No, dear. 'Bearing false witness' (something rather different from lying, an offense the bible doesn't actually condemn) and 'murder' (not 'killing,' something which "God" is on occasion depicted as mandating) are quite different from the "sex" to which you refer (Leviticus 18:6-29). This passage is halakhic commentary on Ezekiel chapters 22-23 - read them, and you'll see the entire spiel mentioned there, with the sole exception of v.22, which is commentary upon Deuteronomy 23:17-18.
"Homosexuality" is not in the Bible because it's a world term. God does not recognise sexual orientations and gender identities.

It is not necessarily a sin to self-identify or call one's self a homosexual (meaningless world term)…
What's meaningless is the expression "world term." Fundamentalists like to try to have it both ways, insisting that modern concepts can have no bearing on interpreting the bible, but simultaneously holding that the bible's pronouncements have authority over the modern world.
but it is a sin to have sex with the same sex.
There is no biblical passage which says that.

'Abomination' is not interchangeable with 'sin.' They are not the same concept. See my reply to Platonic_Caveman later in this thread.
I'll stick to the the KJV translation as is the only English translation that matters. The Geneva Bible is also acceptable as this preceded KJV in 1559 but it wasn't authorised by the King of England. Newer versions like the NIV and ESV don't count anyway… You've already had the KJV translated for you, in the 1600s, by professionals translators.
So, you think that King James I (who, by the way, was a homosexual himself) and his translators were also inspired by God?

There's critical reasons why the KJV and its predecessors (Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and Wycliffe) are inferior, from the standpoint of original, 'more genuine' readings, but those would be an entirely different discussion.

To be continued…

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The Geneva in 1559 reads "Thou shalt not lie with the male as one lieth with a woman: for it is abomination" yet the KJV translators were not influenced by this version yet came up with a similar translation.

If you question this, that because it's inscrutable to you, that Hebrew-speaking scholars cannot translate it either when they've studied the context and phrasing of Hebrew, or you a conspiracy theorist who believes 50+ Hebrew and English-speaking scholarly revisers intentionally translating it wrong to disparage same sex relations.
It's not a conspiracy theory to note that theologians tend to hold fast to their own traditions as far as interpretations and renderings go. As believers, they have always believed that the eternal souls of people are at stake, and in pursuit of their own notions of orthodoxy, they have been not only willing to die, but also to kill for their beliefs.

But interpretations condemning same-sex sexual relations do not have the kind of antiquity you're attributing to them. They mostly date from the second millennium CE, around the time the Catholic Church began to 'notice' homosexual practices aggregating around cities, as well as the male pair-bonding or "brothering" ceremonies which had been solemnized by the Church for centuries at that point. Civil laws, underwritten by new biblical interpretations, began to crack down on the practice, in what could be described as a 'culture war' of its time. These in turn informed the newly written 'Corpus Juris Canonici,' or 'Canon Law' formalized by the Church.

Sharing a common medieval society, communities of Jews were not untouched by the laws of the Catholic Church. Despite their mutual antagonism, across the centuries, the Church and Rabbinical Judaism had a way of looking over each others' shoulders at what the other was doing, in terms of interpretation and cultural focus. Thus, where witchcraft became the obsession of the dominant culture, by osmosis it crept into the other. The Church's new focus on homosexuals brought a similar outlook to Rabbinical Judaism.

This is why, once English translations began to appear on the scene, they already incorporated what had become the theological view of the Church towards same-sex relations, even though it was only three to four centuries old.

Modern scholarship in both Jewish and Christian circles have begun to recognize this, and are breaking away from interpretations condemning same-sex relationships.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The latter part of your post is a disquisition on Romans 1. It's the Christian version of 'Pandora's Box.' Although vv. 26-27 does mention same-sex relations (it's one of only two passages in the bible that does, the other being 1 Sam.20:30, where Saul accuses Jonathan of it), there's not even really a prohibition there. It is also recounted in the past tense, as something which has already taken place, rather than as anything that will happen if 'x' isn't avoided. The author of Romans speaks of same-sex relations as though they were inevitable, and can even be understood as essentially saying 'God made them do it' ("therefore 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐠𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫" to this or that trait, vv.24, 26, and 28).

The author traces the beginning of mankind's fall, starting at creation (v.20) with his abandonment of God (v.21), which led to idol worship (v.23), leading to descriptions of all of mankind's failures of character; from vv.28-31 the list gets pretty comprehensive, covering what everyone has been guilty of at one time or another, as a proposed etiology for why people die (v.32).¹ It doesn't offer this diagnosis as something of which only *some* are guilty (of which, were *they* to judge, they alone would be hypocritical), but of all. Everyone dies - not just those who participate in same-sex relations, not just the sinners, but *everyone*. Even the Christians, those sanctified souls who regard themselves as 'forgiven.' The capstone of the passage is Romans 2:1, ostensibly addressed to the believers at Rome: "You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on another. For on whatever grounds you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Anyone who tries to use Romans to condemn LGBTs condemns himself, not them.

It bears repeating: Everybody dies, even Christians. It isn't something that happens only to LGBTs, but to hear the way evangelicals try to use Romans 1, you'd think it was.

¹ Romans 1:26-27 is part of a larger passage (1:18-2:29), originally a free-floating fragment of an anonymous sermon preached in a Hellenistic synagogue and circulated among Jews of the Diaspora, as J.C. O'Neill has suggested ('Paul's Letter to the Romans,' 1975). The foibles list of 1:18-31 can be seen as generally headed under 'things Gentiles do.' The fragment would have been conserved by proto-orthodox ecclesiastics and interpolated into the text of 'Romans,' with the occasional gloss inserted (2:16) to make it better fit a Christian context.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

To further clarify:

'Sins' and 'abominations' are not interchangeable concepts, but come from two entirely different religious paradigms. In the Jewish testament, "sins" were offenses for which one could simply make a sin offering to make it go away. Note that the passages which speak of 'abomination' do not use the term 'sin' at all. 'Abomination' (Hebrew 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh') referred to a ritual or ceremonial infraction or taboo (typically used of idolatry, but also of breaking the dietary restrictions - Deut.14:3), pertaining to one's membership in the community; one's standing as an observant Jew. 'Abomination' was characterized as being something characteristically committed by the 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 (i.e. gentiles, cf. Lev.18:24-29). Matters of ritual impurity were handled in various ways, depending on their severity. Some, like menstruation or handling a dead body, required a period of sequestration ('seven days,' or 'until evening,' respectively). Those characterized as 'abomination' - idolatry, blasphemy, dishonor of family or elders, violation of the dietary laws, breaking the Sabbath, etc. - mandated death; being "cut off from your people" was a euphemism for execution.

Christianity was totally different. Christians often completely misunderstand what they read in the Jewish Testament, coming at it as they do with Christian concepts of sin and the way it's expiated in Christianity (contrition, confession, penance, asking Christ for forgiveness). The majority of offenses characterized as 'abomination' typically do not rise to the level of what Christians would characterize as a sin (eating pork, wearing mixed fabrics, etc.). But when they read Jewish texts calling for the death penalty for such offenses, they conflate it with the Christian concept of sin (cf. Romans 6:23).

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

All sex outside of marriage is a sin

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

All sex outside of marriage is a sin
If that's what you really believe, then you ought to be all in favor of gay marriage. Right?

But "all sex outside of marriage is a sin" is just something Christians like to repeat, without knowing if it's really supported by the bible. The bible actually says very little about marriage, and even less about sex outside of it.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I have no problem with gay marriage

The bible does say to not commit adultery

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The bible does say to not commit adultery
Yes, it does - it's the seventh of the Ten Commandments.

In the Jewish testament, it was prohibited as a desecration of a man's property, his wife/wives. Men could accuse their wives of adultery; depending upon the circumstances, it could lead to death for both the adulterer and the wife, or the wife could be "put away" (divorced). The wife had no similar recourse, should her husband cheat on her; women had no agency under Mosaic law.

Under Christianity, the seventh commandment tended to be allegorized as unfaithfulness to God, although it was literalized in instances of unfaithfulness in marriage. In the majority New Testament opinion, marriage was only grudgingly accepted, as a sort of necessary evil, for those who could not endure the kind of chastity that Christianity favored.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The bible does say to not commit adultery
I always have a fascination with this notion, as it purports to marriage as being something one need achieve in their lifetime and be faithful to their partner, yet if one is married and cheats, are they really committing adultery if not religious and don't believe in the notion of scriptural sin?

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

In God's eyes they are

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

That comes down to belief again and only for the believer.

Even those that feel a God in their lives, can't really speak for their God as though they know its going to see something as sin. That is humankind's notion of judgement.

What if God doesn't judge?

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I'm just going by the bible and God's Commandments

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

For those that use the bible as a source of spiritual meaning, adultery would be only something that exists for them, not for those who don't.

It would really just become about "cheating" as most today would refer to it as and the relationship may not have meant to have worked out to begin with.

I'd like to think that God has layers.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I don't really think about it too much. I try to be a better person

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I try to be a better person
I'm sure God already has you in its warm caress…😍

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

You're very sweet 😘

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Just don't commit homosexuality. Now that is wickedly sinful….😱

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

ToastedCheese said... Just don't commit homosexuality. Now that is wickedly sinful….😱
expand
Not my inclination

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Cheeky said... Not my inclination
expand
Then I won't get to see you in hell.

We could've partied hard like the devil….😈

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

ToastedCheese said... Then I won't get to see you in hell.

We could've partied hard like the devil….😈
expand
Awww Toasty

If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

If that's what you really believe, then you ought to be all in favor of gay marriage. Right?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage" unless that means happy marriage.

Same-sex marriage is a world term and not a Biblical one. "Marriage" doesn't need a prefix: the world alone implies a man and a woman. The secular world changed this.

Therefore, all sex acts within a "gay marriage" are fornication*, as God does not recognise gay marriage as a thing.

*fornication - It is worse than fornication, as relations between 2 men are not even sexual relations as defined by God. It's just pure reprobate behaviour.

Two men having sexual relations cannot commit "adultery" or "fornication" - those terms apply exclusively to male and female liaisons. It's just unnatural deviancy.

Temptation breeds sin. Normal sinners struggle with temptation not to sin. Men lusting after other men is not a normal temptation. It only happens when that man is turned over to filth and rejected by the Lord.

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Same-sex marriage is a world term and not a Biblical one. "Marriage" doesn't need a prefix: the world alone implies a man and a woman. The secular world changed this.
There you go again, with that absurd "world term" business. One could make the same claim about interracial marriages, which until about forty to fifty years ago, the Protestant fundamentalist KJV-Only crowd also condemned.
Therefore, all sex acts within a "gay marriage" are fornication*, as God does not recognise gay marriage as a thing.

*fornication - It is worse than fornication, as relations between 2 men are not even sexual relations as defined by God. It's just pure reprobate behaviour.

Two men having sexual relations cannot commit "adultery" or "fornication" - those terms apply exclusively to male and female liaisons. It's just unnatural deviancy.
You need to make up your mind; is it 'fornication,' or isn't it? If you want to insist that it's too terrible for 'fornication' to cover it, then you lose all the passages you would otherwise deploy that could be seen to condemn it on that basis.

However…

The word being rendered "sexual immorality" and "fornication" in the KJV (Gk. πορνείᾳ, 'porneia') means adultery or prostitution, as for example, Matthew 19:9.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/porneia

Across the centuries, Christians have gradually attempted to broaden its meaning to include anything and everything, in an effort to police everyone else's sexual relationships, and most recently with the specific goal of subsuming homosexuality under the term.
https://unbiblicalsexualethics.blogspot.com/p/porneia-verses.html

Correctly rendered, Matthew 15:19 reads, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, prostitution, theft, false testimony, and slander."

In this blog, James Hamilton of the Eastside Church of Christ complains of the transformation of the word: "The real shame is that people are lumping into the meaning whatever they assume would be included in the English phrase "sexual immorality" and then claiming that the Greek must also include the same idea. The reasoning is backward, inaccurate, and improper… Porneia… originally stood for "prostitution":
https://www.mightyisthelord.com/articles/2012/06/17/defining-porneia

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

There you go again, with that absurd "world term" business. One could make the same claim about interracial marriages, which until about forty to fifty years ago, the Protestant fundamentalist KJV-Only crowd also condemned.

Whether they may or have condemned it, the Bible doesn't. The Bible makes no mention of race or the concept of race because race isn't real.

What matters is the literal text.

The Bible does condemn men lying in bed with men the same way as with a woman.

You need to make up your mind; is it 'fornication,' or isn't it? If you want to insist that it's too terrible for 'fornication' to cover it

Hence the asterisk, it is not fornication. It is not "sex out of marriage" because there is no marriage. There is no coitus. It's worse - it's below sin.


Across the centuries, Christians have gradually attempted to broaden its meaning to include anything and everything, in an effort to police everyone else's sexual relationships, and most recently with the specific goal of subsuming homosexuality under the term.

I agree that homosexual behaviour isn't "sexual immorality" as defined by the Bible. Sexual immortality are served for what today we could call heterosexual crimes - fornication, prostitution, adultery.

Homosexual acts aren't "sexually immoral" because there's nothing sexual about it. Two men cannot be sexual. It's an abomination unto the LORD.

But the Bible makes it clear sex outside of marriage of a sin.


1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


Society is pretty liberal regarding homosexuality. Even hardcore Christians. To consider it sexually immoral, to oppose gay marriage, to lump it as fornication - are all very lenient and often incorrect opinions, much softer than the Bible's.

What we should be doing is putting them to death by a righteous government.

So if a right-wing Christian wants to "oppose gay marriage," the gay community should consider him a really nice guy. That's much nicer than what God commands. This so-called Christian is wrong, too. Christians are too soft on homosexuality today.

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Christians are too soft on homosexuality today.

Any homo who claims he's Christian needs his head shrinked.

Christians need to have more integrity if they believe in the original text of their beloved doctrine.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Whether they may or have condemned it, the Bible doesn't. The Bible makes no mention of race or the concept of race because race isn't real.
Hmmm. The people who practiced ethnic (Hebrew goyim, גוים; Greek ethnos, ἔθνος) segregation, discrimination, and slavery certainly had a wide array of biblical texts to which they appealed in order to justify it, and those who are so inclined still do; the interpretations have not changed. In modern society, most believers simply avoid such passages, and no longer cite them or teach from them.

However, I can just as easily say that the bible nowhere condemns homosexuality because neither the term 'homosexuality' nor the concept of sexual orientation existed at the time it was written. It no more discusses homosexuality than it does smart phones.
What matters is the literal text.
That approach, so slavishly followed by Protestant fundamentalists, not merely including regarding each portion of a quotable numbered verse as a standalone pronouncement by God himself, but also what they take it to mean as translated into English, fails to take into account matters such as context, what the verse means in relation to the surrounding passage, as well as passages to which it may have a literary or conceptual relationship. That a verse may express metaphorical or allegorical concepts is also something Protestant fundamentalists tend to disregard, except when the literal meaning of a verse is seen to inconvenience them; then they pay out as much exegetical rope as they deem necessary to get themselves out of it.
The Bible does condemn men lying in bed with men the same way as with a woman.
Correction: Leviticus contains two verses which appear to discuss men lying in bed with other men as they would with a woman. Or two men lying together in a woman's bed, disgracing a space that would be regarded as her domain; or as disgracing her husband.
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/71/1/1/5810142

It's not as clear as you make out. And the entire chapter in which the passage appears has a relationship with other Deuteronomic texts, as halakhic commentary, so there's also that.

Leviticus was written by early Common Era Jews 𝑓𝑜𝑟 Jews. Are you Jewish? Do you follow everything else in the 'Holiness Code'? If not, then you have no business urging it on anyone else.

Passages from individual books of the bible cannot be interpreted to cite 'The Bible' as a whole. Such a compilation did not exist, nor was it envisioned.
Hence the asterisk, it is not fornication. It is not "sex out of marriage" because there is no marriage. There is no coitus. It's worse - it's below sin.

The rest of society does not agree with you; gay marriages exist, they're celebrated and validated. It just sounds like you have a personal problem you need to work out. Perhaps you would feel more secure in the midst of a society that practices Sharia Law. (Pssst! Homosexuality exists there, too. It's simply practiced more discreetly.)
1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Oh, no no no; you do not get to return to flogging expressions like "sexual immorality" and "fornication," not after the clarification of what is actually meant by the Greek term πορνείᾳ. Hence:

1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee prostitution. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth prostitution sinneth against his own body.

And:

1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, to avoid prostitution, let every man have his own woman, and let every woman have her own man.

The terms 'wife' and 'husband' are something traditionally added to English renderings by Christian theologians, with the state of marriage being read into the passage. They're simply augmenting an institution they created and control - the "sacrament of marriage," a concept found nowhere in the bible. The Greek simply reads 'woman' (Gk. gynaika, γυναῖκα) and 'man' (Gk. andra, ἄνδρα).
Society is pretty liberal regarding homosexuality. Even hardcore Christians. To consider it sexually immoral, to oppose gay marriage, to lump it as fornication - are all very lenient and often incorrect opinions, much softer than the Bible's.
Well, what can I say? This isn't the Iron Age. We no longer sacrifice humans and animals to placate Yahweh, we no longer enslave members of other ethnicities, and we no longer subjugate women as chattel or sell our daughters into slavery. So, it's little wonder modern society doesn't stone homosexuals.
What we should be doing is putting them to death by a righteous government.

The Western world isn't a theocracy. Nor is it ever going to be.

Dominionist fundamentalists who cannot take their eyes off of what gay people are doing constantly advocate for a Mosaic law theocracy, but without knowing everything that would entail, and without any regard for what it would mean for them. Such a theocracy is waaay too sharp a tool for such children; they'd cut themselves and bleed to death. Just as the people most harmed by Sharia Law are its adherents.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

"If you want to perform homosexual acts don't be a Christian."

Tell that to Milo Yiannopoulas 🤣

Just because I'm not on THEIR side, doesn't mean I'm on YOURS.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Milo used to be my hero. He has fallen from grace. But I'd still buttfuck him.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I'd still buttfuck him.
Wouldn't you rather do Shapiro. He is the one that needs it the most and he needs to be made to squeal.

Or better yet and such a fitting metaphor, have Milo do it to him.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I have a boyfriend so I'd rather watch them both fuck. Shapiro is a cutie too.



Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

If Shapiro wasn't orthodox Jewish, he would have so much more credibility, especially when he goes around claiming "Facts don't care about your feelings", then he's following the doctrine of some dubious sky fairy and basing his politics around his God's beliefs too.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Of course I don't agree with him but he's a good advocate for the extreme right. I like that all sides can articulate their points.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Yes, everyone has their story.

I really meant though, that I feel he undermines himself, when he could represent himself so much better if not for some of his bent and questionable beliefs. He undermines and misrepresents his side then too.

This is why looks and charm can go along way to deceiving people as well. The devil in disguise.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Well you consider his orthodox Judaism "questionable" because you don't believe in it. But it's the base of his politics.

He's a troll like Anne Coulter.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

…you consider his orthodox Judaism "questionable" because you don't believe in it. But it's the base of his politics.
That is what I already previously commented:

…he's following the doctrine of some dubious sky fairy and basing his politics around his God's beliefs too.

That is my point, the core base of his politics is undermining his credulity.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?
Top