This next part is where the people Dexail quoted attempt to say that God said marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Those guys were working really hard to draw that conclusion from the scriptures cited:Genesis 1:26-28 -
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Romans 1:26,27 -
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
But wait there's more... Homosexual relations apparently always fail because... :Genesis 2:18-24 -
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matt. 19:3-9 -
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Eph. 5:22-33 -
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Rom. 7:2,3 -
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Umm ok yeah. I certainly can draw that conclusion from that...1st Corinthians 7:24 -
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
Of course it goes on to say that if you see one of your siblings unclothed you have to send yourself into exile:Leviticus 18:22,23 -
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Leviticus 20:13,15,16 -
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. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I've quoted enough of the real scriptures to illustrate my point. So what have we learned? We've learned that if you call yourself a Christian, it's perfectly acceptable to change the wording and/or meaning of the Bible to support whatever form of bigotry or hatred you want to propagate.17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Note of point here, the Hebrew word here doesn't translate into nudity. It translates into sexual relations, hence incest. I think we would agree that is all wrong regardless of religion correct? How do I know this you ask? Heh personal story actually...17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Hrmmm... so apparently we should burn about 20% of the cast of the Jerry Springer show?!Leviticus 20:13,15,16 -
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
noel wrote:
Atokal, the last thing you want is for me to actually start paying attention to the bullshit you spout on every thread. I am more intelligent than you, I am more rational than you, and if you get my keep drawing my attention, I will research whatever I need to make you look like a fucking fool. How DARE you question my knowledge of the Bible when I call out completely fabricated writings and conclusions from the Bible when they are in fact completely fabricated to serve the purposes of a few bigoted men?.
Theologians are church people. They are not scientists. They are church people trained to do the church's work. You really think their interpretations are going to be unbiased? Read the above misquoted analysis for an example of their ineptitude.Atokal wrote:noel wrote:
Atokal, the last thing you want is for me to actually start paying attention to the bullshit you spout on every thread. I am more intelligent than you, I am more rational than you, and if you get my keep drawing my attention, I will research whatever I need to make you look like a fucking fool. How DARE you question my knowledge of the Bible when I call out completely fabricated writings and conclusions from the Bible when they are in fact completely fabricated to serve the purposes of a few bigoted men?.
First Einstein lets discuss the bold part of this quote... I mean if you are going to spout off about how intelligent you are lets not make any mistakes in the fucking sentence where you exalt yourself.
Now, moving right along. Theology or more specifically Theologians spend years, decades, lifetimes studying the bible and specific translations before offering opinion, or in your case expert opinion. See where this is headed? Stick to something you know, don't tell me you have a gun (intelligence) and shoot blanks, AND DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN ME WITH GOOGLING AGAIN THAT IS TRULY OVER THE FUCKING LINE.\
See Ya Noel.
Just some interesting notions he had, I thought. Seriously - with all that the Bible encompasses, why focus so much on this disputed portion? I find it hard to believe that the passion over this issue is born from anything other than revulsion and contempt, considering the ambiguity and relative sparseness of its mention in the Bible.God and Sex
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof?
That seems implicit in the measures opposing gay marriage on the ballots of 11 states. All may pass; Oregon is the only state where the outcome seems uncertain.
Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America - as when a Texas governor, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us."
I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.
Some scholars, like Daniel Helminiak, author of "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don't really buy that.
It's true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology," it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.
In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters.
Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). While homosexuality never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).
As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts ("do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth").
Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration.
Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan.
In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.
The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.
A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in "unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.
In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then move on to barring gay marriages.)
Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasize the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone," and allow gay lovers to marry.
Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best "to remain unmarried as I am." So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?
Where is the IRLPK?Jice Virago wrote:Theologians are church people. They are not scientists. They are church people trained to do the church's work. You really think their interpretations are going to be unbiased? Read the above misquoted analysis for an example of their ineptitude.Atokal wrote:noel wrote:
Atokal, the last thing you want is for me to actually start paying attention to the bullshit you spout on every thread. I am more intelligent than you, I am more rational than you, and if you get my keep drawing my attention, I will research whatever I need to make you look like a fucking fool. How DARE you question my knowledge of the Bible when I call out completely fabricated writings and conclusions from the Bible when they are in fact completely fabricated to serve the purposes of a few bigoted men?.
First Einstein lets discuss the bold part of this quote... I mean if you are going to spout off about how intelligent you are lets not make any mistakes in the fucking sentence where you exalt yourself.
Now, moving right along. Theology or more specifically Theologians spend years, decades, lifetimes studying the bible and specific translations before offering opinion, or in your case expert opinion. See where this is headed? Stick to something you know, don't tell me you have a gun (intelligence) and shoot blanks, AND DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN ME WITH GOOGLING AGAIN THAT IS TRULY OVER THE FUCKING LINE.\
See Ya Noel.
Also, comming from the man who claimed to have irridutable proof of Noel being a rapist, the "IRL PKAY IF YOU DROP TEH GOOGLE BOMBZ!" is just fucking wacky. Entertaining, though.
Unless you went back and edited all of your old posts, I can easily quote you again for like the third time.Atokal wrote:Where is the IRLPK?
Never said he was a rapist.
Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make a valid argument. I realize that theologians spend their livetimes studying the Bible and offering translations. That said, I don't need to spend a lifetime studying the bible to utterly discount the blatant skewing of the Bible's intent that was posted in this thread.Theology or more specifically Theologians spend years, decades, lifetimes studying the bible and specific translations before offering opinion, or in your case expert opinion. See where this is headed?
I think I understand now why a lot of people post comments of hate towards you. You speak in truths. The truth really creates a lot of hate inside some people.noel wrote:Unless you went back and edited all of your old posts, I can easily quote you again for like the third time.Atokal wrote:Where is the IRLPK?
Never said he was a rapist.
On the subject of theology you said the following:Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make a valid argument. I realize that theologians spend their livetimes studying the Bible and offering translations. That said, I don't need to spend a lifetime studying the bible to utterly discount the blatant skewing of the Bible's intent that was posted in this thread.Theology or more specifically Theologians spend years, decades, lifetimes studying the bible and specific translations before offering opinion, or in your case expert opinion. See where this is headed?
It's good to see you sticking with something you know though. False evidence and accusations seems to be your specialty. Keep up the good work.
