-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Homosexuality in the Bible
- Thread starter linwood
- Start date
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
As you advocate the concept of an inerrant, infallible, and "never changing" Bible, I was wondering if you could please specify which particular translation of the Bible that you deem and would label as fulfilling those inestimable traits.ckirkland said:
Today, there are nearly 2400 different "foreign language" (non-english) translations, as well as numerous English translation variants. Surely, only one translation can be THE inerrant and infallible accounting, and all others must therefore manifest/evince some "change" to God's Word.
No pious Christian would want to be misled by a flawed or errant accounting of God's Word, so please share your insight as to which translation of the Bible you rely upon as source of God's unexpurgated and unchanging Word (for the benefit of other Christians that would not wish to be led astray by false or misleading translations).
I wish to insure that I have your favored inerrant Biblical translation on my bookshelf, if matters of Scripture are to be fairly debated suiting your foundational perspective.
Any directed online links [between Amazon.com and the numerous online Christian bookstores, I trust that someone has a copy readily available for sale] you could provide in prospective purchase of the ONE and only valid translation of the Bible would be appreciated (or would serve as validation in the knowledge that I already possess one of the 12 differing English translations available at arm's reach from my keyboard).
Since you present such an unequivocal estimation and assertion of Biblical inerrancy, it should present you no difficulty in qualifying in which (and only) specific Biblical translation presents the "raw" truth of "God's Word".
Thanks.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Adstar said:
I'm guessing that you don't prevail in many structured/formal debates that rely upon (or demand) supportive substance within prospectively-lent rebuttals seeking/establishing valid consideration and merited value.
"Religion is bunk".
-Thomas Edison
See how easy it is to dismiss something out of hand?
See how equally ineffective, as proffered commentary or rebuttal?
Uncompelling, unpersuasive, and impotent - even disappointing.
I yawn in your general direction.
You lose.
literal visionary
Active Member
First of all-
[QUOTE
I believe the Bibles undeniable support of slavery and oppression of women are examples of why we shouldnt use its (the bibles)guidance in the case of homosexuality or any other moral dilemma
][/QUOTE]
First of all the bible doesnt condone the oppression of women its just been misinterpreted- and 2nd of all slavery was completely different back then, it wasnt our racist slavery- and if you were living back then you yourself might ha ve wanted to be A slave or concubine of a super rich person rather than a pauper, I mean lower families would marry their slaves sometimes -Slaves were regarded as a family member in many societies, there were love slaves, I mean there was a law since ancient times that slaves in the middle east could buy their own freedom -just look at traditional slavery in some parts of the east today.
[QUOTE
I believe the Bibles undeniable support of slavery and oppression of women are examples of why we shouldnt use its (the bibles)guidance in the case of homosexuality or any other moral dilemma
][/QUOTE]
First of all the bible doesnt condone the oppression of women its just been misinterpreted- and 2nd of all slavery was completely different back then, it wasnt our racist slavery- and if you were living back then you yourself might ha ve wanted to be A slave or concubine of a super rich person rather than a pauper, I mean lower families would marry their slaves sometimes -Slaves were regarded as a family member in many societies, there were love slaves, I mean there was a law since ancient times that slaves in the middle east could buy their own freedom -just look at traditional slavery in some parts of the east today.
literal visionary
Active Member
Its sad that in reality you only came to these terms because of the modern worlds unfaltering fear of homosexuality-
Ex 1-of of super secret homosexual boy kissing-
Genesis 45:15 And he (joseph) fell upon his brother benjamins neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck.15 Moreover he kissed his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him.
Genesis 33:4And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him,and fell on his neck, and kissed him, and they wept.
-and this is just in the first part of the bible people!
Correct translation 1 Samuel 20:41:
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together until David became great."
-for one if they had sex why wouldnt the bible have said, and they knew each other or they became one flesh, and the the bible has lots of kissing and hugging between men who love each other, comparing social norms of ancient time s to those of today is ridiculous, were talking about a whole different world here.
Ex 1-of of super secret homosexual boy kissing-
Genesis 45:15 And he (joseph) fell upon his brother benjamins neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck.15 Moreover he kissed his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him.
Genesis 33:4And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him,and fell on his neck, and kissed him, and they wept.
-and this is just in the first part of the bible people!
Correct translation 1 Samuel 20:41:
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together until David became great."
-for one if they had sex why wouldnt the bible have said, and they knew each other or they became one flesh, and the the bible has lots of kissing and hugging between men who love each other, comparing social norms of ancient time s to those of today is ridiculous, were talking about a whole different world here.
literal visionary
Active Member
When he becane great-
As in he became great,could he have been Meditateing? Found some truth within himself resolved something within himself- He grew as a person? Perhaps,- does it really have to be secret about his privates? Prevailed over something within himself? Found strength within himself in a time of uncertainty ? But oh no, he magnified his penis. Smart-
Just a few verses before-
Samuel 19:23-and he went thither to Naioth in Ramah and the spirit of god was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied until he came toNaioth in Ramah.
19:And he stript of his clothes also, and prophesied before samuel in the like manner, AND LAY DOWN NAKED ALL THAT DAY AND NIGHT. Wherefore they say, is saul also among the prophets?
So back then they took off their clothes to prophesy- you and i would think its weird , and here they are taking their clothes of in the same story-weird~
literal visionary
Active Member
literal visionary
Active Member
literal visionary
Active Member
What makes you think that the Ancient Hebrews wouldn’t think that the Friendships between male friends were more important and were soulbinding compared to that of an marriage between a man and a woman?Were talking about a culture where women were thought of as inferior and had no rights. Besides, back then marriages were arranged, and weren’t necesarily about love in any way. Were talking about a male dominated culture here, they believed that when a women beacmae pregnant with a mans child, she was just carrying the seed of the man, they didn’t know about biology back then, they didn’t know that a child inherits 50% of both its mothers and fathers DNA.
Of course men would consider that their love with another man was more important than their relationship with their wife. They considered their wives as baby carriers and not soulmates.
People in the bible would rent their clothes,
Besides this was a sign of trust. And what does it matter that David held a much lower social status or class than Jonathan? Back then if a person of rank would bathe in a pool they would hand their clothes to a slave or a person of inferior rank, while they bathed. Note that they specifally metion "sword" and "bow" and "girdle" he was handing him his status because God had his pointer on david.
Of course men would consider that their love with another man was more important than their relationship with their wife. They considered their wives as baby carriers and not soulmates.
People in the bible would rent their clothes,
Besides this was a sign of trust. And what does it matter that David held a much lower social status or class than Jonathan? Back then if a person of rank would bathe in a pool they would hand their clothes to a slave or a person of inferior rank, while they bathed. Note that they specifally metion "sword" and "bow" and "girdle" he was handing him his status because God had his pointer on david.
literal visionary
Active Member
This wasn't unusual back then-
If you were of lower rank way back then, and if you were a lauded warrior and recognised as a man who had god on your side, you basically had prospects. So you would go to the house of a great man and lay down and say "my hand is yours, im at your service" and you would basically use this mans rank and house as a social stepping ladder. "David started acting like he was one of the family."- this was common with servants and stewards of the time. They were basically blood brothers, David was of inferior rank, but jonathon had a great friendship, Besides after all saul wouldn’t let him go to his fathers house, where was he supposed to go? Besides its not so confusing as to why jonathon would take david under his wing, david was an up and coming celebrity, and greatly loved by the common people he had a lot to get out of a close friendship with david---like good PR.
literal visionary
Active Member
This statement just proves me right, although women were acknowledged in the bible to be loved by their husbands, they were considered inferior, and were basically blamed for everything thats wrong with the world today in a mans eyes. Of course a man would feel more spiritually intimate with another man than he would with a women, would you feel spiritually intimate on that level with your dog? You might have picked him out of the litter because he was the cleverest and most aesthetically pleasing, but when it comes down to it a dog is only good for a few things, like making puppies and fetching. This was just the way the world was back then. Especially when the popular consensus was that women were dirty evil silly trouble making creatures most of the time, although this isn’t true throughout the bible.
-of course you would value a brother more than a wife- brothers weren’t replaceable while you might have 20 concubines.
This is not necessarily true your not backing your statemnents up with actual proof.
What you wouldn’t do the same for your best friend? Someone who had defended you, taken you under their wing and helped you climb the social stepladder?Someone you considered your brother?
Someone who probably fought by your side in battle? Someone who trusted you with his family/livlihood?
Its not just homosexuals who mourn for their dead,
Your just jumping to conclusions because you want so badly for your own beliefs to be true, Your not in reality, and the bible is both symbolic and literal, it doesn't vary on topics as much as you would like it to, its just misunderstood, ALOT by simple people who try to placate their own conscience by grasping for straws.
s2a said:
God wins in the end my friend. And all who stand with Him will enjoy the blessings of His victory.
There is little point in posting scriptures to people who use the "the bible is not the word of God but the word of men" argument. You have been defeated by that lie.
People who pick and choose what they agree with in the Word and then discard everything they disagree with in the bible using the "it's all just words of men" argument have only created their own personal religion. They have not found the truth they have distorted the truth to conform with what their vain minds think of as being the truth.
People who trust in their own minds logic have pride in their own thoughts and pride comes before destruction. The Word of God is not some smorgasbord that people can pick and choose what suits them. Every Word of God will stand until the end no matter how many self deceived people choose the broad way that leads to destruction.
Matthew 7
13 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Shameless plug:
David Balch, ed. Homosexuality, Science and the Plain Sense of Scripture.
It's the best book that I've ever read on the issue.
David Balch, ed. Homosexuality, Science and the Plain Sense of Scripture.
It's the best book that I've ever read on the issue.
Well in that case, 75% of North America is Christian. There are 19 major religions worldwide and Christiany is on top at 35%. The majority of the world is Christian. The "broad path" of the world is Christianity. You lose by that passage.
But I'm sure you have a well though out explanation for that as well.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Umm, considering a pile of people call themselves protestants - who aren't actually religious, i would say that the true percentage of Christians is less than 35%. There would also be people who would argue against Catholicism being true Christianity since they have adopted theological doctrines not taught in the Bible.
But even if the 35% is correct - that makes the broad path 65%. Since there are only two paths
But even if the 35% is correct - that makes the broad path 65%. Since there are only two paths
Who's to say who's the"true" Christian and who isn't. Anybody can claim that there are they only "true" version of Christian. People do it all the time. Dosen't mean they're right.Endless said:Umm, considering a pile of people call themselves protestants - who aren't actually religious, i would say that the true percentage of Christians is less than 35%. There would also be people who would argue against Catholicism being true Christianity since they have adopted theological doctrines not taught in the Bible.
But even if the 35% is correct - that makes the broad path 65%. Since there are only two paths
On a side note, I believe the Amish are the one's on the narrow path.
literal visionary
Active Member
Thats kind of silly, the bible is talking about a spiritual path, symbollicaly, and no matter how many people in the world become christian, doing the right thing is always harder to do than the wrong thing, that will always be a fact no matter who does what. And just because there are a lot of christians in the world, this doesn't mean that there all doing the right thing, just because they say their christians does not mean they truly understand and accept God/Jesus/the trinity in their heart. And you can be good christian and do a few right things, but at the same time do alot of wrong things like believing---
A person might feel that the moral thing to do is to disown their homosexual child and they might lie in bed and never lose any sleep on it, But just because a HUMAN FEEELS something is right doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do by GOD< YOU KNOW THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE? Christian people- no matter how much you want to be nice, and crave to be politacally correct no lie you say to yourself is EVER GOING TO BE RIGHT JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TOO. JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE BEING GAY IS NOT OKAY DOESN"T MEAN YOUR A BIGOT, its not like normal christian people want to kill gays, theres always a few stray psychos in every group of people.
YOU CAN"T PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT FROM THE BIBLE- BEING GAY IS WRONG AND UNNATURAL AND THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES THAT- no matter how much unbeleivers want to pick it apart. Also does the bible really have to tell us so much? Does the bibble have to hammer it into our heads? Does the bible actually have to state in highlighted letters"DO NOT engage in anal sex or have sex with other men or women?" in big words, it doesn't have to tell us that murdering is bad that much, atheists aren't trying to pick that part of the bible apart! Let me tell you,the bible doesn't have to tell me that eating a turd sandwich is bad for me i pretty much already knew, And the % of christianity the last time i checked is more like3/4 % of the worlds population.
literal visionary
Active Member
Oh how the blind seek to twist the word of God, -Did you even read my post, are you even going to present proof for your statements, or are you just going to say what you feel personally and expect for people to believe your opinions as fact, Just because men kissed back then doesn't mean they were gay smart one, And if the
it would have stated so more clearly, or at all, in any way whatsoever the little ditty post earlier in this thrread doesn't prove anything but people today are trying to fit the beliefs of ancient peoples somehow correlates to peoples way of life in modern America