I think your beliefs are stupid.
Are Biblical Laws About Homosexuality Eternal? Op-Ed by R.E.Friedman and S. Dolansky
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
I think your beliefs are stupid.
poet
Banned
Most definitely. I grew up Episcopalian...but have become less religious and more spiritual, in my advanced years.
poet
Banned
Hush, truth!
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Most people who call themselves Christian are assholes. Poet is no different.
poet
Banned
Right, and seeing you couldn't keep your tiny willie out of ordinary mortals, how many times did Hera catch you and kick your King of the Gods ass? I guess Athena springing from your head, caused you to have permanent brain damage...you don't wanna mess with me. Greek Mythology is right up my alley. I'm smarter than all you bitches.
PMP, the Hebrew translation refers to the "mixing of kinds" and not morality of homogenital acts. Lesbian sex is never mentioned in the Bible. Naomi, David and Jonathan were involved in same sex relationships as a part of Yahweh's plan.
The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as it is known today.
The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as it is known today.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Um, actually it is.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 1:26-27&version=ESV
Since when do you even believe in "Yahweh"?
Also, I'd like to see some evidence that David and Jonathan were gay...
Have you even read the Bible?
Oh come on now-men cannot love one another unless they are fucking one another...<liberal logic>
poet
Banned
Yes. I have.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#dav
David and Jonathan
Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.
Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)
David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)
In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)
Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."
In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.
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 - but David wept the most." (NIV)
Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)
The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.
2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.
Sponsored link:
Daniel and Ashpenaz
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Various English translations differ greatly: "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)
Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
Yes, I have been a part of that experience myself, caught up in the experience, totally on fire with the Lord, and then several months later, well, just like a new romance, then the fire cools and what is left? It becomes a lot of work to walk the walk and those born agains turn out to be cafeteria style Christians who only follow those teachings of Jesus that fit their lifestyles. The one that seems to get in the way the most, love your enemies!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
We've been over the purity laws before and you got smacked down. I'm referring to the curse of Noah on Canaan due to Ham's homosexual act. That curse was repeated by God as instructions to destroy the spawn of Canaan. God sees homosexuality as an abomination. What makes you think God doesn't curse those that practice homosexuality today?
poet
Banned
Because Christ himself didn't speak to the matter. Hence, it's low level of importance, except to those who want to appear self-righteous, by making it an issue. You, above all others, cannot tell what God sees. You cannot speak for God. God speaks to the hearts of everyone, independent of you, or any other man.
My life is nothing short of a miracle. And God has blessed me in so many ways, I can't tell them all. If I'm cursed, everyone should be so blessed.
Why are you so insistent that your way of seeing the world, religion, God, the Bible, homosexuality, or anything else is the only way for it to be seen? God didn't die and leave you the authority.
Your arrogance will seal your fate.
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
We've been down this road before and you failed to answer my response then, so I'll repeat it. Christ didn't address child molestation either. Does that mean that's not a sin?
Christ didn't address a lot of things. That fact has no bearing on the moral status of things not mentioned.
Sex outside of marriage was frowned upon in the Bible. Divorce was not an option. Those who divorce and remarry were considered adulterers according to the Bible. That just doesn 't fly with Supposed Christians today. They want their divorce and they want to shop on Sundays, too! Christians pick and choose which of the supposed Biblical laws they wish to follow and the churches go with what is popular to fill the pews! It is all laughable, even salvation for Peter and Paul both saw it differently, and Paul won, he was the better writer!
Last edited:
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Romans 1:26-27 "26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
I have seen this used as justification for banning masturbation, as that was what they claimed the women did.
poet
Banned
Oh, they are going to hate on you...for telling the truth. LOL
Put the Calvinist, the Catholics and the Baptist in a room, they can't even decide what is the truth of Jesus, people refer to "the Christ" and are not even aware that this was a gnostic concept and if you know Christian history, the Gnostics were killed off by the Orthodox faction! Condemned for their apostasy, and yet, they still use the letters Paul in their teachings. When Christians tell me they have the truth, I have tovask, which one, the one where you do good works or the one where you ride on the ransom?
poet
Banned
Onanism. Of course they wanted to ban it. They needed progeny for work and defense. Sperm was a precious commodity, not to be wasted..but put to good use.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Your own (or other homophobic) interpretations aside, where does the Bible speak of Ham's homosexual act?
poet
Banned
He doesn't know the Bible.