Originally posted by josephwHardly, if I wanted to be hateful trust me, I could be a lot worse. I think my response is pretty reasonable, considering your bigotry and hate.
Saying " I hope you end up in hell" is hateful speech.
But I would never hold that against you. It doesn't really bother me. After all, I have said some mean things to people myself.
The issue here is about homosexuality. I believe it is wrong based on my christian beliefs. But you can't accept that, so you then get all worked up over it for some reaso ...[text shortened]... g as we don't hurt anyone doing it. That's the law of the land.
And so is free speech.
And don't give me that 'free to believe' rubbish. People like you and RBHILL make the lives of homosexuals as difficult as possible in the biblically intense places of America. Not only that, but if on the one hand you condemn them and then on the other say they are free to believe what they believe, you are a double hypocrite.
The English word “abomination” strikes us as pretty, well, abominable. However, the Hebrew word toevah refers not to wickedness, or sin—but to uncleanness, impurity.
“The significance of the term toevah becomes clear when you realize that another Hebrew term, zimah, could have been used—if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin.” (Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.)
In exegeting Paul’s references in Romans, Helminiak concludes: “There it is, plain and simple. Rid the text of the prejudices that the twentieth Century reads into it and all the pieces fall together. The text makes perfect sense. The only requirement is to recognize Paul’s argument that Gentile idolatry has two very different results: sin and uncleanness. Paul raises the issue of homogenitality only as an uncleanness [from, of course, the Jewish point of view].”
Ultimately, Helminiak concludes: “First, Leviticus forbids homogenitality as a betrayal of Jewish identity, for male-male sex was a Canaanite practice. The Leviticus concern about male-male-sex is impurity, an offense against the Jewish religion, not violation of the inherent nature of sex. Second, the Letter to the Romans presupposes the Jewish law in Leviticus, and Romans mentions male-male sex as an instance of impurity. However, Romans mentions it precisely to make the point that purity issues have no importance in Christ. Finally, in the obscure term arsenokoitai, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy condemn abuses associated with homogenital activity in the First Century: exploitation and lust.
“So the Bible takes no stand on the morality of homogenital acts as such nor on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships. Indeed, the Bible’s longest treatment of the matter, in Romans, suggests that in themselves homogenital acts have no ethical significance whatsoever. However, understood in their historical context, the teaching of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, makes this clear: abusive forms of male-male sex—and of male-female sex—must be avoided...
“That is all that can be honestly said about biblical teachings on homosexuality. If people would still seek to know outright if gay or lesbian sex in itself is good or evil, if homogenital acts are per se right or wrong, they will have to look somewhere else for an answer. For the fact of the matter is simple enough. The Bible never addresses that question. More than that, the Bible seems deliberately unconcerned about it.”
(All bolds mine.)
Originally posted by vistesdI constantly hear about Sodom and Gommorah with this issue, but isn't the real theme of this passage the lack of hospitality to the stranger, something that Leviticus addresses as I reacall.
The English word “abomination” strikes us as pretty, well, abominable. However, the Hebrew word toevah refers not to wickedness, or sin—but to uncleanness, impurity.
“The significance of the term toevah becomes clear when you realize that another Hebrew term, zimah, could have been used—if that was what the authors intended. [i]Zima ...[text shortened]... stion. More than that, the Bible seems deliberately unconcerned about it.”
(All bolds mine.)
Originally posted by kirksey957[/i]Yes, I think so. Hospitality was a matter of life and death back then, as it still is in some places today, and was considered something of a sacred obligation, I think. The Sodom & Gomorrah story is also about abusive behavior.
I constantly hear about Sodom and Gommorah with this issue, but isn't the real theme of this passage the lack of hospitality to the stranger, something that Leviticus addresses as I reacall.
But, you know, the texts can be read so many ways. I’m no longer sure that the caricatures can be deconstructed.
And, if I thought that the texts said exactly the opposite of what Helminiak’s careful study shows, I would not base my moral conclusions upon them. I don’t think that we can escape our own moral responsibility by relying on such writings—we may find helpful insights, but we are not relieved of our own moral thinking or decisions just because “the Bible says....”
Since when has it been wrong to say what you believe. That is part of free speech. Everyone seems to be saying that if you are gay, that nobody can say anything that might offend you without being guilty of some high crime. If that is true, then to be fair we could not offend anyone here without being guilty of the same thing.
Originally posted by nige22Nige what kind of a name is that? it soulds short for something racist?
No, just your own.
Yes, like I said who care what sin is.
We all know that all have sinned as the Bible says. Even knowing the good you should do and you don't do it the Bible says you are sinning.
So next time you feel you need to help the old lady cross the street I suggest you do it.
Originally posted by SmoothCowboyI know and yet gays what to have marriages and yet they don't want to be called gays.
Since when has it been wrong to say what you believe. That is part of free speech. Everyone seems to be saying that if you are gay, that nobody can say anything that might offend you without being guilty of some high crime. If that is true, then to be fair we could not offend anyone here without being guilty of the same thing.
Originally posted by SmoothCowboyNot at all, suggesting anyone is deserving of hell for such an irrational reason as their sexuality is about as appalling a view to hold as I can think of. It's a stupid position and should be met with the according rebuke.
Since when has it been wrong to say what you believe. That is part of free speech. Everyone seems to be saying that if you are gay, that nobody can say anything that might offend you without being guilty of some high crime. If that is true, then to be fair we could not offend anyone here without being guilty of the same thing.
Originally posted by RBHILLMarriage is a tradition that has its origins many years prior to christianity, it is not solely the domain of an institution bent on procuring the advancement of its own flock through children.
I know and yet gays what to have marriages and yet they don't want to be called gays.
I would have thought an all powerful god would have invested more care in the mental abilities of his witnesses...
Originally posted by StarrmanThe institution of marriage was created by God.
Marriage is a tradition that has its origins many years prior to Christianity, it is not solely the domain of an institution bent on procuring the advancement of its own flock through children.
I would have thought an all powerful god would have invested more care in the mental abilities of his witnesses...
To be sure, your god has carefully invested in your mental abilities.
Originally posted by josephwMarriage existed well before Christianity and in communities that worshipped alternate and even no gods. Christians just stamped their unjustified mark on it.
The institution of marriage was created by God.
To be sure, your god has carefully invested in your mental abilities.
Originally posted by SmoothCowboyIn many countries you are reasonably free to think and say what you like. However, that doesn't mean that other people aren't free to think and say what they like about you as a result of what you say.
Since when has it been wrong to say what you believe. That is part of free speech. Everyone seems to be saying that if you are gay, that nobody can say anything that might offend you without being guilty of some high crime. If that is true, then to be fair we could not offend anyone here without being guilty of the same thing.
Also, even though you a free to say something it doesn't make it right to say it nor does it mean that nobody will be offended.
Originally posted by StarrmanGenesis talks about the first Marraige.
Marriage is a tradition that has its origins many years prior to christianity, it is not solely the domain of an institution bent on procuring the advancement of its own flock through children.
I would have thought an all powerful god would have invested more care in the mental abilities of his witnesses...
But I guess we, I mean you won't find out the truth until you die or Christ comes back or if God has truly predistaned you to be saved you will be. And GLORY to God if someday you accept Christ.