 |
|
|
|
 The author argues that the meaning of the Bible's passages on homosexuality have been lost in translation.
May 15th, 2012
05:39 PM ET
My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible. We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality. In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved. That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night. The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12). But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35). How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return. The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another." The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation. Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation. Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior. In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity." But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart. “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law. In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex. As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers. The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation. Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel A. Helminiak. soundoff (8,832 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's note:
Will everything we right and say be myth in 7000 years
Actually if you truly look at history you will see many thing come out as myth that people think is true. Do you really thing George Washington cut down a cherry tree? Look at what humanity has done to Santa Claus. Look that the lies that were told to get us into a war with Iraq. Look at the history of African Americans and the prejudice and bigotry that is still in our society about this group.
I have seen L.Ron Hubbard and Elvis and that 15-year-old swami all hailed as the Messiah in my lifetime; all three are now worshiped by thriving churches. So I'm sure there will be a Church of Divine Dubya soon, and one that thinks Obama is the next Lion of God like Haile Selassie, and one that worships Rosie O'Donnell as the avatar of Satan. Imagine the heaven of the Lady Gaga church . . . fabulous!
This article is very disingenuous as best in regards to proper exposition of the Scriptures. I pray for rational, compassionate dialog in this debate. It's the only way either side can maintain the dignity of being created in the image of God.
Not totally .your life story may read different in 2000 years but you were still factual.
If the image of God is hung the way I am, there's gonna be less dignity than you think. I bet God has a hairy back, too.
YeahRight,
What if the Bible is 100% true? What would you do?
You say that the Bible is fictious. Have you ever read the Bible cover to cover? Really read it? You can't argue something is false unless you know 100% it is false.
"Have you ever read the Bible cover to cover? Really read it? You can't argue something is false unless you know 100% it is false."
I am a former Christian of 30 years who even taught Sunday school. Like many posters here we have read it and found it to be a work of fiction.
YeahRight,
Why do you find it a work of fiction? What drove you to that conclusion?
@Faithful
A good rule of thumb for differentiating fiction from non-fiction:
If there are supernatural characters and/or events, it is fiction.
Well... if that is a rule of thumb for fiction versus non-fiction,
Let me ask you this: What if doctors have no explaination for a person's healing? What happened? Do you really believe that something natural created the world? created you? If so then why is there always a longing in our hearts that there is something more? Can you really ignore the possiblity that a supernatural being created this world? and created you?
If doctors don't have an explanation for someone's healing (but you'll note it's never anything like regrowing a limb), one's first reaction shouldn't be "MAGIC!". Maybe Leprechaun's did the healing – it's just as likely an explanation as God.
There are ancient stories of leprechauns that are set in real towns, so they must be true!
The Iliad references real places, therefore it must also be factual.
The Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the Bible by thousands of years and has much historical accuracy – archaologists have proven that places in the Epic of Gilgamesh existed. Therefore, the ancient Babylonian demi-god who ruled for 150 years must have really existed and Humbaba, the ogre-guardian of the Cedar Forest, really did insult him.
As for the "longing in our hearts that there is something more", is not accepting rote replies from ancient mythology a denial of that insatiable curiousity?
And for the record – I don't completely and utterly discount the very miniscule possibility that the Universe was created by the God of Abraham, or that it was winked into existence by the Cosmic Cow being flatulent – but those possibilities are so remote they hardly bear consideration.
The rational person starts with "I don't know" and then seeks an answer by revewing that which we all ready know, forming a hypothesis that can be tested, then meticulously docu.menting the processes taken to test said hypothesis so that anyone else can replicate the results. It may take many generations of hard work and inquiry to begin to get an answer, and each answer inevitably opens up even more questions – but the quest for understanding can only be furthered by unceasing skepticism.
"Goddidit" is an intellectually apathetic cop out.
So let's flip the coin,
What are things in the Bible that you find false? The mention of the sin nature? What?
Really, Faithful? Have you read the Koran? The Bhagavad-Gita? The Upanishads? The Tibetan Book of the Dead? How many religious texts have YOU dismissed without reading them?
Sam Stone,
We are not talking about thos texts. We are talking about the Bible.
Can you really ignore the possiblity that a supernatural being created this world and there is no such thing as heaven or hell, or sin?
"We are not talking about thos texts. We are talking about the Bible."
I see.
So, you can dismiss others' religious texts without reading them but they can't do the same with yours?
Come on, Faithful....answer the question. How can you say that others cannot claim your religious text without reading it fullly, but not see that it applies the same to your religious text?
What do I find false?
All of Genesis and Revelation.
Unicorns (Isaiah 34:7), half man half goat beasts (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14), flaming snakes (Numbers 21:6), seven headed dragons (Revelation 12:3) and serpents that can kill just by looking at you (Jeremiah 8:17).
Then there's the entire matter of Christ being the Jewish Messiah.
A lot of the core prophecies "fulfilled" by Jesus are up for debate.
For example: They say that Jesus being born of a virgin fulfills the Isaiah 7:14prophecy.
However, the Hebrew term in Isaiah “almah” which means a “young woman”. "Virgin" is a mistranslation.
Christians assert that Jesus is from David's line, but tribal line cannot be passed on through adoption. Jesus cannot be "son of David" through Joseph. A tribal line also does not pass through the mother, and even if it did, Mary was not descended of David through Solomon.
Furthermore, did Jesus manage to:
1) Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem? Kind of hard to do since the Temple still stood during Christ's lifetime.
2) Re-establish Jewish law as the only law?
3) Save Israel? Lessee – just after His death (and Zombification)the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Jerusalem was laid to waste, and the Jews went into exile to begin a 1900 year long night of persecution, — largely at the hands of Jesus' followers.
4) Establish a world government run from Jerusalem?
5) Return all the exiled Jews to Jerusalem?
Don't forget that during that time, there were MANY claimants to the Messiah role like Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Menahem ben Judah, Vespasian, Simon bar Kokhba, etc. ad nauseum.
It is true that the Bible has astounding insights into human nature. It is a fine morality tale for ancient middle-eastern society. It is not any more factual than the Iliad, Odyssey, Gilgamesh or Beowulf.
Sam Stone,
Again, my comments addressed the Bible. And proving the Bible. I have not brought up any other texts. This discussion is only based on the Bible not other religous texts.
By the way, I asked you some questions in another post. You still have not answered them. Are you ignoring them?
@Faithful
Who is to say that Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, or Zaramama aren't true gods?
How can the Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, New Testament, Quran, Sunnah, Nahjul Balagha, Avesta, Vedas, Upanisahds, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Tantras, Sutras, Vachanas, Adi Granth, Purvas, Samayasara, Niyamasara, Pravacanasara, and Pancastikaya; Anupreksa; Samadhishataka of Pujyapada; Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, Tattvarthasutra, Pali Tripitaka, Jataka,, Visuddimagga, Tripitaka, Lotus Sutra, Garland Sutra, Analects; the Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; the Mencius, Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, K-oki, Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta, Michi-no-Shiori, Johrei, Goseigen, Netarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, Chun Boo Kyung, Kitab-i-Iqan, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, or Revelation X be dismissed as Holy Books since they all claim to be The Truth?
As a Bible adherent, how do you know whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, oriental Orthodox, As.syrian, Byzantine, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Anabaptism, Brethren, Methodist, Pietism, Apostolic, Pentocostal, Charismatic, African Initiated, United, Quakers, Couthcotti.tism, Millerism, British-Isrealism, Latter Day Saints, Mennonite, 7th day Adventism, Kelleyism, Co.oneyism, Shakers, Methernitha, Strigolniki, Yehowism, Christadelphians, Christian Science, doukhobors, Iglesia ni Cristo, Makuya, Molokans, Subbotniks, Ebionism, Martinism, Rosicrucians, Rastafarianism, Santo Daime, or Umbanda is the REAL interpretation of your God's words?
If the One True Deity, shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment.
Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down.
The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land of Canaan in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.
Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.
The tales of the patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others - were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).
The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.
Eventually as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded.
"You can't argue something is false unless you know 100% it is false."
But you can?
Is getting married about the legal issues or just validating your love
This author's work is completely dishonest and can only fool people who are ignorant about greek/english translation. φύσις means "nature," "origin," "birth," etc., and παρὰ means "contrary to". In both Romans 11:24 and Romans 1:26 the translation is exactly the same, "contrary to nature." This author is doing linguistic gymnastics in a fairly transparent attempt to try to force the words to mean what he wants them to mean. Yet he offers no proof, references, citations, etc., for his assertion of this "popular widespread meaning" that he claims. Very weak.
If you want the references and citations, go to his book.
"Romans 11:24 and Romans 1:26"
First: ARSEONOKOITAI (singular: arsenokoité) is a FEMININE word. If it applied to men at all, we would see the forms ARSENOKOITOS, -OI–but we never do.
There are only THREE uses of the word ARSENOKOITAI in ancient times, and they are six centuries apart.
1. In the Sybelline Oracles, dating 6th Century BC, it says, "The ARSENOKOITAI from the north will abduct our children."
2. St. Paul's use, which you mentioned.
3. In the writings of St. John the Faster of Constantinople, he says that ARSENOKOITAI is something that some men do to their wives.
If it's something a man and woman can do, it's clearly not homosexuality.
Why don't you look it up and let me know. What he say contradicts all current scholarship (except for that of those who have something to prove).
Ike, you just cut and pasted that from the internet! Do you even know what you are saying? And why did you not address my point?
In nature we call things which go against physiology disorders. Being gay is not a disorder because those who do it can stop it. If they were so out of control they wouldnt even ask to get married. how wud they be faithful if every man who is willing is a turn-on. they shud give us a break!
Really, Nii: How does one stop their orientation?
Pick the opposite
Nii – your history of posts show that you don't have a freaking clue about science in general, biology and evolution in particular, or even the scientific method.
Again, for the thousandth time, being born gay is no more "unnatural" than being born left-handed.
"If they were so out of control they wouldnt even ask to get married"
Ouf of control? Gosh, Nii, that is really dumb. Even for you.
Bama – if you can pick and choose which gender gives you a woody, you're a bisèxual.
Nii, we'd ask you to stop being who you are, but you apparently can't. You may have a disorder.
Now I wonder how S Paul, a Benjaminite, a Pharisee, a Jew, a Christian and a Hebrew will be an anti-Semite!!! If you people claim everyone can interprete the Bible his own way then why do you say God is unjust when He has shown you His way of interpreting Scripture but you choose your own.
@Janet – Your comment is way to concise and logical for this comment board.
Jesus' teachings are not so complicated, that is why they are so potent. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Easy. If you are treating gay people as if they are hell bound criminals, then you are ignoring the core teachings, no matter how many specific bits of scripture your are quoting. If you skip the core to focus on the minutia, well, you've missed the point and I pity you.
Treating them as unnatural child of the fallen
Jesus also said it is better to cut off a hand that causes you to sin than to send your whole body to hell. Loving your neighbor isn't the same as accepting their sinful practices. Please don't try to be a subject matter on something you are not.
Jesus also said 'give no thought for tomorrow'...
Who actually this this is good advice.....?
Jesus also said 'give no thought for tomorrow'...
Who actually thinks this is good advice.....?
With all this arguing over this in the Bible, I am wondering one thing:
What is your honest opinion of the Bible? Why can't the Bible be true?
I personally believe the Bible is 100% true. But there are people here who say it is not true. Well, why not? What to you makes the Bible not true? How do you know it is not true? And one last question: What if the Bible was true? What would you do?
Because the bible has been shown not to be an historical document by the experts, it's merely a religious book like all the other religions.
Bible has some history in it .stories about Egyptian kings are not myths,neither was ceaser
@YeahRight,
The Bible has been very credible to experts. Look at archeology. Archeology has proven the Bible again and again.
But the Bible is so much more. It is just not a history book or a science book. It is a book to tell about who God is. Who we are. Why we are on this earth. What will happen to us when we die. It tells us about our sin nature. How we are lost in sin. It tells us that we cannot earn merit with God in any way. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ came to seek and save us, because he loved us. He died on the cross so that we may have peace with God. That is what the Bible is about. God seeking sinful man and redeeming them to himself.
True about archeology.proving somethings in are bible undeniable
Live right you won't die you'll be here for millennium reign
"The Bible has been very credible to experts. Look at archeology. Archeology has proven the Bible again and again."
I can't take many ficti,/b>tious books and show they were based on some truths in history but it's still fictional!
"The Bible has been very credible to experts. Look at archeology. Archeology has proven the Bible again and again."
I can take many fictitious books and show they were based on some truths in history but it's still fictional.
Sorry for the duplicate post it was suppose to be can not can't.
BamaDaniel,
You can't live right on your own. We are all sinners. Seriously. Look at the ten commandments. Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Jesus Christ said that hating someone was the same thing as murder, so have you have ever murdered someone? Christ also said that if you lust after someone it is the same thing as commiting adultery, have you ever done that? If you have broken any of the ten commandments, then you are guilty of all. We have to be perfect before God to enter into heaven. And we haven't. None of us have. So that is why we all deserve hell. Because we have broken all of God's commandments. So that is why God sent His Son. He sent His Son Jesus, to fulfill all the laws of God and then die in our place. The perfect Son of God died in our place. An innocent man died for sinners. That is love! And so because he rose again, we can have eternal life. But again we can't do it on our own. We have to believe in Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross and rising from the dead. Then repent from our sins, forsake them, and then live wholy for God. And God gives us his spirit to live for Him. That is the only way to get to heaven.
YeahRight,
What if the Bible is 100% true? What would you do?
You say that the Bible is fictious. Have you ever read the Bible cover to cover? Really read it? You can't argue something is false unless you know 100% it is false.
Faithful,
The Bible is a book which includes *some* history of primitive Hebrew culture, and *some* good advice for practical, beneficial human behavior, but mostly it is a compilation of ancient Middle Eastern historical fiction, myth, legend, superst.ition and fantasy.
The NT is a collection of the writings of various 1st century evangelists who were promoting their new offshoot religion.
There is not a whit of verified evidence for any of the supernatural beings and events in that book.
Josephus acknowledge Jesus Christ in his writings. But let me ask you this: What do you think of the sin nature that is mentioned in the Bible?
The very first verse of the very first chapter of the very first book in your bible is wrong.
Your god get's so many things wrong. He's wrong about science. He's wrong about history. He's wrong about logic. He even sucks at pôrn.
Sorry
Because the bible contradicts itself and in no way offers anything that can be demonstrated as being true.
'It is a book to tell about who God is. Who we are. Why we are on this earth. What will happen to us when we die. It tells us about our sin nature. How we are lost in sin. It tells us that we cannot earn merit with God in any way."
An awful lot of conjecture there
You are making claims. How is my God wrong about science and history? How is He wrong about logic? And if you say the Bible has contradictions, what are they? Just because a passage is difficult to figure out, does not mean that it is a contradiction.
Samstone,
How is that a conjecture? What is wrong with the statement I made?
"What do you think of the sin nature that is mentioned in the Bible?"
I think that you cannot sell anyone a cure until you convince them they have a disease
'It is a book to tell about who God is. Who we are. Why we are on this earth. What will happen to us when we die. It tells us about our sin nature. How we are lost in sin. It tells us that we cannot earn merit with God in any way."
How is that NOT conjecture? It is all an opinion.
Samstone,
So you do not believe we have a sin nature? We look at yourself. Look at the world around you. The people raping others, the murders taking place, the injustice in the world today. Now look at yourself. God, in the Bible, gave us his law, the ten commandments, to see if we are good at heart. Let us look at a few. It says you shall not lie. Have you ever lied? Another says, you shall not steal. Have you ever stolen something, even if it was really small? Like a penny, or pen, or anything like that? If you said yes to both of these, then that makes you a lying theif at heart. So we all have a sin nature then.
Sam Stone,
If everything I mentioned about what the Bible is about is my opinion. Then tell me where in the Bible does those topics NOT apear?
"If everything I mentioned about what the Bible is about is my opinion. Then tell me where in the Bible does those topics NOT apear?"
The fact that you took it from a book does not defeat the idea that it is an opinion. It just means it is someone else's opinion.
As far as the sin nature thing goes, the fact that people are doing all those horrible things does not mean it is all of our nature. Come on, faithful, at least try to come up with a rational argument
Faithful: Take the 10 commandments all you want. They were written by man, for man. So, pat yourself on the back all you want and tell yourself that you are complying with the Word Of God. In reality, you are reading man's words as God's
Now, Faithful, back to the initial question. You dismiss others religious texts without reading them but claim that others cannot do the same with yours. Why is that?
Sam Stone,
First answer this. What if the Bible was 100% true? What would you do?
"What if the Bible was 100% true? What would you do?"
Faithful,
If the bible is 100% true then that god is an asshat and would not deserve worship any more than any other dictator would. Might doesn't make right.
"Bible has some history in it .stories about Egyptian kings are not myths,neither was ceaser"
So, I've been to Atlanta, GA, and I know that city exists, and that Stonewall Jackson was a real man. Does that prove Rhett Butler was a real man just because I can prove the Civil War happened and someone wrote a book about it, Gone With the Wind?
and (Matthew 15:4-7)
When I read the attached, the first thing that came to my mind is Rom.
8:5-8. Those without Christ do not have spiritual discernment to
spiritually interpret scripture. They interpret it with a carnal mind that
is enmity against God. The "priest's" interpretation is evidence that he
does not have the Spirit of God in him to correctly interpret the Word of
God. I believe the same is true of the President and all those who share
their interpretation.
"Those without Christ do not have spiritual discernment to
spiritually interpret scripture. They interpret it with a carnal mind that
is enmity against God. The "priest's" interpretation is evidence that he
does not have the Spirit of God in him to correctly interpret the Word of
God. I believe the same is true of the President and all those who share
their interpretation."
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
You liken the perversion of God 's Word and the desecration of Gods natural order and intent for mankind a "speck brother's eye" ?
How dare you?
God wiped out civilization of the past when they sunk so deep into depravities with their ungodly ways, that he even wiped out the children to break the curse of generation of ungodly, because they crosser His line, and YOU CALLIT a "speck"?
It is very obvious whom you are advocating and whose mouth piece you are!
Satan craves nothing more then to silence God's people from speaking the truth!
If speaking God's word is "judging", then, dear Christians brothers and sisters, we are in good company. The prophets and saints of old have done the same , and many have lost their lives because of their testimonies. And their blood is crying out from the earth, awaiting the Day when every thought and intent of human heart will be revealed and will testify against those who persecuted them, and the ones who hated them on count of the Word of God.
Till then, people like you will have you say, and will have it even more inn times to come, becaue of the time given you by God to fulfill His Word. I believe we're in times of great testings and many who are alive today will see those things come to pass.
His Word shall NOT FAIL!
"How dare you?
God wiped out civilization of the past when they sunk so deep into depravities with their ungodly ways, that he even wiped out the children to break the curse of generation of ungodly, because they crosser His line, and YOU CALLIT a "speck"?
It is very obvious whom you are advocating and whose mouth piece you are!
Satan craves nothing more then to silence God's people from speaking the truth!
If speaking God's word is "judging", then, dear Christians brothers and sisters, we are in good company. The prophets and saints of old have done the same , and many have lost their lives because of their testimonies. And their blood is crying out from the earth, awaiting the Day when every thought and intent of human heart will be revealed and will testify against those who persecuted them, and the ones who hated them on count of the Word of God.
Till then, people like you will have you say, and will have it even more inn times to come, becaue of the time given you by God to fulfill His Word. I believe we're in times of great testings and many who are alive today will see those things come to pass.
His Word shall NOT FAIL!"
You already failed as a Christian you are so bitter and judgmental that it's hysterical. So people see what happens to you when your follow this cult.
Listen, friend!
Your turning God's Word as a weapon against me won't work. Even if I or others never spoke it to you, God's Word still stands. But now, since because the love of truth is not found in your heart , you twist intentions of my words, and you are piling coals of hot fire upon your own head.
I hate no one, nor have bitterness, but YOU do.
I only speak straight, undeluted the truth.
There are those who think God is love, all love only, and he'll just scoop up everyone to Himself.
But that 's satan's lie!
Because to speak only of love and not giving you the truth, is a path paved straight to the portals of Hell itself.
Do you want that rather then raw, straight, truth that will wake you up out of your lies-induced slumber?
But suit yourself, and go your own way which you choose, and don't' blame anyone for the outcome of it!
No further need to say anything else.
People who deny and silence the voice of their consciences on which God imprinted the knowledge of Himself and ability to discern right from wrong, are DEAD while they're still alive.
How can you know anything concerning God, His Word, and what is Truth, since you've rejected the witness of the Spirit fo God who is the Spirit of Truth?
That's why to you every religion is the same and you can't discern the Truth. But God said that's the very thing that happens to those who, by love of Self and pride in their hearts, reject the truth .
He gives them the spirit of stupor so that they can't see where they're going and the enemy of their souls takes advantage of them, leading them deeper and deeper into darkness.
And just how dare you compare the injustice and oppression of slavery that man imposed on another man, with the issues "gays" are fighting for, to have definition of god- ordained insti/tution of marriage degraded and desecrated? For you and others, who try to put those in same category, this is even in itself an abomination....
There is nothing in this world anyone can do to disguise the issue of "gays" and make it on the same level as other human rights issues!.... Because this issue is about acceptance of something which we all KNOW that is wrong and unnatural, even as the nature itself shows, and it is against purpose and intent of God for humankind.
Even the godless barbarians of ages past knew and understood this and didn't go so far into deprivation as the generation of godless barbarians of today who in imaginations of their darkened minds think that they have surpassed their need for any moral standard, because by rejecting God who gave them life, they've become gods to themselves.
Seeing this is already the evidence of fulfilled prophecy of the Scriptures for the days we're living in.
I thank God that He won't allow it go on and on, lest there be nothing left on this earth but godless barbarism which earth has never seen, surpassing any other, even from the beginning of time.
You people, can delude yourself in imagination of your own minds, thinking that you can interpret the Scriptures any which way you fancy, but if you reject the Spirit of Truth who is the Holy spirit of God and His testimony, you're lost and in satan's grip! And he will spin the web of lies around you so tight, that the only thing left for you is to live your life in deluding yourself in his lies, till you cross over to eternity and then face the Truth you rejected....unless you take heed to warning of the Spirit of God while you still have time, and seek Him out in humility of your heart not being motivated by your own Self, and the fallen nature that's driving you, which we all have...Many of you know the Way, just like this man who wrote the article.... That's why it will be better for those who never knew, nor were exposed to the Word fo God , then for you who knew, but rejected!!!
The problem is, dear, that we don't all believe in your G-o-d. I bet you I am closer to god than you are.
"There is nothing in this world anyone can do to disguise the issue of "gays" and make it on the same level as other human rights issues!..."
The experts have proven that gays are totally normal people and the rights issues it about equality in marriage. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.
The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.
Even now Christians are still getting it WRONG again.
Because this issue is about acceptance of something which we all KNOW that is wrong and unnatural, even as the nature itself shows,"
That's why homosexuality has been documented in 1500 other species. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.
Prism,
You type a lot of words, but you don't really say anything that has any substance. If someone believes in your version of god, you are of course completely correct. But there is no way your version of god can be seen as any more "true" than anyone else's.
Thanks again Prism for showing the world how bitter and judgmental you've become because of your cult especially since your opinions aren't based on REAL facts. 😉
People are born black.
These people were denigrated, castigated, beaten, bashed, discriminated against, and killed.
They were denied equal rights.
They were denied civil rights.
They were denied the right to marry.
All because they were born black.
People are born gay.
These people were denigrated, castigated, beaten, bashed, discriminated against, and killed.
They were denied equal rights.
They were denied civil rights.
They were denied the right to marry.
Because they were born gay.
In both groups, black and gay, this occurs because of religious idiocy. Heck, in Mississippi today, half of all republicans still say that interracial marriage should be illegal. Do you really doubt that these republicans in Mississippi are anything but good christian folks?
If you don't believe in God why get married
YR
You keep resorting to experts and their claims.....No expert of this world can comprehend the wisdom and knowledge of God. Simply put, man in all his wisdom and knowledge is still blind, stumbling in darkness, apart from God who made him and gave him life.
But man wants to be his own god, just like it was from the beginning, so he will walk in darkness, and all his knowledge will be amiss, because He excluded his Maker who gave him the blueprint of life, which he in pride threw out.
All this is not hard to understand, but those who have not the love of truth in their hearts, they will fight tooth and nail to refute it. But God's truth stands above all men's opinions, and we are all subjected to Him, the ones who acknowledge Him and the ones who don't'. We all owe our lives to Him, and we all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ : Some to their redemption, some to their condemnation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No truth"
How would you know if my words have any substance to them?
They are dark dots on white background to you. You have allowed the part of you to die, so it's no wonder you can't comprehend what is of substance what's not!
It's a miserable, wretched shape to be in, but you've chosen your path, so you'll have to live with it, and bear the consequences of your choices!
That's all to be said to you, nothing else..You'll find out soon enough!
"How would you know if my words have any substance to them?
They are dark dots on white background to you. You have allowed the part of you to die, so it's no wonder you can't comprehend what is of substance what's not!
It's a miserable, wretched shape to be in, but you've chosen your path, so you'll have to live with it, and bear the consequences of your choices!
That's all to be said to you, nothing else..You'll find out soon enough!"
See people this person is in denial of what the hundred of thousands of experts have shown about gay people. If you join their cult you too can turn out to be this bitter and judgmental with opinions not based on REAL facts.
"How would you know if my words have any substance to them?"
Prism,
You know what, I don't. But I have no way of testing the truth or substance of them, and that is my point, neither do you. You could be right, it is possible your are, but until it can be demonstrated without circular reasoning it is JUST A CLAIM, equal to any other claim any other person makes. YOU could be right, but so could THEY.
"It's a miserable, wretched shape to be in, but you've chosen your path, so you'll have to live with it, and bear the consequences of your choices!"
Gotta love it when you don't agree with a christian they throw out the threats....
"my dad is going to beat you up....FOR ETERNITY.....!"
Bama wrote, " If you don't believe in God why get married"
Point 1 – Marriage predates your cobbled together god.
Point 2 – Marriage is a civil contract.
Point 3 – Marriage confers 1100+ rights on couples, just for saying "I Do"
Seriously Bama, this isn't rocket science. This is basic stuff you should have already known.
Prism,
The goddess Maat will weigh your heart when you die and compare it to the weight of a feather. If your heart is heavier than a feather you will be doomed for eternity.
There is every bit as much evidence that this scenario is true as there is for yours.
You scoff? Millions upon millions of people for thousands and thousands of years believed it.
@pharaoh
"You scoff? Millions upon millions of people for thousands and thousands of years believed it"
No, I don't scoff.
I know that satan was there when he deceived our first parents, and he has known God's plan for redemption of mankind. Since he is father of lies, is it wonder that he'd come up with mult'itude of deceptions clothing them in various religions impersonating God, and His Son Jesus Christ, whom he attempted to imitate and and exterminate His bloodline so that he could prevent Him from coming! But you, just like so many even here on these blogs ar falling for him, hook,line and sinker! But if you were sincere an humbled yourself before God who gave you life, you would be able to discern the truth from the lie. But as it is, you'll remain in your blindness
"If you don't believe in God why get married"
Because a legal marriage provides rights under the law that are not applicable if I merely cohabit with a man. He can avail himself to my health care benefits, social security when the time comes, and other legal rights that he couldn't if we just lived together. Seriously, do you really need that all spelled out for you?
As I figured... the author did not want to touch on Romans 1 and Galatians 5
Romans 1
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
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.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
No he didn't !
....becaue the Word of God is living, powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword , and it a discerner of the thoughts and intents of human heart... And no man is truly known what he is made out of until he is exposed to the Word of God. That's where we see who's who and what's what!
Apparently Mike from CT failed to read the article. The Professor did discuss the Roman's verses. And he explained why the fundiots are wrong (again).
Just like you left out verse 23 that shows they were worshiping a pagan god using sex. Duh! It has NOTHING to do with what we now know and understand about gays today and their loving respectful long term relationships. Part of reading comprehension 101 is putting the scriptures into historical context to get the true meaning.
Primewonk
Helminiaks 4th from the bottom paragraph:
“The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.”
=>This gives away the authors agenda. Most people approach the Bible with an agenda and this guy is no different. Now, do you actually believe for a moment that the writers of the Old Testament would have given honor to ho-mo$exual relations suggested? These main characters also are recorded in other Hebrew text, all with honorable mention only. David was the type of King the Jews were waiting for when Christ showed up.
A little further up he says:
“Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.”
=>what? Jesus was making it clear that sin is more than just the physical act it is about the condition of the HEART. Jesus was not rejecting purity he was stepping up the law to a spiritual level. Jesus already said no one is good but God alone.
If the Bible is wrong on hom-o$exuality then it is wrong on sin as this was just another sin of no greater or lesser value than any other sin. If there is no sin there is no need for Jesus, God or the Bible.
Primwonk you seem to have an agenda as do I. How about we both agree it is impossible for people with hardened preconceived agenda to ever see the truth. That said I think we can agree that the people who heard these words at the time fully understood. Is there really doubt in your mind that the Levites who knew the rules that applied to themselves as priests were confused about ho-mo-$exual conduct of any sort?
Fred, my "agenda" is that you caannot use religious idiocy as a means to deny equal rights to US citizens in a secular nation.
You spin your bible in order to justify your bigotry, hômophobia, and hatred of those different from you. You give meanings to words taken out of context.
You have a right to be a fundiot bigot. You do not have a right put your bigotry into our secular laws.
Not sure why you fundiots are unable or unwilling to understand this.
Primewonk
Christians have the same rights as atheists to vote. The vote of an atheist is every bit as much driven by beliefs as are a Christians. You say and make hateful statements towards Christians so you are a bigot. You claim I make such statements against gays and I do not.
As with most emotional issues no one is listening and the problem continues.
Can you agree that the Levites (ignore the argument that they never existed) would have known exactly what priests could and could not do $exually and that they knew exactly what kind of $ex got them stoned? If these priests did exist and we are told they followed the law to the Nth degree is there any reason to assume an exception was made in the case of two committed loving gay Levite Priests?
That is the problem with this author is he concocts alternatives that ignore the reality of the people and the audience in the story.
Fred wrote, "Christians have the same rights as atheists to vote. "
Yes you do. But you fundiots CANNOT make laws and amendments that violate our Constîtution and discriminate against a group of people because your god tells you that these people are icky. That is exactly what you religious idiots did slavery, laws against interracial marriage, and Jim Crow. It was wrong then. It is wrong now. You are pathetic hômophobic bigots. And even worse, you wear that bigotry as a badge of honor.
Some people argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.
Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.
There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.
Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.
Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?
Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).
That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.
Rainer – here is what I don't understand –
You fundiots claim that being gay is a sin. If something is a sin, you have to be able to choose to sin or not sin. Ergo, you have to believe being gay is a conscious choice.
You are real good about quoting the bible in order to show that being gay is a sin. Yet, you, and each and every other fundiot in the history of the internet, has refused to post the citations to actual science showing gays cgoose to be gay. We've asked fundiots, just like you, tens of thousands of times, to post the science supporting your contention. And each and every time, you fundiots have refused.
Why?
@Primemonk
Of course, it may be right that there is a certain predisposition to have a longing for a same-se-x partner. But if we compare that with the statements of the Bible, we must conclude that this is simply the sinful nature, which we have inherited from our primal father, which voluntarily left his blessed state in God's presence and degenerated and became a sinful being.
"we must conclude that this is simply the sinful nature,"
All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.
The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.
On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"
Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.
The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.
Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).
There are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.
Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.
"But if we compare that with the statements of the Bible, we must conclude that this is simply the sinful nature, "
Or ...we could just conclude that the Bible is full of phoney-baloney. Makes way more sense that way.
No Rainer. It is you ignorant fundiots who must claim that being gay is a choice, in order to make it fit the definition of being a sin.
As such, the onus is on you to show that being gay is a choice. If it isn't a choice, it can't be a sin. And if it isn't a sin, there is no reason for you fundiots to hate gays.
So, for the bajillionth +11th time, post the citations to peer-reviewed scientific research that gays choose to be gay.
I'd also be interested in an explanation for why you fundiots continue to refuse to do this?
Alright here's the thing, I did a little digging and what I found didn't surprise me much. Many, many studies have been done and they all say its something else. Not one thing is proven but I did notice a trend that a person's envorment can lead to ppl being gay. If that's true then its a choice. Same as a person can choose to hurt someone or not, do to a abbusive father/mother. Look for yourselves its all there.
@Name
Please cite these peer reviewed studies by legitimate medical researchers which "show a trend" that "envorment" can "lead to ppl being gay."
Provide specifics, not your casual offhand "I've done some digging".
"Not one thing is proven but I did notice a trend that a person's envorment can lead to ppl being gay. If that's true then its a choice. Same as a person can choose to hurt someone or not, do to a abbusive father/mother. Look for yourselves its all there."
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
The experts disagree with you.
I've done my digging I don't have time to set and debate. Look for yourselves.
"I've done my digging I don't have time to set and debate. Look for yourselves."
We have which is why we've been posting from the experts proving you wrong.
@Name
"I've done my digging I don't have time to set and debate. Look for yourselves."
We have and we've provided legitimate sources. If you want to be taken seriously, you can do the same. A quick cut and paste citation. Takes two seconds.
@Atheist Steve
@Bet
For the last time orientation is not a choice BUT what you do with your orientation is a choice. Just because the Bible is true or false does not change anything. You are still making a choice.
Rainy: How is that closet? Still confining?
“For the last time orientation is not a choice”
Which is why gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples because they are entitled to have the loving relationships as straights. You do realize that the argument you are using is the same one people use to use to ban biracial marriages it's a choice. The problem is you are so prejudice you can’t see it.
Romans 1: 18-32:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
©
The Professor refuted these verses in the article. Instead of refuting what he wrote, you simply reposted the exact same inane drivel.
Why is this? Why don't you refute what he said, using actual sources?
“When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”
Please read below the responses to this scripture. Rainer can't get it into their head that this is about pagan worship using sex and has NOTHING to do with what we now know and understand about sexual orientation of gays today. Duh!
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
Ho-mose-xuality in the 21st century:
ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS–-–>>>>
"Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.
To wit:
o The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:
“ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "
"Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8
See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”
Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions supposedly abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.
And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages.
From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.
=======================================================================================
@Janet
Who did you overcome the CNN filter for se-x???
Sorry, I meant: "How ... "
Calling all true Christians! God is calling you home to his glorious kingdom. Don't wait for the rapture! Get a leg up, get to your amazing heaven and fantastic "afterlife" before everyone else! Kill yourself now! If god is so great and your eternal afterlife so much greater than real life, why wait and toil on earth when heaven is what your opoessing others...i mean working so hard for. its a win win for all! You can get to your god and the rest of us don't have to hear or be forced to live by your insane illogical way of thinking! Yeahhhhhhh!
"What the Bible really says about ho-mose-xuality."
Gayness is one of many sins, which indicates our alienation from God.
Actually we need to keep in touch with the absolute source of life, which is God himself. God is life in a real sense, he is The Life.
The universe consists of two realms: The realm of life (God) and the realm of death (devil). There is no neutral zone. If we abandon the source of life, we fall automatically into the abyss of death.
We are used of a world with animals, plants, good weather, good harvests, water, sunshine, air, etc.. Yet, all these is not natural. The surrounding universe seems to be empty (dead) and the earth is an island of life. On earth there are very special conditions, which allow life. We should be grateful for that. God made a world for us, in which we can be happy in his presence. The good conditions on earth are a proof for God's love and his offer of friendship.
By birth we tend to ignorate God. We don't thank him for the wonderful world, which he made for us. As we don't thank God for his Creation, we reject his friendship. The Creation is like an eternal or primal gospel, by which God offers friendship.
By birth we are not connected with the source of life and hence perish gradually. Beside many other sins gayness indicates our perdition.
All sinners and the gays need to return to the source of life, in order to receive healing.
God gave a second revelation of his love: HIS SON. (this is the maximum revelation of God's love)
The (new) gospel: God, the Father delivered God, the Son, for our sins and raised him from the dead for our justification.
If we believe that and get sacramentally baptized, we become righteous. We receive a new holy nature or the Holy Spirit, which is stronger than our sinful body. After baptism we have died for the sin and have got a new life in Christ. Christ's sacrifice is a work of redemption and an atonement. It is not merely an atonement. Our sins get only atoned, if we regard Christ's sacrifice also as a work of redemption for us. After baptism we shall really live as Christians in daily life (through obedience we keep the faith).
The great benefit of the gospel is that we get enabled to overcome our sinful nature. Christianity is the only religion, which really nows redemption or a redeemer. Our Redeemer is Christ. He sets us free. The law or commandments only showed us that we are in a sinful state by nature, which causes God's comment "you shalt not!". By the gospel we became people, which fulfill the law automatically, because the love, which is caused by the Spirit in us, is the fulfillment of the law. Christian love is the state, in which every human being should be found. This is God's desire. Love pleases God. Sin is simply the opposite of love. When we sin, we don't remain in the state of love and should return immediately by the gospel.
Being born gay is no more a sin than being born left-handed.
This is simply one more thing your scientifically illiterate god and his scientifically illiterate nomadic bronze-age shepherds got completely wrong.
Sorry.
Your assumption could be right, if we had no Bible, which was confirmed by Jesus Christ, who really lived on earth and wrought plenty of divine miracles.
Alone Romans 1 is a clear proof that God condemns gayness. It is only important to mention also that God condemns many other sins beside gayness. Often people, which condemn gays, commit other sins (for example greed for honor, power and riches), which also cause God's wrath like gayness.
We all (gay or not) need the gospel of redemption and need to return to God, who is the LIFE.
"Gayness is one of many sins, which indicates our alienation from God. "
Actually it doesn't which is why there are now gay churches, gay clergy and thousands of pastors, rabbi's and nuns stating that being gay as we know and understand it today is NOT a sin. Only prejudice bigoted people read that into the scriptures.
Got to bathroom cabinet, open all bottles of pills, swallow contents. Die! Meet your beloved god! Win win for all. You meet your god, we don't have to hear or be oppressed by your stupid religion.
"Alone Romans 1 is a clear proof that God condemns gayness."
No it doesn't it condemns using sex to worship a pagan god or did you just skip over 23. Part of reading comprehension 101 is you put the scriptures into historical context.
@YeahRight
You are very guilty, because you do not only sin, but also teach falsely. Of course we can read at several passages in the Bible that God condemns gayness.
It only should be mentioned that God wants to save the gays and all other sinners. Salvation means redemption and forgiveness, not only forgiveness.
The "Christians" (false Christians) of the cheap-grace-Jesus make the mistake that they assume the gospel would consist only of forgiveness, but the real gospel is a gospel of forgiveness and redemption.
God wants to set us free or release us. God is a God of new life and deliverance. Nobody, which (persistently) keeps on sinning, will enter heaven.
The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is based on human ignorance, suspicion of those who are different, and an overwhelming concern for ensuring the survival of the people. Since the Bible regards homosexuality as a capital crime, it clearly assumes that homosexuality is a matter of free choice, a deliberate rebellion against God. We have learned from modern science that people do not choose to be gay or straight; hence it is neither logical nor moral to condemn those whose nature it is to be gay or lesbian.
Rainer Braendlein
I think the article explains how h0m0se$exual acts were considered wrong because they made a man ritually unclean and, if you happen to be a gentile Christian, how those restrictions no longer apply to you any more than the other Jewish dietary and cleanliness rules do.
Now, do you have any scholarly work that you can use to counter the author's conclusions, or are you just saying that he can't be right because that would mean you, almighty you, are wrong?
"You are very guilty, because you do not only sin, but also teach falsely."
No, it am showing your interpretation isn't related at all to what we no know and understand about gays. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
You're the one trying to teach people false and continue to fuel unfounded hate and bigotry towards this group. You are nothing like your Christ.
@YeahRight
The Greeks and the Romans, which are mentioned in St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans worshipped Zeus, Hermes and other idols of the Greek religion. In fact these were demons. Today we adore the Mammon, which is the God of materialism and capitalism. Being concerned only about material things is not a neutral state, but also idolatry, by which we adore powers of death, which will destroy us gradually.
The Scriptures were written approximately 2000 or more years ago when there was no knowledge of constitutional homosexuality. The Scripture writers believed that all people were naturally heterosexual so that they viewed homosexuality activity as unnatural. Women today are pointing out that the inferiority of women expressed in the scriptures was a product of culture and the times in which the Bible was written; it should not be followed today, now that we are beginning to appreciate the natural and God-given equality of men and women.
Similarly, as we know that homosexuality is just as natural and God-given as heterosexuality, we realize that the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality were conditioned by the attitudes and beliefs about this form of sexual expression which were held by people without benefit of centuries of scientific knowledge and understanding.
It is unfair of us to expect or impose a twentieth century mentality and understanding about equality of genders, races and sexual orientations on the Biblical writers. We must be able to distinguish the eternal truths the Bible is meant to convey from the cultural forms and attitudes expressed there.
"The Greeks and the Romans, which are mentioned in St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans worshipped Zeus, Hermes and other idols of the Greek religion. In fact these were demons."
And they also had pagan worship in their temples in which they would use sex to worship that god. It has NOTHING to do with what we now know and understand about gays today – that's the point.
Rainer Braendlein
There are many ways to interpret scripture, but you steadfastly insist that yours is the only correct way to do it. Tell me, are you a new convert? Isn't such conceitedness considered a sin by God according to 1 Timothy 3:6?
@Cq
Gayness is the sin of people, which have totally lost the control of their se-xuality. It is yet morbid. One is not ready to wait for the wife, which God has predetermined for him, but becomes mad, because he has a lack of confidence, regarding God.
I don't believe it is Rainer. The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.
"Gayness is the sin of people, which have totally lost the control of their se-xuality."
They have not lost control of their sexuality it's a natural part of who they are the experts around the world have proven that. You can keep making up all the lies you want, but it's your ego that can't handle the fact that you prejudice and bigotry isn't founded on REAL facts of today.
I have to agree with YeahRight on this one. The Scriptures at no point deal with homosexuality as an authentic sexual orientation, a given condition of being. The remarkably few Scriptural references to "homosexuality" deal rather with homosexual acts, not with homosexual orientation. Those acts are labeled as wrong out of the context of the times in which the writers wrote and perceived those acts to be either nonmasculine, idolatrous, exploitative, or pagan. The kind of relationships between two consenting adults of the same sex demonstrably abounding among us - relationships that are responsible and mutual, affirming and fulfilling - are not dealt with in the Scriptures.
@Rainer Why do you follow this (debatable) detail in the bible, while ignoring dozens of other parts? Like killing your children if they curse you (insult etc...) (and for clarification this is both in the new and old testament ("Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10))
and (Matthew 15:4-7)...there are many more
Rainer Braendlein
No, adultery is an offense to married partners, and Jesus actually spoke out against such things and divorce too. Where is the outrage against adultery and divorce from the Christian community? Why aren't they picketing divorce lawyers and banning these people from their churches?
The answer, of course, is that the churches would be pretty empty if they did and all of the good folks who point fingers at gays know deep down in their hearts that they're very capable of betraying their spouses, and likely will, so why burn their own bridges into the church, right?
Oppressing gays is all right because, if you're straight, you haven't the slightest inclination of doing anything with someone of the same gender, so it's a safe thing to be against. Frankly, I find that a completely cowardly thing to do.
Cq
Ho-mo$exuality issue is a wedge driven into the heart of the Chruch. This has nothing to do with civil rights of anyone. I is all about taking down the Church. This issue is about taking out the Bible so that there can be no opposition to the advancement of a single global power structure. Stalin and Mao had it right in that as long as people have faith outside that which they (Stalin, Mao) can control they can never acheive total control and victory. We have history of men of faith that would be burned, tortured, fed to the lions yet refuse to bow to earthly powers.
Fred – that's just nuts, and shows how far past the edge of reason you nutters really are. I especially liked this part, " We have history of men of faith that would be burned, tortured, fed to the lions yet refuse to bow to earthly powers."
When in fact you ignore that it was also men of faith who burned, tortured, and killed those who refused to submit you to your putz of a god.
fred
The gay issue is a wedge that some churches, not "the Church", has created for themselves. They have drawn the line and effectively said that they are against social change just as there were churches in the South against civil rights and abolition. A lot of them happen to be the exact same churches. I find that very telling indeed.
The issue isn't about taking the Bible out; it's about discovering what the Bible ACTUALLY says as opposed to what people have traditionally read into the Bible. It's not the Bible that you're defending here, but only a specific interpretation of the Bible. Would it be ego that prevents you from even considering the possibility that you've been following an incorrect reading, or is it something else?
Stalin and Mao persecuted gays as much as the Church has but, that aside, you bring them up as totalitarian leaders interested in stripping power from organized religion where the Christian Right in this country is interested in stripping away power from everyone except itself. It wants its own candidates controlling all levels of government in order to further its own ends. How democratic is that? For all the martyrdom of Christians by the pagan Roman Empire, the Christian Roman Empire returned the favor in spades, and extended it to the Jews as well. Christianity holding power over non-Christians has just as brutal a history as communism.
Cq
“Would it be ego that prevents you from even considering the possibility that you've been following an incorrect reading, or is it something else? “
=>more than ego it would be faith itself in what cannot be seen. There are many verses in the Bible I do not understand and although I rely on others to explain it I keep an * by it. I hear many readings and my own are often corrected but, the core important doctrine seem real clear.
Take those churches you mention that use the Bible as cause for segregation or opposition to interracial marriage. I see nothing in the Bible to account for that with the exception of some old Hebrew traditions. The Bible must be taken as a whole and these strange views do not fit the whole of the Bible. I have several problems with Daniel A. Helminiak in the above article. When you add them up it does not fit.
I have one close gay married couple and their lives actually reflect more Christ like behaviors than some of the battling spouses that come into my groups. I have also had people give up life styles that were not working for them. God is much bigger than we give credit for and I am certain the game will be played out as intended.
fred
Still, in a hundred years, most Christians will likely have come to the conclusion that the Bible never did really condemn being gay, like Christians today have concluded that it never really did condone slavery, or bans against interracial marriage, or bans against women teaching in church, and so on. If history has taught us anything it's that Christianity is whatever Christians want it to be, and the Bible says whatever Christians want it to say. The number of Christians saying that being gay is alright is growing. If I were you, I'd just hope that history doesn't judge me as harshly as it does slave owners.
Cq
The Bible does not condemn being gay, condone slavery, against interracial marriage or ban women teachers. Condemnation is for those who reject Christ as Lord and savior.
True Christianity is the result of giving your life to Christ because of what Christ has done for you. At that point the Holy Spirit begins a work in you that will be complete in the Day of the Lord.
History has taught us that people will be people regardless of faith. The Bible teaches that the road of the worlds way is broad but the road that leads to the Kingdom is narrow and few find it.
fred
An example, 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
Yet, if you argue that the Bible does not, in fact, condemn a person for being gay then there is no reason for the Church to be against gay marriage, right?
1. Cq
I Timothy is not a ban on women teachers rather setting the order between man and women just as Christ is head over Man. I think you know this dates back to the Garden when Eve took it upon herself to bring the forbidden fruit to Adam. We can't let that happen again. Remaining quiet was a beautiful thing for a woman 2,000 years ago.
Some churches do not allow women to teach (rare) so I suspect some would condemn gay. We are to preach the Gospel of Jesus which does not address gay issues specifically. Talking about sin in the Bible makes no sense if one rejects God.
Gay marriage was not addressed in the Bible. The question is would gay marriage cause a new or weak child of God to lose faith in Christ or the Bible. I think so and thus the church must reject gay marriage. On the other hand can we show gay marriage would strengthen faith in Christ and the Bible or have no effect then there is no issue that I could think of.
fred
I answered this post on page 91, I believe. Lets close this tread, eh?