Anti Gay Baptists

Ever wonder why atheist speak so loudly against the bible? Probably not, right? Well it's not because they proved it untrue.

In any case it's the same reason why his and other Christians go out of their way to say offensive things. Hate. They find the idea so repulsive that the very ideology repels them. They are provoked.

But the Bible says not to be stumbled or provoked by the actions of others. It says to love your neighbor just as God loves you. God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son, so true christians may be no part of the world but they don't hate the world only the behavior of the world.

You can't offer GOOD NEWS or GOSPEL to people who you hate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If that were true Enmos, then we would be no need for endless social studies attempting to define origin or violent, gay, or homicidal behavior. Obviously there is disagreement I have to believe that most behavior is consequence of learned behavior.

And as for Repo Man, he was being inaccurate. Somethings he says is true but he jumped to arbitrary assumptions. Whether he agreed with me or not was no a reason for the criticism. That wouldn't be objective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How come 'gay behavior' is in between 'violent behavior' and 'homicidal behavior' ? :bugeye:

Obviously there is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it would be obvious.
All three behaviors are the most studied human patterns in sociology.

Violent tendencies are constantly studied vs. video game violences
Homosexuality is studied to justify the minorities rights in politics
Homicidal behavior is the most researched by teachers students and detective to understand the mind of serial killers.

All three are human preoccupations.

 

I've heard some far out theories in my day, but you.... you top the cake, buddy.

Just accept it... you're AFRAID of us gays.

Maybe you should be. Though I would never consider wasting my time fighting over such ignorance, some of my homosexual male friends that I have wouldn't think twice before beating the ignorance out of people. However, just because we're gay doesn't make us more prone to violence than any hetero out there, nor does it make us more passive. That is something that varies from person to person. We're all human and equal despite our sexual orientation.

 

Like Joseph McCarthy.

 

Absurdity from desperation.

The reason there's any need to justify it is hate & fear.
Hateful, fearful, ignorant, arrogant jerks who care nothing of equality & human rights are the 1s who have a preoccupation with homosexuality.

 

Fear & ignorance can't be beaten out of people.

 

I agree. But not all see that way.

 

But it's silent on masturbation which is much more common. Uh huh.

Your god seems not very powerful if it can't see that translations don't "suffer".

The entire Holy Babble is specific to the culture & time it was written & is not appropriate, wise or just.

A handy cop out for you to support your view but which you won't admit supports mine.

Astounding ignorance.

 

I'm sorry if you read something you did not care for but I'm not in the habit of tickling ears.

The politics of homosexuals is not my concern.
But my position of its morality is clear.

You think I believe gays are violent?
How exactly did you read that?

 

It's not a matter of whether I care for it. You made an absurd unsupportable statement out of desperation to justify your belief in fantasy & to portray those who don't believe your fantasy negatively.

It's not a matter of politics. It's a matter of human rights & of simply treating people decently.

 

Oh, without a doubt. But don't forget media sluts.

 

Based on the reality that you did not ask for supporting evidence I can only conclude your opinion would have to be nothing more than abject bias and prejudice. You went straight to insult. It is the reflex reaction of someone that has heard or seen something they don't want to hear and displays a lack of reasoning ability on the subject.

How ironic. You have discriminated my view and ideology as "desperation"(likely because you think you've seen my kind before.) (what would I be Desperate for exactly) and to my peaked curiousity you are now waving a flag of "decency" and "Human Rights"

Your use of the word, absurd is parody in the context of this new comment of yours.

Absurd: "inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense;"

Do you really intend to practice prejudice and rally the Human Rights Flag at the same time? You wouldn't be the first to use "absurd" against someone while actualy proving yourself absurd at the same time, I suppose.

 

I'm only replying to this because the tone in your other responses were quite condescending, imo.

As I said, homosexual orientation wasn’t even known until the 19th century. The discovery that some gays and lesbians are created and/or shaped in their earliest infancy toward same-gender attraction was made in the last 150 years. Biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation. Old Testament authors and Paul assumed all people were created heterosexual, just as they believed the earth was flat, that there were heavens above and hell below, and that the sun moved up and down.

In 1864, almost 3,000 years after Moses and at least 18 centuries after the apostle Paul, the German social scientist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was the first to declare that homosexuals were a distinct class of individuals. It was a big moment for all sexual minorities. Although the word homosexual was not used for the first time until later in the 19th century (I'll get to that in a minute), Ulrichs recognized that homosexuals had been around from the beginning of recorded time, that they were “innately different from heterosexuals,” and that their desire for same-sex intimacy and affiliation is intrinsic, natural, inborn and/or shaped in earliest infancy. According to Dr. Ulrichs, what may have looked “unnatural” to Moses and Paul was in fact “natural” to homosexuals.

In addition to that, in 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

The Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.

 

Disappointing.
You did not elaborate on your position by scriptural justification.
You did not detail the greek or Hebrew definitions to support your view.
You did not address any other translations to determine historical agreement.
You ignored the very possible contradiction passion/orientation presents to your view point.

I don't agree with StrangerInAStrangeLa. I wouldn't say astoundingly ignorant. You're only relying on your understanding of an English translation by virtue of the word orientation as though Greek and Hebrew should have a word that directly corresponds to it. This seems to be under the assumption that straight and homosexual orientations have been proven to be something other than choice. Certainly the results of the range of which people consider their "orientatin" as you call it differs greatly.

There are so many factors, ggazoo. Can't you see you have not come close to considering them all? I don't know you well enough to label you ignorant but I will say you need to take the effort to inform yourself to a greater level than you currently have and don't let your "orientation" interpret how you come to your conclusions.

By the way StrangerInAStrangeLa, the above quotes is another reason to why homosexuals aren't really a humans rights issue only one of Government Politics. If the population becomes more homosexual then I think the legal avenue for what they want should be made. (Obviously) The U.S. Law was set up on Chrisitian values. (which is the problem. Chrisitians were not meant to dictate values to other people so under this position alone homosexuals should be allowed to do as they wish. But Chrisitianity is not what it should be.)

But as it is, it will be a fight for the Financial Right right under the Law to be married. But it's not a human right. I could justifiy "human right" in this case if defined by that which makes you happy, according to the Constitution of the United States, but its far to general. Blacks and Women had actual Human Rights violations. They as a definable and identifiable group were not giving the same equivalent rights that everyone else of the propper age was given.

Gays and Lesbians can marry. They can vote, they can board buses and sit anywhere they want, They are free to have sex with who ever they wish (but children) They are given equal opportunity jobs, homes and adoption.

Financial Right in the Union is strictly the Government's call.
As the Government is predominatly Christian defining marriage "as it always has been, " Between man and woman." This isn't a surprise or a travesty. The government sets all kinds of standars. Drinking age, marriage age, sex with minors and what is a minor. It's different in every country.

I'm not saying don't fight for it. If you believe in it then fight for it. I hope you get what you want. It surely doesn't effect me. But don't call it "human rights".

 

Please clarify.

One step at a time. To do that, we would need to dive into the Greek “malokois”and “arsenokoitai.”

Again, please clarify. I outlined my research and my the historical findings of both Romans and Leviticus in previous posts. Can you please be more specific as to what you are looking for here?

I have to disagaree with you there. Again, I went into more detail previously. You are only citing the subject of translation which I only covered in my last post. So again, please let me know where I can be more clear.

I'm only discussing whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality. What I'm saying is that the Bible doesn't even mention it, so whether or not it's a choice is irrelevant. I take fault for getting off topic there, so my apologies.

Agreed.

I agree there are many. And I would like to hear what you think that some of those other factors are too.

Thank you for being diplomatic and civil. That's hard to find on here, so I appreciate that. I do considered myself quite informed, however. As a straight Christian, it troubles me when other "Christians" use the Bible to promote hate.

That being said...I do find irony among atheists and Christans when it comes to homosexuality. Uneducated, fundamentalist Christians use the Bible to promote hate and prejudice, while uneducated, narrow-minded atheists use the Bible to bash the Christians. Even when we believe the Scriptures are “infallible” or “without error,” it’s terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words—with tragic results.

 

Information you might want to consider.

Forniciation​

1. The Hebrew verb za‧nah′ and its related forms convey the idea of harlotry, immoral intercourse, fornication, or prostitution.

2. The Greek word translated “fornication” is por‧nei′a

Regarding the meanings of por‧nei′a, B.*F. Westcott in his book Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (1906, p.*76) says: “This is a general term for all unlawful intercourse, (I) adultery: Hos. ii. 2,*4 (LXX.); Matt. v.*32; xix. 9; (2) unlawful marriage, I Cor. v.*I; (3) fornication, the common sense as here [Eph 5:3].” Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F.*W. Gingrich and F.*Danker, 1979, p. 693) defines por‧nei′a as “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.”

Marriage:​

At the institution of marriage by the Creator, he made no provision for divorce. A man was to stick to his wife, and “they must become one flesh.”


The Law Code is prefaced:

"And YOU must keep my statutes and do them" Afterwards there is no association of the specific inclusivity of spiritism or false worship with the prohibited behavior that is about to be mentioned.

Sodomy carried death penalty for both persons involved :Le 18:22; 20:13)
“‘And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.

‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9, 10: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes

[“male prostitutes,” New International Version;
“effeminate,” King James Version]

, nor men who lie with men [“sodomites,” Jerusalem Bible; “homosexual perverts,” Today’s English Version], nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.”

Note that Paul specifically mentioned those who evidently take on a passive sexual role and those who assume a more active “male” role in their immoral relations. Thus he made it plain that God disapproves of all homosexual acts.

Passion​

Greek Definition

1. a feeling which the mind suffers
2. an affliction of the mind, emotion, passion
3. passionate deed
4. used by the Greeks in either a good or bad sense
in the NT in a bad sense, depraved passion, vile passions

The original Greek word for “sexual appetite” (pa′thos) was used by the first-century historian Josephus to describe the wife of Potiphar, who, because of an “excess of passion [pa′thos],” tried to seduce the youth Joseph; and the man Amnon, who, “burning with desire and goaded by the spur of passion [pa′thos], violated [raped] his sister.” The passion both of Potiphar’s wife and of Amnon was out of control.

Your arguement is that the Bible doesn't mention sexual orientation

If [pathos] does not indicate "sexual orientation" , burning with desire and goaded by the spur of passion, I would like to know by what definition of orientation you are using. From all accounts humans describe their orientation of sexuality as that which they desire more, men or women.

 

Agreed.

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the Greek "arsenokoitai" and "malaokos", and it was in fact relation to Corinthians to which you are referring. "Malakos" was a common word used to describe someone who was soft in character or "effeminate" (as you mention). While this could apply to men who were thought to assume the feminine role in a sexual encounter with another man, it also applied to men who bathed too often, enjoy gourmet food, laughed frequently or had a smaller bone structure.

When it comes to "arsenokoitai", you have to remember that passages in both Corinthians and Timothy refer to male prostitution. "Arsenokeeteh" literally means "male-active-bed". Unfortunately, arsenokeeteh has been interpreted by some to mean homosexual. The term arsenokeeteh is obscure, as evidenced by the variety of interpretations it has been assigned throughout history (including "people with infamous habits", and "child molesters").

No, I don't think that pathos indicates "sexual orientation", and I fail to see the link that you are trying to make between someone's desire and their orientation. :shrug:

 

This translation you are using is widely debatable. It was asserted later by the church that they meant homosexuals but does not exist in the original bible. A translation is not the same as the true intent of the work written.

The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai.

Malakoi means soft, but the second word has been lost over the years and seemingly has no direct translation. The early translators described it to be people with "soft morals" or unethical peoples. It was Martin Luther who interpretted it as referring to masturbation, and not homosexuality. It seems that each person who has translated it subjects this particular set of words to whatever their own society deems to be of particular distaste. It's possible that during the time of the Jeruselem Bible, it was Sodomites and at a later time, translated by the church as homosexuals.

The problem with translations has always been that the translators subjectively translate the "truth" with that which is common belief at the time of the translation, thusly changing the text all together.

As for citing the laws of Leviticus, a Christian does not believe that the laws of Leviticus are applicable since the birth and scripture of Christ, since belief in Jesus transcends the penalties set forth in Leviticus.