Is Homosexuality A Perversion Of God's Will???

[buddy28]

TRUE BUT DONT BLAME ME. I ACTUALLY POSTED IT AS A JOKE. DIDNT EVEN EXPECT REPLIES.


KAYNE

I didnt mean it as an insult. Just an observation.

 

[Sushi X]

MB, your point is well taken. it's not the love part but the sex part i think most people have a problem with. personally i've come to a point where do what you want just don't rub it in my face. in other words do it distinctly and respectfully. the business of running around with your instrument tied to your partner in a parade is obsurd and a bit uncalled for, not saying you do that.

my point being, it's your right to choose. you've got the free will to do so i'm not here to judge you or damn you. why am i not here to judge or damn you? God told me so, in the bible.

 

[CRNT93]

The only thing is, if you go back to early enough versions of the bible, there's basically nothing against homsexuality in them. Just about everything that is commonly used to prove god is against homosexuality is a much later interpretation/bad translation. The old testament that Jesus would have read (and remember, he was a holy man and believed in that old testament, preached from it) did not condemn homosexuality. Adultery yes. Homosexuality no.

This is just plain wrong.I bet you never even read the OT or did any research into this.I doubt any bible expert would agree with what you said.You could ask a jew or a christian bible scholar,doesn't matter.
What exactly are the "early enough versions" you mention?

 

[CRNT93]

the Bible, which you would otherwise call the word of God -- says absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Even the mistranslated sections of Leviticus are in a context of prohibitions that the church ignores -- except for the one that, by a mistranslation, suits its loveless agenda. -MB

Mistranslated,eh?
Damn,another ignorant statement.You should really look this up.
Even the pro-gay christians don't deny that the passages condemning homosexuality exist in the bible and are not mistranslations.

BTW,I don't believe in God and don't hate gays.

 

[musclebrains]

This is just plain wrong.I bet you never even read the OT or did any research into this.I doubt any bible expert would agree with what you said.You could ask a jew or a christian bible scholar,doesn't matter.
What exactly are the "early enough versions" you mention?

I suggest YOU do some research. An earlier thread, particularly about the translation of the Romans quote, demonstrates beyond any doubt that Biblical scholars do not agree at all that the God's word proscribes homosexual relations. While some scholars interpret Paul's statements -- and they are Paul's, not God's -- as condemning all homosexual relationships, just as many scholars claim it is a comment specifically on the use of same-sex interactions in pagan temple worship.

In any case, the common translation of Paul's words to proscribe sex between men is itself dubious, since he uses a phrase that specifically refers to the Greek system of pederasty -- sex between adult males and young men in the formal system.

This is not as pat as you'd like. And we won't even go to the relationships in the Bible that many scholars believe to be homosexual in nature -- Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz.

If you have some research that indicates the Bible isn't an interpreted translation, I'd really like to see it. It would be hard to reconcile the various modern translations to the King James Bible if it weren't an interpreted text....to say nothing of the radically different experience of reading it in the original greek.

 

[huntmaster]

While some scholars interpret Paul's statements -- and they are Paul's, not God's --

If you have some research that indicates the Bible isn't an interpreted translation, I'd really like to see it.

II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

 

[wyst]

This is just plain wrong.I bet you never even read the OT or did any research into this.I doubt any bible expert would agree with what you said.You could ask a jew or a christian bible scholar,doesn't matter.
What exactly are the "early enough versions" you mention?

Try this one:

King James- Deut 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel"
The New King James Version translates the sodomite as a "perverted one."

King James- 1Kings 14:24: "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. The New King James Version translates sodomite as "perverted persons."

In both cases, the words sodom/sodomite (which more likely had to do bestiality until recently) in the King James bible are mistranslations of the Hebrew word KADASH, plural KADESHIM. Got it?

Oh, and by the way, my sources are almost all practicing Christians (some are Jews). You probably should do a little more reading yourself before you make your pronouncements.

Wyst

 

[smallmovesal]

Try this one:

King James- Deut 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel"
The New King James Version translates the sodomite as a "perverted one."

King James- 1Kings 14:24: "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. The New King James Version translates sodomite as "perverted persons."

In both cases, the words sodom/sodomite (which more likely had to do bestiliality until recently) in the King James bible are mistranslations of the Hebrew word KADASH, plural KADESHIM. Got it?

Oh, and by the way, my sources are almost all practicing Christians (some are Jews). You probably should do a little more reading yourself before you make your pronouncements.

Wyst

let's kick this up a notch..

 

[wyst]

let's kick this up a notch..

Heya

 

[huntmaster]

II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness