http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 6:9-11&version=KJV Check out the various different translations. Seems pretty clear to me. Or is this verse out of context too?
All I see here is a lot of hate toward Christians and a desire to justify behaviour. If you don't agree with the Bible that's fine. Go with your own flexible morality.
I don't think anyone here besides Nova and Tamar are trying to justify anything. To me the Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. Either way, it shouldn't have anything to do with what is 'legal' in terms of things like gay marriage. What the Bible says should have nothing to do with the laws of the country.
You think the Christians here are hating Christians, or just disgusted with you? And when did you become Canadian?
I'm not arguing against gay marriage, although if the accepted definition of marriage is changed should it also include groups, animals, etc? And what is wron with people forming their opinion on Biblical teachings and then voting accordingly?
As so many of us tried to tell you when you played this game in TNZ, you really can't marry your goat or your toaster, no matter how much you whine.
So is it correct to interpret the shame of the passive role to mean there were no Cowgirl or Reverse Cowgirl positions allowed in Biblical times?
The only law involving marriage is that it needs two consenting adults. Otherwise nobody should care.
then you apply the Levitical law completely? You would favor, for instance, stonings if such were legal?
there is an answer to this but I'm overdue for bed (early morning obligation) - placeholder for an answer tomorrow (and to TLS's question about marriage law)
Besides, it matters not. The fact they may not be going to heaven is not license for believers to treat gays or any sinner for that matter like shit. We are to treat everyone as we wish to be treated and with love. How we treat others is the same measure we will be judged by. Best hope those who are "throwing stones" at gays are without sin themselves. The Old Testament is a guide and a teacher but it's role as law has been fulfilled.
Oh, yes "moderate religion". Lemme tell you something, and I've seen with my own eyes repeatedly, when the big steel cage match comes, they simply aren't there.
KJV: 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, It seems like an awful stretch to go from 'Abusers of themselves with mankind' (which includes women and children in all contexts I've seen; mankind = humanity) to 'men who have sex with men' or similar variants. Here I'd argue that the various modernizations are inserting moral codes that weren't in the KJV.
The passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that Azure and Bickendan are referencing, the word that is translated in the one version as "abusers of themselves with mankind" and in the other version as "men who have sex with men", is "arsenokoites" in the original Greek. My concordance (Strong's) gives the following definition: "1. one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, homosexual". It's apparently a word that St. Paul coined himself, and is a compound word based on the words "man" and "one who has sexual intercourse with".
Again, as I stated I am not here to argue whether to believe or not, just to clarify what is stated clearly in the bible. For some reason Tamar seems to have a major problem with reading comprehension and is getting a bent out of shape about this. Short direct answer is the laws apply, but based on other verses in the bible we don't hand out the punishments unless the Jews are in Israel with the temple and a bibilical based govt. sans that god is believed to handle the judgment as He sees fit. Again, I'm not interested in discussing believing or not. Just giving out the info as it is for certain segments of the population.
The bible was written by politicians and power brokers for a society that existed thousands of years ago. OK it contains some obvious good advice like 'dont steal' and 'dont kill', but mostly it applies to societies and situations which no longer exist. We shouldn't need to live to the same rules that were required in desert tribes from some millennia ago.
I have a Facebook friend who not only would say you are wrong but lives it. She is a straight Christian woman, mostly conservative theologically, with no vlood or marriage relationship with any LGBT person - and five years ago she thought it was sin. But a friendship with a lesbian woman who challenged her views changed that and now she dedicates all her spare time to trying to breach the divide between LGBT and anti-gay Christians, including traveling to gay events around the country and participating in a capmaing who's theme is: "Hurt by the Church? I have a Straight Apology" and going to anti-gay rallies and directly confronting the organizers with the truth. She's arranged face-to-face sit downs with several major anti-gay activists when they were willing. And she's not alone. Yes, they are a relative few, but also they don't get any high-profile publicity - but they are out their in the trenches actively working, not just sitting home and shaking their head.
Properly stated, if your argument is from a Jewish background, you should be saying "It is clearly stated in the Torah" not "It is clearly stated in the Bible" because the Bible must be taken as a whole and what's in the New clarifies and refines what's in the old.
^ Agreed. I was merely using the vernacular of this thread. You'll not I usually used OT or something similar. Although technically, bible comes from biblical times, from which the Torah or OT is.
What's with this "flexible morality" thing? There must be religions that view things as sins that yours doesn't; does that make your backward beliefs "flexible morality" as well?
It would if other religions were correct. However, they are not. Only one way to punch your ticket to heaven. Further, if you do not subscribe to God's moral standard you have no moral standard at all. That's my take.
Galatians is considered by many, including me, to be Paul's magnum opus. In Galatians Chapter 2:11-21, we find a situation. Paul rebukes Peter, James, Barnabas, and others for being hypocrites. They're in fellowship with the Gentiles as brothers and sisters in Christ...except when other Jews are around. Then they're pulling away and acting as more traditional Jews. In Galatians, Paul points out two very important things. 1) If righteousness comes from adhering to the law, then Christ died in vain. His sacrifice was worthless. Galatians 2:21 2) The law was once necessary, but it's no longer needed. Galatians 3:19-25. Now, as for the rest of this thread, I honestly don't know. I'll have to look it up for myself. But, as for the people talking about Christianity and it's relation to Old Testament Law...well...
