Yuku free message boards

Gay organizations with a continued romanticism for Jesus and the Bible are perfectly capable of reading that text any way they want to, just as other Bible-lovers are. Heck, even skeptics are capable of it.

This is why I hate the bible. None of the versions I can actually fucking read are valid according to any two-bit monkey with HTML capabilities and the good fortune of being able to determine the "true" meaning of ancient Greek and Hebrew religious writings.

Quote:

---

"I want God's gay and lesbian children to know of God's unconditional love and acceptance of them as well. We cannot find any condemnation in scripture for committed monogamous same-sex relationships." Rev. Charles Coppinger, Chaplain of the Arizona Legislature in a letter to legislators, sent 2000-NOV-7, announcing that he is a gay male.

---

Once again, Biblegod is made out to be whatever people want him to be. It doesn't matter what the bible says, gods could still hate homosexuals. Never mind that there is no biblegod.

Quote:

---

"In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia." William Sloane Coffin

---

How about we all toss out these stupid, useless, ancient religous writings that we have to ignore to respect?!

As for the rest of the article, I'm not terribly impressed. A number of assertions are made about the intent of the biblical authors and the feelings of the ancient Hebrews toward homosexuality and no real support is provided. The word of a pro-homosexual rabbi is not good enough for me. The author lists lots of reasons to believe that current translations might be biased, but this in no way helps to support the assertion that homosexuality is not prohibited in the original biblical texts.

Even if I could read Hebrew and Greek, there might be subtle ways that words or phrases had double meanings, that today might not seem to condemn homosex but back then clearly did. This guy can't just claim that to'ebah ONLY meant abomination and not homosexuality. He's got to prove it.

Quote:

---

A word-by-word analysis of these two verses

---

I get real skeptical when I hear phrases like this. What usually seems to follow is an unsupportable preferred translation.

Let's look at the NGPA's site for their "word-by-word analysis":
www.apostolicrestorationmission.4t.com/

oooo... bad website design and [that annoying computer music, whatever it's called, my mind is blanking, dammit]. Bad start. And, it's a gay Christian group. They're really going to have to go a long way to demonstrate that they are being unbiased. Clicking on the Homosexuality and the Scripture link...

Quote:

---

John 8:32 You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

---

Yes, studying the bible will lead you to the truth, even if that truth differs from the truth that other students find.

Quote:

---

The original Hebrew and Greek texts were studied for the purposes of this document.

---

WOW! This guy has the originals!? Shouldn't the rest of the world be alerted?

Quote:

---

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ASV

Correct Hebrew translation: "and with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination".

---

Um...... And how am I to know that this is the correct translation? I'm just supposed to accept that it is because it is claimed so?

Even Jewish Translations into English do not mention this beds thing:

Leviticus 18:22 (JPS 1917) - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

Don't the Jews know about this "sacrosanct" bed thing?

Quote:

---

Between their starting point and Lot's house, something happened to this crowd of concerned citizens that turned them into a mob. When they reached Lot's house, they delivered their prepared request, but even though the grammar was still very polite, the character of the people was now that of an ugly lynch mob. What could have happened?
If the people of Sodom were possessed, as they most likely were, this would explain what happened. Even though the people did not know the visitors were angels, the evil spirits inside of them did. When you put a devil in the presence of someone holy, there will ALWAYS be a reaction from the devil. (See Mark 5:1-7) The closer this crowd got to the angels at Lot's house, the more riled up the demons got, and the more out of control the people got. This seems the only plausible explanation. The polite grammar of the crowd shows clearly that they could not have started out as a mob.

---

GAH! And I though homophobic Christians read into the texts!

Quote:

---

When the crowd outside Lot's house said they wanted to know the visitors, they meant exactly that: To know who they were. Or at least, that was what they meant when they started out.

---

Bullshit. Here is the Jewish English translation:

Genesis 19:5-8 (JPS 1917) - And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.' And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said: 'I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

It takes a very carefully wishful reading of that passage to go from the people wanting to 'know' them, as in find out who they are, to Lot offering that they 'know' his daughters instead, clearly in a sexual way. I'm not buying it.

About the seemingly pro-homosexual passages: These are all anecdotes, stories about supposedly historical activity. Reports of homosexual behavior do not imply that the author felt that homosex was OK.

Quote:

---

Romans 1:26-27

Romans 1 does not paint a picture of people who were naturally homosexual engaging in loving consensual sex. Rather they were heterosexuals who "abandoned" their heterosexuality in favor of sexual activity foreign to their nature.

Rom 1:26-27
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 recompense of their error which was meet.
KJV

Correct Greek Translation:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto disgraceful passions: for their women exchanged the instinctive use (sexual intercourse) into that which is contrary to native disposition.

27 And likewise also the men, laying aside their instinctive use (sexual intercourse) of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Through this God gave them over to passions of dishonor; their women exchanged, not changed the natural use (intercourse) into one against nature, likewise also the men left or laid aside their natural use (intercourse) of the female, burned in their lust for each other, males with males, committing an indecency, receiving in themselves the necessary reward for their error. Exchanging means giving up something you have for something you want. Change means an alteration, keeping something you have and altering it someway.

---

More assertions?! Show me the money!

Quote:

---

The biggest mistake Christians make with Paul's epistle to the church at Rome is in their failure to comprehend Romans 1:7. Paul's epistle was addressed to first century Rome, not twenty-first century America. Does this mean the epistle doesn't apply to us? Of course not; it certainly applies to every age and nation. But what verse 7 reminds us is that when we read the epistle, we need to keep in mind that it was written to first century Rome, and applies first and foremost to the situations that were extant then.

---

HAHA! So, it applies to us AND it doesn't apply to us. Clear as mud.

Quote:

---

The heterosexual women attempted to exchange their "natural" orientation into that which was against their own nature. It was this attempted change Paul opposed, not the actual concept of Lesbian sexuality.

Likewise, heterosexual Roman men left the natural (i.e., according to their own nature) intercourse with women, and engaged in homosexual relations. The resulting activity was "unseemly" and an "error" only because the men were heterosexual by orientation. Again, it was their attempt to violate their own nature, that is, their attempt to alter the orientation God created them with, that Paul was addressing.

---

Oh, I see. Paul wasn't against homosexuality. He was against all these really odd people who forced themselves to have homosexual sex when it wasn't in their nature. And I am supposed to buy that this bizarre scenario was really taking place? Hets were trying to be gay? Can I get some sort of support for these assertions?

Quote:

---

Some may think it unlikely that heterosexuals in the first century would force themselves to engage in homosexual relations simply because society expected them to.

---

Ah! They were trying to be gay because society was forcing them to even though the bible says that god gave them over to this behavior because they were bad people. Wow. COME ON! "Burning in lust for one another" does not sound to me like heterosexual people being forced by society to have homsexual sex. This argument is EXTREMELY weak.

I think it unlikely that true hets were trying to be gay. I think it unlikely that society was forcing heterosexuals to be gay. I'd like to see some support for these assertions.

I think it much more likely that a person who is afraid of hellfire, but believes that his god would never condemn homosexual behavior, is interpreting the bible the way he wants to it to be interpreted.

------

This is careful, unbiased word-for-word scholarship? All I saw there was unsupported biased assertion after unsupported biased assertion.

I'm not against homosexuality, just wishful interpretation.

What I meant was that when the bible says that the people of Sodom were punished for abominations, he can't just say "'Abomination' could mean anything." He's got to show that it DOES NOT mean homosexuality. He can't just assume what he is trying to prove. You can't say "The bible does not mention loving homosexual relationships" when "abomination" could be referring to loving homosexual relationships.

Quote:

---

but aren't you doing the same thing? you're assuming that 'abomination' does mean homosexual activity, despite the verses being in dispute - including the verse that says just that

---

No. This guy set out to explain that homosexuality is NOT prohibited in the bible. He then says that the word abomination, which has been translated as homosexuality (according to him), could mean other things. This does not conclusiveley prove that it was not intended to describe homosexual behavior. His presentation is weak and does not prove what he sets out to prove. I am not doing anything but evaluating his arguments.

Quote:

---

the bible does mention a loving homosexual relationship (according to the apology). jonathan and david's. since this relationship is not referred to as an abomination, it follows that the levitical 'abomination' must mean something else.

---

Bullshit. The bible also mentions Lot's daughters having sex with him and doesn't mention that this was an abomination. So, the bible is cool with daughters having sex with their fathers?