"Wrong"

On the Bible, I gave you the accepted commentary on those passages, its not controversial at all and has been the accepted explanation for centuries.

There is frequently a difference between a Christian and a non-Christian explaining the Bible, the Christian has a deep and long lasting interest and has usually spent many years studying the Bible, reading commentaries, and discussing it with others including people who have spent their lives and academic career studying the Bible. Non-Christians rarely go to that length, and often have an ulterior motive which leads them to jump to convenient conclusions.

On the "gay morality", you asked my opinion, I gave it to you. It does not matter whether you agree or not, it is what it is.

 

Hmm .. not quite correct eg Romans 14:1-4 context "Do not judge your brother" - "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.…"

I studied the bible with a view to becoming a vicar for 4 years and have for more than 20 years continued to study the bible from all perspectives, both religious and secular. I have found that most Christians rely on a particular translation and interpretation and rarely ever seek to find other translations and interpretations. I hope you do realise that many of the English translations are factually incorrect. Leviticus 18:22 is a prime example of this, most bibles translate it to say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)" which is factually wrong, the direct translation should be "And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination.", the KJV version (as do others) significantly changes the context of what it should be. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement.

I didn't ask for your opinion on it, I asked "What exactly is "gay morality" anyway?", your opinion is not exactly what it is.

 

Good for you, but you are still wrong. Go back to your books (or spend some time on the internet) and read Romans.

You can mince words, it doesn't change anything. I told you what "gay morality" is, because you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

 

Nothing in the bible says anything about homosexuality. Not Romans, not Corinthians. You can interpret it that way if you wish but those words written in the book don't directly or indirectly mention it.

I think you see what you want to see.

You can invent concepts and pretend they are real but reality is a different thing.

You seem to be upset because your "Christian based" morality is no longer superior.

 

Old, old argument long ago discredited even in this forum. The word "homosexuality" did not exist 2000 years ago, but the act did and was described as "men laying with men" and other phrases. If you are going to play, at least play up to speed.

 

that would be correct. The Bible also has no mention of "carjacking" . It does mention stealing, so does that mean it's OK to carjack?

 

You misunderstand, the Bible sets certain standards and boundaries which are to be followed regardless of the changes in terminology. Its a matter of following the spirit of the law, not the letter.

Your example is off, carjacking is a subset of stealing and is not OK.

 

hmmm

so are you telling me that because the Bible says that "no man shall lay with another man like he lays with a woman" is the same as saying gay sex?

Are you trying to say that despite that the Bible dose not use the words "gay sex" that the description given is straightforward so whether it's called homosexual behavior, gay sex or even Henry, it's still the same thing and a sin?

 

Leviticus is the only place in the bible where those words are used. I can provide you a list of anti gay biblical scholars that say that quote is referring to temple prostitutes.

It's an old argument yes, but it hasn't been discredited. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

 

Regardless of terminology the bible never mentions homosexuality in any way. So saying that the bible is against it is simply projection.

 

"Gay sex" is something you made up. The bible clearly didn't speak of things that exist only in your mind.

 

And the bible never uses the word carjacking but its still stealing and a sin, or the phrase "campaign promise" but its still lying and a sin, or the phrase "Ponzi scheme" but its still lying and stealing and a sin. You are playing word games now, not making intelligent arguments.

 

Such is lying and stealing. The bible never mentions homosexuality with any terminology what so ever.

Car jacking is stealing homosexuality isn't stealing. So what are you saying it is that the bible forbids?

 

More word games. If you have a real argument to make, then make it.

 

I've made one. The bible forbids stealing and lying regardless of any modern slang terms used to describe it.

The bible doesn't forbid homosexuality. If it does make the argument. It's your claim, the burden of proof is in you.

By the way it's you that is playing word games

 

The bible forbids "men laying unnaturally with men" regardless of any modern slang terms.

You line is pointless, its been beaten to death on here repeatedly, you are not going to change my mind or refute the argument with that line of word play.

That gets back to the much earlier statement of mine. Christians are not going to go away, are not going to rewrite their ideology to make homosexuality a virtue, and are not going to tolerate gays intruding into certain areas of their lives. The gay community has no argument that will change that condition.

Gays are not going to go away, they are not going to abandon their lifestyle, they are not going to tolerate Christians intruding into certain areas of their lives. There is no argument that Christians can make to change that condition.

They 2 sides better learn to live and let live, and accept there will be some troublesome areas. There is no other way out.

 

Chapter and verse?

No, that isn't how it works. Reality will push the backward beliefs into obscurity. As it always has. People that claim this nonsense is religious beliefs will have to abandon it or fall into obscurity. It has happened thousands of times before.

 

Its been around 2000 years, its gone through these temporary deviations in society many times, some much worse than gay marriage and intolerance. Right now several 100,000 Christians are being exterminated by muslims in Africa, Iraq, and Syria - Christianity has been through that before as well. I'm not worried some gay activist are going to have any long term impact, I do worry about the short term because it impacts people I know.

But your intolerance and unwillingness to live alongside your fellow man is noted.

 

So you think Christianity is exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago? Not even close. It has been trough dozens of changes just in the United states.

Anything I do isn't relevant. I love how you haven't made a single post to me without paying victim.

Look, when women win the right to vote, many Christians opposed it. They have no place in modern reality. When emancipation was enacted many Christians opposed it, they have no place in modern reality. When oppression of Jews ended, many Christians opposed it.

I can live and let live but that isn't going to occur in this case. It will be more like live and let die.

I'm sorry but anti people bring no value to society, and like all forms of evolution what is useless dies out.

 

I am not wrong. I suggest you actually go back to books that do not confirm your observation bias and are better translations. There is nothing in either the OT or NT that condemns all homosexuality, that is a fact.

I'm not mincing any words, and your opinions are not facts, there is no such thing as "gay morality" there is simply morality which is a fluid concept.

 

Yet you cannot produce a single instance from the bible of where it says "men laying with men" that is not based on mis-translation or biased insertion of additional words.

So the reality is it is you that needs to get up to speed. The most often used biblical quote of Leviticus 18:22 has already been shown to be based on incorrect translation.

- - - Updated - - -

Carjacking is stealing so is covered, yet you cannot show a single biblical quote that deems all homosexuality as a sin without it being a incorrect translation . .would you care to try and find one?

- - - Updated - - -

Except that the bible does not actually say that. I'd suggest you read an accurate translation of the bible but then that would mean you having to face your misconceptions and bias.

 

Even the direct translation of Leviticus 18:22 does not use those words.

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הִוא
V’et-zachar lo tishkav mishk’vei ishah to’evah hu.

(Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)

literally means "And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination. "

It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement.

 

Post the actual quote please where "men laying unnaturally with men" is used in the bible.

There is no word play, try reading direct translations and not the biased translations you have been indoctrinated into.

so you are content to live you life under lies, far enough.

Except that "gays" have the weight of law on their side, you don't.

Yes there is a way out, start treating gays as you would any other person, don't use your biased misconceptions as a reason to discriminate against them.

 

Several of my posts to you were completely factual with no "victimhood", the fact you miss the factual is not surprising.

 

I see a lot of "progressives" using "confirmation bias" when they have no argument left to use. Was there a talking point distributed by the prog PR department telling all the minions to use this excuse?

- - - Updated - - -

How convenient, just claim everything you disagree with is a "mistranslation". When you have a real argument, come back.