The more I research (and this takes LOTS of research cuz the bible has been translated 8 million times) the more evidence I find that suggests that God nor Jesus condemn homosexuality. I'm finding myself inclined to believe that anti-gay Christians have been manipulating translations of the text to promote their own beliefs. To avoid sounding ignorant, I'm going to reserve linguistic references until they're verified but comments, questions, tips for researching language would be appreciated, and as it stands I've yet to find a single verse that condemns monogomous gay relationships.
Theory:Gays NOT condemned by God/Jesus
- Thread starter marleyisalegend
- Start date
When I said comments, I meant comments that hold atleast 2.5 ounces of validity and thought. Many stories in the bible are supported with Scientific evidence IE the earthquake in (Jericho?) Any more mindless dribble??
An earthquake is your best argument?
Hows about that whole theres no proof of a god thing?
This might clear up your obvious ignorance of the concept of religion. Pay close attention, it's simply really.
religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
Faith is not based on science or statistics, it's individual perception. Do you need me to define 'individual' and 'perception' or have the electrical impulses in your brain climbed down from the bar stool and had a cup of coffee yet?
If its individual, then why do people believe in what someone tells them to believe. Im not seeing the indivuality of that perception.
And your insults are cute, they almost make me wanna think of cute ones to say back.
TurkeyWithaSunburn
Legendary Member
It's the bible there's bound to be mistranslations. One of the biggest mistranslations is the "End of the World" when it's more appropriately the "End of the Age". The movie Zeitgeist has an interesting section on religion.
Find a bible site online that lists the various 15 or so popular translations, from best known KingJames to more recent like the NewWorldTranslation. Can put in a phrase or chapter/verse and compare the differences right away. Truely can be fascinating in the nuances of what one verse says vs another one.
Don't forget to look into the apocrypha, Lost_Books_of_the_Bible (the book of the Wars of the Lord mentioned in Numbers 21:14) another site listing lost/missing books and Council_of_Nicaea
Find a bible site online that lists the various 15 or so popular translations, from best known KingJames to more recent like the NewWorldTranslation. Can put in a phrase or chapter/verse and compare the differences right away. Truely can be fascinating in the nuances of what one verse says vs another one.
Don't forget to look into the apocrypha, Lost_Books_of_the_Bible (the book of the Wars of the Lord mentioned in Numbers 21:14) another site listing lost/missing books and Council_of_Nicaea
Let's make a deal: You won't discuss religion in the Large Penis Group and we won't discuss large penises in your Bible Study Group.
Rubenesque
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Posts
- 2,611
- Media
- 5
- Likes
- 109
- Points
- 193
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
I'm all for people being allowed their blind faith if it helps get them through the night.
But I don't understand the people who would have blind faith in a God they believe is malicious, judgemental and petty.
If there were a God (doubtful - but that's my opinion so don't even bother jumping down my throat because my disbelieving is no more stupid than your believing!!) I would hope that he is a loving, caring God.
However, I believe that the bible and the organised religions it inspires are all about mass control of the population, and let's face it, until recent times when education became so prevalent, it worked REALLY well!!
But I don't understand the people who would have blind faith in a God they believe is malicious, judgemental and petty.
If there were a God (doubtful - but that's my opinion so don't even bother jumping down my throat because my disbelieving is no more stupid than your believing!!) I would hope that he is a loving, caring God.
However, I believe that the bible and the organised religions it inspires are all about mass control of the population, and let's face it, until recent times when education became so prevalent, it worked REALLY well!!
crescendo69
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Posts
- 7,786
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 163
- Points
- 283
- Age
- 70
- Location
- Knoxville (Tennessee, United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Oh, but were those other books inspired by the holy spirit?
(Refering to post #7)
(Refering to post #7)
Last edited:
You obviously believe anyone who's religious is a mindless robot being force-fed from a pew. Many are. Many aren't. Educating yourself would spare you making continual embarassing, off-base remarks.
Insults? I'm referencing the fact that you post first, think....uhh, some time later, I guess. You're hardly worth insulting so don't bother employing them on me. Their impact will be non-existent and you're effort would be hardly with the minimal results. At most I'll put you on ignore and what will you have accomplished? If you want the last word, have at it.
Someone who's posted 44 times is telling me what's appropriate? There are many homosexuals who struggle with the MISCONCEPTION that God condemns them for their lifestyle. I know it's hard to imagine a world outside your own but it's a big place. Lots of people. Lots of issues. PLENTY of room to discuss those issues here.
If you guys will excuse me, keep the tomfoolery in this thread to a minimum please and thank you. I'll be right back I need to confirm a few Hebrew translations before my next post, this is some complicated stuff.
Last edited:
There is no single Bible preserved throughout history since its inception.
The Bible has some passages that arguably condemn all homosexual acts, others which are proved to be mistranslated, others which refer to practices and situations which no longer exist. Homosexuality, as a classification or social concept, did not exist until the early 19th century. The ancients acknowledged a wide range of sexual behaviors and situations which either do not exist today, or within a very particular situational context.
All of these interpretations rely upon translations of numerous ancient documents which have themselves been translated centuries ago, much of it in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Latin. Compounding the problem is that there are frequent multiple interpretations, translation, fragments, or even contradictory contemporary documents and scholarly opinions. The compilation of a Bible is enormously difficult and time consuming. It requires the disciplines of archeology, linguistics, ancient languages, sociology, theology, and anthropology.
Compound all of this with the need to translate the Bible into just about every language on earth, many not having words or concepts familiar to the Bible compilers and translators, and the desire to sell Bibles to people who demand that the Bible says what they want it to say, and you have what is the single most complex literary effort ever attempted.
The only Bible any of us has ever read is a compilation of various documents which have passed through an untold number of translators from the Roman Empire, Dark Ages, Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial, Modern, and Existentialist eras. Each person adding or subtracting, interpreting or imposing, their own agendas and interpretations. Only some of those interpretations will have been done without any dogmatic goal. Keep that in mind when reading any part of the Bible.
One scholar argues that the exceptionally beautiful and erotic, "Song of Songs," was actually written by a son of Solomon to another man.
The Bible has some passages that arguably condemn all homosexual acts, others which are proved to be mistranslated, others which refer to practices and situations which no longer exist. Homosexuality, as a classification or social concept, did not exist until the early 19th century. The ancients acknowledged a wide range of sexual behaviors and situations which either do not exist today, or within a very particular situational context.
All of these interpretations rely upon translations of numerous ancient documents which have themselves been translated centuries ago, much of it in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Latin. Compounding the problem is that there are frequent multiple interpretations, translation, fragments, or even contradictory contemporary documents and scholarly opinions. The compilation of a Bible is enormously difficult and time consuming. It requires the disciplines of archeology, linguistics, ancient languages, sociology, theology, and anthropology.
Compound all of this with the need to translate the Bible into just about every language on earth, many not having words or concepts familiar to the Bible compilers and translators, and the desire to sell Bibles to people who demand that the Bible says what they want it to say, and you have what is the single most complex literary effort ever attempted.
The only Bible any of us has ever read is a compilation of various documents which have passed through an untold number of translators from the Roman Empire, Dark Ages, Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial, Modern, and Existentialist eras. Each person adding or subtracting, interpreting or imposing, their own agendas and interpretations. Only some of those interpretations will have been done without any dogmatic goal. Keep that in mind when reading any part of the Bible.
One scholar argues that the exceptionally beautiful and erotic, "Song of Songs," was actually written by a son of Solomon to another man.
A lot of the original Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek text has been adapted since it's creation - homosexuality is one of the major adaptations - there is no mention of the word homosexuality in the original texts. The 'concept' of a man sleeping with another man is questionable, it could very well have been contained within, however it was under the presumption that all men were 'heterosexual' and engaging in same sex relations for gratification.
In later translations of the bible, and when sexuality was being scientificly studied (around the late 19th century) the word 'homosexual' (or variations of) was included. Therefor it would be important to see what the original text read as, in order to fully comprehend its true meaning. As time has gone on the book has been translated by many people, for many different needs. The interpretation by the cause for which its being translated has moulded how the text has been formed.
Another interesting point is the famous Leveticus 18:22 which many anti-gay religious folk use - the basic quote is:
However, in various other versions it reads as:
More varations can be read here: Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies.
However other translations read this as a variation on:
The above quote basically means that if a man has sex with another man in a womans bed, it is an abomination. It doesn't condem the act itself, only where it takes place. The womans bed, in the original Hebrew, was seen as her own. Only the womans husband was allowed into her bed, and then it was only allowed at certain times. Any other persons or activity within the bed were considered wrong doing.
I could write for hours about this but in answer to your original statement, No, there is no conclusive proof that the original text of the bible contained any mention of homosexuality being condemned. On the other hand, there is no conclusive proof that it does not condone it either - as there is no original text of the bible around, it will be an argument for all time.
It is true however that various different translations have cast different light onto the subject - some for the better and some for the worse. It is my personal belief (so not a fact) that the bible can be interpreted by anyone for any cause.
Check out this website for a very indepth look at the Homosexuality & The Bible argument - THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY
In later translations of the bible, and when sexuality was being scientificly studied (around the late 19th century) the word 'homosexual' (or variations of) was included. Therefor it would be important to see what the original text read as, in order to fully comprehend its true meaning. As time has gone on the book has been translated by many people, for many different needs. The interpretation by the cause for which its being translated has moulded how the text has been formed.
Another interesting point is the famous Leveticus 18:22 which many anti-gay religious folk use - the basic quote is:
However, in various other versions it reads as:
More varations can be read here: Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies.
However other translations read this as a variation on:
The above quote basically means that if a man has sex with another man in a womans bed, it is an abomination. It doesn't condem the act itself, only where it takes place. The womans bed, in the original Hebrew, was seen as her own. Only the womans husband was allowed into her bed, and then it was only allowed at certain times. Any other persons or activity within the bed were considered wrong doing.
I could write for hours about this but in answer to your original statement, No, there is no conclusive proof that the original text of the bible contained any mention of homosexuality being condemned. On the other hand, there is no conclusive proof that it does not condone it either - as there is no original text of the bible around, it will be an argument for all time.
It is true however that various different translations have cast different light onto the subject - some for the better and some for the worse. It is my personal belief (so not a fact) that the bible can be interpreted by anyone for any cause.
Check out this website for a very indepth look at the Homosexuality & The Bible argument - THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Last edited:
Two big mistranslations:
Red Sea = Sea of Reeds (which still exists)
Joseph's coat of many colors = a coat with sleeves
The Egyptians, who were exceptional record keepers, were not a slave society, have no record of keeping Hebrew slaves, no record of Moses, no record of losing an army or Pharaoh to a flood and historians have an excellent idea of who the various Pharaohs could have been during that period. There is no archaeological record of the Hebrews, or any other major civilization, living in the Sinai at any time.
Noah was likely a Sumerian king who built a raft and put some of his prize animals on it to save himself and his household from a major flood involving both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. He sailed down the flood to the ocean and survived.
Red Sea = Sea of Reeds (which still exists)
Joseph's coat of many colors = a coat with sleeves
The Egyptians, who were exceptional record keepers, were not a slave society, have no record of keeping Hebrew slaves, no record of Moses, no record of losing an army or Pharaoh to a flood and historians have an excellent idea of who the various Pharaohs could have been during that period. There is no archaeological record of the Hebrews, or any other major civilization, living in the Sinai at any time.
Noah was likely a Sumerian king who built a raft and put some of his prize animals on it to save himself and his household from a major flood involving both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. He sailed down the flood to the ocean and survived.
You're input is apperciated especially considering the initial responses in this thread. The word 'homosexual' has been derived from so many translations that have nothing to do with sexuality. Some refer to gender identity, some refer to sexual acts, some refer to being weak. I saw a list of the translations earlier but I have to dig it back up cuz those come after the verse I'm working on now but when you see the list of translations you see a pattern of extreme hyperbole.
It's also worthy of mention that the Hebrew language distinguishes the act of sodomy from the term Sodomites. In the English bible they're interchanged. In Hebrew, sodomizing (anal sex) didn't make you a Sodomite. The Sodomites who faced God's wrath were a group of men who were punished for being proud, practicing the occult, infidelity, prostitution and the ultimate Sin of Sodom was inhospitality.
It's believed by some that anti-gay Christian authors have been misinterpreting the text to support their homophobia because from Hebrew to English, many words have been polarized and their meanings have been stretched beyond thin and beyond relativity.
The Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Posts
- 2,138
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 339
- Points
- 403
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I think this is the best and most important sentence in this entire thread. It reminds me of the bible code type things. Follow a certain pattern and you can predict the future! Except it has yet to do that, just "reveal" past events. Even though you can do it with just about any book, and then everything is up to interpretation.
The bible was written by man, edited by man, and interpreted by man. I don't understand how you can then consider it the book of god.
A common misconception about Christians and the bible is that it's all-or-nothing. Since statistics suggest an increase in Christians who are tolerant of homosexuality, and some are even supporting it, it's becoming clear that the bible is not taken in its entirety.
Yes, there are contradictions, yes it was written by man. But there are many concepts that people apply to their lives. There are ample verses that promote charity and condemn selfishness. The bible encourages strength and faith in the face of adversity, and a perseverant spirit. It demands you to be tolerant and loving of others and humble. It promotes monogomous relationships and condemns infidelity.
More and more, Christians are using the bible to reaffirm their own personal feelings about love and relationships. Lots of us are throwing away the verses that suggest supperiority or the idea that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Many pastors and churchgoers misinterpret the word, but many take it at face value and only pull from it whats practical and what appeals to humanity.
If Christians followed the bible word for word, beginning to end, they wouldn't eat shrimp or wear multi-fabric clothing or work on Sundays. My church often ate at red lobster, I wore whatever I want (including jeans) and when AREN'T people working nowadays?
Just as easily as you can dismiss it for its contradictions, it's worth considering the constant themes of principle and character.
D_Rod Staffinbone
Account Disabled
bugs and daffy have some insight into this-
"it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck"
"it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck"
hope this helps to solve this important issue.
offroad8x6
"it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck"
"it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck""it's wabbit huntin' season"
"duck huntin' season"
"wabbit"
"duck"
hope this helps to solve this important issue.
offroad8x6
