Theory:Gays NOT condemned by God/Jesus

[lucky8]

Did you read my whole post? I misunderstood a few other posters' obnoxious remarks and ridicule as yours, wasn't paying attention to usernames.

Not seeing it...

 

[marleyisalegend]

Not seeing it...

Seeing what?

 

[mista geechee]

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.

Exactly. Religion and spiritual belief has been around since the dawn of humans. It has simply changed over time to keep the hand of a few controlling the direction of society. It still affects us more than we think. Just look at pretty much every war in the history of mankind. Catholicism , Judaism , and Hinduism all have roots in the folk tails of the first humans to walk the Earth in Africa. They all follow similar doctrines and ideologies. And they all have one or more dogmatic deities that are the central piece of a creation explanation . And whenever someone wants something done , said , or believed , they simply insinuate or explicitly state that it is on behalf of that deity.

Anyway , doesn’t the scripture about not lying with a man as one would with a woman sound like it automatically assumes the reader is a man? And around that time , weren’t the Roman men having sex with each other on the day that they worshiped the sun gods?

Since "God" or , or any theoretical , dogmatic , ubiquitous , omniscient , personified entity is an idea spread throught text and word of mouth it should be interpreted as one wishes.

We know alot compared to our ancestors. But in the big picture , we don't know shit. And what we think we do know is based on equations , theories , and vague observations when we're lucky (like Shoemaker-Levy 9). We don't even know if this universe is infinite.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I have no doubt with the billions of known galaxies and trillions of known stars and star clusters , there is some other "conscious" entity that may or may not be bound by the gravity of a cosmic body. "They/it" may be able to freely move through the cosmic medium. And there is mostly likely another form of life somewhere. It's just to big to say that there isn't. But I can't buy creation stories and the majority of the ideas contained in religious texts. But I do agree with some of their ideas of how to treat your fellow man.

 

[marleyisalegend]

But I do agree with some of their ideas of how to treat your fellow man.

Thus Marleyism was created. Take the fairy tales for face value shouldn't hinder recognition there are principles about self-improvement and relationships that are priceless and 100% applicable to life in 2008. Infidelity will always be wrong, and it's astoundingly reasonable to ask me to give to others occassionally. I think I can manage keepin my dick in my pants and serving in a soup kitchen once in awhile.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Marley, I have to ask a question (or several) and I don't want you to see it as an attack or criticism, I'm merely curious.

Was the reason for your search for knowledge, and this thread, an attempt to reconcile what you were taught with what you feel?

I went on an almost identical journey almost 20 years ago. I studied, and did some soul-searching, and some self-examination. What I discovered actually surprised me, but has been the best thing that ever happened to me, and probably saved my sanity, if not my life.

 

[marleyisalegend]

Marley, I have to ask a question (or several) and I don't want you to see it as an attack or criticism, I'm merely curious.

Was the reason for your search for knowledge, and this thread, an attempt to reconcile what you were taught with what you feel?

I went on an almost identical journey almost 20 years ago. I studied, and did some soul-searching, and some self-examination. What I discovered actually surprised me, but has been the best thing that ever happened to me, and probably saved my sanity, if not my life.

Attack? DC I'm a big boy. I can ride my bike real fast and color between the lines!! J/k, I can handle questions. I'm learning how to use judgment to decide what's an attack or an attempt at dialogue. I'm argumentative and sensitive so I sometimes see attacks that aren't there.

From childhood I've been very weary of "this person said so" because often "this person" was a molester or drug dealer so I never grew up believing that everything adults say is right.

So even though I was being raised in the church, hearing someone else's sermons, I only took what applied to me and what sounded basic. Love people. Check. Be appreciative. Check. Be perseverant. Check. Don't work on Sundays. Check, no! Wait, huh? If this is a guidebook for attaining holiness, how would that be hindered by working on Sundays? Should domestic disturbances, burning buildings and hungry stomachs be put on hold til Monday? I loathe authority so I get a kick out of challenging rules that seem protective to none, yet prohibitive to all.

I was the same way at home. I have insomnia and can't fall asleep until my body gives up on itself, so as a kid "bedtime" was always a fight. I didn't understand what difference it made if I slept at 12pm or 8pm as long as I got 8 hours. A designated time, without reasonable justification, baffled me. I wasn't tired at school which was, I guess the worry, so I humored them and faked falling asleep at 8.

I'm beginning to distinguish that the bible is composed of principles, rituals, and parables. I take the direct principles, the implied ones in the parables and toss out anything that involves candles or chanting or rules where the action doesn't hinder attaining holiness. Even before I knew about these contradictions, I never felt condemned being gay because it doesn't hurt anyone (except my booty). If you want me to be honest, I'm a sucker for sympathy and overestimate my abilities so I hoped 1 person might read this thread and be rescued from this life of unnecessary guilt.

My heart when I wrote this (despite my stupid mouth) was to help people like my friends. Their responses to their gay desires have ranged from lying about it to denying it to slicing their arms up and down from guilt.

Back to the bible though

There are only 2 "ritualistic" aspects that attract my attention;

1-Praying. Even if it's to an invisible man (cuz no one ever screams at a football team that can't hear em) it calms my spirit and centers me to turn off the tv, forward my calls to voicemail, and say my thoughts out loud. When you hear yourself address what's on your mind, you either confirm that you're on the right track or realize that you've sidetracked. Praying to remain humble=right track, praying for a Spring G phone=wrong track.

1-Worship. This is guilt by assocation cuz I'm a music nut anyway. Anyone who's ever lived next door to me will tell you about my scratchy baritone. Music feels like an expression to me, and the music of Gospel does nothing but uplift me because I pay attention to the words.

Amazing grace=forgiveness
how sweet the sound=music, prais
....saved a wretch like me=I'm argumentative, stubborn, and superficial

Basically I've never seen the bible as "holy" in the sense that the text is sacred, rather the purpose is to teach you how to attain holiness. If you read the book as a self-improvement guide, it's not too hard to distinguish what principles are imperative to progression and sustinance and which once were snuck in by self-loathing gays who borrowed ideas from the same occultists(word?) they condemn.

 

[maestro071]

More on the marriage

I take a very high view of marriage and human sexuality.
As the account of Genesis shows, marriage and sexuality were created by God and given to mankind as gifts for our benefit. Scripture records God's statement that "it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen. 2:18). As a result, "a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Some may forego the good of marriage to serve a higher calling (cf. Matt. 19:10-12), but it is a good nevertheless.

 

[maestro071]

Marriage is a public institution. Consequently, proposals that could harm the institution of marriage must be subjected to the same sort of objective analysis that we give any public policy question. Marriage is not just a private matter of emotion between two people. On the contrary, its success or failure has measurable impact on all of society. Rational analysis yields solid, objective reasons for limiting marriage to one man and one woman-reasons anyone can agree with on purely secular grounds.

We have to remember that all people are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated as such, no matter what their behavior. We make a distinction between person and behavior, sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner."

Homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[1BiGG1]

Marleyisalegend:

Well, you’re still young (22?) and in your hermeneutic research regarding the origins of the Bible and homosexuality you’d do well to hit the books and learn Old Latin (always useful) and ancient Greek. You’ll need to have a decent grasp of Modern Hebrew as well as ancient Aramaic. Considering the number of ancient Hebrew dialects, Aramaic is generally considered the most useful. Not only is Jesus of Nazareth reported to have been Aramaic, (a dialect no longer spoken), most scholars feel comfortable learning to read it because so many ancient texts still exist in the original Aramaic. And if you’re really serious, you might as well learn to read Sanskrit (yet another language that only exists in written form). You see, many of the teachings in the ancient Torah have parallel versions which predate the masoretic texts of canonical Judaism, (Genesis, for example).

Then decide which linguistic approach you think will be most helpful in your endeavors: Formal, Dynamic, or Paraphrastic. Paraphrastic, of course, is the most “open” form of interpreting ancient texts and the method used by many (The Venerable Beade, for one). It’s quite popular, because it lends itself to metaphor and the individual coloring of the interpreter (that is, when you get stuck you’re allowed to make things up). Most of the confusion among the various versions of the Bible can be directly attributed to the Paraphrastic approach (but don’t tell modern Evangelicals that).

And while you’re soaking up Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Old Latin, and Hebrew (don’t forget about your need for at least a familiarity with Aramaic) in your spare time you can read and contemplate the following:

Septuagint (Greek translation of Old Testament)
The Canonical Christian Bible accepted by the Council of Laodicea, circa 363 AD
Jerome’s Vulgate translation of the Bible (Old Latin)
DouayRheims Bible – AKA, the good old D.R. (the first Latin to English version and still in use by many Catholics)
The Luthor Bible which came about during the Reformation
The King James Bible (you know the one, the version that King James took the scissors to in order to accommodate his ability to divorce as well as enforce his own idea of what was and what was not worthy of becoming the basis for the Anglican Church).
Then there are all the New World Jesuit Translations into other languages.
Oh, and there’s something called The Modern Bible, which is sort of the Reader’s Digest version of the heavier tomes I’ve listed above.

This is not meant as a complete list. However, it consists of a semi-chronological order of the iterations of the Bible that have been accepted by the majority of Christians since about 250 years after the death of Jesus.

Just wait until you learn that the word for sin in the original Ancient Greek texts doesn’t mean the same thing as it ends up representing in the current versions of the Bible. Trust me, I’m not burdening you with all of this thinking that you’re not capable of accomplishing such a daunting education. Quite the contrary. I sincerely encourage you to consider it. If you are serious about the Ur versions and their original teachings, these are some of the tools you’ll find most useful. You might begin with a short undergraduate course on comparative religions at your university or college of choice. Then follow up with a heretical course usually listed in course catalogues as The Bible as Literature. One could aspire to a lot less than becoming a legitimate scholar on ancient texts, Biblical or not. And, there’s money in it, too. Considering the current state of the US economy, spending a decade or more hiding in academia as a student might be the best way to stay afloat and insured.

One thing I found interesting in one of your posts is that you mentioned you were “raised in the church for 17 years.” Which begs the question: Which church? There’s practically an entire universe of difference between the translation of the Douay and the King James versions of the Bible. It goes without saying (but I will anyway) that one must keep and open and honest mind when researching the history of the Bible, especially when you discover inequities that confront your personal opinions on the subject.



Best wishes and good luck.

Why go through all of that gobbledygook when many have already done the same and published their results?

And the results? In a nutshell the story of the alleged Jesus is nothing more than a complete rip-off of the Krishna story with a Jesus label slapped on it (see my next two posts below).

 

[1BiGG1]

Jesus as a Reincarnation of Krishna​

Hindus believe that Krishna was the eighth "avatar" or incarnation of the god Vishnu - one of the Hindu deities in the Hindu trinity. Hindu scriptures state that Krishna "appeared in all the fullness of his power and glory." Krishna was born sometime between 900 and 1200 B.C. and his religious teachings can be found in the Bhagavad-Gita, one of the sacred texts in Hinduism. The karmic similarities between Jesus and the Hindu messiah named Krishna (1200 B.C.) are many. There over one hundred similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors which could easily fill a volume. Some of these similarities are apocryphal which means their source comes from the extra-canonical scriptures of Hinduism.​

Identical Life Experiences​

(1) Krishna was miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") as a divine incarnation.​

(2) He was born at a time when his family had to travel to pay the yearly tax.

(3) His father was a carpenter yet Krishna was born of royal descent.​

(4) His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gifts.​

(5) He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants who feared that the divine child would supplant his kingdom.​

(6) His father was warned by a heavenly voice to flee the tyrant who sought the death of the child. The child was then saved by friends who fled with them in the night to a distant country. When the tyrant learned that his attempt to kill the child failed, he issued a decree that all the infants in the area be put to death. Writing about Krishna in the eighteenth century, Sir William Jones stated, "In the Sanskrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole history of the incarnate deity, born of a virgin, and miraculously escaping in infancy from the reigning tyrant of his country." (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 273).​

(7) The Bible states that Jesus and family fled to Egypt afterward to escape from King Herod. According to the Christian apocryphal text "the Gospel of the Infancy," the family traveled to Maturea, Egypt. Krishna was born in Maturea, India, hundreds of years earlier.​

(8) He was baptized in the River Ganges.​

(9) The missions of Krishna and Jesus were the same - the salvation of humanity.​

(10) Krishna worked miracles and wonders such as raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.​

(11) Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.​

(12) Jesus taught his disciples about the possibility of removing a mountain by faith. According to tradition, Krishna raised Mount Goverdhen above his disciples to protect his worshipers from the wrath of Indra.​

(13) "He lived poor and he loved the poor."​

(14) Krishna washed the feet of the Brahmins and transfigured before his disciples.(15)Krishna's teachings and Jesus' teachings were very similar. The celebrated French missionary and traveler, Evarist-Regis Hucv, who made a journey of several thousand miles through China and Tibet, stated, "If we addressed a Mogul or Tibetan this question, 'Who is Krishna?' the reply was instantly 'The savior of men." According to Robert Cheyne, "All that converting the Hindoos to Christianity does for them is to change the object of their worship from Krishna to Christ." Appleton's Cyclopedia says this about the teachings of Krishna: "Its correspondence with the New Testament is indeed striking."​

(16) There is an extra-canonical Hindu tradition which states that Krishna was crucified. According to some traditions, Krishna died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.​

(17) He descended to hell, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended to heaven which was witnessed by many
.
(18) Krishna is called the "shepherd god" and "lord of lords," and was considered "the redeemer, firstborn, sin bearer, liberator, universal Word."​

(19) He is the second person of the trinity, and proclaimed himself the "resurrection" and the "way to the Father."​

(20) He was considered the "beginning, the middle and the end," ("alpha and omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.​

(21) His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."​

(22) Krishna is to return again riding a white horse to do battle with the "prince of evil," who will desolate the earth.​

 

[MuscleBoundMan]

Good luck Marley! I spent about six months reviewing these texted with a couple of friends 20 years ago. We discovered that in every case one cannot say whether the text condemns immorality (fornication, idol worship, etc.) or homosexuality. There's really no way of knowing if there was an intended understanding by the reader.

Being a straight man, I will admit that I was skeptical until I did the homework. I really think it is clear that the men of Sodom intended to at least sexually abuse the visitors. Lot offered his daughters and they weren't interested. We know that many cults of the time were little more than freaky sex shows. People have always liked those, and of course why not force two men that you don't know to join in? It will be fun! There's no way to know for sure, but I think anyone that reads Deuteronmy all the way through and then studies the texts to understand what is being taught will realize that the point of the Sodom story is not sexual orientation.

Other Bible scriptures related to sex and nakedness are much more clearly related to monogamy and committment than sexuality. There is a great deal of analysis availiable that I believe that anyone who studies the scripture and interpetation with an open mind is going to conclude that the Bible is essentially mute on the topic.

I have to believe that homosexual relationships have always existed. If I accept this belief, then I have to believe that the Bible is mute because it wasn't an issue that needed addressing. I have to believe that homosexuals were living in monogamous relationships that didn't bother anyone. If not, I have to believe that some conflict would have been documented. I believe the Bible teaches that fornication, rape, incest, and beastiality are all wrong. There are conflicts documented regarding each of them many times. So no, I do not believe that gays are condemned in the Bible by God or Jesus. And yes I came to change my mind because I wanted to humble myself enough to consider a belief different than the one with which I was raised. I am thankful that many people had written down their interptation because they gave me their insights from which to choose. So I very much disagree that sharing interptations is futile.

I hope you enjoy learning about these teachings as much as I did. Just always keep in mind that there is no action that you can take that makes you any more condemned by Jesus than the same ones every other man does everyday. Jesus does not condemn anyone, thus his statement 'I am not your condemner', and even if you knew you are engaged in sinful behavior, we all are. We are offered reconcilation, no matter what the sin is. Bottom line is that there is no way for you to be hurting anyone else in a monogamous loving relationship. Therefore there is no reason for you worry about it. I believe that Jesus is very clear on this point.

 

[1BiGG1]

Jesus as a Reincarnation of Mithra​

The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:​

Identical Life Experiences​

(1)

Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

(2) He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.​

(3) ​

​

Mithra was called "the good shepherd,” "the way, the truth and the light,” “redeemer,” “savior,” “Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

(4) The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."​

(5) Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."​

(6) Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).​

(7) Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).​

(8) In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.​

(9) He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.​

(10) McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").​

(11) Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."​

(12) The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).​

Do any Christians now see their alleged god is nothing more than a rip-off from previous tales with a Jesus label slapped on it (if not there's more where this came from!)? :biggrin1: Gods in those days were a dime-a-dozen and the only reason the alleged Jesus is around today is because Constantine banned all of the others and killed anybody that didn’t like it.

​

 

[lucky8]

Marley, I don't think Lucky was being malicious or anything... he was just pointing out that those who give out their interpratations aren't going to make any difference to the views of those who disagree. Everyone tends to have strong religious beliefs and won't let them be changed by what someone says oer the internet.

He wasn't saying The Bible was futile, he was saying that the people who try to convince others of their beliefs may be futile.

Ok, that's all. Cow out.

:theyareontome:

How did I miss this? Dumbcow, you may have just turned me Hindu

 

[1BiGG1]

This thread is exactly why I'm a deist

Interesting, I would have pegged you for being an Agnostic like me! :smile:

 

[marleyisalegend]

Being a straight man, I will admit that I was skeptical until I did the homework. I really think it is clear that the men of Sodom intended to at least sexually abuse the visitors. Lot offered his daughters and they weren't interested.

The biggest challenge is verifying if the translator sites are accurate or not, but web access is making this easier, I found a local (sorta, it's quite a ways out) bookstore that has information about historical languages. The selection looked small but it's a start.

As far as Lot, I understand that Lot offered his daughters but the text is unclear as only reference to their intentions I can find is that they wanted to "know" the visitors. I'm thinking that they may have been seeking sex, but they may have wanted to antagonize the visitors since the Sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

If to "know" is meant to antagonize, it would still make sense that Lot offered his daughters because the Sodomites were attempting to force their way in and the daughters may have been a compromise

There is a great deal of analysis availiable that I believe that anyone who studies the scripture and interpetation with an open mind is going to conclude that the Bible is essentially mute on the topic.

That's what my studies are showing. I curse myself for not saving the site but there was one that had words that are most often misinterpreted and had pages of the different translations of each word. Some relate, some are so different it's laughable. When I find it again I'll link it and, if nothing else, the euphemisms will give you a chuckle.

We are offered reconcilation, no matter what the sin is. Bottom line is that there is no way for you to be hurting anyone else in a monogamous loving relationship. Therefore there is no reason for you worry about it. I believe that Jesus is very clear on this point.

This is what I believe as well. If the bible is the guide to holiness through Christ, it seems silly that there are so many rules included that have nothing to do with the pursuit, like wearing certain fabrics and eating shellfish. What's wrong with shellfish?

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Why go through all of that gobbledygook when many have already done the same and published their results?

And the results? In a nutshell the story of the alleged Jesus is nothing more than a complete rip-off of the Krishna story with a Jesus label slapped on it (see my next two posts below).

Or just watch the first third of Zeitgeist - The Movie tells the same thing, with pictures :biggrin1:

 

[DC_DEEP]

More on the marriage

I take a very high view of marriage and human sexuality.
As the account of Genesis shows, marriage and sexuality were created by God and given to mankind as gifts for our benefit. Scripture records God's statement that "it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen. 2:18). As a result, "a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Some may forego the good of marriage to serve a higher calling (cf. Matt. 19:10-12), but it is a good nevertheless.

So you acknowledge that women were just god's afterthought?

Rational analysis yields solid, objective reasons for limiting marriage to one man and one woman-reasons anyone can agree with on purely secular grounds.

You say that, but have not given any objective reasons. What are they?

We have to remember that all people are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated as such, no matter what their behavior. We make a distinction between person and behavior, sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner."

No, we don't have to remember that. It's fine, if you believe in that god. I don't. And I have never, ever met anyone who uses the "hate the sin, love the sinner" quote who actually does it. Most of them are pretty intent on hating the sinner, too.

Homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

They close the sexual act to the gift of life? Is that your (papally-inspired) way of saying "they can't make a baby?" Do you reject everything that is contrary to natural law? And what does it mean when you say "they do not proceed from a genuine affective?" I don't care if the church approves or not; what is the state's vested interest in proclaiming "one man, one woman, only"???

 

[1BiGG1]

Or just watch the first third of Zeitgeist - The Movie tells the same thing, with pictures :biggrin1:

Cool, never heard of it but I will check it out! :smile:

 

[marleyisalegend]

Homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

If this natural law were true, then you're only allowed to have sex when you intend to conceive a child. This condemns any heterosexual act that isn't in the intent of conception. I imagine few and far between are heterosexual acts where both parties intend to conceive a child.

This also prohibits infertile men and women from having sex. I don't feel like sex was solely intended for conception because the wording implies that we're only holy if we have sex only to conceive a child. Maybe God expects us to have sex only a few times a year. Maybe sex drives are a test of will.

I haven't seen any example in the bible that condemns homosexual acts specifically, but I do find verses that support monogomous ones, regardless of the sex of the respective parties.

 

[lucky8]

Interesting, I would have pegged you for being an Agnostic like me! :smile:

I dunno, I've thought about that before, and it pretty much boils down to I just can't comprehend the universe always existing.