100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does the Bible treat Female and Male homosexuality different | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural". Why would a God have created beings to be naturally attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself.  hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural Actually the definition of something unnatural would be something does does not normally occur within nature. Homosexuality does occur in all mammals. That's why I said I had a problem with the interpretation at that point. It really should say unintended sex acts IMO. But I'm sure at the time of the translation and even now it sounds stronger to say unnatural. actually, mirriam webster says this about unnatural 1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events 2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance so , although, in the semantic 'natural' derives from a base word of nature,, it is nowhere near as broad a definition. The first definition does fall into line with what I think of as unnatural. The second definition would be more in tune with how it the word is meant in the Bible, but it would seem to me this definition is there specifically to account for the biblical use of the word. I can't think of another place by which it would be used this way. Still the point is well taken and there is a definition of the word that fits the biblical use. I also know of no proof that ALL mammals practice homosexuality, but even so, in accordance with the bible we are more than just animal and we are held to a different standard and given different guidelines. You may be right, probably should not have said it quite like that. I'm not sure there is "proof" but it has been found in a very significant number. And the other side of that coin I don't think there have been any studies that have shown there is a mammal that does not engage in homosexual relations. If I could make the statement that all mammals lick themselves and we could somehow find a way to do that,, it wouldnt make it NATURAL for humans. I cannot think of anything that man could do that would be UNNATURAL if the only criteria were set in what animals do. Since it's not something most of us are capable of I'd say it's not a very good example. I suspect if we could many would. I've no idea how our culture would view that if it were something we could do. Masturbation was considered unnatural for many centuries, still is by many including the most of the Christian teachings. But many people today see it as quite natural. As to the question of what could be concidered unnatural if we base it on what other animals do. We could go way out and include most anything that our technology allows us to do, that would include cloning which people definitely call unnatural. However to move to something a little closer to what I think you're asking. Interspecies sexual activities is pretty much a human thing and I would certainly put it in the class of unnatural. I think you may find some very limited examples in some house pets but I think that may be from confusion brought on by domestication and I don't believe it a natural thing for those animals either. what would you imagine was meant by 'unnatural use' in the Bible when referring to how women and men used their bodies? We're in the same place of definition here, if one follows the definition that you provided then yes that does fit. It just still seems to me that the definition was written to fit the the Bible rather than the other way around. Anyway I'm sure your right as to the intended meaning, my only point there was that I thought it the wrong choice of words. Of course I suppose we have to account for the possibility that at the time the translation was done people may not have been aware that such things were as common as they are in nature. So perhaps at the time the word fit better and over time has had to be redefined to match the newer understanding of what is natural. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First that's not what she said, and second you should speak of things when you don't know anything about them. Your ignorance is evident and the fact that Buddah is not considered a god or son of God or anything else of that type by his followers. Fact is there are many Christian Buddists. Get a clue  See, there you go again. Luring people in with with a sheep's humbleness before you tear their throats out with a wolf's arrogance. Like I said I respond in kind. Is reciprocity not in the Christian Bible? Apparently not. Never said I was a follower of the Bible. But yes it is and I do believe that part and why I have chosen to respond to people in kind. Well, saying things like 'get a clue' when you don't agree with someone's line of argument is nothing but rude. And would have gotten you tossed on many forums where this issue is discussed with a level playing field that doesn't tilt in favor of the Christian majority. And although you play a good game at distancing yourself from the Bible and Christianity, it's obvious where your bias lies and its source. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel the need to be so abrasive and not take responsibility for your own lapses. Like the New York lawyers say: "If the facts favor you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, bang loudly on the table with your fist." Because that, sir, is all you are doing with your 'respond in kind' rationalizations. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural". Why would a God have created beings to be naturally attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself. hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural Actually the definition of something unnatural would be something does does not normally occur within nature. Homosexuality does occur in all mammals. That's why I said I had a problem with the interpretation at that point. It really should say unintended sex acts IMO. But I'm sure at the time of the translation and even now it sounds stronger to say unnatural. actually, mirriam webster says this about unnatural 1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events 2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance so , although, in the semantic 'natural' derives from a base word of nature,, it is nowhere near as broad a definition. The first definition does fall into line with what I think of as unnatural. The second definition would be more in tune with how it the word is meant in the Bible, but it would seem to me this definition is there specifically to account for the biblical use of the word. I can't think of another place by which it would be used this way. Still the point is well taken and there is a definition of the word that fits the biblical use. I also know of no proof that ALL mammals practice homosexuality, but even so, in accordance with the bible we are more than just animal and we are held to a different standard and given different guidelines. You may be right, probably should not have said it quite like that. I'm not sure there is "proof" but it has been found in a very significant number. And the other side of that coin I don't think there have been any studies that have shown there is a mammal that does not engage in homosexual relations. If I could make the statement that all mammals lick themselves and we could somehow find a way to do that,, it wouldnt make it NATURAL for humans. I cannot think of anything that man could do that would be UNNATURAL if the only criteria were set in what animals do. Since it's not something most of us are capable of I'd say it's not a very good example. I suspect if we could many would. I've no idea how our culture would view that if it were something we could do. Masturbation was considered unnatural for many centuries, still is by many including the most of the Christian teachings. But many people today see it as quite natural. As to the question of what could be concidered unnatural if we base it on what other animals do. We could go way out and include most anything that our technology allows us to do, that would include cloning which people definitely call unnatural. However to move to something a little closer to what I think you're asking. Interspecies sexual activities is pretty much a human thing and I would certainly put it in the class of unnatural. I think you may find some very limited examples in some house pets but I think that may be from confusion brought on by domestication and I don't believe it a natural thing for those animals either. what would you imagine was meant by 'unnatural use' in the Bible when referring to how women and men used their bodies? What the Bible could be referring to is a little more logical. The purpose of the sex act between a man and woman is for procreation. While there the Bible is known to praise the pleasures of sex - the dualistic side of the coin says that sex is for procreation. I guess one has to choose what they want to believe. But in the case of sex specifically for procreation - Does it seem natural to have sex when there is no intension of procreating and the only intension is for pleasure? Consider A prostitute: it is not her intension to get pregnant and the man who used a prostitute was not using the woman for her ability to bare his seed - in the context of God's creation - the act that takes place with prostituiton is 'unnatural'(logically so if you accept that procreation is the only logical NATURAL setting of sex. Another 'unnatural' sex act is the act of violence. During biblical era it was common for soldiers or even warring neighbors to rape their enemy no matter what gender they were. (still common today) It deminished a person's integrity and of course the Bible would consider those acts of violence - as in the story of S & G - did the townsmen want to have sex or did they want to rape a possible enemy?? Another 'unnatural' act - one which appears often in the Bible incluedes the sexual nature of pagan rituals. At the time of Constantine the pagan and Christian religions were coming together. Many Pagans liked the idea of monotheism but just couldn't get past the old superstitions so they often mingled their rituals - specifically their spring furtility rituals which have been shown to include whole families. These types of acts would have been considered 'unnatural' - and not that I'm agreeing but it makes sense in those contexts. What also makes sense is for an open mind to apply that information to those areas of the Bible in which they think homosexuality is what is being related to - as in violence, prostitution, or using sex to appeal to a furtility God (in the presence of children). But what is the unnatural part Case 1 prostitution - the woman was not to blame, this is why Jesus suffered the prostitutes existence - because the circumstances that put women in that postion were cultural beliefs mainly upheld by men. So men were the unnatural perpitrators of prostitution as they used a woman for sexual satisfaction allowing their seed to be wasted. 2. The victum is not a willing participant of the violence so what is unnatural is not 'sex' it is the violent offence that is committed against another (defeated) human. 3. Here is a case in which culture determines what is normal - pagans felt no remorse but as Christians they were practicing unnatuaral acts such 'worshipping other gods'. sometimes logic makes the most sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaveyB
on
Wed 05/26/10 03:00 PM
|
|
First that's not what she said, and second you should speak of things when you don't know anything about them. Your ignorance is evident and the fact that Buddah is not considered a god or son of God or anything else of that type by his followers. Fact is there are many Christian Buddists. Get a clue See, there you go again. Luring people in with with a sheep's humbleness before you tear their throats out with a wolf's arrogance. Like I said I respond in kind. Is reciprocity not in the Christian Bible? Apparently not. Never said I was a follower of the Bible. But yes it is and I do believe that part and why I have chosen to respond to people in kind. Well, saying things like 'get a clue' when you don't agree with someone's line of argument is nothing but rude. And would have gotten you tossed on many forums where this issue is discussed with a level playing field that doesn't tilt in favor of the Christian majority. And although you play a good game at distancing yourself from the Bible and Christianity, it's obvious where your bias lies and its source. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel the need to be so abrasive and not take responsibility for your own lapses. Like the New York lawyers say: "If the facts favor you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, bang loudly on the table with your fist." Because that, sir, is all you are doing with your 'respond in kind' rationalizations. -Kerry O. If where I stand is obvious to you, then you are most certainly wrong. I don't see it as a rationalization, that would assume I have something to be sorry for, that there is something wrong to be rationalized. It's a simple eye for an eye, some people don't agree with that way of doing things. Not my problem. You were rude to me, I responded rudely to you simple as that. As for my response to Thomas, well he wouldn't know how to have a civil discussion if his life depended on it, he continuously spouts erroneous BS with out the slightest bother to fact check. And more often than not, as in this case, he's wrong. So again rude person, rude response. I make no apologies for it. If you think I can't be polite take a look at my responses to Redykeulous or abara or msharmony or even CowboyGH who had trouble staying on topic, none of whom do I agree with and who cover a pretty full spectrum of possible responses. msHarmony even altered my opinion some what. Their answers were polite well thought out and included no made up BS trying to prove a false point. They all received polite responses from me. We all simply disagreed on what conclusion can be drawn from the facts. I will say even your post fell into that category as those I mentioned above except you found it necessary to be rude and condescending. Apparently you believe you are right and no one else's opinion could possibly have merit so why be decent to others. Anyway I pointed out the fallacy in your arguments in the same tone you used. You chose to ignore my comments and instead went on the attack. No defense for your arguments (gee I wonder why that is?) just attack the messenger. So this is my last post to you, You can go on refusing to support your opinions, go on calling me all the names you wish from this point on, I really don't care. Your opinion is worthless to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaveyB
on
Wed 05/26/10 03:51 PM
|
|
It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural". Why would a God have created beings to be naturally attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself. hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural Actually the definition of something unnatural would be something does does not normally occur within nature. Homosexuality does occur in all mammals. That's why I said I had a problem with the interpretation at that point. It really should say unintended sex acts IMO. But I'm sure at the time of the translation and even now it sounds stronger to say unnatural. actually, mirriam webster says this about unnatural 1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events 2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance so , although, in the semantic 'natural' derives from a base word of nature,, it is nowhere near as broad a definition. The first definition does fall into line with what I think of as unnatural. The second definition would be more in tune with how it the word is meant in the Bible, but it would seem to me this definition is there specifically to account for the biblical use of the word. I can't think of another place by which it would be used this way. Still the point is well taken and there is a definition of the word that fits the biblical use. I also know of no proof that ALL mammals practice homosexuality, but even so, in accordance with the bible we are more than just animal and we are held to a different standard and given different guidelines. You may be right, probably should not have said it quite like that. I'm not sure there is "proof" but it has been found in a very significant number. And the other side of that coin I don't think there have been any studies that have shown there is a mammal that does not engage in homosexual relations. If I could make the statement that all mammals lick themselves and we could somehow find a way to do that,, it wouldnt make it NATURAL for humans. I cannot think of anything that man could do that would be UNNATURAL if the only criteria were set in what animals do. Since it's not something most of us are capable of I'd say it's not a very good example. I suspect if we could many would. I've no idea how our culture would view that if it were something we could do. Masturbation was considered unnatural for many centuries, still is by many including the most of the Christian teachings. But many people today see it as quite natural. As to the question of what could be concidered unnatural if we base it on what other animals do. We could go way out and include most anything that our technology allows us to do, that would include cloning which people definitely call unnatural. However to move to something a little closer to what I think you're asking. Interspecies sexual activities is pretty much a human thing and I would certainly put it in the class of unnatural. I think you may find some very limited examples in some house pets but I think that may be from confusion brought on by domestication and I don't believe it a natural thing for those animals either. what would you imagine was meant by 'unnatural use' in the Bible when referring to how women and men used their bodies? What the Bible could be referring to is a little more logical. The purpose of the sex act between a man and woman is for procreation. While there the Bible is known to praise the pleasures of sex - the dualistic side of the coin says that sex is for procreation. I guess one has to choose what they want to believe. But in the case of sex specifically for procreation - Does it seem natural to have sex when there is no intension of procreating and the only intension is for pleasure? Consider A prostitute: it is not her intension to get pregnant and the man who used a prostitute was not using the woman for her ability to bare his seed - in the context of God's creation - the act that takes place with prostituiton is 'unnatural'(logically so if you accept that procreation is the only logical NATURAL setting of sex. Another 'unnatural' sex act is the act of violence. During biblical era it was common for soldiers or even warring neighbors to rape their enemy no matter what gender they were. (still common today) It deminished a person's integrity and of course the Bible would consider those acts of violence - as in the story of S & G - did the townsmen want to have sex or did they want to rape a possible enemy?? Another 'unnatural' act - one which appears often in the Bible incluedes the sexual nature of pagan rituals. At the time of Constantine the pagan and Christian religions were coming together. Many Pagans liked the idea of monotheism but just couldn't get past the old superstitions so they often mingled their rituals - specifically their spring furtility rituals which have been shown to include whole families. These types of acts would have been considered 'unnatural' - and not that I'm agreeing but it makes sense in those contexts. What also makes sense is for an open mind to apply that information to those areas of the Bible in which they think homosexuality is what is being related to - as in violence, prostitution, or using sex to appeal to a furtility God (in the presence of children). But what is the unnatural part Case 1 prostitution - the woman was not to blame, this is why Jesus suffered the prostitutes existence - because the circumstances that put women in that postion were cultural beliefs mainly upheld by men. So men were the unnatural perpitrators of prostitution as they used a woman for sexual satisfaction allowing their seed to be wasted. 2. The victum is not a willing participant of the violence so what is unnatural is not 'sex' it is the violent offence that is committed against another (defeated) human 3. Here is a case in which culture determines what is normal - pagans felt no remorse but as Christians they were practicing unnatuaral acts such 'worshipping other gods'. sometimes logic makes the most sense. Interesting post, I had not considered some of those possible interpretations of "unnatural" acts. Some of those I'm not sure would be germane to what we're talking about here, but in general it does show there's room for interpretation. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting post, I had not considered some of those possible interpretations of "unnatural" acts. Some of those I'm not sure would be germane to what we're talking about here, but in general it does show there's room for interpretation. I think it does apply here when considering this thread as a whole. Part of the purpose of the thread was an exploration of questions pertaining to how society treats homosexuals. The other part was to explore the possible ways in which biblical carry over might have influenced our currrent ideas of homosexuality. Making refernce to the word natural/unnatural, as used in the Bible, as a catalyst for creating a negatve connotation of homosexual acts is quite common because that is exactly what many Christians point to when asked why they believe homosexual love should be considered a sin. The point I was making was that to employ that logic, the word must first be associated with the actual Biblical references which have homosexuality and the word natural/unnatural used connectively. The problem with connecting the dots is exactly what you have noticed - that the incidents referred to as homosexual acts can be viewed quite differently, in fact, a thorough understanding of history and culture of the time combined with an educated interpretation of the earliest manuscripts make it difficult to see how homosexuality is being referred to at all. Bottom line is - if you are really seeking to understand the various current societal responses to homosexulity (men vs. women) you are not likely to find that understanding in Biblical sources. Odds are that those who translated (or perhaps taught from) orginal manuscripts either used incorrect words, made incorrect assumptions/correlations, OR purposely intended to create animosity against sodomy (because actually) sodomy was what the King James Version of the Bible referred to as homosexuality - which did not include women...in fact, biblically speaking, the act of sodomy had nothing to do with homosexual love or the physical aspect of sex that occurs between any two poeple in a loving relationship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaveyB
on
Wed 05/26/10 08:32 PM
|
|
Interesting post, I had not considered some of those possible interpretations of "unnatural" acts. Some of those I'm not sure would be germane to what we're talking about here, but in general it does show there's room for interpretation. I think it does apply here when considering this thread as a whole. Part of the purpose of the thread was an exploration of questions pertaining to how society treats homosexuals. The other part was to explore the possible ways in which biblical carry over might have influenced our currrent ideas of homosexuality. That is basically what I was specking about how it shows that there's room for interpretation. I think we to one degree or another agree on this point. various current societal responses to homosexulity (men vs. women) you are not likely to find that understanding in Biblical sources. Here I think we disagree. While I have adjusted my perception of the Bibles roll in creating these perceptions of homosexuality, I do believe it have has perpetuated it beyond it's usefulness of the times. I do not believe in anyway that homosexuality in either gender would be viewed as it is today without the influence of the Bible and the church. It is in fact a battle which the church wages constantly. Most notably I think in the US, though my knowledge of other countries is a little limited. I have only traveled abroad a couple times and to only a few places. Odds are that those who translated (or perhaps taught from) orginal manuscripts either used incorrect words, made incorrect assumptions/correlations, OR purposely intended to create animosity against sodomy (because actually) sodomy was what the King James Version of the Bible referred to as homosexuality - which did not include women...in fact, biblically speaking, the act of sodomy had nothing to do with homosexual love or the physical aspect of sex that occurs between any two poeple in a loving relationship. Again here I think we agree to at least a degree. FTR, because I know I'm going to hear about what people assume "I" believe. I do not discount the bible completely as simply the work of men, I just think men have probably messed it up pretty badly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting post, I had not considered some of those possible interpretations of "unnatural" acts. Some of those I'm not sure would be germane to what we're talking about here, but in general it does show there's room for interpretation. I think it does apply here when considering this thread as a whole. Part of the purpose of the thread was an exploration of questions pertaining to how society treats homosexuals. The other part was to explore the possible ways in which biblical carry over might have influenced our currrent ideas of homosexuality. That is basically what I was specking about how it shows that there's room for interpretation. I think we to one degree or another agree on this point. various current societal responses to homosexulity (men vs. women) you are not likely to find that understanding in Biblical sources. Here I think we disagree. While I have adjusted my perception of the Bibles roll in creating these perceptions of homosexuality, I do believe it have has perpetuated it beyond it's usefulness of the times. I do not believe in anyway that homosexuality in either gender would be viewed as it is today without the influence of the Bible and the church. It is in fact a battle which the church wages constantly. Most notably I think in the US, though my knowledge of other countries is a little limited. I have only traveled abroad a couple times and to only a few places. Odds are that those who translated (or perhaps taught from) orginal manuscripts either used incorrect words, made incorrect assumptions/correlations, OR purposely intended to create animosity against sodomy (because actually) sodomy was what the King James Version of the Bible referred to as homosexuality - which did not include women...in fact, biblically speaking, the act of sodomy had nothing to do with homosexual love or the physical aspect of sex that occurs between any two poeple in a loving relationship. Again here I think we agree to at least a degree. FTR, because I know I'm going to hear about what people assume "I" believe. I do not discount the bible completely as simply the work of men, I just think men have probably messed it up pretty badly. DaveyB - we are in agreement on almost every you have made here. What you have posted clearly agrees with my points and any new points you've made also add support. In other words you are absolutely correct - the Bible, quite possibly, has been the greatest influence in current day views but only so far as its various interpretations through time and with regard to societies AND in view of the fact that Western civilization has, to date, been the driving force which has molded the ideology taken from biblical beliefs. This does not mean this ideology agrees with the itself but only that interpretation of the Bible has changed, thus changing social and cultural beliefs and ideas of 'normal'. From earliest times Christian missionaries have traveled with merchants and traders on their trade routes and missionaries continue throughout the world today taking their ideologies with them. So we are at a good point to continue the discussion by using history to pinpoint the evolution of modern Christian thought - if this is the route you wanted to take. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting post, I had not considered some of those possible interpretations of "unnatural" acts. Some of those I'm not sure would be germane to what we're talking about here, but in general it does show there's room for interpretation. I think it does apply here when considering this thread as a whole. Part of the purpose of the thread was an exploration of questions pertaining to how society treats homosexuals. The other part was to explore the possible ways in which biblical carry over might have influenced our currrent ideas of homosexuality. That is basically what I was specking about how it shows that there's room for interpretation. I think we to one degree or another agree on this point. various current societal responses to homosexulity (men vs. women) you are not likely to find that understanding in Biblical sources. Here I think we disagree. While I have adjusted my perception of the Bibles roll in creating these perceptions of homosexuality, I do believe it have has perpetuated it beyond it's usefulness of the times. I do not believe in anyway that homosexuality in either gender would be viewed as it is today without the influence of the Bible and the church. It is in fact a battle which the church wages constantly. Most notably I think in the US, though my knowledge of other countries is a little limited. I have only traveled abroad a couple times and to only a few places. Odds are that those who translated (or perhaps taught from) orginal manuscripts either used incorrect words, made incorrect assumptions/correlations, OR purposely intended to create animosity against sodomy (because actually) sodomy was what the King James Version of the Bible referred to as homosexuality - which did not include women...in fact, biblically speaking, the act of sodomy had nothing to do with homosexual love or the physical aspect of sex that occurs between any two poeple in a loving relationship. Again here I think we agree to at least a degree. FTR, because I know I'm going to hear about what people assume "I" believe. I do not discount the bible completely as simply the work of men, I just think men have probably messed it up pretty badly. DaveyB - we are in agreement on almost every you have made here. What you have posted clearly agrees with my points and any new points you've made also add support. In other words you are absolutely correct - the Bible, quite possibly, has been the greatest influence in current day views but only so far as its various interpretations through time and with regard to societies AND in view of the fact that Western civilization has, to date, been the driving force which has molded the ideology taken from biblical beliefs. This does not mean this ideology agrees with the itself but only that interpretation of the Bible has changed, thus changing social and cultural beliefs and ideas of 'normal'. From earliest times Christian missionaries have traveled with merchants and traders on their trade routes and missionaries continue throughout the world today taking their ideologies with them. So we are at a good point to continue the discussion by using history to pinpoint the evolution of modern Christian thought - if this is the route you wanted to take. Yeah, I think we agree for the most part on the what's but not necessarily on the whys. I think for now Im done with the conversation though. No offense meant to you or those people who choose to give me such well considered and polite posts. But the weeding through the rest just isn't worth it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
homosexuality is frowned upon by God for one simple reason........ in the begining he made man and woman and he saw it was good. That is the only reason for two different genders, for reproduction. Homosexuality benifits nothing but fleshly desire. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribefan73
on
Sat 05/29/10 09:51 PM
|
|
The book of Romans is in the New Testament and was written by Paul. About 75% of the New Testament was written by Paul who basically rejected all of the teachings of Jesus and instead uses the rumors that Jesus was "The Christ" as an excuse to dredge up a lot of male-chauvinistic and homophobic stuff that was in the Old Testament. Topics that none of the actual gospels ever mention or attribute to the teachings of Jesus himself. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus would condone, support, or even agree with anything that Paul wrote. I guess you missed the part in the book of Acts where, Jesus 1st struck Paul blind & then personally addressed him by his former name, Saul & then called him to be the 1 to take the message of the gospel to the gentiles. But those are just details & facts that shouldn't be negated by popular opinion. Don't forget Abra, the gospel & God's standards by nature are offensive & have too often been watered down so that those delivering the "message" will appear to be more acceptable to the populous at large. And to answer the original OP, no, the Bible makes no distinction. The societal norms tend to not look down upon female homosexuality as much as male only because men tend to find girl on girl scenarios a turn-on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you missed the part in the book of Acts where, Jesus 1st struck Paul blind & then personally addressed him by his former name, Saul & then called him to be the 1 to take the message of the gospel to the gentiles. ... or so Paul says. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas wrote: Enlightment through personal meditation(Jesus did not meditate he prayed,worshiped and nearly always did this with others). How could you have a clue as to how Jesus might have behaved when he was alone? All you have to work with is hearsay accounts of the man, and none of those could possibly contain any information about how Jesus might behave when he was alone. Also, your view of Buddhism is extremely narrow and limited. The Buddhism that you describe is more along the lines of modern versions of Buddhism like Zen Buddhism. However, the Buddhism that was popular in Jesus' day was Mahayan Buddhism and it falls perfectly in line with everything that Jesus taught including Jesus' own bodhisattva behavior. Moreover, the parts of the hearsay about that don't appear to be in harmony with Buddhism is most likely due to the fact that the people who wrote the hearsay misunderstood what Jesus was attempting to teach. For example, when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one", they took that to mean that Jesus was the same as Yahweh. But clearly that's NOT what Jesus had actually stated even by the hearsay accounts. To push the confusion (and potential agendas) of the authors of the hearsay onto Jesus is to reject Jesus himself and embrace the men who wrote the hearsay. This is what most Christians actually do. This is why they don't even truly worship Jesus. They worship the men who wrote hearsay about Jesus.  But trying to get them to see their folly is pretty close to impossible. Using hearsay to support your view of the same hearsay again? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you missed the part in the book of Acts where, Jesus 1st struck Paul blind & then personally addressed him by his former name, Saul & then called him to be the 1 to take the message of the gospel to the gentiles. ... or so Paul says. Truly. To even suggest that we should give Paul's writing any merit only drives home my point. Where is Jesus verifying any of this?  Not only is it all just hearsay, but it's hearsay about people who are making outrageous claims. If someone claims that Jesus came to them and told them the things that Paul claims Jesus told him we'd chalk them up as a kook, and rightfully so. Peter Pan wrote: Using hearsay to support your view of the same hearsay again? No, not at all. On the contrary I'm simply pointing out where the hearsay of the Bible doesn't even actually make the claims that the religion of Christianity ultimately claims. No where in the "hearsay" does Jesus even claim to be the "Only begotten son" of God. So where does that baloney even come from? Well, clearly it comes from the OPINIONS of the men who actualy wrote the hearsay. Especially if you read Matthew you will see Matthew pushing his agenda and interpretations far more often than actually writing about what Jesus supposedly said. For example. Matthew writes about God's voice coming from the sky whilst Jesus is being baptized saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well-pleased". Funny how no one else noticed this. Nary a single other author in the Bible mentions it, and there is no independent account from any of the people who were supposedly there to hear this miraculous event. It's all entirely hearsay on the part of Matthew. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty clear that he's making this up like a little kid makes things up when he wants to convince someone of something. Matthew does this same thing when he speaks about the resurrection of Jesus. Mathew has a multitude of saints raising from their graves and going into the Holy City to reveal themselves to the people. Well duh? How would Matthew have even known about such an event even if it had actually happened? No one else seemed to know about it. Not a single solitary account of this event was written in history, and it wasn't even mentioned by the other authors of the Bible. So either they didn't know about it, or they didn't think it was significant enough to report. I think the EVIDENCE is clear. All of these gospels are nothing more than tall tales written by a few over-zealous individuals. When you think about it, it's pretty silly. We have millions upon millions of people today beliving in the writings of basically 4 or 5 highly QUESTIONABLE authors who all seemed to have agendas. We can find people like them today all over the internet. Moreover, there were also accounts of people who REJECTED these stories and told differnet stories. But those stories were not only rejected by the church, but the people who believed in them were executed or told to shut up or they WOULD BE executed! See the Cathers for one group of people who were entirely exterminated by the Catholic Pope simply because they interpreted things differently from the church. The evidence that the Bible is nothing more than an opinionated agenda of a particular establishement is crystal clear. They even made rules that people in their congregations must either marry people who also have the same faith, or they must have their spouse convert, and raise their childern to propagate these opinions. We still see that even today. Many Catholics demand that to marry in a Catholic church the newlyweds must promise to raise their children as Catholics. In other words, they must promise to support the Catholic interpretations of the Bible.  And so it goes. Perpetuating the interpretations of heresay as the "word of God" when in fact, there's really no sane reason to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..when you figure that the bible is only partial,or the fact that Noah's ark was round..but also that the books of the apocryha weren't canonized and therefore books like the book of enoch were excluded just what is it that we are reading...but yet i have met many of those who "claim" to be religious but know nothing of which i speak ..or have even heard of the apocrypha..which i find rather befuddling due to the fact that i know about things they don't and i'm not religious..makes you kinda wonder about all of it... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..when you figure that the bible is only partial,or the fact that Noah's ark was round..but also that the books of the apocryha weren't canonized and therefore books like the book of enoch were excluded just what is it that we are reading...but yet i have met many of those who "claim" to be religious but know nothing of which i speak ..or have even heard of the apocrypha..which i find rather befuddling due to the fact that i know about things they don't and i'm not religious..makes you kinda wonder about all of it... you are talking the difference between religion, and the History of religion,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you missed the part in the book of Acts where, Jesus 1st struck Paul blind & then personally addressed him by his former name, Saul & then called him to be the 1 to take the message of the gospel to the gentiles. ... or so Paul says. Ignorance runs rampant on the web. The author of the book of Acts was the Physician & 1 of the original 12 disciples of Christ, Luke, NOT Paul. Again, let's not the facts muddy the waters of pop opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you missed the part in the book of Acts where, Jesus 1st struck Paul blind & then personally addressed him by his former name, Saul & then called him to be the 1 to take the message of the gospel to the gentiles. ... or so Paul says. Ignorance runs rampant on the web. The author of the book of Acts was the Physician & 1 of the original 12 disciples of Christ, Luke, NOT Paul. Again, let's not the facts muddy the waters of pop opinion. So now you are claiming that Luke personally witnessed Jesus striking Paul blind - and participated in Paul's hallucination? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribefan73
on
Sun 05/30/10 09:14 PM
|
|
I guess you missed the part in the book of Acts where, Jesus 1st struck Paul blind & then personally addressed him by his former name, Saul & then called him to be the 1 to take the message of the gospel to the gentiles. ... or so Paul says. Ignorance runs rampant on the web. The author of the book of Acts was the Physician & 1 of the original 12 disciples of Christ, Luke, NOT Paul. Again, let's not the facts muddy the waters of pop opinion. So now you are claiming that Luke personally witnessed Jesus striking Paul blind - and participated in Paul's hallucination? There were others traveling with Saul at the time who witnessed what happened. The New Testament writers often had a scribe traveling with them & they would exchange information with the other scribes & disciples. The fact that after Saul's conversion to Paul & the many trials & tribulations that he was willing to bear, speaks volumes about what he believed, spoke & wrote. A charlatan or liar would not be willing lay down his or her life for a lie, as Paul did. No one was coercing him to make the sacrifices he made. He had truly had a close encounter of the God kind. He endured shipwrecks, beatings, rejection by his own people, starvation, imprisonment & the like, all for the cause of Christ. The bottom line is you either believe or you don't, it's that simple. As I said in my 1st posting by nature the gospel & God's ways are offensive. My question to all of the doubters on this thread is, are you willing to bet your eternal souls that I'm wrong? Lastly, when playing a pick-up game of basketball or any other game or sport don't you usually set some basic ground rules for play? What many don't want to come to terms with is God, the chief architect, did the same thing when created the heavens & the earth. It's His game, we're in His home court & they're His rules. Just because you don't like them or refuse to believe in them, doesn't lessen your responsibility for consequences. tf73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were others traveling with Saul at the time who witnessed what happened. Really? I wasn't aware this was an established fact, but there is a lot I'm not aware of. Who were they? Do we know their names? And by 'witnessed what happened' - did they also see Jesus??? many trials & tribulations that he was willing to bear speaks volumes about what he believed, spoke & wrote. To you, not to me. I personally know delustional people who suffer gladly for their delusions, and people who are so committed to their cause that they both lie for it and suffer gladly for it. To suggest that being self-sacrificing is a guarantee of being honest is a bit naive. He had truly had a close encounter of the God kind. So you believe. I don't. He endured shipwrecks, beatings, rejection by his own people, starvation, imprisonment & the like, all for the cause of Christ. Christian just love this stuff! As if it proves the person had a 'good character' in a universal sense. The bottom line is you either believe or you don't, it's that simple. You mean - believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and the Bible as His Word ? Or believe that Paul really saw Jesus? Either way, despite the sweeping statements I've made in this thread, I don't often buy into the 'this or that' approach. There are many possible ways this could have gone down with Paul, and many possible explanations for it. are you willing to bet your eternal souls that I'm wrong? Oh, absolutely! I will wager my soul that you are wrong. There is no God. Jesus was a human being. The bible is not the word of God, its a collection of texts all of which were written by people and which were hand picked for inclusion into the 'bible' by people. I question the character of anyone who would choose to believe out of fear for their souls. |
|
|
|
|
