also sup
ROMANS 1
Actual KJV text: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
So:
1. God
gave them up unto? God caused this or what?
2. "Natural use" doesn't mean anything useful; in fact, the natural thing for a homosexual to do is sex up people of the same sex.
Anyway,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm
Paul didn't write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship.
That is, by engaging in both opposite-sex and same-sex behavior, they were attempting to behave as bisexuals; this would be against their heterosexual nature.
Various other interpretations as well.
1 CORINTHIANS 6
KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
So the effeminate are screwed! And so are people who want things (covetous) and people who drink too much. Classy.
The phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' was originally written as 'arsenokoitai', a Greek word that
did not exist before Paul used it here. There were existing Greek words for sex between men, but Paul did not use them. Interesting. Also, the etymology of the word Paul invented specifically refers to men, not women.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.
Many would consider "malakoi" -- the word preceding "arsenokoitai," in 1 Corinthians -- to refer to a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they were abusive pedophiles or hebephiles.
And, again, others.
So! It is absolutely possible to approach these verses and come away thinking that they
do not condemn homosexuality. Since there is no way to ask the author for clarification, ultimately
you are the one deciding, personally, whether you think the Bible would condemn true homosexuality. And you do. And I am still curious as to why.
There are no Bible verses definitively condemning homosexuality; they could all be referring to more common practices of the time like child prostitution or pagan temple worship.
Corruption due to Adam and Eve is nonsensical, as I revisit below.
People are not
required to have children -- priests aren't allowed, some are born sterile or otherwise made that way, some just never have children, and none of those people seem to be condemned by the Bible.
Activities as innocuous as typing are
unnatural uses of your body, so claiming that anything not explicitly intended by God is evil is ridiculous. (Does Black and Decker get to call you evil if you use their screwdrivers to pry something open, rather than turn screws?)
Most of these appear to be more justification than reasoning, too.
So. What is
your problem with homosexuality? It is not something you can strongly and obviously pull from the Bible;
you decided it was wrong and then
you hunted for ways to make yourself absolutely right by pulling from the Bible. Don't worry, people have done it for interracial marriage (no two crops in a field, do not be unequally yoked) and masturbation (see above) and women's suffrage (man is head of the household, women cannot lead church, other such blatant sexism) and all sorts of things they didn't happen to like at the time that could conveniently be condemned by the Bible if you squinted the right way.
Just a few points (get the book i mentioned for the others. If you don't care enough to obtain a free and delivered book do not complain at me):
You don't care enough to carry on a real argument, but I should care enough to read an entire book for you. Nice. Feel free to be less lazy anytime.
Jews have to undergo circumcision, something which was made unnessary for christians in acts.
And what a great rule that is, too.
When I mentioned dogs turning into cats, it was an example of what you claim happened using two modern animals rather than one which is extinct.
That is not what evolution does at all. Evolution simply makes reproductively-useful traits more likely to stick around.
No-one can live for a thousand years anymore, humanity is like a computer file which has errors occouring in it every time it is copied, making it worse.
Wow! That kinda sounds like evolution.
1. For this I could just use the common 'prove the positive' argument athiests seem to like, but i'll let the other points speak.
2. They are made in gods image having free will. This does not make them immune to temptation, and in fact allows them to rebel
3. I'm sure a lot of murdurers know that murder is wrong.
4. They ate from the tree of knowlege of good and bad, and at that poind became ashamed of being naked.
1. Which would be valid if I had not said anything else. :V
2. Does God not have free will? I don't think you even know what "free will" means, having said this; it is entirely possible to be immune to temptation without violating free will. If they were made in God's image, there is no reason they should be tempted at all.
3. Obviously. The issue is that they were entirely capable of murder before eating the fruit. The fruit did nothing but make them
aware that some things they could potentially do would be evil. Would Cain still have killed Abel without Eve having eaten the fruit? I don't see why not; the tree does not grant the ability to be jealous. God is jealous, too, so people made in his image should be. (And God has killed people for less.) The only difference is that Cain would have been naive and thus blameless. The fruit only made us
responsible for what we do.
4. Yes, and if they were ashamed, that means being nude was bad. Therefore they were already doing something bad before they ate the fruit.
If you missed it, I just completely destroyed your argument that we were somehow
made faulty because of what Adam and Eve did. Even if the above were not valid, you have yet to explain how the actions of a parent can affect the personality of the child.
People who want to serve god. Clearly other people don't, and they don't have to
Just like you're never jealous or covetous or etc etc?
If we
don't give a crap about your mythology and you know it, why are you expecting us to follow its rules? You don't even have a reason why your mythology is better than anyone else's.
And if being gay is just an
imperfection -- as opposed to some moral outrage -- then why do you care at all?
Jesus most likley didn't mention homosexuality because he had far more important things to do such as dying for our sins.
Dying doesn't take long. I'm pretty sure he had the time. He's a god, after all!
I would also like to emphasize just how sexist the Bible is, as another reason why I find it abominable to use it as a moral compass.
1 Cor 14: women must be silent in church.
1 Cor 11: husband rules over the wife.
1 Tim 2: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."
In fact, the only really important women in the entire story are Eve and Mary -- one of whom causes the
downfall of the entire species. Supposedly.
"If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it." -- Martin Luther
