Cameron destroying party - dying on its feet!

[bigmal]

So here's the challenge. Show me where the bible says that being gay is wrong.

It's not the Bible that this practice goes against, but mother nature herself!

She decreed that it takes a male and female to procreate.
It is not possible for two males or two females to do the same, therefore those who indulge in such are ensured that they can never breed between themselves.

To go against mother nature isn't wrong, but when people do they must realise that they're onto a loser.
Mother nature will win each and every single time without question!

[England expects]

I think from my previous post that you can now see that the church accepting Gay marriage is hypocritical and an act of desperation to boost its dwindling support, they are picking and choosing what they want from the bible not taking the whole book into consideration.

I am fairly sure over the coming decades as and when new print runs of the bible appear that some of the above lessons will start being omitted.

The Christian church as it stands today concentrates on the new testament, I was having a discussion with a leader from the Alpha course about this very subject

Just so you know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course

Nicky Gumbel the leader of the Alpha course that is spreading through the churches in the UK today has pretty clear views on homosexuality. He declares aids as retribution from god and likens gays to paedophiles.

The Vicar I was debating with was trying to explain to me that he has homosexuals in his congregation, One of the regular ones has now decided that although he is gay he will abstain from sexual practices to be true to his faith. This in a warped way allows the vicar to overlook his sexuality and the vicar of a popular church with a large congregation actually said to me that "if he doesn't practice any more God will forgive him."

How warped and screwed up is that considering his own church is likely to advocate gay marriage in the near future.

[England expects]

It's not the Bible that this practice goes against, but mother nature herself!

She decreed that it takes a male and female to procreate.
It is not possible for two males or two females to do the same, therefore those who indulge in such are ensured that they can never breed between themselves.

To go against mother nature isn't wrong, but when people do they must realise that they're onto a loser.


Mother nature will win each and every single time without question!

Fair points Bigmal. Mother nature does have a way of winning regardless of human intentions

[England expects]

Frigid Wierdo, why dont you do a bit of reading yourself?

Wow imagine the fun you can have when you see what the bible has to say about those that call themselves Jews?

I [Yeshua] know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the blasphemy by those [imposters] who say they are Jews [Judahites] and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.(Revelation 2:9

I [Yeshua], will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews [Judahites], and are not, but lie - behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9)


It turns out to be one of the most politically incorrect books that you can enjoy reading.

[medrussia]

Frigid Wierdo, why dont you do a bit of reading yourself?

Wow imagine the fun you can have when you see what the bible has to say about those that call themselves Jews?

It seems you are 'using' the Bible for your own political agenda

[medrussia]

How does giving you you a neg rep undermine your 'free speech' on this forum?

Answer: It doesn't.

You are a whiny little cry-baby.

I aint a whiny little cry-baby, intolerant of hypocrites like you I would say. And again you have demonstrated that you have no regard for freedom of speech.

[England expects]

Fair point. Doesn't everyone? The trouble is with your analysis is that most religions try to interpret meanings into the written word. A bit like some one here.

What happens when you read the book as it is written?

Do you think that people would go to all the trouble of writing down exactly what they are trying to say, explained in basic terminology laid out in no ambiguous manner for people to try and read between the lines and put their spin on it?

If you read the book as it is written it can have a completely different outlook to what Christianity portrays today.

If you disagree with what I have just said and believe it is there to be interpreted then your criticism that I am using it to suite my agenda is worthless as you believe that is what it is there for.

Either way it endorses what I said.

[Frigidweirdo]

You asked me a question and in the spirit of debate I will answer (Unlike you) I think if you read over my previous posts from the start the only person I attack is you as you are dishonest in your intentions

This is an attack, where you say you don’t attack. Come on, stop it.

But getting to the topic, I'll deal with each one as I don't have time to do all this together right now.

· Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Well as far as I can tell from research this is about priests. In pre-Christian times they had things like Oracles where people would have sex with priests in order to get closer to God. Christianity attempted to stop this sort of thing and so too did Judaism, which seems to be why this is in the old testament.

http://christiangays.com/marriage/gay_marriage.shtml

“The background of the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is a fascinating subject. The Jews were in conflict with Pagans who also resided in ancient Palestine. There was a lot of pressure for Jews to adopt various practices of the Pagans, to become just another religion in the melting pot. And so scriptural injunctions were developed which prohibited certain distinctive Pagan beliefs and practices. “
“Now some of the Pagan religions of the ancient Near East had male priests who, to honor a Goddess figure, emulated women. These priests, called Kedeshim in the Tanach, who, like other shamans world-wide, cross-dressed, took on economic and social roles normally associated with females and in some cases even castrated themselves. They also enaged in sexual acts as part of their ceremonies, similar to the Tantric practices. This included sex with other men. “

“So the rules against males cross-dressing and having sex with other men were based on opposition to this priesthood. However, over time it was generalized to similar behavior, regardless of whether it was part of a spiritual practice. “

The main problem you are dealing with is historical context and also the problems of translations of the bible from the original meaning. Now, I know from documents that are 200 years old there are problems reading them today, but from 2000 years ago it is something even harder.
http://homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com/id10.html

You can see here an interpretation of what the term “beds” may mean.

“The Hebrew literally says: “You shall not lie with a male [on] the beds of a woman (or wife), it is a despising.” “

[England expects]

This is an attack, where you say you don’t attack. Come on, stop it.

But getting to the topic, I'll deal with each one as I don't have time to do all this together right now.


Well as far as I can tell from research this is about priests. In pre-Christian times they had things like Oracles where people would have sex with priests in order to get closer to God. Christianity attempted to stop this sort of thing and so too did Judaism, which seems to be why this is in the old testament.

http://christiangays.com/marriage/gay_marriage.shtml

“The background of the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is a fascinating subject. The Jews were in conflict with Pagans who also resided in ancient Palestine. There was a lot of pressure for Jews to adopt various practices of the Pagans, to become just another religion in the melting pot. And so scriptural injunctions were developed which prohibited certain distinctive Pagan beliefs and practices. “
“Now some of the Pagan religions of the ancient Near East had male priests who, to honor a Goddess figure, emulated women. These priests, called Kedeshim in the Tanach, who, like other shamans world-wide, cross-dressed, took on economic and social roles normally associated with females and in some cases even castrated themselves. They also enaged in sexual acts as part of their ceremonies, similar to the Tantric practices. This included sex with other men. “

“So the rules against males cross-dressing and having sex with other men were based on opposition to this priesthood. However, over time it was generalized to similar behavior, regardless of whether it was part of a spiritual practice. “

The main problem you are dealing with is historical context and also the problems of translations of the bible from the original meaning. Now, I know from documents that are 200 years old there are problems reading them today, but from 2000 years ago it is something even harder.
http://homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com/id10.html

You can see here an interpretation of what the term “beds” may mean.

“The Hebrew literally says: “You shall not lie with a male [on] the beds of a woman (or wife), it is a despising.” “

This is partly covered in my response to Medrussia.

I boils down to interpretation. What you are quoting back here is from a new liberal Christian church that is trying to interpret their own meanings.

In my opinion Jesus made it quite clear with his opinion of priests and leaders, In the words of a very popular hymn

"I danced for the scribes and the Pharisee, but they wouldn't dance and they wouldn't follow me, so I danced for the fisherman for James and John, they came with me and the dance went on"

It sums it up nicely, he turned his back on all their nonsense and led the people.

Most Christians today concentrate on the new testament and regard the old testament as for the Jews (As I have been told by a C of E priest)


The new testament does not say much at all about homosexuality, in fact it does say somewhere that homosexuality is not a major concern for Jesus or the Christian movement. That is in my opinion because it has been dealt with comprehensively and completely in previous parts of the bible. SO if you concentrate on just the new testament then you can draw a conclusion of no issue with homosexuality, but then you will be ignoring all the teachings supposedly from God direct to his people.

When you refer to Jews in the biblical sense who are you referring to? This is the major issue regarding the bible, God, existence of Israel the whole subject really.

I too have to go to work so we can continue later if you like and see if we can actually debate.

[Frigidweirdo]

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0320.htm#13

“13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Again, we have different views of this translation from Hebrew. We also have a similar context to the previous Lev 18:22, as in, it’s probably an attempt to stop the use of sex for religious purposes.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/05...0-timothy-110/

““Effeminate“, rather than ”homosexual” is decidedly a more accurate translation of “malakos” than “homosexual“”

“But in earlier times, people would have understood “effeminate” in quite different ways, all linked to the understanding of women as inferior to men – which is why effeminate males were scorned. But by this reasoning, men who were excessively devoted to women, indulging in too much heterosexual intercourse, were regarded as effeminate, while men who avoided women entirely, taking only the penetrative role in homosexual intercourse, were regarded as especially masculine. Women, by definition, were regarded as the most feminine, followed by men who took a female part by submitting to penetration. But then followed the heterosexual sex addicts, allowing themselves to be contaminated by too much intercourse with women, and the most “masculine” of all were what we might think of as gay “tops”, always taking the active, penetrative role.”

So you have to look at the context thousands of years ago, not in the present day, if you want to know what things mean. People can choose what they want something to mean in order

“At a deeper level still, Martin argues, there is a problem in any attempt to find a single, “correct” translation and interpretation of scriptural texts.”