Which Religion are you?

[wario2ooo]

Gah....I was looking forward to someone ripping apart my post.

Gene's gone. Squall? Somebody? LMAO

are u my nintendo god,
u must be him ooooooooooooooo
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

 

[Squall7]

So the deal is, the reporter guy approached that archbishop and asked about the verse in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality. The reporter's main point was that if the verse in Leviticus is valid, why aren't the other verses in Leviticus valid. The archbishop seemed to stumble around and not know how to answer. Which makes me wonder how he was ever appointed an archbishop in the first place.

The has to do with the Mosaic Law - the law given to the nation of Israel from God through Moses. It contained a lot of procedural laws in additional to many moral regulations. It's main purpose was to prepare them for the arrival of the Messiah and why one was needed in the first place. When Christ arrived, he fulfilled the Law - and it was his sacrifice of his perfect life made possible the permanent end to sin, and not just the temporary measures from the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. This essentially did away with the Law and it's many specific regulations and procedures - for example the stuff you find in Leviticus that the reporter asked the archbishop about.

So now you may be thinking that if the Law was done away with, including the regulations in Leviticus, then the verse about homosexuality must have been done away with too, right? Not exactly. Just because something was part of the Mosaic Law does not necessarily mean it's gone from the law of the Christ. Many things, particularly morality related, were restated later in the Bible, under the Christian arrangement. Homosexuality was one of them.

Ok. Now I understand. The fact of the matter is that the homophobia experienced and perpretrated by Christians back when the New Testament was written and generally after Christ died is a culturally/societally based irrationalty. There is no logical reason for individuals to be homophobic, it is obvious from the way that passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality that they were written by men who had no understanding of homosexuality and/or felt it was a threat to their power/control over the populace. If people were afraid that too many people would become homosexuals if the practice was not condemned and therefore no children would be produced that again is irrational as a homosexual is perfectly capable of having children as much as the next person.

Romans 1:27 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans is a list of lessons to indoctrinate the people of Rome to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is not the word of God because these are lessons that were dictated by the apostle Paul. Going with what I previously stated as homphobia being a form of control, trying to stamp out what seemed to be decadent practices such as homosexuality served the puritan intentions of the first christians.

Controlling sex/sexuality and how people perform it is one of the greatest ways in which to maintain an order in a society; as Judith Butler notes in Bodies that Matter, p. 95, the performance of sexuality is: "... [A] ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibiton and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the [performance]."

Think of it like Christmas. People celebrate it, despite it being a way of making the Christian faith more paletable to potential followers. i.e. We celebrate Jesus's birth at the same time that their old winter celebrations were on, thus helping to slide from paganism to Christianity. Likewise, it would condemn those from alternative societal beliefs, to make a very different empire look evil.

Sexuality in ancient Rome generally lacked the modern categories of "heterosexual" or "homosexual." [1] Instead, the differentiating characteristic was activity versus passivity, or penetrating versus penetrated.

Male Sexuality Romans thought that men should be the active participant in all forms of love. Male passivity symbolized a loss of manliness, the most prized Roman virtue. This is in stark contrast to the Pederasty in ancient Greece, in which young boys became men through relations with adult males. It was socially and legally acceptable for Roman men to have sex with both female and male prostitutes as well as young slaves, as long as the Roman man was the active partner. Laws such as the Lex Scantina, Lex Iulia, and Lex Iulia de vi publica regulated against homosexual love between free men and boys, but these laws were frequently violated and rarely enforced, with men performing the passive role and vice versa. [2] If the laws were ever enforced, the partner punished would be the passive male, not the active male. A man who liked to be penetrated was called "pathic", roughly translated as "bottom" in modern sex terminology, and was considered to be weak and feminine.

Female Sexuality Men considered women useful only for reproduction. Women were not granted freedom of sexuality. Men considered female homosexuality disgusting and dangerous. A woman who wanted to be an active partner in intercourse was a "tribade" (the meaning of which has now changed).

Homosexuality in Literature Few accounts of love between women exist through the eyes of women, so we only know the viewpoint of Roman men. Multiple ancient Roman authors wrote about love affairs between men, including Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, and Ovid. Catullus wrote of his love for the young man Juventius, while Tibullus dedicated two elegies to his lover Marathus and wrote particularly about how devastated he was that Marathus had left him for a woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Also, may I say that the way the passages were written, they seem really emotional. Not exactly what you'd expect of a person teaching.

26Because to this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deciet and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

It sounds to me like one big speil about those that do not believe in God. However, since not all homosexuals are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful, let alone invent ways of doing evil, disobeying their parents, are senseless faithless heartless or ruthless, I don't think that this is all that valid as a source for right or wrong. All it seems to boil down to is a sort of forum-like arguement, taken from one side only. But then, perhaps that's just me?...

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

"homosexual offenders" doesn't automatically mean homosexuals. It could mean homosexuals that rape other men.

All that archbishop had to do was say, "yeah, the Law in Leviticus was done away with, but homosexuality is still considered a sin under Christ" and then pointed out those other verses.

True. Though he didn't really have time to prepare for what was asked.

Also, on a side note, doesn't it seem strange to you that the term "homosexuality" seems to be never actually used...

...It always dances around the subject without going into the "why".

Gah....I was looking forward to someone ripping apart my post.

Gene's gone. Squall? Somebody? LMAO

Soz, here now. What did I miss?

...Oh, I liked your modernification of the concepts. "owned in battle".

I do see how new donominations pop-up. Interpretation of the Bible can be an art form - there's no set way to interpret it, and you have to understand the context before you see the whole picture.

(sorry. I'm a bit sleepy atm... Lol)

 

[Brawny]

lol, thanks squall. and what's wrong with a bit of....updating? I think there is actually a leet Bible out there somewhere.... seriously.


Edit: quick google search, there are better out there....

http://www.christianhacker.org/html/NHV.html

http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6609

Edit2: My goodness.

http://www.biblesociety.com.au/smsbible/download.html

yeah, mankind will die soon....

 

[wario2ooo]

BRAWNY are u my nintendo god,
u must be him ooooooooooooooo
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

u must be him

 

[Squall7]

lol, thanks squall. and what's wrong with a bit of....updating? I think there is actually a leet Bible out there somewhere.... seriously.


Edit: quick google search, there are better out there....

http://www.christianhacker.org/html/NHV.html

http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6609

Edit2: My goodness.

http://www.biblesociety.com.au/smsbible/download.html

yeah, mankind will die soon....

Np. Also, I don't like it when people speak in heavy leet.
"Mommy, does G-Zero-d really want me to L-Zero-V-Three him? And will I get his L-Zero-V-Three back in return?"

I agree. We will die soon...

 

[Jorge]

Agnostic. Though I tend to have Christianity pushed on me pretty hard.

 

[Noel]

ohh, gladly. I can't believed I "meh'd" Gene. Back when I thought you were a guy. :lol:

Anyways..first, squall is correct. We, or I at least, believe that homosexuality is a temptation, only a sin when you give into it. :yesnod:

Homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin, as many radicals would have you believe.

And the historical context of Isrealites:

Jeremiah, came at a time of a lack of religious discipline. Idol worship was common. There was much social injustice, poor morals. Jeremiah came immediately prior to the Assyrian Captivity.....kind of proves his point...:/

Ok, Samuel. Was during a time of the judges. Just previous to David. At this time, the Isrealites were gaining power. They were following the Lord, and so he delivered them in battle with a mighty fist... reward for following, ya know.

Numbers one...the spies were scared, they didn't follow him. Simple as that. In this time of the wandering, he needed to prove a point. He was giving them the promised land, and yet they didn't believe.

Exodus, part of the commandments. First...a bit of a hyperbole. He just had delivered them from slavery.... he needed to start a new people, and needed rules to keep them in line..... I know I'll get comments on this one, will reply in a bit.

Numbers 31: LOL, he let them be owned in battle because they would not follow him. You have to understand, God is perfect. Yes, he is merciful, and loving above all. But he still needs payment for evil.

Jeremiah, came at a time of a lack of religious discipline. Idol worship was common. There was much social injustice, poor morals. Jeremiah came immediately prior to the Assyrian Captivity.....kind of proves his point...:/

But it said God pitted sons aganist fathers. Aren't the offspring of the fathers and mothers supposed to honor their parents? And by honoring them, they were killed.

Ok, Samuel. Was during a time of the judges. Just previous to David. At this time, the Isrealites were gaining power. They were following the Lord, and so he delivered them in battle with a mighty fist... reward for following, ya know.

But with the forgivness... God had them kill babies.

Numbers one...the spies were scared, they didn't follow him. Simple as that. In this time of the wandering, he needed to prove a point. He was giving them the promised land, and yet they didn't believe.

Ok...

Exodus, part of the commandments. First...a bit of a hyperbole. He just had delivered them from slavery.... he needed to start a new people, and needed rules to keep them in line..... I know I'll get comments on this one, will reply in a bit.

But for the mistake of one be carried on and on to the generations that don't deserve it?

Numbers 31: LOL, he let them be owned in battle because they would not follow him. You have to understand, God is perfect. Yes, he is merciful, and loving above all. But he still needs payment for evil.

Yes, but what about the spoils? He had them rape female children and kill the young boys.

 

[Brawny]

But it said God pitted sons aganist fathers. Aren't the offspring of the fathers and mothers supposed to honor their parents? And by honoring them, they were killed.

It says that he will kill all of them, sons and fathers alike....

But with the forgivness... God had them kill babies.

Ok...

Say what you want, I'm not easily offended.

But for the mistake of one be carried on and on to the generations that don't deserve it?

First, it is hyperbole IMO. The next line points this out. "And showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments"

Yes, but what about the spoils? He had them rape female children and kill the young boys.

Yes, but they had to purify themselves afterwards.....they did it wrong. And they only saved the virgin women, to have as wives.... it was different back then, a male dominated society. Keep this in mind.

Why not find me a couple NEW testament quotes to take on.....

 

[Earthworm Jim]

ohh, gladly. I can't believed I "meh'd" Gene. Back when I thought you were a guy. :lol:

Anyways..first, squall is correct. We, or I at least, believe that homosexuality is a temptation, only a sin when you give into it. :yesnod:

Homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin, as many radicals would have you believe.

.

u think homosexuality is a choice.

hahahahahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahaha


either your not to bright or you dont leave your house.

id say its a combination of the two.

 

[Squall7]

u think homosexuality is a choice.

hahahahahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahaha


either your not to bright or you dont leave your house.

id say its a combination of the two.

Whilst I agree that homosexuality being a choice is laughable, I don't think it's a wise idea to ridicule a well respected forum member.

Plus, he has friends in high places...

But yes, homsexuality is not a choice, only assumed to be one by people who aren't homosexual in the first place.

 

[Brawny]

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Jeez.
It comes down to nature or nurture, and I believe in both.
But it's not how you got it, it's what you do with it imo.
It's not a choice to be tempted or not....just how you act on that temptation.


@Squall, I can take care of myself...lol.... It does help on some of the really bad members though.

Edit: Before saying that I am not "to bright" why not clean up your post a little bit?

u>you
to>too
dont>don't
either>Either
id>I'd

 

[BrandonMcAuslan]

Why does God care so much about our sex lives??? :crazy:

 

[Brawny]

I know you're joking, but I will answer because I'm bored.

This is all in a christian's persepective btw...

Since God created us all, sex included. It is perhaps the greatest gift of intimacy given, therefore, our stance on this can be a bit more strict than other things.

 

[HiGH DeFiTiON]

Im christian here

 

[Brawny]

Well then....I think Christians are the second leading group here, and yet we're being mutilated.

Mind helping a bit? Bring some fresh perspective on some issues.

What's your view on homosexuality for instance?