-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What's your definition of Sodomite behavior?
- Thread starter Polycarp_fan
- Start date
uberd00b
The Emperor has no clothes.
What it isn't obvious? Are you straight because you have sex with members of the opposite sex or do you have sex with members of the opposite sex because you are straight? Notice that it is "you are straight" not "you do straight".
"Love the sinner hate the sin" is an attempt to separate the person from the "sin" in order to easier condemn it. But they cannot be separated. It tacitly admits that a person cannot rightly be condemned for something that is part of them, that they have no choice over, as it is an attempt to circumvent that problem.
Upvote
0
Panzerkamfwagen
Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
- May 19, 2015
- 11,005
- 21
- 41
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Sticking things where they shouldn't be stuck.
Presumably it evolved that way for a reason, right?
Presumably it evolved that way for a reason, right?
Upvote
0
Things shouldn´t be stuck where they shouldn´t be stuck. Now who gets to decide where things shouldn´t be stuck and why?
Not sure what "it" refers to here. Homosexuality?
Upvote
0
TeutonKnight
Crusading Knight
- Sep 21, 2008
- 135
- 8
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
I have heard about cases in the UK where someone has siad and been taken to court. Heres another good one from the States---
""""""""""""""Bradley LaShawn Fowler, a gay man living in Michigan, is suing two of America's biggest Christian publishers because, he says, their published translations of the Bible have caused him 'mental distress'. Mr Fowler is seeking $70m in damages from Zondervan Publishing Co. and Thomas Nelson Publishing. He claims that these companies have deliberately caused gay people to suffer by misinterpretation of the Bible. The key misinterpretation he points to is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the word 'homosexual' is used in translations published by the companies as part of a list of 'wicked' people who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
The New International Version of the Bible (published by Zondervan) renders 1 Cor 6:9 as follows: "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"
The term 'homosexual' was coined in the late 19th century, so some may ask whether it is an appropriate term to use in rendering the Greek word arsenokoites in this passage. Certainly, when I studied Greek, my professors challenged this translation and suggested that the Greek term relats to male prostitution rather than same-sex relationships in general. (See here for some analysis of the relevant Greek terms.)
The New King James Version (published by Thomas Nelson) has an even blunter rendition of the verse: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites .. ". I suppose the NIV translators added the term 'offenders' after the word 'homosexual' to modify the implied criticism in the text (with a reading that may suggest that not all 'homosexuals' are 'offenders'). But the NKJV offers no such modification. Instead, it gives a footnote on the word translated 'homosexual' referring the reader to the word 'catamite' (i.e., the younger partner in a pederastic relationship). One might ask, if they mean 'catamite', why don't they say 'catamite' in the main translation?
In any case, the parsing of these distinctions is usually left to Greek scholars, who engage in heated academic debate about how best to capture the meaning of the original text. Let's see what a judge in Michigan makes of it all. """"""""""""""""""
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 38
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I think it's pretty obvious that most of the men who wrote the Bible didn't like gay people. Even if the specific texts which some think refer to homosexuality can be shown to be discussing something else, I hardly think that these guys were progressive types who were welcoming to alternative relationship models.
However, I think it's also pretty obvious that their attitudes are barely applicable to today's relationships. If you believe people should marry partners they love, well, I have news for you - most of the biblical writers would have disagreed with you, or simply been mystified by the idea. In societies where love is the primary catalyst for marriage - and that includes North America and most of Western Europe - it's quite ridiculous to attempt to apply biblical ideals to marriages. What constitutes a marriage has changed radically since the Old and New Testaments were written, and for the most part it has changed for the better, especially for women. There is no reason that it should not continue to change.
However, I think it's also pretty obvious that their attitudes are barely applicable to today's relationships. If you believe people should marry partners they love, well, I have news for you - most of the biblical writers would have disagreed with you, or simply been mystified by the idea. In societies where love is the primary catalyst for marriage - and that includes North America and most of Western Europe - it's quite ridiculous to attempt to apply biblical ideals to marriages. What constitutes a marriage has changed radically since the Old and New Testaments were written, and for the most part it has changed for the better, especially for women. There is no reason that it should not continue to change.
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 38
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Because the Bible was written when marriages, generally speaking, were arranged affairs that had little to do with the kind of love that we envisage for marriages today.
Upvote
0
Why do you think that Bible's merriages were arranged affairs that had little to do with the kind of love that we envisage for merriages today?
Upvote
0
Well, consider Isaac and Rebecca: they didn't even know one another before Abraham arranged -- long distance -- for their marriage. Or Jacob and Leah: Jacob did not protest all that long that he got the wrong bride, but instead kept her and just contracted again for the one he wanted. And look at Onan. He did not want to marry Tamar. (Granted, he should not have insulted God and Tamar the way he did just because of how he felt about the forced marriage.)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
