Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Another verse to support my beliefs

Matthew 19:4-6

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”


And for those that think god is just ruthless and doesn't care for humanity
Here's Christianity in a nut shell

John 3:16New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[Cheeetar]

I could find a great deal of bible verses that proclaimed things you almost certainly don't agree with, Cryxis, if you'd like me to.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I could find a great deal of bible verses that proclaimed things you almost certainly don't agree with, Cryxis, if you'd like me to.

By all means please do
That's what this thread is for, to discuss Christian beliefs

Unless you are just trying to anger me, if so please stop

[Frumple]

Female sexuality isn't alright
Though I guess it's in how you read it

Not sure if freudian slip or typo, ha.

But seriously, not a one of the versus mentioned female homosexuality, Cryx -- in fact, they all specifically mentioned male homosexuality. The best you can get out of those is "unmentioned", not, "not alright."

Which, being fair, is actually more in line with other mentions within the bible. There's only a couple (like, literally two, and they both end up specific condemnations of male homosexuality depending on the translation) blanket condemnations of homosexuality in the text -- most are either specifically in relation to male prostitutes or male homosexuality. Which... puts a more general stricture about in line with the one about mixing fabrics.

[Gnorm]

Interesting -- some of those actually have different translations than more broad ones.

It's good to know, by your text, female homosexuality's alright. It's something.

I take it that you did not thoroughly read the Romans excerpt.

Also, as for translation:

Wycliffe:
26 Therefore God betook them into passions of shame. For the women of them changed the natural use into that use that is against kind. 27 Also the menforsook the natural use of woman, and burned in their desires together, and men into men wrought filthhood, and received into themselves the meed that behooved of their error.

Geneva:
26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 27 And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such recompense of their error, as was meet.

RSV:
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

NIV:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It really doesn't matter which translation you use.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Female sexuality isn't alright
Though I guess it's in how you read it

Not sure if freudian slip or typo, ha.

But seriously, not a one of the versus mentioned female homosexuality, Cryx -- in fact, they all specifically mentioned male homosexuality. The best you can get out of those is "unmentioned", not, "not alright."

Which, being fair, is actually more in line with other mentions within the bible. There's only a couple (like, literally two, and they both end up specific condemnations of male homosexuality depending on the translation) blanket condemnations of homosexuality in the text -- most are either specifically in relation to male prostitutes or male homosexuality. Which... puts a more general stricture about in line with the one about mixing fabrics.

In some of those verses I interpret it as man the race not man the gender

[Cheeetar]

I could find a great deal of bible verses that proclaimed things you almost certainly don't agree with, Cryxis, if you'd like me to.

By all means please do
That's what this thread is for, to discuss Christian beliefs

Unless you are just trying to anger me, if so please stop

Females can't teach or be in positions of power:

I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

How do you feel about this?

[Gnorm]

How is this discussion even occurring! "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 of their error which was meet" (Romans 1: 26-27 KJV). The first line is about the woman committing homosexuality. That's why when Paul goes on to talk about the men, he says "likewise;" they're both condemned.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

That is meaning a wife over her husband in other interpretations, in those interpretations I have no problem since the man is the head of the family and should be leading them in a godly way anyways and if he is doing his job right his wife doesn't need to correct him anyways

[Frumple]

In some of those verses I interpret it as man the race not man the gender

... do you have any reason to?

More generally, anyone know if the words used in the original hebrew would make things more clear? There is quite a lot of things in the biblical texts which lose bits of meaning when translated into english.

It really doesn't matter which translation you use.

... not a single solitary one of those specified female homosexual relations as unnatural. They just stated some variation of "unnatural" with no further explanation, which leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation. Some did specify male homosexual relations as a problem. Given the difference, I'd expect that to mean they're talking about different things. Otherwise there would be no need to specifically reference male homosexuality.

And beyond that particular verse, the vast majority (not exactly saying much, to be fair, when there's something like six or seven mentions in the entire text) of references to homosexuality are very specifically in regards to male, and generally even more specifically male prostitution.

How is this discussion even occurring!

Because it's not as straightforward as you're saying. Likewise doesn't imply that males were also indulging in homosexuality as the women were -- likewise just states they were also engaging in unnatural acts, for which homosexuality is mentioned only in reference to men.

[Descan]

Yeah, I don't know why you would think Cryxis would have a problem with misogyny male domination patriarchy I-can't-think-of-a-neutral-term-for-this-y, Cheeetar.

Dudes pretty conservative, s'pretty clear.

Slavery is probably a better bet for something the Bible condones and regulates, and that he might have a problem with.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Yeah, I don't know why you would think Cryxis would have a problem with misogyny male domination patriarchy I-can't-think-of-a-neutral-term-for-this-y, Cheeetar.

Dudes pretty conservative, s'pretty clear.

Slavery is probably a better bet for something the Bible condones and regulates, and that he might have a problem with.

Thanks

[Cheeetar]

Yeah, I don't know why you would think Cryxis would have a problem with misogyny male domination patriarchy I-can't-think-of-a-neutral-term-for-this-y, Cheeetar.

Dudes pretty conservative, s'pretty clear.

Slavery is probably a better bet for something the Bible condones and regulates, and that he might have a problem with.

That a woman shouldn't ever be in any position of authority is... further than I thought he'd go. I'm honestly surprised.

[penguinofhonor]

That a woman shouldn't ever be in any position of authority is... further than I thought he'd go. I'm honestly surprised.

How could you possibly get that out of his answer?

[Cheeetar]

My bad, I did misread the 'other interpretations' bit. Still pretty surprising, in the old 'women are subservient to their husbands at all times' kind of thing, and still a pretty far fetched interpretation of the bible verse. I don't see anything specifying familial relations in it, nor does the context suggest that.

Here's something different, Cryxis (at the suggestion of Descan):

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

Slavery- yeah, nay?