Gays are "Disordered"

[Superman]

Originally posted by jluetjen

* Trivia fact, do you know that prior to the "Dead Seas Scrolls", the oldest written copies of the "Old Testement" were not as old as the oldest writen copies of the "New Testement".

Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant Hebrew-language Bible text was less than a thousand years old. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are more than two thousand years old. It is therefore interesting that very few differences have been found between them and the translations we use today. The vast majority of the few differences found so far.....are spelling differences. "Colour" versus "color."

[Superman]

Originally posted by livi
I feel very sorry for those youngsters that is raised in a religious environment, that discovers that they are homosexual. They are in all aspects normal human beings, unavoidably 'afflicted' with a different sex orientation. An orientation that according to the church make them and their activities abnormal, morally wrong and generally less worthy.

There is a HUGE amount of misunderstanding about Christianity. Even among Christians, sadly. This is the purpose of starting this thread. Gays are "disordered." But then, heteros are also "disordered."

If you really want to hate Christ and Christianity, then go ahead and interpret everything in a way that permits you to hold your hatred. But the truth is that Christianity does not point a finger at gays while pretending its followers are pure. Christianity points its finger at everyone who ever lived, except one.

Todd, I have enormous respect for you. But I guess you're not perfect after all. (that would make you a legitimate candidate for Christianity, BTW) Or maybe I just misunderstood. Perhaps we agree. One of the beliefs I personally find the absolutely most detestable......is the so-called "Christian" who thinks they are holy, and entitled to look with disdain at the sins of others. Just as selfishness is at the heart of all sin, humility is at the heart of Christianity. The humble, repentant homosexual would be warmly received by God. The arrogant, prideful "Christian" will NOT.

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Superman
Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant Hebrew-language Bible text was less than a thousand years old. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are more than two thousand years old. It is therefore interesting that very few differences have been found between them and the translations we use today. The vast majority of the few differences found so far.....are spelling differences. "Colour" versus "color."

And if Hebrew were the only language in existence at the time, understanding would be less complicated.

Their, they're, so there.

[Superman]

A few of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Greek. The vast majority is in Hebrew, but something like 20% or 30% are in Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of the day.

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Superman
Todd sucking up snipped.....

The humble, repentant homosexual would be warmly received by God. The arrogant, prideful "Christian" will NOT.

10-4.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Dottore
So my question is: Why is it that a lot of you guys who get riled up about male homsexuality seem to find lesbianism, girls kissing, carpet-munching, sipping from the furry cup (or whatever you want to call female homosexuality) funny, cute, erotic and otherwise perfectly in order?

One theory might be that you are all closet homosexuals, and it's only the male thing that makes you uneasy.

This one is simple: We're hypocrites. Women are super hot, we can relate to wanting to bang hot women, so we view it as (more) acceptable.

Which is perfectly fine, as long as you're man enough to admit the double standard.

Of course in our defense, gay women do not rampantly spread aids like gay men do. They also dont infilitrate our schools and boy scouts, churches, etc, and prey on little boys.

I've yet to see the story of a gay female teacher or whatever molesting little girls.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by dhoward
That wasn't aimed at you.

I'm pretty sure it was aimed at me. I did my best to provide you with an opinion regarding the story of Lot and the angry mob. Intersting that you chose to reply to others' responses, but not mine. Especially after this remark.

Originally posted by dhoward
That's where the understanding of just one word and it's usage at that time becomes paramount to the context of a story. Especially when we're using a story to illustrate some sort of deficiency in others.
Seems as though the "Christians" are the ones with an agenda here.

Context is far more important. We all know that; or we should, anyway. Every beginning reader is made to understand the importance of context. Those that would discount the importance of it are universally trying to alter the meaning conveyed by the context, as they are in this case. Because they have a pro-gay agenda.

I tried to explain the context in which this one word is given, and how angels are presented in the Bible. You chose to ignore all of that and go after the lower-hanging fruit.

Originally posted by dhoward
But they decide what's relevant.

Isn't that kind of what you have done here?

[Jims5543]

Originally posted by Superman

Todd Sucking up left in place.

Todd, I have enormous respect for you. But I guess you're not perfect after all. (that would make you a legitimate candidate for Christianity, BTW) Or maybe I just misunderstood. Perhaps we agree. One of the beliefs I personally find the absolutely most detestable......is the so-called "Christian" who thinks they are holy, and entitled to look with disdain at the sins of others. Just as selfishness is at the heart of all sin, humility is at the heart of Christianity. The humble, repentant homosexual would be warmly received by God. The arrogant, prideful "Christian" will NOT.

I agree 100%, I go to church but dislike most of the people there. One thing I have learned through the years, the holiest of holies the most outspoken and judgemental are usually the most despicable people in reality. The biggest closet cases if you will.

I go to curch to show my respect to God and nothing more, I do not assiciate with the people there and I keep my distance from them.

If my son was to inform me he was gay when he got older I would still love him the same.

[Jims5543]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins

I tried to explain the context in which this one word is given, and how angels are presented in the Bible. You chose to ignore all of that and go after the lower-hanging fruit.

Hey! Are you calling me a fruit?!!

[Dottore]

It is truly amazing and incredible to me that apparently rational people could sit around interpreting dodgy translations of dodgy texts that are thousands of years old WITH A VIEW TO DETERMINING WHETHER HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK - OR NOT!

This is conceptually no different than a bunch of Mullahs sitting in a cave and poring over the Koran with a view to determining whether the text justifies sending a jetliner into the WTC - or not.

It is just frigging nuts to seek a moral basis for your action in such texts. FRIGGIN NUTS.

Dead Sea Scrolls. Give me a friggin break!

That is why monotheistic religion is dangerous. Why it is the enemy of reason.

I mean really. Wake up out there!

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I'm pretty sure it was aimed at me. I did my best to provide you with an opinion regarding the story of Lot and the angry mob. Intersting that you chose to reply to others' responses, but not mine. Especially after this remark.



Context is far more important. We all know that; or we should, anyway. Every beginning reader is made to understand the importance of context. Those that would discount the importance of it are universally trying to alter the meaning conveyed by the context, as they are in this case. Because they have a pro-gay agenda.

I tried to explain the context in which this one word is given, and how angels are presented in the Bible. You chose to ignore all of that and go after the lower-hanging fruit.



Isn't that kind of what you have done here?

No.
I was only pointing out that the 'traditional' interpretaion, and it's use for condemning homosexuality from a church prespective, may be greatly affected by the translation. Using a different form of a word can create a whole different slant on the purpose of the story, don't you think?
We've all been told the story of Lot many times over. I think it's suspicious that the incestuous relationship with his daughters was left out in every case.
I see it as manipulation of language to influence the behaviour of the masses.
Not trying to pick a fight with you and I'm sorry if my remarks came across that way.
My apologies.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Dottore
This is conceptually no different than a bunch of Mullahs sitting in a cave and poring over the Koran with a view to determining whether the text justifies sending a jetliner into the WTC - or not.

It is just frigging nuts to seek a moral basis for your action in such texts. FRIGGIN NUTS.

Yep, everyone here on the "Christian" side is proposing violence against gays.

And people like you tell "Christians" they need to be more tolerant.

A quick question for you, What do you use as a moral basis for your actions? What feels right? What you can get away with? Majority rule?

[Jeff Higgins]

Oh no, dhoward, please - I do not see this as a "fight" at all. It's been a great conversation. Your arguments are very well put, and you certainly never gave me the impression of looking for a fight. I hope I'm not giving that impression. I enjoy having a reasoned, reasonable exchange with guys like you on this board. You have given me some things to think about. I hope I can return the favor, that's all.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by Dottore
So my question is: Why is it that a lot of you guys who get riled up about male homsexuality seem to find lesbianism, girls kissing, carpet-munching, sipping from the furry cup (or whatever you want to call female homosexuality) funny, cute, erotic and otherwise perfectly in order?

One theory might be that you are all closet homosexuals, and it's only the male thing that makes you uneasy.

Your theory isn't far off....we're a bunch of 'closet lesbians' ... oops, guess I just came out.

[sammyg2]

Dhoward, please elaborate or provide links to Lot's "incestuous relationship with his daughters". I am not aware of it and you have peaked my curiosity.

The bible tells me that Lot was the only righteous man in the city. I do not remember hearing anything about an incestuous relationship, only that he was willing to give up what was near and dear to him in order to proterct the angels.

Thanks.

[sammyg2]

this whole thing started out when the church spoke out against homosexuality as a sin.
Then it quickly turned into religion bashing. it was never gay bashing until the discusion turned to promiscuity.

Just because christians regard homosexuality as a sin, does not mean we harbor ill will towards homosexuals. that has been infered by some of the christian bashers to try and gain an advantage in the argument, but IMO it was unjustified.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Dottore
It is truly amazing and incredible to me that apparently rational people could sit around interpreting dodgy translations of dodgy texts that are thousands of years old WITH A VIEW TO DETERMINING WHETHER HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK - OR NOT!

This is conceptually no different than a bunch of Mullahs sitting in a cave and poring over the Koran with a view to determining whether the text justifies sending a jetliner into the WTC - or not.

It is just frigging nuts to seek a moral basis for your action in such texts. FRIGGIN NUTS.

Dead Sea Scrolls. Give me a friggin break!

That is why monotheistic religion is dangerous. Why it is the enemy of reason.

I mean really. Wake up out there!

Agreed(to SOME extent- muslims are a 'tad' more violent than Xtians). I am "anti-gay" for rational real world reasons, not because Jesus says to be.

[stevepaa]

sammy (Genesis 19:30-38)

[Moneyguy1]

Did Jesus actually address this question?

Why does "Cast the first stone" come to mind?

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by m21sniper
I am "anti-gay" for rational real world reasons, not because Jesus says to be.

OK, what could those possibly be?