Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Actually from what I heard that a few popes declared crusades during periods whereby there was constant skirmishing between quarrelling christian neighbours.. etc england and france or germany and its neighbors..Originally posted by HENG@:doesn't xtianity teach u to turn the other cheek? not to fight fire with fire? to love your fellow man? i don't see any justifications in xtian teachings for going there to smack the muslim invaders. besides, the xtians marched into the middle east 1st didn't they? so u're telling me they went there to fight the muslim "invaders" who are just fighting to get their land back from the real invaders?
no seriously tell me, which xtian teaching says that u can solve a problem like that with brute force.
so is this not the act of man satisfying their own desires and blasphemously shouting "god wills it" and exhorted by a POPE to do so no less?
and why haven't u proved the popes had nothing but noble intentions yet? or u can't prove it?
Constant skirmishing was common during then as each country sought to further its territorial claims at the expense of its neighbours
To avoid bloodshed between christians, the pope ordered a crusade which basically bands all christian nations together to push back muslim invaders.. thus basically a "one stone kill 2 birds plan"..
As for whether the pope had any noble intentions.. he did wanted to stop further bloodshed between christians.. -
at the expense of OTHERS? that doesn't sound very xtian. i didn't know xtianity preaches self enrichment at the expense of others.Originally posted by DriftingGuy:Actually from what I heard that a few popes declared crusades during periods whereby there was constant skirmishing between quarrelling christian neighbours.. etc england and france or germany and its neighbors..
Constant skirmishing was common during then as each country sought to further its territorial claims at the expense of its neighbours
To avoid bloodshed between christians, the pope ordered a crusade which basically bands all christian nations together to push back muslim invaders.. thus basically a "one stone kill 2 birds plan"..
As for whether the pope had any noble intentions.. he did wanted to stop further bloodshed between christians.. -
You don't know cos you don't go church mah.Originally posted by HENG@:at the expense of OTHERS? that doesn't sound very xtian. i didn't know xtianity preaches self enrichment at the expense of others.
When you go. You can see funny happenings.
But not all churches.... -
orhhhh i see i see!Originally posted by M©+square:You don't know cos you don't go church mah.
When you go. You can see funny happenings.
But not all churches....
-
Cited from www.religioustolerance.org.. the term "homosexuals" has no meaning during Paul's time.. it was a termed coined rather recently..Originally posted by ben1xy:1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
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.
erm.. Heng ah .. can u tell me wad u honestly feel? did i take this out of context?
Pauls say explicitly; he addresses people that will not inherit the Kingdom of God. he mentions the homosexuals.
how is that out of context?
u dun have to agree with me.. i juz wanna know ur views on this
I Corinthians 6:9:
The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (heaven). Robertson's Word Studies refers to this passage as: "a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members."
The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)
This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of interest here have been variously translated as:
effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.
homosexuals, variously described as: "men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
"homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV);
"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
"homosexual perverts." (TEV)
Many of these entries are restricted to gay males; lesbians are often excluded. Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" is commonly defined in two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior rather than orientaiton.
male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes." It is not clear whether the term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB) is restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual prostitutes.
catamites, also described as "boy prostitute." This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt)
pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who molests post-pubertal teenagers).
perverts: a person engaged in some undefined sexual perversion. (Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)
sodomites: a name derived from the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. (NRSV, NKJ). The men of the city are described as wanting to rape male visitors; many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
Comparing religious conservatives and liberals: Conservatives and liberals often interpret this passage very differently.
Conservatives typically use the NIV or KJV versions of the Bible. They generally interpret passages literally, and believe that Paul was inspired by God to write epistles which were inerrant. These translations condemn "homosexual offenders" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." Essentially all Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians believe that this verse condemns all homosexual activity, whether by males or females. They view it as valid today as it was in the first century CE. Verse 6:11 states clearly that once gays and lesbians become saved, then they will no longer wish to engage in homosexual activities. They will presumably become heterosexuals
From a forum on homosexuality and the Bible in the Philadelphia Inqurier: 1
A. Mohler: "I believe it explicitly relates to homosexuality. It has been understood that way in the Christian Church from the earliest era."
T. Crater: "It [malakoi] can have a meaning that's not carnal. But the way it's used -- it's embedded in the same context with adultery -- it's pretty clear what the meaning is...A hallmark of Evangelicals is that we take a literal, normal, face-value interpretation of the Bible. Some people attempt to keep some form of Christianity and hold on to homosexuality, too. It leads to strange interpretations of the Bible."
Liberals generally do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They believe that Paul was writing from his own knowledge and experience. During the 1st century CE, even an educated person like Paul would know very little about human sexuality, compared to present-day sexuality researchers . From the same forum: J. Nelson: "Paul used the Greek word malakoi. They translate it as effeminate and so on. It could mean that; it might not. It can mean soft. Paul was a Jewish theologian. Someone from a Jewish background would consider that behavior unacceptable. Many Greeks did not."
D. Bartlett: "There's considerable debate over what the Greek words mean. We just don't know. I've read most of the debate, and I don't know."
K. Stendahl: "When people come to me -- deeply Christian people -- and say, `This is the way I am created. This is how God made me, how He makes me feel love,' I have to respect that. We know many things people [like Paul] did not know at that time. One should read the Bible with some kind of reason." 1
Further discussion: The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.
The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5
Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.
Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."
Harper's Bible Commentary (199
comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."
Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.
It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.
Most liberal Christians, gays, lesbians, therapists, and human sexuality researchers believe that an adult's sexual orientation is fixed. A gay or lesbian Christian can go through a religious conversion and be "saved." But that act will not lead to a conversion to heterosexuality. Having a religious conversion may well result in people abandoning various forms of sinful behavior, such as slander, theft, alcoholism, greed, swindling etc. But one's sexual orientation cannot be changed. Homosexual behavior is not intrinsically sinful any more than heterosexual behavior is. Either can be sinful if they involve exploitation or manipulation or are not carried out safely in a committed relationship. Most conservative Christians disagree, and believe that homosexuality refers to behavior, not orientation -
thanks, icey... at least one person understands where I am coming from...Originally posted by Icemoon:wait a minute .. now you are arguing as believer or non believer? I thought you are arguing from believer pov, the spokesman for your Christian friends? How come you switch to SIS camp?
Note that Uncle Eng is replying from pov of Christian to Christians. Note that you use the Ecc verse to argue that homo is ok, this is Christian pov.
must have been a busy night.
the pork/prawn thing.... Acts 11:5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. There was something like a large sheet coming down from heaven, being lowered by its four corners; and it came close to me. 6 As I looked at it closely I saw four-footed animals, beasts of prey, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7 I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.' 8 But I replied, "By no means, Lord; for nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9 But a second time the voice answered from heaven, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane.'
concept of segregation in the OT is very strong, hence clear demarkation of what belongs to whom.... even the fabric issue. - thanks Mc2 for suppling me the verse. With regards to food, there are various issues with what is considered unclean back then. Probably the purpose is to preserve the nation of Israel.... I am not here to argue it those segragation is right or wrong.
the concept of segregation has to be thrown out of the window in NT but the mindset of the Jewish Christians has to be radically changed, starting for the stalwart at the point in time - Peter. According to the passage, whatever that was deemed uncleaned in the OT, is now considered clean. This entire change in mindset totally threw out the norms and tradition at the point - the issue of unclean food and eating with gentiles had to be rethink.
The above were stated on the assumption that Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Of course it is entirely possible that the Jews in the OT DID NOT SEGREGATE AND they freely mix with the people at that time, or that perhaps Peter did not even exist. That being so, no need to use the Bible to argue. -
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK..... and I am not being complacent... what any individual wants to do with his life is his own business.Originally posted by Icemoon:If you are just stating your own view, then I dun tink Uncle Eng cares a damn .. since he is fine with non christian pov on homosexuality.
Yeah... isn't it clear enough.... say so many times already, still cannot get it.... non-Christians homo I don't care, Christian homos, need to check what the Bible has to say about it, assuming they still believe that the Bible is the word of God. It is a requirement thing: Christians need to believe in God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the Bible.... otherwise call yourself something else.Originally posted by ben1xy:erm... wasnt the issue between u and eng abt the homosexual christians? abt the point of homophobic behaviour.. u make it sound like only Christians are against it. that isnt true right? and u know it.
i think Eng's arguement on the un-acceptability of homosexual behaviour was garnered towards Christians. Because, being Christian, the authority lies with the bible and thats y the bible has the authority to pass judgement or rather set the rules for homosexual behaviour.
oo and Eng i reckoned wasn't judging the entire homosexual population.. but he was juz explaining the unacceptability of homosexual behaviour for Christians. thats 2 very different thingsOriginally posted by Icemoon:
Yeah lor..... wah piank.... I say so clear so many times already some more.... sigh
omg .. you had made Chin Eng argued for nothing!
Uncle Eng seldom so agitated one .. as in he seldom write so much .. he wrote so much cos he thought those points you raised are pov. of Christians.
You realize actually he has nothing against your belief as a non believer? So I don't think it is fair for you to accuse him of imposing his belief on you.
vomiting blood.....Originally posted by HENG@:
Here's where i am totally confused..... EH Christians has no authority to intepret the Bible, but your friends can? As I'd said, I am open to new understanding, but there is nothing in the Bible to specifically support homosexuality, or to provide a deeper insight to Romans and 1 Cor.
everything in red was uttered by some of my xtian friends, not by me. they are very much indeed xtian povs.[/b]
To recognise the definition in Romans and 1 Cor is not discrimination.
While I willing to recognise that some treatment may not work on some people, are you willing to accept that some of such treatment works? We all can quote from ex-gays or reform ex-gays all we want, but even halfway houses in singapore have their success and their failures on their druggie cases. It does not prove one thing or another.
The nature and nurture thing: the human race changes all the time, there are cases where children are born alcoholic or drug-dependent (because of the problems of their parents), so do we treat this or accept that it is ok now to continue to bottlefeed vodka and supply ice to this kids? Of course, if you don't think this is a problem, that again, that's fine with me.....
To all: no need to go the way of the crusades lah.... it's like US harping on Japanese war issues..... the people who sanctioned the crusades are dead (in hell or heaven - who cares?)
One thing is true though: 90% of this entire thread has nothing to do with the topic.
I will refrain commenting on this topic from now as I think I have said enough:
1. Please do not take it that I am criticising all homos. I don't know you, and I don't care if you overeat, or oversleep or who you hang out with. I respect your choice in life.
2. I am only addressing Christian gays who attempts to justify their position by twisting scriptures and make political human rights statements. Note the POV here that it is by definition that a Christian's authority is the Bible.
3. If nobody here is qualify to intepret the Bible or at least give an opinion, than we should just lock up EH or only dwell in really mundane topics like where to eat/go this weekend.
Bye all...
-
clap, clap, clap,..... very well said, indeed. I have learned a lot from the exchanges on this issue, more from the Christians than the pro gays or gay forumites. Biased? whatever they may say, but it is better, safer to submit to the authority of God and obey his words spoken in the Bible.Originally posted by Chin Eng:EH Christians has no authority to intepret the Bible, but your friends can?
.......
1. Please do not take it that I am criticising all homos. I don't know you, and I don't care if you overeat, or oversleep or who you hang out with. I respect your choice in life.
2. I am only addressing Christian gays who attempts to justify their position by twisting scriptures and make political human rights statements. Note the POV here that it is by definition that a Christian's authority is the Bible.
3. If nobody here is qualify to intepret the Bible or at least give an opinion, than we should just lock up EH or only dwell in really mundane topics like where to eat/go this weekend.
Bye all...
The owner is allowed to write the rules because this is HIS gym and the rules are for the good for all who use the gym, members can testify to that. Members don question the rules for they believe the owner knows better and members submit to His authority.Originally posted by HENG@:so what if your gym says to enter the gym u need can't be chinese? or that u have to walk on your hands? rules may be rules but when the rules do more good than harm we should look at it and decide whether it is a good rule, and whether whoever who wrote it should have been allowed to write the rules.
Bash the christians, the church, and all christian organisation as you like, it is true that some do deserved criticism or canning on the backside, but if you are questioning God, twisting the Bible, do it at your own risks. -
the pork/prawn thing.... Acts 11:5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. There was something like a large sheet coming down from heaven, being lowered by its four corners; and it came close to me. 6 As I looked at it closely I saw four-footed animals, beasts of prey, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7 I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.' 8 But I replied, "By no means, Lord; for nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9 But a second time the voice answered from heaven, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane.'
This may be true for the "pork" part. However for the "prawns", it is labeled not as "unclean", but as an "abomination". As christian, they r not supposed to eat it and paul does not cover tis aspect
Lv 11.
'9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
Lv 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Further down u can see homosexual are classified as abomination/detestable as well. So if homosexual is sinful, eating prawn is equally bad.concept of segregation in the OT is very strong
why do u say tat
I read the OT and it is lord who said such things and he mention everyone, not jewsYeah... isn't it clear enough.... say so many times already, still cannot get it.... non-Christians homo I don't care, Christian homos, need to check what the Bible has to say about it, assuming they still believe that the Bible is the word of God. It is a requirement thing: Christians need to believe in God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the Bible.... otherwise call yourself something else.
If tat is the case, then eating prawns should be banned as well. U can't give double standard to the same laws which r of equal importanceThe nature and nurture thing: the human race changes all the time, there are cases where children are born alcoholic or drug-dependent (because of the problems of their parents), so do we treat this or accept that it is ok now to continue to bottlefeed vodka and supply ice to this kids? Of course, if you don't think this is a problem, that again, that's fine with me.....
But do we discriminate them and pronounce them as sinners ? If they r born of such condition, I think the last thing we should do to them is to condemn them and treat them as some form of criminals and treated them differently. -
wahah .. can we say all these doesn't matter since Christ fulfilled the law? we use the argument from heng's fren.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Further down u can see homosexual are classified as abomination/detestable as well. So if homosexual is sinful, eating prawn is equally bad. I realize their argument very convenient against pple like SIS .. haha
why do u say tat I read the OT and it is lord who said such things and he mention everyone, not jews
when your PC shouts company to fall in, does he say "everyone fall in" or "unit x coy y fall in"?
If tat is the case, then eating prawns should be banned as well. U can't give double standard to the same laws which r of equal importance
Where does it say they are equally important?
But do we discriminate them and pronounce them as sinners ? If they r born of such condition, I think the last thing we should do to them is to condemn them and treat them as some form of criminals and treated them differently.
For the 1001 times .. I say again .. the Christian position is condemn the sin and not the sinner - "Neither shall I condemn you, go and sin no more". Why are you always putting up a strawman? -
From Matthew Henry Complete Commentary On The Whole Bible: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=le&chapter=011
This may be true for the "pork" part. However for the "prawns", it is labeled not as "unclean", but as an "abomination". As christian, they r not supposed to eat it and paul does not cover tis aspect
Verses 9-19 - A general rule concerning fishes, which were clean and which not. All that had fins and scales they might eat, and only those odd sorts of water-animals that have not were forbidden, v. 9, 10. The ancients accounted fish the most delicate food (so far were they from allowing it on fasting-days, or making it an instance of mortification to eat fish); therefore God did not lay much restraint upon his people in them; for he is a Master that allows his servants not only for necessity but for delight. Concerning the prohibited fish it is said, They shall be an abomination to you (v. 10–12), that is, "You shall count them unclean, and not only not eat of them, but keep at a distance from them.’’ Note, Whatever is unclean should be to us an abomination; touch not the unclean thing. But observe, It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians. The Jews were honoured with peculiar privileges, and therefore, lest they should be proud of those, Transeunt cum onere—They were likewise laid under peculiar restraints. Thus God’s spiritual Israel, as they are dignified above others by the gospel-covenant of adoption and friendship, so they must be mortified more than others by the gospel-commands of self-denial and bearing the cross.
Of course, no one is obligated to accept commentaries by Bible scholars... we should only listen the well-learned opinions of our friends.... .... because we are all given the brains to think for ourselves, which is why we are all rocket scientists in our daily lifes..... if this is the case, we should all refrain from quotations from friends and websites.
What discrimination? We are all sinners anyway.... every Tom, Dick and Harry.... recognising one more sin is not going to put us back a single bit.
But do we discriminate them and pronounce them as sinners ? If they r born of such condition, I think the last thing we should do to them is to condemn them and treat them as some form of criminals and treated them differently.
To treat someone as a criminal is to throw him in jail. Any gay christian you know got thrown into jail? You are forgetting that when we condemn the sin, we do not condemn the sinner. It's NOT personal...
You don't believe in the bible, so it does not matter to you or any other non-Christian.
Today it's about prawns the next will be about bats then comes the dragon etc etc. I know that there is no way you will be satisfied. You just disagree with the Christian doctrine, any Christian doctrine. At least with the other non-Christians, we can agree to disagree. You just want to pick a fight. To be honest, I really don't give a damn what you agree or disagree with. It had stopped mattering a long time ago. The only reason why I respond to you today is so that other readers do not get only your caustic opinions but be given another viewpoint as well.
This entire thread is about one Christian POV vs another Christian POV. I will not comment on non-Christian/atheistic/agnostic/pagan values. Why not? Because I respect their choices. Can you respect Christian choices? Obviously not, seeing you never fail to barge in with your long and tedious delivery.
Leave your scepticism at the door, this discussion has nothing to do with you, unless you are either a gay-Christian and has a close friend who is one, neither of which I think you are. -
wahah .. can we say all these doesn't matter since Christ fulfilled the law? we use the argument from heng's fren. I realize their argument very convenient against pple like SIS .. haha
I have probably answered tis countless times before. Just immediateley after jesus say "fulfill" he say tat all these laws have to be kept without a single stroke dissappear FOREVER.when your PC shouts company to fall in, does he say "everyone fall in" or "unit x coy y fall in"?
Silly example. When the gov says the country practise meritocracy, does it means only christian get meritocracy while non-christian get otherwise ? Why use a totally different subject as an example ?Where does it say they are equally important?
they r both treated equally as detestable or abomination. So in a sense they r not of a lower sin of "unclean"For the 1001 times .. I say again .. the Christian position is condemn the sin and not the sinner - "Neither shall I condemn you, go and sin no more". Why are you always putting up a strawman?
Wat is the diff ? Homos r gonna be treated differently regardless of whether u focus on the sin or sinner.It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians
How do u set tat tis rules r for jews and not for christians ? Why doesn't homosexuality become the rules for jews and not for christian as wellTo treat someone as a criminal is to throw him in jail. Any gay christian you know got thrown into jail? You are forgetting that when we condemn the sin, we do not condemn the sinner. It's NOT personal...
I do hear of cases where death sentence is given to gays people when they r murdered.You don't believe in the bible, so it does not matter to you or any other non-Christian.
It matters because it will inevitably affect the behavior of christians and they will affect other people from other beliefsToday it's about prawns the next will be about bats then comes the dragon etc etc. I know that there is no way you will be satisfied. You just disagree with the Christian doctrine, any Christian doctrine. At least with the other non-Christians, we can agree to disagree. You just want to pick a fight. To be honest, I really don't give a damn what you agree or disagree with. It had stopped mattering a long time ago. The only reason why I respond to you today is so that other readers do not get only your caustic opinions but be given another viewpoint as well.
Com'on, am I wrong to talk about prawns in tis topic ? It is in fact raised by an article posted by earthling before. If there is no loop holes in it where can I get the ammunition to debate on thse issues ?This entire thread is about one Christian POV vs another Christian POV. I will not comment on non-Christian/atheistic/agnostic/pagan values. Why not? Because I respect their choices. Can you respect Christian choices? Obviously not, seeing you never fail to barge in with your long and tedious delivery.
Strange, I thought the title of this thread speaks of something else. The posts I have given r not irrelevant. They do mention about the biblical scripture and IMO r really valid points. Why focus on the sin of homosexuality while conveniently forget other rules such as prawn eating and many others. Why the double standard ? Isn't tis the case of mix and match watever u like to believe rather than really following the word of god ?
Leave your scepticism at the door, this discussion has nothing to do with you, unless you are either a gay-Christian and has a close friend who is one, neither of which I think you are. -
I didn't set the rules. As much as I take that positively, such studies were done by various learned people (who probably do not mean a thing to you) OT was written before there were Christians. How can a law exist for people that did not exist at the time a law was passed. Romans and Corinthians and Acts exist after Christianity was formed.
How do u set tat tis rules r for jews and not for christians ? Why doesn't homosexuality become the rules for jews and not for christian as well
I do hear of cases where death sentence is given to gays people when they r murdered.
who was murdered? gay people? and they were given death sentenced? to a murdered gay people? huh? were they given the death sentence because they were gay or because they murdered? again, who was murdered?
Most people can see that my argument is between non Gay Christian POV and Gay Christian POV. Any behaviour is towards Gay Christians and unless you admit to being one or is close to one, it does not matter to you... bbbut, you being SIS, everything that a Christian does matters to you.... I am glad that we influence your life as such....
It matters because it will inevitably affect the behavior of christians and they will affect other people from other beliefs
I am sure you can find ammunition without anyone giving you any.
Com'on, am I wrong to talk about prawns in tis topic ? It is in fact raised by an article posted by earthling before. If there is no loop holes in it where can I get the ammunition to debate on thse issues ? Afterall to you the entire Bible is already full of contradictions. So why put the blame on another person?
Precisely, why focus on homosexual but ignore bigamy, adultery, promiscuous sex, paedophile etc. So do you also think that because man is created lustful, therefore it is alright for man to be adulterous and lead a promiscuous life? Do you consider these behaviour good and natural? I would like your comment on these since you feel like expanding the topic.
Strange, I thought the title of this thread speaks of something else. The posts I have given r not irrelevant. They do mention about the biblical scripture and IMO r really valid points. Why focus on the sin of homosexuality while conveniently forget other rules such as prawn eating and many others. Why the double standard ? Isn't tis the case of mix and match watever u like to believe rather than really following the word of god ?
You did not answer my earlier question: DO YOU RESPECT A CHRISTIAN'S CHOICE as I am able to respect a non-Christian's choice? -
oh s-h-i-t .. got to ask heng's fren on this.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I have probably answered tis countless times before. Just immediateley after jesus say "fulfill" he say tat all these laws have to be kept without a single stroke dissappear FOREVER.
Silly example. When the gov says the country practise meritocracy, does it means only christian get meritocracy while non-christian get otherwise ? Why use a totally different subject as an example ?
That's right. When the gov says country practice meritocracy .. does it say foreign workers also get same treatment? We have to admit the OT contains laws meant for people receiving the covenant, yet at same time recognise some commandments apply to all mankind. How to tell them apart is not the point here.
I hope it is clear that "thou shall not murder" applies to all mankind heh, though this is in the OT as well.
they r both treated equally as detestable or abomination. So in a sense they r not of a lower sin of "unclean"
I think we can only conclude they are worse than those "unclean" sins.
Wat is the diff ? Homos r gonna be treated differently regardless of whether u focus on the sin or sinner.
of course got diff. One implies the theology is wrong and full of discrimination, the other only says xtians sometimes get too arrogant and forgot what the Lord has taught them. -
I've talked about 1 Cor with some of my xtian friends.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Here's where i am totally confused..... EH Christians has no authority to intepret the Bible, but your friends can? As I'd said, I am open to new understanding, but there is nothing in the Bible to specifically support homosexuality, or to provide a deeper insight to Romans and 1 Cor.
To recognise the definition in Romans and 1 Cor is not discrimination.
While I willing to recognise that some treatment may not work on some people, are you willing to accept that some of such treatment works? We all can quote from ex-gays or reform ex-gays all we want, but even halfway houses in singapore have their success and their failures on their druggie cases. It does not prove one thing or another.
The nature and nurture thing: the human race changes all the time, there are cases where children are born alcoholic or drug-dependent (because of the problems of their parents), so do we treat this or accept that it is ok now to continue to bottlefeed vodka and supply ice to this kids? Of course, if you don't think this is a problem, that again, that's fine with me.....
To all: no need to go the way of the crusades lah.... it's like US harping on Japanese war issues..... the people who sanctioned the crusades are dead (in hell or heaven - who cares?)
One thing is true though: 90% of this entire thread has nothing to do with the topic.
I will refrain commenting on this topic from now as I think I have said enough:
1. Please do not take it that I am criticising all homos. I don't know you, and I don't care if you overeat, or oversleep or who you hang out with. I respect your choice in life.
2. I am only addressing Christian gays who attempts to justify their position by twisting scriptures and make political human rights statements. Note the POV here that it is by definition that a Christian's authority is the Bible.
3. If nobody here is qualify to intepret the Bible or at least give an opinion, than we should just lock up EH or only dwell in really mundane topics like where to eat/go this weekend.
Bye all...
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
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.
They ask why do u take it out of context as well?
it states clearly here "homosexual OFFENDERS", not just "homosexuals"
I've been told that this listing of "homosexual OFFENDERS" comes from the biblical city of Lot, where a group of men were hornier than Satan himself n raped anyone who entered their house, be it men or women, and it is this homosexual RAPE itself that is a sin, not homosexuality itself. How do u explain this?
And also, I've kindly provided a website by Les Gay Bi and Trans Xtians. Why don't u have a look and explain where they get their POV from? Don't be so self-righteously dismissive about it. I feel that its worth a look and some dissection into what they are saying as well. As far as it goes, all along here, your insistance is that YOUR view IS the xtian view. Might u not consider that other xtians might hae a valid point of view as well, and that might u not be mistaken?
besides as sgdiehard said:clap, clap, clap,..... very well said, indeed. I have learned a lot from the exchanges on this issue, more from the Christians than the pro gays or gay forumites. Biased? whatever they may say, but it is better, safer to submit to the authority of God and obey his words spoken in the Bible.
u say its safer to submit to the authority of god and obey his words spoken in the bible.
i will point out that:
1) nobody is saying we shouldn't submit to the authority of god.
2) the bible are not his spoken words. it is the word of MAN who wrote what they THOUGHT what god had said.
3) are u 100% sure that your personal understanding of the bible is absolutely correct?
4) are u not letting your own biasedness fool u into thinking your personal understanding of the bible IS correct?
5) 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
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.
If you xtians can quote me this as saying homosexuality is wrong and yet other xtians who aren't gay can point it out that when u ignore the "offender" that follows "homosexual", you are also taking it out of context, might u not be grossly mistaken in some of your interpretations, however minute your mistake in overlooking some words might be?
SO u need to get it clear:The owner is allowed to write the rules because this is HIS gym and the rules are for the good for all who use the gym, members can testify to that. Members don question the rules for they believe the owner knows better and members submit to His authority.
U say that members don't question the owner because the believe he knows better, but im asking u, the owner didn't write the rules, he told his member of staff to write the rules based on a rough guideline, and the member of staff writes it up as best as he could, but with his own views, prejudices and misunderstandings written into those rules, are u going to simply follow them blindly in the belief that the owner personally wrote the rules himself without making clear who actually wrote the rules?
Bash the christians, the church, and all christian organisation as you like, it is true that some do deserved criticism or canning on the backside, but if you are questioning God, twisting the Bible, do it at your own risks
So why do u say i am questioning god when i am questioning the bible itself, which was written NOT by god but by man? I am questioning if the bible hadn't been written with some human prejudice, biasedness, views, belief, misgivings and misunderstandings in? If for even a passage like 1 Cor 6:9, xtians can give 2 different explanations which both sound logical, then who are YOU to say that i am twisting the bible, and that you are not? The risk might be on your own heads all this while, that I will remind u. -
You know I find this really strange. On one hand, you denounce Christians as myself as being incapable or inadequate to translate/interprete the Bible, on the other hand, you go check with your friends. I sincerely hope that your Christian friends are learned enough to give you the correct answers.Originally posted by HENG@:I've talked about 1 Cor with some of my xtian friends.
umm.. shall we go back to the original Greek language in which 1 Corinthians was written: The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek añóåÃïêïßôçò (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as “abuser of (oneÂ’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (oneÂ’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
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.
They ask why do u take it out of context as well?
it states clearly here "homosexual OFFENDERS", not just "homosexuals"
I've been told that this listing of "homosexual OFFENDERS" comes from the biblical city of Lot, where a group of men were hornier than Satan himself n raped anyone who entered their house, be it men or women, and it is this homosexual RAPE itself that is a sin, not homosexuality itself. How do u explain this?
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts." Something just struck me.... "arsenokoites" coitus via the arse????
Please, I did not make all these up. Go read up a good concordance or commentary on the various verses of the Bible or pick up a good English/Greek dictionary...... of course it is also entirely possible that your friend(s) are also very learned.... but I doubt so.
errr. where did you get the notion that I said that MY VIEW IS THE CHRISTIAN VIEW.... at best I say that my view is my view as a Christian with my own understanding of the Bible. I'd said many times - you got more supportive evidence from the Bible, I'd be happy to read them. I did not reject your claims, which really is far and few in between, without explaining why. There are obviously two views, one: a pro gay Christian camp, the other an anti gay Christian camp. I just happen to be in the one you are not in. Please stop saying that I am insisting that I am right. If this is the case, every single individual, you including is doing that. EH folks had already commented about how I'd approach this topic. I don't think there is a misunderstanding on where I am coming from. On the other hand, you have mixed your friend's pro-gay Christian view with your non-Christian view on homos so much so that I really don't know what you are arguing for.
And also, I've kindly provided a website by Les Gay Bi and Trans Xtians. Why don't u have a look and explain where they get their POV from? Don't be so self-righteously dismissive about it. I feel that its worth a look and some dissection into what they are saying as well. As far as it goes, all along here, your insistance is that YOUR view IS the xtian view. Might u not consider that other xtians might hae a valid point of view as well, and that might u not be mistaken?
Anybody can set up a website and state the views, which in itself does not mean anything. Safehaven is closer to home. I'd read most of the articles in it. It would be a stand of gay-Christian. They have attempted to deal with Romans and 1 Corinthians by quoting the naturalist theory, the acceptance of behaviour plus the need for self-rights - all of which has nothing to do with the Bible.
From all your postings, it'd be safe to declare that you are either a gay-activist, or a gay. Like I'd said it does not matter to me who you are. I don't care. What matters is your inconsistent stand - by admitting that your friends' opinions are the correct one and those in EH that are anti-gay is wrong. Why is his opinions more correct than mine? Is it because they are already fundamentally in agreement with yours?
I am asking you to give us the benefit of doubt, and dig a little deeper. A young Christian can make all kinds of claims about the work of God and various deviant belief. What you need to do is not just to believe them, or me, at all. There are methods to read the Bible. The worst one being to take everything at face value without going to the original translation and see what a root word really mean when it was written or to make claims that we should not listen to wisemen because we are all given a brain.
One more thing, if you don't believe in the Bible, don't use a verse to support your claims... -
so all along u're saying that its my friends who are unlearned and that u're learned?Originally posted by Chin Eng:errr. where did you get the notion that I said that MY VIEW IS THE CHRISTIAN VIEW.... at best I say that my view is my view as a Christian with my own understanding of the Bible. I'd said many times - you got more supportive evidence from the Bible, I'd be happy to read them. I did not reject your claims, which really is far and few in between, without explaining why. There are obviously two views, one: a pro gay Christian camp, the other an anti gay Christian camp. I just happen to be in the one you are not in. Please stop saying that I am insisting that I am right. If this is the case, every single individual, you including is doing that. EH folks had already commented about how I'd approach this topic. I don't think there is a misunderstanding on where I am coming from. On the other hand, you have mixed your friend's pro-gay Christian view with your non-Christian view on homos so much so that I really don't know what you are arguing for.
Anybody can set up a website and state the views, which in itself does not mean anything. Safehaven is closer to home. I'd read most of the articles in it. It would be a stand of gay-Christian. They have attempted to deal with Romans and 1 Corinthians by quoting the naturalist theory, the acceptance of behaviour plus the need for self-rights - all of which has nothing to do with the Bible.
From all your postings, it'd be safe to declare that you are either a gay-activist, or a gay. Like I'd said it does not matter to me who you are. I don't care. What matters is your inconsistent stand - by admitting that your friends' opinions are the correct one and those in EH that are anti-gay is wrong. Why is his opinions more correct than mine? Is it because they are already fundamentally in agreement with yours?
I am asking you to give us the benefit of doubt, and dig a little deeper. A young Christian can make all kinds of claims about the work of God and various deviant belief. What you need to do is not just to believe them, or me, at all. There are methods to read the Bible. The worst one being to take everything at face value without going to the original translation and see what a root word really mean when it was written or to make claims that we should not listen to wisemen because we are all given a brain.
u said this: I am only addressing Christian gays who attempts to justify their position by twisting scriptures and make political human rights statements. Note the POV here that it is by definition that a Christian's authority is the Bible.
this statement alone, makes it clear that u think u are right, and that those xtian gays who, like u have their own understanding of the bible, are "twisting scriptures and making political human right statements"
isn't that like saying your own understanding is right and non-twisting of scriptures while theirs are? u have your evidence, they have theirs, I am handicapped here in that I don't read the bible like u or them, so while u can argue back with your personal knowledge, in presenting them, as far as biblical evidence goes, i can only present what they've told me, and worse still because some of them are in a different time zone, i have to stay up till 3 or 4am in the morning just to ask them about their xtian POVs and supporting evidence from the bible, which if u insist you are entitled to, then so are they, even as xtians. U just keep saying they are twisting scriptures, aren't u indirectly saying u must be right because u don't? but who are u to judge that they are twisting scriptures? as u so self-righteously point out, if your view is my your as a Christian with your own understanding of the Bible, then so are their views, for they truely believe in xtianity as well, unlike me. Thus i need to ask u. Who be you, to say that they are twisting scriptures? What im doing here is not to say definately my friends have the correct view. if i think that way, why do I present your views to them and why do i need to push them so hard? Another point I need to clarify. While im not gay, I believe in gay-rights and the abolishment of bigotry and prejudice in all forms, social and religious, and as such, even tho it doesn't affect me directly, i argue as fiercely as any gay person would about this issue.
So make it clear. I am arguing against this anti-gay mindset, that it is a sin or unnatural, because that is the root of all discrimination against homosexuality. THAT, is what im arguing for.
as for using verses, in any contest, it is always best to use your opponent's strength against him. if u so believe in the bible, then where there are doubts about what u can understand from the bible, am i not entitled to raise the question? -
no I am saying, why the inconsistency and make remarks that Christians in EH are not able to intepret the Bible while on the same note accept at face value what you are told by your friends. They are probably as smart as I am or as I as dumb as them.Originally posted by HENG@:so all along u're saying that its my friends who are unlearned and that u're learned?
The fact that there is a claim that Eccl 7:13 is in support of homosexuality is already a twist in scripture. There is virtually nothing in the book of Eccl that talks about sex. Want sex? Try Song of Solomons.... that one x-rated.Originally posted by HENG@:u said this: I am only addressing Christian gays who attempts to justify their position by twisting scriptures and make political human rights statements. Note the POV here that it is by definition that a Christian's authority is the Bible.
this statement alone, makes it clear that u think u are right, and that those xtian gays who, like u have their own understanding of the bible, are "twisting scriptures and making political human right statements"
isn't that like saying your own understanding is right and non-twisting of scriptures while theirs are? u have your evidence, they have theirs, I am handicapped here in that I don't read the bible like u or them, so while u can argue back with your personal knowledge, in presenting them, as far as biblical evidence goes, i can only present what they've told me, and worse still because some of them are in a different time zone, i have to stay up till 3 or 4am in the morning just to ask them about their xtian POVs and supporting evidence from the bible, which if u insist you are entitled to, then so are they, even as xtians. U just keep saying they are twisting scriptures, aren't u indirectly saying u must be right because u don't? but who are u to judge that they are twisting scriptures? as u so self-righteously point out, if your view is my your as a Christian with your own understanding of the Bible, then so are their views, for they truely believe in xtianity as well, unlike me. Thus i need to ask u. Who be you, to say that they are twisting scriptures? What im doing here is not to say definately my friends have the correct view. if i think that way, why do I present your views to them and why do i need to push them so hard? Another point I need to clarify. While im not gay, I believe in gay-rights and the abolishment of bigotry and prejudice in all forms, social and religious, and as such, even tho it doesn't affect me directly, i argue as fiercely as any gay person would about this issue.
So make it clear. I am arguing against this anti-gay mindset, that it is a sin or unnatural, because that is the root of all discrimination against homosexuality. THAT, is what im arguing for.
Let's assume you are right and I am twisting scripture: which part would that be? So far, only Romans and 1 Cor and possibly Acts were quoted by me. Can you tell me precisely which verse have I twisted. Teach me so that I will learn.
The issue is NOT ABOUT GAY RIGHTS! The issue is about the Christian theology on homosexuals no different from the Christian theology on adultery or sexual promiscuity. If you feel that because you don't read the bible enough, don't get yourself involve in this topic. No need to spend the next few nights (mornings) emailing your friends. Get them to post their defense themselves, I am sure they can get access to Sgforums wherever they are. Let them post their own defense.... you say, it's about rights, correct? They have every right to come in a post whatever they want. No one will chase them away. In that respect, you are right: they intepret one way, and other Christians, including me intepret another.... all I am asking is: how can one read Eccl 7:13 to be supporting homosexuals and ignoring the condemnation in Romans and 1 Corinthians? Just explain these verse to me, base on their understanding.
I am not self-rightoeous lah... I have plenty of sins and I know what they are. I do not go justifying my rights to commit them. -
but they are entitled to their understanding that Ecc is support of homosexuality. who are u to say that that is twisting the scripture? did u not say it is down to an individual's understanding? again who are u to judge whether that is twisting the scripture?Originally posted by Chin Eng:The fact that there is a claim that Eccl 7:13 is in support of homosexuality is already a twist in scripture. There is virtually nothing in the book of Eccl that talks about sex. Want sex? Try Song of Solomons.... that one x-rated.
Let's assume you are right and I am twisting scripture: which part would that be? So far, only Romans and 1 Cor and possibly Acts were quoted by me. Can you tell me precisely which verse have I twisted. Teach me so that I will learn.
The issue is NOT ABOUT GAY RIGHTS! The issue is about the Christian theology on homosexuals no different from the Christian theology on adultery or sexual promiscuity. If you feel that because you don't read the bible enough, don't get yourself involve in this topic. No need to spend the next few nights (mornings) emailing your friends. Get them to post their defense themselves, I am sure they can get access to Sgforums wherever they are. Let them post their own defense.... you say, it's about rights, correct? They have every right to come in a post whatever they want. No one will chase them away. In that respect, you are right: they intepret one way, and other Christians, including me intepret another.... all I am asking is: how can one read Eccl 7:13 to be supporting homosexuals and ignoring the condemnation in Romans and 1 Corinthians? Just explain these verse to me, base on their understanding.
I am not self-rightoeous lah... I have plenty of sins and I know what they are. I do not go justifying my rights to commit them. -
any understand has to have a basis, otherwise I will "understand" a window to be a door and vice versa, and I will use these the wrong way. The declaration that there is an understanding is insufficient. So again, on the assumption that your friends are correct, what basis is this understand latched to:Originally posted by HENG@:but they are entitled to their understanding that Ecc is support of homosexuality. who are u to say that that is twisting the scripture? did u not say it is down to an individual's understanding? again who are u to judge whether that is twisting the scripture?
Under most conditions, it would be:
1. an explicit, unmistakable verse.
2. an hidden meaning, revealed when an original text (greek, aramaic, hebrew) is read.
3. a cross reference to parallel incident.
4. cross checking with the various versions.
5. commentary by various bible scholars and seminaries
So please tell me how Eccl 7:13 becomes supportive of the gay movement. Because you are NOT the person having THAT understanding first hand, you need to be convinced on the reason why it is a verse supporting homosexual. And please don't forget to find out for me how I twisted Romans and 1 Cor. I really need to know. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
i will ask. u aren't getting out so easily. i will be going out now, i will give u an answer over the weekend.
[b]any understand has to have a basis, otherwise I will "understand" a window to be a door and vice versa, and I will use these the wrong way. The declaration that there is an understanding is insufficient. So again, on the assumption that your friends are correct, what basis is this understand latched to:
Under most conditions, it would be:
1. an explicit, unmistakable verse.
2. an hidden meaning, revealed when an original text (greek, aramaic, hebrew) is read.
3. a cross reference to parallel incident.
4. cross checking with the various versions.
5. commentary by various bible scholars and seminaries
So please tell me how Eccl 7:13 becomes supportive of the gay movement. Because you are NOT the person having THAT understanding first hand, you need to be convinced on the reason why it is a verse supporting homosexual. And please don't forget to find out for me how I twisted Romans and 1 Cor. I really need to know.[/b] -
Originally posted by HENG@:i will ask. u aren't getting out so easily. i will be going out now, i will give u an answer over the weekend. take care... have a good weekend..... better still, ask them to reply directly...
-
1st 7 replies are very troublesome. otherwise they would probably reply directly.Originally posted by Chin Eng: take care... have a good weekend..... better still, ask them to reply directly... -
Err.. The word "homosexual" does not appear until 1869. So how would an ancient greek word be tranlated to mean homosexual in English?Originally posted by Chin Eng:umm.. shall we go back to the original Greek language in which 1 Corinthians was written: The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek añóåÃïêïßôçò (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as “abuser of (oneÂ’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (oneÂ’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals."; The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts." Something just struck me.... "arsenokoites"; coitus via the arse????
Please, I did not make all these up. Go read up a good concordance or commentary on the various verses of the Bible or pick up a good English/Greek dictionary...... of course it is also entirely possible that your friend(s) are also very learned.... but I doubt so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual
The word homosexual translates literally as "of the same sex," being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning "same" and the Latin root sex- meaning "sex." The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymously published 1869 German pamphlet written by the Hungarian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. -
I didn't set the rules. As much as I take that positively, such studies were done by various learned people (who probably do not mean a thing to you) OT was written before there were Christians. How can a law exist for people that did not exist at the time a law was passed. Romans and Corinthians and Acts exist after Christianity was formed
Chrtistianity was based on jewish scriptures. How can they forsake their teachings completely and assume they r different ? In tat case why should the mesiah exist of r people who do not exist at tat time ? The OT is included as part of the bible for a reason. Jesus in the NT had himself said the importance of the OT laws. U wanna defy him ?who was murdered? gay people? and they were given death sentenced? to a murdered gay people? huh? were they given the death sentence because they were gay or because they murdered? again, who was murdered?
There were articles from earthlings tat shows gays being murdered. Sort of death sentence being laid onto them isn't it ?Most people can see that my argument is between non Gay Christian POV and Gay Christian POV. Any behaviour is towards Gay Christians and unless you admit to being one or is close to one, it does not matter to you... bbbut, you being SIS, everything that a Christian does matters to you.... I am glad that we influence your life as such....
Tat is very interesting but all along I have been arguing from the scripture point of view isn't it ? Or r u gonna tell me christian don't read bible ? And as said countless time, the teaching of christainity is gonna affect people of all belief and religion, which obviously include me. So I can't comment on anything tat is gonna influence me. But anyway u r gonna reply the same thing back anywayPrecisely, why focus on homosexual but ignore bigamy, adultery, promiscuous sex, paedophile etc. So do you also think that because man is created lustful, therefore it is alright for man to be adulterous and lead a promiscuous life? Do you consider these behaviour good and natural? I would like your comment on these since you feel like expanding the topic.
Bigamy, adultery involves another third party (current partner) so it is wrong and no one will stand up to it. Paedophile is a crime committed on another person who is deemed not matured enough to undertsand the nature of the business. For promiscuous sex, it depends on your definition of it. If u talk about a hooker doing it for a living and religious people go all out and condemn and curse them, I will stand up for them as well. If u talk about sex with boyfriends, I will stand up for them too. If u talk about nymphomaniac, it really had a very damaging influence to his wellbeing and at the current moment it is considered as a mental illness and as such, should be encourage to visit the pyschatrist. And as such, we do see eye to eye on such issues
Seems u r keen on expanding issues, why don't u expand on the topic of masturbation and contraception while u r at it ? These 2 points r perhaps the topics tat seem incredibly wrong IMO yet upheld by the religion to be right. We probably do not se eye to eye on these 2 so u wanna discuss them ?You did not answer my earlier question: DO YOU RESPECT A CHRISTIAN'S CHOICE as I am able to respect a non-Christian's choice?
Lets say I am powerless to a choice made by christians. A poitn I need to make is there r many christians who do not respect the choices made by gays. However this being a forum, why don't we jut thrash it out and talk about it to get deeper understanding on the issues.That's right. When the gov says country practice meritocracy .. does it say foreign workers also get same treatment? We have to admit the OT contains laws meant for people receiving the covenant, yet at same time recognise some commandments apply to all mankind. How to tell them apart is not the point here.
So u mean u get to pick and choose the laws tat u like and follow them while conveninetly throw all the other laws to the jews ? From the wordings of the bible, it show tat all followers of god have to follow these laws. In the case of a country tat practise meritocracy, even if u r a foreign worker, u get fair treatment and can get promoted and a pay raise if u r more hard working than the rest. Tat is the ideal state tat the country is striving for.
I hope it is clear that "thou shall not murder" applies to all mankind heh, though this is in the OT as well.of course got diff. One implies the theology is wrong and full of discrimination, the other only says xtians sometimes get too arrogant and forgot what the Lord has taught them.
And to the homosexual, wat is the diff ? To them they r gonna be treated differently whether they focus on the sin or the sinner