Log in

View Full Version : Homophobia = Less Intelligence?



Pages : 1 [2]

polecat
01-18-2005, 01:44 PM
a)the bible has no opinion on girl-girl. Does that mean that gay women should be allowed in the military? (Seriously - look as hard as you want. You will not find a passage that deems women/women sex inappropriate)
Actually, you are wrong.

Deuteronomy 22:5, when translated back to the original Hebrew, clearly states that women are not to assume the role of a man in a sexual relationship- King James interpretation picks a more proverbally correct stating of ".A woman must not wear a man's clothing.." The original text is much clearer, but even the King James interpretation is clear enough.

The bible also states part of the reason for Revelations/Apocalypse is because the entire world becomes as Gibeah, invoking God's wrath. Only one passage on Gibeah in Judges can be referenced of what was wrong with Gibeah:
"Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly."

If you're unable to find a concordance with original Hebrew and Greek passages, King James usage of "know" means the horizontal bop... such as Genesis:
"Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived"


b)I'm sure whoever here has not read the bible will just lie about it anyway, so I won't order anyone to read it (I haven't read it cover to cover incidentally).
Anyone that waltz's around with "cover to cover" statements is usually full of shit. I've got 3+ years of concordance theology study of the bible and I haven't even gotten full study of 60% of it. Unless someone dedicates a serious chunk of time (5+ years WITH concordance and basic primers of Greek/Hebrew), they are full of shit. You should consider picking up a concordance to study-back to the Greek/Hebrew as the King James interpretation is very old and most modern students will miss a lot. But it's just too huge an effort to get all of it.


But you may have noticed (or heard) that the bible is very self contradictory.
It is only contradictory if you are unable to grasp the loose translation. The original Hebrew/Greek is MUCH clearer. The translation process took a number of decisions which can make the casual, English reader become confused. Bible thumpers have taken advantage of this for centuries. It's loaded with analogies and many of them use dated English that modern English would miss entirely, or interpret completely wrong. There are also a handful of flat-out mistakes as well (again, well documented in just about any concordance.)


Because the bible comdemns eating seafood in terms just as strong as the one with which it condemns homosexuality. "Their blood shall be upon them" etc, etc. Using the bible to pass laws or policy is blatant discrimination.
This is the only real point I've found in your entire post that is completely accurate, no offense... (but not necessarily with the seafood clause..)

The Bible actually *condones* homosexuality, in a way- it's part of being human. The whole deal between the old and new testament is a firm foundation of "flesh is sin" and the new testament further enforces "you're flesh, so you're GOING to sin" and also clarifies that there was/ever will be one "flesh" that walked the earth without sin (Jesus). It also builds a system that explains- YOUR GOING TO SIN (and here's all the things considered "sin"..), so just repent, salute Jesus and all will be forgiven/cool. It lumps homosexuality, theft, adultery, cheating, usury, and the whole works as the result of being human... i.e. get used to the idea because you're no Jesus. The bible thumpers condemning homosexuals are double at fault- one, they are wrongly judging others (documented a sin, and also documented that what they are condemning is purely a human/flesh trait!) and they are also usually those collecting tithes to buy a new house, mercedes and whatnot.

The problem is- most bible thumpers (.. or as illustrated, bible opposers..) don't take the given volume seriously, nor have they studied it to the degree to figure out what it all really means. They've been spoon fed one-verse passages literally, taken out of context, and to be used for their advantage. Understanding can only be done by taking the various verses back to the original Greek and Hebrew and meshing with the extreme efforts of the King James translation team... as well as cross-referencing with other parts of the Bible as it re-references prior/future passages all over the place.

People invision some gal walking down the streets with a chopped down fig tree, when the Hebrew is pretty clear the whole passage just refers to a timeframe/month- and there is no maiden nor a tree. A lot of Christians also think Jesus and his disciples sponsored an all-you-can-eat Fish and Bread buffet, but in reality- the entire passage in it's original form describes that the masses will seek knowledge/wisdom, and there are people in this world that are teachers and can satiate that hunger... seek them out.

Heck, even "Jesus" is wrong. The original Hebrew is- http://www.eliyah.com/SonName.gif.
Which is pronounced, roughly- Yahushua, which would have been closer to Joshua (there is no "J" sound in the Hebrew language.. at all!)

A LOT of the written word is translated very loosely and the KJV has not stood the test of time for how the English language has changed over the years.. nor are most skimmers interested in figuring out what the passages really mean in their original form. But then again, a lot of people also don't understand 50% of the poetry out there.. and think Pink Floyd the Wall was "just a big confusing hour long music video, dood"

And no, I'm not a religious person either, so I'm by no means a bible thumper. I'd just as equally debate passages in the Illiad if people had a tendency to misquote or miss entire passages as they do the bible. VERY few people have actually "read" the bible, which involves 5+ years of concordance cross-reference if you actually want to understand it. 90% of those that swear and live by it are completely ignorant to most of it.

AvaAngel
01-18-2005, 01:56 PM
oh yeah someone with Theology education ! Polecat can you settle the difference of opinion Lilith and I had on who is right and wrong about mixing races or religions?

In your studies did you find passages that forbid mixing of any races or religions?

Thanks in advance :)

Jay Zeno
01-18-2005, 02:50 PM
It certainly would be difficult to not only refer to all source material for the King James Version, but going back to the original Vulgate and B.C. to the Septuagint. It would also consider whether to still ignore the writings rejected by the Reformists, and earlier at Nicea and Worms, and other convocations along the way.

But there are relatively common passages, and that's what I was referring to.

What was the Aramaic version of "Jesus," anyway?

AvaAngel
01-18-2005, 03:31 PM
Are you kidding me???
Did you read the rest of just the front page of this website??

These are radicals who are reading into the bible the things that support thier own agenda.This is not what MOST catholics belive or interpret from the bible.
The paragraph on the front page should have given it away right off the bat.

White supremist group.

My point exactly.

There are always some people who twist holy scriptures(of any faith) to support their agenda. It is the same thing with many of those who use the Bible to explain away the fact that they are homophobic.

It's all the same crap .

polecat
01-18-2005, 03:35 PM
It certainly would be difficult to not only refer to all source material for the King James Version, but going back to the original Vulgate and B.C. to the Septuagint. It would also consider whether to still ignore the writings rejected by the Reformists, and earlier at Nicea and Worms, and other convocations along the way.
Totally! Which is why it seems almost a fool's folly for some people to base their lives on 'the bible' as strongly as they do, yet have no degree of certainty.. UNLESS they wish to dedicate many, many years to the study of trying to actually figure out what was actually written.

It's hilarious to see Christian groups against women wearing "pants" from the quote in my last post. It's also funny to see entire states against working the Sabbath (Sundays/7th day) when this is cross referenced all over the old/new testaments as being the FIRST, imperfect covenant, whereas the second covenant supercedes the first after the coming of Christ. Anyone that doesn't transfer to the new, second covenant is actually defying/blaspheming Christianity by the word itself.



What was the Aramaic version of "Jesus," anyway?
The Aramaic pronounciation is almost precisely the same as the Hebrew.. It's pronounced like "yayah - shu -ah" and often written in English as "Eashua".. still much closer to Joshua, but with a soft/H-like pronounciation of the J.

Interesting tidbit- Spanish naming of Jesus is based on the King James "Jesus", when their phonetics can spell his name properly. The Spanish Jesus (pronounces kinda like- "Hey Zeus") could be near perfectly translated as jahahshua as their "J" is phonetically closer to the H/Y sound of the Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek of the same.

AvaAngel
01-18-2005, 03:56 PM
Totally! Which is why it seems almost a fool's folly for some people to base their lives on 'the bible' as strongly as they do, yet have no degree of certainty..


I agree. What do you make of the groups that try to say the Bible forbide racial mixing? Is that a valid claim to say about the Bible ? I'm very curious to hear first hand from someone with a good deal of experience in Theology.

Djoser
01-18-2005, 04:42 PM
Polecat gets down, lol...

What he says about the Bible is so true. I remember going around to all these professors, as an idealistic undergrad trying to create my own major, and trying to get faculty sponsors. One woman whom I was trying to convince to help me asked me if I'd read the Iliad in Greek. I said, "Well, no, but I've read it in English 3 or 4 times." She laughed dismissively at this and told me there wasn't any other way to read it than in the original Greek.

The further back you go, the more this is true, particularly in the case with religious literature.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Haven't they been shown to be a sort of 'Proto-Bible' (Old Testament). I know there is considerable controversy surrounding them, and that orthodox Biblical authorities were none too pleased at the publicity surrounding their discovery. If we really wanted to live our lives according to the 'Original Word of God'--as conveniently recorded by some ancient guy--we couldn't take a shit during the Sabbath day...

And speaking of Jesus, or Yahushua--who certainly looked nothing whatsoever like the usual Anglo-Saxon guy in all those pictures from Sunday School--if the Biblical version of his crucifixion is accurate, he probably survived the experience. Crucifixion took about a day, sometimes longer, to kill the victim, and the Romans would ordinarily have been sure to post a guard. They would never have let the friends and family take down such an important political revolutionary as he was, in particular. Leaving him up there for a few hours, as the Bible says, would have been an excruciating ordeal, but probably not fatal. So maybe those Merovingians really did have Jewish blood, lol...

Jay Zeno
01-18-2005, 06:14 PM
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Haven't they been shown to be a sort of 'Proto-Bible' (Old Testament).

They do have a fair amount of retelling of some of the Old Testament books, commentary on Jewish tradition and practices, and editorials by the writer(s). Some of the writings of Old Testament books are at odds with the historical versions commonly accepted.

Of great interest also is the collection discovered at Nag Hammadi. This is a series of early Christian texts dating back to the second to fourth century. The writings are more Gnostic in nature and therefore are roundly rejected in content by mainstream Christianity.

Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts are extraordinary archaeological finds of writings up to 2,000 years old..

Lena
01-18-2005, 11:07 PM
The top 5 religions of the world,today,and 1000 years ago,all say being homosexual is wrong.
True or false?

False, and I'm just being factual. As I stated before, it would be hard to find a non- monotheistic religion that condemns homosexuality. I don't know what your "top five" religions are, but I do know that most people define the major world religions as: tribal religions, Hinduism, Judaism, Greek/Hellenistic, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. Of these, the monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), condemn homosexuality. The others accept it.

That's a fact.



If it were not for these CURRENT laws,homosexuals would get the same treatment they have gotten thru history in every society.
Im not saying its right or wrong or if i agree with either side,im just saying its a fact.

You mean they would be honored as prophets and advisors like they were in ancient times in North America? Or do you mean they would be celebrated in art, music, and erotica? ;)

Again, I've gotta recommend the book Sex in the Evolution of Monotheism. Knowledge is power, dude.

Lena

Tigerlilly
01-19-2005, 12:07 PM
Knowledge is power, dude.


Amen to that ! :peace:

Madcap
01-19-2005, 08:13 PM
a)the bible has no opinion on girl-girl. Does that mean that gay women should be allowed in the military? (Seriously - look as hard as you want. You will not find a passage that deems women/women sex inappropriate)

Well, leave it to Paul...

Romans 1:26-28: 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. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

That is the only clear reference to Lesbianism in the entire christian bible, and of course it comes from Paul's dirty mind (As much as he ranted against sexuality the dude must have thought about it a lot). No mention in the whole old testament, though, and the dude we know as Jesus never so much as mentioned either.

Jenny
01-19-2005, 11:28 PM
Alright! I shouldn't have said look as hard as you want. Anyway, I went and found the passage after it was initially mentioned, and it is a very fleeting mention - it hardly counts. No, I'm kidding. It's a mention. But. I went and looked it up on christianlesbians.com and they had some interesting insight (thank you Mary Daly). I would love to claim these insights as mine, but that would just be a lie. The people referred to were "struck" with these "unnatural" desires as a punishment - the real sin in question is that of idolatry. They went into a little more detail, but this is not, strictly speaking, a condemnation of gay love. It's a condemnation of idolatry. Just a little point.
Also, yes the bible has been interpreted and re-interpreted. However, I think it is safe to say that the version "used" by people in terms of understanding their faith is the King James. Last time I was in a church they had the KJ translation, and the minister read out of it. Therefore, unless we are actually sitting here thinking that the bible is the word of god, that can be understood perfectly and makes perfect sense in its pure form, it is pretty much the relevent version. Or so it seems to me.

Madcap
01-19-2005, 11:57 PM
I just think it's funny that Paul the "sex is evil" Apostle is the ONE person to mention it in the whole book.

Jenny
01-20-2005, 12:00 AM
Well Queen Victoria refused to pass laws against girl/girl love - she said it would ideas into women's heads.

I personally wonder... okay, not wondering anymore. That's just not healthy and normal.

BigGreenMnM
01-20-2005, 06:46 AM
I went and looked it up on christianlesbians.com and they had some interesting insight
??????????????

Ok im lost again.

I thought "Christians" called homosexuals an "abomination"???
Is this a church backed website or is it just a homosexual propaganda site?

Jay Zeno
01-20-2005, 06:59 AM
However, I think it is safe to say that the version "used" by people in terms of understanding their faith is the King James. Last time I was in a church they had the KJ translation, and the minister read out of it. Therefore, unless we are actually sitting here thinking that the bible is the word of god, that can be understood perfectly and makes perfect sense in its pure form, it is pretty much the relevent version. Or so it seems to me.

Not to pick nits, but I doubt that you'll find a Catholic or Orthodox church that uses it. Several of my friends that I've had lively debates with tell me that their church uses the "New International Version," or something like that.

Jenny
01-20-2005, 11:02 AM
??????????????

Ok im lost again.

I thought "Christians" called homosexuals an "abomination"???
Is this a church backed website or is it just a homosexual propaganda site?

Okay I think I see where you're getting lost. You do realize that "christianity" is not a uniform mixture that agrees on.. well, anything? That there are different branches of christianity that disagree on both trivial and fundamental issues? (Think "catholic" and "protestant"). And that even within these branches there is disagreement about how to handle these social issues (for example there are many, many catholic priests and nuns who think that women should be ordained in the church)? That different churches place different emphasis on different parts of the bible (which, no matter how good the translation, will never be perfect or stop being contradictory)? So, no. "Christian" do not call homosexuals "abominations". Even the Vatican's official position is a little lighter than that, now (you know, love the sinner, hate the sin). Gay men and women have been ordained in different churches, as other people have mentioned.

Do you call as propoganda any public information that disagrees with you? If so, then yes, it is a propoganda site. It is a website run by a lesbian rev sharing how she reconciled her faith with her orientation. Does that make it church based?

Jenny
01-20-2005, 11:03 AM
Not to pick nits, but I doubt that you'll find a Catholic or Orthodox church that uses it. Several of my friends that I've had lively debates with tell me that their church uses the "New International Version," or something like that.

Well, honestly I've never been to a Catholic church. Although my understanding is that in the English speaking countries, the services and bibles have been in english for a long time. Do you know what the difference is between the two?

Jay Zeno
01-20-2005, 11:35 AM
Well, honestly I've never been to a Catholic church. Although my understanding is that in the English speaking countries, the services and bibles have been in english for a long time. Do you know what the difference is between the two?

Oh, yeah, there's lots of English versions.

The first Bible in Chrisitianity as we know it today was translated by Jerome into the Vulgate around the fourth or fifth century. There were changes as time went on, until Gutenberg's printing press, and then a standardized Bible was more settled on.

The King James Version was a massive retranslation undertaking in the 17th century that included translation and language that was more in keeping with the divergence of various Protestant beliefs at the time. (There's a cute little story about whether Shakespeare was involving in the rewriting effort and a clue in the KJV Psalms about it.)

There have been newer versions since then as well, mostly to keep the book from being unreadable due to language changes. But most Protestants and Catholics use different versions of the Bible.

The King James Version also discarded certain Old Testament books that were retained by the Catholic versions.

Sorry for the scattershot answer - I'm not really up on my specific Bible history and versions past the generalities of the Vulgate and King James Version. Don't ask me about the "Good Times" Bible or the Douay-Rheims Bible - or the Book of Mormon, for that matter.