Anti Gay Baptists

[superstring01]

The downside is that it does potentially leave us open to tyranny - an unscrupulous politican with a strong majority could curtail all of our freedoms at a stroke - particularly as we have an upper house and head of state that are effectively powerless.

Personally I wouldn't be at all averse to a properly enshrined constitution - or a bill of rights and responsibilities

No "bill of rights" no matter how strong, can prevent a non-vigilant nation from becoming a tyranny, as a matter of fact, it can't even slow it down from that downward spiral. The presence of a constitution only removes the peaks and valleys from the political experience. In the end, it all rests on the shoulders of the voting public.

Britain doesn't need a constitution. Why would it? Power, ultimately, rests with the will of the people.

~String

 

[ggazoo]

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them

So this is a mistranslation? How should it read then? Because that sentence seem quite plain to me in both what it is condemning, and the prescribed penalty. Please enlighten me.

My pleasure. It's important to read the Bible in the historical context from when it was written, and it's original culture. Let's look at the word "abomination" first.

When the word abomination is used in the Hebrew Bible, it is always used to address a ritual wrong; it's never used to address something that is innately immoral. For example, eating pork was not innately immoral for a Jew, but it was an "abomination" because it was a violation of a ritual requirement. As I mentioned, those Biblical laws and rituals were known as the Holiness Code.

Now, when Leviticus says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination", it is talking about procreation, and a nation trying to grow. At the time, the Hebrew people understood that the male seed was all life contained; Leviticus is about saving seed so that the nation could grow. You obviously can't do that when a man lies with a man.

For example, take Onan n the OT, who ejaculates outside of the womans body and is sentenced to death. The King James version of the Bible says that Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground". It was ritually impure, or an "abomination".

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Good Points. I hope your views provoke some debate.
I haven't noticed your posts before, but I'll be looking out for you.

 

[Saquist]

Anti-gay preachers Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper have this week been banned from Britain. They are most famous for their God hates fags boards.
Do you think that the UK should ban people like this.
If you are a Christian, what do you think about their ideas?

This is blatantly inflamatory, the complete opposite of what a christian should be and completely against scripture which says that God loves all even if he must punish because of rebelious behavior.

This is why Christianity is on the decline. No one wants to hear this.

 

[ggazoo]

This is why Christianity is on the decline. No one wants to hear this.

We live in a very polarizing society. Both atheism and Christianity is on the rise. Korea has gone from 1 percent Christian to 40 percent in a hundred years, and experts believe that the same thing is going to happen in China. If there are a half a billion Chinese Christians fifty years from now, that will change the course of human history.

As well, there are now six times more Anglicans in Nigeria alone than there are in all of the United States. There are more Presbyterians in Ghana than the U.S. and Scotland combined. And today, Christians comprise 44 percent of the population.

So, suffice it to say, Christianity is hardly on the decline.

 

[Enmos]

This is blatantly inflamatory, the complete opposite of what a christian should be and completely against scripture which says that God loves all even if he must punish because of rebelious behavior.

This is why Christianity is on the decline. No one wants to hear this.

Do you consider being gay to be rebellious behavior ?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

No "bill of rights" no matter how strong, can prevent a non-vigilant nation from becoming a tyranny, as a matter of fact, it can't even slow it down from that downward spiral. The presence of a constitution only removes the peaks and valleys from the political experience. In the end, it all rests on the shoulders of the voting public.

Britain doesn't need a constitution. Why would it? Power, ultimately, rests with the will of the people.

~String

String - thanks for your confidence in my nation and her people.

During the 80's and 90's when our then Government was undertaking the largest and most systematic contraction of our civil rights for over 3 centuries (political parties banned - free assembly restricted etc etc) IO thought at the time that some kind of written constitution or bill of rights was needed.
I still do - and as well as having our rights enshrined in this way I think our responsibilities that result from these should be clearly spelled out too.
But you are right in the sense that it is down to the will of the people to be vigilant of these rights and responsibilities.

 

[Repo Man]

My pleasure. It's important to read the Bible in the historical context from when it was written, and it's original culture. Let's look at the word "abomination" first.

When the word abomination is used in the Hebrew Bible, it is always used to address a ritual wrong; it's never used to address something that is innately immoral. For example, eating pork was not innately immoral for a Jew, but it was an "abomination" because it was a violation of a ritual requirement. As I mentioned, those Biblical laws and rituals were known as the Holiness Code.

Now, when Leviticus says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination", it is talking about procreation, and a nation trying to grow. At the time, the Hebrew people understood that the male seed was all life contained; Leviticus is about saving seed so that the nation could grow. You obviously can't do that when a man lies with a man.

For example, take Onan n the OT, who ejaculates outside of the womans body and is sentenced to death. The King James version of the Bible says that Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground". It was ritually impure, or an "abomination".

The context is fine. But you're explaining why the stone age tribe that wrote the bible didn't like homosexual behavior, and considered it worthy of death. By your own admission this passage has something to do with homosexual behavior. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The verse to which you are referring (Leviticus) has nothing to do with homosexuality at all (just as none of the other verses in the Bible). Leviticus is about the Holiness Code and procreation.

Again, Biblical ignorance abounds. Often people who love and trust God’s word, and apparently, even those who don't, have never given careful attention to what the Bible does or doesn’t say about homosexuality.

My pleasure. It's important to read the Bible in the historical context from when it was written, and it's original culture. Let's look at the word "abomination" first.

When the word abomination is used in the Hebrew Bible, it is always used to address a ritual wrong; it's never used to address something that is innately immoral. For example, eating pork was not innately immoral for a Jew, but it was an "abomination" because it was a violation of a ritual requirement. As I mentioned, those Biblical laws and rituals were known as the Holiness Code.

Now, when Leviticus says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination", it is talking about procreation, and a nation trying to grow. At the time, the Hebrew people understood that the male seed was all life contained; Leviticus is about saving seed so that the nation could grow. You obviously can't do that when a man lies with a man.

For example, take Onan n the OT, who ejaculates outside of the womans body and is sentenced to death. The King James version of the Bible says that Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground". It was ritually impure, or an "abomination".

Obviously, it does have to do with homosexuality regardless of whether the main point of it is as you say.
It says they are to be killed. What more do you need to see that it's condemned?
If your god wants people to read & understand, it should be much clearer.
Ironic that you claim ignorant people misunderstand something which you say isn't clear enough on its own then cite a passage that has been greatly misunderstood despite being very clear.
They won't do any procreating if they're executed. Absurd.

 

[Saquist]

The verse to which you are referring (Leviticus) has nothing to do with homosexuality at all (just as none of the other verses in the Bible). Leviticus is about the Holiness Code and procreation.

Again, Biblical ignorance abounds. Often people who love and trust God’s word, and apparently, even those who don't, have never given careful attention to what the Bible does or doesn’t say about homosexuality.

Intresting. I would say the scriptures Contradict your resolve, ggazoo.

Rom. 1:24-27: “God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them .*.*. God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”

According to the wiki:
Obscenity (in Latin obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable"), is a term that is most often used in a legal context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality of the time. It is often replaced by the word salaciousness.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscene

You said.

(Leviticus) has nothing to do with homosexuality at all (just as none of the other verses in the Bible)

Yet clearly lust between two females or two males is the very definition of homosexual acts. It says "contrary to their nature". It says "their error" The Hebrew word for sin litteral means... "to miss the mark" or to "error"

It then goes on to say "Receiving full recompense" meaning to make amends.

Do you consider being gay to be rebellious behavior ?

Yes.

We live in a very polarizing society. Both atheism and Christianity is on the rise. Korea has gone from 1 percent Christian to 40 percent in a hundred years, and experts believe that the same thing is going to happen in China. If there are a half a billion Chinese Christians fifty years from now, that will change the course of human history.

As well, there are now six times more Anglicans in Nigeria alone than there are in all of the United States. There are more Presbyterians in Ghana than the U.S. and Scotland combined. And today, Christians comprise 44 percent of the population.

So, suffice it to say, Christianity is hardly on the decline.

...heading “Church Looks for Her 250,000 Members.” It reported a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church as saying: “We are painfully aware of the serious proportions assumed by the drift away from the church.”

“The day of shared moral standards is gone,” says religion sociologist Alan Wolfe. He is also quoted as saying: “Never in history has there been more a sense that people can’t rely on traditions and institutions to guide them, morally.” Regarding the past 100 years, the Los Angeles Times notes philosopher Jonathan Glover’s observation that the decline of religion and universal moral laws played a major part in a global collapse into violence.

For more than 1,600 years, most of Europe has been ruled by governments that claimed to be Christian. Is religion in Europe prospering now as we advance into the 21st century? In 2002 sociologist Steve Bruce, in his book God is Dead—Secularization in the West, said of Britain: “In the nineteenth century almost all weddings were religious.” However, by 1971, only 60 percent of English weddings were religious. In 2000 it was only 31 percent

Commenting on this trend, the religion correspondent for London’s Daily Telegraph wrote: “All the main denominations, from the Church of England and the Roman Catholics to the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, are suffering from long-term decline.” He said concerning one report: “Britain’s Churches will be well on the way to extinction by 2040 with just two per cent of the population attending Sunday services.” Similar statements have been made about religion in the Netherlands.

“In recent decades, our country appears to have become decidedly more secularized,” noted a report by the Dutch Social and Cultural Planning Office. “It is expected that by 2020, 72% of the population will not have any religious affiliation at all.” A German news source says: “Increasing numbers of Germans are turning to witchcraft and the occult to provide the solace they once found in churches, jobs and family. . . . Churches across the land are forced to close for lack of congregations.”

Good Points. I hope your views provoke some debate.
.

I think they have.

 

[Repo Man]

What are gays rebelling against? You do realize that they have no more control over finding the same sex attractive than us breeders have of finding the opposite sex attractive right? Or are you going to tell me that you could be just as happy smoking pole as you are with eating at the Y, but you've "chosen" to not be gay?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Anyone not conforming to the way of the majority is considered rebellious. Absurd.

 

[Saquist]

What are gays rebelling against? You do realize that they have no more control over finding the same sex attractive than us breeders have of finding the opposite sex attractive right? Or are you going to tell me that you could be just as happy smoking pole as you are with eating at the Y, but you've "chosen" to not be gay?

Nurture over nature, Repo Man.
I will not get into the politics of homosexuality. An infant holds their breath under water. Allow enough time to pass and that instinct is forgotten. Behavior is learned. Very, very little behavior can be called instinctual. Sexual attraction occurs at least 12 years later. In the years to come the emotions of a child are exaggerated because of hormones, like becomes love, disintrest becomes hate and a mild relationship becomes more no matter who it is because there is no previous foundation for these types of emotions. Because society is more allowing for experimentation a first impression of heighten sexual emotion is a very long term impression. Just as bad emotional impressions leave a scar, good emotions imprint a memory that is exactly the same as a behavior reward system. If the action produces good feelings one tends to continue the action becoming habit.

 

[Enmos]

Nurture over nature, Repo Man.
I will not get into the politics of homosexuality. An infant holds their breath under water. Allow enough time to pass and that instinct is forgotten. Behavior is learned. Very, very little behavior can be called instinctual. Sexual attraction occurs at least 12 years later. In the years to come the emotions of a child are exaggerated because of hormones, like becomes love, disintrest becomes hate and a mild relationship becomes more no matter who it is because there is no previous foundation for these types of emotions. Because society is more allowing for experimentation a first impression of heighten sexual emotion is a very long term impression. Just as bad emotional impressions leave a scar, good emotions imprint a memory that is exactly the same as a behavior reward system. If the action produces good feelings one tends to continue the action becoming habit.

Yea, almost all behavior is instinctive. Back to the drawing board for you..

The people in the picture are just expressing what you think.. and you criticize them ? You are no better.

 

[Repo Man]

Ok Saquist, I've never seen you post anything worthy of reading before, and that one was no exception. Ignore list +1.

 

[ggazoo]

The context is fine. But you're explaining why the stone age tribe that wrote the bible didn't like homosexual behavior, and considered it worthy of death. By your own admission this passage has something to do with homosexual behavior. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Again, this passage is not condemning homosexual behaviour at all. The punishment described is Leviticus is the "abomination" of acting against the Holiness Code (in this case, procreation), not the implication that these men were gay or not. Jesus and Paul both said the Holiness Code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient Holiness Code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality.

Obviously, it does have to do with homosexuality regardless of whether the main point of it is as you say.
It says they are to be killed. What more do you need to see that it's condemned?

It says that they are to be killed for not willing to procreate, or help grow the nation, not because they were gay. This is why Onan was ordered to be killed, because he "spilled his seed upon the earth". Any straight man who did the same thing probably would have met the same fate.

If your god wants people to read & understand, it should be much clearer.

The Bible was written in Hebrew. Unfortunately, proper translation suffers along the way. Regardless, certain Bible verses should not be understood as God’s law for all time periods. Some verses are specific to the culture and time they were written, and are no longer viewed as appropriate, wise, or just.

Yet clearly lust between two females or two males is the very definition of homosexual acts. It says "contrary to their nature". It says "their error" The Hebrew word for sin litteral means... "to miss the mark" or to "error"

In my experience, Romans is one of those verses that anti-gay Christians (and non-Christians alike) flock to when the other verses fail. The letter that Paul wrote to the Roman church has nothing to do with natural same-sex attraction. Again, we have to put this into context of the time it was written.

In this time, a multitude of religions worshipped idols (worshipping something other than the one true God). Paul also heard about "sacred sexual orgies" as a form of worship. On his joruney to the Mediterranean, Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. It is this pagan worship through sexual orgies that Paul is talking about. Within these drunken orgies, naturally-born hetrosexuals "gave up" their natural desires for what was unnatural to them. It was the straights who went against their own nature, not naturally born homosexuals.

Paul, at no point in his writing, spoke to same sex orientation. He spoke of those who turned their backs on God and chose to worship false gods of fertility (as I mentioned, Aphrodite, Diana, etc).

I'll even take it one step further and say that the biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today.They neither approve it nor condemn it. Homosexual orientation wasn’t even known until the 19th century.

 

[Repo Man]

I certainly hope it was explained to the condemned that the reason they were about to be put to death wasn't that they were engaging in homosexual activity, but rather that they weren't engaging in heterosexual activity. I guess the sub clause allowing for some homosexual activity as long as you were mostly engaging in heterosexual sex was edited out.

Since the net result of homosexual sex was the possibility of being put to death, I'm sticking with that passage condemning homosexual sex.

"Though black may look black, the reality is that there is no such thing. What appears to be black is actually a complete absence of white."

 

[Saquist]

In my experience, Romans is one of those verses that anti-gay Christians (and non-Christians alike) flock to when the other verses fail. The letter that Paul wrote to the Roman church has nothing to do with natural same-sex attraction. Again, we have to put this into context of the time it was written.

The other scriptures also appropriately support Roman.
These scriptures describe "men who lie with men." The Bible repeatedly uses the expression to describe a behavior it equates with fornication. The Hebrew understanding of marriage was understood to be that of man and woman and everything else was considered "pornea".

In this time, a multitude of religions worshipped idols (worshipping something other than the one true God). Paul also heard about "sacred sexual orgies" as a form of worship. On his joruney to the Mediterranean, Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. It is this pagan worship through sexual orgies that Paul is talking about. Within these drunken orgies, naturally-born hetrosexuals "gave up" their natural desires for what was unnatural to them. It was the straights who went against their own nature, not naturally born homosexuals.

To my knowledge there is no scripture to support your speculation.
In truth the bible never equates homosexuality as an orientation but as an action. It then condemned the action. The biblical view of "nature" is simply as God originally created anything. The bible says "forsaking the natural use."

Unfortunantly ggazoo there is no natural use for same sex behavior. God's natural use of sexual organs is described in scriptures you provided refering to the seed of man and cleaniness as well as in Genesis in God's first order to Adam and Eve. To go forward, become fruitful and fill the earth. Fruitful meaning, to have children. This is the only natural use of genital organs that was ever sanctioned by scripture.

Paul, at no point in his writing, spoke to same sex orientation. He spoke of those who turned their backs on God and chose to worship false gods of fertility (as I mentioned, Aphrodite, Diana, etc).

Paul specificly spoke of immoral "passions" as one bible translation depicts.
Not only are there scriptures against the false worship, the actions of same sex intercourse but also against the passion, the lust of same sex interactions. You're correct though these false worshiping behaviors were detestable to God but Paul sort of shoots down your reference to , Paul, at no point in his writing, spoke to same sex orientation., Do you believe that you can have passion toward something that you are not oriented to?

If you do: Then you must recognize that means that homosexuals do have a choice and that there is no "nature" discussion to entertain. Thus the point is mute.

If you don't: Then you conceede passion must mean orientation or inclination toward.

The Bible has forseen many things. This wouldn't be the first time God saw future events before they were identified thousands of years later.
I will look up the precision of all these things you considered based on the known facts and get back to you.

Your logic is odd. By the same exact logic passing your children through the fire is only wrong if done in accordance with Baal worship. Marrying unbelievers is only wrong if done in connection with false worship. So many things would be allowable under your thinking just because of the technicality that it was done in connection with false worship and therefore allowable if not done with false worship. Repo Man is right. I guess the sub clause allowing for some homosexual activity as long as you were mostly engaging in heterosexual sex was edited out.
When atheist complain about chrisitians "cherry picking the bible" this is a prime example. The Idolatry and the act have been linked together.

This is a most intresting challenge.

 

[Orleander]

anyone know why Phelps and his cult focus so much on homosexuality instead of abortion, death penalty...you know, things where death is involved instead of just sex.

 

[Enmos]

anyone know why Phelps and his cult focus so much on homosexuality instead of abortion, death penalty...you know, things where death is involved instead of just sex.

Probably because they are homophobic closet-homosexuals.