Jesus on Marriage...

[Artevelde]

Yes, because we know that Christians are SO persecuted in this country.

Jews aren't persecuted in the Us either. Doesn't mean there aren't anti-Jewish bigots.

Point?

It's not because Christians aren't persecuted in the Us that there aren't any anti-Christian bigots like you. i was responding to bodecea's point. But I know that logic is a bit too difficult for you.

 

[Newby]

OR as I just got done saying elsewhere, as long as Christians continue to make a mockery of Christ's teachings, others will be there to point and laugh.

Yes, we know there will always be bigots like you around. Not to worry.

Yes, because we know that Christians are SO persecuted in this country.

Uh, no one implied that... nice strawman tho.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am still here...

And it is still a FACT that God Defined Marriage and Man and Woman and Jesus Repeated it...

It also a FACT that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Referenced in the Old and New Testaments it is called Sin and Abomination.

In Levitical Moral Law in Chapter 18 it is listed with Beastiality and Spoken of in Stronger Terms by God.

Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.

Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.

So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.


If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.

So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?

Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:

And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

 

[Ravi]

I am still here...

And it is still a FACT that God Defined Marriage and Man and Woman and Jesus Repeated it...

It also a FACT that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Referenced in the Old and New Testaments it is called Sin and Abomination.

In Levitical Moral Law in Chapter 18 it is listed with Beastiality and Spoken of in Stronger Terms by God.

Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.

Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.

So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.


If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.

So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?

Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:

And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

Wonderful post!

"And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

It could be translated as not going from a woman to a man, without some sort of purification ritual in between.

 

[bodecea]

Jews aren't persecuted in the Us either. Doesn't mean there aren't anti-Jewish bigots.

Point?

It's not because Christians aren't persecuted in the Us that there aren't any anti-Christian bigots like you. i was responding to bodecea's point. But I know that logic is a bit too difficult for you.

Oh dear....so terribly persecuted.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, we know there will always be bigots like you around. Not to worry.

Yes, because we know that Christians are SO persecuted in this country.

Uh, no one implied that... nice strawman tho.

I see you missed the "bigot" comment....even tho you quoted it.

 

[Artevelde]

Point?

It's not because Christians aren't persecuted in the Us that there aren't any anti-Christian bigots like you. i was responding to bodecea's point. But I know that logic is a bit too difficult for you.

Oh dear....so terribly persecuted.

Reading is difficult for some people. Keep practicing!

 

[Amelia]

Hmm. I should stop. If I have a weakness, it's that I get furious when I see people use religion as a means for judging others. Especially my religion.

But I should exercise more restraint and understanding. There is no need to be insulting or potentially embarrass people.

So to Mal, Newby and anyone else who might have been offended by my antics in this thread, I apologize.

You apparently get furious even when people aren't using religion as a means for judging others - but are rather commenting on it in an abstract way.

That's what's funny here - you demanding that people address your emotion while pretending that you're being intellectual, and accusing them of cutting and running after they have addressed you but have failed to agree that your umbrage has merit.

 

[BDBoop]

Point?

It's not because Christians aren't persecuted in the Us that there aren't any anti-Christian bigots like you. i was responding to bodecea's point. But I know that logic is a bit too difficult for you.

Oh dear....so terribly persecuted.

Sorrow. He can't even speak clearly, he's so distraught.

 

[BluePhantom]

Wonderful post!

"And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

It could be translated as not going from a woman to a man, without some sort of purification ritual in between.

Thank you. It could mean something like do not give to a man (lay before him) something intended for a woman (layings of a woman) and in context of ritual it might mean do not give an offering to God (considered male) something you would offer to a goddess (female). The reality is we'll never know what it means. All we really know is that it involves some act between men in the context of pagan ritual and beyond that we're clueless.

The problem is that the Church and translators of the Bible are equally as clueless about what it means so how did it go from "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman" for it is ritually impure to "Homosexuality is an abomination"? Time, politics, and ignorance.

Keep in mind that when the Bible was originally translated into English the people who did it had a very weak understanding of the Hebrew language, culture, traditions, etc. So they translated it through the filter of their own culture some 1500 years later or more (depending on what book you are talking about), and often they translated it from a Latin version that had been translated from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc so now you have a translation of a translation in some cases several thousand years after the original was written. You simply cannot fit that into 21st century culture and make it fit. Words change over time.

Consider if I said "Well you appear to be quite gay today". Well today that would invoke an image of someone displaying flamboyant homosexuality. In 1923 it would mean they appear to be in a good mood. If I said in New York "You are a fag" I have just called them a homosexual. If I said it in London I just called them a cigarette. If I said today "wow that's gay" it could mean "that's indicative of homosexuality", "wow that's foolish", "wow that's awesome" and it all depends on where you are, how you are saying it, who you are saying it to, blah, blah, blah.

Well the languages of the Bible are no different and these verses that people use to beat the hell out of homosexuals are always looked at in isolation, their context is completely ignored, the cultures are totally ignored, the languages are completely disregarded, historical evidence is tossed out the window, etc.

Now you can point all that out to your every day run of the mill gay hating fundamentalist and they will flat out ignore you. They will say "tricks of the devil" and their pastor and the Church will tell them "don't listen to what that person is saying" because the Church doesn't want a highly educated following....they want blind stupid obedience because that's what brings power and money.

This is why I generally advise: spirituality is a great thing, the Church sucks.

 

[Newby]

Yes, because we know that Christians are SO persecuted in this country.

Uh, no one implied that... nice strawman tho.

I see you missed the "bigot" comment....even tho you quoted it.

What does that have to do with persecution?

 

[Newby]

Hmm. I should stop. If I have a weakness, it's that I get furious when I see people use religion as a means for judging others. Especially my religion.

But I should exercise more restraint and understanding. There is no need to be insulting or potentially embarrass people.

So to Mal, Newby and anyone else who might have been offended by my antics in this thread, I apologize.

You apparently get furious even when people aren't using religion as a means for judging others - but are rather commenting on it in an abstract way.

That's what's funny here - you demanding that people address your emotion while pretending that you're being intellectual, and accusing them of cutting and running after they have addressed you but have failed to agree that your umbrage has merit.

It's called narcissism, and he has it in spades.

 

[Buford]

I am still here...

And it is still a FACT that God Defined Marriage and Man and Woman and Jesus Repeated it...

It also a FACT that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Referenced in the Old and New Testaments it is called Sin and Abomination.

In Levitical Moral Law in Chapter 18 it is listed with Beastiality and Spoken of in Stronger Terms by God.

Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.

Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.

So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.


If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.

So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?

Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:

And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

Wonderful post!

"And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

It could be translated as not going from a woman to a man, without some sort of purification ritual in between.

That would not be a correct translation. Do you know why?

 

[Newby]

Wonderful post!

"And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

It could be translated as not going from a woman to a man, without some sort of purification ritual in between.

Thank you. It could mean something like do not give to a man (lay before him) something intended for a woman (layings of a woman) and in context of ritual it might mean do not give an offering to God (considered male) something you would offer to a goddess (female). The reality is we'll never know what it means. All we really know is that it involves some act between men in the context of pagan ritual and beyond that we're clueless.

The problem is that the Church and translators of the Bible are equally as clueless about what it means so how did it go from "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman" for it is ritually impure to "Homosexuality is an abomination"? Time, politics, and ignorance.

Keep in mind that when the Bible was originally translated into English the people who did it had a very weak understanding of the Hebrew language, culture, traditions, etc. So they translated it through the filter of their own culture some 1500 years later or more (depending on what book you are talking about), and often they translated it from a Latin version that had been translated from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc so now you have a translation of a translation in some cases several thousand years after the original was written. You simply cannot fit that into 21st century culture and make it fit. Words change over time.

Consider if I said "Well you appear to be quite gay today". Well today that would invoke an image of someone displaying flamboyant homosexuality. In 1923 it would mean they appear to be in a good mood. If I said in New York "You are a fag" I have just called them a homosexual. If I said it in London I just called them a cigarette. If I said today "wow that's gay" it could mean "that's indicative of homosexuality", "wow that's foolish", "wow that's awesome" and it all depends on where you are, how you are saying it, who you are saying it to, blah, blah, blah.

Well the languages of the Bible are no different and these verses that people use to beat the hell out of homosexuals are always looked at in isolation, their context is completely ignored, the cultures are totally ignored, the languages are completely disregarded, historical evidence is tossed out the window, etc.

Now you can point all that out to your every day run of the mill gay hating fundamentalist and they will flat out ignore you. They will say "tricks of the devil" and their pastor and the Church will tell them "don't listen to what that person is saying" because the Church doesn't want a highly educated following....they want blind stupid obedience because that's what brings power and money.

This is why I generally advise: spirituality is a great thing, the Church sucks.

What's your educational background?

 

[Ravi]

Wonderful post!

"And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

It could be translated as not going from a woman to a man, without some sort of purification ritual in between.

Thank you. It could mean something like do not give to a man (lay before him) something intended for a woman (layings of a woman) and in context of ritual it might mean do not give an offering to God (considered male) something you would offer to a goddess (female). The reality is we'll never know what it means. All we really know is that it involves some act between men in the context of pagan ritual and beyond that we're clueless.

The problem is that the Church and translators of the Bible are equally as clueless about what it means so how did it go from "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman" for it is ritually impure to "Homosexuality is an abomination"? Time, politics, and ignorance.

Keep in mind that when the Bible was originally translated into English the people who did it had a very weak understanding of the Hebrew language, culture, traditions, etc. So they translated it through the filter of their own culture some 1500 years later or more (depending on what book you are talking about), and often they translated it from a Latin version that had been translated from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc so now you have a translation of a translation in some cases several thousand years after the original was written. You simply cannot fit that into 21st century culture and make it fit. Words change over time.

Consider if I said "Well you appear to be quite gay today". Well today that would invoke an image of someone displaying flamboyant homosexuality. In 1923 it would mean they appear to be in a good mood. If I said in New York "You are a fag" I have just called them a homosexual. If I said it in London I just called them a cigarette. If I said today "wow that's gay" it could mean "that's indicative of homosexuality", "wow that's foolish", "wow that's awesome" and it all depends on where you are, how you are saying it, who you are saying it to, blah, blah, blah.

Well the languages of the Bible are no different and these verses that people use to beat the hell out of homosexuals are always looked at in isolation, their context is completely ignored, the cultures are totally ignored, the languages are completely disregarded, historical evidence is tossed out the window, etc.

Now you can point all that out to your every day run of the mill gay hating fundamentalist and they will flat out ignore you. They will say "tricks of the devil" and their pastor and the Church will tell them "don't listen to what that person is saying" because the Church doesn't want a highly educated following....they want blind stupid obedience because that's what brings power and money.

This is why I generally advise: spirituality is a great thing, the Church sucks.

Thank you for educating this liberal. I am going to buy the book you recommended and read it.

 

[bodecea]

Uh, no one implied that... nice strawman tho.

I see you missed the "bigot" comment....even tho you quoted it.

What does that have to do with persecution?

OK, you've got me there. Bigots don't persecute. Never. The two words have nothing to do with each other. There can be bigots galore, with no persecution. Let's remember that, shall we?

 

[Ravi]

Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.

Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.

So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.


If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.

So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?

Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:

And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

Wonderful post!

"And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

It could be translated as not going from a woman to a man, without some sort of purification ritual in between.

That would not be a correct translation. Do you know why?

No, feel free to explain.

 

[BDBoop]

I am still here...

And it is still a FACT that God Defined Marriage and Man and Woman and Jesus Repeated it...

It also a FACT that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Referenced in the Old and New Testaments it is called Sin and Abomination.

In Levitical Moral Law in Chapter 18 it is listed with Beastiality and Spoken of in Stronger Terms by God.

Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.

Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.

So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.


If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.

So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?

Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:

And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

Yes, please. I would like you to discuss Paul's bullshit verses. Mucho gracias.

 

[BDBoop]

Wonderful post!

"And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

It could be translated as not going from a woman to a man, without some sort of purification ritual in between.

Thank you. It could mean something like do not give to a man (lay before him) something intended for a woman (layings of a woman) and in context of ritual it might mean do not give an offering to God (considered male) something you would offer to a goddess (female). The reality is we'll never know what it means. All we really know is that it involves some act between men in the context of pagan ritual and beyond that we're clueless.

The problem is that the Church and translators of the Bible are equally as clueless about what it means so how did it go from "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman" for it is ritually impure to "Homosexuality is an abomination"? Time, politics, and ignorance.

Keep in mind that when the Bible was originally translated into English the people who did it had a very weak understanding of the Hebrew language, culture, traditions, etc. So they translated it through the filter of their own culture some 1500 years later or more (depending on what book you are talking about), and often they translated it from a Latin version that had been translated from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc so now you have a translation of a translation in some cases several thousand years after the original was written. You simply cannot fit that into 21st century culture and make it fit. Words change over time.

Consider if I said "Well you appear to be quite gay today". Well today that would invoke an image of someone displaying flamboyant homosexuality. In 1923 it would mean they appear to be in a good mood. If I said in New York "You are a fag" I have just called them a homosexual. If I said it in London I just called them a cigarette. If I said today "wow that's gay" it could mean "that's indicative of homosexuality", "wow that's foolish", "wow that's awesome" and it all depends on where you are, how you are saying it, who you are saying it to, blah, blah, blah.

Well the languages of the Bible are no different and these verses that people use to beat the hell out of homosexuals are always looked at in isolation, their context is completely ignored, the cultures are totally ignored, the languages are completely disregarded, historical evidence is tossed out the window, etc.

Now you can point all that out to your every day run of the mill gay hating fundamentalist and they will flat out ignore you. They will say "tricks of the devil" and their pastor and the Church will tell them "don't listen to what that person is saying" because the Church doesn't want a highly educated following....they want blind stupid obedience because that's what brings power and money.

This is why I generally advise: spirituality is a great thing, the Church sucks.

Thank you for educating this liberal. I am going to buy the book you recommended and read it.

As am I.

 

[Newby]

I see you missed the "bigot" comment....even tho you quoted it.

What does that have to do with persecution?

OK, you've got me there. Bigots don't persecute. Never. The two words have nothing to do with each other. There can be bigots galore, with no persecution. Let's remember that, shall we?

No, I don't see how making a claim that someone is a bigot translates into someone feeling they are being 'persecuted'. Not only did it translate into that person supposedly being persecuted, but then it went to cover all Christians somehow. Seems a bit overdramatic if you ask me, but then again, I hate faux drama the most, and real drama is a close second.