What Does The Bible REALLY Say About Queer People?

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Atheists keep their personal beliefs to themselves? You don't know any, do you?

I'm sure I know lots of them but they aren't going to tell me that they are atheist. That's social suicide.

Yes, Richard Dawkins and that wheelchair retard have really suffered tremendously for coming out as atheists. I guess atheists don the false mantle of persecution just like religious people after all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You KJVO nuts crack me up. Yeah, I guess God left His Church without a Bible until 1611. How irresponsible of Him!

Are their nuts out there declaring another English Bible as inspired? Perhaps I just haven't encountered it yet. The King James Bible is the only English translation that has nuts. You are free to correct me if I am wrong. I love learning new things.

Which translation of the Bible do you recommend?

The autograph is inspired. On this Christian scholars are agreed. Bible versions cannot themselves be inspired because they are just translations of several thousand manuscripts and fragments going back centuries from which the autograph arises. You like the KJV, fine. But it's no more "inspired" than any other versions.

 

[presonorek]

Yes, Richard Dawkins and that wheelchair retard have really suffered tremendously for coming out as atheists.

I noticed that too. Richard Dawkin lives in England. If Dawkins grew up in the mountains of Northern Alabama then he would have moved away or kept his mouth shut until he moved away. If Dawkins grew up in Salt Lake City he wouldn't hang around declaring the folly of God.

Doubting God is cool in England and even in the Northwest United States. No sane person is going to proclaim their atheism in the deep south. It just isn't going to happen. To assume that every single person in Alabama believes in a talking snake and a zombie Jesus would be overly optimistic. They probably don't. You'd have no luck getting them to admit it. Nobody wants to lose their job over such nonsense. Just nod your head and smile. It doesn't hurt to pretend to believe in Santa Clause. The kid who believes in Santa Clause gets better presents.

 

[presonorek]

The autograph is inspired. On this Christian scholars are agreed. Bible versions cannot themselves be inspired because they are just translations of several thousand manuscripts and fragments going back centuries from which the autograph arises. You like the KJV, fine. But it's no more "inspired" than any other versions.

There are a bunch of nuts who would disagree. Here is my question:

Which two English translations of the Bible has the most nuts declaring their English Bible to be superior?

You don't have to answer the question. You are free to avoid it and dance around it all you wish. By the way. I am an atheist that attends church frequently. Nobody in my real life knows. I'm not a KJVO nut. I'm just not aware of any NLTO nuts or NKJVO nuts or NIVO nuts.

The King James Bible is more scholarly than any English translation in existence.

If you disagree then name five that are better. Giggle all you want. This isn't about truth this is about credibility. Very few translations have any credibility.

The spirit of the translators is very telling. Most translations were created with the sole purpose of avoiding the payment of royalties. The 1560 Geneva Translation was written in the spirit of rebellion against the crown. The 1611 translation was written in the spirit of annihilating the heresies purported in the Geneva Bible. No expense was spared to provide the people with an accurate translation of scripture. The Geneva Bible has been mostly unknown in modern history. Up until recently the King James Bible was the most common translation sold. Now it is the New International Version.

Again. You don't have to answer the question.

 

[aris2chat]

Who is condemning anyone? Warning of sin isn't a condemnation. It's an invitation to repent and make things right.

No one is talking about hating gays but you.

Maybe you should actually participate in the conversation you are in rather than the one you want to be in. But then I suspect you can't win the discussion you are actually in and that seems to be your goal.

Treating them like leper by not letting them be a normal part of society, but denying them the simple rights to love.
Denying the the right to commit to their partner in the eyes if the law and in the eyes of god. You should not have that right.
Your condemnation of them as sinners is hateful, harmful.

Funny how you think you can define marriage but others "should not have that right".

They can define it for themselves but not prevent others from doing the same. Gays are not telling heterosexuals what marriage has to be for them. Heterosexuals should not define marriage for gays. Muslims and mormons each have their own ideas about marriage. It does not have to be the same for everyone. Some don't believe in divorce, some do. Some believe you should have children, others don't feel the need in their lives. Some think sex is only or procreation, others enjoy it as a bond between each other.

There is room for more than one idea. There is room for all types of love.

None of....all that....changes the fact you think you have more of a right to set the definition of marriage than I do. You don't.

You can define it for yourself the way you want, but when if comes to telling others they can't marry or can't love their soul mate it is just wrong on your part. As far as civil law, your religion should not be the only one to make that kind of determination. There is no single religion that is recognized, nor should there be.

People are free to believe or not believe. It is not up to you to decide, or to judge others in this country.

 

[aris2chat]

Yes, Richard Dawkins and that wheelchair retard have really suffered tremendously for coming out as atheists.

I noticed that too. Richard Dawkin lives in England. If Dawkins grew up in the mountains of Northern Alabama then he would have moved away or kept his mouth shut until he moved away. If Dawkins grew up in Salt Lake City he wouldn't hang around declaring the folly of God.

Doubting God is cool in England and even in the Northwest United States. No sane person is going to proclaim their atheism in the deep south. It just isn't going to happen. To assume that every single person in Alabama believes in a talking snake and a zombie Jesus would be overly optimistic. They probably don't. You'd have no luck getting them to admit it. Nobody wants to lose their job over such nonsense. Just nod your head and smile. It doesn't hurt to pretend to believe in Santa Clause. The kid who believes in Santa Clause gets better presents.

You think there are not atheists or other faiths in Utah? Not everyone in Alabama has the same beliefs either.

People can believe in celebrating christmas if they want but believing in a myth of some elf that travels to every home in the world in less than 24 hours is harmful. It puts unrealistic expectation and demand on the children, and the whole family. They should not expect presents, but rather learn to give to others less fortunate. They can give of their time, it does not have to be money or gifts. The spirit of giving is more important that getting gifts. It is about learning to love and care for others.

 

[aris2chat]

The autograph is inspired. On this Christian scholars are agreed. Bible versions cannot themselves be inspired because they are just translations of several thousand manuscripts and fragments going back centuries from which the autograph arises. You like the KJV, fine. But it's no more "inspired" than any other versions.

There are a bunch of nuts who would disagree. Here is my question:

Which two English translations of the Bible has the most nuts declaring their English Bible to be superior?

You don't have to answer the question. You are free to avoid it and dance around it all you wish. By the way. I am an atheist that attends church frequently. Nobody in my real life knows. I'm not a KJVO nut. I'm just not aware of any NLTO nuts or NKJVO nuts or NIVO nuts.

The King James Bible is more scholarly than any English translation in existence.

If you disagree then name five that are better. Giggle all you want. This isn't about truth this is about credibility. Very few translations have any credibility.

The spirit of the translators is very telling. Most translations were created with the sole purpose of avoiding the payment of royalties. The 1560 Geneva Translation was written in the spirit of rebellion against the crown. The 1611 translation was written in the spirit of annihilating the heresies purported in the Geneva Bible. No expense was spared to provide the people with an accurate translation of scripture. The Geneva Bible has been mostly unknown in modern history. Up until recently the King James Bible was the most common translation sold. Now it is the New International Version.

Again. You don't have to answer the question.

English is a translation, it is not the original language of the books of the bible.

 

[presonorek]

English is a translation, it is not the original language of the books of the bible.

Dance around the question. Was that twerking that I saw? Dance, dance, dance. Keep dancing.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The autograph is inspired. On this Christian scholars are agreed. Bible versions cannot themselves be inspired because they are just translations of several thousand manuscripts and fragments going back centuries from which the autograph arises. You like the KJV, fine. But it's no more "inspired" than any other versions.

There are a bunch of nuts who would disagree. Here is my question:

Which two English translations of the Bible has the most nuts declaring their English Bible to be superior?

The fact that you think that inspiration is a matter of a popularity contest allows me to dismiss your nutty argument without any further comment.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Who is condemning anyone? Warning of sin isn't a condemnation. It's an invitation to repent and make things right.

No one is talking about hating gays but you.

Maybe you should actually participate in the conversation you are in rather than the one you want to be in. But then I suspect you can't win the discussion you are actually in and that seems to be your goal.

Treating them like leper by not letting them be a normal part of society, but denying them the simple rights to love.
Denying the the right to commit to their partner in the eyes if the law and in the eyes of god. You should not have that right.
Your condemnation of them as sinners is hateful, harmful.

Funny how you think you can define marriage but others "should not have that right".

They can define it for themselves but not prevent others from doing the same. Gays are not telling heterosexuals what marriage has to be for them. Heterosexuals should not define marriage for gays. Muslims and mormons each have their own ideas about marriage. It does not have to be the same for everyone. Some don't believe in divorce, some do. Some believe you should have children, others don't feel the need in their lives. Some think sex is only or procreation, others enjoy it as a bond between each other.

There is room for more than one idea. There is room for all types of love.

None of....all that....changes the fact you think you have more of a right to set the definition of marriage than I do. You don't.

You can define it for yourself the way you want, but when if comes to telling others they can't marry or can't love their soul mate it is just wrong on your part. As far as civil law, your religion should not be the only one to make that kind of determination. There is no single religion that is recognized, nor should there be.

People are free to believe or not believe. It is not up to you to decide, or to judge others in this country.

Civilizations have been defining marriage and restricting it long before Christianity, and those who failed to do so have been destroyed. So even though you're one of those who can't see through your own contempt for Christianity, the truth is, people of MANY faiths, or even none at all, understand that society cannot endure the dissolution of strict marital strictures.

 

[Taz]

The bible doesn't mention "queer" people. Not once. Doesn't even use the word.

 

[Andylusion]

Atheists keep their personal beliefs to themselves? You don't know any, do you?

I'm sure I know lots of them but they aren't going to tell me that they are atheist. That's social suicide. Not every atheist has an Youtube channel.

Huh? Since when is that "social suicide"? Are you living in a different country than me? You must be. In Africa, that might be social suicide. In the middle east, that might be social suicide.

Here? You are nutz. How many movies do they portray Christians as paragons of virtue? How many TV shows, are the atheists portrayed as backward amoral nut jobs?

I've had people mock me for my faith, for over 20 years. Social Suicide was coming out of the closet, and admitting I was a Christian. I had a guy screaming at me on the floor of a company, saying it was people like me that caused the crusades. Did they fire him? No, they laid me off a couple of weeks later.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm ok with it. I simply got another job. But, you want to tell me that being atheist is social suicide? I can't even comprehend that... not here in the US. I have no idea what you are talking about at all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The bible doesn't mention "queer" people. Not once. Doesn't even use the word.

No, it uses other words. Want a list?

Sodomites
Catamites
Immoral persons
Fornicators
Perverts
Effeminate
Homosexuals
Revilers

And hey, the Bible even calls them FAGGOTS. Don't believe me?

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:8

They shall burn like bundles of kindling.

 

[aris2chat]

The bible doesn't mention "queer" people. Not once. Doesn't even use the word.

No, it uses other words. Want a list?

Sodomites
Catamites
Immoral persons
Fornicators
Perverts
Effeminate
Homosexuals
Revilers

And hey, the Bible even calls them FAGGOTS. Don't believe me?

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:8

They shall burn like bundles of kindling.

Sodomites..........kings and associated with idols and their temples
Catamites.........no
Immoral persons
Fornicators..........anyone engaging in sex outside of marriage
Perverts............no
Effeminate..............corinthians
Homosexuals............no
Revilers......... corinthians

at least in the KJ21

The name Sodom means strength. Sodomite was a later term based on misunderstanding of the reason for the destruction.
In hebrew the term qadesh means temple prostitute, male of female. That is what in other translations has come to be written as sodomite.

If gays can marry then they would no long be accused of fornication with the person they love.

So this interpretation of 'queers' as sinful is a christian idea outside the gospels, outside the teachings of Jesus.

If you really understand the bible and choose to use an english translation, at least find one that is more accurate. Stop making sins
where there aren't.

I personally find more truth in early christian works not in the canon than anything from Paul. Even the gospels were picked for political purposes and not for being factual or even inspirational. If you don't understand this you did not study how and why the codex was compiled and standardized. Nor do you understand the original text, translations are not accurate and translations of translations are worse.

Jesus might have used his own style of parables but the lessons he taught were OT. He was not teaching a new religion, but he was however including all people, even those on the fringe of society......that would include gays, not just the lame, diseases, those who have sex outside of marriage, tax collectors, soldiers, or those who are not born and raised jews.

 

[Taz]

The bible doesn't mention "queer" people. Not once. Doesn't even use the word.

No, it uses other words. Want a list?

Sodomites
Catamites
Immoral persons
Fornicators
Perverts
Effeminate
Homosexuals
Revilers

And hey, the Bible even calls them FAGGOTS. Don't believe me?

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:8

They shall burn like bundles of kindling.

I bet jesus swallowed when a disciple unloaded in his mouth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How is telling the truth about God's standard of morality hating or persecuting gays?

Because leftists are terribly traumatized by the idea that there are people who don't believe the sun shines out of the left's collective ass.

 

[Snouter]

Why anyone would care what the jewish bible said is strange. But King David was obviously bisexual and Yahweh did not have an issue with it.

 

[Andylusion]

Why anyone would care what the jewish bible said is strange. But King David was obviously bisexual and Yahweh did not have an issue with it.

Fail? Total Fail. We are Christian. Jesus was a Jew. The entire Christian faith, is built on the foundation of the Jewish Faith. If there was no Jewish faith, there would be no Christian faith.

So.... yes, Bible-based Christians do care what the Jewish bible says.

No, David was not bi-sexual in any way. There is no possible way that one could even attempt to make that claim rationally.

 

[Andylusion]

The bible doesn't mention "queer" people. Not once. Doesn't even use the word.

No, it uses other words. Want a list?

Sodomites
Catamites
Immoral persons
Fornicators
Perverts
Effeminate
Homosexuals
Revilers

And hey, the Bible even calls them FAGGOTS. Don't believe me?

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:8

They shall burn like bundles of kindling.

Sodomites..........kings and associated with idols and their temples
Catamites.........no
Immoral persons
Fornicators..........anyone engaging in sex outside of marriage
Perverts............no
Effeminate..............corinthians
Homosexuals............no
Revilers......... corinthians

at least in the KJ21

The name Sodom means strength. Sodomite was a later term based on misunderstanding of the reason for the destruction.
In hebrew the term qadesh means temple prostitute, male of female. That is what in other translations has come to be written as sodomite.

If gays can marry then they would no long be accused of fornication with the person they love.

So this interpretation of 'queers' as sinful is a christian idea outside the gospels, outside the teachings of Jesus.

If you really understand the bible and choose to use an english translation, at least find one that is more accurate. Stop making sins
where there aren't.

I personally find more truth in early christian works not in the canon than anything from Paul. Even the gospels were picked for political purposes and not for being factual or even inspirational. If you don't understand this you did not study how and why the codex was compiled and standardized. Nor do you understand the original text, translations are not accurate and translations of translations are worse.

Jesus might have used his own style of parables but the lessons he taught were OT. He was not teaching a new religion, but he was however including all people, even those on the fringe of society......that would include gays, not just the lame, diseases, those who have sex outside of marriage, tax collectors, soldiers, or those who are not born and raised jews.

You are lying.

Sodomites, people who commit sodomy. Sodomy, anal, oral sex, and other sexual deviance.
Catamites Yes.
Immoral persons
Fornicators Yes, which would include homosexuals because only people of the opposite sex can be married according to G-d.
Perverts Yes.
Effeminate Men who act as women.
Homosexuals Yes.
Revilers Mean they are to be reviled. Not a positive thing.


You lied that entire post.

 

[aris2chat]

Why anyone would care what the jewish bible said is strange. But King David was obviously bisexual and Yahweh did not have an issue with it.

Fail? Total Fail. We are Christian. Jesus was a Jew. The entire Christian faith, is built on the foundation of the Jewish Faith. If there was no Jewish faith, there would be no Christian faith.

So.... yes, Bible-based Christians do care what the Jewish bible says.

No, David was not bi-sexual in any way. There is no possible way that one could even attempt to make that claim rationally.

Would Jesus Discriminate - David loved Jonathan more than women