Dumbledore's Gay

[M.Dancer]

But if I read the Bible back to front and still allow that homosexuality is not immoral or a sin, I am wrong? If I choose to interpret it differently how am I wrong? Isn't that wasn't Protestant religion is all about? And didn't during the Reformation and Counter -Reformation people pretty much damn each other to hell for interpretation? Shoudn't we also then suggest that in a few hundred years or less, homosexuality will be wholly accepted?

Who can say? A few hundred years ago homosexual acts were a sexual recreational activity for the aristocrats...but no one then would have dreamed of actually turning their backs on traditional families...who can say what the attitude to recreational sex will be 400 years from now.

My money is on seperate living arrangements for men and women where we only meet to procreat but everyone has 452 spouces....and in between they play touch football, greco roman wrestling.....

[jazzer]

On the otherhand, he didn't say anything about doing goats or smuggling either.....

Which kind of makes my point. Homosexuality clearly wasn't a big deal for Jesus, but things such as adultry and hypocrisy were.

[jawapunk]

That sounds an awful lot like Star Trek TNG where Wesley almost gets put to death for killing flowers or stepping on the grass or some crap. Am I right?

Now THAT Civilization was a bunch of homos!

Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk

[kengs333]

But if I read the Bible back to front and still allow that homosexuality is not immoral or a sin, I am wrong? If I choose to interpret it differently how am I wrong? Isn't that wasn't Protestant religion is all about? And didn't during the Reformation and Counter -Reformation people pretty much damn each other to hell for interpretation? Shoudn't we also then suggest that in a few hundred years or less, homosexuality will be wholly accepted?

No, sorry, if you read the Bible from front to back you do see that homosexuality is immoral and a sin; it is referred to specifically or generally (sins of the flesh) on a number of occasions as being sinful; moreover, marital unions are always referred to as between a man and a wife; are there any lengthy, clear passages in which deviant sexual behaviours are explicitly praised and approved? Nope. Moreover, in my opinion, when a true believer reads the Bible, they understand where it stands on deviant sexual behaviour because they understand the reason why Jesus came; all such urges and impulses that distract people and lead them astray from leading a Christ-like life are sins. People who dwell on these nonsensical and heretical issues such as "Jesus is Gay," "the Bible condones homosexuality," etc. are non-believers, anti-Christians, or those that don't follow the teachings of the Bible in regards to idle debate and seeking too much knowledge when it comes to biblical issues. Also, in the early Christian movement, there were--supposedly--some pretty bizarre stuff going on, but the Church that survived successfully expunged all of that nonsense. Why? Because true Christians recognized it as false prophecy and contrary to the teachings of Christ.

[M.Dancer]

..... marital unions are always referred to as between a man and a wife;

are there any lengthy, clear passages in which deviant sexual behaviours are explicitly praised and approved?

Marital unions are also often accompanied by a hefty price paid by the husband to the father...not to mention certain insurance polies like the wife marrying the husbands brother in the event of his death....

So when it comes to picking and choosing which OT directive to ingnore......

There is a whole book about deviant sex and its joys. It'c called te Song of Soloman It has a 2-4 beat.....

Song 5:4: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

Nudge nudge wink wink....a little bit of bum play between a man and not wife.....

[kengs333]

Marital unions are also often accompanied by a hefty price paid by the husband to the father...not to mention certain insurance polies like the wife marrying the husbands brother in the event of his death....

So when it comes to picking and choosing which OT directive to ingnore......

There is a whole book about deviant sex and its joys. It'c called te Song of Soloman It has a 2-4 beat.....

Song 5:4: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

Nudge nudge wink wink....a little bit of bum play between a man and not wife.....

Although there are better sources, I think a quotation from Wikipedia will suffice for you:

The Song of Songs is traditionally treated as an allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel as husband and wife.[3] Literally, however, the main characters of the Song are simply a woman and a man, and the poem suggests movement from courtship to consummation. It is one of the shortest books in the Bible, consisting of only 117 verses. [4] According to Ashkenazi tradition, it is read on the Sabbath that falls during the intermediate days of Passover. In the Sephardi Jewish community it is recited every Friday night.

You really seem to be having no luck today in intepreting and misrepresenting the Bible today, aren't you?

[jazzer]

There is a whole book about deviant sex and its joys. It'c called te Song of Soloman It has a 2-4 beat.....

Song 5:4: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

Nudge nudge wink wink....a little bit of bum play between a man and not wife.....

There's more than just one book. Check out some of these references

[M.Dancer]

Although there are better sources, I think a quotation from Wikipedia will suffice for you:

You really seem to be having no luck today in intepreting and misrepresenting the Bible today, aren't you?

So you are saying God likes a little bum play? Why not, God is only human.............

So why are your panties so tied in knots when people want to do it?

If you want, I could go line for line with you and show you how the original was censored to suit elizabethan morality.....

[M.Dancer]

It seems like in every battle of wits, Keng comes unarmed.....

[jawapunk]

Yes Kengs,

Please if you would provide me with the passages you are talking about. I know that they are in there, but I don't know where to look. Please post atleast the book and verse numbers or something.

[cybercoma]

There's more than just one book. Check out some of these references

Since you brought up the SAB, you might as well take a look here too...

[jawapunk]

Thanks cyber that was really informative. See how easy that was Kengs?

makes me wonder if kengs has even read the bible at all honestly considering people have bascially asked him for his proof since the start of the damn thread.

[jefferiah]

Which kind of makes my point. Homosexuality clearly wasn't a big deal for Jesus, but things such as adultry and hypocrisy were.

If it were not a big deal for him then it makes no sense that he never mentioned it. Having grown up in a religious culture where homosexuality was considered wrong you would think he would have cleared that one up Jazzer. Your logic here is a bit backward. His non-mention of the mores concerning this seem to speak volumes about his support for the idea of it being a sin, rather than the opposite. He would not mention it because the idea of it being a sin was a given. However, when it came to things such as putting to much emphasis on ritual cleanliness he was quite outspoken.

[jefferiah]

Yeah but is it him speaking or through someone else. Also Leviticus is the thrid book of the Old Testament or the Torah. It mandates male circumcision. Does that mean if you aren't you are also immoral? There are also alot of rules there that regular Christians break every day. Why would one rule be taken so much more seriously than others? It isn't underlined is it? hehe

Its funny you should mention this one case since the New Testament states that gentile circumcision is not required.

[jefferiah]

But if I read the Bible back to front and still allow that homosexuality is not immoral or a sin, I am wrong? If I choose to interpret it differently how am I wrong?

You can choose to interpret differently. And I would disagree. And that would be the end of it. Some churches do consider it acceptable. I am not going to make a big war over that, or even over some guy in a Harry Potter book. For my part all I ask is that the belief of homosexuality being a sin will remain uncensored for those who choose to believe it and wish to say this is what our faith or our sect says. If pork eating is acceptable to many of us we certainly do not blow a gasket over a Jew believing that pork is unclean. And on the flip side I dont think that the assessment of pork being unclean means that a Jew is a pork-eater-hater.

[kengs333]

It seems like in every battle of wits, Keng comes unarmed.....

Honestly, this one-liner drivel that you always resort to is pathetic. I don't know how many times I make lengthy arguments, only to have it flippantly dismissed, then accused of not having an argument. If you don't want to consider what I write, then so be it, but spare us all your flippant, sarcastic remarks. Why you've survived this long being like this is beyond me.

[jawapunk]

I can agree to that Jefferiah. In fact I usually am pretty much to each their own. But on forums where your opinion is pretty much front and central, things can get pretty heated you have to admit. I am in another argument that started abot Bush's presidency that has gone so far off topic that we were arguing about the American school system and then when I introduced a survey conducted by National Geographic he dismissed it and then we have been since arguing over statistics. Things get too carried away.

But for my part I will allow that people can believe that homosexuality is a sin and immoral. I may not agree with it and I do want to understand the mindset because Christianity, to me is based on love. not only a love of your neighbour and friends but your enemies and those that would do ill to you. That's why I don't understand the judegment being passed constantly and the comments, especially by kengs like "you know where you are going" etc etc.

I pretty much want to say, you aren't Jesus, you aren't God, who gave you the right to pass judgement or ostracize people from worshipping Jesus Christ. This isn't directed at anyone in particular just when someone says stuff like that.

[jazzer]

If it were not a big deal for him then it makes no sense that he never mentioned it. Having grown up in a religious culture where homosexuality was considered wrong you would think he would have cleared that one up Jazzer. Your logic here is a bit backward. His non-mention of the mores concerning this seem to speak volumes about his support for the idea of it being a sin, rather than the opposite. He would not mention it because the idea of it being a sin was a given. However, when it came to things such as putting to much emphasis on ritual cleanliness he was quite outspoken.

I disagree totally. It was in fact Paul and others who had the homophobia, unlike Jesus who preached love and forgiveness. J.C. spoke against adultry but left out homosexuality? Sorry, but I don't buy your contention.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jazzer

[bush_cheney2004]

I can agree to that Jefferiah. In fact I usually am pretty much to each their own. But on forums where your opinion is pretty much front and central, things can get pretty heated you have to admit. I am in another argument that started abot Bush's presidency that has gone so far off topic that we were arguing about the American school system and then when I introduced a survey conducted by National Geographic he dismissed it and then we have been since arguing over statistics. Things get too carried away.

I agree....you never should have derailed that other topic. I hope National Geographic surveys gay 18-24 year olds about finding Afghanistan on a map!

[jazzer]

removed

Edited November 22, 2007 by jazzer

[jazzer]

His non-mention of the mores concerning this seem to speak volumes about his support for the idea of it being a sin, rather than the opposite. He would not mention it because the idea of it being a sin was a given.

Quite the assumption. So then, Jesus, by his silence, must then have accepted Leviticus and all the inherent laws, including putting unruly children to death, etc. You can't have it both ways. A mute Jesus doesn't cut it.

[jefferiah]

Quite the assumption. So then, Jesus, by his silence, must then have accepted Leviticus and all the inherent laws, including putting unruly children to death, etc. You can't have it both ways. A mute Jesus doesn't cut it.

I would say your own view is quite the assumption. In fact it is an assumption that comes into play almost 2000 years after the fact.

If he did not commend stoning the adulteress or plucking out the eye of your enemy, what does that say about his view of harsh punishment. You are mixing up the moral with punishment. Two different things.

It seems quite apparent to me that he would not mention homosexuality. Why on Earth would the topic come up when it was commonly accepted to be a sin in Judean society? There would be no need to mention it. Just as there is no need to mention everything else that is a sin.

Jesus preached love and forgiveness of what???? Sin. So did Paul. But the fact that sin can be forgiven does not mean that sin is no longer sin.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

The Gospel of Matthew

19:4. Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:

19:5. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

19:6. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

In all Jesus definitions of marriage and union, male and female are present Jazzer. Why didn't he mention homosexuality? Perhaps, as you say, a mute Jesus doesn't cut it.

[Oleg Bach]

The Gospel of Matthew

19:4. Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:

19:5. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

19:6. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

In all Jesus definitions of marriage and union, male and female are present Jazzer. Why didn't he mention homosexuality? Perhaps, as you say, a mute Jesus doesn't cut it.

Spending a long time in the arts and entertainment industry - I ran into the odd gay that could sleep with woman but hid that fact. There are men who simply abandon the idea of pairing up with females - they don't want the social and finacial pressure or the responsiblity of children...as for the natural factor - some so-called gays are sexless..eunuchs - and these angelic ones that do not need to breed and are designed not to breed - I have no problem with - but the common power mongering sodomist that abuses and dominates these of what I consider the angelic human realm...they I hold in contempt..and gay by choice is a fact...as is habitual drunkeness - it's not a disease - it is a choice...a decision...some decide - today I will get drunk and others who enjoy alcohol just as much may say -not today...I am getting tired of fundamentalist Christians quoting scripture also as far as the gay factor - I have seen children who are not male or female..created by God - they are rare - and should not be interfered with or abuse as if they were females. To encourage our young to enter into this "alternative life style" is sexual interferance.

There are those who are sexless that are created by God - there are those that are sexless that give it up in order to dedicate them selves away from the flesh to further worship God - and there are those that are sexless that are made that way by man..that is what I have the issue with- children that are conditioned with sinister intent. There was a time when femalish males would marry and do their genetic duty and have offspring...a male with female traits is still a male...also I have spoke to some so-called gays and asked them this question..."If I took you and placed you on an island with a very sweet and attractive female that was beautiful of heart and mind and returned in a year and a half - would there be a child" - they said yes...so what is that? Apparently it is as with some lesbians -a question of quality - there are fewer and fewer qualtiy mates being produced by society - that is one of the problems - Lesbians for instance don't want base males that are apes.

[M.Dancer]

Honestly, this one-liner drivel that you always resort to is pathetic. I don't know how many times I make lengthy arguments, only to have it flippantly dismissed, then accused of not having an argument. If you don't want to consider what I write, then so be it, but spare us all your flippant, sarcastic remarks. Why you've survived this long being like this is beyond me.

I don't think I ever said you didn't have argument, I will admit you many. They're just not that very good or well thought out.