Transgender

[WestCoastRunner]

She isn't doing anything of the sort. Perhaps your bigotry against Christianity is clouding your judgement.

You can call it whatever you want. It's stil promoting hatred towards the gay community and it's dangerous. It's no wonder there is so much bullying and violence towards them.

[jacee]

Who sez I refer to Leviticus on homosexuality? My position is drawn from the New Testament.

Whatever.

It's all bunk to me, Betsy.

And it's not written by any 'God', but by men ... mad for power over people and full of self-righteous arrogance ... or denial.

Jesus was not 'divine' in my opinion, but he was a decent sort of man, a visionary and a revolutionary.

Maybe he was even gay.

Show me where he said any of that?!

And how many religious pedants who rail against homosexuality have been found to be just in denial about their own sexuality?

LOTS!

I've encountered at least two such people in my own life, without even trying.

Being homo phobic is a symptom of denial of your own sexuality, or that of someone close to you ... in my opinion.

Quoting archaic 'scripture' to justify it is just a crutch for those who have no moral compass of their own and need to be told what to think and how to behave.

And there are always plenty of control freaks ready to take advantage of that.

.

Edited July 2, 2016 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Canadian Blood Services has no problem "discriminating" against transgender persons when it comes to donating blood.

...Susan Gapka, a trans woman and the founding chair of the Trans Lobby Group, says she "would not bother" going through the process of donating blood given the new rules, which she thinks are discriminatory.

"It says that they don't want my blood. It says that I'm not worthy. It says that I don't belong, that I am not good enough. It just really builds on that erasure," Gapka told CBC News.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/blood-donation-transgender-1.3649890

[Bryan]

Lots of evangelical Christians do follow the Old Testament these days ... especially to define homosexuality as an "abomination".

.

Only for context that directly cross references the applicable New Testament passages.

[Bryan]

It's stil promoting hatred towards the gay community and it's dangerous.

It's neither of those things.

[?Impact]

Leviticus is old testament, it doesn't really apply to Christians.

Actually it does according to Jesus:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

[WestCoastRunner]

It's neither of those things.

Oh really? Why isn't it?

[?Impact]

My position is drawn from the New Testament.

1 Cor 6

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral,

nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Homosexuality - can't get any clearer than that! It even talked about lesbians!

So your translation of the Bible is clear. Your translation done by who? How about the King James Bible:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

How about we go back to the original verse that used the term malakoi? Who are you to say that means homosexual, or even effeminate? It is translated differently in other parts of the King James BIble (Matthew 11:8, and Luke 7:25). It appears the meaning of the word is: men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only, not working for the good of the whole. The clarity you speak of is anything but.

Edited July 2, 2016 by ?Impact

[betsy]

So your translation of the Bible is clear. Your translation done by who? How about the King James Bible:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

How about we go back to the original verse that used the term malakoi?Who are you to say that means homosexual, or even effeminate? It is translated differently in other parts of the King James BIble (Matthew 11:8, and Luke 7:25). It appears the meaning of the word is: men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only, not working for the good of the whole. The clarity you speak of is anything but.

Translations do not affect the important message(s) that God wants to impart.

Haven't I given you the example of the term "stretch" used so many times in the right context of describing the heavens (universe). You pointed out that the term "stretch" is an English language - which actually supports my point!

Imagine after thousands of years, the English term "stretch" ended up being THE ACCURATE term to describe what used to be described as "expanding" universe.

Anyway, this explains the details about the Bible:

There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.

To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents.

More.....

https://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible

Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?

The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all. The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek; and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.

That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations.

http://carm.org/hasnt-bible-been-rewritten-so-many-times-we-cant-trust-it-anymore

Does the Greek word malakos refer to homosexual acts?

The Claim

The Greek word malakoi (plural form of malakoi), is typically translated as referring to males practicing homosexual acts by standard English translations in 1 Corinthians 6:9.[1] [2] This is challenged by those seeking legitimization of homosexual behaviour within Christianity.[3] [4]

The Facts

Lexical evidence from Greek texts indicates the word was used to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual act.[5] [6] [7] [8] The meaning of the word is not confined to male prostitutes,[9] or sexually exploited males.[10] [11] [12]

Lexical Sources

Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word as a reference to the passive partner in a male homosexual act.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

----------------------------------------

In classical Greek, μαλακός was also used to refer to boys and men who allowed themselves to be used homosexually.4 It was also applied to a man taking the female or passive role in homosexuality.

[7] ‘‘In classical Greek, malakos is used of boys and men who allow themselves to be used homosexually and of those who play the part of the passive partner in homosexual intercourse.77 In Roman Antiquities, written about 7 B.C. by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aristodemus of Cumae is called malakos because he had been “effeminate” (thēludrias) as a child, having undergone things associated with women.78 Thus, while there is some ambiguity about malakos, there is evidence in supporting the view that it refers to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Moreover, this view is further supported by its use with arsenokoitēs, a term for the active member in such acts.’, Feinberg, Feinberg, & Huxley, ‘Ethics for a Brave New World’, pp. 200–201 (1996).

[10] ‘The other word used to designate same sex relations in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is malakoi. This word refers to the passive partner sexually, an effeminate male who plays the role of a female.’, Schreiner, ‘A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality’, Themelios(31.3.70), April 2006.

[11] ‘Paul could have used the more technical term paiderastēs (a pederast) if he had intended to restrict his comments to exploitative sex. Furthermore, if the only problem in view were sex that exploits others, there would be no need for Paul to mention the passive partner as well since he is the one being oppressed, and not the oppressor.’, ibid., p. 71.

[12] ‘The terms malakoi and molles could be used broadly to refer to effeminate or unmanly men. But in specific contexts it could be used in ways similar to the more specific terms cinaedi (lit., “butt-shakers”) and pathici (“those who undergo [penetration]”) to denote effeminate adult males who are biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men. For example, in Soranus’s work On Chronic Diseases (early 2nd century A.D.) the section on men who desire to be penetrated (4.9.131-37) is entitled “On the molles or subacti (subjugated or penetrated partners, pathics) whom the Greeks call malthakoi.” An Aristotelian text similarly refers to those who are anatomically inclined toward the receptive role as malakoi (Pseudo-Aristotle, Problems 4.26). Astrological texts that speak of males desirous of playing the penetrated female role also use the term malakoi (Ptolemy, Four Books 3.14 §172; Vettius Valens, Anthologies 2.37.54; 2.38.82; cf. Brooten, 126 n. 41, 260 n. 132).

Scholarly Commentary

The majority of commentators and translators understand malakos to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual act. [19] [20] [21]

https://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/does-the-greek-word-malakos-refer-to-homosexual-acts/

Edited July 3, 2016 by betsy

[Ash74]

While the origin of this piece remains elusive, it is relevant nonetheless.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Parody%20and%20Humor/OpenLetterToDrLaura.html

When someone tries to defend the homosexual

lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly

states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of

God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a

pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They

claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus

21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her

period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I

tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and

female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A

friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not

Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

... (continued) ...

It's hilarious ... and it clearly demonstrates the folly of applying literal interpretations of the Bible to today's world.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at answering the questions, Betsy?

.

So how about slaves?

Is that still cool or have we as a society seen that this is wrong?

If owning another human being has become wrong than when will judging them for being in a same sex relationship?

[Bryan]

Oh really? Why isn't it?

Because nothing of the sort is happening. Any perception of such is all in your head.

[?Impact]

Translations do not affect the important message(s) that God wants to impart.

It’s a shame people like you try to twist scripture to fit your own agenda. μαλακοῖς means fine or delicate. The word for passive partner in male homosexual acts is κίναιδος. Instead of learning from some BIble thumping gay bashing self-loathing hate filled website, perhaps you should study Greek.

[jacee]

So how about slaves?

Is that still cool or have we as a society seen that this is wrong?

If owning another human being has become wrong than when will judging them for being in a same sex relationship?

Yup.

That would be the point.

.

[betsy]

It’s a shame people like you try to twist scripture to fit your own agenda. μαλακοῖς means fine or delicate. The word for passive partner in male homosexual acts is κίναιδος. Instead of learning from some BIble thumping gay bashing self-loathing hate filled website, perhaps you should study Greek.

Everything's been explained in that article, along with supporting references.

Anyway, what's your point? Are you saying that homosexuality is not in the New Testament?

Romans 1

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,

That's a very clear description! It even included lesbianism.

You're being obtuse, Impact.

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Whatever.

It's all bunk to me, Betsy.

And it's not written by any 'God', but by men ... mad for power over people and full of self-righteous arrogance ... or denial.

You're the one who brought up the Bible - a book you hardly know anything about. No wonder it's all bunk to you.

Anyway, no sense arguing with someone who's ignorant of the things she's blathering about.

Whatever, Jacee. Bye-bye.

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

So how about slaves?

Is that still cool or have we as a society seen that this is wrong?

If owning another human being has become wrong than when will judging them for being in a same sex relationship?

Do you understand the difference between slavery during biblical times from slavery as we know it today?

There's a big difference, you know.

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Do you understand the difference between slavery during biblical times from slavery as we know it today?

There's a big difference, you know.

So it was ok to own people back then? How nice.

[betsy]

So it was ok to own people back then? How nice.

That was the culture of the time.

Do you know that during those days, some people volunteered to become slaves for economic reasons?

The Bible contains rules about slavery, and they were given to protect the slaves.

Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,⁸ they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.⁹ The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities.¹⁰ Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself.¹¹ Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.¹²

As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened,¹³ but treated with justice and fairness.¹⁴ The text goes on to explain that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.^{13, 14}

^{The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.}

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Slavery in the New Testament

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men".^{[85][86][87][88][89]} However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way"^[90] and "even better" as "brothers",^[91] to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

The Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery; it was used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists. ^[92][93] In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master, Philemon; however, Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus, who he says he views as a son, not as a slave but as a beloved brother in Christ. Philemon is requested to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul.^[94]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

In modern times like black slavery, both sides cite the Bible!

Though pro-slavery people point to the Bible to justify their deeds, abolitionists were motivated by the Scriptures in their fight against slavery.

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[Queenmandy85]

Just two points. As a Peace Officer, my uniform is made of fibres of different materials. When I wear it, I am an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

Secondly, there is no contemporary historical evidence the Jesus ever existed.

[?Impact]

Everything's been explained in that article, along with supporting references.

Yes and article written by the self loathing, gay bashing Bible thumpers who reference themselves. I suggest you expand your horizons, education is something to be cherished. You failed to explain why the translation is not the same for the same word in different parts of the Bible as I pointed out long ago. That article also fails to explain it, even though they reference the other passages.

[betsy]

Yes and article written by the self loathing, gay bashing Bible thumpers who reference themselves. I suggest you expand your horizons, education is something to be cherished. You failed to explain why the translation is not the same for the same word in different parts of the Bible as I pointed out long ago. That article also fails to explain it, even though they reference the other passages.

The article explained the term, malakos....and the other verses explicitly stated - and described - homosexual activities.

So, even if you refuse to accept the explanation about the term "malakos," there are still verses that stated it explicitly clear.

Romans 1

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,

Gay and lesbian sex, explicitly described! That should eliminate any confusion on your part!

Enough said. I'm not going to try to convince you to accept what's only too obvious. Take it, or leave it!

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

Romans 1

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,

διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας: αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆςπλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.

I don't see μαλακοῖ or a derivative of that root word appearing there, which was the point of your original translation being wrong. If you want to prove that the Bible is goodness or hate, depending on the human author and their mood at the time, then that is a completely different matter.

[WestCoastRunner]

The article explained the term, malakos....and the other verses explicitly stated - and described - homosexual activities.

So, even if you refuse to accept the explanation about the term "malakos," there are still verses that stated it explicitly clear.

Romans 1

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,

Gay and lesbian sex, explicitly described! That should eliminate any confusion on your part!

Enough said. I'm not going to try to convince you to accept what's only too obvious. Take it, or leave it!

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,

I don't understand how anyone can get away with this gay bashing on this forum and hide behind a bible. It is a clear smear of a certain group of individuals. If any other group were smeared like this 'shameful acts', 'shameful lusts', the posts would almost certainly be deleted.

[betsy]

διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας: αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆςπλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.

I don't see μαλακοῖ or a derivative of that root word appearing there, which was the point of your original translation being wrong. If you want to prove that the Bible is goodness or hate, depending on the human author and their mood at the time, then that is a completely different matter.

It's what's written, and it's from the NIV, Impact. And it's been explained clearly in that article about "malakos."

Take it, or leave it.

There are those who try to change or twist the message in the Bible that they may show that homosexuality is acceptable.

There's even a Queen James Bible. You must be reading a pro-gay theological propaganda.

Here's another explanation for you, a long article that explains why homosexuality is not acceptable.

Near the end of the article, it explains malakos.

https://answersingenesis.org/family/homosexuality/pro-gay-theology-does-the-bible-approve-of-homosexuality/

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

It's what's written, and it's from the NIV, Impact.

Actually your original reference (1 Corinthians 6:9) is from the English Standard Version. If you want to quote the NIV then you should quote it properly. Also note which revision of the NIV you are quoting (1966, 1984, or 2011) because that passage is different in each of them.