Posted by splumer Actually it says "Keep your nose out of my bedroom and I'll keep mine out of yours." http://www.amazon....=1275571675&sr=1-1

I personally dont give a flyin flip what anyone does behind their own doors. Do what ever the hell you want! But I'm gonna tell you the truth, and if you choose not to listen to it, then the blood is off my hands, its up to God to judge you then.

Posted by Mr_Fiend its up to God to judge you then.

Great! So we can start treating people that god is fussy with like people? Cool!

To show my gratitude for all the religious people finally realizing that until god shows up in person and holds a press conference alot of us don't wanna hear from them about it, I'll stop pointing out that they are currently indirectly supported by my money (taken from me by the government under threat of jail). I'll try to forget that religion has a bodycount associated with it that likely surpasses nationalism and is probably running neck and neck with racism. And I will never mention again that all of them have as much claim to presenting accurate representations of the past and future as any carny fortune teller.

Y'all hold up your side, I'll hold up mine. And when we die we'll see who's right. Till then you stay outta the lawmaking process and I'll stop trying to get your 501(c)3 status pulled.

Let's all take the bible literally!

If you know anyone who has had any form of emergency medical surgery that removed his man hood, or even someone who lost it in the field of battle, might wanna tell them they are shit outta luck, because heaven doesn't want them!!

"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be included in the assembly of the Lord." Deuteronomy 23:1


There's other stuff like that too.

But the bible was written by men, not God. The word of God taken down by men. So you have to understand that some stuff may be lost in translation. Also, you have to consider the time period it was written in. With the Jewish being circumscribed, and places (like some Sumerian cities) having eunuchs, perhaps this was just because they didn't want men going crazy wanting to prove how they were more devoted to their God, and cutting off their genitals.

Everything with a grain of salt and a lot of kindness. And never forget "forgive us our trespasses"

Posted by Dresden Let's all take the bible literally!

If you knew anything about the bible, that would be foolish. A lot of the bible contains metaphors. Why? Because metaphors are timeless and can be translated in multiple languages without loossing their meaning.

Posted by Dresden "If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be included in the assembly of the Lord." Deuteronomy 23:1 There's other stuff like that too.

Yes, because taking one line of text out of context from thousands of other verses will always yield you the truth. Yup, you can do that with any book, take one sentence out of it and come to a conclusion, genius! If you're gonna waste my time sweetheart, please be more creative. Besides, thats the old testament, the old way of life, the new way of life, or the "New Testament" is when Jesus comes into the picture with a new set of rules.

If one's genital were cut off, you'd already be in hell, so why would it matter?

Posted by Mr_Fiend If you knew anything about the bible, that would be foolish. A lot of the bible contains metaphors. Why? Because metaphors are timeless and can be translated in multiple languages without loossing their meaning.

You're absolutely right, but the problem lies in knowing which passages are metaphors and which are to be taken literally. For example, slave owners in America's past used passages from the Bible to justify slavery. The other argument against Biblical literalism is that we as a society have outgrown some of these ideas, like slavery. So I ask, how do we determine which ideas to outgrow, or which to take as metaphors? And if we take some of the Bible as metaphor, why not take it all?

Posted by splumer So I ask, how do we determine which ideas to outgrow, or which to take as metaphors? And if we take some of the Bible as metaphor, why not take it all?

Now we're gettin somewhere! I dont have a direct answer to that, but maybe you can come to your own conclusion with what I do know.

Like I said before, the New Testament is the time after Jesus died, at which point the "rules of the game" changed, and for the better. After the death of Jesus, priests were no longer needed, sacrifices were no longer needed, basically everything needed to absolve sin or things associated with sin had changed after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Because of that change in "testament", the Christian way of life through Jesus contradicts the old an out dated metaphors of the past Old Testament.

As to determine what is a metaphor or how to take it, well it is the belief of millions of Christians (including those slightly misguided catholics) that the Holly Spirit (or the spirit of God, as I like to put it) gives you the understanding of Gods Word, but of course that means nothing to someone who doesnt believe in God or the Holy Spirt.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Now we're gettin somewhere! I dont have a direct answer to that, but maybe you can come to your own conclusion with what I do know. Like I said before, the New Testament is the time after Jesus died, at which point the "rules of the game" changed, and for the better. After the death of Jesus, priests were no longer needed, sacrifices were no longer needed, basically everything needed to absolve sin or things associated with sin had changed after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Because of that change in "testament", the Christian way of life through Jesus contradicts the old an out dated metaphors of the past Old Testament. As to determine what is a metaphor or how to take it, well it is the belief of millions of Christians (including those slightly misguided catholics) that the Holly Spirit (or the spirit of God, as I like to put it) gives you the understanding of Gods Word, but of course that means nothing to someone who doesnt believe in God or the Holy Spirt.

The problem with that thinking, though, is that you have to believe even before you read the Bible, and not come to an understanding after reading it.

It's been pointed out before in this forum (though not in this thread) that there are passages in the NT which, when taken literally, are, frankly, pretty damn kooky. Here's one, courtesy of TekRiter:
Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

I know people (my brother in law, specifically) who take this passage literally, and not as metaphor. He actually got in a rather heated argument with another BiL (who has a theology degree) about whether or not women should be clergy, based, I assume, on this passage.

Actually, the second page of this thread has discussed this very topic:
http://www.uer.ca/...d=38420&currpage=1

Posted by splumer The problem with that thinking, though, is that you have to believe even before you read the Bible, and not come to an understanding after reading it.

Which is exactly why I said "but of course that means nothing to someone who doesnt believe in God or the Holy Spirit". But I dont see it as a "problem".

Posted by splumer It's been pointed out before in this forum (though not in this thread) that there are passages in the NT which, when taken literally, are, frankly, pretty damn kooky. Here's one, courtesy of TekRiter: Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Good old TekRiter, yet again stretching the limits of my knowledge lol. Personally that verse means nothing to me. But you must remember, that was thousands of years ago, laws and society were different. The bible also says to "obey the laws of the land", but even I dont do that hahaha! But to repeat myself, YOU MUST have understanding of the Word of God to have faith in God. You cant have one or the other, and therefore you are using your own mind to interpret things only the Holy Spirit knows.

I dont have a complete answer to that, but then again I'm not a bible scholar or a preacher (probably should be though ha!).

Posted by Mr_Fiend Besides, thats the old testament, the old way of life, the new way of life, or the "New Testament" is when Jesus comes into the picture with a new set of rules.

Then why is the old testament so popular when it comes to condemning homosexuals?

Why is it okay for the devout to pick and choose which passages they observe and which ones they ignore?

Posted by jukebox fuckup Then why is the old testament so popular when it comes to condemning homosexuals?

Um, homosexuality is covered both in the Old AND New Testament. And its pared along with other sins, all sins are equal according to God, some are just more detestable than others, such as homosexuality, which is why its such a hot topic because God shows his strong distaste for it. He loves everyone, but He hates the sin.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Good old TekRiter, yet again stretching the limits of my knowledge lol. Personally that verse means nothing to me. But you must remember, that was thousands of years ago, laws and society were different. The bible also says to "obey the laws of the land", but even I dont do that hahaha!

oh, I felt my ears burning.

Nothing says awesome like selective believing. Consider two opposing religious viewpoints on the bible and homosexuality:

"The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality." A. Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Time.com called him the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S".

"In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia." William Sloane Coffin, former chaplain of Yale University and, peace activist, and leading liberal clergyperson.

Note: "selective literalists". Awesome. Not you of course. I'm sure you have impeccable credentials to interpret the word of god for all of us. Even the gay ones. Who god loves, but wants dead:

Leviticus (old testament)
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1 (new testament)

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


You might also consider that the bible thing was heavily edited after it was translated from sumerian, to latin, to english. For example:

"qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.


"to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.

Of course as our translator of the good word, you already knew this. I would hate to suggest for even a moment that the hateful core beliefs of millions of normal people and fundies alike were based on a mistranslation. Clearly you need to "believe" something to get it's true meaning.

Anyone want to go smite some homos now?

Posted by tekriter Even the gay ones. Who god loves, but wants dead:

You keep missing it. God doesnt want ANYONE dead, period. Its essential that you understand that. If you disobey Him, He cannot physically let you into heaven because of the laws set in place. He wants you to choose (thought I covered this already), and if you choose death, then thats on you, He didnt want that, you did.

Lets take this logic of yours a step further. How bout we alter the bible a bit, tweek it to accept homosexuality. You would like that, God specifically says NOT to do that in Rev 22:18.

So here is the bible, no mention of homosexuality or how it will not get you into heaven. But then we would have to rewrite Genesis. Adam and Eve, their whole story seems mighty offensive to homosexuals, especially since Gods first commandment to mankind was to "multiply", homosexuals cant do that. The whole idea of homosexuality goes against Gods creation in every aspect, its a slap in His face of His design, you dont need verses to understand that. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and condones or believes a homosexual can enter heaven is a fool.

Now before you go attacking me, I happen to have friends that are gay. Yep, you heard it straight from the horses mouth. Do I attack them, do I judge them, do I force my beliefs on them, nope! There is a right way and a wrong way to go about things here. First, you must start to view homosexuality as it is in the eyes of God, equally bad as any other sin, described different, but equally bad. When (as a Christian) you begin to view it as just another sin, you realize you are no better because you struggle with sin everyday. A perfect example of this is when Jesus asked a crowd ready to stone him, for a person without sin to throw the first stone, of course no one threw a stone because they realized they all had different types of sin in their lives. The right way of going about this is sharing the your beliefs with people and homosexuals. It is then their right, or their prerogative to choose not listen or accept your beliefs. God is the one who will judge, Christians are to tell everyone what he will be judging and to save people from hell. If you dont want to listen to my beliefs, fine, dont.

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians (or atleast the selected groups the media just likes to cover) "bash" homosexuals, or condone chasing them down with torches and pitch forks. The secular groups are right, it is "hate", but homosexuals also have the same "hate" towards Christians, but no one seems to care about that. Christians should reach out to the homosexuals, try to show them why God does not approve of thier lifestyles, instead of picketing with signs saying "fags go to hell" or something like that. That will only make them hate Christians even more.

But wasn't the bible based completely off sumerian texts? BAM! *awaits the flaming*

Mr Fiend, I think you need to quit just listening to what your preachers tell you and do some research for yourself. There is tons of information out there if you truly care to learn beyond what your being told at your one church/denomination etc... It isn't that people are trying to re-write the bible or twist it's meaning, if anything, they are trying to come closer to understanding what the core principles and of the Bible are, to take out the inflammatory things that have been added and the twists that people have put into it over generations and years to affect the mindsets and thoughts of the times the different versions were published.


male prostitutes [Gk: malakoi] , sodomites [Gk: arsenokoitai]

MALAKOI - Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "effeminate" (KJV), "homosexuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "perverts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB ), "those who are male prostitutes" (NCV), and "male prostitutes." (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "masturbators." Only in the 20th century has it been understood as a reference to homosexuality. In 1522, Martin Luther translated this term "weichlinge" or "weaklings." Philo, a first century contemporary of Paul, applied the term to a man who had remarried his former wife. It commonly designated any male whose behavior was less than respectable. Many scholars argue that malakoi refers to moral weakness in general, with no specific connection to sodomy.

ARSENOKOITAI - The usage of this word is rare in Greek and its meaning is quite ambiguous. Literally it combines "male" and "lying with or sleeping with." This word has been translated in this text as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "sexual perverts" (RSV), "sodomites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of homosexual perversion" (NEB ), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a homosexual" (CEV), "men who have sexual relations with other men" (NCV), and "homosexual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated arsenokoitai as "practicing homosexuals" which reflects the theology of the church but is totally irresponsible scholarship. After much protest, the editors agreed to delete this term and replace it with "sodomites" in subsequent editions.

It seems to me this passage is speaking about exploitative forms of sex such as cultic prostitution and pederasty and cannot be used in arguments against committed same sex relationships. They are two completely different contexts.

I think it's interesting how Eugene Peterson translates this verse in The Message. He is a fairly conservative scholar but completely eliminates any reference to homosexuality from the text, his version:

"Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I'm talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you've been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit."


On a last point, I am in a 18 year relationship, for both of us it is our first, and only relationship, were shooting to break my parents record of almost 60 years. We also raised a child together from a mother who had major issues, I guess in your mind she would have been better off leaving her where she was, she's on her way to becoming a Doctor by the way, almost done finally with school and I do take donations if anyone wants to help!. My point is the scripture you try and use, has no bearing on my relationship any more than any other loving, caring relationship. If you actually KNEW the meaning and situational thought behind the Bible maybe you wouldn't be such a closed minded bigot.

Oh, In case you don't understand the definition of the word bigot either, let me explain it for you..

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Posted by Arch-Image There is tons of information out there if you truly care to learn beyond what your being told at your one church/denomination

I havent been to church in a long time, and I dont belong to a denomination. The "information" out there can be tainted and easily twisted, I choose to get my information from the source.

Posted by Arch-Image If you actually KNEW the meaning and situational thought behind the Bible maybe you wouldn't be such a closed minded bigot.

And here I thought no one on here would be foul enough as to actually offend me, but you sir have done just that!

I welcome people to disagree with me and I have no problem with that what so ever, hell call me a bigot, I dont give a shit, but dont EVER try and twist the Word to fit your perverted interpretation of it, there is only ony truth to Gods Word. The bible itself is just a bunch of words, you dont need it to get to heaven, in fact you can you dont have ever read it to be a Christian. What it is, is a representation of who God is and how to follow Him, and when you try to twist it, you spit in Gods face.

Posted by tekriter "qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.

I wonder if that's related to "kaddish," the Jewish prayer for the dead?

I welcome people to disagree with me and I have no problem with that what so ever, hell call me a bigot, I dont give a shit, but dont EVER try and twist the Word to fit your perverted interpretation of it, there is only ony truth to Gods Word.

Ad hominem attacks are not cool, agreed. But aren't you twisting God's word through your interpretation?

Good old TekRiter, yet again stretching the limits of my knowledge lol. Personally that verse means nothing to me. But you must remember, that was thousands of years ago, laws and society were different.

You can't pick and choose from the Bible, if you believe it's God's word. How can mere mortals say one passage is not worthy but another is? (I think I've asked this question before, and never received a satisfactory answer, so I'll answer it myself) The answer is, religion is dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world every so often. The Catholics have only relatively recently decided that there might actually be something to evolution and that it and Christianity are not incompatible. It wasn't so long ago that if a woman wore pants in public she could be arrested. Women dressing as men is, as you are aware, verboten in the Bible, but the Church has let that one slide, since it needs to at least keep up the appearance of modernity in order to not be abandoned.

My sister in law, who is a Christian, also has several good friends who are gay, and her philosophy is that God made them gay, so then man has no place deciding whether it is right or wrong.

I suspect the real reason homosexuality is condemned in the Bible is because gays don't multiply, and in order for the faith to spread, people had to be fruitful and pass their beliefs on to their kids.

Posted by splumer But aren't you twisting God's word through your interpretation?

Fair enough, but do you personally honestly think I have twisted anything from the bible to fit my special interests? The bible teaches Christians to be humble, accept the fact that they are sinners and repent. If I'm doing something against the Word of God (in which I do struggle with things as I have explained before), I'm not gonna cop out and try to twist the bible to fit my own personal beliefs, thats blasphemy and I wont have any part of that, thats playing with fire, the worst kind.

Posted by splumer You can't pick and choose from the Bible, if you believe it's God's word. How can mere mortals say one passage is not worthy but another is? (I think I've asked this question before, and never received a satisfactory answer, so I'll answer it myself) The answer is, religion is dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world every so often. The Catholics have only relatively recently decided that there might actually be something to evolution and that it and Christianity are not incompatible. It wasn't so long ago that if a woman wore pants in public she could be arrested. Women dressing as men is, as you are aware, verboten in the Bible, but the Church has let that one slide, since it needs to at least keep up the appearance of modernity in order to not be abandoned.

Eh, I'll agree. But those old traditions are part of "religions", I dont see Christianity (evangelical Christianity) as a "religion", but rather a system of beliefs that can go hand in hand with modern day society.

Posted by splumer and her philosophy is that God made them gay, so then man has no place deciding whether it is right or wrong.

Again, I dont have a personal vendetta against gays, like I said I too have some friends that are gay, and I'm no better if I have sin in my life. But that statement is a prime example of twisting the Word of God. Hell, its not even twisting, its the exact opposite.

Posted by splumer I suspect the real reason homosexuality is condemned in the Bible is because gays don't multiply, and in order for the faith to spread, people had to be fruitful and pass their beliefs on to their kids.

I'll partially agree with that, but some things should be added. The main reason is because God designed sex to be between a man and woman. Its also described as sexual perversion, perverting something He created. God's structure of a family supports the idea that only man and a woman are to join their souls together, and anything out side of that goes against His laws of nature. Hell, it even goes against Darwins laws of nature, according to evolution, homosexuals (assuming you belief they were "born that way") should have died out of the gene pool a long time ago, or atleast would have created some alter sex or have the ability to reproduce or some weird shit like that*.

*correct me if I'm wrong on that theory of a theory

Posted by Oryx But wasn't the bible based completely off sumerian texts? BAM! *awaits the flaming*

No, they stole crap from just about every group in the region.

And I'm betting a bunch of stuff in the current versions was not in the book in the first place, but was added later as social control through doctrine became more the goal.

I haven't been to church in a long time, and I don't belong to a denomination. The "information" out there can be tainted and easily twisted, I choose to get my information from the source.


Your correct, and that is exactly what has been going on for years, everyone from King James on up through the thousands of different version to today, twisting, to use your term, and influencing the meaning to suit their particular train of thought and beliefs.



And here I thought no one on here would be foul enough as to actually offend me, but you sir have done just that!

Well considering you highly offend me , guess that just makes us on the same page.

Posted by Arch-Image Well considering you highly offend me , guess that just makes us on the same page.

*sigh* fair enough