|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
FairLDS.org
LDS.org
MormonWiki
Mormon Encyclopedia
FARMS
|
You are not logged into the site. Please login or signup. | ||||||
| Notices |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
07-06-2009, 09:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I used the word abomination quite appropriately, notwithstanding the all too familiar, yet still unconvincing attempts to drag the law of Moses into a discussion about an unholy and impure practice that always has been and always will be a sin. I've heard that approach before and all it proves to me is that there are a lot of people who just don't understand the law of Moses, who can't differentiate it from the full Gospel of Jesus Christ. I agree that the government has no business hijacking what ought to be an exclusively religious institution like marriage. But given that it's been done already, I find myself forced to defend marriage when next the government is hijacked by bohemians and anti-Christs, who in turn go on a crusade to pervert the aforementioned religious institution of marriage. If they insist on peeing against the wall, the least they can do is stick to their own walls and not include mine in the venture. I apologize if I sound belligerent. That is not my intention. But I have seen FAR TOO MANY people roll over and play dead or even go so far as to abandon the iron rod and make their way to the great and spacious building, rather than allowing themselves to be perceived as belligerent. I'd rather be mistakenly thought to be intolerant than to mistakenly thought to be in approval of carnally deviant behavior, whenever those are my only two choices. But to be clear, I mean no offense. I simply will not back down in my assertion (my correct assertion, I believe) that what God says is a sin actually is a sin, and I won't capitulate when my government, which is supposed to represent me, attempts to pull down the wrath of God on this earth. My back is to the wall and I don't have the luxury of indulging the evil, bohemian ideologies that have repeatedly brought this world to ruin since the beginning of time. 
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to its_Chet For This Useful Post: | ||
Bob_Blaylock (07-07-2009) | ||
|
07-06-2009, 10:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
07-06-2009, 10:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well, to be fair, you haven't issued a single argument against what I've said. I don't think you're belligerent, I just think you're incorrect.  If you don't want to use the law of moses to establish homosexuality as a sin, I more than invite you to use the words of Jesus to establish it. As far as I knew, there was no specific mention of homosexuality by Jesus.Here's Wikipedia's take on it: The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Obviously, I'm not going to debate the term Raca as a dead slang term. I obviously don't know. I think the author of that piece is incorrect and, also, has no proof. However, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. Since you said I'm going based on the huge difference between the Law of Moses and the everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ, I'm more than willing to entertain Jesus' words on it. Unless you're referring to modern day prophets, in which case I would say: I agree with you. It's a sin. However, we are told to love the sinner, and calling them 'Abominations' and 'Sodomites' is not an outpouring of love. You can be loving and still condemn a sin. In fact, I even mentioned it was a sin in my original post, which we are required to do. I feel you may be looking for an argument where there isn't one. I simply think you may be too contentious with people over a specific sin. Frankly, I'd like to see everyone attacking promiscuity, adultery, prostitution, lying, hatred and pride with the same gusto we go after this particular sin. EDIT: Actually, now that I reread your posting, I see that you're attacking my knowledge of the bible, so there is a bit of contention there. Please, feel free to point me towards the new testament scriptures on homosexuality. I would love to hear what I obviously missed.
__________________
http://www.lolcats.com/images/u/07/4...szgf3ecdat.jpg
|
|
07-06-2009, 12:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If a person truly wants to know where the New Testament identifies carnally deviant behavior as sinful, I can tell you that Paul speaks of it in a few places. Not much help, I know, given that Paul wrote most of what is contained in the New Testament. And I'm not good at remembering chapter and verse, which is fortunate since my style of sharing the Gospel is to refer to events within the Gospel and their application to our lives rather than treating the scriptures like an instruction manual. There are some people who approach the scriptures as though they are directions printed out from mapquest, and I think it's a big mistake to see them that way. Not to say that the scriptures should never be taken literally, but I believe that if a person relies primarily on the literal interpretation they're missing the point. I believe the purpose of the scriptures is to open the lines of communication with the Holy Spirit so that truth may be revealed to us. It may rely on a metaphorical interpretation of what we're actually reading at the time. But I digress. It's in the New Testament, and I don't remember where exactly. Still, the New Testament is our only record of the previous dispensation. There have been other dispensations. I count at least seven, total. If something isn't covered in one dispensation, it may be covered in another. And there are lost scriptures, on top of that. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think a lot of people are getting tired of being accused of being hateful or contentious when all they're trying to do is defend the truth. I offer no contention or hate, and I cannot help if contention is perceived in spite of that, at least not after I've issued a "just in case" apology, as I have done. I will not apologize for the truth, and I will resist any efforts society makes to redefine right and wrong. The Gospel is my standard, not Babylon. I make no apologies for that. I may be responsible for my tone, but the truth is from God, and I will not forsake Him when it is socially beneficial to do so. In an earlier post I mentioned that I have had friends who were gay. I don't mix easily, so take my word for it when I say that it would be difficult for me to have a friend who is gay if I had any sort of chip on my shoulder against them as a person. I have no reservations about calling the BEHAVIOR abominable (which is all I've done here really), and yet I am comfortable with going to a hockey game or attending a college class with a group of people I enjoy being around, notwithstanding that one of them happens to like their bread buttered on what I know is the wrong side. They never rubbed my nose in it, and I never brought the fire to them. But this is a message board for religious discussion. I don't have to applaud the lifestyle to get along with the individual. Those in society who think I do are making things a lot worse for all of us. Again, just so we're clear, I'm not here to argue, so there will be no orderly debate with me. I refuse to accept that I would need to debate about the Gospel on a website like this anyway. That's not how I define Zion. I do apologize if I have offended with my tone. I don't apologize for the Gospel, but I am responsible for my tone. I mean no offense, and hope that none is taken. But nothing will deter me from confronting a society that tells me that turning a page on a calendar means that wrong is now right, that revolting is now en vogue, that nasty is now noble, and that the will of God is subject to the great and spacious building. If something like proposition eight ever comes up in my state, you can rest assured that I will very enthusiastically vote for it, and I see absolutely nothing about that to apologize for or be ashamed of.
|
|
07-06-2009, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part 1
With great interest I have read your contributions. They were interesting for me, nevertheless, they showed me how little notion you have all from the Bible. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? No! What the bible condemns, nevertheless, and this is to be seen in the OT as well as in the NT, pagan rituals, which included also "homosexual actions". So let't take a closer look to some verses in the buble more closely (all quotes come from Rev. Mel White: “What the bible sayy and doesn’t say – about Homosexuality”m a free copy available at soulfirce.org):
GENESIS 19:1-14 THE STORY OF SODOM (p. 11,12) This story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about? Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom—and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48–49 tell us: Quote:
God has called us do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our Creator. Sodom was destroyed because its people didn’t take God seriously about caring for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast. But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing. It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge, not about homosexuality or homosexual orientation. And it is still happening until this day. The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape—and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That’s why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God’s will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13 THE HOLINESS CODE (p. 12-14) Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!) So what’s a holiness code? It’s a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures. What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, abominations” (TO’EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God. Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality. But wait, before we go any further, let’s ask: What does this text say about God? Even if the old holiness codes no longer apply to us as Christians, it’s important to remember that in every age, people of faith are responsible for setting moral and ethical standards that honor God. But we people of faith must be very careful not to allow our own prejudices to determine what those standards should be. Instead of selecting one item from an ancient Jewish holiness code and using it to condemn sexual or gender minorities, let’s talk together about setting sexual standards that please God— standards appropriate for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, standards based on loving concern, health, and wholeness for ourselves and for others. Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality? I’m convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here’s why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation: Quote:
Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times? Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man’s sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder. The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk “wasting” even asingle child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. We’ve talked about the passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that are used (or misused) by some people to condemn sexual minorities. Now let’s look at three verses from the letters of the apostle Paul in the Christian Scriptures that are used the same way.
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Huck_Finn For This Useful Post: | ||
cofchristcousin (07-06-2009) | ||
|
07-06-2009, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part 2
ROMANS 1:26-27 NATURAL AND UNNATURAL (p. 15,16)
For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26–27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.” This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s go back 2,000 years and try to understand why. Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors—including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female)—all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure. The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble. When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us—and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives. Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again. You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God’s business, not ours. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10 THE MYSTERY OF “MALOKOIS” AND “ARSENOKOITAI” (p. 16-18) The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don’t kill one another. Don’t sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don’t lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes “malokois” and “arsenokoitai.” Here’s where the confusion begins. What’s a malokois? What’s an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We’ll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let’s see what the texts say about God. After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn’t phony. That’s the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn’t want us squabbling over who is “in” and who is “out.” God wants us to love one another. It’s God’s task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another. So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point? Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant “effeminate call boys.” The New Revised Standard Version says “male prostitutes.” As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don’t know exactly what it means—and the fact that we don’t know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of “the effeminate call boys.” We might call them “dirty old men.” Others translate the word as “sodomites,” but never explain what that means. In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time. In the past, people used Paul’s writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul’s writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Now we have to ask ourselves, “Is it happening again?” Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s prejudice and condemn God’s gay children? We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose. Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here you can download the whole article: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf My personal result: Somebody can be for or against a marriage for homosexuals. Somebody can be for or against homosexuals. But NOBODY can abuse for it the Bible to condemn homosexuality. And as far as I have read the BoM and D&C (Internet), and also has understood what I have had read, there is in it no passage about homosexuality in thes scriptures. And if anything isn't forbidden, and this is an old principle of the lawyers, it is permitted first once. Because I reckon on being banned here because of my open words, I would like to say goodbyeto all of you now.
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Huck_Finn For This Useful Post: | ||
cofchristcousin (07-06-2009) | ||
|
07-06-2009, 07:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Huck, I admire your efforts. I get the feeling you are not lds. Neither am I, I'm from a denomination that shared 14 years of common roots with the LDS. But, we are very different today. I have learned in my time here that the LDS have unique beliefs about the family. Part of it is captured in the Proclamation on The Family. bhttp://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html
I think that most of the members, at least here, hold this proclamation as Scripture. The explanations to the clobber verses are not investigated or relevant with the LDS, largely because of the unique Church culture and the additional teachings that hold the Authority of Scripture.
__________________
I really only love God as much as I love the person I love the least. ~Dorothy Day Becoming Visible
|
|
07-06-2009, 07:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
A few friends who live this lifestyle do not have a problem with this statement since it is a mere correction of not using another term to cover it over.
__________________
"Moving Forward...together!" Last edited by Hemidakota; 07-06-2009 at 07:20 PM.
|
|
07-06-2009, 07:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Moving Forward...together!"
|
|
07-06-2009, 07:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Moving Forward...together!"
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:39 PM.
