|
There we go, at least you have some logic of consistency now BigChubuff. Though i disagree with you, i think i'll preach a little about religion (christianity) and homosexuality.
First of all, nowhere in the bible does it mention the word homosexual. The term was not even developed in any language until the 1890's, and incorrect english translations drive that false truth farther. (reminds me of the use of centrifical force instead of centripetal but thats beside the issue). The bias of the translators attempt to make it more "modern" by doing so but in effect only increase its incorrectness. Anyway, there are only 8 references to something that could be homosexual in nature, but to no extent as those religious people will claim. Just because it sounds like it would be in the bible does not make it so, and it's not.
Furthermore, the 8 references to these is so much smaller in contrast to the sins mentioned throughout it of money, killing, etc. Common references used to condemn homosexuality come from two words in I Corinthians 6:9, and one word in Timothy 1:10. These new interpretations of these words have led us to believe it mean gay people. But up until the 20th century it was understood for the first reference as to masturbation and the second towards male prositutes (whom existed in the time of its writing, they could be hired by male and females). Other references such as the sin in Sodom and Gommorah passage (Genesis 19: 1-10) less about homosexuality than it is about gang rape and inhospitality. But let's look at this instance a little further.
For a lot of people this is the "big condemnation" or proof of its evil. But the scene is simply this: Lot was struggling to uphold, what we call the "universal law of hospitality", to two men (heterosexual) that came to his home who threatened to gang rape the two male angels in Lot's home. After this Lot offers his two virgin daughters in place of them. What does this passage show us? It shows the value of angels and humans. Not homosexuals and heterosexual issues. By offering them his daughters it shows the demoralizing and devaluing of human beings in contrast to angels. The two men were after the angels, and instead fell pray to the bait of women. It's not even about male angels, just angels. People think this is such proof, but look at it they are eluded by side issue and fail to recognize the central issue here (dehumanizing and the bait here, not the gender of the angels)
These references are minimal in contrast to others yet people blow it up with their "own beliefs", yes thats right. It's not god's, their yours.
Finally, allow me to post a quote from the bible that i believe summates God's views on his people:
"do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of god? do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of god. and that is what some of you were. but you were washed. you were sanctified. you were justified in the name of the lord jesus christ and by the spirit of our god."
He's saying that all is all right, and that the main importance is the devotion and following of God. I don't think he'd care if his most trusting follower was homosexual or not, it's all in the following. And no, i don't think the sexually immoral part refers to homosexuality...it is about rape and such. The homosexual reference there would never have been in the bible until recently as i have stated before. It is a translation change to accomodate for modern times, but we must remember that it was written in ancient times, and that won't fit the present. It has to remain in its own tact to convey the proper message. Anyway, this was long and a lot of you probably won't read it, but have fun if you do.
|
04-02-2002 05:11 PM
<~ credits to huby.. thanx so much! ^^
