Finally...a statement that shows your opinion, with only a tinge of hatred involved

Thats your opinion...if you hate their lifestyle, go for it. But some of the things in this thread that you guys have said has been pretty hateful...all Im saying is this.

Look back on what you have said and ask yourself...do you really want to hate people, or spread such hate? Do you want to hate a person without even knowing them?

If so, thats where Bumnahs point comes in, which I agree with. There are more important people/things to focus that hatred on, if you must, you know?

 

I find it slightly amusing that the anti-gay quotes from the bible come from the New International bible, which is uh, non-original, if you know what I am saying.

Cracking open my trusty Catholic bible (Printed in 1970, if you are curious), here is Timothy 1:9-11:

And Corinthians 6:9-10:
You'll note there is no use of effeminate and that the word sodomites was used, NOT homosexuals. I'll also mention that in this time period, sodomites was uses to refer - in general - to ANY form of sexual perversion, which, by the way, included fellatio. So anyone who gets head... goes to hell. Bye. :wavey:

This is why I do not have - and will NEVER have - a version of the NIV in my house. The "retranslation" is blatant restructuring of the bible to suit some sick ideal of today's christian views.

According to the NIV bible, anyone who fits this is depraved.

 

Dude, the New Internation Version, and the King James Version (hundreds of years old) are the two most common printing of the bible. Its not some new confangled hippie version or anything man. Thats why I put up TWO versions of the bible, both saying basically the same thing.

You're saying that the king james version (originally printed in 1600's I think) is some new hippie version?

btw: sodomy = buttsex

sodomites, those who practice anal sex... ie: homosexual.

Even your quote from the dictionary desribes a femenine, overly revined person... IE: GAY!

Also, fellatio started with the unics (no balls) giving head to their lords, thus pretending to be women. Head didn't start from a female aspect. It started male on male.

Also, your 'version' of the bible is probably one of the least common version. Especially considering nobody outside catholicism uses it. Also... uh.. non original... uh. Do you think that the Bible was written in English? Dude, unless you can read the language that the bible was written in, Hebrew(?) then, uh, uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh is a non--original interpretations. uh.

(note the uh )


damn dude, you're thick.

 

Im not following too much of the church babble...

But sodomy is not just "buttsex." By its very definition, what was just quoted by Qtiger from the bible says sodomy is what will prevent you from heaven...

Honestly dude, by your own bible...let me ask you...do you believe in this? Because what this is saying is, if you practice sodomy, IE getting a blowjob....you arent going to heaven. Sodomy is not just asspounding...

Just wanted to add that

 

Yes, I beleive this. However, every version of the Bible that you or I undertand is an interpretation, as I (and everyone else i know) don't read Hebrew.

The originality of oral sex was for homosexual acts, i described that in a previous post. That is what I beleive it is refering to, in that aspect. But your right, Sodomy also refers to beastiality and other unnatural acts

sodomist

n : someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male) [syn: sodomite, sod, bugger]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

sod·om·y Pronunciation Key (sd-m)
n.
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

 

So because the NIV and King James versions are the most common printing, they are correct? Are you aware that more people read tabloids than the New York Times? Does that mean a three headed baby has been born with the mark of the devil and that the antichrist is coming? Probably not.

One would think that a 'new hippie version' of the bible would preach more of peace and love than of hate.

I also would like to mention that the King James version was rewritten by prodestants to better suit THEIR views when they broke away from the Catholic church (say oh, around 1600), so if you want to be technical, my version is far more accurate than yours.

It is the fact that the bible isn't in English that has caused a problem. If your denomination has a religious or political agenda, then your 'retranslation' of the bible to a 'more correct' and 'easily readable' state can shift the overall meaning of certain phrases or passages to better suit your needs.

And this is coming from a person who isn't a member of any christian faith, so it isn't as if I am biased towards roman catholic views.

Sodomy TODAY means anal sex (Fun fact: Only 9% of men and 4% of women identify themselves as gay, but 29% of men and 20% of women have had anal sex. Therefore, more heterosexuals than homosexuals commit sodomy.), but what I am referring to is the original meaning intended by Paul when he wrote these letters. In those times, sodomy refered to any act considered sexually deviant. Considering the strict laws put down in Deuteronomy, contemporary thoughts of sexual deviance are vastly different from period views.

My point about the NIV is that it was DELIBERATELY rephrased to specify effeminate and homosexual people, rather than its original meaning of general sexual perversion. Why? It is 'easier to understand' (makes them think it means what we want them to think) for the average person. Or, there wasn't any mention of homosexuality outside of Paul's writings and Leviticus, so they needed something a little more concrete.

 

You know, I'm watching conspiracy theory on TNT right now.

I think they need a subsection, a directors cut if you will of your view of the bible's interpretations.

The version of the Bible that you have, as well as the versions I have pointed out, like you said, and I said before, are interpretations.

The king james version was not written for protestants. It was written ordered to be written under King James of England, way back in the day, under the Catholic church.
Did I say that one version of the bible was right or wrong? no.
Did I take the words from the bible you quoted and defined them from a dictionary? yes. They matched the words of the bibles i quoted. Its not a big deal man. They say the same thing.

And whats to say the version you used is 'correct'?

This is all pointless anyway? Why are we now debating verisons of the bible?

 

So it is possible for muslims to misinterpret their religion to hate americans, and that is total BS, but it is completely impossible for your views to not match up with your religious texts.





Isn't there something in the bible about judgement being reserved for god? Maybe I'm mistaken...

 

I believe the phrase is "Judge not, lest ye be judged"
doesn't necessarily say you can't judge...just that if you do judge, prepare to be judged yourself.

 

Jeez, this whole thread is getting a little out of control. I think the bottom line is most straight people don't like gays, hate them, whatever, and are vocal about it. Most gays being vocal are egging the people who don't like them on to create a big rucous. I've made my points earlier in the thread and feel no need to keep arguing. We can all agree to either agree or disagree. I say just shut up and get on with life. I'm not changing the way others feel, and others aren't changing the way I feel.