C3PX

Warbler said:

actually, I've been told that use of the word homosexual in the verse is suspect  look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality 

 

Errrr, wikipedia being used as a scholarly source...

I know Koine Greek and am familiar with the ambiguity surrounding the word arsenokoites. I really don't want to get into it here, because I know how pointless and futile it would be, but that tiny little wikipedia blurp only covers a tiny, tiny bit of a much, much larger debate.

You can quote from every English translation of the Bible if you wish, but ultimately we are still dealing with the Greek word "arsenokoites", regardless of how it is translated into English. If you want to take it to mean "prostitution" "rape" "incest" or "lustful sex", then that is fine. But that still only shoots down a couple of verses on the subject of homosexuals.  

Romans 1:26-27

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

This one would be a lot harder to split hairs or debate lexical meanings to get out of.

lets look at the KJ version of that verse:

9 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,

10 Nor thieve, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  

it doesn't mention homosexuals.  

both interpretation seem to disagree with John 3:16 :  for God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  

whosoever,  not  non-gays.     

the NIV version is very similar:  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

again whoever, not non-gays. 

 

Whosoever. Whoever. That is really nice. That is all we have to do is believe. Sounds pretty easy. Couldn't we just abridge the entire Bible to this single verse then? What is with all those massive church buildings litering countless street corners across our country? Why not just believe and be done with it. From the sounds of things, anyone, no matter what kind of a son of a bitch they were, so long as they believed that Jesus was the son of God (whosoever!), ought to have a one way ticket to heaven after they kick. According to that line of belief, it'll kind of sucks that guys like Adolf Hitler will be in heaven, while guys like Albert Einstein will be burning in hell. Maybe Einie and some of the other non-believeing geniuses will discover a way to cool hell down, and which point I am thinking it might be a lot more fun than heaven.

Or maybe, just maybe, there are other qualifiers that go along with it. That would explain all the excess pages that Christians have in their Bibles.

.

Bingowings said:

The Society Of Friends acknowledge that the Bible was written by men and take personal revelation to be more important than scriptural teaching. Now they I have a lot of respect and time for.

Wow, so they believe God talks to them through personal revelation? Sounds pretty fucking kooky to me. With something like that, you can pull all sorts of shit out of your ass and pass it off as divinely inspired.

Warbler said:

actually gays don't go to hell.   It is those that have failed to take Christ as their savior, that go to hell.   If a Gay takes Christ as his Savior, he is saved.   I believe that is the mainstream Christian belief

No. Not really.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10 (NASV)

⁹Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

The above is pretty much what most Christians have traditionally believed for a very long time, and many still do. Some of the more progressive groups believe homosexuals are saved, but you will still find the "mainstream" belief to somewhat adhere to the above verse. If this is not the "mainstream" Christian belief then things like Proposition 8 not passing are a bit of a conundrum and Christians were wrongly accused of being the primary reason it didn't pass.

Ironically, Christians make a huge deal about homosexuals based on this verse and a few passages in the Old Testament. But they seem to ignore several of the other things listed along side homosexuals, or if not outright ignore them, tend to look the other way. I am at least two of the things on that list on a fairly regular basis, unabashedly. Does that make me Biblically as bad as a homosexual. ABSOLUTELY! So, why don't we see people running around carrying signs saying, "God Hates Fornicators!", "God Hates Idolaters!" (something I'd say an extremely high percentage of American Christians are guilty of), or "God Hates the Covetous!"? Just thought I'd go off on a soapbox tangent and do a bit of preaching. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

 "Mainstream" Christianity is a difficult term, and perhaps I chose poorly to use it, but there are definitly churchs that DO hold those Gays=Hell beleif.

yeah, if you are talking about the nuts that protest funerals, but I wouldn't call them mainstream.

Nope. An very large number of pretty normal, happy, friendly, support your troops sort of groups whole heartedly believe gays=hell.

TheBoost said:

Do they really need new and fresh (Protestant) ideas, or do they just need to STOP F--KING CHILDREN, which is a fairly old idea?

Haha, awesome post!

Warbler said:

So your telling me that there is no one in the Catholic Church can lead it better than the Current guy?  That someone who is involve with covering up a Priest that rapped children, should remain Pope?

I don't know. Maybe there is someone who can lead it better than the current guy. I just don't care if he remains the Pope or not. Doesn't make a difference. Corruption has been, is, and will always be in the Catholic Church. It is just the nature of that sort of entity. I don't think anything can change that. And I don't think it really matters. Most people realize the facade is a facade. How could something that has caused so much earthly harm during its existence really be under the direct leadership and orders from God? Supposedly God (through the Cardinals) chose Benedict to be the Pope, why the hell is God so stupid or uncaring to appoint a man who would be fine with such a coverup? At that point, I simply just don't think it matters if he resigns or not, or if people trust him or not. In the end, what is to be trusted? And for what reason?

Warbler said:

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

I personally think the Pope needs to resign.  It won't solve the problems they have, but its a good first step.   

First step to what?

um . . . to fixing the problems the Catholic Church has?

I guess not being a Catholic, I have a hard time seeing the Catholic Church as of all that much importance. Historically, I see it as something that has caused far more harm than good. Corruption in the Catholic Church has been around forever. I guess I just don't see it as something worth beginning to fret about now. Most people see it for what it is already anyway.

Warbler said:

So your telling me that there is no one in the Catholic Church can lead it better than the Current guy?  That someone who is involve with covering up a Priest that rapped children, should remain Pope?

I don't know. Maybe there is someone who can lead it better than the current guy. I just don't care if he remains the Pope or not. Doesn't make a difference. Corruption has been, is, and will always be in the Catholic Church. It is just the nature of that sort of entity. I don't think anything can change that. And I don't think it really matters. Most people realize the facade is a facade. How could something that has caused so much earthly harm during its existence really be under the direct leadership and orders from God? Supposedly God (through the Cardinals) chose Benedict to be the Pope, why the hell is God so stupid or uncaring to appoint a man who would be fine with such a coverup? At that point, I simply just don't think it matters if he resigns or not, or if people trust him or not. In the end, what is to be trusted? And for what reason?

ABC said:

Bingowing, the only occasional "true" poet on that thread would have won his first probation here I bet. However for such offense to peace - notably by targetting a nurse - he's directly promoted to HALL OF SHAME !!!

Hey, I am a true poet! I just don't share my poetry in such an undeserving thread as this...

Cookie Monster said:

I thought I understood this thread but now I'm complete lost!

I'll just have a cookie instead!

Yeah, we are trying something different for a bit. Don't worry, it will be back to how it was soon enough. Just close your eyes and hold your breath, this too shall pass.

.

Warbler said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

instead having a large government or a small government,  what about a medium sized government?

A fine idea, but what is the medium?

larger than what you Conservatives want, but smaller than what all the extreme liberals want.    Somewhere in the middle between total Capitalism and total socialism.  

I don't think you realize that the Conservatives DON'T WANT (do not want, have not desire for, wish not to have) TOTAL Capitalism. We already have a huge government, I suppose when you say medium sized government, you mean one just slightly larger than the already massive one we currently have? Yeah, that is kind of how big government works, one step at a time. Just a little more. Just another inch. Just another drop. No big deal, you won't even notice the difference. Compound this time and time again, repeatedly throughout history, and before long they have gone all the way, are holding the whole rope, or the bucket has overflown (depending on which one of my metaphors you want to run with).

Personally, I'd love to go back to a medium sized government. I guess we agree on this. Unfortunately, my feelings are that we are way past that point.

I feel the state government system America was designed to have was flawless. Too bad it is more of a joke now than anything else, and becoming more so all the time. Federal government has too much control. There is no such thing as medium or small anymore. It is XL, heading to XXL, and in turn, I have no doubt it will make its way to XXXL. Government obesity, the true crisis. I don't think governments really have the ability to shed pounds, at this point my interests are in keeping it as healthy as possible to prevent sudden heart failure... but then again, as big of a fan of chaos as I am, I actually think a massive heart attack would be great fun... but looking at guys like Ferris and other friends of mine who have a family and kids, I can't really do anything but hope for the absolute best.

Octorox said:

The government is there to serve the people.

Is it? Show me.

Octorox said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

The only reason I compare Obama to a communist is this: he believes in the redistribution of wealth. I admit I'm out of line here. I mean, what could be less communist than the redistribution of wealth?

 

 

So then was FDR also comparable to a communist? Was I mean how is Social Security not redistribution of wealth? Then again, I'm sure his New Deal met similar resistance in it's time.

Yes, Social Security IS redistribution of wealth. It was a horrible idea, and it doesn't work. Unless something is changed in Social Security in a big way, then I will never see a single penny I put into it. It is a horrible setup, another example of something that is broken that isn't going to get fixed.

Warbler said:

I personally think the Pope needs to resign.  It won't solve the problems they have, but its a good first step.   

First step to what? Do you really think JP2 was never involved in any coverups during all his years? None of it will change anything. Should the Pope just resign anytime something like this is uncovered? Can that really even be considered even a tiniest step in any kind of direction?

No, that is actually the real Gaffer Tape. Trust me, I have a blown up poster sized version of the cover framed in my living room, and a second one pinned to the ceiling above my bed...

Very well, I too shall give hints to the identity of DGT,

Hint #1: It wasn't me.

HAHA!! Two can play that game!

TV's Frink said:

Ooh, we've entered mom territory!

That is exactly what your mom said to me last night, Fink.

I am pretty sure DGT was Fink.

*Cue porn music as Fink violently rips his own clothes off and joins the picnic*

vote_for_palpatine said:

But he was a BadAss. That's why I've resisted using that defintion.

Was he a BadAss? I don't even really remember him.

I don't know, I was extremely fond of the little guy...

bkev said:

You know, my question is this... why does WESHALLPRESERVE get all the credit for being a youngun? I was only 13 when I joined...

Did you end every post with things like, "just one 13 year old's opinion" or "you just got owned by a 13 year old!" or "I am just 13, and even I understand how badly the prequels suck" etc.

No? Yeah, didn't think so. WESHALLPRESERVE worked hard for his reputation.

Son, that yellow stuff in your glass... that ain't kool-aid.

Eh hem...

so...

Anybody here ever watch Star Trek: Voyager? Yeah, I agree, it wasn't that great, in general I really didn't like that show much. But for some reason, it also contains some of my all time favorite Star Trek episodes. Sometimes that show just hit the mark, and came up with some really great stuff. I guess it was because you had this crew traveling through strage parts of space and able to visit strange new worlds, which was something that never happened anymore since DS9 took over the torch from TNG. Voyager's story line just lent it to some really cool ideas... though they were few and extremely far between.

Anyway, all that just to ask, anybody see the Voyager episode The Thaw, I love that episode (maybe more the concept of it, more than anything else). Creeps me out every time. I just have this thing about clowns... and people in strange costumes... and that episode just really took the mallet to my creep out bone (again, more in concept than execution).

So, anyway once again, all that second paragraph just to say, for quite some time, and now after doubleofive's last posts ten times more so than before, Fink has really reminded me of this guy, 

He has totally taken over the place, and now we only exist for his amusement. Seriously, if you haven't seen The Thaw, go check it out. It is the only Voyager episode that matters. If you haven't seen that episode then you are a wolley eb ton yam ro yam ohw drut elttil diputs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thaw_(Star_Trek)

Okay then. I... uh... guess I can't really argue with that... can I?

What makes you so sure it was me? Why would Fink know? I find these accusations of lying to be quite offensive!!

That isn't a sausage, it is a BK Seven Incher!