Homosexuality

[Rau]

Inthespirit - wonderful imagination and creativity! And very entertaining, if a tad irreverent!

 

[Kamaduck]

John 1 In the beginning was the Word…

The hebrew uses different words for the genders, most confusingly in Lev. Man and Male lying together? Twice? It is not a slip of the author. It is a marked distinction implying two masculine genders. In Gen why are there two instances of human creation again employing different words for gender. The Word is God not the Words so repetition is not on the cards. Each statement is independent and True like God. God doesnt repeat Himself so neither does the Word. So two genus must have been created.

Murder and killing gays have been treated differently throughout history. The latter has always been socially more acceptable and encouraged as in Iran where gays are executedd, not murdered.

We dont know how many fruit there were. However why would they attack Adam and Eve knowing God would deal with them. It would also just not be right. They knew Good from Evil.

The serpent was vertical at the time and probably crushed the fruit. A freshly dead corpse emits pheremones and is clammy. Instinct tells us to stay clear so Eve would have felt that.

The practice continued hence the longevity of men. Noah was 900. The Flesh ended up corrupting the earth and men, who are not flesh but dust, were extinguished along with the Flesh. Gods covenant to the Flesh was made in their absence to Noah by proxy. The men in Sodom wanted to know the angels, not for sex but cannibalism. Lots wife became a condiment.

I think that is it…

Sorry everybody. I’m really bad at spotting trolls. :doh2:

But yes, that was an elaborate story!

 

[inthespirit]

Sorry everybody. I’m really bad at spotting trolls. :doh2:

But yes, that was an elaborate story!

Kamaduck, you know that Kama is Japanese for “queer” or “gay”? It comes from the word for “cauldron” and is associated with the burnt bits round the edge… You should change your name to Kamo… that is the word for duck.

I actually believe all of this, so please dispense with the disrespect for my beliefs. I am a devout follower of G-D and it is He who has pointed me in this direction. Everything here is logical and literal, just as we are told the Bible is. It fills in so many gaps and removes many ambiguities. The entire book of Genesis all points to the same thing, otherwise how could I have kept it going so long? I would surely have tripped up somewhere along the line?

Cannibalism was rife in the ancient world. The character for flesh in Chinese is 肉. The two characters in the centre are 人 meaning male. So, two males together going into a stomach = flesh!? A remarkable coincidence 3,000 miles away?

Now, rather than ridicule and insult, please go out of your way to demonstrate my views are inaccurate, sticking just to the Old Testament… I look forward to your creative responses.

 

[inthespirit]

It means that I think that what you wrote is very good as entertainment.

I don’t find it to be very good scholarship, but that’s just me. If you’d like to hear my criticisms, I will give you a couple. In the meantime, though, I was just eating some popcorn.

I am not a scholar and not a theologian. Academics operate in packs which require consensus to be a member. They also draft verbosely having to support every statement with someone else’s opinion that has been published. Anything new is confined to 2% of the whole thing and always watered down so that it passes the censors.

I think for myself and try to draft so that anyone can understand.

Yes please, let me hear your criticisms, which I trust are yours and not just the consensus?!

 

[inthespirit]

Inthespirit - wonderful imagination and creativity! And very entertaining, if a tad irreverent!

Why irreverent? Or do you mean irrelevant? It is not meant to be either, so sorry if it came across that way. G-D thrives on creativity and imagination. Hence the special tree. I’m hoping to spark some now in response. Will the readership come through with creative and imaginative arguments? Hope so. G-D loves debate, hence the haggling and discussion over the Sodom threshold with Abraham. Brilliant!

 

[Rau]

Why irreverent? Or do you mean irrelevant?

That, too.

Would be good to start a new thread, in the Scripture Forum!

 

[Kamaduck]

Kamaduck, you know that Kama is Japanese for “queer” or “gay”? It comes from the word for “cauldron” and is associated with the burnt bits round the edge… You should change your name to Kamo… that is the word for duck.

Usernames can’t be changed. I hope you’re happy with yours.

“Kama” can be used for a type of kettle, a garden or farm, a can, a furnace, a cattail, or the only meaning I knew of when I made my username: scythe or sickle. I don’t speak Japanese, so maybe I shouldn’t have used it in my username. I am, however, fairly certain that it isn’t as simple as you’re making it out to be.

I actually believe all of this, so please dispense with the disrespect for my beliefs.

Sorry. I assumed so since you said “Lot’s wife became a condiment”. Unless, I suppose, you believe that God was cooperating in the cannibalism that he at first forbade.

I am a devout follower of G-D and it is He who has pointed me in this direction. Everything here is logical and literal, just as we are told the Bible is. It fills in so many gaps and removes many ambiguities. The entire book of Genesis all points to the same thing, otherwise how could I have kept it going so long? I would surely have tripped up somewhere along the line?

I find it troubling that you think God would allow his entire letter to us to be about cannibalism, without ever actually spelling it out.

Cannibalism was rife in the ancient world. The character for flesh in Chinese is 肉. The two characters in the centre are 人 meaning male. So, two males together going into a stomach = flesh!? A remarkable coincidence 3,000 miles away?

So, how many languages do you speak? Greek and Hebrew, I presume, plus English, plus Chinese and Japanese. Quite impressive.

Now, rather than ridicule and insult, please go out of your way to demonstrate my views are inaccurate, sticking just to the Old Testament… I look forward to your creative responses.

Well, that would go in the Scripture forum. I’m sure other people would prefer that this thread go back to its original purpose.

 

[Rau]

Will the readership come through with creative and imaginative arguments? !

Arguments? I read none from you, more like the output of a pattern seeking machine. The work of a Nostradamus, or a Dan Brown! Do you have a Blog where I could keep in touch with your writings?

 

[churchatheist]

To Rau and Leaf and the others that I’ve been having this conversation with:

I’m beginning to get to the point where I feel like the dialogue ceases to be fruitful. I like having discussions with believers on sites like this because I like the exchange of ideas. Perhaps I can learn some things, perhaps others can learn from me, and if not, the discussions at least give me greater understanding of the belief systems of people different from myself, which I think could benefit all people in today’s world of such polarized political discourse. But sometimes threads get to the point where I feel my heart rate pick up a little bit because I disagree so passionately with what people say, or I wish so passionately that I could express myself in a more persuasive way. I’m kind of getting there with this conversation–not to be rude, but I just don’t think it’s really getting us anywhere anymore. So rather than diving again into all the arguments at length, I’ll just offer a few brief final remarks:

The “bronze age morality” was a cheap shot, I admit, and (mostly) unfair. As I pointed out, the church is not bronze age in the vast majority of its teachings. But again, that would underscore the point that the moral absolutes of the bronze age were not so absolute. And as for women being priests, I’ve read a lot about it and I find the explanations of the Church to be bizarre logical gymnastics, trying to make a square peg fit and round hole. But on to the larger point:

What people tend to call “natural law,” the idea that there are moral absolutes that are fixed regardless of time/place, is real to me, but probably for reasons different from you. I don’t take it as evidence of a deity, but rather of evolution. Moral absolutes exist in the minds of primates for good reasons, but I don’t believe they have heavenly origin. When I say that ethical standards change, that is not to say that mob rule equates with morality, or taking a poll or whatever. I think ethics are debated and shaped in societies through families, conversations, political and legal structures, literature, and so forth. It is a complex process of competing ethical ideas, always in motion. The absolutes that some people believe are “written in our hearts” are, in my opinion, hardwired in us genetically, but for evolutionary reasons rather than heavenly ones. Homosexuality, not being productive for procreation, perhaps sits in our hearts as unnatural, for evolutionary reasons, but that does not mean a 21st-century ethical system must deem it wrong. I’ll read your responses and perhaps argue another topic in another thread sometime. Thanks to those of you who were willing to engage with this atheist without being rude/condescending.

 

[DanielJT]

Are you sure there were only Adam and Eve?

1:27 So God created humanity in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

(Rev. distinguishes 144,000 first unmarried **fruits **from the rest of the human race…?)

2:7 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams** came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis is clearly chronological in order: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc, action followed by action…

YHWh is two masculine and two feminine elements according to scholars, and G-D made us in His image: Male-man-Female-woman?

So, according to Genesis, Male and Female came first; man and woman were subsequent. If man and woman were heterosexual Adam and Eve, just who were the first lot?

**

There is no distinction here. The first lot WAS Adam and Eve. This is not a novel that you are reading. This is a collection of scrolls that were a collection of stories.

And even with the consideration that there were more humans present, there is no evidence that the “second lot” was of a different sexual attraction.

Lev. distinguishes between Male and man in its sex laws: a (straight) man shall not lie with a (gay) male as he does a woman…?

 

[DanielJT]

I don’t take it as evidence of a deity, but rather of evolution. Moral absolutes exist in the minds of primates for good reasons, but I don’t believe they have heavenly origin. When I say that ethical standards change, that is not to say that mob rule equates with morality, or taking a poll or whatever. I think ethics are debated and shaped in societies through families, conversations, political and legal structures, literature, and so forth. It is a complex process of competing ethical ideas, always in motion. The absolutes that some people believe are “written in our hearts” are, in my opinion, hardwired in us genetically, but for evolutionary reasons rather than heavenly ones. Homosexuality, not being productive for procreation, perhaps sits in our hearts as unnatural, for evolutionary reasons, but that does not mean a 21st-century ethical system must deem it wrong. I’ll read your responses and perhaps argue another topic in another thread sometime. Thanks to those of you who were willing to engage with this atheist without being rude/condescending.

So, if we evolved in a different way, might murder be acceptable?

To say that absolute moral are around merely because they are genetically “hardwired” into us is to say that actually they are not absolute. But you are clearly a good person and I am pretty sure you would think it as hard as me to imagine an existence where human life is treated as disposable and have that considered to be moral. But if it is only a matter of genetics and evolution that very well may have been the case.

 

[SMGS127]

Cannibalism was rife in the ancient world. The character for flesh in Chinese is 肉. The two characters in the centre are 人 meaning male. So, two males together going into a stomach = flesh!? A remarkable coincidence 3,000 miles away?

The character 人 most definitely means “person,” not male. 男 means male.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The character 人 most definitely means “person,” not male. 男 means male.

子 is also sometimes used to add maleness to a word.

 

[Rin]

子 is also sometimes used to add maleness to a word.

Mainly “childness”, though, also often used as a sort-of diminutive:

竹の子 = bamboo shot (lit. bamboo child)
王子 = prince (lit. king child)
電子 = electron (lit. electricity child)
原子 = atom (lit. origin child)
子猫 = kitten (lit. child cat)
女子 = girl (lit. woman child)
息子 = son (lit. breath child)
And so on.

So the primary meaning is child.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What people tend to call “natural law,” the idea that there are moral absolutes that are fixed regardless of time/place, is real to me, but probably for reasons different from you. I don’t take it as evidence of a deity, but rather of evolution. Moral absolutes exist in the minds of primates for good reasons, but I don’t believe they have heavenly origin. When I say that ethical standards change, that is not to say that mob rule equates with morality, or taking a poll or whatever. I think ethics are debated and shaped in societies through families, conversations, political and legal structures, literature, and so forth. It is a complex process of competing ethical ideas, always in motion. The absolutes that some people believe are “written in our hearts” are, in my opinion, hardwired in us genetically, but for evolutionary reasons rather than heavenly ones. Homosexuality, not being productive for procreation, perhaps sits in our hearts as unnatural, for evolutionary reasons, but that does not mean a 21st-century ethical system must deem it wrong. I’ll read your responses and perhaps argue another topic in another thread sometime. Thanks to those of you who were willing to engage with this atheist without being rude/condescending.

First of all let me commend you on not being condescending toward those who believe in God. Your remarks have always seemed sincere and open.

Next let me agree with you that “natural law” is not evidence of a deity. I always thought that natural law meant those aspects of right and wrong that are accessible to anyone through reason alone, even without the benefit of revelation or knowledge of the Church. Those of us who believe in God do ascribe the existence of natural law to God, as we ascribe all good things to Him. But I do not take those good things as evidence in and of themselves that some God put them there. This thread has been about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. Claims have been made that it is wrong because of natural law and because of divine revelation. That does not mean the natural law reason somehow proves the validity of divine revelation. It is just another independent way of looking at homosexuality.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Mainly “childness”, though, also often used as a sort-of diminutive:

竹の子 = bamboo shot (lit. bamboo child)
王子 = prince (lit. king child)
電子 = electron (lit. electricity child)
原子 = atom (lit. origin child)
子猫 = kitten (lit. child cat)
女子 = girl (lit. woman child)
息子 = son (lit. breath child)
And so on.

So the primary meaning is child.

I thought we were talking about Chinese not Japanese?

 

[DanielJT]

Next let me agree with you that “natural law” is not evidence of a deity. I always thought that natural law meant those aspects of right and wrong that are accessible to anyone through reason alone, even without the benefit of revelation or knowledge of the Church. Those of us who believe in God do ascribe the existence of natural law to God, as we ascribe all good things to Him. But I do not take those good things as evidence in and of themselves that some God put them there. This thread has been about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. Claims have been made that it is wrong because of natural law and because of divine revelation. That does not mean the natural law reason somehow proves the validity of divine revelation. It is just another independent way of looking at homosexuality.

No, natural law DOES point to a deity. It must. Natural Law is about a structured system of absolute morals that do not depend on reason. In fact, they sometimes go against our “natural” reasoning skills (for instance - the prospect of self-sacrifice without personal gain). Without natural law, there is no reason to believe that there is something wrong with killing someone who threatens your means for survival, which is more like the “law of the jungle.”

Simple reason can only get us to the social contract - “you don’t hurt me, I won’t hurt you.” But morals are more about upholding human dignity - “this is bad for you and I want you to stop because you are dignified and worth more than that.” There is nothing inside nature that points to this. The structure must come from outside of our own nature. This points to God.

 

[Rin]

I thought we were talking about Chinese not Japanese?

Apparently - I thought we switched after the comments about the meanings of kama, but upon rereading of the thread, it seems we didn’t. I’m sorry

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, natural law DOES point to a deity. It must. Natural Law is about a structured system of absolute morals that do not depend on reason. In fact, they sometimes go against our “natural” reasoning skills (for instance - the prospect of self-sacrifice without personal gain). Without natural law, there is no reason to believe that there is something wrong with killing someone who threatens your means for survival, which is more like the “law of the jungle.”

Simple reason can only get us to the social contract - “you don’t hurt me, I won’t hurt you.” But morals are more about upholding human dignity - “this is bad for you and I want you to stop because you are dignified and worth more than that.” There is nothing inside nature that points to this. The structure must come from outside of our own nature. This points to God.

Self-sacrifice without person gain is part of our nature, and for perfectly natural reasons. Even the lowly ants have this. Consider that soldier ants will fight to the death to protect their colony rather than flee and protect their own personal lives. When I said “by reason alone”, I didn’t restrict it to “simple” reason. Sometimes reason must be complex. If your view were true, why would atheists behave ethically in society ( which, by and large, they do)? Read what Aquinas has to say about natural law. I am reasonably sure he implies that natural law comes from our inner common nature and not from some externally imposed religious doctrine.

 

[catrosa]

We , Catholics, do not hate or despise homosexuals , in fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church , teaches us all to accept them! we love them but we cannot accept what they are doing , as the saying goes “love the sinner , hate the sin”