theworldofdreams.com

Bayn wrote:King James version:
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,
Hmm, no mention of homosexuals in that version at all really . . .
These are all modern versions too. Every version phrases things differently and everyone can interpret the words to mean something different.

Ahh ye of little faith Let us look at the Greek:

1 Corinthians 6:9 h ouk oidate oti adikoi qeou basileian ou klhronomhsousin; mh planasqe: oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moicoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai

*mumbles something about stupid forums not having any Greek fonts*

The NIV says:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Ok, not going to go through every single word in that text but let's look at the highlighted ones. The noun pornoi (where we get our beloved word "porn") is the nominative, masculine, plural form of pornos--which literally means "a man who practices sexual immorality." Pretty accurate NIV translation there, and also very vague if we want to pinpoint homosexuality.
The word malakoi, however (again nominative, masculine, plural), means "soft" or "effeminate." Other related meanings include a "boy or man used for homosexual relations" and/or a "male prostitute." In other words, a malakoi was the umm...how shall I put it...passive participant of a homosexual sexual encounter. In this context it pretty obvious that Paul doesn't just mean effiminate males (and in either way effeminate or soft in that society was equaled to a homosexual person). Male prostitute is also a valid translation for male prostitutes (due to the nature of their job)were always passive recipients of a homosexual encounter. The third noun, arsenokoitai were simply the other side of the coin. The arsenokoitai were the active participants of the homosexual relationship so homosexual offenders is a pretty good name for them.

So it's pretty clear here (as in other Bible verses) what Paul was getting at. Little room for interpretation I'd say.

Oh and Bayn if you don't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, you have no business arguing ANYTHING biblical. If the Bible was merely a human document then there's no point trying to argue what Paul said or didn't say, now does it? Paul wasn't anyone's God. The very definition of Prophet is someone who is the mouthpiece of God. Apostle those who follow the teachings of Christ. If neither God, nor Christ adhere to what their followers wrote then it makes little sense to be arguing any of this.

Joram Lionheart wrote:So it's pretty clear here (as in other Bible verses) what Paul was getting at. Little room for interpretation I'd say.

Well, I am sure you would say that.

By the way, what specific version is that greek translation from?

Bayn wrote:This all is so silly, someone has to take a stand, so I WILL!
Y'all are dumbasses.

*Scratches head* Now who's feeling "threatened" here. I thought we were having a civilized, intelligent discussion here. No need to turn it into a flame war just because people don't see things the same way you do. Gosh talk about intolerance.
Have you been hanging out with Simon again?

Joram Lionheart wrote:*Scratches head* Now who's feeling "threatened" here. I thought we were having a civilized, intelligent discussion here.

hehehe...I couldn't help it. This whole thread is rather useless because people are trying to prove same sex marriage is a bad thing cause the bible says so. That can't be done unless y'all agree on a particular version, all embrace the same religion, all get warm fuzzies together and so on.

So, I just cut to the chase. My remark makes as much sense as any argument that is likely to emerge here.

hehe

My turn to pick apart posts and say my opinion/interpretation/etc.

Joram said "biologically and philosophically homosexuality doesn't make a lot of sense"
Maybe not, but many species other than humans practice homosexuality. It's a fact of biology. So all you religious fanatics go ahead and say "Humans are higher than animals because [insert biblical reference] and therefore no humans should be homosexual."
Then in a later post "In short, we have a variety of early sources (in the original language and text) that allow us to compare and come up with a relatively valid English translation."
Somehow this makes me doubt that you have compared literal translations of original Hebrew with the current English translations of the Bible. In one of my classes, we looked at these versions of the first verse of Genesis:
http://www15.brinkster.com/wolferoo/bibleexcerpt.docThis passage is irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality and marriage, but I believe it is a fine example of how meaning is lost through translation. And how would comparing a variety of mistranslations help one figure out the real meaning? Now I'm not advocating that we all go learn ancient Hebrew to understand the Bible, but should we take every word literally when some are proven to be misinterpreted?

Back to the issue of homosexuality and marriage my views are very similar to Bayn's so I dont feel it necessary to write the same thing he already has.

Wolfie wrote:Back to the issue of homosexuality and marriage my views are very similar to Bayn's so I dont feel it necessary to write the same thing he already has.

You think Joram is a dumbass too?
hmmm...

hehe

Bayn wrote:This whole thread is rather useless because people are trying to prove same sex marriage is a bad thing cause the bible says so. That can't be done unless y'all agree on a particular version, all embrace the same religion, all get warm fuzzies together and so on.

Heck you started it! I said stick to the argument, analyze the argument, find the argument's weaknesses/strengths but NOOOO you just had to bring up the Bible, didn you?
Well maybe if we actually got back to the main argument we could continue on with the discussion and leave religion aside for a moment (now that we've all made it clear where each of us stand on that particular issue).

Joram Lionheart wrote:Heck you started it!

I DID?

Dang, somebody spank me!

Bayn wrote:Dang, somebody spank me!

Sure

Wolfie wrote:Maybe not, but many species other than humans practice homosexuality.

Practice yes . . ., well animals kill each other too (same species) and do all sorts of irrational things to themselves and others of their kind. Not sure what your point is here. If you were trying to argue homosexuality is rational I think you are using the wrong argument.

Then in a later post "In short, we have a variety of early sources (in the original language and text) that allow us to compare and come up with a relatively valid English translation."
Somehow this makes me doubt that you have compared literal translations of original Hebrew with the current English translations of the Bible.

*sighs* Did I say compare translations? Nope. Look closely, I said compare "early sources in the original language and text." Heck you even quoted me!
In any event, unless you believe what the Bible says (i.e. isnpired word of God, etc, etc) it makes no sense for you to be making a case for homosexuality by using the Bible! It's downright illogical (or logically fallacious to be more precise). You can't use something as your premise that you yourself have tried to refute.

Joram Lionheart wrote:If you were trying to argue homosexuality is rational I think you are using the wrong argument.

It being rational or not wasn't the issue. I was stating that it is a fact of life and that as any other animal, some humans will always be homosexual. But I suppose this wouldn't get any further on these forums than a discussion on evolution.

*sighs* Did I say compare translations? Nope. Look closely, I said compare "early sources in the original language and text."

Oh I must've forgotten we're all perfectly fluent in several dead/dying languages.

In any event, unless you believe what the Bible says (i.e. isnpired word of God, etc, etc) it makes no sense for you to be making a case for homosexuality by using the Bible! It's downright illogical (or logically fallacious to be more precise). You can't use something as your premise that you yourself have tried to refute.

I wasn't making a case using the Bible. That would involve quoting passages which said "homosexuals are good." I made a case for it using science. Then I made a case against taking the Bible word-for-word. I wouldn't seriously make a case for something using the Bible because I don't take it literally and for good reason.

Joram Lionheart wrote:Morality is a big issue here. People who have a relativistic view of morality make a poor case (and believe me I've heard just about all of the arguments for it). Post-modernism and its virulent form of relativism on all aspects of human thought have done us a great diservice as far as putting morality in the realm of personal opinion. Of course, everyone has to decide whether they admit or reject the socially accepted form or morality. Society isn't always right on these issues. But that shouldn't lead us to believe that EVERYONE is right and there's no truth, and there is no right and wrong, and all is good and fine so long as we have "love" (a counterfeit, mass-marketed-for-the-mentally-lazy form of love that is). Believe me when I tell you this, it does not help you, it does not help society, it does not help friggin' humankind to be 100% permissible towards all trains of tought and behaviour. Somewhere, somehow we have to set limits and order otherwise our civilization will collapse.

Not really sure that was the best bit to quote for this, what I want to get at sort of rears its head in bits and pieces here and there.

The idea the homosexual marriage would somehow damage society as a whole seems strange. I've never heard any concrete examples of whome exactly would be harmed by it, much less harming all of us. I suppose it's theoretically possible there would be some non zero number of divorces by people who wished to leave an established marriage for a homosexual one, but that seems rather a bit of a stretch.

I've never really made a formal list of them, but if I were to, my acid tests on whether or not smething is right or wrong would start something like this:

1) If it dosn't hurt anyone, it isn't wrong.
2) If it dosn't hurt anyone but you (the person making the decision) it isn't wrong.

The whole religious argument really holds little water for me, there is no compelling reason to pick the Christian mythos over any of the other myths that people have believed.

Thank you Eldric, that's exactly the kind of response I was looking for.

Eldric wrote:1) If it dosn't hurt anyone, it isn't wrong. 2) If it dosn't hurt anyone but you (the person making the decision) it isn't wrong.

Well, let's don't get into the whole issue of whether it is wrong or not (*whispers* there is no right and wrong, just opinions *much cynicism, sarcasm, etc*).
Can anyone argue that homosexual marriage IS going to hurt society in a way we cannot forsee? Certainly, more divorces haven't seen to help one bit (ahh . . . and all in the name of personal "freedoms"). Even the fact that homosexuality itself is hurting the moral fabric of our society isn't all that clearcut and self-evident as some people would argue (i.e. assuming that you believe in morality to begin with)

*needs some time to think this through*

Hey Bayn, how does it feel to stand your own and not go with the crowd?

This should be a mute issue, check out this

http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html

Look at Amendment XIV,

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That with the rest of the Constitution and its Amendments come 1st. Anything you can pull from the bible is just great, but its meaningless. Also it is a sin to keep others from being happy yes?

Shall we look at The Koran too, I'm sure we can get some really good lines in there.

Joram Lionheart wrote:Thank you Eldric, that's exactly the kind of response I was looking for.

Was his better than my dumbass remark?
*looks hurt*

*needs some time to think this through*

ok...but don't strain anything.

ROTFL

ok, I'll stop. I promise not to post in this thread anymore. I'm just BAD today.