OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 06:19:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gay Marriage...I don't care.  (Read 2617 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,231


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #90 on: June 29, 2014, 08:05:28 PM »

Have you visited the Southern US

Have you?

Edit: Mor got there first.

Yet, we have no problem using THEIR tax dollars to subsidize our own heterosexual marriages.

Who pays the retirement of the homosexuals?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:06:56 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,436


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 29, 2014, 08:10:14 PM »

Uh, gay people pay taxes too. They are not exempt by some magical force field.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,231


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #92 on: June 29, 2014, 08:11:58 PM »

Uh, gay people pay taxes too. They are not exempt by some magical force field.

True, but having enough children is in the interest of society as a whole. This is why marriage is subsidised.

I used to be very impartial about this but it's like this is all some people think about!  I can't believe the audacity some people have to argue that them not being able to marry someone is akin to being lynched or beaten to death.

It is. And it's one of the most common genocidal tactics to eradicate a group--preventing their reproduction.

Homosexuals in a marriage can't reproduce.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:17:22 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #93 on: June 29, 2014, 08:36:45 PM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.
Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,231


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #94 on: June 29, 2014, 08:37:44 PM »

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

 Huh

What then does it mean?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:38:19 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: I agree with the Church
Jurisdiction: Huh
Posts: 290


St. Leo III, Defender of Orthodoxy


« Reply #95 on: June 29, 2014, 08:44:39 PM »

why Old Testament? What about Romans 1?

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,959



« Reply #96 on: June 29, 2014, 08:49:59 PM »


Yet, we have no problem using THEIR tax dollars to subsidize our own heterosexual marriages.

Who pays the retirement of the homosexuals?


The same system that allows us un-married folk to actually retire.

This whole 'governmental subsidy' thing is a GIANT straw man argument here....

Not all perfectly hetero people are married and have enough kids to keep the system running either.......so using that as a judgement of value in letter there either be or not be 'civil partnerships' is a false issue.

Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,634


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #97 on: June 29, 2014, 08:50:52 PM »


And the concept of a Church co-regnant with a State: surely this is basic Orthodoxy?

No, it isn't. The Kingdom of God is not of this world.

LOL

Tell that to the state-worshipping Russian Church all throughout her history.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,231


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #98 on: June 29, 2014, 08:53:06 PM »


Yet, we have no problem using THEIR tax dollars to subsidize our own heterosexual marriages.

Who pays the retirement of the homosexuals?


The same system that allows us un-married folk to actually retire.

Gays are allowed to retire.

Since the pension system is one big ponzi scheme it's necessary for it to work that lots of young people enter the workforce. Hence, subsidising straight marriage, which is the only type of marriage that can produce new taxpayers, is in the advantage of society, whilst subsidising gay marriage is not.

Not all perfectly hetero people are married and have enough kids to keep the system running either.......so using that as a judgement of value in letter there either be or not be 'civil partnerships' is a false issue.

Not really.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:54:52 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #99 on: June 29, 2014, 08:56:19 PM »

why Old Testament? What about Romans 1?


Please get me passage from the Old Testament and lets not go into Romans 1, because that also have another way of understanding it and it does make perfect sense to me.

Anyone who wants to know what Romans 1 or Leviticus really means, there are plenty of websites explains it perfectly.

However, I'm focusing on the Old Testament right now, the question still there until answered.

Peace.
Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,545


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #100 on: June 29, 2014, 09:03:03 PM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?
It seems the logical conclusion would be that if God doesn't favor male homosexual sex he wouldn't favor female homosexual sex either.

I know Scripture gives God masculine qualities, but I doubt a stereotypical penchant for lesbian sex is among them.
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 29, 2014, 09:03:11 PM »

why Old Testament? What about Romans 1?


Please get me passage from the Old Testament and lets not go into Romans 1, because that also have another way of understanding it and it does make perfect sense to me.

Anyone who wants to know what Romans 1 or Leviticus really means, there are plenty of websites explains it perfectly.

However, I'm focusing on the Old Testament right now, the question still there until answered.

Peace.

There is no problem at all with homosexuality, whether in terms of "same sex attraction" or the associated sexual activity.  God warmly approves.  Anyone who says otherwise is just full of hate.  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,634


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #102 on: June 29, 2014, 09:03:36 PM »

True, but having enough children is in the interest of society as a whole. This is why marriage is subsidized.

Having a lot of children harms the society more than it helps it. Marriage as a whole has already fallen apart in the United States. Having a lot of children usually just means that the tax-payers have to pay for daycare, education, and welfare because the parents divorce and a single parent can't handle it all. The Roman Catholic Church is hardly making this any better by prohibiting people from using birth control. The Vatican ought to be paying for the strain that Hispanic Catholic teenage girls put on the tax-payers through constantly birthing babies without using birth control because apparently there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage as long as you do it irresponsibly without birth control.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 29, 2014, 09:05:14 PM »

True, but having enough children is in the interest of society as a whole. This is why marriage is subsidized.

Having a lot of children harms the society more than it helps it. Marriage as a whole has already fallen apart in the United States. Having a lot of children usually just means that the tax-payers have to pay for daycare, education, and welfare because the parents divorce and a single parent can't handle it all. The Roman Catholic Church is hardly making this any better by prohibiting people from using birth control. The Vatican ought to be paying for the strain that Hispanic Catholic teenage girls put on the tax-payers through constantly birthing babies without using birth control because apparently there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage as long as you do it irresponsibly without birth control.

Don't be jealous. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
sakura95
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic planning to switch to Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Rome(As for now)
Posts: 289


Mekaku City actors/Kagerou Project


« Reply #104 on: June 30, 2014, 01:00:34 AM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.


It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

This would pose a problem to those who reject homosexuality since by going according to the Old Testament, gay is not cool and lesbianism is cool. I do have a solution to this but it may sound sexist, men are typically viewed as sexual creatures and not women which is evidenced by the fact that in Ancient Times, the orgasm of the female does not matter at all, only of the male. Given this mindset at the time, the primary focus would be on the male and given that there wasn't any account of Sodom being responsible for Lesbianism, it could be assumed that the laws against homosexuality is based on the incident at Sodom in which God punished the Sodomites for their sins which includes homosexuality as well.

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 01:08:26 AM by sakura95 » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #105 on: June 30, 2014, 01:18:31 AM »

It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

Can mean...may mean...may indirectly...didn't outrightly...I prefer. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #106 on: June 30, 2014, 01:20:10 AM »

It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

Can mean...may mean...may indirectly...didn't outrightly...I prefer. 

Indeed. Making things fit one's view, whatever contortions one needs to employ to do so.
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,166



« Reply #107 on: June 30, 2014, 01:36:37 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 30, 2014, 01:51:25 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

According to this site, the word is applied to Christ twice.  So if παῖς can mean "young gay lover", and Jesus was called παῖς not once but twice, and the Gospels say he helped the centurion despite his apparent homosexual union, and the Gospels don't address outright whether or not Jesus was married to a woman, and if he was always hanging around a bunch of men, and if the beloved disciple was the only one not married to a woman, and...

This is why we are supposed to do our homework. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #109 on: June 30, 2014, 02:10:16 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

According to this site, the word is applied to Christ twice.  So if παῖς can mean "young gay lover", and Jesus was called παῖς not once but twice, and the Gospels say he helped the centurion despite his apparent homosexual union, and the Gospels don't address outright whether or not Jesus was married to a woman, and if he was always hanging around a bunch of men, and if the beloved disciple was the only one not married to a woman, and...

This is why we are supposed to do our homework. 

Well, Robert Lentz has painted an "icon" of Christ and the beloved disciple as a gesture of promoting a positive view of homosexuality ....  Tongue Tongue Tongue Angry Angry Angry
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #110 on: June 30, 2014, 02:20:11 AM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.


It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

This would pose a problem to those who reject homosexuality since by going according to the Old Testament, gay is not cool and lesbianism is cool. I do have a solution to this but it may sound sexist, men are typically viewed as sexual creatures and not women which is evidenced by the fact that in Ancient Times, the orgasm of the female does not matter at all, only of the male. Given this mindset at the time, the primary focus would be on the male and given that there wasn't any account of Sodom being responsible for Lesbianism, it could be assumed that the laws against homosexuality is based on the incident at Sodom in which God punished the Sodomites for their sins which includes homosexuality as well.

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


What you said in the first part is very interesting.

Regarding the Old Testament, still, such thing should be addressed whether man was superior or not. God doesn't discriminate, and if He is against homosexuality, He would have addressed the issue of sexual relations between women as well.

Usually Christians say that the Bible is only inerrant when it comes to theology and morals, well, I believe an issue like homosexuality is moral and should be addressed fully with no room for misunderstanding.

Why in the case of adultery, the Bible was very clear about who shall be punished, like in Leviticus 20:10 when said " And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. ". It didn't say that only the man shall be punished and stopped. but continued to say the man and the woman, called them the adulterer and the adulteress. We find that nowhere when it comes to same-sex relations.

Anyway, my question still remains, if there is any verse in the Old Testament, specially the Torah, that say female-female sexual relations is an abomination and both should be put to death. please share it with us.


Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #111 on: June 30, 2014, 05:00:47 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 05:08:49 AM by LBK » Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,231


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #112 on: June 30, 2014, 05:38:22 AM »

Having a lot of children harms the society more than it helps it.

Why the need to keep importing immigrants*? Why will there probably be no more pensions in Europe within a few decades? Answer: population ageing


*What people always forget is that, strangely enough, immigrants grow old as well.

Marriage as a whole has already fallen apart in the United States.

Isn't that a reason to support it?

Having a lot of children usually just means that the tax-payers have to pay for daycare, education, and welfare because the parents divorce and a single parent can't handle it all.

Remember, those children will pay your pensions when you're old.

Won't supporting a marriage so that it won't fall apart even save money? Money is one of the biggest reasons why marriages fall apart.

The Vatican ought to be paying for the strain that Hispanic Catholic teenage girls put on the tax-payers through constantly birthing babies without using birth control because apparently there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage as long as you do it irresponsibly without birth control.

I'm pretty sure that's not what the Vatican teaches.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 05:50:38 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #113 on: June 30, 2014, 06:09:26 AM »

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


Given that the idea of "sexism" (whatever that means) being wrong is a modern phenomenon, it really shouldn't enter our minds when considering the intended meaning of ancient texts.
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #114 on: June 30, 2014, 06:12:00 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?


But I'm insisting on finding a clear verse from the Old Testament which says that female-female sex is an abomination and both women should put to death. The Torah written almost 1200 years before Christ, so for 1200 years there was no one verse in all of the Bible that says female-female sex is an abomination. That doesn't fit perfectly with the what some Christians believe that God condemned homosexuality. Because homosexuality is in men and women as well.

Is there any verse in the Old Testament that clearly says female-female sex is an abomination ?

Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #115 on: June 30, 2014, 07:45:07 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?


But I'm insisting on finding a clear verse from the Old Testament which says that female-female sex is an abomination and both women should put to death. The Torah written almost 1200 years before Christ, so for 1200 years there was no one verse in all of the Bible that says female-female sex is an abomination. That doesn't fit perfectly with the what some Christians believe that God condemned homosexuality. Because homosexuality is in men and women as well.

Is there any verse in the Old Testament that clearly says female-female sex is an abomination ?



You're not answering the question. Why do you insist on an OT answer, when there is an answer in the NT?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,436


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 30, 2014, 07:47:57 AM »

Because everybody hauls out Leviticus, when it comes to gay men. Seems fair to ask the same about gay women.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #117 on: June 30, 2014, 07:49:23 AM »

Because everybody hauls out Leviticus, when it comes to gay men. Seems fair to ask the same about gay women.

Does that make the NT irrelevant?
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #118 on: June 30, 2014, 08:14:21 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?


But I'm insisting on finding a clear verse from the Old Testament which says that female-female sex is an abomination and both women should put to death. The Torah written almost 1200 years before Christ, so for 1200 years there was no one verse in all of the Bible that says female-female sex is an abomination. That doesn't fit perfectly with the what some Christians believe that God condemned homosexuality. Because homosexuality is in men and women as well.

Is there any verse in the Old Testament that clearly says female-female sex is an abomination ?



You're not answering the question. Why do you insist on an OT answer, when there is an answer in the NT?

Actually you are the one who is not answering the question.

I asked you and any member here to give me a clear passage from the Old Testament saying that female-female sex is an abomination.

You asked me a question and if I answered you anyway, you will argue with me on the question you asked and then we will go into whole different topic, I'm not falling to that.

Do you have any verse in the Old Testament saying clearly that female-female sex is an abomination ? Yes or no ?


Answering my question with a question is not an answer.



« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 08:26:57 AM by Raylight » Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
sakura95
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic planning to switch to Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Rome(As for now)
Posts: 289


Mekaku City actors/Kagerou Project


« Reply #119 on: June 30, 2014, 08:31:39 AM »

It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

Can mean...may mean...may indirectly...didn't outrightly...I prefer. 

Indeed. Making things fit one's view, whatever contortions one needs to employ to do so.

If there's any misunderstanding on the Greek term, "pais" in my context refers to a possible definition and usage of the word, it does not mean that it is the only definition and term for the word. This is why I mention, "Can actually mean" and not "It means". I thought I make clear that I do not support homosexual unions here though I still advocate against the discrimination of homosexuals and laws that breach their rights as human beings.
Logged
sakura95
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic planning to switch to Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Rome(As for now)
Posts: 289


Mekaku City actors/Kagerou Project


« Reply #120 on: June 30, 2014, 08:32:17 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

Sorry bout the typo, that's what I meant
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,063



« Reply #121 on: June 30, 2014, 08:42:45 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #122 on: June 30, 2014, 08:48:46 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.


« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 08:56:03 AM by Raylight » Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
sakura95
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic planning to switch to Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Rome(As for now)
Posts: 289


Mekaku City actors/Kagerou Project


« Reply #123 on: June 30, 2014, 08:52:37 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

According to this site, the word is applied to Christ twice.  So if παῖς can mean "young gay lover", and Jesus was called παῖς not once but twice, and the Gospels say he helped the centurion despite his apparent homosexual union, and the Gospels don't address outright whether or not Jesus was married to a woman, and if he was always hanging around a bunch of men, and if the beloved disciple was the only one not married to a woman, and...

This is why we are supposed to do our homework. 

We should first note that "young gay lover" is just a possible definition of the word "Pais" besides "Servant" or "children". We cannot simply make the assumption that the use of the word "pais" everywhere in Sacred Scriptures as being "young gay lover" especially when the word itself have multiple definitions. Hence, we must utilize the definition that is most suitable to the context of the verse. The two verses that refers to Jesus as "pais" simply translates as "child" because it is reference of Jesus being the Son of God, who is the Father. This natural as the Son is the child of the Father and the main context of the two verses is that they are praying to God. This would render the "Young gay lover" usage in this context as ridiculous and absurd, hence we know it cannot be the case and it must be either "servant" or "child" which both have a better fit. Some translations render "Pais" in the two verses as "Servant", the KJV renders it as "child".

In the context of the Centurion, while it may be argued that it could simply be his servant which in such an era, is simply a slave. Why would a Centurion who could easily find replacements request Jesus to heal his "Pais"? It would be more logical if that person is someone whom he love hence the appropriate attribution of the person the Centurion requested for Jesus to heal to be his lover given that the term, "young gay lover" is a possible meaning of "Pais". Despite this, it shouldn't be used as grounds to accept homosexuality, rather it should be used to accept the fact that Jesus loves all people regardless of sexual orientation.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 08:53:51 AM by sakura95 » Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #124 on: June 30, 2014, 08:56:14 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

Peace.




Raylight, Christians cannot ignore the testimony of the New Testament. It seems strange that you strongly defend the inspired status of scripture, yet, on this matter, you dismiss the testimony of the NT.

Logged
kelly
Unsubscribing from this planet
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,425



« Reply #125 on: June 30, 2014, 09:04:36 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.




Why would lesbianism be alright as opposed to "male-male sex"? I think this is wishful thinking on your part but I won't say the reason that I think you want it to be alright. You can guess.

Keep looking for that Scriptural justification though, you won't find it.
Logged

I heard that Mor Ephrem is addicted to cocaine. Pass it on.

Awed by the beauty of perceptivity
And the exceeding sassiness of your commentary
OC.net stood amazed and cried to thee
Oh most wise Kelly
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,063



« Reply #126 on: June 30, 2014, 09:05:31 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.



I could use your post as a classic example of tunnel vision. The Bible also doesn't say anything about a lot of different topics, but that doesn't mean that we can pretend that Christ or His Church should approve of them. By your logic, since the OT doesn't say anything about me taking voyeuristic pictures of women in my neighborhood and posting them on the internet, I can safely assume that it is an acceptable practice.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #127 on: June 30, 2014, 09:06:05 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

Peace.




Raylight, Christians cannot ignore the testimony of the New Testament. It seems strange that you strongly defend the inspired status of scripture, yet, on this matter, you dismiss the testimony of the NT.



I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT. But some Christians for centuries used the OT to justify killing gays and today the people hearing some Christians say " homosexuality is an abomination, homosexuality is an abomination...etc ". So lets go and see where does it say it is "abomination". It says it in the OT, but wait, it talks about male-male sex, what about female-female sex ?

Also the New Testament, ONLY in Romans 1 mentioned something about female-female sex, but even Roman 1 have been explained perfectly that it doesn't condemn homosexuality as we know it today.
Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,063



« Reply #128 on: June 30, 2014, 09:07:04 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

Peace.




Raylight, Christians cannot ignore the testimony of the New Testament. It seems strange that you strongly defend the inspired status of scripture, yet, on this matter, you dismiss the testimony of the NT.



I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT. But some Christians for centuries used the OT to justify killing gays and today the people hearing some Christians say " homosexuality is an abomination, homosexuality is an abomination...etc ". So lets go and see where does it say it is "abomination". It says it in the OT, but wait, it talks about male-male sex, what about female-female sex ?

Also the New Testament, ONLY in Romans 1 mentioned something about female-female sex, but even Roman 1 have been explained perfectly away so that it doesn't condemn homosexuality as we know it today.
Fixed for you.  Wink
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #129 on: June 30, 2014, 09:10:31 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #130 on: June 30, 2014, 09:12:04 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.




Why would lesbianism be alright as opposed to "male-male sex"? I think this is wishful thinking on your part but I won't say the reason that I think you want it to be alright. You can guess.

Keep looking for that Scriptural justification though, you won't find it.

Oh no no, please go ahead, say what is the reason you think I want it to be alright. I insist.

Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,660



« Reply #131 on: June 30, 2014, 09:16:28 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.

I already said my opinion on Romans 1. Go check it out.

Folks, I'm going to wait for Kelly to say why she thinks I want homosexuality to be alright. I'm really looking forward to know what she thinks the reason is.

I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I and many Christians already believe regarding the Bible and homosexuality. However, I had to say what I believe so other people see that there are two opinions on the issue, not just one.

Peace.

Logged

Good bye OC.net. I will not post in this forum anymore. I'm thankful to several members here who helped me so much and stood by me. God Bless You All Smiley
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,063



« Reply #132 on: June 30, 2014, 09:18:31 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.

I already said my opinion on Romans 1. Go check it out.

Folks, I'm going to wait for Kelly to say why she thinks I want homosexuality to be alright. I'm really looking forward to know what she thinks the reason is.

I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I and many Christians already believe regarding the Bible and homosexuality. However, I had to say what I believe so other people see that there are two opinions on the issue, not just one.

Peace.


There are two or more opinions on every issue.  That doesn't make them valid. It just means that people believe what they want to believe. I know a guy who believes in "Christian wife-swapping".  Apparently, that is an opinion too.  Doesn't make it right though.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
sakura95
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic planning to switch to Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Rome(As for now)
Posts: 289


Mekaku City actors/Kagerou Project


« Reply #133 on: June 30, 2014, 09:36:16 AM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.


It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

This would pose a problem to those who reject homosexuality since by going according to the Old Testament, gay is not cool and lesbianism is cool. I do have a solution to this but it may sound sexist, men are typically viewed as sexual creatures and not women which is evidenced by the fact that in Ancient Times, the orgasm of the female does not matter at all, only of the male. Given this mindset at the time, the primary focus would be on the male and given that there wasn't any account of Sodom being responsible for Lesbianism, it could be assumed that the laws against homosexuality is based on the incident at Sodom in which God punished the Sodomites for their sins which includes homosexuality as well.

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


What you said in the first part is very interesting.

Regarding the Old Testament, still, such thing should be addressed whether man was superior or not. God doesn't discriminate, and if He is against homosexuality, He would have addressed the issue of sexual relations between women as well.

Usually Christians say that the Bible is only inerrant when it comes to theology and morals, well, I believe an issue like homosexuality is moral and should be addressed fully with no room for misunderstanding.

Why in the case of adultery, the Bible was very clear about who shall be punished, like in Leviticus 20:10 when said " And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. ". It didn't say that only the man shall be punished and stopped. but continued to say the man and the woman, called them the adulterer and the adulteress. We find that nowhere when it comes to same-sex relations.

Anyway, my question still remains, if there is any verse in the Old Testament, specially the Torah, that say female-female sexual relations is an abomination and both should be put to death. please share it with us.




Why would God do that when it we could easily make the connection using our sense of reason. Since men are equal to women, then it follows that what is applied to men would also apply to women, hence making the Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality applicable to females as well. It should be noted that human beings are not entities that would not be able to draw connections based on statements. For example, if the statement "presidents are males" is true, it doesn't mean that females are not or are exempted from this statement, it can also be said that "presidents are females" since the male is a human being and the female is a human being and since both male and female are equal, then it follows that when the statement "presidents are males" is said, the opposite can be said as well. This applies to the rulings on homosexuality in the Old Testament.

In the case of  Leviticus 20:10, it is simple why the man and the woman involved must be punished. Adultery is defined as, "sex between a married person and someone who is not that person's wife or husband'. Given this definition, we know that because it is not rape between the two parties, then it follows that the two parties have mutually consented with each other and are in agreement for the conduction of the act of intercourse between the two parties involved. Since it is not forced and the woman is also into it, the punishment is administered to both parties as both are responsible for the act to happen.

When the punishment of homosexual relationships is mentioned, both parties involved in the act would be punished as well as with adultery. Given the same concept that man and woman are equal and the statements on "presidents", then it follows that the same would apply to females who engage in homosexual relationships as well.


As I said before, there is no quotes condemning lesbianism but given Romans, we know that the rulings must apply to women as well since it speaks of men lusting for men and women lusting for women in a negative light. If truly nothing negative about lesbianism is mentioned in the Old Testament, then why would the author mention lesbianism in a negative light? If the laws condemning homosexuality is applicable to women, then it would make more sense. If not, then why did the author suddenly decide to invoke a negative perception on lesbianism instead of solely targeting on homosexuality between males?
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #134 on: June 30, 2014, 09:38:45 AM »

Dear Raylight

Quote
Please get me passage from the Old Testament and lets not go into Romans 1, because that also have another way of understanding it and it does make perfect sense to me.

Anyone who wants to know what Romans 1 or Leviticus really means, there are plenty of websites explains it perfectly.

This is what you have said about what Romans says on the matter. It is clear you're dodging the issue.

I repeat my request: what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.