[Polka Dot]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Lol you missed the entire point of the paper didn't you? Well we will start with this. You quote leviticus. That is OT which is irrelevant. Or do you also think nobody should be allowed to eat shellfish? Or wear mixed fabric clothing? Because you'd be pretty hard pressed to find something other than that.

The old testemant is certainly not irrelevant don't forget that that the 10 commandments are found in the old testament are you suggesting those are irrelevant?

Jesus certainy didn't think the OT was irrelevant he said in Matthew 5:17-18

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

The Law in the old testament given to the Hebrew people is catogorized into three parts: the moral law, the civil law( the law for iraels court system) and the ceremonial law ( the law for ceremonial worship).

The things you mentioned like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabric are parts of the ceremonial law given to seperate israel from the surrounding nations. Things like capital punishment for blasphemy and adultery etc.. were part of the civil law for israel.

Christians do not have to abide by the civil and ceremonial law because of the doctrine of Grace. The moral law however is transcedental and is always in effect so we are still under obligation to keep the moral law it was given to israel but its purpose is so that "all the world may become guilty before God" (see Romans 3:19-20) in otherwords the moral law shows us we are sinners who need a saviour.

The law on Homosexuality is a moral law and therefore is still relevent.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)

I don't know where in Matthew you got that quote...can you give me the chapter and verse so I can find it?

Matthew 19:4

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Then there is Corinthians to deal with in which people interpret a made up greek word to mean homosexual, even though it was originally interpreted to mean homosexual. arsenokoitai is not a real greek word. It was created for that specific instance and it literally translates to man looker. Which can mean any number of things.

That is not true The Greek word “arsenokoitai” used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), “homosexuals” (NASB) or “homosexual offender” (NIV).

You can go to any Bible Lexicon and concordance and see for yourself.

Strong's concordance - 'arsenokoites': a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.
From Strong's exhaustive concordance, 'homosexual'- From arrhen and koite; a sodomite -- abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

http://concordances.org/greek/733.htm

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Timothy didn't actually directly deal with homosexuality now did it? No where in that quote did it say anything about homosexuals. The only part that can be interpreted to say as such is the 'contrary to sound doctrine' which if you actually read the link I posted it is highly contestable that homosexuality goes against 'sound doctrine'.

Here is the quote from Timothy again and I have emboldend the part that talks about homosexuals.

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The word translated " them that defile themselves with mankind" is the same word translted homosexual in corinthians. And as you can see Paul mentions it when he is listing the things that go against sound doctrine.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
And then there is Romans, I don't know how familiar you are with romans, but many people have many different ways of interpreting romans. In case you hadn't noticed it says that those who gave up 'natural' relations with women were doing wrong. This would imply that those who would otherwise not have relations with men and were anyway are in sin. Not necessarily homosexuals.

That is the most backward interpretation of that verse I have heared. Paul is saying it is unatural for men to sleep with men and for women to sleep with women from a plain reading of the text it is clear.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
This is of course all besides the fact that you as a Christian are supposed to live by the words of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who says,

As I said before Jesus is God and the whole bible is the word of God, so when i listen to Romans or leviticus talk about homosexuals I am living by the words of Christ.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Homosexuals aren't my enemies and I don't hate them. If i criticise what they are doing it is because I care for them and don't want them to go to hell

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

Jesus was making the point that all have sinned and need redemption. He didn't excuse her sin infact after they were gone he said "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more
He forgave her sin but told her to sin no more. Homosexuals like this woman should not be condemned but they still need to repent of there sin.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This strengthens my point when Jesus is not dismissing the Law but is emphasising the two laws the others are bassed on.

First he says "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment."

But what is it to love God? The bible tells us

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:" 1 John 5 vs3

So if homosexuals love God they should obey his commandments which includes the rules about homosexuality.

Secondly he says: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

The bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and it says "The wages of sin is death" so if I my neighbour is sinning against God and that sin will cause him to go to hell then how can i claim I love my neighbour if i don't warn him that what he is doing is wrong ?

If you see a blind man walking towards a cliff are you going to keep quiet because you might offend him? Not if you have any compassion. The same principle applies here.

Funny how this is used in the book I was talking about.

Your book chooses to ignore scripture that disagrees with its beliefs and picks and chooses verses that suite its agenda. Christians who follow this belief are not caring for homosexuals they are actually hurting them. Like a parent who gives a child whatever they want whenever they want it because they can't say no. It will eventually lead to the childs destruction.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
The old testemant is certainly not irrelevant don't forget that that the 10 commandments are found in the old testament are you suggesting those are irrelevant?

The old testament is irrelevant as it was fulfilled, meaning it no longer has its bearing.

Jesus certainy didn't think the OT was irrelevant he said in Matthew 5:17-18

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

He fulfilled the laws. So when everything he did was accomplished it disappeared.

The Law in the old testament given to the Hebrew people is catogorized into three parts: the moral law, the civil law( the law for iraels court system) and the ceremonial law ( the law for ceremonial worship).

You should look that up again. The law is broken into Justices and Jobs. This has been affirmed by many scholars.

The things you mentioned like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabric are parts of the ceremonial law given to seperate israel from the surrounding nations. Things like capital punishment for blasphemy and adultery etc.. were part of the civil law for israel.

These are Jobs. And the Justices were the commandments.

Christians do not have to abide by the civil and ceremonial law because of the doctrine of Grace. The moral law however is transcedental and is always in effect so we are still under obligation to keep the moral law it was given to israel but its purpose is so that "all the world may become guilty before God" (see Romans 3:19-20) in otherwords the moral law shows us we are sinners who need a saviour.

The law on Homosexuality is a moral law and therefore is still relevent.

As I said your basic understanding of the laws is already flawed. You should probably have read the source I provided as it explained the sets of ancient laws and provided the citations to back it up.

Matthew 19:4

That is not true The Greek word “arsenokoitai” used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), “homosexuals” (NASB) or “homosexual offender” (NIV).

You can go to any Bible Lexicon and concordance and see for yourself.

Strong's concordance - 'arsenokoites': a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.
From Strong's exhaustive concordance, 'homosexual'- From arrhen and koite; a sodomite -- abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

http://concordances.org/greek/733.htm

You misunderstand. This is what people interpret it to mean nowadays. However there was no such word in the ancient greek language, hence when you try to translate it in say a dictionary it isn't there When you break up the words that were used to make it, they mean men and looker. So...that can be derived to mean many things. That is just how you Christians have deemed it should be derived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...enokoit.C4.93s

You can follow the sources to back up the disputes on the meaning. It has many connotations and Christians seem to just pick and choose which to use when it is relevant.

Here is the quote from Timothy again and I have emboldend the part that talks about homosexuals.

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The word translated " them that defile themselves with mankind" is the same word translted homosexual in corinthians. And as you can see Paul mentions it when he is listing the things that go against sound doctrine.

Please look at all the other ways it has been translated. Not to mention defiling themselves with mankind does not mean homosexual . It also doesn't say men who do such a thing so the same would apply then to women would it not? It is just factually incorrect

That is the most backward interpretation of that verse I have heared. Paul is saying it is unatural for men to sleep with men and for women to sleep with women from a plain reading of the text it is clear.

You really should educate yourself on the bible verses and their interpretations. Because is a fairly common one. There are many other ways to interpret it as well.

As I said before Jesus is God and the whole bible is the word of God, so when i listen to Romans or leviticus talk about homosexuals I am living by the words of Christ.

Hahaha this is the most nonsensical thing I have hear from a Christian in a long time. Jesus is not the whole bible

Homosexuals aren't my enemies and I don't hate them. If i criticise what they are doing it is because I care for them and don't want them to go to hell

You aren't supposed to criticize them. That was the entire point of Jesus is you are not to judge others.

Jesus was making the point that all have sinned and need redemption. He didn't excuse her sin infact after they were gone he said "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more
He forgave her sin but told her to sin no more. Homosexuals like this woman should not be condemned but they still need to repent of there sin.

It is not for you to make her (them) repent though. That is the sole responsibility of them. Notice how he did not call anyone to judge her or anything. Nor did he condemn her. It is not your place but Christ's to forgive and allow them to repent.

This strengthens my point when Jesus is not dismissing the Law but is emphasising the two laws the others are bassed on.

Again you should have read my source, it very clearly explains this.

First he says "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment."

Mhm.

But what is it to love God? The bible tells us

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:" 1 John 5 vs3

What are Gods commandments? Oh right those 10. Which homosexuals do not disobey by being homosexual

So if homosexuals love God they should obey his commandments which includes the rules about homosexuality.

Again no.

Secondly he says: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Which again goes with the whole though shalt not judge, etc.

The bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and it says "The wages of sin is death" so if I my neighbour is sinning against God and that sin will cause him to go to hell then how can i claim I love my neighbour if i don't warn him that what he is doing is wrong ?

Because Jesus and the bible has already stated very clearly that is not your place. It is theirs alone.

If you see a blind man walking towards a cliff are you going to keep quiet because you might offend him? Not if you have any compassion. The same principle applies here.

That's not telling him he is in sin and condemning and judging. That is helping the needy. That is a separate principle.

Your book chooses to ignore scripture that disagrees with its beliefs and picks and chooses verses that suite its agenda. Christians who follow this belief are not caring for homosexuals they are actually hurting them. Like a parent who gives a child whatever they want whenever they want it because they can't say no. It will eventually lead to the childs destruction.

My book addresses the arguments against sexuality. It uses the main tenants and teachings of the bible to show what is and isn't important. You really should have read it better/longer. It isn't even that long. I suggest you read it, and actually consider what it has to say.

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by Phaethon)
Ok, for the first quote I encourage to read on and see what Jesus has to say about those who do not fall into the category he is talking about. Then, check the following link : http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.or.../born_gay.html

That is nonsense, Enuchs have no sexual desires at all. They are not homosexuals.The greek word used there is eunouchos here is the definition from Strongs concordance.

(a) a chamberlain, keeper of the bed-chamber of an eastern potentate, eunuch, (b) a eunuch, castrated person, or one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.

(Original post by Phaethon)
Pardon me, but you're not making much sense. Jesus is the Word, the Bible is the Word, so Jesus is the Bible??? You'll have to explain. And even so, it doesn't really argue your case that homosexuality is a sin.

I was quoting from John 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

What ther verse is saying is that Jesus is God. So hence I made the point that since the Bible is the written word of God. That means its words are also the words of Jesus. So when the bible says in Leviticus "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." it is Jesus who is giving the commands since i

(Original post by Phaethon)
Will you kindly explain to me why there is no verse that says "thou shall not lie with a woman as with a man" ? The issue here is sodomy, which at the time was dangerous for health reasons. Just like eating pork and shellfish (at the time).

In Romans 1 26-27 it says

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

So lesbianism is on a par with male Homosexuality.

(Original post by Phaethon)
see this: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.or...mans_1_21.html

Nonsense. It is clearly describing the act of homsexuality as unatural.

Look at the verse into 2 segements

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections"

Here we see the affections described as vile

"for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

It is describing the heterosexuality as natural and Homosexuality as unnatural.


It is clear from the reading of the text that the act of homosexuality itself is being describe as vile and unnatural.

This ties in with the verse in leviticus were the act of homosexuality itself is condemned.


The bible is very consistant with the matter it's judgement on Homosexuality is the same in both the old and new testaments. Homosexuals must decide what they love more their sin or christ instead of trying to justify their actions.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
x

I love your arguments. literally all you say is 'that's nonsense' and then quote scripture. When we have provided plenty of sources with the interpretations of said scripture what it actually means.

[Phaethon]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
X

Ok..since there are arguments on both sides in terms of scripture, I ask you, if it what are your arguments against homosexuality that are not related to the Bible?

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
The old testament is irrelevant as it was fulfilled, meaning it no longer has its bearing.



He fulfilled the laws. So when everything he did was accomplished it disappeared.

The ten commandments are in the old testament do they disappear? Fufilling the law does not mean they disappear it means that Jesus did what no Human could live a perfect life.And then he as a sinless person one take the punishment of the guilty. It enables us to repent of our sins and be forgiven.

You should look that up again. The law is broken into Justices and Jobs. This has been affirmed by many scholars.



These are Jobs. And the Justices were the commandments.

I wasn't using theological lingo I was breaking the up as they could best be explained.

The laws on morality still stand including those regarding homosexuality.

As I said your basic understanding of the laws is already flawed. You should probably have read the source I provided as it explained the sets of ancient laws and provided the citations to back it up.

I don't need your book to tell me what I can read in my bible.

You misunderstand. This is what people interpret it to mean nowadays. However there was no such word in the ancient greek language, hence when you try to translate it in say a dictionary it isn't there When you break up the words that were used to make it, they mean men and looker. So...that can be derived to mean many things. That is just how you Christians have deemed it should be derived.

The word is actually from the words

arrhen and koite

Arrhen means man or male

Koite means either 1)a bed

2)or is used to mean the marital bed (i.e when a couple copulate)

3) or cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful

You really should educate yourself on the bible verses and their interpretations. Because is a fairly common one. There are many other ways to interpret it as well.

But there is only one way to interpret it which is hermeneutically correct.

Hahaha this is the most nonsensical thing I have hear from a Christian in a long time. Jesus is not the whole bible

Thats not what I was sayin. It is a quote from John in which he is saying that Jesus is God. God wrote the whole bible so hence jesus wrote the whole bible so when it says homosexuality is a sin in leviticus it means Jesus said its a sin.

You aren't supposed to criticize them. That was the entire point of Jesus is you are not to judge others.

See answer below

It is not for you to make her (them) repent though. That is the sole responsibility of them. Notice how he did not call anyone to judge her or anything. Nor did he condemn her. It is not your place but Christ's to forgive and allow them to repent.

See answer below

Again you should have read my source, it very clearly explains this.

All I need are the books of the bible.

Mhm.



What are Gods commandments? Oh right those 10. Which homosexuals do not disobey by being homosexual

It's not refering only to the ten commandments but to all of Gods moral laws.

Which again goes with the whole though shalt not judge, etc.



Because Jesus and the bible has already stated very clearly that is not your place. It is theirs alone.



That's not telling him he is in sin and condemning and judging. That is helping the needy. That is a separate principle.

You raise the point judge not lest you be judged throughout your response so to save me responding more than once I will make my point here.
You don't seem to understand what jesus was talking about when he told us not Judge others.

So let me clear it up. When Jesus said

“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Matthew 7:1-5

he was condemning hypocritical, self-righteous judgments of others. He didn't mean that if you see something wrong you should keep silent.


In Matthew 18:15 Jesus actually encourages christians to point out to one another when they sin.

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."


The same is said in the book of james 5:19

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and y cover a multitude of sins.


Ephesians 4:15 tells us to "speak the truth in Love" and again in 2Timothy 4:2 says to "rebuke and exhort with patience"



So you can see the bible does tell us to "judge" sin but only with the goal of presenting the consequnces and the solution which is Jesus Christ.

My book addresses the arguments against sexuality. It uses the main tenants and teachings of the bible to show what is and isn't important. You really should have read it better/longer. It isn't even that long. I suggest you read it, and actually consider what it has to say.

The reason I didn't read it is because I have heared the arguments before. The internet is filled with the same arguments elsewhere.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
x

You don't even know what the book says lol and you claim to have heard it before

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by Phaethon)
Ok..since there are arguments on both sides in terms of scripture, I ask you, if it what are your arguments against homosexuality that are not related to the Bible?

There is no scriptual basis that supports homosexuality. The only way people can make that claim is when they practice what is know hermaneutically as eisegesis in otherwords reading into the text what's not there. If proper biblical hermaneutical principles are adhered to the fact that the bible views homosexuality as a sin is chrystal clear.

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
You don't even know what the book says lol and you claim to have heard it before

As novel as you think the books ideas are I am afraid that I have to tell you that they have been around for decades and they get rehashed constantly but they are all doing the same thing, reading into the text what isn't there.


Do you mind if I ask you two questions?

1) Are you a christian?

2)Are you a homosexual?

[Phaethon]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
X

Thats not what I was sayin. It is a quote from John in which he is saying that Jesus is God. God wrote the whole bible so hence jesus wrote the whole bible so when it says homosexuality is a sin in leviticus it means Jesus said its a sin.

So that's where the problem is. The Bible was written by God, eh? a whole different subject though, so I started another thread. Please have a look
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...9#post37468999

[Perseveranze]

Some people are desperate.

"Jesus on Homosexuality presents scholarly material that documents Christianity’s 1,900-year-old error."

So 1900 years Christians all had it wrong. Lol. Wonder what else they got wrong

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Some people are desperate.

"Jesus on Homosexuality presents scholarly material that documents Christianity’s 1,900-year-old error."

So 1900 years Christians all had it wrong. Lol. Wonder what else they got wrong

Was that supposed to somehow discredit the book? Or christianity? Frankly I don't put much faith in any of the Abrahamic religions on what they have got 'right'.

[Perseveranze]

This is also not scholarly, the pdf file quotes;

Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”—Mark 10:2-9

It leaves out the next part which is;

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

What kind of scholarship is this? The clear cut commentry on this is;

He here shows that the reason why Moses' law allowed divorce, was such that they ought not to use the permission; it was only for the hardness of their hearts. God himself joined man and wife together; he has fitted them to be comforts and helps for each other. The bond which God has tied, is not to be lightly untied. Let those who are for putting away their wives consider what would become of themselves, if God should deal with them in like manner.

http://www.christnotes.org/commentar...=mhc&b=41&c=10

Christians these days, whatever, not my concern I guess.

Not sure what you're trying to do though, most Homosexuals are Atheists/Agnostics (Usually Atheists as they tend to hate religions based on how like 99.9% are unfavorable of them and their undying connection to God).

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
This is also not scholarly, the pdf file quotes;

Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”—Mark 10:2-9

It leaves out the next part which is;

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

How does that not make it scholarly? It used the relevant quote? The same as any other scholarly work it references that which is used.

Christians these days, whatever, not my concern I guess.

Not sure what you're trying to do though, most Homosexuals are Atheists/Agnostics (Usually Atheists as they tend to hate religions based on how like 99.9% are unfavorable of them and their undying connection to God).

Then why did you post if it isn't your concern? And there are many homosexuals who are religious. And I am addressing an issue in Christianity in the bible. Seeing as it is a contentious field I am provoking debate? Isn't that the point of this forum?

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by Perseveranze)


SomeChristians these days, whatever, not my concern I guess.

edited that for you

[warthogBE]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
This is also not scholarly, the pdf file quotes;

Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”—Mark 10:2-9

It leaves out the next part which is;

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

What kind of scholarship is this? The clear cut commentry on this is;

He here shows that the reason why Moses' law allowed divorce, was such that they ought not to use the permission; it was only for the hardness of their hearts. God himself joined man and wife together; he has fitted them to be comforts and helps for each other. The bond which God has tied, is not to be lightly untied. Let those who are for putting away their wives consider what would become of themselves, if God should deal with them in like manner.

http://www.christnotes.org/commentar...=mhc&b=41&c=10

Christians these days, whatever, not my concern I guess.

Not sure what you're trying to do though, most Homosexuals are Atheists/Agnostics (Usually Atheists as they tend to hate religions based on how like 99.9% are unfavorable of them and their undying connection to God).

Seriously, what is your problem? Do you get a kick out of being so narrow-minded that you need to offer gross generalisations and criticisms of every other religion?

You have your religion, other people have theirs, you don't need to go offending people because of that. Your childish little remarks epitomise how narrow-minded you're being, and reduce the credit of what you say to nil.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by warthogBE)
Seriously, what is your problem? Do you get a kick out of being so narrow-minded that you need to offer gross generalisations and criticisms of every other religion?

You have your religion, other people have theirs, you don't need to go offending people because of that. Your childish little remarks epitomise how narrow-minded you're being, and reduce the credit of what you say to nil.

I apologies. That was a wrong generalization to make. Satanism and Wicca are the two religions that do condone Homosexuality (so it's not 99.9%). Oh, and no where did I criticize Christianity, please re-read my posts.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
How does that not make it scholarly? It used the relevant quote? The same as any other scholarly work it references that which is used.

The PDF writer tries to use that quote as a reference to "homosexuals" in "context". When it clearly has nothing to do with homosexuals, since the writer completly missed out the next two lines which elaborate even further.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Then why did you post if it isn't your concern? And there are many homosexuals who are religious. And I am addressing an issue in Christianity in the bible. Seeing as it is a contentious field I am provoking debate? Isn't that the point of this forum?

I posted it to show it doesn't really have anything scholarly (unless your standards are low), but dishonesty and deception.

It's a bit of a time waste for me to be debating on a) Christianity, b) Homosexuals. I just wanted to point the above out, that's all.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
x

I thought you should see this http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html