1 Cor 6: 9-10


"9> Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10> nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

So.... Out of curiousity, What is the response to this verse? It was not brought up in the Documentary to my recollection.
I mean, I feel the Doc had valid points in rebutal to the passages in Leviticus... "Abomination" and what not.
But this verse doesn't appear so ambigious.

I know there are a lot of people included in this verse, and it does not focus souly on homosexuality. However, I was wanting to know how someone from the LGBT Community, who believes the bible does not speak against Homosexuality, justifies this verse?

Maybe thoughts minus all the "Going to Hell" and "Bigotous Christian" speak.

Or even better, if there is a different discussion going on somewhere, sheltered from the ingorance of the inevitable trolls, please let me know.


-------------------------------------
"now.... where was I?"

reply

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fai ries.html

What we see and what we seem are but a dream. A dream within a dream.

reply

They actually do address this in the film IIRC, but the basic answer is that this common translation is not at all representative of the text.


I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply


I think the bible does, clearly speak against gay male sex, though it does seem to gloss over lesbians, (I guess, since women were only considered to be property, like cattle, it did not make much difference).

However, here is a question I have had for a long time.

Jesus never spoke about homosexuality whatsoever. He never mentioned gays, lesbians, transgendered, or bisexuals individuals at all.

He did, however, speak about MARRIAGE -

he said:

"What God hath brought together, let no MAN put asunder"! (Mark 10:9)

This is an obvious reference to civil divorce!

What about that?

Every Christian sect (except for Catholicism - and even they get around it with church approved annulments) seems to look the other way about divorce.

Not a single church leader is calling for special legislation to stop people from divorcing (a truly destructive influence on marriage and the children of marriage too)!

Not a single national organization has EVER been created to ban divorce, or put a special amendment in the US constitution to state, clearly and unequivocally, that divorce is not allowed.

Now, to the non-believer, it kind of looks like Christians are specifically picking and choosing which DOGMA and verse to pay strict attention to and which ones to completely ignore. And every single Christian church seem to be just fine with ignoring the divorced people who fill their pews AND (more importantly) their COFFERS!

Yet they give holy hell to anyone in a gay relationship, even the most loving committed couples with children!

WHY?

WHY THE OBVIOUS DISPARITY?

I've posed this question before and get either completely lame answers or, more likely, no answers at all!

But I keep trying to get someone to give me a answer!


Please explain to me why homosexuality, which was condemned in the bible (probably, realistically, because the vulnerable Jewish tribes wanted lotsa babies born to make their tribes stronger and therefore, using the only universal law they had, their religion, to make any sexual acts which did not procreate illegal) was a greater sin then divorce, which actually does affect heterosexual couples very negatively and definitely hurt the children of such unions (ask any child of divorce how it affected them)!!!

Awaiting your intelligent and insightful answers!


"Jesus, please save me from your followers!"

reply

Divorce is a potential reality for a far greater percentage of the population than marrying someone of the same gender. I.e., the LGBT population is an easier and safer target for people looking for a scapegoat and/or distraction.

reply

only one answer: bigotry.

reply

Newsflash:

For a very long time it WAS illegal to get a divorce in MANY countries especially countries that the majority was Catholic. Divorce was frowned upon for A LONG time in the U.S. as well so much so that the shame that came along with it discouraged many to not even consider it. It just seems that we finally have gotten over it. Slowly but surely the ludicrous Christian dogma is unraveling as more and more people become educated and begin to realize what a joke religion is.





My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

reply

I think once again it all comes down to the fact that to use a several times translated text, whose semantics have been proven inaccurate, to perpetuate a belief that it is acceptable to condemn a group of people is inherently wrong.

My mother is a devout baptist, and has very strong views regarding homosexuality as a sin, all of which I not only disagree with, but as a logical, rational person, who has considered every perspective of the aforementioned argument, find it hard to even comprehend.

The incredibly watered down analogy that I attempted to use to explain this to her was as follows:

Say there was a medical journal, used widely by doctors throughout the world, and they believed it to be the absolute way of treating all illness, and thus conducted their practice according to the writings of this journal. Now, say for instance that this journal had been translated so many times that certain words or concepts, even ones repeated in several passages, had become distorted and bore little - or at the very least - a tenuous reference to the original word intended. Now say that, in said book, treating an ear infection with drops became treating an ear infection by dropping a cat on your head... it obviously wouldn't work, and you'd question the integrity of the entire text as a basis for practicing medicine.

Regardless of this analogy, the argument that I consistently come back to (on the basis that, to me, it makes total logical sense) is that surely it is nonsensical to say you live your life and model your values on the teachings of a text, when in actual fact, you only lift out certain sections and disregard those that you feel are "out of date" or no longer have a place in the society of today. My mum still eats prawns, wears clothes woven of different fabrics, and speaks in a religious building without seeking her husband's permission... so how can she condemn homosexuality on the premise that she follows the bible?

That's how I'd respond to that comment anyway.

FreedomBeautyTruthLove

reply