New Pope condems gays

[fa_jing]

Fatherdog wrote: "Completely incorrect. The original Greek you are translating as "effeminate" is "malakoi", a word which literally means "soft" and is sometimes rendered as "male prostitute" or "catamite" (referring to a boy kept by a pedophile.) The original greek word you are translating as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is "arsenokoitai", which is closest to meaning "rapist" or "sex slave trader", and is never used in any greek texts of the period to refer to ****sexuals in general - words used in that sense include arrenomanes, erastes, paiderastai, paidika, drwntes, and paschontes, none of which ever occur in the bible under any context."

so does "soft" include ****sexuals? Can you prove that it does not? Such language seems to condemn ****sexuality at least in some respects. Maybe Paul thought the correct words for ****sexuality were too vulgar for his writings? I would think it would be specifically excluded if it was not to be criticized, especially given the rest of the text which criticizes all sorts of immorality (as seen by the writer). I certainly don't think you could call someone "Completely Incorrect" for seeing the Bible as critical of ****sexuality.

After all, the old testament dietary restrictions were specifically lifted in the New Testament. So is death as a punishment for breaking morality rules. Yet the restrictions against ****sexual acts are not rescinded AFAIK.

Then again, not much in the Bible makes sense to me. But I think as literary critics of the Bible, we shouldn't fall into the same pattern of behavior that some Christian sects engage in, which is loosely interpreting portions of the Bible to suit some pre-defined agenda such as the acceptance of ****sexuality.

Paul spoke out against these things partly because the expatriate Jew/Christians were surrounded by biblically immoral people ( and immoral by modern standards too ) and some members of the church were being influenced by them or participating in this sort of activity. That was half the reason he wrote most of his letters in the first place, the other was to inspire the faithful to continue in their faith in the face of challenges.

[HopGar]

Y'all had to start quoting sources from the bible....

"All of which is completely immaterial anyway, since A) Leviticus is instructions specifically for the tribe of Levi, and inapplicable to other Hebrew tribes, let alone Gentiles, and B) Old Testament Mosaic law no longer applies to Christians, as per Acts."

Wrong. Well, partially anyway. While TaNaCh (the bible) doesn't apply to gentiles and christians, Leviticus is NOT only for the tribe of Levi. It's mostly for Levi. Leviticus also has the laws of Kosher, the Shemita year (one year out of seven where all land is left fallow) and Yovel (the 50th year of the Shemita cycle), as well as important laws of purity and impurity, both relating to the temple and the family - All of which apply equall to all Jews.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: it is abomination," and "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..." Also Leviticus, IIRC, states that men wearing women's clothing are in a state of sin, or some such.

Actually those two verses translate literally from hebrew like this:
18:22 "You shall not lie with a man as you would with a woman - it is an abomination."
20:13 "And the man who has relations with a man as he would a woman, they have committed an abomination, they shall die, their sin is upn themselves."

Leviticus doesn't say anything about crossdressing, that's addressed in Deuteronomy and is a big no-no.

Deuteronomy 22:5 "Male garb shall not be on a woman and a man shall not wear a feminine garment, for all who do so is an abomination to G-d."

As for my unsolicited opinion, I'm completely against gay sex, gay marriage, etc.

[MasterKiller]

As for my unsolicited opinion, I'm completely against gay sex, gay marriage, etc.

Then don't have gay sex and don't marry a guy and let everyone else decide for themselves what to do. That's what living in a 'free' country is supposed to be about.

[@PLUGO]

Deuteronomy 22:5 "Male garb shall not be on a woman and a man shall not wear a feminine garment, for all who do so is an abomination to G-d."

it's been a while since i'v been to sunday school. Does this mean it's a sin for women to wear pants?

[David Jamieson]

it's been a while since i'v been to sunday school. Does this mean it's a sin for women to wear pants?

nope, it's just a sin to wear her brother's, husbands, fathers, boyfriend's, grandpas pants.

If they're a snug little pair of 7's, then it's definitely not a sin.

[Royal Dragon]

Ok, please understand the following is based on me being a self proclaimed **** Phobe, and proud of it.

I believe **** Phobia is a natural thing for hetoral sexual males. Now, that being said, **** Phobia is part of the Catholic doctrin, and has been so for as far back as I can see. It's natural, and sometimes, Catholics like to proclaime it as loudly as **** sexuals like to proclaim thier "Gayness" to others.

Now, all THAT being said, and keeping in mind I am a self proclaimed ****phobe, and proud of it, I think if the Catholic church wants to be loud about thier ****phobia to thier own flock, it's all good. The gay community actively promotes thier life style, and belifes too, many of which are anti catholic anyway (and don't tell me they don't).



Now, all *THAT* being said, I could care less what someones sexual preference is, so long as it doesn't include me, and so long as they don't actively promote thier life style to *ME*. I find the loud, overly open Gay message to be offending, and I really believe most heterosexual males do as well, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT!. I have seen guys be cordial, and freindly to gay men, and not discrminate in anyway, but then express to be all grossed out to thier hetero peers as soon as they are gone. I've seen it too many times to think it is something out of the ordinary.

Now, if the Pope wants to openly denounce ****sexuality to his followers, who by the very nature of being Catholic, share his doctrin, then who cares? He's just reinforcing the community ties of belife within his own following. It's part of tightening the commuinty he's the leader of by reviewing, and reaffirming the groups belifes. These Belifes ARE shared by the majority of people on this planet, let alone his own group as well.

Besides, Gays are just as open about thier views (Gay Pride parades etc...), and may be more so. Each group has thier views, and speaks of them with in thier own groups. In this case, the Catholics just happen to be a group thats like a Billion + strong, and world wide, where as the Gays are like at best 12% of the population, and I believe that number is inflated anyway.

The two groups should just ignor eachother, and do thier own thing, in thier own space, and leave it be.

[MasterKiller]

Ok, please understand the following is based on me being a self proclaimed **** Phobe, and proud of it.

Then how come your Match.com profile says "Heteroflexible"?

[mantis108]

Then how come your Match.com profile says "Heteroflexible"?

May be it's a PC guesture to address the third gendre - man's mind in a woman body or a woman's mind in a man body? BTW, "Heteroflexible" kinda cool term. lol...

Mantis108

[David Jamieson]

overt ****phobia is generally a declaration of being a closeted gay.

you know, like that dude in teh states who wanted to pass all those anti gay laws and it turns out he's gay! Gay as buckets! lol

or that other dude, the bush bootlick that runs talon online the neocon ezine and then it turns out, he too is gay as gay can be.

what with royal's consistent seeking of approval from us in regards to his lovelife with what could very likely be imaginary women, I am almost 99.999% certain that RD is indeed gay.

And ther's nothing wrong with that RD.

[FatherDog]

Fatherdog wrote: "Completely incorrect. The original Greek you are translating as "effeminate" is "malakoi", a word which literally means "soft" and is sometimes rendered as "male prostitute" or "catamite" (referring to a boy kept by a pedophile.) The original greek word you are translating as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is "arsenokoitai", which is closest to meaning "rapist" or "sex slave trader", and is never used in any greek texts of the period to refer to ****sexuals in general - words used in that sense include arrenomanes, erastes, paiderastai, paidika, drwntes, and paschontes, none of which ever occur in the bible under any context."

so does "soft" include ****sexuals?

No.

Can you prove that it does not?

It's never used in any circumstance in any Greek writings to refer to ****sexuals, ever.

After all, the old testament dietary restrictions were specifically lifted in the New Testament. So is death as a punishment for breaking morality rules. Yet the restrictions against ****sexual acts are not rescinded AFAIK.

Read Acts. The Mosaic law as a whole is rescinded.

[Royal Dragon]

See, that's what I like about this board, you guys just know when to take what I post and run with it!!!















PS, I'm off to double check my profile...just to be sure...

[MasterKiller]

what with royal's consistent seeking of approval from us in regards to his lovelife with what could very likely be imaginary women, I am almost 99.999% certain that RD is indeed gay.

And ther's nothing wrong with that RD.

Are you saying that when WaterDragon 'choked' him too hard and 'hurt his throat," that maybe WD wasn't using his arms at the time?

[Shaolinlueb]

at least the invisible man up above called god (that people believe in) isnt turning them into stone or salt or whatever he did when the group looked back on sodom and gamora. :dunno:

[MasterKiller]

at least the invisible man up above called god (that people believe in) isnt turning them into stone or salt or whatever he did when the group looked back on sodom and gamora. :dunno:

Which is worse? God turning them into salt, or WaterDragon giving RoyalDragon a salty facial?

[@PLUGO]

what if the internet where around during the civil war?

Ok, please understand the following is based on me being a self proclaimed Afrophobe (made up word...we could use the N word in front of ___phobe as well or simply say "N*g** hater"), and proud of it.

I believe afrophobia is a natural thing for white males. Now, that being said, Afrophobia is part of the Southern doctrin, and has been so for as far back as I can see. It's natural, and sometimes, Southerners like to proclaime it as loudly as black like to proclaim thier "blackness" to others.

Now, all THAT being said, and keeping in mind I am a self proclaimed Afrophobe, and proud of it, I think if the Southern Government wants to be loud about thier Afrophobia to thier own constituents, it's all good. The black community actively promotes thier life style, and belifes too, many of which are anti Southern anyway (and don't tell me they don't).



Now, all *THAT* being said, I could care less what someones racial preference is, so long as it doesn't include me, and so long as they don't actively promote thier life style to *ME*. I find the loud, black message to be offending, and I really believe most white males do as well, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT!. I have seen guys be cordial, and freindly to black men, and not discrminate in anyway, but then express to be all grossed out to thier white peers as soon as they are gone. I've seen it too many times to think it is something out of the ordinary.

Now, if the Govenor wants to openly denounce black to his constituents, who by the very nature of being Southern, share his doctrin, then who cares? He's just reinforcing the community ties of belife within his own following. It's part of tightening the commuinty he's the leader of by reviewing, and reaffirming the groups belifes. These Belifes ARE shared by the majority of people on this planet, let alone his own group as well.

Besides, Blacks are just as open about thier views (Black Pride equal right etc...), and may be more so. Each group has thier views, and speaks of them with in thier own groups. In this case, the Southerners just happen to be a group thats like a Million + strong, where as the Blacks are like at best 12% of the population, and I believe that number is inflated anyway.

The two groups should just ignor eachother, and do thier own thing, in thier own space, and leave it be.