This one is to answer a question asked by Fable a LONG time ago

corsair · Post by **corsair** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:22 pm

Awhile back, when I had those religious disputes goin on, Fable asked if the New Testament ever said homosexuality was wrong. I fournd this verse today and thought I should share it to answer his question.

Romans 1:24-32
24-For this reason God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25-because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26-For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,
27-and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error
28-And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.
29-They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30-slanders, Godhaters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,
31-foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32-They know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die-yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:21 pm

St. Paul was a jerk. He also wrote: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1 Tim 2:11-12).
The Taliban would have loved him.

Thomas Jefferson created his own Bible - he cut out only the verses directly attributable to Jesus, and left the rest out.

Here's his take on St. Paul:
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him [Jesus] by His
biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being.

I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus [i.e., leader of a school of thought], and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These
palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1820. ME 15:244

corsair · Post by **corsair** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:51 pm

Ok.... my topic had nothing to do w/St. Paul. It was just to show Fable that the New Testemant does say Homosexuality is wrong. But, I guess that dosent matter now, since Fable is gone.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:53 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
St. Paul was a jerk. He also wrote: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1 Tim 2:11-12).

Damn straight! Now get in the kitchen and start baking a pie, woman!

corsair · Post by **corsair** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:56 pm

LoL Kayless

Monolith · Post by **Monolith** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:42 pm

Originally posted by corsair
Awhile back, when I had those religious disputes goin on, Fable asked if the New Testament ever said homosexuality was wrong. I fournd this verse today and thought I should share it to answer his question.

Romans 1:24-32
24-For this reason God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25-because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26-For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,
27-and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error
28-And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.
29-They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30-slanders, Godhaters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,
31-foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32-They know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die-yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

ahh, yeah, just another reason for burning that ****in book. Maybe I'll make a mod for morrowind...the bible-torch, haha, yea.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:08 pm

Re: Re: This one is to answer a question asked by Fable a LONG time ago

Originally posted by Monolith
ahh, yeah, just another reason to burn that ****in book. Maybe I'll make a mod for morrowind...the bible-torch, haha, yea.

Might want to be careful with comments like that, as this is a quite public forum.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:56 pm

Re: Re: Re: This one is to answer a question asked by Fable a LONG time ago

Originally posted by Aegis
Might want to be careful with comments like that, as this is a quite public forum.

A public forum means everyone can freely express their opinions, right?

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:19 pm

Re: Re: This one is to answer a question asked by Fable a LONG time ago

Originally posted by Monolith
ahh, yeah, just another reason for burning that ****in book. Maybe I'll make a mod for morrowind...the bible-torch, haha, yea.

Sieg Heil bub.

Originally posted by Vicsun
A public forum means everyone can freely express their opinions, right?

Within reason.

Look at SYM rule #4: Be respectful of other people’s creed and religious beliefs.

Monolith · Post by **Monolith** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:09 pm

Does respecting religious beliefs also mean being unallowed to tell what one think about a religion or an element of that religion?
Sorry, but I expressed my opinion towards the book and that's it. Maybe in an offending manner, but that's just a question of aestethic and there was much hatred behind those lines.
And it doesn't really matter how one expresses a statement dealing with religious elements, because the statement itself can be offending or/and disrepecting towards one's beliefs.

I didn't attack anybody personally (sorry, but you did@Kayless), the book-burning hasn't been related in any kind to the process of devastating opposing opinions by destroying books containing these during the NS-terror-reign in Germany and I didn't mention any reasons I want to burn the bible, so it hasn't been said that these are of religious nature, maybe I just don't like the bible being all-time-bestseller number 1? (yes, let's do it diplomatically!)

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:10 am

There is something called Tact, Monolith. It is something all members that post are, without being said, expected to have. Your comment was blatantly insulting the bible, and indirectly, those that follow it's teachings.

You're allowed to disagree with the book, many people do, myself including. But, we do so in manner that still shows respect to the religion, simply because for the community to function, there has to be certain restraints put in place. Imagine what this forum would be like with innumerable flames being tossed around, insulting every race, creed and religion. Wouldn't be a pleasant place. Also, your expression of opinion regarding the book was hardly aesthetic, as aesthetic's is the study of what constitutes art, from a philosophical sense.

As for how any statement can be offending, that is hardly true, because the material, while it may seem offensive, can always be delivered with tact, with a sense of understanding. It's ignorance in a statement that leads to offense.

As for attacking people personally, well, many people look at an attack on their book of faith as an attack on them personally, which is why I gave the gentle nudge of warning. Besides, you're last comment contradicts your own stance, as Kayless did the exact same thing you did in your comment about how the bible should be burnt.

So, to sum up, disagree with the book, religion, people, whatever, but if you're going to do so, do so in a manner that at least shows some respect and tact.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:23 am

Maybe fable had the right idea... I'm going to take a breather from SYM myself (lest I loose my temper with certain book-burning aficionados).

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:29 am

Because there has been too much drama in the forum lately, which I can't say I appreciated, can I ask everyone (as a fellow member) to switch the topic before it's too late and the board explodes again?

ktnxbye

edit => And let me ask another question, since it's something I've been wondering and there are people well versed in religion here. What is explanation is given to contradictions in the bible, especially between the old and new testiment, and which one are we to follow?

edit 2: Monolith if you are reading this and haven't already check your PMs

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:11 am

Originally posted by Aegis
Also, your expression of opinion regarding the book was hardly aesthetic, as aesthetic's is the study of what constitutes art, from a philosophical sense.

... but you know sometimes words have two meanings

and in this case, I assume Monolith meant it was a matter of personal style. Not to justify it, I just like to point out you being wrong.

@Vicsun you should do a search on posts by Der-Draigen, IIRC she was quite knowledgeable about such things.

Remember that the Bible is a collection of various books - it wasn't written all by one person, or all at one time, and certain parts were edited, which is one reason for the contradictions contained therein.

I guess you'd get different answers about how much of it is supposed to be followed. Generally, Christians tend to focus more on the New Testament, for obvious reasons. Some might argue that laws in the Old Testament were specific to the contemporary society, and are no longer relevant today. The Catholic Church is stricter about which rules still apply than other branches of Christianity. So there isn't really one answer.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:47 am

So basically it's open to interpretations as fitting the situation

And a follow-up question is: since the bible is indeed written by several people, has been corrupted by various translations throughout the centuries, certain parts are edited, and it's debatable on how relevant the Old Testament is, how can it be used as a justification for any moral action?

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:04 am

Originally posted by Georgi
... but you know sometimes words have two meanings and in this case, I assume Monolith meant it was a matter of personal style. Not to justify it, I just like to point out you being wrong.

Bleh

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:23 am

Originally posted by corsair
Awhile back, when I had those religious disputes goin on, Fable asked if the New Testament ever said homosexuality was wrong. I fournd this verse today and thought I should share it to answer his question.

Okay--I'm most definitely *not* back, though I'm considering it; but I read this, and had to correct Corsair's memory of my question. What I asked was not what the NT had to say about homosexuality, but what Jesus had to say, specifically. I ignored Paul, because I consider him a hard-line, doctrinaire type who couldn't begin to perceive the difference between religious beliefs and cultural attitudes--not that many did, during his time. And he also had a stick up his fundamentalism, IMO. Again, this is just my opinion, and I'm an ignorant heathen and a witch, so my remarks can be easily discounted.

It was an honest question, because it's been some time since I read through both the accepted Big 4 Gospels, and all the Gospels that have been rejected by mainstream Christianity over the years. My impression--based on just remembering that old thread, which I admittedly can't find--is that there was nothing Jesus said on the subject.

...and Corsair if this was a subtle attempt to get me to post, you just got a blue star.

But now, I'm out of here. And don't ever take a slumming Babylonian god's name in vain, again! At least, not unless you provide the right sacrifices: chicken tandoori, and a good bottle of wine.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:54 am

@ Monolith, keep the comments within SYM rules..no swearing and be civil. You have every right to disagree with the bible or with Corsair or Christianity itself but you can do so in a civil manner.
T'lainya

Sytze · Post by **Sytze** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:59 am

Look!!! fable is back!!

Monolith · Post by **Monolith** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:18 pm

Originally posted by T'lainya
@ Monolith, keep the comments within SYM rules..no swearing and be civil. You have every right to disagree with the bible or with Corsair or Christianity itself but you can do so in a civil manner.
T'lainya

The swearing has been censored anyway...but all right. Maybe what I said could be somehow offending, but I had to laugth when I read it again today. Probably I suffer from a perservation of humor (or you from lack of humor

)

Ich ziehe mich mit gesenktem Haupt zurück...