LiveWire Network Peer Answers Peer Support Teen Forums Tech Forums College Forums 303 users online 262349 members 183 active today Advertise Here Sign In
TeenCollegeTechPhotos | Quizzes | LiveSecret | Memberlist | Dictionary | FAQ
You have 1 new message.
Emergency Help
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.

Sign Up Now
Membername:
Password:
Already have an account?
Invite Friends
Active Members
Groups
Contests
Moderators
3 online / 6 MPM
Maritime Day (US)
Fresh Topics
  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Deep Thoughts & Random Musings / Viewing Topic

Mehhhhh
Replies: 8Last Post June 20, 2011 8:06pm by kay dee
Welcome to LiveWire!
We're Stronger Together.
Join the Community
Single page for this topic Email Print Favorite
Web Resources: Rape Myths Dispelled, Help & Information about Rape
USA Rape, Abuse and Incest Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE (1-800-656-4673)
( Aero360 )


Stanley Cup Champion

Patron
Reply
Eh fuck it.

Post edited at 12:20 pm on June 6, 2011 by Aero360

-------
When your attitude is right, the facts don't matter.  ;-)


8:48 pm on May 31, 2011 | Joined: Jan. 2006 | Days Active: 1,589
Join to learn more about Aero360 Pennsylvania, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 14,852 | Points: 30,467
LiveWire Humor
Wilder


Connoisseur of Hallucination

Patron
Reply
Homosexuality didn't exist when the Bible was written.

/thread

-------
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable;
but it is interpretable otherwise,
it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.
-Nietzsche


9:46 pm on May 31, 2011 | Joined: Dec. 2005 | Days Active: 1,962
Join to learn more about Wilder Colorado, United States | Gay Male | Posts: 15,116 | Points: 52,275
NihilNominis


Professional
Reply
Aero360,

You used the word "nature" a lot in your post.  Would you care to elaborate a little on what you mean by it?  Do you mean by "nature" something akin to what sort of creature would result if all its constituent parts were functioning correctly, so that, for example, since a man should be able to speak and walk, even though some men can't, we would still say that it is natural for man to speak or walk, even though some men are deprived of these faculties?  Or do you mean by "nature" empirical observations about the way things are, rather than how they ideally would be, so that, for instance, when we observe many men who are born blind, with crippling deformations, we would say that this blindness and deformation is natural, not the result of accident or medical procedure?

And let's be clear about something else: Christian morality does not concern itself with the morality of orientations, dispositions, or other sorts of passions. Christian morality concerns itself with concrete acts of the will, as they are commonly called, human acts, and their moral character. Consequently, it is not a fair assessment to say that any Christian claims homosexuality is a sin. They don't. The claim is that the act of having homosexual relations is sinful; as such it is not sufficient simply to claim that "homosexuality" as an orientation did not exist at the time the Bible was written; homosexual relations did, and the Bible condemns them.

There were some strawmen, too, in the OP. Masturbation and contracepted sex are condemned to this day in the Catholic Church and in most Orthodox Churches; to invoke them as examples of things which have been since found moral is to ignore the actual claims of the other side. The Catholic sexual ethic is internally consistent; the integrity of the marital act is essential to moral sexual relations.

The only way an orientation of itself could be sinful is, inasmuch as certain passions and dispositions incline us to sin, it is sinful of itself to cultivate them. A heterosexual man, for instance, can inflame his lust in thought, and this is sinful. In the same way, for a frigid homosexual to actively kindle his desire would also be sinful. But none of this is such as would condemn anyone for the way he was born, but only for the way in which he himself chooses to act.

Post edited at 10:48 am on June 1, 2011 by NihilNominis

-------
Media vita in morte sumus: quem quaerimus adjutorem
nisi te, Domine, qui pro peccatis nostris juste irasceris.


8:26 am on June 1, 2011 | Joined: Aug. 2007 | Days Active: 164
Join to learn more about NihilNominis Ohio, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 1,198 | Points: 2,871
( Aero360 )


Stanley Cup Champion

Patron
Reply
Quote: from NihilNominis at 11:26 am on June 1, 2011

Aero360,

You used the word "nature" a lot in your post. Would you care to elaborate a little on what you mean by it? Do you mean by "nature" something akin to what sort of creature would result if all its constituent parts were functioning correctly, so that, for example, since a man should be able to speak and walk, even though some men can't, we would still say that it is natural for man to speak or walk, even though some men are deprived of these faculties? Or do you mean by "nature" empirical observations about the way things are, rather than how they ideally would be, so that, for instance, when we observe many men who are born blind, with crippling deformations, we would say that this blindness and deformation is natural, not the result of accident or medical procedure?


I wouldn't necessarily compare my definition of 'natural' to either one of yours, because either way ti makes it seem as if homosexuality is a "bad" thing that would be treated as some sort of 'shortcoming,' which I do not believe.  For all purposes, we'll take a case like blindness, because I would never judge someone to be 'lower' than everyone else, so to speak for lack of a better term at the moment, just because he or she is blind.  It's natural for people to be able to see, but some people are born blind, which is also perfectly natural in occurrence.  It's natural for men and women to be attracted to each other, but it's also natural for some people to be attracted to the same sex, even though not as common.  But I use that comparison rather loosely because I do not look at homosexuality as a 'deformity' per se, nor do I perceive blindness as such.


]And let's be clear about something else:  Christian morality does not concern itself with the morality of orientations, dispositions, or other sorts of passions.  Christian morality concerns itself with concrete acts of the will, as they are commonly called, human acts, and their moral character.  Consequently, it is not a fair assessment to say that any Christian claims homosexuality is a sin.  They don't.  The claim is that the act of having homosexual relations is sinful; as such it is not sufficient simply to claim that "homosexuality" as an orientation did not exist at the time the Bible was written; homosexual relations did, and the Bible condemns them.

Does the bible really condemn relations of the same sex though?  We'll take a rather lengthy quote from the OP.

" 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are verses have to do with the mystery of the Greek words "malakoi"  and aresenokoitai.  These verses are the last two significant places in the Bible that refer to homosexuality.  These two verses show how exasperated Paul was with the Christians fighting among themselves in Ephesus and Corinth.  In Corinth, Christians are even suing each other in secular courts.  Paul admonishes them by basically telling them, You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating each other.  To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat each other, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first.  Don't kill each other.  Don't sleep with another man's wife.  Don't lie, or cheat, or steal.  The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkeness, revelry, extortion.  He also includes malakoi and aresenokoitai.  Here's where the confusion begins. These two Greek words - malakoi and aresenokoitai - have confused Bible scholars until to this very day.

Greek scholars believe that in first century the Greek word "malakoi" probably meant effeminate call boys.  The new Revised Standard Version renders it male prostitutes.  Greek scholars don't know exactly what "aresenokoitai" means.  Some scholars believe that Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of the effeminate call boys.  The modern terminology would be that they were dirty old men.  Others translate it as sodomites and never explain what that means.  Then, in 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided that it meant "homosexuals"; when in fact there is no such word in Greek or in Hebrew.  For the first time in history, the word homosexual appeared in the English-language Bible.  But a closer look at the Greek word "aresenokoitai" in its original context shows that Paul is condemning the Roman custom of married men (aresenokoitai) hiring hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth skinned young girls for that purpose.  Responsible people, both homosexual and heterosexual, would agree with Paul in condemning those who used children for sex.  In the same way, responsible people condemn the practice of gang rape or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome.  So we see that these verses do not condemn homosexuality at all."


There were some strawmen, too, in the OP.  Masturbation and contracepted sex are condemned to this day in the Catholic Church and in most Orthodox Churches; to invoke them as examples of things which have been since found moral is to ignore the actual claims of the other side.  The Catholic sexual ethic is internally consistent; the integrity of the marital act is essential to moral sexual relations.

The only way an orientation of itself could be sinful is, inasmuch as certain passions and dispositions incline us to sin, it is sinful of itself to cultivate them.  A heterosexual man, for instance, can inflame his lust in thought, and this is sinful.  In the same way, for a frigid homosexual to actively kindle his desire would also be sinful.  But none of this is such as would condemn anyone for the way he was born, but only for the way in which he himself chooses to act.


Exactly, extreme lust of the flesh is sinful, whether heterosexual or homosexual.  Churches have a tendency to condemn both.  However there is a common misconception that the Bible condemns homosexuality itself as a simple sexual orientation.  My job was to prove that said misconception was false.

-------
When your attitude is right, the facts don't matter.  ;-)

4:38 pm on June 2, 2011 | Joined: Jan. 2006 | Days Active: 1,589
Join to learn more about Aero360 Pennsylvania, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 14,852 | Points: 30,467
NihilNominis


Professional
Reply
In your consideration of blindness you must separate physical and metaphysical reality for a moment, and be able to conceive of two humans, equal in dignity by virtue of their humanity, but one of whom is physically impeded from participating fully in human activity by means of a defect.

The blind man is not of less intrinsic worth than a sighted man, and although of course he would be perhaps less use to society because of his blindness, nevertheless we both seem to agree that a man's worth is not measured by his functionality or his usefulness.

Nevertheless, blindness is a real defect, because sight is not purposeless.

In the same way, it seems that sexuality is not purposeless, but has a very real biological goal, if nothing else, and that is reproduction. Homosexuality is an impediment to that end, in that the homosexual is not driven to engage in any sex act which would lead to procreation. This, as with the blind man, has no bearing on his intrinisic human dignity, which remains unchanged. Nevertheless, we can say that in a sense his sex drive is blind to its proper object. This attraction has no moral character of itself, but acting on it would be morally reprehensible, as indeed would be a blind man, fully knowing his blindness, trying to drive a car.  Both are sadly inhibited, if not prevented, by their defect from acting in a certain way that humans ought to be able to act.  This is not imputable to them, but the right answer is no more to affirm the homosexual's right to marry than it would be to affirm the blind man's right to drive, simply because it 'isn't their fault' that they were born with that defect.

Perfect love, we are told, is possible without any sex life at all; the homosexual can be just as fulfilled as the heterosexual, both here and hereafter, and the Church has continuously celebrated celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom as an even higher good than marriage. If you mean to conflate, as many do, charity with the sexual fulfillment, which you have left (deliberately?) ambiguous at the end of the OP, that conflation is hardly grounded in the Scriptures, and is certainly not supported by those who "become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven."

The claim of the OP was not merely that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality explicity, but rather than the Bible exhibits positive proof that homosexuality is NOT a sin.

This is not evident on the face of the Scriptures, and the Bible nowhere condones homosexuality. Consequently, even if your readings of the various texts are exactly accurate, they provide no compelling authority with which to contradict the moral teaching of the Church, which for Catholics and Orthodox (who comprise the largest body of Christians in the world) rests as much in Tradition as in Scripture, and this Tradition quite clearly condemns homosexual behaviour as immoral.

Post edited at 9:05 pm on June 3, 2011 by NihilNominis

-------
Media vita in morte sumus: quem quaerimus adjutorem
nisi te, Domine, qui pro peccatis nostris juste irasceris.


8:59 pm on June 3, 2011 | Joined: Aug. 2007 | Days Active: 164
Join to learn more about NihilNominis Ohio, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 1,198 | Points: 2,871
Moridin


Swami

Ad Free
Reply
Quote: from Wilder at 7:46 am on June 1, 2011

Homosexuality didn't exist when the Bible was written.  

/thread


We have had this discussion before....

- Did male sexual attraction to males exist when the Bible was written?
- Did male emotional attraction to males exist when the Bible was written?
- Did males having sex with males exist when the Bible was written?

The answer to these questions is clearly yes. Whether or not the actual word itself existed is irrelevant for whether or not whatever it is the word refers to existed at the time.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)


11:01 am on June 6, 2011 | Joined: April 2006 | Days Active: 995
Join to learn more about Moridin Sweden | Asexual Male | Posts: 13,887 | Points: 25,284
Wilder


Connoisseur of Hallucination

Patron
Reply
Quote: from Moridin at 12:01 pm on June 6, 2011

Quote: from Wilder at 7:46 am on June 1, 2011

Homosexuality didn't exist when the Bible was written.

 /thread


We have had this discussion before....

- Did male sexual attraction to males exist when the Bible was written?
- Did male emotional attraction to males exist when the Bible was written?
- Did males having sex with males exist when the Bible was written?

The answer to these questions is clearly yes. Whether or not the actual word itself existed is irrelevant for whether or not whatever it is the word refers to existed at the time.


You.

Me.

-------
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable;
but it is interpretable otherwise,
it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.
-Nietzsche


11:26 am on June 6, 2011 | Joined: Dec. 2005 | Days Active: 1,962
Join to learn more about Wilder Colorado, United States | Gay Male | Posts: 15,116 | Points: 52,275
tcd2007

Novice

Patron
Reply
Mosaic law strictly forbids relations between the same sex and says that such relations are worthy of death. That law and many others, were given to Moses from God, Himself.

-------
I love my giril, jsmithlynn19.

11:57 pm on June 6, 2011 | Joined: Aug. 2007 | Days Active: 183
Join to learn more about tcd2007 Michigan, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 1,232 | Points: -2,739
kay dee

nephelococcygia

Patron
Reply
I fucking took like a goddamn hour took look this fucking topic back up, and you've gone and done this shit?

FUCK. YOU. JACKASS.

-------
she gets what she wants, she breaks what she gets
get out while you can, or she'll tear you to pieces.


8:06 pm on June 20, 2011 | Joined: July 2008 | Days Active: 652
Join to learn more about kay dee Tuvalu | Bisexual | Posts: 26,081 | Points: 41,566
Single page for this topic Email Print Favorite

Quick Reply

You are signed in as our guest.

Looking for something else?
 

  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Deep Thoughts & Random Musings / Viewing Topic