Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

2007-04-28T21:31:53Z

Proberts84:

New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Trying to define what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy")

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Seriously on that last sentence? I've yet to see a Bible that uses the phrase "homosexual". Pretty recent word IMO, certainly not in any Bible I've read.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 23:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's 1 Cor 6:9. NET and WEB use homosexual. Rotherham uses Sodomite. It seems to be missing from my version of the Vulgate. All other versions I have use some construction of "men who abuse themselves with men." Shouldn't this be a Discussion or Debate?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 02:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whats with that one that calls fornicators sinners? I still fail to understand why sex in marriage is ok and sex out of it isn't. Adultery is wrong yes, but just fornicating? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:09, 22 April 2007

:Fornication covers far more than just sex outside marriage. My KJV dictionary describes it as "sexual immorality," which, as you can imagine, covers a wide array of behaviors, many of which hadn't even been invented when the Bible was compiled. (Likewise, certain behaviors considered immoral then may be moral today; but let's not go there.)

:For the sake of argument, let's accept sex outside of marriage = fornication. Imagine a child born out of wedlock in an ancient, tribe-based society. Imagine trying to determine the rights and obligations of all parties involved, to include care of the child, inheritance, legal lineage, etc. Back then, it was much easier just to restrict who is having sex with whom. Today, we have the benefits of contraception, paternity testing, etc., so it's not as big a deal. But there is always a counterexample to make us think that maybe the ancients were on to something (see: DannieLynn Stern/Birkhead/Whoever).--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:34, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, the Bible says plenty against homosexual sex out of the context of a relationship, but the only comment it makes about a loving homosexual relationship is between David and Jonathan, which is even said to be better than that of a man and a woman: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26, King James). They formalised the relationship: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (1 Samuel 18:3-4, King James). I thought with so many negative quotes from the Bible on this page, it might be refreshing to have a positive loving one :-) [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 18:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Wrong''' David and Jonathan were not homosexual. <s>Take this as a block warning.</s> --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, the quotes check out (though they may be out of context). We don't block for ideological reasons, according to your awesome proposed block policy, CPA1. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, no block warning. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry - didn't realise I was near a nerve. I'll back up slightly. I will say though that the view that they were homosexual seems to me no less conservative than that they were not - it has been believed by many for centuries (e.g. "indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus", Life of Edward II, 1326 AD).

:::I don't know whether we can say categorically that they were not homosexual, but I do admit there is a grey area. The key word seems to me to be 'ahabah', which is the Hebrew word in the text for the love that they shared. It is the same word as between Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29:20). It also features between a man and a woman in Pro 5:19 and 2Sa 13:15. It is also used often to describe God's love for his people.

:::The argument that their relationship could be political does not to me seem very credible as all of their covenants were made in private. Although David was married to many women, the Bible never states that he loved them, only that one of them loved him. In fact, when he learns of Jonathan's death, he states that his love for him was greater than that of women (as quoted above). What is the argument that they categorically were not homosexual? [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::P.S. the quotes were only out of context as it would be a little counterproductive for me to paste the entire passages here. I gave references so that they could be read in context which, I believe, supports my point.

Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

2007-04-27T22:01:40Z

Proberts84:

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-04-27T21:37:37Z

Proberts84:

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-04-15T02:03:23Z

Proberts84:

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-04-14T14:46:43Z

Proberts84: /* No */

== Yes ==
The bible is an interpreted work and poor interpretation lead to a poor set of ethics derived from that interpretation[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've never read the bible completly, but alot of what I have read is soo violent and alot is degrading towards women. I am not saying the WHOLE bible is that way, but it seems that way. Yes, lets kill anyone who breaks the silliest of rules. It says thou shalt not kill for one of them comendment things, but then its like PUT THEM TO DEATH YAY FER KILLING PEOPLE. Overal, it's a poor display of morals and ethics and makes it sound okay to be mean and hurt other people and destroy stuff [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Its all open to interpretations. I mean, don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, obey your parents, it's not like those are a bad set of morals. Now, when the Bible contradicts itself is when you have to apply your own judgment. At least, thats how I view it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Lot was described as a righteous man, but offered to send his young daughters out to be gang raped. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to definitly dissagree with the above statements. We really have no way of knowing wether the nations the isrealites were forced to destroy were ever warned of there imminent doom. But i can say with reasonable certainty that they were. I say this because Nineva was an evil nation who did things detestable to the Lord. God sent Jonah to warn them that if they didn't, then they would die. We really have no way of knowing if God gave them warning. Secondly, if you mess up, you have to pay the price. Moses was God's most reverent prophet, but he never got to see the promised land. Moses disobeyed. God doesn't believe in killing innocent civilians for the sake of them being innocent. He believes in punishment. And who knows, maybe in the afterlife, how he'll judge his people. [[User:DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]] 8:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is of course a distinction here between the God of the old testament and that of the new. The God of the new testament is a forgiving God, and the God of the old testament was a vengeful God. I would argue that ethics and morals vary civisilisation to civilisation, and era to era. You can only judge the God of the time by the morals and ethics of the time. Until we hear differently, we must assume the current God is that of two millennia ago. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-04-14T14:39:58Z

Proberts84: