Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : Post deleted

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

How many times are you going to flip flop on this issue?

Homosexuality is clearly a sin according to Leviticus. There's no two ways about it. But the Bible never says it's a mental illness. It says homosexuality is an act which anyone can perform - normal, abnormal, sane , insane. And that's true, and plenty of "heterosexuals" had had homosexual intercourse.

If you want to be a Christian don't perform homosexual acts.

If you want to perform homosexual acts don't be a Christian. Problem solved.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

You can be a Christian an support gay rights !

Why are you so obsessed with me?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Yeah, sure. But homosexuality is still a sin. Hail Satan! 😝

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

But everything is a sin in the bible ?

Why are you so obsessed with me?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

All sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. But sin is the natural state of man, so enjoy yourself.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Lol! True true!

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

That's what I like about Leviticus.

It warns that any man can be fucked by another man. Homosexuality is an act not an identity.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Homosexuality is an act not an identity.
The same can be said of Heterosexuality too.

Scripture is too full of flaws from its era and is fable only. The Christianity aspect comes down to belief in "savior" God, which is bullshit within itself.

Those that feel a need to believe in this, aren't really bound to any notions of sexuality. This is just a human thing and just need something to hold onto within the delusion of this belief in savior God being true.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality - they're all modern social constructs.

Any sex act is an act which anyone can perform given the right equipment.

Leviticus was telling every man don't fuck another man. It was not saying some men are gay and therefore should die. There's a very important distinction there.

That's what I liked about the ancients. The Greeks and Romans were the same. A man married to a woman could have sex with another male and there was no stigma.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Yet, Leviticus was condemning the act itself which would bring death upon the perpetrators. The Greeks and Romans may have found it permissible in ancient society, but due to the orthodox and influence of religious belief, ended up stigmatizing it again.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I think the Hebrews condemned homosexuality because the Canaanites loved it so much.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Oh to be a Canaanite…..

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The Canaanites had male temple prostitutes. That gives you an idea of how "gay" they were.

The men of Sodom wanted to fuck a beautiful angel. That's really a great story. Someone should make a homoerotic film about that.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The men of Sodom wanted to fuck a beautiful angel.
As I commented to a woman, who said that mother's are angels, I told her only men can be angels…πŸ˜‡

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Toasty, women are angels and men are devils. I like it that way.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Platonic_Caveman said... Toasty, women are angels and men are devils. I like it that way.
expand
The devil comes in many disguises, even if in the form of an angel….πŸ˜‡πŸ˜ˆ

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

ToastedCheese said... The devil comes in many disguises, even if in the form of an angel….πŸ˜‡πŸ˜ˆ
expand
True dat.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The Canaanites had male temple prostitutes. That gives you an idea of how "gay" they were.


§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Homosexuality was not accepted in Canaanite society?

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Platonic_Caveman said... Homosexuality was not accepted in Canaanite society?
expand
Homosexuality was not accepted in Canaanite society?
In the Iron Age, there was no concept of "homosexuality". And as for "Canaanite society," that didn't exist as something separate from "Hebrew society." The term 'Canaanite' refers to the various tribal peoples occupying the Levant from the Middle Bronze to the late Iron Age; 'Hebrews' were indistinguishable ethnically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously from the rest of these. They all held a generally shared pantheon of deities, headed by El Elyon, El the Almighty, who ruled over his seventy sons and their consorts - figures like Chemosh, Asherah, Astarte, Anath, Hadad, Baal, Shamash, Lotan, Helal - and Yahweh. Temples and shrines were usually dedicated to the service of the broad pantheon, with both priests and priestesses serving. These were known as 'Holy Ones' (Hebrew qedeshim for priests, qedeshot for priestesses).

The temple located at Jebus (believe it or not, the original name of Jerusalem), attributed to Zerubabbel, was one such place of worship. After its ritual defilement at the hands of Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BCE, it was rededicated to the exclusive worship of Yahweh; the statuary and furnishings belonging to the larger pantheon were thrown out, and the 'Holy Ones' were put to death. The Yahwists issued several waves of literature (the 'Prophets' cycle, the 'David' cycle, the 'Moses' cycle, the Deuteronomic cycle), set at successively earlier times, in order to grant a false antiquity to their movement and to re-characterize themselves and their sectarian religion as entirely separate from the other peoples of the Levant. (The so-called 'Temple of Solomon' was fictional, as was both the Egyptian Captivity and the Conquest.)

It was in the context of the newly stripped and re-dedicated temple that the core of what would become Deuteronomy was written, along with a peculiar passage:

Deuteronomy 23:17-18: "β€œNone of the daughters of Israel shall be a π‘žπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘ π‘Žβ„Ž ('holy one,' feminine), and none of the sons of Israel shall be a π‘žπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘  ('holy one,' male). You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of YHWH your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to YHWH your God.'"

To the mindset of the Deuteronomists, 'Israel' was considered to be the inheritance of Yahweh alone, as 32:8-9 explains:

"When El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El, and the portion of YHWH was his people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance."

Deuteronomists characterized the worship of the pantheon, together with political alliances with nations that worshiped other gods, as adultery, whoredom, or prostitution. Yahwist literature employed sexualized hyperbole to describe what were actually essentially ritual offenses. This was how the 'Holy Ones' of Deut.23:17-18 and 1 Kings 14:24 wound up mischaracterized as "shrine prostitutes," which in turn led to the mistaken impression that some kind of same-sex sexual activity was in view.

Leviticus was written even later, as halakhic commentary on Deuteronomic literature, passages like Deuteronomy 23:17-18 and Ezekiel 22-23. By that point, Judaism was nearly purged of all memories of its goddesses, which had once been the consorts of Yahweh. Deuteronomy's mention of female temple functionaries, the π‘žπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘ β„Žπ‘œπ‘‘, were either forgotten or deliberately ignored in the text of Leviticus. The sexual hyperbole of the Deuteronomist was taken literally, and the lurid reputation of the qedeshim began to grow and take shape. What had once been male temple functionaries in the service of Asherah, became male prostitutes or dogs in the eyes of the Deuteronomists, and were finally transformed in Leviticus into men who lay with men in the bed of a woman (the mention of the goddess was no longer permitted, cf. Isaiah 26:13). The only trace of the original offense, idolatry, lay in the distinctive word used to condemn them: to'evah, or 'abomination.'

Sorry to disappoint you, but there's no homosexuality there.

(Oh, doubtless there were men having sex with men; there always have been. But the point here is that none of these biblical texts really address it - their target is something else altogether.)

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

PoisonedDragon said...
Homosexuality was not accepted in Canaanite society?
In the Iron Age, there was no concept of "homosexuality". And as for "Canaanite society," that didn't exist as something separate from "Hebrew society." The term 'Canaanite' refers to the various tribal peoples occupying the Levant from the Middle Bronze to the late Iron Age; 'Hebrews' were indistinguishable ethnically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously from the rest of these. They all held a generally shared pantheon of deities, headed by El Elyon, El the Almighty, who ruled over his seventy sons and their consorts - figures like Chemosh, Asherah, Astarte, Anath, Hadad, Baal, Shamash, Lotan, Helal - and Yahweh. Temples and shrines were usually dedicated to the service of the broad pantheon, with both priests and priestesses serving. These were known as 'Holy Ones' (Hebrew qedeshim for priests, qedeshot for priestesses).

The temple located at Jebus (believe it or not, the original name of Jerusalem), attributed to Zerubabbel, was one such place of worship. After its ritual defilement at the hands of Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BCE, it was rededicated to the exclusive worship of Yahweh; the statuary and furnishings belonging to the larger pantheon were thrown out, and the 'Holy Ones' were put to death. The Yahwists issued several waves of literature (the 'Prophets' cycle, the 'David' cycle, the 'Moses' cycle, the Deuteronomic cycle), set at successively earlier times, in order to grant a false antiquity to their movement and to re-characterize themselves and their sectarian religion as entirely separate from the other peoples of the Levant. (The so-called 'Temple of Solomon' was fictional, as was both the Egyptian Captivity and the Conquest.)

It was in the context of the newly stripped and re-dedicated temple that the core of what would become Deuteronomy was written, along with a peculiar passage:

Deuteronomy 23:17-18: "β€œNone of the daughters of Israel shall be a π‘žπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘ π‘Žβ„Ž ('holy one,' feminine), and none of the sons of Israel shall be a π‘žπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘  ('holy one,' male). You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of YHWH your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to YHWH your God.'"

To the mindset of the Deuteronomists, 'Israel' was considered to be the inheritance of Yahweh alone, as 32:8-9 explains:

"When El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El, and the portion of YHWH was his people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance."

Deuteronomists characterized the worship of the pantheon, together with political alliances with nations that worshiped other gods, as adultery, whoredom, or prostitution. Yahwist literature employed sexualized hyperbole to describe what were actually essentially ritual offenses. This was how the 'Holy Ones' of Deut.23:17-18 and 1 Kings 14:24 wound up mischaracterized as "shrine prostitutes," which in turn led to the mistaken impression that some kind of same-sex sexual activity was in view.

Leviticus was written even later, as halakhic commentary on Deuteronomic literature, passages like Deuteronomy 23:17-18 and Ezekiel 22-23. By that point, Judaism was nearly purged of all memories of its goddesses, which had once been the consorts of Yahweh. Deuteronomy's mention of female temple functionaries, the π‘žπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘ β„Žπ‘œπ‘‘, were either forgotten or deliberately ignored in the text of Leviticus. The sexual hyperbole of the Deuteronomist was taken literally, and the lurid reputation of the qedeshim began to grow and take shape. What had once been male temple functionaries in the service of Asherah, became male prostitutes or dogs in the eyes of the Deuteronomists, and were finally transformed in Leviticus into men who lay with men in the bed of a woman (the mention of the goddess was no longer permitted, cf. Isaiah 26:13). The only trace of the original offense, idolatry, lay in the distinctive word used to condemn them: to'evah, or 'abomination.'

Sorry to disappoint you, but there's no homosexuality there.

(Oh, doubtless there were men having sex with men; there always have been. But the point here is that none of these biblical texts really address it - their target is something else altogether.)
expand
PD, I admire your scholarly knowledge but I'm not going to write a thesis on the subject.

You remind me of the oxymoronic "gay Christians" who claim the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. So you try to erase homosexuality from history.

Call a spade a spade. The ancient Jews were homophobes.

And I know very well that homosexuality is an act not an identity. The ancients believed anyone can buttfuck and they were right.

And what's the point in splitting hairs over when the Hebrews separated from the Canaanites around them? The point is there were two conflicted groups, worshipers of Yahweh and worshipers of Baal.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Platonic_Caveman said... PD, I admire your scholarly knowledge but I'm not going to write a thesis on the subject.

You remind me of the oxymoronic "gay Christians" who claim the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. So you try to erase homosexuality from history.

Call a spade a spade. The ancient Jews were homophobes.

And I know very well that homosexuality is an act not an identity. The ancients believed anyone can buttfuck and they were right.

And what's the point in splitting hairs over when the Hebrews separated from the Canaanites around them? The point is there were two conflicted groups, worshipers of Yahweh and worshipers of Baal.
expand
You remind me of the oxymoronic "gay Christians" who claim the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. So you try to erase homosexuality from history.
Correcting a misunderstanding of certain texts isn't trying to "erase homosexuality from history." Biblical texts aren't "history." For the most part, they're about as a-historical as ancient documents can get.
Call a spade a spade. The ancient Jews were homophobes.
Correction: Some rabbinical commenters from the Middle Ages and conservative Jewish sectarians up until the present were homophobic.

As a measure of how non-homophobic parts of the 'Deuteronomic History' were, take note of the story of David and Jonathan. To be sure, it too is a-historical, being consciously composed in imitation of the Homeric Epics, in particular the story of Achilleus and Patroclus (as late as the 'David' material was composed, it's also likely that stories of Alexander and Hephaistion may also have been contributing sources). But the way David and Jonathan's relationship was described, it basically ticks all the boxes for the biblical criteria, so often touted by conservative believers, for what constitutes a marriage. Consider:

"As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Samuel 18:1). That "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and π‘šπ‘Žπ‘› π‘π‘’π‘π‘Žπ‘šπ‘’ π‘Ž 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 π‘ π‘œπ‘’π‘™" (Genesis 2:7) illustrates the Hebrew concept of the π‘ π‘œπ‘’π‘™ as representing both spiritual and physical elements. This tells us that Jonathan's and David's love for one another was both emotional and physical, which for them surpassed "the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26).

Compare "And from that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house" (1 Samuel 18:2) with "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘π‘’π‘π‘œπ‘šπ‘’ π‘œπ‘›π‘’ π‘“π‘™π‘’π‘ β„Ž" (Genesis 2:24) - just as the passage reads, "π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘ π‘œπ‘’π‘™ π‘œπ‘“ π½π‘œπ‘›π‘Žπ‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘› π‘€π‘Žπ‘  π‘˜π‘›π‘–π‘‘ π‘‘π‘œ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘ π‘œπ‘’π‘™ π‘œπ‘“ π·π‘Žπ‘£π‘–π‘‘." David left the house of his parents to be united to Jonathan.

"Then Jonathan made a π‘π‘œπ‘£π‘’π‘›π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan removed the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, his sword, his bow, and his belt" (1 Samuel 18:3-4), i.e. Jonathan stripped completely naked before David, most unusual unless a sign of sexual intimacy, both then and now.

That the relationship was sexual in nature is further reinforced by Saul's accusation (1 Sam.20:30b: "…do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s π‘›π‘Žπ‘˜π‘’π‘‘π‘›π‘’π‘ π‘ ?" The expression reflects the language of the Holiness Code in describing sexual offenses, cf. Leviticus 18:7-17). Saul's outburst was followed by Jonathan secretly meeting David in a concealed place, where the passage offers another of those odd euphemisms peculiar to Jewish scripture, suggesting the two had intercourse and climaxed (1 Sam.20:35-41); Jonathan's subsequent vow (v.42) was the equivalent of a marriage vow.
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/saulinsultdaveloseit1.html
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/saulinsultdaveloseit2.html
http://tinyurl.com/davidmadelarge

Although Saul is depicted as condemning the relationship, there is no indication that the narrative did so, or that God was depicted as doing so.

There is a final admission that this π‘π‘œπ‘£π‘’π‘›π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ was tantamount to a marriage, in 1 Samuel 18:21b, so stunning that translators have taken pains to render it in such a way as to conceal what it actually says: "This day you shall be my son-in-law 𝑖𝑛 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘‘π‘€π‘Žπ‘–π‘›" (meaning, "today, you are son-in-law with two of my children," that is, Jonathan and Michal).

None of this is consistent with the homophobia you claim is inherent in the texts.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Platonic_Caveman said... PD, I admire your scholarly knowledge but I'm not going to write a thesis on the subject.

You remind me of the oxymoronic "gay Christians" who claim the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. So you try to erase homosexuality from history.

Call a spade a spade. The ancient Jews were homophobes.

And I know very well that homosexuality is an act not an identity. The ancients believed anyone can buttfuck and they were right.

And what's the point in splitting hairs over when the Hebrews separated from the Canaanites around them? The point is there were two conflicted groups, worshipers of Yahweh and worshipers of Baal.
expand
And what's the point in splitting hairs over when the Hebrews separated from the Canaanites around them? The point is there were two conflicted groups, worshipers of Yahweh and worshipers of Baal.
Not necessarily 'two,' and not necessarily 'conflicted.' The stories which depict Yahweh and Baal and their respective followers in opposition with each other seem to have been a fictive overlay, a late narrative stratum imposed upon the texts by Yahweh-only scribes. But in fact, the word 'baal' only means 'lord,' more a title than a proper name, and was often used with reference to Yahweh in various passages and in theophoric names.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/73647

Yahweh was 'baal' or 'lord' over Judah, and it was to Yahweh that human sacrifice (β€œYou must give me the firstborn of your sons" - Exodus 22:29b) was originally paid - before editors later added the clause permitting firstborn sons to be redeemed. And it's held by many scholars that hymns to Baal, the Omeride storm god, were ported directly over to the Psalms, re-labeled as hymns to Yahweh.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/24753/what-about-psalm-29-specifically-makes-somes-scholars-think-it-was-originally

Let's look for positive portrayals of homosexuality in the New Testament. There is an ancient and persistent Christian tradition of Jesus as favoring same-sex relationships. Jesus is depicted as traveling in the exclusive company of men (either celibate or having left their wives and families to follow him), and as teaching that marriage was not preferable (Matt.19:10-12).

Jesus was depicted as honoring the relationship between the Centurion and his 'pais' ('lover' - Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10; within Greek culture of the time, the word used was recognized and understood as the 'beloved' in a same-sex relationship), healing his beloved and praising the Centurion's faith.
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

Discipleship/apostleship was a men-only club; the Last Supper included a rite in which Jesus got undressed, clad only a towel, and washed all their feet in turn, drying them with the towel he was wearing, a startlingly untypical and intimate act. Jesus is depicted as having a young favorite, John, characterized as his "beloved," whom he indulged to the extent that John reclined in his bosom at meals in a manner similar to that depicted in the 5th century BCE Etruscan 'Tomb of the Diver' ( http://www.paestum.org.uk/museum/classical/ ); were anyone seen to do this today, there would be no mistaking its implication.

Throughout Christian history, the relationship between Jesus and the "beloved disciple" has been interpreted by a persistent minority as being homosexual, which of course has given fits to the orthodox straight. But like it or not, the tradition has always been there, and the gospel of Matthew depicts Jesus as speaking especially to this minority ("Not everyone can accept this word,” Jesus answered, β€œbut only those to whom it has been given… The one being able to receive it, let him receive it" - Matt. 19:10-12).

Within Christianity an exclusive caste of unmarried men emerged at the top of the Christian hierarchy, those in charge of the Church and of Christian teaching - the priesthood. During the early Christian Era and throughout the Middle Ages, the Church used to conduct ceremonies between same-sex partners which were for all intents and purposes 'marriages.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The fact we’re alive basically is a sin

Why are you so obsessed with me?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The fact we’re alive basically is a sin

Covid19 will soon fix that….

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article



Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Flesh is sin.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I'm being Gnostic here.

Can the spirit lust? Can it get fat from eating too much? Can it rape a woman?

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Flesh corrupts the spirit. Flesh is of the devil. Yahweh created this world and he is evil. The only way to transcend it is to rise above the flesh. Didn't Buddha, Christ and every other great prophet say this?

The only ones who don't say it worship Satan.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

So god has a body? Does "He" have a penis or a vagina? You sound like a Mormon.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Marx didn't believe in spirit. He was a complete materialist.

I was actually reading Hegel with Gnostic glasses.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

I'm wearing khakis. Not really, cutoff jeans.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

XFILEZ said... I am wearing one black sock, and I need to take it off. Ain’t right to have one foot with a sock and the other not.
expand
Maybe you're too young to remember this. But there used to some sorta meme or something about perverts in black socks. Just sayin'. I'm wearing white socks.

I just walked down the main boulevard to see if I there were any hot guys rambling about. There weren't.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The only way to transcend it is to rise above the flesh.
The flesh is weak as personified by Eve.

Lust, even desire, has given way to suffering and that is the source of ALL human suffering on earth.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

The flesh is weak as personified by Eve.
And not as personified by Adam?

I find the projection of all these divergent religious concepts onto the Book of Genesis somewhat distressing (too much to fix). It wasn't composed with that intent.

The notion that "the flesh" in innately sinful or evil is not a healthy religious belief.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Well according to scripture, Eve fell into temptation first.

Is any religious belief healthy?

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Well according to scripture, Eve fell into temptation first.
"Scripture"? What sort of authority is that?

To be specific, you're talking about a book (Genesis), composed by an anonymous group of scholars in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE, under the equivalent of a 'cultural studies' grant sponsored by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 283-246 BCE, for the purpose of setting forth what Jews believed about themselves and their deity. Placed on the spot, they did not so much recount it as create it from scratch, using existing literary sources available to them at the Library of Alexandria. The scholars' primary sources were Berossus' π΅π‘Žπ‘π‘¦π‘™π‘œπ‘›π‘–π‘Žπ‘π‘Ž and Manetho's π΄π‘’π‘”π‘¦π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘Žπ‘π‘Ž, both being a sort of 'CliffsNotes' containing summaries of millennia-worth of Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature. They also employed Greek literature such as Homer and Plato, as well as some Levantine folklore.
https://www.amazon.com/Berossus-Genesis-Manetho-Exodus-Hellenistic/dp/0567025926
https://vridar.org/2012/12/27/the-books-of-moses-unknown-300-years-before-christ/
https://vridar.org/2018/11/23/genesis-to-kings-the-work-of-a-single-authorship/

Point being, it wasn't written by "God."

That aside, a simple etiological fable explaining the origins of natural phenomena, traits, or customs (i.e., where did man and woman come from, why are men in charge, why do women suffer in childbirth, and why do people die) never entailed all the rest of that baggage about 'original sin,' the innate evil of the cosmos and of matter, and the theological war against human nature, "the flesh." Successive centuries and different cultures dumped all of that on top of it.
Is any religious belief healthy?
Not in my opinion, no. But then I'm an antitheist.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism

But this wasn't about just π‘Žπ‘›π‘¦ religious belief, but a specific one: the notion that one's own nature and existence represent some kind of mistake or maladjustment which needs punishment or destruction, or both; which inculcates needless guilt and shame upon its adherents, and completely twists and subverts their viewpoints into the service of the religion and its propagation. It's a sick and damaging thing.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Stop conflating and trying to sound impressive and intellectual. It only makes you look like a dork.

I read one sentence of your palaver and gave up.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

Stop conflating and trying to sound impressive and intellectual. It only makes you look like a dork.

I read one sentence of your palaver and gave up.
I suspect you understood more of it than you're letting on, which is why you're upset.

What is it you think I'm conflating?

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

PoisonedDragon said...
Stop conflating and trying to sound impressive and intellectual. It only makes you look like a dork.

I read one sentence of your palaver and gave up.
I suspect you understood more of it than you're letting on, which is why you're upset.

What is it you think I'm conflating?
expand
I'm not even clear on your point of argument.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

If you want to be a Christian don't perform homosexual acts.

If you want to perform homosexual acts don't be a Christian. Problem solved.
That's not complex enough and too easy a fix.

God requires confusion, contradictions and hypocrisy in order for him to exist in his self-righteous scriptural form.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Homosexuality is not a sin ! Read the article

"Gay Christian" is almost a oxymoron.

The only gay Christians I can respect are those who know they are in defiance of god and don't care.

When I was Christian I was a Dualist.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy
β–² Top