Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Bible only makes reference to male-male homosexuality, is lesbo tribbing okay? 

The prohibition, both in Leviticus and its re-formulation in the New Testament, both use gendered language to refer to the act on male on male sex acts. How are you determining that lesbianism is prohibited? 

1 Corinthians 7-2 contains advice on how to avoid porneia, a Greek word that means improper sexuality: incest, adultery, the like. It's closely related to the feminine Greek noun porne, which means (a normatively female) prostitute. Given as St. Paul (and 1 and 2 Corinthians are considered authentic Pauline writings) is writing to Greeks living in Corinth, and giving advice to married people,  he's clearly talking about avoiding heterosexual relations outside of marriage. 

This puts Paul in line with other ancient Mediterranean writers, who largely did not describe female homosexuality. Whether they did not care, or did not have sufficient insight into the private lives of women to know it happens, is unclear. 

Guess I'll throw my hat into the ring here:

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/rom.1.26-27.NKJV

Thoughts from the language experts on these verses?

I was surprised this one wasn't mentioned already. Probably one of the strongest arguments for the Bible decrying homosexuality for both the sexes. Had to do some back reading here to confirm.

Here I'm most sympathetic to James E Miller's argument that in Classical writing, male and female homosexuality weren't considered as natural rhetorical pairs to each other: we think of "gay" and "lesbian" as sort of associated concepts in modernity, but that was not the case in antiquity. Miller argues that women exchanging their natural use is a reference to non-procreative penetrative sex acts, i.e. oral and anal intercourse, which seems to have been a relatively common occurrence in Greco-Roman antiquity. It's also worth noting that Paul was writing to the Romans, who Miller notes had a robust culture of contraceptive use, including a possible use of anal penetration to avoid pregnancy. And again, summarizing the article, discussion of female anal penetration alongside discussion of male homosexuality is more common than discussion of female homosexuality alongside male homosexuality in antique writing. 

Miller, James E. “The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?” Novum Testamentum 37, no. 1 (1995): 1–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561233.

Thanks for the reference. Once again, I wish I had an account to access JSTOR texts.

I saw a recent paper from my Alma Mater (UMW) that actually references the document you shared. it does a bring up a good point with context. I suppose it is hasty to read the document with a modern lease of pairing gay and lesbian. However, Paul does decry any form of sexual activity outside of marriage (referencing back to his letter to the Corinthians that chronologically would have been written earlier), and it's not as if the church or even Roman culture is sanctioning female-to-female marriages.

When are we getting IP bans on this site?

Yeah I've been wondering that myself. For a long time the default response from the old admins was that they're trivially bypassed, but I think they'd go a long way to deterring low effort imbecile spammers 

Yeah, I agree with that statement. I'm sure Paul wouldn't approve of female-female sexual couplings of any description, but I don't think they would be particularly on his radar. 

I think there are worse things on this site than a debate about homosexuality. 

You're actually very lucky to have stumbled upon this site rather than CoG. (AKA Choice of Games)

That site is basically Sodom where they do nothing but celebrate homosexuality and degeneracy of swapping out your man parts for a lesser model. Along with dressing up in fursuits and wearing diapers. Worse still, they push this ideology on children.

So actually you probably should continue spreading the cause of righteousness so that the youth here may see it and not be swayed by evil.

@Blister1

Reminder that the Holocaust was really bad

Dammit Sherb, I thought at least you were based.

The answer to "How many Jews died in the holocaust" will forever be "not enough".

Uhhhh. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments? 

You clearly do not lol. 

That's nice that it has sparked conversations, but that's really not the point here. 

Equal representation is such an important thing, especially for kids. It's so easy to see things like Christianity being favored and feel alone or like you/your religion is worse or lesser than others. 

What the fuck?! Separation of church and state. I don't care if Congressmen and Governors go to Mass, Synagogue, or Mosque. Hell, if they wanna do a quick "Hail Satan!" before they begin voting on issues, I dislike it on a personal feelings level, but I respect it as part of the First Amendment.

But unless we're adding the Six Paths of Buddha and the Five Pillars of Islam to the classroom, the Ten Commandments shouldn't be included either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the main reasons that people sailed to the Americas from Britan to escape religious persecution? The United States should be a place where people are free to practice any religion. 

As Mizal has already pointed out in her response, it is unconstitutional for the government to establish a practice favoring a religion. 

And? I seem to recall Jesus stating "Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's" when the issue of Pagan engravings on coins was brought to his attention by Pharisees. It's pretty clear that what mankind chooses to write down on their currency is irrelevant and that dedicating the self to God is infinitely more important. 

I would also like to state that "In God We Trust" is a motto. Court rulings have already established that a motto has no bearing on government practice, after people sued the police for not intervening when civilians were in danger despite their motto being "Protect and Serve."

And money belongs to the government. Not to God. So the phrasing on the dollar bill saying "In God We Trust" would not be an argument against the separation of Church and State. By your own acknowledgment, that verse is a statement from Jesus himself on the fact that the state and the church are not one and the same.

Do you think the government passing a law requiring schools to put up the Ten Commandments would be a violation of government neutrality in regards to supporting religious practice?

Not all of us. A lot of Christians who can see past the end of their noses understand that compelling people to practice Christianity will just lead to less Christians in the long run. Jesus never made anyone follow him. And since Christian means "like Christ" we shouldn't either. I've also heard Christians bring up Salem and the European Witch Trials as an example of what happens when the government gets involved in religion. Had the judges wrote back the people of Salem saying "No, you cannot kill and imprison people because you think they are committing a sin." instead of using their government-appointed judicial power to legitimize the paranoia in collaboration with the Church, many people would still be alive and fewer families would have been ripped apart and forced into penury.

I'm pretty sure I'm the same generation as him (at least I'm assuming he's a highschooler) and where I live we did get a pretty good education about stuff like this. Even if you live in a area where it's not taught in schools, it's super easy with the internet now to do some research and learn about things. The internet is especially cool because you get to see arguments from all sides. 

Blister, you should really do some research about these things. Understanding your government is a pretty important thing, especially if they've stopped teaching it in schools now. (I don't know what's going on in public schools anymore because my parents moved me to private school.)

Half of the houses where I live fly the confederate flag lol. I'm just glad that I switched to a private education as soon as the public schools in my area started getting weird about politics. 

He's saying a lot of Christians are for the state favoring Christianity over all other religions, making it the "official" religion of the US in law, basing laws on what the Bible says, ect.

Technically he's not wrong, but many Christians have also been opposed to compulsory conversion as well. And as for the angles, have you tried taking a deep breath after some thought and addressing the statements one at a time rather than answering quickly and possibly not understanding what's being said? There's not a timer on this forum.

It would. Like Antraxus said, many Christians have been for that by passing laws that are based off Bible Scripture, which would in practice lead to incarceration for anyone who does not practice Bible teachings.

As I've pointed out, a lot of Christians think that would cause people to either rebel against Christ, or else obey him out of fear of consequences rather than genuine faith.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is very true.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  But since three lefts make a right, you would need to add at least one more act to turn it right.

Hi I'm The Gay, heard you needed some questions answered - ask away! 

Are you Boy The Gay or Girl The Gay?

I am the one that is apparently a sin in the bible, not the other one that isnt 

So a boy then?

Well, I didnt plan to!

Well, while the Bible does say you can confront your fellow Christians, you should do so only if you are not also guilty of what you're condemning them for. Example, I would not confront them as I also engage in homosexual activity from time to time. Or to paraphrase a bible verse, take the beam out of your own eye before you remove the speck in yours.

Based on how you feel about it, I would say you're not any type of homosexual. I would like to state that murder is significantly worse than intercourse and homosexuality for a few reasons.

One: You're literally ending a person's life. There's a reason why Cain got such a significant punishment and why at the end of days the martyrs will be calling on God to avenge their blood. To take a life that God has created is literally destroying his work and hurting countless people. We are supposed to comfort those who grieve, not inflict grief on them.

Two: When the prostitutute in the temple was to be stoned for intercourse, Jesus said "Let whosoever is without sin cast the first stone." All he said to her was to "Go and sin no more." While intercourse outside of marriage is a sin, consider the fact that only one of the two caused direct admonishment from Jesus.

Three: This last part is not exactly biblical, but it still pertains to morality. Every society that progressed past the point of "Let us not shit in the same pond we draw water from" has agreed that murder is bad. While homosexuality has had mixed reactions. Murder has such a negative effect on the human soul and psyche, more than any other crime has been shown to. There is a very good reason why killing someone is seen as a loss of humanity and innocence. Because it is. It is such a horrendous act that it impacts your very soul in the worst way possible, and doing it repeatedly will render you an unfeeling shell. Plenty of people can have intercourse before marriage or either someone of the same gender and remain largely the same person they were before. Only the most emotionless, deranged individuals can kill without remorse.

⁠Leviticus 20:13 ESV:

"A man who lays with another man should be stoned."

So being gay and having gay sex is fine as long as you're high, checkmate. 

When you translate things from another language, you're changing the text. Every translation is going to have slightly different meaning depending on the individual who interpreted it. It's impossible to have a completely unchanged translation of something. That's why when two different people translate the same text, you will come out with slightly different meanings or words that impact the text on a whole in a large scale. 

You said that changing or altering the words of the bible is sinful. Translation does just that. 

Did you actually read my previous response or just skim it? Languages don't have exact translations for words because they're different languages. Depending on how the translator translates it, it will alter the meaning of the text. 

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

Now you're contradicting yourself. This says that the adding or subtracting of words is sinful. When you translate, you're going to have to add or subtract words. Even if you get the connotation of every word exactly as was intended in the original language, going off of this logic, translating the bible would still be sinful. 

As somebody who has never read the bible, (I probably should, it's a good historical text and it's always interesting/worthwhile to delve into religions) the holes in his arguments were embarrassingly apparent. I feel bad for any future teachers who actually have to teach him how to put together a cohesive argument. 

In my fundamentalist, faith healing, tongue speaking, hand raising in worship and fifteen minute tithe sermon childhood religious training, that passage definitely applied to the whole book. Probably because it was usually the good ol' King James version, which says "book" and not "scroll." Never mind the fact that the canon was not yet established and there certainly wasn't a single book containing all the Gospels and Tanakh and so on.

Nevertheless, that is we they believed. After all, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" in those branches of Christianity, such passages have multiple meanings. Not just Jesus as some believe, but the Bible itself as well is a physical manifestation of that "Word" which John starts with, and it just applies to whatever they need it to. Take it on faith. Let the Holy Spirit guide your understanding.

So yeah, the Bible is timeless because John refers to it as well as Jesus in its opening sentence, and because the KJV says "book," well, Rev 22:18 applies to the entire thing. Also "scroll" is like a book, so it counts. Or so the thinking seemed to go. A lot of intuition and, (I think the term is) sympathetic magic (these spritual laws; certain utterances like "in JESUS name" whilst the speaker has unshakable faith, hands touching foreheads to heal or cast out demonds, etc. Normal Christians thought we were a cult when they came to our Youth Group services, and in hindsight I can see why).

Somewhere I got derrailed....

Oh, I was actually curious about something regarding this.

@Blister1 so we've established you don't read stories with protagonists that don't share your gender- what about stories with protagonists that don't share your race, would you read those? Or stories with protagonists with a different belief system than you?

This is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard.  Do you watch movies that have a female lead protagonist?

sooo this is different than reading a story with female protagonist how?  Im honestly asking the question, this is kinda fascinating.

lol. 

But what kinda fascinates me is that, for example, he would be ok watching the movie, "Gone with the Wind", but not the novel. Or perhaps would watch "The Hunger Games" but would not read the book.  The disjointed reasoning that apparently he somehow reconciles in his mind is interesting.

However, I will probably be bored of it now if he gets around to explaining.

Well that's fine, if you don't want to answer that's your business.

But truthfully in none of your posts did you ever explain the difference for you between why a movie is ok but not a book.  Saying you have already explained it is simply not true.  The only place you addressed it is in response to RK who followed up on my question.  So at least be honest and don't make stuff up.

After reading your explanation I still don't think the logic follows and I would encourage you to perhaps rethink your reasoning.

I would have probably made a couple suggestions about your thoughts, but since you want to be rude and lie about stuff it's probably not worth my time.

Learn to read.  It's a great skill to have.

So you feel icky when just around girls? Sounds gay to me. 

You literally did say most. Scroll up a little. 

So you feel uncomfortable when reading/watching anything with romance? I totally get that, I think most kids are for a while. Do you think you feeling uncomfortable with reading from a girl's POV has something to do with that? Maybe because girls are linked in your mind with romance? 

I can understand not wanting to think about things that are uncomfortable or that you don't understand, but a lot of growth can come from that. Almost nothing worthwhile comes easy. I think you're taking a step in the right direction by listening to some of the suggestions in this thread. I think you'll find a lot of really amazing books that have female protagonists. 

Ahhh, I see. I think you'll find that there are a lot of books without romance themes in them though if you look any farther than your school library. 

Shameless self-promotion but Reborn has a female protagonist, no romance, and no bad words, so maybe it'd be a good starting point.

Please don't read vira and cupcake lol. I wrote that when I was like 12/13 and I really need to unpublish it. 
 

edit: unpublished 

So when you're reading the Bible, do you skip the parts with female protagonists, like where Miriam protected Moses or when Esther was queen?

You know what, here's a simple assignment: re-read a short passage in the Bible about a female protagonist. It can be any of them. Then, think about what message God intended to teach the world through her. This could be themes of faith, bravery, etc.

The kid is so retarded he looped around to accidentally being based.

Disgusting? No. Women are beautiful creatures. It's just such a shame they're not good people.

And I fucking wish I found dudes attractive, it would make life so much easier.

Nah we dont want you either it's cool

How do you hate women and gays? Do you just hate anyone you want to have sex with who doesnt reciprocate? 

I wasn't replying to you, retard. But interesting that you thought I was

Well while you're answering questions, when is the last time you checked the CO2 levels in your house?

Sure sounds like someone on the dev team could get around to fucking implementing that feature I asked for to easily see who the post is replying to.

I've not been keeping up. Did ford die? I hope he did.

He's been dead for quite some time. I was actually wondering why you hadn't celebrated sooner.

I've noticed his site account has been gone for a while now, I just figured he was doing some retarded shit with accounts again, but was still there "in the background".

She's not asking about what's already been said, she has already read that and used it to formulate this question. She wants to hear what you're not saying, what you keep attempting to end the conversation to avoid saying, whether due to your fear, or your intellectual cowardice, or simply as the instinctual side effect of living the mechanistic and thoroughly unobserved existence you have been so far. You have told us all what you feel, and we have found it truly confounding. You are being asked to question yourself, and examine why you might feel that way. Use your own words, if you're physically capable.

Because I have reading comprehension! And if I were curious, I would have asked the same question she did and been equally annoyed as everyone else re-explaining the question to you like a toddler.

But you've told people like 50 times already to just go and read your former replies, what is the difference. 

There's literally no consequences to making mistakes here. Nobody knows who you are. If you get banned you can just go to another corner of the internet. Nobody cares that much and none of this is going to matter in like a week. 
 

Also, making mistakes is how you grow as a person. You're never going to get better at anything if you don't fail a million times first. 

A large group, you say?

As somebody who has lots of guy best friends (and a brother), you guys are really not that different from us. Maybe you've ingested a lot of media that tells you otherwise, but from my experience there are only a few small differences here and there; however, everybody is going to have small differences with everybody else so it doesn't really matter that much. 

Because that opinion doesn't make any sense and is limiting you so much. 
 

Also, you're not answering any of us. Why do you not like reading from girl's perspectives? 

" I cAnT SeE frOm a WoMAns POV beCauSE I DoNtT HaVe BoOBS" 

Dude, most people can watch The Lion King and relate to animated animals. As a man, I typically prefer male protagonists, but I can certainly enjoy a female protagonist, just like I can an anthropomorphized animal or even a damn car if its written well enough. How is being a woman such a big symmetry breaker?

I'm... confused. 

Do you think reading books from a girl's perspective will turn you trans or something? I really can't think of a logical reason for this. 

The bible was not written in English. 

Leviticus 18:22, you've selected an incredibly free translation. An accurate rendering is: "Do not lay with a man in the manner of a woman". There is no word in Biblical Hebrew for homosexuality. 

Funnily enough, my dad studied Hebrew (not sure if it was the Biblical Hebrew, though), and he talked to me about the inaccuracies of the translation from Hebrew to English multiple times when I was young. 

It looks interesting, but I don't have that much money, lol. Thanks anyways!

Use your context clues. 

(Pretty sure she's a lesbian, or at least in some way queer)

I fucking wish we did.

Or that the Holocaust ever happened.

You're brown and very obviously gay, you literally would have been one of them. You aint on the team bitch

I don't think this is quite the same thing as what Flutter did. (As Flutter explained his reasons for not addressing all "the little details" from what I remember. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that Flutter came to the conclusion that he was just more right than everyone, claiming to have already thought through every counter argument to his beliefs in advance essentially.)

I may be reading the situation wrong, but Blister to me just seems like someone who feels very very inclined to explain/justify his beliefs thoroughly every time they are questioned for whatever reason. I don't think he's deliberately trying to participate in an active debate or have his views meaningfully challenged, he just seems to have a sporadic drive to defend any accusation to his beliefs whenever it just so happens to cross his path.

Goodness this is a miserable thread, it gives me indigestion to read. That all input is met by the mechanistic and cyclical meanderings of an unthinking creature with a disemboweled soul, his very being stunted and twisted like a bonsai tree around the wires of backwards and often recently invented dogmas. Like a conniving cancer cell he must push himself and others toward this skeletal existence that has no room for the actual, many-faceted reality which these teachings were meant to prepare and adapt humans for. If I believed that this was the nature of God, I would have tried to off myself, too.

This thread is now Liminal's coming out party

You also guessed Abge if I recall correctly.

Life will probably force him to loosen his views a lot, like you said, he's quite young. I remember having rather conservative views about stuff like sex too when I was a kid, it seems pretty typical for children to be that way. Sex is always icky. People almost never change their minds in the moment, never expect that in a debate, it's in the hours and days after, when they're still chewing on it that they start rethinking things. With some of the comments that were made though, it made me feel like we had Bezro back, warping IP addresses and time and space.

Fair.

"God Hates Bankers" has never caught on cause if the anti-gay politicians said that, then who would donate to their campaigns and handle their offshore accounts?

Gryphon is trans too I think.

"I had no intent of beating people in the head in the stick with this thread."

Is that what you think is happening here

Why do you keep citing the most dogshit youth pastor in converse translations 

Anyway, that verse is about divorce retard 

Bro is citing the Cocomelon Standard Bible. 

If he's been reading my responses, he already knows and just hasn't processed the information yet.

If homosexuality exists and your god exists, Blister, it is because your god put it or allowed it to be there. I am so sick of the cognitive dissonance on this issue. If homosexuality really is just a choice, my response to dudes who say that is PROVE IT and suck my dick. A classic one, of course. But they won't, because the thought disgusts them, which is exactly what gay people feel when thinking of doing heterosexual activity. Because it isn't just some perverted choice people randomly make one day.

Call it a mental disability if that makes you feel better, or a powerful little demon, whatever, but these aren't people just deciding to wallow in evil because they're just bad, vile little perverts. In fact every gay person I know is ten times the puritan than I am. Anecdotal evidence, of course, which holds little value. But the fact remains if gay is a choice, why don't the militant straights prove it by taking a shot in the mouth?

You also have to consider that literally everyone is sinful and transgresses against God on the daily. Jesus ate with prostitutes and publicans (tax collectors who were pocketing the funds for themselves). He forgave thieves and criminals. Therefore, a Christian can find the humanity in a gay person and hang with them.

"I have at least five Christian friends who hate me"

"but they're still my friends"

I don't think you understand how friends work...

Wait, you're a cock-sucking tranny? Nobody fucking told me. How many more of you are there, other than Darius, Petros, and malk?

^^ brown guy 

Wait, Cel's brown?!

lol, nigger

I want barbeque

Since he's an Arab who believes in white supremacy, can I call him "race traitor?"

Look, do you want opera composers to be able to write parts for male sopranos or not!?

"assuming his words were true" - amusing as one of Satan's names is 'the father of lies', and earlier on in the verse he literally contradicts God by saying 'you will not surely die'.

I don't think that's why God forbade eating the fruit. After all, how is one supposed to 'seek justice' or hold anyone to any form of societal values if we can't judge that what they have done is wrong? It's more likely the tree was there as a boundary allowing humans to actually choose to trust and obey God, thus exercising free will, or to rebel.

I agree with both your points. Particularly for that verse, if you judge someone it's only right you get judged the same way - being a hypocrite is never good.

That would be one thing if those were Satan's words, but there is no Capital S Satan of the Bible. The idea of a Satan was an abstraction and a teaching tool used by far later christians. The guy who told Eve to eat the apple was literally a snake, the reason he's there is part of the creation mythology to explain why snakes are like that and animals don't talk anymore. To presuppose that the snake was Satan would create flagrantly insane subtext, like God punishing an entire species of animals to squirm around on the ground because of something a sapient supernatural creature did while pretending to be one.

Hey Blister!

What is the meaning of life? The universe? And everything?

That's a silly question; Everyone knows it's 42.

Hey @Blister1 !

What are your thoughts on anime?

I promise that this connects with the thread discussion in an extremely relevant way and is not just a completely random question I pulled from the Ether...

1. My bio should be enough evidence in of itself to disprove your gay claim.

2. I was just trying to bait Blister into saying he disapproves of anime cause its too lewd/satanic or whatever. I don't care one way or the other, I mainly just thought it would be funny... :/

This implies that liking anime is somehow worse than being gay... (If I'm reading what you said correctly that is...this really does come off like you rushed the wording of your sentence due to not being fully awake or something)

Not the kind of attitude I expected from a community that has "lol fag" as its default go to insult...but whatever I guess...

:/ :/ :/ :/

Oh really? This is news to me! :O

Explain...

You should've seen WataNare last season or Watashi this season either one is peak Yuri

I didn't get the reference. Its not helped by the fact that I've never equated the idea of liking anime with being gay at any point in my entire life.

So there's a difference then?

I feel like this contradicts what you said earlier... (Anime makes you gay)

One could argue its just two means to the same end, but I digress.

For the record, I totally get the watching anime equals autism/antisocial or incel/virgin or coomer stereotypes.

The gay one seems more of a stretch though by comparison, though I guess I can see how that leap is made a little bit better now that I had time to think about it! (lol :P)

I think I understood what she said just fine.

Flux himself clarified that he didn't consider one to be better than the other (before he replied with his new post just now obviously).

Mizal obviously saw my other post and made a reply to me in general. If this was an attempt to say I was being stupid due to some dumb bs semantics, you have failed.

I love how he never answered this question.

Well, it starts like this: You see this young man from school one day. He is an adept warrior, with a natural talent for assassination.

And then for whatever reason, at some point he wears this outfit:

And then suddenly you find that you have become gay.

You knowing this information outs you as well, no?

"To thine own self be gay."

Damn you hit upon a treasure trove, Anthraxus:

"All that glitters is not gay."

There are so many, I would be a glutton to post them all.

The daily quote thread is elsewhere.

1.  How on earth is a bio any kind of authorative proof of anything?  "Look, I'm not (whatever), my bio says so."  This statement is complete retardery. Your assertion that it means anything proves you are a moron.

You have a content filter on your computer? Oh, boy...

You're fu©king ret@rded. Stop living in the womb and face the real world.

I'll see if I can get your dad to turn off the filter

Does your filter block YouTube videos? You might love this classic:

Bearforce1

Has never read the Bible.