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

[corsair]

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

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

[VoodooDali]

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

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

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

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

[corsair]

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

[Kayless]

Quote:

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

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

[corsair]

LoL Kayless

[Monolith]

Quote:

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

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

[Aegis]

Quote:

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

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

[Vicsun]

Quote:

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

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

[Kayless]

Quote:

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

Sieg Heil bub.

Quote:

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

Within reason.

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

[Monolith]

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

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

[Aegis]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kayless]

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

[Vicsun]

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

ktnxbye


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






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

[Georgi]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Vicsun]

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

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