Slight grunch, but does the good book distinguish between animal fat and vegetable fat? Or do we assume it meant animal fat because it was close to the term "blood?" Also, perhaps this was The Lord saying not to be a vampire or **** fat chicks?

Seems pretty unclear. Either way, as knower of all things, you'd think an omnipotent being would clarify between the many types of fat, were he/she/it to want people to abide, no?

Not even close to being true.

I'm not entirely sure what DS is arguing, but I do think that you are more likely to downplay sins that you can relate to, versus sins that you can't envision yourself doing. Like someone on the rocks with their spouse may start to understand why people commit adultery, and may be more sympathetic to it, even if subconsciously so. Whereas that same person may have never struggled with alcoholism, and may see people who engage in this as inherently weak and sinful. I can see a case for this type of thinking, especially through cognitive dissonance. Not that this is the entire explanation for this phenomenon, but I think it does explain the behaviour of some.

DS and NR are correct, imo. Homosexuality is something that most religionists haven't done nor will do. It's a safe thing for them to attack without being hypocrites.

I've been around so-called "religionists" my whole life, and never met one that I felt was against homosexuality because "it was safe." It's just a stupid thing to say.

Do I think that many Christians have abdicated the right to talk about the sanctity of marriage when their divorce rates are almost as high as the secular world? Yup. I do see hypocrisy there.

Fwiw, I was only throwing up some theories, I have no way to prove my idea was right, that people naturally attack things they don't relate to as a way to explain the focus on homosexuality, it could be as you seem to think, stupid.

They are against it because of some bible verses and because they hear it preached against often. The safety bit is that they can express their opposition without hypocrisy.

Just about no one, religious or not, is strongly against lesbianism. There is virtually nothing against it in the entire Bible as far as I know.

100% incorrect.

Ellen DeGeneres still has a very popular TV show in the US. Case closed.

hahahahaha

gitouttahere

festering zit is wisely ignoring this request

He's attempted this in other threads.

Found this in the thread that Original Position linked in the post above. It is from Billy Graham's website, thought it may be useful to some.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'll reply in more detail later on tonight, when I'm not at work. Though, I get the impression you really don't want to hear the answer, and aren't genuinely interested.

Have heard a few times that cleanliness laws no longer apply, but moral laws do. And yet reading some of passage pointed to above that distinction does not seem to be made indeed quite the opposite. Anyway sure I'm missing something obvious.

Galatians 5

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

If you look up uncleanliness in the NT, you'll find many references to it. The most important reference to clear up the distinction of literal vs figurative would be Mark 7, where Christ explains what makes someone unclean.

There are several other verses in the NT that use the term "uncleanliness" to mean unholy, or specifically refer to lustful sins.

Given the language used in the NT, there is little doubt that this reference to uncleanliness is not meant to be understood as a physical one, but a spiritual one.

Thanks. I am seriously considering actually reading the bible. Surely I will snap out of it.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

If you're considering it, I recommend reading from John to Jude. They'll be the most relevant to you, and it's actually not very long, shorter than most books.

New Testament condemnation of homosexuality:

When Jesus used the word porneia (Mark 7:20,21 Matthew 15:18-20) for sexual immorality, this would include homosexuality.

“Porneia” in first century Jewish circles represented a sort of short-hand reference to all of the sexual behaviors forbidden in Leviticus 18, including, of course, homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22).


"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Gk: paramours], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [Gk: catamites], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: sodomites] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

What are paramours, catamites, and sodomites?

paramours (King James, 'fornicators')-Strong's #4205 pornos "to sell, a male prostitute (as venal), a debauchee (libertine): fornicator, whoremonger."

prostitute: "one who solicits and accepts payment for sex" (American Heritage College Dictionary).

venal: "capable of betraying honor, duty, or scruples for a price, corruptible" (AHCD).

debauchee/debauchery: "to corrupt morally, to lead away from excellence or virtue, indulge in dissipation [lacking moral restraint, indulgence in sensual pleasure], orgies [unrestrained sexual activities],"

libertine: "one without moral restraint" (AHCD)

catamites (King James, 'effeminate')-Strong's #3120 malakos "soft, fine clothing, a catamite, effeminate."

catamite: "a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man" (AHCD).

effeminate: "having characteristics more often associated with women than a man" (AHCD).

sodomites (King James, 'abusers of themselves with mankind'-Strong's #733 arsenokoites "a sodomite, defile self with mankind."

The elements of the Greek word arsenokoites are "male-lier"-A male who lies with a male. "Male bed partners"--Wycliffe Bible Dictionary.

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators [Gk: 'pornos'-paramour/male prostitutes] ...with such an one not to eat" (I Cor. 5:9-11).

"For this you know, that no whoremonger [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute] ...has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God" (Eph. 5:5).

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for ...whoremongers [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute] ...and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Tim. 1:9-10).

"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute] and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4).

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute], and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).

"Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers [Gk: parnos-paramour/male prostitute], and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loves and makes [practices] a lie" (Rev. 22:14-15).

"Be not deceived, neither ...effeminate [Gk: malakos-catamite/boy with man sex] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

"And such [unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners] WERE [past tense, but not now] some of you but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even [1] their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also [2] the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27).

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [Gk: porneia], let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (I Cor. 7:2).

Matthew 19:3,4 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Matthew Vines is one of the more popular figures that advocates Christian-homosexuality and that attempts to reconcile homosexuality with biblical doctrine. If anyone is interested in hearing the other side of the argument, here is a sermon of his.

I should note that his arguments are not well accepted by biblical scholars, as he takes some liberties with his interpretation, but he's well spoken enough and not entirely unconvincing.

Thanks for putting all that together. I don't see much that indicates a prohibition against female homosexuality. The Leviticus verse is solely about a male as are the other verses. AFAIK "Porneia" is Greek for fornication and sometimes includes prostitution or adultery.
It just seems curious that lesbianism it is not mentioned, yet the church call it a sin. To me it is an example of how the church has, in some cases, exaggerated the significance of certain verses in the Bible in away that turns people away. I'm not anti-religious but just pointing out an issue.

The OT writings were extremely male-centered, as was the language that was used. You can make a case for omitting women from other sins as well by the logic that they are not explicitly mentioned, when it is more likely that it was merely the way they addressed things, by referring mainly to men.

Here is a quick example - "If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you." It is speaking of "him", so you could make a case to not help women in need, because God did not explicitly command it. This is not how the scriptures were interpreted.

Take a look at Romans 1:18-31, and see what you think of Paul addressing women in the context of homosexuality.

Edit: I do agree that these things have been exaggerated, but do conclude that it is not mentioned is an over-correction. There are other things that have been mentioned more than homosexuality which are not nearly as discussed, even among "sexual sins".

Romans 1:26 deals directly with lesbianism:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Can you give me your source for the above two claims? All I can find from a somewhat cursory google search is that it means "sexual immorality" or "fornication."

As I've said before, if I had to guess, I would say that Jesus probably thought, along with most of his Jewish contemporaries, that most forms of homosexuality was immoral. This is akin to how I would guess that a random old person I met in a Southern Baptist church thinks the same. However, it seems to me that this shouldn't be enough for Christians. After all, they won't see Jesus as an ordinary Jew of his time, but as a divine being, and so it would be a mistake to assume that he had the ordinary prejudices of his social milieu.

That being said, the question here is whether Jesus ever said anything directly about homosexuality. After all, Jesus also said, "go and sin no more." If homosexuality is sinful, wouldn't that also be included? Well yes, but that misses the point. What we want to know is whether or not Jesus agreed with the prevailing view of the time that homosexuality really was sinful, really was sexually immoral. After all, he disagreed with standard Jewish thinking on other points, it seems possible that he disagreed, or at least didn't agree, on this point as well.

Just as a general comment, you lose credibility by appealing to the KJV and Strong's as your sources for the greek text. There has been a lot of scholarship over the last four hundred years, time to update your citations.