| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2007 12:00:14 AM |
| Object: |
Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6595094
ARLINGTON, Texas-A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran
24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.
Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard
Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister,
Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of
his survivors, she said, it was called off.
"It's a slap in the face. It's like, 'Oh, we're sorry he died, but he's gay
so we can't help you,'" she said Friday.
Wright said High Point offered to hold the service for Sinclair because
their brother is a janitor there. Sinclair, who served in the first Gulf
War, died Monday at age 46 from an infection after surgery to prepare him
for a heart transplant.
The church's pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who
was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service,
when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men
"engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing."
Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have
appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.
"We did decline to host the service-not based on hatred, not based on
discrimination, but based on principle," Simons told The Associated Press.
"Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it-yes, we would have
declined then. It's not that we didn't love the family."
--
J Young
younginsights@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 12:51:57 PM |
|
|
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 01:33:42 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
The comments I made were about the difficulties in translating a rather
bizarre prohibition that could mean any number of things. Is there a
reason you can't accept the difficulty in translating a 4000 year old
text?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 04:12:08 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2007 11:33:42 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
The comments I made were about the difficulties in translating a rather
bizarre prohibition that could mean any number of things.
The one thing it could NOT mean was a condemnation of homosexuality.
Is there a reason you can't accept the difficulty in translating a 4000 year old
text?
Is there a reason you can't accept the "translation" of a week-old
text? By its author?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 07:27:18 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 11:33:42 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
The comments I made were about the difficulties in translating a rather
bizarre prohibition that could mean any number of things.
The one thing it could NOT mean was a condemnation of homosexuality.
Why are you babbling about that? I pointed out several possible
translations ranging from a prohibition against anal sex, anal sex with
a temple prostitute, or using a woman's bed rather than one of the two
men's beds. I never claimed it prohibited a sexual orientation.
Is there a reason you can't accept the difficulty in translating a
4000 year old text?
Is there a reason you can't accept the "translation" of a week-old
text? By its author?
There was no such translation - no week old anything in a different
language that was then translated into English by its author.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 08:45:56 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2007 17:27:18 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 11:33:42 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
The comments I made were about the difficulties in translating a rather
bizarre prohibition that could mean any number of things.
The one thing it could NOT mean was a condemnation of homosexuality.
Why are you babbling about that?
Because that's the point that started this whole thing.
I pointed out several possible
translations ranging from a prohibition against anal sex, anal sex with
a temple prostitute, or using a woman's bed rather than one of the two
men's beds.
None of which is a condemnation of homosexuality, which was my
original point.
Is there a reason you can't accept the difficulty in translating a
4000 year old text?
Is there a reason you can't accept the "translation" of a week-old
text? By its author?
There was no such translation - no week old anything in a different
language that was then translated into English by its author.
Which is why I put "translation" in quotation marks. But please stop
telling me what I said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 08:52:15 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 17:27:18 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 11:33:42 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
The comments I made were about the difficulties in translating a rather
bizarre prohibition that could mean any number of things.
The one thing it could NOT mean was a condemnation of homosexuality.
Why are you babbling about that?
Because that's the point that started this whole thing.
It's not the point I made, which was that a particular argument was
invalid (regardless of the truth of falsity of its conclusions).
I pointed out several possible translations ranging from a
prohibition against anal sex, anal sex with a temple prostitute, or
using a woman's bed rather than one of the two men's beds.
None of which is a condemnation of homosexuality, which was my
original point.
My good man, I don't give a f__k about your original point. It is
not relevant to what we were talking about.
Is there a reason you can't accept the difficulty in translating a
4000 year old text?
Is there a reason you can't accept the "translation" of a week-old
text? By its author?
There was no such translation - no week old anything in a different
language that was then translated into English by its author.
Which is why I put "translation" in quotation marks. But please stop
telling me what I said.
You mean you want to post unadulterated BS with impunity!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
25 Aug 2007 08:51:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:52:15 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 17:27:18 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 11:33:42 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
The comments I made were about the difficulties in translating a rather
bizarre prohibition that could mean any number of things.
The one thing it could NOT mean was a condemnation of homosexuality.
Why are you babbling about that?
Because that's the point that started this whole thing.
It's not the point I made
Oh, so your response to me was non sequitur. Okay.
My good man, I don't give a f__k about your original point.
Then why did you respond?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
25 Aug 2007 09:27:53 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:52:15 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
The one thing it could NOT mean was a condemnation of homosexuality.
Why are you babbling about that?
Because that's the point that started this whole thing.
It's not the point I made
Oh, so your response to me was non sequitur. Okay.
No, it was not a non sequitur, which is why you dishonestly cut the
sentence that read, "It's not the point I made, which was that a
particular argument was invalid (regardless of the truth of falsity of
its conclusions)."
My good man, I don't give a f__k about your original point.
Then why did you respond?
For the reason I said. Do you have a reading comprehension
problem or an ego problem that is preventing you from admitting
that you had an invalid argument?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
26 Aug 2007 08:53:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:27:53 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:52:15 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
The one thing it could NOT mean was a condemnation of homosexuality.
Why are you babbling about that?
Because that's the point that started this whole thing.
It's not the point I made
Oh, so your response to me was non sequitur. Okay.
No, it was not a non sequitur, which is why you dishonestly cut the
sentence that read, "It's not the point I made, which was that a
particular argument was invalid (regardless of the truth of falsity of
its conclusions)."
You're responding to a point that I made with something that has
nothing to do with that point - that's non sequitur, it doesn't
follow.
My good man, I don't give a f__k about your original point.
Then why did you respond?
For the reason I said.
You responded to what I said because something I didn't say was
invalid? I wasn't talking about acts mentioned in the Bible, so how
is what ACT the Bible does, or doesn't, mention relevant?
Do you have a reading comprehension
problem or an ego problem that is preventing you from admitting
that you had an invalid argument?
My argument was that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. You
claimed that it doesn't specify exactly which act it condemns. How
does that have anything to do with the FACT that it DOESN'T condemn
homosexuality, which isn't an act? It can fail to properly identify
every single act known to man, but that still has nothing to do with
what I said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
27 Aug 2007 01:12:37 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:27:53 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
Why are you babbling about that?
Because that's the point that started this whole thing.
It's not the point I made
Oh, so your response to me was non sequitur. Okay.
No, it was not a non sequitur, which is why you dishonestly cut the
sentence that read, "It's not the point I made, which was that a
particular argument was invalid (regardless of the truth of falsity of
its conclusions)."
You're responding to a point that I made with something that has
nothing to do with that point - that's non sequitur, it doesn't
follow.
Are you really that dense? I responded to a specific argument
and showed why that specific argument was invalid.
My good man, I don't give a f__k about your original point.
Then why did you respond?
For the reason I said.
You responded to what I said because something I didn't say was
invalid? I wasn't talking about acts mentioned in the Bible, so how
is what ACT the Bible does, or doesn't, mention relevant?
I responded to someone (you?) who had some "A ~A" argument and I
pointed out why that was invalid.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or an ego problem that
is preventing you from admitting that you had an invalid argument?
My argument was that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
No, that is not an argument but rather a conclusion, and the
argument in the post I replied to was wrong.
You claimed that it doesn't specify exactly which act it condemns.
How does that have anything to do with the FACT that it DOESN'T
condemn homosexuality, which isn't an act? It can fail to properly
identify every single act known to man, but that still has nothing
to do with what I said.
I stated that the original Hebrew in one of the Leviticus passages has
a number of interpretations, not all of which refer to homosexual sex
acts, and I provided a citation explaining it in detail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
27 Aug 2007 07:50:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:12:37 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
I responded to someone (you?) who had some "A ~A" argument and I
pointed out why that was invalid.
Oh, you came in at the end of a discussion and ASSumned that you
understood what it was about.
News Flash: You got it wrong.
I stated that the original Hebrew in one of the Leviticus passages has
a number of interpretations, not all of which refer to homosexual sex
acts
Which it TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion you completely missed.
Whether ANY parts of Leviticus refer to ANY sex acts or not is
immaterial, so your pointing it out has nothing to do with anything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 11:06:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:45:56 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Which is why I put "translation" in quotation marks. But please stop
telling me what I said.
Yet you have no problem at all telling millions of Christians what the
book of their faith says. What gives you that special privilege?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jaye Elke" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
25 Aug 2007 10:26:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:45:56 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Which is why I put "translation" in quotation marks. But please stop
telling me what I said.
Yet you have no problem at all telling millions of Christians what the
book of their faith says. What gives you that special privilege?
You need to pick up that book and read it some time, lying Baboon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
25 Aug 2007 01:37:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:26:46 GMT, Jaye Elke <jayeelke@yahoo.com>
wrote:
leroyblue@pillinor.net wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:45:56 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Which is why I put "translation" in quotation marks. But please stop
telling me what I said.
Yet you have no problem at all telling millions of Christians what the
book of their faith says. What gives you that special privilege?
You need to pick up that book and read it some time, lying Baboon.
You need to STFU, *****-boy. You do nothing more than increase the level
of atheist/homosexuals ignorance with your posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 10:33:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:51:57 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:23:10 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
While Leviticus 18:22 applies only to "the children of Israel in mount
Sinai", what restrictions it imposes are simply hard to determine due
to translation difficulties, which I outlined (or rather, which the
web site I cited described in some detail).
What's not difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality.
Prove that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
22 Aug 2007 08:09:10 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 8:43 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> writes:
If it says "A", you can't "sincerely believe" it says "~A", unless you
either can't read or are a moron. Some ambiguous sentence may be open
to interpretation, but a direct simple sentence isn't, and the Bible
doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Except it wasn't written in English and the translation is not always
clear (although the meaning of a particular translation may be very
clear but wrong).
See <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm>.
Overview of Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination." 8
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to
condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated
Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'
vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
* The first part of this verse is literally translated as
"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and
biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed
at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with
other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of
the forbidden activities. For example:
- The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the
original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by
both men and women. They confuse the matter further
by not differentiating between homosexual
orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the
first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is
absolutely forbidden."
- On the other hand, many religious liberals have
interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring
only to sexual activities between two males during a
Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal
translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal
sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."
(Read the rest for more details.)
Very interesting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
23 Aug 2007 07:34:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:43:19 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
If it says "A", you can't "sincerely believe" it says "~A", unless you
either can't read or are a moron. Some ambiguous sentence may be open
to interpretation, but a direct simple sentence isn't, and the Bible
doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Except it wasn't written in English and the translation is not always
clear (although the meaning of a particular translation may be very
clear but wrong).
In this case, it's clear that the prohibition is against an act, not
against a state of being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
23 Aug 2007 11:11:41 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:43:19 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
If it says "A", you can't "sincerely believe" it says "~A", unless you
either can't read or are a moron. Some ambiguous sentence may be open
to interpretation, but a direct simple sentence isn't, and the Bible
doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Except it wasn't written in English and the translation is not always
clear (although the meaning of a particular translation may be very
clear but wrong).
In this case, it's clear that the prohibition is against an act, not
against a state of being.
Guess again - it is not even clear which act was being prohibited (some
interepretted it as anal sex in general and others as anal sex with
a pagan temple prostitute, and still others as two men having sex in
a woman's bed instead of in their own bed).
But, as I said, you won't pick that up from the English translations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
23 Aug 2007 03:44:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:11:41 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:43:19 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
If it says "A", you can't "sincerely believe" it says "~A", unless you
either can't read or are a moron. Some ambiguous sentence may be open
to interpretation, but a direct simple sentence isn't, and the Bible
doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Except it wasn't written in English and the translation is not always
clear (although the meaning of a particular translation may be very
clear but wrong).
In this case, it's clear that the prohibition is against an act, not
against a state of being.
Guess again - it is not even clear which act was being prohibited (some
interepretted it as anal sex in general and others as anal sex with
a pagan temple prostitute, and still others as two men having sex in
a woman's bed instead of in their own bed).
It's still an act, even if it's not clear which act. Homosexuality
isn't an act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
23 Aug 2007 06:06:03 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:11:41 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:43:19 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
If it says "A", you can't "sincerely believe" it says "~A", unless you
either can't read or are a moron. Some ambiguous sentence may be open
to interpretation, but a direct simple sentence isn't, and the Bible
doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Except it wasn't written in English and the translation is not always
clear (although the meaning of a particular translation may be very
clear but wrong).
In this case, it's clear that the prohibition is against an act, not
against a state of being.
Guess again - it is not even clear which act was being prohibited (some
interepretted it as anal sex in general and others as anal sex with
a pagan temple prostitute, and still others as two men having sex in
a woman's bed instead of in their own bed).
It's still an act, even if it's not clear which act. Homosexuality
isn't an act.
Sigh. I never said they were objecting to a sexual orientation.
What I wrote was "Except it wasn't written in English and the
translation is not always clear (although the meaning of a particular
translation may be very clear but wrong)." You then replied with a
non sequitur saying the probibition was against an act, when the point
was that you couldn't tell specifically what they were actually
prohibiting (interpretations include anal sex, anal sex with a temple
prostitute, or two guys doing it in a woman's bed instead of their
own bed).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
23 Aug 2007 07:18:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:06:03 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:11:41 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:43:19 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
If it says "A", you can't "sincerely believe" it says "~A", unless you
either can't read or are a moron. Some ambiguous sentence may be open
to interpretation, but a direct simple sentence isn't, and the Bible
doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Except it wasn't written in English and the translation is not always
clear (although the meaning of a particular translation may be very
clear but wrong).
In this case, it's clear that the prohibition is against an act, not
against a state of being.
Guess again - it is not even clear which act was being prohibited (some
interepretted it as anal sex in general and others as anal sex with
a pagan temple prostitute, and still others as two men having sex in
a woman's bed instead of in their own bed).
It's still an act, even if it's not clear which act. Homosexuality
isn't an act.
Sigh. I never said they were objecting to a sexual orientation.
I said Christianity claims that the Bible is against homosexuality.
It's not. It never even mentions homosexuality.
What I wrote was "Except it wasn't written in English and the
translation is not always clear (although the meaning of a particular
translation may be very clear but wrong)." You then replied with a
non sequitur saying the probibition was against an act, when the point
was that you couldn't tell specifically what they were actually
prohibiting
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
(interpretations include anal sex, anal sex with a temple
prostitute, or two guys doing it in a woman's bed instead of their
own bed).
None of which has anything to do with BEING homosexual, which is what
Christianity claims the Bible calls an abomination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 12:16:51 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:06:03 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:11:41 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:43:19 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
If it says "A", you can't "sincerely believe" it says "~A", unless you
either can't read or are a moron. Some ambiguous sentence may be open
to interpretation, but a direct simple sentence isn't, and the Bible
doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Except it wasn't written in English and the translation is not always
clear (although the meaning of a particular translation may be very
clear but wrong).
In this case, it's clear that the prohibition is against an act, not
against a state of being.
Guess again - it is not even clear which act was being prohibited (some
interepretted it as anal sex in general and others as anal sex with
a pagan temple prostitute, and still others as two men having sex in
a woman's bed instead of in their own bed).
It's still an act, even if it's not clear which act. Homosexuality
isn't an act.
Sigh. I never said they were objecting to a sexual orientation.
I said Christianity claims that the Bible is against homosexuality.
It's not. It never even mentions homosexuality.
No, that's not what you were saying in your response to my posts, which
had nothing to do with Christianity.
What I wrote was "Except it wasn't written in English and the
translation is not always clear (although the meaning of a particular
translation may be very clear but wrong)." You then replied with a
non sequitur saying the probibition was against an act, when the point
was that you couldn't tell specifically what they were actually
prohibiting
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
(interpretations include anal sex, anal sex with a temple
prostitute, or two guys doing it in a woman's bed instead of their
own bed).
None of which has anything to do with BEING homosexual, which is what
Christianity claims the Bible calls an abomination.
Rather, which is what some Christians claim and what others do not
claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 12:53:58 PM |
|
|
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 01:37:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
In another post (Message ID
<7o6uc391i9sj901ajm0brr2glm1hb6pkrl@4ax.com>) you stated "What's not
difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality." Would you mind getting your story straight?
Also it is so ambiguous that one interpretation is that it has nothing
to do with homosexuality but rather with the use of a woman's bed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 04:13:11 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2007 11:37:12 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
In another post (Message ID
<7o6uc391i9sj901ajm0brr2glm1hb6pkrl@4ax.com>) you stated "What's not
difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality." Would you mind getting your story straight?
What straight? both sentences say the same thing - that the Bible
nowhere condemns homosexuality.
Also it is so ambiguous that one interpretation is that it has nothing
to do with homosexuality but rather with the use of a woman's bed!
So there's still nothing you can point to in the Bible that condemns
homosexuality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 07:34:09 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 11:37:12 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
In another post (Message ID
<7o6uc391i9sj901ajm0brr2glm1hb6pkrl@4ax.com>) you stated "What's not
difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality." Would you mind getting your story straight?
What straight? both sentences say the same thing - that the Bible
nowhere condemns homosexuality.
Oops - it was early in the morning and I misread your double negative.
Also it is so ambiguous that one interpretation is that it has nothing
to do with homosexuality but rather with the use of a woman's bed!
So there's still nothing you can point to in the Bible that condemns
homosexuality.
But I never claimed it did. Someone (maybe you) brought up some A ~A
thing, and I pointed out that one can be confused because, while a
translation sounds non ambiguous, the original text may be highly
ambiguous. I used the famous passage in Leviticus as an example and
gave several interpretations, two of which were about specific sex
acts and the other was about the physical location in which a specfiic
sex act took place. None of those examples, nor the URL I quoted for
people who wanted the full details, talked about the Bible condemning
a sexual orientation.
So exactly what the ***** f___ is your problem?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 08:46:33 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2007 17:34:09 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 11:37:12 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
In another post (Message ID
<7o6uc391i9sj901ajm0brr2glm1hb6pkrl@4ax.com>) you stated "What's not
difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality." Would you mind getting your story straight?
What straight? both sentences say the same thing - that the Bible
nowhere condemns homosexuality.
Oops - it was early in the morning and I misread your double negative.
Also it is so ambiguous that one interpretation is that it has nothing
to do with homosexuality but rather with the use of a woman's bed!
So there's still nothing you can point to in the Bible that condemns
homosexuality.
But I never claimed it did.
Then why are you arguing with my statement that it doesn't?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 08:55:43 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 17:34:09 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 24 Aug 2007 11:37:12 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
In another post (Message ID
<7o6uc391i9sj901ajm0brr2glm1hb6pkrl@4ax.com>) you stated "What's not
difficult to determine is that the Bible nowhere condemns
homosexuality." Would you mind getting your story straight?
What straight? both sentences say the same thing - that the Bible
nowhere condemns homosexuality.
Oops - it was early in the morning and I misread your double negative.
Also it is so ambiguous that one interpretation is that it has nothing
to do with homosexuality but rather with the use of a woman's bed!
So there's still nothing you can point to in the Bible that condemns
homosexuality.
But I never claimed it did.
Then why are you arguing with my statement that it doesn't?
I wasn't arguing with your statement that it doesn't but with your
argument as to why it doesn't - the A ~A thing and whether someone
was lying or stupid. I pointed out the fallacy - that someone could
read a translation containing unambiguous English when the original
Hebrew was as ambiguous as hell. I made that perfectly clear. It isn't
my fault that you have blinders on and refuse to listen.
I gave you a URL with examples for some of the Biblical passages in
question to show that I wasn't describing a hypothetical case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 02:50:21 PM |
|
|
On Aug 24, 1:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
It is your opinion that when the passage was written it was intended
to be literally a condemnation of some particular act, and that the
act was not intended to stand in for any and all homosexual behavior.
But that is not fact, as nobody knows what the authors intended.
Sort of like how the Supreme Court in Roe V Wade determined that from
the specifics the Constitution did mention, that an implied right to
privacy existed, and then used that to restrict anti-abortion laws as
unconstitutional, whereas the Constitution did not in actuality
contain anywhere any restriction on a state's right to limit abortion.
It's a matter of interpretation, and yours is no better than anyone
else's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Church cancels memorial for gay Navy vet |
24 Aug 2007 04:14:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:50:21 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 23 Aug 2007 22:16:51 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
They're prohibiting an act - which particular act is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant to what I said, which was that the text is
ambiguous in the original language.
It's not ambiguous to my point that it doesn't condemn homosexuality.
It is your opinion that when the passage was written it was intended
to be literally a condemnation of some particular act, and that the
act was not intended to stand in for any and all homosexual behavior.
But that is not fact, as nobody knows what the authors intended.
But the Bible nowhere condemns the state of being homosexual, since
that was an unknown factor at the time the Bible was written.
It's a matter of interpretation
It's a matter that no one can condemn something they don't know
exists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
