Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in this thread.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:52:14 PM
Because we know for a fact that you can find them yourself. You keep making the claim that your version is the only one that exists. Go do your own research for once. We already know it's a fact. It's also ten times faster for you to check that stuff then for us to link it. Go look up any site on Google that lists them. You'll be sad to find that what you said was bull about their being one interpretation. Maxima, people are not going to constantly do the word for you.
Hardly. There are actually different translations running around. This is a fact. We could be wrong about the choice thing, which I will give you.(I still call bull on it being a choice, but that's irrelevant) Old Hebrew is very hard to translate. Everybody knows there's different editions of the Bible. EVERYBODY.
Also, the fact I can't explain God's motives is irrelevant to whether or not he declared something a sin.
First, since you have made it specific that Homosexuality is in Leviticus, all laws under it were not meant to be taken strictly because they all are the exact same thing no matter what. Health-based laws.(Physical or Spiritual) It's unhealthy to have sex in a temple with male prostitutes. It's unhealthy spiritually for a mother and a daughter to have sex with a man.
And it's fully relevant here. If you cannot give a single legitimate reason why it's a sin, then calling it a sin has no meaning. You need to have some tangible. Not bullshit like "Because God said so". I don't care what he says. I care why he says it because that's actually what matters at the end of the day. The reasons, not his word alone.
Don't beat around the bush. It's a yes or no question. No more mind games. Here's something to think about; If you cannot give an actual reason, then your opinion has zero relevance. The reasons are far more important than the opinion alone.
The problem with that is the Bible you hold so dear does prove it right. Despite him bringing the "Thou Shall Not Kill", he has clearly promoted war and destruction before. So I don't see any fallacy here. He does not want to interfere with us directly. He does suggest to even break certain teachings for appropriate reasons. He specifically promoted war to stop slavery when it came to Egypt. Think about that.
So you're doing exactly what I said. Challenging the idea that Homosexuality may not be a sin. A sin is something that Satan would suggest, btw. A sin is something that is inherently evil. It is something that goes against God's will.(or specifically, God's wishes.) That's what Sin is.
That is very good to hear.
Yes. Because people are entirely 100% unhappy with their born sex. And only are happy after the transformation from a Male/Female to a Female/Male. Likewise, yes, it is a big challenge. They go through great hardships, and God does know this. But they also become some of the strongest people ever. However, we shouldn't have to go through a ton of crap for being born in the wrong body. Whether you think it was a mistake of him to do that is the only thing that could vary.
Exactly. You don't need a fictional book filled with hyperbole, miswritings, and such, to tell you that. You just need a conscience.
What wasn't wrong was to be her friend. She clearly needed a friend. The only mistake you made was being the wrong type of friend, but the fact she was happy means it wasn't as wrong as you think. Also, why was she happy? Did she not love her husband? If you wish to answer, PM's may be more appropriate for that particular bit. I feel it may be too personal for this topic and a bit off-topic too.
edited 19th Jan '13 9:20:51 AM by Irene
Shadow?Yes Shima, true, you've submitted these links before. No matter how many times you post them, they will still continue to be the interpretations of other people who agree with you. For every "translation error" there's another paper written by someone else saying it means what it should mean, with little if any significant variation.
None of your links are of a copy of the book we know as the Bible saying something functionally different from the copy of the Book as it is today.
edited 19th Jan '13 9:26:39 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorHere's a link to a mistranslation.
One version, the NRSV, says that a divorced woman commits adultery, while the other, the NIV 2011, says that she is a victim of adultery. These two positions contradict each other, therefore one must be wrong. One must be a mistranslation.
We're having this argument specifically because I do my own research and thus can accurately parse the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence' and 'stuff repeated by people who agree with me.' Might I suggest you do the same.
You refute a straw argument of your own making. Of course there's different versions of the Bible. And it's a good thing, since I can't read German. You cannot find a copy of the Book that is functionally different in content from the version we have.
As for "everyone" knowing this, well it seems there's a group of scholars who've done a bit more work on this than you who can't find this functionally different version of the Scripture. I would've thought as keen as people are to prove it's a mistake, these abundant copies of mistranslated Bibles could be easily procured.
Well then you don't have to care. I do.
I don't beat around any bushes and I play no mind games. I give answers. That they don't meet specific criteria if your own invention is....I'm sorry to say....not my problem.
I think you need to reread the Bible. Moses simply asked Pharaoh to let the Jews go. When he refused it was God that wrecked Egypt. And even when men kill under God's orders it's explicit that they're doing so under his authority and justification. When man takes it upon himself to kill, even for good reason (i.e. Moses killing the Egyptian who was beating the Jew) God frowns on it.
I mean really Irene, it's not that difficult a concept. An American soldier is given a target to subdue or kill. He can't on his own decide to shoot someone.
Logical Fallacy. Just because this course of action works, doesn't necessarily mean it was the only one. Another case of conflating interpretation with truth. For some, they're unhappy in a marriage and seek a divorce. Now they're happier. Doesn't mean divorce was a good option.
edited 19th Jan '13 9:40:37 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorNow if we can all stop refuting statements that have already been corrected, yes, let's talk about Matthew 5:32. Now, you can all groan and say "I knew Starship would find a way to talk around it," and that's your option, but....
Ever since I was in the Church those two statements were roughly equivalent. Yes, if you divorce your wife and she hasn't actually slept with someone else, then by the nature of a marriage, you've made both of you adulterers.
The Bible is clear that your sin is yours alone. And that nobody else's sin affects yours. The meaning here was never unclear to anybody. It's kind of like how if you rape someone, man or woman, they won't be a virgin when they eventually marry someone else as God said they were supposed to be.
Yes, by the nature of an interconnected society, our actions can rob people of the opportunity to do an be things in the way they were supposed to experience them. God is right and just that he doesn't punish you for that.
You cannot be condemned or punished for the sins of others, but you can suffer the same shame and heartbreak for it. That's not a new concept. Only by suspending all common sense would that verse have been confusing.
edited 19th Jan '13 9:39:55 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorEdit from above: Actually, I apologize to the thread. There's something I missed in all this.
Because the Bible takes marriage so seriously, it actually says, repeatedly, that even in the case of a divorce you had nothing to do with, you're not to remarry, unless the ex-wife/husband is dead. So, it would make both translations NSRV and NIV accurate, just coming from two different sets.
You've condemned a woman to live a life of loneliness because she can't marry and her new husband will be an adulterer though he did nothing wrong.
Shit, I forgot all about that one.
It was an honorI'm not seeing data here. So I hardly believe that. And if you did, you'd know that there were clearly different versions, as pointed out some posts above. You cannot deny that there are different versions when it's there plain as day.
The post above yours says otherwise. Case closed. You lost.
Sounds like they didn't look hard enough. Also, don't talk down to us. It's rather rude.
Wow, way to miss the point. I care about what he says, due to his reasons. His word alone has zero meaning. His reasons behind that word has meaning. That's the point. And always was the point.
Making more ridiculous statements that have nothing to do with the topic as some kind of comparison does not answer the question. So yeah, you beat around the bush. Why, eh, your call.
No, the fact that he wrecked Egypt is the fact that he clearly promotes violence. If he didn't, why did he wreck Egypt in the first place? His actions speak far louder than his words, Maxima. Words alone do not say anything. Actions however do.
As if I'm talking about the same situation here. Because that's not what I'm talking about at all, nor was your example in any way related to this to what I was talking about. Because Moses did not destroy things, God did it himself. That means he clearly was okay with destruction. He had reason, yes, but that doesn't mean isn't willing to be violent for the greater good. See what I'm getting at now? God has done horrible acts too. It doesn't mean we have to follow those, but people still do.
No, it was the only one worth doing. If they do not wish to be in the wrong body for their mind, there is no other legitimate option. Torturing them by now allowing them to switch to the body they feel the most comfortable with is ridiculous. And yes, that's what it is by not allowing the switch to happen.
And maybe she should facepalm till you read the links clearly provided to you multiple times. They're rather clear on the different translations with different meanings. We've provided the facts for you. If you are saying we haven't, then you need to read.
Fact: There are different unique translations.
Fact: A person is not always comfortable in the body they're born in.(or happy, which while similar, makes a difference)
Fact: A person cannot stop being attracted to something permanently(unless they are dead). They can choose not the persue it, but that's as far as it goes./
Shadow?You've condemned a woman to live a life of loneliness because she can't marry and her new husband will be an adulterer though he did nothing wrong.
Well, that's pretty damn mean and unfair of the guy in the clouds. :V
Irene, it takes enough work to have these discussions, formulate statements, look up research, make corrections before people jump all over a statement like "There no different versions of the Bible," when it's clear I already explained what I meant, and try to explain things when people are offended.
I'm willing to do that work when I'm assured I'm discussing things with a rational person who want to present facts and data and viewpoints honestly. This crap about "I invented my own criteria where my baseless assumptions count and yours don't, so of course I win," shows me that having an adult discussion is a waste of my time. I don't have time to waste.
I don't mind you being stuck in your own assumptions. It's fine. Be upfront and say, "Well, I only accept these premises and not these premises". I do the same thing.
But if you're going to insist on saying "No, no, no, my premise is right because it has the virtue of being mine," then you can have this discussion with someone else. Otherwise, please debate openly and honestly, and we'll talk.
It was an honorKay, for the first time since we met, I COMPLETELY agree with you. That's a pretty fucking shit deal.
It was an honorMaxima, I said far more than that. And you have the links on this page right now. Read them before replying and questioning my debating skills. They are not on trial here. In fact, I feel rather insulted by what you're doing.
So please knock that off and read those provided links before replying like that again.
Shadow?Irene, I never set out to offend. But when someone is using adolescent debate logic, I lose patience fairly quickly. Only someone with a total inability to grasp basic logic could equate me admitting there are different versions of the Bible with me admitting there are errors between versions.
I've seen you, and others, employ this combination of Ad Hominem and Moving the Goalposts before. If I'm going to look up links and read and Google and search and reread, then I expect you to do better.
Fact A: Yes, there are different versions of the Scripture, who disputed this? I said, and am now repeating, there's no reason to suggest that like so many other works in history, they've been accurately translated to be functionally the same as earlier versions.
Fact B: Your abundance of links demonstrate NOTHING except that there's been cultural, political, and sociological shifts between 2013 and the days of the Old Hebrews, and than language has changed to accommodate them. You make a good case for challenging the translations, but saying it proves mistranslation is about as irresponsible as the "irrefutabality of sex orientation to change."
The fact that within five minutes of reading your oh so irrefutable links will bring you to a line saying something like "The word MAY have been closer to this," or more explicitly "We really have no idea what the original word meant, but....it's kinda sorta closer to this other word. Maybe." kinda demonstrates my point. I know this because I read them.
Fact C: People can feel uncomfortable within their bodies, again, who disputed this. There's research that suggests it's not necessarily a matter of wrong gender, but that society has some truly warped gender roles and expectations. You may look up those studies at your leisure.
Still, that's just conjecture, I grant you. The fact is nobody has proven that simply learning to reject society's expectations of your gender and instead living by a code of your own personal making won't make you as happy as a transop, or more, in fact.
By the way, people do that everyday.
Fact D: There is research that lends credence to the idea that not only can you resist your urges/inclinations/orientations but you can manage and control them to an appreciable degree. There's certainly NO evidence that proves otherwise.
It was an honorGoddamnit Lasco, I really wish you hadn't posted that link. I've been looking up the Bible on marriage and it seems BOTH versions were right. If you dump your husband or wife, you make them adulterers and their new partners adulterers as well. They are both victim and accomplice.
Further research shows that if you get divorced, you're really not allowed to remarry unless one or the both of them die. But...I'm confused because the Bible seems to say in Paul's epistles that you can get and accept a divorce on account of cheating.
@Elfive - Completely agreed.
edited 19th Jan '13 10:30:08 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorMe: "What's up with that passage, God?"
God: "Yeah, well, I wrote that part right after Lucifer was being a jerk. I was in emotional turmoil, give me a break!"
Me: "Why didn't you change it later?"
God: "I tried, but all the people I sent this vision to thought they were just high!"
@Starship: Is there a passage in the NIV that says they are adulterers regardless, because that passage seems to suggest that's only true if they remarry. Also, make sure you're looking at the 2011 NIV revision, which is where that link comes from.
One thing I've never gotten, is Romans supposed to be divinely inspired, or is it just Paul's own thoughts?
edited 19th Jan '13 10:44:19 AM by Lascoden
boop
Yeah. And she's sinning too by marrying a divorcee, even if she had never been married before.
Also, keep in mind, quite a few sects consider losing your virginity to be "marriage in the eyes of God", so if you've had sex with someone, and marry someone else, that's also considered adultery.
edited 19th Jan '13 10:50:39 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

I provided both the mistranslations and links to them dozens of times. Here's an article on temple prostitutes and Leviticus.
Here's an article going through all the translation errors and talking about the original languages.
Here's the abstract of a scholarly paper on the mistranslations.
All of these have been linked to in the thread before along with other.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick