UESP Forums

To apease our newest, and the only that I know of, Tea Party Moderator, I have desided to move the discussion of God, the rights of man, and free will, to another thread. I want the proof that shows any of the theories posted there are true. Do you think people will be forced to accpet others points, and wouldn't that prove the others point, pointless? Discuss.

Warning: Personal attacks will not be tolerated in this thread. It's under a one strike and lock policy. Play nice.

Basically, I think that the Church and state should be separate and that the state and Church should be separate. The state shouldn't be allowed to influence the affairs of the Church and the Church shouldn't be allowed to influence the affairs of the state.

Oh, is this where the non-chicken discussions are suppsed to be kept?

I think so.

Of course. I want to debate this, civally. But I also want to talk about fried chicken later.

Very well, I'll repost this here then so that I might get a proper response.


Disregarding all the crazy stuff found right next to these quotes I heard an interesting theory on those passages. For the second quote, apparently in the pre-English version two different words for man were used, one meaning man-of-high-status and the other meaning man-of-low-status. Basically the upper class shouldn't mix with that filthy lower class.
That's just something I remember hearing and I can't really go look for sources right now since it's a pain to do on mobile device google. Darn..

As for the first quote, that just seems to be saying "A man shalt not sleep with another man as if he were his property" 'cause y'know, that's basically what women are in that book. It would just be too demeaning to treat a man like a woman since men are god's special people after all while women are just..I dunno, door mats? Of course that's all done away with in the NT but somehow this passage lives on. Not really sure what's going on here..

It doesn't seem to me that those quotes can be proven to be specifically about homosexuality, there's room for a lot of ambiguity. What if they've just been badly translated and mis-interpreted and it's actually wrong to condem homosexuality as a sin?


Oh, and the question that's always bugging me. What about lesbians?
I'm pretty sure the OT doesn't mention them becase of the whole door mat status thing but is it ever mentioned somewhere?
The bible seems awfully keen on treating people differently based on their sex so how do you know female homosexuality is bad?

I'm not really trying to argue for or against anything here, I've, made my stance on the subject clear several times before. I'm just curious about the issues mentioned above.

The NT contradicts the OT on a lot of occasions. It's down to whether you take the NT as being more important than the OT (if you're a Christian, obviously).

I've heard this never seen proof of it.


thats not what its saying, the bible also says a man sleeping with another man is wrong, not just "like a women"


Women should not be treated like that the bible tells men to respect the wifes, did they follow it? hell no, but the point still stands the bible it self dose not condone most of it



http://westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/ ... ality.html


They did not have " homosexuality"
Just like their classification was not mammals and what not, that’s why some of the things listed seem "wrong" because back then they did not classify that way but we do now.



The bible seems awfully keen on treating people differently based on their sex so how do you know female homosexuality is bad?

here are some
http://www.openbible.info/topics/lesbians

May be mis-quoted.

That was my point, T. No matter how much one loves the Bible, I for one think that it is great, God did not come to Earth and personally write it. And he certainently didn't translate it. Many take the Bible litterally, but God did not write all of its parts. A priest somewhere did. I take most things litterally, but when it tells me the number of clothing materials I may have, it starts to sound like personal opinion or alligory.

Marriage should be done away with entirely (in a legal sense), then, since the state jumped-in and recognized it.

I think a religious and state marriage should be "Separate" and different

that way Gays get their “benefits” 9I still think if you marry for that you should not be married but that’s just me and I wont stop others form doing that)

but yeah what gives the state the right to claim marriage when it WAS a church thing>?


This way Christains can keep their belfies that marrige (true marrige) is for man and women
and the others can have theirs

Evrey one wins.

I'm still partial to our "origins" involving aliens..

Man is by nature, sinful, how can you stop two people from marrying just because their bodies works different from your own. I believe God gave man free will, yes I said free will, because he wanted ud to be trully free and happy. If two people love each other, with every fiber of their being, and love God even more, why can they not tell the world in a ceremony before God and their friends. I like to, or a least I used to, read Harry Potter. Just because it talked about witchcraft and wizardry, my grandmother took it from me. I'm not practicing it, I'm just reading. Does playing video games about murder threaten my eternal soul, I think not. so don't use the "I see it, and God will hate me if i do nothing about it" argument; it is wrong.

The problem with religious "texts" is that they are all, at start or eventually, highly subjective. Not only that, but most religions tend to cherry-pick their own "laws" and ignore ones that don't suit their goals/immediate views.

Wolfie, none of those links seem to shed any clarity on this for me. Basically the NT doesn't seem to say anything really about homosexuality so were left with the cryptic OT. Clearly some practices supported in the OT are rendered obsolete by the NT, like stoning your children and whatnot. How do you know tthe condemning of homosexuality shouldn't be obsolete as well?
I don't see how people can be so gosh darned certain about this when the source for their conviction has to be interpreted all the time and wildly different interpretations are possible.
I mean, what if your interpretation is wrong? Would it be a sin then to have gone against the word of god unknowingly?

Also, lesbians. The passages you linked only said the women were overcome with unnatural lusts, you could interpret it as desire for each other because that's what happened to the men but given the number of things labeled unnatural and the differnt treatment of men and women I'm not so sure.

That's a good point, Mrs. T. I prefer the NT over the OT.

Oh, yeah. Keep it clean; I think MusicMan is serious.

Br3admax, we need to have a clear topic here. Please change the title of the thread to reflect what you would like to discuss.

Its NOT about sin, sin is being gay, gay marrige it self is never called a sin, God says marrige is betwen a man and a women, nothing about a man and man marrying is a sin.




Thats fine, but you cant find a verse that saysd free will and plenty say God forced pepole to do things.

becuse God says so?


There is a diffrince, #1 the bible never says anything about "Telling a story of sin" as being a sin, Christ sopke about sin, God talked about witchcraft, you can act, read, play things with them in it.


No one is using it here, I never said thats why its wrong.

how would you like it if someone came to USA and demanded we changed our evrey one has equal rights?



How much of that is you did not read the whole book?

m,any pepole think us saying the NT is better is us chjerry picking, but guess what? a verse tells us so, bet you did not know that?

I'm definitely keeping it clean. I may have very strong opinions on religion in particular but I've already tried that discussion and it clearly doesn't work here. Now I'm just trying to satisfy my curiosity about this ever-perplexing religion thing.

Translation: Equal rights are bad! (previous sentiment) How would you like it if someone came to the US and took away our equal rights?

What in hell...

Is that NT or OT? Are there several instances of this "law" being laid down?

It's probably OT. I'm not sure, though.

Could you please quote the verse again for this thread? I would like to read it.