Openly Gay Man Called To Serve in Key LDS Position

[franklin]

Atheist Preacher and SirkAss setting the standard for intellectual dishonesty in this thread. I would have expected the typical results driven commentary from Sticky, but I was a little let down by A_P, who is always top notch in his commentary.

Paul's use of the word "arsenokoitai" in the original Greek in 1 Corinthians is literally untranslatable, much less into anything relating to homosexuals.

Do you eat shrimp or wear shirts that have two different kinds of fabric? Those are biblical "abominations" too. If homosexuality is at the same level of sin as those then you're making a big to do about nothing.

You call the word nonsense and untranslatable then divert around JazzSpazz's Leviticus quote, which it is quite obvious to non-homosexual scholars (and a good deal of homosexual ones too now) that this is where Paul's new word originated from. But when you want to drive a point home, get Atheist Preacher to sustain the brethren...

1) Homosexuality didn't exist as a concept in Biblical days at all.

Right, they walked around bathhouses nekked and looked the other way when there junk fell into a boy's mouth.

This is a well used fallacy among the intellectually dishonest. Lack of literature on the subject is in no way evidence that it wasn't known. There are a half a billion conceivable reasons why it wasn't commonly discussed, but screw Occam's Razor here eh? Doesn't really matter as Plato wrote about it anyway.

There were men who had sex with other men or boys, but they weren't considered "gay." It simply never occurred to anyone that there was such a thing as a fundamental homosexual orientation/identity rather than just isolated homosexual acts.

Quite the quaint claim but unsubstantiated nonetheless.

2) Some of the words translated as "homosexuality" in fact are referring to anal intercourse, which need not be with a man.

Again this is Paul. And these are the examples I mentioned to colton earlier. The word used by Paul in Greek here is "arsenokoitai." It is literally a nonsense compound word that there is no record of any prior usage of in any source material. There were words that meant homosexuality available and Paul chose not to use those.

Because those words were not inclusive, as you've pointed out yourself.


The variety of available words that unsuitably fit Pauls definition is exaclty why he combined with explanation two other words. Claiming his choice to his audience as "nonsensical" is irrational based on the supporting literature. It's also perfectly consisten with Paul's practice of doing such. He invented a couple hundred new terms to match his "new" meaning.

3) For something that is supposed to be such a terrible sin, there is very little in the Bible that could even *possibly* be construed as condemning homosexuality... six or seven passages at most, and many of these are suspect, and all but the Sodom story are very brief one-line or two-line sort of things. Don't you think there would have been more material on this if it's such an important issue? By way of comparison, look at all the Biblical material on adultery and divorce.

Many things are inferred culturally and need not be expounded upon. We have no reason to believe homosexuallity wasn't one of them inside Hebrew society when in fact the opposite is culturally established. But let us pretend otherwise. There are people living on Mars too.

4) Most significant of all, I think, for those wishing to construe the Sodom story as one which preaches against homosexuality, is that homosexuality is never identified as Sodom's sin. Sodom does, in fact, become a constant symbol of sinfulness in the OT, one which various prophets refer back to as an example of how not to be. But the sin of Sodom is identified explicitly in several places, most notably Ezekiel 16, as being morally and ethically lax, ignoring the poor and practicing the worst inhospitality. Further, none of the other passages traditionally understood as condemning homosexuality made any reference to the Sodom story... which at the very least would be very unusual, since the Biblical authors liked to tie their teachings back to well-known stories.

I find the point on the attempt to rape angels to be fair.

Human sexuality is a weird and twisted web with a spectrum of desires. To piggyback a little bit on AthiestPreacher's point though even when there was a concept of men sleeping with other young men the Greeks had a word for that "paiderasste." That's not the word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians (the actual word is a nonsense compound that appears nowhere else prior to Paul's usage) but it gets translated as being about homosexuals in some standard texts anyway and is used (including in this very thread) as an example of biblical prohibition.

You've stated 23 available descriptives. Had Paul used one then you'd no doubt be explaining that away as narrowly encompassing. Paul created a new word inclusive of all others.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Hahaha funny..... an openly gay man that doesn't have sex.

 

[Scat]

Atheist Preacher and SirkAss setting the standard for intellectual dishonesty in this thread. I would have expected the typical results driven commentary from Sticky, but I was a little let down by A_P, who is always top notch in his commentary.






You call the word nonsense and untranslatable then divert around JazzSpazz's Leviticus quote, which it is quite obvious to non-homosexual scholars (and a good deal of homosexual ones too now) that this is where Paul's new word originated from. But when you want to drive a point home, get Atheist Preacher to sustain the brethren...




Right, they walked around bathhouses nekked and looked the other way when there junk fell into a boy's mouth.

This is a well used fallacy among the intellectually dishonest. Lack of literature on the subject is in no way evidence that it wasn't known. There are a half a billion conceivable reasons why it wasn't commonly discussed, but screw Occam's Razor here eh? Doesn't really matter as Plato wrote about it anyway.




Quite the quaint claim but unsubstantiated nonetheless.





Because those words were not inclusive, as you've pointed out yourself.


The variety of available words that unsuitably fit Pauls definition is exaclty why he combined with explanation two other words. Claiming his choice to his audience as "nonsensical" is irrational based on the supporting literature. It's also perfectly consisten with Paul's practice of doing such. He invented a couple hundred new terms to match his "new" meaning.




Many things are inferred culturally and need not be expounded upon. We have no reason to believe homosexuallity wasn't one of them inside Hebrew society when in fact the opposite is culturally established. But let us pretend otherwise. There are people living on Mars too.



I find the point on the attempt to rape angels to be fair.




You've stated 23 available descriptives. Had Paul used one then you'd no doubt be explaining that away as narrowly encompassing. Paul created a new word inclusive of all others.

Congrats on your moment of sobriety... now back to the gin.

 

[MVP]

Religion is teddy bear for adults, does not matter if it is preached by straight or gay... People who do not need toys could care less..... so whatever

 

[Deleted member 848]

Religion is teddy bear for adults, does not matter if it is preached by straight or gay... People who do not need toys could care less..... so whatever

You might not need 'toys' like human faith in your life, but you damn-sure need a dictionary. Reading your error-laden sentences is a worse eyesore than Trout's "six-pack".

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Religion is teddy bear for adults, does not matter if it is preached by straight or gay... People who do not need toys could care less..... so whatever

Teddy bear is to dogs as religion is to athiests as brains is to akmvp as freethrows is to Shaq as terrible is to Charles as koke is to Archie as manners is to trout as agreeing is to cyrone as non-muslim is to brownswordsman as hantlers is to katie as trollingcomplainers is to colton as duplicates is to jazzfanz as making sense is to this post.

That is clarity for you.

 

[MVP]

Teddy bear is to dogs as religion is to athiests as brains is to akmvp as freethrows is to Shaq as terrible is to Charles as koke is to Archie as manners is to trout as agreeing is to cyrone as non-muslim is to brownswordsman as hantlers is to katie as trollingcomplainers is to colton as duplicates is to jazzfanz as making sense is to this post.

That is clarity for you.

lol, I have enough brains to understand that tales created thousands of years ago by uneducated dark people have absolutely no place in 21 century.
Here is another nice quote about religion:

Religion is like a *****. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

 

[colton]

lol, I have enough brains to understand that tales created thousands of years ago by uneducated dark people have absolutely no place in 21 century.

Really? Glad to know that racism is just fine even if religion is not.

 

[One Brow]

Really? Glad to know that racism is just fine even if religion is not.

IIRC, this is the same poster that said Turkish people, like Kanter, matured early. This is hardly new.

 

[Stoked]

lol, I have enough brains to understand that tales created thousands of years ago by uneducated dark people have absolutely no place in 21 century.
Here is another nice quote about religion:

Religion is like a *****. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

As long as you stop trying to shove no religion down my childs throat.

 

[One Brow]

As long as you stop trying to shove no religion down my childs throat.

In the US, there is no organized group trying to do that.

 

[MVP]

You might not need 'toys' like human faith in your life, but you damn-sure need a dictionary. Reading your error-laden sentences is a worse eyesore than Trout's "six-pack".

Maybe you should stick to topic? But if you want to play English teacher... why don't you point those errors ehh?

 

[MVP]

Really? Glad to know that racism is just fine even if religion is not.

ROFL.... since when dark is racist? White people who used inquisition to burn witches and killed Giordano Bruno are dark in that context as well FYI. Dark means - uneducated here.

 

[Stoked]

ROFL.... since when dark is racist? White people who used inquisition to burn witches and killed Giordano Bruno are dark in that context as well FYI. Dark means - uneducated here.

Hahaha. Since when has dark (in connection with skin tone) every been used for uneducated in a non racist way?

I am the first to say something when people use the BS racist card over everything (I'm looking at you Racist Brow) but that does indeed sound racist. You may not be racist and you probably didn't mean it that way but it certainly sounds and looks like you did.

 

[Stoked]

ROFL.... Since when is dark racist? White people who used to burn witches during the inquisition and killed Giordano Bruno are dark in this context. Dark means uneducated here.

As for an English Teacher...I am no expert but I fixed some things for you.

 

[MVP]

As long as you stop trying to shove no religion down my childs throat.

Nobody is showing atheism to children. I will have no problem if my kids decide to worship oaks, snakes, thunder, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, Thor, Odin, Seth, Anubis, Manitou, Osiris, Huitzilopotchli, Zeus, Lucifer or other numerous gods created by man's fear and darkness... Just let them have freedom of choice. And unfortunately in most countries they do not have it.

 

[Stoked]

Nobody is showing atheism to children. I will have no problem if my kids decide to worship oaks, snakes, thunder, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, Thor, Odin, Seth, Anubis, Manitou, Osiris, Huitzilopotchli, Zeus, Lucifer or other numerous gods created by man's fear and darkness... Just let them have freedom of choice. And unfortunately in most countries they do not have it.

That is entirely based on yoru point of view now isn't it? Athiest think religion is being forced on them and religious people think that no religion is being forced on them. (generally speaking)

Amazing how ones perception changes depending on what side of the fence they are on.

As for the bolded part well you are talking to people who mostly live in places where they do allow that freedom so how does your comment on not forcing religion down your childs throat apply to us?

 

[MVP]

Hahaha. Since when has dark (in connection with skin tone) every been used for uneducated in a non racist way?

I am the first to say something when people use the BS racist card over everything (I'm looking at you Racist Brow) but that does indeed sound racist. You may not be racist and you probably didn't mean it that way but it certainly sounds and looks like you did.

But I never used word dark in connection with skin tone here!!! It refers more to Dark Ages - or people living in the darkness of fear...Don't understand why would anybody make connection with skin color here - from 2.2 bil christians in the world most are white - that would make no sense at all.

 

[MVP]

As for the bolded part well you are talking to people who mostly live in places where they do allow that freedom so how does your comment on not forcing religion down your childs throat apply to us?

Why then there is "In God we Trust" on official US banknote?

 

[Stoked]

Why then there is "In God we Trust" on official US banknote?

Last I checked no one made you go to church, pray, read your scriptures...