School bars same-sex partners at formals

[newanarchy]

dawatchdawg wrote:

<quoted text>
Since Christians can no longer expect you all to go along with what they are trying to expound on in Scripture, which is the revealed word of God, and you are (us'es) have all of the concrete proof that the Bible is in favor of you and(us'es)Idolatry. There is no point of you trying to make a point, because you and (us'es) has the answers for everything. Soon America will be like India (Hindu's Krisnas invite Eunuchs into their houses to bless the babies and households with good luck as they prostitute and beg on the streets) San Fransisco is full of EUNUCHS already, Is that where you are trying to go with this thing?

Personally, we'd all be better of if you delusional god believers, straight or gay would just fall off the earth, in my opinion.

[McMike]

biiguy wrote:

<quoted text>
The OT doesn't forbid gay sex as part of the temple ritual. It forbids anal intercourse between males, period. would you like the specific reference?

Do some research. The correct translation of "abomination" is "unclean for a temple ritual". So, no, it doesn't forbid anal course b/w 2 men period. It only forbids it when you're heading into a temple. Feel free to post the 2 Leveticus passages and I'll be more then happy and able to provide you endless links with proven facts on the correct translation. There are 2 passages in that book and the one which your crew always cites, the abomination one, specifically states "unclean for a temple ritual". If you haven't used Google yet it's a great tool for those of us already in the information age.

[biiguy]

McMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Do some research. The correct translation of "abomination" is "unclean for a temple ritual". So, no, it doesn't forbid anal course b/w 2 men period. It only forbids it when you're heading into a temple. Feel free to post the 2 Leveticus passages and I'll be more then happy and able to provide you endless links with proven facts on the correct translation. There are 2 passages in that book and the one which your crew always cites, the abomination one, specifically states "unclean for a temple ritual". If you haven't used Google yet it's a great tool for those of us already in the information age.

Check leviticus Chapter 18. There is a whole list of forbidden sexual partners... and nowhere does it mention 'for temple purposes'. It mentions impurity in the land, not specifically in the temple. Males are mentioned in verse 22, by the way. I don't know whch mistranslation you're using, but the version I have here is definitely accepted...

[DebJ]

Yeah wrote:

I don't care if gays get married as long as they don't come onto me.

Afraid you'll say yes?

[DebJ]

biiguy wrote:

<quoted text>
The OT doesn't forbid gay sex as part of the temple ritual. It forbids anal intercourse between males, period. would you like the specific reference?

Who cares? It's totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

[digitalman]

its religions fault thats why im atheiest

[biiguy]

digitalman wrote:

its religions fault thats why im atheiest

as the stewardess announced after the very rough plane landing:
It wasn't my fault, it wasn't the pilot's fault. It was the asphalt.

[bryts]

McMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Do some research. The correct translation of "abomination" is "unclean for a temple ritual". So, no, it doesn't forbid anal course b/w 2 men period. It only forbids it when you're heading into a temple. Feel free to post the 2 Leveticus passages and I'll be more then happy and able to provide you endless links with proven facts on the correct translation. There are 2 passages in that book and the one which your crew always cites, the abomination one, specifically states "unclean for a temple ritual". If you haven't used Google yet it's a great tool for those of us already in the information age.

Just a quick point of contention... the word "abomination" itself is an interpretation, as the Bible was not written in any current language.(was it Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew as the original?)

What my point is, is that we simply need to be cautious about "interpretation" of individual words. Often it's the story that has the meaning, not specific words.

[McMike]

biiguy wrote:

<quoted text>
Check leviticus Chapter 18. There is a whole list of forbidden sexual partners... and nowhere does it mention 'for temple purposes'. It mentions impurity in the land, not specifically in the temple. Males are mentioned in verse 22, by the way. I don't know whch mistranslation you're using, but the version I have here is definitely accepted...

Yeah, they're definitely accepted by those who are willingful ignorant and realize without their modern day versions they'd be left with zilch to condemn homosexuals.

a) the 'temple prostitution' reference is in the NT, not the OT. When Paul is speaking of homosexuality, supposebly, he's specifically referring to temple prostitution. Even though your KJV may mistranslate it intentionally it is unable to move the passage and thus leaves it right smack in the middle where Paul is speaking of the temple. If you don't believe me you might want to read at the BEGINING of that chapter and see he's speaking of temple acts. When you only read that one line to condemn you ignorantly and willingfully leave out the context.

b) it is a FACT the abomination refernce in the OT translates to "unclean for a temple ritual".

There were words the Greeks used for homosexuality and NONE of them were used in the original text. If Paul was trying to tell us being a homosexual was wrong he would have used any number of the words which were used by the Greeks to describe homosexuality. But he didn't. He used the word which specifically stated "temple prostitution".

As for the othe references the word "homosexual", or any reference to it, didn't exist in the original text. For example, the KJV added "homosexuality" where it originally only read "sexually immoral", etc, etc.

Sorry but you're having to deal with facts here and not some intentionally misguided translation which is the only key you have to justify your bias. It's not 'by chance' the Church back then was having to deal with a queer King James, who uttered "If Jesus can have His John then I can have my so-and-so". I am sure the translators were over dealing with this homosexual king and made every effort to tell us being gay is against God's will.

[McMike]

bryts wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a quick point of contention... the word "abomination" itself is an interpretation, as the Bible was not written in any current language.(was it Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew as the original?)
What my point is, is that we simply need to be cautious about "interpretation" of individual words. Often it's the story that has the meaning, not specific words.

The OT was written in Hebrew, the NT in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic. It isn't hard, at all, to go back to the original text to figure out what it's telling us and how various translations intentionally tell us otherwise.

Original:
"V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

KJV:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.ht...

[Heather]

According to the Bible if a man rapes a woman he must pay her father and marry her. He should never divorce her aslong as she lives. It was believed to be impossible for a man to rape his wife as she had consented to him through marriage - we're not just talking 2000 years ago, we're talking less than a century ago.

Believe it or not, is was because of this ancient belief, that a man was almost 'let off' the rape of his wife in the early 1990s in England after it was discovered the marital rape law hadn't been reformed.

Although it doesn't justify rape outside of marriage -- The Bible justifies 'marital' rape.

Yet, how many Christians do you see protesting that a rapist should be compelled to marry his victim?
How many Christian father's seel their daughters?

Yet let's point the finger at the homosexuals, because one of the Biblical writers didn't like it!

Not God......... and
Not Jesus!

[biiguy]

bryts wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a quick point of contention... the word "abomination" itself is an interpretation, as the Bible was not written in any current language.(was it Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew as the original?)
What my point is, is that we simply need to be cautious about "interpretation" of individual words. Often it's the story that has the meaning, not specific words.

It was written in Hebrew, & my Jewish friends tell me that the word used there, to'eva (roughly translated into English as 'abomination') is one of the words used to describe types of forbiddenness. Again, this has to do with the average citizen, not with temple worship. Check the context there.

[biiguy]

Heather wrote:

According to the Bible if a man rapes a woman he must pay her father and marry her. He should never divorce her aslong as she lives. It was believed to be impossible for a man to rape his wife as she had consented to him through marriage - we're not just talking 2000 years ago, we're talking less than a century ago.
Believe it or not, is was because of this ancient belief, that a man was almost 'let off' the rape of his wife in the early 1990s in England after it was discovered the marital rape law hadn't been reformed.
Although it doesn't justify rape outside of marriage -- The Bible justifies 'marital' rape.
Yet, how many Christians do you see protesting that a rapist should be compelled to marry his victim?
How many Christian father's seel their daughters?
Yet let's point the finger at the homosexuals, because one of the Biblical writers didn't like it!
Not God......... and
Not Jesus!

By law the rapist had to marry her ONLY if she agreed (check the Talmud).... and most fathers wouldn't have agreed to give her to a rapist, either...

[Wrong_period]

In all honesty... all gays,empty all prisons too, round up the rest of the pedophiles, rapists and murders and thieves. give them all one way tickets to some remote island. Once all are there... NUKE the f*cken island! Ta da! worlds problems gone!

[Heather]

biiguy wrote:

<quoted text>
By law the rapist had to marry her ONLY if she agreed (check the Talmud).... and most fathers wouldn't have agreed to give her to a rapist, either...

It doesn't escape the fact that by law up until suprisingly recently, marriage was consent to sex and a man couldn't be guilty of raping his wife and this roots back to the vows (love, honour and obey) and they have their roots in religion. Not that it is religion's fault, it never is, it's about how people have wanted to control other people -- homosexuality is just the same.
However, nobody would agree with marital rape whether it was decided in consideration of what was said in the Bibe or whether it was written clearly would they?

The Bible speaks of all sorts of things which wouldn't be accepted today because of modern views, yet homosexuality is gross and embarresing for many, so it becomes sinful and this is prepetuated by the ignorant and fearful!!