"what If 'gays' Went On Strike?"

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='trevorh_2000' post='1126551' date='Nov 23 2006, 12:51 AM']Actually, scientific scholars now believe that when the testaments were converted to english, they were missinterpreted to understand that sodomy = homosexuality. When in fact, they now believe it interprets to pagan sex rituals, adultry, and beastiality. Not Homosexuality![/quote]I'm afraid the "scientific scholars" can't blame the English translators. Here's a pretty clear text in Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm#v24"]link[/url]):
[quote name='Romans 1:24-27']Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.[/quote]And here's the Latin:[quote name='Romans 1:24-27']Propter quod tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum, in immunditiam, ut contumeliis afficiant corpora sua in semetipsis: qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium: et coluerunt, et servierunt creaturæ potius quam Creatori, qui est benedictus in sæcula. Amen. Propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiæ: nam feminæ eorum immutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam. Similiter autem et masculi, relicto naturali usu feminæ, exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semetipsis recipientes.[/quote]No mention of pagan sex rituals, adultery, or beastiality. It's men who "gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another."
I know that that it would be of value for pro-homosexual groups to re-interpret Christian moral teachings; but I think their bias is hampering their ability to be objective scholars.

[Veritas]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1126649' date='Nov 23 2006, 05:40 AM']
I'm afraid the "scientific scholars" can't blame the English translators. Here's a pretty clear text in Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm#v24"]link[/url]):
And here's the Latin:No mention of pagan sex rituals, adultery, or beastiality. It's men who "gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another."
I know that that it would be of value for pro-homosexual groups to re-interpret Christian moral teachings; but I think their bias is hampering their ability to be objective scholars.
[/quote]

+

As someone with a degree in Latin, I'm happy to chime in -the Latin says, what the Latin says.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Dr. Dave' post='1126106' date='Nov 22 2006, 02:24 PM']
To those of you who seem to think that homosexuality is a "depravity" or is an illness. GET A CLUE! Wouldn't you be surprised how many of "us" are out there leading professional and successful lives right among you. It brings to mind the fact that those of you who attempt to denegrate "us" tend to forget that - "He who lives in glass houses, shouldn't throw rocks."[/quote]
As far as I'm aware, the issue is the morality and rightness of homosexual behavior, not whether homosexuals can be successful in their careers. (Last I heard, the supposedly "oppresed" homosexuals on average make more money than the population as a whole, but that is totally irrelevant to anything.) Your remark is a total non-sequitor.

[quote]There is NO WHERE in the Bible that mentions homosexuality! But memory serves correctly that you should "Love Thy Neighbor." - Yet you all seem to forget that as well. No one is pushing gay rights on anyone. And NOT all gays are depraved! If "we" did go on strike - who would tend to you when you are sick? when you are arrested? put out your fires? tend to your religious needs?

Think before you express your bigotry![/quote]
Indeed.


Genesis 19: The city of Sodom is destroyed for the sin of homosexuality.
Gen. 19:5-7:[quote] And they called Lot, and said to him: "Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither, that we may know them:" Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: "Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil."[/quote]


Leviticus 18:22: [quote]Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.[/quote]

Leviticus 20:13:[quote] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.[/quote]

Romans 1:26-27:[quote] For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [/quote]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:[quote] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers [b]nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind[/b] nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.[/quote]

Think before you express your ignorance.

[track2004]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1126633' date='Nov 23 2006, 05:14 AM']
+

And yet, if "your" laws pass, classrooms (Catholic ones) will be forced to teach homosexuality as "normative", which is NOT in accord with Catholicsm. Same-sex "marriages" will attempt to be forced to take place at Catholic Churches, the same way adoption by homosexuals is forced upon Catholic adoption agencies. Please don't try and kid yourself, or us.

And yes, I have a right to "complain". On the other hand, if you decry "intolerance" your statement is, very simply, logically inconsistent and self-negating as an exmple of "intolerance, bigotry, and narrow-mindededness" in and of itself! In fact, I in deference to Christ, don't claim the "open" way IS the way. On the contrary, may I please reiterate the words of Christ himself, "The road to heaven is NARROW, and there are few, who will find it. The road to hell is wide and there are many..."

Finally, homosexual behaviour does not "deserve respect" and here's why: Simply put, it is a grosse abuse of the male and the female body. In the end, "loving and caring" does not necessitate sexual relationships. You do a great disservice to your argument by equating the two. In the end, feelings don't equal reality and desire does not equal truth. I sincerely hope this helps.
[/quote]

Catholic schools won't have to teach it, it's not like they teach about Birth Control or condoms. What exactly would teaching about it entail anyway, I didn't learn about being straight in school. The Catholic Chuch also doesn't have to marry anyone it doesn't want to, it's a privlidge. I'm sure some Catholic priests would marry a gay couple, but the law of the land doesn't influence the law of the Church.

His point is just that you complain anytime anyone says something positive about homosexuality (or even neutral) where as we don't whenever Christianity is pushed or shown on TV or any media outlet.

Gay sex might be gross to you, which is why I'm assuming you don't partake, but then again sex is kinda gross in general. I mean really now. Loving and caring don't necessitate a sexual relationship, but any ounce of caring on your part should entail some respect for gay people (people with SSA if you'd rather) because they are PEOPLE. No one is right about everything, no one is perfect, you aren't either, so just respect people as a general rule.

[Guest hrryank]

I found this site during a Google search for this topic. After doing some reading I thought I'd like to comment on some of what I've read since I see some misconceptions that I recognize from other discussions I've been in and thought I'd leave my .2USD. Forgive the major quotage, but I'm mainly responding to existing statements, not making new arguments.

[quote]
Pretty much all the "mainstream" media are in the homo-lobby's pocket now.
[/quote]
I hear this a lot, but only from fundamentalist Christians. I've never seen any studies showing the bias, and I've also never seen any particular "lobby." Using phrasing like that (along with using "agenda," etc.) degrades your argument with emotion rather than reason.

[quote]
The 98% of people, who do not have same-sex attractions
[/quote]
If you do some searching (easy on Google, takes a second) I think you'll find that there are more than 2% of the population that identifies as gay and even more that have/have had homosexual feelings and do not consider themselves gay.

[quote]
And yet, if "your" laws pass, classrooms (Catholic ones) will be forced to teach homosexuality as "normative", which is NOT in accord with Catholicsm. Same-sex "marriages" will attempt to be forced to take place at Catholic Churches, the same way adoption by homosexuals is forced upon Catholic adoption agencies. Please don't try and kid yourself, or us.
[/quote]
What's the saying again, err on the side of life? Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of tolerance since it's a public institution? Lowest common denominator and all. Catholic churches would absolutely not have to do anything differently. Marriage licenses are given by the state, not the church, but the ceremony can be given by the church (or any person with credentials), or you can get married without a ceremony, but saying the Church has to change is either ignorant or malicious. Since orphanages are overseen legally by the state they have to abide by state laws which would include nondiscrimination laws. The orphanage can't just take in children by itself any more than a family could take in feral children without registering as their guardian.

[quote]
Finally, homosexual behaviour does not "deserve respect" and here's why: Simply put, it is a grosse abuse of the male and the female body. In the end, "loving and caring" does not necessitate sexual relationships. You do a great disservice to your argument by equating the two. In the end, feelings don't equal reality and desire does not equal truth. I sincerely hope this helps.
[/quote]
Being gay is not about sex.

Let me repeat, being gay is not about sex.

The reason you might equate it is because since gays are repressed and have to hide their feelings many times you only (want to?) see the sexual side. A gay person is about love just as much as a heterosexual person is, given an equal chance.

[quote]
The attempt to equate homosexuality with blackness is, to be honest, so silly! Blackness is not an activity! Homosexuality is! They are categorically different.
[/quote]
Noone equates "blackness" with "gayness," but there are similarities in that they are minorities. Well, by that black, being Black is an activity... it's BEING. Gay people just ARE. They don't go have sex and are therefore gay. They are gay because they get up in the morning, get ready for the day, and happen to see an attractive man on the way to work instead of a woman. Are celibate people not heterosexual because they don't participate in the "heterosexual act"?

How about this. There used to be black women with very fair skin that would go as white women in order to avoid being a slave. Were they "being" white, or where they choosing to be white? Was there a "white act"?

[quote]
As far as I'm aware, the issue is the morality and rightness of homosexual behavior, not whether homosexuals can be successful in their careers. (Last I heard, the supposedly "oppresed" homosexuals on average make more money than the population as a whole, but that is totally irrelevant to anything.) Your remark is a total non-sequitor.
[/quote]
I agree with this in as much as "I believe this, you believe that, let's stay out of each other's hair." It's when things get into the realm of your beliefs affecting my life where things get rough, and if it's between your beliefs and my evidence of someone leading a fairly normal life then I'll go with evidence over beliefs and I think a lot of people would too.

[quote]
Loving and caring don't necessitate a sexual relationship
[/quote]
I think that's the one thing that people don't get about homosexuality. Being heterosexual has as much to do with sex as homosexuality does, so saying "the homosexual act" has no meaning with respect to homosexuality as a whole than the "heterosexual act" does to heterosexuality. If it did then grandma and grandpa wouldn't be heterosexual, and that just ain't the case I'm thinking.

Edited November 26, 2006 by hrryank

[rollingcatholic]

[quote name='trevorh_2000' post='1126551' date='Nov 22 2006, 11:51 PM']
Thankfully those of us in civilized countries, cannot be fired for being gay. Its against the law!!!! Now if only the US would step into the 21st century, the rest of the world might stop laughing at the US' backwards policies!
[/quote]

In a lot of (maybe most) states, you can be fired for unexcused absences.

DUH!

[quote]
And because you can't say anything intelligent to back up your beliefs, you pick on someones spelling.
[/quote]

I was pointing out the fact the the Bible is pretty explicit when it comes to a condemnation of Homosexual practices.

I thought that was pretty clear.

BTW, when I pick on someone's spelling, I'm much more subtle than that.

[quote]
Actually, scientific scholars now believe that when the testaments were converted to English, they were misinterpreted to understand that sodomy = homosexuality. When in fact, they now believe it interprets to pagan sex rituals, adultery, and bestiality. Not Homosexuality!
[/quote]

This fallacious argument has been used ad nausaum, and has been addressed. I'll let those who are versed in Latin take care of it.

[zeyeon]

I am appauled by some of these replies.

Sin is Sin... no sin is greater than the other. Stop judging people because of thier sexual preference. Psalm 1:1 "Blessed is he that does not stand in the way of sinners, scorn amongst the scorners, nor walk amongst the counsil of the ungodly"

If they like recieving up the mushy mud pie chute... as disgusting as it is... who are we to tell them that they can't do it? If they don't have faith then they don't have faith. If they do have faith then they are going to feel the same way you feel when you sin.

Edited November 26, 2006 by zeyeon

[Socrates]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1128150' date='Nov 26 2006, 05:15 PM']
I am appauled by some of these replies.

Sin is Sin... no sin is greater than the other. Stop judging people because of thier sexual preference. Psalm 1:1 "Blessed is he that does not stand in the way of sinners, scorn amongst the scorners, nor walk amongst the counsil of the ungodly"[/quote]

Psalm 1:[quote]Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence
But his will is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he shall meditate day and night.
And he shall be like a tree which is planted near the running waters, which shall bring forth its fruit, in due season. And his leaf shall not fall off: and all whatsoever he shall do shall prosper.
Not so the wicked, not so: but like the dust, which the wind driveth from the face of the earth.
Therefore the wicked shall not rise again in judgment: nor sinners in the council of the just.
For the Lord knoweth the way of the just: and the way of the wicked shall perish.[/quote]
This psalm is clearly condemning ungodly behavior and following the way of sinners.

[quote]If they like recieving up the mushy mud pie chute... as disgusting as it is... who are we to tell them that they can't do it?.[/quote]
We can tell them, because God has already condemned such behavior, as I have previously shown.

I gave five quotes the Bible in my [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=60807&view=findpost&p=1126754"]last post[/url] on this thread which clearly condemn the sin of homosexuality. Can you read?

Edited November 26, 2006 by Socrates

[zeyeon]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1128328' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:39 PM']
Psalm 1:
This psalm is clearly condemning ungodly behavior and following the way of sinners.
We can tell them, because God has already condemned such behavior, as I have previously shown.

I gave five quotes the Bible in my [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=60807&view=findpost&p=1126754"]last post[/url] on this thread which clearly condemn the sin of homosexuality. Can you read?
[/quote]


I can read just fine. You on the other hand clearly have an issue with correct interpretation of scripture.

how on EARTH does those psalm quotes COMMEND the condemnation of homosexuality?

I'm not disputing the fact that the bible condems homosexuality... but we're not supposed to judge. What part of that verse don't you understand? Blessed is he that DOES NOT stand in the way of sinners. Well that's what you are doing when you condemn them.

[Socrates]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1128336' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:52 PM']
I can read just fine. You on the other hand clearly have an issue with correct interpretation of scripture.

how on EARTH does those psalm quotes COMMEND the condemnation of homosexuality?

I'm not disputing the fact that the bible condems homosexuality... but we're not supposed to judge. What part of that verse don't you understand? Blessed is he that DOES NOT stand in the way of sinners. Well that's what you are doing when you condemn them.
[/quote]
The Latin is: "Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit."
Literally "Happy is the man who does not walk in the counsil of the impious and does not stand in the way (or road) of sinners."

It is saying not to take counsil from sinners nor follow in their ways. I doesn't mean not to speak out against sin. That is quite clear in context of the entire psalm.

Another translation reads:

[quote]Happy the man
who never follows the advice of the wicked
or loiters on the way that sinners take,
or sits with scoffers,
but finds his pleasure in the Law of Yahweh,
and murmurs his law day and night.[/quote]

We are instructed to meditate on the Law of the Lord, which condemns sins and ungodliness, including homosexuality, as the scripture I have quoted clearly demonstrates.
The Mosaic Law as given by God Himself, commanded that homosexuals be put to death.
While we no longer follow the old Mosaic Law, homosexuality remains a sin to be condemned, as St. Paul makes quite clear in his epistles.

It is you who has blatantly mis-interpreted one verse of Scripture, and used this to ignore the rest of Bible.

And your misinterpretation is quite absurd.
If you go by that ludicrous "interpretation" that we must not oppose any sinful actions, then you could do nothing to "stand in my way" if I decided to blow your head off with a .44.

Your statements on these boards are all self-defeating.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Socrates

[zeyeon]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1128363' date='Nov 26 2006, 08:19 PM']
The Latin is: "Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit."
Literally "Happy is the man who does not walk in the counsil of the impious and does not stand in the way (or road) of sinners."

It is saying not to take counsil from sinners nor follow in their ways. I doesn't mean not to speak out against sin. That is quite clear in context of the entire psalm.

Another translation reads:
We are instructed to meditate on the Law of the Lord, which condemns sins and ungodliness, including homosexuality, as the scripture I have quoted clearly demonstrates.
The Mosaic Law as given by God Himself, commanded that homosexuals be put to death.
While we no longer follow the old Mosaic Law, homosexuality remains a sin to be condemned, as St. Paul makes quite clear in his epistles.

It is you who has blatantly mis-interpreted one verse of Scripture, and used this to ignore the rest of Bible.

And your misinterpretation is quite absurd.
If you go by that ludicrous "interpretation" that we must not oppose any sinful actions, then you could do nothing to "stand in my way" if I decided to blow your head off with a .44.

Your statements on these boards are all self-defeating.
[/quote]

The original language of the Psalms was Hebrew. Don't come at me with latan translations... that's like translating it from Japaneese.

The translation directly from Hebrew is

Happy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful.

Can somebody please tell this fool, who has an obvious issue with understanding the english language, that the word NOR means NOT to stand in the way of sinners? and the word nor means NOT to scorn people? lol

thanks

Edited November 27, 2006 by zeyeon

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1128336' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:52 PM']I can read just fine. You on the other hand clearly have an issue with correct interpretation of scripture.[/quote]I'm afraid your posts betray the confidence you display regarding your knowledge of Holy Scriptures.
[quote name='zeyeon' post='1128336' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:52 PM']how on EARTH does those psalm quotes COMMEND the condemnation of homosexuality?

I'm not disputing the fact that the bible condems homosexuality... but we're not supposed to judge. What part of that verse don't you understand?[/quote]Just curious: by "we're not supposed to judge", are you suggesting that Christians should remain silent when they see their neighbor sin? Holy Scriptures say exactly the opposite. Christians are called to correct their neighbor (cf Matt 18:15).
[quote name='zeyeon' post='1128336' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:52 PM']Blessed is he that DOES NOT stand in the way of sinners. Well that's what you are doing when you condemn them.[/quote]As has already been said, the verse intends to bless those who do not live sinful lives.

Others have already tried to explain this verse, but I'll try anyway. "Stand in the way" is an English idiom. When looking at other languages, it's easy to see the word-for-word translation. The idiom doesn't exist in those other translations. Looking at the construction of the Psalm verse (i.e. "walking...standing...sitting"), it becomes even clearer that the idiom is not intended by the author. You interpretation is an odd consequence of reading certain vernacular translations; but an excellent example of why the Church has shown concern for private interpretation of Scriptural translations.

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='trevorh_2000' post='1126551' date='Nov 22 2006, 11:51 PM']
Well, gays are not illegal workers.
[/quote]

My point was to show that the strike by a large group of people did nothing to hurt the economy, and they were prized by the msm as well. If gays went on strike, it wouldn't hurt the economy either.

[Winchester]

Would they go on strike from being gay, or would they not go to work at all?

[zeyeon]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1128808' date='Nov 27 2006, 04:23 AM']
I'm afraid your posts betray the confidence you display regarding your knowledge of Holy Scriptures.
Just curious: by "we're not supposed to judge", are you suggesting that Christians should remain silent when they see their neighbor sin? Holy Scriptures say exactly the opposite. Christians are called to correct their neighbor (cf Matt 18:15).
As has already been said, the verse intends to bless those who do not live sinful lives. [/quote]

There is a massive difference between correction and condemnation. Just as massive as the difference between judgement and discernment. I never said correction wasn't necessary. But that person has to come to you with a geniune heart before you minister.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1128808' date='Nov 27 2006, 04:23 AM']
Others have already tried to explain this verse, but I'll try anyway. "Stand in the way" is an English idiom. When looking at other languages, it's easy to see the word-for-word translation. The idiom doesn't exist in those other translations. Looking at the construction of the Psalm verse (i.e. "walking...standing...sitting"), it becomes even clearer that the idiom is not intended by the author. You interpretation is an odd consequence of reading certain vernacular translations; but an excellent example of why the Church has shown concern for private interpretation of Scriptural translations.
[/quote]

and your church is apparently a classic example as to why private interpretation exists! it obviously needs accountability. The verse I gave you was translated word for word from HEBREW. the original language in which Psalms was written. There is not a more accurate translation that exists.

Edited November 27, 2006 by zeyeon