On Slavery and Homosexuality In The Bible
Although this is really already posted on the forum, one can clearly see the need for this to be content. The fact is moderate Christians today adamently deny that slavery is in the Bible, and Fundamentalists claim it's in tehre and they wish they could follow it, the same way they show there intolerance for the Homosexual community at large and base that off the Bible as well. Does "God Hate Fags?" Well according to the Bible God does not only hate them, but seeks that they should be executed.
I do not condone nor approve of the Bible's regard for slavery or Homosexuality. In fact, I think it's disgusting. What sort of loving God would agree to, in fact make laws about, killing people because they are different and subjugating people on the sdame grounds? Let's take a look at one Christians defense of this claim, and my evidence against them. Below is an atheists plea for assistance, which the Rational Responders answered, and his adversary who tried to suggest that such things were not in the Bible.
here is where you can post, even anonymously..... http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=2656
I'll write out a reply here, and you can copy-paste. If the person continues on this silliness, I'll create an account and get personal.
"I really don't see how pointing out an obsolete passage from the Bible proves that nobody reads. I will repost my response to your 'dozens' of posts from passages taken out of context and reworded to fit your anti-bible rants.
This is a logical fallacy here. Aside from straw-manning the anti-bible thing, the contradictions in the Bible span thousands. Some in clumps of 10-14 verses, and all are within the context of the passage.
Ry, the meaning of these scriptures, especially the word slave, is critical to understanding this controversy. For example, in the King James version, the most widely used version in the 1700 and 1800s in America when slavery existed, the word slave was used only once (Jer 2:14), and the word slaves also was used only once (Rev 18:13). Conversely, servant, servants, and other similar words were used almost a thousand times. Therefore, the question “Does the Bible condone slavery” first requires defining the word slave. "Slavery" in the Bible is actually an ancient form of indentured servitude. Basically, an indentured servant is someone who does services like manual labor or something else in exchange for food and shelter, provided by the master. Slavery is not necessary now as it was then. Times have changed just a little in the two or three thousand years since the Old and New Testament days.
Really? In the KJV? The one version of the Bible which has undergone more changes and additions and "corrections" to problems then any other version in the entire history of versions of the bible! Let's take a look at the greek, shall we?
One claim at a time. First, the most obvious, is your notion that "slave" is not used but once in the entire KJV, when in fact, the Greek shows something quite different. (Let me guess, you just went on Bible Gateway and did a word search and it turned up two verses, right? Typical non-learned Christian.)
Paul, for example, calls himself a slave to Christ many times over in his epistles. Romans 1:1, for example, although the doctored Greek translations say "servant", save the word in Greek is doulos or δουλος. The word means, literally, slave or born bondsman. The word appears in other works as well as the Bible, for example in the play by Aeschylus, Agamemnon, no doubt about the tragedy of Troy, δουλος is used in this passage:
- Yet once more I would like to speak, but not a dirge. I pray to the sun, in presence of his latest light, that my enemies2 may at the same time pay to my avengers a bloody penalty for  slaughtering a slave, an easy prey. Alas for human fortune! When prosperous, a mere shadow can overturn it3 ; if misfortune strikes, the dash of a wet sponge blots out the drawing.  And this last I deem far more pitiable than that.
This is just one case where the term is evidence for the literal connotation. The problem with the KJV, and many of the newer versions of the Bible, like the NIV, are explained by McDowell and Stuart:
McDowell and Stewart are willing to concede on pages 50-52 of their book entitled Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity.
- "The publication of the KJV of 1611 did not mark the end of new translations of the Bible. Sixteen years after the release of the Authorized Version (KJV), a 5th century Greek manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) was brought to England. This manuscript was centuries closer in time to the writing of the NT than the handful of manuscripts used to translate the KJV. Moreover, the Greek Codex Alexandrinus was different in certain respects than the text which was used to translate the KJV.
During the next two and one half centuries, a great number of other new manuscripts were discovered, some dating as early as the middle of the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus, A.D. 325; Codex Siniaticus, A.D. 350).
With these discoveries and a refining of the science of textual criticism, it was inevitable, and even desirable, that voices would cry out for a revision of the KJV.
The purpose of the revision committee was revealed in a report submitted on May 3, 1870 by the Canterbury Committee.... 1. That it is decided that a revision of the KJV of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.... 3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except when in the judgment of the most competent scholars such change is necessary....Any changes from the King James were to be done only when absolutely necessary....If such evidence warranted a change, the approval of at least two-thirds of the revisers was required before it would be incorporated into the text. The actual number of changes far exceeded the original expectations of the committee, but most of the numerous changes were merely grammatical (i.e., word order, sentence structure)....
The great value of the RV is that it set a precedent for further translations which could incorporate the latest manuscript and linguistic and historical evidence into their versions.
Regarding the NASB they say on page 71, "...the translators of the NASB attempted to bring the American Standard Version up to date, to be as faithful to the original languages as possible, and to present a clear and readable style...."
In fact the above proves that later versions were not only refined and redefined to correct major flaws and to modernize language, the fact that only minor word changes and sentence structure changes occurred speaks volumes of the KJV’s reliability. So trying to suggest that the word “slave” might have been a copyist error (which I am going to assume that somebody will try and bring that up next) is simply fraudulent. Even after 300 years of manuscript findings, the very little corrections that was required to be made, and the fact that very little had to do with the translation itself, suggests that the KJV was the closest it could get in terms of translation from the start!
Although with new committees redefining the translations again, newer copies of the KJV have also been corrected to modernize and reflect the many “unlikable” and “negative” words and phrases in the Bible. Works like “kill” became “murder” and “slave” became “servant.” But the Greek doesn’t lie, and when one goes back to the Greek, one clearly can see the issue with trying to change around the words – in effect to make the Bible say what it doesn’t say – just to appease the population. That is exactly what has been done here.
To continue on point, Leviticus 25:39 talks about slavery as well, from the Hebrew phrase `abodah ‘ebed or the whole verse in Hebrew:
- לט וכי ימוך אחיך עמך ונמכר לך--לא תעבד בו עבדת עבד
- 'If your brother has grown poor among you, and sells himself to you; you shall not make him to serve as a slave.
“Serve as a slave” is the phrase I pointed to above, the phrase is very literal, meaning that one serves in bondage as a bondsman. It’s a nice way of saying slave, but calling a pot a kettle is not changing the physical and evident structure of the actual pot, it’s really just semantics. A pot is a pot regardless of it’s name, and a spade is a spade regardless.
In the end, the nature of Leviticus 25 is ripe with slave references, and the Hebrew reveals as much. 'Amah or “female slave” is used repeatedly between verses 44 and 55. Leviticus even states that these very 'amah and ‘ebed are your property, for that you have purchased, as described in verse 45, “Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property.”
These are but a few examples of slavery being ever-present in the Bible. I could give you laundry lists, if you really want to keep debating me on this issue.
The main point of this is that the Bible condones such action, and Jesus doesn't lift one finger to end it, in fact he speaks favorably about slavery in a parable. (Luke 14:17) Here δουλον is used again. It's continually used, and refers explicitly to slavery. The act in which a human being is held as property in bondage to do the will of another human being.
It's an inhumane act, and the Bible allows it. This is the point at hand. The fact that you ignorantly thought it was non-existant is only evidence to how little you know about the Bible, and although it was fun showing you where you err, you should realize this is irrelevant.
As made clear, the Bible clearly is accepting of acts such as slavery. "If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property." (Ex. 21:20-21) (Before you ask, the word is 'ebed - note how here the translators decided to use "servant" instead of "slave" this time? This is just one example of how the translators play with the greek and the hebrew. This hebrew word still means slave, but they *tweak* the word in english becaus english is such a sloppy language, they can get away with it. The Hebrew and Greek, however, aren't so forgiving.)
God commands, a few times, for people (female virgins) to be taken as slaves and war plunder! (Num. 31:31-36) Where is the justice? Where is the love?
The word is already defined. YOU just don’t like the way it is defined, and seek to, like others have, change what the Bible says to better suit your opinions of what you THINK the bible SHOULD say. The fact is, however, the Bible is very clear on slavery and on how a slave should be treated. The fact is, that the Bible allows it at all is enough reason to put the book down and disregard it as the work of a loving God. Because no loving, just God would ever allow it.
Saying that “God gave guidelines on the treatment of slaves" does not prove that there should be slaves. Slaves WERE a necessary evil which we can definitely live without. The guidelines, when they were used, helped to ease the inhumanity of being a slave.
So it’s okay to beat them close to death, but because they’re property, we can’t kill them? So whipping them every day, three times a day is okay, as long as they don’t die from it? These are the guidelines your Bible tells us is okay. The verse is mentioned above. Stop lying and trying to sugar-coat reality, I’m smarter then you.
We have rules for war, but that does not make warfare a necessity.
But the fact is, slavery existed and the Bible, supposedly a book that contains some sort of moral authority, condones it! The Bible also has rules for women being made war plunder, by order from God, and the Bible also tells us to kill all those who are not of our faith. Heck, you really want to go this route? Let’s go all out, then. Here’s a list of verses that we should all follow (God commands you!) for the betterment of our society. This is in your perfect book, in your moral authority!
Leviticus 20:9, "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Couldn't we try like, spanking the kid first? How about that?
Leviticus 24:16, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." (Little bit of an ego problem there, god?)
In Numbers 1:51, 3:10, 3:38, God shows us how hospitable he is when he says "The stranger that cometh nigh (to a specific event mentioned - ed) shall be put to death."
Numbers 5:2-4, "Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel." What ever happened to trying to help the sick instead of just abandoning them to the wild? One can only imagine the heartbreak of having to expell your own mother or father, grandfather or favorite aunt and unlc esimply because they are sick, and watching them wander off without help from the world, and all because god says so.
Numbers 14:18, "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." One can only imagine what it would be like to be hauled away for a bank robbery your great great great grandfather did generations ago. ...Wait a tic, wasn't there something about children not being held accountable for their fathers crimes somewhere in the old testament as well? Ah right, here it is: Deut. 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Well this is just darn confusing!
The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. Numbers 15:32-36, "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses." And most of us drive daily on saturdays (and sundays). Poor guy, too bad he wasn't born just a few thousand years later, when people didn't kill somebody because they thought some ancient words in a holy book told them so....we don't believe in a jealous god anymore that demands an entire nation of people to be exterminated and destroyed along with all of their religious symbols and possessions. (Num. 33:50-52)
Oh, right. Heh, I guess I was wrong. We still do that!
- 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
- 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
- Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
- By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]
- Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
- In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.
- In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
More recently the BBC aired:
Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide
BBC NEWS April 19, 1998
A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...
I guess it's true what the Bible says, "All nations shall be terrorized by the followers of Yahweh." (Deut. 2:25) I guess they were all just following God's example. Because remember: If you worship the wrong god, God will get jealous and kill you. (Deut. 6:15) And God will kill those who hate him. (Deut. 7:10) After all, we are commanded by God to Kill those of other faiths. (Deut. 12:30, 17:2-7)
And of course, if your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." (Deut. 13:6-10)
If you hear of a city where another god is worshiped, then destroy everyone in the city (even the cattle) and burn it down. Watch out Salt Lake, Seatle and countless other cities all across the world who aren't of a Christian sect! (And even if you are, be careful...after all, if you follow a different version of Christianity, you can still be targets from other Christians!) (Deut. 13:12-16)
Oh, and I have more things we should apply to real life use.
We should kill people who murmur, like God threatens to do. [To which the people reply, "Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish .... Shall we be consumed with dying?" (Numbers 17:12-13)]
It's unfortunate that we cannot harden people’s hearts or force their minds to do something just so we can have the fun of killing them for disobeying us, even though we made them disobey. Then we could be just like God, when he hardened the heart of the king of Heshbon just so that he could have him and all of his people killed. (Deut. 2:30)
If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deut. 22:23-24)
I suppose there are more, but heck, by the time we get these worked into laws, and real life, there may not be enough people to kill to really appease God anymore - and thus we will all die anyway because God will get mad. Sad really. Eh, so be it, right?
OKay, one more. That's it I promise.
If you don't obey all of the laws that are given in the Old Testament, God shower you with the curses that are given in the next 52 verses. (Deut. 28:16-68)
And yes, this is all in your Bible. This is supposed to be your moral authority! This is what the Bible condones – in fact it commands - and this is exactly what the point of this discussion was. It seems to have gone over your head completely, or you just want to focus on the irrelevant points and ad hoc your way out of this troubling position you found yourself in.
Simply put, life was definitely not as simple as it is today. The Hebrews back then lived "hand-to-mouth". They didn't work for profit, they worked to survive. But an indentured servant was GUARANTEED food and a home, in exchange for doing work. This may have been the most fair and humane option for a family.
You are mistaking two things. The first is a slave, and the second is a Jewish servant. The two are not the same. A slave was from another nation, not from the Jewish society. They were outsiders who when captured or taken as war plunder were beaten, bruised and disciplined to do exactly what their masters wanted. A Jewish servant, however, was simply an indentured servant, who worked for only five years to pay off a debt. You can re-read Leviticus for this information, if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.
Your misunderstanding of this is not surprising given the rest of your putrid diatribe. You may be respectful, I’ll give you that, but you’re not as learned as you think you are. Go back to studying.
It is true that Slavery was an accepted practice in biblical times by many cultures not just Hebrews and later Christians (as well as many cultures thereafter). The greater question is Does God approve of Slavery?
You really don’t read the Bible, ever, do you? The answer to this question is clearly YES. The above proves that times over.
Consider Paul in his letter to Philemon about his slave (and brother in Christ) Onesimus. Paul simply put, did not promote slavery.
Paul is not God. Far from it. And all Paul did was command Onesimus to do his bidding in another manner that would serve Paul more usefully. Paul, himself in prison, would do little with a slave. He clearly sent Onesimus out to do his work FOR him, as explained further down that chapter, which again you ignored or didn’t know about. (Another Bible Gateway search?) Phil. 1:13, “whom I desired to keep with me, that on your behalf he might serve me in my chains for the Good News.”
His poetic rephrasing of what Onesimus is about to do does not change anything, simply makes it poetry. A spade is still a spade. And your use of a non-sequitor is annoying me. Tell me again why you’d follow up with Paul after asking a question about God you failed to answer?
The argument that the bible condones and promotes slavery has been used before. It was used by people of the seceded south to justify their use of slaves. Now I’m sure you wouldn’t want to use the same argument that the bible condones slavery as these bigots right Ry?
They were still right, you nimrod. The slavers of the south and the members of the KKK, although Bigots, were not misled in their interpretations. The Bible is clear on slavery, it accepts it and condones it, and regardless of their retardedness, they were accurate. That itself is one of the many reasons people like me disregard the Bibvle as primitive and amoral. Because, d’uh, it is.
The truth is that in Christianity, God created all humans as equal; none is superior to another.
Not according to your Bible.
It’s funny you say that “There are thousands of religions there is only one atheism”. The truth is that many atheists hold many variations on their beliefs just as many monotheistic religions also do.
That’s because atheism isn’t a religion you twit. It’s a lack of religion. In fact, it’s a lack of god. The only thing one atheist has to have in common with another atheist is that lack of belief in a God or Gods (god or gods). That is the joy of being able to think freely, and not be confined by religious dogma and doctrine that, as proven above, is nothing more then primitive babbling and begats, begats, begats….
Regarding homosexuality in the bible your misquotes didn’t help your argument. 1 Timothy verses 9-10 say this:
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”
This in no way makes mention to homosexuality.
Speaks volumes of what you know, again…
The phrase “for them that defile themselves with mankind” is one long, drawn out line of bullshit added in by the translators again. That WHOLE line is only one word in Greek: αρσενοκοιταις or arsenokoites. The English is “sodomite.” In fact, that is a direct correlation with homosexuality. As a sodomite is somebody who sleeps with another person of the same sex. As defined in the Greek. Learn some Greek, for goodness sake! See the truth behind the lies.
Again misquoting the bible in another one of your quotes.
1 Corinthians versus 6-10 says the following:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Again, you with the misunderstandings! Correcting your mistakes is going to give me finger-cramps! “Nor abusers of themselves with mankind” is again one long bullshit phrase in replace of arsenokoites. Again, sodomites. Paul is clearly against homosexuality. Clearly. He uses the same word for the same act, over and over. Translators don’t like the way it’s phrased (again, this is supposed to be a morally sound book!) so they alter the meaning to appease the reader. Just like you are trying to do. The Bible already says what it wanted to say…changing that only makes you dishonest. Admit the Bible for what it is – a ridiculous, amoral and primitive book.
By replacing certain words with homosexual it doesn’t help your argument.
Actually, by replacing homosexuality with one, long, drawn-out bullshit phrase really damages your credibility and your argument.
Even if the bible did not approve of homosexuality, which I believe is false,
It’s truly ashame YOU didn’t write the Bible, then isn’t? The fact is, your opinion is irrelevant, especially in light of the evidence bearing down on you.
it doesn’t state anywhere that we should hate these people.
No, but it does tell us to KILL them. Twit.
Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
You can’t get more direct then that!
Everyone deserves God’s love according to the bible and ‘gay-bashing’, hating or treating a homosexual less than human is NEVER made mention of in the bible.
Except…it did, and I agree that it’s wrong. Of course it’s wrong! Nobody deserves unfair treatment! But let’s face it, the Bible is full of such things. In fact, the following things are subjective to IMMEDIATE execution in the bible (In other words, you commit one of these acts, and you die):
- (a) striking your father or mother (Ex.21:15);
- (b) kidnapping (Ex. 21:6 RSV);
- (c) cursing your father or mother (Ex. 21:17 RSV, Lev. 20:9);
- (d) touching a mountain (Ex. 19:12 RSV);
- (e) allowing your ox to gore someone (Ex. 21:29);
- (f) lying with a beast (Ex. 22:19) RSV, Lev. 20:15-16);
- (g) sacrificing to other gods (Ex. 22:20 RSV);
- (h) failing to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15);
- (i) drinking strong drinks while in the tabernacle (Lev. 10:9);
- (j) committing adultery (Lev. 20:10 RSV, Deut. 22:22);
- (k) lying with your father's wife (Lev. 20:11 RSV);
- (l) lying with your daughter-in-law (Lev. 20:12 RSV);
- (m) committing homosexual acts (Lev. 20:13 RSV);
- (n) being a medium or a wizard (Lev. 20:27 RSV);
- (o) being a witch (Ex. 22:18);
- (p) being a priest's daughter and becoming a whore (Lev. 21:9 RSV);
- (q) Blaspheming the name of the Lord (Lev. 24:16);
- cursing (Lev. 24:14 RSV);
- (s) coming near the priesthood (Num. 3:10);
- (t) being a stranger who comes near the congregation's tabernacle (Num. 3:8);
- (u) gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-35);
- (v) serving or worshipping other gods (Deut. 17:2-5 RSV);
- (w) showing contempt for the Lord's priest or judge (Deut. 17:12 NIV);
- (x) failing to obey one's parents (Deut. 21:18-21);
- (y) not being a virgin on your wedding day (Deut. 22:20-21 NIV);
- (z) being a betrothed virgin who did not cry out when seduced (Deut. 22:23-24);
- (aa) having relations with your wife and her mother (Lev. 20:14);
- (bb) telling people to seek other gods (Deut. 13:2,5); and
- (cc) being a false prophet (Deut. 18:20).
And these are God's rules. Imagine living in that era!
Please understand that the essence of Christianity is forgivness and love.
Only in ideology. Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and many many others would disagree with you. What about the Christian Soldiers movement? It has pictures of soldiers holding GUNS on it’s website…for KIDS! Obviously, something went amiss in translation, don’t you think?
Most importantly remember that some things were put in the Bible to show us how NOT to act and some things were put in the Bible to show us how we SHOULD act. With each are also shown consequences and rewards, be it negative or positive. I hope this helps clear things up for you."
John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said it well: "If there be any mistake in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth." (Journal, Wed., July 24, 1776). It becomes nothing more than another book on the shelf. Indeed, your book has failed every moral, scientific and ethical test known to man. It fails at history, geography and chronology. And some of your most sacred ideas like the death of Jesus are in question..within the BOOK ITSELF! In Acts, Jesus is said to have been hung from a tree. How does one explain that contradiction? And trust me, the Greek adds up on that one too.
Go back to studying.