There's too many hate for Christians around the World

[Albatross]

@valdyrgramr

 

Forgive me, this is going to be very long but I hope you don't mind! 

 

Spoiler

 

I wanted to ask you if you ever came across the discussion of (or I guess the argument of?) of same gender love within the Bible, such as Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, and Daniel and Ashpenaz? I have been reading into it and some of the words used and translated into other languages, and noticed something. The chapter says "Ruth clave onto her" (various translations will translate the word as "become one flesh"), something only ever referenced to a man and woman in "heterosexual" chapters like Genesis 2:24. While David and Jonathan were in love with each other, claiming love for each other they could not feel through women (2 Samuel 1:26) in which at the time platonic relationship between men and women was not culturally/religiously "proper" or even common (since women were not seen equally to men) and even at one point kissing with great passion and sadness (1 Samuel 20:41).

 

As for Daniel and Ashpenaz, the words "chesed" and "v'rachamim" is used which translates as "mercy" and "mercy/physical love" given the context and prior chapters/text. I'm aware "chesed" is commonly accepted as "kindness and love", but no one really knows the direct translation nor can properly translate it into English, but I read it and think its usage with  "v'rachamim" cannot possibly be translated as "God caused him to show mercy and mercy and kindness" or even "God caused him to show mercy and kindness) but "God caused him to show mercy and (physical) love" as other translations become redundant with prior or following texts and statements.

 

I was also wondering what you thought of the words "toevah" being incorrectly translated as "abomination" when the context has been acknowledged as changing throughout the Bible from "positive" or "negative" meanings or references, such as "toevat mitzrayim" when it mentions the Egyptians and how they feel eating with shepherds. I also wanted to know if you are ware of  the word "arsenokoitai" and if so, what you thought about it?

 

Lastly I wanted to know what you think about scholars etc etc saying that not everything in the Bible is literal nor actually happened but contains a mixture of proverbs, stories, warnings and "historical" recantations?

 

Again, apologies for the long reply! I look forward to anything you have to say.

 

EDIT

(a day or so later, more rambling on it.

 

People need to be aware of the context in which "homosexuality" is actually refereed to within the OT/Bible, which is to say not at all. Homosexual "sex" though, is only ever mentioned as "detestable" after the people of Sodom planned to abduct and rape two messengers of God (males) and that these acts—please consider the Hebrew root words I mentioned early—were associated more toward idolatry than anything else (as the men were married), which is a "sin".

 

So the only issue that is ever portrayed is what the Bible considers "immoral sexual activities", believing sex was only for the married and for reproduction. This isn't restricted to same-sex lovers, but all man kind (please also refer to a penitential by Saint John the Faster). Jesus and various verses make this clear. There is nothing wrong with being a homosexual within the Bible. You cannot find a verse, nor its original text, that will ever state this. You will only ever find text that states unnatural sex is a sin for all because it isn't natural.

 

And concerning the letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians: two very important words from the original Greek text had been translated with assumptions and changes to their actual definition, omitting the complex context in which Paul was using his words. One such word was "malakos", which basically translates as "male prostitute" (lit. "soft to (the) touch"), which if you read the text Paul uses the word metaphorically to reference a "catamite", which if no one is aware of what that is, it is a boy kept strictly for sexual relations with adult males (please do not use modern usage, but ancient usage of the word!).

 

That brings me to the word that people have translated and oddly accepted as "homosexual", which is "arsenokoites". At the time the word was so exceptionally rare in ancient Greece that its meaning cannot properly be determined (as the original Greek word is just way too ambiguous). If you are interested, in Linguistics this phenomenon is called "hapax legomenon". If you read the text and consider what Paul saw, what the men were doing and the rest of the text, it very clearly is a reference to the catamites and the usage of the catamites (e.i pimps with underage boys etc). In fact, other translations, like in Latin, translate it as "masculorum concubitoribus", which translates closely to "pimp/concubinage" not "homosexuals" like modern translators accept, while Martin Luther's 1545 German translation uses the word "Knabenschänder", which heavily implies "paedophilia" (boy-raper, child molester etc are closer translations) while modern German translations use "Kinder sexuell missbrauchen" (my German spellings may be weak/wrong but the message should be clear), which basically translates to "the sexual abuse of children". 

 

With that it mind, the only sense the text makes is that Paul is referencing the catamites and the men who used them as being "detestable". You cannot find any word in any of the texts mentioned that translates as or close to "homosexual". If the intent was to say homosexuals were abominations or a "sin", why did the original text, Paul and many other translates go to such lengths to avoid the term or the act of homosexual sought by modern translators? There has been, up until 1950, a clear avoidance of translating it as anything related to "homosexual". Linguistically this is supported too, so how can we accept that the translation is in support of homophobic sentiments?

 

The problem is that these verses have been used to fuel homophobic polemics and continuing to use these weak or incorrect translations as we have been doing is only going to fuel the hatred instead of shed light on the actual meaning.

 

 

On 7/24/2016 at 0:17 PM, apm said:

nope it isnt.

religions threw us hundreds of years back in terms of science. thats a fact.

religion is for dumb people, to keep them dumb.

we dont need any religion.

 

Many of our finest minds are religious and had been religious through all of their work. Claiming that religion is for "dumb people" is absolutely ignorant, but if it makes you feel better, sure.

 

On 7/24/2016 at 2:09 PM, Speedyv said:

@Albatross (quoting doesn't work)

 

I'm sure it does teach respect and stuff, but so do a lot of other religions (this is what was stressed to me the most as a Buddhist). It's pretty clear to me that OP is saying, "Christianity is the best  religion that teaches good things and therefore should not get hate. Why doesn't everybody hate on other religions more? WHY CHRISTIANITY GET SO MANY HATE!!!!"

 

But I also can't stand BS like people saying, "God sent so and so to lead us down the right path (insert some stupid, hypocritical justification)" I see a lot of these people everyday. I think OP is also against calling these people morons (which is what I would call them for developing an opinion without an iota of logic. Ohhhh noooo stop the persecution of Christianity).

 

I can't be bothered to read your wall of text but I am sure Christians are persecuted as well. But I find it ironic that by saying that OP is completely dismissing persecution of Muslims. Don't dig too deep into OP's shallow mind. 

 

Oh, okay, I misunderstood what you meant then, apologies.

[Brennan Price]

I totally understand your point. At the end of the day, however, there has been some pretty big newspapers talking about this concept to boost and promote this very problem, for example, the Washington times (which you quoted in your post) I know is a big newspaper and I live in the UK so that's saying something.

 

May I also just say that although it does happen in the world, it probably doesn't happen enough to properly make anything big on it. Therefore, it needs less promotion for people to understand what is going on.

[Bhav]

On 26/07/2016 at 7:01 AM, Kobathor said:

Modern Christianity follows the rules and regulations stated in the New Testament mostly, and laws not eradicated by Jesus after dying on the cross (such as the Ten Commandments.) The multitude of Jewish laws were abolished. """""Orthodox""""" Christianity is much like it is now: you don't need to worry about eating pork, but swearing in God's name is still bad.

This isnt at all true though because homosexuality being considered a sin comes from the old testament.

[Mug]

On 26/07/2016 at 8:50 AM, colonelsofcorn said:

That's adaptation - it's still a bacteria. 

Adaptation is essentially evolution.

[kidlat020]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

[QuadNine]

^^ (quoting wont work)

Pretty ridiculous video. It provides no context to the sources he has, and didn't even mention the sources, which would have been pretty helpful.

[Kobathor]

7 hours ago, Bhav said:

This isnt at all true though because homosexuality being considered a sin comes from the old testament.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is one of the Ten Commandments (Remember, the Ten Commandments are what the "Law" is supposed to be, or the things Jesus did not abolish.) "Adultery" in the Bible is different than modern adultery- it applied to sleeping with anybody other than your wife, sleeping with people before you are married, ect ect.. but also homosexuality (men lying with men, women lying with women specifically.) That's why it's a sin- cause it's adultery. 

[Nowak]

On 7/26/2016 at 0:09 AM, TheKDub said:

Ever hear about people "magically" being healed? or people having a few months left to live, but living for years? That's not a natural happening, that's God having an active role in the world.

If there is a God, then I wish He'd stop letting me suffer because of my right arm so much. This has been going on for 15 years and it's only been getting worse and worse, almost to the point where it's debilitating (and it has gotten to that point before.)

[TheKDub]

3 minutes ago, Daring said:

If there is a God, then I wish He'd stop letting me suffer because of my right arm so much. This has been going on for 15 years and it's only been getting worse and worse, almost to the point where it's debilitating (and it has gotten to that point before.)

 

Perhaps if you prayed about it then it might get better.

[Nowak]

4 minutes ago, TheKDub said:

Perhaps if you prayed about it then it might get better.

At this point there's no convincing me my arm will ever get better. Oh well, at least I won't have to handwrite soon™. But, on the negative side, I have to constantly put up with sore muscles, stunted movement in two fingers, poor accuracy, poor articulation, the inability to do most physical labor and having to take pain meds every so often for the rest of my life.

[Bhav]

On 26/07/2016 at 7:01 AM, Kobathor said:

 

1 hour ago, Kobathor said:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is one of the Ten Commandments (Remember, the Ten Commandments are what the "Law" is supposed to be, or the things Jesus did not abolish.) "Adultery" in the Bible is different than modern adultery- it applied to sleeping with anybody other than your wife, sleeping with people before you are married, ect ect.. but also homosexuality (men lying with men, women lying with women specifically.) That's why it's a sin- cause it's adultery. 

This is also a lie because then why do Christians hate same sex marriage? They would otherwise see it as a means to an end for adultery for homosexuals.

[Kobathor]

9 minutes ago, Bhav said:

 

This is also a lie because then why do Christians hate same sex marriage? They would otherwise see it as a means to an end for adultery for homosexuals.

Maybe I should have phrased it better.. Adultery is any man sleeping with any man and vice versa for women. It doesn't matter if they're married or not- homosexuality itself is the sin. Marriage in Christianity is the holy joining of a man and a woman- it doesn't work any other way. That's why they disapprove.

[Bhav]

1 minute ago, Kobathor said:

Maybe I should have phrased it better.. Adultery is any man sleeping with any man and vice versa for women. It doesn't matter if they're married or not- homosexuality itself is the sin. Marriage in Christianity is the holy joining of a man and a woman- it doesn't work any other way. That's why they disapprove.

What part of the new testament gives that definition for adultery?

[Kobathor]

21 minutes ago, Bhav said:

What part of the new testament gives that definition for adultery?

A few passages in the epistles mention it as adultery, but it's also thrown in with prostitution- 

The epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:24-27 NIV)

 

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

This is also the only passage in the New Testament that mentions homosexuality between women. Also remember that the Bible doesn't make definitions like our modern dictionaries- there is no passage in the New Testament that defines homosexuality as a word. 

 

Homosexuality is mostly condemned in the Old Testament- but remember this- the Old Testament isn't to be forgotten. Just as I mentioned; many laws (such as unclean foods) were abolished after Jesus died and paid the price for all sin (which gave no need for laws such as that.) But, many stayed- laws such as marriage being between a man and a women (I think that is mentioned in the New Testament) and homosexuality being a sin.

[alicskysareblue]

22 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

Maybe I should have phrased it better.. Adultery is any man sleeping with any man and vice versa for women. It doesn't matter if they're married or not- homosexuality itself is the sin. Marriage in Christianity is the holy joining of a man and a woman- it doesn't work any other way. That's why they disapprove.

And that's fine but it's a religious issue not a legal issue, something that should be argued in the church not at the supreme court. 

 

Man people just want to live there lives and be treated equally that's all. 

[Bhav]

11 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

A few passages in the epistles mention it as adultery, but it's also thrown in with prostitution- 

The epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:24-27 NIV)

 

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

This is also the only passage in the New Testament that mentions homosexuality between women. Also remember that the Bible doesn't make definitions like our modern dictionaries- there is no passage in the New Testament that defines homosexuality as a word. 

 

Homosexuality is mostly condemned in the Old Testament- but remember this- the Old Testament isn't to be forgotten. Just as I mentioned; many laws (such as unclean foods) were abolished after Jesus died and paid the price for all sin (which gave no need for laws such as that.) But, many stayed- laws such as marriage being between a man and a women (I think that is mentioned in the New Testament) and homosexuality being a sin.

So don't be christian and gay. Leave the non Christians alone.

 

(Yes ofc there are gay Christians, those abominable things are just a pure NOPE to ever discuss their religion with).

[c00face]

I'm glad Donald Trump has addressed this issue on stage and if/when he does become President, this is will be a major issue that he will address against the discrimination against Christians in this Country.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-has-an-urgent-message-for-christians-every-american-should-see-this/

[stconquest]

This just in from the CJT (Circle Jerk Times):

 

Quote

Donald Trump is a man of principle who speaks the truth. Now, he is sounding the alarm, as we do not have someone in the White House willing to represent Christians on the world stage.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-has-an-urgent-message-for-christians-every-american-should-see-this/#ixzz4FegNCCQi

 

[Mug]

17 hours ago, Kobathor said:

"Adultery" in the Bible is different than modern adultery- it applied to sleeping with anybody other than your wife, sleeping with people before you are married, ect ect.. but also homosexuality (men lying with men, women lying with women specifically.) That's why it's a sin- cause it's adultery. 

Well, I suppose it's about your personal interpritation of the scripture, a subjective matter. Basically, if you want to claim that being gay is adultery then that's your opinion, your interpritation of the scripture. I don't blame you, most people don't follow the scripture to the word. Would you mutilate you son's genitals at birth? Would you force women in your family to cover their heads in prayer? Would you punish your spouse if they spoke in church? All perfectly good questions and as the man, you have the authority to do what you want, according to the Bible anyway. If it meant adultery is homosexuality then it would've had a footnote saying that this is the real translation but I looked in the Bible I have in my bookshelf and there was no footnote. If it doesn't say directly that homosexuality is adultery but it does say directly that women should not speak in church then perhaps there are more important rules to follow. I'm not attacking you for your religion, I'm just saying that if one is insistent on a particular rule then one should be insistent on all of the rules.

 

12 hours ago, Supermangik said:

I'm glad Donald Trump has addressed this issue on stage and if/when he does become President, this is will be a major issue that he will address against the discrimination against Christians in this Country.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-has-an-urgent-message-for-christians-every-american-should-see-this/

At the end of the day my friend, he's pandering to your and others' religions. Do you feel like it's a good thing that he's exploiting your religion for his political gain? Personally, it doesn't sit well with me.

Politicians do this, they say "we'll stand up for group x" when really it's just to get your votes. I mean, what a proud and principled Chiristian man Trump is, looking at his relationship history, the language he uses and what he does for a living, it is clear to me that Trump is merely political point-scoring against the opposition.

Don't get sucked into the frenzy of political polarisation. Assume that both candidates are going to do the same on topics like religion, then the debate gets less divisive.

 

Basically, don't do a Northern Ireland. There, there are many parties but the biggest are the right-wing, unionist and manly protestant DUP and the left-wing, republican and mainly catholic Sinn Fein. Basically, the religious divides in the region have been exploited by politicians and, well, it ends in bitterness. Research the troubles for more, it's bad. Many don't vote because of the parties' policies but instead because the parties pander to their religion because both sides feel like they're in the minority.

Don't follow the tempting rabbit warren and make your mind up on actual policies the candidates have. Like Trump's tax policies? Vote Trump, please don't vote for him for the wrong reasons.

[Albatross]

On 7/27/2016 at 6:04 AM, Bhav said:

This isnt at all true though because homosexuality being considered a sin comes from the old testament.

It is very much true. If it comes from the Old Testament, it isn't considered the Law any more as Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law upon his death (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). Though I'd have to ask where the OT or NT states "homosexuality" is a sin?

 

On 7/27/2016 at 4:58 AM, valdyrgramr said:

I haven't exactly read about all of that, but it was interesting.  Also, mistranslations like that are common.

 

Oh, my apologies! I made a stupid assumption off of something I remembered you saying a while back.

 

If you have the time though, I did make an edit to that post with further details on my thoughts/research into the matter (the mistranslations) and would definitely enjoy reading what you might think about it.  

 

[BirdyTheMighty]

im a catholic does that count .

anywayy... not sure if this is a media thing but the Christians or whatever are just plain weird and just over zealous in the USA, compare to the rest of the world.

[SHiFT]

If anyone gets offended because their religion is made fun of, end your life.

[BLoCkZ420]

Time to drop some high quality memes

[colonelsofcorn]

On 7/27/2016 at 5:46 AM, Mug said:

Adaptation is essentially evolution.

Adaptation is microevolution, which I and anyone in the world with a brain really ought to agree is real. Darwinian evolution is, however, false and cannot be proven. 

[colonelsofcorn]

On 7/30/2016 at 3:09 AM, Albatross said:

It is very much true. If it comes from the Old Testament, it isn't considered the Law any more as Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law upon his death (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). Though I'd have to ask where the OT or NT states "homosexuality" is a sin?

 

 

Oh, my apologies! I made a stupid assumption off of something I remembered you saying a while back.

 

If you have the time though, I did make an edit to that post with further details on my thoughts/research into the matter (the mistranslations) and would definitely enjoy reading what you might think about it.  

 

The Old Testament is still entirely valid, except for the specific parts that Jesus fulfilled. Homosexuality and many other sins are still sins to this day.