Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How Cynthia Nixon's "gay by choice" might play in court
6 views
Skip to first unread message
No One
Feb 15, 2012, 1:10:56 AM2/15/12
to
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/how-cynthia-nixons-
gay-by-choice-might-play-in-court.html
When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice"
in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a
storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality
is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey
wrench into the legal question of gay rights.
As Times science writer Karen Kaplan summarized, "The scientific
consensus seems to be that there is indeed a biological basis
for homosexuality -- though it's not necessarily 100% determined
by either genes or by environmental factors." Science is
painting a complex portrait in which biology -- not always
genetics but also prenatal exposure to hormones -- is certainly
an important factor, though perhaps not the only one.
Nixon, though, is framing gay rights in a new way. It's
strangely reminiscent of the "gay cures" some religious groups
have promoted. They say it doesn't matter whether homosexuality
is inborn. It's still wrong, in their eyes, and so people have
to "learn" to change their behavior, even if they can never
change their sexual preference. A desire to philander might be
"inborn" or "natural," they argue, but it still has to be
overcome. Nixon, of course, is on the opposite side of that same
logical coin. Why, she asks, should homosexuality be any less
valid if and when it is chosen?
Why, indeed? So much of the debate about discrimination against
homosexuals gets bogged down in extraordinarily judgmental
issues. They shouldn't marry, opponents have told the editorial
board, because studies show that children are better off with a
mother and father. Actually, some excellent studies don't bear
that out at all -- but that's not the point. Of the many
heterosexuals who make bad parents, why isn't society judging
their fitness to wed? When adults engage in sexual behavior of
whatever type, why does society set up discriminatory laws
against them only when that "type" involves homosexuality?
But in the courts, as the lawsuit against Proposition 8 wends
its way through the appellate process, this issue could have
very high stakes. Under the 14th Amendment, the courts have
historically said that discriminatory laws must pass a very high
legal bar to remain law, if they affect a "discrete" and
"insular" community that has traditionally been singled out for
discrimination. Traditionally, this has included ethnic and
racial minorities, and women. In his ruling on the Proposition 8
case, then-U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker wrote that
this surely applied to the gay and lesbian communities as well.
Historically, though, one of the criteria for such groups is
that they must be a minority because of an unchangeable
characteristic. If, as Nixon says, sexual preference can be a
choice, then couldn't gays and lesbians simply "choose"
otherwise?
Groups don't have to meet all of the criteria laid out, and
other factors can be considered. But gay rights activists worry
that if sexual preference is seen as mutable, they might lose
points in their ongoing legal quest for legal rights.
Nixon, of course, speaks only for herself, and it's doubtful her
comments would matter much, if at all, in the case. But in any
case, I agree with her; it shouldn't matter. The complicated,
perhaps never-knowable question of precisely how people come to
be different from each other is a small one compared with the
question of why there seems to be so much determination to
deprive some of those people of basic rights that in no way harm
other people.
Of course, there is the aberrent sexual behavior, child
molesting, coupled with the spreading of AIDS and every known
STD on the planet. "Gays" are notorious for their foul habits
and behavior. But don't let anything like that intrude when
discussing the issue of "gay rights."
What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
and bigoted gays?
gay-by-choice-might-play-in-court.html
When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice"
in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a
storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality
is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey
wrench into the legal question of gay rights.
As Times science writer Karen Kaplan summarized, "The scientific
consensus seems to be that there is indeed a biological basis
for homosexuality -- though it's not necessarily 100% determined
by either genes or by environmental factors." Science is
painting a complex portrait in which biology -- not always
genetics but also prenatal exposure to hormones -- is certainly
an important factor, though perhaps not the only one.
Nixon, though, is framing gay rights in a new way. It's
strangely reminiscent of the "gay cures" some religious groups
have promoted. They say it doesn't matter whether homosexuality
is inborn. It's still wrong, in their eyes, and so people have
to "learn" to change their behavior, even if they can never
change their sexual preference. A desire to philander might be
"inborn" or "natural," they argue, but it still has to be
overcome. Nixon, of course, is on the opposite side of that same
logical coin. Why, she asks, should homosexuality be any less
valid if and when it is chosen?
Why, indeed? So much of the debate about discrimination against
homosexuals gets bogged down in extraordinarily judgmental
issues. They shouldn't marry, opponents have told the editorial
board, because studies show that children are better off with a
mother and father. Actually, some excellent studies don't bear
that out at all -- but that's not the point. Of the many
heterosexuals who make bad parents, why isn't society judging
their fitness to wed? When adults engage in sexual behavior of
whatever type, why does society set up discriminatory laws
against them only when that "type" involves homosexuality?
But in the courts, as the lawsuit against Proposition 8 wends
its way through the appellate process, this issue could have
very high stakes. Under the 14th Amendment, the courts have
historically said that discriminatory laws must pass a very high
legal bar to remain law, if they affect a "discrete" and
"insular" community that has traditionally been singled out for
discrimination. Traditionally, this has included ethnic and
racial minorities, and women. In his ruling on the Proposition 8
case, then-U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker wrote that
this surely applied to the gay and lesbian communities as well.
Historically, though, one of the criteria for such groups is
that they must be a minority because of an unchangeable
characteristic. If, as Nixon says, sexual preference can be a
choice, then couldn't gays and lesbians simply "choose"
otherwise?
Groups don't have to meet all of the criteria laid out, and
other factors can be considered. But gay rights activists worry
that if sexual preference is seen as mutable, they might lose
points in their ongoing legal quest for legal rights.
Nixon, of course, speaks only for herself, and it's doubtful her
comments would matter much, if at all, in the case. But in any
case, I agree with her; it shouldn't matter. The complicated,
perhaps never-knowable question of precisely how people come to
be different from each other is a small one compared with the
question of why there seems to be so much determination to
deprive some of those people of basic rights that in no way harm
other people.
Of course, there is the aberrent sexual behavior, child
molesting, coupled with the spreading of AIDS and every known
STD on the planet. "Gays" are notorious for their foul habits
and behavior. But don't let anything like that intrude when
discussing the issue of "gay rights."
What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
and bigoted gays?
Buddythunder
Feb 15, 2012, 1:25:52 AM2/15/12
to
duke
Feb 15, 2012, 8:03:41 AM2/15/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davida...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
>> and bigoted gays?
>Obsessed much?
Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
wrote:
>> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
>> and bigoted gays?
>Obsessed much?
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
Mike Painter
Feb 15, 2012, 12:50:06 PM2/15/12
to
No One wrote:
> http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/how-cynthia-nixons-
> gay-by-choice-might-play-in-court.html
>
> When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice"
> in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a
> storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality
> is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey
> wrench into the legal question of gay rights.
>
I've met two women who choose a lesbian life style.
> http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/how-cynthia-nixons-
> gay-by-choice-might-play-in-court.html
>
> When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice"
> in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a
> storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality
> is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey
> wrench into the legal question of gay rights.
>
None of them said they were gay.
They wanted the affection.
Where did I meet them?
In a battered women's shelter, they had gone back to men and yet again found
one that beat the shit out of them.
Paul Duca
Feb 15, 2012, 7:40:12 PM2/15/12
to
On Feb 15, 8:03 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
> >> and bigoted gays?
> >Obsessed much?
>
> Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball...and thank God they're chicks.
>
> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
> >> and bigoted gays?
> >Obsessed much?
>
Mike Cullinan
Feb 15, 2012, 9:51:37 PM2/15/12
to
Nixon's remarks. The gay thought police caught up with her and
twisted her arm to do a retraction of sorts. "Look, bitch, when you
are in public and on the record you either stick to the party line or
keep your thoughts to yourself."
Here's a link to some articles with links to even more articles.
http://theweek.com/article/index/223912/cynthia-nixons-gay-by-choice-backtracking
Things like this bring out the true colors of the rainbow fascists.
Everyone has to be marching in lockstep, all the time. If you start
marching to your own drummer it will be at your own peril with these
people.
ram...@truthonly.com.swordofbaal
Feb 15, 2012, 11:17:33 PM2/15/12
to
"Mike Cullinan" wrote in message
news:79dacbdf-60bc-484b...@j15g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Things like this bring out the true colors of the rainbow fascists.
> Everyone has to be marching in lockstep, all the time. If you start
> marching to your own drummer it will be at your own peril with these
> people.
If Cynthia Nixon want to say she chose to be gay, that is her choice, it
means nothing as she is just one person and entitled to say what she thinks.
What she says or does not say is not binding on an entire group.
So far science has not been able to determine with 100% accuracy what causes
people to be homosexual .
There are many theories.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/
Buddythunder
Feb 16, 2012, 1:50:06 AM2/16/12
to
On Feb 16, 2:03 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with it?
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
> >> and bigoted gays?
> >Obsessed much?
>
> Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball.
No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting here
>
> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
> >> and bigoted gays?
> >Obsessed much?
>
> Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball.
gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with it?
duke
Feb 16, 2012, 7:43:30 AM2/16/12
to
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:50:06 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davida...@gmail.com>
wrote:
God said it's a mortal sin.
wrote:
Jordon
Feb 16, 2012, 11:01:30 AM2/16/12
to
duke wrote:
> Buddythunder wrote:
>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>it?
> God said it's a mortal sin.
His son never said anything on the subject.
> Buddythunder wrote:
>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>it?
> God said it's a mortal sin.
Ken
Feb 16, 2012, 12:07:16 PM2/16/12
to
about everyone else's sex life BECAUSE neither sex wants anything to
do with him
deadrat
Feb 16, 2012, 2:20:34 PM2/16/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:50:06 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder
<davida...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 16, 2:03 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder
<davidarthu...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
>>> >> and bigoted gays?
>>> >Obsessed much?
>>>
>>> Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball.
>>
>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting here
>>gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with it?
>
> God said it's a mortal sin.
I talked to God this morning. He told me to tell you to stop speaking in his
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:50:06 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder
<davida...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 16, 2:03 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder
<davidarthu...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
>>> >> and bigoted gays?
>>> >Obsessed much?
>>>
>>> Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball.
>>
>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting here
>>gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with it?
>
> God said it's a mortal sin.
Name. He sounded pissed off. Just sayin'.
<snip/>
duke
Feb 17, 2012, 8:12:40 AM2/17/12
to
Mitchell Holman
Feb 17, 2012, 9:09:08 AM2/17/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:rgksj7t2lsu71pmk2...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> kingdom of God.
>
Does that include Pedophile Priests?
news:rgksj7t2lsu71pmk2...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> kingdom of God.
>
DanielSan
Feb 17, 2012, 9:33:58 AM2/17/12
to
On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>> it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
No he didn't.
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>> it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Jordon
Feb 17, 2012, 10:19:12 AM2/17/12
to
duke wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>obsessed with it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> kingdom of God.
Chapter and verse please.
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>obsessed with it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> kingdom of God.
Kenny McCormack
Feb 17, 2012, 10:42:07 AM2/17/12
to
In article <jhlr5f$ia6$1...@dont-email.me>,
I think you'll be *very* hard-pressed to find the "word" "homos" in the
Bible.
--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus
Jordon <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>obsessed with it?
>>>
>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>
>>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>>
>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>> kingdom of God.
>
>Chapter and verse please.
heh heh. Yeah, I was about to say that.
>duke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>obsessed with it?
>>>
>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>
>>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>>
>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>> kingdom of God.
>
>Chapter and verse please.
I think you'll be *very* hard-pressed to find the "word" "homos" in the
Bible.
--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus
juanjo
Feb 17, 2012, 1:06:43 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 14, 10:10 pm, "No One" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/how-cynthia-nixons-
> gay-by-choice-might-play-in-court.html
>
> When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice"
> in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a
> storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality
> is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey
> wrench into the legal question of gay rights.
>
When one actually reads what this woman said, it is clear she did not
> http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/how-cynthia-nixons-
> gay-by-choice-might-play-in-court.html
>
> When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice"
> in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a
> storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality
> is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey
> wrench into the legal question of gay rights.
>
say what the far right [and some gay press] is casting the comments as
saying.
juanjo
Feb 17, 2012, 1:05:07 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 17, 5:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>
From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the
>
> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>
Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This
story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we
are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of
his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s
house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so —
he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be
healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant
healed. Luke tells a similar story.
In the original language, the importance of this story for gay,
lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek word used
in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais.
In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings
depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or
boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of
servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” Often these lovers
were younger than their masters, even teenagers. See K.J. Dover,
Greek Homosexuality (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978), page
16; Bernard Sergent, Homosexuality in Greek Myth (Beacon Press,
Boston, 1986), page 10.
To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant.
But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. In
ancient times, commercial transactions were a common means of forming
relationships. Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of
the husband, with a status just above that of slave. Moreover, in
Jesus’ day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon
reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon for boys and
girls to marry at age 14 or 15. (See Mercer Dictionary of the Bible
(Mercer University Press, Macon, 1994), page 554..) Nor was it
uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl. Fortunately
civilization has advanced, but these were the norms in the culture of
Jesus’ day. Further centurions on active duty were forbidden to marry
without special permission. But it was a common practice for them to
purchase a "slave" so as to satisfy whatever urges they might have for
sex and companionship. Since a term of service in the Roman legions
typically lasted 20 years, this is hardly surprising given the mores
of the time.
In that culture, if you were a gay man who wanted a male “spouse,” you
achieved this, like many of your heterosexual counterparts, through a
commercial transaction — purchasing someone to serve that purpose. A
servant purchased to serve this purpose was commonly called a "pais".
The word "boy" in English offers a rough comparison. Like "pais", the
word "boy" can be used to refer to a male child. But in the slave
South in the nineteenth century, "boy" was also often used to refer to
male slaves. The term "boy" can also be used as a term of endearment.
For example, Jeff’s father often refers to his mother as “his girl.”
He doesn’t mean that she is a child, but rather that she is his
“special one.” The term "boy" can be used in the same way, as in “my
boy” or “my beau.” In ancient Greek, "pais" had a similar range of
meanings.
Thus, when this term was used, the listener had to consider the
context of the statement to determine which meaning was intended. Some
modern Christians may be tempted to simply declare by fiat that the
Gospels could not possibly have used the term "pais" in the sense of
male lover, end of discussion. But that would be yielding to
prejudice. We must let the word of God speak for itself, even if it
leads us to an uncomfortable destination.
Is it possible the pais referred to in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 was the
Roman centurion’s male lover? Let’s look at the biblical evidence.
The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial
evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words
are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the
centurion’s entimos doulos. The word doulos is a generic term for
slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son/boy.
Thus, Luke’s account rules out the possibility that the sick person
was the centurion’s son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a
slave. However, Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary
slave. The word entimos means “honored.” This was an “honored
slave” (entimos doulos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the
three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either
the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable
option — he was his master’s male lover. For an excellent and thorough
discussion of the terms pais and entimos doulos in these two gospel
accounts, see Donald Mader’s article, The Entimos Pais of Matthew
8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, (Source: Homosexuality and Religion and
Philosophy, Harland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1998).
A second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Matthew’s account.
In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by
simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do
something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that
Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be
carried out. When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the
word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal,
he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the
centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a
different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to
draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is the author, not the centurion, who
call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is
that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to
describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one
thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover.
The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have
many examples of people seeking healing for themselves or for family
members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing
for a slave. The actions described are made even more remarkable by
the fact that this was a proud Roman centurion (the conqueror/
oppressor) who was humbling himself and pleading with a Jewish rabbi
(the conquered/oppressed) to heal his slave. Given the fact that
slaves were common and cheap in Roman society, so cheap that even
poorer families often had one or two, it is highly unlikely that this
Centurion would humble himself in this fashion unless this slave was
someone very special and indeed the use of the word "pais" indicates
such. The extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing
for his slave is much more understandable, from a psychological
perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion.
Thus, all the textual and circumstantial evidence in the Gospels
points in one direction. For objective observers, the conclusion is
inescapable: In this story Jesus healed a man’s male lover. When
understood this way, the story takes on a whole new dimension.
Imagine how it may have happened. While stationed in Palestine, the
centurion’s pais becomes ill — experiencing some type of life-
threatening paralysis. The centurion will stop at nothing to save him.
Perhaps a friend tells him of rumors of Jesus’ healing powers. Perhaps
this friend also tells him Jesus is unusually open to foreigners,
teaching his followers that they should love their enemies, even Roman
soldiers. So the centurion decides to take a chance. Jesus was his
only hope.
As he made his way to Jesus, he probably worried about the possibility
that Jesus, like other Jewish rabbis, would take a dim view of his
homosexual relationship. Perhaps he even considered lying. He could
simply use the word duolos. That would have been accurate, as far as
it went. But the centurion probably figured if Jesus was powerful
enough to heal his lover, he was also powerful enough to see through
any half-truths.
So the centurion approaches Jesus and bows before him. “Rabbi,
my . . . ,” the word gets caught in his throat. This is it — the
moment of truth. Either Jesus will turn away in disgust, or something
wonderful will happen. So, the centurion clears his throat and speaks
again. “Rabbi, my pais — yes, my pais lies at home sick unto death.”
Then he pauses and waits for a second that must have seemed like an
eternity. The crowd of good, God-fearing people surrounding Jesus
probably became tense. This was like a gay man asking a televangelist
to heal his lover. What would Jesus do? Without hesitation, Jesus
says, “Then I will come and heal him.”
It’s that simple! Jesus didn’t say, “Are you kidding? I’m not going to
heal your pais so you can go on living in sin!” Nor did he say, “Well,
it shouldn’t surprise you that your pais is sick; this is God’s
judgment on your relationship.” Instead, Jesus’ words are simple,
clear, and liberating for all who have worried about what God thinks
of gay relationships. “I will come and heal him.”
At this point, the centurion says there is no need for Jesus to travel
to his home. He has faith that Jesus’ word is sufficient. Jesus then
turns to the good people standing around him — those who were already
dumbfounded that he was willing to heal this man’s male lover. To
them, Jesus says in verse 10 of Matthew’s account, “I have not found
faith this great anywhere in Israel.” In other words, Jesus holds up
this gay centurion as an example of the type of faith others should
aspire to.
Jesus didn’t just tolerate this gay centurion. He said he was an
example of faith — someone we all should strive to be like. Then,
just so the good, God-fearing people wouldn’t miss his point, Jesus
speaks again in verse 11: “I tell you, many will come from the east
and the west [i.e., beyond the borders of Israel] to find a seat in
the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs [i.e., those considered likely
to inherit heaven] will be thrown into outer darkness.” By this
statement Jesus affirmed that many others like this gay centurion —
those who come from beyond the assumed boundaries of God’s grace — are
going to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. And he also warned that
many who think themselves the most likely to be admitted, will be left
out. In this story, Jesus restores a gay relationship by a miracle of
healing and then holds up a gay man as an example of faith for all to
follow. So consider carefully: Who is Lord — Jesus or cultural
prejudice?
juanjo
Feb 17, 2012, 1:05:30 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 16, 4:43 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:50:06 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:50:06 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 16, 2:03 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
> >> >> and bigoted gays?
> >> >Obsessed much?
>
> >> Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball.
>
> >No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting here
> >gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with it?
>
> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
Nope
>
> >On Feb 16, 2:03 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST), Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> What about the rights of everyone else? Why only some selfish
> >> >> and bigoted gays?
> >> >Obsessed much?
>
> >> Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy goes the queer ball.
>
> >No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting here
> >gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with it?
>
> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
deadrat
Feb 17, 2012, 1:48:54 PM2/17/12
to
wrench into any legal question?
Alan Ferris
Feb 17, 2012, 2:05:23 PM2/17/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:12:40 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
><seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
>Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Nor will liars and fat bastards like you
>On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
><seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>
>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>it?
>>
>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>
>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
>Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
duke
Feb 18, 2012, 7:54:10 AM2/18/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:05:07 -0800 (PST), juanjo <caca...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 5:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This should be good.
>On Feb 17, 5:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the
>Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This
>story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we
>are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of
>his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s
>house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so —
>he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be
>healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant
>healed. Luke tells a similar story.
>In the original language, the importance of this story for gay,
>lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer.
> The Greek word used
>in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais.
translation.
>In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings
>depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or
>boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of
>servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.”
>So consider carefully: Who is Lord — Jesus or cultural
>prejudice?
duke
Feb 18, 2012, 8:05:51 AM2/18/12
to
duke
Feb 18, 2012, 8:06:06 AM2/18/12
to
duke
Feb 18, 2012, 8:06:55 AM2/18/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
1 Cor 6:9-10.
duke
Feb 18, 2012, 8:07:28 AM2/18/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:42:07 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny
McCormack) wrote:
>In article <jhlr5f$ia6$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Jordon <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>>obsessed with it?
>>>>
>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>
>>>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>> kingdom of God.
>>
>>Chapter and verse please.
>
>heh heh. Yeah, I was about to say that.
>
>I think you'll be *very* hard-pressed to find the "word" "homos" in the
>Bible.
Heeheehee.
McCormack) wrote:
>In article <jhlr5f$ia6$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Jordon <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>>obsessed with it?
>>>>
>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>
>>>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>> kingdom of God.
>>
>>Chapter and verse please.
>
>heh heh. Yeah, I was about to say that.
>
>I think you'll be *very* hard-pressed to find the "word" "homos" in the
>Bible.
DanielSan
Feb 18, 2012, 8:09:31 AM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>
>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>
>> No he didn't.
>
> Yep.
Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>
>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>
>> No he didn't.
>
> Yep.
DanielSan
Feb 18, 2012, 8:13:02 AM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>>>>
>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>
>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>> kingdom of God.
>>
>> Chapter and verse please.
>
> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>>>>
>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>
>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>> kingdom of God.
>>
>> Chapter and verse please.
>
> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
mention homosexuality, right?
If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
"paiderasste". But he didn't. The clear context of what Paul was
talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
in idol worship in other religions.
NOT homosexuality.
duke
Feb 19, 2012, 8:45:33 AM2/19/12
to
duke
Feb 19, 2012, 8:47:33 AM2/19/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:13:02 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>
>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>
>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>
>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>
>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
>Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>mention homosexuality, right?
Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>
>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>
>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>
>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>
>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
>Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>mention homosexuality, right?
>If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>"paiderasste". But he didn't.
> The clear context of what Paul was
>talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
>in idol worship in other religions.
>NOT homosexuality.
Alan Ferris
Feb 19, 2012, 10:11:50 AM2/19/12
to
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 07:45:33 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:09:31 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>>>
>>>> No he didn't.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>>Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>
>Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
But you seem to ignore the fact he does not accept liars like
>On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:09:31 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>>>
>>>> No he didn't.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>>Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>
>Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
you.....nor gluttons.
"Isn't Ireland to the south of London." - duke (Earl Weber)
"And I never said South." - duke (Earl Weber)
"I never lie" duke (Earl Webber)
Kent Wills
Feb 19, 2012, 11:11:56 AM2/19/12
to
was written by Paul. And he wasn't quoting Jesus when he wrote it.
--
'Life is pain. Anybody that says different is selling something.'
-- Fezzik's mother
Alan Ferris
Feb 19, 2012, 12:04:49 PM2/19/12
to
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:11:56 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
Indeed, Earl is always confused about what the bible actually says. He
is even more ignorant when it comes to Catholic teachings. He never
did understand the part about gluttony.
is even more ignorant when it comes to Catholic teachings. He never
did understand the part about gluttony.
DanielSan
Feb 19, 2012, 4:44:27 PM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 5:45 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:09:31 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>>>
>>>> No he didn't.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>
> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
That isn't about homosexuals. Try again.
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:09:31 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>>>
>>>> No he didn't.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>
> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
DanielSan
Feb 19, 2012, 4:45:33 PM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 5:47 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:13:02 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>
>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>
>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>
>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>> mention homosexuality, right?
>
> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
I do know that.
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:13:02 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
>>>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
>>>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>
>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>
>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>
>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>> mention homosexuality, right?
>
> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>
>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>> "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>
> How would you know?
>
>> The clear context of what Paul was
>> talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
>> in idol worship in other religions.
>
> Forget the context.
> It can't be anything but exactly what God said.
>> NOT homosexuality.
juanjo
Feb 19, 2012, 6:34:09 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 18, 5:06 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> >> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>duke wrote:
>
> >>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>
> >>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
> >>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
> >>>>>obsessed with it?
>
> >>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
> >>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> >> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> >> kingdom of God.
>
> >Chapter and verse please.
>
> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
The passage that says Duke will burn in hell.
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> >> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>duke wrote:
>
> >>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>
> >>>>>No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
> >>>>>posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
> >>>>>obsessed with it?
>
> >>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
> >>>His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> >> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> >> kingdom of God.
>
> >Chapter and verse please.
>
> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
A common passage of Scripture sometimes used against gay people is 1
Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James Version:
“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,
nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
In this passage there are two key phrases relevant to our discussion.
First there is the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often
viewed as a reference to effeminate gay men. In truth, however, the
Greek word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word
is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” (See note 1.) So Paul is
saying “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we
know Paul was not talking about the Pillsbury Dough Boy, we have to
ask what he meant.
Note 1. William Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1979), page 489.
This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the
context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally
referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of
courage. (See note 2.) The connotation was of being “soft like a
woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the
patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than
men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and vainer than men. Thus, men who
ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress
well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of
misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was
common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version
translated malakoi as “effeminate.” A more correct translation into
English might be hedonistic, that is one who is focused solely upon
sensual pleasure.
Note 2. Dale B. Martin, Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meaning and
Consequences (Source: Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to
Scripture edited by Robert L. Brawley; Westminster John Knox Press,
Louisville Kentucky, 1996), page 124. Nissinen also offers “frailty of
body or character, illness, sentimentality, or moral weakness” as
other possibilities for the meaning of this word in other contexts
(page 117).
Note 3. Martin, page 126.
But it is important to understand the difference between ancient and
modern notions of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning
men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral
weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant
to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century
Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait. In
that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty
was considered to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves
more attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women,
were called effeminate.” (See note 3.) They saw all pleasure-seeking
men as effeminate, whomever they sought pleasure with. In first-
century Roman terms, most pro-wrestlers in the WWF (manly men by our
definitions) would be considered effeminate, because of their apparent
interest in fancy, hyper-masculine costumes and posturing. From this
perspective, Paul was condemning men who are vain, fearful, and self-
indulgent.
In the modern era, however, some have suggested that, in the context
in which it appears in 1 Corinthians 6, malakoi may refer specifically
to male prostitutes, who would have served as the receptive partner
(i.e., soft, “woman-like”) in sexual intercourse. This translation is
reflected in two of the most widely used modern English translations
of the Bible, the New International Version and the New Revised
Standard Version. Since malakoi was used to refer to men who exhibited
the negative traits associated with women in first-century culture,
it’s not hard to see how the term might also be used to refer to male
prostitutes. They would be viewed as sexually indulgent (a trait
associated with women) and as the ones who played a receptive role in
intercourse (again, associated with women). Because here Paul uses
malakoi in a list of sexual sins, it is possible to infer that he may
have been referring specifically to male prostitutes, rather than soft
men in general.
However, regardless of whether Paul intended to refer specifically to
male prostitutes or more generally to all men considered morally soft,
it is apparent that the term malakoi has nothing to do with the
question we bring to Scripture. We are not defending prostitution, nor
vanity or self-indulgence. Our question is whether same-sex couples
may live in loving, committed relationships with the blessing of God.
The term malakoi does not address that.
The next key phrase in this passage is rendered in the King James
Version as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” A similar phrase
appears in a list of sins in I Timothy 1:10. Both phrases are derived
from a single Greek word, arsenokoitai, which is quite rare. In fact,
these two biblical references may be the first examples we have of
this word being used in the literature of the time. (See note 4.)
Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost
forever. However, some scholars have worked hard to make an educated
guess.
Note 4. Some have suggested an earlier use of the word in a piece of
literature called the Sibylline Oracles, a collection of oracles
written by many people over a number of centuries. However, the dating
of the particular oracle in which this word appears is uncertain. For
more on this topic see Dale B. Martin’s article, page 120.
One translation technique is to look at the root words alone.
Arsenokoitai is a combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed”
and referring to sex, and another meaning “male.” (See note 5.) Thus,
some scholars surmise the term has something to do with male sexual
expression — perhaps exclusive male sexual expression, since no woman
is mentioned.
Note 5. Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Fortress
Press, Minneapolis, 1998), page 114. John Boswell, on page 342 of
Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, states that the
second half of this word, “is a coarse word, generally denoting base
or licentious activities (see Romans 13:13), and in this and other
compounds refers to the vulgar English word “f***er”.
Unfortunately, this method of translation often leads people astray.
For example, imagine a future translator coming across the word “lady-
killer” two thousand years from now and wanting to know what it means.
It’s clear the phrase is made from two words, lady and killer. So, it
must mean a woman who kills, right? Or is it a person who kills
ladies? The difficulty in obtaining a good translation is clear —
particularly when we know lady-killer was a term used in the 1970s to
refer to men whom women supposedly found irresistible. (See note 6.)
Note 6. This example, coined by John Boswell in the 1980s, is still a
good illustration of the troubles inherent in translations based on
simple root-word analysis.
A better way to understand what Paul may have meant by arsenokoitai is
to look for other instances of the word in the subsequent writings of
his time. This approach yields several telling facts. First, two early
church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior
extensively, Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, never used the
word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in
their writing, but only in places where they appear to be quoting the
list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they
discuss homosexuality. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term
referred to homosexual behavior. (See note 7.)
Note 7. Nissinen, page 115.
A similar pattern is found in other writings of the time. There are
hundreds of Greek writings from this period that refer to homosexual
activity using terms other than arsenokoitai. (See note 8.) If Paul
had intended to refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the
partners in gay-male sex, he had other commonly-used, well-known words
at his disposal. He wouldn’t have had to resort to this ambiguous
compound word, which future generations would find difficult to
translate. Apparently Paul was trying to refer to some more obscure
type of behavior.
Note 8. Martin, pages 120-123. See also John Boswell’s Christianity,
Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, pages 345-348.
This conclusion is reinforced by a survey of the actual uses of
arsenokoitai in Greek literature. Scholars have identified only 73
times this term is used in the six centuries after Paul. (See note 9.)
(There are no known instances before Paul.) In virtually every
instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any
story line or other context to shed light on its meaning. There are,
however, a few helpful exceptions. In one instance, a Greek author
uses the term when cataloguing the sins of the Greek gods. (See note
10.) In this context, the term is intended to refer to the time Zeus
abducted and raped a young boy, Ganymede. Arsenokoitai is also used in
an ancient legend in which the snake in the Garden of Eden is said to
have become a Satanic figure named Naas. Naas uses a variety of means
(including sleeping with both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and
destroy them. In this story, Naas is said to have gone to Adam and had
him like a boy. Naas’ sin is called arsenokoitai. (See note 11.) These
examples suggest that arsenokoitai refers to instances when one male
uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of
another.
Note 9. For a good list of all the instances of arsenokoitai and its
derivatives in ancient Greek literature, go to All known references to
arsenokoit*.
Note 10. Arisites, Apology 13, Fragmenta 12,9-13.5.4.
Note 11. Hippolytus Scr. Eccl. (Refutation of All Heresies), 060,
5.26.23.4.
This premise is reinforced by yet another translation technique. As
noted above, most of the times when arsenokoitai is used in early
Greek literature, it occurs in a list of sins (just like in 1
Corinthians 6). (See note 12.) Common experience tells us list-makers
tend to group similar items together. In these lists, arsenokoitai is
often placed at the end of the list of sex sins and the beginning of
the list of economic sins or vice versa. (See note 13.) For example,
in 1 Corinthians 6, we find it between malakoi (which may refer to
male prostitutes) and “thieves.” In I Timothy 1:10, the word appears
between “fornication” and “slave traders.” This is consistent with the
meaning suggested above — that arsenokoitai describes a male who
aggressively takes sexual advantage of another male. Examples of this
type of behavior would include a man who rapes another (as in the
story of Zeus and Ganymede) or a man who uses economic power to buy
sex from a male prostitute who sells his body to survive. This latter
example is an especially neat fit if malakoi is understood to be a
reference to the prostitute, in which case Paul’s list would include a
reference both to the male prostitute (malakoi) and the man who takes
advantage of the prostitute (arsenokoitai). This type of person is a
close kin to the thief and the greedy — the two Greek words that most
often follow arsenokoitai in the lists of sins.
Note 12. See notes 2 and 9, above.
Note 13. See Martin’s section titled Arsenokoitês, pages 118-123, for
a thorough discussion of contextual clues to the meaning of this word.
A thief, a greedy person, and one who uses power to obtain sex are all
seizing something that does not rightfully belong to them.
Thus, aresenokoitai is best understood as a reference to men who force
themselves sexually on others. This conclusion is consistent with the
New Revised Standard Version, the English translation of the Bible
often regarded as most scholarly. The New Revised Standard Version
translates arsenokoitai as “sodomite.” As recited in that story, the
men of Sodom were the ultimate example of sexual aggression and
oppression. Even the New International Version, a more conservative
English translation, appears to have been uncomfortable translating
aresenokotai as a general reference to homosexuality. Instead, in 1
Corinthians 6 they translate the term as “homosexual offender,”
suggesting that to commit the sin referred to here one must use
homosexuality in an aggressive or offensive way.
Finally, there is one more approach for finding the meaning of an
obscure word relevant to the present discussion. Etymology is an
attempt to trace the origins of a word — not just its component parts
or uses after it was created, but where the word originally came from.
For a word as old as arsenokoitai, doing etymological research is
often quite speculative, but some scholars have pointed out that the
two Greek words scrunched together to form this new word appear next
to each other (as separate words) in Leviticus 20:13 in the
Septuagint. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old
Testament that Paul would have read.) From this, they gather that the
word was created by people familiar with this passage, and that Paul
was probably referring to the same behavior prohibited by Leviticus
20:13. (See note 14.)
Note 14. Robin Scroggs makes this argument on pages 85 and 86 of The
New Testament and Homosexuality (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983).
David Greenberg makes a similar argument on page 214 of The
Construction of Homosexuality. Although Scroggs, Greenberg, and
Nissinen believe the term may refer to some type of homosexual
behavior, they do not agree on the type of behavior. For example,
Scroggs suggests this may be a reference to male prostitution.
Moreover, Nissinen makes the point, on page 117, that our translation
of obscure words is always informed by our ideological preconceptions.
This brings us full circle. As we’ve already seen in our discussion of
Old Testament law, Leviticus 20:13 was written in the context of
cultic sexual practices, including temple prostitution. In Romans, we
saw that Paul was addressing homosexual behavior that occurred in
similar cultic situations, where people had abandoned the one true God
to worship pagan idols. If Paul derived the term arsenokoitai from
Leviticus 20:13 (and that’s a big if), it would follow that Leviticus
20 and Romans 1 would provide the best evidence of the type of
homosexual behavior he was intending to prohibit, i.e., cultic sexual
practices.
Given the existing state of the literary evidence, it is impossible to
know whether Paul was intending to refer to Leviticus 20 or was using
the term arsenokoitai more broadly to refer to a man who aggressively
forces himself on another. For us, it is not necessary to resolve the
question. It is sufficient to note that Paul’s terminology manifestly
does not address the type of behavior we are asking about — two people
of the same sex who love each other dearly and live in committed
relationship.
juanjo
Feb 19, 2012, 6:34:45 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 5:45 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:09:31 -0800, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
> >On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> >>>> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
> >>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
> >>>>>>> it?
>
> >>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
> >>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> >>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> >>> No he didn't.
>
> >> Yep.
>
> >Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>
> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
>
> >>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> >>>> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
> >>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
> >>>>>>> it?
>
> >>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
> >>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> >>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> >>> No he didn't.
>
> >> Yep.
>
> >Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>
> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
juanjo
Feb 19, 2012, 6:30:50 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 18, 4:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
anything about the religion he professes to follow. Since the common
language at the time Jesus was alive among the Jews was Aramaic, it is
very likely he spoke that language. Since he lived around 6 miles
from a fairly large city which was inhabited by Greek and Latin
speaking peoples and Greek was the common language of trade and
commerce he may or may not have known Greek. It is more than likely
he went to that city as it is referenced in the gospels and it would
have been a place for a person who was a carpenter such as his father
to perform work.
But really all of that is a sideshow since the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of
the Gospel of Matthew is Greek. That's right boys and girls Dukie is
tossing out a straw man by referencing the language Jesus spoke. The
issue is not the language Jesus spoke but the language of the story
which was Greek.
So when we examine the story we have several possible
interpretations. Matthew uses the term "pais" which can mean son,
boy, servant and a "body servant" [a polite reference for a companion
purchased for sexual; reasons]. Luke also has the same story and as
pointed out Luke refers to the pais as an "entimos doulos" or honored
[sometimes translated as beloved] slave so we know the use of the term
pais does not refer to a son. In addition in the Matthew Gospel, the
centurion refers to his other slaves as doulos thus drawing a
distinction between the pais and his other slaves. Knowing the
cultural context and the vernacular use of the word not to mention the
customary practices of the time, we know that this pais was not his
son and was not simply a slave but someone of special significance to
the centurion. Since he is not a son and not just a boy given the
centurion's reference to him as belonging to the centurion we can
reject the first two meaning as possible meanings. Now that leaves
the pais as simply a slave or a slave purchased for intimate,
including sexual reasons. Luke makes it clear that his is not just
some slave given the use of the term entimos and Matthew tells us the
same as the centurion refers to his other slaves as doulos but not the
pais. So the context from both the Matthew story and the Luke story
is that the term refers not simply to slave but a slave purchased for
much more intimate reasons.
Now Dukie doesn't like that conclusion because it interferes with his
prejudgment and calls into question his own ignorance of the Gospels.
Note that Dukie doesn't actually dispute any of the points made in the
article, he simply dismisses them and repeats his opinion which as
shown is not based upon fact but rather on his own ignorance and
prejudice.
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:05:07 -0800 (PST), juanjo <cacas9...@mypacks.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 5:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> This should be good.
>
> >From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the
> >Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This
> >story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we
> >are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of
> >his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s
> >house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so —
> >he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be
> >healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant
> >healed. Luke tells a similar story.
>
> Right on, brother.
>
> >In the original language, the importance of this story for gay,
> >lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer.
>
> It is?? Why?
>
> > The Greek word used
> >in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais.
>
> Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. Maybe pais is a very poor
> translation.
>
Our dear troll Dukie, has apparently never bothered to actually learn
> >On Feb 17, 5:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> This should be good.
>
> >From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the
> >Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This
> >story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we
> >are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of
> >his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s
> >house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so —
> >he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be
> >healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant
> >healed. Luke tells a similar story.
>
> Right on, brother.
>
> >In the original language, the importance of this story for gay,
> >lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer.
>
> It is?? Why?
>
> > The Greek word used
> >in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais.
>
> Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. Maybe pais is a very poor
> translation.
>
anything about the religion he professes to follow. Since the common
language at the time Jesus was alive among the Jews was Aramaic, it is
very likely he spoke that language. Since he lived around 6 miles
from a fairly large city which was inhabited by Greek and Latin
speaking peoples and Greek was the common language of trade and
commerce he may or may not have known Greek. It is more than likely
he went to that city as it is referenced in the gospels and it would
have been a place for a person who was a carpenter such as his father
to perform work.
But really all of that is a sideshow since the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of
the Gospel of Matthew is Greek. That's right boys and girls Dukie is
tossing out a straw man by referencing the language Jesus spoke. The
issue is not the language Jesus spoke but the language of the story
which was Greek.
So when we examine the story we have several possible
interpretations. Matthew uses the term "pais" which can mean son,
boy, servant and a "body servant" [a polite reference for a companion
purchased for sexual; reasons]. Luke also has the same story and as
pointed out Luke refers to the pais as an "entimos doulos" or honored
[sometimes translated as beloved] slave so we know the use of the term
pais does not refer to a son. In addition in the Matthew Gospel, the
centurion refers to his other slaves as doulos thus drawing a
distinction between the pais and his other slaves. Knowing the
cultural context and the vernacular use of the word not to mention the
customary practices of the time, we know that this pais was not his
son and was not simply a slave but someone of special significance to
the centurion. Since he is not a son and not just a boy given the
centurion's reference to him as belonging to the centurion we can
reject the first two meaning as possible meanings. Now that leaves
the pais as simply a slave or a slave purchased for intimate,
including sexual reasons. Luke makes it clear that his is not just
some slave given the use of the term entimos and Matthew tells us the
same as the centurion refers to his other slaves as doulos but not the
pais. So the context from both the Matthew story and the Luke story
is that the term refers not simply to slave but a slave purchased for
much more intimate reasons.
Now Dukie doesn't like that conclusion because it interferes with his
prejudgment and calls into question his own ignorance of the Gospels.
Note that Dukie doesn't actually dispute any of the points made in the
article, he simply dismisses them and repeats his opinion which as
shown is not based upon fact but rather on his own ignorance and
prejudice.
juanjo
Feb 19, 2012, 6:37:39 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 5:47 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
languages the passages you quote were written in either. If you did,
you would know how ignorant you sound.
>
> >If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
> >"paiderasste". But he didn't.
>
> How would you know?
Because that was the word used at the time and it si the word Paul
would have used to refer to homosexual behaviour.
>
> > The clear context of what Paul was
> >talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
> >in idol worship in other religions.
>
> Forget the context. It can't be anything but exactly what God said.
>
Dukie delights in displaying his ignorance.
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:13:02 -0800, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> >> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:12 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>
> >>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
> >>>> <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
> >>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>
> >>>>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
> >>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
> >>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>
> >>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
> >>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> >>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> >>>> kingdom of God.
>
> >>> Chapter and verse please.
>
> >> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
> >Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
> >mention homosexuality, right?
>
> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
We know that Dukie. We also know that you do not know the original
> >>>>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists
> >>>>>>> posting here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily
> >>>>>>> obsessed with it?
>
> >>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>
> >>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>
> >>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
> >>>> kingdom of God.
>
> >>> Chapter and verse please.
>
> >> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
> >Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
> >mention homosexuality, right?
>
> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
languages the passages you quote were written in either. If you did,
you would know how ignorant you sound.
>
> >If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
> >"paiderasste". But he didn't.
>
> How would you know?
would have used to refer to homosexual behaviour.
>
> > The clear context of what Paul was
> >talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
> >in idol worship in other religions.
>
> Forget the context. It can't be anything but exactly what God said.
>
duke
Feb 20, 2012, 1:57:35 PM2/20/12
to
again.
duke
Feb 20, 2012, 2:07:20 PM2/20/12
to
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men
who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
NIV - Queer = men who have sex with men
See how simple that it.
Now that's what I'm talking about when I say that kjv readers live in a state of
confusion.
duke
Feb 20, 2012, 2:09:47 PM2/20/12
to
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>
>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>
>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>
>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>
>I do know that.
Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>
>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>
>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>
>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>
>I do know that.
>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>>> "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>
>> How would you know?
>
>Because that would've been the word to use.
>>> The clear context of what Paul was
>>> talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
>>> in idol worship in other religions.
>>
>> Forget the context.
>Sorry. Can't.
>> It can't be anything but exactly what God said.
>Yes. And it's NOT about what God didn't say.
duke
Feb 20, 2012, 2:10:50 PM2/20/12
to
duke
Feb 20, 2012, 2:11:47 PM2/20/12
to
DanielSan
Feb 20, 2012, 2:19:08 PM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 10:57 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:44:27 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/2012 5:45 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:09:31 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>>>
>>> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>
>> That isn't about homosexuals. Try again.
>
> It's specifically about queers not inheriting the kingdom of God.
No, it isn't. And this is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, not
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:44:27 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/2012 5:45 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:09:31 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/18/2012 5:06 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:33:58 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/17/2012 5:12 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:01:30 +0000 (UTC), Jordon
>>>>>>> <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Buddythunder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No One seems to know. And so do you. Are all the theists posting
>>>>>>>>>> here gay and feeling guilty? Or just unhealthily obsessed with
>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> God said it's a mortal sin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His son never said anything on the subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Bet you can't cite chapter and verse.
>>>
>>> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>
>> That isn't about homosexuals. Try again.
>
> It's specifically about queers not inheriting the kingdom of God.
Jesus.
DanielSan
Feb 20, 2012, 2:21:29 PM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>
>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>
>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>
>> I do know that.
>
> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>
>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>
>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>
>> I do know that.
>
> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>
>>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>>>> "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>>
>>> How would you know?
>>
>> Because that would've been the word to use.
>
> Well, he used the word for queer instead.
>
>>>> The clear context of what Paul was
>>>> talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
>>>> in idol worship in other religions.
>>>
>>> Forget the context.
>
>> Sorry. Can't.
>
> Well I just read the words.
>
>>> It can't be anything but exactly what God said.
>> Yes. And it's NOT about what God didn't say.
>
> It is in my bible.
in the Bible.
DanielSan
Feb 20, 2012, 2:22:42 PM2/20/12
to
that meant homosexual or queer, he would've used the term "Paiderraste".
But he didn't. Because he didn't mean homosexual or queer.
Mitchell Holman
Feb 20, 2012, 4:53:30 PM2/20/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:ot55k795ei17qmev0...@4ax.com:
But women who have sex with women, well,
that is kinda hot so you guys have problem
with it.
news:ot55k795ei17qmev0...@4ax.com:
that is kinda hot so you guys have problem
with it.
Mitchell Holman
Feb 20, 2012, 4:55:29 PM2/20/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:8k65k79trigt4eeat...@4ax.com:
Show us what Jesus said about gays, or
gay sex, or gay marriage.
Put it right here:
news:8k65k79trigt4eeat...@4ax.com:
gay sex, or gay marriage.
Put it right here:
ram...@truthonly.com.swordofbaal
Feb 20, 2012, 9:03:28 PM2/20/12
to
"duke" wrote in message news:pr55k7pc68r4blhro...@4ax.com...
> It's specifically about queers not inheriting the kingdom of God. You try
> again.
duke
Feb 21, 2012, 7:43:01 AM2/21/12
to
duke
Feb 21, 2012, 7:43:46 AM2/21/12
to
duke
Feb 21, 2012, 7:46:34 AM2/21/12
to
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:53:30 -0600, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>A common passage of Scripture sometimes used against gay people is 1
>>>Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James Version:
>>>“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,
>>>nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
>>
>> kjv - Queer = abusers of themselves with mankind.
>> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
>> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
>> God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
>> nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the
>> greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
>> kingdom of God.
>>
>> NIV - Queer = men who have sex with men
> But women who have sex with women, well,
>that is kinda hot so you guys have problem
>with it.
Before Jesus, women were just chattel, so only their owners were addressed by
>>>> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>A common passage of Scripture sometimes used against gay people is 1
>>>Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James Version:
>>>“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,
>>>nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
>>
>> kjv - Queer = abusers of themselves with mankind.
>> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
>> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
>> God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
>> nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the
>> greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
>> kingdom of God.
>>
>> NIV - Queer = men who have sex with men
> But women who have sex with women, well,
>that is kinda hot so you guys have problem
>with it.
the Jews.
duke
Feb 21, 2012, 7:48:31 AM2/21/12
to
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>
>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>
>>> I do know that.
>>
>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>
>I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
"Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>
>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>
>>> I do know that.
>>
>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>
>I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>>>>> "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>>>
>>>> How would you know?
>>>
>>> Because that would've been the word to use.
>>
>> Well, he used the word for queer instead.
>No, he didn't.
>>>>> The clear context of what Paul was
>>>>> talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
>>>>> in idol worship in other religions.
>>>>
>>>> Forget the context.
>>
>>> Sorry. Can't.
>> Well I just read the words.
>So do I. *ALL* of them.
>>>> It can't be anything but exactly what God said.
>>> Yes. And it's NOT about what God didn't say.
>> It is in my bible.
>What is in your Bible is different from what you're trying to tell us is
>in the Bible.
duke
Feb 21, 2012, 7:49:07 AM2/21/12
to
duke
Feb 21, 2012, 7:49:26 AM2/21/12
to
DanielSan
Feb 21, 2012, 7:54:10 AM2/21/12
to
On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I do know that.
>>>
>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>
>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>
> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
And that's not what homosexuality is.
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I do know that.
>>>
>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>
>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>
> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>
>>>>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>>>>>> "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>
>>>> Because that would've been the word to use.
>>>
>>> Well, he used the word for queer instead.
>> No, he didn't.
>
> But he did.
>
>>>>>> The clear context of what Paul was
>>>>>> talking about in his first letter to the Corinthians is male prostitutes
>>>>>> in idol worship in other religions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget the context.
>>>
>>>> Sorry. Can't.
>
>>> Well I just read the words.
>> So do I. *ALL* of them.
>
> Yes, and it says "queer".
>
>>>>> It can't be anything but exactly what God said.
>>>> Yes. And it's NOT about what God didn't say.
>
>>> It is in my bible.
>
>> What is in your Bible is different from what you're trying to tell us is
>> in the Bible.
>
> No it's not.
DanielSan
Feb 21, 2012, 7:54:56 AM2/21/12
to
Mitchell Holman
Feb 21, 2012, 9:04:09 AM2/21/12
to
Mitchell Holman
Feb 21, 2012, 9:05:04 AM2/21/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:kc47k7d2fkjvsfqkf...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:53:30 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
>>>>A common passage of Scripture sometimes used against gay people is 1
>>>>Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James
>>>>Version: “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, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
>>>
>>> kjv - Queer = abusers of themselves with mankind.
>
>>> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
>>> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
>>> God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
>>> nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor
>>> the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
>>> the kingdom of God.
>>>
>>> NIV - Queer = men who have sex with men
>
>> But women who have sex with women, well,
>>that is kinda hot so you guys have problem
>>with it.
>
> Before Jesus, women were just chattel, so only their owners were
> addressed by the Jews.
And after Jesus, gay women were just fine too, no?
news:kc47k7d2fkjvsfqkf...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:53:30 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Cite = 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>
>>>>A common passage of Scripture sometimes used against gay people is 1
>>>>Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James
>>>>Version: “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, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
>>>
>>> kjv - Queer = abusers of themselves with mankind.
>
>>> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
>>> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
>>> God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
>>> nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor
>>> the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
>>> the kingdom of God.
>>>
>>> NIV - Queer = men who have sex with men
>
>> But women who have sex with women, well,
>>that is kinda hot so you guys have problem
>>with it.
>
> Before Jesus, women were just chattel, so only their owners were
> addressed by the Jews.
Mitchell Holman
Feb 21, 2012, 9:06:59 AM2/21/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:kh47k7tvqp9r8qh58...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800,
>>> DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit
>>>>>>>>> the kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language
>>>>>> doesn't mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I do know that.
>>>
>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>
>>I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>
> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
Not in the Gospels.
In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
Odd, no?
>
>>>>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the
>>>>>> word "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>
>>>> Because that would've been the word to use.
>>>
>>> Well, he used the word for queer instead.
>>No, he didn't.
>
> But he did.
Nope. Jesus never mentioned gays.
news:kh47k7tvqp9r8qh58...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800,
>>> DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit
>>>>>>>>> the kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language
>>>>>> doesn't mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I do know that.
>>>
>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>
>>I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>
> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
Odd, no?
>
>>>>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the
>>>>>> word "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>
>>>> Because that would've been the word to use.
>>>
>>> Well, he used the word for queer instead.
>>No, he didn't.
>
> But he did.
duke
Feb 22, 2012, 5:02:26 PM2/22/12
to
duke
Feb 22, 2012, 5:03:52 PM2/22/12
to
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:54:10 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>
>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>
>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>
>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>
>And that's not what homosexuality is.
??? Do you..................do dogs, dave??
>On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>
>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>
>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>
>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>
>And that's not what homosexuality is.
>>>>>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>>>>>>> "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that would've been the word to use.
>>>>
>>>> Well, he used the word for queer instead.
>>> No, he didn't.
>>
>> But he did.
>No, he didn't.
duke
Feb 22, 2012, 5:04:39 PM2/22/12
to
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:06:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:kh47k7tvqp9r8qh58...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan
>> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800,
>>>> DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit
>>>>>>>>>> the kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language
>>>>>>> doesn't mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>
>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>
>>>I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>
>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
> Not in the Gospels.
> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
> Odd, no?
Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:kh47k7tvqp9r8qh58...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan
>> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800,
>>>> DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit
>>>>>>>>>> the kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language
>>>>>>> doesn't mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>
>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>
>>>I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>
>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
> Not in the Gospels.
> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
> Odd, no?
duke
Feb 22, 2012, 5:05:35 PM2/22/12
to
Mitchell Holman
Feb 22, 2012, 5:16:25 PM2/22/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:6epak75eb33fkoep9...@4ax.com:
Except for Jesus not ever mention gays or
gay sex. Seems the issue wasn't too "major" for
him, no?
news:6epak75eb33fkoep9...@4ax.com:
gay sex. Seems the issue wasn't too "major" for
him, no?
DanielSan
Feb 22, 2012, 6:20:09 PM2/22/12
to
On 2/22/2012 2:03 PM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:54:10 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>>
>>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>>
>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>
>> And that's not what homosexuality is.
>
> ??? Do you..................do dogs, dave??
That's bestiality, not homosexuality.
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:54:10 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>>
>>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>>
>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>
>> And that's not what homosexuality is.
>
> ??? Do you..................do dogs, dave??
Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>
>>>>>>>> If Paul wanted to talk about homosexuality, he would've used the word
>>>>>>>> "paiderasste". But he didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that would've been the word to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, he used the word for queer instead.
>>>> No, he didn't.
>>>
>>> But he did.
>> No, he didn't.
>
> Yes, that's why the translation is homosexuality.
Kent Wills
Feb 23, 2012, 4:28:21 AM2/23/12
to
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>
>> Not in the Gospels.
>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>> Odd, no?
>
>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
[...]
>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>
>> Not in the Gospels.
>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>> Odd, no?
>
>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
duke
Feb 23, 2012, 12:21:45 PM2/23/12
to
duke
Feb 23, 2012, 12:22:44 PM2/23/12
to
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/22/2012 2:03 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:54:10 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>>>
>>>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>>>
>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>
>>> And that's not what homosexuality is.
>>
>> ??? Do you..................do dogs, dave??
>
>That's bestiality, not homosexuality.
I know. That's why I asked.
>On 2/22/2012 2:03 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:54:10 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>>>
>>>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>>>
>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>
>>> And that's not what homosexuality is.
>>
>> ??? Do you..................do dogs, dave??
>
>That's bestiality, not homosexuality.
>Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
duke
Feb 23, 2012, 12:23:48 PM2/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>
>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>> Odd, no?
>>
>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>
> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>
>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>> Odd, no?
>>
>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>
> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
1 Cor 6:9-10
Mitchell Holman
Feb 23, 2012, 1:21:57 PM2/23/12
to
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:el1ck7lf1of7g1v7l...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>
>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>> Odd, no?
>>
>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>
> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
Duke runs away everytime this is brought up.
news:el1ck7lf1of7g1v7l...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>
>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>> Odd, no?
>>
>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>
> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
deadrat
Feb 23, 2012, 2:40:11 PM2/23/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
<snip/>
> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
Keep in mind that the entire Bible was written in languages you don't
read, translated by people you don't know, and collected, edited, and
redacted by numerous committees with their own axes to grind.
>
> duke, American - American
>
<snip/>
<snip/>
> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
read, translated by people you don't know, and collected, edited, and
redacted by numerous committees with their own axes to grind.
>
> duke, American - American
>
<snip/>
DanielSan
Feb 23, 2012, 5:12:38 PM2/23/12
to
On 2/23/2012 9:22 AM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2012 2:03 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:54:10 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>
>>>> And that's not what homosexuality is.
>>>
>>> ??? Do you..................do dogs, dave??
>>
>> That's bestiality, not homosexuality.
>
> I know. That's why I asked.
Why did you bring up bestiality at all?
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:20:09 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2012 2:03 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:54:10 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2012 4:48 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:21:29 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2012 11:09 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:33 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. He said that practicing homos will not inherit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kingdom of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter and verse please.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeesh, this crap again? You do know that the original language doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> mention homosexuality, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jesus didn't speak English. You do know that, don't you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you know why queers will not inherit the kingdom of God
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can read context as well. This isn't about homosexuality.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>
>>>> And that's not what homosexuality is.
>>>
>>> ??? Do you..................do dogs, dave??
>>
>> That's bestiality, not homosexuality.
>
> I know. That's why I asked.
>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>
> But not make a baby.
Kent Wills
Feb 24, 2012, 4:56:02 AM2/24/12
to
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>
>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>> Odd, no?
>>>
>>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>
>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>
>Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>
>1 Cor 6:9-10
>
That's not one of the Gospels.
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>
>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>> Odd, no?
>>>
>>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>
>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>
>Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>
>1 Cor 6:9-10
>
Please try again.
Kent Wills
Feb 24, 2012, 4:56:34 AM2/24/12
to
four books of the Gospels.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
duke
Feb 24, 2012, 12:25:22 PM2/24/12
to
>>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>> But not make a baby.
>Yep. So what?
duke
Feb 24, 2012, 12:25:58 PM2/24/12
to
deadrat
Feb 24, 2012, 12:56:37 PM2/24/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
<snip/>
>>>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>>> But not make a baby.
>> Yep. So what?
> Then why would they?
>
> duke, American - American
Not really any of your business, now is it?
<snip/>
<snip/>
>>>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>>> But not make a baby.
>> Yep. So what?
> Then why would they?
>
> duke, American - American
<snip/>
deadrat
Feb 24, 2012, 12:59:18 PM2/24/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:56:02 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>
>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>
>>>Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>
>>>1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>
>>
>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>> Please try again.
>
> All of the bible is inspired by God.
I talked to God this morning and He told me that the people transcribing his
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:56:02 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>
>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>
>>>Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>
>>>1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>
>>
>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>> Please try again.
>
> All of the bible is inspired by God.
word got some of it wrong. He said that He's OK with that. After all, men
are fallible because He made them that way. But He also said for me to tell
you to stop spreading lies in His name.
He did sound a little pissed off about that. Just sayin'.
DanielSan
Feb 24, 2012, 5:47:57 PM2/24/12
to
>
>>>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>>> But not make a baby.
>> Yep. So what?
>
> Then why would they?
intercourse?
DanielSan
Feb 24, 2012, 5:48:24 PM2/24/12
to
On 2/24/2012 9:25 AM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:56:02 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>
>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>
>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>
>>
>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>> Please try again.
>
> All of the bible is inspired by God.
You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>
>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>
>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>
>>
>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>> Please try again.
>
> All of the bible is inspired by God.
duke
Feb 25, 2012, 12:30:30 PM2/25/12
to
>>>>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>>>> But not make a baby.
>>> Yep. So what?
>>
>> Then why would they?
>Do you think that procreation is the only reason for engaging in
>intercourse?
it's first and only intent.
duke
Feb 25, 2012, 12:31:04 PM2/25/12
to
DanielSan
Feb 25, 2012, 7:45:25 PM2/25/12
to
animal. That you went there shows just where YOUR brain is.
>
>>>>>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>>>>> But not make a baby.
>>>> Yep. So what?
>>>
>>> Then why would they?
>
>> Do you think that procreation is the only reason for engaging in
>> intercourse?
>
> No, but it is the principle method developed by God for making babies, which is
> it's first and only intent.
DanielSan
Feb 25, 2012, 7:45:44 PM2/25/12
to
On 2/25/2012 9:31 AM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:48:24 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2012 9:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:56:02 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>> Please try again.
>>>
>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>
>> You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>
> God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
You were STILL asked to limit it to the Gospels.
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:48:24 -0800, DanielSan<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2012 9:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:56:02 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>> Please try again.
>>>
>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>
>> You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>
> God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
duke
Feb 26, 2012, 9:07:46 AM2/26/12
to
hard........that..........I.......I..........I............can't type)
dave/doug/dave by the beach/danielsan strikes again.
>>>>>>> Did you know that a heterosexual man could have sex with another man?
>>>>>> But not make a baby.
>>>>> Yep. So what?
>>>>
>>>> Then why would they?
>>
>>> Do you think that procreation is the only reason for engaging in
>>> intercourse?
>>
>> No, but it is the principle method developed by God for making babies, which is
>> it's first and only intent.
>
>So, why did God make it so enjoyable when it's impossible to make babies?
duke
Feb 26, 2012, 9:08:17 AM2/26/12
to
DanielSan
Feb 26, 2012, 9:09:16 AM2/26/12
to
Kent Wills
Feb 26, 2012, 11:23:03 AM2/26/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:31:04 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:48:24 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/24/2012 9:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:56:02 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>> Please try again.
>>>
>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>
>>You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>
>God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
>
You were asked to support your claim that homosexuality can be
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:48:24 -0800, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/24/2012 9:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:56:02 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:28:21 -0600, Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:04:39 -0600, duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>> Please try again.
>>>
>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>
>>You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>
>God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
>
found mentioned within the books of the Gospel.
You've yet to do so.
Please do so now, or admit that since the subject is not
mentioned in the books of the Gospel, you can't.
--
'Life is pain. Anybody that says different is selling something.'
-- Fezzik's mother
Kent Wills
Feb 26, 2012, 11:32:57 AM2/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:08:17 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>>>> Please try again.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>>>
>>>> You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>>>
>>> God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
>>
>>You were STILL asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>
>Why?
Because the claim is that homosexuality can be found within the
[...]
>>>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>>>> Please try again.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>>>
>>>> You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>>>
>>> God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
>>
>>You were STILL asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>
>Why?
books of the Gospels.
>All of the bible is inspired by God.
are called The Gospels.
duke
Feb 27, 2012, 8:18:09 AM2/27/12
to
you're clueless.
duke
Feb 27, 2012, 8:19:50 AM2/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:32:57 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:08:17 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>>>>> Please try again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>>>>
>>>>> You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>>>>
>>>> God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
>>>
>>>You were STILL asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>>
>>Why?
> Because the claim is that homosexuality can be found within the
>books of the Gospels.
No, he asked about the gospels, but he didn't limit the discussion to gospels
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:08:17 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Men who have sex with men" is VERY clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact it is not even MENTIONED in the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you're odd alright. Just as odd as doug.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned?
>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that the entire bible is revealed by God to man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 Cor 6:9-10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not one of the Gospels.
>>>>>>> Please try again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the bible is inspired by God.
>>>>
>>>>> You were asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>>>>
>>>> God's message is revealed in all parts of the bible.
>>>
>>>You were STILL asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>>
>>Why?
> Because the claim is that homosexuality can be found within the
>books of the Gospels.
"only".
>>All of the bible is inspired by God.
> While I agree with you on this, not all of the books of the Bible
>are called The Gospels.
duke
Feb 27, 2012, 8:21:15 AM2/27/12
to
> You've yet to do so.
> Please do so now, or admit that since the subject is not
>mentioned in the books of the Gospel, you can't.
so?
Mitchell Holman
Feb 27, 2012, 8:47:00 AM2/27/12
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:6l0nk754eekra7ljk...@4ax.com:
Sounds like a limitation to the Gospels to me.
Perhaps all those men who left their wives to
hang out with other men didn't want to talk about it?
news:6l0nk754eekra7ljk...@4ax.com:
Perhaps all those men who left their wives to
hang out with other men didn't want to talk about it?
DanielSan
Feb 27, 2012, 8:47:21 AM2/27/12
to
Kent Wills
Feb 28, 2012, 5:13:12 AM2/28/12
to
>>>>You were STILL asked to limit it to the Gospels.
>>>
>>>Why?
>
>> Because the claim is that homosexuality can be found within the
>>books of the Gospels.
>
>No, he asked about the gospels, but he didn't limit the discussion to gospels
>"only".
>
Since it was *I* who issued the challenge, your claim is
>>>
>>>Why?
>
>> Because the claim is that homosexuality can be found within the
>>books of the Gospels.
>
>No, he asked about the gospels, but he didn't limit the discussion to gospels
>"only".
>
technically correct. Not in the deceptive way you present, but
technically correct.
I wrote, " Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is
mentioned?
" Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels."
You may see the post here:
" Keep in mind you're limited to the Gospels."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/99c2b72ce39d6fa2
>>>All of the bible is inspired by God.
>
>> While I agree with you on this, not all of the books of the Bible
>>are called The Gospels.
>
>I know, but he failed to use the limiter "gospels only".
was already exposed.
Kent Wills
Feb 28, 2012, 5:13:24 AM2/28/12
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:47:21 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> Because that was challenge. And you failed.
>>
>> No, you never used the limiting "only" in your original comment. Good grief but
>> you're clueless.
>
>It wasn't my challenge.
I pointed out his deception as well. I even linked to my post
where I issued the challenge you quote below.
>But here's what you were challenged with:
>
>"Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned? Keep in
>mind you're limited to the Gospels."
Seems like I limited him to the Gospels.
<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> Because that was challenge. And you failed.
>>
>> No, you never used the limiting "only" in your original comment. Good grief but
>> you're clueless.
>
>It wasn't my challenge.
where I issued the challenge you quote below.
>But here's what you were challenged with:
>
>"Can you cite where in the Gospels homosexuality is mentioned? Keep in
>mind you're limited to the Gospels."
0 new messages