By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Pope condemns gay equality laws ahead of first UK visit

Mr Khan on 02 February 2010
dunno001 said:
Mr Khan said:

Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 22  (New American Bible English translation) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." and Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed, they have forfeited their lives."

I did a whole research paper on those two laws last term, and got a 95 on it, but basically the laws are really hard to contextualize in the modern debate about homosexuality, since they specifically condemn homosexual acts (and then the exact Hebrew only specifically condemns anal penetration, and the one from chapter 18 only specifically condemns the penetrator, as it were), and there is some question as to whether they felt that the whole concept of homosexuality was abominable from a moral standpoint (though there is evidence to that effect, as the Hebrew words for man and woman have intrinsic in them what makes a proper man and woman), or condemned for more practical concerns (adult men were married, having sex with each other would lead to some drastic social problems), or even if they had a problem with homosexual acts for the same reason that they kept kosher, a point which would be irrelevant either way for modern Christians.

Hmm... my reading of this gives me only condemnation of bisexuality. I sure wouldn't "lie" with a woman the same way I would with a man. So that would make me fine?

Some people believe in the words of the bible; that's fine. I personally don't, but I won't be bothered by someone else's beliefs until they try shoving them down my throat or restrict what I can do that anyone else can do freely. This line also plays into the thought I've had in that you can read whatever you want to out of the bible; it's all a matter of how your twist words.

I hope i'm not creating the impression that i agree with those laws. Highwaystar asked, and i responded. The transliterated Hebrew wording says "You shall not with a man lie the lying down of a woman." The "lying down of a woman," is, through linguistic analysis, taken to mean the experience that a woman provides during sex, which we shall call "receptivity." And the idea is that "you shall not, with a man, experience his receptivity."

 

The law is relatively clear in what its condemning, just that countless translations have distorted it from the original Hebrew meaning.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
stof on 02 February 2010
Rath said:
themanwithnoname said:
Great to see it's not ok for someone to call homosexuality a disease, but it's ok for people to call Catholicism one? Another fantastic example of the fantastic moderation we have here! Gotta love how the Catholics are about the only group in the world that people have free reign to attack and bash without anyone giving two flying craps.

The pope didn't promote aids in Africa either. Just another example of people taking stuff he says way out of context for the sole purpose of serving their own agenda or (this wouldn't happen mind you) bash Catholicism. Absolutely shocking.

Basically the people calling Catholocism a diesease aren't serious about it, just pissed off at the way groups are treated by the Catholic church. I agree that it was out of line to say it, but its kind of understandable being pissed off at an organisation saying that you've got a diesease and need to be cured or you are going to hell constantly.

Also the Pope refused to allow people to use condoms in Africa, while not directly 'promoting aids' its causing it in such an obvious indirect way. It really is a Vatican policy that may have been acceptable pre-aids but now is just shocking.

 

 

Also, the catholicism post (which was clearly a reaction to the gay post) was by tombi123, who is an otherwise respectful poster who has rarely caused any trouble at all. Whereas Tyrranical (who made an entirely unprovoked bigoted statement) is a giant flying ass hole. If anything, we as a mod team have been to lenient on the guy, as he probably shouldn't still be allowed on these forums.

 



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

dunno001 on 02 February 2010
Mr Khan said:
dunno001 said:
Mr Khan said:

Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 22  (New American Bible English translation) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." and Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed, they have forfeited their lives."

I did a whole research paper on those two laws last term, and got a 95 on it, but basically the laws are really hard to contextualize in the modern debate about homosexuality, since they specifically condemn homosexual acts (and then the exact Hebrew only specifically condemns anal penetration, and the one from chapter 18 only specifically condemns the penetrator, as it were), and there is some question as to whether they felt that the whole concept of homosexuality was abominable from a moral standpoint (though there is evidence to that effect, as the Hebrew words for man and woman have intrinsic in them what makes a proper man and woman), or condemned for more practical concerns (adult men were married, having sex with each other would lead to some drastic social problems), or even if they had a problem with homosexual acts for the same reason that they kept kosher, a point which would be irrelevant either way for modern Christians.

Hmm... my reading of this gives me only condemnation of bisexuality. I sure wouldn't "lie" with a woman the same way I would with a man. So that would make me fine?

Some people believe in the words of the bible; that's fine. I personally don't, but I won't be bothered by someone else's beliefs until they try shoving them down my throat or restrict what I can do that anyone else can do freely. This line also plays into the thought I've had in that you can read whatever you want to out of the bible; it's all a matter of how your twist words.

I hope i'm not creating the impression that i agree with those laws. Highwaystar asked, and i responded. The transliterated Hebrew wording says "You shall not with a man lie the lying down of a woman." The "lying down of a woman," is, through linguistic analysis, taken to mean the experience that a woman provides during sex, which we shall call "receptivity." And the idea is that "you shall not, with a man, experience his receptivity."

The law is relatively clear in what its condemning, just that countless translations have distorted it from the original Hebrew meaning.

Nah, I wasn't intending to target it at anyone. Rather, you're the one that posted bible verses with definity (is this a word?), and thus, I latched on. I wanted to use it for those who believe in the bible, and use it as a crutch for trying to tell others how they should live. I say this of more than just religious texts, though- you can read almost anything you want out of something if it is long enough and you look hard enough.

As for the hebrew reading you reference, well... one can argue that it's a different experience, and that the reciprocation is of different values. Again, I'm not going after you, rather, I like twisting the words.



-dunno001

-On a quest for the truly perfect game; I don't think it exists...

Khuutra on 02 February 2010
dunno001 said:
Mr Khan said:

I hope i'm not creating the impression that i agree with those laws. Highwaystar asked, and i responded. The transliterated Hebrew wording says "You shall not with a man lie the lying down of a woman." The "lying down of a woman," is, through linguistic analysis, taken to mean the experience that a woman provides during sex, which we shall call "receptivity." And the idea is that "you shall not, with a man, experience his receptivity."

The law is relatively clear in what its condemning, just that countless translations have distorted it from the original Hebrew meaning.

Nah, I wasn't intending to target it at anyone. Rather, you're the one that posted bible verses with definity (is this a word?), and thus, I latched on. I wanted to use it for those who believe in the bible, and use it as a crutch for trying to tell others how they should live. I say this of more than just religious texts, though- you can read almost anything you want out of something if it is long enough and you look hard enough.

As for the hebrew reading you reference, well... one can argue that it's a different experience, and that the reciprocation is of different values. Again, I'm not going after you, rather, I like twisting the words.

There's a lot of ways you can argue semantics, but this is one of those cases where it's not so

If we translate it into English with the intention of capturing meaning in the most literal sense, it would probably read "You shall not insert your penis into a man"



themanwithnoname on 02 February 2010
damkira said:
themanwithnoname said:
Great to see it's not ok for someone to call homosexuality a disease, but it's ok for people to call Catholicism one? Another fantastic example of the fantastic moderation we have here! Gotta love how the Catholics are about the only group in the world that people have free reign to attack and bash without anyone giving two flying craps.

The pope didn't promote aids in Africa either. Just another example of people taking stuff he says way out of context for the sole purpose of serving their own agenda or (this wouldn't happen mind you) bash Catholicism. Absolutely shocking.

The Pope DOES promote AIDS in Africa by not enouraging contraception. The impoverished nations in Africa need contraception just as badly as they need food.

 


Nope, not by a long shot man. Go ask the Pope if he wants people in Africa to get AIDS, as I'm sure he'll say "Sure!" right? Last time I checked sex isn't a necessity to breathing and living. Now I'm not saying that that's a pratical position to take, but I am saying that the conclusion that the Pope wants people in Africa to get AIDS is nothing short of rubbish.



themanwithnoname's law: As an America's sales or NPD thread grows longer, the probabilty of the comment "America = World" [sarcasticly] being made approaches 1.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 02 February 2010
Rath said:
Mr Khan said:
highwaystar101 said:
After having it explained to me many, many times I still fail to see, apart from a few extremely tenuous verses, where the bible condemns homosexuality.

I think that it is just a side agenda that has been adopted by some Catholics and they have tried to justify it with the bible.

Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 22  (New American Bible English translation) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." and Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed, they have forfeited their lives."

 

I did a whole research paper on those two laws last term, and got a 95 on it, but basically the laws are really hard to contextualize in the modern debate about homosexuality, since they specifically condemn homosexual acts (and then the exact Hebrew only specifically condemns anal penetration, and the one from chapter 18 only specifically condemns the penetrator, as it were), and there is some question as to whether they felt that the whole concept of homosexuality was abominable from a moral standpoint (though there is evidence to that effect, as the Hebrew words for man and woman have intrinsic in them what makes a proper man and woman), or condemned for more practical concerns (adult men were married, having sex with each other would lead to some drastic social problems), or even if they had a problem with homosexual acts for the same reason that they kept kosher, a point which would be irrelevant either way for modern Christians.

Leviticus also calls eating shellfish, pork and all sorts of other things. It really pisses me off that modern Christians use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality but then ignore the vast number of other things listed as abominations.

I'm pretty sure just having sex for fun is considered an abomination because it doesn't produce children.

I mean, from that angle how COULDN'T catholics find gay sex bad?  Although of course like you said not to the level they do.

Then again look how much they're against birth control... it may be they're being consistant... and it's just so much harder to prove the second.



damkira on 03 February 2010
themanwithnoname said:
damkira said:
themanwithnoname said:
Great to see it's not ok for someone to call homosexuality a disease, but it's ok for people to call Catholicism one? Another fantastic example of the fantastic moderation we have here! Gotta love how the Catholics are about the only group in the world that people have free reign to attack and bash without anyone giving two flying craps.

The pope didn't promote aids in Africa either. Just another example of people taking stuff he says way out of context for the sole purpose of serving their own agenda or (this wouldn't happen mind you) bash Catholicism. Absolutely shocking.

The Pope DOES promote AIDS in Africa by not enouraging contraception. The impoverished nations in Africa need contraception just as badly as they need food.

 


Nope, not by a long shot man. Go ask the Pope if he wants people in Africa to get AIDS, as I'm sure he'll say "Sure!" right? Last time I checked sex isn't a necessity to breathing and living. Now I'm not saying that that's a pratical position to take, but I am saying that the conclusion that the Pope wants people in Africa to get AIDS is nothing short of rubbish.

The pope doesn't want people in Africa to get AIDS but by discouraging contraception, he is not helping the situation at all. The Catholic Church has lots of programs to help poor people but poor people (or rich people or anyone else) are going to have sex. Its human nature and he is not going to be able to stop it.



Alterego-X on 03 February 2010
damkira said:
themanwithnoname said:
Great to see it's not ok for someone to call homosexuality a disease, but it's ok for people to call Catholicism one? Another fantastic example of the fantastic moderation we have here! Gotta love how the Catholics are about the only group in the world that people have free reign to attack and bash without anyone giving two flying craps.

The pope didn't promote aids in Africa either. Just another example of people taking stuff he says way out of context for the sole purpose of serving their own agenda or (this wouldn't happen mind you) bash Catholicism. Absolutely shocking.

The Pope DOES promote AIDS in Africa by not enouraging contraception. The impoverished nations in Africa need contraception just as badly as they need food.

 

If there are people who actively spread AIDS around in Africa because they took the Pope that seriously, they are probably doing it wrong, because afaik the Pope supports monogamy too, and that would also stop the above AIDS spreading. 



stof on 03 February 2010

@ Alterego-X The Catholic Church's positions and actions regarding condom use, family planning and other contraceptives is pretty well documented. And it's not a case of "do what the church says" because that's stupid and you can't stop sex. It's more a case of "believe what the church says. And there are numerous instances of the church's officials stating that condoms are evil, ineffective, dangerous and even more likely to cause aids.

The fact that the catholic church has blood on it's hands over condom use in the third world is inarguable.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Alterego-X on 03 February 2010
stof said:
@ Alterego-X The Catholic Church's positions and actions regarding condom use, family planning and other contraceptives is pretty well documented. And it's not a case of "do what the church says" because that's stupid and you can't stop sex. It's more a case of "believe what the church says. And there are numerous instances of the church's officials stating that condoms are evil, ineffective, dangerous and even more likely to cause aids.

The fact that the catholic church has blood on it's hands over condom use in the third world is inarguable.

Not wearing a condom because the church says so IS a case of "do what the church says". 

If anyone is having sex with AIDS victims, and spreads it to various other people, while not using a condom because the Pope says so, that individual is only using what the Pope says as poor excuse anyways.

 

"You can't stop sex"?  Probably there are several hundred millions of monogamous couples not using condoms, who are A LOT less likely to get STDs than people who use a condom while having sex with various people, including AIDS infected. 

 

For the record, I don't agree with the Pope about condoms being evil, (amongst various other things), I'm just saying that what the Pope does isn't evil either, he is just trying to communicate a set of ideals, and its not his fault if some retards manage to cherry-pick some of them in the single combination that is the most like to kill them.