The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

I swear someone did post this verse somewhere in the forum, but that it didn't specifically include homosexuals - thus leading to a discussion of whether or not homosexuality fell under fornication. I could be completely off since I haven't found the message I'm thinking of...However, if it is the case - that would imply that your copy of 1st Cor. 6:9-10 includes homosexuality and another version does not, which is an interesting issue in itself, especially to find out when it was revised and in which direction.

Quite likely, but if I read a translation that used the terms "those who abuse sex" or "those who commit adultery", I would not take this as a direct condemnation of homosexuality, since to me homosexual practice does not necessarily equate to abuse or adultery...

Wow jar - impressive...I think an important question might be - which came first? (or is considered the closest to the original Hebrew?)

Why not? I'm sure there are some that would argue that all of the fowl matching this description died in the flood - you see, the faster flying fowl got to the ark in time, while those slow creeping fowl didn't quite make it.I'm sure we'll find four-legged fowl fossils some day soon...

Translation issues are important.But it seems to be in a pretty bird-centric context to me...And your definition of "all flying creatures" seems to contradict the creeping-on-all-fours bit, since you would have creeping creatures and not flying creatures.What flying creatures do you know of that creep along the ground on all fours? Injured bats, perhaps?I'd say the intent of the verse was all flightless birds (like those dastardly penguins), but I believe that would rule out most chickens, no?

We can't use parts of our body that "peepee" comes out of for sexual purposes?Goodbye species...

Pecos, perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying.You've said that body parts where "peepee" comes out are unclean, and shouldn't be used for sex.Last time I checked, "peepee" comes out of the penis in males.The penis is a pretty key sexual organ.Without its use reproduction would be hampered quite a bit.Do you really think the penis shouldn't be used during sex?

What about the "usual" heterosexual relationship? If only it were that easy. Some men are Venutians, and some women are Martians. My guess is that most people are like me, part Martian and part Venutian. I think a lot of people are miserable their whole lives trying to live up to the Martain or Venutian role that is placed upon their shoulders.The truth is that most heterosexual relationships fail despite your complimenting formula. Many homosexual relationships succeed despite your complimenting formula. In observing heterosexual courtships in younger people, I have usually noted a lack of maturity. What about you?Have you ever "observed" a mature, healthy homosexual relationship? I have, and they are wonderful, except, perhaps, for the occasional outsiders' harsh judgement.

Hopefully you realize that homosexuality does not equal anal sex.Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, and many homosexuals do not. What, specifically, are "immoral sexual acts"?

I was the one who made that comment.Does it state in the Bible that anal sex, (or any specific sex act for that matter), is wrong?You mentioned earlier "immoral sex acts". Could you list which sex acts are "moral", and why?

Not to mention that you before you can married you need to seek marriage counseling from someone who has taken a vow of celibacy.(By the way, I'm not trying to derail your topic. So many out there are convinced that specific sex acts are immoral I was wondering if there was any possible Biblical basis...)

Hey Riverrat - This whole argument seems quite ridiculous to me: Some people scream during non-consensual sex.
Some people are silent during non-consensual sex.
Some people scream during consensual sex.
Some people are silent during consensual sex.Thus we could easily rewrite your statement: "If your wife screams when shes being raped, then she just might be consenting to it."Do you understand this? Do you understand that the Bible is making a very random death sentence to a portion of these people?Many, many people retreat from reality during sexual assault - they go someplace else in their mind to escape the trauma; or they simply have a silent emotional breakdown; or a multitude of other reasons besides "enjoying it". Many people continue their silence, not reporting their assault - and not because they enjoyed it...Given this, it is simply absurd to sentence a women to death based on silence during assault.
This is "blaming the victim" taken to the most disgusting extreme.

You can compare them both, because they are both rules set forth by the Bible (and the same chapter I believe)...Why do you follow one rule but not the other?

Forget? Thanks for the summary dismissal, as opposed to addressing my comments in good faith.Based on your above comments, it seems that you have knowledge that a couple thousand years ago, all women that were silent during a rape were enjoying it. What was essentially different about women a few thousand years ago that none of them would retreat into silence rather than cry out? Why did the verse "try to say it", rather than actually state "enjoyment", rather than silence, as the crime:

They're still harsh now. And there is a real difference between killing an attacker and killing a victim.Just because people want these things to happen, does not make them correct. Indeed it is illegal to kill your partner for cheating or to kill your rapist after-the-fact.Also, you don't seem to be making the distinction between killing the rapist, and killing the victim.How would you feel if you were mugged, and both you and your mugger had to spend three years in jail. It is an idiotic concept. Is cheating or rape worse than death? No. I believe it was more an issue of women-as-property. A married woman was stoned to death for not crying out. If you read on, if an unmarried virgin is raped, neither the rapist nor the woman is stoned - instead, the rapist has to buy the raped virgin from her father.

​

Do you get that? The rape victim becomes property of the rapist. There obviously is zero concern for the rape victim in the Bible, except for violation of property rights.If you were being raped, would you think so logically while being violently violated? I doubt it.You seem quite ignorant of the reality of rape. Often victims are silent not because of fear of their attacker, but because of psychological compensation or break-down.