Author Topic: LGBT Issues - Religious Version (Read 51209 times)

barrister · « **Reply #60 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 01:39 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 08, 2015 at 08:57 AM

If it was just a slave or a servant, why would the Roman centurion go through the trouble to ask Jesus to heal him?

Why do people take their dogs to the vet? There can only be one reason --- they're having sex with their dogs.

Ganong kadakila ang logic non...

edrel sison · « **Reply #61 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 01:50 PM »

I brought my 24 year old lady kasambahay to the doctor when she was ill ano kaya ibig sabihin noon..

bartender · « **Reply #62 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 02:45 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Jul 08, 2015 at 01:00 PM

The LGBT solution:

The Queen James Bible --- (yes, seriously) ---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html

More of this, at panigurado, magkaka abs ako, 6-pack pa...

pao9307 · « **Reply #63 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 03:45 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Jul 08, 2015 at 01:00 PM

The LGBT solution:

The Queen James Bible --- (yes, seriously) ---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html

malamang eto binabasa and pinagbabasihan ni klause ng mga comments nya.

tony · « **Reply #64 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 04:21 PM »

^if you disagree with another persons' religion,
go make up your own......hanep sa dami ng secta....

tony · « **Reply #65 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 04:22 PM »

Quote from: edrel sison on Jul 08, 2015 at 01:50 PM

I brought my 24 year old lady kasambahay to the doctor when she was ill ano kaya ibig sabihin noon..

may malasakit ka sa kapakanan ng kasambahay mo....

dpogs · « **Reply #66 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 07:47 PM »

Early christian practice ssm so we need to practice ssm now.
Jesus never mentioned about ssm so it is okay to practice ssm now.
A centurion go all the trouble to ask Jesus heal his servant it means that the centurion was having sex with his servant.

Sabi nga ni sir barrister "ganoon kadakila ang logic"

Early christian kills so it is okay to kill now
Jesus never mentioned bestiality, pedophilia so it is okay to practice them.
If you go all the trouble praying and asking God to heal your sick kasambahay it only means you and your kasambahay are having sex.

barrister · « **Reply #67 on:** Jul 08, 2015 at 11:40 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Jul 08, 2015 at 07:47 PM

Early christian practice ssm so we need to practice ssm now.

Ito ba yon sir? ---

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 06, 2015 at 02:10 PM

Early Christians performed gay marriages.

Wala yan, mali rin yan.

The basis for the article is Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, a book by gay historian John Boswell (1947-1994), who died from AIDS complications shortly after the book was published.

Boswell claimed an alleged practice of uniting two persons in marriage-like unions, but he did not claim that it was in fact a true "marriage."

Many academics who were experts on the subject disputed Boswell, noting that it was not a marriage-like union, but "Adelphopoiesis" --- a ceremonial friendship of spiritual brotherhood without sex.

The Greek Orthodox Church, where the practice originated, itself strongly disputes Boswell's theory, and regards his work as a modern American cultural appropriation of its tradition of adelphopoiesis, which is nothing more than a fraternization involving a chaste friendship.

Sa akin, wala naman akong pakialam sa paniniwala nila. I don't impose my religion on others.

Pero pag sinabi nilang ayos lang daw ang homosexual acts according to the Christian religion, ibang usapan na yon, at may pakialam na ko don.

==================================

Quote from: dpogs on Jul 08, 2015 at 07:47 PM

... Jesus never mentioned about ssm so it is okay to practice ssm now.

ito ba yon sir? ---

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 08, 2015 at 08:57 AM

Ummm, no, it wasn't. Jesus never mentioned ANYTHING about homosexuality.

Ang totoo, meron din. Hindi lang sila marunong umintindi.

Jesus said:

21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person. (Mark 7:21-23)

Nasaan diyan ang homosexual sex acts? E di sa "sexual immorality."

Jesus' audience already knew that homosexual sex was included in "sexual immorality," since they were familiar with Mosaic Law, which declares homosexual acts as an "abomination."

If homosexual acts were no longer included in sexual immorality, Jesus should have clearly said that they were already excluded, so as not to confuse His listeners.

Ang tanong, may sinabi ba si Jesus na OK na ngayon ang homosexual sex? Wala.

Therefore, the absence of direct specification, instead of strengthening the argument in favor of SSM, actually weakens it.

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #68 on:** Jul 09, 2015 at 02:59 PM »

The definition of Traditional Marriage.

dpogs · « **Reply #69 on:** Jul 09, 2015 at 10:11 PM »

Biblical Marriage: between man and woman

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #70 on:** Jul 09, 2015 at 10:51 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Jul 09, 2015 at 10:11 PM

Biblical Marriage: between man and woman

Actually...

dpogs · « **Reply #71 on:** Jul 09, 2015 at 11:53 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 09, 2015 at 10:51 PM

Actually...

oh... tama naman... man and woman...

kanina ko pa hinahanap pero wala talaga akong makitang (man and man) or (woman and woman) diyan sa illustration mo

pa double check nga kung may sinasabi ang bible sa ganito (baka kasi di ko lang napansin sa illustration mo):

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #72 on:** Jul 10, 2015 at 12:12 AM »

That depends on your interpretation of the relationship between David & Jonathan and Ruth & Naomi.

Six reasons why the Bible is not anti-gay.

P.S. I haven't pointed this out but I find it amusing barrister thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is more accurate. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, a book that's thousands of years old and translated hundreds of times.

dpogs · « **Reply #73 on:** Jul 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 10, 2015 at 12:12 AM

That depends on your interpretation of the relationship between David & Jonathan and Ruth & Naomi.

Six reasons why the Bible is not anti-gay.

P.S. I haven't pointed this out but I find it amusing barrister thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is more accurate. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, a book that's thousands of years old and translated hundreds of times.

true... the Bible is not anti-gay... the Bible is not anti-homosexual... the Bible teaches to love them, to have compassion for them... but take note that the Bible is anti-homosexuality.

regaring David and Jonathan or Naomi and Ruth.... well we are talking about Biblical marriage... not relationship na nagexist in the Bible...

hmmm... is that a marriage between Jonathan and David? Ruth and Naomi got married? di ko alam yun ah...

barrister · « **Reply #74 on:** Jul 10, 2015 at 09:27 AM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 09, 2015 at 10:51 PM

Actually...

Now you're muddling the issue. Where's LGBT there?

First you make an LGBT thread and freely mention the bible when it suits you. When I counter your biblical arguments, you make this LGBT-religion thread and tell us to move all LBGT biblical arguments here.

Then when I counter your biblical arguments on this thread, you shift to secular arguments. Now that you're back to the bible, you now shift from LGBT issues to opposite-sex issues of polygamy, concubinage, etc.

Why don't you just explain how you jumped to the conclusion that the centurion and his male servant had a sexual relationship simply because the centurion wanted a "highly valued" servant saved from death.

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 10, 2015 at 12:12 AM

P.S. I haven't pointed this out but I find it amusing barrister thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is more accurate. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, a book that's thousands of years old and translated hundreds of times.

In other words, this is what you're saying ---- The bible has many interpretations and translations; therefore, my interpretation of the bible is wrong.

That's an illogical non-sequitur.

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 10, 2015 at 12:12 AM

That depends on your interpretation of the relationship between David & Jonathan and Ruth & Naomi.

Six reasons why the Bible is not anti-gay.

David and Jonathan had a deep friendship, but there is no evidence that their relationship was sexual.

After Jonathan's death, David said this about him:

²⁵How the mighty have fallen in battle! Jonathan lies slain on your heights. ²⁶I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

Jonathan’s love was selfless and heroic, but not sexual. Even though he was in line to be the next king of Israel, he recognized that David would step into that role. Jonathan laid down his rights so his friend could be promoted. He opposed his father's selfish ambition and instead affirmed that David should be the true king.

David’s comment that his friend’s love was "more wonderful than the love of women" was not a comparison of sexual prowess; he was referring to the greatness of his sacrifice for a friend.

Ruth and Naomi had a strong family relationship, because Ruth was the daughter-in-law of Naomi.

Naomi lost her husband, and later her two sons. Ruth and Orpah were Naomi's daughters-in-law and they also lost their husbands, who were Naomi's sons. Since women during that time found it difficult to earn a living, and all of them were widows, they needed each other's support for survival.

Naomi told Ruth and Orpah to travel to Bethlehem to find work and to leave her in Moab. But Ruth refused to leave Naomi to starve, and held on to Naomi ("claved") while urging her to come along.

This simple act of "cleaving" in an emotional, non-sexual moment is deliberately misinterpreted to be the same as the marital sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve to promote the gay agenda.

The Hebrew word for cleave is "dâbaq" (to cling), used many times in the Old Testment primarily as a non-sexual verb: Deut. 10:20, 11:22, 13:4, 13:17, 28:21, 28:60, 30:20; Jos. 22:5, 23:8; 2 Sam. 20:2, 23:10; 2 Kings 3:3, 5:27, 18:6; Job 19:20, 29:10, 31:7, 38:38; Ps. 22:15, 44:25, 101:3, 102.5, 119:25, 137:6; Jer. 13:11; Lam. 4:4, and Ezek. 3:26.

In fact, dâbaq is often used in the Bible to refer to a tongue that is "stuck" or "cleaved" to the roof of someone's mouth, as in the expression "to hold your tongue," and it is also used as a command for Israelites to "cleave" with the Lord or "unite" with the Lord.

In 1 Chronicles 10:2, the word dâbaq is used to mean "to follow closely" or "to pursue closely" ---

1 Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. ²And the Philistines followed hard (dâbaq, Strong's No. 1692) after Saul, and after his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua, the sons of Saul.

Here, dâbaq means the Philistines were pursing Saul in battle. It definitely does not mean that the Philistines had a marital sexual relationship with Saul during a war battle.

Proof that it is not correct to assume that the word can only be used with a sexual meaning.

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #75 on:** Jul 10, 2015 at 10:32 AM »

Quote from: barrister on Jul 10, 2015 at 09:27 AM

Proof that it is not correct to assume that the word can only be used with a sexual meaning.

By that same token, it's also not correct to assume that the word CAN'T be used as a sexual meaning. Just like the use of the word "pais" when talking about the person the Roman centurion begged Jesus to heal. That word was used as either "servant" or "gay lover" in certain languages.

The Bible has interpreted by a lot of people and they have lots of different interpretations of it. For me, how you interpret the Bible reflects on you as a person. People have used the Bible to justify their evil deeds from the Nazis to the KKK and they can cite Bible verse to you. The Bible has also been used by good people to inspire their heroic deeds like Martin Luther King Jr. So if you want the Bible to be anti-gay, then you yourself have that prejudice in you.

barrister · « **Reply #76 on:** Jul 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 10, 2015 at 10:32 AM

By that same token, it's also not correct to assume that the word CAN'T be used as a sexual meaning.

Of course it is correct to assume that the word could not have been used with a sexual meaning in Ruth 1:14 ---

11 And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?

12 Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons;

13 Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me.

14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. (Ruth 1:11-15)

Following your argument, here's your absurd scenario:

Naomi wanted Ruth and Orpah to go to Bethlehem to find work and leave her in Moab, but Ruth refused and insisted that Naomi should go with them, so they were weeping with sadness. So what did Ruth do? She had sex with Naomi, just as Adam had sex with Eve.

The word can have a sexual meaning in verse 14? Your arguments are desperate.

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 10, 2015 at 10:32 AM

Just like the use of the word "pais" when talking about the person the Roman centurion begged Jesus to heal. That word was used as either "servant" or "gay lover" in certain languages.

The Greek word "pais" means "child" or "youth." Depending on context, it can also mean a young servant. But it does not mean "gay lover."

See Strong's Number 3816: http://biblehub.com/greek/3816.htm - Used 24 times in the bible; in no instance used for "gay lover."

In what language does pais mean "gay lover"?

Bible study involves hard work and discipline. Don't think that merely parroting a gay activist's absurd interpretation makes you a bible expert.

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #77 on:** Jul 20, 2015 at 02:41 PM »

barrister · « **Reply #78 on:** Jul 20, 2015 at 05:50 PM »

Like I always say, using the bible to prove that gay sex is ok will be an exercise in futility:

Quote from: barrister on Jul 01, 2015 at 11:45 AM

My advice to the LGBT rights activists ---- don't use the bible to prove your views, because you will not succeed.

==================================

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 20, 2015 at 02:41 PM

That's better.

Use bible quotes and you risk wasting your time.

Just settle for comedian quotes and you'll be fine...

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #79 on:** Jul 20, 2015 at 08:05 PM »

As I said, the Bible has been translated hundreds of times for thousands of years and interpreted by a millions of people for millennia. It has been used to justify a lot of atrocities but at the same time inspire good works and heroic actions. Both the racist KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. both raised the Bible as their source of guidance and inspiration for their actions. In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.

Nelson de Leon · « **Reply #80 on:** Jul 20, 2015 at 08:29 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 20, 2015 at 08:05 PM

As I said, the Bible has been translated hundreds of times for thousands of years and interpreted by a millions of people for millennia. It has been used to justify a lot of atrocities but at the same time inspire good works and heroic actions. Both the racist KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. both raised the Bible as their source of guidance and inspiration for their actions. In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.

Then why won't you defend the pro homosexuality quotations you cited from the Bible kung nakikita mo?

DVD_Freak · « **Reply #81 on:** Jul 20, 2015 at 08:38 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 20, 2015 at 08:05 PM

As I said, the Bible has been translated hundreds of times for thousands of years and interpreted by a millions of people for millennia. It has been used to justify a lot of atrocities but at the same time inspire good works and heroic actions. Both the racist KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. both raised the Bible as their source of guidance and inspiration for their actions. In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.

Teka.... let me get this clear. Kinukutya mo ang simbahan ng husto but then use the Bible as the source of your argument? Hindi ba magiging contradicting na yun argument mo? Papano na siya magiging credible?

barrister · « **Reply #82 on:** Jul 20, 2015 at 08:47 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Jul 20, 2015 at 08:05 PM

In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.

No, wala sa tao ang interpretation ng bibliya. Scripture interprets itself. That is a very basic principle in exegesis.

You have already seen how I proved that your belief that Ruth had sex with Naomi is nonsensical. Still you are not satisfied.

E di ituloy pa natin.

Go ahead and cite another verse, and explain why it is pro gay sex. I will explain why it is not. Then let's see whose interpretation will stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

dpogs · « **Reply #83 on:** Jul 20, 2015 at 08:56 PM »

The Bible is very clear when it comes to homosexuality. It condemns homosexuality and gives hopes to all homosexuals.

Some twist the real message of the Bible to justify their wrongdoings just like what radical lgbt supporters did - twisting the real meaning to justify homosexuality.

Nicadraus · « **Reply #84 on:** Jul 21, 2015 at 12:01 AM »

Funny how Klaus would dig up some verses from the Bible in which he doesn't obviously believe in and even uses those verses to create maliciousness within.

Sorry to say this but to me, only idiots would do such.

tony · « **Reply #85 on:** Jul 21, 2015 at 09:12 AM »

Klaus is trolling his own thread.....

rascal101 · « **Reply #86 on:** Jul 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Jul 20, 2015 at 08:47 PM

No, wala sa tao ang interpretation ng bibliya. Scripture interprets itself. That is a very basic principle in exegesis.

You have already seen how I proved that your belief that Ruth had sex with Naomi is nonsensical. Still you are not satisfied.

E di ituloy pa natin.

Go ahead and cite another verse, and explain why it is pro gay sex. I will explain why it is not. Then let's see whose interpretation will stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Puwede ko sigurong sabihin na ang "hindi" ay "oo" at ang "oo" ay hindi sa sinasabi ni Senor Klaus.

barrister · « **Reply #87 on:** Jul 21, 2015 at 01:34 PM »

Tama iyan. Yun na nga ang sinasabi niya. Kahit ano daw interpretation mo, puwede.

Ang sinasabi ko naman, hindi totoo na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede.

Sa katunayan, nakakita na tayo ng halimbawa:

1. Sabi niya, sina Jonathan & David, at Naomi & Ruth, homosexual lovers. Napatunayan ko na walang sinasabi sa bibliya na homosexual lovers sila.

Kung totoo na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede, bakit hindi niya napatunayan na mali ang argumento ko?

2. Sabi niya, gay lovers ang centurion at ang kanyang male servant. Napatunayan ko na walang sinasabi sa bibliya na ganon.

Kung totoo na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede, bakit hindi niya napatunayan na may sinasabi sa bibliya na gay lovers sila?

Sabi pa niya, the Greek word "pais" was used as "gay lover" in certain languages.

Ang simpleng tanong ko:

Quote from: barrister on Jul 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM

In what language does pais mean "gay lover"?

Kahit anong interpretation puwede? E bakit simpleng tanong, hindi niya masagot?

=======================================

Madaling sabihin na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede.

Pero pag sinuyod ka na ng cross-examination, baka mamilipit ka sa kakaisip ng katuwiran.

=======================================

Sabi nang don't use the bible to prove your pro gay sex views. Ayaw maniwala, e...

Nicadraus · « **Reply #88 on:** Jul 21, 2015 at 05:27 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Jul 21, 2015 at 01:34 PM

E bakit simpleng tanong, hindi niya masagot?

Kasi kapag barado na sya sa mga pointless arguments nya, iniiwasan nya sagutin.

Instead, he will create a new one and divert the topic there.

Troll nga etong si Klaus. Walang "b@y@g" para sagutin ng tama ang mga tanong sa kanya.

Quote from: barrister on Jul 21, 2015 at 01:34 PM

Sabi nang don't use the bible to prove your pro gay sex views. Ayaw maniwala, e...

Yaan ang favorite nya. Gamitin ang Bible para sa mga maliciousness just to prove the "rights" kuno of the LGBT. As I mentioned in the other thread, I know and am friends with a lot of gay/lesbian people, and if majority of the people don't agree with them, just keep mum and keep it to themselves (their community) because they know that they are the minority and can not force the people, especially the straight ones to their beliefs. Lastly, I know a lot them believe in God and don't contradict to what is said in the Bible. They respect the Holy Book of Scriptures.

Di tulad nitong si Klaus, na binababoy yung paniniwala ng mga taong rumerespeto sa Bible.

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #89 on:** Jul 21, 2015 at 08:11 PM »

Quote from: Nicadraus on Jul 21, 2015 at 05:27 PM

ng Bible para sa mga maliciousness just to prove the "rights" kuno of the LGBT. As I mentioned in the other thread, I know and am friends with a lot of gay/lesbian people, and if majority of the people don't agree with them, just keep mum and keep it to themselves (their community) because they know that they are the minority and can not force the people, especially the straight ones to their beliefs.

So you're saying they should just keep quiet and give up? If minorities did that, the blacks in the U.S. wouldn't have civil rights, women wouldn't have the right to vote. Hell, we'd still be a colony of Spain. Pero ganyan talaga ang Pinoy. Napaka-subservient sa mga may kapangyarihan at ng majority. Kahit na mali na sila, mas mabuti mag-tahimik na lang kayo imbis na guluhin pa ang status quo. Naku, masyadong nose bleed ang usapan na yan. Buti, wag na lang pag-usapan. Ayoko mag-isip o mag-question ng aking mga paniniwala.

Kaya hindi umuunlad ang Pinas. Not only about LGBT rights, mind you, but about listening to new, strange and weird ideas. We shut down anyone who dares think differently, who dares question what we're used to, etc. If we foster that kind of conformist, defeatist, anti-intellectual and frankly, BIGOTED attitude, we won't progress as a nation.