Topic: The Religion Thread

[Klaus Weasley]

JT, I get the impression that you really don't believe that two people of the same gender can LOVE that's comparable to the way two people of opposite genders can love. You pretty much surmise that homosexuality is purely based on lust and hedonism.

[Nelson de Leon]

Ang alam ko nga, there are different hebrew words for love. Each is used differently pero sa english, love lang ang ginamit na translation.
Eros, philia, agape, storge.

You mean Greek, not Hebrew.

Oo nga pala. I stand corrected. Thank you very much. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_(concept)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge

[Frankthetank]

Hi guys, newbie here at pdvd..

very interesting thread, I'm learning a lot from your healthy discussion.

How can I bookmark this thread?

Thank you.

[Mr.T.one]

Hi guys, newbie here at pdvd..

very interesting thread, I'm learning a lot from your healthy discussion.

How can I bookmark this thread?

Thank you.

'right click' then 'bookmark this page'

[sharkey360]

My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN

President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible.

We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.

In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.

Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved.

That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night.

The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:; evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).

But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35).

How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return.

The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another."

The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.

Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.

Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.

In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity."

But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart.

“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”

Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.

In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.

As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.

The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion.

Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation.

Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/?hpt=hp_c1

[Pillow]

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/pacquaio.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+towleroad%2Ffeed+%28Towleroad+Daily++#gay+news

Filipino boxer and politician Manny Pacquiao, who Forbes named the #4 most influential athlete in the world this year, is speaking out against Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage, citing Biblical scripture that gays should be put to death.

Is he campaining for any candidates in the US elections? He should fit real well with them republicans.

[RU9]

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/sports/05/16/12/pacquiao-makes-anti-gay-remark-barred-extra

Pacquiao makes anti-gay remark, barred from 'Extra'

MANILA, Philippines – Sarangani representative and Filipino boxing champion Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao was barred from an interview with entertainment show "Extra" at the Grove in Los Angeles after making an anti-gay remark.

Speaking with the National Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao quoted Leviticus 20:13, which says, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."

"They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Pacquiao made the comment after disagreeing with United States President Barack Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage.

[Klaus Weasley]

Does Manny Pacquaio eat shrimp? Work on Sundays? Then according to the section of the Bible he has cited, he should be put to death as well.

I wonder if he hangs out in sanitary napkins aisle of the supermarket and yell, "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!" to women and girls who are picking up a packet. 

[sharkey360]

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/sports/05/16/12/pacquiao-makes-anti-gay-remark-barred-extra

Pacquiao makes anti-gay remark, barred from 'Extra'

MANILA, Philippines – Sarangani representative and Filipino boxing champion Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao was barred from an interview with entertainment show "Extra" at the Grove in Los Angeles after making an anti-gay remark.

Speaking with the National Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao quoted Leviticus 20:13, which says, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."

"They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Pacquiao made the comment after disagreeing with United States President Barack Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage.

The 'death' line itself was violent, too violent to be channeled through the media.

It makes Pacman looking like a killer, or mentally violent.

While Pacman disagreed with Obama, other Filipinos praised Obama.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/258119/pinoyabroad/worldfeatures/obama-s-support-for-same-sex-marriage-draws-praise-tears-from-fil-am-lgbt-community

[RU9]

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/tell-nike-to-drop-homophobic-boxer-manny-pacquiao

[indie boi]

"Love one another as I have loved You"......

Jesus already gave everyone the formula on how to live our lives, just follow this and you're set for life.

[Klaus Weasley]

Take note that he did not say "except for the gays".

[sharkey360]

Pacquiao is already embarrassing the Philippines. The news about him disagreeing with Obama on gay marriage is spreading a lot.

Why does Pacquiao care so much about gay marriage in America when the boxer himself cannot solve his problem with the BIR?

[Klaus Weasley]

If Pacquaio has stopped at saying he disagreed with Obama over gay marriage, it won't be so bad. But he went further and said he believed that God wants gay people dead, citing Leviticus. THAT is what made him embarrassing.

[barrister]

Nakakahiya nga naman si Manny.  Pero kung mahilig siyang sumunod sa Old Testament, e di panindigan na niya.

Pag yung anak ayaw sumunod magulang, death penalty rin dapat:

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. (Deut. 21:18-21)

Ayaw sumunod sa pari, death penalty; ayaw sumunod sa judge, death penalty:

12 Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. (Deut. 17:12)


On the other hand, divorce is allowed in the Old and New Testaments, pero ayaw ni Manny sa divorce.  Isa rin palang mahilig magmarunong sa bibliya ito e...  

[JT]

JT, I get the impression that you really don't believe that two people of the same gender can LOVE that's comparable to the way two people of opposite genders can love. You pretty much surmise that homosexuality is purely based on lust and hedonism.

If you can tell me what has lead into such relationship and where it is leading to ...  then I can tell you so that you dont have to assume or just get an impression.

[barrister]

Sir hotrod links articles saying that the Manny Paquiao quote is "fabricated": 

http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141517.msg1651603.html#msg1651603

[Klaus Weasley]

If you can tell me what has lead into such relationship and where it is leading to ...  then I can tell you so that you dont have to assume or just get an impression.

What are you talking about exactly? LOVE. LOVE. LOVE.  Love and companionship. Children? Some gay couples adopt kids, some even have their own (through the help of surrogates) and they raise their families just like any other families.

Many gays want the same thing heterosexual couples do: Except for the fact that who they love is of the same sex.

[ATJr.]

Pacquiao is already embarrassing the Philippines. The news about him disagreeing with Obama on gay marriage is spreading a lot.

Why does Pacquiao care so much about gay marriage in America when the boxer himself cannot solve his problem with the BIR?

the LGBT's are a minority albeit noisy, why legislate to give them exclusive rights such as right to marry legally? isn't this class legislation which is expressedly prohibited in our constitution?

if they want to live together as married couples, let them do that, but for the state to legitimise that is asking too much imho....they will bear no natural children....walang uterus ang mga bakla.....walang bayag at penis ang mga tbirds....hindi sila magkaka-anak....the way nature intended....

[barrister]

....they will bear no natural children....walang uterus ang mga bakla.....walang bayag at penis ang mga tbirds....hindi sila magkaka-anak....the way nature intended....

Hindi naman requirement na ang ikakasal ay magkakaroon ng anak.  Wala rin namang fertility certificate na required sa heterosexual couples.

Kahit baog, kapon, tinanggalan ng matris, o menopausal ang heterosexual couple, hindi pa rin bawal ikasal, di ba?

[tigkal]

What is the true cause of being gay? Is it because of hormonal imbalance? mental illness? environment? I am asking because up to now, there is no answers yet because if you have a study and the gay community does not like the result, sorry ka nalang. Before we consider to let them marry, di ba we go first to the bottom of the cause, kasi baka isang injection lang hindi na gay..

[ATJr.]

Hindi naman requirement na ang ikakasal ay magkakaroon ng anak.

true.....but that is a natural consequence of getting married, that is how nature intended it to be......if we go against laws of nature.....there are consequences....

[ATJr.]

What is the true cause of being gay? Is it because of hormonal imbalance? mental illness? environment? I am asking because up to now, there is no answers yet because if you have a study and the gay community does not like the result, sorry ka nalang. Before we consider to let them marry, di ba we go first to the bottom of the cause, kasi baka isang injection lang hindi na gay..

a fluke of nature and no one knows for sure...

[alistair]

What is the true cause of being gay? Is it because of hormonal imbalance? mental illness? environment? I am asking because up to now, there is no answers yet because if you have a study and the gay community does not like the result, sorry ka nalang. Before we consider to let them marry, di ba we go first to the bottom of the cause, kasi baka isang injection lang hindi na gay..

We don't know for sure either whether chronic depression or bipolar disorder is caused by genetics, hormonal or chemical imbalance. Who knows—in the future, we might be able to take a pill to address those.

But we don't prevent depressed or bipolar people from getting married, do we?

[tigkal]

We don't know for sure either whether chronic depression or bipolar disorder is caused by genetics, hormonal or chemical imbalance. Who knows—in the future, we might be able to take a pill to address those.

But we don't prevent depressed or bipolar people from getting married, do we?

We do not know for sure but we try to treat them di ba? We prevent them if they are bipolar gay here in the Phils. We do not prevent them from living together. If they want to have same benefits of married persons, i agree to that. but getting married, no.

[alistair]

You missed the point. If you treat homosexuality as an medical disorder—then why are you discriminating against them WRT marriage, when discrimination against other chronic or congenital disorders (HIV, cancer, polio, neurological and psychological) is downright illegal?

I mean, two HIV+ individuals can get married even if they're discouraged or choose not to have children—so that throws the whole reproductive purpose out the window.

[BusyChild]

a fluke of nature and no one knows for sure...

Pagkabasa ko "freak" of nature.... hehe.. sorry... fluke of nature pala. 

[indie boi]

Just a friendly reminder -- please watch what you're saying -- some of the posts are getting offensive. Don't give reasons for this thread to be locked. And if the discussion is going to be strictly about LGBT issues, there's a thread dedicated for that. Thanks.

[tigkal]

You missed the point. If you treat homosexuality as an medical disorder—then why are you discriminating against them WRT marriage, when discrimination against other chronic or congenital disorders (HIV, cancer, polio, neurological and psychological) is downright illegal?

I mean, two HIV+ individuals can get married even if they're discouraged or choose not to have children—so that throws the whole reproductive purpose out the window.

It is not discriminating. It just means that they have a way to be cured with the medical disorder. If we let them get married, it is as if they have no disorder at all. Rights have limitations. We do not have absolute rights. As I said if they want to have same benefits, let them have them.

[alistair]

So why let those with other disorders (that are uncurable) get married without 'curing' them?

Because the Bible doesn't mention HIV or cancer?