I find attempts to contort and misinterpret things to one's own end annoying,
That is one of the weaknesses of the bible on this issue. As Kris demonstrated with that link, it can be consrued in different ways by both liberals and conservatives. Who is to say that it is the liberals who are correct and the conservatives that are interpereting the boible for their own means?
I find attempts to contort and misinterpret things to one's own end annoying, even if the end is just. The bible condemns homosexuality. Deal with it.
Wow. I'm saying that biblical scholars have not only said things have been taken wrong but translated wrong as well. Taking something on blind faith ie. the bad translation of an incomplete centuries old book is silly. The passage you posted for instance. You posted one English translation of that. The others have differences. Words are different.
Which is why I posted the link I did. Some people just read it in English and said yay here is the answer. And others looked at the original language and the translations and said, wait this is wrong we have to examine it now.
Not I, but if no one cares, why try to say the bible does not condemn it anyway?
I don't. I say the bible is full of crap. I was merely pointing out what is wrong with people using quotes as proof of anything. Especially when in the actual language it could say or mean something completely different.
My theory is that you know and I know that you're really reaching. I personally find that intellectually dishonest.
Reaching? Nah. Everybody should know the bible needs to be interpreted (though not too - much), and I'm not saying it isn't saying it's wrong with that, I'm just saying it's not being specific. Or, I didn't make myself clear, that happens. And I rarely claim to be right. Things really do get lost in translation...
*tries to think of something to change the subject with*
*tries to think of something to change the subject with*
Well how about, the people of Lebos are mad that the term, lesbian, is used to describe gay woman and want it to stop.
Do they have the right to ask people to stop using the term or has it been used for so long that it is now fair play? Not really a gay topic but it kinds of ties into the word lesbian. Does using a separate word for gay woman create a gap, or false difference, between us and gay men?
I my humble opinion: You can try to look at metaphors and different translations all you want, but the bible says what it says. Whether this is all BS or not is a different subject entirely.
I say the bible is full of crap.
Emphasis mine. I disagree, but that's beside the point.
*tries to think of something to change the subject with*
Seconded. I now remember why this thread died. But I had to resurrect it. Why would I do that?
Lesbos was where Sappho came from and so it does justify the name. I know tons of gay Greek men and women and they have never mentioned it, although i don't belive i have met anyone from Sappho itself. It's not like it affects them adversely in a direct manner so why the fuss?
Does using a separate word for gay woman create a gap, or false difference, between us and gay men?
It could go some way to explaining why many anti gay men do not mind lesbians, perhaps if they were both called the same things wouldn't be like they are now.
Do they have the right to ask people to stop using the term or has it been used for so long that it is now fair play?
Feminist organizations have tried to change the spelling of many words. My point is that they have the right, but not the ability to make anyone care.
Does using a separate word for gay woman create a gap, or false difference, between us and gay men?
Avoiding my over-anyalisis of this question: Not really, though a third general term would be nice. My problem with the word "lesbian" is that it is too long.
i think that it's okay if they use the legal system to get married but i'm not letting my religion be a gay religion
What exactly is a gay religion?
Lesbos was where Sappho came from and so it does justify the name. I know tons of gay Greek men and women and they have never mentioned it, although i don't belive i have met anyone from Sappho itself. It's not like it affects them adversely in a direct manner so why the fuss?
I hear you. I should clarify, it's not the entire population of the island. Just a small contingent. The link to the story.
And about the Lesbos/lasbian thing - the word derives from that island because of that old story about Sappho. It's historically tied to it? Eh. I don't think they can demand anything, though the may have the right to be dissatisfied. A word is used as a word is used. Just like 'gay' went from meaning happy/jolly to being used as a synonym for 'bad'.
i think that it's okay if they use the legal system to get married but i'm not letting my religion be a gay religion
Wtf, gay religion??
Does using a separate word for gay woman create a gap, or false difference, between us and gay men?
It does create a difference somehow, but I'm not sure what to think of it.
Avoiding my over-anyalisis of this question: Not really, though a third general term would be nice. My problem with the word "lesbian" is that it is too long.
Compared to gay, definitely. In Danish it goes better. All homosexuals: homoer. Gay guys: boesser. Lesbians: lebber. Somehow I think being called a 'lebbe' is slightly more offensive than being called a 'boesse', despite 'boesse' more often being used as a slur...
I hear you. I should clarify, it's not the entire population of the island. Just a small contingent. The link to the story.
ahh mmk. I was surprised when you first said it as i thought the inhabitants of Lesbos were homophobic for whatever reason as us Greeks are very tolerant of homosxuality on the whole. Still even after reading the story it seems like a minor to me, the argument whether the name should be changed for other reasons is more interesting.
I was surprised when you first said it as i thought the inhabitants of Lesbos were homophobic for whatever reason as us Greeks are very tolerant of homosxuality on the whole.
Sorry about that =)
the argument whether the name should be changed for other reasons is more interesting.
I thought so too. I just though it seemed a good way to lead into the topic.
Unless "being gay is just a minor sin, and there is no reason for being angry at homosexuals" means "all who do not believe in Go dis gay", then no, Talo....
Nice with a fellow Christian with a healthy understanding for other people.
