I no longer buy into religion...... Heaven and hell
I'm so tired of people creating hate throwing religion in the picture. I have questions, lots of them. What is the right religion to go with? What bible do I try and live by? I often want to murder myself because religion has me to believe I'm doomed anyways because of my sexuality! But suicide is supposed to be a sin! So I'm supposed to live my life in misery all in the name of god? I can't kill myself, I can't be the gender I feel I am. Of all the bibles out there, who knows which one is right! Just about every religion has their own ideas and these things called doctrines. Then they all put each other down! You could argue to go with your heart to which bible or religion to turn to. But that would be the same as tearing pages out of the bible to suit your life style! That would be a sin! You have no answer because deep down you know there is no answer. If you have an answer, it's probably what you were raised as. I have such an open mind, I can see the big picture here! Who's to say islam is wrong? You sneer at the thought thinking "I could never be part of them even if I was born and raised among them". But do you truly know that? Christians are raised not to kill, while other religions find killing and war acceptable including some so called christian religions! Pick and choose, pick and choose!!!! I choose not to believe! I do believe there is a god, but I can't believe it is so hard to find this being with all the crap in this world. My morels are simple and to the point though my mind is deep and complex. I love everyone regardless of their race, color,creed,sexual orientation,nationality,fat,skinny,tall,short,purple,grey,gr een and everything in between! I will not kill, unless my life is in danger! I have a devine animal right to protect myself and my loved ones! I have my flaws, hell, we all do! I've struggled for years to get to this point and still, still I feel engulfed in guilt and visions of burning in hell never to love again.
below is a blog post I never posted on thoughts that goes hand in hand with this one.



HEAVEN AND HELL

Heaven And Hell
Posted at 6/29/2008 10:39 PM and is filed under Transgender blog
It seems that no matter what I do in my lifetime, there is always going to be some flaw! Before I found myself, I was very conflicted! I was always feeling blue, out of place, and out of sync with society. Since finding my self as a female, I have been happier and more at ease. I have been more at peace! Even people in my life notice a marked improvement in my attitude and general outlook. But as time marches forward, I am beginning to have recurring thoughts of being condemned by god! I can't imagine god condemning someone if they have a good heart and descent morels! Society and religion has it so engraved in my head that I'm doomed for being myself. I really don't know if I will burn in hell or not. I have chosen to be myself in an attempt to increase the quality and happiness in my life. I don't follow religion as I see religion as corrupt and some religions even spreading hate and non diversity! Think about that for a second! Every religion just about tells you to stay away from other religions because they are the wrong faith! Who do you go with?! What religion is right with god? I'm 38 years old and finally found happiness, and yet I still feel pigeon holed by religion and society! Not directly, just the frickin seeds they planted in my head! A muslim I was talking to that I worked with made a remark about christianity being a method of control and conformity. Hmmmm, kind of makes me stop and think. No I'm not going to be a muslim, I'm just very open minded when I listen to people. Does insanity simply mean non conformity? Because I was born a man but feel like a lady I have mental problems as defined by the so called experts! Kiss my ass! People always have to put a label on other humans! LIVE AND LET LIVE!!! I'm a fairly meek person that is not a criminal. I love people, I'm compassionate, I see a stranger crying and I want to give them a hug and help them! I cry tears of happiness almost every other day! I swear to you I really do! I have never once experienced this level of happiness in my entire life till I realized I was a woman! But wait a minute, I'm a sinner! I'm going to burn in hell...............

I'm not posting this to try and convert you or make you believe a certain way, but this is my outlook on religion as well as my own personal "religious" (I personally hate that term) beliefs.

First off, I'm a Transgirl, but I'm also a Southern Baptist Preacher's Kid and a born again believer in my Lord Jesus Christ. I accepted God's gift of salvation when I was 7 years old, and even then I was already experiencing gender dysphoria, though I was not aware that was the case. I wasn't entirely unlike all the other boys. I enjoyed Ninja Turtles, X-Men, Comic Books, and even a bit of sports just as a way to hang out with my dad. Some of this was encouraged, conciously and subconciously, by my parents. Some of it was my own legitimate interest, like any other tomboy. I'm not really much of a tomboy, but I wouldn't be the first femme with a few tomboy traits. As much as I enjoyed those things, my favorite things to do were to play with dolls with my girl friends and play house with my girl friends. I watched the girl-"oriented" shows like Sailor Moon and She-Ra just as much as the boy-oriented shows.

As I grew up, my faith in God grew. Alongside that, my femininity grew and prospered. I never lost my tomboyish interests in geeky things like video games and the like, but more than half of the ones I played were only played multiplayer as a tagalong with whatever boy a few years older than me I had latched onto that year, like you might see a younger sister do around an older brother. Considering my desire for siblings, this is probably not that surprising either.

My interests shifted more and more into clothes, Bishy-filled RPGs, Shoujo Anime, and just flat out being a girl. My overall confusion grew and grew. I started to realize that I wasn't a straight man, but a lesbian woman, despite my physically male body. I began searching my Bible, not for information advocating or condemning my being a woman; but rather studying the information in the Bible regarding homosexuality, specifically anything pertaining to being a lesbian. Though I was effectively presenting as an effiminate man and was still unaware of what "transgender" was, I knew that my being with a woman was homosexuality and I had to come to terms with that trait of myself and my religious beliefs. I was lucky in one way. I grew up as a preacher's kid, but particularly the kid of a pastor who was rather scholarly and encouraged that in me. My mum is also scholarly (she's actually working on her degree to become a theology scholar right now) and also encouraged this. I had full access to all of their research material as well. I began studying not just the words in the various translations I have of the Bible, but I began searching out the original words, from the original languages. I began to research the cultures as they existed in the times the Bible's events take place. I began comparing the translations with the original language and culture and found the inconsistencies, both in many modern translations as well as in many modern interpretations.

You see, many people interpret what they read in the Bible based purely on modern culture. Now, there are many areas in the Bible where one should apply modern cultural ideologies to the concepts portrayed there, but if one loses the context of the original culture, one loses the true meanings of many of the things in the Bible. One such example is the Greek Word in the New Testament that is consistantly translated as "Homosexual" in most every modern English translation. The actual Greek Word literally means "soft men" and the connotations of the word in the original cultural context is men who are weak willed, who are easily swayed, highly open to suggestion, and unwilling to ever take a stance on anything. "Modern" (going back hundreds of years, though) interpretation of "soft men" implies effiminate men, who are the stereotype of gay men, but this stereotype did not exist in the time the New Testament was written, especially within the Greek language, a language born out of a culture that revered male homosexuality and even, in many ways, condemned heterosexuality as a necessary evil.

Sadly, the vast majority of modern society does not consist of scholars, and most people would never think to consider that the cultural context 2000 years ago may have been different than the modern cultural contexts.

On this note, I must say that it is far better to do your own study into what the Bible says on issues such as ->-bleeped-<-, homosexuality, and the like rather than depending on the voices of self-proclaimed Christians who care less about what the Bible legitimately says than they do about maintaining their own concept of the "status quo."

As for other religions, I cannot speak for I have not spent enough time in study of their views on these issues.


And to conclude all I have said, I am at this time a self-identified Christian transwoman in the process of transitioning, hopefully no more than a few months away from going full-time, and has absolutely no reservations about her status as a transwoman nor as a lesbian as it pertains to her eternal salvation and future existence in heaven as one of God's beloved daughters.

hi scarboroughfair.  all the questions you ask are so valid and so complicated...and most are just too vast to fit under one answer anyway.  i kind of see it this way:  God is way too big to be pidgeonholed into one dogma, or even type of existence.  He's pretty smart you know...speaks alot of languages.  he speaks christian and jew, he speaks buddhist and hindu...and on and on...he speaks more languages then i've ever even heard of.  so when He speaks to someone other then myself in a language i don't understand...it's no biggie...it's not me He's trying to get thru to when He speaks to them...it's them, so of course He speaks in a language they understand.

i think it's really true...God is everywhere you look and everywhere you listen.  just because i've not been there or i don't speak the language doesn't mean He isn't right there doing just what He's doing with me with them.  and may He bless you with...

Okay, out of respect for some of the religious individuals here, I have removed the post originally posted as my reply. It isn't that I don't actually hold such opinions, but I should consider thinking of a more tactful method for delivery.

Now allow me to explain the OP to those who may have difficulty understanding the reasoning behind it:

The person who opened this thread adheres to a very specific interpretation of the Bible. She does not perceive the issue as being one of whether or not an invisible being actually created the universe. She holds her religion to consist of the entire book. Now, when you present her with philosophical explanations for the origin of the universe or the idea of an afterlife, such as those often used by liberal Christians, you may as well reveal them to a person who has never heard of them before. Because she comes from a very strictly Protestant background, she was reared to believe that she should follow the words contained within the Bible in their exactitude. She was not reared with vague platitudes or distant promises. She was reared on the premise that she should follow the instructions contained within this text with the greatest integrity that she can muster.

Having lost her ability to do this, it would be no easier for her to become a more liberal-minded Christian than it would be for her to become an atheist. From her position, they are one and the same. In fact, becoming an atheist may at the very least allow her to salvage some of her sense of integrity. Either way, this is probably a very difficult time for her.

Now, I have heard atheists compared with radical protestants quite a lot. In fact, I feel that I can actually take this as a compliment, in a perverse sense. You see, the radical protestant, who believes in a very thorough adherence to the Bible, must have a great deal more intellectual discipline than one who follows a less demanding sect. He or she must understand thoroughly that this text does not change itself or its meaning based upon individual differences or personal disagreement. To be able to do this in so thorough a way requires a great deal of moral courage, and it requires a great deal of sacrifice. Their way is to adhere to these passages and have faith in their truth even when they are viciously attacked or ridiculed for doing so.

I saw one stand and preach at my college once, and I saw something there that most people probably wouldn't notice. What I saw was a man who stood his ground and shouted what he truly believed to be the truth, even while facing ridicule, insults, and often tears from a multitude of onlookers. He didn't seem to take any joy in much of what he said. He did seem to feel that he was fulfilling a duty of some kind. In spite of sharing the opinion of others that he was nonetheless perfectly annoying, I had to admire this man on some level.

I actually contrast him with another fellow who seemed superficially to be similar. You see, there was actually another man who came earlier who did not arouse this emotion in me. In fact, I felt that he simply took joy in hurting others. He even went on the attack against the Jews, and it seemed to be out of viciousness that he attacked and derided a young Jewish boy who tried to defend the honor of his people. The feeling that I got about this man was confirmed when I caught him saying, at the end of the day, "I love doing this. I wish I could do it every day." It's not that I can't tell the difference between a truly hateful bigot and a truly dedicated adherent. It's generally as plain as the nose on their faces.

So next time anyone present tries attacking atheists, as a group, by comparing them to radical Christians, here is what I have to say in response: I would never claim to have as much moral courage and loyal faith as a truly devout member of this group. It's not an easy thing to be. I feel no insult in being likened to them.

They're still wrong though.

In any case, unitarian theology is going to be just as weird and alien to this woman as the idea that you can reverse aging by walking backwards. No offense intended. Her religious background is just very different from what yours probably was.

QuoteThe person who opened this thread adheres to a very specific interpretation of the Bible. She does not perceive the issue as being one of whether or not an invisible being actually created the universe. She holds her religion to consist of the entire book. Now, when you present her with philosophical explanations for the origin of the universe or the idea of an afterlife, such as those often used by liberal Christians, you may as well reveal them to a person who has never heard of them before. Because she comes from a very strictly Protestant background, she was reared to believe that she should follow the words contained within the Bible in their exactitude. She was not reared with vague platitudes or distant promises. She was reared on the premise that she should follow the instructions contained within this text with the greatest integrity that she can muster.

Having lost her ability to do this, it would be no easier for her to become a more liberal-minded Christian than it would be for her to become an atheist. From her position, they are one and the same. In fact, becoming an atheist may at the very least allow her to salvage some of her sense of integrity. Either way, this is probably a very difficult time for her.

I don't see how one has to do with the other.

As I stated, I was raised as the son of a Southern Baptist Pastor. Southern Baptist pretty much epitomizes the extreme fundamentalist Christian. I was raised with the concept of strict adherence to the Bible, and I still believe firmly in that.

There is a difference, however, between strict adherence to the Bible and strict adherence to what a man behind a pulpit tells you is in the Bible.

There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from maintaining strict adherence to the Bible and still taking the time to read and study the Bible in depth, even studying the original languages and cultures. In fact, strict adherence to the Bible demands that one does this, as the Bible itself says to question everything as well as to study its texts.

And doing as I have said does not make one a "liberal-minded Christian." It makes one an intelligent human being capable of thinking for one's self as God created us to do (Free-Will).

I stand just as firmly rooted in my faith and beliefs as the man you referenced preaching at your college, and have stood firm against an intense amount of ridicule, insults, and more; but I have no trouble reconciling who I am with what God wants me to be and what the Bible tells me is so because I *have* studied the Bible myself, as the Bible commands me to do, rather than just accepting whatever words I hear from the man behind a pulpit.

Here are some ramblings you may find interesting that I put together a while back that may be related to this topic

Holly spirit, the essence of the Oneness of infinity, infinity is but a place where time and space does not exist. It is the fabric of creation from all the way back from original thought, or the word spoken in the ether of creation as Albert Einstein has has once quoted Reality? now there is an perplexing conundrum, I think it's conception is as varied as each human being perceives it. Reality is about as multifarious as Truth, where we can only perceive only bits and pieces of it in the physical world and again those bits differ greatly from one individual to an other.

This reality is not really what it appears to be, in the sense of being solid or concrete, it is more made of is different densities in the grids of the Holographic universe, a very well designed hologram. As for the Holly Spirit or the tapestry upon which the fabric of creation was stitched upon. The Holly spirit is the grid upon which all of creation and all quantum realities is connected to including us. If one really believed and wanted to, you can use to grid to connect with your Creator or the Creators emissaries and messengers, many refer to them as the angels others as Beings of light and even other human being.

With their superior intelligence and highly evolved state of being, why would they find it necessary to utilize what they would find it necessary to utilize the archaic languages of this world in order to communicate with us?.As evolved as they would be to the point where
they could be here from billions of miles away in the blink of an eye in either energy form or why not send their thoughts telepathy, this way it would limit complexity of trying to learn our individualised complex languages where they could simply communicate with us by utilising your own thought processes.

I also agree much that not all of the understanding of even just very far past this planets atmosphere do we know much its elements let alone what's beyond our ionesphere. Books, oh but yes, by all means they are the stepping stones until learning that these are nothing more
then stepping stones that will lead you to the ****doorway*** but that is as far as the books get you. One needs to step through the doorway that leads beyond out present limited knowing and awareness if one wishes to learn more of the mysteries.

The beginning of the rest of our journey to truth and reality. this you will find is the rest of the journey is within the inner-self, if you really desire to look deep within.

Take what you will and leave what does not resonate.

Cindy

Yes, Katrina. This insistence upon intensive Bible study is actually derived from the early Puritans. You would do well to study the history of the Baptist faith if you haven't already done so. It's very interesting.

I would refer you to one book in particular that you might want to read: it's entitled, Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. It may strike you with a little pride in your religious background, actually. Puritanism and its descendant sects really aren't far divorced from scientific thought. In fact, I would say that scientific humanism is really more of a sort of secular protestantism. They're like the same kind of fish in a different barrel.

Quote

Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:34:20 PM


They're still wrong though.

now there's a conversation stopper.

Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:58:52 PM
Yes, Katrina. This insistence upon intensive Bible study is actually derived from the early Puritans. You would do well to study the history of the Baptist faith if you haven't already done so. It's very interesting.

I would refer you to one book in particular that you might want to read: it's entitled, Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. It may strike you with a little pride in your religious background, actually. Puritanism and its descendant sects really aren't far divorced from scientific thought. In fact, I would say that scientific humanism is really more of a sort of secular protestantism. They're like the same kind of fish in a different barrel.

Actually, it's not derived from the Puritans. In fact, if you knew anything about the Southern Baptist Church, you'd be aware that the bulk of it does not promote intensive study of the Bible as it should, and that the concept is something that is only now resurfacing after nearly two thousand years, with the exception of small groups and individuals at various points during the past two thousand years.

Christians who do intensive study of the Bible is not, however, limited to any one denomination either. The mandate itself is derived from the Bible itself, dating back to when it was originally written, before, even the various books of the Bible were compiled into a single volume.

I also find your "study the history of the baptist faith" statement highly offensive. I have already given you a basic synopsis of my "credentials" and it is highly offensive of you to assume that, despite that, I have not studied the history of the denomination I grew up in.

Despite that, I also do not consider it to be my "religious background." I do not consider myself a part of the SBC and only loosely associate myself with the BGCT.

Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 04:06:47 PM

Quote

Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:34:20 PM


They're still wrong though.

now there's a conversation stopper.

No. In fact, it has led me to some very interesting conversations with highly educated people. When another person has something to say, I become the listener, for a person who has done a truly extraordinary amount of reading and introspection never really becomes dull to listen to. You see, when I make such strong statements to a relatively enlightened individual, he or she is generally interested in knowing why. Our disagreement tends to get strangled to death somewhere in the immense amount of detail that there is on this subject matter, and we part ways with an eagerness to further enlighten ourselves on it.

We also find that we have a great deal more in common than the original premise of our discussion would suggest, for what it truly revealed was not that we were members of opposite parties but that we were both eager scholars of the same subject matter who had somehow come to differing conclusions.

Posted on: October 11, 2008, 05:22:29 pm

---

Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 04:37:03 PM

Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:58:52 PM
Yes, Katrina. This insistence upon intensive Bible study is actually derived from the early Puritans. You would do well to study the history of the Baptist faith if you haven't already done so. It's very interesting.

I would refer you to one book in particular that you might want to read: it's entitled, Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. It may strike you with a little pride in your religious background, actually. Puritanism and its descendant sects really aren't far divorced from scientific thought. In fact, I would say that scientific humanism is really more of a sort of secular protestantism. They're like the same kind of fish in a different barrel.

Actually, it's not derived from the Puritans.

You are absolutely right. It would be more accurate to state that Baptist Christianity is a sect of Puritanism that adopts antipedabaptist views. Properly, they should also teach seperation of church and state, freedom of conscience, and religious tolerance. This is the Baptist Christianity founded by Roger Williams, in any case. Although opponents of infant baptism existed long before the time of Roger Williams, his church had a profound influence on Baptist Christianity as it is practiced in the United States.

QuoteIn fact, if you knew anything about the Southern Baptist Church, you'd be aware that the bulk of it does not promote intensive study of the Bible as it should, and that the concept is something that is only now resurfacing after nearly two thousand years, with the exception of small groups and individuals at various points during the past two thousand years.

This was a major part of the Protestant Reformation. The idea was widely circulated during the time period, and much of it was done for the sake of bothering the Catholics.

QuoteChristians who do intensive study of the Bible is not, however, limited to any one denomination either. The mandate itself is derived from the Bible itself, dating back to when it was originally written, before, even the various books of the Bible were compiled into a single volume.

And, at one point, it was widely discouraged by the RCC. As I understand (and do correct my history here if you know better), they felt you needed a church father there to interpret it for you. This was one of the reasons that the KJV, in spite of its imperfections, was such a revolutionary event in history.

QuoteI also find your "study the history of the baptist faith" statement highly offensive. I have already given you a basic synopsis of my "credentials" and it is highly offensive of you to assume that, despite that, I have not studied the history of the denomination I grew up in.

I haven't assumed a thing. I just really like to chatter about this subject matter. It is a subject of great interest for me.

QuoteDespite that, I also do not consider it to be my "religious background." I do not consider myself a part of the SBC and only loosely associate myself with the BGCT.

I identify a great deal with my roots, and I feel very proud of them.

Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 01:21:57 PM
You see, many people interpret what they read in the Bible based purely on modern culture. Now, there are many areas in the Bible where one should apply modern cultural ideologies to the concepts portrayed there, but if one loses the context of the original culture, one loses the true meanings of many of the things in the Bible. One such example is the Greek Word in the New Testament that is consistantly translated as "Homosexual" in most every modern English translation. The actual Greek Word literally means "soft men" and the connotations of the word in the original cultural context is men who are weak willed, who are easily swayed, highly open to suggestion, and unwilling to ever take a stance on anything. "Modern" (going back hundreds of years, though) interpretation of "soft men" implies effiminate men, who are the stereotype of gay men, but this stereotype did not exist in the time the New Testament was written, especially within the Greek language, a language born out of a culture that revered male homosexuality and even, in many ways, condemned heterosexuality as a necessary evil.

What is your correct interpretation of this passage? And why? 27 in particular strikes me as quite explicit and clear in it's meaning.

Note while I was raised christian I am now an atheist and don't believe this stuff, just asking because what it says doesn't look like it can be reconciled with meaning rejection of "soft men".

Rom 1:24-27 KJV
24   Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25   Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26   For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27   And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

hi nikki.  i think you must have some interest in scripture remaining, or you'd probably just leave it alone, not bother with it.  as a former christian i'm sure you're aware of how difficult it is to take the christianity out of the christian.  if you really are interested in reconciling scripture with homosexuality may i recommend a great book written on the subject by rev jeff minor.  it's titled "the children are free."  in here he deals with the passage you quote and several others as well.  if you're interested it's worth a look.

Quote from: Nikki on October 11, 2008, 06:16:36 PM

Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 01:21:57 PM
You see, many people interpret what they read in the Bible based purely on modern culture. Now, there are many areas in the Bible where one should apply modern cultural ideologies to the concepts portrayed there, but if one loses the context of the original culture, one loses the true meanings of many of the things in the Bible. One such example is the Greek Word in the New Testament that is consistantly translated as "Homosexual" in most every modern English translation. The actual Greek Word literally means "soft men" and the connotations of the word in the original cultural context is men who are weak willed, who are easily swayed, highly open to suggestion, and unwilling to ever take a stance on anything. "Modern" (going back hundreds of years, though) interpretation of "soft men" implies effiminate men, who are the stereotype of gay men, but this stereotype did not exist in the time the New Testament was written, especially within the Greek language, a language born out of a culture that revered male homosexuality and even, in many ways, condemned heterosexuality as a necessary evil.

What is your correct interpretation of this passage? And why? 27 in particular strikes me as quite explicit and clear in it's meaning.

Note while I was raised christian I am now an atheist and don't believe this stuff, just asking because what it says doesn't look like it can be reconciled with meaning rejection of "soft men".

Rom 1:24-27 KJV
24   Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25   Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26   For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27   And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

First off, toss the KJV. The King James Version is an obscenely terrible translation that was edited to fit the personal views of King James where he disagreed with what is actually in the original text. I would maybe say it's "better than nothing," but even then, I'd rather someone not have a Bible than have the KJV.

Before I bother getting the passage out of other translations, as well as a literal translation direct from the original Greek text, let me say that this is one of many passages where people focus on the homosexuality involved and ignore the primary issue involved.

There are many passages against sexual immorality, which can loosely be defined as any sexual act performed outside the "confines" of marriage. Note, specifically, the use of the word "lust." They were not expressing love for each other, nor having sex as part of their love for each other. They were merely fulfilling lustful desires with no concern for consequences and no descrimination of who they had sex with, more than just men with men.

On the note of consequences, there was a legitimate reason for an anti-anal sex note on the grounds of the unsanitary nature. In that time period, they did not have condoms. They could not have "safe anal sex." The primary anti-gay (specifically males) passage from early in the old testament is arguably for that very purpose as there is an incredible amount of rules in the pentateuch that has to do with sanitary precautions to prevent/avoid disease and the spread thereof.

Now, here's a translation I frequently use because it's an "easy to read" translation. I do not recommend it as an "only translation used," however, because it often paraphrases a little more than it should. It's called the New Living Translation. We'll see if it does in this particular case when I compare it to other translations, including a direct, literal translation.

"²⁴So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. ²⁵Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. ²⁶That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. ²⁷And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned the lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." ~Romans 1:24-27, NLT

First off, I'll again say it's more to do with general sexual immorality than anything else. Note, again, the use of the word lust.

The fact that they were performing homosexual acts is mentioned more as an historical fact. Like it or not, there is an accuracy in referring to homosexual acts as "unnatural." Even from an athiestic, evolutionary standpoint, humans are physically designed for heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex. Those of us who are lesbian or gay have to derive alternative methods of pleasing our lovers. The term "natural" is frequently used nowadays, in many ways as a result of the rise of gay pride, to refer to that which does occur in nature, which would be an appropriate way to use the term. However, the term is just as appropriately applicable as referring to a process following the course it is designed to for.

Now, here's the passage out of the New International Version.

"²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. ²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions." ~Romans 1:24-27, NIV

Again, note that it states "lusts." Also, it states "sexual impurity." In the Jewish faith, at least back then (I don't know how much modern Jews hold with this), performing the sexual act with anyone left you impure for the rest of the day, and that includes sex with your own husband or wife within a heterosexual marriage.

I'm also going to comment on "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions." They were performing sexual acts that are, from a health standpoint, quite risky, and one can presume from the passage that they spread diseases among each other in this situation, which, as I mentioned, was an issue not to be overlooked since they had no method of safe sex.

Okay, now a direct literal translation, though I'll correct the word order for English.

"²⁴Therefore God also gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵who exchanged the truth of God in the lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the One having created, who is blessed to the ages. Amen. ²⁶On account of this God gave them over to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for the use against nature, ²⁷and likewise also the males leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lusts for one another, males with males committing shamelessness and getting back in themselves the penalty which was fitting for their error." ~Romans 1:24-27, Original Greek

I'll also note here that, except in the NLT, none of these specify the women having lesbian sex. One can presume they were having lesbian sex based on the clear statement that the men were having gay sex, but we do not actually know if they were having lesbian sex, using toys to masturbate, or maybe even performing acts of beastiality. We just know that they were not having sex with the men. Whatever they were doing, they were all giving in to purely lustful desires and not coupling out of love for each other.

That particular passage is also the only passage in the Bible that even hints at lesbian sex, at least that I've found, and as I stated earlier, I have studied the Bible extensively in regards to what it says about lesbian sex since I was identifying as lesbian before I even realized I'm female.


Also, in specific note to your question about the word consistantly translated as "homosexual." That word is not used in the passage you cited, not in any of the translations, even.

Quotefrom Phaedrus, Plato

Soc. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of any other country.

Soc. There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth even from "oak or rock," it was enough for them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes.

Phaedr. I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke; and I think that the Theban is right in his view about letters.

Soc. He would be a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the oracles of Thamus or Ammon, who should leave in writing or receive in writing any art under the idea that the written word would be intelligible or certain; or who deemed that writing was at all better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters?

The problem I have with the Bible, the Qur'an , the Bhagavad Gita or any other "holy" text is that people believe that what applied to ancient societies remain the eternal truth for us 2000 or 3000 years later.  The Old Testament was directed toward nomadic people Asia Minor.  The New Testament toward those that suffered as slaves in the Roman Empire.  If I want to get literal about it, the first commandment reads, Exodus 20:2 reads:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

How does this apply to me?  There were no Hessens or Celts or Saxons enslaved in Egypt during the time of Moses or ever.  Why should I accept the word of St. Paul?  He never knew Christ while he was alive and had no ideas how he would have ministered to his flock.

I don't need a book to tell me that LGBT people can be just as good or bad as anyone else.  Sexual orientation or gender identity don't define good and evil.  I'm not an atheist either.  I have a personal spirituality closest to Wicca.  We make our own heavens or hells here on earth and have future incarnations to try until we get it right.

Quote from: Claire de Lune on October 11, 2008, 07:40:06 PM

Quotefrom Phaedrus, Plato

Soc. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of any other country.

Soc. There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth even from "oak or rock," it was enough for them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes.

Phaedr. I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke; and I think that the Theban is right in his view about letters.

Soc. He would be a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the oracles of Thamus or Ammon, who should leave in writing or receive in writing any art under the idea that the written word would be intelligible or certain; or who deemed that writing was at all better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters?

The problem I have with the Bible, the Qur'an , the Bhagavad Gita or any other "holy" text is that people believe that what applied to ancient societies remain the eternal truth for us 2000 or 3000 years later.  The Old Testament was directed toward nomadic people Asia Minor.  The New Testament toward those that suffered as slaves in the Roman Empire.  If I want to get literal about it, the first commandment reads, Exodus 20:2 reads:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

How does this apply to me?  There were no Hessens or Celts or Saxons enslaved in Egypt during the time of Moses or ever.  Why should I accept the word of St. Paul?  He never knew Christ while he was alive and had no ideas how he would have ministered to his flock.

I don't need a book to tell me that LGBT people can be just as good or bad as anyone else.  Sexual orientation or gender identity don't define good and evil.  I'm not an atheist either.  I have a personal spirituality closest to Wicca.  We make our own heavens or hells here on earth and have future incarnations to try until we get it right.

Well, the belief of Christianity is supposed to be that the Old Testament, in regards to laws, becomes nothing more than a guideline for us, not a binding text. We follow what still applies appropriately, but we are not required to follow any of it in order to be Christian or be saved. Sadly, the majority of Christians seem to have missed that part of the Bible and do not understand that reasoning.

Much of the Old Testament that is not law is prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ, according to Christian belief. According to Jewish belief, for which the Old Testament pertains more directly, it is prophecy of a Messiah who has not yet come. For Islam...well, imo, islam gets a tad complicated in this regard.

I will make one significant correction, btw. The Israellites were only nomadic from the time of the Exodus until the end of the Pentateuch (which ends with Deuteronomy). From the time of the Judges onward, they lived in what is now modern Israel, except for certain times when they were effectively exiled from their nation after it was conquered by Persia, during which time they were still not nomadic.

Additionally, the text is not inherently directed at such and such people as it is largely, especially in the case of the Old Testament, an historical account of the people of Israel and serves the same purpose of any historical account of any people.

As for the New Testament, the jews were not slaves of Rome. They were Roman Citizens. The New Testament is also not directed explicitly at people of that time, though there are things that have become obselete with significant cultural change.

However, the primary significance of this is that there is only one fundamental truth in the Bible that must be believed in order to be a Christian. That fundamental truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died on the cross for our sins, rising three days later, thus washing us all who accept the gift of salvation clean of the taint of sin so that we might spend eternity in Heaven with God. One who does not believe this fundamental truth is not a Christian. One who does believe it is a Christian. That is the defining belief of Christianity. Everything else is largely superfluous and far too open to interpretation to be a "fundamental truth."

Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 06:35:04 PM
hi nikki.  i think you must have some interest in scripture remaining, or you'd probably just leave it alone, not bother with it.

I suspect Nikki (not that I'm entitled to speak for her!) may have the same or a similar frustration that I do regarding LGBT people and religion - I will never understand why they are so desperate to join a club that devotes so much of it's energy to excluding them and wiping them out.

Quote from: Imadique on October 11, 2008, 08:04:14 PM

Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 06:35:04 PM
hi nikki.  i think you must have some interest in scripture remaining, or you'd probably just leave it alone, not bother with it.

I suspect Nikki (not that I'm entitled to speak for her!) may have the same or a similar frustration that I do regarding LGBT people and religion - I will never understand why they are so desperate to join a club that devotes so much of it's energy to excluding them and wiping them out.

I, personally, despite being a devoted Christian, do very much oppose "religion," or at least what it has become. Your club description is horribly apt. For far too many people it has become nothing more than a social club.

Becoming a believer, of whatever faith, however, should not be seen as joining a club. It is about the faith and the belief, not who else believes the way you do, and presumably if your religious beliefs do match up, at a fundamental level, with those of a faith whose "social club" side make a practice of bigotry against the LGBT community, you aren't actually trying to be part of the social club since you yourself are not a bigot against the LGBT community, aye?

Katrina, I'm aware that the Jews were not always nomadic but they were keepers of sheep that required that they be moved from pasture to pasture through the seasons.

Christianity was largely a religion of the slaves in its earlier days.  The Jews time as Roman citizens did not last long after Christ's death on the cross.  The diaspora began circa 70 AD when Rome crushed a Jewish rebellion, burned the second temple, slaughtered males over 16, enslaved the remaining women and children and scattered them to the far corners of the empire.  There are a number of people that believe these were the events referred to in Revelation.

What it takes to be a Christian is of no concern to me, as I am not.

Okay. New International Version, guys. Come on.

Quote25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

And this version is really quite true to the original text. I also find that it has the least direct disagreement with other versions, passage for passage. Now, if you were to take passages twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven from the NIV translation of Romans I, it would be plausible to suggest that, according to the NIV, the Bible prophesied the advent of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, delivered through the vehicle of unnatural and generally unclean sexual practices. In this case, homosexuality is a direct act of God intended for punishing a society that has fallen to idolatry and come to take its creator for granted.

On another note, you could also read "dishonorable" to mean something more akin to "embarrassing," denoting more that the business of homosexuality would result in teasing and probably loss of social status. This is definitely the case for most homosexuals. Even if you could get past all of the deliberate negativity that society heaps upon it, it's unspeakably embarrassing for most of us even without that. You could also say it's embarrassing that some of us are being dropped into the wrong bodies as with transsexualism, but that's a whole nother can of worms.

Under this understanding, it would be more appropriate for biblical literalists to focus simply upon honoring and glorifying their immortal God. It would reflect a much more accurate understanding of the Bible, as understood through the NIV. If this approach by itself doesn't eliminate homosexuality, it should at the very least result, over the long-term, in nullifying any harm that could be wrought by it. For example, the gays could suddenly decide they like living the married life and create such a high demand for newborns that it puts the abortion industry directly out of business, thus killing two birds with one stone.

i'm with katrina.  my chrisianity has very little to do with religion, it's about my personal relationship with God.  if i was the only one in the world who believed as i do then i would be a church of one.

i like the club reference.  unfortunately, as katrina says, it is more of that sort of thing to many.  at least they are in contact with the Word and hopefully get something out of their time spent in the club.  God loves us all.