<!--QuoteBegin-Comrad Skulk+May 5 2005, 05:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Comrad Skulk @ May 5 2005, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> one man's trash is another man's treasure
just because you throw out values you don't deem worth while doesn't mean other people don't treasure them <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> People thought that Blacks were subhuman because of certain beliefs as well, does that make them valid or even worth considering?
I just have a problem with someone who has
A) No understanding of psychology
B) No understanding of biology
C) No understanding of developmental biology
D) Has clearly not even a vague clue about sexual determination from animal models
Making stupid statements like:
"Homosexuality is an abnormal unnatural behaviour, fact" with nothing more than his own idiocy to back up the statement.
If he could prove that concept, he could go and collect his nobel prize now because he knows A LOT MORE than ANY OTHER PSYCHOLOGIST OR DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGIST.
I'm tired of seeing this same nonsense all the time and it needs to be called out for exactly what it is: Nothing more than complete nonsense.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92934' target='_blank'>COMRAD SKULK'S THREAD OF POWER THAT NO ONE CAN TOUCH BECAUSE HE'S RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG WHA HA AH HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa://COMRAD SKULK'S THREAD OF POWER ...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAa</a>
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Having read through most of this thread, and seeing so many other threads getting rehashed, then aegeri coming in to lay down the smack like he always does, (<span style='color:red'><b><3</b></span>) I thought I'd try to get back on topic a little bit.
Personally, I've been <i>subtley</i> attracted to the same sex fairly often. Its more recognition and admiration than a real desire to have sex. I've been given the opportunity to explore it before with someone pretty damn attracitive, but in the end I just wasn't comfortable enough with the idea. The environment I've grown up in wasn't terribly hostile to homosexuals in general, but my sense is that that a lot of males in gradeschool and highschool are pretty consistently anti-**** everywhere. I would imagine that if I hadn't grown up with that around me, I probably would have tried it.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd believe it.
What?! Why was that thread of power deleted?! It should've been locked and stickied!
It'd serve two purposes; let the corpse hang in the gallows to scare off the lesser criminals, and preserve Cyndane's really realy long post about the Bible and homosexuality, which I didn't get a chance to read in full.
I admit, I know very little about sexual determination from animal models.
However, It has always been my understanding that animals only exhibit homosexual attributes/behaviours when the opposite sex of said animal isn't present; except in isolated instances. It is also my understanding that a few unexplainable isolated instances are "phenomenons" that science would consider unnatural and illogical and cannot explain.
Please, if I am wrong here - tell me. Because I very well could be. And if I am, I apologize in advance.
As has been noted before DarkAti, homosexual behavior in animals happens even with the prescence of the opposite gender(Its not isolated). Bonobos are the best example, not to mention serveral types of birds, including but not limited to the peguins.
It is natural, and the exact cause of it is not known. Probably wont' be untill we can successfully decipher the human/animal brain. See previous posts for more explaination.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 7 2005, 11:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 7 2005, 11:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As has been noted before DarkAti, homosexual behavior in animals happens even with the prescence of the opposite gender(Its not isolated). Bonobos are the best example, not to mention serveral types of birds, including but not limited to the peguins.
It is natural, and the exact cause of it is not known. Probably wont' be untill we can successfully decipher the human/animal brain. See previous posts for more explaination. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> OK, I stand corrected and I apologize again.
*goes to read up on this whole animal sex thing*
I shall re-join this discussion again only after I know what the crap I am talking about!!!
It should be noted that sexual orientation is considered a spectrum in some circles of psychological studies. In this view, there may be a dominant attraction toward one gender, or a dominant toward the other. It will slide from perfectly straight to perfectly homosexual, through asexual, and back to the start. I wish I was a skilled artist to illustrate this, but I'm not leet like that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+May 3 2005, 10:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ May 3 2005, 10:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My two cents.
Bisexuality seems to be a phenomenon occuring in higher civilisations and generally high standards of living. It seems to be a byproduct of wealth. I take this from observing any culture that has reached a certain point of decadence. The ancient greeks, the romans, the persians etc.... . Feudal Japan, absolutisitic France... In all those societies, the wealthy people had developed bisexual tendencies.
I don't want to imply that all bisexuals are decadent! I just think, that once we do not have to wory about our imediate survival, and can satisfy all our basic needs and most of out wishes, we tend to seek out new borders. Once we have experience everything in our immediate reach, we want to try new things. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Win.
Yeah I've always thought along the same lines. You'll often find that homosexuals are, in general, more liberal than others. There's a huge trend of sexual actvity in places where homosexuals have access to the 'one night stand' motif. A lot of them drink and (in London at least) a lot of them experiment with harder drugs and group sex.
This may have a lot to do with the fact that they are searching for an identity, looking for aspects of culture that they can call their own, and in this case it may be that the only way to develop an 'individual' group culture is to exaggerate pre-existing trends of group culture: drugtaking, drinking, fashion and sexual experimentation.
It's difficult to really analyse this either from the outside or the inside, because <i>outsiders</i> would have no first-hand experience and <i>insiders</i> are still in the process of reinventing themselves. In this day and age, very few people (if any?) are born g4y and so all homosexuals must go through this process of seeking out and establishing contact with the g4y community. It is during this time that they start to think, both actively and subconsciously about taking on a g4y persona.
Sometimes it disappoints me, because homosexuals (and definitely lesbians in their own way) have created a 'forced' image for their section of cultural society, even giving themselves stereotypes to live by. Yes, it could be said that stereotypes are almost a blueprint to model ourselves on once we've chosen a particular slice of society to ally ourselves to, but I can't help but think that this isn't really individualism at all, but simply conformism which is ignored because this new cultural genre is still in its development stage.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+May 9 2005, 05:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy @ May 9 2005, 05:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legat+May 3 2005, 10:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ May 3 2005, 10:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My two cents.
Bisexuality seems to be a phenomenon occuring in higher civilisations and generally high standards of living. It seems to be a byproduct of wealth. I take this from observing any culture that has reached a certain point of decadence. The ancient greeks, the romans, the persians etc.... . Feudal Japan, absolutisitic France... In all those societies, the wealthy people had developed bisexual tendencies.
I don't want to imply that all bisexuals are decadent! I just think, that once we do not have to wory about our imediate survival, and can satisfy all our basic needs and most of out wishes, we tend to seek out new borders. Once we have experience everything in our immediate reach, we want to try new things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Win.
Yeah I've always thought along the same lines. You'll often find that homosexuals are, in general, more liberal than others. There's a huge trend of sexual actvity in places where homosexuals have access to the 'one night stand' motif. A lot of them drink and (in London at least) a lot of them experiment with harder drugs and group sex.
This may have a lot to do with the fact that they are searching for an identity, looking for aspects of culture that they can call their own, and in this case it may be that the only way to develop an 'individual' group culture is to exaggerate pre-existing trends of group culture: drugtaking, drinking, fashion and sexual experimentation.
It's difficult to really analyse this either from the outside or the inside, because <i>outsiders</i> would have no first-hand experience and <i>insiders</i> are still in the process of reinventing themselves. In this day and age, very few people (if any?) are born g4y and so all homosexuals must go through this process of seeking out and establishing contact with the g4y community. It is during this time that they start to think, both actively and subconsciously about taking on a g4y persona.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Up to this point you have completely ignored all of the articles on homosexuality that have been presented. You sir, lose at reading. Not to mention you have absolutely no factual infomation to back you up on this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sometimes it disappoints me, because homosexuals (and definitely lesbians in their own way) have created a 'forced' image for their section of cultural society, even giving themselves stereotypes to live by. Yes, it could be said that stereotypes are almost a blueprint to model ourselves on once we've chosen a particular slice of society to ally ourselves to, but I can't help but think that this isn't really individualism at all, but simply conformism which is ignored because this new cultural genre is still in its development stage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I somewhat stand by, however everyone who is different from someone else does the same thing when you get a group of people together. That is just part of life.
Some of the best examples, would be native americans, blacks, and even the whites (rednecks, conservatives.) It is how a majority of the people act within that culture.
Any "outsider" as you put it, is only going to make generalizations because the lack the knowledge to know better at the time.
There is a really easy way to break the stereotypes, its called learning about other people in different cultures. Really isn't that hard, you can; A) Go and visit the place you are curious about (My favorite thing to do) or B) Grab an objective source on the material National Geographic comes to mind first, and read about them. It really isn't so hard and other then first half of your post this actually has decent reasoning behind it.
I'll take it you haven't seen the nightlife that London has to offer, because the g4ys have, and they like it.
I'll also guess that you haven't been to the places that really have g4y communities taking off.
FACT: I have an opinion FACT: You'll find parts of it in that post I wrote FACT: I never claimed that any of it was factual FACT: It hasn't got enough of anything that could be described of as tangible for it to begin to qualify as fact.
This is a Discussions forum, not a Regurgitate Facts forum. While it is nice to add some fact to your opinions to back them up, there are times where people will just present opinion. You'll find if you read my post, certain phrases and words such as 'in general' (not: in all cases), 'most' (not: all), 'often' (not: always), 'may' (not: do); and these words hint at the fact that I don't claim to be an expert and I don't have all the facts. This is why I haven't quoted any facts, because the sort of 'facts' you're talking about are meaningless without quoting the author so that we can weigh up the validity of the statement.
I also disagree with you on 'breaking stereotypes'. You can never hope to break a stereotype, only to change a stereotype from one thing to another, or to invent new stereotypes. Stereotypes will always exist as long as there is a majority and a minority in a group.
As an example, you could say that a British stereotype is of someone who drinks tea to a rigorous schedule. We (the British) could try to show others that this is not true of all British, and we could even succeed. But then the stereotype would change to the football lout, or the cricket-lover. There will always be a 'majority group' to take on the title of stereotype.
This all comes down to the theory that humans like to group large quantities to make life easier for them. Each of us is from a 'country', a 'family' and a 'race' and stereotypes exist and have existed in all of these cases. Americans are..., Blacks are..., the Robinsons are...!
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+May 9 2005, 11:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy @ May 9 2005, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is a Discussions forum, not a Regurgitate Facts forum. While it is nice to add some fact to your opinions to back them up, there are times where people will just present opinion. You'll find if you read my post, certain phrases and words such as 'in general' (not: in all cases), 'most' (not: all), 'often' (not: always), 'may' (not: do); and these words hint at the fact that I don't claim to be an expert and I don't have all the facts. This is why I haven't quoted any facts, because the sort of 'facts' you're talking about are meaningless without quoting the author so that we can weigh up the validity of the statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Arguments are better when they don't follow any sort of logic and are based merely on broad generalizations formed through severely sketchy anecdotes.
I don't think he is trying to suggest that all homosexuals are addicts or anything although I guess it <i>could</i> be read that way. I think he is simply saying that when you are prejudiced against you tend to naturally be more tolerant and less prejudiced. That when you are seen as doing something 'anti-social' then you are more likely to consider other 'anti-social' behaviour in a more objective manner.
Most of my bi or homosexual friends tend to be more outgoing, more individual and more experimental than the 'average' because if they didn't have those personality traits then they wouldn't have come out in the first place. They might not have even come to accept their difference and lived in denial instead.
It is also fairly safe to say that if you are part of an 'underground' culture then you will have more access to similar cultures. In the same way that being part of the samaritans or similar will give you a higher chance of meeting and making friends with religious people.
I do also know a couple of people who do take on 'g ay' as part of their personality. They define themselves by it and it becomes a far more dominant than my being straight does on their behaviour. They have their own clubs, their own icons and rolemodels etc and that will naturally affect how they act. In the exact same way I see myself as a geek and would use that word if someone asked me to describe myself. The difference is that geekiness is just a hobby, your sexual preference is a massive part of your way of life (or at least it is at the moment, it really shouldn't be).
There are differences between recognizing something is attractive and being sexually attracted. There are guys that look good, but there are also cars that look good. We as a society view things that are proportional to be good looking, attractive. The same goes for either of the sexes. However, I do not look at a guy and feel sexually attracted, and I don't feel that way about cars either...in these ways I believe the differences are set.
On the topic of attractiveness, I belive that all of us -male and female (or even those who don't believe they fall into either category)- are able to judge attractiveness in both sexes.
I would support this argument with the theory that we have certain animalistic traits in us that aren't as dormant as we'd like to believe. I think that in our past (and this becomes clearer when drawing a tangent to other animals' behaviour) both males and females were required to readily identify the stronger competitors in the field.
The females needed to recognise who was more attractive, or which other females were perceived to have the greater child-bearing ability, so that they knew how to 'hedge their bets' and go after the male which was the best balance between a strong set of genes and the most likely to 'get on board' so that she could have her next litter as soon as possible!
The males needed to weigh up the strength of their rivals so that if they did need to get into a fight over a girl, they would have a fair chance of winning.
I think this is true, to some extent, of both human sexes today. To go back to what <b>arealous</b> was saying in the previous post, I think the fact that the act of being 'attracted' to someone can have stronger and weaker perceptions depending on the situation, particularly when used in a question. The person who asks and the person who answers the question: "Do you find 'them' attractive" can mean both: "Being as objective as possible, are you able to dicern an above-average level of physical attractiveness in this person?" or "Are you physically attracted to this person?"
I believe that it is for this reason that we have had responses in this thread that sound dismissive. However it's equally possible that there are extreme minorities that truly are unable to measure attractiveness in persons of the same gender.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+May 10 2005, 07:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy @ May 10 2005, 07:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On the topic of attractiveness, I belive that all of us -male and female (or even those who don't believe they fall into either category)- are able to judge attractiveness in both sexes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course we are. As a matter of fact, most of what we judge as attractive is based off of what we are TOLD to see as a attractive, so if it is pounded into us enough that certain things are attractive for a certain gender, of COURSE we can tell.
A point to think about for those who aren't about to believe me. For a long time, plump women were considered attractive during periods of feudal reign. Because this was indicative of her being wealthy, well fed, and particularly well cared for.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+May 10 2005, 07:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy @ May 10 2005, 07:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The females needed to recognise who was more attractive, or which other females were perceived to have the greater child-bearing ability, so that they knew how to 'hedge their bets' and go after the male which was the best balance between a strong set of genes and the most likely to 'get on board' so that she could have her next litter as soon as possible! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when does that happen? i have always been under the assumption that it is nearly always the males that seek out the females and screw basically whichever set of female genitals is closest, since the object in their mind is to pass on the genes as much as possible, not just to the best candidate for offspring. At least, that's what I've always heard from nature shows.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+May 10 2005, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ May 10 2005, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+May 10 2005, 07:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy @ May 10 2005, 07:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The females needed to recognise who was more attractive, or which other females were perceived to have the greater child-bearing ability, so that they knew how to 'hedge their bets' and go after the male which was the best balance between a strong set of genes and the most likely to 'get on board' so that she could have her next litter as soon as possible! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when does that happen? i have always been under the assumption that it is nearly always the males that seek out the females and screw basically whichever set of female genitals is closest, since the object in their mind is to pass on the genes as much as possible, not just to the best candidate for offspring. At least, that's what I've always heard from nature shows. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Males are always ready to spead their genes, however in many cases it is the female who chooses which male to have sex with in the animal kingdom. Either the female is bigger, or she won't allow a male to have sex with her if she doesn't wish it.
The hebrew word YADA - translated "to know" has many uses. It is far more versatile than any word we have in the english language. It can mean many things and one of these many meanings is "to have sex with".
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and I come bearing examples, Cyndane.
Consider the following passages.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:17 - And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son,
Genesis 4:25 - And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Judges 11:37-40 - [37] And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my <b>virginity</b>, I and my fellows. [38] And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her <b>virginity</b> upon the mountains. [39] And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: <b>and she knew no man.</b> And it was a custom in Israel, [40] That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
[AUthor's Note: You be the judge. Did this girl simply not "know about" any men? Or is there a link between virginity and "knew no man"?]
Judges 19:25 - But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
This is hardly to say that YADA is the ONLY WORD which will be used in describing sexual relations but IT IS A WORD used in describing sexual relations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand this challenge.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>slept with</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>****ed</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
I admit that last one was rather crass but I fail to see how either of those did not fit.
Also, what then is God saying to Moses when he dictates Genesis 4:1? What is the point in saying that Adam "knew" Eve? Was he concerned that the readers might not understand that Adam was aware of Eve's existence? Surely not. Then what purpose would YADA serve here? It seems quite clear to me.
Substitute knew with anything else and an intelligent reader will understand what is happening based on context clues alone.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam shmorked Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Your argument doesn't hold up unless I am missing something here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what have you to say about this?
Genesis 38:9 - And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Context Clues - Homosexuality and Sodom ---------------------------------------
Firstly, I would like to say that you are accurate in your description of the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is certainly not the only sin of Sodom and is in my opinion a "secondary" sin to their sin of unrepentance; that being the primary sin.
[Author's Note: This is not to say that God judges sin partially - the Bible is clear that sin is sin to God; he judges impartially. see: James 2:10-11. I am simply stating that the main point of the story of Sodom and it's destruction is not to condemn homosexuality but other practices AS WELL AS homosexuality.]
Genesis 19:5-8 - [with commentary - in bold] [5] And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. <b>[Let's assume that these men just want to "know" the angels.]</b> [6] And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, [7] And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. <b>[Is getting to "know" someone wicked? It seems Lot knows what they intend to do, he lives in Sodom after all - he knows there game.]</b>[8] Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: <b>[What is good in there eyes? It seems intercourse is good in their eyes.]</b> only unto these men do nothing; <b>[Contexually it sounds like he's bargaining with them. As if to say - "don't throw these shoes up and over the telephone wires, my grandma bought them for me. Take these new Reeboks instead."]</b> for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. <b>[It appears Lot is protecting the angels from what the men are about to do. What are they about to do? ... "know" them, no doubt.]</b>
So, we have shown that YADA can mean sexual intercourse. Combine this knowledge with the contextual clues strewn about in Genesis 19:5-8 and it appears that they were... well, not homosexual (or Lot would not have offered his daughters) but bisexual. So, drawing this conclusion we say that God is against bisexuality; intercourse male to male, female to female. Does this mean that God is only against bisexuality? Or could it be fitting that he is against homosexuality as well?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, as we have seen, God judges sin impartially; see again - James 2:10-11. So homosexuality isn't the "worst of all sins" for sin itself is the worst of the worst in any form.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct. I don't hate homosexuals, they are my brothers and sisters in sin. I sin just as much as they do. I am filthy in God's eyes, as we all are.
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
I would never reject or hate or condemn anyone. It isn't my place. But it IS my place to uphold the Word of God and I will do so with bold speech.
I'll leave it then, at this.
As far as I can see - homosexuality and bisexuality are wrong. But I will leave this taboo issue up to the individual and God. Cyndane, if you have a wonderful walk with Jesus then who am I to judge or speak against or hinder you?
I would, however like to know when and how you came to realize you were homosexual - you can PM me if you don't feel like sharing in this thread (it might be a bit off-topic too, not sure.)
This concludes my "paper". Discuss if you'd like.
EDIT: I think it is fitting to include this.
Luke 10:25-28 - 25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
This is the way to eternal life, not through obedience of laws. But obedience comes through love.
<!--QuoteBegin-Asal The Unforgiving+May 10 2005, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Asal The Unforgiving @ May 10 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+May 10 2005, 07:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy @ May 10 2005, 07:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On the topic of attractiveness, I belive that all of us -male and female (or even those who don't believe they fall into either category)- are able to judge attractiveness in both sexes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course we are. As a matter of fact, most of what we judge as attractive is based off of what we are TOLD to see as a attractive, so if it is pounded into us enough that certain things are attractive for a certain gender, of COURSE we can tell.
A point to think about for those who aren't about to believe me. For a long time, plump women were considered attractive during periods of feudal reign. Because this was indicative of her being wealthy, well fed, and particularly well cared for. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The idea of plump women being attractive goes back much further than the feudal reign. It stems from the situation whereby food was scarce and so a plump woman was a prosperous woman.
(I tell no lies when I say I was listening to the NOFX song about loving a fat chick simply because she's fat, the name escapes me, at the same time that I was writing this post)
This doesn't really tie in with your theory of being attracted to what we're told is attractive. I think the human psyche is extremely complex and this, combined with powerful events (traumatic or otherwise) in our lives can lead to us having a fetish for 'abnormal' situations (bestiality, necrophelia, et alii). This 'reactionary' attraction in many cases overwrites what is programmed into us and we fall from the 'norm'.
But what is the norm, what is universally attractive. It has been said that symettry plays a huge part in what we currently accept as beautiful, but even if you concede this point the norm is still terrifically subdivided.
Some people say that there are three types of (average, heterosexual) men, men who are attracted and pay more attention to a girl's breasts, legs or ****. Someone with a foot fetish is still fixated more on one part of the body, it's just not a part that we would accept as normal. <i>I think that for argument we should bear in mind sexual attractiveness through the desire to make physical contact with that area, as many could argue that almost all people naturally pay more atention to the face because it is the source of language, emotion and houses all the senses</i>.
Not really sure where I was going with that, so I can't really conclude <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The hebrew word YADA - translated "to know" has many uses. It is far more versatile than any word we have in the english language. It can mean many things and one of these many meanings is "to have sex with".
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and I come bearing examples, Cyndane.
Consider the following passages.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:17 - And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son,
Genesis 4:25 - And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Judges 11:37-40 - [37] And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my <b>virginity</b>, I and my fellows. [38] And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her <b>virginity</b> upon the mountains. [39] And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: <b>and she knew no man.</b> And it was a custom in Israel, [40] That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
[AUthor's Note: You be the judge. Did this girl simply not "know about" any men? Or is there a link between virginity and "knew no man"?]
Judges 19:25 - But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
This is hardly to say that YADA is the ONLY WORD which will be used in describing sexual relations but IT IS A WORD used in describing sexual relations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand this challenge.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>slept with</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>****ed</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
I admit that last one was rather crass but I fail to see how either of those did not fit.
Also, what then is God saying to Moses when he dictates Genesis 4:1? What is the point in saying that Adam "knew" Eve? Was he concerned that the readers might not understand that Adam was aware of Eve's existence? Surely not. Then what purpose would YADA serve here? It seems quite clear to me.
Substitute knew with anything else and an intelligent reader will understand what is happening based on context clues alone.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam shmorked Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Your argument doesn't hold up unless I am missing something here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what have you to say about this?
Genesis 38:9 - And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hehe... that was an interesting attempt DarkAti, and I do commend you for it. I shall now show you where your translations are wrong.
First off YADA in hewbrew, do you know how many definitions there are? No, well let me list them for you.
1) to know 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to know 1a1a) to know, learn to know
1a1b) to perceive 1a1c) to perceive and see, find out and discern 1a1d) to discriminate, distinguish 1a1e) to know by experience 1a1f) to recognize, admit, acknowledge, confess 1a1g) to consider 1a2) to know, be acquainted with 1a3) to know (a person carnally) 1a4) to know how, be skilful in 1a5) to have knowledge, be wise 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed 1b2) to make oneself known 1b3) to be perceived 1b4) to be instructed 1c) (Piel) to cause to know 1d) (Poal) to cause to know <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ask yourself these questions: When a person says the "yada" he is speaking a Hebrew word, in plain English what does that Hebrew word "yada" mean?
(Hint: 1a3 above and in early America misbehaving people were put in the stocks. A sign announced the crime. One often used sign read, "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge," which is the origin of a often used four letter word for 'knew'. 'Knew' as used in "and Adam knew his wife" and "yada, yada, yada".
Has the television 'programmed' many good people to unknowingly utter profanities?
Firstly, I would like to say that you are accurate in your description of the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is certainly not the only sin of Sodom and is in my opinion a "secondary" sin to their sin of unrepentance; that being the primary sin.
[Author's Note: This is not to say that God judges sin partially - the Bible is clear that sin is sin to God; he judges impartially. see: James 2:10-11. I am simply stating that the main point of the story of Sodom and it's destruction is not to condemn homosexuality but other practices AS WELL AS homosexuality.]
Genesis 19:5-8 - [with commentary - in bold] [5] And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. <b>[Let's assume that these men just want to "know" the angels.]</b> [6] And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, [7] And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. <b>[Is getting to "know" someone wicked? It seems Lot knows what they intend to do, he lives in Sodom after all - he knows there game.]</b>[8] Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: <b>[What is good in there eyes? It seems intercourse is good in their eyes.]</b> only unto these men do nothing; <b>[Contexually it sounds like he's bargaining with them. As if to say - "don't throw these shoes up and over the telephone wires, my grandma bought them for me. Take these new Reeboks instead."]</b> for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. <b>[It appears Lot is protecting the angels from what the men are about to do. What are they about to do? ... "know" them, no doubt.]</b>
So, we have shown that YADA can mean sexual intercourse. Combine this knowledge with the contextual clues strewn about in Genesis 19:5-8 and it appears that they were... well, not homosexual (or Lot would not have offered his daughters) but bisexual. So, drawing this conclusion we say that God is against bisexuality; intercourse male to male, female to female. Does this mean that God is only against bisexuality? Or could it be fitting that he is against homosexuality as well?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, as we have seen, God judges sin impartially; see again - James 2:10-11. So homosexuality isn't the "worst of all sins" for sin itself is the worst of the worst in any form. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many feel that Genesis 19 is unrelated to consensual same-sex behavior. It may be related to <b> homosexual rape which is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape. </b>
Well look at that, rape is bad.
<!--QuoteBegin-various ministers+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (various ministers)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> K. Stendahl: "It's a folk story. It even has a little black humor, in the fact that he [Lot] is so anxious to protect his guests that he's willing to sacrifice his daughters. To make a biblical ethics story out of it is not very wise."
D. Bartlett: "Many of the Bible's stories don't mean what they seem on their face. Many mainstream scholars say it [the Genesis passage] is about hospitality and how to deal with the messengers of God. If it does refer to homosexual behavior, it's homosexual rape. They don't just want to lie down with them voluntarily; they want to rape the angels."
R Kimelman: "In the Mideast then, once a man has entered into your home, your responsibility to his protection is your primary moral obligation, even if it's at the expense of your own daughters. The Bible is recording a story; it is not mandating behavior."
J.K. Nelson: "If you read it literally, in its English translation, without considering its context, one could say the Bible condemns homosexual activities. When we look at the Bible and try to draw moral rules for living, but we take it out of the context of the time when they were written, we do them a great injustice." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct. I don't hate homosexuals, they are my brothers and sisters in sin. I sin just as much as they do. I am filthy in God's eyes, as we all are.
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
I would never reject or hate or condemn anyone. It isn't my place. But it IS my place to uphold the Word of God and I will do so with bold speech.
I'll leave it then, at this.
As far as I can see - homosexuality and bisexuality are wrong. But I will leave this taboo issue up to the individual and God. Cyndane, if you have a wonderful walk with Jesus then who am I to judge or speak against or hinder you?
I would, however like to know when and how you came to realize you were homosexual - you can PM me if you don't feel like sharing in this thread (it might be a bit off-topic too, not sure.)
This concludes my "paper". Discuss if you'd like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your paper as I have demostrated is based on lack of knowledge of the hebrew langauge. Not to mention the many other references I have in my prior post, you haven't dispelled anything really. The bible still does not mention anywhere in it that homosexuality is bad. Just so you know I'm not the only one...
I think that should be enough for now, please note the last two are christian ministers and scholars. The first one can easily be labeled as non-bias, and the second might be, I did not read that far into it, but seem worth noting since it is an .org site and usually are fairly reliable. <!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
EDIT: I think it is fitting to include this.
Luke 10:25-28 - 25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
This is the way to eternal life, not through obedience of laws. But obedience comes through love.
<!--QuoteBegin-BG 8:3+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BG 8:3)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lord Krsna said: the supreme indestruible reality is declared the Ultimate Truth. Its external nature is the physical embodied self. Procreation and the desired developement in the material existence of the physical bodies of all living entities is delinated as fruitive actions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-BG 3:4-5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BG 3:4-5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A person can never achieve freedom from reactions to activities without first performing prescribed Vedic duties; neither can perfection be attianed by renouncing them as well. One can not remain without engaging in activity for any time, even for a moment; certainly all living entities are helplessly compelled to action by the qualities edwowed by material nature. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If someone needs help with them, I would be more then happy to share the general idea. :-)
Sorry, but you haven't told us where your source on the Hebrew word "yada" came from, when it was published nor which age of Hebrew it refers to. There is therefore no reason to believe either one of you because you could be referencing a more modern translation or even a translation by an unprofessional based upon insufficient knowledge or existing source texts with which to define such a word in this context.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No need for me to edit these in;
QUOTE (BG 8:3)
Lord Krsna said: the supreme indestruible reality is declared the Ultimate Truth. Its external nature is the physical embodied self. Procreation and the desired developement in the material existence of the physical bodies of all living entities is delinated as fruitive actions.
QUOTE (BG 3:4-5)
A person can never achieve freedom from reactions to activities without first performing prescribed Vedic duties; neither can perfection be attianed by renouncing them as well. One can not remain without engaging in activity for any time, even for a moment; certainly all living entities are helplessly compelled to action by the qualities edwowed by material nature.
If someone needs help with them, I would be more then happy to share the general idea. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Decide who you follow. Lord Krishna or Lord Jesus.
@DarkAti Considering hinduism is more tolerant then christianity, thats an easy choice.
Crispy since you are fairly new I shall be nicer then normal. I shall assume you have basic working knowledge of the bible (aka what you were taught while you grew up.)
Now, just for the record, almost all of what you were taught is wrong. (reguarding how translations work)
First, the OT, in which was written Hebrew, dates to around 1700 BC, at the oldest (source, cabon dating the dead sea scrolls).
Second, the ancient hewbrew langauge is based off of linear-a, which means it has 30,000 words tops.
Third, many of those words, like the asian languages cover many different meanings.
Fourth, advocates for a particular faith will translate it as they see fit, especially if they deem it better for the translation of said faith.
Finally, there have been many studies, and if you had followed the bible thread not oh so long ago you would know that Strong's Lexicon is probably one of the better attempts at translating the bible, not perfect, but the its hard to be perfect when no one has 100% working knowledge of a language that died out almost 900 years before it was translated for the first time. That link below is a list of all the meanings that "yada" has been used in the bible. (Its a ministry site even. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
1) to know 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to know 1a1a) to know, learn to know
1a1b) to perceive 1a1c) to perceive and see, find out and discern 1a1d) to discriminate, distinguish 1a1e) to know by experience 1a1f) to recognize, admit, acknowledge, confess 1a1g) to consider 1a2) to know, be acquainted with 1a3) to know (a person carnally) 1a4) to know how, be skilful in 1a5) to have knowledge, be wise 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed 1b2) to make oneself known 1b3) to be perceived 1b4) to be instructed 1c) (Piel) to cause to know 1d) (Poal) to cause to know <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* I forgot to mention, the above translation is mine.
I still have to make time for reading your essay in depth, Cyndane--maybe later today. But first, I have to respond to this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Decide who you follow. Lord Krishna or Lord Jesus.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> @DarkAti Considering hinduism is more tolerant then christianity, thats an easy choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Setting aside the point of whether thats true or not, how exactly does it matter? If Krishna is God, then Jesus isn't. If Jesus is God, then Krishna isn't. Which one preached more tolerance ought to be insignificant compared to the question of which one is actually a deity.
Comments
just because you throw out values you don't deem worth while doesn't mean other people don't treasure them <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
People thought that Blacks were subhuman because of certain beliefs as well, does that make them valid or even worth considering?
I just have a problem with someone who has
A) No understanding of psychology
B) No understanding of biology
C) No understanding of developmental biology
D) Has clearly not even a vague clue about sexual determination from animal models
Making stupid statements like:
"Homosexuality is an abnormal unnatural behaviour, fact" with nothing more than his own idiocy to back up the statement.
If he could prove that concept, he could go and collect his nobel prize now because he knows A LOT MORE than ANY OTHER PSYCHOLOGIST OR DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGIST.
I'm tired of seeing this same nonsense all the time and it needs to be called out for exactly what it is: Nothing more than complete nonsense.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92934' target='_blank'>COMRAD SKULK'S THREAD OF POWER THAT NO ONE CAN TOUCH BECAUSE HE'S RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG WHA HA AH HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa://COMRAD SKULK'S THREAD OF POWER ...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAa</a>
Personally, I've been <i>subtley</i> attracted to the same sex fairly often. Its more recognition and admiration than a real desire to have sex. I've been given the opportunity to explore it before with someone pretty damn attracitive, but in the end I just wasn't comfortable enough with the idea. The environment I've grown up in wasn't terribly hostile to homosexuals in general, but my sense is that that a lot of males in gradeschool and highschool are pretty consistently anti-**** everywhere. I would imagine that if I hadn't grown up with that around me, I probably would have tried it.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd believe it.
It'd serve two purposes; let the corpse hang in the gallows to scare off the lesser criminals, and preserve Cyndane's really realy long post about the Bible and homosexuality, which I didn't get a chance to read in full.
However, It has always been my understanding that animals only exhibit homosexual attributes/behaviours when the opposite sex of said animal isn't present; except in isolated instances. It is also my understanding that a few unexplainable isolated instances are "phenomenons" that science would consider unnatural and illogical and cannot explain.
Please, if I am wrong here - tell me. Because I very well could be. And if I am, I apologize in advance.
~ DarkATi
It is natural, and the exact cause of it is not known. Probably wont' be untill we can successfully decipher the human/animal brain. See previous posts for more explaination.
It is natural, and the exact cause of it is not known. Probably wont' be untill we can successfully decipher the human/animal brain. See previous posts for more explaination. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I stand corrected and I apologize again.
*goes to read up on this whole animal sex thing*
I shall re-join this discussion again only after I know what the crap I am talking about!!!
~ DarkATi
Just something to think about.
Bisexuality seems to be a phenomenon occuring in higher civilisations and generally high standards of living. It seems to be a byproduct of wealth. I take this from observing any culture that has reached a certain point of decadence.
The ancient greeks, the romans, the persians etc.... . Feudal Japan, absolutisitic France...
In all those societies, the wealthy people had developed bisexual tendencies.
I don't want to imply that all bisexuals are decadent!
I just think, that once we do not have to wory about our imediate survival, and can satisfy all our basic needs and most of out wishes, we tend to seek out new borders. Once we have experience everything in our immediate reach, we want to try new things. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Win.
Yeah I've always thought along the same lines. You'll often find that homosexuals are, in general, more liberal than others. There's a huge trend of sexual actvity in places where homosexuals have access to the 'one night stand' motif. A lot of them drink and (in London at least) a lot of them experiment with harder drugs and group sex.
This may have a lot to do with the fact that they are searching for an identity, looking for aspects of culture that they can call their own, and in this case it may be that the only way to develop an 'individual' group culture is to exaggerate pre-existing trends of group culture: drugtaking, drinking, fashion and sexual experimentation.
It's difficult to really analyse this either from the outside or the inside, because <i>outsiders</i> would have no first-hand experience and <i>insiders</i> are still in the process of reinventing themselves. In this day and age, very few people (if any?) are born g4y and so all homosexuals must go through this process of seeking out and establishing contact with the g4y community. It is during this time that they start to think, both actively and subconsciously about taking on a g4y persona.
Sometimes it disappoints me, because homosexuals (and definitely lesbians in their own way) have created a 'forced' image for their section of cultural society, even giving themselves stereotypes to live by. Yes, it could be said that stereotypes are almost a blueprint to model ourselves on once we've chosen a particular slice of society to ally ourselves to, but I can't help but think that this isn't really individualism at all, but simply conformism which is ignored because this new cultural genre is still in its development stage.
Bisexuality seems to be a phenomenon occuring in higher civilisations and generally high standards of living. It seems to be a byproduct of wealth. I take this from observing any culture that has reached a certain point of decadence.
The ancient greeks, the romans, the persians etc.... . Feudal Japan, absolutisitic France...
In all those societies, the wealthy people had developed bisexual tendencies.
I don't want to imply that all bisexuals are decadent!
I just think, that once we do not have to wory about our imediate survival, and can satisfy all our basic needs and most of out wishes, we tend to seek out new borders. Once we have experience everything in our immediate reach, we want to try new things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Win.
Yeah I've always thought along the same lines. You'll often find that homosexuals are, in general, more liberal than others. There's a huge trend of sexual actvity in places where homosexuals have access to the 'one night stand' motif. A lot of them drink and (in London at least) a lot of them experiment with harder drugs and group sex.
This may have a lot to do with the fact that they are searching for an identity, looking for aspects of culture that they can call their own, and in this case it may be that the only way to develop an 'individual' group culture is to exaggerate pre-existing trends of group culture: drugtaking, drinking, fashion and sexual experimentation.
It's difficult to really analyse this either from the outside or the inside, because <i>outsiders</i> would have no first-hand experience and <i>insiders</i> are still in the process of reinventing themselves. In this day and age, very few people (if any?) are born g4y and so all homosexuals must go through this process of seeking out and establishing contact with the g4y community. It is during this time that they start to think, both actively and subconsciously about taking on a g4y persona.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Up to this point you have completely ignored all of the articles on homosexuality that have been presented. You sir, lose at reading. Not to mention you have absolutely no factual infomation to back you up on this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Sometimes it disappoints me, because homosexuals (and definitely lesbians in their own way) have created a 'forced' image for their section of cultural society, even giving themselves stereotypes to live by. Yes, it could be said that stereotypes are almost a blueprint to model ourselves on once we've chosen a particular slice of society to ally ourselves to, but I can't help but think that this isn't really individualism at all, but simply conformism which is ignored because this new cultural genre is still in its development stage.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I somewhat stand by, however everyone who is different from someone else does the same thing when you get a group of people together. That is just part of life.
Some of the best examples, would be native americans, blacks, and even the whites (rednecks, conservatives.) It is how a majority of the people act within that culture.
Any "outsider" as you put it, is only going to make generalizations because the lack the knowledge to know better at the time.
There is a really easy way to break the stereotypes, its called learning about other people in different cultures. Really isn't that hard, you can; A) Go and visit the place you are curious about (My favorite thing to do) or B) Grab an objective source on the material National Geographic comes to mind first, and read about them. It really isn't so hard and other then first half of your post this actually has decent reasoning behind it.
I'll also guess that you haven't been to the places that really have g4y communities taking off.
FACT: I have an opinion
FACT: You'll find parts of it in that post I wrote
FACT: I never claimed that any of it was factual
FACT: It hasn't got enough of anything that could be described of as tangible for it to begin to qualify as fact.
This is a Discussions forum, not a Regurgitate Facts forum. While it is nice to add some fact to your opinions to back them up, there are times where people will just present opinion. You'll find if you read my post, certain phrases and words such as 'in general' (not: in all cases), 'most' (not: all), 'often' (not: always), 'may' (not: do); and these words hint at the fact that I don't claim to be an expert and I don't have all the facts. This is why I haven't quoted any facts, because the sort of 'facts' you're talking about are meaningless without quoting the author so that we can weigh up the validity of the statement.
I also disagree with you on 'breaking stereotypes'. You can never hope to break a stereotype, only to change a stereotype from one thing to another, or to invent new stereotypes. Stereotypes will always exist as long as there is a majority and a minority in a group.
As an example, you could say that a British stereotype is of someone who drinks tea to a rigorous schedule. We (the British) could try to show others that this is not true of all British, and we could even succeed. But then the stereotype would change to the football lout, or the cricket-lover. There will always be a 'majority group' to take on the title of stereotype.
This all comes down to the theory that humans like to group large quantities to make life easier for them. Each of us is from a 'country', a 'family' and a 'race' and stereotypes exist and have existed in all of these cases. Americans are..., Blacks are..., the Robinsons are...!
Arguments are better when they don't follow any sort of logic and are based merely on broad generalizations formed through severely sketchy anecdotes.
Most of my bi or homosexual friends tend to be more outgoing, more individual and more experimental than the 'average' because if they didn't have those personality traits then they wouldn't have come out in the first place. They might not have even come to accept their difference and lived in denial instead.
It is also fairly safe to say that if you are part of an 'underground' culture then you will have more access to similar cultures. In the same way that being part of the samaritans or similar will give you a higher chance of meeting and making friends with religious people.
I do also know a couple of people who do take on 'g ay' as part of their personality. They define themselves by it and it becomes a far more dominant than my being straight does on their behaviour. They have their own clubs, their own icons and rolemodels etc and that will naturally affect how they act. In the exact same way I see myself as a geek and would use that word if someone asked me to describe myself. The difference is that geekiness is just a hobby, your sexual preference is a massive part of your way of life (or at least it is at the moment, it really shouldn't be).
I would support this argument with the theory that we have certain animalistic traits in us that aren't as dormant as we'd like to believe. I think that in our past (and this becomes clearer when drawing a tangent to other animals' behaviour) both males and females were required to readily identify the stronger competitors in the field.
The females needed to recognise who was more attractive, or which other females were perceived to have the greater child-bearing ability, so that they knew how to 'hedge their bets' and go after the male which was the best balance between a strong set of genes and the most likely to 'get on board' so that she could have her next litter as soon as possible!
The males needed to weigh up the strength of their rivals so that if they did need to get into a fight over a girl, they would have a fair chance of winning.
I think this is true, to some extent, of both human sexes today. To go back to what <b>arealous</b> was saying in the previous post, I think the fact that the act of being 'attracted' to someone can have stronger and weaker perceptions depending on the situation, particularly when used in a question. The person who asks and the person who answers the question: "Do you find 'them' attractive" can mean both: "Being as objective as possible, are you able to dicern an above-average level of physical attractiveness in this person?" or "Are you physically attracted to this person?"
I believe that it is for this reason that we have had responses in this thread that sound dismissive. However it's equally possible that there are extreme minorities that truly are unable to measure attractiveness in persons of the same gender.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we are. As a matter of fact, most of what we judge as attractive is based off of what we are TOLD to see as a attractive, so if it is pounded into us enough that certain things are attractive for a certain gender, of COURSE we can tell.
A point to think about for those who aren't about to believe me. For a long time, plump women were considered attractive during periods of feudal reign. Because this was indicative of her being wealthy, well fed, and particularly well cared for.
Since when does that happen? i have always been under the assumption that it is nearly always the males that seek out the females and screw basically whichever set of female genitals is closest, since the object in their mind is to pass on the genes as much as possible, not just to the best candidate for offspring. At least, that's what I've always heard from nature shows.
Since when does that happen? i have always been under the assumption that it is nearly always the males that seek out the females and screw basically whichever set of female genitals is closest, since the object in their mind is to pass on the genes as much as possible, not just to the best candidate for offspring. At least, that's what I've always heard from nature shows. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Males are always ready to spead their genes, however in many cases it is the female who chooses which male to have sex with in the animal kingdom. Either the female is bigger, or she won't allow a male to have sex with her if she doesn't wish it.
---------------
The hebrew word YADA - translated "to know" has many uses. It is far more versatile than any word we have in the english language. It can mean many things and one of these many meanings is "to have sex with".
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and I come bearing examples, Cyndane.
Consider the following passages.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:17 - And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son,
Genesis 4:25 - And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Judges 11:37-40 - [37] And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my <b>virginity</b>, I and my fellows. [38] And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her <b>virginity</b> upon the mountains. [39] And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: <b>and she knew no man.</b> And it was a custom in Israel, [40] That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
[AUthor's Note: You be the judge. Did this girl simply not "know about" any men? Or is there a link between virginity and "knew no man"?]
Judges 19:25 - But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
This is hardly to say that YADA is the ONLY WORD which will be used in describing sexual relations but IT IS A WORD used in describing sexual relations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand this challenge.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>slept with</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>****ed</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
I admit that last one was rather crass but I fail to see how either of those did not fit.
Also, what then is God saying to Moses when he dictates Genesis 4:1? What is the point in saying that Adam "knew" Eve? Was he concerned that the readers might not understand that Adam was aware of Eve's existence? Surely not. Then what purpose would YADA serve here? It seems quite clear to me.
Substitute knew with anything else and an intelligent reader will understand what is happening based on context clues alone.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam shmorked Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Your argument doesn't hold up unless I am missing something here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what have you to say about this?
Genesis 38:9 - And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Context Clues - Homosexuality and Sodom
---------------------------------------
Firstly, I would like to say that you are accurate in your description of the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is certainly not the only sin of Sodom and is in my opinion a "secondary" sin to their sin of unrepentance; that being the primary sin.
[Author's Note: This is not to say that God judges sin partially - the Bible is clear that sin is sin to God; he judges impartially. see: James 2:10-11. I am simply stating that the main point of the story of Sodom and it's destruction is not to condemn homosexuality but other practices AS WELL AS homosexuality.]
Genesis 19:5-8 - [with commentary - in bold] [5] And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. <b>[Let's assume that these men just want to "know" the angels.]</b> [6] And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, [7] And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. <b>[Is getting to "know" someone wicked? It seems Lot knows what they intend to do, he lives in Sodom after all - he knows there game.]</b>[8] Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: <b>[What is good in there eyes? It seems intercourse is good in their eyes.]</b> only unto these men do nothing; <b>[Contexually it sounds like he's bargaining with them. As if to say - "don't throw these shoes up and over the telephone wires, my grandma bought them for me. Take these new Reeboks instead."]</b> for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. <b>[It appears Lot is protecting the angels from what the men are about to do. What are they about to do? ... "know" them, no doubt.]</b>
So, we have shown that YADA can mean sexual intercourse. Combine this knowledge with the contextual clues strewn about in Genesis 19:5-8 and it appears that they were... well, not homosexual (or Lot would not have offered his daughters) but bisexual. So, drawing this conclusion we say that God is against bisexuality; intercourse male to male, female to female. Does this mean that God is only against bisexuality? Or could it be fitting that he is against homosexuality as well?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, as we have seen, God judges sin impartially; see again - James 2:10-11. So homosexuality isn't the "worst of all sins" for sin itself is the worst of the worst in any form.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct. I don't hate homosexuals, they are my brothers and sisters in sin. I sin just as much as they do. I am filthy in God's eyes, as we all are.
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
I would never reject or hate or condemn anyone. It isn't my place. But it IS my place to uphold the Word of God and I will do so with bold speech.
I'll leave it then, at this.
As far as I can see - homosexuality and bisexuality are wrong. But I will leave this taboo issue up to the individual and God. Cyndane, if you have a wonderful walk with Jesus then who am I to judge or speak against or hinder you?
I would, however like to know when and how you came to realize you were homosexual - you can PM me if you don't feel like sharing in this thread (it might be a bit off-topic too, not sure.)
This concludes my "paper". Discuss if you'd like.
EDIT: I think it is fitting to include this.
Luke 10:25-28 - 25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
This is the way to eternal life, not through obedience of laws. But obedience comes through love.
John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we are. As a matter of fact, most of what we judge as attractive is based off of what we are TOLD to see as a attractive, so if it is pounded into us enough that certain things are attractive for a certain gender, of COURSE we can tell.
A point to think about for those who aren't about to believe me. For a long time, plump women were considered attractive during periods of feudal reign. Because this was indicative of her being wealthy, well fed, and particularly well cared for. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea of plump women being attractive goes back much further than the feudal reign. It stems from the situation whereby food was scarce and so a plump woman was a prosperous woman.
(I tell no lies when I say I was listening to the NOFX song about loving a fat chick simply because she's fat, the name escapes me, at the same time that I was writing this post)
This doesn't really tie in with your theory of being attracted to what we're told is attractive. I think the human psyche is extremely complex and this, combined with powerful events (traumatic or otherwise) in our lives can lead to us having a fetish for 'abnormal' situations (bestiality, necrophelia, et alii). This 'reactionary' attraction in many cases overwrites what is programmed into us and we fall from the 'norm'.
But what is the norm, what is universally attractive. It has been said that symettry plays a huge part in what we currently accept as beautiful, but even if you concede this point the norm is still terrifically subdivided.
Some people say that there are three types of (average, heterosexual) men, men who are attracted and pay more attention to a girl's breasts, legs or ****. Someone with a foot fetish is still fixated more on one part of the body, it's just not a part that we would accept as normal. <i>I think that for argument we should bear in mind sexual attractiveness through the desire to make physical contact with that area, as many could argue that almost all people naturally pay more atention to the face because it is the source of language, emotion and houses all the senses</i>.
Not really sure where I was going with that, so I can't really conclude <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
---------------
The hebrew word YADA - translated "to know" has many uses. It is far more versatile than any word we have in the english language. It can mean many things and one of these many meanings is "to have sex with".
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and I come bearing examples, Cyndane.
Consider the following passages.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:17 - And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son,
Genesis 4:25 - And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Judges 11:37-40 - [37] And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my <b>virginity</b>, I and my fellows. [38] And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her <b>virginity</b> upon the mountains. [39] And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: <b>and she knew no man.</b> And it was a custom in Israel, [40] That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
[AUthor's Note: You be the judge. Did this girl simply not "know about" any men? Or is there a link between virginity and "knew no man"?]
Judges 19:25 - But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
This is hardly to say that YADA is the ONLY WORD which will be used in describing sexual relations but IT IS A WORD used in describing sexual relations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand this challenge.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>slept with</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam <b>****ed</b> Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
I admit that last one was rather crass but I fail to see how either of those did not fit.
Also, what then is God saying to Moses when he dictates Genesis 4:1? What is the point in saying that Adam "knew" Eve? Was he concerned that the readers might not understand that Adam was aware of Eve's existence? Surely not. Then what purpose would YADA serve here? It seems quite clear to me.
Substitute knew with anything else and an intelligent reader will understand what is happening based on context clues alone.
Genesis 4:1 - And Adam shmorked Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Your argument doesn't hold up unless I am missing something here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what have you to say about this?
Genesis 38:9 - And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe... that was an interesting attempt DarkAti, and I do commend you for it. I shall now show you where your translations are wrong.
First off YADA in hewbrew, do you know how many definitions there are? No, well let me list them for you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
03045 yada` {yaw-dah'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 848; v
AV - know 645, known 105, knowledge 19, perceive 18, shew 17, tell 8,
wist 7, understand 7, certainly 7, acknowledge 6, acquaintance 6,
consider 6, declare 6, teach 5, misc 85; 947
1) to know
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to know
1a1a) to know, learn to know
1a1b) to perceive
1a1c) to perceive and see, find out and discern
1a1d) to discriminate, distinguish
1a1e) to know by experience
1a1f) to recognize, admit, acknowledge, confess
1a1g) to consider
1a2) to know, be acquainted with
1a3) to know (a person carnally)
1a4) to know how, be skilful in
1a5) to have knowledge, be wise
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
1b2) to make oneself known
1b3) to be perceived
1b4) to be instructed
1c) (Piel) to cause to know
1d) (Poal) to cause to know
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ask yourself these questions: When a person says the "yada" he is speaking a Hebrew word, in plain English what does that Hebrew word "yada" mean?
(Hint: 1a3 above and in early America misbehaving people were put in the stocks. A sign announced the crime. One often used sign read, "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge," which is the origin of a often used four letter word for 'knew'. 'Knew' as used in "and Adam knew his wife" and "yada, yada, yada".
Has the television 'programmed' many good people to unknowingly utter profanities?
Does God like profanities?
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Context Clues - Homosexuality and Sodom
---------------------------------------
Firstly, I would like to say that you are accurate in your description of the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is certainly not the only sin of Sodom and is in my opinion a "secondary" sin to their sin of unrepentance; that being the primary sin.
[Author's Note: This is not to say that God judges sin partially - the Bible is clear that sin is sin to God; he judges impartially. see: James 2:10-11. I am simply stating that the main point of the story of Sodom and it's destruction is not to condemn homosexuality but other practices AS WELL AS homosexuality.]
Genesis 19:5-8 - [with commentary - in bold] [5] And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. <b>[Let's assume that these men just want to "know" the angels.]</b> [6] And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, [7] And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. <b>[Is getting to "know" someone wicked? It seems Lot knows what they intend to do, he lives in Sodom after all - he knows there game.]</b>[8] Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: <b>[What is good in there eyes? It seems intercourse is good in their eyes.]</b> only unto these men do nothing; <b>[Contexually it sounds like he's bargaining with them. As if to say - "don't throw these shoes up and over the telephone wires, my grandma bought them for me. Take these new Reeboks instead."]</b> for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. <b>[It appears Lot is protecting the angels from what the men are about to do. What are they about to do? ... "know" them, no doubt.]</b>
So, we have shown that YADA can mean sexual intercourse. Combine this knowledge with the contextual clues strewn about in Genesis 19:5-8 and it appears that they were... well, not homosexual (or Lot would not have offered his daughters) but bisexual. So, drawing this conclusion we say that God is against bisexuality; intercourse male to male, female to female. Does this mean that God is only against bisexuality? Or could it be fitting that he is against homosexuality as well?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, as we have seen, God judges sin impartially; see again - James 2:10-11. So homosexuality isn't the "worst of all sins" for sin itself is the worst of the worst in any form.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many feel that Genesis 19 is unrelated to consensual same-sex behavior. It may be related to <b> homosexual rape which is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape. </b>
Well look at that, rape is bad.
<!--QuoteBegin-various ministers+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (various ministers)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
K. Stendahl: "It's a folk story. It even has a little black humor, in the fact that he [Lot] is so anxious to protect his guests that he's willing to sacrifice his daughters. To make a biblical ethics story out of it is not very wise."
D. Bartlett: "Many of the Bible's stories don't mean what they seem on their face. Many mainstream scholars say it [the Genesis passage] is about hospitality and how to deal with the messengers of God. If it does refer to homosexual behavior, it's homosexual rape. They don't just want to lie down with them voluntarily; they want to rape the angels."
R Kimelman: "In the Mideast then, once a man has entered into your home, your responsibility to his protection is your primary moral obligation, even if it's at the expense of your own daughters. The Bible is recording a story; it is not mandating behavior."
J.K. Nelson: "If you read it literally, in its English translation, without considering its context, one could say the Bible condemns homosexual activities. When we look at the Bible and try to draw moral rules for living, but we take it out of the context of the time when they were written, we do them a great injustice."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct. I don't hate homosexuals, they are my brothers and sisters in sin. I sin just as much as they do. I am filthy in God's eyes, as we all are.
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
I would never reject or hate or condemn anyone. It isn't my place. But it IS my place to uphold the Word of God and I will do so with bold speech.
I'll leave it then, at this.
As far as I can see - homosexuality and bisexuality are wrong. But I will leave this taboo issue up to the individual and God. Cyndane, if you have a wonderful walk with Jesus then who am I to judge or speak against or hinder you?
I would, however like to know when and how you came to realize you were homosexual - you can PM me if you don't feel like sharing in this thread (it might be a bit off-topic too, not sure.)
This concludes my "paper". Discuss if you'd like.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your paper as I have demostrated is based on lack of knowledge of the hebrew langauge. Not to mention the many other references I have in my prior post, you haven't dispelled anything really. The bible still does not mention anywhere in it that homosexuality is bad. Just so you know I'm not the only one...
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm' target='_blank'>Source 1</a>
<a href='http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm' target='_blank'>Source 2</a>
<a href='http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm' target='_blank'>Source 3</a>
<a href='http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html' target='_blank'>Source 4</a>
I think that should be enough for now, please note the last two are christian ministers and scholars. The first one can easily be labeled as non-bias, and the second might be, I did not read that far into it, but seem worth noting since it is an .org site and usually are fairly reliable.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
EDIT: I think it is fitting to include this.
Luke 10:25-28 - 25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
This is the way to eternal life, not through obedience of laws. But obedience comes through love.
John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No need for me to edit these in;
<!--QuoteBegin-BG 8:3+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BG 8:3)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Lord Krsna said: the supreme indestruible reality is declared the Ultimate Truth. Its external nature is the physical embodied self. Procreation and the desired developement in the material existence of the physical bodies of all living entities is delinated as fruitive actions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BG 3:4-5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BG 3:4-5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A person can never achieve freedom from reactions to activities without first performing prescribed Vedic duties; neither can perfection be attianed by renouncing them as well. One can not remain without engaging in activity for any time, even for a moment; certainly all living entities are helplessly compelled to action by the qualities edwowed by material nature.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone needs help with them, I would be more then happy to share the general idea. :-)
QUOTE (BG 8:3)
Lord Krsna said: the supreme indestruible reality is declared the Ultimate Truth. Its external nature is the physical embodied self. Procreation and the desired developement in the material existence of the physical bodies of all living entities is delinated as fruitive actions.
QUOTE (BG 3:4-5)
A person can never achieve freedom from reactions to activities without first performing prescribed Vedic duties; neither can perfection be attianed by renouncing them as well. One can not remain without engaging in activity for any time, even for a moment; certainly all living entities are helplessly compelled to action by the qualities edwowed by material nature.
If someone needs help with them, I would be more then happy to share the general idea. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Decide who you follow. Lord Krishna or Lord Jesus.
~ DarkATi
Crispy since you are fairly new I shall be nicer then normal. I shall assume you have basic working knowledge of the bible (aka what you were taught while you grew up.)
Now, just for the record, almost all of what you were taught is wrong. (reguarding how translations work)
First, the OT, in which was written Hebrew, dates to around 1700 BC, at the oldest (source, cabon dating the dead sea scrolls).
Second, the ancient hewbrew langauge is based off of linear-a, which means it has 30,000 words tops.
Third, many of those words, like the asian languages cover many different meanings.
Fourth, advocates for a particular faith will translate it as they see fit, especially if they deem it better for the translation of said faith.
Finally, there have been many studies, and if you had followed the bible thread not oh so long ago you would know that Strong's Lexicon is probably one of the better attempts at translating the bible, not perfect, but the its hard to be perfect when no one has 100% working knowledge of a language that died out almost 900 years before it was translated for the first time. That link below is a list of all the meanings that "yada" has been used in the bible. (Its a ministry site even. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<a href='http://archive.mayashastra.org/References/Lexicons/Hebrew/yada.html' target='_blank'>Lexicon proof</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
03045 yada` {yaw-dah'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 848; v
AV - know 645, known 105, knowledge 19, perceive 18, shew 17, tell 8,
wist 7, understand 7, certainly 7, acknowledge 6, acquaintance 6,
consider 6, declare 6, teach 5, misc 85; 947
1) to know
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to know
1a1a) to know, learn to know
1a1b) to perceive
1a1c) to perceive and see, find out and discern
1a1d) to discriminate, distinguish
1a1e) to know by experience
1a1f) to recognize, admit, acknowledge, confess
1a1g) to consider
1a2) to know, be acquainted with
1a3) to know (a person carnally)
1a4) to know how, be skilful in
1a5) to have knowledge, be wise
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
1b2) to make oneself known
1b3) to be perceived
1b4) to be instructed
1c) (Piel) to cause to know
1d) (Poal) to cause to know
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit*
I forgot to mention, the above translation is mine.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Decide who you follow. Lord Krishna or Lord Jesus.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@DarkAti Considering hinduism is more tolerant then christianity, thats an easy choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Setting aside the point of whether thats true or not, how exactly does it matter? If Krishna is God, then Jesus isn't. If Jesus is God, then Krishna isn't. Which one preached more tolerance ought to be insignificant compared to the question of which one is actually a deity.