[CS-FSLUG] God Didn't Say That

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:48:23PM -0600, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> >The truth is: The Bible says the two cities were destroyed because of 
> >their
> >arrogance, refusing to show hospitality to weary, traveling strangers.
> 
> 	There arrogance had to do with failure to repent from their sins, at 
> least partially (which are appropriately named after them). Likewise, 
> consider what they wanted to do to the traveling strangers.

I wonder about Lot though.  He was every bit as bad as they were
(offering his daughters to the crowd!), but he was spared.  My only take
on it was that Abraham haggled with God, trying to save the cities for
the sake of his kinsman, and God answered the spirit of his prayer.

> 
> >bullet	The Bible never said that it's a sin for two people of the 
> >same sex to
> >love each other.
> >
> >The truth is: The Bible includes several examples of same-sex couples 
> >in
> >faithful committed relationships.
> 
> 	Platonic, brotherly love... that's different than what the author is 
> trying to suggest. Not to dismiss it. After all, Plato didn't argue 
> about the importance of this kind of love for nothing. :-)
> 
> >bullet	The Bible never said that Jesus Christ condemned 
> >homosexuality.
> >
> >The truth is: Jesus referred to three types of "eunuchs", among them 
> >those
> >"born eunuchs." Was he referring to homosexuals as "born eunuchs"?
> 
> 	Doubtful.
> 
> >bullet	The Bible never said that St. Paul (or any other disciple) 
> >condemned
> >homosexuality.
> 
> 	Incorrect. The word "homosexual" does not appear in the appropriate 
> verses in the NIV, IIRC, either... but its quite clear anyway.
> 
> >The truth is: The Greek New Testament does not contain the word for
> >"homosexual" at all. The English word "homosexual" didn't exist until 
> >the
> >19th century, so it doesn't appear in the King James version either.
> 
> 	The etiology of a particular word has no relevance to the issue... 
> especially since we are talking about something translated. There are 
> many words without 1:1 equivalents between Koine Greek and modern 
> English (or any language for that matter).
> 
> 	(There's a reason why Muslims are so insistent on reading the Qu'ran 
> in its original tongue... having modern Christians equipped with the 
> ability to do the same with the Bible would be immensely useful.)

Probably.  However, I wonder if maybe it isn't a good thing that the
Bible is in so many languages.  None of us can claim to speak a Holy
Tongue, and the division of languages was divine in origin, according to
the Bible.  Of course, I'm just being fanciful.

Aaron Lehmann

P.S. My Purdue account goes away in four days, do I need a password to
change the e-mail this gets sent to, or can I do it without one (having
forgot mine)?