Help!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Saru

Thanks I'll check out the sites. However, I had already brought up that shrimp was an abomination, and she told me "grow up and stop looking for empty solutions." And on the animal thing she said "and don't tell me it's ok because a few demented animals do it."

To water but you can't make it drink.

When a person knows that we are looking for them for approval, they can get lots of mileage out of refusing it. It's a pretty twisted game, but there you have it. The trick is to not look for approval in the first place.

The whole idea of non-violence is having compassion for and loving those who act in very unloving ways. Not easy. And it's not magic. However, it does provide a means whereby two parties can treat each other as persons rather than objects.

It's the difference between approving of homosexuality and loving someone who is gay.

[Rick336]

Look at the situation scientifically. Your mother's brain has absorbed extremely flawed information from the church and society over her lifetime about homosexuality and she formed her beliefs long ago from this flawed information.

After a lifetime of these thoughts following certain neuron paths and strengthening synapse connections in her brain, it is extremely difficult for new thoughts, no matter how reasonable, to change those well established paths and connections formed from bad information.

I believe everyone needs to take responsibility for their own behavior, but in a sense, your mother's irrational beliefs are not really her fault. She is only communicating to you what her neuron connections tell her is reality.

Think about this. Almost every Christian brain on this planet has been programmed to believe that three wise men visited the baby Jesus in Bethlehem. And if you walked up to any one of them and challenge this number, almost all would vigorously defend it.

But in reality, nowhere in the Bible does it mention the number of wise men who visited baby Jesus. It could have been two or five or ten. Most people automatically assume it was three because the Bible says the wise men brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. But does the number of gifts automatically establish the number of men? What if two wise men brought gold, three brought frankincense and four brought myrrh. That's nine wise men who brought gifts. And what if some showed up without gifts?

Could it be that the number of wise men actually comes from the Christmas carol "We Three Kings" which is purely based on an assumption?

Our brains act like computers that are hard-wired to produce certain thoughts that may or may not be based on fact. Using evidence to rewire it requires a lot of patience, and understanding. It's not an easy task.

Your mother is no different.




A neuron synapse electrical impulse connection in the brain that
incorrectly hard wires information from the carol "We Three Kings"
as provable evidence of the number of wise men.


Rick

[stav]

Originally Posted by Saru

Thanks I'll check out the sites. However, I had already brought up that shrimp was an abomination, and she told me "grow up and stop looking for empty solutions." And on the animal thing she said "and don't tell me it's ok because a few demented animals do it."

oouch - when I imagine what it must have been like to have heard that, I want to grate my skin off with a cheese grater. It hurts. I can remember my mum throwing her fists in the air and screaming angrily (with a vein popping out the side of her neck) at god, asking Him why she was being punished. Took her 10 years to get her head around it.

But - whoever this person is who is being so mean, there's a big hole in her knowledge. In Leviticus, the translation is unclear from the Hebrew in the Septuagint version to the English. We think it may mean 'same sex contact in a woman's marital bed' implying adultery of the male-male kind, by a husband doing it with a guy at home. Have a look at the reasons for that (second quote below) and also some other stuff from another important Biblical excerpt.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...0&postcount=20

1Cor 6:9 has two words that, when translated into English, have been understood to be directed against homosexuality. The Greek the words, malakoi(s) and arsenokoitay, are problematic for different reasons, however.

malakos - is an adjective.
malakois appears in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and is the neuter/plural form of malakos. malakoi appears in 1Cor 6:9 and is the masculine/plural form of malakos. This is the full extent of the appearance of the malakos adjective in the New Testament.

It appears in ancient Greek texts and is understood to mean, variously, freshly plowed (when talking about land), luxurious (when talking about clothing) and is also used to mean temple idol slaves or servants (Homer and others).

The Latin Vulgate Bible, from the 5th century translated malakois (Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25) into mollibus, which means "luxurious" or "effeminate". It translated malakoi (1Cor 6:9) into idolis servientes, which means idol slaves or servants.

The King James version (1611), which relied heavily on the Vulgate, translated malakois to "soft" in Matt and Luke, as it was referring to clothing. But in 1Cor, evidently not being happy with "idol servants" they translated malakoi into "effeminate". It seems to many scholars that the Latin translators were closer in time and culture than the English translators, so they would have a better idea of meaning. None-the-less, the KJV translation has, of course, stuck ever since.

As far as arsenokoitay is concerned it appears twice in scripture and not at all in classic Greek literature. It is a compound word, not uncommon in Greek. 1 Cor 6:9 uses arsenokoitay and 1Tim 1:10 uses arsenokoitais. The words combined to make the first word are arsen (adjective neuter/singular), o (masculine definite article) and koitay (noun feminine/singular). The second word is the same, except that koitais is feminine/plural.

Now, the first thing is that the Greek language is gender specific. These words have feminine endings which means they refers to something female. The word parts are varied, however. arsen means “male”. o is the male definite article (the). koitey, the root of koitay and koitais, means “bed” or "place where koitus (coitus) occurs" - can we presume "female's bed", since it is feminine?

What was being communicated here? No-one is really sure. The KJV opted for “the abusers of themselves with mankind”. The NIV went with “homosexual offenders”. The NRSV went with “sodomites”.

The notion of "men in a bed together" is not literal at all, but shows the same bias as KJV, by assuming a lot of things that the Greek, or Latin, doesn't say.

But the Vulgate, translated 1000 years earlier, and closer to the original culture, than the KJV translated to adulteri, which means “adulterer” but in the female tense. You could argue that this doubles up on the earlier use of adulterer appearing in the same verse, but that one is male tense.

So which meaning do you want to use? It seems you have quite the range of choices, and biblical scholars can’t agree – can we?

I think, Sam, you show maturity in questioning the use of this passage.

On Leviticus.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...2&postcount=13

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Leviticus (transliterated from Hebrew)
18:22 v’et-zacar lo tishcab mish’c’bey ishar to’ebah he
20:13 v’iysh ashere yishcab et-zacar mish’c’bey ishar to’ebah asu sh’neyhem mot yumatu d'mehem bam

Of significance to me, especially if one is going to rely on the actual Hebrew wording is mish’c’bey ishar. The word mish’c’bey is a common plural construct form of the noun mishcav meaning ‘couches’ or ‘beds’. A construct noun denotes something that belongs to the next absolute noun (free-standing, more or less) and is usually translated using the preposition ‘of’. The word ishah (not ishshah) is a common feminine singular absolute noun meaning ‘a woman’, and would be the noun to which mish’c’vey refers. The two words together, then translate as ‘beds of a woman’ or 'a woman' beds'.

The Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate agree and both used the same phrasing, appropriate to the respective grammars of course, to translate these words.

The Greek translated this as coiteyn gunaykos. The word gunaykos is a genitive feminine singular common noun. The genitive case denotes ‘belonging to’ or ‘of’ in the much the same way as the Hebrew construct noun. The word coiteyn (bring to mind coitus) means variously bed, place of marital relationship, place of insemination – in short, place where marital coitus occurs. Therefore, the two words together, coiteyn gunaykos, mean simply ‘a bed of a woman’.

The Latin Vulgate translated this phrase as coitu femineo. Far from the Latin being definitive, interpreting the meaning of coitu and femineo is critical. Coitu can be either a supine verbal form, similar to an infinitive, or a noun. The presence of femineo, an adjective which generally qualifies a noun, is of immense importance. The use of an adjective requires the presence of a noun. The most likely understanding would be that the noun that femineo modifies is coitu, which would lead to the translation ‘a woman’s meeting place’ or, logically, ‘a woman’s bed’.

The other option, treating coitu as a supine verb, would give the meaning we later find in English translations, but would also be grammatically incorrect. The adjective femineo is left without a noun to modify. The rough translation of the two words together into, "to have sexual intercourse like a woman" is very flawed, and inconsistent with the Hebrew and Greek, which were unequivocal.

The entirety of an accurate translation of 18:22, therefore, is:
You will not lie down with a male on a woman’s beds; it is an abomination.
And 20:13 is:
A man who lies down with a male on a woman’s beds – they have committed (done) an abomination. Both of them shall be put (executed) to death; their blood is upon themselves.

What, then, is an abomination? Since in both Hebrew and Greek, "woman" and "wife" are synonymous, the proscription is about a man lying with a man on a wife's bed - bed being held in Leviticus 15 to be virtually sacrosanct. There is a pattern that "spoiling the bed" is one of the ways adultery is described. These are proscriptions, but the action being prohibited is not the male-male sex, but rather the male-male sex occuring on the bed of a wife - it is about the common theme of adultery of a man already in relationship with a woman.

[stav]

but, as the posters said upstream - if she still has her head in the sand about it after trying, best to take very good care of yourself and protect yourself from her. Some people don't get it and are lost in their own fears and prejudices. She may start to figure it out by your withdrawal from her life.

You might find solace by building into new worlds, trusting your own moral compass, heal the hurt, remember your worth, surround yourself with loving, kind people who value you and your intrinsic worth.

If there is any other materials you need, let us know.

cheers and kind regards
stav

[Saru]

Thank And yea, I realized by this email she sent me, how ignorant she is of the matter. And I pray for her, but only time will tell.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MattB...matters?page=1

She said "proof Homosexuality is an abomination"

Ok all that article does is yell out crap against gays, with no factual backing. I mean really? And in the end all it says is if she's gay, she'll more likely vote for more gay legislature.

[stav]

From the article

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors filed under "sexual immorality." Indeed, the majority of folks around the world – billions, actually – count this a timeless truth.

Does the Bible really say those things? I used to think so, and I used to think it was a black and white closed shop issue.

Honestly - if people were not caused to suffer from the contents of that article, I would find it rather funny. The writing style is embarrassingly poor. It makes generalisations and it does not scrutinise its own assumptions. It is at serious crossed purposes with the evidence-based world of science and best practice. The article makes errors of attribution about what science has and has not discovered. It is also internally inconsistent, with its own arguments.

Strangely ironic, that the abuse the article propagates againts minority groups is actually what Jesus spoke out against. The Spirit of Grace and of Love are patently not manifest in the work. It commits the Sin that led to Jesus overturning the table during the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the surrounding regions.

kind regards
stav

[bnmoore]

If we keep up with the news we can't fail to notice the behaviors of the governor and attorney general of VA. From what you've said it seems that your parents are aligned with that mentality. Virginia doesn't seem to be for lovers at the moment. (SoulForce in Lynchburg aside.)

[stav]

hey there bnmoore,

i'm from australia - and so don't know what's going on in your state - but seems that there's been some kind of retrograde, backward step?

cheers
stav

[bnmoore]

Individual states have slogans. Virginia's is "Virginia is for Lovers". Georgia's is "The Peach State". If you keep up with gay news in the U.S. Virginia's governor and attorney general have been removing what protections for LGBTQ people were already in place in the state government and in universities.

As for Georgia's evil, Bob Barr authored DOMA. He calls himself Libertarian now and claims to support equal rights. I'm just tempted to quote my favorite line from "As Good as it Gets" and say "Go sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here". Pepe Le Pew can dye his stripe black but he's still a skunk.

[stav]

Originally Posted by bnmoore

Individual states have slogans. Virginia's is "Virginia is for Lovers". Georgia's is "The Peach State". If you keep up with gay news in the U.S. Virginia's governor and attorney general have been removing what protections for LGBTQ people were already in place in the state government and in universities.

thanx bnmoore

sounds like retrograde conservatism. The pendulum. But in the overall cycle, where there will be a correction towards liberation and healing in time. Big picture.

we have a lot of regional and local news here in Oz. Some of your US States' news makes the international TV. But, mostly, it's the economic stuff that hits the screen.

As for Georgia's evil, Bob Barr authored DOMA. He calls himself Libertarian now and claims to support equal rights. I'm just tempted to quote my favorite line from "As Good as it Gets" and say "Go sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here". Pepe Le Pew can dye his stripe black but he's still a skunk.

he ha ha ha

You can't dress cat poo up in cellophane paper. The *bleep* still stinks after all.

nice to meet you -

cheers
stav

@all and @saru. I am going to post at that newspaper's site, where they invite people to join the debate. I'm not afraid of them....

cheers
stav

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by bnmoore

As for Georgia's evil, Bob Barr authored DOMA. He calls himself Libertarian now and claims to support equal rights. I'm just tempted to quote my favorite line from "As Good as it Gets" and say "Go sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here". Pepe Le Pew can dye his stripe black but he's still a skunk.

Carpetbagger is the first word that came to mind when I read that he calls himself a Libertarian now. You can paint a pole with red and white stripes. That doesn't make it a candy cane. OTOH he has been around Neal Boortz quite often. Has it changed his voting habits. That would be the proof of his libertarianism.

[Saru]

Yea my mom just went to support the ban on gay marriage, and the enforcement of anti-gay sex laws. (Technically in va it's illegal for gays to have sex) And yea, she's a pretty influential person in the community, and is trying to get a congressman into congress.

[stav]

http://townhall.com/columnists/MattB...matters?page=1

Is your mum a tv celeb?

In Australia, Rudd has interpreted the marriage legislation conservatively, where he could have been more liberal. Marriage remains the purview of a man and a woman at this time.

However - one can register a same-sex relationship in a civilly binding way. One now has equal rights - the civil legislation is/has been amended in a number of sectors. E.g. Social Security, Superannuation, Depedency Laws, and I could go on.

Importantly, we are strengthening our anti-discrimination laws. It's an exciting time here in Oz.

But - please come join me on that right-wing Town Hall website (see URL). I joined the debate at post 110.

I'm really enjoying it.

The conservative sector are quite slow to self-reflect and to scrutinise their own assumptions.

It's a psychological phenomenon. Their prejudice is really a function of unitegrated or disowned parts of themselves. You can caste it as a failure of self-acceptance, or as succumbing to a value system founded on fear.

Cheers
stav

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by sjackso

Hi, sorry but I agree with your mother, for that reason God create the Man and Woman to be loved and have children.

But he's a jealous god and he created a fiery torture chamber to punish them with eternal agony and suffering if they dare pray to another god.

Because god so loves the world.




Rick

[bnmoore]

Originally Posted by sjackso

Hi, sorry but I agree with your mother, for that reason God create the Man and Woman to be loved and have children.

We already have children and love for women. As well as love of God, Spirit, Universal Intelligence, Infinite Mind, or any other name for that in which we live and move and have our being.