Christian Lesbians are A-OK with God and Jesus!

[5stringJeff]

Okay, so they managed to control all the swords and be the only game in town for a few centuries. (There's a legacy to be proud of.) Nowadays the older factions, especially the Catholics, are losing followers left and right.

Not to mention that a number of Christian sects now claim that the whole resurrection part of the story was really just an allegory.

You show yourself to be quite ignorant of history. For the first 300 years of its existence, Christianity was outlawed. Despite this, and despite its leaders and followers being executed on a regular basis, it managed to spread all over the Roman Empire, and as far east as India.

And the Christian sects that deny the bodily resurrection are just that: sects. The resurrection is the lynchpin of the Christian faith; without it, Jesus is just another philosopher.

[5stringJeff]

The KJV and several other versions have that passage reading "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind". Effeminate appears to be used as a synonym for male prostitute, not lesbian.

Which still leaves Romans 1 as a clear condemnation of lesbianism.

[typomaniac]

You show yourself to be quite ignorant of history. For the first 300 years of its existence, Christianity was outlawed. ...

I didn't say "the FIRST few centuries," Jeffrey. I'm well aware of the history of the church, which in the Middle Ages was just as bad as the Taliban in a number of ways.

The Romans, ironically, were wise in some ways to outlaw these guys. Today, unfortunately, lions are an endangered species.

[5stringJeff]

I didn't say "the FIRST few centuries," Jeffrey. I'm well aware of the history of the church, which in the Middle Ages was just as bad as the Taliban in a number of ways.

While I'm sure there are any number of events you're thinking of, the major difference between Middle-Age Christianity and modern Islam is that violence is not supported in the BIble, while it is commanded in the Quran.

The Romans, ironically, were wise in some ways to outlaw these guys. Today, unfortunately, lions are an endangered species.

Wow. How tolerant of you. Are you sure this isn't Joe Stell posting under typomaniac's username?

[typomaniac]

While I'm sure there are any number of events you're thinking of, the major difference between Middle-Age Christianity and modern Islam is that violence is not supported in the BIble, while it is commanded in the Quran.

And yet the end result was exactly the same.

Wow. How tolerant of you. Are you sure this isn't Joe Stell posting under typomaniac's username?

When someone uses religion as a way to leverage temporal power for themselves, I'm not tolerant of them at all. Nor do I make any apologies for that.

[chum43]

people like to shoot ideas down by quoting the bible, the point is it's been retranslated a million times and is quite vague in some respects...

To me whether lesbianism was strictly forbidden by the bible is pointless... christianity in general has a strong history of frowning upon any non-reproductive sexual existence, that is the point. When you see it for what it is, a document promoting a way of life and not holy scripture, then it's easy to see why. I don't know for sure but at the time it was written I would guess lesbianism wasn't a huge problem that was out in the open, not like men with men and whores was anyway, thats why those two are mentioned and lesbianism not, it's the same reason dinosaurs weren't specifically mentioned, because they didn't have knowledge of their existence when they wrote it. It's a human written document with very little input from a higher power, whether inspired by god or not, if you can't see that you are a moron.

So basically it is irrelevant, not specifically being in the bible doesn't mean it's not sinning by default, the same reason killing a priest is a sin, the bible doesn't specifically mention it, but it's pretty consistent in the anti-killing field... All the same, people who are saying the bible specifically does mention lesbians are just dead wrong as well, as far as I know the only places in the bible you will find any homosexual references are within the translation of sodomy and the occasional reference to men turning to other men and as far as I can tell sodomy is any non-coital sex, regardless of sexual orientation, gay, straight, or lesbian. And the romans thing doesn't apply, it seems as though the "likewise" is referring to woman being whores going against nature by not having sex with just their husbands and reproductive partner and men going against nature by having sex with other men... but like I said, sodomy includes lesbian sex, sodomy is not exclusive to men on men or even woman on woman, it also includes masturbation and oral sex in biblical terms.

so the bible doesn't specifically forbid homosexuality, it forbids any sexual act that is not vaginal and between lifelong mates for the purpose of reproduction... I would personally love to know how many of those idiot christians protesting gays by ways of bible scripture have never masturbated or recieved a blow job... i would bet it's zero.

the real point is: the bible is reinturpreted over and over again to fit what is acceptable within society, because that's all it is, a vague guide for good healthy living and control, people who don't see it as that and see it as holy scripture are fooling themselves and are brainwashed into being unreasonable.