Gay Cruises Draw Protest

[Uncle Remus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20...ca_gay_cruises

Quote:
Gay cruises draw protests in Caribbean By ELLSWORTH CARTER, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 10, 8:07 AM ET

ROSEAU, Dominica - Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit said Thursday he will meet with evangelicals in Dominica seeking restrictions on gay cruises, which have drawn some protests elsewhere in the Caribbean.

Dominica has no restrictions on the tours, but Skerrit told The Associated Press that he will meet soon with the Evangelical Association to outline the government's position on gay cruises stopping in the island.

"I will make a statement on the issue after my meeting with the members of the Evangelical Association," he said.

Bill Daniel, the group's president, said Skerrit had not contacted him to schedule a meeting — which the association had demanded.

"We want the government to ensure that gay tourists do not come to the island and conduct themselves in any immoral way," he said, adding that he did not want Dominica portrayed "as a gay tourist destination."

Dominica, a lush island of mountains and waterfalls that bills itself as the "Nature island of the Caribbean" and is where parts of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies were filmed, relies heavily on tourism revenue, as do many other countries in the region.

One of the poorest countries in the Caribbean, Dominica attracted 250,230 tourists over the first six months of the year — an increase of roughly 50,000 from the same period last year, according to the Trade Ministry.

Tourism officials have sought an increase in cruise calls to boost tourism to Dominica and they have tried to distance themselves from the evangelicals position.

"We don't have any problem with gay cruises coming to Dominica," said Francisco Esprit, a board member of the Dominica Taxi Association. "We see it as part of the business and we are yet to receive any negative comments from our members about gay tourism."

At least one gay cruise has stopped in Dominica.

No stops by gay cruises are scheduled to stop in the island through early next year, said Peter George, head of Shipping at H.H.V. Whitchurch and Co., the agent for cruise ships stopping in Dominica.

Despite their image as a sun-and-surf playground, many Caribbean islands remain socially conservative.

Protesters held a small demonstration against a gay cruise stopping in February in the Cayman Islands, which refused in 1998 to allow a gay cruise to dock. The British territory adopted a nondiscrimination policy in 2001 that bars it from blocking gay cruises.

A cruise ship carrying lesbians that docked in the Bahamas was met by protesters in 1998.

[dkostel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20...ca_gay_cruises

Quote:
Gay cruises draw protests in Caribbean By ELLSWORTH CARTER, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 10, 8:07 AM ET


"We want the government to ensure that gay tourists do not come to the island and conduct themselves in any immoral way,"


Yeah like when they judge people they don't even know based on who they love... wait, not that's not the gay tourists

Oh yeah, when they portray themselves as morally superior to people they know nothing about....wait, that's not them either

Oh forget it!

[LukenDC]

And these folks have the audacity to accuse gays and lesbians of wanting "special rights!"

[vascubaguy]

It's not just Dominica... lots of Carribean places are not gay-friendly. When I went to Jamaica with my family for my cousins wedding, we had to receive special permission from the hotel (Swept Away Negril) to book a room with only two guys (me and my brother) in a room. It was a lot of hassel at first, but they eventually said okay and made the reservation.

While we were there we went on a boat tour of the area and we went past the Hedenism resort... which the guide advised everyone was where the "gays and freaky people have to stay." Of course, me being me, I asked our guide how often he stayed there... He turned completely red and had no idea what to say.

Anyway, the restrictions there is one of the reasons I haven't tried to go back there (even though I loved it). I don't want to stay at Hedensim resort (well, maybe if all the folks that walked around totally nude were HOT)... of course it appeared to be the polar opposite of that based on what I saw on the beach when our boat went by.

Anyway, back to the Dominica cruise issue... when they get a few boats coming in and see how fabulous it makes the place... maybe they'll change. :teeth:

[Uncle Remus]

It's not just Dominica... lots of Carribean places are not gay-friendly. When I went to Jamaica with my family for my cousins wedding, we had to receive special permission from the hotel (Swept Away Negril) to book a room with only two guys (me and my brother) in a room. It was a lot of hassel at first, but they eventually said okay and made the reservation.

While we were there we went on a boat tour of the area and we went past the Hedenism resort... which the guide advised everyone was where the "gays and freaky people have to stay." Of course, me being me, I asked our guide how often he stayed there... He turned completely red and had no idea what to say.

Anyway, the restrictions there is one of the reasons I haven't tried to go back there (even though I loved it). I don't want to stay at Hedensim resort (well, maybe if all the folks that walked around totally nude were HOT)... of course it appeared to be the polar opposite of that based on what I saw on the beach when our boat went by.

Anyway, back to the Dominica cruise issue... when they get a few boats coming in and see how fabulous it makes the place... maybe they'll change. :teeth:
:scared1: Dang.

[Tony-NJ]

what amazes me is that there is what... one "gay" cruise out of how many hundreds...??? So by allowing the "one" gay cruise to dock would make Dominica a gay destination??? Give me a break.

[ConcKahuna]

They're afraid it's contagious, and a breakout of the gay virus on a small island could decimate the breeding stock.

[OrlandoMike]

Ever since watching that show on Rosie's cruise, I rarely even get off a ship on these islands. She got major protests even in Nassau! If I do get off the ship, I dont spend my cash.

[DVCajun]

Ever since watching that show on Rosie's cruise, I rarely even get off a ship on these islands. She got major protests even in Nassau! If I do get off the ship, I dont spend my cash.

I have a good friend from Nassau, and she says that the Bahamas are *seriously* anti-gay. Apparently one of the resorts there in Nassau hosts a gay weekend every year and the protests and picketing start a couple of weeks before and last a couple of weeks after it's over.

It's interesting, because the groups who are protesting are Christian, yet, they're not trying to teach people about Jesus, they're preaching about what they consider to be a sin! The thing is, so if they keep people from being gay, that saves them? Not. But obviously they don't care about that part of it. People can go to hell for all they care (literally) they just don't want them to sin in "that" way around them. :sad2:

FWIW, I'm a Christian and I don't consider homosexuality a sin. Cruelty and hate are, however.

[DVC~OKW~96]

Yep, I've too have been to some of the Caribbean Islands and Bahamas (and Bermuda).

I didn't spend my money, and I didn't always get off the ship. They are not very warm and fuzzy places to visit.

No problem. I'll keep my money and give it to gay friendly places.

St. Kitts, St. Vincent, Antigua, and Pine Island were the worst. St. Lucia was ok (and beautiful) as was Tortola. Bermuda was ok too, but boring...

:confused3

Meh. Who cares?

[Viki]

WIW, I'm a Christian and I don't consider homosexuality a sin. Cruelty and hate are, however.

Me too and AMEN!

[Uncle Remus]

Ever since watching that show on Rosie's cruise, I rarely even get off a ship on these islands. She got major protests even in Nassau! If I do get off the ship, I dont spend my cash.
That's me! You don't like me, you don't get my money!!
And if you do like me, well, Darlin'.... ;)

[Viki]

That's me! You don't like me, you don't get my money!!
And if you do like me, well, Darlin'.... ;)

You are such a flirt!!! :bitelip:

[Uncle Remus]

You are such a flirt!!! :bitelip:
And for you my friend, a midtown manhattan :teeth:

[DVC~OKW~96]

Flirt! Flirt! Uncle Remus is a Flirt! :bounce: :bounce:

Ahem. :blush:

[Uncle Remus]

Flirt! Flirt! Uncle Remus is a Flirt! :bounce: :bounce:

Ahem. :blush:
You want a drink too? ;)

[SusanMomOf2]

A Christian has a duty to denounce sin, AND a duty to teach about Jesus. I don't see the point in picketing, though. Deomostrations, IMO, are not the way to get through to people. God bless them for their attempts... and when the Bible talks about men having affections for men being wrong, how can one think it's right? PM me if someone can explain that to me. I'm a sinner, but I'm not proud of it, and I don't go around proclaiming it as in "I'm a liar" or "I'm an adultress" unless I'm confessing and repenting. How do homosexuals and Christians mix, exactly? Except for the Christians loving the homosexuals like Jesus loves all siners (which includes acceptance of the person but unaceptance of the sin, forgivness when repentance is in place). I'm really grounded in my faith, unashamedly, but if someone here would like to try to rebuke what I just said, let me know. I don't know everything there is to know, and I admit that.

[NewEnglandDisney]

what amazes me is that there is what... one "gay" cruise out of how many hundreds...??? So by allowing the "one" gay cruise to dock would make Dominica a gay destination??? Give me a break.

What amazes me is that these people don't seem to have important jobs, lives, or schooling if they have time to go protest for something so silly.

It's just like I was amazed that people in the middle east stopped work, school, etc. to protest cartoons that someone put in some newspaper halfway across the world...I guess boredom is rampant? LOL. I know I don't have time for such things.

NED

[NewEnglandDisney]

and when the Bible talks about men having affections for men being wrong, how can one think it's right?

Um, you just came into a gay forum and said that? Are you trying to pick a fight, or do you just like to cause trouble?

To answer your question, not everyone believes that the bible is a literal guidebook to life. It was written 100's of years after Jesus died, and has been rewritten and manipulated so many times by governments for their own ends that it is unrecognizable from it's original form.

Not everyone needs a book to tell them how to be a good person. Many people see the bible as a nice collection of stories, but that's it. Some people believe everything they are told, and others are fans of critical thinking. Yet others believe that focusing your whole life around a book is a crutch for not having to deal with the realities of life.

Some of us like to think independently. Those of us that do just marvel at the fact that someone gives a crap whom you fall in love with, as long as they are happy in their own lives. But unfortunately, ignorance comes in all colors. From your signature, I'm sure you've experienced that as well. Too bad it didn't teach you to be more tolerant of others.

NED

[SusanMomOf2]

I was specifically replying to the people who said that they're Christian but think it's ok. That's all. I just didn't see how we could think differently on the matter when it's either in the Bible or not.

[Viki]

I was specifically replying to the people who said that they're Christian but think it's ok. That's all. I just didn't see how we could think differently on the matter when it's either in the Bible or not.

Friend, I taught (a course on Biblical Images) until late last night and I'm off to take my daughter to the college she'll probably be attending next year, so I don't have the time to take with your question right now, but I promise I'll get to it before the end of the day.

I am, btw, a lesbian in a 20-year commited relationship and an ordained minister for the last 17 years, so they do mix, and I'll try to say how, but I can say upfront it's probably a losing battle for us to agree because I sense from your question that you have a fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic and that's the last thing in the world Jesus - or I - have.

Still, let's give it a go - later.

Peace

[OrlandoMike]

You can find all kinds of stuff in the Bible. For example.....

Leviticus 19

27 "'You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard.

It's all in how you interpret it and how you treat others while your here on this earth. So till later, I must go shave for work. God Bless and I hope you enjoy your much deserved vacation at Disney!

Mike

[SusanMomOf2]

The Old Testament Law was replaced by Jesus' new covenant, so the specifics in Leviticus are usually not applicable. But I did find 2 verses in the New Testament... Romans 1:26-27

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

What am I missing here? I don't think I've got it as wrong as some think I do. If we're seeing 2 different things in this passage, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. We won't know for sure until we die, right? We just all have our own faiths and beliefs. This is mine. I see why it's difficult for Christians to be united on the interpretations of the Scripture.

And yes, I have a fundamental view. I believe that the Bible from cover to cover is the inerrant word of God, inspired by God, written by men. But ultimately, and I do mean ultimately, it's about Jesus and believing in Him. I live in sin just like you, and you, and you. If we believe, then we are forgiven of whatever it is God judges as wrong.

[OrlandoMike]

The Old Testament Law was replaced by Jesus' new covenant, so the specifics in Leviticus are usually not applicable. .

I believe that the Bible from cover to cover is the inerrant word of God, inspired by God, written by men. .


What am I missing? Is Leviticus between the two covers? My point is, you cant pick and choose which passages you want to govern your life.

And yes we can agree to disagree. But I find it odd that you came over to a Gay and Lesbian chat board to start this conversation.

Well off to make some magic.........for EVERYONE!

[mom2rb]

They're afraid it's contagious, and a breakout of the gay virus on a small island could decimate the breeding stock.


You just made me spit out my coffee! :rotfl2:

[U2_rocks!]

The Caribbean islands are socially conservative and Christian for the most part, and that means that the majority of the population believes that homosexuality is a sin. Some are more vocal about it than others. Many frown upon it, but silently. Others feel strongly enough to protest. Some of the islands won't allow casino gambling either, because of the certain "element" that may be attracted to it. Some of the islands work very hard on their anti-money laundering regulations to keep out dirty money, for example. They pride themselves on "good, Christian values" (according to their definition) and don't want any corrupting influences. Many Caribbean people are slightly "old fashioned" - they aren't progressive in the way that city folk in developed countries are. They have old fasioned ideals and religious beliefs - think of a small, homogenous town in rural USA and you'll get the idea.

That's their culture, and you cannot change it overnight. There are groups within the Caribbean countries that are more progressive and accepting of newer ideas - but those people do not have the ability to change laws, or decide who is welcome from an official pov, because they are not "in charge". You have to remember too that the male homosexual act is actually illegal in many Caribbean countries - Barbados for sure.

If this makes you uncomfortable, then maybe the Caribbean isn't the best vacation place for you. Seriously. Because you cannot change the way they feel just like that. Caribbean culture has a long way to go before it will embrace homosexuality.

How do I know all of this? I live in the Caribbean. I guess I am part of a group that is more tolerant of people who aren't like myself, but I am certainly not part of the majority. I hope I haven't offended anyone - I just wanted to give a clearer picture of what things are really like there, and why homosexuality is a big deal to them. I cannot say that they are "wrong" - a little close-minded, perhaps, and definitely intolerant of other beliefs (that could corrupt their children), but their beliefs are their beliefs, and they are entitled to them.

[Viki]

OK, yes, the fact that Christians can at least agree on Jesus is a good thing. In fact, along those lines, let me say that there seems to a new movement brewing among many evangelicals. That is, a significant number of folk who share what we would usually term a literalist approach to scripture and a fundamentalist theology are beginning to come together and say publically that not all of them are as socially conservative as their more politcally active representatives might usually portray. More and more evangelicals are taking a "green" approach to environmental issues and beginning to ask very hard questions about lesbian/gay partnerships. I, for one, having been raised in just this branch of the Christian faith, view all of this with great interest and even a bit of hope that the Spirit might be, once again, doing something very new and potentially very powerful. :goodvibes

That said, some folk on this thread have raised the old hermeneutical issue of how we read scripture. As I hinted above, I have seldom found e-mail, message boards, or even chat rooms an effective forum for this sort of discussion. It is just too complex. Now, if I could get you in one of my classes, that's a whole different story. I haven't had a student yet who, when presented with the real goods on Jesus, God, and reading scripture, hasn't come around, though many have done just that dragging their minds and hearts every step of the way, because it's so different from what they've been taught.

Again, there's no way to really do this topic justice, but here are some first principles.

1. Jesus was not a fundamentalist or a literalist. If you track Jesus' interpretation of scripture at any point in the New Testament (see particularly the Sermon on the Mount, but also at any point when the religious authorities are trying to trap him with literalistic interpretations of Hebrew scripture), you will see that Jesus had an amazing - even scandolous - freedom with respect to how he interpreted and applied the sacred sayings that the Hebrew people had collected and preserved for thousands of years. Jesus never negated the texts, but he found ways to breathe new life into them, he found life in them. Wow.

2. The "Bible" is not one book. It is a collection of sacred texts that have been preserved by a wide variety of faith communities over thousands of years and the voices in those very different texts do, indeed, disagree with one another on matters of faith, early and often. In fact, the REAL glory of the Christian faith is not that we have a text that was "dictated" through us, but rather that the Church took the amazing DIVERSITY of these texts, collected them all together, and called them ALL sacred. Wow.

3. We all interpret sacred scripture through our own lenses. A funadamenlist hermeneutic is just that - an intellectual construct external to the text that acts as lens through which its adherents interpret all scripture. That is, fundamentalist theologians accept and teach certain prinicples and then use those principles, when they can find them in scripture, to self-authenticate their interpretation. They could, if they were inclined, find an equal or greater number of texts which disproved or at least challenged their reading frame.

4. The hermeneutic I find most consistently life giving is a Christocentric one. Luther, Paul, and many other theoolgians have used it to great effect and I've found the same. That is, I ask of all scripture: does it preach, communicate, and express Christ, crucified and risen? That is, does it free us from our fears, and set us free for new and abundant life. I ask this same question of even Hebrew scripture, as quesitonable as that might sound, because you can see by the way the question is framed that Christ doesn't really need to show up in the text. However, what the text needs to do is what Christ did: set us free.

5. Human freedom and Human responsibility (in light of that freedom) are the heart of a Christocentric faith. Everything else is a warping of the one, true faith. Unfortunately, there are more, these days, who are raised in the warped faith then in the true faith.

There is so much more that might be said, but now I have to run to the chiropracter. :)

[DVCajun]

Susan, I understand where you're coming from and asked that very same question at one point myself. I have been a follower of Jesus for only 4 years, but prior to that had a lot of exposure to the Bible and Christianity in general. Most people take the Bible at face value, that is, they read something and apply 21st century logic to it and leave it at that. They might even have a bumper sticker on their car that says something like, "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it." :sunny:

Viki and I have corresponded a bit on this subject and I know from experience that she has a razor sharp mind and quite frankly can "theologize" me into the dust. But I'm going to give my take on things here anyway -- and maybe I can help you understand just how Christian lesbians and gay men can justify their position (other than the blood of Jesus, of course).

You may or may not have heard of the word "hermeneutics." It means, "the science of interpretation," and practically that means that any portion of text (in this case, scripture) is to be interpreted considering certain guidelines such as context, what purpose the author wanted to achieve, who it was written for, etc. You applied a bit of hermeneutics when you said that the Old Testament was the old covenent and was replaced by the new covenant in Jesus. So we know that the Levitical law doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus fulfilled the law. How do we know that? Because we interpreted scripture with scripture -- we read the laws in Leviticus in context with the New Testament and therefore know that we are no longer under the law. The scriptures you quoted from Romans was written in a specific culture to a specific people. Romans 1:26 is probably referring to hetorosexual anal intercourse, or intercourse while menstrating, or any intercourse that would not lead to conception. Anyway, when we go back to the original language to look at New Testament scriptures which are typically listed to condemn homosexuality (because the King James hardly gets the point across clearly) we learn that there WAS no word for homosexual or homosexuality in Greek or Hebrew. The words that Bible interpreters interpreted as "homosexual" are: (1) "malakoi" which means "soft," or "male prostitute." We can't determine it's meaning through context because that particular word is only used in a list format; and (2) "arsenokoitai" which means something like "sexual predator or aggressor," or literally, "man with many beds."

I'm running out of time to finish this. As Viki said, this is a complex subject, and I'm sure that my meager efforts won't do much good here anyway. But to quickly conclude, Paul was addressing a new church, where Jews and Gentiles were mixing together, and their cultures were clashing. That's why we see some references to women keeping silent, etc. This wasn't a commandment, first of all, but rather an attempt to keep peace in a clash of cultures. Jewish women were being offended by their Greek sisters' behavior in church, and it was causing problems. Paul was instructing them to consider their brothers and sisters in their behavior in church. Likewise, the instructions about "homosexuality" (which wasn't actually the topic, as I indicated earlier) were addressing idol worship -- typically there were male prostitutes involved in the act of worshiping false gods -- it was a very sexual thing. I won't get into the nitty gritty -- but maybe I've caused you to at least see that there *might* be a question about how you've been interpreting scripture. Maybe you'll even go get a Greek dictionary and do some digging on your own. :)

Have a good one--

[Viki]

Susan, I understand where you're coming from and asked that very same question at one point myself. I have been a follower of Jesus for only 4 years, but prior to that had a lot of exposure to the Bible and Christianity in general. Most people take the Bible at face value, that is, they read something and apply 21st century logic to it and leave it at that. They might even have a bumper sticker on their car that says something like, "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it." :sunny:

Viki and I have corresponded a bit on this subject and I know from experience that she has a razor sharp mind and quite frankly can "theologize" me into the dust. But I'm going to give my take on things here anyway -- and maybe I can help you understand just how Christian lesbians and gay men can justify their position (other than the blood of Jesus, of course).

You may or may not have heard of the word "hermeneutics." It means, "the science of interpretation," and practically that means that any portion of text (in this case, scripture) is to be interpreted considering certain guidelines such as context, what purpose the author wanted to achieve, who it was written for, etc. You applied a bit of hermeneutics when you said that the Old Testament was the old covenent and was replaced by the new covenant in Jesus. So we know that the Levitical law doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus fulfilled the law. How do we know that? Because we interpreted scripture with scripture -- we read the laws in Leviticus in context with the New Testament and therefore know that we are no longer under the law. The scriptures you quoted from Romans was written in a specific culture to a specific people. Romans 1:26 is probably referring to hetorosexual anal intercourse, or intercourse while menstrating, or any intercourse that would not lead to conception. Anyway, when we go back to the original language to look at New Testament scriptures which are typically listed to condemn homosexuality (because the King James hardly gets the point across clearly) we learn that there WAS no word for homosexual or homosexuality in Greek or Hebrew. The words that Bible interpreters interpreted as "homosexual" are: (1) "malakoi" which means "soft," or "male prostitute." We can't determine it's meaning through context because that particular word is only used in a list format; and (2) "arsenokoitai" which means something like "sexual predator or aggressor," or literally, "man with many beds."

I'm running out of time to finish this. As Viki said, this is a complex subject, and I'm sure that my meager efforts won't do much good here anyway. But to quickly conclude, Paul was addressing a new church, where Jews and Gentiles were mixing together, and their cultures were clashing. That's why we see some references to women keeping silent, etc. This wasn't a commandment, first of all, but rather an attempt to keep peace in a clash of cultures. Jewish women were being offended by their Greek sisters' behavior in church, and it was causing problems. Paul was instructing them to consider their brothers and sisters in their behavior in church. Likewise, the instructions about "homosexuality" (which wasn't actually the topic, as I indicated earlier) were addressing idol worship -- typically there were male prostitutes involved in the act of worshiping false gods -- it was a very sexual thing. I won't get into the nitty gritty -- but maybe I've caused you to at least see that there *might* be a question about how you've been interpreting scripture. Maybe you'll even go get a Greek dictionary and do some digging on your own. :)

Have a good one--

Super!

I take a different route to get where you're going - and, yes, it's much more theological, but you just did a very nice job, giving anyone who cares to dig deeper more than enough "meat."

What I hope is clear from both of these approaches is that we are holding scripture in very high regard, contrary to the charge so often lobbed against those who disagree with literal interpretations of scripture.

[dkostel]

I saw an interesting program on the History Channel that said that the new testament, and it's gospels, where largely chosen by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon. They said that he was angry at the gnostics who used to debate his sermons after he gave them. He chose the four gospels to put an end to debate.
Among the gospels not chosen were the Gospel of Thomas, which spoke of Mary Magdalen as more than a follower and also of Jesus' brother, the Gnostic Gospel, and the Gospel of Mary.
As far as I can tell, the only "commandment" that Jesus gave even in the new testament that we have today is 'love one another as I have loved you' (and telling the apostles to go out & spread the word). I don't remember Jesus's love as being for heteros only - or for his followers only.

[hematite153]

Viki & DVCajun,

Thank you for so clearly presenting the basics of Christianity. I always appreciate reading calm responses to what feel like attacking sentiments. I know that for some they feel that their arguments are valid and simply expected. However, for those of us who have always experienced Christianity as a place of radical acceptance, non-judgment, social justice and social action, the critical, argumentative stance is difficult to deal with. I find that I always get stuck in my desire to respond out of my emotional response. Thank you for speaking on my behalf (and likely that of many others).

[chaoscent]

I am a straight woman with many gay friends. My philosphy has always been "do unto others" and "let those who are without sin cast the first stone". I don't lead a perfect life, but I try very hard not to hurt others. I consider myself an agnostic because of what I feel is the hypocrisy of organized religiion. Supposedly, It's not ok to step outside what a regious group dictates as the "right thing to do", but a minister with a large following who is leading a protest one day, can have an affair the next day, and that's ok. I believe the Bible (and I have read it 3 times) is a road map to help us lead better lives. I believe many things have been modified during the many translations. I wanted to thank Viki & DVCajun for doing such a great job in making some things clear to me. I will use some of these arguments when speaking with people who use the Bible to support their bigotry. Thank you and have a nice day, Penny