What the Bible REALLY Says About Homosexuality

[Mercy Medical]

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TL;DR NATURE OF THIS POST AND APPRECIATE ANYONE WHO TAKES THE TIME TO READ IT

I realize there is a homosexuality/gay marriage thread already, but I wanted to bring up this topic specifically. I'm going to present some very compelling data and would like anyone on the boards who is Christian/Jewish/Catholic/whatever attempt to dispute it. I know that a very large portion of the country does not agree with homosexuality or gay marriage due to religious beliefs and what the Bible says about homosexuality, but I truly feel people are taking these passage grossly out of context. Essentially everything I am about to quote comes from Would Jesus Discriminate (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/) and the book "The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships."

In regards to two of the passages from Leviticus; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.”

“If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”

They seem pretty cut and dry in regards to what they say about homosexuality, but if you look at the context of Leviticus and the other passages it starts to present a completely different picture.

The text itself gives us a big clue as to the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did.

The term Canaanites refers to the group of nations who lived in the land into which the Israelites migrated when they left Egypt. It follows, therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behavior was common among the Canaanites and Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses were meant to prohibit.

Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god or goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex.

Consider one specific example. Historians tell us that many Canaanites and Egyptians worshipped a goddess of love and fertility called Astarte or Ishtar. Within her temples were special priests called assinu, who were deemed to have special powers. Physical contact with the assinu was believed to ward off evil and promote good luck. These priests were, in effect, living good luck charms, and worshipers would often ritually touch them as part of their worship practices. Sexual intercourse was considered especially effective for gaining the goddess’s favor, because the male worshiper was offering his greatest possession, semen (which was thought to be the essence of life), to the goddess through her priests. Depositing semen in the body of a priest of the goddess was believed to guarantee one’s immortality. Similar cultic sexual practices flourished in connection with many other ancient pagan deities.

This is what was going on in Canaan and Egypt at the time the Levitical rules were announced — homosexual temple prostitution.

So we have a situation that is not the loving, monogamous homosexual relationships as we have them today.

I'm sure anyone that knows how the Bible feels about same sex relationships knows the story of Sodom and Gomorrah so I will refrain from quoting any of that. However, here is a compelling argument that it was not in fact about same-sex relationships as we know them today.

The text of the story tells us that “the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man” (vs. 4) gathered at Lot’s door and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group at Lot’s door was comprised of either all the people of the city (men and women) or, at a minimum, all the males of the city, both boys and men. This is a telling fact.

Today, San Francisco has the reputation for being the “gayest” city in the world. Yet even in San Francisco, gay men constitute far less than half the total male population. If the Scripture text had told us that “certain men of Sodom” or even “many men of Sodom” gathered at the door, we might then surmise that the men at the door could have been motivated by homosexual desire. But the text says “both young and old, all the people to the last man” gathered at the door. To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual), and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.

This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story. We are told that Lot, in a last-ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the men at the door. Although Lot’s offer is reprehensible, it does yield another important interpretive clue. Suppose you were hosting a dinner party, when suddenly a group of men that you knew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would it make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead? Of course not! If the men were motivated by homosexual desire, offering them heterosexual sex instead would be nonsensical. Lot knew the men of Sodom much better than any of today’s fundamentalist preachers do. And it’s obvious he believed the crowd outside his door was predominantly heterosexual. Why else would he offer his daughters?

Consider an example from modern times. On August 9, 1997 in New York City, two white police officers were strip-searching a black Haitian immigrant named Abner Louima and grew angry with him. They dragged him into a bathroom and, while one officer held him down, the other repeatedly rammed a broken broom up Louima’s rectum. While they did this, the officers reportedly yelled things like, “We’re gonna teach you n****rs to respect police officers!” (See note 2.) In the aftermath of this terrible incident, nobody has suggested the assault was motivated by homosexual desire. Intuitively, we recognize the two officers were motivated by hatred and fear of people like Abner Louima. In their minds, there was no better way to demean and humiliate an “enemy” than to sexually violate him.

From archeological records, we know it was also a common practice in the Near East during ancient times for soldiers to use homosexual rape as a way of humiliating their enemies. When victorious soldiers wanted to break the spirit of their defeated enemies, they would “treat them like women” by raping them. The practice was not driven by sexual desire, but by brutality and hatred toward the enemy.

So clearly it would seem that this was more about humiliation then it was about homosexuality. Male on male rape is probably one of the most humiliating acts that can occur to a man. This is yet another example that is no where near the same-sex relationships as we see them today.

There are examples of loving same-sex relationship present in the Bible. There was no word for this sort of relationship at the time, so we do not know them as that. For example, Ruth and Naomi (I will assume those who are reading this know the gist of the story so I'll leave that out):

When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father’s household or a wife in their husband’s household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. The constant biblical command to “look after widows and orphans” stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father’s family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can’t offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she’ll only be a burden.

But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, “Ruth clung to [Naomi].” The Hebrew word for “clung” is “dabaq.” This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other.

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, “Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried,” she wasn’t talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn’t do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

The story of David and Jonathan also has a similar message. There are even passages indicating that Jesus said that people are born gay.

Some Christians confidently assert that God did not create homosexual people "that way." This is important because they realize if God did create gays "that way," rejecting them would be tantamount to rejecting God’s work in creation. In pressing their “creation order” argument, some Christians are fond of saying, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" To bolster their position, they often cite Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-5, where he responds to a question about whether divorce is permissible:

“Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ”

From these words, some Christians draw the conclusion that heterosexuality is the creation norm and, thus, heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate way for people to form romantic relationships. Ironically, Jesus’ own words in this very same passage refute these conclusions.

As the dialogue continues, Jesus’ disciples are disturbed by his strict teaching on divorce. The disciples say that if divorce is not a ready option, perhaps it would be best for a man not to marry a woman. Jesus responds:

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

Here Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.

As a reasonably informed person of his time, Jesus would have been aware of this common view of eunuchs. Yet he very matter-of-factly asserts that some people are simply born that way. The implication of his statement is profound — God created gay people the way they are! Jesus says so.

So how can any Christian honestly say that God does not approve of homosexuality where evidence from the very book they use to bash homosexuals says otherwise? Have you ever attempted to read and interpret the Bible yourself or did you just take what your parent/pastors/priests/etc said as absolute truth?

[Big_Guy]

Christians are dumb, I thought we've been over this already

[saysmydoctor]

:appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl: :appl:

[Mercy Medical]

Christians are dumb, I thought we've been over this already
Well, I don't necessarily believe that, but I would like to have an actual discussion with those that believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality when there's evidence that proves otherwise.

I'm not attempting to start a fight, I would honestly just like to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.

[bloodymurder]

Well, I don't necessarily believe that, but I would like to have an actual discussion with those that believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality when there's evidence that proves otherwise.

I'm not attempting to start a fight, I would honestly just like to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.

I applaud your enthusiasm... but good luck.

[Mercy Medical]

I applaud your enthusiasm... but good luck.
Well, it's AP.net so I'm not expecting much...especially since it's so long, but I had a boring lunch break.

[bloodymurder]

Well, it's AP.net so I'm not expecting much...especially since it's so long, but I had a boring lunch break.

Yeah, I think you may have intimidated anyone willing to participate with all of that logical and factual stuff up there.

[Mercy Medical]

Yeah, I think you may have intimidated anyone willing to participate with all of that logical and factual stuff up there.
Awwwwwwww shucks! lol

I just would like to see the potential argument against that from a Christian.

Sup, I just argued your Bible verses with more Bible verses. lol

[jusscali]

I don't believe a god damn word in the Bible, so I could give a fuck less about what they have to say about any matter. Interpretation or misinterpretation in this case means nothing to me. Gays should be able to be married because they are human beings and have the rights anyone else does. The End.

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

:rolleyes:

[Mercy Medical]

Okay, obviously this conversation wasn't meant for those who aren't Christian, don't believe in the Bible etc. I understand the whole blah, blah, blah the Bible is stupid, religious is stupid, treat people equally. I get that. But I'm looking for conversation from Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on Biblical passages.

I'm not really looking for anyone to come in here and denounce religion, etc.

[jusscali]

:rolleyes:

Did you see I bumped my Audition score up a notch lol

[bloodymurder]

Yeah, even if you don't believe that people who are gay should be able to marry, or even be together. I have real trouble understanding why their sexual orientation and lifestyle choice has any impact on my life, or the lives of the general public.

[jusscali]

Okay, obviously this conversation wasn't meant for those who aren't Christian, don't believe in the Bible etc. I understand the whole blah, blah, blah the Bible is stupid, religious is stupid, treat people equally. I get that. But I'm looking for conversation from Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on Biblical passages.

I'm not really looking for anyone to come in here and denounce religion, etc.

I apologize, I just can't take bigotry. I commend you on continually debating it with them, but to me half of their beliefs are crazy, and as crazy people, I see no rational way of breaking through to them.

[SpacePunk]

Christians are dumb, I thought we've been over this already

Worst AP.net post ever.

Although I'm sure you're playing to the gallery in here.

[bloodymurder]

I apologize, I just can't take bigotry. I commend you on continually debating it with them, but to me half of their beliefs are crazy, and as crazy people, I see no rational way of breaking through to them.

I kind of agree, I don't think every Christian or religious person is crazy, however, talking to crazy people can be rather entertaining sometimes. Perhaps even comical. But I don't think Mercy Medical is going to get the discussion she wants. Too bad.

[SpacePunk]

Okay, obviously this conversation wasn't meant for those who aren't Christian, don't believe in the Bible etc. I understand the whole blah, blah, blah the Bible is stupid, religious is stupid, treat people equally. I get that. But I'm looking for conversation from Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on Biblical passages.

I'm not really looking for anyone to come in here and denounce religion, etc.

I was brought up Christian.. and although I have moved on from accepting the authority of the Church, I actually think the Bible (even the Genesis story) has more truth to it than the secular "it's all a story/metaphor" ideas.

[SpacePunk]

I kind of agree, I don't think every Christian or religious person is crazy, however, talking to crazy people can be rather entertaining sometimes. Perhaps even comical. But I don't think Mercy Medical is going to get the discussion she wants. Too bad.

There are plenty of crazy people out there, religious and atheists.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao = atheists.

George W Bush is also a blatant atheist pretending to be a Southern Christian.

[Adeniz19]

i'm just going to play devil's advocate here, and say that your translation of the word "eunuch" is a bit figurative, which i don't know if it actually is intended to be. yes it's rare for men to be born without genitals, and i don't know if people actually castrated themselves in the name of god back in the day, but it is possible that jesus was talking in the most literal sense (and it's possible he wasn't either).

it's still a good argument seeing as how most christians interpret the bible far more loosely on various subjects to fit their agenda, also.

[Jason Tate]

There are plenty of crazy people out there, religious and atheists.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao = atheists.

George W Bush is also a blatant atheist pretending to be a Southern Christian.
Hitler was not an atheist. Read Mein Kampf.

[SpacePunk]

I apologize, I just can't take bigotry. I commend you on continually debating it with them, but to me half of their beliefs are crazy, and as crazy people, I see no rational way of breaking through to them.

You just called their beliefs crazy, irrational.

Everyone, even you, has their own beliefs. There are billions of religious people in the world that don't agree with you.

They may be bigoted, but everything you just said is bigoted.

[x togepi x]

meh i've started telling christians that the literal interpretation of the bible is merely creating a false idol and that obviously god created a world that's in flux, so bashing homosexuals because "the bible says so" is no better than worshipping a golden calf.

[SpacePunk]

Hitler was not an atheist. Read Mein Kampf.

"We do not want any other god than Germany itself"

I'll take your point though, but I think a lot of his Christian talk was simply to attack the Jews:

"By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

And It would have been a harder task to win over the masses by positioning himself as an atheist early on.

[Jason Tate]

meh i've started telling christians that the literal interpretation of the bible is merely creating a false idol and that obviously god created a world that's in flux, so bashing homosexuals because "the bible says so" is no better than worshipping a golden calf.
I like this.

[Jason Tate]

"We do not want any other god than Germany itself"

I'll take your point though, but I think a lot of his Christian talk was simply to attack the Jews:

"By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

And It would have been a harder task to win over the masses by positioning himself as an atheist early on.
Never said he was Christian, just that he was not atheist. Mein Kampf is full of references to a Creator.

[SpacePunk]

Never said he was Christian, just that he was not atheist. Mein Kampf is full of references to a Creator.

Sure, but early on he did talk a lot about his "Christanity".

1922 Munich address:

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!

"How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

[ExplodingStereo]

Well, I don't necessarily believe that, but I would like to have an actual discussion with those that believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality when there's evidence that proves otherwise.

I'm not attempting to start a fight, I would honestly just like to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.

Awesome. This issue's always an intriguing one to discuss and I'll try to throw my argument in as someone who's tried to leave Catholic beliefs behind when I started going to a Non-Denom church. I will always believe that homosexuality is part of the creation of God and is therefore right, but it's always troubled me that the Bible says words against this. One of your Bible quotes has been talked about greatly in regards to its meaning:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.”

There has been talk about this verse for ages, and many actually believe it's a mistranslation. Many translations also suggest it implies sleeping in another man's bed is wrong, which could mean adultery if it's sleeping in another man's bed with his wife.

I believe the whole issue is misunderstood and blown far out of proportion. It's great to question, but I will hold my belief on homosexuality regardless of what the church says.

[SpacePunk]

"Though shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination."

Leviticus is also a book from the Torah.

I think when people contradict the Bible they always take quotes from Old Testament and then compare them to quotes from the NT.

Jesus was lambasted by a lot of Jewish leaders for his new ideas, and I see the OT and NT as almost 2 different religions.

I think a lot of stuff in the New Testament is where it's at..

[alice+interiors]

Okay, I did read it all and it is interesting what you have put across.

Just wondering, what would you make of this passage? Taken from Romans 1:24-27, extracted from an Internet source.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

That's from the New International translation, there are alternate translations if you wish at the site I copied this from:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1:18-32

Not suggesting that you or wrong, nor am I particularly trying to prove you to be so, just curious as to what your interpretation of this would be.



Personally, as someone who attends church twice a week, I find the issue of homosexuality difficult to grasp. I know many homosexuals who are gracious and good people, and I struggle to find a reason to deny them similar rights. When I was younger, I did blindly accept the words of those at my church without investigating myself, and I don't have any assertive conclusion. I am very curious as to what you are writing here.

[samsara]

Ugh people just need to give this a rest.

[saysmydoctor]

meh i've started telling christians that the literal interpretation of the bible is merely creating a false idol and that obviously god created a world that's in flux, so bashing homosexuals because "the bible says so" is no better than worshipping a golden calf.
Totally agree with this.

[SpacePunk]

Leviticus is OT.

Romans is NT.

This is why I think Christians need to pick a side.. otherwise they believe 2 things at the same time.

[J.C.]

Stalin, Hitler, Mao = atheists.

lol @ Hitler an atheist

George W Bush is also a blatant atheist pretending to be a Southern Christian.

lol

Playing up one's faith doesn't constitute a lack of faith, regardless of how bad you and Republicans want to disown Bush.

[alice+interiors]

Leviticus is OT.

Romans is NT.

This is why I think Christians need to pick a side.. otherwise they believe 2 things at the same time.
I'm not sure this is very accurate. The New Testament refers to prophecies, amongst other things, in the Old Testament, hundreds of times. There are few contradictions between the two, and these are largely down to interpretation of certain texts.

[alice+interiors]

lol @ Hitler an atheist



lol

Playing up one's faith doesn't constitute a lack of faith, regardless of how bad you and Republicans want to disown Bush.
From the opposite side of that argument, it appears very much that atheists like to play up his 'faith' to suit their reasoning for the things he has done.

[J.C.]

From the opposite side of that argument, it appears very much that atheists like to play up his 'faith' to suit their reasoning for the things he has done.

Expound with some examples because I don't follow.

Keep in mind this was a man who said his favorite philosopher was Jesus and claimed God told him to invade Iraq.

[SpacePunk]

Playing up one's faith doesn't constitute a lack of faith, regardless of how bad you and Republicans want to disown Bush.

I say I was brought up a Christian and you assume I'm a Republican?

Really?

I'm not even American.

[SpacePunk]

Expound with some examples because I don't follow.

Keep in mind this was a man who said his favorite philosopher was Jesus and claimed God told him to invade Iraq.

Do you think Bush would have gotten the support early on to invade Iraq if he didn't play up to those crazies?

He's an ex-Yale, old-money New Englander posing as a fucking Southern Cowboy ffs!

[alice+interiors]

Expound with some examples because I don't follow.

Keep in mind this was a man who said his favorite philosopher was Jesus and claimed God told him to invade Iraq.
I just mean, it was quite clear that a lot of what Bush used his religion for was to gain voters and to find favour with the largely Christian population. But, what I pointed out, was that a lot of Democrats/those who dislike the Bush regime use this as an argument against Christianity. The war in Iraq is often referred to as a 'religious war' when clearly, it was far more money/oil/power-orientated than any influence God, or Christianity, had over it.

[J.C.]

I say I was brought up a Christian and you assume I'm a Republican?

Really?

I didn't call you a Republican. I said you were attempting to disown Bush from the religious community.

I'm not even American.

I don't really give a shit where you're from, slappy.

[SpacePunk]

I didn't call you a Republican. I said you were attempting to disown Bush from the religious community.


And as an impartial observer, I think it's clear he should be disowned from the religious community.

[live.]

First of all, I will never completely get the bible and its many interpretations. Some things are allowed to be read verbatim, and some are not, blah blah. If this truly is the "Word of God" then we should not be able to twist and turn it to make it say what we want. But I digress, because I am not a practicing Christian nor is this the present topic:

DISCLAIMER: I happen to be very tolerant of homosexuals and have many as friends. I am just trying to make objective conclusions based on the text at hand.

The first point of interest isn't what the Bible does say about homosexuality, but rather what it does not say. According to the Bible, God had a specific plan for sex.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." {27} So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. {28} God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


If God had the intention of allowing homosexual and heterosexual couples roam freely together, then why didn't he make it so reproduction could occur either way? Wouldn't he have mentioned that in his plan? There is further evidence later in Romans, that alludes to homosexuality as a forced punishment given from God.

"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

I guess it all comes down to you and your relationship with God/The Bible. That's just what I've come up with. Once again, I am at a religious crossroads in my life so I don't actually believe all of this stuff right now. But if you want to know what the Bible says about homosexuality, whether it should be taken as God's Word or not, that is pretty much what I think It's saying.

[live.]

Leviticus is OT.

Romans is NT.

This is why I think Christians need to pick a side.. otherwise they believe 2 things at the same time.

Christians are supposed to believe in both. Without the Old Testament, there would be no reason to follow Jesus. It was in the Old Testament where they were promised a messiah.

[J.C.]

I just mean, it was quite clear that a lot of what Bush used his religion for was to gain voters and to find favour with the largely Christian population.

Yes.

But, what I pointed out, was that a lot of Democrats/those who dislike the Bush regime use this as an argument against Christianity. The war in Iraq is often referred to as a 'religious war' when clearly, it was far more money/oil/power-orientated than any influence God, or Christianity, had over it.

It gets criticized on both fronts. When the President is claiming that God told him to invade a country and overthrow it's government, that constitutes, by definition, a Holy War. So why would Bush not get criticism for that? And why would Christians not get criticized for supporting the war on that belief? We criticize the radical muslims who use the same kind of justification in their 'war' on the west.

[Regards]

The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.

[batmannj]

while there are definitely some people on here who are intelligent and research what they are saying, I think having any sort of spiritual debate with a majority of people on this website is impossible. On BOTH sides of the argument there are bigots and ignorance, and I think that debating it doesn't do any good in this sort of forum.

[J.C.]

And as an impartial observer, I think it's clear he should be disowned from the religious community.

You aren't impartial. You deemed him an atheist for a reason. What was it?

[Adeniz19]

First of all, I will never completely get the bible and its many interpretations. Some things are allowed to be read verbatim, and some are not, blah blah. If this truly is the "Word of God" then we should not be able to twist and turn it to make it say what we want. But I digress, because I am not a practicing Christian nor is this the present topic:

DISCLAIMER: I happen to be very tolerant of homosexuals and have many as friends. I am just trying to make objective conclusions based on the text at hand.

The first point of interest isn't what the Bible does say about homosexuality, but rather what it does not say. According to the Bible, God had a specific plan for sex.




If God had the intention of allowing homosexual and heterosexual couples roam freely together, then why didn't he make it so reproduction could occur either way? Wouldn't he have mentioned that in his plan? There is further evidence later in Romans, that alludes to homosexuality as a forced punishment given from God.



I guess it all comes down to you and your relationship with God/The Bible. That's just what I've come up with. Once again, I am at a religious crossroads in my life so I don't actually believe all of this stuff right now. But if you want to know what the Bible says about homosexuality, whether it should be taken as God's Word or not, that is pretty much what I think It's saying.i don't think homosexuals are causing the world to depopulate. and quite frankly, if they did, we sure could use it right about now. haha

[Regards]

while there are definitely some people on here who are intelligent and research what they are saying, I think having any sort of spiritual debate with a majority of people on this website is impossible. On BOTH sides of the argument there are bigots and ignorance, and I think that debating it doesn't do any good in this sort of forum.
:nod:

[Adeniz19]

while there are definitely some people on here who are intelligent and research what they are saying, I think having any sort of spiritual debate with a majority of people on this website is impossible. On BOTH sides of the argument there are bigots and ignorance, and I think that debating it doesn't do any good in this sort of forum.
what forum would you suggest it be debated on?

[jusscali]

You just called their beliefs crazy, irrational.

Everyone, even you, has their own beliefs. There are billions of religious people in the world that don't agree with you.

They may be bigoted, but everything you just said is bigoted.

It may have been a bigoted statement, but I don't tell them what they can and can't do

[Mercy Medical]

Okay, I did read it all and it is interesting what you have put across.

Just wondering, what would you make of this passage? Taken from Romans 1:24-27, extracted from an Internet source.



That's from the New International translation, there are alternate translations if you wish at the site I copied this from:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1:18-32

Not suggesting that you or wrong, nor am I particularly trying to prove you to be so, just curious as to what your interpretation of this would be.



Personally, as someone who attends church twice a week, I find the issue of homosexuality difficult to grasp. I know many homosexuals who are gracious and good people, and I struggle to find a reason to deny them similar rights. When I was younger, I did blindly accept the words of those at my church without investigating myself, and I don't have any assertive conclusion. I am very curious as to what you are writing here.Well, the context of the passage seems to pertain specifically to idol worship and the type of things practiced during idol worship. We all know God was never a fan of idol worship to begin with. The fact that lust is used leads me to believe that it was merely a pleasure and sexual thing, more so then being about actual relationships...and once again we all know God's not down with strictly pleasurable, sexual relationships. My interpretation is that they stop following whatever their natural sexual orientation was and just decided to have sex with whoever in a search for pleasure and pleasure only.

I mean, if you want to argue that people are born gay, then that would be their "natural" sexual orientation wouldn't it and therefore being heterosexual would be unnatural for them and vice versa.

what forum would you suggest it be debated on?I've started posting on another forum, one that's more geek related and I've noticed that they are significantly more tolerant of other people's views...well, they at least don't go out of their way to demean the people they are talking with, which seems to be what occurs a lot of the time on AP. It becomes a "who can make who look stupider" contest instead of an actual, ope and intellectual debate...but I think that has to do with the fact that the members on the other forum are significantly older then the ones here.

[Mercy Medical]

It may have been a bigoted statement, but I don't tell them what they can and can't do
But that doesn't make it anymore wrong or right...

[jusscali]

But that doesn't make it anymore wrong or right...

Well me thinking that people following a bible directly is a little crazy is hardly a bigoted statement, I was just agreeing with him for the sake of it. Still, I'd much rather be able to do what I want and have people talk shit on me, than have them talk shit on me and not allow me to do things as well. There are always going to be bigots, I just want to make sure its not enough to hinder the rights of others.

[live.]

i don't think homosexuals are causing the world to depopulate. and quite frankly, if they did, we sure could use it right about now. haha

Hahah it's not even about that. It's just that according to this book, God wants us to use sex as a means of reproduction...but you obviously can't do that if you're on the same team.

[SouthernCross40]

Please don't flame me for this. I know that happens a lot on religious topics on this site, so I'm just asking an honest question.

I have a real problem with the first point that addresses Leviticus, where the author states that God was only referring to the types of homosexual acts that were occurring in Caanan and Egypt. To me, the passage is too simply stated to mean anything else.

For example, say the 10 Commandments were given to me by God today on a hill (I know the 10 Commandments aren't in Leviticus, I'm just making a point). God says to me "Thou shalt not commit murder." I say "OK" and then go shoot somebody in the face. My defense? "God was only talking about murder by suicide bombing, like what's going on in the Middle East right now."

Sure it may say that the rules are set to prevent a society like the Caananites or Egyptians, but I'm sure there were more "normal" homosexual acts going on in those regions at the time. So where do you draw the line about what God meant? To me, the language is too clear-cut and simple to mean "you can do this, but don't go THAT far with it."

[SpacePunk]

It may have been a bigoted statement, but I don't tell them what they can and can't do

I know plenty of Christians who don't go around telling people what to do..

Maybe there are some Christians who shout the odds, but for every Christian shoving religion down people's throats, there are people like Richard Dawkins shoving books and TV shows in our faces - angrily telling us "There is NO God".

[Mercy Medical]

Well me thinking that people following a bible directly is a little crazy is hardly a bigoted statement, I was just agreeing with him for the sake of it. Still, I'd much rather be able to do what I want and have people talk shit on me, than have them talk shit on me and not allow me to do things as well. There are always going to be bigots, I just want to make sure its not enough to hinder the rights of others.
It may not be bigoted per say, but it's ignorant and judgmental...which is no different then the "crazy" Christians who follow the Bible literally and are ignorant and judgmental of homosexuality.

[SouthernCross40]

I don't believe a god damn word in the Bible, so I could give a fuck less about what they have to say about any matter. Interpretation or misinterpretation in this case means nothing to me. Gays should be able to be married because they are human beings and have the rights anyone else does. The End.

Lol not trying to be a dick here, but what Christian took a crap on your ice cream sundae?

[jusscali]

I know plenty of Christians who don't go around telling people what to do..

Maybe there are some Christians who shout the odds, but for every Christian shoving religion down people's throats, there are people like Richard Dawkins shoving books and TV shows in our faces - angrily telling us "There is NO God".

Yeah I know I've read Dawkin's stuff. Either way, to say you don't believe in something that is inherently right and just, just because you're religious beliefs suggest otherwise is FUCKING RIDICULOUS to me. Hence, why I made the claim that by no fault of their own...they are crazy.

[J.C.]

I know plenty of Christians who don't go around telling people what to do..

Maybe there are some Christians who shout the odds, but for every Christian shoving religion down people's throats, there are people like Richard Dawkins shoving books and TV shows in our faces - angrily telling us "There is NO God".

If you think there's an equal number of outspoken atheists for every outspoken Christian, you either don't understand the phrase or you're not very good at math. I love it when Christians try and act like they're in the minority. You aren't a victim class.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you responded to your earlier posts I just quoted.

[jusscali]

It may not be bigoted per say, but it's ignorant and judgmental...which is no different then the "crazy" Christians who follow the Bible literally and are ignorant and judgmental of homosexuality.

So you refrain from passing judgement on those that deny your people the right to get married? You don't find their beliefs a tad out of bounds? No one is free from judgment and I hate feeling like I'm being attacked when I believe in everything you're fighting for hahah

[Adeniz19]

Hahah it's not even about that. It's just that according to this book, God wants us to use sex as a means of reproduction...but you obviously can't do that if you're on the same team.and you obviously can't do that if you use a condom, either.

[Mercy Medical]

Please don't flame me for this. I know that happens a lot on religious topics on this site, so I'm just asking an honest question.

I have a real problem with the first point that addresses Leviticus, where the author states that God was only referring to the types of homosexual acts that were occurring in Caanan and Egypt. To me, the passage is too simply stated to mean anything else.

For example, say the 10 Commandments were given to me by God today on a hill (I know the 10 Commandments aren't in Leviticus, I'm just making a point). God says to me "Thou shalt not commit murder." I say "OK" and then go shoot somebody in the face. My defense? "God was only talking about murder by suicide bombing, like what's going on in the Middle East right now."

Sure it may say that the rules are set to prevent a society like the Caananites or Egyptians, but I'm sure there were more "normal" homosexual acts going on in those regions at the time. So where do you draw the line about what God meant? To me, the language is too clear-cut and simple to mean "you can do this, but don't go THAT far with it." Yea, but was that the context of the 10 commandments? (I don't know because I honestly haven't read the Bible enough to know those details off the top of my head)

And wasn't it stated in the NT that the OT is basically thrown out (once again, poor Biblical knowledge).

[jusscali]

Lol not trying to be a dick here, but what Christian took a crap on your ice cream sundae?

I was raised and confirmed catholic. My family is devout. No one shit on anything of mind. I picked up the Bible and read it for myself. I took theology and philosophy courses that dissected passages. I loathe a lot of the ideas that are in that book - in this particular case, homosexuality and the right for them to be married.

[Mercy Medical]

So you refrain from passing judgement on those that deny your people the right to get married? You don't find their beliefs a tad out of bounds? No one is free from judgment and I hate feeling like I'm being attacked when I believe in everything you're fighting for hahah
I'm not meaning to attack you, I just hate the viewpoint of Christians on this board by some people that they're all crazy! Yes, there are a some Christians who are a bit off their rocker, but I suppose being a Christian myself I sort of least understand why they feel the way they do. I don't agree with it and I think it's wrong that they're trying to prevent people from equal rights because of those beliefs, but I at least have an understanding of where they are coming from.

[jusscali]

and you obviously can't do that if you use a condom, either.

Word.

[jusscali]

I'm not meaning to attack you, I just hate the viewpoint of Christians on this board by some people that they're all crazy! Yes, there are a some Christians who are a bit off their rocker, but I suppose being a Christian myself I sort of least understand why they feel the way they do. I don't agree with it and I think it's wrong that they're trying to prevent people from equal rights because of those beliefs, but I at least have an understanding of where they are coming from.

Cool. I sort of understand as well cause I was raised that way. After I got a little more into it though, things changed.

[Mercy Medical]

If God had the intention of allowing homosexual and heterosexual couples roam freely together, then why didn't he make it so reproduction could occur either way? Wouldn't he have mentioned that in his plan? There is further evidence later in Romans, that alludes to homosexuality as a forced punishment given from God. That poses a very interesting question and confusing one to answer (at least for me).

I mean, I suppose if God made us all capable of reproducing together we wouldn't be men and women, we'd be some sort of asexual being...I suppose that's one thing that we have in common with a lot of other animals/organisms on this planet, the fact that a lot of them need a sperm and an egg to reproduce (granted there are things out there that don't). I mean, what would be the point of having a man and a women if we could all reproduce with each other?

[Big_Guy]

Worst AP.net post ever.

Although I'm sure you're playing to the gallery in here.

yeah, I was joking mostly.

but believing in Bigfoot and hating homos is pretty dumb.

so, joking..........mostly...

[Mercy Medical]

If you think there's an equal number of outspoken atheists for every outspoken Christian, you either don't understand the phrase or you're not very good at math. I love it when Christians try and act like they're in the minority. You aren't a victim class.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you responded to your earlier posts I just quoted.
I hate how a lot of non-believers think that just because they may be out numbered by outspoken Christians in this world and may be the "victim" in the situation that they therefore have the right to be assholes to believers, regardless if said believers have ever been offensive to them or not.

I'm sorry, but as a non-judgmental, coexisting type of Christian I get severely offended by that shit especially when I go out of my way to not judge people who have different belief sets then me and live life by a live and let live attitude.

I realize non of your statements were made by me, but I really get tired of non-believers playing the "victim" card to any believer that comes by. Yes, non-believers are often treated like shit by believers, but that doesn't instantly mean that every believer is part of that judgmental movement.

[SpacePunk]

If you think there's an equal number of outspoken atheists for every outspoken Christian, you either don't understand the phrase or you're not very good at math. I love it when Christians try and act like they're in the minority. You aren't a victim class.



I said I was brought up a Christian, that's all.

Yes, Christians are in the majority, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't know ANY outspoken Christians going around telling people what to do.

I just said there are plenty of atheists and Christians who will shout the odds.

[J.C.]

I hate how a lot of non-believers think that just because they may be out numbered by outspoken Christians in this world and may be the "victim" in the situation that they therefore have the right to be assholes to believers, regardless if said believers have ever been offensive to them or not.

I'm sorry, but as a non-judgmental, coexisting type of Christian I get severely offended by that shit especially when I go out of my way to not judge people who have different belief sets then me and live life by a live and let live attitude.

I realize non of your statements were made by me, but I really get tired of non-believers playing the "victim" card to any believer that comes by. Yes, non-believers are often treated like shit by believers, but that doesn't instantly mean that every believer is part of that judgmental movement.

I don't have a problem with anything you just said, which is why I'm not sure what/who it was directed at.

[splitsecond]

I generally do not take a position on whether homosexuality is valid, real, a behavior, genetic etc. because I have no idea what homosexuals feel in their attraction and bond with their chosen mates. I know how I feel about women - and that is all I can be sure of.

That being said, the Old Testament gives so many examples of activities that were condemned, and almost ALL of them were in context of a group of people engaging in activities that separated them from their relationship with God, and caused direct injury to themselves and/or others. We very conveniently pick and choose which rules we think still apply. Most of us eat pork and cut out hair now right? Those things were spoken of exactly the same way as homosexuality in the old testament.

When you read the Old Testament in context with the New Testament's message of love, forgiveness and living in a Christ-like manner, it seems to me that the underlying message between this is this: love god, love yourself, love fellow humans, love creation, and first and foremost live a life that glorifies god, and do not engage in a lifestyle that separates you from God.

Now the question then becomes - does homosexuality separate you from God? I believe the answer is "not necessarily."

[SpacePunk]

and you obviously can't do that if you use a condom, either.

Yes, but the Catholic Church doesn't like those.

[Mercy Medical]

I don't have a problem with anything you just said, which is why I'm not sure what/who it was directed at in particular.
Apparently you did not read the last statement in my post.

[Mercy Medical]

I generally do not take a position on whether homosexuality is valid, real, a behavior, genetic etc. because I have no idea what homosexuals feel in their attraction and bond with their chosen mates. I know how I feel about women - and that is all I can be sure of.

That being said, the Old Testament gives so many examples of activities that were condemned, and almost ALL of them were in context of a group of people engaging in activities that separated them from their relationship with God, and caused direct injury to themselves and/or others. We very conveniently pick and choose which rules we think still apply. Most of us eat pork and cut out hair now right? Those things were spoken of exactly the same way as homosexuality in the old testament.

When you read the Old Testament in context with the New Testament's message of love, forgiveness and living in a Christ-like manner, it seems to me that the underlying message between this is this: love god, love yourself, love fellow humans, love creation, and first and foremost live a life that glorifies god, and do not engage in a lifestyle that separates you from God.

Now the question then becomes - does homosexuality separate you from God? I believe the answer is "not necessarily."
I'm intrigued to know what the "necessarily" aspect of that last statement means (do not read this in a condescending tone, I'm honestly just curious).

[splitsecond]

Yes, but the Catholic Church doesn't like those.

Most of the rules and views of the Catholic church that differ from those of mainline protestants were created as a mean to control the people and their wealth in medieval times, and were not necessarily proper interpretations of the Bible. But that is probably a debate for an entirely different thread.

[Adeniz19]

Yes, but the Catholic Church doesn't like those.it doesn't matter. my point is, every single human being has sex without the purpose of reproducing everytime they do it, and it shouldn't be used as a reason to try to deny someone basic rights.

[SpacePunk]

Most of the rules and views of the Catholic church that differ from those of mainline protestants were created as a mean to control the people and their wealth in medieval times, and were not necessarily proper interpretations of the Bible. But that is probably a debate for an entirely different thread.

I agree with that, I don't accept the authority of the Church.

When Jesus spoke about going to your room to pray, and called the people praying in public hypocrites, this is where I started to question the Church.

[J.C.]

Apparently you did not read the last statement in my post.

I think I misread it. I thought you were saying I had played the victim card about atheists. The post of mine you quoted wasn't referencing all Christians, just any that acts in the manner I alluded to.

[splitsecond]

I'm intrigued to know what the "necessarily" aspect of that last statement means (do not read this in a condescending tone, I'm honestly just curious).

If you have strong faith and a personal relationship with God, you know exactly what it means. I have been in relationships that certainly separated me from God, both intimate and friendly. I think that if homosexuality is in fact parallel to heterosexuality (which honestly is something I can't decide as a straight person, but I think that is very possible) this shouldn't be any different for you than it is for me.

[Mercy Medical]

I think I misread it. I thought you were saying I had played the victim card about atheists. The post of mine you quoted wasn't referencing all Christians, just any that acts in the manner I alluded to.
It's still playing the victim card though and I just get tired of that...mostly because I don't think anyone should be playing the victim in this scenario and that everyone should be respectful of other people's beliefs as long as they don't infringe on each others...but then again, that is a perfect world scenario, I guess.

[SpacePunk]

it doesn't matter. my point is, every single human being has sex without the purpose of reproducing everytime they do it, and it shouldn't be used as a reason to try to deny someone basic rights.

If you mean rights to marriage etc, I would say that anthropologically-speaking, all concepts of marriage in early human societies were unions between men and women.. (nothing to do with Church).

Therefore the instiution of marriage was born out of the male/female union.

But it's not for me to say whether the institution should "get with the times" or not.

[Mercy Medical]

If you have strong faith and a personal relationship with God, you know exactly what it means. I have been in relationships that certainly separated me from God, both intimate and friendly. I think that if homosexuality is in fact parallel to heterosexuality (which honestly is something I can't decide as a straight person, but I think that is very possible) this shouldn't be any different for you than it is for me.
Ah, I see...but then where comes the whole "no no on sex before marriage" aspect? Haha

[splitsecond]

Ah, I see...but then where comes the whole "no no on sex before marriage" aspect? Haha

I will be honest, I even question that. A big part of why it was such a big deal for people to not have sex before marriage was because in the patriarchial societies, men would just leave women to fend for themselves. The question you could derive from that is, is the sex you are engaging in prior to marriage harming you, harming others, or again, separating you from God and your relaitonship with him? Obviously sleeping around is a problem even under this scenario. On top of that, people did not date in biblical times. People did not wait 1, 2, 3, 4 or more years before marrying someone. However, given the way our society is now, it is often necessary for us to wait that long to make that commitment or even to determine if the person we are with is the right partner for us. Sometimes we know right away, and can't get married right away for whatever reason. Do we have to continue to follow a strict "no sex" rule in this context? Honestly this is something I have thought about, prayed about and worked out, and I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong, but I think in a truly committed relationship, having sex responsibly and safely outside of marriage is OK.

[Mercy Medical]

I will be honest, I even question that. A big part of why it was such a big deal for people to not have sex before marriage was because in the patriarchial societies, men would just leave women to fend for themselves. The question you could derive from that is, is the sex you are engaging in prior to marriage harming you, harming others, or again, separating you from God and your relaitonship with him? Obviously sleeping around is a problem even under this scenario. On top of that, people did not date in biblical times. People did not wait 1, 2, 3, 4 or more years before marrying someone. However, given the way our society is now, it is often necessary for us to wait that long to make that commitment or even to determine if the person we are with is the right partner for us. Sometimes we know right away, and can't get married right away for whatever reason. Do we have to continue to follow a strict "no sex" rule in this context? Honestly this is something I have thought about, prayed about and worked out, and I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong, but I think in a truly committed relationship, having sex responsibly and safely outside of marriage is OK.
Huh, that's an interesting point. I've never really thought about it that way.

[Adeniz19]

If you mean rights to marriage etc, I would say that anthropologically-speaking, all concepts of marriage in early human societies were unions between men and women.. (nothing to do with Church).

Therefore the instiution of marriage was born out of the male/female union.

But it's not for me to say whether the institution should "get with the times" or not.yes, but most debates today about whether gay people should be married, or not, is a biblical one. i'm sure the institution of marriage would of been changed by now if it weren't for the religious right.

[splitsecond]

Huh, that's an interesting point. I've never really thought about it that way.

I would never ever teach this viewpoint to church youth though, because I do not think high school kids have the maturity level or capability of actually engaging in sex responsibly. I am certainly glad I was taught abstinence and then thought this all out on my own as I got older.

I also think if I ever told my mother I feel this way, she would say I was justifying bad behavior. Although, I am pretty sure she agrees with me on my view on homosexuality.

[batmannj]

what forum would you suggest it be debated on?
A place were people meet in real life and discuss things civilly. The problem with discussing anything like this over the internet is that people will get angry and say some truly awful things. I have tried to talk to be people about my faith in Jesus Christ on these boards, only to be met by Cynics and "free thinkers" who trash me at every chance that they get. I also see "christians" who will belittle, argue, and basically treat people who don't agree with them like trash. I don't have a problem discussing it, I just think that this is a subject where people come in with biases and do not check them at the door.

[BryterJonah]

Doesn't matter because the Bible's just another book.

[splitsecond]

Doesn't matter because the Bible's just another book.

up teh punx!

[BryterJonah]

certainly.

[SlappedActor]

Just from a debater's point of view, that "Ruth and Naomi as lesbians" argument is so tenuous it's not even funny.

I support same-sex marriage completely. I'm just saying it's an unbelievably shaky argument. Almost pure conjecture, and I hate it when I see that on either side of the debate.

Carry on.

[Mercy Medical]

Just from a debater's point of view, that "Ruth and Naomi as lesbians" argument is so tenuous it's not even funny.

I support same-sex marriage completely. I'm just saying it's an unbelievably shaky argument. Almost pure conjecture, and I hate it when I see that on either side of the debate.

Carry on.
Why do you say that (in regards to the Ruth/Naomi argument)?

[live.]

and you obviously can't do that if you use a condom, either.

Obviously, and if that was the case at hand then I would have probably used the same argument as this one. Luckily, I don't base my lifestyle on these old texts.

[live.]

That poses a very interesting question and confusing one to answer (at least for me).

I mean, I suppose if God made us all capable of reproducing together we wouldn't be men and women, we'd be some sort of asexual being...I suppose that's one thing that we have in common with a lot of other animals/organisms on this planet, the fact that a lot of them need a sperm and an egg to reproduce (granted there are things out there that don't). I mean, what would be the point of having a man and a women if we could all reproduce with each other?

There would be no point. Woman was made as a counterpart to man:

" But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:20-22)

This is why I can't stand the Bible, because if you strictly look at the text, then you can make the assumption that homosexuality is just as bad as using a condom during heterosexual relations. They both blatantly stray from God's plan.

Basically, if we're always trying so hard to look for justifications for our lifestyles in the Bible, we're going to be continuously disappointed. I mean, "...it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". We're all fucked I guess.

[Mercy Medical]

There would be no point. Woman was made as a counterpart to man:

" But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:20-22)

This is why I can't stand the Bible, because if you strictly look at the text, then you can make the assumption that homosexuality is just as bad as using a condom during heterosexual relations. They both blatantly stray from God's plan.

Basically, if we're always trying so hard to look for justifications for our lifestyles in the Bible, we're going to be continuously disappointed. I mean, "...it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". We're all fucked I guess.
I feel like the Bible contradicts itself a lot and is confusing and very open to interpretation, which is why I have a hard time taking it too seriously.

[SiobhansBeard]

The Bible has a lot more to say about how we should treat orphans, widows, the poor, the brokenhearted, and the sick than it has to say about sexuality. Maybe we're missing the point by getting tripped up on a couple sentences buried deep in levitical law. If two people love each other, let them love each other, and try to do the same. Let's remember to "judge not, lest ye be judged."

[batmannj]

I do feel like Christians waste a lot of time talking about things that don't really matter that much. They get mad and protest The Da Vinci Code when people are starving. Myself included on some of the stuff. I am a Christian as well.

[MyNameIsRoss]

I hate the bible.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

i have no problem with the bible.
does it say things against homosexuality? in my opinion yes. does this mean christians should hate homosexuals or treat them any different? no. it isn't anyone's place to judge or intrude in someone else's decisions. the people writing these books were imperfect and made many mistakes themselves. so basicly, if god thinks its wrong, then god will decide, not us.
even jesus spent time with people that went against the bible's teachings. and he criticized the religious leaders of his day for focusing too much on individual laws and not on the broader message of love.

[TK]

In my opinion, most of the arguments you made are stretches. The way to argue against people who support statements in the Bible that denounce homosexuality as a sin isn't through arguing that those statements are misinterpreted, but that the Bible has no basis on dictating morals in a country that has separation of church and state.

[TEAMRAMROD]

and you obviously can't do that if you use a condom, either.
Extremely false. Condoms can and do fail, as does birth control.

[a speedo model]

:shrug: Thin arguments, I'm too tired to go through each one.

[a speedo model]

I do feel like Christians waste a lot of time talking about things that don't really matter that much. They get mad and protest The Da Vinci Code when people are starving. Myself included on some of the stuff. I am a Christian as well.
One could say the same for most people in general.

[batmannj]

One could say the same for most people in general.

True. I guess I get upset easily "discussing" this online you know?

I mean I have my beliefs, I don't want to shove them down, but I want to stand up for what I believe in. It's hard to do sometimes.

[mmmmmpoetry]

To1UlG6_Tv0

[briXinRhands]

To1UlG6_Tv0

haha, gotta love colbert

[Raycol]

In Mercy Medical’s original post, the quote commenting on the Leviticus verses contains interesting background material. But its conclusion that the Leviticus verses are referring to homosexual temple prostitution is only an assumption. It would be true only if the verses actually referred to “temple prostitution”. And they don’t. Instead they refer to all penetrative sex between men (“as with a woman”).

[Mercy Medical]

In Mercy Medical’s original post, the quote commenting on the Leviticus verses contains interesting background material. But its conclusion that the Leviticus verses are referring to homosexual temple prostitution is only an assumption. It would be true only if the verses actually referred to “temple prostitution”. And they don’t. Instead they refer to all penetrative sex between men (“as with a woman”).
The context of the passages implies that it is in regards to idol worship and temple prostitution...most of the clobber passages used to denounce homosexuality are used in that exact context.

No where in the Bible do they denounce a relationship between two men or two women that would resemble a normal, stable, monogamous relationship similar to that had be two members of the opposite sex.

So, okay, maybe God did intend marriage for a man and a woman considering it's a union that can produce children naturally (this is not me saying that I believe this to be true, just attempting to make a point). Fine. But no where in the Bible is a homosexual relationship as we see them today denounced. Nor is there anywhere in the Bible that denounces homosexual relationships as they might have been seen in those times.

From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so — he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed. Luke tells a similar story.

In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek word used in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers.

To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just above that of slave. Moreover, in Jesus’ day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15. Nor was it uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl. Fortunately civilization has advanced, but these were the norms in the culture of Jesus’ day.

In that culture, if you were a gay man who wanted a male “spouse,” you achieved this, like your heterosexual counterparts, through a commercial transaction — purchasing someone to serve that purpose. A servant purchased to serve this purpose was often called a pais.

Source (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html)

It's too long to post the entire article, but I added the source. So, in the context this story could be seen as Jesus healing a centurion's young, male lover. While this passage does not necessarily say anything in regards to condoning gay marriage, etc, it does show Jesus's love and compassion towards a relationship that most Christians today would consider wrong.

[Mercy Medical]

And now that I think about it, same-sex relationships as we have them today most likely didn't exist back then due to serious, serious gender role issues. Women were thought incapable of surviving on their own and thus needed to have a man in their life and it was severely frowned upon for a male to take a female type role in a relationship. That's not to say people who were homosexual in those days did not exist, but they were probably significantly more closeted then compared to now because the gender role issue was a lot bigger deal then. It was a matter of survival.

[Adeniz19]

Extremely false. Condoms can and do fail, as does birth control.ok, mr. technical.

[a speedo model]

True. I guess I get upset easily "discussing" this online you know?

I mean I have my beliefs, I don't want to shove them down, but I want to stand up for what I believe in. It's hard to do sometimes.
I can agree with that. I have no desire to argue, but I will discuss on occasion.

[a speedo model]

The context of the passages implies that it is in regards to idol worship and temple prostitution...most of the clobber passages used to denounce homosexuality are used in that exact context.

No where in the Bible do they denounce a relationship between two men or two women that would resemble a normal, stable, monogamous relationship similar to that had be two members of the opposite sex.

So, okay, maybe God did intend marriage for a man and a woman considering it's a union that can produce children naturally (this is not me saying that I believe this to be true, just attempting to make a point). Fine. But no where in the Bible is a homosexual relationship as we see them today denounced. Nor is there anywhere in the Bible that denounces homosexual relationships as they might have been seen in those times.



Source (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html)

It's too long to post the entire article, but I added the source. So, in the context this story could be seen as Jesus healing a centurion's young, male lover. While this passage does not necessarily say anything in regards to condoning gay marriage, etc, it does show Jesus's love and compassion towards a relationship that most Christians today would consider wrong.
So it could mean one of those three but for their argument's sake they'll use the one that works? I'm confused as to how these prove anything, they seem to be "coulds" "mights" and "assumes". None of those seem to be substantial proof of anything.

[jimjam32]

ki6ciLAYbLU&NR=1
pwn.

[dtrzcin]

For those who are saying that the New Testament and the Old Testament are separate and that Jesus abolished the Old Testament, or at least disregarded it:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -Mat. 5:17-19

The term "Law and the Prophets" is explained:

First, we see that Jesus spoke of "the Law and the Prophets" as not being abolished. What did he mean by this phrase? The "Law and the Prophets" was a regular expression Jews of Jesus’ day used to refer to the entire Old Testament. (See Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Acts 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21.) The Old Testament comprises the Holy Scriptures or the sacred writings of the Jewish faith. It was through these writings that Jews thought they could understand the will of God and have eternal life (John 5:39, 45).
What Jesus said, then, was the Old Testament as a body of "God-breathed" literature would not be set aside or abolished. His concern was not specifically the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. It was the entire Old Testament.


http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/matt517.htm

[TEAMRAMROD]

ok, mr. technical.
Not being technical at all. It's just seems that many people think condoms and birth control always work and that's just not the case.

[Adeniz19]

Not being technical at all. It's just seems that many people think condoms and birth control always work and that's just not the case.but you're entirely missing the point of i was trying to say.

[TEAMRAMROD]

but you're entirely missing the point of i was trying to say.
What was it?

[Adeniz19]

:hitself:

that heterosexuals have sex all the time without the intent of reproducing, so it's unfair to say that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that god created sex for the sole purposed of reproduction. it doesn't fucking matter if condoms break sometime. their sole purpose is to stop the, supposedly, only reason to have sex.

[TEAMRAMROD]

:hitself:

that heterosexuals have sex all the time without the intent of reproducing, so it's unfair to say that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that god created sex for the sole purposed of reproduction. it doesn't fucking matter if condoms break sometime. their sole purpose is to stop the, supposedly, only reason to have sex.
My mistake. I took your original post as that condoms and birth control always work.

[x togepi x]

In my opinion, most of the arguments you made are stretches. The way to argue against people who support statements in the Bible that denounce homosexuality as a sin isn't through arguing that those statements are misinterpreted, but that the Bible has no basis on dictating morals in a country that has separation of church and state.

this way of arguing does nothing. they'll say "it's still immoral, so i'm opposed to it" or claim you're anti-christian. engaging people on a religious level is a lot better idea.

[TK]

this way of arguing does nothing. they'll say "it's still immoral, so i'm opposed to it" or claim you're anti-christian. engaging people on a religious level is a lot better idea.

I highly doubt anyone who cannot understand that we are not a Christian nation so Christian morals should not be basis for our laws is going to be swayed by any of these arguments. They're say your misinterpreting Scripture or taking it out of context, and even if you can make valid arguments that aren't stretches(I haven't seen any), they're ignore it.

[x togepi x]

I highly doubt anyone who cannot understand that we are not a Christian nation so Christian morals should not be basis for our laws is going to be swayed by any of these arguments. They're say your misinterpreting Scripture or taking it out of context, and even if you can make valid arguments that aren't stretches(I haven't seen any), they're ignore it.

It's not really about what scripture says though. Homophobia isn't limited to Christians. I know plenty of atheists who still think it's wrong. Engaging a christian on scripture is a good way to see if they're actually trying to reconcile homosexuality with their religious beliefs or if they're just using their religion as a cloak to shroud blatant homophobia thinking religion is something that can't be attacked.

[TK]

It's not really about what scripture says though. Homophobia isn't limited to Christians. I know plenty of atheists who still think it's wrong. Engaging a christian on scripture is a good way to see if they're actually trying to reconcile homosexuality with their religious beliefs or if they're just using their religion as a cloak to shroud blatant homophobia thinking religion is something that can't be attacked.

I'm referring only to Christians because of this thread's subject. When dealing with non-religious people who are against same-sex couples, there are many legal arguments that can be presented that clearly show there's no legal basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. When engaging Christians, or people of other faiths, I believe it is wise to use the same course of action. In my opinion people who think same-sex marriage is a sin or immoral are wrong, and it does not matter if they think it is wrong because of religious beliefs or homophobia because they are still wrong on the matter from a legal standpoint regardless, which is all that should matter in my opinion.

[Mercy Medical]

Look, I realize that some of these arguments can be stretches or can be refuted with other aspects of the Bible and honestly no one in this forum really knows what anyone meant by anything that was written in the Bible because it was written thousands of years ago in a language we do not understand and translated time and time again. I just find this arguments compelling and interesting and plausible...just like everything else in the Bible. It's not difficult to take the Bible in the context I provided or take these passages in the context most American Christians would like to take it. It's just an interesting argument to me as a lesbian Christian and it makes people think.

The fact that the Bible is this open to interpretation though is what I find somewhat laughable about the Bible. If I wanted to take these passages this way, I could as there seems to be a decent amount of evidence pointing in that direction...just as much evidence that is pointing in the other direction.

[KREECHURkaitlyn]

I believe in the Bible entirely. I try to keep in mind that not everyone knows completely everything about the Bible, including preachers and experts. Christianity relies on the belief of a few simple things: every sin is equal, and Jesus came to rescue us from each of those sins. We can not repent for every sin we commit, therefore we must simply ask to live for Him and want to live with Him with all our might and if we screw up and didn't know it (because of things like this and abortion-both of which are unclear but so is dating and ######## before marraige and even ########### and terminating a life when they're brain-dead)we can say we tried and we lived for You and You saced me. There, that's it. The problem isn't what we do that's wrong it's how we deal with it personally and if we honestly live our lives for Him. That's all we can do. Is live with the faith that He saves us from whatever we knowingly or unknowingly do.

[KREECHURkaitlyn]

whoa, you can't say t r a n s s e x u a l or o r a l s e x. crazy.

[Broclee]

I believe in the Bible entirely. I try to keep in mind that not everyone knows completely everything about the Bible, including preachers and experts. Christianity relies on the belief of a few simple things: every sin is equal, and Jesus came to rescue us from each of those sins. We can not repent for every sin we commit, therefore we must simply ask to live for Him and want to live with Him with all our might and if we screw up and didn't know it (because of things like this and abortion-both of which are unclear but so is dating and ######## before marraige and even ########### and terminating a life when they're brain-dead)we can say we tried and we lived for You and You saced me. There, that's it. The problem isn't what we do that's wrong it's how we deal with it personally and if we honestly live our lives for Him. That's all we can do. Is live with the faith that He saves us from whatever we knowingly or unknowingly do.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at here, mostly because I can't decipher your paragraph.

[xJesusFreakx]

while there are definitely some people on here who are intelligent and research what they are saying, I think having any sort of spiritual debate with a majority of people on this website is impossible. On BOTH sides of the argument there are bigots and ignorance, and I think that debating it doesn't do any good in this sort of forum.

:nod:

^Yes, agreed. In my opinion, then best place for a discussion of this topic isn't on an online community of music fans, many of whom don't consider themselves Christians. The best place for this discussion would be a meeting of theologians. I think that people who have studied Scripture in depth would have better things to say about the Bible than people who don't even believe in the G-d of the Bible.

By the way, something that I think a lot of people miss out on... Scripture is NOT a rule book. Anyone who dwells on what is or isn't allowed in every situation is missing the whole point of Christianity already.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Great thread, my parents are two Christians that have absolutely no problems with homosexuality except for some little comfortability issues. There are definitley plenty of Christians out there that really are intellectual in their beliefs in the Bible and there tolerance of other people.

[fiercetown]

Great post, OP.

[starshine1763]

it doesn't matter. my point is, every single human being has sex without the purpose of reproducing everytime they do it, and it shouldn't be used as a reason to try to deny someone basic rights.

The Duggars disagree.

[Here It Goes]

So how can any Christian honestly say that God does not approve of homosexuality where evidence from the very book they use to bash homosexuals says otherwise? Have you ever attempted to read and interpret the Bible yourself or did you just take what your parent/pastors/priests/etc said as absolute truth?

I'm interested in seeing how you would twist Romans 1:24 - 27 to be in favor of homosexuality.

To say that the scriptures you used even remotely show that God approves of homosexuality is an incredible, incredible stretch of the imagination.

[Broclee]

I'm interested in seeing how you would twist Romans 1:24 - 27 to be in favor of homosexuality.

To say that the scriptures you used even remotely show that God approves of homosexuality is an incredible, incredible stretch of the imagination.
I don't think she was trying to show that God approves of homosexuality so much as she was trying to show that God didn't disapprove of homosexuality.

Although, by your word choice, it seems you agree that the Bible says homosexuality is bad, so I don't think any amount of arguing is going to convince you otherwise.

[lauren<3s music]

In my opinion, most of the arguments you made are stretches. The way to argue against people who support statements in the Bible that denounce homosexuality as a sin isn't through arguing that those statements are misinterpreted, but that the Bible has no basis on dictating morals in a country that has separation of church and state.

this is the only statement that really matters at least in the context of marriage. quite frankly marriage is an act in the church and churches have every right to allow/ban whomever they want from whatever they want. the government has the obligation to treat everyone equally. i think the strongest argument is so long as marriage is outlawed for some, the government should not be allowed to recognize a religious institution that discriminates against people. end of story.

[Here It Goes]

I don't think she was trying to show that God approves of homosexuality so much as she was trying to show that God didn't disapprove of homosexuality.

Although, by your word choice, it seems you agree that the Bible says homosexuality is bad, so I don't think any amount of arguing is going to convince you otherwise.


- Romans 1:26, 27 refers to homosexuality, by either men or women, as "working what is obscene".

- 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 makes it clear that "men who lie with men" are among those who will not have a place in God's kingdom.

- Leviticus 20:13 states that men who have sex together should "be put to death without fail".


I, of course, do not think that homosexual people should be executed. But this was how God handled these matters in the ancient nation of Israel, and it should leave no doubt as to how he viewed homosexuality.

It's important to remember a few things about what the Bible says in regards to homosexuality. First of all, no distinction is made between the consequences for fornication and adultery of any kind, whether homosexual or heterosexual. So while it's clear that God despises homosexuality, it's also clear that he despises illegitimate sexual relations between men and women as well. Neither is depicted as being worse than the other in his eyes.

However, it's also clear through the scriptures that God made men and women to be attracted to one another - both for the purpose of procreation, and the purpose of enjoying sexual relations within the arrangement of marriage. Many factors today have affected people's view of homosexuality - the media, growing acceptance of a "do whatever you want" attitude by most, chemical imbalances, etc. True worship of God, according to his standards, often involves making changes, and applying self-control. That scripture following the one stated above, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean." God welcomes those who will align themselves with his clear standards, and make whatever changes they need to.

My stand on homosexuality is not in regards to hating or judging homosexuals, because that is not my place. Only God can judge clearly and without bias, and he knows the struggles that people endure in trying to worship him. But I do believe that it IS God's place to tell us what is right and wrong, and there's no way you can interpret any sort of approval of homosexuality from God's words in the Bible.

[Broclee]

- Romans 1:26, 27 refers to homosexuality, by either men or women, as "working what is obscene".

- 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 makes it clear that "men who lie with men" are among those who will not have a place in God's kingdom.

- Leviticus 20:13 states that men who have sex together should "be put to death without fail".


I, of course, do not think that homosexual people should be executed. But this was how God handled these matters in the ancient nation of Israel, and it should leave no doubt as to how he viewed homosexuality.

It's important to remember a few things about what the Bible says in regards to homosexuality. First of all, no distinction is made between the consequences for fornication and adultery of any kind, whether homosexual or heterosexual. So while it's clear that God despises homosexuality, it's also clear that he despises illegitimate sexual relations between men and women as well. Neither is depicted as being worse than the other in his eyes.

However, it's also clear through the scriptures that God made men and women to be attracted to one another - both for the purpose of procreation, and the purpose of enjoying sexual relations within the arrangement of marriage. Many factors today have affected people's view of homosexuality - the media, growing acceptance of a "do whatever you want" attitude by most, chemical imbalances, etc. True worship of God, according to his standards, often involves making changes, and applying self-control. That scripture following the one stated above, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean." God welcomes those who will align themselves with his clear standards, and make whatever changes they need to.

My stand on homosexuality is not in regards to hating or judging homosexuals, because that is not my place. Only God can judge clearly and without bias, and he knows the struggles that people endure in trying to worship him. But I do believe that it IS God's place to tell us what is right and wrong, and there's no way you can interpret any sort of approval of homosexuality from God's words in the Bible.

I'm not going to really argue with you, because I'm not the OP, but that bolded part is what really makes me angry about the views of many people.

[Here It Goes]

I'm not going to really argue with you, because I'm not the OP, but that bolded part is what really makes me angry about the views of many people.

Well, you can get angry all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that if you believe in God, and if you believe that the Bible was inspired by God, then there is no way to excuse homosexuality by means of the Bible. You're not required to agree with God's viewpoint on anything at all, but it very clearly is God's viewpoint.

Consider this: if people with homosexual tendencies should be free to act on their desires, then what about everyone else? Should people with serious anger issues just hit everyone who makes them angry? Should kleptomaniacs just be allowed to steal from whoever they want? It would be hard to justify that you had God's approval if you murdered someone who made you angry. It's clear from the scriptures that God does not approve of murder. It's just as clear that he doesn't approve of homosexuality.

I realize that many people would just rather not let God's standards have any effect on their own consciences or on the laws of the land. That is why most people today do and say whatever they want to. But if you really believe in the Bible, and are going to call yourself as a Christian (translation: like Christ), then how on earth can you justify willfully practicing something that God considers detestable?

Nevermind what we mere humans might think, or whether people have stigmas or paranoias about homosexuality or not. Leave all that by the wayside. If you are really trying to live as Christ would live, and are really trying to have a personal relationship with God, would you really want to risk being involved in a lifestyle that doesn't have his approval? That is what matters.

[Broclee]

Well, you can get angry all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that if you believe in God, and if you believe that the Bible was inspired by God, then there is no way to excuse homosexuality by means of the Bible. You're not required to agree with God's viewpoint on anything at all, but it very clearly is God's viewpoint.

Consider this: if people with homosexual tendencies should be free to act on their desires, then what about everyone else? Should people with serious anger issues just hit everyone who makes them angry? Should kleptomaniacs just be allowed to steal from whoever they want? It would be hard to justify that you had God's approval if you murdered someone who made you angry. It's clear from the scriptures that God does not approve of murder. It's just as clear that he doesn't approve of homosexuality.

I realize that many people would just rather not let God's standards have any effect on their own consciences or on the laws of the land. That is why most people today do and say whatever they want to. But if you really believe in the Bible, and are going to call yourself as a Christian (translation: like Christ), then how on earth can you justify willfully practicing something that God considers detestable?
I'm sorry, but I can't compare a person being attracted to people of the same sex to people wanting to kill another person.

[Here It Goes]

I'm sorry, but I can't compare a person being attracted to people of the same sex to people wanting to kill another person.

As a human being, neither can I. To most of us, murder is the ultimate in horrible things that people do. But again, it's not up to me or you to judge. God's standards are pretty clear, and there are many things listed in that scripture in 1 Corinthians that God hates. It's not up to me to decide which ones I want to abide by - not if I want God's approval.

[Broclee]

As a human being, neither can I. To most of us, murder is the ultimate in horrible things that people do. But again, it's not up to me or you to judge. God's standards are pretty clear, and there are many things listed in that scripture in 1 Corinthians that God hates. It's not up to me to decide which ones I want to abide by - not if I want God's approval.
See, here's where you might can enlighten me:

Are you saying that you have to hate homosexuals because God says so? That if you don't, then you won't get into Heaven? I mean, two men or two women loving each other doesn't affect you, it doesn't really affect anyone except the couple. Murder involves people dying at the hands of others, usually with a malicious intent. So I guess with that logic I just can't see why God would so vehemently hate homosexuality and why Christians should, too, in order to get into Heaven. I guess I just don't understand.

[Here It Goes]

See, here's where you might can enlighten me:

Are you saying that you have to hate homosexuals because God says so? That if you don't, then you won't get into Heaven? I mean, two men or two women loving each other doesn't affect you, it doesn't really affect anyone except the couple. Murder involves people dying at the hands of others, usually with a malicious intent. So I guess with that logic I just can't see why God would so vehemently hate homosexuality and why Christians should, too, in order to get into Heaven. I guess I just don't understand.

For starters, I don't hate homosexuals, and neither does God. I hate their actions, because I know from the Bible that God does not approve of them. I can't accept a way of life that is in clear opposition to what God wants, especially from someone who claims to be a Christian.

Then again, I don't think any of us can claim to have never done anything that God doesn't approve of. Like I said, that scripture in 1 Corinthians 6 highlights a lot of the things that God finds particularly offensive, and I've done some of them. I believe that with sincere repentance, and the changes that accompany real repentance, we can all have God's approval. It's something that we have to work at everyday, because our inclinations often are not to do what God wants.

The point of my argument is that God doesn't just vehemently hate homosexuality. It's one of many things that the Bible clearly shows that he does not approve of. If you're going to claim to love and worship God, you have to really make an effort not to be involved in any of those things.

[Broclee]

For starters, I don't hate homosexuals, and neither does God. I hate their actions, because I know from the Bible that God does not approve of them. I can't accept a way of life that is in clear opposition to what God wants, especially from someone who claims to be a Christian.

Then again, I don't think any of us can claim to have never done anything that God doesn't approve of. Like I said, that scripture in 1 Corinthians 6 highlights a lot of the things that God finds particularly offensive, and I've done some of them. I believe that with sincere repentance, and the changes that accompany real repentance, we can all have God's approval. It's something that we have to work at everyday, because our inclinations often are not to do what God wants.

The point of my argument is that God doesn't just vehemently hate homosexuality. It's one of many things that the Bible clearly shows that he does not approve of. If you're going to claim to love and worship God, you have to really make an effort not to be involved in any of those things.
So, in all seriousness, should homosexuals who are also Christians (I know many) closet themselves, act straight, and just pray for forgiveness? I don't really understand.

[mmmmmpoetry]

Just throwing this out there

-594683847743189197&hl=en&fs=true

[Broclee]

Just throwing this out there

-594683847743189197&hl=en&fs=true
I can't watch that right now, there are extremely loud people in the room with me. What is it?

[mmmmmpoetry]

zeitgeist the movie

[Broclee]

zeitgeist the movie
Oooh, ho-tay.

[TEAMRAMROD]

zeitgeist the movie
Isn't that the movie that claims 9/11 was an inside job?

[Here It Goes]

So, in all seriousness, should homosexuals who are also Christians (I know many) closet themselves, act straight, and just pray for forgiveness? I don't really understand.

That's something I can't really answer, because I've never had homosexual tendencies, and I really don't know how I would deal with them. I also know some who struggle with those feelings, and wish that they didn't, and I truly sympathize.

Then again, like I mentioned before, homosexual feelings are only one area of life in which God requires our self-control. If someone has strong heterosexual urges, acting on them whenever (and with whoever) they please is not going to get them God's approval either - that's also clearly stated in the Bible. Many people have had to make real changes to live by God's standards, and without elaborating, I'm still struggling in my own way.

But I am trying. As are many others. To live in a careless, flagrantly offensive manner in God's eyes is another thing altogether.

[Broclee]

That's something I can't really answer, because I've never had homosexual tendencies, and I really don't know how I would deal with them. I also know some who struggle with those feelings, and wish that they didn't, and I truly sympathize.

Then again, like I mentioned before, homosexual feelings are only one area of life in which God requires our self-control. If someone has strong heterosexual urges, acting on them whenever (and with whoever) they please is not going to get them God's approval either - that's also clearly stated in the Bible. Many people have had to make real changes to live by God's standards, and without elaborating, I'm still struggling in my own way.

But I am trying. As are many others. To live in a careless, flagrantly offensive manner in God's eyes is another thing altogether.
Is loving another human really careless and flagrantly offensive, though?

[mmmmmpoetry]

Isn't that the movie that claims 9/11 was an inside job?

Yes. I don't really agree with every single thing in the movie.

[TEAMRAMROD]

Yes. I don't really agree with every single thing in the movie.
Ah, I thought so. I've heard really nothing but negative things about it.

[mmmmmpoetry]

That's a shame. I think it's a very intelligent movie myself, but whatever I suppose.

[batmannj]

^Yes, agreed. In my opinion, then best place for a discussion of this topic isn't on an online community of music fans, many of whom don't consider themselves Christians. The best place for this discussion would be a meeting of theologians. I think that people who have studied Scripture in depth would have better things to say about the Bible than people who don't even believe in the G-d of the Bible.

By the way, something that I think a lot of people miss out on... Scripture is NOT a rule book. Anyone who dwells on what is or isn't allowed in every situation is missing the whole point of Christianity already.
Agreed. I think that a civil discussion is always best.

[Here It Goes]

Is loving another human really careless and flagrantly offensive, though?

Not in of itself, no...but if the way you express that love is offensive to God, then you've got to decide if offending God is worth it to you.

As well, the grey area between love (as a quality and an emotion) and sexual passion is another topic altogether, and maybe one that I don't have the right amount of experience in to offer a solid opinion on, I'm not too sure. From my experience, anyone that I've truly cared about and respected, I've had little to no sexual feelings towards. Even in a loving marriage arrangement, there needs to be a distinction between the passionate love you feel towards your husband or wife, and the deep, respectful love you have for them as a person and as a friend.

[mmmmmpoetry]

http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr84/GreenM500/god_listens_to_slayer.jpg

[xJesusFreakx]

That's a shame. I think it's a very intelligent movie myself, but whatever I suppose.

It raises good points, but that's all it does. There are noticeable flaws in the first section (about Christianity), as well as in the second one (about 9/11). I don't know enough about the government to comment on the rest of it, but I can only assume that it's just as hit-and-miss.

[mmmmmpoetry]

Well that's what you're supposed to do. Just read up as much as you can and develop your own beliefs and ideas.
Take pieces of everything you agree with and throw away the rest. That's why religion doesn't make sense to me. There's no way you can possibly agree with everything in whatever religious book you apply to your life. If you are, than you're just a fucking sheep.

[Broclee]

Not in of itself, no...but if the way you express that love is offensive to God, then you've got to decide if offending God is worth it to you.

As well, the grey area between love (as a quality and an emotion) and sexual passion is another topic altogether, and maybe one that I don't have the right amount of experience in to offer a solid opinion on, I'm not too sure. From my experience, anyone that I've truly cared about and respected, I've had little to no sexual feelings towards. Even in a loving marriage arrangement, there needs to be a distinction between the passionate love you feel towards your husband or wife, and the deep, respectful love you have for them as a person and as a friend.
See, that distinction is where I think things can get very very very blurry. If two men genuinely love one another the way a "natural" couple, a man and a woman, do, then I just can't see that as being comparable to someone who just sleeps around for sexual gratification, straight or gay.

[GeeBee]

Not in of itself, no...but if the way you express that love is offensive to God, then you've got to decide if offending God is worth it to you.

As well, the grey area between love (as a quality and an emotion) and sexual passion is another topic altogether, and maybe one that I don't have the right amount of experience in to offer a solid opinion on, I'm not too sure. From my experience, anyone that I've truly cared about and respected, I've had little to no sexual feelings towards. Even in a loving marriage arrangement, there needs to be a distinction between the passionate love you feel towards your husband or wife, and the deep, respectful love you have for them as a person and as a friend.

Excuse me, but who are you to tell the world when God is offended?
And, which "god" are you referring to? There are thousands throughout time. Are you claiming YOURS as the ONLY one who wasn't just made up?
And if, by "god", you mean the Christian version, you'll also have to be more specific, since there's thousands of interpretations within that one subset, as there are in most other major religions.
That's the problem with God. He seems to agree with the MILLIONS who speak for him, but what they all say is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY. That's why it's easier to put the book of fairytales away and start treating people nicely and letting them live as they choose. Until you have some substantial proof that "god" is being offended by two people deciding to love each other and express it physically, keep your outdated and cruel notions to yourself, and do America a favor and NEVER vote.

[Mercy Medical]

I'm interested in seeing how you would twist Romans 1:24 - 27 to be in favor of homosexuality.

To say that the scriptures you used even remotely show that God approves of homosexuality is an incredible, incredible stretch of the imagination.
Look at the context of the passages and tell me how it applies to two homosexuals in a loving, monogamous relationship. Most of the clobber passages used are in the context of idol worship or temple practice, which God doesn't approve of to begin with. It's in regards to seeking out pleasure for the sake of pleasure. The words "lust" is used, not "love." The circumstances that the Bible called out homosexuality are not even close to what we see homosexual relationships as they are today, not even close.

[Mercy Medical]

- Romans 1:26, 27 refers to homosexuality, by either men or women, as "working what is obscene".

- 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 makes it clear that "men who lie with men" are among those who will not have a place in God's kingdom.

- Leviticus 20:13 states that men who have sex together should "be put to death without fail".


I, of course, do not think that homosexual people should be executed. But this was how God handled these matters in the ancient nation of Israel, and it should leave no doubt as to how he viewed homosexuality.

It's important to remember a few things about what the Bible says in regards to homosexuality. First of all, no distinction is made between the consequences for fornication and adultery of any kind, whether homosexual or heterosexual. So while it's clear that God despises homosexuality, it's also clear that he despises illegitimate sexual relations between men and women as well. Neither is depicted as being worse than the other in his eyes.

However, it's also clear through the scriptures that God made men and women to be attracted to one another - both for the purpose of procreation, and the purpose of enjoying sexual relations within the arrangement of marriage. Many factors today have affected people's view of homosexuality - the media, growing acceptance of a "do whatever you want" attitude by most, chemical imbalances, etc. True worship of God, according to his standards, often involves making changes, and applying self-control. That scripture following the one stated above, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean." God welcomes those who will align themselves with his clear standards, and make whatever changes they need to.

My stand on homosexuality is not in regards to hating or judging homosexuals, because that is not my place. Only God can judge clearly and without bias, and he knows the struggles that people endure in trying to worship him. But I do believe that it IS God's place to tell us what is right and wrong, and there's no way you can interpret any sort of approval of homosexuality from God's words in the Bible.God despises homosexuality? Wow, based on that statement alone I'm close to shutting my mind off to anything you have to say.

And applying self control? You have obviously never had to deal with those kinds of feelings and attractions before. It is significantly easier for someone to say that and expect people to live like that when they in fact have never experienced it themselves.

And chemical imbalances? Wtf kind of propaganda have you been reading?

[Mercy Medical]

Well, you can get angry all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that if you believe in God, and if you believe that the Bible was inspired by God, then there is no way to excuse homosexuality by means of the Bible. You're not required to agree with God's viewpoint on anything at all, but it very clearly is God's viewpoint.

Consider this: if people with homosexual tendencies should be free to act on their desires, then what about everyone else? Should people with serious anger issues just hit everyone who makes them angry? Should kleptomaniacs just be allowed to steal from whoever they want? It would be hard to justify that you had God's approval if you murdered someone who made you angry. It's clear from the scriptures that God does not approve of murder. It's just as clear that he doesn't approve of homosexuality.
No and no because both of those actions have negative influences on other people and "harm" other people in a certain way. They are not comparable situations whatsoever. I really wish the Christian right would get that through their head when comparing pedophilia to homosexuality. Two CONSENTING adults is not comparable to any circumstances you may come up with that harm other people.

[Mercy Medical]

That's something I can't really answer, because I've never had homosexual tendencies, and I really don't know how I would deal with them. I also know some who struggle with those feelings, and wish that they didn't, and I truly sympathize.The only reason they struggle with those feelings is because they have Christian fundamentalists constantly telling them that the way they feel is wrong. If they didn't have that influence, if there wasn't a negative stigma about homosexuality they could live their life as they are supposed to be living it and be happy.

[Mercy Medical]

What I find amusing is whenever there is an "attack" on what someone has believed the Bible has said most of their life, they get defensive about it. Yes, there are holes in this potential arguments for what the Bible really says about homosexuality, but there are holes for a lot of aspects of the Bible because of things I have said previously. Instead of opening their minds up to the possibility of this being true, of this being a potential interpretation, they laugh it off and say that there's absolutely no way.

[Here It Goes]

What I find amusing is whenever there is an "attack" on what someone has believed the Bible has said most of their life, they get defensive about it. Yes, there are holes in this potential arguments for what the Bible really says about homosexuality, but there are holes for a lot of aspects of the Bible because of things I have said previously. Instead of opening their minds up to the possibility of this being true, of this being a potential interpretation, they laugh it off and say that there's absolutely no way.

The Bible says clearly that those practicing homosexuality are practicing what is obscene, whether love was involved or not. If God were lenient on this issue (or many others), I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have required that those practicing what he asked them not to be taken outside the city and stoned to death.

There's absolutely no way.

[Here It Goes]

Excuse me, but who are you to tell the world when God is offended?
And, which "god" are you referring to? There are thousands throughout time. Are you claiming YOURS as the ONLY one who wasn't just made up?
And if, by "god", you mean the Christian version, you'll also have to be more specific, since there's thousands of interpretations within that one subset, as there are in most other major religions.
That's the problem with God. He seems to agree with the MILLIONS who speak for him, but what they all say is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY. That's why it's easier to put the book of fairytales away and start treating people nicely and letting them live as they choose. Until you have some substantial proof that "god" is being offended by two people deciding to love each other and express it physically, keep your outdated and cruel notions to yourself, and do America a favor and NEVER vote.

I guess I must have mistaken this for one of those threads where people are invited to come in and offer their opinion. Silly me for going as far as to provide scriptural backing for my viewpoint.

Fortunately for you, I don't vote. It's issues like these that make any governmental insitution these days beyond saving anyways.

[Mercy Medical]

The Bible says clearly that those practicing homosexuality are practicing what is obscene, whether love was involved or not. If God were lenient on this issue (or many others), I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have required that those practicing what he asked them not to be taken outside the city and stoned to death.

There's absolutely no way.
And once again, you ignore the context of the passages and read them for face value.

[Charles777]

Good read.

[jagermeister]

Great post.

I am all for same-sex couples' rights but I'm curious though... why even care what the Bible says about this when you could just live your life happy for yourself? Because right now you're still trying to please people and that's not what this should be about.

I am not trying to sound like a dick or come down on your or anything harsh like that because I am trying to be sincere, though I realize I might come off condescending. I'm just not a Christian (or anything for that matter) so to relate things to the Bible for the sake of discussing it is kind of foreign to me.

[Mercy Medical]

Great post.

I am all for same-sex couples' rights but I'm curious though... why even care what the Bible says about this when you could just live your life happy for yourself? Because right now you're still trying to please people and that's not what this should be about.

I am not trying to sound like a dick or come down on your or anything harsh like that because I am trying to be sincere, though I realize I might come off condescending. I'm just not a Christian (or anything for that matter) so to relate things to the Bible for the sake of discussing it is kind of foreign to me.
I'm not trying to please anyone. I'm a Christian myself, so obviously who I am can come in conflict with my belief system. I'm not trying to please anyone, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me.

I also find this type of conversation to be interesting, the fact that there are so many types of interpretation of stories in the Bible. Someone can get one thing from a verse and someone else can get something completely different.

[Broclee]

Great post.

I am all for same-sex couples' rights but I'm curious though... why even care what the Bible says about this when you could just live your life happy for yourself? Because right now you're still trying to please people and that's not what this should be about.

I am not trying to sound like a dick or come down on your or anything harsh like that because I am trying to be sincere, though I realize I might come off condescending. I'm just not a Christian (or anything for that matter) so to relate things to the Bible for the sake of discussing it is kind of foreign to me.
Your second paragraph describes exactly how I feel, and why the arguments that were being presented earlier made no sense to me. I'm not a Christian, either, but I was raised as one, and when I look at some sermons today, especially at the church my mother attends, I'm just disgusted.

EDIT: I didn't realize your post was aimed at the OP's post, I thought it was concerning the discussion taking place above.

[Mercy Medical]

Your second paragraph describes exactly how I feel, and why the arguments that were being presented earlier made no sense to me. I'm not a Christian, either, but I was raised as one, and when I look at some sermons today, especially at the church my mother attends, I'm just disgusted.

EDIT: I didn't realize your post was aimed at the OP's post, I thought it was concerning the discussion taking place above.
Hell, I'm a Christian and when I look at some sermons today I'm also disgusted. Haha, I think there's a good number of Christians out there who are not pleased with the way the church is going or has gone.

[Broclee]

Hell, I'm a Christian and when I look at some sermons today I'm also disgusted. Haha, I think there's a good number of Christians out there who are not pleased with the way the church is going or has gone.
Yeah, I know, and I know quite a few. I just feel like arguments like the one that was being presented on the last page are ignorant and bigoted. That may piss some people off, but oh well.

[Mercy Medical]

Yeah, I know, and I know quite a few. I just feel like arguments like the one that was being presented on the last page are ignorant and bigoted. That may piss some people off, but oh well.
Well that's because a lot of people tend to just stick to their guns because they feel it's wrong to question God or question what they have been taught over the years and that somehow doing that is going to make them further from God and a bad Christian.

I see no issues with questioning what you've been taught, especially questioning what you have been taught by pastors/preachers over the years. What they teach tends to be THEIR interpretation of what is said and it's completely feasible that they are in fact wrong.

The Bible is entirely too vague for me at times to believe that anyone is really hitting the nail on the head with what they're saying, yet people still stand behind those things...not because they've taken the time to really sit down and critique the Bible's teachings, but because some dude at a podium told them that this was true.

[Mercy Medical]

I also find the stance a lot of people take of "resist the urges and tendencies" to be completely laughable, especially when 90% of those people have never felt that way before in their life. It's a lot easier said then done.

[Broclee]

I also find the stance a lot of people take of "resist the urges and tendencies" to be completely laughable, especially when 90% of those people have never felt that way before in their life. It's a lot easier said then done.
My best friend and my roommate are both gay, and we've talked about some of this stuff before, and just from what I already felt, and what I learned from talking to them, that stance is so ridiculous and, honestly, it's just plain stupid.

[Adeniz19]

The Bible says clearly that those practicing homosexuality are practicing what is obscene, whether love was involved or not. If God were lenient on this issue (or many others), I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have required that those practicing what he asked them not to be taken outside the city and stoned to death.

There's absolutely no way.She is right tho, the romans passage does say "lust" multiple times and mentions nothing about love. it's even a sin for two straight people to lust/commit adultry towards one another, so how is it any different?

So I'm going to assume you're either a 24 year old virgin, or married, since you are on the straight and narrow with God's path.

[Mercy Medical]

My best friend and my roommate are both gay, and we've talked about some of this stuff before, and just from what I already felt, and what I learned from talking to them, that stance is so ridiculous and, honestly, it's just plain stupid.
I'm currently reading a book called Stranger at the Gate: Being Gay and Christian in America. It's written by Reverend Mel White, who grew up in a very, VERY evangelical household. He went to a Christian college, wrote and produced many Christian oriented TV shows and movies, ghost wrote for people like Jerry Falwell and Jim Bakker and he struggled with his homosexuality his entire life. From outward appearance he would seem like a stand up, perfect Christian. He got married and had two kids, but always struggled with his homosexuality. He went to therapy and tried and did anything he could to get rid of his feelings. His closeted nature essentially destroyed his marriage and essentially destroyed the potential life of his wife, but even through all of that (and his wife knew his issues) he stayed by his family, his kids and his wife and loved them all just the same. He finally "came out" in the 90s. I mean, this man is basically the epitome of a strong Christian and even HE can't fight the way he felt. It made him miserable and depressed and I'm sure it made his family feel the same way.

As far as I'm concerned, no one is allowed to take the stance of "well if you feel that way, then just fight it because God said it is wrong" who hasn't felt that way as you have little to no understanding of what it feels like to go through that.

[Broclee]

I'm currently reading a book called Stranger at the Gate: Being Gay and Christian in America. It's written by Reverend Mel White, who grew up in a very, VERY evangelical household. He went to a Christian college, wrote and produced many Christian oriented TV shows and movies, ghost wrote for people like Jerry Falwell and Jim Bakker and he struggled with his homosexuality his entire life. From outward appearance he would seem like a stand up, perfect Christian. He got married and had two kids, but always struggled with his homosexuality. He went to therapy and tried and did anything he could to get rid of his feelings. His closeted nature essentially destroyed his marriage and essentially destroyed the potential life of his wife, but even through all of that (and his wife knew his issues) he stayed by his family, his kids and his wife and loved them all just the same. He finally "came out" in the 90s. I mean, this man is basically the epitome of a strong Christian and even HE can't fight the way he felt. It made him miserable and depressed and I'm sure it made his family feel the same way.

As far as I'm concerned, no one is allowed to take the stance of "well if you feel that way, then just fight it because God said it is wrong" who hasn't felt that way as you have little to no understanding of what it feels like to go through that.
That book sounds amazing, I'm gonna try and find it and check it out.

[Mercy Medical]

That book sounds amazing, I'm gonna try and find it and check it out.
It's pretty good. It's basically a biography of his life in regards to his sexuality and being a Christian (har har har, as if the title doesn't imply that)

He was actually just on amazing race with his son, Michael White.

[Broclee]

It's pretty good. It's basically a biography of his life in regards to his sexuality and being a Christian (har har har, as if the title doesn't imply that)

He was actually just on amazing race with his son, Michael White.
I've never watched Amazing Race, like, ever, haha.

But, cool deal. Thanks for talking about it. It sounds awesome.

[Regards]

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Corinthians 6: 9-10)

That says nothing about lust, it just flat out says homosexual offenders. Thoughts?

[Mercy Medical]

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Corinthians 6: 9-10)

That says nothing about lust, it just flat out says homosexual offenders. Thoughts?
I don't know the original word used in that verse, but from my understanding the word homosexual didn't exist during Biblical times.

EDIT: From the King James Version:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And the description from the website I referenced before (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html):

In this passage there are two key phrases relevant to our discussion. First there is the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often viewed as a reference to nelly gay men. In truth, however, the Greek word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” So Paul is saying “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we know Paul was not talking about the Pillsbury Dough Boy, we have to ask what he meant.

This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage. The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and more vain. Thus, men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as “effeminate.”

But it is important to understand the difference between ancient and modern notions of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait. In that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty was considered to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves more attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were called effeminate.” They saw all pleasure-seeking men as effeminate, whomever they sought pleasure with. In first-century Roman terms, most pro-wrestlers in the WWF (manly men by our definitions) would be considered effeminate, because of their apparent interest in fancy, hyper-masculine costumes and posturing. From this perspective, Paul was condemning men who are vain, fearful, and self-indulgent.

There's more in there, but it's long.

[Here It Goes]

She is right tho, the romans passage does say "lust" multiple times and mentions nothing about love. it's even a sin for two straight people to lust/commit adultry towards one another, so how is it any different?

So I'm going to assume you're either a 24 year old virgin, or married, since you are on the straight and narrow with God's path.

Well, if you read back a little bit, you'll notice that I acknowledged that there's no difference between heterosexual immoral behaviour and homosexual immoral behaviour. As humans, we might find one or the other more appealing or more offensive, but if we want to please God, we really should be looking at how he views things. I find it pretty easy to see from the Bible that no type of immoral sexual behaviour has his approval. I really don't see what context has to do with it, in any instance.

Also, I'm neither a 24-year old virgin nor married. If I could go back in time, maybe I'd be one of those two things at this point. I've made choices in life that I wish I hadn't, and frankly, "doing what makes you happy" or "following your heart" has never gotten me to where I wish I was in life. I know that I don't make the best decisions on my own. I've got a strong faith in God based on many different things found in the Bible, and I've seen the benefits of applying God's standards. If he doesn't want me to do something, I'm going to do my best not to.

I'm not in here to tell gay people that they're all going to burn in hell or that God hates them. A loving God wouldn't torment people just because they choose not to follow his standards. I don't agree with homosexuality because that's the standard God set out in the Bible. If you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, that's really your choice. It just sounds funny when people make that choice and then claim to love and worship God.

[Adeniz19]

...but, it's not a choice.

[Mercy Medical]

Well, if you read back a little bit, you'll notice that I acknowledged that there's no difference between heterosexual immoral behaviour and homosexual immoral behaviour. As humans, we might find one or the other more appealing or more offensive, but if we want to please God, we really should be looking at how he views things. I find it pretty easy to see from the Bible that no type of immoral sexual behaviour has his approval. I really don't see what context has to do with it, in any instance.

Also, I'm neither a 24-year old virgin nor married. If I could go back in time, maybe I'd be one of those two things at this point. I've made choices in life that I wish I hadn't, and frankly, "doing what makes you happy" or "following your heart" has never gotten me to where I wish I was in life. I know that I don't make the best decisions on my own. I've got a strong faith in God based on many different things found in the Bible, and I've seen the benefits of applying God's standards. If he doesn't want me to do something, I'm going to do my best not to.

I'm not in here to tell gay people that they're all going to burn in hell or that God hates them. A loving God wouldn't torment people just because they choose not to follow his standards. I don't agree with homosexuality because that's the standard God set out in the Bible. If you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, that's really your choice. It just sounds funny when people make that choice and then claim to love and worship God.

a) It is not a choice to be gay, it is only a choice to act on those feelings and live that life outwardly.

b) It is not a "lifestyle" as many people may call it. It is my life, not my lifestyle.

c) You can love and worship God and STILL be a homosexual. Many denominations out there preach a message of love and pro-homosexuality. One of the larger of those is the Metropolitan Community Church (http://mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home). Just like there are many other denominations that preach and teach in a manner they see fit and in an accordance to a certain interpretation of the Bible.

and d) I would much rather live a life on earth where I am happy being who I am and who God intended me to be (and this includes a life believing in God) and end up in hell then live a life miserable and depressed because I've repressed who I really am and end up in heaven. Because honestly, NONE of us know for sure what happens when we die, regardless of the faith we may have that will happen, none of us have proof.

[Broclee]

Well, if you read back a little bit, you'll notice that I acknowledged that there's no difference between heterosexual immoral behaviour and homosexual immoral behaviour. As humans, we might find one or the other more appealing or more offensive, but if we want to please God, we really should be looking at how he views things. I find it pretty easy to see from the Bible that no type of immoral sexual behaviour has his approval. I really don't see what context has to do with it, in any instance.

Also, I'm neither a 24-year old virgin nor married. If I could go back in time, maybe I'd be one of those two things at this point. I've made choices in life that I wish I hadn't, and frankly, "doing what makes you happy" or "following your heart" has never gotten me to where I wish I was in life. I know that I don't make the best decisions on my own. I've got a strong faith in God based on many different things found in the Bible, and I've seen the benefits of applying God's standards. If he doesn't want me to do something, I'm going to do my best not to.

I'm not in here to tell gay people that they're all going to burn in hell or that God hates them. A loving God wouldn't torment people just because they choose not to follow his standards. I don't agree with homosexuality because that's the standard God set out in the Bible. If you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, that's really your choice. It just sounds funny when people make that choice and then claim to love and worship God.
Here's what I still don't understand, yet you've brought it up several times:

You say there's no different between heterosexual immoral behavior and homosexual immoral behavior, yet you consistently insist that there IS a difference, because homosexual behavior of ANY nature is wrong, even if it is nothing more than a loving, monogamous relationship between two men or two women. You can't say there is no difference, then turn around and say that one is "worse" or "more offensive" than the other.

[Mercy Medical]

I find it somewhat laughable that some versions of the Bible have placed the word "homosexual" in them when that word did not exist then.

I mean, isn't it plausible that whomever translated that version took their interpretation of the language and then inserted what they thought it meant and after years and years and years and years of reading this version of the Bible it's just become ingrained in our culture that this is the absolute truth?

The versions of the Bible as we have them today are not the word of God, they are interpretations and translations of the original book. Isn't it possible that something got fucked up along the way considering MAN was the one put at the helm to translate and interpret it for newer societies?

[GeeBee]

I guess I must have mistaken this for one of those threads where people are invited to come in and offer their opinion. Silly me for going as far as to provide scriptural backing for my viewpoint.

Fortunately for you, I don't vote. It's issues like these that make any governmental insitution these days beyond saving anyways.

Stop providing "scriptural backing" and start providing reality backing. I can provide documentation in Lord of the Rings that backs up many of my opinions, but so what?

Also, if you would please answer the original questions pertaining to---
Which god people are offending.
Which version of that god they are offending.
What makes you the mouthpiece for said god.

I'm not trying to be rude, just refuting your points and asking for a counterpoint.
Thanks in advance.

[TEAMRAMROD]

I find it somewhat laughable that some versions of the Bible have placed the word "homosexual" in them when that word did not exist then.

I mean, isn't it plausible that whomever translated that version took their interpretation of the language and then inserted what they thought it meant and after years and years and years and years of reading this version of the Bible it's just become ingrained in our culture that this is the absolute truth?

The versions of the Bible as we have them today are not the word of God, they are interpretations and translations of the original book. Isn't it possible that something got fucked up along the way considering MAN was the one put at the helm to translate and interpret it for newer societies?
I understand where you're coming from, but have you read about the amount of time and research is put into the some of the translations such as the NIV?

[Mercy Medical]

I understand where you're coming from, but have you read about the amount of time and research is put into the some of the translations such as the NIV?
No, I haven't....I'm not saying someone translated these things willy nilly, but I'm just saying that these are very, very, very old languages that have been translated numerous times and that I think it's plausible for this type of thing to occur.

[TEAMRAMROD]

No, I haven't....I'm not saying someone translated these things willy nilly, but I'm just saying that these are very, very, very old languages that have been translated numerous times and that I think it's plausible for this type of thing to occur.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. The former is still used today within the jewish community and greek has been studied for years. I would say it's safe to assume that etymologists have a firm grasp on it. Also too, the preparation and dedication from the scribes is amazing, the way they spent their lives translating and copying the text to avoid any sort of mistake.

[Here It Goes]

Here's what I still don't understand, yet you've brought it up several times:

You say there's no different between heterosexual immoral behavior and homosexual immoral behavior, yet you consistently insist that there IS a difference, because homosexual behavior of ANY nature is wrong, even if it is nothing more than a loving, monogamous relationship between two men or two women. You can't say there is no difference, then turn around and say that one is "worse" or "more offensive" than the other.

In that scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, it gives a huge list of the things that those belonging to the Christian congregation were supposed to avoid. "Fornicators" and "adulterers" are both mentioned, as are "men who lie with men". So, from my understanding: 1) Men having sex with men is wrong in God's eyes (and this would logically apply to women as well), and 2) Men or women having sex with the opposite gender outside of the arrangement of marriage is equally wrong in God's eyes.

The Bible constantly portrays a sacred view of the marriage bond. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 speaks of sexual relations as having a proper place within the marriage arrangement, and it uses that idea in contrast with fornication. Proverbs 5:15-20 also speaks about having a sexual passion within the marriage arrangement, and it portrays it as something than can enrich the love between and man and woman who are married.

So both fornicators and adulterers are really showing a lack of respect for God's original marital arrangement between and man and a woman, and the same would apply to people in a homosexual relationship. There are countless examples in the scriptures that put the male and female marital (and sexual) arrangement in a favorable light; there are none that cast a clearly favorable light upon homosexual relationships.

I know people might find my viewpoint dated, or archaic, because everyone wants to have the freedom to do what they feel is right. I believe God created me and has the right to set out what's best for me, and I'd rather take his side and risk being thought of as closed-minded than flirt with his disapproval.

[Here It Goes]

Stop providing "scriptural backing" and start providing reality backing. I can provide documentation in Lord of the Rings that backs up many of my opinions, but so what?

Also, if you would please answer the original questions pertaining to---
Which god people are offending.
Which version of that god they are offending.
What makes you the mouthpiece for said god.

I'm not trying to be rude, just refuting your points and asking for a counterpoint.
Thanks in advance.

I think it's going to be hard to answer your questions because we're not talking on the same level here. I believe, from an indepth study of the Bible, that it was written by God through men, and that it has a lot to do with our future. You clearly don't feel that way.

Which God people are offending? I believe there's only one true God that created us, so in speaking about God, I'm always referring to him.

Which version of that God are they offending? Again, we're not really on the same level. You clearly see "a God" as a figment of the imaginations of his worshippers, so I'm not sure how to make it more real for you.

What makes me the mouthpiece for God? I think mouthpiece is the wrong term, but if you're looking for reasons for my conviction and my verbalization of that conviction, try Isaiah 43:10 and Matthew 28:19,20 for starters.

[GeeBee]

In that scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, it gives a huge list of the things that those belonging to the Christian congregation were supposed to avoid. "Fornicators" and "adulterers" are both mentioned, as are "men who lie with men". So, from my understanding: 1) Men having sex with men is wrong in God's eyes (and this would logically apply to women as well), and 2) Men or women having sex with the opposite gender outside of the arrangement of marriage is equally wrong in God's eyes.

The Bible constantly portrays a sacred view of the marriage bond. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 speaks of sexual relations as having a proper place within the marriage arrangement, and it uses that idea in contrast with fornication. Proverbs 5:15-20 also speaks about having a sexual passion within the marriage arrangement, and it portrays it as something than can enrich the love between and man and woman who are married.

So both fornicators and adulterers are really showing a lack of respect for God's original marital arrangement between and man and a woman, and the same would apply to people in a homosexual relationship. There are countless examples in the scriptures that put the male and female marital (and sexual) arrangement in a favorable light; there are none that cast a clearly favorable light upon homosexual relationships.

I know people might find my viewpoint dated, or archaic, because everyone wants to have the freedom to do what they feel is right. I believe God created me and has the right to set out what's best for me, and I'd rather take his side and risk being thought of as closed-minded than flirt with his disapproval.

You're still not addressing some fundamental questions...
Which god is it? Which version? What evidence?

Or perhaps a scenario would help...
Swap the position the bible and christianity have in your life with Star Wars. If you had been raised believing Star Wars to be the word of god and his plan, and Christianity was some film George Lucas made, would you still be in this position? Would you be addressing why homosexuality is wrong according to Star Wars? Again, this is totally respectful, but I think it's worth analyzing. Do you have the notions and beliefs you have because you've been conditioned socially to have them? If you were born a Muslim, would you see the light of Christianity? How do you know you're not supposed to be adhering to the tenets of Scientology?

It gets down to the bare facts: Your religion, at best, is mere speculation of deity and his desires (which, having read the bible many times, seem to point to him being rather vengeful, spiteful, jealous, and shallow). When you use such speculation to create guidelines for behavior, you turn off the rational part of your brain. What do the morals of Christianity have to offer that the basic tenets of Secular Humanism do not?

[GeeBee]

I think it's going to be hard to answer your questions because we're not talking on the same level here. I believe, from an indepth study of the Bible, that it was written by God through men, and that it has a lot to do with our future. You clearly don't feel that way.

Which God people are offending? I believe there's only one true God that created us, so in speaking about God, I'm always referring to him.

Which version of that God are they offending? Again, we're not really on the same level. You clearly see "a God" as a figment of the imaginations of his worshippers, so I'm not sure how to make it more real for you.

What makes me the mouthpiece for God? I think mouthpiece is the wrong term, but if you're looking for reasons for my conviction and my verbalization of that conviction, try Isaiah 43:10 and Matthew 28:19,20 for starters.

If we're trying to have a rational conversation here, your beliefs have to have some kind of credibility or evidence to back them up.

Based on your past statements, I think it is you that seems to write off the Gods of billions of other people as "figment of their imaginations", while you're the only one who has a real handle on who he is and what he wants.

If I read the Bible and "believe" that God says it's ok to be gay, what makes you right and me wrong?

[Here It Goes]

If I read the Bible and "believe" that God says it's ok to be gay, what makes you right and me wrong?

Well, here's where we stumble across the universal quarrel about what's "right and wrong".

I've chosen to read scriptures that refer to homosexuality as "obscene", compare that to the english language definition of the word "obscene", and from there, I draw the conclusion that God does not approve of homosexuality.

Others will read the scripture that refers to homosexuality as "obscene", compare that to the english language definition of the word "obscene", and from there, conclude that God accepts all kinds of behaviour and put all of that moral guidance in the scriptures from absolutely no reason at all.

It comes down to the choice that you've made for yourself. I take God's word, the Bible, as just that: God's word. I don't bend it to fit the way I want to live my life, I don't interpret it to support the things I want to do, and I don't excuse my failings by assuming that God's standards are flexible or even optional. If my worship is going to mean anything to God, I'm going to have to mold my life around what he wants from me. Half-hearted worship, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible I like, just aren't going to cut it.

[GeeBee]

Well, here's where we stumble across the universal quarrel about what's "right and wrong".

I've chosen to read scriptures that refer to homosexuality as "obscene", compare that to the english language definition of the word "obscene", and from there, I draw the conclusion that God does not approve of homosexuality.

Others will read the scripture that refers to homosexuality as "obscene", compare that to the english language definition of the word "obscene", and from there, conclude that God accepts all kinds of behaviour and put all of that moral guidance in the scriptures from absolutely no reason at all.

It comes down to the choice that you've made for yourself. I take God's word, the Bible, as just that: God's word. I don't bend it to fit the way I want to live my life, I don't interpret it to support the things I want to do, and I don't excuse my failings by assuming that God's standards are flexible or even optional. If my worship is going to mean anything to God, I'm going to have to mold my life around what he wants from me. Half-hearted worship, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible I like, just aren't going to cut it.

Again, you're still refusing to answer the questions I asked you. The bible is not objective reality. You can believe it all you want, but you keep using it as evidence for your beliefs. That's called "begging the question". You're stating "I believe A, B, and C because the Bible tells me so, and I believe the Bible because God tells me so". That's all fine and good. But the Bible is in the end just a book, and God, no matter how hard you try, is still just an idea and a concept, as far as can be evidenced or proven.

When having a conversation such as this one, you don't get to work within the framework of an alternate reality. I'm fine with you believing whatever you want, but trying to inject it into a discussion without evidence, logic, or rationale behind it is insane, because absence of evidence is most often evidence of absence.

[GeeBee]

If we're trying to have a rational conversation here, your beliefs have to have some kind of credibility or evidence to back them up.

Based on your past statements, I think it is you that seems to write off the Gods of billions of other people as "figment of their imaginations", while you're the only one who has a real handle on who he is and what he wants.

If I read the Bible and "believe" that God says it's ok to be gay, what makes you right and me wrong?


I'd also really appreciate an answer to this statement. It seems you and I are both atheists, I simply believe in one less deity than you do.

[GeeBee]

Well, here's where we stumble across the universal quarrel about what's "right and wrong".

I've chosen to read scriptures that refer to homosexuality as "obscene", compare that to the english language definition of the word "obscene", and from there, I draw the conclusion that God does not approve of homosexuality.

Others will read the scripture that refers to homosexuality as "obscene", compare that to the english language definition of the word "obscene", and from there, conclude that God accepts all kinds of behaviour and put all of that moral guidance in the scriptures from absolutely no reason at all.

It comes down to the choice that you've made for yourself. I take God's word, the Bible, as just that: God's word. I don't bend it to fit the way I want to live my life, I don't interpret it to support the things I want to do, and I don't excuse my failings by assuming that God's standards are flexible or even optional. If my worship is going to mean anything to God, I'm going to have to mold my life around what he wants from me. Half-hearted worship, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible I like, just aren't going to cut it.

Your entire line of responses contradicts this completely. You are interpreting it precisely to support the way YOU think.

[GeeBee]

I think it's going to be hard to answer your questions because we're not talking on the same level here. I believe, from an indepth study of the Bible, that it was written by God through men, and that it has a lot to do with our future. You clearly don't feel that way.

Which God people are offending? I believe there's only one true God that created us, so in speaking about God, I'm always referring to him.

Which version of that God are they offending? Again, we're not really on the same level. You clearly see "a God" as a figment of the imaginations of his worshippers, so I'm not sure how to make it more real for you.

What makes me the mouthpiece for God? I think mouthpiece is the wrong term, but if you're looking for reasons for my conviction and my verbalization of that conviction, try Isaiah 43:10 and Matthew 28:19,20 for starters.

I believe, from an in depth study of my Toyota Corolla's manual, that Toyota is the only car in existence.

Sounds like both of us need to expand our "in depth studies".

[Here It Goes]

Again, you're still refusing to answer the questions I asked you. The bible is not objective reality. You can believe it all you want, but you keep using it as evidence for your beliefs. That's called "begging the question". You're stating "I believe A, B, and C because the Bible tells me so, and I believe the Bible because God tells me so". That's all fine and good. But the Bible is in the end just a book, and God, no matter how hard you try, is still just an idea and a concept, as far as can be evidenced or proven.

When having a conversation such as this one, you don't get to work within the framework of an alternate reality. I'm fine with you believing whatever you want, but trying to inject it into a discussion without evidence, logic, or rationale behind it is insane, because absence of evidence is most often evidence of absence.

What exactly are you wanting people to base their beliefs on? You can call it an alternate reality because this or that can't be proven, or because you don't agree with it, but it's not alternate to those who do believe it. God's existence is real to me, his requirements are real to me, and his inspiration of the Bible is real to me. It's also seems to be real to at least some of the people involved in this discussion, so...again, we're not really speaking on the same level here.

I think a lot of people here are assuming that I see myself as perfect, or that I haven't taken the time to view situations such as this from all angles. I'm not sure how to reiterate the fact that I have.

[sheslostcontrol]

I honestly do not understand how people can sit back and not allow gays to marry, settle down and start families. It's basic human rights, and just because they've committed this "sin" which is no sin in the first place, does that mean that they should be denied everything? Falling in love isn't something that should be shunned and looked down upon, it's a beautiful thing, and to see that theres still love left in this world is a refreshing experience, after seeing all the pain that's in it right now. If your parents and an old book told you to kill yourself right now, would you? Just because you've been raised following certain rules, does not mean that you have to live your life by them. It doesn't mean that you can't open your eyes and see that humans deserve human rights.

I don't think it matters what the bible says, because human beings should be able to understand that not everything written in the bible is sound. It was written so long ago that many parts aren't relevant, or right anymore. Close-minded people cannot blame their ignorance and discrimination on religion. They should be able to diffirentiate whats right and wrong all by themselves.

I think that religion is pulling back the human race, we can learn so much more if we listen to scientists, and stop following things written so long ago they are no longer relevant.

[Here It Goes]

Your entire line of responses contradicts this completely. You are interpreting it precisely to support the way YOU think.

So you probably know about all of the ways in which I've struggled to adhere to God's guidelines myself. Or how hard my life has been in trying to live up to God's standards. Because yeah, I'm a close-minded bigot, and my life is smooth sailing because of it, right?

You don't think my life would be a million times easier if I just did whatever I wanted to, and ignored the Bible's standards?

[GeeBee]

What exactly are you wanting people to base their beliefs on? You can call it an alternate reality because this or that can't be proven, or because you don't agree with it, but it's not alternate to those who do believe it. God's existence is real to me, his requirements are real to me, and his inspiration of the Bible is real to me. It's also seems to be real to at least some of the people involved in this discussion, so...again, we're not really speaking on the same level here.

I think a lot of people here are assuming that I see myself as perfect, or that I haven't taken the time to view situations such as this from all angles. I'm not sure how to reiterate the fact that I have.

Your ability to think critically is really in question here. Things don't just become reality by virtue of your believing it. Will you accept that fairies exist simply because I say I believe in them?

[Here It Goes]

I'd also really appreciate an answer to this statement. It seems you and I are both atheists, I simply believe in one less deity than you do.

No, I'm not all the only one who has a handle on what God wants. I just try to apply what's in the Bible in my own life. I'm not an atheist in any sense of the word. I'm not sure how can believe in one less than zero, so I'm not sure what you're implying, as usual.

[GeeBee]

So you probably know about all of the ways in which I've struggled to adhere to God's guidelines myself. Or how hard my life has been in trying to live up to God's standards. Because yeah, I'm a close-minded bigot, and my life is smooth sailing because of it, right?

You don't think my life would be a million times easier if I just did whatever I wanted to, and ignored the Bible's standards?

Again, you're talking as if the Bible or God were constant realities like gravity. They're not.

[GeeBee]

No, I'm not all the only one who has a handle on what God wants. I just try to apply what's in the Bible in my own life. I'm not an atheist in any sense of the word. I'm not sure how can believe in one less than zero, so I'm not sure what you're implying, as usual.

You're begging the question again...who says the Bible is the source of all good? God? Who says he's the RIGHT god?

You absolutely ARE an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Apollo, Allah, Shiva, Xenu, and thousands of other gods throughout time that I could mention. You don't believe in them at all. For all you know, you need to repent ASAP to Zeus for denying his existence and not worshiping him. Face it, you're an atheist in regards to 99.99% of all the gods who have ever been revered. Sure you're willing to devote your life to such terrible odds that YOU'VE got the right one? Sure you're willing to explain to all the Muslims and Hindis out there that they're wrong?

[matt_bergeron]

Hitler was not an atheist. Read Mein Kampf.

i attempted that once......couldn't do it.... i felt wrong.

[GeeBee]

Mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance seem to be the name of the game for the devoutly religious on this board. Sorry, but "well, it's real to me" doesn't cut it when you're trying to force a moral code onto a society. Either provide some solid rationale, or GTFO.

[Analog Rebellion]

:popcorn:

You're begging the question again...who says the Bible is the source of all good? God? Who says he's the RIGHT god?

You absolutely ARE an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Apollo, Allah, Shiva, Xenu, and thousands of other gods throughout time that I could mention. You don't believe in them at all. For all you know, you need to repent ASAP to Zeus for denying his existence and not worshiping him. Face it, you're an atheist in regards to 99.99% of all the gods who have ever been revered. Sure you're willing to devote your life to such terrible odds that YOU'VE got the right one? Sure you're willing to explain to all the Muslims and Hindis out there that they're wrong?

I posted an entire blog about this subject called "We Are All Atheists" (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=27145984&blogId=463879214). It's funny how Christians want to disassociate themselves with the word "atheist" at all costs, even when it has to do with Gods they know are not real.

[GeeBee]

:popcorn:



I posted an entire blog about this subject called "We Are All Atheists" (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=27145984&blogId=463879214). It's funny how Christians want to disassociate themselves with the word "atheist" at all costs, even when it has to do with Gods they know are not real.

Not to mention disassociate themselves from objective reality when it suits them. I'm SO tired of hearing "well, we're just on two different levels of thinking." As are psychopaths and their therapists.

[Broclee]

I'm glad someone better read and with better discussion skills swooped in to take up this one.

[Analog Rebellion]

I'm glad someone better read and with better discussion skills swooped in to take up this one.

Your avatar is full of things that are good.

[Broclee]

Your avatar is full of things that are good.
My house is made of mediocrity!

[Adeniz19]

I like the assumption that people can't be good people unless they follow what's in the bible. if you need a book to tell you how to treat your fellow man, then there's something wrong about that.

[Analog Rebellion]

My house is made of mediocrity!
That episode was amazing. The atheism episode was great also. I'm glad Family Guy is back on top of its game. I was disappointed by this season of South Park.

I like the assumption that people can't be good people unless they follow what's in the bible. if you need a book to tell you how to treat your fellow man, then there's something wrong about that.
Agreed. There's some good stuff in the Bible. There's also good stuff (from a moral standpoint) in a lot of religious texts. Modern society should be able to take the good and reject the bad.

[Broclee]

That episode was amazing. The atheism episode was great also. I'm glad Family Guy is back on top of its game. I was disappointed by this season of South Park.


Agreed. There's some good stuff in the Bible. There's also good stuff (from a moral standpoint) in a lot of religious texts. Modern society should be able to take the good and reject the bad.
I'm happy that Family Guy has gotten back on top of it as well. With every episode of South Park, I go into it thinking it might be decent, and twenty-three odd minutes later I feel like I've wasted part of my life.


Oh, and you're both totally right about morals and good and bad.

[mmmmmpoetry]

y0Hr_2bRsY4

[GeeBee]

Hope I didn't scare off any Christians. Don't take your ball and go home. Early ones had the courage to be eaten by lions, surely you can hold up against some scrutiny online.

[GeeBee]

I love how early Christians at least had the courage to stand up for their beliefs. Some were even eaten by lions. Nowadays, they take their ball and go home when people jab them online a little.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

maybe we just dont care what you're saying

[DejaGuy89]

It is up to God to judge and not us. IMO I think Jesus would not approve of the actions of a lot of Christian towards homosexuals. He would not have yelled at them and cursed them and tell them they are not loved by god. God loves all of his children he has said that whether or not he approves of thier lifestyle who really knows. Jesus would have not shown hate towards homosexuals he would have talked to them and loved them either way. didnt he sit with the lepers, didnt he talk to the prostitutes and tax collectors. I am appalled to call myself a Christian sometimes because those people out there who dont read enought or read what they want to read, go out and spread a message of hate instead of love which is the core of what christianity is based off of.

i dont claim to know what god thinks
i dont know whether it is a sin or not
but if it is then let us not hate the people
god said " Love the sinner hate the sin"
everyone sins and no sin is worse than another so you telling a lie is no different than being a homosexual
again i do not claim to know what god thinks about homosexuality
but i do know how he feels about treating one and other as human beings

[Regards]

Main Entry: athe·ist http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis02.wav=atheist') Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\ Function: noun Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity


Seriously? Are you really going to stretch that defination to a point of saying that Christians are atheists because they don't believe in other deity's? Haha, come on now. That's just silly.

[admkbl]

everyone sins and no sin is worse than another so you telling a lie is no different than being a homosexual
The common explanation I've heard from Christians is that it's a "lifestyle" sin and therefore you either are deceived, backslidden, or not "saved" at all. "If you really loved God then you wouldn't keep repeating the same sin." But that doesn't make sense because you can't *fix* one's orientation. I've tried just about everything short of an ex-gay camp (hell no) while trying so hard to change and it only caused mental damage. I honestly don't think I could have wanted change any more than I did. The idea that you can somehow turn straight just doesn't work.

I cannot understand why homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, other than those few verses which (as explained before) might have been mistranslated. Many of the other moral laws and guidelines for living in the Bible make sense, but this? It is illogical in light of everything else in the Bible from what I understand of it. I'm probably a bit biased, but I cannot understand how two people who genuinely love one another cannot be together.

An interesting illustration I found on gaychristian.net, while trying to figure out how to reconcile my faith and my orientation, is below:

"Suppose my friend Billy meets someone and falls in love with this person, named Sam. Billy and Sam spend months, maybe even years, getting to know one another, and as they grow closer to each other and to Christ, they decide to form a lasting bond, to promise to be together forever in a marriage in front of God. So Billy comes to me about it and I, being a Traditionalist, respond by saying, 'That's immoral and disgusting! You and Samuel are doing a terrible thing before God!' Billy blinks for a moment and then replies, 'Sam is short for Samantha. She's a girl.' Suddenly, my opinion changes. 'Oh, well then, that's wonderful! All the best to you! What a blessing!'"

Currently... I'm not sure what to believe, if anything. I know what I personally feel, that this "issue" will never go away (and not for lack of trying), and it is causing me to re-evaluate everything I have ever been taught in relation to religion. Not really a bad thing, having grown up in the church and never really questioning what I was taught. I want to believe in God, but am finding more things that lead me to believe that Christianity is either a horrible distortion of him or that it's all a lie. I'm leaning toward the latter.

[GeeBee]

Main Entry: athe·ist http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis02.wav=atheist%27) Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\ Function: noun Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity


Seriously? Are you really going to stretch that defination to a point of saying that Christians are atheists because they don't believe in other deity's? Haha, come on now. That's just silly.

ATHEISM----"A" meaning "without", "THEISM" meaning "belief in deity"

let's try some "silly" deductive reasoning----
Zeus is claimed by some to be deity.
You DON'T HAVE A BELIEF IN ZEUS
YOU ARE THEREFORE AN ATHEIST IN REGARDS TO ZEUS.

Get outside your bubble. This "my god is better than your god" game that Christians play is RIDICULOUS!

[GeeBee]

It is up to God to judge and not us. IMO I think Jesus would not approve of the actions of a lot of Christian towards homosexuals. He would not have yelled at themGod loves all of his children and cursed them and tell them they are not loved by god. he has said that whether or not he approves of thier lifestyle who really knows. Jesus would have not shown hate he would have talked to them and loved them towards homosexuals either way. didnt he sit with the lepers, didnt he talk to the prostitutes and tax collectors. I am appalled to call myself a Christian sometimes because those people out there who dont read enought or read what they want to read, go out and spread a message of hate instead of love which is the core of what christianity is based off of.

i dont claim to know what god thinks
i dont know whether it is a sin or not
but if it is then let us not hate the people
god said " Love the sinner hate the sin"
everyone sins and no sin is worse than another so you telling a lie is no different than being a homosexual
again i do not claim to know what god thinks about homosexuality
but i do know how he feels about treating one and other as human beings

Your post is riddled with inconsistency.

Believe it or not, you are still part of the problem. HOW IN THE HELL does ANYONE claim to know what GOD thinks? Who the hell is ANYONE to tell ANYONE? You have no EVIDENCE whatsoever of the existence of any of the THOUSANDS of gods people have imagined throughout the ages, yet EVERYONE is SO sure that they've FINALLY found the REAL one! GET REAL PEOPLE!

[GeeBee]

The common explanation I've heard from Christians is that it's a "lifestyle" sin and therefore you either are deceived, backslidden, or not "saved" at all. "If you really loved God then you wouldn't keep repeating the same sin." But that doesn't make sense because you can't *fix* one's orientation. I've tried just about everything short of an ex-gay camp (hell no) while trying so hard to change and it only caused mental damage. I honestly don't think I could have wanted change any more than I did. The idea that you can somehow turn straight just doesn't work.

I cannot understand why homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, other than those few verses which (as explained before) might have been mistranslated. Many of the other moral laws and guidelines for living in the Bible make sense, but this? It is illogical in light of everything else in the Bible from what I understand of it. I'm probably a bit biased, but I cannot understand how two people who genuinely love one another cannot be together.

An interesting illustration I found on gaychristian.net, while trying to figure out how to reconcile my faith and my orientation, is below:

"Suppose my friend Billy meets someone and falls in love with this person, named Sam. Billy and Sam spend months, maybe even years, getting to know one another, and as they grow closer to each other and to Christ, they decide to form a lasting bond, to promise to be together forever in a marriage in front of God. So Billy comes to me about it and I, being a Traditionalist, respond by saying, 'That's immoral and disgusting! You and Samuel are doing a terrible thing before God!' Billy blinks for a moment and then replies, 'Sam is short for Samantha. She's a girl.' Suddenly, my opinion changes. 'Oh, well then, that's wonderful! All the best to you! What a blessing!'"

Currently... I'm not sure what to believe, if anything. I know what I personally feel, that this "issue" will never go away (and not for lack of trying), and it is causing me to re-evaluate everything I have ever been taught in relation to religion. Not really a bad thing, having grown up in the church and never really questioning what I was taught. I want to believe in God, but am finding more things that lead me to believe that Christianity is either a horrible distortion of him or that it's all a lie. I'm leaning toward the latter.


You'll find that life is much more rewarding once you let go of some framework that you "have" to keep your thoughts and worldviews confined within. It sounds like the floodgates are opening for you. I congratulate you on your clarity.

[Regards]

Get outside your bubble. This "my god is better than your god" game that Christians play is RIDICULOUS!
I only believe in one God, therefor that statement is totally illogical.

[Analog Rebellion]

Main Entry: athe·ist http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis02.wav=atheist') Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\ Function: noun Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity


Seriously? Are you really going to stretch that defination to a point of saying that Christians are atheists because they don't believe in other deity's? Haha, come on now. That's just silly.

That is not the only definition of atheism. That is the definition of strong atheism.

Christians are theistic in regards to their belief of the Abrahamic God, and atheistic in regards to their belief of all other gods and deities, of which there are literally millions.

Atheism does not always mean a disbelief in all Gods. Christians are theists and atheists. People that call themselves atheists, in the sense that they do not believe in any Gods, are exclusively atheists.

[Regards]

That is not the only definition of atheism. That is the definition of strong atheism.

Christians are theistic in regards to their belief of the Abrahamic God, and atheistic in regards to their belief of all other gods and deities, of which there are literally millions.

Atheism does not always mean a disbelief in all Gods. Christians are theists and atheists. People that call themselves atheists, in the sense that they do not believe in any Gods, are exclusively atheists.
So all you're doing is a play on words is what you're saying? Because by the definition of what Atheism is generally accepted as is the belief in no God's or the exact opposite of Theism.

[Analog Rebellion]

So all you're doing is a play on words is what you're saying? Because by the definition of what Atheism is generally accepted as is the belief in no God's or the exact opposite of Theism.
Ugh.

How many definitions are there of the word table? Stand? Ball? Run? Foot?

Why do you think there is only one definition of atheism? What sort of investment do you have in atheism only having the one definition that you are familiar with?

[Praetor]

You cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. Those terms are designed to be mutually exclusive.

[Analog Rebellion]

You cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. Those terms are designed to be mutually exclusive.
When being used as a term to generalize a person's overall world view, yes. They are most often mutually exclusive.

However, when used as a segmented definition for one's specific beliefs in regards to sections outside of one's world view, implicit atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism) is not exclusive.

This entire exercise is to demonstrate that a Christian's rejection of gods is near-identical to an atheist's rejection of gods.

[Praetor]

It's a cool exercise, sure, in the same way that the Pastafarian faith is a cool exercise. But it's just that, an exercise.

[Analog Rebellion]

It's a cool exercise, sure, in the same way that the Pastafarian faith is a cool exercise. But it's just that, an exercise.
Read about implicit atheism.

[GeeBee]

You cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. Those terms are designed to be mutually exclusive.

Do you or do you not believe in Zeus?
If the answer is NO, then you are, as far as Zeus goes, AN ATHEIST (a- without; theism- belief in deity)
Do we need to go down the entire list of gods for you to get this concept?

The WHOLE crux of the idea is that there are MILLIONS of gods you could believe in. You believe in the Christian one (of which there are millions of interpretations and subsets). So, if I'm a 100% atheist, I'd say that puts you in the 99.99 percentile.

Have you ever even taken a theology or world religions class before? This is really elementary stuff.

[GeeBee]

It's a cool exercise, sure, in the same way that the Pastafarian faith is a cool exercise. But it's just that, an exercise.

So what makes Christianity any less of "just an exercise" than Pastafarianism? You're starting to get at our WHOLE point here...

[ostartero]

Nobody chooses, I can vouch.

/thread

Because really, this is just the religion thread part deux, only featuring homosexuality.

[GeeBee]

Nobody chooses, I can vouch.

/thread

Because really, this is just the religion thread part deux, only featuring homosexuality.

And the problem with that is? As long as people are posting, and for the most part respectful, what's the beef if we keep it going?

[Praetor]

Do you or do you not believe in Zeus?
If the answer is NO, then you are, as far as Zeus goes, AN ATHEIST (a- without; theism- belief in deity)
Do we need to go down the entire list of gods for you to get this concept?

The WHOLE crux of the idea is that there are MILLIONS of gods you could believe in. You believe in the Christian one (of which there are millions of interpretations and subsets). So, if I'm a 100% atheist, I'd say that puts you in the 99.99 percentile.

Have you ever even taken a theology or world religions class before? This is really elementary stuff.
I'm not a Christian. Don't assume things.
So what makes Christianity any less of "just an exercise" than Pastafarianism? You're starting to get at our WHOLE point here...
I got your fucking point from the beginning, I just think that it's ridiculous.
Read about implicit atheism.
I did, I still think it's ridiculous. When you believe in a god (or gods) of one faith then of course you don't believe in other gods. It's silly to say you are a 'weak atheist'. You can never be an atheist and a theist at the same time. That is batshit insane.

[Shoes]

I'm a Christian, and I'm gay. Everything you said only furthered my view that I was created this way. Kodos to you!

[ostartero]

And the problem with that is? As long as people are posting, and for the most part respectful, what's the beef if we keep it going?

I don't really mind if the thread keeps going, I'm just commenting on the fact that the underlying argument is whether to believe the bible or not.

[caveBEAR]

Well the title does have the word 'bible' in it...

[DejaGuy89]

Your post is riddled with inconsistency.

Believe it or not, you are still part of the problem. HOW IN THE HELL does ANYONE claim to know what GOD thinks? Who the hell is ANYONE to tell ANYONE? You have no EVIDENCE whatsoever of the existence of any of the THOUSANDS of gods people have imagined throughout the ages, yet EVERYONE is SO sure that they've FINALLY found the REAL one! GET REAL PEOPLE!

believing in god is about faith. it doesnt matter if there is no "proof" its not about seeing. you might not understand

[DejaGuy89]

The common explanation I've heard from Christians is that it's a "lifestyle" sin and therefore you either are deceived, backslidden, or not "saved" at all. "If you really loved God then you wouldn't keep repeating the same sin." But that doesn't make sense because you can't *fix* one's orientation. I've tried just about everything short of an ex-gay camp (hell no) while trying so hard to change and it only caused mental damage. I honestly don't think I could have wanted change any more than I did. The idea that you can somehow turn straight just doesn't work.

I cannot understand why homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, other than those few verses which (as explained before) might have been mistranslated. Many of the other moral laws and guidelines for living in the Bible make sense, but this? It is illogical in light of everything else in the Bible from what I understand of it. I'm probably a bit biased, but I cannot understand how two people who genuinely love one another cannot be together.

An interesting illustration I found on gaychristian.net, while trying to figure out how to reconcile my faith and my orientation, is below:

"Suppose my friend Billy meets someone and falls in love with this person, named Sam. Billy and Sam spend months, maybe even years, getting to know one another, and as they grow closer to each other and to Christ, they decide to form a lasting bond, to promise to be together forever in a marriage in front of God. So Billy comes to me about it and I, being a Traditionalist, respond by saying, 'That's immoral and disgusting! You and Samuel are doing a terrible thing before God!' Billy blinks for a moment and then replies, 'Sam is short for Samantha. She's a girl.' Suddenly, my opinion changes. 'Oh, well then, that's wonderful! All the best to you! What a blessing!'"

Currently... I'm not sure what to believe, if anything. I know what I personally feel, that this "issue" will never go away (and not for lack of trying), and it is causing me to re-evaluate everything I have ever been taught in relation to religion. Not really a bad thing, having grown up in the church and never really questioning what I was taught. I want to believe in God, but am finding more things that lead me to believe that Christianity is either a horrible distortion of him or that it's all a lie. I'm leaning toward the latter.


I know exactly how you feel i have two members in my family that are gay. I never really thought much about it til i found out. I have come to the conclusion that i am to show love instead of hate most uninformed "christians" show. Jesus message was one of love not hate.

On believing in god, I think it is good to evaluate what you bellieve and not just follow blindly. Also dont just buy into what ever some one who says that theyy are christian believes. They could be distorting it. I have been to all sorts of christian camps with different pastors and speakers and some i have thought "Wow does he have it so wrong" People have interpretted the bible different ways You have to read and find out how you see it. Doing that has brought me closer to him because i am not just going off what people say

[GeeBee]

I'm not a Christian. Don't assume things.

I got your fucking point from the beginning, I just think that it's ridiculous.

I did, I still think it's ridiculous. When you believe in a god (or gods) of one faith then of course you don't believe in other gods. It's silly to say you are a 'weak atheist'. You can never be an atheist and a theist at the same time. That is batshit insane.


Care to elaborate, since we're having a rational discussion, supported by concrete arguments?

First, you're 15, so at the first chance you get, take a philosophy, theology, and world religions class. When you do, you'll learn...a lot.

Secondly...
Take a look around at the beliefs of the various religions in the world. God speaking through burning bushes. Sacred cows. Sacrificing virgins. Guys on crosses. Seas splitting in two. Nirvana.
You have a look at all that, then you look at the atheists, who simply believe in what we have here, now, in front of us, and refuse to subject themselves to baseless assertions...and OUR ideas are the ones you call "batshit insane"? Get a clue, kid. And a book.