Why is homosexuality a sin? [Archive] - Page 2

Goed

22-10-2004, 03:10

Nah--Goober is right. If my option is to go to hell with my gay friends or go to hell with a bunch of self-righteous prigs and a god who would actually punish people for all eternity for being who they were born to be, then hell it is. I don't need a god like that, and I don't need to be around people like that.

Hey, I'll come too.

...Dude, all the cool people are going to hell.

Hell is gonna kick ASS!

BTW, I don't believe in hell. Hell only proves the existance of a cruel and abusive diety.

As Paine said before, "Belief in a cruel god makes cruel men."

Life ain't all parties and roses.
What would really be pessimistic would be to say that God would give us what we deserve and not bother making a plan to save any of us.
God made us perfect. We ruin it. God provides a way out.
Not as sad as you thought it was now is it?
No, pessimism is what YOU have. You seem to think that all people are programmed to be complete rat bastards. You have some sad issues with humanity, bud.

RSDarksbane

22-10-2004, 03:10

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is--it's an inborn, innate drive. You might as well ask a homosexual to stop breathing as to stop being gay.
You can choose. You may feel a homosexual inclination but you are not by any means compelled. You do not even have to have sex at all during your lifetime. It is an active choice whether or not you indulge yourself in a homosexual act. I do not say that there is not a genetic predisposition towards one or the other, for I have no proof of such, but it is an obvious fact that you choose what you do with your body and are responsible for it.

The Byzantine Imperium

22-10-2004, 03:11

One thing I think people need to consider is that today's marriage (in tradtionally Christian countries; most non-Western traditions don't even pretend to address the issue anyway or even see it as an issue) is the result of unusual historical circumstances.

A once private institution (during the Classical Era) was co-opted by the early Church and then later re-co-opted by national governments when they asserted authority OVER the Church in early modern times. So we get this private, religious, and civil stuff all wound up in a big mess. Perhaps we should re-seperate them:

1. Private couples decide whether they want to be together (as they already do);
2. Each religious group decides whether it will perform and/or recognize gay marriage (as they already do); and
3. The State treat ALL of its citizens equally (14th Amendment anyone?) and grant all #1 couples that want it the legal benefits that today come with "marriage."

Takuma

22-10-2004, 03:11

I really can't be assed to read the whole of this thread because it's too early in the morning and I hope that I'm not repeating here what someone else has already said. Unfortunately Endless Rehearsals doesn't have the brainpower to differentiate between what constituted the old Jewish law instigated for a people, whose only experience was that of slavery and hardship, trying to start a new country and Christian law which transcends generation and is still very much appropriate.

Endless, anything you refer to that cannot be traced back to the Ten Commandments or Jesus' Teaching doesn't constitute Christian law. I'll just check through your points and make sure that covers everything. Yep. Done. And the slavery thing; there was no real generic employer/employee terminology or contract back there when they didn't have MS Word or LaTeX. So I'm fairly sure just about anything in the OT which refers to slavery can be applied to modern day working practices: pay your employee well, fire them if they do badly etc. I don't think many people have too many problems with allowing their daughters to work (not that way) these days. Please inform me of any problems with that.

Might post again when I've read more of the thread.

Just a question... what's the difference between "the old Jewish law" and "Christian law that transcends generation". They're both included in the same book of the bible! And who are you to decide which is which? I say... either take ALL of it or NONE of it. Therefore since you clearly don't want it all, stop using the Torah to back up your narrow-minded gay-bashing arguments.

Saint Babylas

22-10-2004, 03:13

I'm Christen, and I don't think homosexuality is wrong. It's all a matter of upbringing and social convention.

I say "Love is Best, but biting works too..."

:fluffle:

Incertonia

22-10-2004, 03:16

You can choose. You may feel a homosexual inclination but you are not by any means compelled. You do not even have to have sex at all during your lifetime. It is an active choice whether or not you indulge yourself in a homosexual act. I do not say that there is not a genetic predisposition towards one or the other, for I have no proof of such, but it is an obvious fact that you choose what you do with your body and are responsible for it.
So what you're saying is that if you never experience a heterosexual act, you're what--asexual? Homosexual? How do you know? Sorry--it doesn't work that way. A person's sexuality is not necessarily determined by the sexual experiences he or she takes part in. Your sexuality is an innate part of who you are as a person, whether or not it ever presents itself in physical experience.

Moonshine

22-10-2004, 03:20

Since I care about others, I should do my best not to let them do bad things. I am not sure what my position is on legislating it just yet, but if it is wrong, I should try to show people the problem and fix it.

So you seek to have power over me? To be my master? To tell me what to do and force me to do it "for my own good"?

Thanks for the warning.

You can disprove a belief system by pointing out self-contradiction and fallacies in it.

Anton Lavey's Satanic Bible goes to great lengths to expose many of the more ridiculous contradictions in your bible; indeed your whole belief system. Seems the devil was right after all then. Obviously. Yup.

Note the facetious tone.

But seriously - if that is your measure on how right a religion is, I would recommend you get a copy of the Satanic Bible. Available here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380015390/104-4072626-5388715?v=glance

Also a copy of Satan Speaks! from the same author. If self-contradiction and fallacies are your measure of the falseness of a religion, then these tomes may just blow your mind. Of course I can't force you to read them, and I can't gaurantee that your church-going peers would approve of you even having them. However, I will point them out nonetheless. After all, if you are a true follower, then nothing in a mere book will ever faze you.

This viewpoint demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the concepts of heaven and hell.
You do not want to go to hell. Ever. Bad bad bad bad place. Words cannot adequately describe how awful it is.
You do want to go to heaven. Yes. Good good good place. Words cannot describe how wonderful it is.
People will act completely different after death anyway. You might not even be allowed to see other people in hell.

...and you have experienced heaven and hell personally?

Gran Falloon

22-10-2004, 03:21

Hey! Any body here had sex without benefit of marriage?
maturbated?
RSD?
those are choices; are they still damnable?

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:21

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p

I"m sorry to say even though you are not a Christian it is still a sin.

Sin is Sin. Period.
No "if", "and"'s or "but"'s about it!

What makes you think that if you are not a Christian it is not a sin? Just because you dont' believe in Christianity???

Besides- God made Adam and Eve. A male and a female. Not Adam and Steve.
A male and a male!

Maxbleuwan

22-10-2004, 03:22

Why is it wrong? Cause Homo fags smell like pee!!!!

RSDarksbane

22-10-2004, 03:23

Goed

22-10-2004, 03:25

I"m sorry to say even though you are not a Christian it is still a sin.

Sin is Sin. Period.
No "if", "and"'s or "but"'s about it!

What makes you think that if you are not a Christian it is not a sin? Just because you dont' believe in Christianity???

Besides- God made Adam and Eve. A male and a female. Not Adam and Steve.
A male and a male!

Actually, if you're not a christian, it isn't a sin to you. Frankly, if a person isn't a christian, they don't give a shit about what christianity thinks and believes, as long as it's not doing anything said person.

So, if you arn't a christian, it's not a sin. Only a christian thinks it's a sin.

Same goes for your stupid Adam and Steve bit.

Though people always use the male part of it. I never here "It was Adam and Eve, not Madam and Eve!"

I think it's because they're secretly turned on by lesbians, but would never want to admit it :p

Why is it wrong? Cause Homo fags smell like pee!!!!
What are you talking about? Het couples are the ones who stick their pee holes in each other.

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:27

I am going to try ONE LAST TIME.
Homosexual inclination may or may not be a choice. I have no evidence on that subject. However, the ACT of homosexuality, acting out on such an inclination, is a choice. You can choose what you do with your body. You are not forced to indulge in homosexual acts.
Hell is a bad place. No surprise there. You do not want to be in Hell.
Mankind sucks. We all do stupid, bad things. We should be punished.
Christianity is the way God has provided for us to escape that punishment.
God is good, and good includes both justice and mercy.
Don't ask how God could send anyone to Hell. Its your fault you are going there. Its not the judge's fault you commit a crime.
God did provide a way out. Jesus. Get right with God and avoid Hell or not and don't.
Your choice. All yours.
I am now heading to bed.

On top of that
There either is something after death or there isn't something after death.

If there is something after death then that is heaven and hell. and the christian will go to heaven and gain everything. The non believer will go to Hell and lose everything.

If there is nothing after death, then the Christian loses nothin. and the non believer will gain nothing.

Southern Eurasia

22-10-2004, 03:28

Incertonia

22-10-2004, 03:30

I am going to try ONE LAST TIME.
Homosexual inclination may or may not be a choice. I have no evidence on that subject. However, the ACT of homosexuality, acting out on such an inclination, is a choice. You can choose what you do with your body. You are not forced to indulge in homosexual acts.
Hell is a bad place. No surprise there. You do not want to be in Hell.
Mankind sucks. We all do stupid, bad things. We should be punished.
Christianity is the way God has provided for us to escape that punishment.
God is good, and good includes both justice and mercy.
Don't ask how God could send anyone to Hell. Its your fault you are going there. Its not the judge's fault you commit a crime.
God did provide a way out. Jesus. Get right with God and avoid Hell or not and don't.
Your choice. All yours.
I am now heading to bed.
Don't beat off. Jesus doesn't like seeing that either. :rolleyes:

Goobergunchia

22-10-2004, 03:31

The PRP must be removed from power.
Besides- God made Adam and Eve. A male and a female. Not Adam and Steve.
A male and a male!

Actually, Homo sapiens evolved from apes about two million years ago. There is evidence that all of humanity is decended from one woman in Africa, who we could call Eve, but there is no evidence for an "Adam".

Goed

22-10-2004, 03:32

I am going to try ONE LAST TIME.
Well, there goes that comedy goldmine :p
Homosexual inclination may or may not be a choice. I have no evidence on that subject. However, the ACT of homosexuality, acting out on such an inclination, is a choice. You can choose what you do with your body. You are not forced to indulge in homosexual acts.
Yes, but the same goes for hetrosexual acts.
Hell is a bad place. No surprise there. You do not want to be in Hell.
Really? Interesting, since I've only heard christians talk about it. Never jews. They don't even have a hell. So where di yours come from? I think Jesus and Yahweh need to have a little chat and straighten things out.
Mankind sucks. We all do stupid, bad things. We should be punished.
That's pessimistic. Mankind can also be quite awesome if you give them the chance.
Christianity is the way God has provided for us to escape that punishment. As opposed to the scads of other religions? That's not very nice, giving us a choice of millions, with only one right answer...
God is good, and good includes both justice and mercy. Not the god you talk about
Don't ask how God could send anyone to Hell. Its your fault you are going there. Its not the judge's fault you commit a crime.
It is if the judge pre-ordained you to do the crime.
God did provide a way out. Jesus. Get right with God and avoid Hell or not and don't. As opposed to Mohommad? Or the Buddha?
Your choice. All yours.
Holding a gun to someone's head and saying "If you answer with "no," I'll kill you. Do you love me?" is also a choice.

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:33

The PRP must be removed from power.

Actually, Homo sapiens evolved from apes about two million years ago. There is evidence that all of humanity is decended from one woman in Africa, who we could call Eve, but there is no evidence for an "Adam".

There is so evidence for an Adam. The Bible. You are believing that there was no Adam. No I ask you is it easier to believe that adam and eve were the first people on earth or that eve was soley the first person on earth and go completely against recorded history?

Goed

22-10-2004, 03:33

On top of that
There either is something after death or there isn't something after death.

If there is something after death then that is heaven and hell. and the christian will go to heaven and gain everything. The non believer will go to Hell and lose everything.

If there is nothing after death, then the Christian loses nothin. and the non believer will gain nothing.

What if one of the other religions are right? What is Islam is correct? Or Hinduism, and since you spent all your time being an asshat, you have shitty karma?

It doesn't matter of Judaism is right, since they don't have a hell. Which is weird, because where did you get your's from?

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:34

The PRP must be removed from power.

Actually, Homo sapiens evolved from apes about two million years ago. There is evidence that all of humanity is decended from one woman in Africa, who we could call Eve, but there is no evidence for an "Adam".

besides are you really gonna believe that just because they didn't find evidence for adam in africa that there wasnt' an adam???

Incertonia

22-10-2004, 03:35

There is so evidence for an Adam. The Bible. You are believing that there was no Adam. No I ask you is it easier to believe that adam and eve were the first people on earth or that eve was soley the first person on earth and go completely against recorded history?How about neither, and that Adam and Eve were creation myths for that culture. I mean, it's not like every culture doesn't have some version of the same story after all. Jeez.

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:36

What if one of the other religions are right? What is Islam is correct? Or Hinduism, and since you spent all your time being an asshat, you have shitty karma?

It doesn't matter of Judaism is right, since they don't have a hell. Which is weird, because where did you get your's from?

How can any of the other religions be right????????

I mean a religion started by the son of God who never sinned

Or a religion started by a guy who was famous because other lunatics believed in what he said???

jeez which one whould u believe is correct???

Kinda Sensible people

22-10-2004, 03:39

So... What I think im hearing is this:

"Homosexuality is wrong cause they cant have kids and becuase god didnt make them that way."

The only real response I can give is this. Then Hetero couples who get married knowing they cannot or will not have childeren are also sinners of equal evil. More to the point Homosexuality is common in animals and therefore if some misterious "God" created the world he also created homosexuality, and since he created it he clearly created us that way.

District 268

22-10-2004, 03:39

yes your post made good sense, i've only left in the parts that i have (slight) disagreement with

my point WAS that we all do sexual sins. very few people in this modern age have never had sex outside the bond of matrimony. their sin is equal to the sin of homosexual sex but no one rags on them for it or denies them civil/marital rights because of it.

if non-procreation sex is a sin, then we ALL must be sinners. surely as a married man you have not limited your sexual activity to only those times when you tried to procreate. even the catholic church allows for natural family planning. i dont have verses to quote but im pretty sure you are wrong in your assessment that married sex is only for procreation and that any other sex is a sin. but we all have our own interpretations.

so i guess it goes without saying that you think that ALL non penis-in-vagina sex is a sin, no matter who is doing it. no oral sex, no anal sex, no other alternatives. and it doesnt matter if its man and wife or man and man doing it. i was going to point out that homosexual sex never has to include anal sex but i assume that wouldnt change your point.

the rest of your post made good sense to me. (i think. now that i removed the good parts i wish i hadnt)

I only have sex for procreation, my wife and I planned the birth of our son and are trying to have another child. My mental illness almost kills my sex drive, and my wife is often tired from working as a Nurse on extra shifts, so we don't get much of a chance for sex anyway.

Am I supposed to cover every sexual act homosexuals may do? I only pointed out one of them to keep it simple.

Next time try to leave the good parts in, they make a much better conversation than the bad parts. Regards, The Dread Pirate Orion Blastar, President of District 268.

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:40

Incertonia

22-10-2004, 03:40

How can any of the other religions be right????????

I mean a religion started by the son of God who never sinned

Or a religion started by a guy who was famous because other lunatics believed in what he said???

jeez which one whould u believe is correct???
Ah--for a moment I thought you were being serious. You're not, right?

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:42

Ah--for a moment I thought you were being serious. You're not, right?

I'm dead serious

all the other religions

like Buddism

was started by a lunatic who was famous because he was the only person who would speak out in a croud of lunatics

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 03:48

God didn't create it He created a man and woman relationship then Satan corrupted the mind's of man

I thought Satan only has control over temptation? Homosexuality stems a good bit from physiology?

Does that mean that I might have been a man but Satan took my penis away?

And did Satan get to all the animals too? There are lots of homosexual/bisexual/transsexual animals.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 03:49

There is so evidence for an Adam. The Bible. You are believing that there was no Adam. No I ask you is it easier to believe that adam and eve were the first people on earth or that eve was soley the first person on earth and go completely against recorded history?

Darling, have you read your Bible?

There are *two* creation stories, and only one of them mentions Adam. Do you believe in the 7 days creation, or the Adam and Eve story?

District 268

22-10-2004, 03:52

D 268:

That was an interesting and thoughtful answer. Thank you. As the originator of this thread I most certainly applaud your candor and forthrightness.

I appreciate your ability to articulate the differences in our opinions. You respectly answered my question and considerately accounted that my views, as different as they are from yours, deserve to be heard. I hope you know, I have heard yours and will consider them carefully.

Best regards,
ScoMo

[note: edited for grammatical errors]

I have tried to be as non-offensive as I could, while still speaking my mind, and using objective reasoning and critical thinking skills.

If there is offensive words or phrases, they were unintentional.

You live your life the way you want to, and I live my life the way I want to. While we differ, we both have the right and freedom to live our lives the way we want to. By my reasoning, Jesus loves you, despite what a lot of his followers are saying about you. For all are sinners, and Jesus is there to forgive sin.

In some cases, in the past, because my mental illness kills my sex drive, I was at times accused of being Homosexual for lack of interest in pornography and lack of interest in casual sex before marriage. Yet I am attracted to women, and not men, and I married a woman and had a son with her that she and I planed to by procreation.

I wish you peace, health, and happiness.

Goed

22-10-2004, 03:53

I'm dead serious

all the other religions

like Buddism

was started by a lunatic who was famous because he was the only person who would speak out in a croud of lunatics

All religions period.

Yours included.

Unless you can prove to me that Jesus was God's son.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 03:55

I haven't had the time to read all 17 pages, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything.

Homosexuality is considered a sin by all religions following the books of the Old Testament (Christianity and Judaism) because of the Book of Leviticus. For those of you who want proof, read ch. 18, verse 22. Clearly stated. The book is part of the Torah and the Bible. I'm not sure about Islam and the Koran, but it might be.

I do not try to press these religious laws on others. However, I do feel the necessity to defend these religions against the assault that ambiguity exists within the fundamental ideas. It doesn't. Just some people don't know where to look.

Would you sell your daughter into slavery or own slaves at all?

Do you believe you will go to hell for wearing a poly/cotton blend?

Do you think that women are lesser beings than men and that a woman who gives birth to a female baby is dirtier than if she had a male baby?

Do you believe that any woman within a city not saved from her rapist got exactly what she wanted and deserves to be punished along with the rapist?

Do you believe that a woman should be forced to marry her rapist if she was unmarried to begin with?

If your answer is not yes to every one of those questions, then don't use Levitical law to back up your positions.

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:57

All religions period.

Yours included.

Unless you can prove to me that Jesus was God's son.

But your believing that Jesus is not God's son. So you are going against recorded history- the gospel accounts.

You have to account for the history that you are going against. You say you believe in nothing
But i tell you it takes a heck of alot more faith to believe in nothing then it does to believe that Jesus came, he died for our sins, and rose again on the third day.

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 03:59

Darling, have you read your Bible?

There are *two* creation stories, and only one of them mentions Adam. Do you believe in the 7 days creation, or the Adam and Eve story?

What do you mean there is two???
there is one

THe adam and eve story comes after the seven days of creation

i think you need to spend more time in your Bible- trust me i spend enough time in my Bible
I'm a PK

Seket-Hetep

22-10-2004, 03:59

why don't we just create one thread about homosexuality and have everyone post their opinion on it and drop it?
no... that'd be too easy. seems everyone's gotta bas SOMEone, huh?
ah well.
hell, on second thought, it's kinda fun watching folks arue over something as pointless as this. have fun kiddies, i no longer give a damn.

Sleepytime Villa

22-10-2004, 04:01

All religions period.

Yours included.

Unless you can prove to me that Jesus was God's son.

this can only be proven thru you trully looking into it for yourself...or wait 80 years...maybe less if you aren't that young .... and i'm sure youwill see if He is or isnt'...

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 04:04

And the slavery thing; there was no real generic employer/employee terminology or contract back there when they didn't have MS Word or LaTeX. So I'm fairly sure just about anything in the OT which refers to slavery can be applied to modern day working practices: pay your employee well, fire them if they do badly etc. I don't think many people have too many problems with allowing their daughters to work (not that way) these days. Please inform me of any problems with that.

Do any of you people read your Bible??????

OT law explicitly says that if you kill your slave by accident or if you beat him to death but he survives at least one night - that is ok because he is your property.

Does this apply to employee-employer contracts??

It also states that a female slave *has* to marry her owner if he wants her too.

Can employers force women to marry? And do empolyers pay the girl's *father* a *one time fee* for her to work for them her whole life?

There was no firing - only beating almost or completely to death. Of course, if you poked out a male slave's eye or knocked out a tooth, you had to let him go. Also, if he was a male Hebrew slave, you had to let him go after 7 years anyways - unless he had gotten married or had a child while being your slave - then you could coerce him into becoming a slave forever by holding his wife and child hostage ((you didn't have to let them go)).

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 04:11

What do you mean there is two???
there is one

THe adam and eve story comes after the seven days of creation

i think you need to spend more time in your Bible- trust me i spend enough time in my Bible
I'm a PK

And you obviously don't read it or study theology at all. There are two completely separate creation stories, written by two different authors.

The first author is the "priestly" author. The 7 day creation story came from him.

THe second is the "yhawist" author, who wrote the Adam and Eve story.

If Adam and Eve come after the 7 days creation story, then Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. Also, God had to create all the animals twice - once before the entirety of humanity, and once after Adam was formed.

I don't know what a PK is, but it obviously doesn't entail actually thinking about what you are reading as you read it.

White Martyrs

22-10-2004, 04:12

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 04:14

Ok, so why does the Church speak against Gay marriage? Well, mostly because marriage says something about God. "Man and woman, He created them both in His image." It takes both genders to see the image of God, which is creation, a child, and homosexuals realtions can't do that, ever.

That still doesn't explain why so many in the church speak against gay *civil* marriage.

A Dieing Breed

22-10-2004, 04:17

But your believing that Jesus is not God's son. So you are going against recorded history- the gospel accounts.You have to account for the history that you are going against.
I'm not exactly sure but I would think that Judism has a part in the Torah that says Jesus is not God's son. If so how can you favor one written account over the other? History, especially this old, is debateable.

You say you believe in nothing But i tell you it takes a heck of alot more faith to believe in nothing then it does to believe that Jesus came, he died for our sins, and rose again on the third day.

The only reason i can think of that would make it "harder" to not believe is the over abundance of religion in my everday lives that directly conflict with seperation of church and state.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 04:20

I don't whine because people are stupid and do not listen. If there are those who do, then they are not acting in accordance with what they preach and are thus hypocrites. However, I must still point out that if you see a person that you believe will suffer eternal torment unless they believe in Jesus as their personal Savior, wouldn't you keep on pestering and bothering them in an attempt to persuade them of your views?

No. Because pestering and bothering them will turn them *away* from Christ, not towards.

You need to realize the difference between witnessing and shoving things in people's faces.

A Dieing Breed

22-10-2004, 04:20

That still doesn't explain why so many in the church speak against gay *civil* marriage.
because its icky ewwwwwwwwwwww :rolleyes:

Rhellis

22-10-2004, 04:22

I don't understand why all these people clamoring for a ban on gay marriages aren't doing what their deity "actually" told them.

The following two passages are from the King James Version of the "Holy Bible".

From the Old Testament, "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 shall be upon them." Lev 20:13

And from the New Testament, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: / And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. / And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; / Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, / Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, / Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: / Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Rom 1:26-32

So, clearly, the bible calls for the deaths of, not only homosexuals, but also people filled with "wickedness (never really defined), covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate (sooo...kill anyone who thinks differently, and expresses those thoughts?), deceit, malignity..." the list just goes on and ON.... So, why aren't they calling to an end, if not the elimination, of these people? And how many of them have ever actually read these passages, let alone the whole bible? Admittedly, I've never read it all the way through, but then, I don't believe it. I don't know what other versions are out there, but I'm sure the same call for the elimination of certain types of people are in those as well.

A Dieing Breed

22-10-2004, 04:32

White Martyrs

22-10-2004, 04:38

So for all of you arguing OT stuff, have you taken into account that half of the OT laws were created by man- Numbers/Deuteronomy- without Divine authority? The Jews made these laws not only to survive, but to organise and satisfy the people. Jesus condemns divorce even though Moses allowed it because of "the hardness of your hearts." So arguing about what happened in the OT is pointless, because most of it got wiped out with the New Coveneant. To answer why the Church comments on civil marriage I offer 2 things. One: Pope John Paul II declared: "Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity." Second, as far as the Church is concerned, marraige is purely a divine instituion, hence the Pope's referal to homosexual unions. Thus, there is no place for government to rightly determine what is or is not marraige, it can only accept what other bodies have deemed to be appropriate. I will concede that the rub rises in seperation of church and state, but I am just here to present a point.

Rhellis

22-10-2004, 04:40

Sorry but that sounds like abomination for bisexuals more then homosexuality because homosexuals don't lieth down with women hence why they are gay.

Hmm...I believe it is more of a comparison. I guess we're supposed to assume there's a "'s supposed to" in there between "he" and "lieth". Admittedly, it is rather murky...in keeping with biblical traditions, apparently.

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 shall be upon them.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 04:46

We only just completed the human genome project, there is no evidence to sujest that it is down to genetics. We barely know what every gene does, how can we know if there is such thing as a "Gay gene".

How do we know there is a blue eye gene? Or a slew of skim pigmentation genes?

We haven't worked out what every single gene does, but we can determine what traits have genetic components.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 04:48

. One: Pope John Paul II declared: "Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity." Second, as far as the Church is concerned, marraige is purely a divine instituion, hence the Pope's referal to homosexual unions. Thus, there is no place for government to rightly determine what is or is not marraige, it can only accept what other bodies have deemed to be appropriate. I will concede that the rub rises in seperation of church and state, but I am just here to present a point.

And your point demonstrates exactly why separation of church and state is so important. The Pope should not control government any more than the government should control the Pope (or the dalai lama, etc.)

Kinda Sensible people

22-10-2004, 04:50

God didn't create it

He created a man and woman relationship

then Satan corrupted the mind's of man

Then good for Satan. Better him than a god who HATES people just for being different. God of love indeed.

Orgasmia Land

22-10-2004, 04:51

Hmmm, from my understanding (and I was raised catholic), homosexual desires in themselves are not a sin. However, acting on these naughty, dirty desires is. Thus, there is the serious problem of young men with homosexual or bisexual tendencies, raised within the church, deciding to become wholesome and righteous priests in an effort to control their sinful urges. Then they molest children. It's a good system. Yup. But anyways, I'm not going to get up here and quote from the Bible, because frankly, I have more important things to do with my time than rean it. I know, such an abomination. But basically, my understanding of Christian dogma is that the sexual act is for procreation (making lots and lots of babies, even in today's overpopulated world where lots and lots of babies are the last thing we need). And so ANY kind of sex that will surely not result in babies, such as oral, anal, and protected sex between a man and a woman is seen as a sin. And of course, as we all know, man parts and woman parts are necessary in producing babies. Thus the homosexual act is not conducive to procreation, and god will hate you for it. Of course, this whole ideology was set forth in a time when women were viewed as nothing more than baby factories, and their worth was measured in the number of little ones they spit out. Times have changed,if people are going to cling desperately to some vestigal primitive belief, they can at least try and keep their ideologies in tune with the modern world.

Untidy State Socialism

22-10-2004, 04:58

Why homosexuality is branded as a sin really isn't quite as critical as what punishment one believes will or won't be meted out for having committed unpardoned sinful behavior. (Catholics who confess are all relieved of this concern, aren't they?) As for me, no matter whose genitals I lave, I never have to worry about "going" to Hell anyway...

During his weekly address to the general audience of 8,500 people at the Vatican on July 28, 1999, Pope John Paul II rejected the reality of a physical, literal hell as a place of eternal fire and torment. Rather, the pope said hell is separation, even in this life, from the joyful communion with God. According to an official Vatican transcript of the pope's speech, Pope John Paul II noted that the Scriptural references to hell and the images portrayed by Scripture are only symbolic and figurative of "the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. " He added, "Rather than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy." He said hell is "a condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life." Concerning the concept of eternal damnation, the pope said, "Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person, and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever." The pope also added, "The thought of hell and even less the improper use of biblical images must not create anxiety or despair." Rather, he stated, it is a reminder of the freedom found in Christ. -- http://www.ovrlnd.com/Cults/poprejectshell.html

Why homosexuality is branded as socially reprobate by current-day (I daren't use the adjective "modern", dare I?) Judeo-Christian moralists has to do with nothing as much as it does with the reactive religious brand-positioning of those religions' originators. To gain acceptance of a new set of beliefs, one is rather compelled to demonize the beliefs and practices of the competition, isn't one? (cf. all political wrangling over the course of the last 2000 years) So naturally, if one is competing to attract followers away from a laissez-faire Middle-Eastern European morality that advances the notion, "For need, a donkey; for a son, a woman; and for pleasure, a young boy," does it not make consummate sense to villify and demonize those who pursue needs and pleasures?

...which leads me to consider whether, four years hence, we will be treated to a U.S. presidential debate during which the "moderator" will ask the candidates whether they believe bestiality is a choice... or perhaps NAMBLA will get its biggest shot in the arm since South Park, when the moderator will ask whether the candidates believe man-boy love is a choice. Such moderation, eh? These are, after all, the burning issues of the day which affect my earning capacity, the price of heating fuel and my income-tax bracket... (as if it were the imperative domain of any of these pompous elected or self-aggrandizing church officials as to whether I or anyone else entertains himself with women, rubber women, donkeys, or other men.)

Gold and Blood

22-10-2004, 05:26

:fluffle: I just wanted to add my two cents in this conversation since I am gay as well.

I do feel that all adults should be able to do what they want to do and that is that isn't that why God gave us free will.

BUT.... I don't know about marriage (I haven't meet anyone I want to marry yet). This is a group of outsiders because we do think out of the box because of the way we are raised. We try to hide what we are near the begining of our lives, and we want a group that does not think that way to change. This social group (the goverment and the churchs) to change what they believe just for us. I personaly will love who I want to love beyond what a make believe man in the sky will do to me. I don't believe in the bible though I have read it I don't believe in it.

Now there are ppl that say they are born gay which I believe we are. I have meet gay men that believe that choose this lifestyle. But why ??? The point is that yes you might of choosen this lifestyle but you have to be turned on by men and women do nothing for you. That is my point what makes you attracted to that man if you "CHOOSE" this.

Another thing is why is it OK for two women to get it on but two guys "ooohhh my God that is gross!" ya with those kind of ppl I say "BBBAAAAHHHHHH" you commercial tv soked moron you.

but then again that is just my two cents. :headbang:

White Martyrs

22-10-2004, 06:01

1. Free will let's you do whatever you want, but that doesn't mean people can't point out errors. It's called Charity in my book where you try to help out your fellow man. If the Church feels homosexual marriage is wrong, it is Her duty to point this out- you don't have to listen however. FYI- the US Constitution only bans Congress from not establishing a relgion.

2. The world is not overpopulated, resources are just mismannaged! Come one now, we've all been on flights that pass over expanses of green, clear, uninhabited land. Heck, European countries are already getting "expiration dates" due to their dangerously low birth rates. Food rots in warehouses while people starve not because there are too many people, but because of mismanagement.

3. Confession is not a "get out of jail free" card. There are conditions you have to meet for a proper confession and even then there's a price to pay in Purgatory.

4. Untidy, I would never quote the site you got you audience info from for fear that people would question my academic integrirty. A quick search of the Vatican website yeilds a different picture For the actual text, see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html?GRAB_ID=136\&EXTRA_ARG=\&HOST_ID=42\&PAGE_ID=6883072 A, this belief of Hell as a state is in the Chatechism, meaning the Pope didn't invent this, it's been taught for roughly 2,000 years. B, "state" is not mutually exlcusive of "place." C, the Bible is full of figurative language, so it should come as no surprise that the Pope talks about this kind of language pointing out a real thing- Hell.

In summary of eveything I've said, if a person fully consents to an action defined to be of grave matter with full knowledge of its evil nature, then his or her soul's ultimate fate is the reality of Hell. Homosexual acts, and many sexual acts for that matter, fall into this category of mortal sin according to the Church, but in the end it's up to you to belive and up to Her to teach. I've already commented on unions/marraiage. Non-topic related questions- telegram me.
Pax!

BackwoodsSquatches

22-10-2004, 06:31

First and foremost, Christinaity epouses love and creation by God. Homosexuals exist because God willed them to. Ideally, God calls us to radical soliditary with all our brothers and sisters, regardless of sexual orientation. Furthermore, God specifically calls homosexuals to chastity because homosexual acts are what are sinful. FYI- homosexual acts done by anyone, straight or not, thus being homosexuals are not inherently sinful. Here's the thing though, people won't necessarily go to Hell for doing such things. You need full consent of your actions, things that are grave in nature- both checks here- and you need full-knowledge that the actions you are dong are wrong, which some people just don't have. Here's where the Just God comes in, He won't severly punish you for doing things you sincerely believed to be right. This isn't just for homosexual acts, it runs the gammit. Ok, so why does the Church speak against Gay marriage? Well, mostly because marriage says something about God. "Man and woman, He created them both in His image." It takes both genders to see the image of God, which is creation, a child, and homosexuals realtions can't do that, ever.

Thats crap.

Lets say a gay couple adopted a child.
Lets say the parent who gave up her child, did so in lieu of having an abortion.

See? Your side already wins.....next, that gay couple raise that child to be a well rounded human being, and a useful member of society...

Isnt that what you would call "Doing God's work?"

In your eyes, this couple would have knowingly committed sin by being together, and yet, would end up doing a wonderful thing by giving this hypothetical child a good home, and a far better life than it would have
otherwise.

How can that possibly be bad in the eyes of any god who claims to be a mercyful, and benevolent provider?

Ankher

22-10-2004, 08:07

Why is homosexuality a sin?A sin is what estranges you from god. And since human sexuality is no god's business, no form of it could ever be sinful.

Schnappslant

22-10-2004, 09:28

Do any of you people read your Bible??????

OT law explicitly says that if you kill your slave by accident or if you beat him to death but he survives at least one night - that is ok because he is your property.

Does this apply to employee-employer contracts??
Yeah it kind of does. We call it Health and safety. If your employee dies in an accident at work, you may or may not be liable. If you're not you may still have to pay damages to family etc. but it is not your fault. Yes I do read my Bible. A lot more since I started posting on here, which I'm thankful for. If you want to read your Bible, Dem, I suggest you start in Genesis where it gives God's example of human relationships, but I'm not having a go, just suggesting.

In that land slaves/servants were literally your property. Didn't mean you didn't have to show respect for them. However if they didn't do what they were told the owner/employer had the right to punish them. It can be astonishingly easy to kill someone with a single blow, giving rise to that law. The thing is the servant was only your property if he had slept a night in your house. Like your employee might have a probation period. If they stuff up then you can fire them without problem.

It also states that a female slave *has* to marry her owner if he wants her too.

Can employers force women to marry? And do employers pay the girl's *father* a *one time fee* for her to work for them her whole life?
At that time that arrangement was the only method that some families could use to sustain themselves. The girl would be thinking of her family here. It's called selflessness. I'm crap at it.

There was no firing - only beating almost or completely to death. Of course, if you poked out a male slave's eye or knocked out a tooth, you had to let him go. Also, if he was a male Hebrew slave, you had to let him go after 7 years anyways - unless he had gotten married or had a child while being your slave - then you could coerce him into becoming a slave forever by holding his wife and child hostage ((you didn't have to let them go)).
Yeah it sucks, but it was JEWISH law, to hold the country together. It also says that any loans and debts you had would be wiped out after seven years. Wouldn't complain about that now would you?

Then good for Satan. Better him than a god who HATES people just for being different. God of love indeed.
Indeed. God is love. He even loves you despite your denouncing him. Go does not hate anyone. Anyone who says that God hates his own creations, hates God. Clear? Christian belief is that all good things come from God. Anything bad does not. Anything that seeks to make us contravene his laws is bad. The interpretation then is that humans are basically a clean sheet (Original Sin, not withstanding. God made us with a natural propensity to sin which makes it a challenge that we could not overcome on our own) which gets invaded by Satan's temptations. Temptation to kill, injure, insult, use sex against his rules (hetero and homo), steal, lie etc. The hard bit comes in knowing what to do faced with a temptation that humans are too feeble to withstand. I have one of them. God's helping me overcome it now.

Neo Cannen

22-10-2004, 09:41

BackwoodsSquatches

22-10-2004, 09:47

You want to know why Homosexuality is a sin. Ok, its quite simple rearly. God intended something for us. He intended us to be without sin. That intention was in Eden. Since we chose to disobey God, sin entered the world and the world started going down the pan. Homosexuality was not part of God's original plan for us, thus it is a sin. It is a form of rebellion against what God wanted. But in God's eyes sin is sin. Be it murder, stealing, rape etc, they are all sin. All can be forgiven by God.

So, all homosexual activity can be laid squarely on the shoulders of god, since he created Adam and Eve?
They made the mistake, and got kicked out of Eden, thus we have homosexuals, by your logic.

So, if God is omnipotent, and knew what Eve would do, then its his fault that he let it happen anyway.

Maybe I just proved theres no god.

New Fuglies

22-10-2004, 10:03

Maybe I just proved theres no god.

He, or should I say the church, used to "forgive" lefties too but that has passed with a new equilibrium of religio-political correctness.

Penguinista

22-10-2004, 10:08

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

I base it on passages in the Bible, which is also why I believe its an issue between homosexuals and God to sort out, and I really don't have a place there.

And when did I say other passages in the Bible shouldn't be followed?

Neo Cannen

22-10-2004, 11:28

So, all homosexual activity can be laid squarely on the shoulders of god, since he created Adam and Eve?
They made the mistake, and got kicked out of Eden, thus we have homosexuals, by your logic.

So, if God is omnipotent, and knew what Eve would do, then its his fault that he let it happen anyway.

Maybe I just proved theres no god.

Once again, God gave us free will. He gave us the choice to do whatever we wanted. We rebelled, we chose to go against God. And how would you like to live in a world where God pulled all the strings, where God controlled everyting so that the world was (puts on patronising bunny voice) a happy lovely place with no free will so as to stop us all doing bad things la la la etc (I could go on)

BackwoodsSquatches

22-10-2004, 11:52

Once again, God gave us free will. He gave us the choice to do whatever we wanted. We rebelled, we chose to go against God. And how would you like to live in a world where God pulled all the strings, where God controlled everyting so that the world was (puts on patronising bunny voice) a happy lovely place with no free will so as to stop us all doing bad things la la la etc (I could go on)

So then, if God insisted upon granting us free will, then why would he have the right to get mad if I were (or whomever) chose to exercise that gift?
How then can there be a right or wrong choice in such matters if the ultimate goal, was to make your choice all along?

And ultimately....suppose just for a moment...that homosexualtiy isnt a choice, that gays are just born that way...
Why would being who you are, be a bad choice?

Wouldnt you just be living the way God made you?

Jester III

22-10-2004, 12:44

FYI- the US Constitution only bans Congress from not establishing a relgion.

Thus the Congress actually has the duty to establish a religion, right? ;)

Bottle

22-10-2004, 13:36

So then, if God insisted upon granting us free will, then why would he have the right to get mad if I were (or whomever) chose to exercise that gift?
How then can there be a right or wrong choice in such matters if the ultimate goal, was to make your choice all along?

And ultimately....suppose just for a moment...that homosexualtiy isnt a choice, that gays are just born that way...
Why would being who you are, be a bad choice?

Wouldnt you just be living the way God made you?
nah, you're not thinking Christian enough! try this: God makes you gay, right? then he gives you the freedom to choose. what he wants you to do is choose to ignore the way he made you, and the way he willed for you to be, in favor of acting the way Christians on earth tell you to act. see how that works?

Arammanar

22-10-2004, 13:45

nah, you're not thinking Christian enough! try this: God makes you gay, right? then he gives you the freedom to choose. what he wants you to do is choose to ignore the way he made you, and the way he willed for you to be, in favor of acting the way Christians on earth tell you to act. see how that works?
And you're not thinking at all. God didn't make perfect people, nor did He pretend to, everyone has something wrong with them. Some people struggle against their desire for little children, others against their desire for the same sex. If everyone was perfect, earth would be Heaven, and then God would have no purpose.

Chodolo

22-10-2004, 13:47

Bottle

22-10-2004, 13:49

And you're not thinking at all. God didn't make perfect people, nor did He pretend to, everyone has something wrong with them. Some people struggle against their desire for little children, others against their desire for the same sex. If everyone was perfect, earth would be Heaven, and then God would have no purpose.
that last sentence make absolutely no sense whatsoever. if God loves humans, and wants us to be happy, and wants us all to worship Him, then the best things for him to have done would be to create us all as perfect beings and hang out with us on Earth as much as possible. then we would all be perfectly happy, would have no needs that distracted us from loving and worshipping him, and we would never cause harm to one another. if you think that God's purpose is purely to over-see the struggles of the imperfect human HE CREATED, then you are saying God is not all-powerful or all-knowing, and that he had to create a purpose for himself...sounds like a patheticly co-dependent God, to me.

edit: and to say "you're not thinking at all" just because somebody reaches a different conclusion is only a display of your own ignorance and lack of self-control. kindly refrain from such pointless rudeness, lest you embarass yourself further.

NewKaiserLand

22-10-2004, 14:21

Perhaps the question should be "Why do people think homosexuality is wrong?"

I am in my late 40's so I have probably seen a bit more of life than most of you. I have had friends who are homosexual and I accept them as they are.

Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul; and secondly love your neighbour as yourself." I don't see that this rules against homosexuality.

The apostle Paul wrote something along the lines of "We can eat what we like, but I would not eat something if it caused my brother to stumble".
At that time, the established ( Jewish ) church had very strict dietary rules.

The principle is "Do no harm". Homosexuality should be acceptable if it does no harm.

Some homosexuals are sleazy, some heterosexuals are sleazy. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can be child molesters.

Homosexuality has a bad image because it has been associated with child seduction, but this is a generalisation. Priests have seduced girls as well as boys.

I believe that everyone should accept others as they are, without judgement.

If anyone sets themselves to judge others based on the bible, then they must also be prepared to accept judgement based on anything else in the bible.

To those who disagree on biblical grounds, I remind you that the church burnt scientists at the stake for saying that the earth revolved around the sun, and the priests thought that the bible justified them. Are you sure that you are right? Judgement is for God, not us.

Pawlowski

22-10-2004, 14:37

The issue of Sodom and Gemorrah (as I'm sure you're referring to) is not so cut-and-dried. There are many biblical scholars out there who believe that the downfall of these cities was due more to their peoples' hostility and inhospitality toward outsiders than any sexual activity.
Thats correct, being inhospitable to travelers is a very serious offense even today in the middle east, if you take someone into your home, you are expected to give protection to them. This is still one of the major tenets of orthodox judism and most forms of islam. By demanding the 2 angels come to be "greeted" the people of Sodom and Gemorrah brought their destruction. Not because of butt sex.

Takrai

22-10-2004, 14:46

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo
All questions of right/wrong aside, the way you asked("sin") implies religious tones. The religious writings in the Bible etc would define what is "sin" as it is a religious term. Homosexuality IS defined as sin in the bible, one of many"sins".
I do agree with you that people who use only their chosen statements from the Bible and ignore others, are wrong, and actually, in the Bible, it calls THEM sinners as well. That said, personally, I am a Christian, and do my best to follow ALL of what I believe. I am not perfect. I do not however see that just because "they"ignore one point, I am free to ignore another.

Kinda Sensible people

22-10-2004, 14:48

Indeed. God is love. He even loves you despite your denouncing him. Go does not hate anyone. Anyone who says that God hates his own creations, hates God. Clear? Christian belief is that all good things come from God. Anything bad does not. Anything that seeks to make us contravene his laws is bad. The interpretation then is that humans are basically a clean sheet (Original Sin, not withstanding. God made us with a natural propensity to sin which makes it a challenge that we could not overcome on our own) which gets invaded by Satan's temptations. Temptation to kill, injure, insult, use sex against his rules (hetero and homo), steal, lie etc. The hard bit comes in knowing what to do faced with a temptation that humans are too feeble to withstand. I have one of them. God's helping me overcome it now.

I'm sorry... Theres a real difference between hating someone and CONDEMNING THEM TO BURN FOREVER. There is NO excuse for a god who thinks that you should burn forever for beleiving in a different god or no god at all and still being a good person. Don't give the "There is no way to the father, but through me" bullshit... If hes the almighty supreme being then he bloody makes the law. If he didnt hate someone why would he think they should burn forever. Why doesnt he care about the REALLY important things, charity, kindness, and respect. Just because the bible sais "God is a god of love" doesn't make it any truer then the rest of the allegorys in it. So please give me proof that god loves anything other than his own glory...

No "It is because it is" arguments.... They are pointless and illogical.

Takrai

22-10-2004, 14:54

Ogrania

22-10-2004, 15:00

Why is it a sin?

It's pretty simple: population growth. Track back to the old testament days. Every population has their own god, and their own set of particular rules. The rules are meant to do a few things, and in the case of the Jews, to keep the population safe and expanding. Let's face it, if your population doesn't grow, you don't have new warriors to protect Judea, and the Canaanites or whoever might just march over and wipe you out. It was a very real threat and did happen.

So your holy men make laws designed to try to keep the population healthy and churning out lots of kids. If it's wrong to be homosexual, then at the very least, homosexuals will still get married as a social norm and reproduce.

This is actually the same reason for the kosher laws -- keep your people away from contaminated food and you have more and healthier people.

Putting it as a religious stricture avoids having to explain it to an ignorant populace, and you can just pass it off as "God said so," and count on religious pressure, both self- and society-imposed to keep the rules in place long after the reason for them being there have long since faded into oblivion.

Takrai

22-10-2004, 15:04

I'm sorry... Theres a real difference between hating someone and CONDEMNING THEM TO BURN FOREVER. There is NO excuse for a god who thinks that you should burn forever for beleiving in a different god or no god at all and still being a good person. Don't give the "There is no way to the father, but through me" bullshit... If hes the almighty supreme being then he bloody makes the law. If he didnt hate someone why would he think they should burn forever. Why doesnt he care about the REALLY important things, charity, kindness, and respect. Just because the bible sais "God is a god of love" doesn't make it any truer then the rest of the allegorys in it. So please give me proof that god loves anything other than his own glory...

No "It is because it is" arguments.... They are pointless and illogical.

In my day to day life, I am in a position where I give orders, and expect them to be carried out. I do not explain the hows or why's. If they are not carried out, there would be punishment. This is because I know more about the overall picture than those receiving the orders. This is the best example of God in my mind, though on a much smaller scale. God is in position to see the big picture, if you are Christian, this is how you see him. The "orders" may not make sense to you, and , to be honest, some do not make sense to me either. But if you are Christian, you recognize him as having a reason, and you recognize there are repercussions for disobeying the orders.

Desirane

22-10-2004, 15:05

The reason homosexuality is considered a sin by the Roman Catholic church is for one, simple reason:

All sex outside of marriage is considered a sin.

Seeing as it is (currently) not possible to be married to someone of the same gender, any relations you enter into with them has to be a sin. As far as I know, merely lusting after the same sex but not acting on it is no more a sin than lusting after someone of the opposite sex and not acting on it.

There are other, more fundamentalist views out there, but I believe that is the official stance taken by the RC.

Chodolo

22-10-2004, 15:09

Teh Cameron Clan

22-10-2004, 16:15

It's a sin because the Christians can't hear themselves praying over the sound of all the buttfucking going on around the world. :D
well then pray louder but not too loud gives me headaches.

Neo Cannen

22-10-2004, 16:31

So then, if God insisted upon granting us free will, then why would he have the right to get mad if I were (or whomever) chose to exercise that gift?
How then can there be a right or wrong choice in such matters if the ultimate goal, was to make your choice all along?

And ultimately....suppose just for a moment...that homosexualtiy isnt a choice, that gays are just born that way...
Why would being who you are, be a bad choice?

Wouldnt you just be living the way God made you?

"Assuming" Homosexuality is the way you are born then yes, God does have no right to discriminate you. BUT its not. There is not enough CONCLUSIVE evidence to prove homosexuality is genetic or in any way nautral. And as for your free will arguement, the comparison of God to a parent is very accurate in this case. A parent will have a child and try to raise it. That child may be disobident and not do as he was told. That parent will dicipline the child, but it never regrets bringing it into the world. A parent wants a child to lead a good life and will dicipline it so it does, but it is the choice of the child.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 17:14

Yeah it kind of does. We call it Health and safety. If your employee dies in an accident at work, you may or may not be liable. If you're not you may still have to pay damages to family etc. but it is not your fault.

So you are telling me that Health and Safety says that if your employer beats you to death and you die right then, it is murder. However, if you don't die for a whole day - then it isn't murder because you were nothing but your employer's property anyways. Yeah, I'm sure that's *exactly* what the law says.

Yes I do read my Bible. A lot more since I started posting on here, which I'm thankful for. If you want to read your Bible, Dem, I suggest you start in Genesis where it gives God's example of human relationships, but I'm not having a go, just suggesting.

It gives an example. Of course, it also tells two completely separate creation stories.

In that land slaves/servants were literally your property. Didn't mean you didn't have to show respect for them.

If you believe you can *own* somebody, then you are already showing them no respect.

However if they didn't do what they were told the owner/employer had the right to punish them. It can be astonishingly easy to kill someone with a single blow, giving rise to that law.

Killing them with a single blow would be murder, punishable by stoning. They had to survive at least a night for it to be ok because they were just your property.

At that time that arrangement was the only method that some families could use to sustain themselves. The girl would be thinking of her family here. It's called selflessness. I'm crap at it.

You really are a fucked up person, you know that? Letting yourself be sold into slavery is just selflessness? That's like saying that letting someone rape you is just selflessness so that they can get off.

Yeah it sucks, but it was JEWISH law, to hold the country together. It also says that any loans and debts you had would be wiped out after seven years. Wouldn't complain about that now would you?

It was a Jewish law? I thought you said the entire Bible was God's word? That would make it God's law - would it not?

Indeed. God is love.

Yes, and love is slavery......oh, wait.

He even loves you despite your denouncing him.

Unless you are a slave, then you're just property.

Seriously, if your God is the real God, then I pity mankind. I'd much prefer to worship the God of the New Testament as described by Abelardian atonement theory.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 17:19

I do agree with you that people who use only their chosen statements from the Bible and ignore others, are wrong, and actually, in the Bible, it calls THEM sinners as well. That said, personally, I am a Christian, and do my best to follow ALL of what I believe. I am not perfect. I do not however see that just because "they"ignore one point, I am free to ignore another.

So will you be selling your daughter into slavery then?

And do you ask every woman if she's menstruating before you touch her?

And will you make sure that any woman you know stays out of church for 4 weeks after having a girl baby and 2 weeks after having a boy baby?

And will you be the one to punish a rape victim for getting raped when no one saved her?

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 17:21

"Assuming" Homosexuality is the way you are born then yes, God does have no right to discriminate you. BUT its not. There is not enough CONCLUSIVE evidence to prove homosexuality is genetic or in any way nautral.

So the fact that just about all mammals, including our closest genetic neighboors, demonstrate homosexuality isn't conclusive enough to prove that it is in some way natural? I suppose the only way anything could be proven to you would be if God came down and said it directly.

NeoCannen: There is no gravity. The fact that things always fall downward is not enough CONCLUSIVE evidence to prove that gravity is a natural phenomenon.

Neo Cannen

22-10-2004, 17:28

Smack Seven

22-10-2004, 17:42

Neo Cannen

22-10-2004, 17:43

Yeah.

What is that suposed to mean?

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 18:08

For the last time, the God of the New and Old testement are ONE AND THE SAME. The diffrence is that the God of the New testement had a good reason not to destroy us. By the death of Christ, our sins had been completely forgiven and we were innocent in God's eyes. And so what if all mamals display homosexual behavioural tendencies. All animals are not sentient, except us. There are diffrences. AND RITUALISTC OLD TESTEMENT LAW (Including slavery) IS REMOVED BY CHRIST'S DEATH

Doesn't change the fact that you believe an all-loving, all-good God condoned slavery. It was removed, but it was more because God realized how people had twisted God's intentions and condoned things that God would never condone. God didn't want people following out of fear of punishment, but out of love, and thus sent Christ.

Oh, and pointing out homsexuality in animals speaks quite well to the "It's not natural!" argument. Not to mention that apes, dolphins, and many other mammals are quite sentient. Even pigs can be as intelligent and aware as three-year old children. Stop putting yourself on such a high pedestal.

Hasslehoffburg

22-10-2004, 18:27

For the last time, the God of the New and Old testement are ONE AND THE SAME. The diffrence is that the God of the New testement had a good reason not to destroy us. By the death of Christ, our sins had been completely forgiven and we were innocent in God's eyes. And so what if all mamals display homosexual behavioural tendencies. All animals are not sentient, except us. There are diffrences. AND RITUALISTC OLD TESTEMENT LAW (Including slavery) IS REMOVED BY CHRIST'S DEATH

You're an idiot.

sentient \SEN-shee-uhnt; -tee-; -shuhnt\, adjective:
1. Capable of perceiving by the senses; conscious.
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2002/01/02.html

Insects are sentient, let alone animals.

It still makes me laugh when people believe in the D&D nonsense that is the bible.

HE WAS DEAD FOR 3 DAYS THEN ROSE UP TO THE HEAVENS AND FORGAVE US OF OUR SINS.

THEN HE CAST MAGIC MISSLE ON THE NON BELIEVERS WITH HIS +5 HAT OF DOOM.

I wish i could be around when people in the future are studying our culture and laughing. At least the Ancient greeks and romans theology was interesting.

Hakartopia

22-10-2004, 18:27

All animals are not sentient, except us.

Er, yes they are. You're thinking of sapience.

Smack Seven

22-10-2004, 19:03

What is that suposed to mean?

Simply agreeing with you really. I've read through some of this topic and you stated everything I was going to.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 19:04

Simply agreeing with you really. I've read through some of this topic and you stated everything I was going to.

So you believe that an all-knowing God can be wrong and change God's mind about slavery?

Moonshine

22-10-2004, 19:09

I'm dead serious

all the other religions

like Buddism

was started by a lunatic who was famous because he was the only person who would speak out in a croud of lunatics

That's like saying that you follow a religion who's central tenet is the nailing of retards to trees and who's emblem is an instrument of torture.

Plank, eye, etc.

Smack Seven

22-10-2004, 19:11

So you believe that an all-knowing God can be wrong and change God's mind about slavery?

Of course He can! He's God! God can do everything!

So I'm obviously not completely serious when I say that. But did God admit fault? Or just simply change? I don't remember the part where He says "Whoops, my bad." Change is not neccesarily admitting fault.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure. I don't know everything about God. But then again, no one does.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 19:19

Of course He can! He's God! God can do everything!

So I'm obviously not completely serious when I say that. But did God admit fault? Or just simply change? I don't remember the part where He says "Whoops, my bad." Change is not neccesarily admitting fault.

It is if you are all-powerful and all-knowing to begin with. An all-good God cannot condone slavery - period.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure. I don't know everything about God. But then again, no one does.

You are right, no one does. And this is why there is so much debate and why people should not force their ideas of God onto others. No one knows the answer except for God.

Neo Cannen

22-10-2004, 19:20

Simply agreeing with you really. I've read through some of this topic and you stated everything I was going to.

Thank you, very much

Neo Cannen

22-10-2004, 19:24

Er, yes they are. You're thinking of sapience.

What does it mean?

Elmhavn

22-10-2004, 19:27

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

Hmm...presumably muslims, jews, hindus and so forth get married aswell?

And presumably even non-religious people have long term relationships?

Or am I being silly?

Yevon of Spira

22-10-2004, 19:28

I am against gay marrige, but, I believe gay couples should be able to get cival unions with the same benifits as a straight marrige. I am straight, but I am not homophobe or a bible thumper.

Goed

22-10-2004, 19:30

John Bonello

22-10-2004, 19:31

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

being gay is not a sin, but it's a bit against nature. can a gay couple have kids? No. They can adopt kids (i don't agree) and if the kid is living in a gay enviornment, he/she might become gay too althogh they are not.
Also, the Catholic only says that gay people are accepted but having sex is a sin. It's all against nature.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 19:35

being gay is not a sin, but it's a bit against nature. can a gay couple have kids? No. They can adopt kids (i don't agree) and if the kid is living in a gay enviornment, he/she might become gay too althogh they are not.
Also, the Catholic only says that gay people are accepted but having sex is a sin. It's all against nature.

Way to neglect reading the thread before posting.

Homosexuality is in no way unnatural, as it occurs in nature all the time. Everything a species does is not procreate and in social species, homosexuality is a positive thing to have.

And no, kids raised by homosexuals have no more chance of being homosexual than kids raised by heterosexuals.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 19:35

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

I know this was on page one, but I didn't want to go through twenty four pages to see if someone else had addressed it. The sin of Sodom was NOT homosexuality, but lack of hospitality. It was a common insult to force someone to act out the "female" role of sex back then, and was even easier to visitors as they were practically at the mercy of their host. The one person who was saved from destruction was the one person who volunteered to take in the guests and protect them from the insult.

Just look at the value of hospitality in previous cultures. Greek religion viewed Zeus as a direct enforcer of hospitality, visiting homes in the guise of a mortal and punishing the inhospitable. These things carry from culture to culture. The fact that the guests were angels (read: divine beings) makes it more obvious that it's carried on from the Greek traditions.

Goed

22-10-2004, 19:41

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 19:41

I love people using the half-ass form of Augustinian theology. Let's go hardcore on him now.
Augustine believed in pre-determination. And handily proved it a bit, too.
It's simple. We're goign to go on the assumptions that 1) there is a god, 2) it is all powerful, and 3) it is all knowing. Kinda like the christian god.
What Augustine said was that, if you have a god that's this powerful, there's no way there can be any real free will. Because he's all knowing. This was the biggest difference between him an Epictitus' god model. To be all knowing, one has to know everything-including the future. For the future to be known, it must exist in a tangible form. Thus, the future is already set and stone.
God knows everything you're about to do before you do it, BECAUSE it was already pre-ordained.
So, God has already chosen people to go to hell. His argument for this was that god obviously knows everything, and does everything for a purpose; therefore, he has a reason for damning people we don't understand.
But, to accept that, you must first accept that God has already chosen people to go to hell, and that there's no free will. None. Sorry, but no. We're TOLD we have free will, and we can THINK we have free will, but that's just ignorance on our behalf.
So, still sticking to the augustinian guns??
Interesting. Have you ever thought that he may be right???
I´m now thinking about the prophecies of Nostradamus. He predicted the arrival of the three anti-christs. The first one was - latter interpreted - Napoleon who tried to conquor all of Europe. The second one was Hitler - who tried to conquor all of Europe and committed a genocide. The third one is according to Nostradamus coming from the Middle East. Is it Osama or the mysterious Mr. X. I believe strongly today that the threat is real. September 11 was just the begining. It is going to get worse. We are going to see more terror, more deaths, more violence and more support for radical ideologies in that region and other regions. That is unavoidable. The demographic boom, the lack of social development and the failure of the societies in that region to modernize is the cause for this development which gives room to the rise of radical ideologies who promise the return of the "pure Islam" of the early days of the Arabs. This topic - in another form of course - played also a key role in Germany after WW I. And that is what we are facing here. A radical ideology which is at least as bad as the Nazis. And the US is confronting that while some European countries try an Appeasement policy. And that is wrong in my view.
I agree with President Bush in one key point. If America doesn´t act in this decade the world will drift (once again - my comment) towards tragedy. President Bush is determined to act accoringly and not just to talk, talk, talk - like our statesman in Europe.

Goed

22-10-2004, 19:44

Interesting. Have you ever thought that he may be right???
I´m now thinking about the prophecies of Nostradamus. He predicted the arrival of the three anti-christs. The first one was - latter interpreted - Napoleon who tried to conquor all of Europe. The second one was Hitler - who tried to conquor all of Europe and committed a genocide. The third one is according to Nostradamus coming from the Middle East. Is it Osama or the mysterious Mr. X. I believe strongly today that the threat is real. September 11 was just the begining. It is going to get worse. We are going to see more terror, more deaths, more violence and more support for radical ideologies in that region and other regions. That is unavoidable. The demographic boom, the lack of social development and the failure of the societies in that region to modernize is the cause for this development which gives room to the rise of radical ideologies who promise the return of the "pure Islam" of the early days of the Arabs. This topic - in another form of course - played also a key role in Germany after WW I. And that is what we are facing here. A radical ideology which is at least as bad as the Nazis. And the US is confronting that while some European countries try an Appeasement policy. And that is wrong in my view.
I agree with President Bush in one key point. If America doesn´t act in this decade the world will drift (once again - my comment) towards tragedy. President Bush is determined to act accoringly and not just to talk, talk, talk - like our statesman in Europe.

...What the fuck?!

This isn't a political debate.

And no, I don't think it's right.

Now go away or post on topic.

Equus

22-10-2004, 19:47

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 19:51

Interesting. Have you ever thought that he may be right???

Yes, Augustine was absolutely right. Babies sin by crying for food. After all, we don't let adults cry, so babies crying is a sin.

Vaderdom

22-10-2004, 19:51

i'm sorry, but i think that it's just wrong!!! :fluffle:

Elmhavn

22-10-2004, 19:52

OK. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."
From Leviticus, as stated above other verses in the same book forbid a wide range of sexual activities, including having sex with a woman who is having her period. This is an indication that the passage embodies specific cultural values rather than God's law.

Do you own a bible? Read a bible? Or are you just parroting someone you thought you heard from a show you saw on channel on a program about something you sorta remember?

You say a lot of creepy things, dude. (Masculine enough?) By the way its Gomorrah, as in Sodom and Gomorrah, additionally, see relevant reply above.

Keep it real brother. Word.

ScoMo the Homo

All very true, and furthermore, the fable of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't technically about homosexuality (here we get very technical, but I'm doing a degree on it so I like to show off). What actually happens is that guests at the city were expected to join in the homosexual acts, to the point of being forced. The story is therefore about gay rape, which I think we can all agree is exactly as awful as the other (far more common) kind.

As to actual (as opposed to silly scriptural) arguments about homosexualty, the most common one is that sex is for procreation, and of course gay sex can never be about procreation. Its really just a rather odd form of masturbation when looked at this way. And so its a sin of similar seriousness (i.e. not very) - certainly not a basis for law.

And no, the thought is not a sin. Most commentators have viewed it as a test by the lord or satan testing you. New Testament theology is very clear that 'thoughtcrimes' do not exist - it is the action that is sinful (as you can imagine this has wierd implications for 'Do not covet thy neighbour's wife').

Regards,

W.
(theologian and sodomite)

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 19:52

...What the fuck?!
This isn't a political debate.
And no, I don't think it's right.
What do you think is not right. Augustinus or Nostradamus? And if it happened before why can´t it happen again? The world is full of dictators and evil regimes and radical ideologies. Or do you think that Stalinists Russia was a nice place for dissidents, or minorities? Or Kambodschea under Pol Pot or China under Mao, or Ruanda, Burundi in 1994, or the Balkans during the 1990s, or, or, or.
Napoleon and Hitler were just to evil figures. The latter certainly the worst one. But why do you think they can´t be other evil people. And given the situation in the Muslim world and in the Middle East it is clear that this region is the region where the threat of new totalitarian ideologies (Islamism) is coming from.
And by the way: If those Islamists are successfull we are not going to need to discuss whether homosexuality is a sin or not. That is an individual judgement anybody can make according to its own subjective moral. But if they are successfull they are going to stone homosexuals to death and impose the burqa on all women.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 19:55

Kybernetia... Do you know what everyone else is talking about? You're going off REALLY far on a tangent...

Goed

22-10-2004, 19:56

What do you think is not right. Augustinus or Nostradamus? And if it happened before why can´t it happen again? The world is full of dictators and evil regimes and radical ideologies. Or do you think that Stalinists Russia was a nice place for dissidents, or minorities? Or Kambodschea under Pol Pot or China under Mao, or Ruanda, Burundi in 1994, or the Balkans during the 1990s, or, or, or.
Napoleon and Hitler were just to evil figures. The latter certainly the worst one. But why do you think they can´t be other evil people. And given the situation in the Muslim world and in the Middle East it is clear that this region is the region where the threat of new totalitarian ideologies (Islamism) is coming from.
And by the way: If those Islamists are successfull we are not going to need to discuss whether homosexuality is a sin or not. That is an individual judgement anybody can make according to its own subjective moral. But if they are successfull they are going to stone homosexuals to death and impose the burqa on all women.

What the fuck did I just tell you?

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL DEBATE

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL DEBATE
http://img31.exs.cx/img31/3663/untitled85.gif

Davistania

22-10-2004, 19:58

Why is homosexuality a sin? Because it goes against the will of God. This is set down in scripture, both in the Old Testament and the New. The quotes are all over the place- do you really want me to drag them out again? If you don't accept the validity of the Bible, fine, but I really get ticked off when non-Christians try to use the Bible to say the complete opposite of what it really says.

What part is the sin, for being gay Yes.

being openly gay Yes.

or having the desire and acting on it? Having the desire is a sin. Acting on it is a sin.

Before everyone goes off, this needs a lot (A LOT) of qualifying. This is all law. Christianity has two parts: law and Gospel. If we just pay attention to the Law, as many do, it's really depressing. It says that everyone, heterosexuals included, sin ALL THE TIME, that there's nothing we can do about it, and that we deserve eternal death for that. I don't know why homosexuality is targeted more than other sins, but it's easy to paint people as the Other and get a following. But sin should be condemned.

Just keep in mind that you're missing the Gospel: there's something that was done about that depressing, damning aspect of the Law, the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ.

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong? They come to the conclusion that human beings are immoral and this is wrong. They come to the conclusion that humanity needs a savior. Again, I really hate the "holier than thou" attitude that gets thrown around a lot. But I will not throw out the Law, just as I will not throw out the Gospel: you need both.

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible? I've always maintained that it's a sin. The Bible has always maintained that it's a sin. Your question asks more of 'Why don't we follow the ceremonial laws of Ancient Israel?' To find that out, just read Paul's letter to the Galatians. It's pretty easy to determine which are ceremonial laws meant only for Israel thousands of years ago, and which are universally binding. If you don't want to let scripture interpret itself, go ahead, but I still maintain that homosexuality is roundly condemned throughout scripture.

Infidus

22-10-2004, 20:02

Infidus
"...but regardless, according to christian faith, everything comes from God, good..bad..otherwise so in theory, nothing can be sinful because everything is of God including all the good and bad stuff."

Poor poor argumentation. So from that logic are we to send the parents of murderers to prison as well since they "created" them? This is what you are saying: source equals fault. The bible recognizes the responsibility of each individual before God. The theology of the bible does not teach God as the orginator of evil, since evil is that opposite of God. To say that God orignates evil is much akin to saying light created darkness. Did it? many people take darkness to be antithetical to light, when in actually reality it isn't.Darkness is the absence of light. Just as Cold is the absence of heat. If it weren't, then why can't we descend below absolute zero in chemistry and physics? your claim as God being the originator of sin contradicts the very defintion of one who is a good moral God. Sin is the very thing that opposes God. Thus God creating something against his own character is not possible. Your argument self destructs. The guilt lies upon man, not God.

Next, In reading Genesis 1, one sees that the world is created in a perfect state, thus God did not create or originate Sin. Man choose that path for himself, not God. Also, your characterization of Christianity is incorrect. It may be the way you understand it, but authentic Christianity does not teach in accordance with what you say it does. James 1 clearly states that there is no badness in God, nor does anything bad come from or out of Him and His character.

You don't seem to follow what I say....
The bible is flawed. It's a book that people take as a literal fact. Unfortunately, it is not.

Let me ask you something...if i allow a murder to happen and I had the power to stop, am I or am I not as guilty as the murderer. In my view, I am just as guilty because I could have prevented it. God can prevent evil but he allows it, so he is just as guilty of our sins as we are.

Yes, if he exists he granted us free will...but yet, if we employ it we are damned. Follow him like sheep and all is ok. He is not a kind God, he is petty and vengeful. As soon as something doesn't go his way, he destroys it (ie the flood). Not to mention, homosexuality isn't a choice...the only choice we have is if we choose to hide it or not. And frankly, I will NOT stop being who I am from religious zealots. And if God has a problem with it, he may feel free to address the issue with me himself.

I have no problem with religion, but I find people who tout it too much don't like to think for themselves. Lets think about this in Darwinian terms (and this is how i think of it, I have not researched this so take it as you will). Homosexuality actually makes sense. It's a form of population control. As a species, we are growing at a rate that far exceeds those of other species. So, eliminate some of the breeders out of the object model and there you go

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 20:04

Yes, Augustine was absolutely right. Babies sin by crying for food. After all, we don't let adults cry, so babies crying is a sin.
Well, did you make that up? I`m not an expert on the works of Augustinus.
He however - in my view correctly - points out the sinful nature of humans. We are all doing wrong things. Humans are no angels. We are sinful. That is also the case for children. Or have you never seen or experienced the cruelty of children against each other??? Don´t be that naive. Humans are not good. Well, we may have good traits, but we also have evil traits. If you believe that humans are by nature good how do you dare to explain the "unnatural" bahviour of criminals and murderers and the cruelty which is a constant part of human history. If we are - at least partly - evil how else would that be possible?
I personally unshure about two alternative models. One would say that humans have good and evil traits. Everyone of us. The other says that the newly born human is a "tabula rasa" (an unwritten paper). That means that everything can be "written" on it through education and by the environment of the child. There is a lot of truth about that but I also think - a science justify this position - that we are not only determined by our environment but also by our genes. I´m not in position to judge which side is stonger and which isn´t. I think both play role.
And that leaves one question open. If we say we are 50% determined by our environment and 50% by genes were is the room for free will? Is there any? And how big or rather small is it actually?
Modern scientists - especially new once in the respect of brain research are even denying that such a thing like free will exist. We don´t think, the brain thinks determined by certain biological and pre-determined structures. A controversial position. But we have to consider this research and we have to look what turns out in the future even if it means that we may have to reconsider our view on human nature.

Moonshine

22-10-2004, 20:07

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 20:08

Well, did you make that up? I`m not an expert on the works of Augustinus.

Nope, Augustine said that infants are sinning when they cry. It was part of his support for his "orginal sin" concept.

He however - in my view correctly - points out the sinful nature of humans. We are all doing wrong things. Humans are no angels. We are sinful. That is also the case for children. Or have you never seen or experienced the cruelty of children against each other???

Point out an example of an infant sinning.

Moonshine

22-10-2004, 20:11

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 20:11

I personally unshure about two alternative models. One would say that humans have good and evil traits. Everyone of us. The other says that the newly born human is a "tabula rasa" (an unwritten paper). That means that everything can be "written" on it through education and by the environment of the child. There is a lot of truth about that but I also think - a science justify this position - that we are not only determined by our environment but also by our genes. I´m not in position to judge which side is stonger and which isn´t. I think both play role.
And that leaves one question open. If we say we are 50% determined by our environment and 50% by genes were is the room for free will? Is there any? And how big or rather small is it actually?
Modern scientists - especially new once in the respect of brain research are even denying that such a thing like free will exist. We don´t think, the brain thinks determined by certain biological and pre-determined structures. A controversial position. But we have to consider this research and we have to look what turns out in the future even if it means that we may have to reconsider our view on human nature.

Both extremes are bunk, now that it has been determined that environmental factors can trigger "on and off" switches for genetic code. Secondly, biological determinism isn't as radical an idea as you make it out to be. Since it has been shown how drugs and other external stimuli (such as ambient electrical activity and ultra-low frequency sound) affect thought-processes, it's not much of a stretch to reason that our decisions are entirely based on what we already are due to our environment and present state. The only flaw with this is that there's no way to prove it; there's far too many factors involved to consider them all at once.

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 20:13

Nope, Augustine said that infants are sinning when they cry. It was part of his support for his "orginal sin" concept.
Point out an example of an infant sinning.
By crying for example. Annying others who want to rest, sleep, have it quiet. You don´t do that. The infant doesn´t now that is wrong. But that doesn´t change the fact that it is wrong to annoy and disturb people.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 20:17

By crying for example. Annying others who want to rest, sleep, have it quiet. You don´t do that. The infant doesn´t now that is wrong. But that doesn´t change the fact that it is wrong to annoy and disturb people.

So the fact that they're dependent makes them sinners? So would this make a cripple a sinner? Or a veggie?

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 20:19

And no, the thought is not a sin. Most commentators have viewed it as a test by the lord or satan testing you. New Testament theology is very clear that 'thoughtcrimes' do not exist - it is the action that is sinful (as you can imagine this has wierd implications for 'Do not covet thy neighbour's wife').

Matthew 5:28

But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What's all that about then?

Daajenai

22-10-2004, 20:21

A quick message to those who seem to be saying "the bible says this and that's that."
There are a plethora of different interpretations of every aspect of the bible. In the United States, we only get exposed to a very small sampling of them, unfortunately. Even within the history of the church...back in the extremely religious middle ages in Europe, if you had talked to someone about interpreting anything in the bible literally, they would have looked at you like you had sprouted another head. It was (rightly, in my opinion) interpreted as a book of parables, not a volume of history.

What I'm saying here, is that unless you've studied a wide variety of the different interpretations of the bible, and thourghouly considered each of them in turn, you don't have the authority to say "this is what the bible says." I know I lack that authority; that's why I preface all my comments about the contents of the scripture with a little disclaimer stating as much.

Kandino

22-10-2004, 20:22

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?
it is not the bible student who condemns homosexuality,
but the scriptures themselves that condemn the practice...

Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?
it certainly is NOT a sin that a man should love his son, his brother, his father, his uncle, his friend...
Jesus said love thy neighbor, NOT have sex with him...
only the homesexual act is sin, as well as the heterosexual act outside of marriage...

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exd 20:14

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." - Mat 5:28

whoever says it is not sinful "to not follow every passage in the bible"
does not have the truth in him but is an outright liar
the bible clearly states that he who breaks ANY of the laws is guilty
of breaking ALL of them...

" For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." -Jam 2:10

we are sinners to one degree or another, but sinners all nevertheless...

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one." - Rom 3:12

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - Rom 3:23

honest bible students KNOW that is indeed sinful to not obey
every commandement set forth in the bible".

"..but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
- Mat 19:17

nobody said it would be easy.

Goed

22-10-2004, 20:23

By crying for example. Annying others who want to rest, sleep, have it quiet. You don´t do that. The infant doesn´t now that is wrong. But that doesn´t change the fact that it is wrong to annoy and disturb people.

Only, is crying a sin? IS it wrong for babies to cry? Say they wet themselves. You don't expect the child to change itself, do you? Do you want him or her to magically levitate to the kitchen and fix itself some food?

Davistania

22-10-2004, 20:24

You don't seem to follow what I say....
The bible is flawed. It's a book that people take as a literal fact. Unfortunately, it is not. If you don't want to play the game, cool. But understand, it's an all-or-nothing deal. Isn't it a bit absurd to say, "Oh, that part about God sending his Son to be crucified for my sins and then RISING FROM THE DEAD? Yeah, that's believable. But wait, God revealing a canonical Testament? That's crazy. You're crazy, man!"

So again, if you don't accept the validity of the Bible, I understand. But don't say that the Bible doesn't try to be God's Testament. Don't use the Bible to justify the idea that the Bible is flawed.

Let me ask you something...if i allow a murder to happen and I had the power to stop, am I or am I not as guilty as the murderer. In my view, I am just as guilty because I could have prevented it. God can prevent evil but he allows it, so he is just as guilty of our sins as we are.
This is what Calvin thought, so he came up with the idea of predestination and the elect. The problem with this 'double predestination' is that it is directly contradicted by scripture. You're using human logic, and scripture trumps human logic.

Yes, if he exists he granted us free will...but yet, if we employ it we are damned. Follow him like sheep and all is ok. He is not a kind God, he is petty and vengeful. As soon as something doesn't go his way, he destroys it (ie the flood). Not to mention, homosexuality isn't a choice...the only choice we have is if we choose to hide it or not. And frankly, I will NOT stop being who I am from religious zealots. And if God has a problem with it, he may feel free to address the issue with me himself. Petty and vengeful? The God of Abraham and Isaac? The God who delivered Israel from the hands of the Egyptians? The God who provided manna in the desert? The God who sent his only Son to redeem humanity? That doesn't sound petty and vengeful to me. Don't mistake righteous anger and unfounded anger.

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 20:25

Both extremes are bunk, now that it has been determined that environmental factors can trigger "on and off" switches for genetic code. Secondly, biological determinism isn't as radical an idea as you make it out to be. Since it has been shown how drugs and other external stimuli (such as ambient electrical activity and ultra-low frequency sound) affect thought-processes, it's not much of a stretch to reason that our decisions are entirely based on what we already are due to our environment and present state. The only flaw with this is that there's no way to prove it; there's far too many factors involved to consider them all at once.
Well, it would be radical. And I tell you why. In the country I´m from we have based our criminal law system today on the basis of INDIVIDUAL GUILT. Guilt defined that a person has taken an action although he/she had the opportunity to act otherwise. People who are not guilty in that sense - because a psychologic test gave the result that they are insane or were during the time of the action not responsible can not be given a prision sentence. They may be sent to close facility or something. But they are subject to the concept of criminal law. That requires guilt. Those people can be held in detention. But they need in our concept help. They can be held in detention as long as they pose a threat: But they ought to be reintegrated into society if possible.
Now: that is of course only a small portion of the accused criminals. But if you assume that this would be the case for all humans that would bring our entire criminal law system which is based on the concept of individual guilt to its collapse. It is in that sense really for us a very radical argumentation and idea, which could lead to the end of the concept of the guilt principal in our criminal law system and to its replacement by another model. Probably the "good old" revenge model we used to have before?
In that concept the individual guilt is not important. The key is in that concept the violation of the norm and the law. This concept seems to be more followed by the US anyway, since the age limits and the sentencing of mentally retarded people to the death penalty for example is not excluded in the US as a matter of fact.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 20:30

honest bible students KNOW that is indeed sinful to not obey
every commandement set forth in the bible".

So you would kill a woman for being raped?

Goed

22-10-2004, 20:30

If you don't want to play the game, cool. But understand, it's an all-or-nothing deal. Isn't it a bit absurd to say, "Oh, that part about God sending his Son to be crucified for my sins and then RISING FROM THE DEAD? Yeah, that's believable. But wait, God revealing a canonical Testament? That's crazy. You're crazy, man!"

So again, if you don't accept the validity of the Bible, I understand. But don't say that the Bible doesn't try to be God's Testament. Don't use the Bible to justify the idea that the Bible is flawed.

This is what Calvin thought, so he came up with the idea of predestination and the elect. The problem with this 'double predestination' is that it is directly contradicted by scripture. You're using human logic, and scripture trumps human logic.

Petty and vengeful? The God of Abraham and Isaac? The God who delivered Israel from the hands of the Egyptians? The God who provided manna in the desert? The God who sent his only Son to redeem humanity? That doesn't sound petty and vengeful to me. Don't mistake righteous anger and unfounded anger.

No, I'm talking about a god that stacks temptations on top of us, tells us to deny what we are, gives NO proof of his existance, and if we don't pray to him the right way we burn in extreme and intense agony for all of eternity.

You know-the christian god.

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 20:30

So the fact that they're dependent makes them sinners? So would this make a cripple a sinner? Or a veggie?
No, I haven´t said that. But you seem to assume that a baby only cries for a reason. Really? Are you shure?
Sometimes they just cry for fun.
And that is annoying people. Parents lose their nerves.
That is human nature - And nature is not good. It is if at all neutral with good and bad sides. That is also the case for the nature of a human and for the nature of a baby. We are all sinners from the begining on.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 20:31

...since the age limits and the sentencing of mentally retarded people to the death penalty for example is not excluded in the US as a matter of fact.

"Insane" people, however, cannot be sentenced to death.

And the reference to the idea as being "radical"... I was speaking in a scientific sense. When you consider that scientists are always searching for a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) to explain all behavior of all that is in the universe (and most believe that one exists), the idea is nothing new or directly contrary to popular scientific thought.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 20:34

No, I haven´t said that. But you seem to assume that a baby only cries for a reason. Really? Are you shure?
Sometimes they just cry for fun.
And that is annoying people. Parents lose their nerves.
That is human nature - And nature is not good. It is if at all neutral with good and bad sides. That is also the case for the nature of a human and for the nature of a baby. We are all sinners from the begining on.

Wait... so you say that the fact that the baby doesn't know that it's bothering people doesn't make a difference in its "guilt" and then go on to say that it does it just to annoy people? It's generally thought that children don't consider things as abstract as how others feel until they are past their toddler years.

Babies only know what they directly see... Crying = getting attention = getting what they need. Their cognitive processes have not developed beyond that of animals yet.

P.S. - It's spelled SURE.

Elmhavn

22-10-2004, 20:41

Matthew 5:28

But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What's all that about then?

Yes! Absolutely! It's really nice when people pay attention to the bible...

Anyway, yes. You are right - it would of course be far too much to hope for to expect the gospels to be consistent even within themselves, let alone with the rest of the scriptures. It's very interesting to note where and how often the gospels (and particularly Matthew, sourpuss tax-collector that he was) have pretty major disagreements. The problem, of course, is that they were all written at different times and with different - very political - aims in mind, so of course they disagree.

Matthew is a particular nasty, he hates almost enough to qualify for the old testament. For example, the word 'hell' occurs more in his gospel than in the other three put together.

Anyway, nicely spotted - another reason why taking scripture as the basis for a moral system is a very bad idea likely to give you major headaches.

You see, if bible class had told us these things, it would have been interesting...

Davistania

22-10-2004, 20:41

No, I'm talking about a god that stacks temptations on top of us, tells us to deny what we are, gives NO proof of his existance, and if we don't pray to him the right way we burn in extreme and intense agony for all of eternity.

You know-the christian god.

God's not this goateed man sitting in a high-backed chair giving you just enough rope to hang yourself. He's not watching you from the bushes, only to break out and scream, "Gotcha!" He wants you to not sin. You, and I, are sinners. God wants me to deny that part of myself, and I do. Just because "I yam what I yam" doesn't mean I'm perfect. Far from it.

As for giving proof of his existance, it's faith. If there was proof, it wouldn't be faith. Faith is a gift from God.

I don't know what you mean about not praying the right way. There aren't steps like in ballroom dancing. There's the Lord's Prayer, and Christ certainly taught us how to pray, but it's not like if we clap on 2 instead of 1 the jig's up.

Atrasanguis

22-10-2004, 20:44

I have one thing to say to everyone who says the bible tells them that Homosexuality is a sin. Stop blaming Jesus for being a bigoted asshole. The bible tells us to do a lot of things. That women should always be submissive to men. That having long hair is a sin. That fathers should be allowed to sell their daughters into slavery. That eating shellfish and pork are big no no's. And that if you work on the Sabbath you should be stoned to death. If we followed everything in the bible, which wasn't written by Jesus but his followers who would have, remember, added their own prejudices and point of views to it, our entire culture would go down the tubes. I don't think people who say gay marriage is wrong are actually basing this on the bible, I think they feel this way and are using the bible as an excuse to say. 'I'm right and your wrong, and the invisible man in the sky who I know exists because of this book written thousands of years ago tells me so.' I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense to me. If you can I welcome you to prove me wrong, but you already think I'm wrong don't you?
~Atra~

DementedDarkness

22-10-2004, 20:46

Hi, Yeah...I really don't have the time to go through the entire thread and read every message. But I thought I might leave a reply on the topic ^.^

Anyway, my believe personally on the topic of the homosexual marriages is that they should be allowed, but not the marriage part. In fact, if some people have noticed like me, some churches are actually even changing between a man and a wife to a union, which would also make it so two males could be 'united'. So, my point? Marriage itself should be amended to a union between two people who love each other, even between the man and woman, not just for the homosexuals. If America is an equal country that welcomes different types of people, everything should on some level be equal. While the original government idea says marriage is between a man and woman, that is based of religious believes. but what about those who aren't that religion that want to be united as a couple and have the privelage of a spouse.

It's called the United States of America, but this issue (along with many others) is showing us just how divided we are.

Davistania

22-10-2004, 20:51

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 20:51

Wait... so you say that the fact that the baby doesn't know that it's bothering people doesn't make a difference in its "guilt" and then go on to say that it does it just to annoy people? It's generally thought that children don't consider things as abstract as how others feel until they are past their toddler years.

Babies only know what they directly see... Crying = getting attention = getting what they need. Their cognitive processes have not developed beyond that of animals yet.

P.S. - It's spelled SURE.
You are always referring to individual guilt - guilt in the sense I described as having the opportunity to act differently. But don´t you think you can sin also by doing things although you didn´t have the choice to act differently.
I would see the word sin as much BRODER than the guilt in criminal law. The guilt in criminal law is a very narrow definition. And it is justifiable that it is that way. Criminal law is the ulima ratio - the last instrument the state should use. Not all actions - which may be considered wrong- fall under criminal law.
We have to differentiate here. Furthernmore: Law is objective. It is written down( in the Roman law system of continental Europe) or it is based on precedences (Common law system) which are also written down.
Moral and sins are subjective. They differ from you faith.
What we need to agree to is that we are talking here about two completly different categories and systems.
A sin in that sense is not based on indivual guilt but on an action. An action which is annoying others, harming others in one way or another.
I for example would say that it is not even possible to life a life without sins. It is in our nature. If you have to defend yourself in one way or another and take life you commit a sin. It may be justified. You may had no choice - like during a war for example. But that doesn´t change that you may took away human lives. Thou shall not kill - clear, precise. On the other hand: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
In my view a person who kills always commits a sin by taking away life. That can be jusified and reconcilled for example if those action prevents a bigger tragedy. But it still means - committing sins in order to avoid an even bigger sin from happening. Going from that perspective war can only be justified as a last resort and even than it is sinful.

Kinizaristan

22-10-2004, 20:52

The only justification of homosexual persecution that stands is Biblical. Every other non-religious tenet the Right tries to push forward, "the protection of children", "the maintainence of family values" do not hold up. First, all pedophilies are not necissarily all homosexual and not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Second, how does the shunning of your sons and daughters, you brothers and sisters, your aunts and uncles, promote family values?

As for the Biblical justification, it boils down to this,

"If a man also lie with mankind as he leith with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

If one reads this passage critically, one will notice that this does NOT prohibit lesbianism. It only addresses male homosexuality. Second, it does not prohibit the emotional love between two men, merely physically. Why is this? First, one must realize that the word abomination in Biblical times did not mean something bad or wrong, it meant something unclean (thus, it prohibits the unclean practice of anal sex). Indeed, the eating of shellfish is called an abomination (un-kosher) in Leviticus 11:9-10 .

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat [and] all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you[.]"
Despite the 'Bible truth' of such a thing, you don't see people like Fred Phelps protesting Red Lobster or Long John Silver's do you?

In any event, all Biblical justifications for homophobia are mooted by Galatians 3:14-16.

" . . . If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why comellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, [k]nowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and now by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Thus, all the biblical laws (including the Kosher laws of Leviticus) are thrown out the window. The ONE AND ONLY thing one needs to enter Heaven, according to this passage, is the acceptance of Christ, nothing else matters.

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 20:53

Anyway, nicely spotted - another reason why taking scripture as the basis for a moral system is a very bad idea likely to give you major headaches.

You see, if bible class had told us these things, it would have been interesting...

Ah, but if we don't get our morality from God, where does it come from? And furthermore, why do we even need morality then?

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 20:55

You are always referring to individual guilt - guilt in the sense I described as having the opportunity to act differently. But don´t you think you can sin also by doing things although you didn´t have the choice to act differently.
I would see the word sin as much BRODER than the guilt in criminal law. The guilt in criminal law is a very narrow definition. And it is justifiable that it is that way. Criminal law is the ulima ratio - the last instrument the state should use. Not all actions - which may be considered wrong- fall under criminal law.
We have to differentiate here. Furthernmore: Law is objective. It is written down( in the Roman law system of continental Europe) or it is based on precedences (Common law system) which are also written down.
Moral and sins are subjective. They differ from you faith.
What we need to agree to is that we are talking here about two completly different categories and systems.
A sin in that sense is not based on indivual guilt but on an action. An action which is annoying others, harming others in one way or another.
I for example would say that it is not even possible to life a life without sins. It is in our nature. If you have to defend yourself in one way or another and take life you commit a sin. It may be justified. You may had no choice - like during a war for example. But that doesn´t change that you may took away human lives. Thou shall not kill - clear, precise. On the other hand: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
In my view a person who kills always commits a sin by taking away life. That can be jusified and reconcilled for example if those action prevents a bigger tragedy. But it still means - committing sins in order to avoid an even bigger sin from happening. Going from that perspective war can only be justified as a last resort and even than it is sinful.

Uh-huh. Now you're just blabbering on to defend the fact that you made two contradictory statements... not to mention the fact that the more you contribute to the thread, the less and less relevant it all gets.

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 20:55

"Insane" people, however, cannot be sentenced to death..
But to life-imprisonment? In our system they can not be handed down a prison sentence.

"And the reference to the idea as being "radical"... I was speaking in a scientific sense. When you consider that scientists are always searching for a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) to explain all behavior of all that is in the universe (and most believe that one exists), the idea is nothing new or directly contrary to popular scientific thought.
And I was speaking in respect to the matter we are talking about. And that is the concpet of free will. Our legal system and the way we - in the west - see ourself today is based on that idea. And that is challenged by those scientist. Well - if that is the case that could as revolutionary and radical as the evolution theory was or even more - like the idea that the earth is not the centre of the universe as it was believed over centuries before.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 20:57

Ah, but if we don't get our morality from God, where does it come from? And furthermore, why do we even need morality then?

Well, there was morality before Christianity, wasn't there? While the word "morality" implies a higher authority, what is for the best of the species generally coincides with morality codes. Therefore, structures similar to morals could be derived from logic alone.

Bottle

22-10-2004, 20:57

Ah, but if we don't get our morality from God, where does it come from? And furthermore, why do we even need morality then?
you could get your morality from anywhere. there could be an abstract ultimate form of Goodness which you take your cue from, or you could believe (as i do) that morality is purely subjective. you need morality to interact successfully with other human beings, and to provide order for your own personal world-view.

personally, i still cannot see how belief in God can be consistent with morality at all, so when i see people ask "how could we have morality without God" it makes my head spin.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 21:00

Ah, but if we don't get our morality from God, where does it come from? And furthermore, why do we even need morality then?

Morality could be developed through evolution, much like anything else. Wolves have a type of morality. They are allowed to bicker and even "pick on" the underdog. But if any wolf actually harms another in the pack, the alpha male punishes them. Why? Because an injured member makes the pack less productive.

Apes have a morality. Incest is shunned in apes just as much as it is in humanity, probably for the same reasons.

Most social animals have devloped what could be seen as morality, although human morality seems to be generally more developed.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 21:00

But to life-imprisonment? In our system they can not be handed down a prison sentence.

And I was speaking in respect to the matter we are talking about. And that is the concpet of free will. Our legal system and the way we - in the west - see ourself today is based on that idea. And that is challenged by those scientist. Well - if that is the case that could as revolutionary and radical as the evolution theory was or even more - like the idea that the earth is not the centre of the universe as it was believed over centuries before.

But it's not radical in that it wouldn't mark a change in the legal system. Those that commit illegal acts would still be punished, rehabbed, and separated from society. The motive might differ slightly, but I don't see how it would overthrow how the entire system works today. And why is the legal system more relevant than the scientific view of free will when the thread is about homosexuality?

Llama-Llama

22-10-2004, 21:00

Then good for Satan. Better him than a god who HATES people just for being different. God of love indeed.

God does so love us! Why would he send his son to die for us to live for him forever???

Homosexuality is being different but it is wrong!

God doesn't hate us for being different
He does hate us at all
He hates sin and cannot look upon it

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 21:01

Uh-huh. Now you're just blabbering on to defend the fact that you made two contradictory statements... not to mention the fact that the more you contribute to the thread, the less and less relevant it all gets.
No, I don´t. I spoke about guilt in the sense of criminal law and about sins. That are two concept. Many sins are far away from being criminal actions.
The only one who is going away from the issue is you.
The concept of sin is not a legal concept and has nothing to do with the objective concept of law.
It has to do with the subjective concept of faith. Subjective because you can chose to believe in different concepts and faiths wereas you can´t chose a legal system - them you would need to leave your country.
According to christianity it is obvious that homosexuality is a sin. There is no doubt about that.

Davistania

22-10-2004, 21:02

If one reads this passage critically, one will notice that this does NOT prohibit lesbianism. It only addresses male homosexuality. Second, it does not prohibit the emotional love between two men, merely physically. Why is this? First, one must realize that the word abomination in Biblical times did not mean something bad or wrong, it meant something unclean (thus, it prohibits the unclean practice of anal sex). Indeed, the eating of shellfish is called an abomination (un-kosher) in Leviticus 11:9-10 . Don't play semantics. Abomination is abomination. Don't compare universal morality laws with ceremonial laws. What applied to the Jews doesn't apply to me, a Gentile, now. That's what that Galatians passage is about. The universal law of God still does apply, though. Paul knew this.

In any event, all Biblical justifications for homophobia are mooted by Galatians 3:14-16.

" . . . If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why comellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, [k]nowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and now by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Thus, all the biblical laws (including the Kosher laws of Leviticus) are thrown out the window. The ONE AND ONLY thing one needs to enter Heaven, according to this passage, is the acceptance of Christ, nothing else matters. They aren't thrown out the window. Paul's point is that legalism is not what gains us salvation, but rather it is God's Grace. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow God's moral laws. He quite forcefully stresses that point in other letters.

Romans 6:1-4
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 21:04

you could get your morality from anywhere. there could be an abstract ultimate form of Goodness which you take your cue from, or you could believe (as i do) that morality is purely subjective. you need morality to interact successfully with other human beings, and to provide order for your own personal world-view.

personally, i still cannot see how belief in God can be consistent with morality at all, so when i see people ask "how could we have morality without God" it makes my head spin.

Yes but what's the point of being moral otherwise. If it's only a convention to ease social interaction then surely its to everyones advantage to cheat when the can get away with it- and that's not really very moral.

Why would anyone do anything altruistic or against their own self interest if morality is just from anywhere, and why would people take morally correct actions in circumstances where they knew no-one else would ever know what they did. It just seems to me that morality cannot be explained within itself and needs some source like God, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Smoothinia

22-10-2004, 21:04

Although the Book of Leviticus talks about homosexuality, I wanted to introudce another reference.

Romans 1:21-1:32

http://www.tims.net/bible/nkjv/romans-1.htm <-- read here

In the later part of the first chapter of Romans, we are learning about a society of people who have rejected God. They have taken up idols, and as a result, God has let them chose their path. When they do so, it mentions men and women engaging in homosexuality. Now of course the SPECIFIC word "homosexuality" does not appear, but many OTHER English words that we use today don't appear in the Bible. The Bible was written in languages that perhaps did not have a word to translate "homosexuality" from.

Now, after reading that passage, I really don't believe that there is any way to say that homosexuality is NOT a sin, but what seems to be the arguement of many people here, is "how dare a Christian judge a homosexual when they are commiting sins, even some very bad ones, themselves."

This is where you must realize that just because one person is a radical religeous person that goes on anti-gay marches, does not mean that they represent the proper attitude of a Christian, or even the attitude that ALL Christians have in reference to this issue. He is ONE man, or ONE group of people. If I were to go to a baseball game and got yelled at and made fun of by a fan of one team for liking the other team, does that mean that ALL fans of that team act the same way.. or that that fan was in some way representing the correct attitude that should be displayed by a fan of that team? Or that I should in no way EVER cheer for that team because of what that man did to me? Obviously not. That was HIM. HIS attitude.. not the attitude of many of the other "fans".

I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is a sin. Now.. that being said, does that mean that I am in some way "better" than a homosexual? Not at all. First off, God does not "rate" sin. All the Bible says about sin, is that if you are a sinner, you go to Hell. It goes on to say that EVERYONE is a sinner. This includes heterosexuals like myself. It THEN follows up by saying that you can be FORGIVEN of your sins by becoming a Christian through Jesus Christ. I am in no way condemming homosexuals. However if someone asks me my opinion on if its a sin, I will say yes. That is not condeming. That is giving an honest answer.

I deserve to go to Hell for lying to my mother when I was 7, just as much as a homosexual does for having sex with a man. They are one in the same. sin is sin.

I do NOT believe it is a sin to have homosexual desires. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that one wont be TEMPTED. Even Jesus was tempted by the Devil 3 times. It's how we ACT upon those temptations that can lead us to sin.

It truly bothers me to see my "fellow believers" on TV going all crazy or things like that. God loves every person in this world equally, and wants everyone to come to Him as a Christian. It's a shame to see that some of the people who claim to be my "brothers and sisters" havn't learned the Greatest of All Commandments to Love One Another.

Bottle

22-10-2004, 21:04

God does so love us! Why would he send his son to die for us to live for him forever???

so God, who is ALL POWERFUL, couldn't figure out a way for us to be with him, short of allowing his own child to be tortured to death? if that's the kind of love he offers us, is anybody really going to be sick enough to take it?!

"I love you! See, I let my child be tortured to death to show how much I love you!"
"Bam, eat some restraining order, sicko!"

Homosexuality is being different but it is wrong!

says who?

God doesn't hate us for being different
He does hate us at all

i know you probably meant he "doesn't" hate us at all, but i think the slip up is very telling ;).

He hates sin and cannot look upon it
CANNOT? you mean, the ALL POWERFUL God that you worship CANNOT look upon sin? and if he cannot look upon it, why did he create it?

Matokogothicka

22-10-2004, 21:04

It's a sin because filling your asshole with lube and getting a penis violently thrusted up and down until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a disgusting mix of semen, lube and shit pouring out your asshole, onto your bed (or public toilet floor) upon withdrawal is fucking disgusting.

And you would know, wouldn't you?

1.Unlike you, I clean my ass before fucking
2. Nothing "pours out" of anywhere, most of it stays inside or just oozes slowly
3.As opposed to a woman lubing a man's penis and having it thrusted violenly inside her vagina until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by an ooze of cum dribbling down her thighs upon release?

The real argument here is "Mommy, it's *different*! Get it away! Yuckyyyy!" That argument, my friend, is no more rational than those of a child that won't eat food unless it's smothered with ketchup.

And yes, I AM openly homosexual, and I HAVE been with BOTH sexes, so I WOULD know.

Call me a bitch, I'll take it proudly.

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 21:05

But it's not radical in that it wouldn't mark a change in the legal system. Those that commit illegal acts would still be punished, rehabbed, and separated from society. The motive might differ slightly, but I don't see how it would overthrow how the entire system works today. And why is the legal system more relevant than the scientific view of free will when the thread is about homosexuality?
IN the US it would not make a difference since it follows a different philosophy anyway. But in most European countries it would. Because you can only sent people to prison if they are guilty. And guilt implies free will - the option of the person to act otherwise. Otherwise they can´t be sentenced to prison. Should we sent all people to hospital?
So, it is very significant since it is questioning the entire basis of our system of criminal law - not yours but ours.

Goed

22-10-2004, 21:06

Ah, but if we don't get our morality from God, where does it come from? And furthermore, why do we even need morality then?

An athiest could give a better answer, but my question is: which god?

God's not this goateed man sitting in a high-backed chair giving you just enough rope to hang yourself. He's not watching you from the bushes, only to break out and scream, "Gotcha!" He wants you to not sin. You, and I, are sinners. God wants me to deny that part of myself, and I do. Just because "I yam what I yam" doesn't mean I'm perfect. Far from it.

As for giving proof of his existance, it's faith. If there was proof, it wouldn't be faith. Faith is a gift from God.

I don't know what you mean about not praying the right way. There aren't steps like in ballroom dancing. There's the Lord's Prayer, and Christ certainly taught us how to pray, but it's not like if we clap on 2 instead of 1 the jig's up.

Let's follow the lines of logic.

God knows everything. Therefore:
God knows the future

Easy conclusion, yes?

God created mankind.
Making sins. Therefore:
Man goes to hell for sinning unless he asks for repentance. Therefore:
Man must ask the correct version of God (it's 9.8, if anyone's wondering) in order to escape hell.

Now things get tricky.

God knows the future. Therefore:
God knows what's going to happen before it happens. Therefore:
The universe is pre-ordained. Therefore:
Everything has a point and purpose. Therefore:
Sin has a purpose.

Now we have some fun.

God knows the future. Therefore:
He knows the end results of everything. Therefore:
He knows that mankind would be corrupted. Therefore:
He knows mankind would sin and go to hell. Therefore:
In creating mankind WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, God sentanced all of humanity to hell.

Now Jesus comes into play.

As proven before, God sentanced all of man to hell, but he's merciful. Therefore...
In comes baby Jesus, who dies. Therefore:
Now, to get to heaven, we MUST pray to little baby Jesus. Therefore:
There will STILL be people going to hell, and God is all knowing, so he knows who. Therefore:
God has mandated that some people go to heaven, and others hell.

QED.

Smack Seven

22-10-2004, 21:07

It is if you are all-powerful and all-knowing to begin with. An all-good God cannot condone slavery - period.

You are right, no one does. And this is why there is so much debate and why people should not force their ideas of God onto others. No one knows the answer except for God.

Is He all good? He punishes does he not? Therefore, He cannot be all good. It is my personal belief that God is a loving, caring God yes, but a vengeful and punishing God also. Though, this still does not answer the question of slavery.

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 21:07

Morality could be developed through evolution, much like anything else. Wolves have a type of morality. They are allowed to bicker and even "pick on" the underdog. But if any wolf actually harms another in the pack, the alpha male punishes them. Why? Because an injured member makes the pack less productive.

Apes have a morality. Incest is shunned in apes just as much as it is in humanity, probably for the same reasons.

Most social animals have devloped what could be seen as morality, although human morality seems to be generally more developed.

Yes, but surely an "evolved" system of morality would be fundamentally self-interested. I don't perceive the system of morality we currently hold to necessarily is. So I don't see how it could have evolved.

I understand that Richard Dawkins the biologist has tried to address some of these points - although I have never read his books only a couple of his articles - but I don't think he ever came up with a convincing argument for the evolution of entire system of morality, only a few certain specific aspects of it.

Bottle

22-10-2004, 21:08

Yes but what's the point of being moral otherwise. If it's only a convention to ease social interaction then surely its to everyones advantage to cheat when the can get away with it- and that's not really very moral.

there are dramatic social disadvantages to immorality, and primates are biologically designed to function best in social groups. individuals that are unable to do so are less reproductively fit.

Why would anyone do anything altruistic or against their own self interest if morality is just from anywhere, and why would people take morally correct actions in circumstances where they knew no-one else would ever know what they did.

my own self interest includes moral action. i don't WANT to hurt other people, nor do i want to get ahead through cheating, violence, or dishonesty. do you? are you merely reigning in those desires so God isn't mad at you? if so, do you think that makes you more moral than i am? i choose to be moral because it is what makes me happy...i like being fair, kind, and honest, and i believe it is the best way for me to lead a full and happy life. i'm not being good just to avoid getting in trouble with some supernatural parent figure, or to get a celestial reward like heaven. you don't have to bribe or threaten me into being a decent human being.

It just seems to me that morality cannot be explained within itself and needs some source like God, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
and i believe the opposite; objective morality, particularly any morality that involves a God, is not logically possible based on my standards of what it means to be moral.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 21:08

Although the Book of Leviticus talks about homosexuality, I wanted to introudce another reference.

Romans 1:21-1:32

http://www.tims.net/bible/nkjv/romans-1.htm <-- read here

Of course, taking that passage as the word of God depends on whether or not you believe every single word written down by a mysoginistic Jewish man trying to come to terms with the fact that God had revealed a new covenant. It is just as likely that Paul misunderstood parts of what God did and did not intend.

Malletopia

22-10-2004, 21:08

The only one who is going away from the issue is you.

Weren't you the one who brought criminal law into this, though? I brought in a scientific view of free will and you take that to criminal law... which has nothing at all to do with homosexuality.

Secondly, of course a literal translation condemns it... the same literal translation which apparently condones stoning rape victims and promotes incest (in the same story which many use to denounce homosexuality, no less).

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 21:10

Yes, but surely an "evolved" system of morality would be fundamentally self-interested. I don't perceive the system of morality we currently hold to necessarily is. So I don't see how it could have evolved.

Do you understand the difference between social animals and non-social ones?

Animals that stay solo except to mate would have an evolved system that was, as you put it, fundamentally self-interested.

However, animals that developed a social structure would need stability in that structure to survive. Human beings, apes, pack animals, etc. have a social structure and thus any morality that evolved would benefit the pack, not simply the individual.

Matokogothicka

22-10-2004, 21:13

Heterosexuals who bump rumps are still sodomites.

The penis goes in the vagina!

Gah, hell no. Vaginal sex is boring, I'm bisexual enough at least to know that. ;)

Why have simple intercourse when you can engage in bondage and BDSM, have threesomes, engage in foot, breast, and hand fetishes, nibble ears, wear Catholic schoolgirl, nun, and nurse uniforms, wear Victorian lolita dresses during sex, fuck behind the altar in the church, pierce unusual and sensitive spots, and practice ritual scarification instead? So much more fun.

Or would you argue that God wants us all to hate life and never have fun?

This stuff IS what our bodies are for, EXACTLY what our bodies are for. That's why we're able to do these things so easily and naturally.

Kinda Sensible people

22-10-2004, 21:14

In my day to day life, I am in a position where I give orders, and expect them to be carried out. I do not explain the hows or why's. If they are not carried out, there would be punishment. This is because I know more about the overall picture than those receiving the orders. This is the best example of God in my mind, though on a much smaller scale. God is in position to see the big picture, if you are Christian, this is how you see him. The "orders" may not make sense to you, and , to be honest, some do not make sense to me either. But if you are Christian, you recognize him as having a reason, and you recognize there are repercussions for disobeying the orders.

So what your saying is this...

1. God is all knowing.

Im sorry, if he was all knowing satan could not have "corrupted" humans and therefore god made homosexuals.

2. God knows more so he has the right to give orders.

Knowing more does NOT give you the right to give orders. Only if someone ACCEPTS you as a commander (when you sign up for a job you accept that you will have a commander) can you give them orders and punish them. When did you receive the right to force his orders to his followers on others?

3. God does not hate those who dissobey him, he simply punishes them.

Consigning someone to burn in hell for all eternity is kinda extreme. Those who dont obey him because they do not follow his teachings? Burned. Those who live a good life, but are atheist? Burned... Really fair and kind. *not* Seems to me the ONLY reason someone would be THAT extreme would be if 1. They were crazy or 2. They hated them. Moreover all I ever hear spread by the conservative followers of god is hate. Hate the terrorists for killing us. Hate the homosexuals for their "unnatural" "choice". Hate and fear are the tenants of christianity as far as I can tell.

Haloman

22-10-2004, 21:22

For all have sinned, all fall short of the glorious standard of god. -Romans 3:23

This is one my favorite verses in the bible, and it tells me a lot of things. First of all, every one sins. Everyone was born a sinner, and no one is a saint. Homosexuality is sin just like any other sin...adultery, murder, sex before marriage...all of these are sins, and they are all bad. So, no one is better or above homosexuals...they are sinners, too, just like me. My church teaches us to accept everyone, even homosexuals, because God loves everyone, just not to accept their actions. If they accept Christ as their savior, admit their sins to God, and God will forgive them.

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 21:22

there are dramatic social disadvantages to immorality, and primates are biologically designed to function best in social groups. individuals that are unable to do so are less reproductively fit.

Yes but, surely the chances of being reproductively fit increase when an individual pursues a self-interested strategy whenever possible. Thus surely we would have evolved a system of morality that would allow us to make self interested choices whenever we knew there was no threat of sanction from the rest of the group

my own self interest includes moral action. i don't WANT to hurt other people, nor do i want to get ahead through cheating, violence, or dishonesty. do you? are you merely reigning in those desires so God isn't mad at you? if so, do you think that makes you more moral than i am? i choose to be moral because it is what makes me happy...i like being fair, kind, and honest, and i believe it is the best way for me to lead a full and happy life. i'm not being good just to avoid getting in trouble with some supernatural parent figure, or to get a celestial reward like heaven. you don't have to bribe or threaten me into being a decent human being.

No I don't particularly want to go round killing people either, but I can also admit at times in my life I have been tempted to do immoral things such as stealing or cheating. If I knew I could get away with it, why not do those things when tempted then? If morality is just a code to ease social tensions, why be beholden to it when making a self-interested choice will have no repercussions on the social contract. I think at somepoint everyone has had the desire to cheat on a test or something. If you knew you could get away with it why not? Objectively the cheating has no real effect on the group, so wouldn't it be fine to give into temptation then? (and if I understand you definition of morality also moral).

I also think that you mischaracterize - or at least make unsupported assumptions - about my stance on how morality operates. I did not suggest that because morality was from Gof the only reason we should strive to be moral is fear of hell or desire for heaven. If anything it is far from it.

and i believe the opposite; objective morality, particularly any morality that involves a God, is not logically possible based on my standards of what it means to be moral.

You'll have to elaborate there for me. I don't understand how morality that involves a God is not logically possible.

Matokogothicka

22-10-2004, 21:22

Poor baby, need a tissue? Guys are 3.5 billion of the 7 billion out there. Get over it.

Whatever did women do to deserve getting the short end of the stick, and what gives you the right to treat a woman like this?

After all the abuse women have gotten over the centuries, I'd say the only way men could make it up to women is by handing the government over to them, becoming obedient house husbands, and being owned (literally) as women's property.

Homosexual men would be employed for the entertainment of the female class, just a women are nowadays via "lesbian" porn made by/for men.

Really, that's the only way I can think of to repay women for what we've done to them... for what they've endured.

And yes, I'm male.

Wizcompton

22-10-2004, 21:23

No, i'm telling you that noone knows who wrote it. Si, the christian inferior from within, like some Emperors we've heard of.. It's what made Constantinople vulnerable to the muslims.. Christianity made us weak and our ancestry roman gods made us strong.

so strong that the young christianity crushed it and has ruled ever since

Davistania

22-10-2004, 21:24

Let's follow the lines of logic.

God knows everything. Therefore:
God knows the future

Easy conclusion, yes?

God created mankind.
Making sins. Therefore:
Man goes to hell for sinning unless he asks for repentance. Therefore:
Man must ask the correct version of God (it's 9.8, if anyone's wondering) in order to escape hell.

Now things get tricky.

God knows the future. Therefore:
God knows what's going to happen before it happens. Therefore:
The universe is pre-ordained. Therefore:
Everything has a point and purpose. Therefore:
Sin has a purpose.

Now we have some fun.

God knows the future. Therefore:
He knows the end results of everything. Therefore:
He knows that mankind would be corrupted. Therefore:
He knows mankind would sin and go to hell. Therefore:
In creating mankind WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, God sentanced all of humanity to hell.

Now Jesus comes into play.

As proven before, God sentanced all of man to hell, but he's merciful. Therefore...
In comes baby Jesus, who dies. Therefore:
Now, to get to heaven, we MUST pray to little baby Jesus. Therefore:
There will STILL be people going to hell, and God is all knowing, so he knows who. Therefore:
God has mandated that some people go to heaven, and others hell.
QED.

Yes, I admit you've learned your stuff. I admit it does make logical sense. You reached the same conclusion Calvin did.

Except your conclusion is contradicted by the Bible.

Ezekiel 33:11
'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows

Kybernetia

22-10-2004, 21:24

Weren't you the one who brought criminal law into this, though? I brought in a scientific view of free will and you take that to criminal law. which has nothing at all to do with homosexuality..
It has to do with it. We were discussing the question whether only actions were you can be in the sense of criminal law being guilty of can be considered sins.
I wanted to outline the difference between guilt (in a legal sense) and sin in a religious sense. And for a sin it is not important whether the person wanted to sin or not, whether he/she thinks that it is evil or not. It is only the action itself - as Augustine pointed - which is sinful.
And Homosexuality is sinful. It is misguided sexuality and as such undoubtably and inevitably sinful.

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 21:27

Do you understand the difference between social animals and non-social ones?

Animals that stay solo except to mate would have an evolved system that was, as you put it, fundamentally self-interested.

However, animals that developed a social structure would need stability in that structure to survive. Human beings, apes, pack animals, etc. have a social structure and thus any morality that evolved would benefit the pack, not simply the individual.

Look I understand the whole pack instinct thing, but that does not map very well onto our conception of morality. Why would we have evolved to have any feeling of responsibiity to those outside our pack. In fact surely our concept of morality would be completely the opposite and we would view giving assitance to competeing packs as immoral (as it weakens our pack while strengthening a competitor), By those lights our moral code would be completely different.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 21:31

I wanted to outline the difference between guilt (in a legal sense) and sin in a religious sense. And for a sin it is not important whether the person wanted to sin or not, whether he/she thinks that it is evil or not. It is only the action itself - as Augustine pointed - which is sinful.

Darling, you haven't read much Augustine. According to him, humans can *only* choose sinful acts and can never choose to not sin.

And Homosexuality is sinful. It is misguided sexuality and as such undoubtably and inevitably sinful.

Yup, all those sinful animals are going to hell too!

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 21:32

Look I understand the whole pack instinct thing, but that does not map very well onto our conception of morality. Why would we have evolved to have any feeling of responsibiity to those outside our pack. In fact surely our concept of morality would be completely the opposite and we would view giving assitance to competeing packs as immoral (as it weakens our pack while strengthening a competitor), By those lights our moral code would be completely different.

Well, if you go back in history, you would find that there was no feeling of responsibility to those outside the tribe.

We have changed as our "tribe" has gotten bigger and bigger. We have the ability now to converse with people on the other side of the world, and have thus realized that they are part of our pack.

Alla Xul

22-10-2004, 21:32

Homosexuality is indeed a "sin".

That in no way means it is unnatural or wrong, as animals have been proven to go to the same sex, and the bible can be disproven in so many ways it's a wonder the government even allows preachers to spew their hate.

End of Story.

Goed

22-10-2004, 21:34

Matokogothicka

22-10-2004, 21:35

Being a satanist, I don´t believe in "sins". Whatever makes you feel good is allright. BUT, how can you find "love" in a mans hairy ass?? I personally find it disgusting beyond description. Why the Hell would you bang a mans pimpled, hairy ass, when there are beautiful chicks out there with big breasts and juicy vaginas? How can a sane person choose a hairy butt over THAT? Fags are sick people who needs "treatment" (like a .44 caliber brain surgery).

Hah! I understand entirely about the "pimpled, hairy" part. I prefer smooth, hairless, muscular asses myself.

As for the other point in your message, please refer to your local geneticist for an explanation of the genetic code and how it determines sexuality.

I am gay (or at least on that side of the scale), and I HAVE tried being with a woman. In fact, I was just last night, and found it quite pleasurable. Frankly, though, it was the female side of my personality enjoying it, so that would make me... a bit of a lesbian, yes.

Here's what I don't get: how can men be so egotistical and domineering towards women during sex? Why aren't they *on the ground* WORSHIPPING their woman's breasts and vagina, if they value those bodyparts so much? Admiring them and making the person of which they are a part feel loved and appreciated. I would find that so much more suitable than acting with a domineering sense of entitlement, like most men do.

There's nothing wrong with heterosexuality, but I do find the popular male attitude towards women rather disgusting. The enjoyment of a woman's body is a TREAT not a fucking COMMODITY. :(

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 21:37

Well, if you go back in history, you would find that there was no feeling of responsibility to those outside the tribe.

We have changed as our "tribe" has gotten bigger and bigger. We have the ability now to converse with people on the other side of the world, and have thus realized that they are part of our pack.

But they're not really now, are they. If anything those people on the other side of the world are in direct competition with my pack for resources. I understand as civilization developed the concept of "pack" enlarged to form greater and greater numbers, but at the end of the day there are still competing factions. I'm not suggesting that this worldview implies that we should invade and kill everybody else, because obviously that would have repercussions, but there is no reason why we should ever help them either. Yet we quite often do and it is viewed as a moral obligation. Where does that impetus come from?

Goed

22-10-2004, 21:37

Hah! I understand entirely about the "pimpled, hairy" part. I prefer smooth, hairless, muscular asses myself.

As for the other point in your message, please refer to your local geneticist for an explanation of the genetic code and how it determines sexuality.

I am gay (or at least on that side of the scale), and I HAVE tried being with a woman. In fact, I was just last night, and found it quite pleasurable. Frankly, though, it was the female side of my personality enjoying it, so that would make me... a bit of a lesbian, yes.

Here's what I don't get: how can men be so egotistical and domineering towards women during sex? Why aren't they *on the ground* WORSHIPPING their woman's breasts and vagina, if they value those bodyparts so much? Admiring them and making the person of which they are a part feel loved and appreciated. I would find that so much more suitable than acting with a domineering sense of entitlement, like most men do.

There's nothing wrong with heterosexuality, but I do find the popular male attitude towards women rather disgusting. The enjoyment of a woman's body is a TREAT not a fucking COMMODITY. :(

I sense a bit of a dom sturring inside you xD

Really though, I never understood why the guy should be in charge either, but for a different reasons. Face it gents-we have one orgasm. Sometimes two. If your lucky, three, but that's rare. Women have all the orgasms they want.

Doesn't it make a bit more sense to let them be in charge, that way BOTH parties have pleasurable sex, and she doesn't have to fake?

Davistania

22-10-2004, 21:40

So the Bible contradicts logic and itself? It contradicts logic. It doesn't contradict itself. Where does it contradict itself, perhaps I'm not following? Contradicting logic is the basis of religion. It doesn't mean it's not true. Parting the Red Sea isn't logical. That can't happen. People certainly can't rise from the dead. It's not logical, it can't happen. But by faith I believe it did.

And that's not my logic-that's Augustine's logic. A very noted theologian.
I know. It's also Calvin's logic. And it's logically sound. And it's contradicted by the Bible.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 21:44

But they're not really now, are they. If anything those people on the other side of the world are in direct competition with my pack for resources. I understand as civilization developed the concept of "pack" enlarged to form greater and greater numbers, but at the end of the day there are still competing factions. I'm not suggesting that this worldview implies that we should invade and kill everybody else, because obviously that would have repercussions, but there is no reason why we should ever help them either. Yet we quite often do and it is viewed as a moral obligation. Where does that impetus come from?

Yes, they are. They are a part of our pack because the methods of getting resources are now global. The people on the other side of the world compete for those just as much as a wolf within a pack competes with its littermates. However, we need the people on the other side of the world and they need us in the society that we have now developed to.

Matokogothicka

22-10-2004, 21:44

what exactly is it you're looking for?

would you like to be granted the exact same rights as heterosexual (married) couples, without actually labelling it "marriage"? e.g. would some sort of formalised legal concubination, conferring all the same rights to gay couples who adopt this institution suffice?

or would you rather like to be "married" in the traditional sense. i mean, would you like to be able to marry in the same fashion as heterosexuals now can?

i'm just asking because i'm curious... a lot of young people i know do not even want to get married anymore, but prefer to live together in a formalised manner, which in my country is possible (even though the rights conferred are not totally identical)

Thank you for the intelligent question! My being young and gay, I'll answer. Homosexuals vary from person to person. Some do want to live together in a legally and religiously recognized nuclear family, yes. Others just want the benefits. Myself, my fight for gay marriage is just a part of the struggle for gay rights - simply held on the principle that gay citizens deserve the same rights as all other citizens. Same reason that a group of blacks would perform a sit-in at a "whites only" cafe or bar during the civil rights movement.

I doubt I'll ever marry formally, but I still feel that those who wish to do so deserve the right to, just as straight couples can and do.

Matokogothicka

22-10-2004, 21:48

Infertility is for God to decide, and yes, it's still a sin when they go about it this way. Anything that causes or brings about sin is a sin itself according to Roman Catholic Biblical laws. Should this be an infertility clinic that careful extricates seminal fluid (and probably rather painfully) other than masturbation, then I personally see no problem with it. If a couple is trying to have babies, there is nothing wrong with trying. The means of going about it is what you must watch carefully.

Your only defense refers to shellfish and haircuts every time. Certain parts of the old testament are voided by the new testament. There are parts to the old testament that we base principles on currently. And 'stupid ntheory of Creation.' Just listen to yourself...you can hardly spell and are calling this theory, which is equally as justified scientifically as Micro or Macroevolution, 'fucking stupid.' Thanks for the laugh.

The study this refers to was faked by homosexual doctors and supporters of gay rights and pushed through to this point by the media. This is a premier example of the media lying to make its point. This study is legendary in Christian in-grounds.

Hah! Those happen to be very well-respected and well-known studies by established researchers. Do you have any evidence they were "faked?"

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 21:52

Yes, they are. They are a part of our pack because the methods of getting resources are now global. The people on the other side of the world compete for those just as much as a wolf within a pack competes with its littermates. However, we need the people on the other side of the world and they need us in the society that we have now developed to.

The concept of overseas charity predates globalization though doesn't it? In the early twentieth century people were always subscribing to relief efforts in far off places where there was absolutely no economic interest. Why did they do that, and why did everyone say it was moral?

And why do we help african aids charities today. The interests there do not effect how we get resources, so surely those people are not part of our pack.

Dettibok

22-10-2004, 22:11

Omnibus post goodness follows.

Yes it does mean we deserve death. Mankind is obviously a horrible, sinful species.Oooh, "obviously". 'tain't obvious to me.
Look at all the tragedy throughout history that has resulted from the evil things men do to each other. We all do awful things.Your second statement doesn't follow from the first one. Alright I'll admit to doing awful things, but not anything deserving of death. Your god really is coming off as an abusive parent.

Goober you are a very sad person indeed you are probably the only person on earth apart from Pychopaths and Satan worshippers that would even CONSIDER going to hell:Cough:. I'm neither. And if I believed some of the descriptions of God by believers in this thread I'd be asking "just how bad is hell anyway?". Yeah, I know, I know: Hell is eternal torture in fire and brimstone. If I was a believer in all this I'd be toadying to God pretty darn fast; my integrity has limits. Fortunately I'm not, and I don't think most Christians are either.

You are clearly ignorant of all the studies that show 97% of pedophiles are heterosexual.As am I. Got any cites? (My understanding was that a significant proportion of pedophiles where not attracted to adults at all). Unfortunately, given the contentiousness of the topic, I'm not inclined to trust the experts, never mind the conventional wisdom. But I'm still interested in what the experts say.

But seriously - if that is your measure on how right a religion is, I would recommend you get a copy of the Satanic Bible. Available here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380015390/104-4072626-5388715?v=glanceOr the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html). Nit-picking the bible's not my thing, but it looks like there are plenty of examples there.

There is evidence that all of humanity is decended from one woman in Africa, who we could call Eve, but there is no evidence for an "Adam".If you could trace the male lines back, eventually you will get to one man too; it's inevitable given enough time. As far as I know noone's done the tracing. However this "Eve" and "Adam" are quite unlike the biblical pair; They are likely to be far removed in space and time. And some of their contemporaries will have made more of a contribution to today's gene pool, just not through direct male or female lines.

2. The world is not overpopulated, resources are just mismannaged!There is considerable truth to this. But we could afford sloppy management if there were far fewer people.

"There is not enough CONCLUSIVE evidence to prove homosexuality is genetic or in any way nautral.Agreed with genetic. But homosexuality does occur "in nature", which by most definitions would make it natural. But there is a heck of a lot of anecdotal evidence that most people don't choose their sexual orientation.

Because nothing's more unnatural then nature.Mmmm, sarcastic goodness!

Ah, but if we don't get our morality from God, where does it come from? And furthermore, why do we even need morality then?An athiest could give a better answer, but my question is: which god?This atheist has a free-standing moral sense. I believe in absolute rights and wrongs. Yeah it's a somewhat untidy philosophy. :shrug:

Takrai

22-10-2004, 22:22

So what your saying is this...

1. God is all knowing.

Im sorry, if he was all knowing satan could not have "corrupted" humans and therefore god made homosexuals.

2. God knows more so he has the right to give orders.

Knowing more does NOT give you the right to give orders. Only if someone ACCEPTS you as a commander (when you sign up for a job you accept that you will have a commander) can you give them orders and punish them. When did you receive the right to force his orders to his followers on others?

3. God does not hate those who dissobey him, he simply punishes them.

Consigning someone to burn in hell for all eternity is kinda extreme. Those who dont obey him because they do not follow his teachings? Burned. Those who live a good life, but are atheist? Burned... Really fair and kind. *not* Seems to me the ONLY reason someone would be THAT extreme would be if 1. They were crazy or 2. They hated them. Moreover all I ever hear spread by the conservative followers of god is hate. Hate the terrorists for killing us. Hate the homosexuals for their "unnatural" "choice". Hate and fear are the tenants of christianity as far as I can tell.
I never said I had the right (or even the wish) to order people to obey God.
Also, nowhere in the Bible, not in one place, does it say anything about people being condemned to burn forever.
Lastly, the fact that God created you(assuming, as I said in my first post, you follow the logic, by the use of the word sin and its religious connotation) and therefore, really, has the right to do whatever he wishes, or to order you to do whatever he wishes. Also,there are many countries where only being born and reaching a certain age, not choice, gives you a commander via a draft, so to choose or not choose, is still, not the defining factor, what is, is, and it is just that simple, whether it makes sense or not, and often, it does not.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 22:24

The concept of overseas charity predates globalization though doesn't it? In the early twentieth century people were always subscribing to relief efforts in far off places where there was absolutely no economic interest. Why did they do that, and why did everyone say it was moral?

How many people actually cared though? And how many of those "charity" efforts were based on spreading influence to new areas or forcing religion upon the natives of those areas?

And why do we help african aids charities today. The interests there do not effect how we get resources, so surely those people are not part of our pack.

Um...globalization again. If lots of people in Africa have AIDs, someone we know or someone who knows someone we know ... might go there and have sex with an African and possibly bring it back to us. So obviously, they are part of our pack and their bad health can affect our health.

The Roman Party

22-10-2004, 22:31

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

I'm not a christian, but i respect the scriptures. It's a sin because i believe that the scriptures sees it as an impurity. I think homosexuality is just one sin, don't over-analyze it.

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

You should do some research on your own.

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

Maybe because their scriptures says so?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Western Hypocracy and Eastern Abuse of religion :)

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Obviously.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

You are just looking to bash people.

Unfree People

22-10-2004, 22:32

How many people actually cared though? And how many of those "charity" efforts were based on spreading influence to new areas or forcing religion upon the natives of those areas?Maybe most of them didn't care, but can you really say no one cared?

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 22:35

Maybe most of them didn't care, but can you really say no one cared?

No, but don't you think all new traits and ideas occur in a small population before they spread to the whole?

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 22:51

No, but don't you think all new traits and ideas occur in a small population before they spread to the whole?

What has that got to do with the fact that their caring is clearly outside of the proposed pack model.

The Roman Party

22-10-2004, 22:54

Does the guy ever come here anymore?

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 22:56

What has that got to do with the fact that their caring is clearly outside of the proposed pack model.

It isn't outside the model though, it is an evolution of the model. Slowly, people began to realize that human beings that didn't live right next to them were, nevertheless, part of the pack.

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 23:04

It isn't outside the model though, it is an evolution of the model. Slowly, people began to realize that human beings that didn't live right next to them were, nevertheless, part of the pack.

But they weren't part of the pack, and there was no reason to assume that they were ever going to be. So it is outside the model. And what's more the rate of evolution yuor describing seems improbable, that there oculd be an almost complete conversion of world viepoint in around a hundered years.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 23:08

But they weren't part of the pack, and there was no reason to assume that they were ever going to be. So it is outside the model. And what's more the rate of evolution yuor describing seems improbable, that there oculd be an almost complete conversion of world viepoint in around a hundered years.

No, they were part of the pack. The minute world travel began, the pack started expanding.

And people were starting to try and merge packs at least as far back as 2000 years. One could argue that perhaps ideological evolution occurs faster than physiological evolution.

Of course, one could also say that I might be talking out of my ass. I don't know for sure that any of this is true, nor do I have any empirical evidence. It is an interesting theory to me, that is all. One could easily argue that once humans were able to even think about philosophical questions, they stopped existing solely in the realm of instinct.

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 23:25

No, they were part of the pack. The minute world travel began, the pack started expanding.

And people were starting to try and merge packs at least as far back as 2000 years. One could argue that perhaps ideological evolution occurs faster than physiological evolution.

Of course, one could also say that I might be talking out of my ass. I don't know for sure that any of this is true, nor do I have any empirical evidence. It is an interesting theory to me, that is all. One could easily argue that once humans were able to even think about philosophical questions, they stopped existing solely in the realm of instinct.

Well look, it's certainly something to think about. I just can't buy into the whole idea that morality is the outgrowth of some evolved instinct to do with social group behavior. Our conception of morality just doesn't seem to fit that well with - what my understanding of - history is. But then again I might well be missing something.

I also wonder though that if our morality was the product of some form of biological process linked to suvival fitness, wouldn't it then be hard for us to circumvent and act against. In other words, we would have the amount of global wars etc., if our urge to respect and help one another was the result of biological processes. I'm not a biologist (obviously) but I had always imagined that social structures that were the product of evolved instinct saw far fewer trangressions from the accepted "norm" than we do in our society.

Kandino

22-10-2004, 23:26

So you would kill a woman for being raped?

you're so full of hyperbole!

but, to answer your ludicrous question, you do not "kill a woman for being raped"...
you execute the rapist!

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her:
then the man only that lay with her shall die:" - Deu 22:25

and if society executed the rapists, along with the murderers, torturers and kindnappers,
(and rape involves at least three of the aforementioned crimes) society would be that much better off...

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 23:28

Well look, it's certainly something to think about. I just can't buy into the whole idea that morality is the outgrowth of some evolved instinct to do with social group behavior. Our conception of morality just doesn't seem to fit that well with - what my understanding of - history is. But then again I might well be missing something.

Parts of our morality make perfect evolutionary sense. Others, maybe not so much.

I also wonder though that if our morality was the product of some form of biological process linked to suvival fitness, wouldn't it then be hard for us to circumvent and act against. In other words, we would have the amount of global wars etc., if our urge to respect and help one another was the result of biological processes. I'm not a biologist (obviously) but I had always imagined that social structures that were the product of evolved instinct saw far fewer trangressions from the accepted "norm" than we do in our society.

Well, there's an interesting thing about humans. For whatever reason, be it an evolutionary flaw or morality or what-have-you, we don't hold to the same "survival of the fittest" standard. The Spartans did - they left weak babies out in the wild to die. But most human beings don't. Thus, traits that make us less fit often get passed on anyways, because we don't really pick our mates solely on how fit they are.

Dempublicents

22-10-2004, 23:31

you're so full of hyperbole!

but, to answer your ludicrous question, you do not "kill a woman for being raped"...
you execute the rapist!

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her:
then the man only that lay with her shall die:" - Deu 22:25

and if society executed the rapists, along with the murderers, torturers and kindnappers,
(and rape involves at least three of the aforementioned crimes) society would be that much better off...

And just before the verse you quoted:

23"If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, 24you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife."

In other words, a woman could be raped but unable to cry out for help (or simply not be saved), and she shall be stoned to death as well.

Kandino

22-10-2004, 23:47

And just before the verse you quoted:

23"If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, 24you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife."

In other words, a woman could be raped but unable to cry out for help (or simply not be saved), and she shall be stoned to death as well.

nowhere in the verse you quote is it stated or even implied that the woman
is being forced as in Deu 22:25, therefore the woman referred to in your citation
is, in fact, NOT being raped but is a willing party to the adultery...
in fact, the man and the woman are meeting willingly...
furthermore, the verse does not state that the woman is UNABLE to cry for help,
but that she DOES NOT cry for help...

again:
"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her:
then the man only that lay with her shall die:" - Deu 22:25 emphasis adeed

DeaconDave

22-10-2004, 23:54

Parts of our morality make perfect evolutionary sense. Others, maybe not so much.

Well, there's an interesting thing about humans. For whatever reason, be it an evolutionary flaw or morality or what-have-you, we don't hold to the same "survival of the fittest" standard. The Spartans did - they left weak babies out in the wild to die. But most human beings don't. Thus, traits that make us less fit often get passed on anyways, because we don't really pick our mates solely on how fit they are.

Well now that begs another interesting question. Even though we have a degree of control over our own evolution - in that we understand the mechanisms somewhat - can we really judge what is the fittest that well.

I think the question is best put in terms of the ape problem. If you gave a bunch of arboreal primates the option to invent a super ape, what - so the thought experiment goes - would they choose. It is tempting to assume that they would include fetures such as stronger limbs, bigger teeth and claws, but it is unlikely that they would consider for a second walking upright and an expanded brain case. ( I know there are lots of factual problems with the scenario but it ilustrates a point).

So are we, likewise actually able to judge who is the most fit in evolutionary terms. I think this is a valid issue to examine, especially in light of the fact that wholesale genetic engineering seems a possibility in the not to distant future. What if we start to edit out desirable traits in out offspring because we percieve them as a hinderence? Could we cause ourselves to become extinct? I wonder.

Goed

22-10-2004, 23:56

nowhere in the verse you quote is it stated or even implied that the woman
is being forced as in Deu 22:25, therefore the woman referred to in your citation
is, in fact, NOT being raped but is a willing party to the adultery...
in fact, the man and the woman are meeting willingly...
furthermore, the verse does not state that the woman is UNABLE to cry for help,
but that she DOES NOT cry for help...

again:
"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her:
then the man only that lay with her shall die:" - Deu 22:25 emphasis adeed

You don't understand what the verse is saying-it's saying "if we didn't hear her yell for help, she must not have been raped."

Davistania

22-10-2004, 23:58

Well now that begs another interesting question. Even though we have a degree of control over our own evolution - in that we understand the mechanisms somewhat - can we really judge what is the fittest that well.

I think the question is best put in terms of the ape problem. If you gave a bunch of arboreal primates the option to invent a super ape, what - so the thought experiment goes - would they choose. It is tempting to assume that they would include fetures such as stronger limbs, bigger teeth and claws, but it is unlikely that they would consider for a second walking upright and an expanded brain case. ( I know there are lots of factual problems with the scenario but it ilustrates a point).

So are we, likewise actually able to judge who is the most fit in evolutionary terms. I think this is a valid issue to examine, especially in light of the fact that wholesale genetic engineering seems a possibility in the not to distant future. What if we start to edit out desirable traits in out offspring because we percieve them as a hinderence? Could we cause ourselves to become extinct? I wonder.

I think the problem arises from the idea of natural selection. We don't naturally select our mates due to them being the most fit. Nature naturally selects the least weak to die off, so the rest are better. I think that's where we're getting confused.

Don't think of it as constantly getting better, or stronger. Just that the weaker die off.

Dempublicents

23-10-2004, 00:10

nowhere in the verse you quote is it stated or even implied that the woman
is being forced as in Deu 22:25, therefore the woman referred to in your citation
is, in fact, NOT being raped but is a willing party to the adultery...
in fact, the man and the woman are meeting willingly...
furthermore, the verse does not state that the woman is UNABLE to cry for help,
but that she DOES NOT cry for help...

Because they wrongly assumed that if no one saved her, she must've wanted it. Can you imagine applying that logic today? Hell, women have been raped in the middle of New York streets and no one has saved them. Men rape women with weapons so that they are afraid they will die if they cry out. This is an example of a male-centric society oppressing women.

Dempublicents

23-10-2004, 00:14

I think the problem arises from the idea of natural selection. We don't naturally select our mates due to them being the most fit. Nature naturally selects the least weak to die off, so the rest are better. I think that's where we're getting confused.

Don't think of it as constantly getting better, or stronger. Just that the weaker die off.

Except that as humans, we try and save even the weakest so that they don't die off.

Davistania

23-10-2004, 00:15

Except that as humans, we try and save even the weakest so that they don't die off.

Yeah. There should probably be biologists who are better at this than we are.

Kandino

23-10-2004, 00:16

You don't understand what the verse is saying-it's saying "if we didn't hear her yell for help, she must not have been raped."

WRONG ! you are reading into the verse what is not there...

the verse does not state "if we didn't hear her yell for help, she must not have been raped."
there is neither an implication of an inablility to cry out or a lack of ability to hear a cry...

the verse is very clear when it states
"ye shall stone them with stones that they die;the damsel, because she cried not,"...

again, the verse does not state "if we didn't hear her yell for help"....

Goed

23-10-2004, 00:24

WRONG ! you are reading into the verse what is not there...

the verse does not state "if we didn't hear her yell for help, she must not have been raped."
there is neither an implication of an inablility to cry out or a lack of ability to hear a cry...

the verse is very clear when it states
"ye shall stone them with stones that they die;the damsel, because she cried not,"...

again, the verse does not state "if we didn't hear her yell for help"....

Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me this isn't you just being retarded.

How would they know if she yelled? Because they heard her.

In this case, it's simple. "He raped me." "No I didn't." "Well, we didn't hear any scream, so you obviously wanted it. Kill her."

Kandino

23-10-2004, 00:25

Because they wrongly assumed that if no one saved her, she must've wanted it. Can you imagine applying that logic today? Hell, women have been raped in the middle of New York streets and no one has saved them. Men rape women with weapons so that they are afraid they will die if they cry out. This is an example of a male-centric society oppressing women.

the issue is not whther the woman was saved or not...

the issue is death to the rapist who forced himself on the unwilling woman...

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: - Deu 22:25

what are the chances of anyone hearing a victims cry out in the middle of nowhere?
even if a woman's cries are unheard or unheeded, the rapist is still guilty of rape, no?

the focus of the verse is clear: death to the rapist

Dempublicents

23-10-2004, 00:27

WRONG ! you are reading into the verse what is not there...

the verse does not state "if we didn't hear her yell for help, she must not have been raped."
there is neither an implication of an inablility to cry out or a lack of ability to hear a cry...

the verse is very clear when it states
"ye shall stone them with stones that they die;the damsel, because she cried not,"...

again, the verse does not state "if we didn't hear her yell for help"....

But it assumes that she didn't. Just like all mysogynists claim that any woman who doesn't get saved wanted to get raped.

Kandino

23-10-2004, 00:37

Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me this isn't you just being retarded.

How would they know if she yelled? Because they heard her.

In this case, it's simple. "He raped me." "No I didn't." "Well, we didn't hear any scream, so you obviously wanted it. Kill her."

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:" - Deu 22:25

the above verse does not stipulate that the woman is heard or not,
the prerequisite is whether or not the man forced himself on her...

why do you assume that there is no way to ascertain and substantiate the truth regarding rape allegations?

Kandino

23-10-2004, 00:43

But it assumes that she didn't. Just like all mysogynists claim that any woman who doesn't get saved wanted to get raped.

YOU assume...the scriptures do not assume anything.

regarding getting saved...

"For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her." Deu 22:27...then (v22) the man shall die.

Hasslehoffburg

23-10-2004, 06:47

Yes, I admit you've learned your stuff. I admit it does make logical sense. You reached the same conclusion Calvin did.

Except your conclusion is contradicted by the Bible.

Ezekiel 33:11
'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows

Logical and the Bible do not belong in the same thought. Replace random names in the bible with names from Lord of the Rings. Seriously, the Bible reads like a script for a very long Final Fantasy game. The Koran is even worse. I can understand how people hundreds and even thousands of years ago could be convinced this shit was real, I mean cmon, they thought the world was flat, and died at 30 of old age. Not to mention most of them couldn't read anyway.

But in this day and age, it frightens me to realize how many people believe the same things that a damn serf did in the middle ages. Back then it was more a form of control than now. It still is in some ways, but not as much as a way of dealing with death. Human beings are so vain that they can't begin to fathom that this may be it for us. They can't accept the fact that they don't live forever, or that someone they love is gone. They are always "in a better place" or "with god". That's all religion really is now. That and a place for pedophiles to hang out and get some fresh meat.

Lunatic Goofballs

23-10-2004, 06:50

Logical and the Bible do not belong in the same thought. Replace random names in the bible with names from Lord of the Rings. Seriously, the Bible reads like a script for a very long Final Fantasy game. The Koran is even worse. I can understand how people hundreds and even thousands of years ago could be convinced this shit was real, I mean cmon, they thought the world was flat, and died at 30 of old age. Not to mention most of them couldn't read anyway.

But in this day and age, it frightens me to realize how many people believe the same things that a damn serf did in the middle ages. Back then it was more a form of control than now. It still is in some ways, but not as much as a way of dealing with death. Human beings are so vain that they can't begin to fathom that this may be it for us. They can't accept the fact that they don't live forever, or that someone they love is gone. They are always "in a better place" or "with god". That's all religion really is now. That and a place for pedophiles to hang out and get some fresh meat.

Not completely true. You can get free wine in church. :)

Hotaru no Haka

23-10-2004, 07:04

Bad translation, my family friend, and that is how they want you to think.

If you look at that passage in the original language, it reads "A man cannot lie with a man as he does with a woman because it is unproductive."

One of those "WELL, DUH" things.

Sort of like the 27 passages on why you shouldn't eat pork. It will kill you! Fortunately, we now have refridgeration and can eat pork without worry!

Obviously if a man and another man have sex, it doesn't make babies ... sexy to watch, yes, but it don't make babies. We know that ... we don't need some ancient book to tell us that any more. We have evolved out of the need for an instructive deity. I think 6 billion people on the planet is enough. I don't remember a Biblical passage that said, "Go forth and further your species until there are so many of you that you can't breathe without bumping into someone else" ... but, then, I may have the wrong Bible.
WOW!!! I often laughed at that argument. "Its wrong because you cant reproduce"... neither can infertile people... sigh... but what you say makes more sense than anything and i almost died laughing...

Endless Rehearsals

23-10-2004, 07:04

Ok, I'll go to my one by one mode again
Refering back to point one partly. It is not part of any bio chemical attraction. Female feromones are designed to attract male and vice versa. There is no evidence to sujest that there is a chemical attraction. And there is serious harm involved with homosexuality see here

You spelled "pheromones" wrong. And "suggest." How old are you? Nine?

i'm sorry, but i think that it's just wrong!!! :fluffle:

Well, at least you apologized for it.

Whatever did women do to deserve getting the short end of the stick, and what gives you the right to treat a woman like this?

After all the abuse women have gotten over the centuries, I'd say the only way men could make it up to women is by handing the government over to them, becoming obedient house husbands, and being owned (literally) as women's property.

Homosexual men would be employed for the entertainment of the female class, just a women are nowadays via "lesbian" porn made by/for men.

Really, that's the only way I can think of to repay women for what we've done to them... for what they've endured.

And yes, I'm male.

You are, as of now, my favorite person in the entire world.

Now in response to people who insulted my ONE post -- it was not written by me. It was something intended to be funny, and I thought it applied in this case. And PS, if all that was later declared null and void in the New Testament, why are you still sticking by homosexuality as a sin? Could it be that you had a bad experience as a child? Are you just afraid of those different than you? Are you a closet thumb-sucker?

I believe in God. I attend church, I pray, I read the Bible. I went to Sunday School as a child, I was baptized, and my mum is a chaplain, for cripe's sake. However, I also believe that many parts of the Old Testament are bullshit.

I don't know what God you all worship, but mine loves me, and that includes loving the part of me that participates in protests for tolerance and warns people not to use "gay" or "fag" as an insult and performs in "The Laramie Project" and has gay friends and has a heterosexual, married chaplain mum who goes to Pridefest and wants to go with her.

Thank you to the people who saw my post for what it was -- a lighthearted way of protesting against people who turn my loving God into a hateful and cruel being. Because that is not who I intend to worship.

Gold and Blood

23-10-2004, 07:27

I agree with you I feel some ppl take too much stuff out of context and want to make a big deal out of it and it is totaly unnessasary. I also want to just be one to say "thank you" it is not everyday you meet someone like you. Everyone needs to be open minded to all that goes on around them.

Homosexuality is not something "MY GOD" would punish me for. If he is a loving God then he will open his arms to you and welcome you home. Why?
Because you are his child his creation like a mother he gave birth to you.

SHIT I don't know if that in it self says that God my be gay, but I know one thing is for sure we have to many ppl dying over stupid shit all over his name. You think the ppl that kill care if your gay,straight, black, white , smart , stupid , beautiful , or ugly .....NO.... what they look for is that in their bible it says they should kill you..... What know ........ Some of the ppl over there defending us are dying for this country and what they believe in ... and this country has the Balls to say " HAY ! you can die for us but your still not equal to us." and the same goes for the churches It is easy for everyone to judge there is one thing that I like from the bible

JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED

MAKE PEACE MAN :fluffle:

New Granada

23-10-2004, 07:31

Hakartopia

23-10-2004, 07:59

Maybe people get sexually excited from opressing others?

Ninjaustralia

23-10-2004, 09:09

Whoever is proved to be a sodomite shall lose his testicles. And if he does it a second time, he shall lose his member. And if he does it a third time, he shall be burned.

New rule in Ninjaustralia.

Freoria

23-10-2004, 09:26

Whoever is proved to be a sodomite shall lose his testicles. And if he does it a second time, he shall lose his member. And if he does it a third time, he shall be burned.

New rule in Ninjaustralia.

Sooooo no oral or anal there? No handjobs? Sounds like a sucky place people would move the hell away from ;)

Neo Cannen

23-10-2004, 14:52

Homosexuality is not something "MY GOD" would punish me for. If he is a loving God then he will open his arms to you and welcome you home. Why?
Because you are his child his creation like a mother he gave birth to you.

A child is still punished by his parents if he disobeys them. People are always saying "If God loves everyone, why doesnt he let everyone into heven". The short answer to that is, because everyone doesnt love him back. People sinning and ignoring what he has to say is equivelent to hating him. God punishs people for homosexuality like any other sin. The diffrence at the moment is that so many people see it as not being a sin, IT IS. The reason Christians are so fed up with the Gay Pride movement is that to us it is like going round saying "Im a murderer/thief/rapeist/adultrer (insert any sin here), accept me for what I am, I will not change, I am proud of it etc". Ive all ready explained enough for why it is a sin. It was not what God orrignaly planed for us and it is not what God said we should do. Everybody says "Jesus never made any specific refrence to Homosexuality" and I say that he also made no specific refrence to rape, theft etc, but he still hated them. The main point of the Chirstian message about homosexuality is that people dont get that because it is a sin it is forgiven by God. We dont hate homosexuals, we hate homosexuality. Christians are just as accepting of the people, they can be Christians. What we dont like is when they wont accept its a sin and continue. You cannot be an intentionaly sinning Christian.

(And dont go pointing out spelling mistakes, just read what I wrote and the message I'm trying to put across)

Dettibok

23-10-2004, 16:14

A child is still punished by his parents if he disobeys them.Well yes. But the parents don't generally tell the child that he must hate them because he disobeyed them. Did yours?

People sinning and ignoring what he has to say is equivelent to hating him.What!? Man am I getting culture shock here.

The reason Christians are so fed up with the Gay Pride movement ...Some Christians.

You cannot be an intentionaly sinning Christian.Uh huh. Doesn't sound like a very Christ-like attitude to me.

What denomination has these beliefs?

Neo Cannen

23-10-2004, 17:07

"intentionaly sinning" Basicly means you cannot go round sinning (Homosexuality included) and not regreting it and asking for forgiveness for it and trying to stop doing it. God always loves everybody, he just hates the sin people do. That every denomination aggrees upon

Dettibok

23-10-2004, 17:33

"intentionaly sinning" Basicly means you cannot go round sinning (Homosexuality included) and not regreting it and asking for forgiveness for it and trying to stop doing it.Everyone who sins but doesn't think what they do is a sin isn't a Christian? That's a bit harsh. And here I was thinking you were thinking of people who knew they were sinning and were unrepentant. Which yeah, I could see as being a no-no. But I still don't see it as grounds for saying someone isn't a Christian.

Matokogothicka

23-10-2004, 18:42

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Because god hates women.

You apall me. God is by nature not a hateful or spiteful being; God is everything. God is male and God is female; God is light and God is dark; God is good and God is bad; God is right and God is wrong. For God to hate, God would only hate him/herself. This is a belief shared not only by monotheistic religions, but also by pantheistic and polytheistic ones, most of whom regard their deities as "aspects of a great unifying force," or "spawned from and eternally linked to the Mother Goddess," so on and so forth.

It would be good if those of every religion were to read up about the other religions of the world, at home or in Sunday School, so that they can see the overall unifying patterns of various theologies. Religions are not all so different; In fact, there are many that are similar, or very nearly the same. Likewise, reading up on religious symbology, one will find that no symbol is exclusive to a single religion. They are more cultural than anything - while tradition holds that Kings Solomon and David used the "star of David" for magickal ceremonies, evidence points to their use of the pentagram. It was in popular use at the time. Likewise, Kabbalists and Alchemists used both stars in ceremony. As for the cross, it was in use in the equal-armed (German or Gothic) version long before Christianity. The same can be said for many symbols, such as the God and Goddess symbols, the sun and moon, and the six-spoked wheel.

Bottle

23-10-2004, 18:56

You apall me. God is by nature not a hateful or spiteful being; God is everything.

if God is everything then God MUST be a spiteful being (as well as a non-spiteful being).

God is male and God is female; God is light and God is dark; God is good and God is bad; God is right and God is wrong. For God to hate, God would only hate him/herself. This is a belief shared not only by monotheistic religions, but also by pantheistic and polytheistic ones, most of whom regard their deities as "aspects of a great unifying force," or "spawned from and eternally linked to the Mother Goddess," so on and so forth.

your statements that God is bad as well as good, that God can be wrong, and that "God is everything" is not a view shared by the majority of American Christians, Jews, or Muslims. at least, that is not how those religions were conceptualized to me when i visited their places of worship and studied their holy texts in class. to say that all religions share that view is simply untrue.

It would be good if those of every religion were to read up about the other religions of the world, at home or in Sunday School, so that they can see the overall unifying patterns of various theologies.

it would be even better if those who presume to instruct others on religious study would choose to undertake it, themselves.

Religions are not all so different; In fact, there are many that are similar, or very nearly the same. Likewise, reading up on religious symbology, one will find that no symbol is exclusive to a single religion. They are more cultural than anything - while tradition holds that Kings Solomon and David used the "star of David" for magickal ceremonies, evidence points to their use of the pentagram. It was in popular use at the time. Likewise, Kabbalists and Alchemists used both stars in ceremony. As for the cross, it was in use in the equal-armed (German or Gothic) version long before Christianity. The same can be said for many symbols, such as the God and Goddess symbols, the sun and moon, and the six-spoked wheel.

true, there are many similarities, and we would all do well to remember that religions are all created by humans, for humans. however, the differences between religious beliefs are of critical importance as well, if only for their ability to give us insight into the impulses that give rise to religion in the first place; for example, figuring out why one religion prohibits extra-marital sex while another believes ritual sex to be a critical component of worship can give us information about both the cultures that yielded these religions and the needs that religion is feeding.

Takrai

23-10-2004, 18:58

Everyone who sins but doesn't think what they do is a sin isn't a Christian? That's a bit harsh. And here I was thinking you were thinking of people who knew they were sinning and were unrepentant. Which yeah, I could see as being a no-no. But I still don't see it as grounds for saying someone isn't a Christian.
If you are a "Christian" you would take the word of Christ. There are many, many points in the Bible where it is clearly stated that homosexuality is a sin, you do not have to agree with these, but if you say you are a Christian, you WOULD have to agree with the basic tenet of the Christian faith, the Bible, as the Word of God.(Yes, there are also many texts in the Bible that clearly state, no matter who was the actual author of each section, it is the word of God)Again, I am not saying you have to agree with it, but I am saying, if you are a Christian, it makes no sense NOT to agree with it.

Takrai

23-10-2004, 19:01

if God is everything then God MUST be a spiteful being (as well as a non-spiteful being).

your statements that God is bad as well as good, that God can be wrong, and that "God is everything" is not a view shared by the majority of American Christians, Jews, or Muslims. at least, that is not how those religions were conceptualized to me when i visited their places of worship and studied their holy texts in class. to say that all religions share that view is simply untrue.

it would be even better if those who presume to instruct others on religious study would choose to undertake it, themselves.

true, there are many similarities, and we would all do well to remember that religions are all created by humans, for humans. however, the differences between religious beliefs are of critical importance as well, if only for their ability to give us insight into the impulses that give rise to religion in the first place; for example, figuring out why one religion prohibits extra-marital sex while another believes ritual sex to be a critical component of worship can give us information about both the cultures that yielded these religions and the needs that religion is feeding.

Just want to say, that though I disagree with alot of what you say, I agree with alot as well, and your arguments are well thought out, nice to see that.

Bottle

23-10-2004, 19:03

If you are a "Christian" you would take the word of Christ. There are many, many points in the Bible where it is clearly stated that homosexuality is a sin,

but that's the thing...there AREN'T many points. and the points that there are tend to be very unclear on the subject. original translations of the key passages cast serious doubt on whether or not they actually apply to homosexuality at all. and, as i outlined before, most of them can be clearly shown to apply only to male-male homosexual acts...does that mean that female acts are okay, since the Bible does not prohibit them?

you do not have to agree with these, but if you say you are a Christian, you WOULD have to agree with the basic tenet of the Christian faith, the Bible, as the Word of God.(Yes, there are also many texts in the Bible that clearly state, no matter who was the actual author of each section, it is the word of God)Again, I am not saying you have to agree with it, but I am saying, if you are a Christian, it makes no sense NOT to agree with it.
now THAT i agree with. of course, i believe that if you are going to say you follow the Bible then you had better do it 100%; if you're going to use the Levitical passages to condemn homosexuality then you had better not be wearing clothing of mixed fabrics or eating shellfish. if you are going to obey the Bible then you shouldn't be just picking and choosing the parts that suit you, because if you do that then you aren't really following the Bible at all...you are just making up your own rules and counting the places that they happen to line up with the Bible.

Davistania

23-10-2004, 19:03

Logical and the Bible do not belong in the same thought. Replace random names in the bible with names from Lord of the Rings. Seriously, the Bible reads like a script for a very long Final Fantasy game. The Koran is even worse. I can understand how people hundreds and even thousands of years ago could be convinced this shit was real, I mean cmon, they thought the world was flat, and died at 30 of old age. Not to mention most of them couldn't read anyway.

But in this day and age, it frightens me to realize how many people believe the same things that a damn serf did in the middle ages. Back then it was more a form of control than now. It still is in some ways, but not as much as a way of dealing with death. Human beings are so vain that they can't begin to fathom that this may be it for us. They can't accept the fact that they don't live forever, or that someone they love is gone. They are always "in a better place" or "with god". That's all religion really is now. That and a place for pedophiles to hang out and get some fresh meat.

Did you read my post? That was half the point: it transcends logic. And I like it for that.

Don't insult people's intelligence. Christians aren't these big ignorant people you think they are. I know exactly what 'intellectual risks' I'm taking here. It really is a leap of faith. Not a leap of logic, a leap of faith.

If you don't have faith, that's cool. But don't ridicule mine. And don't call people who have faith stupid ignorant sheep. We know what we're doing, or at least I do.

Bottle

23-10-2004, 19:04

Just want to say, that though I disagree with alot of what you say, I agree with alot as well, and your arguments are well thought out, nice to see that.
*tips hat*

thankee kindly, nice to see a pleasent chap around these parts.

Phlekenstein

23-10-2004, 19:07

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p

Most religions condemn homosexuality...
Christians probably tolerate it less than most.
See how far gays like Richard Simmons and Al Franken get in the middle east..

And as far as this 'sin' business goes...
I didn't make the rules.. I just follow them.
God's game, play by his rules.
Man and women were meant to procreate. End of Debate.

Bottle

23-10-2004, 19:09

God's game, play by his rules.
Man and women were meant to procreate. End of Debate.
what about the men and women he makes infertile?

Bobslovakia

23-10-2004, 19:10

Did you read my post? That was half the point: it transcends logic. And I like it for that.

Don't insult people's intelligence. Christians aren't these big ignorant people you think they are. I know exactly what 'intellectual risks' I'm taking here. It really is a leap of faith. Not a leap of logic, a leap of faith.

If you don't have faith, that's cool. But don't ridicule mine. And don't call people who have faith stupid ignorant sheep. We know what we're doing, or at least I do.

Just got onto this forum, i'm a christian, but of a sort i like to call a Mark Twain Christian i believe jesus was here, but that the bible is always correct, also i fmany christians dont even like to go to church for an hour once a week why in blazes do we create an afterlife where thats all we do just talking.

Ushvundia

23-10-2004, 19:12

Germasnia

23-10-2004, 19:15

its wrong because its WRONG! you can't be in love with someone of the same sex, its a mental disorder. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Now i am a republican, and i think it is wrong. But my view on it is this, i don't mind peopl being gay, i may think it is wrong but i can do nothing about, and neither can the government. I am in love with my girlfriend, in fact we are going to be married soon, and i can't see loving anything else but her. I would be ok with gay marriage if a gay couple could show me a baby they consieved by themselves. But honestly nobody can do anything about it. I can't see how having sex with someone of the same body type is a turn on, thats disgusting! I think gays are repulsive, now thats just me, i am not anti-gay or anything like that, i just can't stand seeing that.

Takrai

23-10-2004, 19:18

Most religions condemn homosexuality...
Christians probably tolerate it less than most.
See how far gays like Richard Simmons and Al Franken get in the middle east..

And as far as this 'sin' business goes...
I didn't make the rules.. I just follow them.
God's game, play by his rules.
Man and women were meant to procreate. End of Debate.

I think you meant Christians tolerate it more than most...we will not execute you for it, unlike some states in the middle east.

Neo Cannen

23-10-2004, 19:21

if you're going to use the Levitical passages to condemn homosexuality then you had better not be wearing clothing of mixed fabrics or eating shellfish

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to say this, and to how many diffrent people, but from this point onwards, im going to use the link to this page. THE CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS PART OF LEVITICUS MORAL LAW. The moral law still stands, the ritualistc law is made obsolete by Jesus death. The ritualistc law is seprate. We dont have to appese God any more. Read the old + new testements and you will see that.

Bottle

23-10-2004, 19:22

its wrong because its WRONG! you can't be in love with someone of the same sex, its a mental disorder.

not according to any standard of mental disorders that is currently used by the medical or psychological communities.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Now i am a republican, and i think it is wrong.

i know what you meant to say, but this still looks funny :).

But my view on it is this, i don't mind peopl being gay, i may think it is wrong but i can do nothing about, and neither can the government.

so you support giving gay couples equal rights for marriage? great!

I would be ok with gay marriage if a gay couple could show me a baby they consieved by themselves.

oops, or maybe not? do you really want to make the production of a bastard child our standard for allowing marital rights? i mean, should a couple really be ordered to make a baby BEFORE they marry? doesn't that go against conservative values just a little bit?

and what about infertile couples? should we just say "to hell with them" and forbid them to marry because they cannot make babies? what about people like me, who never want to have kids?

But honestly nobody can do anything about it. I can't see how having sex with someone of the same body type is a turn on, thats disgusting! I think gays are repulsive, now thats just me, i am not anti-gay or anything like that, i just can't stand seeing that.
honey, you are anti-gay if you think gays are disgusting and repulsive. i think broccoli is disgusting and repulsive, and have no problem admitting i am anti-brocolli. come to terms with your own feelings: you ARE anti-gay. you also appear to be anti-gay-rights, because you don't think gay people should be allowed to marry unless they make a baby through the methods you personally happen to endorse (though you don't apply that exact same rule to heterosexual couples).

Bottle

23-10-2004, 19:24

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to say this, and to how many diffrent people, but from this point onwards, im going to use the link to this page. THE CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS PART OF LEVITICUS MORAL LAW. The moral law still stands, the ritualistc law is made obsolete by Jesus death. The ritualistc law is seprate. We dont have to appese God any more. Read the old + new testements and you will see that.
unfortunately, your interpretation is not one shared by many Biblical scholars. i have read the passages in question, and my interpretation is one that is shared by many theologians and Christians. if you would like to provide specific evidence for your position that would be great, but simply telling people to read the Bible isn't going to accomplish anything.

Movieola

23-10-2004, 19:24

Legalistic moralists that rely on the Old Testament can still separate between sexual acts and sexual inclinations. One documentary that explores this whole issue quite well is Trembling Before G_d

Takrai

23-10-2004, 19:25

I am a religious fundamentalist who, guess what, does follow the rules of the Bible looked over by Catholics and most other Christian sects. I do not shave, eat kosher and constantly find myself referring to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In the Bible no where does it say that it is a sin to be a homosexual only to have sex with someone of the same gender. Also please remember that a few parts of the Bible have been changed by the Catholic Church. ex. The parts about Jesus helping the killing of animals, mainly fish. Early Christians were vegans and were tortured in Greece and Italy by the Catholics for not ritualy eating the flesh of a dead animal. It is believed by some that these parts were added to make Christians eat meat.
There is a difference between "ritually eating meat" and eating meat to eat.
Several of the disciples(Peter, James off the top of my head) were fishermen by trade. One of the first recorded miracles was multiplying the fishes and loaves on the Mt of Olives to feed a crowd that had been listening to Him preach all day.

Ushvundia

23-10-2004, 19:26

Actually I do not wear clothes of mixed thread and am an organic kosher lacto-ovo vegetarian. Jesus came down to show us how to live, he was a Jew and followed all of the laws in the Bible (both old and new testements). He did not come down just to tell us we could do what ever we want just as long as we believe. In the end we will all be held fully accountable for our actions.

Takrai

23-10-2004, 19:29

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to say this, and to how many diffrent people, but from this point onwards, im going to use the link to this page. THE CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS PART OF LEVITICUS MORAL LAW. The moral law still stands, the ritualistc law is made obsolete by Jesus death. The ritualistc law is seprate. We dont have to appese God any more. Read the old + new testements and you will see that.
Personally, I agree. This is what is accepted by my own faith as well. There even are texts backing it up, but I am not much of a theologian myself. Actually this discussion is the first time I have ever thought much about it.

Ushvundia

23-10-2004, 19:31

There is a difference between "ritually eating meat" and eating meat to eat.
Several of the disciples(Peter, James off the top of my head) were fishermen by trade. One of the first recorded miracles was multiplying the fishes and loaves on the Mt of Olives to feed a crowd that had been listening to Him preach all day.

Yes but in both accounts the animal has to suffer and is murdered for our own selfishness.

Ushvundia

23-10-2004, 19:33

Takrai

23-10-2004, 19:40

Yes but in both accounts the animal has to suffer and is murdered for our own selfishness.

Partially I agree. I would think God would prefer us to be vegetarian, however, nowhere did he command it. He allowed the eating of specific types of meat, and disallowed other types(of which my religion still does not eat as well, while the majority of my religion is vegetarian, they also understand it to be something never commanded, they do so for perceived health benefits.)

Neo Cannen

23-10-2004, 19:43

5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8: Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13: From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15: Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16: This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17: And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18: Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

King James Bible Hebrews chapter 10 Verses 5 - 8

This passage talks about how sacrifices are no longer nessecary to take away sins, but that Jesus's death does that for us. The concept of sacrifices is applied to all old testement ritualist law as it is all about sacrifices and the rituals people need to adhier to to keep in line with God. That is all now uncessecary. There is no more offering for sin. Cultural law regarding clothes and food are no longer nessecary either. God gave the isralites these laws to mark them out as people of God. But Jesus told us that all food is clean. He ate fish and other things that the old testement said you shouldnt.

Asuarati

23-10-2004, 19:45

Yesterday, my b/f (who knows I'm bisexual) asked me how I would feel about him if he was female.

I'd feel almost exactly the same. With some differences in the "gender roles" (e.g., I'd act more male in a sense).

Cerealean

23-10-2004, 19:47

I am a catholic, but not just cuz im a catholic, but it says in the bible that love(or was it mariage?) is between 1 man and 1 woman...

Asuarati

23-10-2004, 19:51

I am a catholic, but not just cuz im a catholic, but it says in the bible that love(or was it mariage?) is between 1 man and 1 woman...

Then why did God condone polygamy?

Takrai

23-10-2004, 19:52

honey, you are anti-gay if you think gays are disgusting and repulsive. i think broccoli is disgusting and repulsive, and have no problem admitting i am anti-brocolli. come to terms with your own feelings: you ARE anti-gay. you also appear to be anti-gay-rights, because you don't think gay people should be allowed to marry unless they make a baby through the methods you personally happen to endorse (though you don't apply that exact same rule to heterosexual couples).

I am anti-Gay, while still having gay friends I think highly of, how is THAT for strange?
But, mostly, how I feel, is summed up this way, I, personally, believe it is wrong...I do not think that decision falls to the government however. I believe that it is a sin, even my friends I mentioned, know I believe this. I value their friendship however, as they value mine, and to me, they are simply people,friends, not"gay". I think of what I believe regarding it, being a sin, and when I think of that, I hope someday they would change, but usually I do not think of that around them. I think in the end, and I believe I have seen this expressed many times, that if people, really, truly, do not KNOW what they do is sinning(assuming, as I do, that God can know if you really know or not) then God will not hold accountable those who truly acted in good faith, and really, only God CAN know if they acted in good faith, so I leave that to him, and them.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is homosexuality a sin? - Page 2