NationStates Jolt Archive

Sidestepping the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is a sin for the moment (for the purposes of the point I am trying to make, lets just assume it is) why do people think Christians hate homosexuals. People say "The Bible teaches love, peace & compassion etc...so why do Christians hate gays?". Now while I cant speek for all Christians, I can safely say that when the Bible says that anything is a sin, it makes it clear that someone being a sinner is not an excuse to hate someone. There are only two things that Christians should hate. Sin and the Devil. Hating sinners is an example of hypocracy because in God's eyes sin is sin. No one sin is worse than any other.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Romans 3:23

And it is not right for any Christians to judge anyone by sin.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged"
Luke 6:37

You can judge by law but that is a very diffrent matter. Only God is qualified to judge sin. So I would ask those who believe that Christians hate gays to look more closely at what Christians who believe homosexual sex is a sin are saying and not just to dismiss them as bigots and homophobes.

The wording is a little ambigeous due to the fact that people are liable to make mistakes when transcribing it. Also, it can be easily taken out of context and warped to one's purposes. Plus. there are parts of it that do condemn homosexuality. Due to the fact that the Bible says so, many Christians believe it.

The same reason it's believed that Muslims are killers. A few "forthright" (NOT the right word, I know) who are the ones that everybody hears about, do the acts that linger in the mind. Cough Rush Limbaugh.

Christians shouldn't hate homosexuals. Sin, not sinner.

I find the bible quite confusing. So much contradictions and comedy and still some people live by it, normal, quite nice people. Wierd. :confused:

Believe In Bvimb.

Whatever bvimb is. Enlighten us, please.

The Bible says that lying with a man is an abomination. Not the lyer. Layer. Or whatever.

The same reason it's believed that Muslims are killers. A few "forthright" (NOT the right word, I know) who are the ones that everybody hears about, do the acts that linger in the mind. Cough Rush Limbaugh.

Christians shouldn't hate homosexuals. Sin, not sinner.
But very few Christians that I have PERSONALY met share this point of view.
It gets too confused … and I see a LOT of hate comin from that side

I don’t mean to stereotype … I HATE stereotyping in fact … BUT its hard when every single Christian I know thinks this way

(Family … friends … relatives ) its hard to not continue the trend with so much personal evidence

Whatever bvimb is. Enlighten us, please.

The Bible says that lying with a man is an abomination. Not the lyer. Layer. Or whatever.
It also said Jesus Gave John a big wet one in the temple :)

Sidestepping the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is a sin for the moment (for the purposes of the point I am trying to make, lets just assume it is) why do people think Christians hate homosexuals. People say "The Bible teaches love, peace & compassion etc...so why do Christians hate gays?". Now while I cant speek for all Christians, I can safely say that when the Bible says that anything is a sin, it makes it clear that someone being a sinner is not an excuse to hate someone. There are only two things that Christians should hate. Sin and the Devil. Hating sinners is an example of hypocracy because in God's eyes sin is sin. No one sin is worse than any other.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Romans 3:23

And it is not right for any Christians to judge anyone by sin.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged"
Luke 6:37

You can judge by law but that is a very diffrent matter. Only God is qualified to judge sin. So I would ask those who believe that Christians hate gays to look more closely at what Christians who believe homosexual sex is a sin are saying and not just to dismiss them as bigots and homophobes.
I don't think it's merely an assumption that many "christians" hate homosexuals--the evidence that many of them do is out there for everyone to see, from open discrimination against gays to condemnation of their lifestyle from both the pulpit and the television screen. Otherwise decent people turn into frothing-at-the-mouth loons when faced with a couple of men holding hands, or heaven forfend, kissing in public. The vast majority of what passes for "christian" leadership in this country openly condemns homosexuality--hell, they were close to the top of the list of groups that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed for the 9/11 attacks. And you ask us why people assume that christians hate homosexuals? Open your eyes and look at the public face of your faith.

I know, I know: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

But tell me, is it the sin or the sinner who's being persecuted when evangelical voters turn out in record numbers to shoot down same-sex unions? Maybe the fact that the overwhelming majority of these people voted against these unions is why people assume "most" Christians hate homosexuals. They might not use the word "hate" to describe their decision to deny others rights based on their orientation, but it's a pretty hateful thing to do, even if justified as "protecting the sanctity of marriage." To use a civil rights analogy, it's kind of like lynching a black kid to protect the virtue of the white woman he whistled at. This might be motivated by a desire to protect, but it's a hate crime. Or, to use a less extreme example, it was a hateful thing to segregate blacks to the back of the bus or segregate restaurants, but these were justified as protecting the white folk.

In short, most Christians are seen to hate homosexuals not because of what their scripture says, but because of the actions of the majority at the polls.

Oh yeah: AND ALSO BECAUSE JIMMY SWAGGART SAID "IF A MAN LOOKED AT ME IN THAT WAY [came onto him], I WOULD KILL HIM, AND TELL GOD HE DIED." Hateful bastard.

I don't think religion has got much to do with whether you 'hate' homosexuals or not. I think the society as a whole has a greater influence. I do know people who think homosexuality is unnatural (despite the fact the contrary has been proven) and not all of those people are christians (on the contrary), but they do not hate homosexuals. They can get along fine with most homosexuals actually. But I live in Belgium, perhaps the situation in other countries is different?

I don't think it's merely an assumption that many "christians" hate homosexuals--the evidence that many of them do is out there for everyone to see, from open discrimination against gays to condemnation of their lifestyle from both the pulpit and the television screen. Otherwise decent people turn into frothing-at-the-mouth loons when faced with a couple of men holding hands, or heaven forfend, kissing in public. The vast majority of what passes for "christian" leadership in this country openly condemns homosexuality--hell, they were close to the top of the list of groups that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed for the 9/11 attacks. And you ask us why people assume that christians hate homosexuals? Open your eyes and look at the public face of your faith.
What he said (said it way better then I did)

But very few Christians that I have PERSONALY met share this point of view.
It gets too confused … and I see a LOT of hate comin from that side

I don’t mean to stereotype … I HATE stereotyping in fact … BUT its hard when every single Christian I know thinks this way

(Family … friends … relatives ) its hard to not continue the trend with so much personal evidence The neocon Christian demagogues are Pharisees. Damnéd Pharisees.

Anyway: well, I'm a Christian, and I don't hate homosexuals. I think there are a lot more problems in the world. I do try not to hate: I think homosexual acts are wrong, but I don't think practising gays should be subjected to the flamethrower for the acts (have you noticed a certain pattern in my thinking? Flame?).

It's not an assumption. Many Christians do hate homosexuals. I think the question is why do people assume that most Christians hate homosexuals.

I don't think it's merely an assumption that many "christians" hate homosexuals--the evidence that many of them do is out there for everyone to see, from open discrimination against gays to condemnation of their lifestyle from both the pulpit and the television screen. Otherwise decent people turn into frothing-at-the-mouth loons when faced with a couple of men holding hands, or heaven forfend, kissing in public. The vast majority of what passes for "christian" leadership in this country openly condemns homosexuality--hell, they were close to the top of the list of groups that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed for the 9/11 attacks. And you ask us why people assume that christians hate homosexuals? Open your eyes and look at the public face of your faith.

1) These are AMERICAN christians, they dont represent everyone. I am British

2) That is the PUBLIC FACE, not the actual faith.

3) People condem HOMOSEXUAL SEX not the PEOPLE. Note you said they condem their lifestyles.

In conclusion people should no more assume Christians hate homosexuals than they should assume that Muslims hate the west

The neocon Christian demagogues are Pharisees. Damnéd Pharisees.

Anyway: well, I'm a Christian, and I don't hate homosexuals. I think there are a lot more problems in the world. I do try not to hate: I think homosexual acts are wrong, but I don't think practising gays should be subjected to the flamethrower for the acts (have you noticed a certain pattern in my thinking? Flame?).
Just stating personal experiences

I have met a lot of respectful Christians online … and I respect them for that (specially depublicants (was fairly sure she was Christian))


Just hard with so much overwhelming personal experiences

1) These are AMERICAN christians, they dont represent everyone. I am British

2) That is the PUBLIC FACE, not the actual faith.

3) People condem HOMOSEXUAL SEX not the PEOPLE. Note you said they condem their lifestyles.

In conclusion people should no more assume Christians hate homosexuals than they should assume that Muslims hate the west
What if they want to get married without sex … or are you just ASSUMING they will have homosexual sex


:p

i cant remember the exact quote, but it goes something like:

god said man shall not lie with man the way he lies with woman

and then goes on to add animals and other things to that list

if you read it right it can mean that homosexuals are in direct disobediance of god.

i cant remember the exact quote, but it goes something like:

god said man shall not lie with man the way he lies with woman

and then goes on to add animals and other things to that list

if you read it right it can mean that homosexuals are in direct disobediance of god.
Only if they do it lying down :p

What if they like doing it standing up? Or doggie?

Only if they do it lying down :p

What if they like doing it standing up? Or doggie?

lol

i think it means something with reproduction myself

but, im no pope or christian scholar. im sure they are well aware of what God wants

Only if they do it lying down :p

What if they like doing it standing up? Or doggie?

Some of my best lovers (male or female) were born again Christians. So I don't quite get it.

Maybe some of you go to the wrong chuch with the wrong people. Of course, I don't go to Libery Baptist with Jerry, but that's because he's too ugly for words.

1) These are AMERICAN christians, they dont represent everyone. I am British

2) That is the PUBLIC FACE, not the actual faith.

3) People condem HOMOSEXUAL SEX not the PEOPLE. Note you said they condem their lifestyles.

In conclusion people should no more assume Christians hate homosexuals than they should assume that Muslims hate the west Ah, you're British. So that's why you have not shown demagogue tendencies.

I parrot UpwardThrust, Incertonia, and Neo Cannen. Can't be bothered to write at the moment.

lol

i think it means something with reproduction myself

but, im no pope or christian scholar. im sure they are well aware of what God wants
Yup some sure seem to know :) a lot of times those that “know” don’t agree with each other … and it all changes over the years as well

i cant remember the exact quote, but it goes something like:

god said man shall not lie with man the way he lies with woman

and then goes on to add animals and other things to that list

if you read it right it can mean that homosexuals are in direct disobediance of god. Yes, but many of the haters are ALSO in direct disobedience of God. No forgiveness, nor respite, nor even love for thy enemy (a really bad choice of words with enemy) but only hatred for the sinner.

It's like the Muslims who beat their wives (and yes, I know it's only a minority and no, I'm not Islamophobic) - the Qu'ran says not to. Mohammed said not to.

Is apostate a correct word for the demagogues? Or heretic? Cool words. ;)

Yup some sure seem to know :) a lot of times those that “know” don’t agree with each other … and it all changes over the years as well

ya, the hierarchy and beurocracy of the church really seem to do more damage to it than anything else.

Most people are just willing to have faith, but then some people feel that they need to have more rules or whatever...

If the claim is that Christians hate the act of homosexual sex, not the people who practice homosexual sex, then why is it the practitioners who are denied access to non-sex-related rights (such as inheritance or hospital visitation) that are afforded to heteros? This is punishing the individual, not hating the sin.

Yes, but many of the haters are ALSO in direct disobedience of God. No forgiveness, nor respite, nor even love for thy enemy (a really bad choice of words with enemy) but only hatred for the sinner.

It's like the Muslims who beat their wives (and yes, I know it's only a minority and no, I'm not Islamophobic) - the Qu'ran says not to. Mohammed said not to.

Is apostate a correct word for the demagogues? Or heretic? Cool words. ;)

agreed

i find it funny, that if God was so outraged with the wanton homosexuality that Jesus never found the time in his 35 years to bash some of the openly homosexual sex in Rome.

I guess its just the manipulation. They have all the people who they would look to for "truth" (President, Pope, Minister, Parents probably) saying that homosexuality is bad and should be outlawed.

I would like to see a recent paper written by anyone with any credibility that believes (and can show some proof) that homosexuality is wrong and detremental to society.

The squeeky wheel gets the grease.

Fanatic Christians - and fanatics of all other faiths/"isms"/stipes - carry on loudly, and often violently, about their fanatic beliefs.

The rest of us go quietly about our business, wondering when they'll shut up and go away.

But it's the fanatics you/we hear from/about constantly. And it is out of the nonsense they spout that we create our "generalized" picture of the group they "represent".

If the claim is that Christians hate the act of homosexual sex, not the people who practice homosexual sex, then why is it the practitioners who are denied access to non-sex-related rights (such as inheritance or hospital visitation) that are afforded to heteros? This is punishing the individual, not hating the sin.

the problem here is that you are not making the seperation between church and state

the church does not grant people those rights, and we frankly shouldnt be trying to tell the church what it can and can believe

however it is the state that is not allowing same sex unions to be granted the same privilages as married people.

(its easy to confuse with such a theological president in power, and with such a strong Christian lobby...)

agreed

i find it funny, that if God was so outraged with the wanton homosexuality that Jesus never found the time in his 35 years to bash some of the openly homosexual sex in Rome.

I guess its just the manipulation. They have all the people who they would look to for "truth" (President, Pope, Minister, Parents probably) saying that homosexuality is bad and should be outlawed.

I would like to see a recent paper written by anyone with any credibility that believes (and can show some proof) that homosexuality is wrong and detremental to society. Well, it can't really be proved that the marriages would be harmful, because they haven't been done yet. Marriage in itself has been shown to be fairly vital, so a total lack of marriage (this is just an example) is bad.

The Pope doesn't say homosexuals should be shot. At least, the current one doesn't.

Oh, and, Jesus was only preaching for three years and was only alive for thirty-three years. It's important to get accuracy in full.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1429815,00.html

Lagos, Nigeria - Members of Nigeria's Anglican Church - the world's second-largest Anglican congregation - fasted and prayed to protest against the confirmation of homosexual priests and bishops in the United States and Britain ahead of an emergency meeting of the world's Anglican leaders.


http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_20/antigayprotest.html

Singing “God Bless America” and carrying anti-gay signs, eight members of the Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, came to the Department of Education headquarters in the Tweed Courthouse on Mon. Sept. 8, the first day of school, to protest the Harvey Milk High School.


http://www.freep.com/news/religion/church29_20010129.htm

The congregations of five city churches shunned demonstrators from an antigay Kansas church Sunday morning.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_0061.htm

Some protestors held signs reading messages like: "Disney Promotes Homosexuality" and "If You Love Jesus, Turn Around," and "Homosexuality is an abomination to God." They handed out American Family Association literature to drivers of cars at a traffic light.

Bold added by me.

Weither it's for or against the issue from the articles, it's all about religion. Mostly against.

I'm not against religion. God loves my ass.

Whatever bvimb is. Enlighten us, please.

The Bible says that lying with a man is an abomination. Not the lyer. Layer. Or whatever.

No, it doesn't.

Your translation is flawed....

But, please, carry on.

Well, it can't really be proved that the marriages would be harmful, because they haven't been done yet. Marriage in itself has been shown to be fairly vital, so a total lack of marriage (this is just an example) is bad.

The Pope doesn't say homosexuals should be shot. At least, the current one doesn't.

Oh, and, Jesus was only preaching for three years and was only alive for thirty-three years. It's important to get accuracy in full.

ya, thats my point really

there is no credible data that supports the administrative discrimination of homosexuals

and the pope doesnt need to have them shot. He hasnt come out and said that homosexuality is ok though.... as far as i know...

and i dont know shit about jesus. im not a christian, it never bothered me. I think my point still stands though.

No, it doesn't.

Your translation is flawed....

But, please, carry on.

what is the translation then?

No, it doesn't.

Your translation is flawed....

But, please, carry on.
Lol you should bring out the Jesus makout session one again ;) sorry but you know hebrew I dont ... :p

Lol you should bring out the Jesus makout session one again ;) sorry but you know hebrew I dont ... :p
Hebrew? I though the New Testament was written in Greek.

ya, thats my point really

there is no credible data that supports the administrative discrimination of homosexuals

and the pope doesnt need to have them shot. He hasnt come out and said that homosexuality is ok though.... as far as i know...

and i dont know shit about jesus. im not a christian, it never bothered me. I think my point still stands though. Of course the Pope won't say it's okay. He's a Catholic!

No, there isn't any credible data. This is why I pay it less attention than other Christian involving issues. There is evidence that abortion is wrong - as there is the other way - there is evidence that poverty is bad (as Basil'd say: bleedin' obvious) - but none that homosexuality is wrong. It's a moral issue, really.

Not that I worry. I'm a Catholic, and Catholic churches will not marry gays - so therefore, why should it worry me? As long as it's not before the eyes of God, that's fine with me… well, not really. But I don't think it's earth-shattering. The heretic demagogues should concentrate on fixing some real world ills. Then they can do this.

Hebrew? I though the New Testament was written in Greek.
If me remember correctly (and grave may speak it too ) only revelations

And like an “ebonic” version of Greek at that

Of course the Pope won't say it's okay. He's a Catholic!
And do you think all catholics hate homosexuals? Think again, I'm a catholic myself (not that I go to church every week) and I don't hate homosexuals at all. On the contrary, I believe that homosexuality is one of the most normal things in the world.

why do people assume christians hate homosexuals?

maybe stuff like this..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/

1) These are AMERICAN christians, they dont represent everyone. I am British

2) That is the PUBLIC FACE, not the actual faith.

3) People condem HOMOSEXUAL SEX not the PEOPLE. Note you said they condem their lifestyles.

In conclusion people should no more assume Christians hate homosexuals than they should assume that Muslims hate the west
It's strange that you accuse me of making an overreaching assumption while you're doing the same thing. Here's the thing--I don't see many christian leaders telling their fellow gay-haters to shut up, or condemning their anti-gay rhetoric as anti-christian, but I sure see the opposite happening. Secondly, it's all well and good to say love the sinner, hate the sin, but in practice, it manifests itself as hate the sinner.

Here's what it comes down to: if you're a christian, that is, you follow Christ's teachings, then homosexuality shouldn't be an issue. Christ never personally condemned homosexuality--he didn't condone it either. The subject just never came up in his teachings. Every condemnation of homosexuality in the bible is either from the old testament or from Paul--not from Christ. So if christians really want to follow Christ on this, they ought to just ignore it.

And do you think all catholics hate homosexuals? Think again, I'm a catholic myself (not that I go to church every week) and I don't hate homosexuals at all. On the contrary, I believe that homosexuality is one of the most normal things in the world. I didn't say that they all did. I just said that the Pope would not condone it, on theosophical grounds.

I DON'T HATE THEM EITHER!

It's what I've been saying. Sorry for the vocal blast.

the problem here is that you are not making the seperation between church and state

the church does not grant people those rights, and we frankly shouldnt be trying to tell the church what it can and can believe

however it is the state that is not allowing same sex unions to be granted the same privilages as married people.

(its easy to confuse with such a theological president in power, and with such a strong Christian lobby...)

No, I don't think I am making that mistake. While it is the state that legislates same-sex civil unions, in eleven states, the issue was put to popular vote. The voters shot down these measures because they were voting according to their religious/spiritual beliefs.

Go to iFilm and watch the Swaggart viral clip. If that isn't a call for folks to go and vote as good evangelicals, I don't know what it is. Regardless of how much distance there is or ought to be between church and state, many evangelical voters cast their ballots in a manner harmful to homosexuals because they felt their faith demanded it. I believe that this is a clear example of religious belief affecting state policy. I see it to be an act of persecution, and accordingly think that the Christians who voted in this way to hate (or at least dislike) homosexuals beyond disliking their sins.

No, I don't think I am making that mistake. While it is the state that legislates same-sex civil unions, in eleven states, the issue was put to popular vote. The voters shot down these measures because they were voting according to their religious/spiritual beliefs.

Go to iFilm and watch the Swaggart viral clip. If that isn't a call for folks to go and vote as good evangelicals, I don't know what it is. Regardless of how much distance there is or ought to be between church and state, many evangelical voters cast their ballots in a manner harmful to homosexuals because they felt their faith demanded it. I believe that this is a clear example of religious belief affecting state policy. I see it to be an act of persecution, and accordingly think that the Christians who voted in this way to hate (or at least dislike) homosexuals beyond disliking their sins. It's called democracy. That isn't religion affecting the state; at least, it's not corruption. iFilm? Another Mac utility? What is it?

They are simply voting to not allow gay marriage. They believe that a man and a man getting married is wrong. It's like saying that banning drugs is wanting to lynch addicts.

No, I don't think I am making that mistake. While it is the state that legislates same-sex civil unions, in eleven states, the issue was put to popular vote. The voters shot down these measures because they were voting according to their religious/spiritual beliefs.

Go to iFilm and watch the Swaggart viral clip. If that isn't a call for folks to go and vote as good evangelicals, I don't know what it is. Regardless of how much distance there is or ought to be between church and state, many evangelical voters cast their ballots in a manner harmful to homosexuals because they felt their faith demanded it. I believe that this is a clear example of religious belief affecting state policy. I see it to be an act of persecution, and accordingly think that the Christians who voted in this way to hate (or at least dislike) homosexuals beyond disliking their sins.

so your issue here is with democracy?

sure, why not a fascism that just believes what you want

i think that those 11 states did the most right thing that they could do. If the people really feel that way, then thats they way a democracy should be run.

They are simply voting to not allow gay marriage. They believe that a man and a man getting married is wrong. It's like saying that banning drugs is wanting to lynch addicts.

unfortunatly, however, in both cases, the latter is a product of the first.

Why? Perhaps because the most noisy "Christians" are the @%(*^@#%(*& fundamentalists! :(

Why? Perhaps because the most noisy "Christians" are the @%(*^@#%(*& fundamentalists! :(

Especially during an especially zesty ass session.

iFilm is a Web site. It archives interesting clips. Among them is an example of Swaggart stumping against gay marriage.

I'm not arguing against democracy. I know that the folks who voted against gay civil unions have motives other than faith. However, the evangelical and fundie position in regards to the issue go well beyond the scriptural stand of hating the sin and loving the sinner. I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to vote, but after they vote to deny homosexuals rights, they should be ready to answer questions like: "Why do you hate homosexuals?"

The question I was addressing was "Why do people think that Christians hate homosexuals?" I was answering that question by asserting that, in spite of the claim that scripture does not call for "hating on the homosexual," fundamentalists and evangelicals went out of their way to discriminate in this last election. And I don't mean against the act of gay sex, but against the people who practice it. And that seems to demonstrate hate.

what is the translation then?

From your previous post, I assume you are using Leviticus 18:22 as your basis for biblical 'law':

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

A closer examination of the Hebrew would reveal that this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality, and is, in fact, a commentary on ritual uncleanness of women during menstruation.

For reference, let me just post first:

Leviticus 15:22 "And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even".

Leviticus 15:23 "And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even".

Leviticus 15:26 "Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation".

Leviticus 15:33 "And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean".

Okay - all of those set certain precedents, according to Hebrew law.

1) A woman is ritually 'unclean' during menstruation.
2) A man who contacts a woman during her menstruation, becomes ritually unclean (one of the forms of abomination).
3) A Hebrew woman was confined to a 'woman's bed' during her menstruation, rather than her marital bed.
4) Any bed or couch that a menstruating woman sat or laid on, was considered her 'woman's bed', since it was 'unclean' due to menstruation.
5) A man even sitting on a 'woman's bed' would be 'unclean' - even if he didn't have sex with her.

Okay - now let's look at the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22:

"Shakab Zakar Mishkab 'ishshah Tow'ebah"

Shakab = "to lie down, to lie down sexually, to rest"
Zakar = "Man, or male of the species"
Mishkab = "Couch or bed, act of lying down for sexual contact"
'ishshah = "Woman, wife, opposite of man"
Tow'ebah = "Unclean, ritually unclean (an abomination)".

So, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "(To lie down), (a man), on the (couch or bed), of (a woman), is (unclean)".

We already know what the 'woman's bed' is... so:

Leviticus 18:22 "For a man to lie down on the 'woman's bed' (her menstrual bed) is unclean".

I don't know when the supposition arose that this was a passage 'against' homosexuals - but I suspect it suited somebody, politically, to have it translated as such. Unfortunately, it seems to have 'stuck'.

iFilm is a Web site. It archives interesting clips. Among them is an example of Swaggart stumping against gay marriage.

I'm not arguing against democracy and I know that the folks who voted against gay civil unions have motives other than faith. However, the evangelical and fundie position in regards to the issue go well beyond hating the sin and loving the sinner.

I'm saying that, in spite of the claim that scripture does not call for "hating on the homosexual," fundamentalists and evangelicals went out of their way to discriminate in this last election. And I don't mean against the act of gay sex, but against the people who practice it.

ya, thats the christian lobby

largest one in america...

maybe... isreal may be bigger...

I don't know when the supposition arose that this was a passage 'against' homosexuals - but I suspect it suited somebody, politically, to have it translated as such. Unfortunately, it seems to have 'stuck'.

lol

that is the passage i was talking about

i achually had a copy of the bible where it was not worded as "woman's bed"

i wish i still had it, probably something like King Jame's "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" that was mis-translated in order to persecute witches.

If me remember correctly (and grave may speak it too ) only revelations

And like an “ebonic” version of Greek at that

You are right that it wasn't 'common' Greek, per se... but the version they called 'Koin", which was kind of a lingua franca for the whole Greek political/trade world.

I think the passage you are thinking of IS Hebrew, but it is Old Testament - and between David and his special friend..

The New Testament is Greek, the Old Testament is Hebrew... and there is a little Aramaic thrown in for good measure.

You are right that it wasn't 'common' Greek, per se... but the version they called 'Koin", which was kind of a lingua franca for the whole Greek political/trade world.

I think the passage you are thinking of IS Hebrew, but it is Old Testament - and between David and his special friend..

The New Testament is Greek, the Old Testament is Hebrew... and there is a little Aramaic thrown in for good measure.

We're not going to flog this log again, are we? How many times are we going to have to explain this one (gee, I hope we're not going over this with Neo again).

You are right that it wasn't 'common' Greek, per se... but the version they called 'Koin", which was kind of a lingua franca for the whole Greek political/trade world.

I think the passage you are thinking of IS Hebrew, but it is Old Testament - and between David and his special friend..

The New Testament is Greek, the Old Testament is Hebrew... and there is a little Aramaic thrown in for good measure.

Hey, compleatly off topic, but Grave, you seem to know your bible shit.

Whats your take on Quabbalism? (I'm sure thats mis-spelled) I mean the mathmatics of the torah that also make music, pictures and lots of other fun things... (Like a strand of dna with like 2 extra chromosomes)

lol

that is the passage i was talking about

i achually had a copy of the bible where it was not worded as "woman's bed"

i wish i still had it, probably something like King Jame's "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" that was mis-translated in order to persecute witches.

Yes... the Hebrew talks about people that commune with the dead... the greek talks about people who administer drugs and poisons.... and the Church translates it as an excuse to go burning anyone that isn't Christian.

It's sad what people will do to a text in order to further their own ambition...

And, they get away with it, too... because most people are too lazy to check, or lack the education that would enable them to contest it.

:(

It's sad what people will do to a text in order to further their own ambition...
:(

Wouldn't be the reason the liturgy was in Latin for so long, now would it?

From your previous post, I assume you are using Leviticus 18:22 as your basis for biblical 'law':

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

A closer examination of the Hebrew would reveal that this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality, and is, in fact, a commentary on ritual uncleanness of women during menstruation.

For reference, let me just post first:

Leviticus 15:22 "And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even".

Leviticus 15:23 "And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even".

Leviticus 15:26 "Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation".

Leviticus 15:33 "And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean".

Okay - all of those set certain precedents, according to Hebrew law.

1) A woman is ritually 'unclean' during menstruation.
2) A man who contacts a woman during her menstruation, becomes ritually unclean (one of the forms of abomination).
3) A Hebrew woman was confined to a 'woman's bed' during her menstruation, rather than her marital bed.
4) Any bed or couch that a menstruating woman sat or laid on, was considered her 'woman's bed', since it was 'unclean' due to menstruation.
5) A man even sitting on a 'woman's bed' would be 'unclean' - even if he didn't have sex with her.

Okay - now let's look at the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22:

"Shakab Zakar Mishkab 'ishshah Tow'ebah"

Shakab = "to lie down, to lie down sexually, to rest"
Zakar = "Man, or male of the species"
Mishkab = "Couch or bed, act of lying down for sexual contact"
'ishshah = "Woman, wife, opposite of man"
Tow'ebah = "Unclean, ritually unclean (an abomination)".

So, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "(To lie down), (a man), on the (couch or bed), of (a woman), is (unclean)".

We already know what the 'woman's bed' is... so:

Leviticus 18:22 "For a man to lie down on the 'woman's bed' (her menstrual bed) is unclean".

I don't know when the supposition arose that this was a passage 'against' homosexuals - but I suspect it suited somebody, politically, to have it translated as such. Unfortunately, it seems to have 'stuck'.


... learn something new every day ... I was absent from this part of the sin thread

Leviticus also says not to eat shellfish and a lot of other things.

I think people assume Christians hate gays because Christians tend to choose to believe parts of the Bible that are anti-gay while ignoring the parts that most heteros do.

If you can eat shrimp, I can eat... well for the sake of not making all gay people sound immoral, I'll let you figure it out. :rolleyes:

I have met a lot of respectful Christians online … and I respect them for that (specially depublicants (was fairly sure she was Christian))

Yup, thanks.

I'm getting lots of compliments today =)

but, im no pope or christian scholar. im sure they are well aware of what God wants

Why would they be any more aware than you are, especially when you consider the large amount of politics that has always gone into church hierarchy and the amount of arguing over miniscule points that has always been involved?

No, I don't think I am making that mistake. While it is the state that legislates same-sex civil unions, in eleven states, the issue was put to popular vote. The voters shot down these measures because they were voting according to their religious/spiritual beliefs.

Or, as in GA, voting on misleading amendments which didn't list nearly all of what the results would be.

I don't think religion has got much to do with whether you 'hate' homosexuals or not. I think the society as a whole has a greater influence. I do know people who think homosexuality is unnatural (despite the fact the contrary has been proven) and not all of those people are christians (on the contrary), but they do not hate homosexuals. They can get along fine with most homosexuals actually. But I live in Belgium, perhaps the situation in other countries is different?

As a Christian I think homosexuality is as natural to the common man as any other sin. It becomes unnatural when the person is both a Christian and a homosexual.

I have known many homosexuals and even though I disapprove of homosexuality it didn't effect my opinion of them as ppl. Some of them I have become friends with.

As a Christian I think homosexuality is as natural to the common man as any other sin. It becomes unnatural when the person is both a Christian and a homosexual.

I have known many homosexuals and even though I disapprove of homosexuality it didn't effect my opinion of them as ppl. Some of them I have become friends with.So you're saying you can't be both a homosexual and a Christian? Funny, I thought a tenet of christian thought was that Christ died for everyone's sins, not just the straight ones.

Many Christians do hate homosexuals, but I am not one of them. In fact, a very close friend of mine on NS- who will remain anonymous- is gay.

As a Christian I think homosexuality is as natural to the common man as any other sin.

And what other natural traits do you think are sins?

Do you think it is a sin when I menstruate?

Do you think it is a sin that I have blue eyes?

Do you think it is a sin that my hair is brown?

Do you think it is a sin that I like the color purple?

So you're saying you can't be both a homosexual and a Christian? Funny, I thought a tenet of christian thought was that Christ died for everyone's sins, not just the straight ones.

Don't get me wrong, Christians still sin. And I didn't say its impossible for someone to be a true Christian AND a homosexual. I simply said it becomes unnatural for a Christian to commit any sin. And yes, Jesus did die for all sins.

And what other natural traits do you think are sins?

Do you think it is a sin when I menstruate?

Do you think it is a sin that I have blue eyes?

Do you think it is a sin that my hair is brown?

Do you think it is a sin that I like the color purple?

Ummm, I don't see ur point here. None of those things are sin. What I'm saying is that it comes naturally for nonChristians to sin. However, it is unnatural for those who have Christ in their hearts to sin. I don't see how u can misinterpret that.

But very few Christians that I have PERSONALY met share this point of view.
It gets too confused … and I see a LOT of hate comin from that side

I don’t mean to stereotype … I HATE stereotyping in fact … BUT its hard when every single Christian I know thinks this way

(Family … friends … relatives ) its hard to not continue the trend with so much personal evidence

There are many, many differnt branches of the Christan church. Catholics (yes, they are Christians), Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc., etc., etc... Maybe you just don't know the ones who are more open minded.

1) These are AMERICAN christians, they dont represent everyone. I am British


And it's not like the CofE has had huge issues with homosexual bishops or anything...

Don't get me wrong, Christians still sin. And I didn't say its impossible for someone to be a true Christian AND a homosexual. I simply said it becomes unnatural for a Christian to commit any sin. And yes, Jesus did die for all sins.

I'm just trying to understand your logic... so when people become Christians they become totally other beings that have unnatural powers to resist sin?

The way I understand it, with any faith that is practiced regularly a person gets to know a group of people with similar values and morals (most likely) and with this support system it's easier to them to act, or not act, in certain ways.

Personally I don't think anyone becomes another kind of human being with unnatural tendancies that help avert them from things that are considered sinful once they become Christians (or any other belief system for that matter.)

-I can only speak from my experince as the daughter of an Episcopal deacon with Catholic, Taoist, Congregational and agnostic godparents. I also have gay family and friends whom I love dearly and as well as a few very good Mormon friends.

*I edited my message because one of the sentances wasn't complete and had 2 verbs. opps!

And it's not like the CofE has had huge issues with homosexual bishops or anything...

Again that is the COE, I am not COE. Dont assume everyone in Britain is COE.

I'm just trying to understand your logic... so when people become Christians they become totally other beings that have unnatural powers to resist sin?

1) It is homosexual sex that many believe is the sin (including myself), not being gay

2) When you become a Christian, you are still just as CAPERBLE of sinning, what happens though is that you notice it, are regretful of it, ask God to help you stop doing it and do your best to stop doing it yourself.

And it's not like the CoE has had huge issues with homosexual bishops or anything...

LOL!! so true.
I've never seen my parents argue over something so much...
We actually cornered my dad into saying the he thought marriage was only for having babies and nothing else. (he's saying this to his wife of 25 years and one of this kids)
My mom jokingly replied that, she since she was menopausal, she was moving out the next day and doing all she could to make sure the bishop stayed in his position...

1) It is homosexual sex that many believe is the sin (including myself), not being gay

2) When you become a Christian, you are still just as CAPERBLE of sinning, what happens though is that you notice it, are regretful of it, ask God to help you stop doing it and do your best to stop doing it yourself.

number 2 makes perfect sense to me... assuming the person has your interpretation of the bible and considers their acts sinful.

number 1 is still hazy... how could a person be gay without having homosexual sex? ...hummm... maybe I get it... so gay people are alright as long as they abstain from sexual activity?

*just added one sentance to clarify

Again that is the COE, I am not COE. Dont assume everyone in Britain is COE.

When did I do that? Your orignal point was about nationality, not denomination. I was merely pointing out that Britain has its own issues, too.

Hey, compleatly off topic, but Grave, you seem to know your bible shit.

Whats your take on Quabbalism? (I'm sure thats mis-spelled) I mean the mathmatics of the torah that also make music, pictures and lots of other fun things... (Like a strand of dna with like 2 extra chromosomes)

Well... I can see more space for such things in the Hebrew, because of the way Hebrew 'works'. (Which is also the reason I have much more 'respect' for scripture in Hebrew than in English).

There are some parts of the Kabbalah that 'work for me', like the concept of the Tree of Life, and the three stages of being... the 'routes to enlightenment' type stuff... and there are some parts that just don't work for me - like the idea of prophecy being plucked from random letters of Hebrew bible texts. The way I see it, you can pluck any message from any text, if you have a big enough sample of letters to choose from, and you aren't too picky about what you pluck.

There is a site that I occasionaly use for reference, mainly because I think it is just gorgeous, and has some very nice "Tree of Life" illustrations:

http://www.crystalinks.com/kabala.html

Yup, thanks.

I'm getting lots of compliments today =)

That's because you're just great, obviously... :)

http://www.crystalinks.com/kabala.html

wow, interesting... thanks, I've always wondered exactly kabala was based on... I knew it had to do with the torah, but I didn't know much else.

[QUOTE=Out On A Limb]I'm just trying to understand your logic... so when people become Christians they become totally other beings that have unnatural powers to resist sin?
QUOTE]


You don't suddenly gain magical powers when u become a Christian, I never said Christian suddenly become more resilient to sin.

1) It is homosexual sex that many believe is the sin (including myself), not being gay

2) When you become a Christian, you are still just as CAPERBLE of sinning, what happens though is that you notice it, are regretful of it, ask God to help you stop doing it and do your best to stop doing it yourself.

Good point. I should have been more clear when I said homosexuality was a sin. Its not a sin to be a homosexual but the act of homosexuality is. Everyone has their weaknesses when it comes to sin therefore I don't understand Christians who condemn those ppl.

Sidestepping the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is a sin for the moment (for the purposes of the point I am trying to make, lets just assume it is) why do people think Christians hate homosexuals. People say "The Bible teaches love, peace & compassion etc...so why do Christians hate gays?". Now while I cant speek for all Christians, I can safely say that when the Bible says that anything is a sin, it makes it clear that someone being a sinner is not an excuse to hate someone. There are only two things that Christians should hate. Sin and the Devil. Hating sinners is an example of hypocracy because in God's eyes sin is sin. No one sin is worse than any other.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Romans 3:23

And it is not right for any Christians to judge anyone by sin.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged"
Luke 6:37

You can judge by law but that is a very diffrent matter. Only God is qualified to judge sin. So I would ask those who believe that Christians hate gays to look more closely at what Christians who believe homosexual sex is a sin are saying and not just to dismiss them as bigots and homophobes.


I fully second this notion and am positively delighted to find other sensible people.

I'm just wondering how a natural trait can be a sin. Sexuality is a natural trait. It is not something you choose, nor is it something that you can just change on a whim. One can choose not to act upon sexuality, but according to you, homosexuality itself is a sin. This is *exactly* like saying that menstruation or liking purple is a sin.


Well the debate as to whether or not homosexuality is biological is ongoing. Though various bioligical diffrences have been pointed out between homosexuals and hetrosexuals, there is still the issue of chiken and egg. IE do these diffrences cause homosexuality or do homosexuality cause them. And as far as any biblical refrence goes, it doesnt seem to support homosexuallity as a sin, merely the act of homosexual sex. But can we please sidestep the issue of whether or not it is a sin and for the purposes of this discussion asume it is. What I am asking is why so many people make the mistake that thinking homosexual sex is a sin is automaticly linked to hating homosexuals.

Well the debate as to whether or not homosexuality is biological is ongoing.

Only in the minds of people who choose to ignore science.

Though various bioligical diffrences have been pointed out between homosexuals and hetrosexuals, there is still the issue of chiken and egg. IE do these diffrences cause homosexuality or do homosexuality cause them.

Which wouldn't matter anyways, as either way could be biological.

What I am asking is why so many people make the mistake that thinking homosexual sex is a sin is automaticly linked to hating homosexuals.

Basically, there are many people out there who are hateful bigots and try to use the excuse of religion to support it. It isn't *automatically* linked, but it certainly is linked very often.

Only in the minds of people who choose to ignore science.


1) It has not been conclusively proven that homosexuality is genetic or in anyway nautral

2) Even if it were, it has been proven that some people are geneticly predisposed towards vilonent behavior, but that does not make causing injury to another person any less of a sin. I argue that homosexual sex is a sin, not the simple being gay. Can we now please sidestep this issue.


Which wouldn't matter anyways, as either way could be biological.


3) *Ahem* no it doesnt

If the biological diffrences are the cause of homosexuality then it can be said to be a nautraly occuring phonominan

If the biological diffrences are a result of being a homosexual then that is not the cause and so the cause is yet to be discovered and so we still do not know.


Basically, there are many people out there who are hateful bigots and try to use the excuse of religion to support it. It isn't *automatically* linked, but it certainly is linked very often.

Kindly tell said people who are just hateful and using the Bible to support it (IE not Christian) that love the sinner, hate the sin is basic Christian doctrine, as is judge not.

Kindly tell said people who are just hateful and using the Bible to support it (IE not Christian) that love the sinner, hate the sin is basic Christian doctrine, as is judge not.
Tried that once … back when I was catholic … brought it up with the priest

Who told me I better do penance for supporting homosexual behavior (when all I said was essentially hate the sin not the person) because obviously I did not know church doctrine


Lets say it was just one of the driving factors that made me sit and think about what god means/is and I continue to think about it

1) It has not been conclusively proven that homosexuality is genetic or in anyway nautral
Yes it has.

21% of all homosexuals are homosexual because of a fertility hormone that is passed through the female side of the family and can cause homosexuality when passed on to men. About all other cases are caused by some sort of struggle between X and Y chromosomes before one is born. That means it is determined whether one can become gay before one is born, that one is genetically predisposed towards homosexuality. The homosexuality itself usually develops by itself at an early age, but it's possible that it never develops.

Of course that doesn't explain everything, but it does show that homosexuality is completely natural. ;) It occured/occurs at all places, in all periods in history, and with all species.

(Note: I did some research for a school assignment about this topic ;) )

People just assume that becuase what they see on tv just like all the *generalzatons* they say about christains they see it on tv so they assume its true i am a christian and i dont have anything against homosexuals who am i to judge im not a very good christain i fall very short of gods standers every day i have no right as do many other christains to bother other people for their sins i once went to a church and the youth pastor gave a messege about hoe homosexuals were sub human and thye didnt deserve any rights and as for as he was concerned they werent people and lets just say i dont go to that church any more

i once went to a church and the youth pastor gave a messege about hoe homosexuals were sub human and thye didnt deserve any rights and as for as he was concerned they werent people and lets just say i dont go to that church any more
Understandable, I wouldn't go to that church either. Not that I would go to church in case they didn't preach homophobic values, but, you know, going to church to hear people (including some of my friends) getting slandered doesn't sound like fun to me.

1) It has not been conclusively proven that homosexuality is genetic or in anyway nautral

As has been pointed out to you *many* times before, *nothing* in science can be "conclusively proven." However, all current biological and psychological evidence leads to the conclusion that it is natural (and please stop making the mistake of equating genetic and natural - something that is genetic is natural, but something that is natural does not necessarily have to be genetic).

2) Even if it were, it has been proven that some people are geneticly predisposed towards vilonent behavior, but that does not make causing injury to another person any less of a sin. I argue that homosexual sex is a sin, not the simple being gay. Can we now please sidestep this issue.

We can't sidestep it when you are spreading something that anyone who does a little research would find to be untrue.

3) *Ahem* no it doesnt

If the biological diffrences are the cause of homosexuality then it can be said to be a nautraly occuring phonominan

If the biological diffrences are a result of being a homosexual then that is not the cause and so the cause is yet to be discovered and so we still do not know.

So tanned skin is not a naturally occuring phenomenon?
Lightened hair is not a naturally occuring phenomenon?
Brittle bones are not a naturally occuring phenomenon?

Coulda fooled all the biologists out there.

Kindly tell said people who are just hateful and using the Bible to support it (IE not Christian) that love the sinner, hate the sin is basic Christian doctrine, as is judge not.

I have. I was simply pointing out that the reason people link the two is the fact that they are so often linked.

As has been pointed out to you *many* times before, *nothing* in science can be "conclusively proven." However, all current biological and psychological evidence leads to the conclusion that it is natural (and please stop making the mistake of equating genetic and natural - something that is genetic is natural, but something that is natural does not necessarily have to be genetic).


Kindly provide said evidence. There is no evidence that equates to a scientific truth.


So tanned skin is not a naturally occuring phenomenon?
Lightened hair is not a naturally occuring phenomenon?
Brittle bones are not a naturally occuring phenomenon?


Are you just ignoring what I am saying or am I not typing loud enough. All those three have know biological causes. But homosexuality does not. We have seen biological difrences between homosexuals and hetrosexuals, but these have not been linked to homosexuality itself, beyond the fact that many homosexuals have these diffrences. We dont know if these difrences are the cause of homosexuality or if being a homosexual causes these diffrences to come about. If the latter is the case then we still have no idea as to what the cause is.

Kindly provide said evidence. There is no evidence that equates to a scientific truth.
Yes there is, as I have pointed out in a previous post. ;)

Yes there is, as I have pointed out in a previous post. ;)

Provide link please.

Sidestepping the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is a sin for the moment (for the purposes of the point I am trying to make, lets just assume it is) why do people think Christians hate homosexuals. People say "The Bible teaches love, peace & compassion etc...so why do Christians hate gays?". Now while I cant speek for all Christians, I can safely say that when the Bible says that anything is a sin, it makes it clear that someone being a sinner is not an excuse to hate someone. There are only two things that Christians should hate. Sin and the Devil. Hating sinners is an example of hypocracy because in God's eyes sin is sin. No one sin is worse than any other.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Romans 3:23

And it is not right for any Christians to judge anyone by sin.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged"
Luke 6:37

You can judge by law but that is a very diffrent matter. Only God is qualified to judge sin. So I would ask those who believe that Christians hate gays to look more closely at what Christians who believe homosexual sex is a sin are saying and not just to dismiss them as bigots and homophobes.

I could go on at length about this but to be brief, if Christians don't hate homosexuals why do Christians need some biblically incongruous PC catch phrase to remind them to hate the sin not the sinner? :rolleyes:

Provide link please.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7722004&postcount=87

I could go on at length about this but to be brief, if Christians don't hate homosexuals why do Christians need some biblically incongruous PC catch phrase to remind them to hate the sin not the sinner? :rolleyes:

Well the Hate sin, love sinner idea comes from how God treets us. God doesnt hate us because we do sin. He hates sin because of what it does to us. He punishes people for sin but that doesnt mean he hates us. Does a parent hate a child because it lies to them?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7722004&postcount=87

If that is true, then why do not all identical twins where one is gay do both not turn Gay if they have identical genes. And another thing, if homosexuality is genetic, why hasnt it died out?

If that is true, then why do not all identical twins where one is gay do both not turn Gay if they have identical genes.

Just as curious is why monozygotic twins aren't necessarily both heterosexual.

Kindly provide said evidence. There is no evidence that equates to a scientific truth.

All of it? That would take up the entire forum. But here is some selected evidence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14739151
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15539346
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15488542
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12836731

I would also highly recommend Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemil, it summarizes things in layman's terms quite nicely.

What you fail to recognize, despite the fact that any amount of logic leads to this conclusion, is that anything which occurs in nature is natural.

Are you just ignoring what I am saying or am I not typing loud enough. All those three have know biological causes.

Wrong. They have known causes which relate to biology. However, tanned skin is caused by exposure to the sun, as is lightened hair.

But homosexuality does not. We have seen biological difrences between homosexuals and hetrosexuals, but these have not been linked to homosexuality itself, beyond the fact that many homosexuals have these diffrences. We dont know if these difrences are the cause of homosexuality or if being a homosexual causes these diffrences to come about. If the latter is the case then we still have no idea as to what the cause is.

You fail to see that it doesn't matter. The physical differences are there and are therefore biologic. We do know several factors that contribute to causing homosexuality. We also know that there are physical differences that occur. One way or another, the fact that they exist at all leads to the conclusion that they are natural differences.

Does having a penis make you male or does being male make you have a penis? It doesn't really matter - you are a male and you have a penis.

If that is true, then why do not all identical twins where one is gay do both not turn Gay if they have identical genes. And another thing, if homosexuality is genetic, why hasnt it died out?

(a) Genetics is *a* factor, not *the* factor.

(b) There is evidence that one of the genetic factors that contributes to homosexuality in men *increases* fertilitiy in women -- see the link above. There is also the fact that any trait which exists along a spectrum (like skin color or sexuality) is going to be influenced by more than one genetic location. It is a *combination* of certain genes that would lead to certain sexualities, not a single one that could be "bred out"

This has all been explained to you in length before. I'm glad to see that you are still simply ignoring anything you don't like.

If that is true, then why do not all identical twins where one is gay do both not turn Gay if they have identical genes. And another thing, if homosexuality is genetic, why hasnt it died out?
Because perhaps the homosexuality doesn't develop in both twins. And, as I pointed out in that post, there also is a fertility hormone that can cause homosexuality, which means that homosexuals who are homosexual thanks to (or due to, depending on how you look at it) that fertility hormone usually appear in large families. Also there's the 'struggle' I referred to...

What you fail to recognize, despite the fact that any amount of logic leads to this conclusion, is that anything which occurs in nature is natural.


I knew you were going to say this at some point. So let me just tell you this. Even if being Gay is nautral, that does not detract from the fact that Gay sex is a sin. Vilonce and wanting to have sex outside marriage are nautral behaviours but that does not detract from the idea that they are sins.

I knew you were going to say this at some point. So let me just tell you this. Even if being Gay is nautral, that does not detract from the fact that Gay sex is a sin. Vilonce and wanting to have sex outside marriage are nautral behaviours but that does not detract from the idea that they are sins.

Well then, Neo, I guess I'm screwed. But I already knew that...

(a) Genetics is *a* factor, not *the* factor.

(b) There is evidence that one of the genetic factors that contributes to homosexuality in men *increases* fertilitiy in women -- see the link above. There is also the fact that any trait which exists along a spectrum (like skin color or sexuality) is going to be influenced by more than one genetic location. It is a *combination* of certain genes that would lead to certain sexualities, not a single one that could be "bred out"

This has all been explained to you in length before. I'm glad to see that you are still simply ignoring anything you don't like.

A) People are claiming it is

B) How long is human history? Surely genes that cause a complete stop in reproduction would be bread out in a few thousand years as they are evolutionarly disadvantagous (or so evolutionists would claim)

Well then, Neo, I guess I'm screwed. But I already knew that...

Eh?

Wrong. They have known causes which relate to biology. However, tanned skin is caused by exposure to the sun, as is lightened hair.


Precisely. These have causes which can be related to outside forces. We havent proved that homosexuality is the same/diffrent.

I knew you were going to say this at some point. So let me just tell you this. Even if being Gay is nautral, that does not detract from the fact that Gay sex is a sin. Vilonce and wanting to have sex outside marriage are nautral behaviours but that does not detract from the idea that they are sins.

I never said anything about the sinfulness (or lack thereof) of homosexual sex. I thought we were ignoring that part of the discussion?

I never said anything about the sinfulness (or lack thereof) of homosexual sex. I thought we were ignoring that part of the discussion?

You said "How can something be a sin which is nautral".

B) How long is human history? Surely genes that cause a complete stop in reproduction would be bread out in a few thousand years as they are evolutionarly disadvantagous (or so evolutionists would claim)
As said before... fertility hormone and struggle between X and Y... it's not necessarily genetic, but, in many cases, it is.

A question for you: If homosexuality is not natural, then why does it (still) exist?

B) How long is human history? Surely genes that cause a complete stop in reproduction would be bread out in a few thousand years as they are evolutionarly disadvantagous (or so evolutionists would claim)

What parts of "increases fertility" and "requires a *combination* of genes, not a single specific gene" do you not understand?

Then there is also the fact that, in social animals, having homosexual members is actually *advantagous* in and of itself.

You said "How can something be a sin which is nautral".

Which was related to homosexuality, not to homosexual sex.

Precisely. These have causes which can be related to outside forces. We havent proved that homosexuality is the same/diffrent.

You are right, in utero hormone levels don't count.

Which was related to homosexuality, not to homosexual sex.
Wow, I'm say too slow to keep up with you guys... ;)

I think homosexual sex is one of the logical consequences of homosexuality and can't be a sin as homosexuality is natural.

Wow, I'm too slow to keep up with you guys...

I think homosexual sex is one of the logical consequences of homosexuality and can't be a sin as homosexuality is natural.

I believe that homosexual sex, like heterosexual sex, should be an expression of love and committment between two people - so I would agree with you.

However, many people choose to separate the two. Kind of like, back when they were banned, it wasn't a sin to *like* eating pork or to *want to* eat it, it was just a sin to actually do it.

It's called democracy. That isn't religion affecting the state; at least, it's not corruption. iFilm? Another Mac utility? What is it?


It IS democracy. However, it’s also religion affecting the state. The fact is that most of the population DOES follow the word of God. Which, at the risk of saying most, most of them (the activists, the extremists, so on) say that homosexuality is horrible, bad, and awful, and the homosexuals should not be married because it's a sin.

Now, all these people tend to get the non-fanatics riled up. And, so, the majority of the Christian population votes homosexual marriages out because it's against the word of God. Had there been no way to interpret homosexuality being bad out of the bible I think that the laws about them not being able to be married wouldn't have gone into effect.

I believe that homosexual sex, like heterosexual sex, should be an expression of love and committment between two people - so I would agree with you.

However, many people choose to separate the two. Kind of like, back when they were banned, it wasn't a sin to *like* eating pork or to *want to* eat it, it was just a sin to actually do it.
What about if they stick to oral?


:p

Wow, I'm say too slow to keep up with you guys... ;)

I think homosexual sex is one of the logical consequences of homosexuality and can't be a sin as homosexuality is natural.

The logical consequences of a genetic disposition towards vilonce is that you may kill someone, doesnt detract from killing someone being a sin.

What about if they stick to oral?


:p

*shrug* It could still be an expression of love =)

((I actually do know gay men who are completely repulsed by the idea of anal sex.))

The logical consequences of a genetic disposition towards vilonce is that you may kill someone, doesnt detract from killing someone being a sin.

While I can see the reasons that God may want me not to kill someone (having done that myself), I can't see the reason why God would care where I stick my privates into another person's body (or whether that person is the same gender as I am or not) (having done that myself).

But, I guess I'll be smoking a big turd in Hell, either way.

*shrug* It could still be an expression of love =)

((I actually do know gay men who are completely repulsed by the idea of anal sex.))
Me too (know gay men that are)

Me too (know gay men that are)
Met plenty who believe it's better to give than receive...

Met plenty who believe it's better to give than receive...
Yup

So neo What point does it become a sin?

Being that being gay is not a sin

Holding hands?

Hugging?

kissing?

Petting?

HandJob

Oral?

Anal?

Yup

So neo What point does it become a sin?

Being that being gay is not a sin

Holding hands?

Hugging?

kissing?

Petting?

HandJob

Oral?

Anal?

I would say Anul sex, as that would seem to fit the "lie with a man as with a women" idea most closely. I beleive the attraction is simply temptation.

I would say Anul sex, as that would seem to fit the "lie with a man as with a women" idea most closely. I beleive the attraction is simply temptation.

Anal. Anal. So I could 69 with another guy all I like? As long as we weren't lying down?

What about in zero-gravity? You're never really lying down.

And if we assume "as with a woman", we might be hard put to find a woman's genitals on a man. So maybe I should avoid men who've been sexually modified to be like a woman.

Gee. Awfully complicated.

I would say Anul sex, as that would seem to fit the "lie with a man as with a women" idea most closely. I beleive the attraction is simply temptation.
Well most gay men I know DON’T partake in anal … so what’s up with all the anti gay marriage sentiment (not you necessarily) … being gay and married does not necessarily mean that anal sex is going to happen

How about transgender people? Male who is now female?


(just curious)

Anal. Anal. So I could 69 with another guy all I like? As long as we weren't lying down?

What about in zero-gravity? You're never really lying down.

And if we assume "as with a woman", we might be hard put to find a woman's genitals on a man. So maybe I should avoid men who've been sexually modified to be like a woman.

Gee. Awfully complicated.

Can we get back to the original topic. Lets just asume that its talking about Anal sex and leave it at that. The original post was the fact that too many people mistake believing that something is a sin to hating the people who commit said sin.

Can we get back to the original topic. Lets just asume that its talking about Anal sex and leave it at that. The original post was the fact that too many people mistake believing that something is a sin to hating the people who commit said sin.

I thought we covered this though?

The reason that people equate the two is that many who believe it is a sin also hate homosexuals. Is it a misuse of religion? Yes. Are they committing a sin just as bad (or worse)? Yes.

However, the fact is there. People have always and will always hate that which is different.

There is also the problem that the majority of religious people do not study or question their faith enough. This leads to very weak faith which can easily be dispelled. People are afraid of losing faith (even though they often never really have it) and thus begin to hate anything that presents itself as a possible challenge to that faith.

Because people can't blame their own shortcomings on Mrs. O'Leary's cow any longer. We need a new scapegoat.

What I don't get is how people get pouty with, "The Christians stole the election!" First, it's not true. I'm Christian and I voted for Kerry. But yeah. Those uppity Christians. The LAST thing we need in this country is a group of people with moral and religous integrity. Why do we never hear, "The Baby Eaters stole the election!" "The Arsonists stole the election!" "The Logging Companies stole the election!"

Because after all, the 'Christians' that voted for Bush are going to see the abortion rate rise in the next four years, all the while the poor people Christians are supposed to look out for will suffer more, and the Christians themselves will struggle to get along in this economy. In short, the 'Christians' are coming out on the wrong side of the deal. The Logging Companies, on the other hand....

Can we get back to the original topic. Lets just asume that its talking about Anal sex and leave it at that. The original post was the fact that too many people mistake believing that something is a sin to hating the people who commit said sin.

The problem I have is that usually the same sections that people use to define it as a sin also define it as an abomination.

Kinda leads right to hate, there. I mean, if God thinks it's an abomination, then it's really something he hates, right? So any right-thinking person would hate it, and anyone who does it, as well?

That's probably why a lot of people hate it for religious reasons. But most people I've met who are both fearful of homosexuals (or bisexuals) are secretly afraid of what may happen on a personal basis - that somehow they will succumb to a temptation that they never would have had in any other situation. That somehow being that way is contagious. That somehow, it's an entirely artificial desire, such as liking coffee. And that they may somehow secretly harbor that desire, or end up liking it, to the horror of those around them.

I think that is the real reason, and they use religion as a smokescreen. People always need a rationalization before harming someone.

I'm quite sure that you would never take your clothes off in front of me in a public changeroom (such as at the gym) knowing what you know about me now. And it's not like I would make a pass at you, or somehow convert you. But you should be quite aware that a fair number of the men you've undressed of in front of in your life were gay or bisexual and you never knew it.

Because people can't blame their own shortcomings on Mrs. O'Leary's cow any longer. We need a new scapegoat.

What I don't get is how people get pouty with, "The Christians stole the election!" First, it's not true. I'm Christian and I voted for Kerry. But yeah. Those uppity Christians. The LAST thing we need in this country is a group of people with moral and religous integrity. Why do we never hear, "The Baby Eaters stole the election!" "The Arsonists stole the election!" "The Logging Companies stole the election!"

Because after all, the 'Christians' that voted for Bush are going to see the abortion rate rise in the next four years, all the while the poor people Christians are supposed to look out for will suffer more, and the Christians themselves will struggle to get along in this economy. In short, the 'Christians' are coming out on the wrong side of the deal. The Logging Companies, on the other hand....

Wow way to drag presidential elections into why do you people think Christians hate homosexuals

Cause you know … I would so be hating people that had nothing to do with it if I were Christian


:rolleyes:

What I don't get is how people get pouty with, "The Christians stole the election!" First, it's not true. I'm Christian and I voted for Kerry. But yeah. Those uppity Christians. The LAST thing we need in this country is a group of people with moral and religous integrity.

Here's the problem: The "Christians" that are being referred to in such statemetns are *not* a group of people with moral and religious integrity. Fundamentalists of any religion have several tendencies:
(a) very little understanding of their religion
(b) very weak faith
(c) large amounts of moral *problems* in their midst - ie. they commit the actions they claim to hate more often than the groups they condemn.

And the vast majority of people who voted for Bush did so for *moral* reaons - aka. they believe that it is ok to force their moral beliefs upon others, even when those others are not hurting anyone.

Met plenty of Islamic homophobes. Even met a few Jewish homophobes.

To answer the question, it is for two reasons.

1) Fred Phelps, Falwell, and their ilk.

2) the lack of christians who speak out against them.


If the extremists are the only ones being heard it is YOUR duty to stop not, not everyone elses. Until you do, live with what other people think about you and your religion.

Kindly tell said people who are just hateful and using the Bible to support it (IE not Christian) that love the sinner, hate the sin is basic Christian doctrine, as is judge not.

Are you sure?

Is that in scripture?

Can you show a verse that says "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?

I think you are mis-attributing a concept by nearly 2000 years... but, I remain waiting to be educated to the better...

Why do people assume that (many) Christians hate homosexuals?

Because many of them clearly do.

I knew you were going to say this at some point. So let me just tell you this. Even if being Gay is nautral, that does not detract from the fact that Gay sex is a sin. Vilonce and wanting to have sex outside marriage are nautral behaviours but that does not detract from the idea that they are sins.

Well, since I have disproved most of your homosexuality claims... let's look at this one... am I not right... the ONLY mentions that MIGHT be specifically targetting female homosexuals... are the ones that talk about them pursuing 'unnatural lusts'?

Well, if it's natural... then it isn't an unnatural lust... so, by your logic, lesbianism is a-ok by the bible, right?

A) People are claiming it is

B) How long is human history? Surely genes that cause a complete stop in reproduction would be bread out in a few thousand years as they are evolutionarly disadvantagous (or so evolutionists would claim)

You DO understand that there can be genetic factors that cause INFERTILITY, right?

The right combination of factors, combining, could make someone sterile... so why is it still possible to be genetically barren?

Because, Neo - there are other ways to transfer genes.

A person carrying 'sterility-causing' genes may have non-sterile children with the right partner.

Similarly, a homosexual doesn't HAVE to have intercourse only with the same gender. They might WANT to, but it is theoretically possible for them to go against their nature, and have sex across the gender divide.

Me too (know gay men that are)

A surprisingly large number of gay men seem to be celibate, from my experience.

Perhaps it's the risk of disease, or perhaps some of the homosexual population is truer to the conception of 'romantic love' than their equal numbers in the heterosexual population.. I don't know.

But, I do know several 'gay' men who are 'non-practising', in terms of sex.

Whatever bvimb is. Enlighten us, please.

The Bible says that lying with a man is an abomination. Not the lyer. Layer. Or whatever.


Ok, so
A: bein' a dyke or a genderqueer (or sleeping with one) automatically gets you off the hook. SCORE!
B: as long as we don't lie down, we're off the hook. SCORE!
C: according to the wording, it's not that you (again, assumed to be male, but it does just say "you" or "thou") can't "lie with a man as thou liest with a woman." cool. so if we can agree that queer sex isn't the same as straight sex, then there's no problem. SCORE!
D: if you don't accept B and C, but you're willing to accept that "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou liest with a woman" applies to me, and i'm a grrl, then fuck, the bible just told me i HAVE to sleep with women! if i lie with a man the way i lie with women, it's an abomination! no men for me, sorry, god's orders.

E: if you don't like A, B, C, or D, but you insist that it's only the act, not the "identity" then what are you saying? you don't hate me for who i am, and you won't condemn me as a sinner, as long as i spend my whole life never ever having sex (except sex i don't like - straight sex... eeew)
then sorry, that's not much of an option, and it reeks of the supreme court decision which was OVERTURNED when they got rid of anti-sodomy laws: that it's not unfair, because NOBODY's allowed to have queer sex, whether they're queer or not.

but how do you tell who's queer?
by who we have sex with, no?
c'mon, be honest.
so our identity is defined by this "sin" of ours.
so if you love the sinner, hate the sin, but the sinner's identity is defined by the sin, then sorry, looks like you hate us.
and hate is rather unchristian no?
hell, it might even be a SIN!

if you want to maybe decide it's NOT a sin (hey, some of you have done it with birth control or before marriage or refused to get your brother's widow knocked up when god told you to, right? we can let these things slide.) then we can talk.