NationStates Jolt Archive

Can you be a good homosexual and a nice Christian or Islamite?

To make things clear, I’m none of the above.

But I’m wondering if a religious homosexual isn’t putting himself in a kind of Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22) situation concerning his belief?

Be honest, dear gay-human, they hate you. The Bible and the Koran doesn’t love you at all.

And not only by the words from those scientific pious scriptures, no, you could also notice the hate by the words of many religious salesmen like priests and imans.

So I’m wondering how you practise your religion?

Do you ignore the gay-hate stuff? Or do you pretend being heterosexual in church or in the mosque and do you shout all together every week ‘kill all gays’?

Same goes for other undermenschen, like…women (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg).

Yes, I’m sorry girls and madams, your religions doesn’t like you as well.

How do you feel when they are talking male macho pig talk in church or mosque and talk dirty about *YOU*, the woman (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg)?

I suppose they could belong to a church or denomination that collectively accepts gays or accepts women as equals...

Collectively, on the whole, the loudest factions of Christianity and Islam do not accept homosexuality. That doesn't mean that the entire religion hates it. All it means is that people who are homosexual just have to look harder.

He who is without sin cast the first stone.

You are assuming that all Christians and Islamite are fundamentalists. Not every christian/muslim believes that homosexuality is a sin. Not every religious person thinks that women should be subjugated....

It depends on denominational requirements and interpretations. Can you be a good homosexual and a Westborough Baptist? Nope. Whatever the hell that church is that has an ordained homosexual bishop or whatever...sure, why not?

That's the killer thing about imaginary friends. They get to say whatever you need them to say.

The word is Muslim, not Islamite.

Also, what is a good homosexual exactly?

Not if it reckons you're a poor quality Christian / Muslim (incidentally, Islamite - wtf?) if you're homosexual.

Not that there aren't perfectly excellent people who are Christians / Islams and also homosexuals, or indeed that there aren't any pro-homosexual Christians / Islams.

Also, what is a good homosexual exactly?
A damned fine giver, and a gracious reciever.

A damned fine giver, and a gracious reciever.
That could be said of pretty much anyone though.
One who gives reach arounds, clearly.

And what about the gay wimminz?

The word is Muslim, not Islamite.

Also, what is a good homosexual exactly?

One who gives reach arounds, clearly.

... me, I've always held the act of homosexuality a sin, but I don't hate/fear/loathe/other negative viewpoints the person committing the sin, I've always felt that such sins is between that person and God.

[SIZE="4"]

Do you ignore the gay-hate stuff? Or do you pretend being heterosexual in church or in the mosque and do you shout all together every week ‘kill all gays’?


I've been to a lot of different churches and I can't remember a time when the subject came up. There have been times when men and women came together sat together and left together. They didn't hold hands or kiss but neither did any married couple. There's a time and place for everything. (Ecclesiastes)

I have a homosexual brother-in-law that is active in church. I think most know about this but it is never brought up. He's been going to the same church for a long time so is just one of the group. But then he makes no effort to flaunt his homosexuality or make it the only concentration of his life. He pretty much does like and looks like every other man in the place. None of the men make a deal about their sex lives. They talk about work, cars, sports, and all the normal things. Sex just never comes up in normal conversation.

Absolutely.

I don't remember the verse name, but in the Bible it says that homosexuals who suppress their urges will receive a greater reward in Heaven.

And what about the gay wimminz?
Isn't that still a reach around? Or is it more of a plunge around?

Isn't that still a reach around? Or is it more of a plunge around?

I don't know but I suspect google does.

Isn't that still a reach around? Or is it more of a plunge around?

Reach up? A little fondle fondle with the licky licky?

Reach up? A little fondle fondle with the licky licky?
... I'm suspecting a "Peripherial Device" has been attached for ease of docking manuvers.

... I'm suspecting a "Peripherial Device" has been attached for ease of docking manuvers.
I don't know, I think that action is only for lesbian sex meant to be observed by heterosexual males.

I don't know for sure, I don't spend a lot of time asking real lesbians about real lesbian sex, 'fake' lesbian sex done for my benefit is far more engaging for some reason.

Being homosexual merely means you want to have sex with people of the same gender. As long as it stays at the wanting and you do not actually do it both Christianity and Islam have no problem with you.

If you will be happy living like that is another matter.

All Christians are sinners so even if homosexuality is a sin it wouldn't be any different from anyone else since nobody is perfect. Either way I can't see how it would really matter.

The only time I can imagine this matters is when gays want to get married. It would be a pretty big step for a church to give it's official endorsement and blessing to that. The line has to go somewhere, should the church marry polygamists, marry with non believers, marry children, marry people on the parents' request against their will? Should the church accept divorce? Here it's a tricky debate in any religion about which things are worthy of holy endorsement and blessing and which things are not. I say let each religious organization decide for themselves and then find one that believes in blessing your personal choice.

I'm still wondering why the OP highlighted every mention of 'gay' or 'homosexuality' in pink, as if this added anything to the post. In fact, the whole thing is patronising and could be taken offensively. Wait til Fass arrives.

If there is anything Christianity or Islam would/should hate, it's the sin, not the sinner. Keep that in mind.

I have a gay friend who goes to Church with his boyfriend every Sunday. I know of another one who goes to Church every day. Truth is, they're more religious and do more good deeds and commit less evil ones than I do. Hell, I'd fit more into the image of Satan than they would. ;)

I'm still wondering why the OP highlighted every mention of 'gay' or 'homosexuality' in pink, as if this added anything to the post. In fact, the whole thing is patronising and could be taken offensively. Wait til Fass arrives.That's a good question. I, too, wonder why Edwinasia highlighted those words in pink. Why don't we ask Edwinasia why this was done? Edwinasia, why did you do that?

A homosexual Christian/Muslim is an oxymoron.

I don't know, I think that action is only for lesbian sex meant to be observed by heterosexual males.

I don't know for sure, I don't spend a lot of time asking real lesbians about real lesbian sex, 'fake' lesbian sex done for my benefit is far more engaging for some reason... I think that's rather presumptous of them. I say we need to do a side by side comparison to see which Hetero males actually do preferre.

then again, who's to say the 'fake' is actually real or what not. we need hidden cameras! :p

I'm still wondering why the OP highlighted every mention of 'gay' or 'homosexuality' in pink, as if this added anything to the post. In fact, the whole thing is patronising and could be taken offensively. Wait til Fass arrives. whatever the reason it make the OP very hard to read.

tho I do agree... *waits for Fass*

Can you be a good homosexual and a nice Christian or Islamite?

To make things clear, I’m none of the above.

But I’m wondering if a religious homosexual isn’t putting himself in a kind of Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22) situation concerning his belief?

Be honest, dear gay-human, they hate you. The Bible and the Koran doesn’t love you at all.

And not only by the words from those scientific pious scriptures, no, you could also notice the hate by the words of many religious salesmen like priests and imans.

So I’m wondering how you practise your religion?

Do you ignore the gay-hate stuff? Or do you pretend being heterosexual in church or in the mosque and do you shout all together every week ‘kill all gays’?

Same goes for other undermenschen, like…women (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg).

Yes, I’m sorry girls and madams, your religions doesn’t like you as well.

How do you feel when they are talking male macho pig talk in church or mosque and talk dirty about *YOU*, the woman (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg)?

This post makes me feel high, why is homosexual pink? Why can't you just say muslim?

That could be said of pretty much anyone though.

I don't know about that. There's a lot of people out there having sex. I'm sure there are a few assholes on the receiving end, at the very least.




:D

should the church marry polygamists, marry with non believers, marry children, marry people on the parents' request against their will? Should the church accept divorce?

Many churches marry nonbelievers. The others would be against civil law and Christianity is obligated to obey civil law.

Divorce is touchy because half of the adults have been divorced. To me that's comparable to homosexuality because, except for infidelity, divorce is a sin and every time a divorced person has sex with a new partner they are committing a sin. So we have all of these heterosexuals committing sin and it's no big deal but if a homosexual commits the same sin it becomes a big deal.

There's a lot of people out there having sex. I'm sure there are a few assholes on the receiving end, at the very least.
Shall I take that literally?

Why does this poll require a person to be a homosexual to answer "yes"?

Given that I have quite a few lovely gay or bi friends who self-identify as belonging to Abrahamic religions, it certainly seems to be possible.

Shall I take that literally?

Take it however you like to.




:D

Take it however you like to.




:D

Damn, beat me to it!

Damn, beat me to it!

My ninja typing skills prevail again! Huzzah! There shall be a feast of sushi and chaat in my honor!

Of course you can't !

Religions are all against homosexuality. That's why humanity has invented philosophy.

I don't know, RPing a chaotic good-aligned cleric in a lawful neutral church is just asking for trouble.

for who... the cleric or the church? :p

Both.

(There's going to be a ton of conflicts of interest, the church will probably catch fire thanks to a flask of burning oil, somebody's going to screw up their Miracle spell...)

I don't know, RPing a chaotic good-aligned cleric in a lawful neutral church is just asking for trouble.
for who... the cleric or the church? :p

To answer the question, I know a lesbian who's seemingly a pretty good Christian. Don't know how good a lesbian she is though.

This question is as ignorant towards Christians/ Muslims as some overtly conservative fundamental Christian/ Muslims are ignorant towards homosexuals.

Case and point: Christians/Muslims believe homosexuality is a sin, and thus one should fight against the temptation. Christians/Muslims do not practice hate. Anyone who tells you otherwise obviously didn't read their doctrine.Do not confuse not accepting a viewpoint as intolerance/hate.

According to the bible, all sin is weighted equal. So saying a white lie is the same as clanging the clitties. Thus, all Christians are sinners, and should not past judgement.

Stop judging all Muslims as the ones who beat their women for the kicks of it, and all Christians as the ones who go, "OMFG! YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, YOUR SKIRT GOES ABOVE YOUR KNEES. OMFG!"

Believe in many stereotypes, no? :rolleyes:

A person could be a homosexual and a devout Muslim without any problems. Its the homosexual acts that get one in trouble.

Seeing as how the vast majority of modern Christians and Muslims living in the west follow humanist influenced version of their religious texts in the first place, I think a church that accepts gays and gays that are in such a church represent a very mild and harmless hypocrisy. Certainly,though, said churches' general commitment to capitalism and theological ideas that stem from paganism represent a far greater hypocrisy.
In the end, the question comes down to, do Christians who accept gays hurt anything because of their acceptance and do gays who are Christians hurt anything because of their Christianity?
The answer to both questions: no more than any other Christian.

It depends on denominational requirements and interpretations. Can you be a good homosexual and a Westborough Baptist? Nope. Whatever the hell that church is that has an ordained homosexual bishop or whatever...sure, why not?

That's the killer thing about imaginary friends. They get to say whatever you need them to say.

Speak for your own. My imaginary friends are quite argumentative! :p

But you're right of course. Wiki sez it's the Episcopal church, and Anglicans in general are quite tolerant of homosexuality.

It depends on the denomination, I guess: these christians (http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home) surely will not discriminate :)

I'm still wondering why the OP highlighted every mention of 'gay' or 'homosexuality' in pink, as if this added anything to the post. In fact, the whole thing is patronising and could be taken offensively. Wait til Fass arrives.

Because it's obvious that all gays are fruity. Didn't everyone know that? ;)

That's the killer thing about imaginary friends. They get to say whatever you need them to say.

My imaginary friend says things I don't want him to say…
*creates B-Horror film*

I suppose they could belong to a church or denomination that collectively accepts gays or accepts women as equals...

Or simply stay out of organized religion. It is possible to be Christian or Muslim independent of any given denomination.

I'm still wondering why the OP highlighted every mention of 'gay' or 'homosexuality' in pink, as if this added anything to the post. In fact, the whole thing is patronising and could be taken offensively. Wait til Fass arrives.

Because the OP is busy trolling.

I don't think it would be contradictory to be a good Christian or Muslim and be gay

I don't know, RPing a chaotic good-aligned cleric in a lawful evil church is just asking for trouble.
Fixed. :D
How many posts before somebody gets offended about that, I wonder?

This question is as ignorant towards Christians/ Muslims as some overtly conservative fundamental Christian/ Muslims are ignorant towards homosexuals.

Case and point: Christians/Muslims believe homosexuality is a sin, and thus one should fight against the temptation. Christians/Muslims do not practice hate. Anyone who tells you otherwise obviously didn't read their doctrine.Do not confuse not accepting a viewpoint as intolerance/hate.

According to the bible, all sin is weighted equal. So saying a white lie is the same as clanging the clitties. Thus, all Christians are sinners, and should not past judgement.

Stop judging all Muslims as the ones who beat their women for the kicks of it, and all Christians as the ones who go, "OMFG! YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, YOUR SKIRT GOES ABOVE YOUR KNEES. OMFG!"

Believe in many stereotypes, no? :rolleyes:

No, not all Christians believe that crazy "zOMG UR ALL GOIN TO HELLZ, U EBUL AHTIESTS N GEYZ N SINNERZS." But in my experience, which is admittedly limited to my experiences and not scientific in any way, most do. But then, I live in Georgia.

I don't think it would be contradictory to be a good Christian or Muslim and be gay

Have you never read the Bible or the Qu'ran? (well, I've not read the Qu'ran yet, but I'm told by those who have that it is also condemning of homosexuality)

So I’m wondering how you practise your religion?

Do you ignore the gay-hate stuff? Or do you pretend being heterosexual in church or in the mosque and do you shout all together every week ‘kill all gays’?
I have yet to spend any serious time in Mosques, so I cannot speak about Islam (The friend with whom I was going to go moved before we ended up going), but I do know that not all varieties of Christianity shout together every week to "kill all the gays". In fact, after visiting several Churches, I have not been to a single one which has done that. Our one rule that supercedes all other rules (Including ones about sexuality) is to love God and love/treat others as you would have yourself treated. The foundation is on respecting both others and the self. Within that framework, and also another important verse, 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God', there should be no reason for a homosexual to feel or be treated any differently in Church an a heterosexual.

One interesting point I once heard, and one over which I am still mulling, is that God puts challenges into every life (The term used was 'crosses to bear', but that related to the larger theme of the sermon), and that for some people being gay or lesbian might be one of those challenges. For other folks it could be a fondness for candy. Some might be too focused on their work. Maybe an addiction to crack. The idea was that the particulars can be changed, but the overarching idea is that God tests people to see if they can look beyond Eartly desires and focus on Heavenly ones. What I took away from it is that a person is not automatically evil for being a homosexual, anymore than one is from overly liking chocolate bars, but rather that God might ask one to deny one's most cherished desire in order to be Holy. It is not exactly a fun idea, I must admit, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

In order for one to be a firm follower of christ, they must eradicate any sin in their life, whether its lust, lying, homosexuality, or what have you. All sin is the same as it separates us from God. So, as your goal is to be closer to God, when you become a believer, you must get rid of anything that keeps you from Him.

What I took away from it is that a person is not automatically evil for being a homosexual, anymore than one is from overly liking chocolate bars, but rather that God might ask one to deny one's most cherished desire in order to be Holy. It is not exactly a fun idea, I must admit, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

So basically you're saying that homosexuality is like a bad habit? To get into heaven you need to overcome the homosexuality that God gave you?

Reminds me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPUE9xpxjcc).
P.S. Sorry about the ringing

In order for one to be a firm follower of christ, they must eradicate any sin in their life, whether its lust, lying, homosexuality, or what have you. All sin is the same as it separates us from God. So, as your goal is to be closer to God, when you become a believer, you must get rid of anything that keeps you from Him.

Of course, you have to wonder why homosexuality is considered a sin at all to begin with. Why does homosexuality separate one from being closer to god but heterosexuality does not? They're essentially the same thing, except gays choose same sex partners over opposite sex partners.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation not amusement that is why homosexual sex is a sin, Just as hetrosexual sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin. this is why the use of birth control is wrong.

Of course, you have to wonder why homosexuality is considered a sin at all to begin with.

My pet theory is that back when Juadaism (the root of both Christianity and Islam) was being formed trhousands of years ago (probably before Literalists in Chrisitanity believe the universe was created), it was advantageous for a community to condone only heterosexuality (along with lifelong marriage and monogomy and other basic traditional values) in order to create a stable environment for people to make as many children as possible. We call that today the family. If one city had more babies than another, then they could have more soldiers or workers or whatever. Overpopulation was never a concern back then.

Naturally, homosexuality would be frowned upon because it didn't make any babies. (Nowadays, that's a little different...) These views easily continued into Judaism's predecessors.

Of course someone will ask me about how monogomy would advantageous for that, well my only answer is just look at the world around you today. Polygamy has been dead for a long time (except for Mormons who dug it from its grave for a little while:confused:).

I really don't know; that's just my idea. If you can guess my beliefs on religion from the fact that I didn't reference the divine whatsoever in my post, than I'm very proud :D of your inductive reasoning skills.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation not amusement that is why homosexual sex is a sin, Just as hetrosexual sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin. this is why the use of birth control is wrong.

I... uh... Y'know what? Not even worth it. Have fun, find your own way, don't forget, we're all popes.

I... uh... Y'know what? Not even worth it. Have fun, find your own way, don't forget, we're all popes.

While I dont agree that we are all popes, I will have fun, and have found THE way. Thank you. If it wasnt worth it why did you even reply?

I... uh... Y'know what? Not even worth it. Have fun, find your own way, don't forget, we're all popes.

*pats Kbrookistan on the back*

Now now, you know not everyone feels that way...

While I dont agree that we are all popes, I will have fun, and have found THE way. Thank you. If it wasnt worth it why did you even reply?

No, no… you may not have fun. You said it yourself: it's sinful.

No, I didnt say I couldnt have fun, sexual or otherwise. I just stated that sex without being open to life (procreation) is wrong.

But I’m wondering if a religious homosexual isn’t putting himself in a kind of Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22) situation concerning his belief?

How is that a Catch-22, exactly?

No, no… you may not have fun. You said it yourself: it's sinful.

No, I never said I couldnt have fun, sexual or otherwise. I did say that sex without being open to life (procreation) is wrong.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation not amusement that is why homosexual sex is a sin, Just as hetrosexual sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin. this is why the use of birth control is wrong.

I use many things for multiple instead of just their primary purpose. I call that being resourceful, inventive, efficient and economical.

Why does your God call it a sin ?

A few religions put aside, As long as those religions can't accept women as equals then they certainly won't consider the "deviants" as they would describe them. Sexuality, race and gender have nothing to do with how good you believe, on the contrary people confronted with segregation will be stronger in their faith because they need to believe that someone "there" cares for them.

Islamite wtf?!? Is someone making up words again, the proper term is 'Muslim' nub.

All I have to add to this is that I seem to remember that in Turkey you're only considered gay if you take it up the arse, but not the other way round.

... I'm suspecting a "Peripherial Device" has been attached for ease of docking manuvers.

I find it curious that you find lesbianism a matter for joking, but "gay sex" more widely a sin. Isn't that contradictory? Or sexist, or both?

The primary purpose of sex is procreation not amusement that is why homosexual sex is a sin, Just as hetrosexual sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin. this is why the use of birth control is wrong.

Grasshopper, you must use both legs for jumping.

No, I never said I couldnt have fun, sexual or otherwise. I did say that sex without being open to life (procreation) is wrong.

Really?

The primary purpose of sex is procreation not amusement that is why homosexual sex is a sin, Just as hetrosexual sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin. this is why the use of birth control is wrong.

"Meaning to" is not the same as "being open to."

In your first post to the thread, you ruled out several (to me, quite legitimate reasons for liaisons) in favour of "meaning to create life."

I think what you have done is a false dualism in the first post, except that one side of the dualism is actually several things which you assert are not individually justification for sex ... yet you also don't allow their combination. I'll explain: together, "amusement," "fun" and "emotional bonding" may constitute reason enough for sex which is not sin. You do not allow for that, but rather set one or several of those reasons against your one reason.

This is very poor reasoning, since you essentially put seven* possible cases against one clearly defined one ("homosexuality is not sinful.") I dub that the "thousand-and-one nights defence."

Not hopping at all is also an option. Or if you like cars, you might find your opinions less critically examined in threads about cars.

*(1)Gay is amusing. (2) Gay is fun. (3) Gay is emotional bonding. (4) Gay is 1 & 2. (5) Gay is 1 & 3 (6) Gay is 2 & 3 (7) Gay is amusing, fun, and a form of emotional bonding.

No, I never said I couldnt have fun, sexual or otherwise. I did say that sex without being open to life (procreation) is wrong.

Gosh, what is wrong with you, don't you think a guy is entitled not to have a little Timmy every time he tumbles a girl?

Gosh, what is wrong with you, don't you think a guy is entitled not to have a little Timmy every time he tumbles a girl?

In the unlikely event that my more sound refutation is not accepted, I second this. Sex was not "intended by God" to be only for conception, or else it would be 100% reliable: one bonk, one baby.

I find it curious that you find lesbianism a matter for joking, but "gay sex" more widely a sin. Isn't that contradictory? Or sexist, or both?
no, it's just humor, told in the spirit of harmless fun. yes, I tell Religious jokes as well as Ethnic jokes (including those poking fun at Christians as well as Japanese). it's all in the spirit of fun and not hurt. If you were in someway offended by my post, I do humbly apologize.

and also no, I don't seperate Lesbian and Gay Sex. both I consider sins, but as I said, I keep my feelings and opinions to the act and not the person.

Why was homosexual colored in pink? Is pink related to homosexuality in some way?

Really?



"Meaning to" is not the same as "being open to."

In your first post to the thread, you ruled out several (to me, quite legitimate reasons for liaisons) in favour of "meaning to create life."

I think what you have done is a false dualism in the first post, except that one side of the dualism is actually several things which you assert are not individually justification for sex ... yet you also don't allow their combination. I'll explain: together, "amusement," "fun" and "emotional bonding" may constitute reason enough for sex which is not sin. You do not allow for that, but rather set one or several of those reasons against your one reason.

This is very poor reasoning, since you essentially put seven* possible cases against one clearly defined one ("homosexuality is not sinful.") I dub that the "thousand-and-one nights defence."

Not hopping at all is also an option. Or if you like cars, you might find your opinions less critically examined in threads about cars.

*(1)Gay is amusing. (2) Gay is fun. (3) Gay is emotional bonding. (4) Gay is 1 & 2. (5) Gay is 1 & 3 (6) Gay is 2 & 3 (7) Gay is amusing, fun, and a form of emotional bonding.

You werent that critical in your examination. The key words in my first statement were, "just" and "also". stop reading with a biased mind. MY statements have always included both bonding and procreation, and have not precluded bonding,fun,etc.. from being part of the sexual act. It is also just your opinion that a combination of above reasons allows for sex that is not sinful. MY position is that procreation must be included.

In the unlikely event that my more sound refutation is not accepted, I second this. Sex was not "intended by God" to be only for conception, or else it would be 100% reliable: one bonk, one baby.

Once again your bias blinds your ability to look at what I said. If you are going to refute my position please be honest about my post. I said the primary purpose of sex was conception but also included bonding, fun, love etc.. I like how you put quotation marks around "intended by God" while you may infer that from what I wrote, that statement was never in my post. Neither was the word "ONLY" perhaps you could criticaly examine my post again.

If the primary purpose of sex is not conception, then what is it?

Once again your bias blinds your ability to look at what I said. If you are going to refute my position please be honest about my post. I said the primary purpose of sex was conception but also included bonding, fun, love etc.. I like how you put quotation marks around "intended by God" while you may infer that from what I wrote, that statement was never in my post. Neither was the word "ONLY" perhaps you could criticaly examine my post again.

If the primary purpose of sex is not conception, then what is it?

I'm a Christian, and I'm going to argue about this with you for a bit. For starters, let's have a look at your old post.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation not amusement that is why homosexual sex is a sin, Just as hetrosexual sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin. this is why the use of birth control is wrong.

The key and most important point in here is "Just [sic] as hetrosexual [sic] sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin." You have said yourself that sex for a purpose not creating life is a sin. This is a rather absolute position to be taking, is it not? Especially now that you are trying to say that you didn't say it.

God gave us sex as a gift. It's something that (I am told) can be mind blowingly awesome, but that can also cause a lot of damage. It's simply a gift for us to enjoy, and something that can be used to pass on the gift of life. There is nothing wrong with doing things just to enjoy them, and sex is one of these things.

I personally don't have any desire for sex, is that a sin? Anything can become sinful if it consumes us totally, while there is nothing wrong with enjoying yourself occasionally. Alcohol could be seen as serving no useful purpose, being drunk just for enjoyment, so should drinking that be a sin?

Finally, who are you to judge people for such actions? If they are Christian, then Romans 8:1 is a very relevant verse:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

Also relevant would be Matthew 7:1-2, and there's another one which I can't remember.

In summary, why would God give us something enjoyable if He didn't expect us to enjoy it, and who are you to judge and condemn others? (And who am I to judge you, for that matter)

[QUOTE=UNIverseVERSE;13055435]I'm a Christian, and I'm going to argue about this with you for a bit. For starters, let's have a look at your old post.



The key and most important point in here is "Just [sic] as hetrosexual [sic] sex just for amusement, fun or emotional bonding with out also meaning to create life is a sin." You have said yourself that sex for a purpose not creating life is a sin. This is a rather absolute position to be taking, is it not? Especially now that you are trying to say that you didn't say it.

God gave us sex as a gift. It's something that (I am told) can be mind blowingly awesome, but that can also cause a lot of damage. It's simply a gift for us to enjoy, and something that can be used to pass on the gift of life. There is nothing wrong with doing things just to enjoy them, and sex is one of these things.

I personally don't have any desire for sex, is that a sin? Anything can become sinful if it consumes us totally, while there is nothing wrong with enjoying yourself occasionally. Alcohol could be seen as serving no useful purpose, being drunk just for enjoyment, so should drinking that be a sin?

Finally, who are you to judge people for such actions? If they are Christian, then Romans 8:1 is a very relevant verse:



Also relevant would be Matthew 7:1-2, and there's another one which I can't remember.

In summary, why would God give us something enjoyable if He didn't expect us to enjoy it, and who are you to judge and condemn others? (And who am I to judge you, for that matter)[/QU

look at the post. I state that to seperate the pleasurable from the procreative is wrong or sinful. While it is good and fine to enjoy sex, pleasure cannot be the primary reason. This is why using contraception is wrong. The person contracepting is delibretly blocking conception from happening this is wrong. Of course God expects us to enjoy, but not misuse it. I never judged anyone, I simply stated that sex without being open to life is sinful

He who is without sin cast the first stone.*Exits confessional, throws a stone and sees someone fall dead, and goes back into confessional and says, "Being a Catholic is great."*

While I dont agree that we are all popes, I will have fun, and have found THE way. Thank you. If it wasnt worth it why did you even reply?

Discordianisim (http://principiadiscordia.com). And really, there's no such thing as one true way.

I think the Spartans were the best gays.

They were like, "Sure, we like to have sex with men. We also like to KILL men, too."

...Islamite? Seriously? Havn't heard that one before. Oh well, at least they didn't say "Mohammedian". Or "Musulman".

Once again your bias blinds your ability to look at what I said. If you are going to refute my position please be honest about my post. I said the primary purpose of sex was conception but also included bonding, fun, love etc.. I like how you put quotation marks around "intended by God" while you may infer that from what I wrote, that statement was never in my post. Neither was the word "ONLY" perhaps you could criticaly examine my post again.

If the primary purpose of sex is not conception, then what is it?

I do not concede that there is a "primary purpose of sex." "Purpose" could mean "function A which is served by feature B, not as well served by any other feature, and the primary result of the existence of B." For instance, walking without legs is far less practical than walking with legs, no other use of the legs is comparable to the survival and satisfaction role of walking, therefore we can say "the primary purpose of legs is for walking."

You can't make such a judgement about sex, because sex is not a material thing, a feature which can be related to a function ... it is itself a function.

I suspect that when you say "primary purpose" that you are speaking not from observation or from rational understanding at all, but from an belief that God wants this or wants that, confounded with fear of sin and a degree of anxiety and self-doubt which I would call very shoddy work on God's part in making his expectations clear. Sorry, but I can't help with that.

That you go on from such a weak base to prescribe right and wrong behaviour for others (that's what you mean by 'sin' isn't it?) is frankly ridiculous.

If you want to put some more flesh on the skeleton of moralism which is 'your position' I'll discuss it some more.

EDIT: Now I see post # 77, your reply to UnivV, and there is indeed more flesh to your position. I'll reply if UV doesn't.
EDIT(2): Scratch that. UNIvV is making much more sense than I am.

I think the Spartans were the best gays.

They were like, "Sure, we like to have sex with men. We also like to KILL men, too."

soooooo Spartans have sex with dead men? :p :D :D

Man the women in Greece really had it bad. Ignored on both sides of the spectrum.

I do not concede that there is a "primary purpose of sex." "Purpose" could mean "function A which is served by feature B, not as well served by any other feature, and the primary result of the existence of B." For instance, walking without legs is far less practical than walking with legs, no other use of the legs is comparable to the survival and satisfaction role of walking, therefore we can say "the primary purpose of legs is for walking."

You can't make such a judgement about sex, because sex is not a material thing, a feature which can be related to a function ... it is itself a function.

I suspect that when you say "primary purpose" that you are speaking not from observation or from rational understanding at all, but from an belief that God wants this or wants that, confounded with fear of sin and a degree of anxiety and self-doubt which I would call very shoddy work on God's part in making his expectations clear. Sorry, but I can't help with that.

That you go on from such a weak base to prescribe right and wrong behaviour for others (that's what you mean by 'sin' isn't it?) is frankly ridiculous.

If you want to put some more flesh on the skeleton of moralism which is 'your position' I'll discuss it some more.

EDIT: Now I see post # 77, your reply to UnivV, and there is indeed more flesh to your position. I'll reply if UV doesn't.
EDIT(2): Scratch that. UNIvV is making much more sense than I am.

You are pretty utilitarian about sex! Defacating and urinating are functions. I do not include sex as a function. Sex is an act between to people or animals, either way its purpose is procreation. Without it we would cease to exist, hence its purpose is to reproduce. even if you label it a function it still has purpose. Defacating and urinating purpose is to remove waste. Correct? Just as the purpose of sex is to reproduce.

no, it's just humor, told in the spirit of harmless fun. yes, I tell Religious jokes as well as Ethnic jokes (including those poking fun at Christians as well as Japanese). it's all in the spirit of fun and not hurt. If you were in someway offended by my post, I do humbly apologize.

I'm not offended, and even if I was, there would be no need to apologize since you were quite clearly joking.

I just find it interesting, in a sort of anthropological way. I don't find fault with you for not joking about gay guys, but it is interesting.

and also no, I don't seperate Lesbian and Gay Sex. both I consider sins, but as I said, I keep my feelings and opinions to the act and not the person.

Is it just that I know you better than I know CrusaderStates, or is it really just the qualification following "sins" which makes your statement reasonable, and theirs offensive?

Personally, I don't find the concept of "sin" useful at all. But I might be using it without realizing such, since I see categories of behaviour which I find wrong and would oppose. There isn't enough time and we never have enough knowledge to judge every action by its consequences, so we generalize.

Also, "sin" is a very freighted word, which seems to close down debate. When people try to avoid using that word, they often say "it is wrong" and suddenly they are opened up to the question "why is it wrong?" or "what harm does it do?" "Sin" seems to have a hidden meaning, something like "I don't have to explain why, it's not my decision what is a sin, sin is sin and that's that."

Oh, and I found Agerias' Spartan joke pretty funny, too! :)

...Islamite? Seriously? Havn't heard that one before. ...

Islamite. It is a savoury sandwich spread, made from yeast but not as a by-product of alcohol production like the heathen Marmite or Vegemite. And it's safe with condoms ...

I think the Spartans were the best gays.

They were like, "Sure, we like to have sex with men. We also like to KILL men, too."
Lol, if your talking about Greek culture they weren't really gay persay (well some would have been of course), it was more that it was seen as normal for Greek males growing up to have homo erotic relationships with older 'tutor' men, the same way they did they women also.

Homosexuals who associate themselves with bigoted religions only degrade themselves.

...Islamite? Seriously? Havn't heard that one before. Oh well, at least they didn't say "Mohammedian". Or "Musulman".

Better than the word "Islamo-fascist".

Seriously, I am so sick of the people who try to pick and choose from the Bible. Progressive Christians? What bullshit. You can either take it or leave it. You can believe in heaven and angels and God's love and all that trippy shit, but you also have to take the homophobic, sexist, homicidal, views also expressed by the Bible.

Homosexuals who associate themselves with bigoted religions only degrade themselves.

Religions which associate themselves with oppressed minorities actually help to fight bigotry.

Call Christianity or Islam "bigoted religions" and you get a slap. We don't use the big brush here.

Religions which associate themselves with oppressed minorities actually help to fight bigotry.

Call Christianity or Islam "bigoted religions" and you get a slap. We don't use the big brush here.

Religion is a choice, therefore I don't think it deserves to be included in the discrimination protection blanket. I am against racism, sexism, homophobia, and discrimination against the disabled. I do not think anyone deserves protection from religious discrimination, that goes for on forums or in real life.

Religions which associate themselves with oppressed minorities actually help to fight bigotry.

Call Christianity or Islam "bigoted religions" and you get a slap. We don't use the big brush here.
They are most definitely bigoted, for evidence of this read the holy texts. Muhammad the pedophile, Yahweh the genocidal racist, etc...

They are most definitely bigoted, for evidence of this read the holy texts. Muhammad the pedophile, Yahweh the genocidal racist, etc...

Examine your posts of this session. Look at how you cut "the Greeks" all that slack for be pedo rapists ... and here you are condemning all the followers for what is in their old books.

That's "the sins of the father will be visited on the sons" or some other vengeance-is-us crap you would despise if it came in the cloak of a cleric ...

Religions which associate themselves with oppressed minorities actually help to fight bigotry.

Call Christianity or Islam "bigoted religions" and you get a slap. We don't use the big brush here.
Religion is a choice, therefore I don't think it deserves to be included in the discrimination protection blanket. I am against racism, sexism, homophobia, and discrimination against the disabled. I do not think anyone deserves protection from religious discrimination, that goes for on forums or in real life.

Very nice. You are obviously a nice person who needs to blow off some steam.

"Religion is a choice." That's a thread, right there.
"Is discrimination justified in matters of choice?" There's another.

Keep your powder dry, tend the pitch and learn the ropes. You've got good stuff there, but putting it all in the field at once is like opening a zoo by bringing in fifty wild animals from the corners of the globe and putting them all in the same paddock.

Sure you can. At the basic tenets of religions is doing good for others selflessly. Just being gay doesn't necessarily mean you can't be a good person in your deeds.

Religion is a choice, therefore I don't think it deserves to be included in the discrimination protection blanket. I am against racism, sexism, homophobia, and discrimination against the disabled. I do not think anyone deserves protection from religious discrimination, that goes for on forums or in real life.
Being a practitioner of Deeper Lutheranism, I disagree. We Deeper Lutherans believe that it is God who chooses us, not us who choose God. Of course, this is highly debatable, and depends on your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

Better than the word "Islamo-fascist".

Seriously, I am so sick of the people who try to pick and choose from the Bible. Progressive Christians? What bullshit. You can either take it or leave it. You can believe in heaven and angels and God's love and all that trippy shit, but you also have to take the homophobic, sexist, homicidal, views also expressed by the Bible.

...um, why?

I mean, it sort of sounds as if you think the Bible only exists in one form (it doesn't, not by a long shot), that all of the books of the Bible are held to be equally accurate and holy by all sects of Christianity (they're not), that there has been no historical conflict over which texts should be included or how to interpret those texts (hahaha), that said conflicts were settled by some sort of visit from God himself rather than by a lot of mortal, fallible humans with plenty of selfish motivations wrangling it out (nope!), and that all translations are equal and perfect (not so much). From the very first days of Christianity, people were deciding what they wanted to believe. How is it somehow unreasonable for modern Christians to do likewise?

Deeper Lutherans

Out of curiosity: What is a "Deeper Lutheran?

I grew up with Missouri Synod Lutherans. And knew some Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. Have never heard of "Deeper Lutherans" before.

Out of curiosity: What is a "Deeper Lutheran?

I grew up with Missouri Synod Lutherans. And knew some Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. Have never heard of "Deeper Lutherans" before.
Well...

What does it mean to you?

Only by answering this certainty can I tell you what Deeper Lutheranism is.

Well...

What does it mean to you?

Only by answering this certainty can I tell you what Deeper Lutheranism is.


Is "Deeper Lutheranism" an actual group, or are you just a Lutheran who exalts yourself?

And yes, I spent a good part of my early adolescence in a Luthernan church, I am familiar with their beliefs in predestination. If you are God's chosen then who discriminates against you on Earth should not matter to you.

Well...

What does it mean to you?

Only by answering this certainty can I tell you what Deeper Lutheranism is.

Be careful. When we run out of babies around here, we are quite happy to put a Yoda on the spit.

Mmmm. Yoda! With Jar-jar sauce!

look at the post. I state that to seperate [sic]the pleasurable from the procreative is wrong or sinful. While it is good and fine to enjoy sex, pleasure cannot be the primary reason. This is why using contraception is wrong. The person contracepting [sic] is delibretly [sic] blocking conception from happening this is wrong. Of course God expects us to enjoy, but not misuse it. I never judged anyone, I simply stated that sex without being open to life is sinful

I read the post. I read what you were saying, and I said that I considered your point wrong. Now then.

Why can pleasure not be the primary reason for doing something? Let's develop an analogy here. A firearm is a tool that can be used for a variety of purposes, to a variety of ends. Firing is the function of the firearm. Your position basically says that shooting a gun (having sex) without trying to hunt for dinner (aiming to procreate), but only for recreational target shooting (pleasure) is sinful. Do you now realize how ridiculous that is? One of the first recorded miracles of Jesus is turning water into wine at a wedding. Is that the actions of a God who wants people to abstain from pleasure? Please tell me what useful purpose is served by turning water into wine.

God gave sex to humans as a gift, to be enjoyed. Not as something that is merely a duty, but as something that can be enjoyed and done for pleasure. God isn't some dude sitting up in the sky, watching carefully for when you slip up so that he can thunderbolt you. He's an awesome person who loved us so much he sent us his only son (John 3:16). Why would he deny us something that was given to us to enjoy? Enjoy within sensible limits, of course, but enjoy nonetheless.

Free Socialist Allies

So many things wrong with what you're been saying. I should probably write out a whole post in response, but this will do for now. Firstly, people shouldn't be protected from discrimination due to choices. Why? What conceivable reason could you have for that? Why should I be discriminated against because of a single choice of mine? That's a total infringement on my rights. Just because I have made a choice, does not mean that I should be punished for it. Would you reckon that pregnant women can be discriminated against in the workplace? After all, it was their choice, wasn't it?

Secondly, bigoted religions. You're actually seriously saying that you prefer people to be bigoted and fundamentalist, and you hate those who aren't? You'd better think of a pretty good reason to explain that, or I'm going to be wielding the ignore cannon.

Nobel Hobos

Sorry to keep the thread going ;). Thanks for the compliments however.

Please tell me what useful purpose is served by turning water into wine.
any good anti-drinking Baptist will tell you that the "wine" back in the day wasn't the same as a strong drink that would intoxicate you but was really just fermented grape juice used because water in the area was dirty, so the purpose would be, so people don't get sick.

any good anti-drinking Baptist will tell you that the "wine" back in the day wasn't the same as a strong drink that would intoxicate you but was really just fermented grape juice used because water in the area was dirty, so the purpose would be, so people don't get sick.

Ssh, I'm trying to prove his point impossible.

Anyway, if the only reason for it had been to prevent people getting sick, why not purify the water?

Ssh, I'm trying to prove his point impossible.

Anyway, if the only reason for it had been to prevent people getting sick, why not purify the water?

I think that's how they did it, they would put the alcohol from the fermented juice into water to make it like less germy.....

I am not 100% sure that the "good Baptist preachers" are right about it anyway though, haven't finished researching.

I think that's how they did it, they would put the alcohol from the fermented juice into water to make it like less germy.....

I am not 100% sure that the "good Baptist preachers" are right about it anyway though, haven't finished researching.

Possibly you misunderstood me there - if you're dealing with miracles, why wouldn't Jesus have just rendered the water pure? The fact that it was turned into wine (and the best wine at that) instead, seems suggestive.

Well I was raised Southern Baptist and so every church I went to before learning to think on my own seemed to share the same fear.Namely Somehow,Somewhere, Someone right now,just might,POSSIBLY,be doing Something that perhaps,could be enjoyable,AND it is therefore the biggest blight on the face of the Earth.It is also your job to track these people down and destroy every bit of pleasure or fun they could have.(When I asked if instead of destroying temptation we should instead resist it and therefore make ourselves stronger spiritually,I was told we are an ARMY and therefore WE must seek out and DESTROY anything in the world that didn't agree with our worldview. So from personal experience I can tell you the only difference between Bin Laden's Al Quaeda and Pat Robertson's 700 Club or the thousands of Fundamentalist groups around the country is only Bin Laden's convinced his people to blow themselves up so far.)

In the Bible GOD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for Homosexuality so no you can't be a Christian and be Homosexual.

In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church performed same sex marriages in the church so yes you can be Homosexual and Christian.(Since all modern Christian sects derive from Catholicism and the Pope's decisions are never wrong.The edict that says "As on Earth so it shall be in Heaven" prevents anything he says or does from being wrong.)

I quit going to church because I realised that the "Perfect,Ineffable Being" was a Homophobe.I'm not sure I can worship a being I'm morally superior too.

Possibly you misunderstood me there - if you're dealing with miracles, why wouldn't Jesus have just rendered the water pure? The fact that it was turned into wine (and the best wine at that) instead, seems suggestive.

ah, but it's hard without knowing the original verbage and translation to know what they actually meant by "wine" they could have just meant purified water.

There are a lot of translational issues when you go from Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to English, especially if you don't understand the culture of the time, things that meant one thing then mean another thing now and vice versa.

any good anti-drinking Baptist will tell you that the "wine" back in the day wasn't the same as a strong drink that would intoxicate you but was really just fermented grape juice used because water in the area was dirty, so the purpose would be, so people don't get sick.

Actually - the version I get round here is that the 'wine' of the miracles (etc) is either vinegar or normal grape juice.

Doesn't really stand up under examination, of course...

Actually - the version I get round here is that the 'wine' of the miracles (etc) is either vinegar or normal grape juice.

Doesn't really stand up under examination, of course...

What?!

Who the hell DRINKS vinegar?!

any good anti-drinking Baptist will tell you that the "wine" back in the day wasn't the same as a strong drink that would intoxicate you but was really just fermented grape juice used because water in the area was dirty, so the purpose would be, so people don't get sick.

are there many bible verses talking about the sinfulness of drinking wine?

isnt it tradition to drink wine at passover?

are there many bible verses talking about the sinfulness of drinking wine?

isnt it tradition to drink wine at passover?

There are verses that talk about the sinfullness of getting hammered... wine or any other drink is bad in excess, sayeth the scripture.

Nazarites were forbidden from eating or drinking any grape products... wine, vinegar, grapejuice, pbj - all would be equally forbidden.

Throughout the Hebrew texts, it is pretty unarguable - the use of the word 'wine' is one of the few accurate bits of tranlation. 'yayin' is translated as wine... it is connected with 'vineyards', with making a lot of noise (which could be a drunken-ness reference), and - most tellingly - with the drunken-ness of Noah.

Clearly - the 'yayin' of the Hebrew scripture is wine, as we would understand it.

Most importantly perhaps - 'wine' is one of two main ceremonial cornerstones... wine and bread. The Last Supper text in the Greek scripture doesn't explicitly claim that the 'fruit of the vine' is wine.... it could be just grapejuice... but the ceremonial significance of the Last Supper makes it pretty sure that Jesus blessed bread and real-honest-to-god wine.

[...] But then he makes no effort to flaunt his homosexuality or make it the only concentration of his life. He pretty much does like and looks like every other man in the place. None of the men make a deal about their sex lives. They talk about work, cars, sports, and all the normal things. Sex just never comes up in normal conversation.


{eye roll} @ "flaunting it" and "cars, sports, and other normal things." So many preconceptions to challenge, so little time. How do gay people 'flaunt' their sexuality? By talking about sex, or talking with a lisp, or what? Is it any different from how straight people flaunt their sexuality, with their public displays and their holding hands and their talking about straight sex and their pictures of their straight husbands/wives on their desks? And if you don't consider any of those things to be "straight flaunting," then if becomes pretty clear that by "flaunting" you mean "living freely and out in the open, like straight people do, but being gay," and the problem isn't with "gay people flaunting it" so much as with "gay people existing."

As for this notion of 'cars and sports and work' being "normal" interests or topics of discussion, that's sexist, and worse, it's unthinkingly so. It just subscribes to assumptions about what 'real men' are interested in without questioning where those assumptions come from, or why. Does it follow that it's "abnormal" for women to be interested in sports, because it's somehow the exclusive domain of 'real, normal men?' Prescribed gender roles-- that is, telling men and women how to be men and women, and what to be interested in as men and women, rather than letting them decide for themselves and accepting that in areas as subjective as personal interests, there is no "normal"-- doesn't serve any good purpose; all it does is unnecessarily marginalise some people as 'abnormal' men or women. The idea that 'cars and sports' make for "normal male interests" only serve chaunvinistic men who are interested in cars and sports, and who want everyone else to be like them, so they push on everyone else that their interests are the "normal" ones so everyone afraid of being marginalised will conform.

I'm not saying there aren't real differences between males and females. But as far as gender roles go-- like "normal" interests and attitudes-- a lot of that stuff is just crap that's been made up by men and socially reinforced for ages in order to keep women 'in their place' by pressuring them to behave as fickle, superficial, emotional basket cases so that they'd be weak and controllable. If you're going to make authoritative statements about gender you should think more critically about it instead of parroting stereotypes.

there are a lot of verses against being drunk and any "good Baptist preacher" will tell you that nobody drinks without getting some sort of intoxication and also that the word 'wine' means grape juice or purified water and not alcohol necessarily.


Which is why I am not a Free Will Baptist anymore.

are there many bible verses talking about the sinfulness of drinking wine?

isnt it tradition to drink wine at passover?

there are a lot of verses against being drunk and any "good Baptist preacher" will tell you that nobody drinks without getting some sort of intoxication and also that the word 'wine' means grape juice or purified water and not alcohol necessarily.

because you want to drink?

Or... more likely because churches that feel comfortable just making stuff up, are likely to lose people eventually.

Which is why I am not a Free Will Baptist anymore.

because you want to drink?

because you want to drink?

No because they base their doctrine on misreadings of the Bible. It is clearly shown to be okay to intake wine, so long to not be intoxicated by it, because you cannot control yourself as a believer if you are under the influence. I know that God prohibits many things based on health reasons, such as over eating, or drunkardness, so its assumable that he would be for health things. Its been proven that drinking a glass of wine a day helps out the cardiovascular system in some ways.

how do you know they are misreading it if you don't know the original languages yourself?

just curious.

You can get concordances to help with the language. Also, you can look at the culture of the people in question, which were the Jews. If drinking wine was against God, then they wouldn't be doing it, right?

No because they base their doctrine on misreadings of the Bible. It is clearly shown to be okay to intake wine, so long to not be intoxicated by it, because you cannot control yourself as a believer if you are under the influence. I know that God prohibits many things based on health reasons, such as over eating, or drunkardness, so its assumable that he would be for health things. Its been proven that drinking a glass of wine a day helps out the cardiovascular system in some ways.

how do you know they are misreading it if you don't know the original languages yourself?

just curious.

You can get concordances to help with the language. Also, you can look at the culture of the people in question, which were the Jews. If drinking wine was against God, then they wouldn't be doing it, right?

how do you know what they meant by the English word "wine" though?

I was going to read the whole thread, but when I always check the last page first to see if it has devolved into flaming yet, and I saw what looks like a controversy about the water into wine scene from the Bible, so....I'll just ask my question:

Has anyone defined yet the terms "good homosexual" and "nice Christian/Islamite"*?


(*Please note: the word is "Muslim.")

I was going to read the whole thread, but when I always check the last page first to see if it has devolved into flaming yet, and I saw what looks like a controversy about the water into wine scene from the Bible, so....I'll just ask my question:

Has anyone defined yet the terms "good homosexual" and "nice Christian/Islamite"*?


(*Please note: the word is "Muslim.")

no, I don't think we have even figured out why homosexual is in pink.....

no, I don't think we have even figured out why homosexual is in pink.....

Hahaha! Ah, ya got me. :D

:upyours:how do you know what they meant by the English word "wine" though?

Wine is wine. The end. Everyone wants to twist the Bible's words to match their view, and while there are going to be a few things lost in translation, it's generally the same. I've heard vegan Christians tell me that when Jesus ate "fish" in the Bible, he actually was eating seaweed, and the word fish was a translation error and Jesus was a vegan.

The only thing Christians find sinful about drinking is that it brings pleasure to some people. Any fundamentalist Christian, especially Baptists, will tell you that anything that brings pleasure is a sin.

:upyours:


Beginning a post with that is not the best of ideas.

Beginning a post with that is not the best of ideas.

I didn't even notice that until now. Seriously, I must have accidentally clicked it or something. I don't even put anything before my posts.

I think part of this problem is my goddamned laptop "mouse". I love my laptop but I hate the thing you use to move the cursor.

I didn't even notice that until now. Seriously, I must have accidentally clicked it or something. I don't even put anything before my posts.

I think part of this problem is my goddamned laptop "mouse". I love my laptop but I hate the thing you use to move the cursor.

If it's a touchpad, I recommend turning "tap to click" off and/or getting a USB mouse. That's what I've done for mine. :)

The word is Muslim, not Islamite.

Also, what is a good homosexual exactly?

i think he was just being politically correct..its ok to mock christians but if you mock your masters then your in trouble.

:upyours:
why does jolt even have that smiley? it's not very nice.

Wine is wine. The end. Everyone wants to twist the Bible's words to match their view, and while there are going to be a few things lost in translation, it's generally the same. I've heard vegan Christians tell me that when Jesus ate "fish" in the Bible, he actually was eating seaweed, and the word fish was a translation error and Jesus was a vegan.

The only thing Christians find sinful about drinking is that it brings pleasure to some people. Any fundamentalist Christian, especially Baptists, will tell you that anything that brings pleasure is a sin.

I don't think you understand the difficulty in translating between languages. Besides, I don't have a problem with drinking, I mean I used to, but I don't have a problem with other people drinking......what I mean is I don't really care, I was just playing devil's advocate for a bit, and then having an intellectual conversation with Zilam because it's often funny to watch him squirm.

-snip original post-

Can someone be homo and be a nice person, and also happen to be part of a religion? I suppose so.

Now, can they be a true pure Christian/Muslim whatever, down to the letter? Of course not. It'd be in direct contradiction of both religion's basic doctrines.

I didn't even notice that until now. Seriously, I must have accidentally clicked it or something. I don't even put anything before my posts.

I think part of this problem is my goddamned laptop "mouse". I love my laptop but I hate the thing you use to move the cursor.

I suggest editing your post to remove that smiley then.

Is "Deeper Lutheranism" an actual group, or are you just a Lutheran who exalts yourself?
We're an actual group, but we're very hard to find. You won't find us on wikipedia, or on google for that matter. We like to keep secret.

The word is Muslim, not Islamite.

Also, what is a good homosexual exactly?

I prefer Islamite. While my mother tongue is not English, it seems I can use it:

Is´lam`ite
n. 1. A Mohammedan.

Mohammedan
adj. & n.
Variant of Muhammadan.

Mu·ham·mad·an (m-hm-dn) also Mo·ham·med·an (m-)
adj.
1. Of or relating to Muhammad.
2. Offensive Of or relating to Islam; Muslim.
n. Offensive
A Muslim.

Source:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Islamite

My mother tongue is Dutch. In Dutch we use several words to describe muslims, "Islamiet" is one of them.

I thought I could use it and I checked it before I posted my words.

If I offended someone by using the word 'Islamite', I'm very sorry for that one.

That's a good question. I, too, wonder why Edwinasia highlighted those words in pink. Why don't we ask Edwinasia why this was done? Edwinasia, why did you do that?


Got some free time. ;)

Ok, in most churches and mosques they do not shout “Kill all gays”. At least not every week.

And besides the real killing, you can by instance, ruin someone social life as well, by excommunicating people.

And it happens. Here in Belgium, some Catholic gay priest was fired…

And I believe our holy (and former member of a Nazi club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI)) pope doesn’t like same gender sex at all.

In the mosques, you see the same stuff.

Recently a few gay people were killed (http://direland.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/irangay_teens.jpg) in Iran. They committed the enormous crime of…being gay.

About Catch 22…

"Catch-22 is a term coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, describing a paradox in a law, regulation or practice in which one is a victim regardless of the choice he makes[1]. In probability theory, it refers a situation similar to Heads I win, tails you lose. A familiar example of this circumstance occurs in the context of job searching. In moving from school to a career, one may encounter a Catch-22 where one cannot get a job without work experience, but one cannot gain experience without a job. Catch-22 situations are also sometimes called the chicken or the egg problems. The concept (and the book) was originally to be called Catch-18, until a novel called Mila 18 was published by Leon Uris during the final stages of Heller's work."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29

In my point of view, being gay and Muslim or Christian is a catch-22 situation.

You can be gay, but not a real or pure Christian or Muslim.

You can be Christian or Muslim, but you’ll suffer a hard time being gay at the same time…

I hope this is clearing it up, a little.

Btw, Catch-22 is a marvellous novel. If you can read: just do it. :)

Can you be a good homosexual and a nice Christian or Islamite?

But I’m wondering if a religious homosexual isn’t putting himself in a kind of Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22) situation concerning his belief?


According to Catholic upper-ups, you can be a good homosexual AND christian only if you refrain from sexual intercourses.

That's because the official stance of the Catholic church is "Sex isn't meant for pleasure, sex is meant for reproduction: pleasure is just a side-bonus thereof". Since homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction, homosexual intercourses are against Catholic principles.
Also, Catholics believe that sex is allowed only between people who are married - and a Catholic religious wedding, not just any wedding. Any other type of sexual intercourse is "adultery".

To sum it up, to be a good Catholic (independently of etero, homo, bi tendencies) you have to give up "sex for pleasure". Only "sex for reproduction" is allowed.

That's why I wonder: why should homosexuals WANT to be Catholic? (I could ask the same question about being homosexual and Protestant, Orthodox, Jew, Muslim etc but I don't know that much about these other religions.)

The thing is, one has to choose: it is impossible to claim to be a follower of some religion, yet persist in violating one of the "laws" this religion gives to its followers. Sorry, that's hypocrisy.

As a Christian whose two closest friends are a Christian gay and a Jewish lesbian, I'd just like to say, "screw you for associating me with the intolerant fundie nutjobs, you intolerant lefty nutjob." :rolleyes:

Ok, a little my own fault.

But…

Everybody is shouting about the position of gay people in church or mosque (certainly not behind!)…

I also talked about women…

Can you be a good homosexual and a nice Christian or Islamite?

To make things clear, I’m none of the above.

But I’m wondering if a religious homosexual isn’t putting himself in a kind of Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22) situation concerning his belief?

Be honest, dear gay-human, they hate you. The Bible and the Koran doesn’t love you at all.

And not only by the words from those scientific pious scriptures, no, you could also notice the hate by the words of many religious salesmen like priests and imans.

So I’m wondering how you practise your religion?

Do you ignore the gay-hate stuff? Or do you pretend being heterosexual in church or in the mosque and do you shout all together every week ‘kill all gays’?

Same goes for other undermenschen, like…women (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg).

Yes, I’m sorry girls and madams, your religions doesn’t like you as well.

How do you feel when they are talking male macho pig talk in church or mosque and talk dirty about *YOU*, the woman (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg)?

I've learned that I'm far, far less offended by honest religious conviction that leads to intolerance than in the kind of shitty, pointlessly inflammatory attitude you and some other people seem to have.

At least the religious have some kind of actual reason, however misguided, for making people miserable. What's your excuse?

According to Catholic upper-ups, you can be a good homosexual AND christian only if you refrain from sexual intercourses.

That's because the official stance of the Catholic church is "Sex isn't meant for pleasure, sex is meant for reproduction: pleasure is just a side-bonus thereof". Since homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction, homosexual intercourses are against Catholic principles.
Also, Catholics believe that sex is allowed only between people who are married - and a Catholic religious wedding, not just any wedding. Any other type of sexual intercourse is "adultery".

To sum it up, to be a good Catholic (independently of etero, homo, bi tendencies) you have to give up "sex for pleasure". Only "sex for reproduction" is allowed.

That's why I wonder: why should homosexuals WANT to be Catholic? (I could ask the same question about being homosexual and Protestant, Orthodox, Jew, Muslim etc but I don't know that much about these other religions.)

The thing is, one has to choose: it is impossible to claim to be a follower of some religion, yet persist in violating one of the "laws" this religion gives to its followers. Sorry, that's hypocrisy.

I am straight and I wouldn't want to be Catholic just because of that rule.

I've learned that I'm far, far less offended by honest religious conviction that leads to intolerance than in the kind of shitty, pointlessly inflammatory attitude you and some other people seem to have.

At least the religious have some kind of actual reason, however misguided, for making people miserable. What's your excuse?

Feeling guilty because your religion is excluding gay people and ill treating women or being gay and do not want to hear something 'bad' about homosexuality from your religion?

Sorry, I don't care about gay people, neither I do about Christians or Muslims.

I was just interested, how people feel that are INSIDE a club but KNOW that they are somehow excluded from that same club.

Umm I would like to ask, whats a good homosexual? I mean we can all define a good Christian, but by what acts is a good homosexual know?

Umm I would like to ask, whats a good homosexual? I mean we can all define a good Christian, but by what acts is a good homosexual know?

Please forgive me, English is not my mother tongue.

I can use such expression in my language.

The purpose of 'good' is here 'real', someone that is practising his homosexual life.

Please forgive me, English is not my mother tongue.

I can use such expression in my language.

The purpose of 'good' is here 'real', someone that is practising his homosexual life.

Ahhhhh then the answer is yes.

Try again with a non-biased poll. Idiot.

Got some free time. ;)See that, everyone? Edwinasia had some free time, and so Edwinasia decided to use colors. Aren't colors fun, Edwinasia?

See that, everyone? Edwinasia had some free time, and so Edwinasia decided to use colors. Aren't colors fun, Edwinasia?

While I appreciate the sentiment....dude, that had to have taken forever.

Anyone can be "good" and/or "nice" in any context.

Anyone can also be a "real" whatever in any context. Depending on that context, they can also be a "real" hypocrite, liar, and/or victim.

Why someone would want to join a group that is trying to exclude them is a totally different question.

What the hell is a "good" homosexual?

What the hell is a "good" homosexual?

That is explained a few posts back. The OP is not a native speaker.

Can you be a good homosexual and a nice Christian or Islamite?
What's the purpose of the pink font. Do all homosexuals love pink. Are they all effeminate (not even counting the lesbians).

To make things clear, I’m none of the above.
Yes, wouldn't want to mistake you for a dirty, filthy homosexual or a hate filled, lynch happy, bigoted Christian.

But I’m wondering if a religious homosexual isn’t putting himself in a kind of Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22) situation concerning his belief?
Can you perhaps not use pink every time you talk about a gay person?? That's freaking offensive. And no, they don't

Be honest, dear gay-human, they hate you. The Bible and the Koran doesn’t love you at all.
*sigh* Why don't you read the Bible instead of pulling things out of your ass. The Bible doesn't say that unless you make it a point to twist the message around.

And not only by the words from those scientific pious scriptures, no, you could also notice the hate by the words of many religious salesmen like priests and imans.
The ones that don't follow Biblical teachings maybe.

So I’m wondering how you practise your religion?
The same way everyone else does.

Do you ignore the gay-hate stuff? Or do you pretend being heterosexual in church or in the mosque and do you shout all together every week ‘kill all gays’?
Wow, now you've gone from trolling to flame baiting.

Same goes for other undermenschen, like…women (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg).
The hell.

Yes, I’m sorry girls and madams, your religions doesn’t like you as well.
Really? And can you quite scripture to back it up. And not just pick and choose the pieces that give the impression you are ring.

How do you feel when they are talking male macho pig talk in church or mosque and talk dirty about *YOU*, the woman (http://www.addemar.be/files/cust_289/images/hoesjes/1126_WEB+Wendy-Woman_in_love.jpg)?[/QUOTE]
Um, they don't. And stop flame baiting.

That is explained a few posts back. The OP is not a native speaker.

So what's the OP's excuse for coloring the word "homosexual" all pink and pretty? Anyone notice he didn't do that to the word "woman?" If any word should be colored pink, shouldn't "woman" be colored pink, seeing as how pink is associated with girls? Or is stereotyping homosexuals okay?

So what's the OP's excuse for coloring the word "homosexual" all pink and pretty? Anyone notice he didn't do that to the word "woman?" If any word should be colored pink, shouldn't "woman" be colored pink, seeing as how pink is associated with girls? Or is stereotyping homosexuals okay?

I think we can draw two lessons from the OP: (1) that writing in a language not your own can cause unintended problems, and (2) that offensive stereotypes so infest modern cultures that they find their way even into a post that claims to be railing against such bigotry.

What I can't figure out from the OP is what Edwinisia's point is. Is he actually trying to defend the rights of gays and women? Or is he just trying to flamebait religious people and using gays and women for that?

So what's the OP's excuse for coloring the word "homosexual" all pink and pretty? Anyone notice he didn't do that to the word "woman?" If any word should be colored pink, shouldn't "woman" be colored pink, seeing as how pink is associated with girls? Or is stereotyping homosexuals okay?

Apparently it is okay if you do it to Christians at the same time.

I love these threads. They tell you a lot about the built in assumptions of the poster.

Feeling guilty because your religion is excluding gay people and ill treating women or being gay and do not want to hear something 'bad' about homosexuality from your religion?

Sorry, I don't care about gay people, neither I do about Christians or Muslims.

I was just interested, how people feel that are INSIDE a club but KNOW that they are somehow excluded from that same club.

Way to be bigoted, my dear sir. Read some of my earlier posts in this thread.