NationStates Jolt Archive

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

well for one there's gay porn sites so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say homosexuals exist. now if you want to say that those aren't actually two males fellating one another, then you're free to debate that.

woooo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI)

Huh? It's talking about the ACT of homosexuality (Gay sex) not about BEING homosexual. And just to clear everything up, God said that all sins are equal, so gay sex is just as bad as adultry. Or any other sin.

The Bible is a self-contradictory collection of dozens of different religious texts written by old men who treated women as property and committed genocide when it suited them.

Furthermore, Jesus, the only one who really matters, is curiously silent on the issue of homosexuality. Paul can take his books and shove them up his ass.

Here is a short and simple essay on how many Christians reconcile the two:

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

Google is your friend.

I wouldn't trust the Bible as far as I could throw it, let alone take one passage on homosexuality as fact.

Huh? It's talking about the ACT of homosexuality (Gay sex) not about BEING homosexual. And just to clear everything up, God said that all sins are equal, so gay sex is just as bad as adultry. Or any other sin.

In fact, considering homosexuality is mentioned like 5 times in the bible and adultery is one of the ten commandments, one could argue the latter is worse.

woooo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI)

Oh Jed, please be my president! :'(

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

i meant this for christians not atheistic know it alls

Because not all Christians follow the bible exactly. Duh.

How can Christians believe in Homosexuality?

Because its real?

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Ah, obviously you missed the memo where christians are supposed to ignore all the parts of the bible that were written for an audience thousands of years ago...
i.e. all of it.

i meant this for christians not atheistic know it alls
If it wasn't for those pesky kids!

i meant this for christians not atheistic know it alls

Ah, you want answers from people who don't know what they're talking about. :p

In fact, considering homosexuality is mentioned like 5 times in the bible and adultery is one of the ten commandments, one could argue the latter is worse.
...

This is embaressing. You're right I'm wrong. Happy? *sob* So mean...

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

I guess they deal it the same way as they deal with the issue of christian divorce rates.

well for one there's gay porn sites so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say homosexuals exist. now if you want to say that those aren't actually two males fellating one another, then you're free to debate that.

All gay porn is actually cleverly made-up animatronics. Any so-called personal experiences are drug induced hallucinations. It's all a conspiracy by the KGB.

i meant this for christians not atheistic know it alls

I was a Christian once. I think that my opinion certainly deserves to be heard just as much as any practicing Christian. And atheists/agnostics deserve to be heard just as much as you so-called "faithful".

In the words of Michael Harrington, "I am a pious apostate; an atheist shocked by the faithlessness of the believers". Tell me, Christian, where ever did Jesus' teachings of loving thy neighbor, and promoting peace and tolerance go? Are those to be forgotten because you think that same-sex relationships are disgusting?

Im not Christian, and therefore see no problem with homosexuality.

And some Christians dont believe in enforcing their morality on others. Theyre called rational decent people.

The Bible is a self-contradictory collection of dozens of different religious texts written by old men who treated women as property and committed genocide when it suited them.

Translation: I'm dodging the actual question by giving an answer utterly irrelevant to the OP question which is directed toward people who DO believe in th everacity of the Bible.


Furthermore, Jesus, the only one who really matters, is curiously silent on the issue of homosexuality.

Translation: Despite the fact that we're told by St. John's Gospel that Jesus said and did so many things that to record them all would fill thousadns of books somehow we can take 4 scrolls and consider them a statistically valid sampling of His teachings since it does conveniently suit the purpose.


Paul can take his books and shove them up his ass.

Translation: Not that it matters, since this is how we'd react if Jesus WAS recorded in the Bible as forbidding it.

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:



violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.

judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).

raping the bible, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.

arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.


You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That’s all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the ‘bottom’ partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul’s letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the ‘top’ partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one’s neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.


Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Yeshua. If Christianity is in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

----------------------------------------------

Have a nice day :)

In fact, considering homosexuality is mentioned like 5 times in the bible and adultery is one of the ten commandments, one could argue the latter is worse.

And abortion isn't mentioned at all, but that's never stopped anyone...

Translation: I'm dodging the actual question by giving an answer utterly irrelevant to the OP question which is directed toward people who DO believe in th everacity of the Bible.

You know, I was trying to be concillatory, but you know what, fuck it now. The OP can direct the question to whomever he wants. Last time I checked, this forum wasn't about restricting discourse.

How is challenging the veracity of the Bible irrelevant then? This is a very pertinant question, and so many of your ilk never think to question what should be so plainly evident.

Translation: Despite the fact that we're told by St. John's Gospel that Jesus said and did so many things that to record them all would fill thousadns of books somehow we can take 4 scrolls and consider them a statistically valid sampling of His teachings since it does conveniently suit the purpose.

So why do people who never met Jesus get to be the final arbiter on his teachings? The Gospels and the other books of the Bible were written over half a century after Jesus died. Sorry, but this just doesn't cut it.

Translation: Not that it matters, since this is how we'd react if Jesus WAS recorded in the Bible as forbidding it.

Your damn right this is how we would act. I admire Jesus' teachings because he is a good person, not because I believe he is the Son of God. Any one who teaches ignorance and hatred of their fellow human beings deserves none of my respect. If Jesus had gone on the record opposing homosexuality, then my opinion of him would drop severely.

But he didn't, and that is what matters.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Fuck Paul.

Remember that during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, there was no such thing as "homosexuality"

There were only men and women; if you were a man and another man sodomizes you, you're viewed upon disapprovingly because you were in a woman's position.

So a real Christian, I think, wouldn't let the caprice of social norms govern the way they view sexuality. (Others may say that the way this views sexuality is out-dated, but hey- it's less complicated than this gay-straight-bi-transgendered thing that we got ourselves into)

Also, look at your DNA; if you're a man, you're a man, no matter how many vaginas you drill into your body. (DNA is another thing that simplifies matters objectively.)

It may be painful for people who consider themselves homosexual, but they're not normal; they may be queer, they may be here, and we may get used to it, but they're still a minority and weird, because they cannot naturally reproduce with each other. No amount of parading will give homosexuals the ability to reproduce another human being naturally amongst themselves. Sorry, that's just the way nature works.

To be fair, Christianity defines love not in romantic or sexual terms but in pragmatic and divine terms; love has to transcend the vanities that we attach to it in order for it to survive a million challenges.

I guess they deal it the same way as they deal with the issue of christian divorce rates.

And what about the Christian marriage rate? Paul is pretty clear in Galatians that Christians should live in celibacy and only marry if they can't control their lusts. Funny how nobody seems to pay much attention to that one. :p

And abortion isn't mentioned at all, but that's never stopped anyone...

Actually, yes it is.

Actually, yes it is.

Where, pray tell?

Fuck Paul.

Fuck that. He was probably an ugly old homophobe.

I guess they deal it the same way as they deal with the issue of christian divorce rates.

or the same way they all strive for wealth when jesus said that its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.

Fuck that. He was probably an ugly old homophobe.

And, as far as we can tell, a self-hating homosexual to boot.

All gay porn is actually cleverly made-up animatronics. Any so-called personal experiences are drug induced hallucinations. It's all a conspiracy by the KGB.Oh, I thought by the Mor(m)ons...

Where, pray tell?

It is actually in Exodus (I think) but not in the way Christians like to think. It says that if you strike a pregnent woman and she miscarriages, you need to pay a fine.


However, if you kill a fully born child, you die.


Meaning, fetus =/= life.

Translation: Despite the fact that we're told by St. John's Gospel that Jesus said and did so many things that to record them all would fill thousadns of books somehow we can take 4 scrolls and consider them a statistically valid sampling of His teachings since it does conveniently suit the purpose.

Which verse are you thinking of? I guessed John 21:25, but that only says he did many other things, with no reference to 'saying'.

Nevertheless, presumably the authors chose to record the teachings which they felt were the most important, those which were most integral to Jesus' teaching, no? Can't we then assume from his apparent silence that homosexuality wasn't one of his 'big issues', unlike, for example, the rich-poor divide (especially as emphasised by Luke)?

Where, pray tell?
Here
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
and here
Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. "Her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot."
And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

You know, I was trying to be concillatory, but you know what, fuck it now. The OP can direct the question to whomever he wants. Last time I checked, this forum wasn't about restricting discourse.

Well good then I've provided you with the excuse you wanted.


How is challenging the veracity of the Bible irrelevant then? This is a very pertinant question, and so many of your ilk never think to question what should be so plainly evident.


The title of the thread is "How can Christians believe in homosexuality?"

That means any response is predicated on the idea that the respondent is Christian and/or accepts the veracity of it and can thus offer some meaningful insight.

You, on the other hand, clearly do not believe in it. That's fine. But to come in and start hooting about how it's all BS is irrelevant because it isn't germaine to the topic.


So why do people who never met Jesus get to be the final arbiter on his teachings? The Gospels and the other books of the Bible were written over half a century after Jesus died. Sorry, but this just doesn't cut it.


The 4 known Gospels. Are you or are you not aware of the passage that indicates that Jesus did a whole lot more than what was recorded in them? That being the case, how can yuo possibly take what WAs recorded in those 4 and use that as a basis for concluding that Jesus had no problem with homosesuality?


Your damn right this is how we would act. I admire Jesus' teachings because he is a good person, not because I believe he is the Son of God. Any one who teaches ignorance and hatred of their fellow human beings deserves none of my respect. If Jesus had gone on the record opposing homosexuality, then my opinion of him would drop severely.


Ok so you admit that the only reason you trust the source is because you perceive it as saying what you want to hear. That's all I needed to know.


But he didn't, and that is what matters.

As far as you know, but then, you've made it clear that if He did it wouldn't make any difference beyond making you not like Him anymore, haven't you?

If this is what passes for objective analysis these days I weep for our future.

Oh, I thought by the Mor(m)ons...

Well, yeah. The KGB is run by Mormons. Russian Mormons.

Actually, yes it is.

Are you referring to the verse in Exodus? That isn't necessarily referring to abortion, unlike the unambiguous references in writings like the Didache (written somewhere between 50 and 120 AD).

Which verse are you thinking of? I guessed John 21:25, but that only says he did many other things, with no reference to 'saying'.

I'll look it up later when time permits and get back to you.


Nevertheless, presumably the authors chose to record the teachings which they felt were the most important, those which were most integral to Jesus' teaching, no? Can't we then assume from his apparent silence that homosexuality wasn't one of his 'big issues', unlike, for example, the rich-poor divide (especially as emphasised by Luke)?

Not necessarily because we can't be certain that we even posess all the important writings, or that others which WERE found weren't excluded for political reasons. All we do know is that there is a lot of info that isn't recorded in the 4 Gospels, and thus it's just not a large enough sample to conclude that this wasn't an issue.

Bear in mind, the same people who did ultimately complile the Bible officially DID include Paul's letters which DO go into those matters, and that is an important thing. A lot of people who want to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality tend to downplay those letters.

They probably figure that if Jesus can have ten....

;)

Well, yeah. The KGB is run by Mormons. Russian Mormons.

::does the Jedi mind control gesture::

There IS no KGB... These aren't the droids you're looking for.

As a Christian accepting Homosexuality is easy.

They are still God's children, they have a place in society/family, still get love and protection.

They simply have, like everyone else, fallen short of the standards of biblical scripture.

The title of the thread is "How can Christians believe in homosexuality?"

That means any response is predicated on the idea that the respondent is Christian and/or accepts the veracity of it and can thus offer some meaningful insight.

One doesn't have to be a christian in order to put forward a possible motivation for their belief in homosexuality. See earlier in the thread where I noted that not all christians follow the bible.

People need better things to worry about than who's dating who.

i meant this for christians not atheistic know it alls

You don't want legitimate answers, you merely want your hatred and bigotry to be confirmed by those who think like you*.

This can also be construed to mean that you know that the Atheists and any others who acknowledge that homosexuality is natural are right but you don't want to hear the truth. You want to remain wrong in your thinking. Wilful ignorance.





*This doesn't mean all Christians, just those who will agree with him/her.

... the standards of biblical scripture.the what?

Well good then I've provided you with the excuse you wanted.

The title of the thread is "How can Christians believe in homosexuality?"

That means any response is predicated on the idea that the respondent is Christian and/or accepts the veracity of it and can thus offer some meaningful insight.

I was a Christian once. Does my insight into Christianity immediately get discarded because I am an apostate? Does an atheists, or a Jew's or Muslims? How about Hindus, or Buddhists? And Wiccans, what about them? Do we lose the right to speak because we do not share your religion?

You, on the other hand, clearly do not believe in it. That's fine. But to come in and start hooting about how it's all BS is irrelevant because it isn't germaine to the topic.

It most clearly is germane to the topic. The Bible is supposed to be the divine word of God, yet it is a constantly amended, self-contradictory document written by men. This is an indisputable fact. So how can then a Christian take the Bible as absolute truth?

I am not asking people to renounce their faith because of this fact. I am asking them to understand that religion has always been a powerful tool for social control. I suggest that they move beyond such oppressive notions if they truly do believe in a benevolent, loving God.

The 4 known Gospels. Are you or are you not aware of the passage that indicates that Jesus did a whole lot more than what was recorded in them? That being the case, how can yuo possibly take what WAs recorded in those 4 and use that as a basis for concluding that Jesus had no problem with homosesuality?

Nice try. You're asking me to prove a negative, and that is impossible. The burden of proof rests with you. Either you prove that he did make a normative statement about homosexuality, or he didn't. It's that simple.

Ok so you admit that the only reason you trust the source is because you perceive it as saying what you want to hear. That's all I needed to know.

On the contrary, I am positing that there are certain moral absolutes that transcend religions and dogmas, and represent what it truly means to be human. One of those is the respect for the individual. If someone's actions harm no one, then we have no right to interfere, and force them to act otherwise.

As far as you know, but then, you've made it clear that if He did it wouldn't make any difference beyond making you not like Him anymore, haven't you?

If this is what passes for objective analysis these days I weep for our future.

Yes I have made it clear. I made it abundantly clear that I respect Jesus for his ideas, not for any claim to divinity.

I never said I was being objective, and I was not trying to be. And you're not being objective either.

As a Christian accepting Homosexuality is easy.

They are still God's children, they have a place in society/family, still get love and protection.

They simply have, like everyone else, fallen short of the standards of biblical scripture.

Still comes off as a bit condescending though.

You don't want legitimate answers, you merely want your hatred and bigotry to be confirmed by those who think like you*.






*This doesn't mean all Christians, just those who will agree with him/her.
Makes one wonder why s/he came here in the first place. I'm sure there are more specialised forums where this kind of thing would get a better reception.

Dyakovo:

Your passages come from the King James Version of the bible.... To start off with, I can't see how your Numbers quote even pertains to abortion. All I'm reading is stuff about curses and rotting thighs and swollen bowels and bellies.

As to your passage from Exodus - this is where the King James version kinda falls apart. Go and find yourself a Tanakh that has the Hebrew text with line-by-line translations of the text. You will find that in Exodus, the "life" of a fetus is clearly made less than the life of a person. If a pregnant woman is struck or made to miscarry, only a fine is charged - but if the woman dies or anyone else dies, the life for life rule applies.

Since we are using the old testament now, does that mean that we can stone rape victims to death for not screaming loudly enough to bring attention to what is happening to them (that gem is in the hebrew translations as well - justification being that if the woman is engaged another man's property has been defiled... if the woman is not engaged the rapist can be pardoned only if he marries the woman and pays a dowry.)

I've also been looking into buying a shipment of foreign slaves. Since America is at war with Iraq, I believe Iraqis are fair game for slaves... could you check your bible and get back to me with a the do's and don'ts of slave-ownership? I'm afraid I might beat them too severely and god will get pissed.

Makes one wonder why s/he came here in the first place. I'm sure there are more specialised forums where this kind of thing would get a better reception.

They probably saw all the Christian threads and thought that some how this was a pro-Christian forum, an online embodiment of wholesome family values and that other worthless broken traditional BS, and not a orgy feast of sin and debauchery. :D

One doesn't have to be a christian in order to put forward a possible motivation for their belief in homosexuality. See earlier in the thread where I noted that not all christians follow the bible.

Granted, but at the same time a tirade about the veracity of the Bible is beside the point of the OP's question unless it's somehow directly tied to homosexuality within Christianity. Now, I know that gay Christians do have their own explanations within the context of Biblical veracity so from where I sit, that tirade just looked like an opportunist looking for an excuse to rail on the Bible.

They probably saw all the Christian threads and thought that some how this was a pro-Christian forum, an online embodiment of wholesome family values and that other worthless broken traditional BS, and not a orgy feast of sin and debauchery. :D

Now he knows better. :D

I'll look it up later when time permits and get back to you.

Thanks.

[QUOTE=Neo Bretonnia;13562948]Not necessarily because we can't be certain that we even posess all the important writings, or that others which WERE found weren't excluded for political reasons. All we do know is that there is a lot of info that isn't recorded in the 4 Gospels, and thus it's just not a large enough sample to conclude that this wasn't an issue.

Bear in mind, the same people who did ultimately complile the Bible officially DID include Paul's letters which DO go into those matters, and that is an important thing. A lot of people who want to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality tend to downplay those letters.

I certainly agree with the first paragraph: the different Gospel messages are clearly altered by the views of the authors and different aspects of Jesus' teaching are emphasised by each one. We can't conclude that it wasn't an issue with any certainty (and I personally have my doubts as to how much we can know about the historical Jesus anyway), but on the other hand there's no indication that it was. Personally I'd doubt that a first century Jew would be unlikely to condone homosexuality, but if the Gospels are to be believed he trampled a lot of sacred cows.

Paul was certainly an opponent of homosexuality, but we need to put that in the context of his overall teachings: he wasn't just opposed to gay sex, he opposed all sex, and thought it was something to be avoided if at all possible. Admittedly he does seem single out homosexuality in Romans, but there's some debate as to the exact translation of the Greek.

They probably saw all the Christian threads and thought that some how this was a pro-Christian forum, an online embodiment of wholesome family values and that other worthless broken traditional BS, and not a orgy feast of sin and debauchery. :D

That's right up there with a jew accidentally stumbling into a nazi part conference.

Both of my parents are Christian but not Catholic; they don't believe the Bible (being the word of man, not God) has all the answers, so they seek them in life themselves. They both have many gay/lesbian/bisexual friends, and know they are good, moral people.

I myself am an atheist, but I've always been proud to say that my parents were the tolerant ones, the people that were able to look past the society of Biblical times and see what Jesus (if he truly was the Son of God) was really trying to say.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Greetings,

They do not read the bible or take it in context or follow it

A lot of people only wish to follow what is convenient for them to follow from the bible.

God gives us choice and individuals choose, though just because they choose does not make it right in God's eyes.

Sincerely, Eagle Scream

You know, I can think of many crimes that are far more heinous than the simple act of loving another human being, or Godforbid having sex with them.

I was a Christian once. Does my insight into Christianity immediately get discarded because I am an apostate? Does an atheists, or a Jew's or Muslims? How about Hindus, or Buddhists? And Wiccans, what about them? Do we lose the right to speak because we do not share your religion?


Does an engineer carry much weight when he lectures about biology? Does a veterinarian's opinion mean much on the best way to treat human endocrinology?

Say whatever you want but the opinions of actual value on a thread like this would have to come from a self professed gay Christian.


It most clearly is germane to the topic. The Bible is supposed to be the divine word of God, yet it is a constantly amended, self-contradictory document written by men. This is an indisputable fact. So how can then a Christian take the Bible as absolute truth?


Well then that would be a question for someone who DOES believe the Bible to be perfectly inerrant. (Which I do not.) Preferably, a gay person who believes the Bible to be perfectly inerrant.


I am not asking people to renounce their faith because of this fact. I am asking them to understand that religion has always been a powerful tool for social control. I suggest that they move beyond such oppressive notions if they truly do believe in a benevolent, loving God.


In other words, adopt your worldview which.. apparently... does include renouncing Christianity.


Nice try. You're asking me to prove a negative, and that is impossible. The burden of proof rests with you. Either you prove that he did make a normative statement about homosexuality, or he didn't. It's that simple.


Actually you made the assertion. You prove it.


On the contrary, I am positing that there are certain moral absolutes that transcend religions and dogmas, and represent what it truly means to be human. One of those is the respect for the individual. If someone's actions harm no one, then we have no right to interfere, and force them to act otherwise.


But there's nothing in Christianity that promotes interference or force. (The actions of rabid fundamentalists notwithstanding.)


Yes I have made it clear. I made it abundantly clear that I respect Jesus for his ideas, not for any claim to divinity.

And you've also made it clear that your respect for Him is predicated on His saying things you'd want to hear.


I never said I was being objective, and I was not trying to be. And you're not being objective either.

I'm glad you are dropping the pretense. I know I'm not objective. The difference is you're playing the victim because I called you out on what's essentially a flamebait post.

Thanks.

I certainly agree with the first paragraph: the different Gospel messages are clearly altered by the views of the authors and different aspects of Jesus' teaching are emphasised by each one. We can't conclude that it wasn't an issue with any certainty (and I personally have my doubts as to how much we can know about the historical Jesus anyway), but on the other hand there's no indication that it was. Personally I'd doubt that a first century Jew would be unlikely to condone homosexuality, but if the Gospels are to be believed he trampled a lot of sacred cows.


Fair enough.


Paul was certainly an opponent of homosexuality, but we need to put that in the context of his overall teachings: he wasn't just opposed to gay sex, he opposed all sex, and thought it was something to be avoided if at all possible. Admittedly he does seem single out homosexuality in Romans, but there's some debate as to the exact translation of the Greek.

My take on Paul's view on sex is a bit different than the average Evangelical (which is to be expected, since I'm most certainly NOT an Evangelical.) When I read the passages where Paul counsels against marriage, for example, I see advice being given to those actively serving missions, and it's pretty easy to see why a missionary would be better off not marrying while doing the work as it's a distraction. He does say, however, that it's better to marry than to fall to temptation.

People need better things to worry about than who's dating who.

Who's dating whom.

::does the Jedi mind control gesture::

There IS no KGB... These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Your jedi tricks don't work on me. I'm a trolldarian.

As a Catholic, I don't take Paul's letters as God's verboten word because he is not a prophet nor is he Jesus. If you're a fundamentalist Christian, then perhaps you take every word in the Bible at face value. Need I remind you that it is us nasty Catholics who ASSEMBLED the Bible in the first place? By literally interpreting the words, you lose God's message. Are you so distant from Jesus that he will not help you understand the Bible, so that you must rely on the dictionary to understand God's message?

Because the Bible contradicts itself on many occasions, I hold the Gospels higher than any other books in the Bible.

That said, it seems to go against Christ to break up a monogamous, loving same-sex relationship out of hatred. So rather, I cannot justify Paul's rants with Christ's teaching, so I err on the side of Christ. I hope you do too.

As a qualifier, I do believe many aspects of the stereotypical gay lifestyle, in particular the countless random hookups at bathhouses, for example, are antithetical to a healthy and holy lifestyle. We should be encouraging homosexuals to embrace Christian ideals and give them an alternative lifestyle to the sexed-up bar scene...encourage them to start monogamous Christian families, right? Sounds like what Christ would do in this modern age.

Furthermore, Jesus, the only one who really matters, is curiously silent on the issue of homosexuality.


Seems pretty loud and clear to me, although some generalization is required:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" -- John 13:34-35

"But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'" -- John 8:7

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." -- Matthew 5:1-12
(Especially due to their persecution complex, Christians will argue that Jesus is blessing them in this verse. Me thinks this can also be read as a blessing to those who find themselves pinned under jackboots in Jesus' name...)

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -- Matthew 7:1-5

Mr. Gandhi (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gandhi) explains why I am now a dirty blasphemous heathen:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

EDIT: of course, all of my religious beliefs are informed by His Holliness Lewis Black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk)

Seems pretty loud and clear to me, although some generalization is required:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" -- John 13:34-35


Ah, but look at John 13:36, where he continues...
"...unless they love other men. That's just gross." ;)

Does an engineer carry much weight when he lectures about biology? Does a veterinarian's opinion mean much on the best way to treat human endocrinology?

Say whatever you want but the opinions of actual value on a thread like this would have to come from a self professed gay Christian.

Religion is not a science. It is a diverse set of different opinions about the world. As a student of social sciences, I am also a student of comparative religion. Drop this relativistic crap that the only germaine opinions are the ones that accept your framework. If everyone did that, than we'd never discuss anything at all that had any meaning.

Well then that would be a question for someone who DOES believe the Bible to be perfectly inerrant. (Which I do not.) Preferably, a gay person who believes the Bible to be perfectly inerrant.

Well find one then, if you want his opinion. That doesn't mean I cannot say my opinion.

In other words, adopt your worldview which.. apparently... does include renouncing Christianity.

No, I'm not asking them to adopt my world view. I am asking them to recognize certain objective facts about the world, and not enforce their customs on people who clearly do not want them.

It is sad when asking for tolerance is considered forcing people to adopt another world view.

Actually you made the assertion. You prove it.

My assertion is that unless there is proof that Jesus said something about homosexuality, we assume he didn't say anything about it until further evidence comes up. This a fundamental empirical postulate, and thus that is why you have the burden of proof. Either we have evidence he did say it, or he didn't. It is as simple as that.

But there's nothing in Christianity that promotes interference or force. (The actions of rabid fundamentalists notwithstanding.)

This is true of all religions at their core. I merely ask that believers live up to this. Legislating against homosexuals, not allowing them to marry, and generally ostracizing them in religious communities is an definite case of coercion.

And you've also made it clear that your respect for Him is predicated on His saying things you'd want to hear.

And what is yours predicated on? The circular assertion that he is divine because he said so. If we humans cannot be trusted to make our own decisions in this world, then we are lost, and nothing more than slaves.

I'm glad you are dropping the pretense. I know I'm not objective. The difference is you're playing the victim because I called you out on what's essentially a flamebait post.

How am I playing the victim? And how was that a flamebait post? I haven't seen any flaming of my post. You clearly disapproved, but we're having a rational discussion about this. I think that my post was constructive.

Religion is not a science.Telling that to a confessing Mormon is a complete waste of energy.

"Believe" in it? I'll assume that the OP doesn't mean believe that it exists, which means that the OP must be suggesting that it is some kind of ideology, religion, philosophy or suchlike.

Thus, I can conclude that the appropriate terminology with which to refer to the OP is [omitted to avoid punishment for flaming].

Your jedi tricks don't work on me. I'm a trolldarian.

Nevertheless I *AM* taking Solo and the Wookie with me. You can either profit by this, or be destroyed. It's your choice but I warn you not to underestimate my power.

Nevertheless I *AM* taking Solo and the Wookie with me. You can either profit by this, or be destroyed. It's your choice but I warn you not to underestimate my power.

Bretonnia, my buugy. Cha jumba gada creeshta.

Religion is not a science. It is a diverse set of different opinions about the world. As a student of social sciences, I am also a student of comparative religion. Drop this relativistic crap that the only germaine opinions are the ones that accept your framework. If everyone did that, than we'd never discuss anything at all that had any meaning.


Religion isn't science, but the study of a religious system is. If you're not a gay Christian then you're not qualified to answer the question.

I'm a Christian but not gay, so I don't understand how they reconcile the two. I came into this thread hoping to gain some insight into the matter. What did you come here for?


Well find one then, if you want his opinion. That doesn't mean I cannot say my opinion.

Of course, but at the same time you weren't offering a constructive opinion. You were raling against Christianity.


No, I'm not asking them to adopt my world view. I am asking them to recognize certain objective facts about the world, and not enforce their customs on people who clearly do not want them.

It is sad when asking for tolerance is considered forcing people to adopt another world view.


The day you're capable of forcing that worldview is the day I'll eat my hat. The fact is you started off with some nonsensical commentary on the veracity of the Bible which offered nothing to the discussion. WHat you said about Jesus was reasonable (And I can see that even though I don't agree with you) and you capped it with more vitriol about Paul. Are those the objective facts you refer to?


My assertion is that unless there is proof that Jesus said something about homosexuality, we assume he didn't say anything about it until further evidence comes up. This a fundamental empirical postulate, and thus that is why you have the burden of proof. Either we have evidence he did say it, or he didn't. It is as simple as that.


Didn't you just say religion isn't science? How then are you justifying your assumptions using scientific terms?

And the fact is, you didn't present Jesus' views as ambiguos. You made a specific claim about what He believed on the subject of homosexuality BECAUSE He isn't recorded in the 4 Gospels as saying anything.


This is true of all religions at their core. I merely ask that believers live up to this. Legislating against homosexuals, not allowing them to marry, and generally ostracizing them in religious communities is an definite case of coercion.


Now most of this I agree with.


And what is yours predicated on? The circular assertion that he is divine because he said so. If we humans cannot be trusted to make our own decisions in this world, then we are lost, and nothing more than slaves.


Actually no. My assertion that He is divine has nothing to do with what He said.


How am I playing the victim? And how was that a flamebait post? I haven't seen any flaming of my post. You clearly disapproved, but we're having a rational discussion about this. I think that my post was constructive.

By using my remarks about your original post as an excuse to drop the 'conciliatory' tone you claimed to be using and adopting a 'fuck it' attitude. As if your inability to be conciliatory beyond that was somehow my fault.

Telling that to a confessing Mormon is a complete waste of energy.

United Beleriand: Living proof that you can have a really high post count and still be a troll.

Bretonnia, my buugy. Cha jumba gada creeshta.

Look, Jabba... even I get boarded sometimes.

Now he knows better. :D

Some how I doubt that. :)

That's right up there with a jew accidentally stumbling into a nazi part conference.

"Hey... this isn't Schwartz's..."

United Beleriand: Living proof that you can have a really high post count and still be a troll.This is only a forum. In real life Mormons and similar religious cases are considered the trolls.

Look, Jabba... even I get boarded sometimes.

Haaahaaahaaaaa. Fuck you, have a rancor.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5748/rancor.jpg

Haaahaaahaaaaa. Fuck you, have a rancor.


No thanks, I ate before I got here :D

Which verse are you thinking of? I guessed John 21:25, but that only says he did many other things, with no reference to 'saying'.


Bah you're right. The only other related verse I could find on the fly is John 20:30 wish is basically the same. I'm sure I saw it somewhere else but until I can find it I'll just say that it's still reasonable to presume that whatever other things John is refering to, Jesus didn't mime it all ;)

This is only a forum. In real life Mormons and similar religious cases are considered the trolls.

Ohh how can I ever defeat the "I'm rubber you're glue." defense...

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

There are varying degrees by what one would interpret "accept" as... Some do not accept, some do, to certain degrees.... Some christians would banish homosexuals from their church, others would accept them in the church, but not allow them into particular church offices (pastor, deacon, elder, etc.), some want to impose their religious doctrine on secular society, others divide their religious convictions with their operations in secular society....

No thanks, I ate before I got here :D

More for me, then.


Mmmm....rancor....

let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

No I think it goes:

"Let he who is without sin, Kick the first ass" (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8oUoLFVXaTU&feature=related)

...

This is embaressing. You're right I'm wrong. Happy? *sob* So mean...

You should also be embarrassed for spelling 'embarrassing' wrong. :)

Ohh how can I ever defeat the "I'm rubber you're glue." defense...

You could just tar and feather him. I hear tar sticks to anything. It was either that or duct tape...

Religion isn't science, but the study of a religious system is.

I guess theologists are fucked, since they can't possibly believe every religion they study.

No I think it goes:

"Let he who is without sin, Kick the first ass" (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8oUoLFVXaTU&feature=related)

Its well known among diligent students of Christ's life that he was an accomplished master of what is now sometimes called Kung Fu.

He wasn't "miming", he was simply engaging in the practice of kata, which, only if practiced correctly, are part of the pursuit of "The Glow". If you practice them poorly, you only ingrain yourself with bad habits.

This was roughly near the time Christ the Saviour developed the flying double crotch kick, a move we pay respect to by saying "Jesus Christ!" every time we are struck in the balls.

How can you accept it

How could I treat others as I would want to be treated without accepting them as they are?

and think it is right?

I don't think it's "right." I like guys.

I assume you are asking how I can believe it is alright. The answer is that I believe God wants us to find love - including the romantic form of love, regardless of our sexual orientation.

Messages of hate, in my opinion, simply don't fit in with Christ's message.

Read Romans 1:27 please.

And that is Paul's opinion, although there is some question as to exactly what practices he was talking about and whether or not it has been translated well.

You could just tar and feather him. I hear tar sticks to anything. It was either that or duct tape...

Good idea!

I guess theologists are fucked, since they can't possibly believe every religion they study.

How do you mean?

More for me, then.


Mmmm....rancor....

...the other white meat!

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
The Bible teaches that you have no right to condemn others because you're a sinner too and no better than anyone else.

I'm not gay and nor licensed to perform marriage ceremonies so I will personally not have to figure out whether or not gay acts or gay marriage is right or wrong. The moral issue is irrelevant to me because it doesn't apply to my life and according to the Bible I have no right to apply my opinion of morals on others. So I haven't wasted time to research the issue well enough to find an answer.

There are many other issues I have the "I wouldn't do it and don't care enough if others do it to get an informed opinion about how they live their lives." stance too.

How can you accept it and think it is right?
How could I not to?

Sermon on the Mount > Paul

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.


I don't have to have an opinion at all.

I am a Christian but I am not gay, so I do not have the issue of reconciliation of this particular thing to deal with personally. But I assure that all Christians have their own things that they must reconcile with themselves and God.

I do not believe that somehow I because I am not gay, I have privilege to selective reconcilliation of things with God and another person wouldn't have the same privilege. Sexual orientation doesn't exclude a person from God, non belief does.

God will ask me how I lived my life, not how Sally Sue lived hers. He is the only judge of such things.

Huh? It's talking about the ACT of homosexuality (Gay sex) not about BEING homosexual. And just to clear everything up, God said that all sins are equal, so gay sex is just as bad as adultry. Or any other sin.

It is said that you should hate the sin but love the sinner. Jesus even forgave those who crucified him. He forgave prostitutes drawing awe from his disciples.

Luke 7:47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven-- for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
Luke 7:48 Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

That's how I reconcile the two.

I don't have to have an opinion at all.

I am a Christian but I am not gay, so I do not have the issue of reconciliation of this particular thing to deal with personally. But I assure that all Christians have their own things that they must reconcile with themselves and God.

I do not believe that somehow I because I am not gay, I have privilege to selective reconcilliation of things with God and another person wouldn't have the same privilege. Sexual orientation doesn't exclude a person from God, non belief does.

God will ask me how I lived my life, not how Sally Sue lived hers. He is the only judge of such things.

So a morally-just person who lived a life of selflessness but did not believe in God would be passed over for a hypocritical-Christian that bashed gays and demanded that whites be given superiority (not saying you're that type of person, just a discussion point)?

I'm a Christian. I'm bisexual. Does that make me a bad person? No worse than anyone else; no better, either. It's not easy to reconcile my faith with my sexuality, but I believe God judges us by our hearts.

I'm a Christian. I'm bisexual. Does that make me a bad person?.

Yes
How dare you be christian?
:p

...the other white meat!

The trick is how to kill it when you don't have a rock and a big metal door.

How do you mean?

You said that studying religion is a science. You said earlier that the only opinions of value re: gay christians are those of gay christians. It follows that the only opinion of value re:christians in general would be those of christians in general, and ditto for every other religion. Therefore theologians(blargh, theologists? learn2english, Ifreann)have wasted their lives studying religion, since their opinion on a religion they don't believe in is apparently worthless.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

How can Christians believe in capitalism? Read Apostles chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45.

How can Christians believe in capitalism? Read Apostles chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45.

Hey look, Andaras is back.

And in the spirit of New Genoa earlier:
It's hard deny the existence of capitalism, as there are many countries who use it.

Hey look, Andaras is back.

And in the spirit of New Genoa earlier:
It's hard deny the existence of capitalism, as there are many countries who use it.
Well I would never dream of advocating common ownership through Christianity, that would be rather backward, my point is pointing out the hypocrisy of the 'Christian Industry' in America etc and the incompatibility of Jesus's message with right-wing views.

Supply-side Jesus has prevailed it seems.

Well I would never dream of advocating common ownership through Christianity, that would be rather backward, my point is pointing out the hypocrisy of the 'Christian Industry' in America etc and the incompatibility of Jesus's message with right-wing views.

Supply-side Jesus has prevailed it seems.

It's all well and good to be a commie when you're Jesus. But I can't feed several thousand people with a couple loaves of bread and some fish. Several thousand loaves of bread and fish, certainly, but not just a couple.

Besides, everyone loves the Calvinists! If you have more money, that means God loves you more!

Incidentally, God frigging hates college students.

It's all well and good to be a commie when you're Jesus. But I can't feed several thousand people with a couple loaves of bread and some fish. Several thousand loaves of bread and fish, certainly, but not just a couple.

Besides, everyone loves the Calvinists! If you have more money, that means God loves you more!

Incidentally, God frigging hates college students.
Meh, it's not religion, it's politics and conforming to the current political order and twisting (or completely fabricating) religious teaching to fit it. Ever since Constantine became a Christian it's been politically expedient to be a Christian, the message is dead. Jesus never focused on 'hell' and an obsession with rules like conservatives do, in actual fact he said Heaven is dependent upon good actions in life and had a profoundly material inspiration.

That is in stark contrast to the Christian Right who think that all they need do is 'convert them' and it's all alright, even if the person who is 'converted' does nothing altruistic in their life and is wicked yet professes to be 'Christian'.

Meh, it's not religion, it's politics and conforming to the current political order and twisting (or completely fabricating) religious teaching to fit it. Ever since Constantine became a Christian it's been politically expedient to be a Christian, the message is dead. Jesus never focused on 'hell' and an obsession with rules like conservatives do, in actual fact he said Heaven is dependent upon good actions in life and had a profoundly material inspiration.

That is in stark contrast to the Christian Right who think that all they need do is 'convert them' and it's all alright, even if the person who is 'converted' does nothing altruistic in their life and is wicked yet professes to be 'Christian'.

I do altruistic things...like...that time I bought McDonalds for that homeless guy. And then I kicked him out of my car because he smelled bad. But I did buy him MickyD's before I kicked him out.

...

This is embaressing. You're right I'm wrong. Happy? *sob* So mean...

What? But, I was agreeing with you! ...cookie?

Its well known among diligent students of Christ's life that he was an accomplished master of what is now sometimes called Kung Fu.

I thought he studied Jew-do . . .

All gay porn is actually cleverly made-up animatronics. Any so-called personal experiences are drug induced hallucinations. It's all a conspiracy by the KGB.

That makes me want to cry. :( What would the world be without gay porn?

Dyakovo:

Your passages come from the King James Version of the bible...

A.K.A. "the only good English version". Don't diss the KJ!

You know, I can think of many crimes that are far more heinous than the simple act of loving another human being, or Godforbid having sex with them.

My Philosophy of Sex teacher was fond of saying that there are some people in the world who are just driven absolutely mad by the idea that somewhere out there, where they can't see, two people with the same genitals love each other.

I thought he studied Jew-do . . .

He made bagels?

That makes me want to cry. :( What would the world be without gay porn?

At lot more boring, I'm sure, as you couldn't trick people into looking at it or download several gigs of it onto your roommate's computer when he's not home and laugh when he finds it.

On a completely related note, a friend of mine does computer tech support stuff, and the guy who owns lemonparty came in to get his computer fixed.


They printed a bunch of pictures and put them in the new guy's desk.

To me the issue of homosexuality transcends religion, it goes further off the Bible. It´s a homocentric issue. I see homosexuals as human beings that, regardless of their sexual orientation, command respect on the sole reason that they´re human, same as me. I can´t ostracize them, I can´t look them badly, because they feel just like I do, they cry, they laugh and love, like anyone else does. No amount of Scripture will change that.

I think the real question should be 'How can Christians, or anyone for that matter, believe in God? I mean, COME ON!!!' And to follow on from this, 'Why do the religious feel the need to concern themselves and pry into the private lives of people with whom their associated doctrine of discrimination, hate and propaganda indoctrinates its followers against?'
There is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality. Jesus, looking at this some of the replies on this thread was like going back in time 60 years. I'm not gay, but I don't see anything wrong with people that are. There's nothing wrong with them, they're not doing anyone any harm. Some of you guys are unfortunately clearly very religious. How very super for you all. Why don't you keep your prejudices to yourselves for once? Let's face it, the Bible is hardly an accurate, fair piece of literature, is it? Can we really trust an ancient book written by who-knows how many authors, each with their own prejudices, that is based on the delusion that the world is 10000 years old, and that a magical Jew (who was his own father, of course) died to later rise as a zombie so that we could all find redemption for a rib-woman who ate a piece of fruit, because a talking snake told her to? Is this book REALLY what Christians are basing their hiomophobia on? lolz

To me the issue of homosexuality transcends religion, it goes further off the Bible. It´s a homocentric issue. I see homosexuals as human beings that, regardless of their sexual orientation, command respect on the sole reason that they´re human, same as me. I can´t ostracize them, I can´t look them badly, because they feel just like I do, they cry, they laugh and love, like anyone else does. No amount of Scripture will change that.

The only homosexuals that I have a problem with are the ones that come on to me more than once...

The only homosexuals that I have a problem with are the ones that come on to me more than once...

Heeeeeey... ;)

Heeeeeey... ;)

Rhyno, sweetheart, do you have an agenda about closing threads?:p J/K!

Heeeeeey... ;)

Except you of course Rhyno :D

Rhyno, sweetheart, do you have an agenda about closing threads?:p J/K!

Hey, I haven't started talking about vibrators in this thread. It's only when we talk about vibrators, specifically you using one, that the thread gets closed.

Hey, I haven't started talking about vibrators in this thread. It's only when we talk about vibrators, specifically you using one, that the thread gets closed.

Shhhhh! No one wants to hear about Nanatsu using a vibr....



Sorry couldn't finish that sentence, I've got this thing against lying.
:D

Except you of course Rhyno :D

*is jealous of Rhyno*
;)

*is jealous of Rhyno*
;)

You, me, Dyakovo...some dildoes, some cocoa butter, maybe some whips and chains. That's a party I want to be a part of.

You, me, Dyakovo...some dildoes, some cocoa butter, maybe some whips and chains. That's a party I want to be a part of.

OMG!:eek:
Dude, like, stop.:headbang:

Ok, you're not invited.

You, me, Dyakovo...some dildoes, some cocoa butter, maybe some whips and chains. That's a party I want to be a part of.

OMG!:eek:
Dude, like, stop.:headbang:

Ok, you're not invited.

If she's not invited, I'm not interested...

If she's not invited, I'm not interested...

Sorry, Rhyno, you´re screwed. LOL!:D

Because its real?

LOL!

If she's not invited, I'm not interested...

Hey, man, I tried. All on you, now. If you can get her to come....

Hey, man, I tried. All on you, now. If you can get her to cum....

fixed

Hey, man, I tried. All on you, now. If you can get her to come....

*runs and hides from the Spam-a-lothon*

The 4 known Gospels.


In all technicality, there are quite a few more than 4 known gospels. It's just that those 4 are accepted as gospels. The rest, well, they are just shoved into a corner in a dark room, never to be seen.

fixed

No, that's my job. Eh? (You Know Better)

Yoo hoo! Nanatsu! I've got the vibrador purpúreo...

If you 2 keep this up, the thread´s gonna get closed off by the Powers that Be.:headbang: Freaks.

Yoo hoo! Nanatsu! I've got the vibrador purpúreo...[/QUOTE]

No, that's just how I roll.

If you 2 keep this up, the thread´s gonna get closed off by the Powers that Be.:headbang: Freaks.

OK, back on topic...

Agnostics, whether they are theist or atheist are the only ones who can be sure that they are right.

OK, back on topic...

Agnostics, whether they are theist or atheist are the only ones who can be sure that they are right.

Sorry to argue but... neither is right. Nor Christians. We know nothing.;)

Sorry to argue but... neither is right. Nor Christians. We know nothing.;)

I wasn't on topic anyways, this is the wrong thread for that answer...


Actually on topic:

Because they are real.

I wasn't on topic anyways, this is the wrong thread for that answer...


Actually on topic:

Because they are real.

Wakatta.

*retires from thread before getting ears pulled*
:D

So a morally-just person who lived a life of selflessness but did not believe in God would be passed over for a hypocritical-Christian that bashed gays and demanded that whites be given superiority (not saying you're that type of person, just a discussion point)?

I believe they both might be passed over. I think belief is a requirement. A hypocrit that claims belief but does not make the effort to live in a Christian manner can certainly fall from grace though.

Mind you not all Christian sects believe this, but many do. Many believe "once saved always saved"...that would include people who believe they can live in any manner they want and mistreat people (which Christ would never do) and still believe they their souls are intact. I think this is what you are suggesting.

I have to question how can someone truly believe if they refuse to practice the life expected of believers? People can call themselves Christians all day long, talking the talk isn't all it takes....to sound terribly cliche...you gotta walk the walk. :)

I will say that I cannot completely rule out that a morally selfless person seen as Christ-like in their lives, that God would not take that into consideration. During the Reformation several theories were put forth by theologians that believing may not be a requirement.

Pope Sixtus IV's tutor Galeotta Marzio commented "He who lives correctly and acts by the law of nature will enter heaven, no matter to what people he belongs". Such a concession to unrevealed religion led in a direction not intended by it's originators - to scepticism, deism, and atheism. Marzio's position is paralleled by that of Montaigne, who claimed that "though a man be ignorant of Christ, if he faithfully follows the law of nature he can perfect himself. He is even implicitly a disciple of Jesus Christ. He is a Christian without knowing it." The content of such propositions amounted to a sceptical indifference to organised religion, and a thorough indifference to the Chruch. -The Rise of Toleration by Henry Kamen pg 23

For myself I think belief is necessary. As far as knowing that God is going to require that absolutely...no one knows that for sure. That to me is the beauty of Christianity, it's a personal relationship with God, a partnership, not a team sport. ;) jmho

Furthermore, Jesus, the only one who really matters, is curiously silent on the issue of homosexuality. Paul can take his books and shove them up his ass.

I've often felt that most fundamentalist Christians should really be called "Paulists", because they seem to place more importance on the words of Paul than on those of Jesus. Paul's writings (and those of St. Augustine, as well) are typical of the zeal of the recent convert, especially one who feels gulity of his perceived "sins".

As a Catholic, I have no problem with homosexuality. I'd think that even if the Bible had openly denounced homosexuality (not weird mistranslations). Even though we don't know everything Jesus said or did, he loved everyone (even homosexuals) and told us not judge. Anyone who says homosexuality is wrong is sinning, even if solely for that reason.

I think eventually people will become more open to these things, because eventually, humans can cope with anything. Because the Church is influenced by society (I know, sad but true), they will probably come to terms with it too. They have coped with other things, like feminism and Judaism.

And too the people who say people shouldn't be talking because they're not gay, don't be stupid, people are free to give their opinion. Isn't that the point of a message board.

I just happen to come across this topic while surfing through the forums. First off is there any place sacred where I don't have to see this BS argument. It's littered all over the freaking net. This is a game for crying out loud. And second, after reading some of the BS here, I can only ask one question. You people call yourself Christian? It seems awful strange to me that you all are so quick to condemn others when the person you all claim to follow never judged anyone. Wouldn't you all be better off worrying about your own lives and the mess this country is in? But, who am I to know? Like I've always said, the best arguments in favor of atheism come from the religious.

I just happen to come across this topic while surfing through the forums. First off is there any place sacred where I don't have to see this BS argument. It's littered all over the freaking net. This is a game for crying out loud. And second, after reading some of the BS here, I can only ask one question. You people call yourself Christian? It seems awful strange to me that you all are so quick to condemn others when the person you all claim to follow never judged anyone. Wouldn't you all be better off worrying about your own lives and the mess this country is in? But, who am I to know? Like I've always said, the best arguments in favor of atheism come from the religious.

If you don't want to see the argument, don't look.

The only homosexuals that I have a problem with are the ones that come on to me more than once...

I have a problem with anyone who comes on me.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Romans....

That's Paul, so the word in question is arsenokoites. Paul invented the word, but by breaking it down into the component parts it most likely means "male temple prostitutes". So it doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.

I just happen to come across this topic while surfing through the forums. First off is there any place sacred where I don't have to see this BS argument. It's littered all over the freaking net. This is a game for crying out loud. And second, after reading some of the BS here, I can only ask one question. You people call yourself Christian? It seems awful strange to me that you all are so quick to condemn others when the person you all claim to follow never judged anyone. Wouldn't you all be better off worrying about your own lives and the mess this country is in? But, who am I to know? Like I've always said, the best arguments in favor of atheism come from the religious.

maybe you should be more specific. are you objecting to those who say that christians shouldnt "believe in homosexuality" or to those who say that they are fine with it?

I have a problem with anyone who comes on me.

Heeeeeey... ;)

To me the issue of homosexuality transcends religion, it goes further off the Bible. It´s a homocentric issue. I see homosexuals as human beings that, regardless of their sexual orientation, command respect on the sole reason that they´re human, same as me. I can´t ostracize them, I can´t look them badly, because they feel just like I do, they cry, they laugh and love, like anyone else does. No amount of Scripture will change that.

Speaking as a Christian, this guy has it right. Furthermore, Jesus was very clear that one was to treat others as one wished to be treated oneself, that it wasn't one's place to judge, and so on.

I, personally, have more of a problem with so-called Christians who are bigoted and rail against homosexuals than with people who are loving one another, regardless of their genders. I don't know whether it's right or not, but I know how I'm supposed to treat people, and that's what I'll stand behind.

...[they]..., command respect on the sole reason that they´re human, ....that is not a reason. being human is a biological circumstance, not a merit.

David + Jonathan. (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/david_jonathan.html)

Speaking as a Christian, this guy has it right. Furthermore, Jesus was very clear that one was to treat others as one wished to be treated oneself, that it wasn't one's place to judge, and so on.

I, personally, have more of a problem with so-called Christians who are bigoted and rail against homosexuals than with people who are loving one another, regardless of their genders. I don't know whether it's right or not, but I know how I'm supposed to treat people, and that's what I'll stand behind.

Exactly. Jesus stressed, among other things, that loving others is key in Christianity. Hating someone on the sole premise that this person loves someone from the same sex is contradicting Jesus´s doctrine. Christians that do are not, to me, real Christians.

that is not a reason. being human is a biological circumstance, not a merit.

Being human entails other traits and feelings that have nothing to do with biology. Can you honestly tell me that homosexuals don´t feel, same as you and me? And in feeling, doesn´t that make them human? And in being humans that feel, same as you and me, doesn´t that demand respect?

No matter what, I can´t hate a man or a woman because he or she has fallen in love with someone from the same sex. Jesus stressed to love one another, to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Mistreating a person because of his sexual orientation is petty and totally goes against the message of love Jesus preached.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Look at the rest of Romans 1. Our list of 'sins' for consideration holds this 'un-natural affection for men' to be equivalent to being an atheist, or not tidying your room when your mom tells you to.

It's trivial.

The Christian message is love. It amazes me how many people consider themselves christian, but take a purely exclusionary perspective - which is clearly the axact opposite of the spirit of Jesus' collected teaching.

I don't like it, but not believing in it would be like not believing plants exist.

Look at the rest of Romans 1. Our list of 'sins' for consideration holds this 'un-natural affection for men' to be equivalent to being an atheist, or not tidying your room when your mom tells you to.

It's trivial.
Plus, aren't there gay people in the bible? There's no explicit condemnation of lesbians in the bible, and Naomi and Ruth are certainly portrayed as lesbians, so there's no reason at all for Christians to oppose lesbianism.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

I don't "accept it as right," I simply recognize that it's none of my business. If it is a sin, it's not one that I'm committing, so why should I kick up a fuss? If it's not, then it's even more obvious that there's nothing to worry about.

Plus, aren't there gay people in the bible? There's no explicit condemnation of lesbians in the bible, and Naomi and Ruth are certainly portrayed as lesbians, so there's no reason at all for Christians to oppose lesbianism.

interpretation. johnothan and dave can be considered a gay couple as well, what with the kissing and the nakedness and the covenant...

Being human entails other traits and feelings that have nothing to do with biology. Can you honestly tell me that homosexuals don´t feel, same as you and me? And in feeling, doesn´t that make them human? And in being humans that feel, same as you and me, doesn´t that demand respect?What? Being human does not command respect.

No matter what, I can´t hate a man or a woman because he or she has fallen in love with someone from the same sex. Jesus stressed to love one another, to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Mistreating a person because of his sexual orientation is petty and totally goes against the message of love Jesus preached.I don't give a shit what that retard Jesus preached.

I don't give a shit what that retard Jesus preached.i'm not retarded... and i like gay men a lesbians just fine... heck most of the disciples were gay(what do you think the term fishers of men really means), and my mom had very little time for dick.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.
You've been a member of this forum all this time and still manage such idiocy? I'm amazed.

You've been a member of this forum all this time and still manage such idiocy? I'm amazed.

idiocy? 11 pages? seems like a pretty successful troll.wonder who will claim I am the OP when I am not.

Huh? It's talking about the ACT of homosexuality (Gay sex) not about BEING homosexual. And just to clear everything up, God said that all sins are equal, so gay sex is just as bad as adultry. Or any other sin.

Well, estimates on the high side say that only about one in 10 men is gay. 6 in 10 couples get divorced.

So divorce is a far bigger problem in this country than homosexuality, from a Christian standpoint. If you're complaining about homosexuality instead of divorce, you're not a Christian. You're a bigoted hypocrite who needs a little less Eucharist and a little more STFU.

idiocy? 11 pages? seems like a pretty successful troll.wonder who will claim I am the OP when I am not.

he is a true fisher of men... not in the gay sense.

idiocy? 11 pages? seems like a pretty successful troll.wonder who will claim I am the OP when I am not.

Eleven pages is nothing.

Eleven pages is nothing.

Eleven? I count five... one of them with only three posts on it.

Look at the rest of Romans 1. Our list of 'sins' for consideration holds this 'un-natural affection for men' to be equivalent to being an atheist, or not tidying your room when your mom tells you to.

It's trivial.

The Christian message is love. It amazes me how many people consider themselves christian, but take a purely exclusionary perspective - which is clearly the axact opposite of the spirit of Jesus' collected teaching.

I'd like to pass a challenge to the Christian Right in America to defend their positions using only the words of Jesus. Not the Letters, not the Old Testament, just Jesus. They wouldn't have to be restricted to the Gospels, if there is a quote in the Letters, Acts, or Revelation, they are welcome to use it.
I'm curious to see what would happen.

I'd like to pass a challenge to the Christian Right in America to defend their positions using only the words of Jesus. Not the Letters, not the Old Testament, just Jesus. They wouldn't have to be restricted to the Gospels, if there is a quote in the Letters, Acts, or Revelation, they are welcome to use it.
I'm curious to see what would happen.
just the red letters... all my words should be in red... are we allowed red letters here?

just the red letters... all my words should be in red... are we allowed red letters here?

why wouldn't we be?

please don't tell anyone i forgot about that... kinda weakens my case for omniscience

please don't tell anyone i forgot about that... kinda weakens my case for omniscience

It's ok, mate. What happens in threads about sexuality stays in threads about sexuality.

please don't tell anyone i forgot about that... kinda weakens my case for omniscience

No problem ^_^

"Christian" Fundamentalists = FAIL

"Christian" Fundamentalists = FAIL
christian true believers = super ultimate victory

christian true believers = super ultimate victory

Nah, just a lesser fail.

christian true believers = super ultimate victory
Actually if you 'truly believe' then by definition you are a fundamentalist, you are moderate if you don't take everything in OT as literal.

Speaking as a Christian, this girl has it right. Furthermore, Jesus was very clear that one was to treat others as one wished to be treated oneself, that it wasn't one's place to judge, and so on.

I, personally, have more of a problem with so-called Christians who are bigoted and rail against homosexuals than with people who are loving one another, regardless of their genders. I don't know whether it's right or not, but I know how I'm supposed to treat people, and that's what I'll stand behind.

fixed :D

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

How can Christians believe in Homosexuality?
How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Your title and your question are actually two different things.

How can I believe in it? Because it exists.
How can I accept it? Because I don't have a right to tell someone else how to live.
How can I think it is right? I don't -- for me. For other people, it's their choice.

Anyone else feeling the burn of Irony about the OP's nick?

It is actually in Exodus (I think) but not in the way Christians like to think. It says that if you strike a pregnent woman and she miscarriages, you need to pay a fine.

Let's be more accurate. If you strike a pregnant woman and she miscarries, her husband has the right to make sure you pay him a fine.

Your title and your question are actually two different things.

How can I believe in it? Because it exists.
How can I accept it? Because I don't have a right to tell someone else how to live.
How can I think it is right? I don't -- for me. For other people, it's their choice.

Anyone else feeling the burn of Irony about the OP's nick?

You're about 12 pages behind:

well for one there's gay porn sites so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say homosexuals exist. now if you want to say that those aren't actually two males fellating one another, then you're free to debate that.

And abortion isn't mentioned at all, but that's never stopped anyone...
Well, abortion itself isn't, but IIRC there's a few scriptures in the bible implying that an "unborn child" is a human being, which in turn implies that killing it would qualify as murder.

That said, however, I'm personally in favour of abortion and I'm not Christian anyway, but I just wanted to point that out.

As a Catholic, I don't take Paul's letters as God's verboten word because he is not a prophet nor is he Jesus. If you're a fundamentalist Christian, then perhaps you take every word in the Bible at face value. Need I remind you that it is us nasty Catholics who ASSEMBLED the Bible in the first place? By literally interpreting the words, you lose God's message. Are you so distant from Jesus that he will not help you understand the Bible, so that you must rely on the dictionary to understand God's message?

Because the Bible contradicts itself on many occasions, I hold the Gospels higher than any other books in the Bible.

That said, it seems to go against Christ to break up a monogamous, loving same-sex relationship out of hatred. So rather, I cannot justify Paul's rants with Christ's teaching, so I err on the side of Christ. I hope you do too.

As a qualifier, I do believe many aspects of the stereotypical gay lifestyle, in particular the countless random hookups at bathhouses, for example, are antithetical to a healthy and holy lifestyle. We should be encouraging homosexuals to embrace Christian ideals and give them an alternative lifestyle to the sexed-up bar scene...encourage them to start monogamous Christian families, right? Sounds like what Christ would do in this modern age.

Surely you mean verbatim. Verboten means "forbidden".

This is only a forum. In real life Mormons and similar religious cases are considered the trolls.

Perhaps in your very own and individual world... but not, I am afraid, outside of your mind.

So a morally-just person who lived a life of selflessness but did not believe in God would be passed over for a hypocritical-Christian that bashed gays and demanded that whites be given superiority (not saying you're that type of person, just a discussion point)?

If someone does not believe in God and religion, have they not excluded those things from their lives themselves? If you don't like ice cream, why be pissed that you weren't invited to the ice cream parlor?

And I don't believe that so-called Christians who preach hatred get a "free pass". If they are not following Christ's teachings, then what spiritual benefit do they think they are going to get?

Yoo hoo! Nanatsu! I've got the vibrador purpúreo...

No, that's just how I roll.[/QUOTE]

You know better. Knock it off with the obscene pic spam.

I just happen to come across this topic while surfing through the forums. First off is there any place sacred where I don't have to see this BS argument. It's littered all over the freaking net. This is a game for crying out loud. And second, after reading some of the BS here, I can only ask one question. You people call yourself Christian? It seems awful strange to me that you all are so quick to condemn others when the person you all claim to follow never judged anyone. Wouldn't you all be better off worrying about your own lives and the mess this country is in? But, who am I to know? Like I've always said, the best arguments in favor of atheism come from the religious.

Point of order: moneylenders in the temple?

What? Being human does not command respect.

I don't give a shit what that retard Jesus preached.

And yet you have to comment on it endlessly. Why is that?

As a Catholic, I don't take Paul's letters as God's verboten word because he is not a prophet nor is he Jesus. If you're a fundamentalist Christian, then perhaps you take every word in the Bible at face value. Need I remind you that it is us nasty Catholics who ASSEMBLED the Bible in the first place? By literally interpreting the words, you lose God's message. Are you so distant from Jesus that he will not help you understand the Bible, so that you must rely on the dictionary to understand God's message?

Because the Bible contradicts itself on many occasions, I hold the Gospels higher than any other books in the Bible.

That said, it seems to go against Christ to break up a monogamous, loving same-sex relationship out of hatred. So rather, I cannot justify Paul's rants with Christ's teaching, so I err on the side of Christ. I hope you do too.

As a qualifier, I do believe many aspects of the stereotypical gay lifestyle, in particular the countless random hookups at bathhouses, for example, are antithetical to a healthy and holy lifestyle. We should be encouraging homosexuals to embrace Christian ideals and give them an alternative lifestyle to the sexed-up bar scene...encourage them to start monogamous Christian families, right? Sounds like what Christ would do in this modern age.

I like some of your ideas, and you're a bit more civilized and thoughtful then the average NSer, but one nitpick. You assume random hookups and casual shags are only part of homosexuality. Heterosexuals do plenty of that.

fixed :D

Sorry, on the net I default to assuming that people are male.

Sorry, on the net I default to assuming that people are male.

As do I, I just happen to know that Nanatsu is a señorita muy bonita, also it certainly isn't a problem since she didn't correct it.

What? Being human does not command respect.

I don't give a shit what that retard Jesus preached.

Oh gods... you are a retard. I´m sorry for the insult but you are. Plain and simple. You didn´t even read what I posted. You used what, to you, suited you. OMG, I can´t debate with people like you. The sole fact that you´re a human and have feelings commands respect. And even I, in all my agnosticism wouldn´t even dare insult a great man like Jesus Christ.

Oh gods... you are a retard. I´m sorry for the insult but you are. Plain and simple. You didn´t even read what I posted. You used what, to you, suited you. OMG, I can´t debate with people like you. The sole fact that you´re a human and have feelings commands respect. And even I, in all my agnosticism wouldn´t even dare insult a great man like Jesus Christ.

UB's problem is he is the atheistic equivalent of the worst fundamentalist christian or moslem.

UB's problem is he is the atheistic equivalent of the worst fundamentalist christian or moslem.

I don't think he's an atheist, he follows some weird Sumerian religion.

I don't think he's an atheist, he follows some weird Sumerian religion.

Weird Sumerian religion being the key to his foolishness.

I don't think he's an atheist, he follows some weird Sumerian religion.

You learn something new everyday...

You learn something new everyday...

The more you know! *chime*

The more you know! *chime*

*shakes head*

Bad Rhyno, no cookie for you...
ookie, gookie or otherwise
;)

So... back on topic, anyone?

So... back on topic, anyone?

Not until I get my cookie.

So... back on topic, anyone?

Let me tell you, Acrela, that asking Rhyno to get back on topic is like asking Bush not to invade Iraq.

Let me tell you, Acrela, that asking Rhyno to get back on topic is like asking Bush not to invade Iraq.

He didn't get his cookie either.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Um, you are beginning to sound like Achmadinejad, buddy boy.

Oh gods... you are a retard. I´m sorry for the insult but you are. Plain and simple. You didn´t even read what I posted. You used what, to you, suited you. OMG, I can´t debate with people like you. The sole fact that you´re a human and have feelings commands respect. And even I, in all my agnosticism wouldn´t even dare insult a great man like Jesus Christ.

Why are you making the logical leap that results in "humanity = respect"? I don't understand your reasoning. Why do you think humanity intrinsically demands respect?

Why are you making the logical leap that results in "humanity = respect"? I don't understand your reasoning. Why do you think humanity intrinsically demands respect?

Because we´re sentient beings. That´s why we demand respect. Like everything else that moves, breathes, and feels. That´s my reasoning.

What, liking someone from the same sex suddenly makes you less human than the rest of us and therefore, subject to humiliation? Answer me that one...

Why are you making the logical leap that results in "humanity = respect"? I don't understand your reasoning. Why do you think humanity intrinsically demands respect?

We are all human. Do not all humans deserve the respect of others? Why should any one being on this planet be treated badly for something they cannot control?

Do you also support racism? They're human, but since they're of another race, I suppose that doesn't matter, right?

Because we´re sentient beings. That´s why we demand respect. Like everything else that moves, breathes, and feels. That´s my reasoning.

What, liking someone from the same sex suddenly makes you less human than the rest of us and therefore, subject to humiliation? Answer me that one...

You haven't answered my question. WHY does sentience demand respect? Don't be silly, I have said nothing about homosexuality. I am homosexual. I am disputing your logical reasoning, not your opinions of us.

We are all human. Do not all humans deserve the respect of others? Why should any one being on this planet be treated badly for something they cannot control?

Do you also support racism? They're human, but since they're of another race, I suppose that doesn't matter, right?


Of course I don't support racism, but I also do not support automatically granting respect that is not earned. Why do you think being human earns you respect?

Both your logic reads as: "humanity deserves respect because they're human." This implies that humanity imbues intrinsic respect. I dispute this, because that makes as much sense as saying "fat people deserve respect because they're fat". Your argument is circular and irrational.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Read Matthew 7:1

You haven't answered my question. WHY does sentience demand respect? Don't be silly, I have said nothing about homosexuality. I am homosexual. I am disputing your logical reasoning, not your opinions of us.

If you're homosexual, why are you arguing with us on this...?

Of course I don't support racism, but I also do not support automatically granting respect that is not earned. Why do you think being human earns you respect?

You don't get it. I don't mean respect in the sense that I should bow before you and do whatever you want because you are so great, I mean respect in the sense that the basic human rights of all people should be... well, respected. Homosexuals are human, and they deserve to be treated as such, not like some strange offshoot of the species that is somehow inferior.

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, and anyone who says otherwise should try imagining if they realized they had an attraction to a member of the same sex that they couldn't control and everyone despised them for it. How would you feel then, and would you still declare homosexuals to be anything less than you yourself are?

You haven't answered my question. WHY does sentience demand respect? Don't be silly, I have said nothing about homosexuality. I am homosexual. I am disputing your logical reasoning, not your opinions of us.

Once again, you´re not reading my posts as you should. I say humans demand respect on the sole aspect that they feel. I say this because of feeling, feeling, the capacity to feel any number of sensations. As I already said that any living moving breathing being demands respect. Because in feeling you´re alive and that, the very fact of being alive demands respect. Question answered?

If you're homosexual, why are you arguing with us on this...?

I have answered this. My beef isn't that this concerns homosexuality, it's that your logic is circular. I am of the opinion that all respect must be earned, and I am NOT of the opinion that simply being born human grants you that respect.

Once again, you´re not reading my posts as you should. I say humans demand respect on the sole aspect that they feel. I say this because of feeling, feeling, the capacity to feel any number of sensations. As I already said that any living moving breathing being demands respect. Because in feeling you´re alive and that, the very fact of being alive demands respect. Question answered?

Yes, you have answered my question. Your answer is that the respect is intrinsic to life? An opinion I disagree with, because it is irrational and holds no basis in reality.

Yes, you have answered my question. Your answer is that the respect is intrinsic to life? An opinion I disagree with, because it is irrational and holds no basis in reality.

Why? Why shouldn't you respect all living things? What makes you or them any greater or lesser than one another, and therefore not deserving of respect?

You seem to be the one an irrational view, to be honest.

Yes, you have answered my question. Your answer is that the respect is intrinsic to life? An opinion I disagree with, because it is irrational and holds no basis in reality.

I disagree with you on that. Respect has to be earned you say? I guess that means that a baby, who hasn´t begun to live just yet doesn´t deserve respect. This tiny creature must first come into the world in order to earn this respect you´re talking about. But it has no right to be respected while in the womb. Right? Being alive isn´t enough.:rolleyes:

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

I've read that passage. It seems to me that Paul is not so much attempting to say that homosexuality is a hundred times worse then any other sexual infidelity as he is using it as a description of something which objectively stems from lust. Acting on lust of any sort, homosexual or heterosexual, is sinful.

It's not so much that I'm okay with homosexuality as I do not believe homosexuals are any more sinful then adulterers, porn-viewers, those who delight in sexual exploitation, in other words, a cross-section of the American public. If we were going to burn some "fags", we'd have to burn 95% of our population with them - in fact, we might as well just detonate a few atom bombs. :p

I disagree with you on that. Respect has to be earned you say? I guess that means that a baby, who hasn´t begun to live just yet doesn´t deserve respect. This tiny creature must first come into the world in order to earn this respect you´re talking about. But it has no right to be respected while in the womb. Right? Being alive isn´t enough.:rolleyes:

I think this can be resolved by including degrees of respect. Being a human being necessitates a small degree of respect, which most people discard rather quickly by being assholes (and therefore do not deserve that bit of respect). But true respect can only be earned.

I think this can be resolved by including degrees of respect. Being a human being necessitates a small degree of respect, which most people discard rather quickly by being assholes (and therefore do not deserve that bit of respect). But true respect can only be earned.

Wow, an intelligent insightful post from Rhyno...
You're slipping...

Wow, an intelligent insightful post from Rhyno...
You're slipping...

I can be very intelligent when I choose to be.

I rarely choose to be.

And I like to balance it with things like WHY AREN'T YOU POSTING ON THE SSA (s8.invisionfree.com/ssa05/index.php)!?

I can be very intelligent when I choose to be.

I rarely choose to be.

And I like to balance with things like WHY AREN'T YOU POSTING ON THE SSA (s8.invisionfree.com/ssa05/index.php)!?

Because I'm here?

Because I'm here?

Well don't be <_<.

Because I'm here?

Ditto. And stop advertising, Ry, or you´re gonna get bumped in the head.;)

Well don't be <_<.

But I like it here, its warm cozy and has Nanatsu...
:D
:fluffle:'s Nanatsu

But I like it here, its warm cozy and has Nanatsu...
:D
:fluffle:'s Nanatsu

But I´m there too.
:D
*:fluffle:´s Dyakovo*

How can Christians believe in Homosexuality?

About the same way as Sikhs believe in being born in Paraguay. It's not something you choose to believe in or not, you know.

Because not all of us believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Jesus preached universal respect, and that extends even to homosexuals. I myself respect homosexuals for the secular reasons that they're mostly good people who just roll a different way, and that what one does in one's own bedroom with a mature, consenting other is one's own choice.

But I´m there too.
:D
*:fluffle:´s Dyakovo*

Not right now you aren't...

Yay! Nanatsu's giving out :fluffle:s now...

Not right now you aren't...

Yay! Nanatsu's giving out :fluffle:s now...

I wuz a minute ago. You no there either.:(

Yay, me giving :fluffle:s!!!

But I like it here, its warm cozy and has Nanatsu...
:D
:fluffle:'s Nanatsu

We have one of them over at the SSA (s8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php) now.

I wuz a minute ago. You no there either.:(

Yay, me giving :fluffle:s!!!


Yeah, I registered, looked around a bit and didn't really see anything that I wanted to offer my 2 cents on...

Because not all of us believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Jesus preached universal respect, and that extends even to homosexuals. I myself respect homosexuals for the secular reasons that they're mostly good people who just roll a different way, and that what one does in one's own bedroom with a mature, consenting other is one's own choice.

Yay! An intelligent christian...

Seriously, kudos to you, and all christians who think like you, Kirav.

Per Nanatsu's request...People are people, so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
People are people, so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

So we're different colours, and we're different creeds
And different people have different needs
It's obvious you hate me, though I've done nothing wrong
I've never even met you, so what could I have done?

I can't understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand

People are people, so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
People are people, so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

Now you're punching and you're kicking and you're shouting at me
I'm relying on your common decency
So far it hasn't surfaced, but I'm sure it exists
It just take a while to travel from your head to your fist

I can't understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand

People are people, so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
People are people, so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

I can't understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand

How can Christians believe in making graven images for themselves? Read Deuteronomy 4:16, please.

How can Christians believe in making graven images for themselves? Read Deuteronomy 4:16, please.

Easy, christians routinely ignore any part of the bible that they consider inconvenient.

Easy, christians routinely ignore any part of the bible that they consider inconvenient.

That was my point. ;)

That was my point. ;)

Wasn't sure, especially since there are people like the OP who apparently was serious...

Per Nanatsu's request...

YAY!!!
:fluffle:

As a Christian, I don't support homosexuality in the least. I am annoyed wholeheartedly when Christian folk make themselves hypocrites and accepting of it and its similar.

As a Christian, I don't support homosexuality in the least. I am annoyed wholeheartedly when Christian folk make themselves hypocrites and accepting of it and its similar.

I´m sorry for you. You´re negating the message of love that Christ preached so intently and for which he also died at the cross.

How can Christians believe in making graven images for themselves? Read Deuteronomy 4:16, please.

Christ was the apparent harbringer of change. To complete the old ways. Hence in Christian liturgy in the case of any contradictions between Old and New Testament, the New Testament verse is always the cannon.

How much or how little of the "Old Testament" a Christian follows depends on his/her denomination. Messianic Jews place a lot of emphasis on it, more modern/liberal Churches not too much (They stress more the fact that Christ said respect all people, love thy neighbors and not "let's put you to death coz u 3at shellfish lolz)."

Hey! Hey Christians! Guess what! Christ FREED you from the old Jewish laws. The one everyone references on the subject of homosexuality was ONE OF THOSE OLD LAWS. The Apostles decided that the only OLD laws the new Christians needed to keep were the Ten Commandments. If they hadn't done this, Christians would have to follow lots of Jewish laws, like only eating kosher products and so on. Now what does this mean? That the old law in Deuteronomy doesn't matter! Hooray!

...Huzzah, Church History class.


In any case, whatever your denomination's interpretation, you should use the Bible to preach love, not hate. Jesus was about love--not hate.

Hey! Hey Christians! Guess what! Christ FREED you from the old Jewish laws. The one everyone references on the subject of homosexuality was ONE OF THOSE OLD LAWS. The Apostles decided that the only OLD laws the new Christians needed to keep were the Ten Commandments. If they hadn't done this, Christians would have to follow lots of Jewish laws, like only eating kosher products and so on. Now what does this mean? That the old law in Deuteronomy doesn't matter! Hooray!

...Huzzah, Church History class.


In any case, whatever your denomination's interpretation, you should use the Bible to preach love, not hate. Jesus was about love--not hate.

Just think of all the people who have just been saved from going to Hell since they wear clothes made of mixed fabrics.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

I'm not sure the thread title and the question in the OP mean the same thing however...

Homosexuality may not be my tankard of ale, but then again, neither is steak. Strangely enough, you don't see me setting steakhouses on fire. All it really takes to accept homosexuality(not so sure about thinking it is 'right', since that's a rather vague term) is not being an uptight ass about everything. I may have just made a pun and may make a spelling error soon, butt it was unintentional.

Just think of all the people who have just been saved from going to Hell since they wear clothes made of mixed fabrics.

Gah, can't believe I'm actually getting sucked into this.

Believe it or not, there's actually a reason for that law. That reason being that the Israelites were to be set apart as God's chosen people, and to be an example for other peoples. The whole mixed fabrics thing was distinguish them from the other nations and make the Israelites remember every morning as they got dressed remember that they were supposed to be following God's law.

I was being facetious, but yeah, a lot of the old rules (like the sanitary laws), while they made sense to the audience (OH NOES! PEOPLE EATING PORK GET SICK! UNCLEAN!!!!) really don't now.

Gah, can't believe I'm actually getting sucked into this.

Believe it or not, there's actually a reason for that law. That reason being that the Israelites were to be set apart as God's chosen people, and to be an example for other peoples. The whole mixed fabrics thing was distinguish them from the other nations and make the Israelites remember every morning as they got dressed remember that they were supposed to be following God's law.

I don't think "why" is the point they are getting at so much as how people will pick and choose the verses they like (foods not to eat and cloths not to wear are in the same book as anti-gay[if you subscribe to that interpretation])

Though I think the food and cloth ban was lift in Acts, but I can't remember where.

How can you accept it and think it is right? Read Romans 1:27 please.

Hahaha.

Hey! Hey Christians! Guess what! Christ FREED you from the old Jewish laws. The one everyone references on the subject of homosexuality was ONE OF THOSE OLD LAWS. The Apostles decided that the only OLD laws the new Christians needed to keep were the Ten Commandments. If they hadn't done this, Christians would have to follow lots of Jewish laws, like only eating kosher products and so on. Now what does this mean? That the old law in Deuteronomy doesn't matter! Hooray!

...Huzzah, Church History class.


In any case, whatever your denomination's interpretation, you should use the Bible to preach love, not hate. Jesus was about love--not hate.

I don't understand why the "old laws" were imposed in the first place. Did God think they were right at one time before changing his mind?

while i'm physically hetro, as a socially androginous person, i'd have put that question the other way, and wonder how gay's can believe in christianity.

=^^=
.../\...

"I don't understand why the "old laws" were imposed in the first place. Did God think they were right at one time before changing his mind?"

yes, social principals evolve from dispensation to dispensation. it is only the spiritual principals that are unchainging.

=^^=
.../\...

You said that studying religion is a science. You said earlier that the only opinions of value re: gay christians are those of gay christians. It follows that the only opinion of value re:christians in general would be those of christians in general, and ditto for every other religion. Therefore theologians(blargh, theologists? learn2english, Ifreann)have wasted their lives studying religion, since their opinion on a religion they don't believe in is apparently worthless.

I see what you're saying.

My thing is though, any opinion expressed on the matter other than that directly from a self-described Gay Christian is going to be secondhand information. Not unreliable per se, but not the ideal source for figuring out how, exactly, one can reconcile the two.

I suppose a strict reading of the title would include all Christians who do not see any moral problems with the homosexual life, but I'd venture to guess that not very many have really studied the question at a level of detail that would make this discussion interesting.

If someone does not believe in God and religion, have they not excluded those things from their lives themselves? If you don't like ice cream, why be pissed that you weren't invited to the ice cream parlor?


I have to say I would disagree with this reasoning. Just because somebody does not believe that a god exists doesn't mean that, if they were exposed to the truth (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is true), they would dislike being with said god. If I found out I was wrong, I would much rather spend eternity in heaven than eternity in torment. Saying that I don't get into heaven, not as punishment, but because I wouldn't enjoy it, makes little sense to me. Perhaps it's because I really don't mind finding out that I've been wrong about something as much as others do.

I think a better analogy would be if somebody had never had ice cream, and didn't believe, for some reason, that it existed, was shown that the ice cream parlor actually existed. But, because they didn't believe in it before, a bouncer dragged them off to a secret room where they started beating them instead of letting them come in and taste the ice cream! (Or, if your interpretation of the Bible is different from mine, and you don't believe in a Hell with torment, then they put him in a hot room and force him to see everybody else eating ice cream and while they sit in front of a fan.)

As a Christian, I don't support homosexuality in the least. I am annoyed wholeheartedly when Christian folk make themselves hypocrites and accepting of it and its similar.

I know, all you fucking Christians who tolerate morals different from your own are hypocrits. Why arent you out there judging others?


WWJD?!?

I don't think "why" is the point they are getting at so much as how people will pick and choose the verses they like (foods not to eat and cloths not to wear are in the same book as anti-gay[if you subscribe to that interpretation])

Though I think the food and cloth ban was lift in Acts, but I can't remember where.

Fair enough. It just irks me when people use that as an example of irrationality in the OT.

while i'm physically hetro, as a socially androginous person, i'd have put that question the other way, and wonder how gay's can believe in christianity.

That's another thread. Coming soon to a Forum near you. (OK, it's this forum)

I was being facetious, but yeah, a lot of the old rules (like the sanitary laws), while they made sense to the audience (OH NOES! PEOPLE EATING PORK GET SICK! UNCLEAN!!!!) really don't now.

There's a reason for that law, too. But yes, now that we have knowledge of disease and whatnot, we don't need those laws.

I don't understand why the "old laws" were imposed in the first place. Did God think they were right at one time before changing his mind?

Actually what it is, is that god has multiple personality disorder...
;)

Actually what it is, is that god has multiple personality disorder...
;)

Now i agree with you there. That would explain alot of things.

Now i agree with you there. That would explain alot of things.

It would, wouldn't it. :D

The whole mixed fabrics thing was distinguish them from the other nations and make the Israelites remember every morning as they got dressed remember that they were supposed to be following God's law.

I can't help but visualize this in action:

"Hey mom can we have ham and cheese omelets for breakfast today?"

"Just get dressed, dear"

"OK! I'll just put on my 100% cotton tee shirt and... and... wow. What a head rush. Now I remember, I can't have ham and cheese omelets!"

Per Nanatsu's request...

Ultrawin

Ultrawin

Wut?:confused:

I can't help but visualize this in action:

"Hey mom can we have ham and cheese omelets for breakfast today?"

"Just get dressed, dear"

"OK! I'll just put on my 100% cotton tee shirt and... and... wow. What a head rush. Now I remember, I can't have ham and cheese omelets!"

See? Certainly less silly than a law demanding everyone to wear a little red ribbon around their finger...

I know, all you fucking Christians who tolerate morals different from your own are hypocrits. Why arent you out there judging others?


WWJD?!?
Your mistaking 'Jesus' with 'Jezuz'....