Documentary On Homosexuality And Religion

[brvheart 1,752]

The christians like to quote from the old testament when it suits them, but it when it doesn't match their views they say only the new testament counts. Old testament = vengeful god, new testament = loving god, right?

God has always been God. Before Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law life was much harder. Jesus took the place of many things required in the old testament. It has nothing to do with not agreeing with it. I agree with everything in the old testament in the context of the old testament and what God required to set his follower apart from everyone else. I'm really happy however that Jesus fulfills most of the requirements of the old testament, so that I can eat shrimp.You won't ever see me say that something in the old testament doesn't match my views. I've never said that and never will. Anything that is no longer a requirement from the old testament is covered nicely in the new testament, so I don't have to do any work figuring out what to believe.

[LadyGrey 6]

I feel like you guys didn't read my post on this section of scripture that I posted on page 1. This passage has nothing to do with the guy not wanting to screw his brothers wife... because he did. It has nothing to do with masturbation. God's anger had nothing to do with the act of him spilling his seed. This passage is dealing with the fact that the guy did not want to get a lady pregnant with a kid that wouldn't be his heir. So instead of obeying God he purposely screwed the wife and then didn't get her pregnant. Obviously his disobedience is why God was mad.The man did **** his brother's wife. He just purposefully didn't get her pregnant because he didn't want to father a child that wouldn't be his heir.

My point was that the bible can be interpreted in different ways. Many people interpret the passage I quoted as being anti-masturbation - just look at the Catholic church for one example. You interpret it in a different way. Nobody knows what the bible means, or is intended to mean. They have their own interpretations, but they know for certain if they have the right idea.

[Loismustdie 0]

The christians like to quote from the old testament when it suits them, but it when it doesn't match their views they say only the new testament counts. Old testament = vengeful god, new testament = loving god, right?

Wrong. There is just as much love in the New Testament as vengeance, and the same for the old. The key is this- no one wants to talk about it. You see murder on the news, no one covers the old lady handing out free ice cream to random kids- unless it's poisoned, of course. Love is not fun, love is also not exploitable by the people you listen to. Look, this as always will come off as arrogant but you should try and know what you are talking about. There really isn't all that much difference between the old and the new, and the differences are addressed directly, plainly, in the new, under the new law, such as all meat is good, no more animal sacrifices, etc. Where it doesn't address a change we remain the same as the old.

[brvheart 1,752]

My point was that the bible can be interpreted in different ways. Many people interpret the passage I quoted as being anti-masturbation - just look at the Catholic church for one example. You interpret it in a different way. Nobody knows what the bible means, or is intended to mean. They have their own interpretations, but they know for certain if they have the right idea.

Sure. It's true that many denominations change the words of the Bible to mean different things, but I'm sure that everyone in this thread can read that passage and only come to the conclusion that God was mad at the disobedience of Oman. I would bet that 10 out of 10 eight year olds could read that section and say that the issue God had was with his disobedience. That's what makes it so easy to see that the Catholic church is wrong. (If, in fact, they use this section to condemn masturbation)

[Loismustdie 0]

My point was that the bible can be interpreted in different ways. Many people interpret the passage I quoted as being anti-masturbation - just look at the Catholic church for one example. You interpret it in a different way. Nobody knows what the bible means, or is intended to mean. They have their own interpretations, but they know for certain if they have the right idea.

I disagree with Braveheart on that one, also take it one step further in that it is easy to see what sex was supposed to be about by the way it is addressed. Fornication, lust is not supposed to be, that would makes masturbation a non issue because you have to imagine those things to make it happen, and we know by scripture that even the thought is a sin. There is no way around this. Well, you say, what if I just thought about toasters? O.k.- toasters do it for you? Still a sexual idea that you lust after. Next. Edit: I had to look over it real quick. It talks about the "thing that he did" vs. "God was angry because he didn't listen." I think the terminology is a little odd there, and could point to the act vs. the disobedience. I think it's also irrelevant, in that it's easy to demonstrate why masturbation is wrong. You don't need this for that.

[brvheart 1,752]

I disagree with Braveheart on that one, also take it one step further in that it is easy to see what sex was supposed to be about by the way it is addressed. Fornication, lust is not supposed to be, that would makes masturbation a non issue because you have to imagine those things to make it happen, and we know by scripture that even the thought is a sin. There is no way around this. Well, you say, what if I just thought about toasters? O.k.- toasters do it for you? Still a sexual idea that you lust after. Next. Edit: I had to look over it real quick. It talks about the "thing that he did" vs. "God was angry because he didn't listen." I think the terminology is a little odd there, and could point to the act vs. the disobedience. I think it's also irrelevant, in that it's easy to demonstrate why masturbation is wrong. You don't need this for that.

What do you disagree with me on? It sounds like you agree with me exactly.

[Loismustdie 0]

What do you disagree with me on? It sounds like you agree with me exactly.

I think that God had to have been angry at the spilling of the seed part. I think that it would be unreasonable otherwise- the guy did not want to father a son for his brother and if he would have just told God, "Look, I am not comfortable with this" he tried to be sneaky, and did something so bad that God killed him? Seems a little harsh if it's really just about disobedience, unless God does not like life- or the ingredients for it- just wantonly spilled about. The whole thing is about the carrying on the seed of that family, and this is how you are going to handle that seed? You're a dead man. Does that make sense?

[brvheart 1,752]

I think that God had to have been angry at the spilling of the seed part. I think that it would be unreasonable otherwise- the guy did not want to father a son for his brother and if he would have just told God, "Look, I am not comfortable with this" he tried to be sneaky, and did something so bad that God killed him? Seems a little harsh if it's really just about disobedience, unless God does not like life- or the ingredients for it- just wantonly spilled about. The whole thing is about the carrying on the seed of that family, and this is how you are going to handle that seed? You're a dead man. Does that make sense?

DUDE! God killed a guy for trying to help an ox that stumbled while carrying the Ark of the Covenant. I guarantee that that guy had no thoughts of disobedience in his heart. He saw the ox stumble and tried to steady it so the Ark wouldn't fall.This other dude disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from God!!! And he did it out of spite... it was no accident. Of course he should get snuffed. I feel like everyone is taking crazy pills.

[Loismustdie 0]

DUDE! God killed a guy for trying to help an ox that stumbled while carrying the Ark of the Covenant. I guarantee that that guy had no thoughts of disobedience in his heart. He saw the ox stumble and tried to steady it so the Ark wouldn't fall.This other dude disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from God!!! And he did it out of spite... it was no accident. Of course he should get snuffed. I feel like everyone is taking crazy pills.

Like I said we don't absolutely need this for masturbation purposes, I think it's possible that it's a little deeper than just disobedience. Thankfully it's one of those true instances where it really doesn't matter. That's not about disobedience either, that's about some idiot putting an Ox above Gods commandment- but, I digest.

[brvheart 1,752]

Like I said we don't absolutely need this for masturbation purposes, I think it's possible that it's a little deeper than just disobedience. Thankfully it's one of those true instances where it really doesn't matter. That's not about disobedience either, that's about some idiot putting an Ox above Gods commandment- but, I digest.

We totally agree on this. Lust is the issue, this instance of disobedience is not an issue.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Yes, it can, or I wouldn't have said it.

What you're saying is false. Sorry. Nobody can read that passage and then come to the conclusion that the bible condemns masturbation. It is possible to conclude that masturbation is wrong and use that passage to rationalize that belief. We covered this in Daniel's thread, by the way.

[brvheart 1,752]

What you're saying is false. Sorry. Nobody can read that passage and then come to the conclusion that the bible condemns masturbation. It is possible to conclude that masturbation is wrong and use that passage to rationalize that belief. We covered this in Daniel's thread, by the way.

I wasn't in on the other discussion, but I don't see how anyone could disagree with this."Eight year olds, Dude... eight year olds."

[Sal Paradise 57]

What you're saying is false. Sorry. Nobody can read that passage and then come to the conclusion that the bible condemns masturbation. It is possible to conclude that masturbation is wrong and use that passage to rationalize that belief. We covered this in Daniel's thread, by the way.

it truly hurts me physically when somebody says that bible passages are in no way open for interpretation. its what you believe. great. but saying that what you believe to be what is meant is the ONLY possible way it can be meant is so unbelievably conceited I just can't really fathom it, and it actually causes me pain.heres a question to you guys (christians) here: do you guys not see how what you say in regards to sinning, the bible, god's rules, and all the like come off as ridiculously conceited? like "I know this is what god wants, and I know if better than you and any other christian for that matter." that is the way it comes off and is the cause of the great majority of the rift between the christians and the nons (everybody else). think of how pissed off you guys were (mainly lois, I don't remember anybody else) at the discussion in the thread about evolution and how everybody just buys everything science tells them full on. well science provides quantifiable and verifiable proof whereas religion provides none (to modern man). so if science, with its verifiable truths, is cold and heartless, then how do you think we feel about your (or gods, whichever way you want to put it) judgments of other people WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT IT IS WRONG makes us feel?

[David_Nicoson 1]

it truly hurts me physically when somebody says that bible passages are in no way open for interpretation. its what you believe. great. but saying that what you believe to be what is meant is the ONLY possible way it can be meant is so unbelievably conceited I just can't really fathom it, and it actually causes me pain.

Surely, all possible meanings aren't equally valid. That would make a very meaningless book, wouldn't it?What if I interpret that passage to mean that penguins flew out of Noah's butt and invaded Scotland? Who are you to say that's wrong? You're a person who can read. That "interpretation" is plainly wrong, as is the belief that the story of Onan is an instruction to us not to masturbate.

[Loismustdie 0]

it truly hurts me physically when somebody says that bible passages are in no way open for interpretation. its what you believe. great. but saying that what you believe to be what is meant is the ONLY possible way it can be meant is so unbelievably conceited I just can't really fathom it, and it actually causes me pain.heres a question to you guys (christians) here: do you guys not see how what you say in regards to sinning, the bible, god's rules, and all the like come off as ridiculously conceited? like "I know this is what god wants, and I know if better than you and any other christian for that matter." that is the way it comes off and is the cause of the great majority of the rift between the christians and the nons (everybody else). think of how pissed off you guys were (mainly lois, I don't remember anybody else) at the discussion in the thread about evolution and how everybody just buys everything science tells them full on. well science provides quantifiable and verifiable proof whereas religion provides none (to modern man). so if science, with its verifiable truths, is cold and heartless, then how do you think we feel about your (or gods, whichever way you want to put it) judgments of other people WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT IT IS WRONG makes us feel?

Tell me something that the bible says is wrong that you don't agree with and I will tell you why it makes sense without even using the Bible. I feel fairly confident this can be done. Also,causes you pain? You're a joke account, you don't feel pain. Your host might, but you have no real feelings.

[Loismustdie 0]

Surely, all possible meanings aren't equally valid. That would make a very meaningless book, wouldn't it?What if I interpret that passage to mean that penguins flew out of Noah's butt and invaded Scotland? Who are you to say that's wrong? You're a person who can read. That "interpretation" is plainly wrong, as is the belief that the story of Onan is an instruction to us not to masturbate.

What gives it it's meaning, what makes it great, is the idea that it can be looked at in so many different ways- I understand 10 times what i did twenty years ago, as you gte old and the scriptures take on more meaning, or you see deeper, the book can actually come alive. Like, share coffee with you and stuff.

[LadyGrey 6]

Surely, all possible meanings aren't equally valid. That would make a very meaningless book, wouldn't it?What if I interpret that passage to mean that penguins flew out of Noah's butt and invaded Scotland? Who are you to say that's wrong? You're a person who can read. That "interpretation" is plainly wrong, as is the belief that the story of Onan is an instruction to us not to masturbate.

You are being pretty pigheaded about this. Saying "Nobody can read that passage and then come to the conclusion that the bible condemns masturbation." is clearly false, because millions of people have and do interpret it that way. Perhaps you see it as clear that the masturbation interpretation is wrong, but that is your view, not the correct view. There have been huge debates over interpreting the bible, just look at the Eucharist debate during the reformation. The bible has been translated and edited so many times that the original meaning is lost, key words have been changed, others taken out of context, and some parts rewritten on the whim of the monarch who obviously has no authority to do so.That's why quoting the bible as the ultimate proof of a belief or an opinion is redundant. It's not only an unreliable source of what was originally written, but it can be interpreted differently by different people and groups, and you cannot prove which interpretation is the right one (no matter how staunchly, pedantically and sarcastically you insist it, Mr Nicoson).

[KramitDaToad 0]

Can I ask for clarification in a non-specific, cliff notes type summary?Is the following a correct summary of your (Lois, brv) beliefs on the subject? If not what is missing?

• We all sin. Whenever we <Enter sin here> we are commiting a sin.
• Sin cannot enter heaven.
• However Jesus died for our sins ie to forgive us our sins. (Not sure if forgive is the correct term. I toyed with 'washed away', 'removed' etc)
• We must beleive in Jesus for this to happen.
• Only the sins we are repentant of are forgiven.
• If we have any sins left that we are not repentant of, they are not forgiven and we cannot enter heaven.

<Enter sin here> can be replaced with any sin found in the Bible, be it murder, homosexuality or eating shellfish.

Anybody?

[Loismustdie 0]

Anybody?

I think what has happened is the conversation has gone so well, relatively respectful and some interesting thoughts being bandies about, that nobody really wants to let you in. I know that's how I feel. That being said, that's pretty close, you're off a bit here and there,but you don't care anyway, so it's not like it's really an issue.

[KramitDaToad 0]

I think what has happened is the conversation has gone so well, relatively respectful and some interesting thoughts being bandies about, that nobody really wants to let you in. I know that's how I feel. That being said, that's pretty close, you're off a bit here and there,but you don't care anyway, so it's not like it's really an issue.

So where is it off?

[Loismustdie 0]

So where is it off?

Still not hearing "I really care about this." Look, we already know how this goes. I answer, you poke sticks through the cage and ridicule, and the thread goes south. I just don't see or feel the need to do it anymore- and really just don't want to. Thats so Krazy Khristians 2007.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Still not hearing "I really care about this." Look, we already know how this goes. I answer, you poke sticks through the cage and ridicule, and the thread goes south. I just don't see or feel the need to do it anymore- and really just don't want to. Thats so Krazy Khristians 2007.

Actually I'm genuinely curious. I've always been disgusted with so called 'Christians' who isolate on the sin of homosexuality - and it would seem you are too. (disgusted that is, not homosexual )So in all seriousness, what's missing from my summary?

[brvheart 1,752]

I think what has happened is the conversation has gone so well, relatively respectful and some interesting thoughts being bandies about, that nobody really wants to let you in. I know that's how I feel. That being said, that's pretty close, you're off a bit here and there,but you don't care anyway, so it's not like it's really an issue.

I have him on ignore.

[speedz99 145]

Actually I'm genuinely curious.

You may have to give it up...even though I'm curious about the answer to your question as well. I do have to say that they're right in thinking any discussion with you will end up at the same endpoint as always.

[Loismustdie 0]

Actually I'm genuinely curious. I've always been disgusted with so called 'Christians' who isolate on the sin of homosexuality - and it would seem you are too. (disgusted that is, not homosexual )So in all seriousness, what's missing from my summary?

Alright, you wiley cunning fellow, I will bite. The thing is this, Braveheart and I might not agree completely here. He has a once saved, always outlook, I don't. I just don't think it matches biblically, yada yada yada. Basically, though, the blood of jesus cleanses us from our sins, we all get that, and initially you may not even know what ALL your sins may be, I would say no one does. You may have some things you know but you may know like 5%. (Arbitrary number but you get the point.) So, what you have said is correct but it's not that easy, and this is where faith comes in- God promises a striving christian time to deal basically, and the holy spirit reveals that which you need to work on/change as you are ready- faith comes into play there, but basically the thought is that for striving christian missing something should never be an issue. Now, for a non- striving christian, he says he will spew them out of his mouth- he takes the opposite stance when it comes to christians that don't work on themselves with there walk with God, which is why I tend to believe that you can be saved and still not make it to heaven, because God showed time and agin that he required effort on our part. And yes, it could literally be any sin. Homosexuality is not special in that regard, not in Gods eyes.