Jump to content

Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?


Recommended Posts

This may get lengthy, and for that, I apologize in advance...

If you believe you are somehow effected when a man and a man get married to the point that they should be banned from doing so,
I don't believe that I am affected at all, but I do believe that one could make an argument for the opposite. (I'm not saying whether said argument would be a 'good' argument'.
you are stupid.
Obviously.
We're in agreement on everything but that, I believe. What if 60% of the population found it offensive when a black man married a white woman? Wouldn't they be stupid if they were SO offended by it that they took steps to make sure black men could NEVER marry white women?
Again, I believe that one could make an argument that if 2/3rds of America would actually vote for segregation, that it should be allowed. Do I think it's right? no. Would I vote for segregation personally? Obviously. (sw) How would segregation affect me? I see maybe 1 black person a week... on a good week. It wouldn't affect me at all. And I do think that the will of the majority should be there. Crowtrobot, for example, believes that religion is extremely damaging to the public, world, universe... if 2/3rds of the country agreed with him, I believe that they would have every right to amend the constitution and ban religion. So if 2/3rds of the people voted to ban religion, I think that the constitution should be amended and changed. I would leave, of course, or at least go into hiding, but that doesn't mean that the people choose to live here shouldn't be allowed to live how they want.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

MELLO, BUFFALO. CHANDLER, BUFFALO. KENYON MARTIN, BUFFALO. JR SMITH, BUFFALO. PIGIONNI, HE'LL BUFFALO YOUR FUKEN COOKIES

I'm more of an Otter man myself, F.

Wang said:
Part of life is dealing with things you find distasteful. I fucking hate Christina Aguilera. But I don't hate her so much that I'd ever consider taking steps to force her to stay out of my conciousness, life, area, state, geographic location, etc. I'll just grit my teeth and bear it. That's part of what it means to exist in a pluralistic society. I hate most conservative politics (and am usually offended by it), but I'd never suggest they NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR OFFICE.Wang

We are in agreement once again... but does that mean that everyone should be forced to live so reasonably and logically? I say no. There were Colonists that were not upset enough with the taxation of the British government in the mid 18th century, that they would have forced or even voted for change.... but the majority were upset enough, and they forced change. I'm not trying to suggest that I think the gay marriage should be banned... in fact, as a Christian parent I talk with my oldest alot about this very thing... Just two weeks ago I was talking to him about swearing he heard on TV... I told him, "Buddy, 'fuck' (we always say the actual word when talking to the kids, so that it loses it's power... it's the same with sex and sexual terms. We always say penis and vagina, never slang words. I don't know if this is best, but it's what we do.) is a vulgar word, and you shouldn't say it. The Bible tells us to not use profane speech, and we want to honor God in our speech."

Bible said:
Ephesians 4:29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

So then he proceeds to tell a classmate that he shouldn't swear at recess and he comes home all proud and tells me about it.... What was my response? "Why? Buddy, why shouldn't he swear? Does he have Jesus in his heart? Does he believe in God? If not, then he has no reason to NOT swear... swearing is fun... people swear, that's what they do, it's how they talk, it's a fact of life... you will hear it at school, you will see it on TV. I'm not going to shelter you from the word 'fuck'... you will hear it your whole life. But YOU will not say it while living here... not because the word 'fuck' is evil, but because we want to honor God with our speech. We want to be a light in the darkness of the world." I think the same line of thinking applies to gay marriage. When someone is born gay, (Although I do believe that the far majority (more than 75%) were in a sense "created" by environmental and cultural factors, like broken or abusive homes, or bad fathers), I see absolutely no reason why that person should not live as a gay person and be married... from that individuals perspective. (I do think that there are societal reasons that they should not) But from a Christian perspective alone, we shouldn't expect anything else. ""Buddy, that person is gay, and they are not a Christian.  ...However, since you ARE a Christian, you should not act on sexual feelings for anyone of either sex, only someone from the opposite sex that you are currently married to, because the Bible tells us it's wrong outside that context.

Bible said:
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
 
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
 
1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
 
1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"
 
Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

"But if that person doesn't believe in God, and doesn't believe the Bible... why should they deny themselves those feelings? They have no reason to deny themselves, since they don't believe a higher power told them to. But you will. I hope you choose to follow God your whole life, but you definitely will until you move out."

Link to post
Share on other sites
renaedawn said:
You silly, silly people who keep arguing this point as if the Bible is the word of God. It was written by man. Men have motives and aspirations. And it's not even complete. There are over 30 gospels that have been disregarded. Those 30 gospels were deemed BY MAN to not be God's true words even though they were written by men just as credible as the ones who are accepted. Guess what? None of it is God's true words. None of it was written by the man himself nor was it transcribed to one source by the man himself. Quit saying "God says" cause God hasn't said boo to anyone in anyway that can be corroborated.

By the tone of your post, I don't really want to disagree with you... as I think you may take it personally... but how do you know they are not God's words? How do you know they were not divinely inspired? How do you know that God did not guide the early church as to which books should be included in the canon? IF God is real, which is admittedly a different starting point than you are using, don't you think that He would be able to make sure everything that He wanted us to know was in the Bible? All of your opinions are just that. You cannot prove that the Bible is NOT from God, anymore than I can prove that it is.

renaedawn said:
The scripture specifically says, the scripture specifically says, the scripture specifically says MY ASS!The scripture has been reinterpreted so many times it rarely even resembles the coptic (which was not even the first incantation but it's the first that we can deal with) translation anymore.There's simply no way in hell to be even a little bit sure what God intended.

The scripture may be 'reinterpreted' maybe times, but the actual text is basically identical to the texts in Jesus' time... as proven by many texts that have been found. God won't stop people from interpreting the words incorrectly. That fault rests on the shoulders of mankind alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By the tone of your post, I don't really want to disagree with you... as I think you may take it personally... but how do you know they are not God's words? How do you know they were not divinely inspired? How do you know that God did not guide the early church as to which books should be included in the canon? IF God is real, which is admittedly a different starting point than you are using, don't you think that He would be able to make sure everything that He wanted us to know was in the Bible? All of your opinions are just that. You cannot prove that the Bible is NOT from God, anymore than I can prove that it is.The scripture may be 'reinterpreted' maybe times, but the actual text is basically identical to the texts in Jesus' time... as proven by many texts that have been found. God won't stop people from interpreting the words incorrectly. That fault rests on the shoulders of man kind alone.
I can't disprove just as you cannot prove just as you said. However, I do believe in logic which seems to be something sorely missing when people start talking about the Bible being divine words. It's indisputable that the Bible is riddled with references to Roman politics and causes of the times. If God had intended for an apostle to write down those words and for us to use them for all time, don't you think he would have been a little less period relevant seeing as how he is omnipotent and all?Also, I know human beings just as you do. It is indisputable that people hear and interpret things through their own filters. Phrases and words mean different ideas to different people depending on many factors including that person's station in life, their past experiences, and their emotional feelings about a subject. There is no way possible that human bias didn't get written into the Bible especially since it wasn't even written during Jesus' lifetime. (Those Coptic texts that you're referring to as being written in Jesus' time? The first one was written at least 66 years after his crucifixtion.) How can you say something is divine words from God when it contradicts itself? God just likes telling 4 different versions of the nativity story? If not, then why are there 4 different versions, with 4 different series of events and emphasis on different occurences in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'll tell you why. Because it was told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to other people and each time the story was told it was explained and interpreted a little bit more each time by whoever was telling the story.It is absolutely silly to say that anything written in the Bible is absolutely God's unedited word.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't disprove just as you cannot prove just as you said. However, I do believe in logic which seems to be something sorely missing when people start talking about the Bible being divine words. It's indisputable that the Bible is riddled with references to Roman politics and causes of the times. If God had intended for an apostle to write down those words and for us to use them for all time, don't you think he would have been a little less period relevant seeing as how he is omnipotent and all?Also, I know human beings just as you do. It is indisputable that people hear and interpret things through their own filters. Phrases and words mean different ideas to different people depending on many factors including that person's station in life, their past experiences, and their emotional feelings about a subject. There is no way possible that human bias didn't get written into the Bible especially since it wasn't even written during Jesus' lifetime. (Those Coptic texts that you're referring to as being written in Jesus' time? The first one was written at least 66 years after his crucifixtion.) How can you say something is divine words from God when it contradicts itself? God just likes telling 4 different versions of the nativity story? If not, then why are there 4 different versions, with 4 different series of events and emphasis on different occurences in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'll tell you why. Because it was told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to other people and each time the story was told it was explained and interpreted a little bit more each time by whoever was telling the story.It is absolutely silly to say that anything written in the Bible is absolutely God's unedited word.
ding ding dingsmart woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't disprove just as you cannot prove just as you said. However, I do believe in logic which seems to be something sorely missing when people start talking about the Bible being divine words. It's indisputable that the Bible is riddled with references to Roman politics and causes of the times. If God had intended for an apostle to write down those words and for us to use them for all time, don't you think he would have been a little less period relevant seeing as how he is omnipotent and all?Also, I know human beings just as you do. It is indisputable that people hear and interpret things through their own filters. Phrases and words mean different ideas to different people depending on many factors including that person's station in life, their past experiences, and their emotional feelings about a subject. There is no way possible that human bias didn't get written into the Bible especially since it wasn't even written during Jesus' lifetime. (Those Coptic texts that you're referring to as being written in Jesus' time? The first one was written at least 66 years after his crucifixtion.) How can you say something is divine words from God when it contradicts itself? God just likes telling 4 different versions of the nativity story? If not, then why are there 4 different versions, with 4 different series of events and emphasis on different occurences in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'll tell you why. Because it was told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to other people and each time the story was told it was explained and interpreted a little bit more each time by whoever was telling the story.It is absolutely silly to say that anything written in the Bible is absolutely God's unedited word.
the kids like to call this GAME, SET, MATCH.But as long as you have faith, you can dispute anything. So, in summary, the argument will live on. That is until you're rotting in a pine box waiting for that call to the majors, and it never comes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This may get lengthy, and for that, I apologize in advance...I don't believe that I am affected at all, but I do believe that one could make an argument for the opposite. (I'm not saying whether said argument would be a 'good' argument'.Obviously.Again, I believe that one could make an argument that if 2/3rds of America would actually vote for segregation, that it should be allowed. Do I think it's right? no. Would I vote for segregation personally? Obviously. (sw) How would segregation affect me? I see maybe 1 black person a week... on a good week. It wouldn't affect me at all. And I do think that the will of the majority should be there. Crowtrobot, for example, believes that religion is extremely damaging to the public, world, universe... if 2/3rds of the country agreed with him, I believe that they would have every right to amend the constitution and ban religion. So if 2/3rds of the people voted to ban religion, I think that the constitution should be amended and changed. I would leave, of course, or at least go into hiding, but that doesn't mean that the people choose to live here shouldn't be allowed to live how they want.
This is completely contrary to the SPIRIT of the structure of politics/government/law in our country. American Democracy provides for the will of the majority, but only insofar as the rights of the MINORITY are not trampled. Just because more people want A than want (mutually exclusive) B doesn't NECESSARILY mean thing A should apply to everyone. We're a Democracy, but we're supposed to be a Democracy that operates within a basic framework of goodliness and righteousness. Even though I'm not a big fan of organized religion, I'd be FURIOUS if it were outlawed in this country (even if it ostensibly led to a higher average quality of life), and would call anyone who called for the outright legal ban or the practice of organized worship stupid. And anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I don't think I've used the word "stupid" this much while trying to conduct myself in a legitimately civil fashion in some time.WangPS- Proof there is no God- I've played 3 pots of 20 BB or more today, and lost to a 2 outer, a 2 outer, and runner/runner. Does that seem fair to you?
Link to post
Share on other sites
yes. Romans 9.
Well, then, how is this logical, reasonable, or even stomachable for a "loving" God to have some people destined for eternal torture??? Have you you even considered what this entails? Step back, and look at it. What kind of sadistic evil creature (be he deity or whatever) could allow a concious being to be created, make him gay, then after he his dead let him suffer intense pain for all of ETERNITY just for how he happened to be hardwired. I should think, friend, that you are egregiously misinterpreting the Bible and misapplying whatever gift of logic you were so endowed.If, however, you are not, then I ask how can you worship such a horrible monster?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The scripture specifically says, the scripture specifically says, the scripture specifically says MY ASS!The scripture has been reinterpreted so many times it rarely even resembles the coptic (which was not even the first incantation but it's the first that we can deal with) translation anymore.There's simply no way in hell to be even a little bit sure what God intended.[/quote So we'll put you down as a non believer, and ultimately worthless in THIS particlular conversation. Show up with your 20,000 posts in a thread where we actually debate that, and we will talk.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I remember why I don't come to the religion forum.I'll find the door myself. Thanks. You guys turn out the lights when you're done. If you can figure out how the light works, since it's science and all.
I answer the question that I can answer and don't answer the question that I can't, yet offer my opinion that a woman gushing blood all over my dork is gross and somehow this is a reason to downgrade the religous forum? What are you doing here, anyway? What's the point? The bibles not the word of God! You're all stupid! The religous forum is dumb! Some other pointless random thought! Why bother?
Link to post
Share on other sites
the kids like to call this GAME, SET, MATCH.But as long as you have faith, you can dispute anything. So, in summary, the argument will live on. That is until you're rotting in a pine box waiting for that call to the majors, and it never comes.
Ron, you're way off, and I will tell you why. The same story is told, by 4 different writers. Emphasis on different things-details different here and there- and yet, the same story, which proves the human element while at the same time proveing uncorroborated effort- just 4 dudes writing about the same thing they witnessed. All Mrs. Game, Set, Match has done is prove the oposite of what she intended to.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then, how is this logical, reasonable, or even stomachable for a "loving" God to have some people destined for eternal torture??? Have you you even considered what this entails? Step back, and look at it. What kind of sadistic evil creature (be he deity or whatever) could allow a concious being to be created, make him gay, then after he his dead let him suffer intense pain for all of ETERNITY just for how he happened to be hardwired. I should think, friend, that you are egregiously misinterpreting the Bible and misapplying whatever gift of logic you were so endowed.If, however, you are not, then I ask how can you worship such a horrible monster?
I couldn't. God doesn't make you gay. So, he's not a horrible monster in my book. Some people won't make it, but everyone is born with the ability to do so- what happens along the road is another thing. Maybe they should design a no gayness pill that would help whatever imbalance there is in the brain that causes the gayness. What? There is none you say? What a suprise! Ludicrous line of thought, isn't it? Seriously, it's not that big of a deal in the big scheme of things. It's horrible,yes, and I don't like the thought that it could be me, or you, or my wife or daughter, or DN or Bob- but there will be those of us that don't make it, those of us that will burn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
By the tone of your post, I don't really want to disagree with you... as I think you may take it personally... but how do you know they are not God's words? How do you know they were not divinely inspired? How do you know that God did not guide the early church as to which books should be included in the canon? IF God is real, which is admittedly a different starting point than you are using, don't you think that He would be able to make sure everything that He wanted us to know was in the Bible? All of your opinions are just that. You cannot prove that the Bible is NOT from God, anymore than I can prove that it is.The scripture may be 'reinterpreted' maybe times, but the actual text is basically identical to the texts in Jesus' time... as proven by many texts that have been found. God won't stop people from interpreting the words incorrectly. That fault rests on the shoulders of man kind alone.
All of that is right on, and deserves a huge religous QFT. Good points my friend.
Link to post
Share on other sites
it seems to me that this is really what it comes down to in the end. i've yet to hear a convincing argument for why gay marriage is appreciably different from interracial marriage on a societal level--if someone could offer one, i'd appreciate it.
Someone I know had some argument about flamboyant gayness, or the acceptance of it, was like the last thing to happen before the fall of various societies, but I didn't buy it or research that line of thought when he said it. Now, that being said, it's a tough question. I would like to say that it wouldn't effect anything but truth is we wouldn't know until we let it run it's course- why not just allow multiple wives? Why not allow inter species? I think the answer lies somewhere in allowing some sort of union that would allow for the sharing of benefits, easier handling of legal issues, that sort of thing. It's tough to argue that marriage is sacred in society as we know it now, but to some of us, it is, and the institution should be protected if at all possible. Really, though, when you think about it it's a legal thing- if you go old school times there was just you are my wife, we do it, bam it's consumated, now do my laundry. That really wasn't the best way to go about it, and at some point we started keeping track. I would love to know exactly when and why.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone I know had some argument about flamboyant gayness, or the acceptance of it, was like the last thing to happen before the fall of various societies, but I didn't buy it or research that line of thought when he said it. Now, that being said, it's a tough question. I would like to say that it wouldn't effect anything but truth is we wouldn't know until we let it run it's course- why not just allow multiple wives? Why not allow inter species? I think the answer lies somewhere in allowing some sort of union that would allow for the sharing of benefits, easier handling of legal issues, that sort of thing. It's tough to argue that marriage is sacred in society as we know it now, but to some of us, it is, and the institution should be protected if at all possible. Really, though, when you think about it it's a legal thing- if you go old school times there was just you are my wife, we do it, bam it's consumated, now do my laundry. That really wasn't the best way to go about it, and at some point we started keeping track. I would love to know exactly when and why.
Well, we don't allow interspecies marriage because other species- likes sheep, dogs, and tigers- aren't, you know, able to make decisions. That's kind of a barrier to entering into a contract. Same reason we don't let 12 years get married, except times a million. How does allowing two men who love each other somehow devalue the "institution of marriage?" How does homosexual marriage mean your marriage- tagibly or intangibly- is less sacred? If a serial killer gets married to a child-abusing prostitute, does THAT affect the sanctity of your marriage? And, please, don't come back with the "civil unions" stuff. It's a way to marginalize the gay population. Yeah, they get the same legal benefits, but that would be like telling black people, "Look, why do you need to get married? We'll give you all the benefits, you're just not married, okay? We don't want you polluting our sacrosanct institution.'Wang
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we don't allow interspecies marriage because other species- likes sheep, dogs, and tigers- aren't, you know, able to make decisions. That's kind of a barrier to entering into a contract. Same reason we don't let 12 years get married, except times a million. How does allowing two men who love each other somehow devalue the "institution of marriage?" How does homosexual marriage mean your marriage- tagibly or intangibly- is less sacred? If a serial killer gets married to a child-abusing prostitute, does THAT affect the sanctity of your marriage? And, please, don't come back with the "civil unions" stuff. It's a way to marginalize the gay population. Yeah, they get the same legal benefits, but that would be like telling black people, "Look, why do you need to get married? We'll give you all the benefits, you're just not married, okay? We don't want you polluting our sacrosanct institution.'Wang
Tell me how it actually marginalizes the gay population. Seriously. How? The law, society in general for as long as we can remember define marriage as a man and a woman taking an oath, in a ceremony, which usually mentions God or some sort of entity that these vows are taken before. So, we allow the same thing, and instead of calling it marriage, which is what we straights call it, we call it civil union. It is no more or no less what we have, just a different name. This is when I start to get heated. What's next? You want to stand up in front of my daughter at school and advocate the good and the bad of being gay? Should we present it as an option, as a lifestyle choice? Should we have groups that advocate gay rights? You notice that some of these things we already do, except it's not enough, is it? We are to legitamize a group that wants recognition for something they claim they have no control over, and it shouldn't be an issue anyway. Yet, the only one making it an issue is.... fill in the blank. This is the issue, the real issue- be who you want to be, be who you can't help being, but do not expect the world to accept you for who you are because the fact is the rare thing is accepted universally. That's not something that is just given out haphazardly, it's not even earned, it just is. One of those things is that a legal marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and I am fine with that. I can tell you this- as soon as schoolbooks start showing a man and man holding hands looking for an apartment, my daughter is being homeschooled. Why? Because I don't believe it's a lifestyle/choice to be promoted and championed, I believe it should be tolerated. Tolerance is way different than acceptance- yet I think that there is value in tolerance. Tolerance would have avoided 9/11. Tolerance would be a huge step, if people could just do that we would be mile ahead of what we are now as a society. I am kind of ranting here, because I think as a society we are just walking a razor thinline here,and at some point we just say,"No, That's mine." Do what you want, but I in no way have to condone it by calling what you have the same as what I have because it's not. Why not just say F it, and rename every car a Porsche? Every donut Krispy Kreme? Because not everything is the same. Edit: And now, looking back over what I have said, it does marginalize it, and you know what? So be it. I marginalize alot of people when it comes down to it- I don't put much stock in whatever comes out of Rush Limbaughs mouth for example. I absolutely love this topic- you know what we should really do is look back and see the whole progression of this topic, over the last twenty years. It wasn't long ago gays were regularly beat down just for being gay, and now we are dicussing making them the same as straights in the eyes of the law and God. Civily, too. Nobodys threatening anybody, nobodys painted I hate fags on anybodys house. We have come soooo far, and yet not far enough because gays haven't been given the exact same things as straights. Options have been presented, compromises attempted- nope. Not good enough. We want what you have. Thank god I am not the only one in society who is bothered by that, and willing to say it. Trust me,I am not gay bashing. I am straight promoting. I am proudly, excluseivly straight, and I believe what I have and what I do is the greatest thing known to man, and should be shouted in the streets.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't. God doesn't make you gay. So, he's not a horrible monster in my book. Some people won't make it, but everyone is born with the ability to do so- what happens along the road is another thing. Ludicrous line of thought, isn't it? Seriously, it's not that big of a deal in the big scheme of things. It's horrible,yes, and I don't like the thought that it could be me, or you, or my wife or daughter, or DN or Bob- but there will be those of us that don't make it, those of us that will burn.
Prove that everyone hast he ability to do so.Pretty morbid world view you have don't you? Pretty weird that such a 'compassionate' and 'understanding' god made it that way.Don't tell me your a liberal...or are you just one of those conservatives that thinks rush limbaugh gives other conservatives a bad name?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The scripture specifically says, the scripture specifically says, the scripture specifically says MY ASS!The scripture has been reinterpreted so many times it rarely even resembles the coptic (which was not even the first incantation but it's the first that we can deal with) translation anymore.There's simply no way in hell to be even a little bit sure what God intended.
So we'll put you down as a non believer, and ultimately worthless in THIS particlular conversation. Show up with your 20,000 posts in a thread where we actually debate that, and we will talk.
What we are talking about is whether God believes homosexuality is wrong. To point to scriptures in the Bible and say that because the Bible says it that God believes it is ultimate arrogance by humankind. There is absolutely no way to credibly say that the Bible is the undisputed, unedited, purest intentions of God. It's a book written by fallible beings. Quit acting like you're Lord of the Religion forum.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me how it actually marginalizes the gay population. Seriously. How? The law, society in general for as long as we can remember define marriage as a man and a woman taking an oath, in a ceremony, which usually mentions God or some sort of entity that these vows are taken before. So, we allow the same thing, and instead of calling it marriage, which is what we straights call it, we call it civil union. It is no more or no less what we have, just a different name. This is when I start to get heated. What's next? You want to stand up in front of my daughter at school and advocate the good and the bad of being gay? Should we present it as an option, as a lifestyle choice? Should we have groups that advocate gay rights? You notice that some of these things we already do, except it's not enough, is it? We are to legitamize a group that wants recognition for something they claim they have no control over, and it shouldn't be an issue anyway. Yet, the only one making it an issue is.... fill in the blank. This is the issue, the real issue- be who you want to be, be who you can't help being, but do not expect the world to accept you for who you are because the fact is the rare thing is accepted universally. That's not something that is just given out haphazardly, it's not even earned, it just is. One of those things is that a legal marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and I am fine with that. I can tell you this- as soon as schoolbooks start showing a man and man holding hands looking for an apartment, my daughter is being homeschooled. Why? Because I don't believe it's a lifestyle/choice to be promoted and championed, I believe it should be tolerated. Tolerance is way different than acceptance- yet I think that there is value in tolerance. Tolerance would have avoided 9/11. Tolerance would be a huge step, if people could just do that we would be mile ahead of what we are now as a society. I am kind of ranting here, because I think as a society we are just walking a razor thinline here,and at some point we just say,"No, That's mine." Do what you want, but I in no way have to condone it by calling what you have the same as what I have because it's not. Why not just say F it, and rename every car a Porsche? Every donut Krispy Kreme? Because not everything is the same. Edit: And now, looking back over what I have said, it does marginalize it, and you know what? So be it. I marginalize alot of people when it comes down to it- I don't put much stock in whatever comes out of Rush Limbaughs mouth for example. I absolutely love this topic- you know what we should really do is look back and see the whole progression of this topic, over the last twenty years. It wasn't long ago gays were regularly beat down just for being gay, and now we are dicussing making them the same as straights in the eyes of the law and God. Civily, too. Nobodys threatening anybody, nobodys painted I hate fags on anybodys house. We have come soooo far, and yet not far enough because gays haven't been given the exact same things as straights. Options have been presented, compromises attempted- nope. Not good enough. We want what you have. Thank god I am not the only one in society who is bothered by that, and willing to say it. Trust me,I am not gay bashing. I am straight promoting. I am proudly, excluseivly straight, and I believe what I have and what I do is the greatest thing known to man, and should be shouted in the streets.
Anyone not offended by the stomach-churning arrogance here can leave their humanity at the door - it's broken.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What we are talking about is whether God believes homosexuality is wrong. To point to scriptures in the Bible and say that because the Bible says it that God believes it is ultimate arrogance by humankind. There is absolutely no way to credibly say that the Bible is the undisputed, unedited, purest intentions of God. It's a book written by fallible beings.
I think I love you :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then, how is this logical, reasonable, or even stomachable for a "loving" God to have some people destined for eternal torture???
I'm sorry, but once again you've drifted into "Why can't you choose God..why isn't he ideal for me?"
And, please, don't come back with the "civil unions" stuff. It's a way to marginalize the gay population. Yeah, they get the same legal benefits, but that would be like telling black people, "Look, why do you need to get married? We'll give you all the benefits, you're just not married, okay? We don't want you polluting our sacrosanct institution.'Wang
Tell me how it actually marginalizes the gay population. Seriously. How? The law, society in general for as long as we can remember define marriage as a man and a woman taking an oath, in a ceremony, which usually mentions God or some sort of entity that these vows are taken before. So, we allow the same thing, and instead of calling it marriage, which is what we straights call it, we call it civil union. It is no more or no less what we have, just a different name.
The problem is, our secular government at some point decided to endorse a religious institution, "marriage." So, since we don't do the "separate but equal" thing here in the US, because it's against everything American, we have to give everyone the chance to get "married", unless the government is willing to change everyone to a "civil union" and leave marriage to the Church.
I think I love you :club:
Why? Why would even mentioning the Bible do it for you? You don't believe it...so why does any interpretation make you smile more than another?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? Why would even mentioning the Bible do it for you? You don't believe it...so why does any interpretation make you smile more than another?
It makes me smile because in less than 100 words renaedawn has pointed out that
  • God may or may not exist
  • If he does he may or may not have communicated with us
  • If he did he may or may not have chosen some individuals specifically over others to record his rules
  • If he did those individuals may or may not have been dicated to
  • If they were they may or may not of recorded these dictations infallibly
  • If they did these writings may or may not have been chosen to become part of the Bible
  • If they were these dictations may or may not have been translated into English accurately
  • If they were these English versions may or may not have been understood by the reader
  • If they were the reader finally knows god's intent

Yeah, Christianity gives you the backing to advise others on how to live their lives.ooooh it's in the Bible!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes me smile because in less than 100 words renaedawn has pointed out that
  • God may or may not exist
  • If he does he may or may not have communicated with us
  • If he did he may or may not have chosen some individuals specifically over others to record his rules
  • If he did those individuals may or may not have been dicated to
  • If they were they may or may not of recorded these dictations infallibly
  • If they did these writings may or may not have been chosen to become part of the Bible
  • If they were these dictations may or may not have been translated into English accurately
  • If they were these English versions may or may not have been understood by the reader
  • If they were the reader finally knows god's intent

Yeah, Christianity gives you the backing to advise others on how to live their lives.ooooh it's in the Bible!!!

You sure did see a lot in her post....although she made several prior that added up to more than 100 words.My point is...Why do you care about or even think about, say, number 6 on your list if you can't really get by the first one? Why even argue point 6-7-8 if you can't agree with a Christian on the premise of the debate?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't disprove just as you cannot prove just as you said. However, I do believe in logic which seems to be something sorely missing when people start talking about the Bible being divine words. It's indisputable that the Bible is riddled with references to Roman politics and causes of the times. If God had intended for an apostle to write down those words and for us to use them for all time, don't you think he would have been a little less period relevant seeing as how he is omnipotent and all?
No. Have you ever seen the movie Rudy? In one scene at Holy Cross right before Rudy meets D-Bob. The Catholic priest is giving a lecture on divine inspiration... and he basically says exactly what I'm trying to convey....
For us, divine inspiration does not mean that God possesses a man...and simply dictates the inspired text to him. Rather...that God implants into a man's mind the general concept. When God does that...He allows the man to write that in his historical context. The sitz im leben, or, ''That is the setting in life.'' So a man may have historical inaccuracies...but God allows those misunderstandings...because what is important and inherent...is the theological concept that God is getting across to mankind.
Also, I know human beings just as you do. It is indisputable that people hear and interpret things through their own filters. Phrases and words mean different ideas to different people depending on many factors including that person's station in life, their past experiences, and their emotional feelings about a subject. There is no way possible that human bias didn't get written into the Bible especially since it wasn't even written during Jesus' lifetime. (Those Coptic texts that you're referring to as being written in Jesus' time? The first one was written at least 66 years after his crucifixtion.) It is absolutely silly to say that anything written in the Bible is absolutely God's unedited word.
This is only true from the perspective that God doesn't exist. If he does exist, he can make sure his word doesn't get tarnished, obviously. And for a text written 66 years after his death to 2006 to basically have no differences is pretty amazing, no? Also a note on your attack on the Bible specifically... The Bible says that it is the infallible word of God...
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness
It also says in John 1, that the Word was with God and the Word was God. So if those two verses are incorrect, then there is no reason to believe anything in the Bible. (which I know is your point) But that's my point also. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, but if you show me any mistakes or errors in the Bible, other than your blatant personal opinions, I will reject Christianity immediately. hint: People have been trying to disprove the Bible for 2,000 years+. See C.S. Lewis, among others. If you guys would just get on it already, then we could just disband Christianity and make everyone happier.
How can you say something is divine words from God when it contradicts itself? God just likes telling 4 different versions of the nativity story? If not, then why are there 4 different versions, with 4 different series of events and emphasis on different occurences in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'll tell you why. Because it was told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to other people and each time the story was told it was explained and interpreted a little bit more each time by whoever was telling the story.
Different perspectives and memories do not equal contradictions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...