homosexuality

[Marinantinel]

So. I've decided that since I've hit a meanstreak with controversial threads, I should try something like a more gentle approach.

Let me try to explain my views about homosexuality a bit more clearly...

It has often been declared that homosexuality is something that is more of a sin than other sins. This is something that I am completely against.

If I may say this more clearly, I have slid a little to the more popular view on homosexuality for this issue.

As a result of contemplating the scriptures... Here's something that I have been considering for some years now....

Homosexuality is listed as a sin which may keep someone out of Heaven....

The problem is that often people bring up the interperatation of this New Testament passage into question.. I agree with this interperatation BUT

Consider for a moment that in the Bible, there IS a difference between two different kinds of sins.

They are called iniquities and they are called sins....

I will always consider homosexuality a sin.

However, do not despair my hopelessly leftist comrades...

Homosexuality is NOT an iniquity.

Consider for a moment that both the Old Testament, and the New Testament are both considered the Scriptures for the Christian faith. The Jews use the Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and not to change or amend the Law. EXCEPT to make one more Law, that we love eachother.

I think that it is clear in the Bible, since the Law was not changed, that homosexuality is a SIN. But, this is something that I think that homosexuals should take a little bit of comfort in. Even IF Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is correct, and it is something that keeps someone out of Heaven, may I suggest that this "Temple Prostitution" business spoken of by liberal translators may be the INIQUITY.

However, I hypothesize that if homosexuality is not a choice, it may be possible that there is a version of homosexuality that is not iniquitous, but merely sinful, the same way that small sins are.

May I further suggest that this sin does not keep one out of Heaven.

Summary:
Homosexuality as defined by the liberal side of the debate is not something that keeps someone out of Heaven.

Homosexuality as defined by the conservative side IS. But, both sides rarely understand what eachother are talking about.

[Isis-ra]

The Scriptures can clearly be seen to have been made up by murderous, blood thirsty idiots.

I don’t see the beauty in the Old Testament, all I see is contradiction after contradiction, unjust murder after unjust murder.
Although the New Testament seems to be a completely different religion minus the book of revelations.
Homophobia seems to be a view given out by those whom have sexual thoughts about men and out of spite cannot accept this due to rejection from the social 'norms'.
Sin in my opinion and the forgiving of sin is a made up process so murders, rapists and committers of crime can psychologically have all their acts forgiven by the large floating man in the sky.
Here is a collection of “morally sound” quotes from the bible :

God Assists Rape and Plunder

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

God Kills 70,000 Men Over a Census

(God punishes David for ordering a census of his people.) Yahweh spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things: choose you one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me. David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for very great are his mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:9-14 WEB)

Kill Enemies

But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence. [spoken by Jesus as a parable] (Luke 19:27 NRS)

... And whom ever written the bible seems to think that homosexuality is a sin. The Whole bible is full of immoral, unethical events which ‘god’ claimed to be in support of.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins

The Language and grammar used in this little paragraph may not appear to be brilliant but i didnt have much time to type...

[Ernie]

This may be a little too simple.

If we are all God's children, made by God in his likeness, then surely there can't be a problem with homosexuality or it would not exist.

Faith must be a wonderful thing, if I find it, I'll let you know.

God only exists to keep some people in a job and others from going mad !

[Isis-ra]

I very much agree with you Leonidas...:angel:

Thank God For Atheists.

[Ernie]

Cheers Isis-ra :drunk:

[Nobody]

(This is just my view of this, keep that in mind, while reading.)

Jesus came to give a message:

Every person is equal. God loves us all, no matter what we do. We are his/her children and we all posess something in us that is 'holy' or 'godly'.

My mother has proven that to me. She told me once, no matter what I do, I will always be her son and she will always love me as such. I will never be cast out by the family for doing wrong. If I were to commit a crime such as murder, my mother would still love me. She would always be proud of my being.

I am bisexual and have experimented with drugs several times...my mother knows of those things and as she has told me, I am her son and she will love me for as long as she lives.

God gave us choice. We may do with our lives what we please. Why? Because we are his / her children. He / She will love us for as long as S/He exists.

(Of course, this does not excuse living in a reckless way)

When we die, we will all stand before god to be confronted with our sins. He will not cast us out for what we have done, but take us in and help us understand what has been done wrong.

(I base my beliefs on what I have interpreted from the bible)

If someone strongly disagrees, that's okay. Please tell me and discuss. I'd like to widen my view on belief and religion. :)

[Ernie]

(This is just my view of this, keep that in mind, while reading.)


When we die, we will all stand before god to be confronted with our sins. He will not cast us out for what we have done, but take us in and help us understand what has been done wrong.

(I base my beliefs on what I have interpreted from the bible)



Very interesting.
Did God not cast out Lucifer for sinning against him ?

Leonidas

[Nobody]

Very interesting.
Did God not cast out Lucifer for sinning against him ?

Leonidas

Oh the devil story. I spoke to my religion teacher about that. She said that there is no 'Devil'. Devil was just a sort of 'lost-in-translation' error. Devil means nothing more than pure evil as in, the evil that lives in every one of us. There is no Pure evil of flesh and bone such as the devil.

We protestants don't believe in hell. It just doesn't exist, because Jesus negated the belief of any such place, when he said, that we would all be forgiven in front of god as long as we show remorse for what we have done wrong.

(From what I know, the catholics are slowly casting aside the thought of hell as well. I'm not sure though.)

(Please, if anyone really knows the bible (I honestly don't...I only discuss certain things I read with my teacher...she's brilliant...) Then please correct me, if I'm going way out of bounds here.)

[madkill]

As far as I know, if the church don't know, then you're going to heaven. :D

[Nobody]

As far as I know, if the church don't know, then you're going to heaven. :D

Blasphemy!!!

Wait...madness!?

No...THIS.IS.SPARTA!

lol...no but seriously...I don't really give what the church says. I mean...what's the church good for except charity?

I remember a friend saying "What do I need a house of god for, when god listens to me wherever I go?"

[Ernie]

As for there being no hell/devil, I was brought up a protestant in the 1970's/80's in Northern Ireland and this is the first time I have ever heard that there is no Hell or Devil !

I think this needs a new thread.

Leonidas

[Nobody]

As for there being no hell/devil, I was brought up a protestant in the 1970's/80's in Northern Ireland and this is the first time I have ever heard that there is no Hell or Devil !

I think this needs a new thread.

Leonidas

I'll discuss this with a few friends that know more about this and then I'll make a new thread. I'm very sorry if I've actually made up some sort of nonesense.

[Ernie]

Not at all Nobody, and it may not be nonsense at all.

I just thought it would be better in a new thread, as I said in one of poems, I will always keep an open mind on the, is there/isn't there a God discussion.

Thats what my signature is about.

ernie

[Yog]

In Jewish tradition Hell is distance from God and Heaven is closeness to God. They are not actual places but concepts of distance. I rather like this notion as it provides one of the more philosophically sound notions of Heaven and Hell.

The modern Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell were developed in the Middle Ages to help control the populations. Do good and what your King and Priest tell you to and you will go to Heaven; do evil and what you are not commanded to and you will go to Hell. It's a methodology of control and an extremely effective one. This is also the same reason that suicide is deemed evil. Life was so miserable in the middle ages: the black death, famine, poverty, wars, etc ... that people were committing suicide to get their "Heaven Reward" early. After all, there was nothing but misery here on earth. The kings of Europe didn't like the notion of loosing all their subjects, providers, labor force, and source of troops to go off and kill themseves so they convinced the pope to make suicide a sin. Such it has been ever since.

But I digress; in a well-conceived philosophical construct of God there exists no need for Heaven or Hell. There is only the earth and God, all the rest is fluff and control.

[Ernie]

OH here we go, I must disagree when Heaven and Hell were invented Yog, after all there was a Heaven and Hell in Ancient Egypt 3000 BC or so.
Heaven was with Amun-Re in the stars and Hell was with Sokar in an underground purgatory of fire and torture!

ernie

[Yog]

Ah, but that is not Christian ideology at all. Granted these horrid pagan concepts may have filtered into Christianity (shudder at the thought) but there really isn't a need for them in well thoughtout Christian ideology. Not that there is much in Christian ideology that seems to be well thoughtout. I think the whole Heaven and Hell concepts can just be dumped on the trash heap as outmoded and needless concepts.

Lets face it God is supposed to be Omnsicient, Omnipotent, Pure Love, and all that jazz. Since God knows all that we will ever do, and we have no choice but to do that which God knows we must do, then why punish man for doing what God knows we must do? In short, why is there a need for Hell? To punish man for sinning is the ultimate in hypocracy as we are only doing that which God knows we must do. In essence if there is a Hell then there are some men preordained by God to go to Hell from the time of creation—long before they are ever born.

You can put homosexuality in this bucket as well if you are so inclined. I choose not to believe in divine retribution from a God who is supposedly perfectly loving and omniscient. That is inherintly illogical, and I refuse to accept illogic from omniscience.

[Isis-ra]

Omniscience doesn’t seem to work in my opinion. God is omniscient is he not? Then therefore God must know everything, therefore God must also if he knows everything, know nothing At all as he knows everything. The word everything means infinite knowledge which includes nothing.

Also if God is omnipotent then therefore that means that God in all his so-called infinite power must be able to create a object that he cannot lift, therefore this means that he cannot lift the object making him no longer omnipotent, and also if he cannot create the object again taking away the stature of omnipotence.

if any of the above doesn't make sense, it is most probably because i have not had sleep in the past twenty-four hours and am becoming out of touch with so-called reality.
:dead:

[Yog]

Actually, I already started a thread on the paradox of God. ;)

[Isis-ra]

I didn't see one, ok :)

[Nobody]

Ah, but that is not Christian ideology at all. Granted these horrid pagan concepts may have filtered into Christianity (shudder at the thought) but there really isn't a need for them in well thoughtout Christian ideology. Not that there is much in Christian ideology that seems to be well thoughtout. I think the whole Heaven and Hell concepts can just be dumped on the trash heap as outmoded and needless concepts.

Lets face it God is supposed to be Omnsicient, Omnipotent, Pure Love, and all that jazz. Since God knows all that we will ever do, and we have no choice but to do that which God knows we must do, then why punish man for doing what God knows we must do? In short, why is there a need for Hell? To punish man for sinning is the ultimate in hypocracy as we are only doing that which God knows we must do. In essence if there is a Hell then there are some men preordained by God to go to Hell from the time of creation—long before they are ever born.

You can put homosexuality in this bucket as well if you are so inclined. I choose not to believe in divine retribution from a God who is supposedly perfectly loving and omniscient. That is inherintly illogical, and I refuse to accept illogic from omniscience.

Thank you :) I couldn't quite get that together.

It's basically what I wanted to say, plus you added quite a bit I hadn't thought of.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said.

[Mr. Blocks]

I am dissapointed this thread started with a religious based view. One of which I can't really respond to because I think it's nonsense.

I am absolutley fine with homosexuality. And it's fine to dislike it or even hate it. Just please, for the love of all things beautiful, just make your own mind up and don't live by someone elses words.

[Sciuroid]

Someone needs to address this...

God Assists Rape and Plunder

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Zechariah 14:1-3 (NIV): A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you. I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle.

God Kills 70,000 Men Over a Census

(God punishes David for ordering a census of his people.) Yahweh spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things: choose you one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me. David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for very great are his mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:9-14 WEB)

1 Chronicles 21:8-10 (NIV): Then David said to God, "I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing." The LORD said to Gad, David's seer, "Go and tell David, 'This is what the LORD says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.' "

Kill Enemies

But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence. [spoken by Jesus as a parable] (Luke 19:27 NRS)

Key words: as a parable. Jesus is not in any way saying that anybody should be slaughtered. He's describing what a character says in a story. That's like saying that Herman Melville really wanted to be called Ishmael, or that Hemingway thought that the most important thing in war was to accumulate medals.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is fond of spewing filth like this. He degrades himself with kind of brainless ranting.

[Mr. Blocks]

Richard Dawkins is fond of spewing filth like this. He degrades himself with kind of brainless ranting.

Filth? Brainless? Harsh words there.

I actually think Richard Dawkins is an inteligent and reasonable man. When reading text you can read it for what it says, or you can read it for what you want it to say or mean.

Richard Dawkins simply read the text for what it said as written.

Is it filth because you dislike what he said? It's obvious you don't agree with what he said. But I find that Chritians always find a way to make something appear to be something completely different.

As I say, it's always so very "convenient" for them.

But could you answer why it was that you said what you did? I honestly don't understand why, but that'll be because we are of different thoughts. I'm interested in what you think, and how you think about this.

[Sciuroid]

It's filth because it's nothing more than a spew of negative words, pretty much none of which stand up to serious scrutiny. Mostly, the New Atheist movement seizes on verses like the ones that somebody whose name shall not be named took out of context at the beginning of this thread. Richard Dawkins took the text out of its context and twisted it.

Take his accusations that God is jealous, and a megalomaniacal control freak. Now, here's the scenario: you are a being of infinite attributes who created a universe for your own pleasure. This is your right, just as it is the right of a human to write a novel. Do the characters in your novel have the right to demand control over the story? Heck, no. If Dawkins is willing to step into this worldview for the purposes of mocking it, then he becomes the control freak, staking an absurd claim to control the work of another's hands. Same goes for "bully". A bully is someone who uses intimidation to gain power. God wouldn't need intimidation; he already has the power.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins thinks he's intelligent. For all I know, he is intelligent. But reasonable? Remember, this is a man who says that individuals (in this case, members of Congress) who claim to be Christian are "either lying or stupid." I call that brainless, because it's a black-and-white reduction of the world, the atheist answer to Fred Phelps. It's also shockingly ignorant of theology. In short, he makes it very clear that he lacks a basic understanding of the fundamental underpinnings of the Christian worldview.

In conclusion, it's filth because it's intellectual rubbish wrapped in petty, loaded invective. It's a gross violation of intellectual conscience, and it simply does not deserve to see the light of day, except to be seared by it.

The reason that Christians seem to be interpreting things in convenient ways is that they're looking at it with the context of the Christian worldview, whereas you (apparently) are not.

[Mr. Blocks]

It's filth because it's nothing more than a spew of negative words, pretty much none of which stand up to serious scrutiny. Mostly, the New Atheist movement seizes on verses like the ones that somebody whose name shall not be named took out of context at the beginning of this thread. Richard Dawkins took the text out of its context and twisted it.

Take his accusations that God is jealous, and a megalomaniacal control freak. Now, here's the scenario: you are a being of infinite attributes who created a universe for your own pleasure. This is your right, just as it is the right of a human to write a novel. Do the characters in your novel have the right to demand control over the story? Heck, no. If Dawkins is willing to step into this worldview for the purposes of mocking it, then he becomes the control freak, staking an absurd claim to control the work of another's hands. Same goes for "bully". A bully is someone who uses intimidation to gain power. God wouldn't need intimidation; he already has the power.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins thinks he's intelligent. For all I know, he is intelligent. But reasonable? Remember, this is a man who says that individuals (in this case, members of Congress) who claim to be Christian are "either lying or stupid." I call that brainless, because it's a black-and-white reduction of the world, the atheist answer to Fred Phelps. It's also shockingly ignorant of theology. In short, he makes it very clear that he lacks a basic understanding of the fundamental underpinnings of the Christian worldview.

In conclusion, it's filth because it's intellectual rubbish wrapped in petty, loaded invective. It's a gross violation of intellectual conscience, and it simply does not deserve to see the light of day, except to be seared by it.

The reason that Christians seem to be interpreting things in convenient ways is that they're looking at it with the context of the Christian worldview, whereas you (apparently) are not.

Then I guess I was correct in stating:

When reading text you can read it for what it says, or you can read it for what you want it to say or mean.


In both of our eyes, the other is guilty of the latter.

So very interesting it is in how people can be so different. Thanks for your reply, it was a nice read.

[k2hsharpe]

*A bully is someone who uses intimidation to gain power. God wouldn't need intimidation; he already has the power.*
..... Sciuroid
* • noun (pl. bullies) a person who deliberately intimidates or persecutes those who are weaker. *
..... Compact Oxford English Dictionary
sorry Sciuroid but according to the above I suspect that the Old Testament Christian God could very easily be defined as a bully.

*Now, here's the scenario: you are a being of infinite attributes who created a universe for your own pleasure. This is your right, just as it is the right of a human to write a novel.*
..... it would be as despicable of God to create our Universe for his own pleasure as it would be for a man and woman to create a child not in pleasure but for their own pleasure. If God did create our Universe for his own pleasure, then to give us free will and the implied freedom to choose only to punish us for exercising that freedom is the action of a seriously dubious parent. It could be considered both petty and vindictive, a gross violation of the responsibilities of a parent. Something that when inflicted with severity and frequency by a human parent onto a young child is likely to result in a damaged child. It is not to be condoned, let alone lauded.

[Nobody]

Take his accusations that God is jealous, and a megalomaniacal control freak. Now, here's the scenario: you are a being of infinite attributes who created a universe for your own pleasure. This is your right, just as it is the right of a human to write a novel. Do the characters in your novel have the right to demand control over the story? Heck, no. If Dawkins is willing to step into this worldview for the purposes of mocking it, then he becomes the control freak, staking an absurd claim to control the work of another's hands. Same goes for "bully". A bully is someone who uses intimidation to gain power. God wouldn't need intimidation; he already has the power.


I strongly disagree. We are not fictional characters and certainly not controlled into doing what we do or saying what we do (Unlike characters in a story). We are free of all control, which god did not like in the old testament, for he had punished all, who did not follow his rules. Obviously, bully seems quite fitting, for some people cannot be intimidated by any kind of might. Dawkins may have stepped over some lines with what he said about the members of congress, but that does not make his rant brainless. If anyone is enraged by what has happened in the past, it is their good right to state any kind of opinion.

(I do not wish to start a fight...I was just adding my two cents :))

[Funkadelichika]

I believe that the bible says homosexuality is a sin. However I do not believe that it means that by christian law that the person will not get into heaven. Jesus said to "Love God, love others and love yourself." Above all else right? Only God (if there is one) Will be able to judge by his standards who will get into heaven and who not. Only he(if he exists) can see the true heart of anyone. Only God will be able to see who loves him and who does not. Only he can judge who is going to heaven and who not. That is how I believe the bible puts it. Now I don't know if this argument was suppose to be about homosexuality and heaven but I wanted to say that. I also need to say I am not a christian.

Now onto my point of view on homosexuality. I am not against it whatsoever. I have many gay friends both men and women. I care for them deeply. I myself am not gay but I appreciate the people I know who are and wish them love life and happiness.