Print

[LordAndrew]

LordAndrew

Re: Homosexuality

If you ask me, such a topic shouldn't be discussed.
You know... flame wars and stuff, Equal Rights crap here and there.  >.o

[redding]

redding

Re: Homosexuality

Now that may seem like a long time, but in historical standards, 40-60 years after an event occured is a small time period. Think of it this way, someone writes a book on world war 2, WW2 happened 60 years ago, yet there are still survivors from WW2, so if someone wrote a book on the war saying that the germans really won the war, that the holocaust never happened, do you think that book would be taken as a reliable source? I think not, as all the survivors of the war would object, because they know that is not the truth, the would not want something written down and taken as truthful if it were not.

Depends on if the book was published as truth or a fictional story. I would totally read the book either way.

ANYWAYZ

Last time I checked Jesus showed up to tell people to love each other regardless of how they act, so wtf does the bible have to do with Homosexuality?

Although you are right in saying Jesus said love everyone. Jesus also taught us not to be tolerant of sin. Homosexuality being a sin, one of many mind you, is something that a Christian shold not be tolerant of,  doesnt mean they shouldnt love the person, but they should not be tolerant of their sin, because that is misleading, and defeats the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth to pay for our debt of sin.

People have the right to sin if they want. If they know it's a sin, and they keep doing it, then you're really not going to be able to do much for them.

Im not saying anything about people having rights to sin or not, im saying that Jesus did not teach tolerence of sin, thus when the statement was made "Jesus taught Christians to be tolerant" I am rebutting by saying, he taught Christians to love their neighbour and their enemies, but not sin, he never taught tolerence of sin. So this really doesnt refer to non christians, it just is in answer to that statement.

[redding]

redding

Re: Homosexuality

Tell me why Homosexuality is a sin. I can pretty much guarantee that any biblical quote you find will meet the fate of the others - interpretation. Things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally. Priests and devout catholics I havfe spoken to have said the same thing. It's mostly metaphorical in fact.

Ok ill tell you why. Firstly because God created Female for man, so that they could become one in flesh and in spirit. Also its breaking one of the first commands, which was to fill the earth.

But onto some more specific ones.

Leviticus 18:22
 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13
 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

This was a law in the old testament, obviously death does not apply these days because Jesus came, however, the seriousness of the sin still does apply, so that why I'll quote some passages from the New Testament.

Romans 1:21-27

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator???who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinithians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


These verses just establish that in the living God of Christianity's eyes, homosexuality is a sin. Maybe its not in your eyes, but in the God that is revealed in the Bible, it very much is.


Oh and also, what makes a catholic priests opinion that the Bible is metaphorical, a fact? Because the Bible in factual evidence is a history book, and I know that there are many more people that will tell you the Bible is not just a metaphore for life, but rather Gods word, and actual events acuratly recorded.

What makes his opinion more qualified that Biblical scholors, or people who study ancient history, or other ministers from other churches? Nothing does, its just a sadly mis-informed opinion, that you take to you liking.

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Homosexuality

Quoting biblical text as fact is stupid.

And So-Uth TheDarkJay Say-eth that we must all strip naked and have-eth thou selves an orgie.

.
..
...
.....

Where is the orgie? I want my Orgie! DON'T MAKE ME DAMN YOU TO ETERNITY IN MY TOILET!

[redding]

redding

Re: Homosexuality

Quoting biblical text as fact is stupid.

I can pretty much guarantee that any biblical quote you find will meet the fate of the others - interpretation.

henceforth I replied to that post, in posting biblical verses as requested.

And opinion on the Bibles accuracy does not equate to fact. The Bible as an historical document  is more accurate than any other acient piece of writing, and yet these other pieces of writing are taken seriously.

ie




If thou useth these two facts, that the Bible is in the same stateth as it wasth when it wereth writtenth. THen thou can cometh to the conclusion, that the Bibel we hath now, is the same as it was back then.

Then we move on to seeing whether or not the evens in books of the Bible are real, ie can be backed up by other sources.

Well lets take Tacitus, no serious historian would say that Tacitus's accounts of history were questionable, so lets see what he had to say about Christianity.

So Tacitus the ever careful historian pinpoints Christ???s execution as to
(1) time (AD 30),
(2) place (Judaea)
(3) circumstance (treason).
And he explains how these ???Christians??? came to be in Rome in the year 64.
No serious scholar known to me doubts Tacitus??? account.

In Annals xv.44 Tacitus explains where these ???Christians??? came from. The ???founder of the name Christian??? was ???Christ???. This ???Christ??? had been executed thirty years earlier in Judaea in the time of Tiberius by Pilate the governor of the province.
But the ???sect??? did not die with its founder (as most movements did). It sprang up again in Judaea and spread to Rome where it had become an ???immense multitude??? (as Tacitus called it).
Tacitus, though, was sickened at the punishment meted out to these wretches. Crucified by the thousands and then daubed with pitch and set alight. Tacitus had been a member of the Roman Senate and himself governor of a major province. He had access to imperial records. Tacitus knew what he was talking about.


So we know that Christ really did die on a cross.


 Tacitus is a hostile witness. He hates Jews and he hates Christians. His corroboration of the outlines of Christian history is the more valuable because he is hostile.

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Homosexuality

Redding, don't double post.

Also, I'm not sure how much your charts are going to help.  I mean, I believe the Bible, but you cannot prove it to someone who does not want to believe.  Fact.  Just look at those who crucified Christ.

Also, you're not taking into account the translation of the languages.  There are multiple things that could be taken out of the words in the original language(s) that could be found in the Bible.  So while it might translate perfectly in an objective sense, the translation could be subjective to poor word-usage (that's why the Bible I read provides alternative translations--makes a lot more sense).

EDIT: Also, not meaning to be deragatory, but your chart is not comprehensive of the Bible that you are using (you're using a modernized version?) so many of the lines that you are using are in question.  Not saying it's an incorrect simplification, just saying that it could be in many cases, ESPECIALLY with there being alternate translations for certain words in the Bible.

[Gilgamesh]

Gilgamesh

Re: Homosexuality

You mean there were 18,000 copies of the New Testament after 30 years?
And who issued those copies? As Alex mentioned, the Church edited out a lot of stuff in the Bible. It's not too hard to destroy old documents at a time like that and then alter some stuff in it. Especially if you're the government. Just check WWII.

Or the Exodus. There's no solid proof of such an event. How on earth could 10 massive plagues occur without any written sources apart from the Bible? An entire slave system must've collapsed. Pure miracles happened. Yet there are simply no hieroglyphs in Egypt, possibly the most advanced nation of that time, depicting anything regarding Jewish slavery or the Exodus.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-04-05.html (search for Exodus to reach the story)

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Homosexuality

Yeah, the Moses story is entirely false, or least from a historical standpoint.

The Egyptians recorded everything- their triumphs, their failures- yet not a single mention of the Jewish being their slaves or any mass escape of slaves.

Not the debate here, mind.

[Fox The Cave]

Fox The Cave

Re: Homosexuality

There is man and woman...... THere are 2 species, not more the reason there are 2 species is so they can relate and make love not for the species to ignore and just love there own type.... Seriously who'd (guy) wanna make love to another guy with a DICK would you


Dont mind me its 5:04 am and im soooo freakin tired

Oh God please be kidding...

You can't just debate that, "Man and Woman were made for each other"...it's not a reliable argument, because it's based off religion. You can't prove that men and women were made for each other, therefore you cannot say it is 'wrong' for a gay person to do as he likes, as logically there is no one who set the rule book on what is 'right' and 'wrong'.

And for the God's sake, Male and Female are not two different species!

Don't post so late at night...ever...seriously, that's gotta be one of the worst debate views i've ever heard (yes, ever worse than the time you claimed to have disproved Darwin).

I have absolutely no problem against homosexuality, I believe it is thier choice to do as they please and it is simply discrimation to tell them otherwise (boy do I sound like a n00b, but I don't have time to write a longer message).

[Cuddle♥Bunny]

Cuddle♥Bunny

Re: Homosexuality

Leviticus 18:22
 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

If you are gay, lying with a man wouldn't be the same as lying with a woman. Besides, technically that's impossible with the organs down there.

Leviticus 20:13
 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

See above.

Romans 1:21-27

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator???who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Never states what this indecent act is. Hell, they could be ripping off each other's noses for all I know.

1 Corinithians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Homosexual offense is not defined. Once again, it could be two gay guys ripping off each other's noses. Does society decide what this offense is?

Oh and also, what makes a catholic priests opinion that the Bible is metaphorical, a fact? Because the Bible in factual evidence is a history book, and I know that there are many more people that will tell you the Bible is not just a metaphore for life, but rather Gods word, and actual events acuratly recorded.

What makes his opinion more qualified that Biblical scholors, or people who study ancient history, or other ministers from other churches? Nothing does, its just a sadly mis-informed opinion, that you take to you liking.

This may or may not be a good point. But I feel as though it belongs in another debate.

• 

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Homosexuality

Comrade Kesha.  Since you're actually reading this, I'd like to refer you to the King James version.  It's a more accurate translation, and should answer many of your questions.  If you'd like, I could get you a link to an online version.

[Cuddle♥Bunny]

Cuddle♥Bunny

Re: Homosexuality

Please do, as it would be much appreciated.

• 

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Homosexuality

Okay, here's Romans 1:
http://scriptures.lds.org/rom/1

And just so you know, the footnotes are accessible for different translations of the word.  Possible alternate contexts for the words.  This can also provide further explanation, although it's somewhat theoretical.  Either that or they are referencing stuff related to my religion (in which case, just ignore).

Anyway, and here's the Old Testament:
http://scriptures.lds.org/ot/contents

New Testament:
http://scriptures.lds.org/nt/contents

[Alex2539]

Alex2539

Re: Homosexuality

Alrighty then... Bible time

First I'll go with your Leviticus ones. The simple answer as to why this isn't necessarily always true is because it can be interpreted as being only in the case of Lust, which is one of the Deadly Sins. In blind lust, a man could go and have sex with anything that moves, so this chapter tries to cover anything that someone could have lustful sex with. Either way, it never says that a man cannot love another in a non-physical way.

Now here's a good one. Whenever people quote something, it always comes out of context. I find it funny that just a few verses down, you get these:

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

25 And the aland is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

26 Ye shall therefore akeep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27 (For all these aabominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be acut off from among their people.

30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable acustoms, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

All of that basically says that these rules apply to the Jews, and the Jews only. Also, it applies only to the promised Holy Land. He has said that they will be separate from the other nations. The rules, therefore, do not apply to anyone else. Only Jews and Christians (which are really just Jew V.2.0, now with added Messiah!) who reside in the holy land. You can't go around imposing this ban on others if the Bible tells you not to, right?


Now for Romans:
Comrade Kesha is right in saying that it doesn't say that it never shows what an indecant act is specifically. THere's more to it though. The passage refers to pagans and how they have hightened themselves to God's level in knowledge. They make idols and worship things like trees, animals and bugs. They worshipped the things He made more than He himself. This is the part that describes their punishment

   26 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

   27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

   28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

   29 - Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Right there in the middle of verse 27 it says the word "lust". Not just lust, but burning lust! When it says that women changed their natural use o that which is against nature, it can easily mean sex for pleasure, for lust, since that is not the natural purpose of sex.  The same lust goes for man on man. It never says anything about actual love though. God has punished them by not allowing them to love anyone. They cannot love their women, and can't even turn to men as an alternative. They have gone against God and will never forget it.

Corinthians time:
First off, what version Bible are you using? The KJV never says anything like "homosexual offenders". Next, what is an offender? Maybe it's a rapist acting again out of lust. Just like that male prostitute before it. There's no doubt it speaks about gays, but it's likely that it's specifying only the lust, sex without love or cause, rather than the true love the two could meet.

You interpret it your way, I'll interpret it mine. As far as I'm concerned, it never says that two men can't love each other. You can't claim yours is the only correct interpretation. You have no proof of what it literally means, since I can obviously quite easily refute it simply as being lust. Also, you can't go off and impose your interpretation of your religion on someone who may very well have neither.

"They say 'Don't sweat the little things!', but in the end, the little things are all that matter..."
--Alex2539