gay anti gay?
- Started
- Last post
- 159 Responses
- chossy0
Christ all mighty who gives a shit about what kind of deviant you are. Every single human being in the world likes some freaky sexy stuff.
- tOki0
- 0000000
i guess some of us are just hypocrites.
- dan53820
i say to this topic. Who really cares? if someones gay doesn't mean you have to be.
- kelpie0
I blame the muslims
- its just a default position these days. I'm sure they have a hand in our shitty weather too.kelpie
- it was more takin piss outtta chossy for getting riled up about josimar's name being posted in't other threadKhurram
- don't back down out yer huff nowkelpie
- lol. i wasn't! honest! gawd, this is a comedy of errors if ever there was one...Khurram
- hahaha, I know man, I know, I'm only kiddingkelpie
- DrBombay0
Another thing I never understood was why do Christians feel they own the idea of marriage to begin with? It has been around longer than Christianity. You own the concept no more than cavemen or a couple of gay dudes.
- silly, no such thing as cavemen. earth is just 7,000 years old.iCanHasQBN
- Khurram0
explain yourself Simon Mackenzie.
- Mal0
I have never believed in God not even as a child. I don't have the need to answer any questions about why I'm here. My Father once said to me in my early teens "If you EVER pick on someone because of the color of skin, size, sex or sexuality you will have me to answer to".
I never did and without the need for religion I'm a pretty good person.- yay me.Mal
- Congratulations. But the point of my faith is not to become a pretty good person.gramme
- Because it takes more than being "pretty good," and none of us are good enough.gramme
- Thus the need for a savior.gramme
- "the need for a savior". such mind-numbingly retarded babble.iCanHasQBN
- I like who I am I have no guilt for anything I've done. Guilt is not in my vocabulary.Mal
- gramme have you time-traveled from the dark-ages?iCanHasQBN
- Khurram0
(some of you know him as kelpie)
- iCanHasQBN0
how can gramme not be gay.. when he's such a cock full of shit?
- Right, because that's a fair characterization.gramme
- im just playing dawg. you seem like a nice guy. you're just misguided thats all. just like us non-believers.iCanHasQBN
- kelpie0
ok, I blame the Tories.
(want your rattle back?)
- lukus_W0
Well .. we all know where we stand. I think we should all agree to disagree.
- Yes, we should all let people like Gramme dictate who has less rights than him.DrBombay
- This is where I brofess my brodying brove for you, bro.gramme
- I've not said anything about people's rights, Dr. B.gramme
- You believe the gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, because christians own the concept of marriage.DrBombay
- Not in so many words but...DrBombay
- gramme0
Wow. This is amazing. @ scarabin, Josev, and DrBombay (mrdobolina, right?): I'm not sure how you guys got some of these ideas about Christianity and the Bible. I know I said I was done with this thread, but I think there are some things worth addressing here.
monospaced: to answer your questions. Believing Jesus is believing the rest of the Bible, given the claims he made to old prophetic fulfillment. I for one do not just pick and choose what I like. I believe it’s all good for instruction and edification. About people who never hear the gospel, St. Paul says in Romans that there is sufficient evidence of God’s divinity given in nature that mankind is without excuse.
monkeyshine, I’m sorry you had such a terrible experience with the southern fundies. I hope you know it’s not like that everywhere.
On sexual preference: Paul lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 a number of immoral traits/activities: “promiscuity, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, thievery, greed...” the list goes one. But he goes on to offer this hopeful word: “And such were some of you [speaking to Greek Christians in Corinth], but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ....”
Josev, the article you linked to above doesn’t back up any of its arguments or anecdotes about homosexuality with applicable scripture. The few quoted passages are broad in meaning and misappropriated from their original context. Besides that, all they use are modern-day stories, some of which do certainly tell immoral atrocities done by Christians who twisted the Bible to suit their own agendas, but don't reinforce their theories about the Bible's supposed silence regarding sexual preference. Some good places to start:
Scarabin, I’m curious: why the vehemence? Have you had bad experiences with the church in the past? I’m genuinely interested. Your pronouncements and misappropriated quotes come off like entries from an angry teenager’s blog, and I can’t believe there isn’t some background story here.
Let’s take it from the top.
There are passages in the Bible which contain poor grammar, run-on sentences, etc. These are human idiosyncrasies which are apparent in the text. These don’t discount the veracity of the Bible as God’s inspired letter to mankind; in fact, they make it all the more marvelous that such a complete picture of God’s character and redemptive story could be told. Some of it is really boring; other parts are poetry and narrative of the highest quality. There are, however, no contradictions in the entire Bible. I’ve looked high and low for them. E.g., just when you think there’s a contradiction between the story of Jesus’ life told in Matthew vs. what’s in John, you realize that Matthew is basically chronological in structure, and John is topical. So they cover different events, from different angles, at different points in the narratives.
For every book of the Bible, we still have physical copies of either primary, second, or third generation texts. They are scattered across various museums and libraries around the world. We also have access to original ancient Hebrew and Greek, the two primary languages of the Bible. The ability for a contemporary scholar to learn these languages and read the passages in their native tongues provides tremendous benefit. There are many words, idioms, and phrases which simply don’t translate well into English, French, Mandarin, etc.
There are some parts of the Bible which are hard to understand, such as almost every verse of Revelations. Revelations is shrouded in deep symbolism and metaphor, and has been foolishly used by many modern-day people to try and predict end-time events. But for the most part, the Bible is either prose, poetry, or sermon. Almost all of it can be parsed from a 5th grade reading level; some passages even seem simplistic as they repeatedly drive a point home.
As with any piece of literature, context is king in determining meaning. So let’s talk about context in some of these examples given by scarabin and Josev.
In the Old Testament (the Jewish Torah), God made a series of covenants, or pacts, with his people Israel. All of these covenants looked forward to a savior, a Messiah, a second Adam who would pay eternal atonement for the sins of God’s people. The old covenant was fulfilled in a new covenant through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. After Jesus, sacrifices were no longer necessary.
Meanwhile, back in the bronze age, God through Moses gave Israel the Ten Commandments and the greater law, which prescribed a host of rules, regulations, and ceremonies. This law was impossible to follow perfectly. It was meant in large part to show the Israelites their deep need for grace. The animal and grain sacrifices they offered were merely symbols which pointed forward to a future savior. Back then, Israel did not know how exactly this would happen, but the devout ones trusted that God would somehow provide.
Furthermore, the old covenant contained many laws, some seemingly silly, outlandish, or brutal by today’s standards. Many of those laws were abolished in the new covenant, when Christ paid all past, present, and future sacrificial requirements. This is why, for example, most modern Christians do not wear prayer tassels, require men to wear beards, or do just about any of the things scarabin mentions from Leviticus. All these ceremonies, these rules, pointed to Israel’s imperfection and need for salvation. It *really* had to be driven home with them, every day, because they were a stubborn people and were surrounded by rival nations who would offer up mass human sacrifices, hold enormous orgies, etc.
The passages you guys mention from Deuteronomy and Leviticus are the application core of the Old Testament Jewish law. Here’s a great summary and way to look at it from an essay I found in an ESV Study Bible:
“The ethical application of Old Testament law is a complex issue. ... While many OT laws will not be kept by Christians to the letter, the laws embody important and abiding principles for Christian ethical behavior. Sometimes those OT principles are modified in the New Testament; often they are reinforced. For instance, the sacrificial system finds its fulfillment in the cross of Christ, but the principles of OT sacrifice are still instructive for Christians.
“As a further example, the laws that define sexual morality and the principles underlying those laws are unchanged in the NT. Indeed, Jesus shows the deeper intent of the laws on sexual matters in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:27–30). However, the laws in Deuteronomy on warfare are not repeated for the New Testament church because God’s people are no longer a nation and the land to be inherited is now heavenly (1 Peter 1:4). Nonetheless, the principles of maintaining the holiness of God’s people and of God judging sin remain unchanged.
“It is important to recognize that there are different kinds of laws and rules in Deuteronomy [and Leviticus]. Many of the specific laws, especially those that detail penalties that judges are to impose, do not intend to spell out the ethical ideas for God’s people; their main function is to set the minimum standard of behavior needed to protect Israel’s theocracy.”
scarabin, you misinterpret the Luke passage. First of all, in this context "hating" is a Semitic expression for loving less. What Christ is saying here is that if anyone loves God less than his family or even his own life, he cannot be Christ's disciple. Jesus is not suggesting that anyone should dishonor their parents or other family members. In fact, one of his last acts on earth, while struggling to breathe on the cross, he entrusted his mother Mary to the care and support of John, one of the twelve disciples.
One more thing scarabin: there are NO scriptures which condone racism, hatred of women, bigotry, hatred of gays, or murder. Find me a passage that actually condones any of those things, back it up with the broader context it's set in, and I'll believe you.
Josev, the first Mark paraphrase is wrong. The OT and NT both condemn divorce, except for in cases of abandonment or adultery. Furthermore, if a person's spouse has left a marriage, the one left is free to remarry. The one who breaks the marriage vows continues to commit adultery by marrying someone else; but once in that marriage, they are bound to the new set of vows they made.
Your second Mark quote is taken out of context. It's actually a conjectural, non-actual story offered up by Jesus' religious opponents, who hoped to used the law of Moses to catch Jesus in saying something blasphemous. They said "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. After the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife."
Jesus answered them: " Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong."
- Who am I kidding, no one will read this. At least my eyes hurt now.gramme
- Ach, nevermind the "good places to start." Was going to post verses for reference.gramme
- Too tired now. Must rest.gramme
- so.... ummm......
is it gay to be anti gay?pango - Yeah, that explanation doesn't work for me. I can't believe it satisfies you.monospaced
- Sorry it doesn't work for you. And believe it or not, it satisfies me.gramme
- See, I'm working from the premise that none of us deserve salvation, so anyone who is among God's chosen is getting an undeserved blessinggramme
- getting an undeserved blessing of cosmic proportions.gramme
- JazX0
Uhmmmmmmmmm, the majority of homosexuals define themselves as liberals. if you think otherwise, you're crazy. Now, those that are being called out in the political realm, fine, I'm not supporting their gay-bashing when they're homo's themselves, HYPOCRITES TO THE HILT, but come on...
- Mal0
- CALLES0
i went out yesterday... came back to check my email... and you guys still on this? whack
different point of view, different people, let it go
- redrum0
he lives in Alabama. isn't that in the Alabama bible or something?
- lukus_W0
I suppose it is difficult situation; how much credence should a religious principle like this be given?
Gramme; while you're willing to tolerate homosexuals as people who have chosen the wrong 'lifestyle choice' - there are other people who are far more fundamental in their beliefs. Some people actively hunt and and murder 'known homosexuals'. I'd imagine that the fundamentalists would agree with the basic tenets of your argument.
I don't like the idea of you being made a scape-goat, but because a continuum like this exists, perhaps it's morally correct for society to be intolerant of your views re. homosexuality?
After all, society doesn't accept people who are 'slightly racist'.
