The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[CraftyLandShark]

If you're talking about the golden calf, the only such instance I'm aware of where the "false god" is named, it DID represent a god, Ba'al if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Danoff]

If it's Leviticus you meant then probably not, nothing in that Book I go by.

in the beginning God created a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Man with woman is how He intended it to be, and that's how I think it should be.

Pretty sure those are in the same book.

So what you're saying is that even though it doesn't say in the bible that being gay is wrong (at least, nowhere that you take seriously), you think it is - and you think this is based on your religion.

Does that summarize you view correctly?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Leviticus is where the Holiness Code is found; Genesis is where his statement is taken from, but it's not really an important distinction.

I don't understand basing the whole of your opinion on homosexuality on such a vague phrase ("God created Man and Woman"). First of all, they're not linked statements even in scripture. According to Genesis, God first created Man, then on a subsequent "day", when he saw Man was lonely, he created Woman. Apparently going by this God originally intended Man to exist unto himself - no woman necessary for procreation. Odd, huh?

 

[Duke]

Different time periods I believe. Sometimes they were "Gods" represented by statues, sometimes they were just statues and the leaders claimed that they were Gods.

But, of course, Zeus, Athena, etc. were false, whereas your arbitrarily-chosen God is not false. Because someone claims He is God.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Not all Christian lessons are learnt from looking at what is said exactly in the Bible as it is, lessons are learnt and derived from passages in the Bible, hence the need for Church and things like Bible Study. Hence my view on homosexuality. Or you could just read my posts above and get my point of view- I summarised it, not you. Again proving my point that people disregard my posts coming back to the same stupid argument that I have nothing to do with.

Edit: That is in reply to Danoff, I should have quoted him.

Edit 2: @ CLS, maybe at first we were just meant to be a 1 man species in the Garden of Eden. But he created woman to keep man company, not another man.

@ Duke, I'm pretty sure Christianity outdates every other religion, let's try since the beginning of time.

 

[Danoff]

Not all Christian lessons are learnt from looking at what is said exactly in the Bible as it is, lessons are learnt and derived from passages in the Bible, hence the need for Church and things like Bible Study.

So, you can't really explain it, but your pastor can.

Or you could just read my posts above and get my point of view- I summarised it, not you.

You didn't summarize it. You explained it in minor detail. I summarized it.

Again proving my point that people disregard my posts coming back to the same stupid argument that I have nothing to do with.

And what stupid argument was that? That your own holy book doesn't support your position, or that you're a hypocrite for picking and choosing which parts of the OT to follow?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Leviticus is where the Holiness Code is found; Genesis is where his statement is taken from, but it's not really an important distinction.

I don't understand basing the whole of your opinion on homosexuality on such a vague phrase ("God created Man and Woman"). First of all, they're not linked statements even in scripture. According to Genesis, God first created Man, then on a subsequent "day", when he saw Man was lonely, he created Woman. Apparently going by this God originally intended Man to exist unto himself - no woman necessary for procreation. Odd, huh?

It just occured to me...

Odder still, this suggests that God somehow failed to anticipate the nature and needs of his own creation. In what light does this cast the idea of an infallable God? The "free will" argument won't work in this instance; this is all taking place before the supposed "fall from grace", when God had not yet given up his creation to "free will".

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

So, you can't really explain it, but your pastor can.



You didn't summarize it. You explained it in minor detail. I summarized it.



And what stupid argument was that? That your own holy book doesn't support your position, or that you're a hypocrite for picking and choosing which parts of the OT to follow?

I have not studied to become learned enough to take lessons from the Bible in that manner. Just like I haven't studied to understand how a computer works.

No, I summarised my argument, don't try and put words in my mouth brother.

The stupid argument was that "the passage in Leviticus is the only thing in the Bible saying homosexuality isn't OK" when there are other parts when someone learned enough reads into it. Oh wait here we go again, someone will try and put words in my mouth from what I just said.

 

[Danoff]

So, you can't really explain it, but your pastor can.

I have not studied to become learned enough to take lessons from the Bible in that manner. Just like I haven't studied to understand how a computer works.

So.. yea... pretty much what I said. Why didn't you just say yes - that you don't understand where the bible says that being gay is wrong, but your pastor does and he could explain it to us.

The stupid argument was that "the passage in Leviticus is the only thing in the Bible saying homosexuality isn't OK" when there are other parts when someone learned enough reads into it.

...just not you. But we should take your word for it that there are those that are smart enough to figure out that the bible says this very subtly, so subtly that us unlearned people can't figure it out on the first few readings. Good thing there are people smart enough to understand the cryptic word of God.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Good thing we go to Church so these learned people can tell us.

 

[Duke]

@ Duke, I'm pretty sure Christianity outdates every other religion, let's try since the beginning of time.

I won't belabor this point with you, because I see you're fighting on several different fronts at the moment, but I have to ask:

Are you serious? Do you honestly think that no other religions date from before Christianity?

And do you not think that those religions also say that their god(s) are true gods, and that their god is the one that created the world/cosmos/etc.?

How can you be so incredibly sure that you've picked the right god?

In all sincerity and with all due respect, I think you owe it to yourself to learn a little bit more about the religions of world history.

 

[Danoff]

Good thing we go to Church so these learned people can tell us.

Boom!!!

You admit it.

You can't figure out where the bible says being gay is wrong. - check.
The word of God is cryptic, not for the lay person. You have to devote your life to religion to figure it out. - check

You're following a religion you don't even understand. It's not the bible you're following blindly, it's your church. They're interpreting your own holy book for you and you're swallowing it even though you don't understand it. Then you have the gall to come in here and try to claim that you've got it figured out and we should think like you do.

Amazing.

I won't belabor this point with you, because I see you're fighting on several different fronts at the moment, but I have to ask:

Not to worry, I just wrapped this one up.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Boom!!!

You admit it.

You can't figure out where the bible says being gay is wrong. - check.
The word of God is cryptic, not for the lay person. You have to devote your life to religion to figure it out. - check

You're following a religion you don't even understand. It's not the bible you're following blindly, it's your church. They're interpreting your own holy book for you and you're swallowing it even though you don't understand it. Then you have the gall to come in here and try to claim that you've got it figured out and we should think like you do.

Amazing.



Not to worry, I just wrapped this one up.

Congratulations, you just made an idiot of yourself.
So you go to school and believe everything your teacher tells you- check.
So you make up your own lies about other people and their beliefs and believe your own lies- check.

And Duke, no religion could outdate Christianity if you believe in Creationism. I'm not getting into that argument again though because people refuse to listen.

 

[YSSMAN]

Whoa whoa whoa there...

1) I'm currently attending a "Catholic" college here in Grand Rapids, Michigan... Aquinas College

2) It is required of all undergraduates to take at least one class on religion, I in particular chose to take "Bible As Story," where we went through the entire book and discussed its meaning.

3) I may not "understand religion" because I don't attend some kind of church service regularly, but thats because I got sick of having the same senseless dribble shoved down my throat week after week by idiots who don't understand the Bible any better than the man on the street corner who thinks he can talk to God.

Just because we have challenged Christianity doesn't make us any less credible than you, someone who appears to take what it says at face value. To your credit, you're of a dying breed. More and more people are becoming less-religious in our world (that is, the Western world), and likely for good reason: They see right through it.

There is a difference between having a rational mind and attempting to make an understanding of the Bible as a tool for a moral code, and just taking it, using it as a tool against anything you don't like... Furthermore, not even using that tool properly because one doesn't have an understanding of it other than "I believe this, I believe that, but don't know why..."

The process of rational thought is one of God's great gifts that it bestowed on mankind. Its what separated men like Jefferson and Locke from their peers, DaVinci and Gallileo, among countless others. Unfortunately, its this rational thought that gets us in trouble (apparently). Personal thoughts aside, taking out the context of religion, its much easier to analyze any given situation.

I suggest that some of us attempt to do the same.

 

[Kylehnat]

Congratulations, you just made an idiot of yourself.
So you go to school and believe everything your teacher tells you- check.
So you make up your own lies about other people and their beliefs and believe your own lies- check.

And Duke, no religion could outdate Christianity if you believe in Creationism. I'm not getting into that argument again though because people refuse to listen.

This whole post is unbelievable. Is there some sort of prize we can give you? I do admire your persistence. Most people would have exercized Debate Tenet #7 by now.

 

[Famine]

I told you, I don't go by that passage, I said a couple pages back now that I see homosexuality as wrong because in the beginning God created a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Man with woman is how He intended it to be, and that's how I think it should be. I have not once used that passage in the Old Testament as my evidence, and this is what my view has always been. But you guys keep rambling on about that passage saying it's the only evidence for Christians. I told you you were dismissing my posts.

It is the only passage in the Bible that specifically mentions the sin/not sin nature of homosexuality. No other passage specifically deals with it. If you don't go by that passage and no other passage deals with homosexuality, why do you still think homosexuality is a sin?

If it's the Bible you're talking about then the Old Testament is not law, the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus is what you should mostly look at.

in the beginning God created a man and a woman

Free throw for you here: In which Testament is the passage which deals with Creation, specifically God creating a man and a woman?


The only evidence you have is in a book you deem to be allegorical. You have absolutely no religious reason for stating that homosexuality is wrong.

That your own holy book doesn't support your position

Bingo.

It's also curious that the infallible, unchanging Word of God needs somehow interpreting by learned folk so that all of His children can understand it.

 

[Joey D]

@ Duke, I'm pretty sure Christianity outdates every other religion, let's try since the beginning of time.

No, animism is older, so is a belief in Mother Earth.

**I thought of another one as well, ancestor worship.

 

[Duke]

And Duke, no religion could outdate Christianity if you believe in Creationism. I'm not getting into that argument again though because people refuse to listen.

So... What about all those other people around the world who believe their god created everything and therefore their religion is older than all the others?

Are you even going to question that thought in your own mind, let alone try to answer it?

 

[Alfaholic]

Edit 2: @ CLS, maybe at first we were just meant to be a 1 man species in the Garden of Eden. But he created woman to keep man company, not another man.

Actually, the reason he created a woman instead of a second man to keep Adam company was because god also wanted to keep his garden tidy. Two men would have had the opposite effect.

 

[TheCracker]

Actually, the reason he created a woman instead of a second man to keep Adam company was because god also wanted to keep his garden tidy. Two men would have had the opposite effect.

And had it been two women who'd have cut the lawn?

 

[Famine]

And had it been two women who'd have cut the lawn?

From all the pictures I've seen, the younger, skinnier one.

Wait, were razors even invented back then?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

This whole post is unbelievable. Is there some sort of prize we can give you? I do admire your persistence. Most people would have exercized Debate Tenet #7 by now.

Yay, I won I won, and.....oh wait there is no prize is there

It is the only passage in the Bible that specifically mentions the sin/not sin nature of homosexuality. No other passage specifically deals with it. If you don't go by that passage and no other passage deals with homosexuality, why do you still think homosexuality is a sin?





Free throw for you here: In which Testament is the passage which deals with Creation, specifically God creating a man and a woman?


The only evidence you have is in a book you deem to be allegorical. You have absolutely no religious reason for stating that homosexuality is wrong.

Hang on, you're going back to that same argument again- I'm getting good at recognising patterns. The Old Testament is not false- oh contrare, it's all true. But the laws proposed by that half of the Bible are not to be taken seriously, rather the teachings of Jesus should be. Things can be interpreted from those real events, but mostly when they say you should do this or that in the Old Testament that kind of thinking is revoked later in the Bible anyway.

So... What about all those other people around the world who believe their god created everything and therefore their religion is older than all the others?

Are you even going to question that thought in your own mind, let alone try to answer it?

I will answer that, most of these relgions didn't pop up even until long after Christianity was around. (Since Adam and Eve). Just because they claim their God did those things- doesn't change the fact that their religion didn't start then, it started much much later.

Actually, the reason he created a woman instead of a second man to keep Adam company was because god also wanted to keep his garden tidy. Two men would have had the opposite effect.

I had to laugh- that's funny man. (I take it that was a joke)

 

[Leonidae]

that's funny, I thought that christianity didn't appear as formal religion until the romans got a christian leader.. which was.. what, 30-50 years after Christs death?

in addition, I think that egyptians had far older religion that dates.. what, something around 10 000 years back from now? as a religion, christianity is new thing.

 

[TheCracker]

I will answer that, most of these relgions didn't pop up even until long after Christianity was around. (Since Adam and Eve).

Christianity has been around for 1908 years. Christianity is following the teachings of Jesus. What have Adam and Eve got to do with it?

 

[Famine]

Hang on, you're going back to that same argument again- I'm getting good at recognising patterns. The Old Testament is not false- oh contrare, it's all true. But the laws proposed by that half of the Bible are not to be taken seriously, rather the teachings of Jesus should be. Things can be interpreted from those real events, but mostly when they say you should do this or that in the Old Testament that kind of thinking is revoked later in the Bible anyway.

Avoid patterns. Recognise words.

No part of the Bible bar the Old Testament mentions homosexuality as a sin.
If those laws are "not to be taken seriously" and "revoked later in the Bible", why do you still adhere to the mindset that homosexuality is a sin?

Nowhere in the New Testament, or the "teachings of Jesus", is homosexuality mentioned as a sin.

I will answer that, most of these relgions didn't pop up even until long after Christianity was around.

Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam all predate Christianity.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

People were still worshiping the Christian God though long before those others came about- even if they weren't yet a structured religion.

Famine, I stand by my original thought process that God created a man and a woman.

 

[Stevisiov]

People were still worshiping the Christian God though long before those others came about- even if they weren't yet a structured religion.

Famine, I stand by my original thought process that God created a man and a woman.

I thought the bit about God creating a man an a woman was in the old part of the bible? I thought you didn't really take the old part of the bible very litteraly?

 

[TheCracker]

People were still worshiping the Christian God though long before those others came about- even if they weren't yet a structured religion.

Yes, this is known as Judaism and is at least 3300 years old. Funnily enough, the Christian, Jewish and Muslim god would all appear to be the same bloke.

 

[Famine]

Famine, I stand by my original thought process that God created a man and a woman.

I thought the bit about God creating a man an a woman was in the old part of the bible? I thought you didn't really take the old part of the bible very litteraly?

Exactly.

People were still worshiping the Christian God though long before those others came about- even if they weren't yet a structured religion.

People were worshipping Pagan gods several hundred years before that. And the Babylonian gods hundreds of years before that. And the Egyptian gods hundreds of years before that.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I thought the bit about God creating a man an a woman was in the old part of the bible? I thought you didn't really take the old part of the bible very litteraly?

🤬 in exasperation. Read my post a few clicks of the mouse up on this page. I'm not repeating myself.