Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the bible condemn homosexuality?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 197 of 311 (71061)
12-04-2003 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Xzen
12-04-2003 4:55 PM


Okay, since we seem to be agreed that it is the same as any other sin, what is the reason for the extra emphasis Xians seem to give it over other sins?
And not to be insulting, but at first it seemed you were wanting to demonstrate that it was something extra special (as far as sins go), and not just that it was a sin. If I was not wrong, what was the reason for this?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Xzen, posted 12-04-2003 4:55 PM Xzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Xzen, posted 12-05-2003 8:05 AM Silent H has not replied

Xzen
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 311 (71160)
12-05-2003 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Silent H
12-04-2003 8:09 PM


I was not trying to make homosexuality out to be worse than any other sin. I was only addressing the topic at hand. I apologise if it seemed like I was making homosexuality out to be worse than any other sin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Silent H, posted 12-04-2003 8:09 PM Silent H has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 199 of 311 (75772)
12-30-2003 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
09-20-2003 2:52 AM


Homosexuality and the Bible(again)
What a fiery topic! Here is what I believe about it:
Assuming that Jesus is alive and is the "In Charge" diety of the times....is homosexuality a sin? Well...by definition, we all sin. Sin by definition is a loss of communion with God. The problem with any sort of sexual lust, be it same sex or other sex, is that the focus of the individual is on fullfilling their inner passion with another object or person contrary to putting God first. This is confusing because we all do it! Homosexuals are no more sinners than anyone else. They are sinners when they insist on their right to be allowed to experience what they want BEFORE God. Yet we all do this in many ways in all of our lives! If by definition God wants total attention, focus, love, and worship from us, (which would be a good thing if He were a good God) then by reality, we ALL fall short! Leave the gay people alone! All of us fall short of God, and He still puts up with us...even if we do not believe in Him! WOWZERS!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 09-20-2003 2:52 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2003 4:47 AM Phat has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 200 of 311 (75774)
12-30-2003 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Phat
12-30-2003 4:30 AM


Assuming that Jesus is alive and is the "In Charge" diety of the times....
Right, but there's no evidence he is - so who are you to tell another person that they can't have sex with the consenting adults they're attracted to?
I mean, we get it. Most (many?) Christians are compelled to take a dim view of homosexuality because of their religion. But guess what? This is America - where I have a Constitutional right not to be subject to laws that are justified only by religious belief.
If there's a compelling secular reason to prevent gay sex or gay marriage, I'd love to hear it. "God sayz" is adequate to stop believers from having gay sex. But it's not enough reason to condemn gay people who just don't believe in your god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Phat, posted 12-30-2003 4:30 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Phat, posted 12-30-2003 4:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 201 of 311 (75776)
12-30-2003 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by crashfrog
12-30-2003 4:47 AM


Reply
Yes. You are correct. I can not dictate morality for you, nor would I if I had the power. Why? Because I do not know you and I would be a incompetent judge. I will say that many Christians are very rude and very annoying to others. Perhaps I can enlighten you on one thing...my personality. I am attracted to young men, and I find no evil in this. For me, attraction is not a sin. Action is. If another person who was in need of an infilling love were to fall for me, I would be doing them a grave injustice. My belief, you see, says that there is a loving Spirit who SHOULD have first right to that lonely persons void. True that this Spirit will never force a relationship, but only that this Spirit desires to be with that person BEFORE any other relationship! TO YOU: It is not about power or control or forcing belief upon you. It is only about love, filling a void, and making you happy. No person can do this for us, in my belief. Only this Spirit can do this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2003 4:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2003 5:27 AM Phat has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 202 of 311 (75780)
12-30-2003 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Phat
12-30-2003 4:56 AM


I can not dictate morality for you, nor would I if I had the power.
So, then, you wouldn't support the Constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to a man and a woman?
Because that's all I really care about. As an American you have the right to be as disapproving as you like about gay people. But you don't have the right to prevent them from having the same rights as you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Phat, posted 12-30-2003 4:56 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Phat, posted 12-30-2003 9:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 203 of 311 (75797)
12-30-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by crashfrog
12-30-2003 5:27 AM


As an American
This is where America is what it is: A democracy rather than a theocracy. Note the difference in these definitions:
democracy= dmos people + kratos strength, power 1 : government by the people; esp : rule of the majority 2 : a government in which the supreme power is held by the people 3 : a political unit that has a democratic government 4 cap : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 5 : the common people esp. when constituting the source of political authority 6 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
republic= wealth + publica, fem. of publicus public 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usu. a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government
theocracy=1 : government by officials regarded as divinely inspired 2 : a state governed by a theocracy theocratic \'th--"kra-tik\ adj Christians act as if the government SHOULD be theocratic. The U.S. is not a true democracy, however. We are a republic...an empire preserving its wealth and power by any means necessary. Definitely NOT a Christian concept! Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world, and He also admonished His disciples to take no thought ...(for material things)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2003 5:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

Chairmohn
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 311 (76049)
12-31-2003 3:59 PM


The secular case?
crashfrog posted:
quote:
If there's a compelling secular reason to prevent gay sex or gay marriage, I'd love to hear it. "God sayz" is adequate to stop believers from having gay sex. But it's not enough reason to condemn gay people who just don't believe in your god.
There are secular arguments (social, ethical, and legal) against a radical redefinition of marriage. However, this appears to be a discussion that is about the pros and cons of biblical principles. Rather than reframe the discussion to make it an exchange of views on solely irreligious pros and cons, perhaps you could post a link to a discussion in which the topic is about the secular case for endorsement of homosexual behavior and/or "same gender marriage". I'm not a moderator so this is just a suggestion and is not meant to be argumentative.
Hopefully your implied question was a sincere attempt to encourage further discussion and not simply a rhetorical device meant to marginalize as irrelevant the views that oppose your opinion on marriage law. In that case, perhaps the turn in the discussion can be more explicitly inclusive. For example...
In a pluralistic society, how can the reasoning and beliefs of a religious majority be expressed in marriage law without infringing on the rights of an irreligious, or secularized, minority?
In some ways we might compare with the very opposite situation in societies, such as some in Europe, where the majority is irreligious. Or in societies where the split is close to 50-50 -- i.e. Canada. Or where there is a large homogeneous religious majority, unlike the heterogeneous majority in the USA.
In the USA, is it desirable, if possible, to make marriage law based on biblical principles while maintaining religious freedom for the individual? Is there danger that redefining marriage and sexual mores (as per some radical gay activitists) will infringe on the liberty of observant Jews, Catholics, and others? Are there relevant biblical precedents or teachings that might guide believers who accept the scriptural opposition to homosexuality?
Again, I'm not a moderator. If this could better be discussed in a new thread, please feel free to set me right.
[This message has been edited by Chairmohn, 12-31-2003]
[This message has been edited by Chairmohn, 12-31-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2004 5:37 PM Chairmohn has not replied
 Message 207 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2004 7:29 PM Chairmohn has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 205 of 311 (76152)
01-01-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Chairmohn
12-31-2003 3:59 PM


Re: The secular case?
Chairmohn writes:
quote:
Again, I'm not a moderator. If this could better be discussed in a new thread, please feel free to set me right.
There is already a thread on the anti-marriage amendment (Marriage Amendment).
In it, holmes seems to be avoiding my very direct question. Perhaps you would do what he seems to be incapable of:
What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?
Will mixed-sex couples be required to pay income tax at a different rate from same-sex couples? Will same-sex couples not be allowed to sponsor spouses for immigration? Will mixed-sex couples be required to become organ donors? Will spousal rape laws not apply to same-sex couples?
What, specifically, changes? I want to know what changes in the legal contract when the people involved in the contract are of the same sex.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Chairmohn, posted 12-31-2003 3:59 PM Chairmohn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2004 3:20 PM Rrhain has replied

Chairmohn
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 311 (76190)
01-02-2004 2:53 AM


Thanks for the link. I'll checkout that thread and if I have anything to contribute, I'll post a response to your questions over there.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 207 of 311 (76312)
01-02-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Chairmohn
12-31-2003 3:59 PM


perhaps you could post a link to a discussion in which the topic is about the secular case for endorsement of homosexual behavior and/or "same gender marriage".
Rrhain beat me to posting a link to the discussion I started. Perhaps you'd like to bring along the questions you posed, I find them interesting...
There are secular arguments (social, ethical, and legal) against a radical redefinition of marriage.
I've never heard one that doesn't boil down to "I don't like gay sex, so gays shouldn't get married."
In a pluralistic society, how can the reasoning and beliefs of a religious majority be expressed in marriage law without infringing on the rights of an irreligious, or secularized, minority?
Why should they be? The majority may be religious, but laws are universal. The laws have to apply to everybody, and provisions that restrict behavior should only be made law if there's a compelling practical reason to do so. Religion doesn't count. You may wish to read The Federalist Papers for discussion on "the tyranny of the majority."
Is there danger that redefining marriage and sexual mores (as per some radical gay activitists) will infringe on the liberty of observant Jews, Catholics, and others?
How would it? Letting gays marry doesn't suddenly force straight Catholics to have gay sex. Nor are you forcing them to legitimize marriages they don't support. You're only forcing the government to do so.
If the Catholic down the street doesn't like my marriage, that has no ill effect on me. If the government doesn't like my marriage, that precludes a number of protections and benefits that other married people are entitled to, and that's just not fair.
No religious group has the freedom to prevent the free expression of another's religion. So you can hardly make an argument that gay marriage "infringes the freedom" of religious groups.
Are there relevant biblical precedents or teachings that might guide believers who accept the scriptural opposition to homosexuality?
Who cares about 'em? Seriously, I don't give a damn about what a Catholic or a Episcopalian thinks about my marriage, because I have no ties to those groups. What I care about is what the government thinks about my marriage, because they're in a position to bestow or deny benefits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Chairmohn, posted 12-31-2003 3:59 PM Chairmohn has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 208 of 311 (76396)
01-03-2004 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Rrhain
01-01-2004 5:37 PM


quote:
In it, holmes seems to be avoiding my very direct question. Perhaps you would do what he seems to be incapable of: What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?
I answered your goddamn question Rrhain. Here it is again: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BESIDES COSMETICS!!!!!!!
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BESIDES COSMETICS!!!! THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BESIDES COSMETICS!!!!!!
In addition, I BELIEVE COSMETICS IS AN INSUFFICIENT REASON TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!!!!
I invite everyone to go look at that other thread and tell me (or Rrhain) whether I have answered that question or not, and whether the above statement answers it here! In addition someone might want to tell him that it wasn't even the point I was raising, nor was it necessary for me in order to make my point.
Rarrrrrrrrgh!
Please Rrhain, do me the courtesy of never mentioning my name in posts again. After three different threads where you have driven me to near madness trying simply to communicate with you, I do not want any cause for having to deal with you anymore.
In fact let's end it here. You think I dodge questions, I think you are insane or deliberately avoiding debate by pretending I am not answering you. I assume we both agree the evidence speaks for itself. Let the people judge as they will.
And from now on we pretend the other does not exist...

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2004 5:37 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Phat, posted 01-04-2004 6:24 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 212 by Rrhain, posted 01-10-2004 3:51 AM Silent H has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 209 of 311 (76525)
01-04-2004 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Silent H
01-03-2004 3:20 PM


Peace,Man!
Why are you guys so emotional and angry?! Chill...I get upset when my posting roomies don't get along!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2004 3:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2004 8:01 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 211 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2004 9:21 PM Phat has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 210 of 311 (76540)
01-04-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Phat
01-04-2004 6:24 PM


quote:
Why are you guys so emotional and angry?!
There is a history between us. Despite being in agreement on almost all issues, there is usually one minor point within the overall issue that we disagree on.
Long story short... our very ability to communicate ends while debating that disputed minutiae. He usually claims I am saying something (which I certainly am not), or that I am dodging his questions (which to my mind I am not). And I usually claim that he is dodging my questions (and to his mind he is not)... there maybe something else I do but you get the picture.
No matter who is really at fault, it's bad all over. That's why I simply don't want him trying to communicate with me, or try to continue debating me on those past topics through others. I don't want to get sucked back in. And if/when it happens I am not going to be charming. I will go kicking and screaming.
Feel free to read through our fights in various threads and determine for yourself which one of us is crazy (or being deceitful). We both feel the other is wrong and that the facts speak for themselves. Heheh, maybe we both are.
I guess I want to make this clear, I am not saying I am right and he is wrong. That is besides the point. We obviously bring out the worst in each other, and over the slightest issues. So our starting or continuing to communicate is just not worth it (IMO). Kind of like I don't bother with Brad McFall's posts, because whether he is right or wrong it takes way too much of my time just trying to understand what he is saying. I leave him for others, with more time or faster brain processes, to debate.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Phat, posted 01-04-2004 6:24 PM Phat has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 211 of 311 (76546)
01-04-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Phat
01-04-2004 6:24 PM


Re: Peace,Man!
Phatboy
Not to worry about these two. I believe they enjoy immensely throwing flames at one another. If you happen to get stuck in traffic between them be sure to bring the kevlar though!

"The Puritans. Our ancestors. People so uptight the English kicked them out. How fucking anal do you have to be for the English to say 'get the fuck out!'"
~~ Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Phat, posted 01-04-2004 6:24 PM Phat has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024