|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the bible condemn homosexuality? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Because it's NOT what people consent to... it's what God allows. In God's eyes, both acts are sin and that's all that matters to God. I have to ask, if God hates homosexuality, why then is there a genetic component to being gay?
Maybe... maybe not - that's beside the point. God forbids it and that's all that matters. Of course, if you don't believe in God then anything goes (and it usually does). Remind me where God forbids homosexuality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is well known that the "modern" term of 'sodomy' is in reference to the practice of the Sodomites - a practice condemned by God and in part for this reason the city was destroyed (Genesis 19). Can you really use the term "sodomy" to refer to homosexuality when it's not clear that the citizens of Sodom are homosexual? I don't recall any mention of it in Genesis. I mean, yes, the word clearly stems from a perception that Sodom was a city full of gay people, but do you have any biblical evidence to support that perception? I haven't seen any. As for Romans doesn't "men with men working that which is unseemly" refer to temple prostitution, not homosexuality? I mean, why would the Bible use "unseemly" to refer to homosexuality without actually saying "homosexuality is unseemly" in any other part? The fact that the Bible doesn't exactly spell out what it is they're doing that's so unseemly gives you a lot of wiggle-room, I'd say. Sure, that passage could refer to homosexuality, but the question is, what does it literally refer to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I would encourage you to undertake a serious study of the Bible from cover to cover and you'll find what many others (including myself) have found : homosexuality is an affront to God and there is no excuse for it in His eyes. I submit that you found exactly what you were looking for in the Bible - homosexuality is an affront to you, and naturally you came to the conclusion that it is to god, too. You certainly haven't supported it from the Bible, and a considerable Christian presence in this country feels that you are also in error.
We each have two choices : comply with what God commands or do whatever we desire to do. The choice is ours and so are the consequences for our choice. Since god doesn't exist, I'll base my conclusions on the actual effects that behaviors have. Two men having sex with each other has no effect on my life or anybody's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Two points:
Homosexual activity is 99.999999% sex outside of marriage so right there I know that God doesn't accept it. That's only because people like you won't let them get married. So it isn't that God doesn't like it, it's that people like you don't like it.
But then there are those gay couples that are actually 'tying the knot' - is it now acceptable to God? I don't think so because it doesn't satisfy the criterion of "naturalness". Given that animals regularly engage in homosexual behavior are you willing to revise your definition of what is natural and what is not? I mean, if it's done in nature, how can it be unnatural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I suppose the answer will come down to the idea that humans get a separate set of rules. If humans get a separate set of rules than nature, wouldn't that make every single thing we do unnatural, by definition? Not that I'm arguing with you, specifically. Just with this train of thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What it would mean is that there are natural rules for humans, and natural rules for everything else. But it would all be natural. If humans are doing something not found in nature, that would make that action unnatural. This seems obvious to me. Humans can't have their own nature. I agree that humans can have their own rules, it's just that if they're human-specific, they can't be called "natural".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That was one of the most obscene comments I have ever read and it is unbelievable that anyone could stoop to such a level for any reason whatsoever. Why? It's precisely the kind of behavior that believers like you accuse atheists of every time you imply that we lack moral codes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I read this in News of the Weird and found it quite amusing. Apparently God not only loves gay people but he's had it up to here with Pat Robertson (much like myself). Now if He'd only do something about that Phelps guy...
quote: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy - and probably wouldn't, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I have never accused anyone of anything. Well, the comment you thought was offensive wasn't directed to you, was it?
I was simply stating a fact, that the comment was offensive and unnecessary. Plenty of my friends are not Christians and do not feel the need to make obscene references. Well, Dan Carroll did feel that need. He's not a disguisting person, he was simply making fun of the horrible atrocities Christians accuse atheists of being capable of almost every time the subject comes up. If you don't make such accusations then you have nothing to worry about, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Mat 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' So, sucking another man's penis doesn't make you unclean. Good to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
After eleven pages of discussion about how the English translations that refer to homosexual acts are actually mistranslations of words that refer to temple prostitution, why do you think these passages are relevant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No where in the context of the first chapter of Romans does it speak of temple prostitutes. In the English, or the Greek? That's what we're talking about, here. I don't read greek, so I take Rrhain's word for it. Do you read Greek?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024