|
Author
|
Topic: The bible and homosexuality
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 323 (103407)
04-28-2004 2:48 PM
|
|
|
Ok, I recently got involved in a heated debate about the morality (or immorality) of homosexuality. Since this person can't see anything past the pages of the bible, I was forced to reread the bible and tried to analyze certain points regarding this topic. Unfortunately, this person is desdamona's twin, so for now I have given up on reasoning with him. I know that quite a few of bible bashers on these boards are believe that homosexuality is immoral because of religious reasons. I would like to know what your best arguments are for this view. By the way, if you are thinking about using Leviticus, here is something I wrote on another forum.
On another forum, Lam writes: Let's start with Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 states, "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." Leviticus is, of course, old testament. Most Christians these days ignore the majority of the teachings in the old testaments for obvious reasons: they're considered outdated to our moral standards today. Leviticus 21:9 states, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." Now really, do you think, with our modern sense of morality, that we can ever justify burning someone alive? Leviticus 12:4-5 states, "and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled. If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she sahll be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood." Ok, to plainly put it, these verses forbids a woman from entering church for 42 days after giving birth. The Catholic church has completely ignored this verse as far as creating their policies go. To our moral standards today, the notion of a woman somehow "unclean" for 42 days after giving birth is absurd. Leviticus 25:44 states, "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations." Leviticus 25:45, 46 states, "You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slavesyou may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen." These verses clearly justify slavery, given that slaves are bought from neighboring states. Verse 25:46 clearly states that slaves are property. During the 18th and 19th centuries, many Americans used these verses to justify slavery in this country. In other words, Leviticus was used to justify one of the darkest and most embarrassing part of our history. Let us go back to Leviticus 18:22. If we think that this part of Leviticus in the old testament holds for our modern morality, then why not the other verses that I mentioned above? The verses that I mentioned above are only a few of the examples from the old testament where our modern sense of morality condemns as immoral. If Leviticus 18:22 is the only thing that is telling you that homosexuality is wrong, I hope that you rethink about your position on the issue. {Note from Adminnemooseus - This topic functions as a successor to homosexuality and the Bible, which was closed when the discussion lost contact with Biblical considerations.} [This message has been edited by Lam, 04-28-2004] [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2004]
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 7 of 323 (103455)
04-28-2004 5:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
04-28-2004 4:30 PM
|
|
berberry writes: This topic has been beaten to death here, but as a gay man I can hardly take exception to renewing the debate. I know. I read through that thread about a week ago. Since that thread wandered off topic beyond belief (from homosexuality to the morality of offering your daughters for gang rape rather than your sons...), I feel like many people never had a chance to voice their opinion.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by berberry, posted 04-28-2004 4:30 PM | | berberry has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Dan writes: If we want to be strict biblical literalists, (and I know we all do!) I've never once put a woman's wang in my mouth. Had too much trouble finding her wang to even try it. So does that mean it's okay for me to go down on a guy? In strict literal terms, it wouldn't be "as with a woman." Not that I want to, but it can't hurt to clarify what the rules are, here.
Permission to use this argument in the future. This is the first time I have ever heard such an interpretation before. Wow.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-28-2004 5:27 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-28-2004 5:33 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 12 of 323 (103477)
04-28-2004 6:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 6:10 PM
|
|
Loudmouth writes: Of course, I don't know if you have ever had a clitoris in your mouth either . . . The thought of it gives me the chill down my spine. Even IFF I'm straight, I would still think this as the scariest thought anyone can come up with. *Shudders*
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:10 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Mike writes: What has Lam got to do to get a debate going ? We all seem to agree on this.
To be honest, I did not start this thread to debate with people. I just want anti-homosexuality people to post their view based on their bible just so I could learn something new about people that wants to get in the way of our right to get married. However, I reserve the right to start debating if it comes to it.
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 24 of 323 (103655)
04-29-2004 2:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 6:59 PM
|
|
Ok, so either people are still licking their wounds from the last discussion or Froggy successfully changed many people's minds.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:59 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes: Homosexuality is inverted behavior not conducive to health or the established 'request' to be 'fruitful and multiply'. For God to condone it, certainly would be against his establishment. For these reasons, it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether the Old or New Testament speaks against it, and the New Testament does most vehemently speak against it. I believe there is heterosexual behavior that is foul and unhealthy, and I do not care how people get their jollies. But the contention that God has somehow changed his rules to suit our times, is ridiculous since health and multiplying are still extant facts. Does God want New Testament people to be healthy? Well, yes! Therefore, the laws of health as found in Leviticus, including those of sexual behavior, apply throuhout time and apply to all those who wish to obey the God who gave them. And that goes for the Ten Commandments, as found in Exodus, mostly. "I am the Lord, I change not". As for the number of translations being the reason for the number of sects, no, that is not it. It is the number of interpretations of the Written Word that are the cause. Well, think about it. Could you please reference the passages in the bible or give us your reasons for your attitude above? You will find that simply saying "my opinion is blah blah blah" without a "because" and an explanation of why the "because" will not get you far on this forum. Also, please put an empty line between paragraphs, like I just did, just so I could save time reading your post.
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes: But the contention that God has somehow changed his rules to suit our times, is ridiculous since health and multiplying are still extant facts. Please read the original post of this thread and respond to all the things I said in that blue box.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 2:02 PM | | PecosGeorge has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes: Thank you so much for your kind advice. As for how far I will get on this forum.....let's just say I won't do your research for you. Get a good concordance and do your own. It will do you a world of good. Reference, cross-reference and such and etc. Good luck. Did you even read my original post? Go to the very first post of this thread and read the words in the blue box. Heck, just read the stuff below.
quote:
Let's start with Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 states, "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." Leviticus is, of course, old testament. Most Christians these days ignore the majority of the teachings in the old testaments for obvious reasons: they're considered outdated to our moral standards today. Leviticus 21:9 states, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." Now really, do you think, with our modern sense of morality, that we can ever justify burning someone alive? Leviticus 12:4-5 states, "and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled. If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she sahll be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood." Ok, to plainly put it, these verses forbids a woman from entering church for 42 days after giving birth. The Catholic church has completely ignored this verse as far as creating their policies go. To our moral standards today, the notion of a woman somehow "unclean" for 42 days after giving birth is absurd. Leviticus 25:44 states, "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations." Leviticus 25:45, 46 states, "You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slavesyou may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen." These verses clearly justify slavery, given that slaves are bought from neighboring states. Verse 25:46 clearly states that slaves are property. During the 18th and 19th centuries, many Americans used these verses to justify slavery in this country. In other words, Leviticus was used to justify one of the darkest and most embarrassing part of our history. Let us go back to Leviticus 18:22. If we think that this part of Leviticus in the old testament holds for our modern morality, then why not the other verses that I mentioned above? The verses that I mentioned above are only a few of the examples from the old testament where our modern sense of morality condemns as immoral. If Leviticus 18:22 is the only thing that is telling you that homosexuality is wrong, I hope that you rethink about your position on the issue.
By the way, giving vague answers like what you have done isn't going to make us think that you are somehow smarter than us and that you know all. Either answer our questions or go away.
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes: God disapproves of homosexuality. If his warning/advice/command had been heeded........well, do you think there would be HIV today or other STD's promoted through practice of practicing multiple partners....and so on? I'm trying to be as patient as I can with this. Please please please please please please please please site some references from the freaking bible. Also, do some readings before you start talking about STD's and such. I think I am justified in losing my patience if you continue to completely avoid addressing the issue and give some evidence to back it up. As a teacher (IFF you are a teacher) you should know better than giving vague answers like that. Look at my original post. I gave you a whole freaking bunch of direct quotes from the bible. Please do the same for me! All I ask is you give us your reasons to why you think God condemns homosexuality besides your "it's not natural" argument. Trust me, I can tear that argument to pieces if I wanted to. [This message has been edited by Lam, 04-30-2004]
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-30-2004 12:21 PM | | PecosGeorge has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes: As a teacher, I give my knowledge, rarely my sources, but point in the general direction. No wonder the Texas school system is one of the worst in the states. I have always been taught to give my sources to support my claims and beliefs. My teachers have also demonstrated this by always being prepared to tell us their sources if we asked. The few times that my teachers have asked us to take their words for it were times when they had to present extremely hard concepts to understand, like things that had to do with the theory of relativity. However, I just don't see the same difficulty in your claim there. So, please give us some references from the bible. Also, look at the title of the thread. This thread was intended for people to directly relate to the bible about homosexuality. Making unsupported claims will not get your far.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-30-2004 11:38 AM | | PecosGeorge has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Inversion
If the next time you answer with the same attitude, I will ignore you completely.
Use your own references, the one's you listed from Leviticus. And don't tell me the God of the OT differs in application from the one in the NT. First of all, I have already shown you there are other texts in Leviticus that teaches things that are rediculous to our standards today. Don't tell me that you are going around burning people because they've violated these rules. If you are not doing what Leviticus tells you to do, how is that different than picking and choosing what you want to see?
Then do a google for homosexuality and the New Testament, write down the references you find, open your Bible and look them up. As for my teaching style, and who said I teach in Texas?, I cherish my success and my approach is carefully worked out to meet the needs of my teaching environment and students. Quite frankly, I hate google searches. I've done something else even better. I have taken a class on the subject. And frankly, your teaching style is very questionable. You seem to teach to kids what to think not how. This is the 21st freaking century. We try not to brainwash kids anymore. Either provide references or go away. What success? That you've brainwashed your children?
I do appreciate your patience, try to learn from mine and what I am trying to do, and that is.........get your butt in gear, stop your blathering about my shortcomings, and rather than tell me of mine, work on yours, the beam in my eye is no bigger than the one in yours. Like I said, back up your claims or go away.
God disapproves of homosexuality. Again, back up your claims or go away.
Find the scripture that says otherwise. Find the scripture that says yes it is ok for men to lie with one another, or women getting it on with women, for that matter, or animals, or whatever perversion is now acceptable. So far as tearing an argument to pieces, please, whatever floats your boat. I promise I will let you do as you wish. Nice try in changing the subject. Why don't you find the part in the bible where god approves of you driving a car? What about the part where god specifically said it's ok to use a freaking computer? Either answer each one of these questions or go away. I save my patience for people that deserve it. You are not one of those people.
The Laminator
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 95 by PecosGeorge, posted 05-03-2004 8:55 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 70 of 323 (104560)
05-01-2004 1:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
05-01-2004 10:13 AM
|
|
jst writes: ...Christian Church... Which one?
Just one question for all Christians who may still think that the Bible or Christianity are anti-homosexual, would it change your mind if the Christian Church firmly said it was NOT opposed to Homosexuality? No, because I have reasons to believe that homophobia and anti-homosexual tendencies come from personal prejudice, sexual insecurity, and ignorance and not necessarily because of what the bible says. Look at slavery. Although many Christian denominations at the time condemned slavery, you still had slavery going on in the backyards of the most Christian fundamentalists at the time. This is where the slogan "work as slaves and you will go to heaven..." comes in. So no, even if the pope proclaims himself to be gay and says that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality (and we all know the pope is infallible  ) the majority of catholics out there would still be anti-homosexual.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 10:13 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 77 of 323 (104729)
05-02-2004 2:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by Unseul
05-02-2004 7:50 AM
|
|
Re: Inversion
Unseul, I'm sorry to have to break up this fist fight, but your arguments, the both of yous, have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality and the bible or the morality or immorality of homosexuality. To argue that something is wrong (or right) just because of the risks that are involved is like trying to argue that driving a car is immoral. I can make the same argument for it too! The United States has more car accidents each year than any other country ( all the other countries put together for that matter). Therefore, it is morally wrong to drive a car! Why don't we might as well talk about crime rates in the summer and ice cream sales.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by Unseul, posted 05-02-2004 7:50 AM | | Unseul has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by Unseul, posted 05-02-2004 3:57 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me
[edited by Lam-double post] [This message has been edited Lam, 05-02-2004]
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 05-02-2004 7:22 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2