|
Author
|
Topic: The bible and homosexuality: Round 3
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 306 (117647)
06-22-2004 7:21 PM
|
|
|
In the first thread regarding this topic, I asked if anyone could point out something from the bible that condemns homosexuality. Read the thread here. I explained why you can't use leviticus. Despite my best effort, I couldn't get a single person to post any direct reference from the NT that condemns homosexuality. In round 2, again I was frustrated with failure. Nothing valid from the fundi side regarding bible passages. I've taken the liberty of putting something from the NT below that seem to indicate condemnation of homosexuality. Anyone want to take a stab at this? I just don't understand how come none of the bible bashers on this forum pointed these 2 passages out in the last 2 threads.
1st Cor. 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Rom. 1:26-28: For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.
I'm not a bible scholar. I'd like to know why people didn't take this as a sure sign that God is against homosexuality. Edited to change spellings. This message has been edited by Lam, 06-22-2004 06:22 PM This message has been edited by Lam, 06-22-2004 06:23 PM
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
So, is this topic going to get approved sometime this month or not?
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 7:21 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 23 of 306 (120585)
07-01-2004 3:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Zachariah
07-01-2004 2:15 AM
|
|
Re: to truthlover
What the fugue does that have to do with the bible and homosexuality? If you don't have anything from the bible to justify your prejudice, shut the heaven up.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Zachariah, posted 07-01-2004 2:15 AM | | Zachariah has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by Zachariah, posted 07-03-2004 1:42 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 24 of 306 (120921)
07-01-2004 5:50 PM
|
|
|
Bump
Be warned fundies, I am giving this thread another day or so and then I will draw a conclusion from this thread, round 2, and round 1. Basically, not a single fundi have presented something from the bible that definitively condemns homosexuality. I am very close to drawing the conclusion that you people don't know what the hell you're talking about everytime you say "god condemns homosexuality". After the conclusion is drawn, you can challenge it if you want. If not, I don't ever want to hear a "god condemns homosexuality" in any anti-gay comment ever again. If you object to this, you can kiss my gay arse.
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 306 (121197)
07-02-2004 12:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by riVeRraT
07-02-2004 7:32 AM
|
|
the rat writes: 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. This cleary shows Gods intention for man to be with woman, and be united as one.
What does this have anything to do with homosexuality? This is like pointing out passages mentioning horses and chariots and say that god doesn't want people to use cars.
Even though at the begining of this thread, it was said not to mention
Leviticus, that scripture pretty much sums it up. I see no need for any others.
We already showed you why leviticus can't be taken seriously. If you want to give us an explanation to why you want to use leviticus and not be out there burning people to death, I am all eyes.
Judges
20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
Ever occurred to you that this could be interpreted as the men of the city wanting to humiliate the stranger? In the old days, to humiliate your enemies, regardless if they are men or women, people used a kind of rape to humiliate them.
We won't mention how many times the New testament mentions not to be sexually immoral.
That would include man with man, and woman with woman according to the OT by which the New testament was based on.
How is this not picking and choosing what you want to hear? There are plenty of things in the old testament that tells you to go out and burn the wicked and all that crap, why aren't you out there doing any of these things?
Romans
Refer to Message 6 and Message 10 for all your needs.
Thou shall not commit adultry.
Since man and woman were created to be as one, adultry could only be if man left woman, or woman left man.
What the hell does adultery have anything to do with homosexuality?
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. We all know what happened there.
No, we don't. The bible says sexual immorality but it doesn't specifically say what.
I am by no means a bible expert, but this is what I came up with. I would have to conclude that it is against God according to the bible.
The reason I ignored this post before was because we already covered all of this. You never bothered to read other posts on this so I felt justified to ignore yours.
And here are some more exapmles of the bible speaking against sexual immorality. I already proved that it is sexually immoral to be gay.
Um, no, you haven't proven anything. Try to stay on topic, please. We are talking about homosexuality and somehow you are pointing out adultery. Can you keep a coherent thought for once?
Numbers 25:1
While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women,
(Whole Chapter: Numbers 25 In context: Numbers 25:1-2)
Hahahahahahahaha. So, being hetero is immoral after all.
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
(Whole Chapter: Matthew 15 In context: Matthew 15:18-20)
Nothing there that indicates homosexuality. And so on and so forth... You haven't given anything that can't be explained or interpreted to mean other things. Keep trying, though.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by riVeRraT, posted 07-02-2004 7:32 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 07-02-2004 11:39 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 48 of 306 (121518)
07-03-2004 2:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by riVeRraT
07-02-2004 11:39 PM
|
|
the rat writes: Because that is old law that Jesus changed. Some people still go for eye for an eye.
I'm not a bible basher so I'll leave this to those who are more literate with the bible.
You mean you can't get the implimications of this?
IT's pretty obvious to me what God intended for us by this scripture.
What impli mications? One of the most emphasized concept in college that profs try to get students to get is to understand that there are more than one interpretation of anything. Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean it is obvious to others. I've reread that passage and I still don't see any implication. The only thing I can see is your prejudice guiding your interpretation.
Notice it doesn't say man left man. Of course it doesn't, it wasn't accepted.
Notice that the bible never mentioned any car, airplane, computer, etc... Does that mean that it is not ok to use any of these things?
Being gay is considered being sexually immoral.
One interpretation of the bible even says homsexual.
So, you've finally admitted that it's all interpreted by people like you who had a preconcieved notion (you admitted it in another post) about the matter before translating.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
We've been through this. Please go back to earlier posts and read them carefully.
Its so clear.
I'll accept this statement if you accept my following unsupported statement: you are an idiot.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 07-02-2004 11:39 PM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by riVeRraT, posted 07-03-2004 10:50 AM | | coffee_addict has replied | | | Message 52 by jar, posted 07-03-2004 11:30 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 60 of 306 (122179)
07-05-2004 4:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by riVeRraT
07-03-2004 10:50 AM
|
|
Ok, just got back from another state. Been on a trip for the holiday weekend.
the rat writes: It mentions about material things, isn't that enough?
Talking about picking a choosing whatever from the bible that fits your preconcieved notions.
Its not me being prejudice, its you being angry towards Christians.
The reason I'm angry towards christians like you is because it's christians like you that have used the bible to justify just about every atrocity done in the past: from the crusades to the slaughtering of the native americans to the enslavement of various races.
Thanks dude. You have just summed up who you are by doing that.
I still Love you, even if you call me an idiot.
At least we agree on something.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by riVeRraT, posted 07-03-2004 10:50 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 07-07-2004 7:42 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 66 of 306 (122726)
07-07-2004 1:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by riVeRraT
07-07-2004 7:42 AM
|
|
Ok, I'm going to take this step by step. I will be addressing all the points in your post individually one at a time.
the rat writes: Another point, back to the topic. You don't want to include Leviticus, but that is kind of stupid. Leviticus was part of the law, and Jesus was the biggest upholder of the law, and said that the law will never change.
Could you please explain why it is ok to ignore the following laws from leviticus:
in another thread, Lam writes: 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.
Please do not address any other point right now. Just answer about leviticus. I'll die a happy person if you do.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 07-07-2004 7:42 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Bump
Awaiting patiently for a straight foward reply.
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 75 of 306 (122982)
07-08-2004 12:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by riVeRraT
07-08-2004 11:20 AM
|
|
the rat writes: Leviticus 21:9. Being burned to death was the punishment for doing the immoral act. The fact that it is immoral has not changed. But it should still be punishable. So clearly it is immoral, which is the word of God.
You are directly reinterpreting leviticus. It specifically said to burn the woman to death, not just be punished.
Blink, you did not just say that?
Go talk to a GYN. After birth, they tell you not to have sex for 40 days, because the women is unclean, and has an open wound that can get infected.
Again, you are completely dodging the point and reinterpreting the text. It specifically forbids the woman from entering church for 42 days. And what the fuck does that have anything to do about sex? You are picking and choosing what part of the text you want to use.
As in other posts, I have stated that ancient slavery was different. I am also not an expert on slavery in those days. So in the sense of ancient times, it may have been ok, provided you treated the slaves the way the bible tells you to. With respect and honor. This was not the case of modern day slavery for which man was wrong. If being a slave was a consensual thing, then it would be ok, right? This was not the case in modern days, it went against the peoples will.
So, if we treat the slaves right then it is ok to have slavery again? Again and again, you've interpreted the text in your own way instead of being literal about it. You are being literal about the gay part and yet you are not being literal about other parts of leviticus. What's wrong with this picture?
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by riVeRraT, posted 07-08-2004 11:20 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 90 by riVeRraT, posted 07-09-2004 6:56 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 77 of 306 (123011)
07-08-2004 1:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by berberry
07-08-2004 12:26 PM
|
|
Since when did the rat had any sense of what's right and wrong? He just admitted to support slavery.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by berberry, posted 07-08-2004 12:26 PM | | berberry has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by berberry, posted 07-08-2004 2:00 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 79 of 306 (123013)
07-08-2004 2:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by berberry
07-08-2004 2:00 PM
|
|
Well, the rat admitted in a message a few days ago that he always "knew" homosexuality was wrong before he looked in the bible for guidance. In other words, he had a prejudice against homosexuality and just openned up the bible with the intention of find something, anything, to support his unsupported bigotry. However, because he desperately needed something to back up his preconcieved beliefs about homosexuality, he was willing to even support slavery just so he could say, "the bible condemns homosexuality." This is one of the main reasons why I don't tolerate certain kinds of christians, including the kind that would actually use the religion to support his personal discrimination. You don't have to look far for some of them. Just look at long history of the KKK and see some of the amazing things they took out of the bible to justify their past violence and current intolerance of certain ethnic groups.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by berberry, posted 07-08-2004 2:00 PM | | berberry has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 80 by berberry, posted 07-08-2004 2:59 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 81 of 306 (123068)
07-08-2004 5:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by berberry
07-08-2004 2:59 PM
|
|
Re: What is a river rat?
berberry writes: If that's the case then, by the tone of his posts, I could only imagine that the rat is trying to convince himself more than anyone else. In other words, he may have homosexual feelings but is terrified by the prospect of acting on them.
If this is the case, this would not be the first time that I have encountered someone who has homosexual feelings but chose to do everything possible to convince himself that homosexuality is evil. By the way, I had no idea the term refers to tugboat workers. I always thought it meant exactly what it sounded like: river rat. There is something I don't get though. 30 days without sex ain't that bad... unless you have hormones coming out of your ears.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by berberry, posted 07-08-2004 2:59 PM | | berberry has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by berberry, posted 07-09-2004 3:50 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 85 of 306 (123196)
07-09-2004 4:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by berberry
07-09-2004 3:50 AM
|
|
Re: What is a river rat?
Well, I'm gay and I have no problem going on that long without humping myself away. I guess my sex drive isn't that bad.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by berberry, posted 07-09-2004 3:50 AM | | berberry has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 118 of 306 (123533)
07-10-2004 2:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by riVeRraT
07-09-2004 6:56 AM
|
|
the rat writes: Since as you can see that, punishments have changed over the years,
Exactly!
by God inspired people, just like Moses, and Jesus teaches us that it will change, Jesus must be real.
Is this your personal belief or can I get some kind of reference?
Yes a woman should saty home, and heal and be with her baby, and keep her unclean self out of the church. Thats a really good suggestion.
So, now you're a sexist. Great.
Doesn't matter how we treat a slave if, a person doesn't want to be a slave it is wrong.
The word to acurately describes a person that is a volunteer "slave" is an indentured servant. By definition, a slave is a slave is a slave: someone that has been forced to be owned by another person.
Again I tell you, Jesus changed all that for us.
Reference please.
IT is apparent, because now the world is different just like Jesus said it would be.
Either you can't stay on top of a topic for long or you are trying to dodge the point. I'll answer to this anyway. IFF there was a Jesus and he said the world would be different, then I am also God, your messiah. I am telling you now that 10 years from now we will see a very different world. In other words, how does this prove your point, or have anything to do with what we are talking about?
He directly say to us that sexual immorality was against his will, as described in Levitcus.
He was talking about Leviticus, because while he was alive, he was the biggest upholder of the law. But his teachings taught us to change.
Ok, first you said Jesus didn't support some of the laws and now you are saying that he supported the laws.
So you are picking examples of what Jesus changed, and then saying that all of Leviticus is no good.
Specific references, please.
Here's a way that being gay can hurt someone else, according to the bible.
Romans
21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
I am not a bible basher. Care to explain this? This message has been edited by Lam, 07-10-2004 01:04 AM
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by riVeRraT, posted 07-09-2004 6:56 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2