The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

riVeRraT responds to The Dread Dormammu:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, can you at least understand why someone who's homosexual might be just a little bit offended when you say that homosexuality is a sin? I mean you can protest and say "Well, we are all sinners" but nonetheless you are saying that something about them that they beleve they can not change is inhernetly wrong.

---

​

Thast just it, I have not said it is a sin.

---

Liar. Message 212 of "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 186 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread, in response to comments about gay dolphins: Message 137 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Same message: It seems you say that being gay is a sin quite a lot.

quote:

---

The bible has said it is a sin.

---

And your agreement with that and proselytizing of that fact is what, precisely? You're not saying the Bible calls it a sin out of some academic, detatched curiosity. You're saying it because you think it's true and want others to believe it is true.

quote:

---

But that does not dictate how I treat a gay person, I still love them.

---

Liar. Message 137 of "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Someone who loves someone will not stand in the way of their happiness and well-being.

quote:

---

And if anyone tries to point out about how I am against same sex marriage, its not because I am against gays, its because I do not consider it a marriage.

---

Which means you're against gays. You seem to think that gay people are incapable of marriage. If you really loved gays, then you would understand that they are just as capable of marriage as straights.Because, as we all know, marriage is not about breeding children.

quote:

---

If there is a way for them to get all the legal rights, then go for it.

---

The only way it can be [I][B]ALL[/i][/b] the legal rights is for it to be actual, honest-to-goodness, no beating around the bush marriage.Didn't you learn that "separate but equal" isn't?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are saying that homosexuality is a SIN.

---

​

No the bible is.

---

But you agree with the Bible. Therefore, you are saying that homosexuality is a sin.

quote:

---

Isn't that intrappment?

---

Yes. Either you believe it is a sin or you don't. The reason why you believe it is a sin is irrelevant. That source isn't here to do the talking. You are. Therefore, you are the one who takes responsibility for your own words.Are you saying being gay isn't a sin?

quote:

---

No, if I am to act like a Christian, I am to turn the other cheek, and forgive you, so that I can be forgiven. There is no freedom in being angry at people, or holding grudges.

---

Then you have quite a lot of anger to release: Message 188 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 137 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 217 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 88 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread: Message 149 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread: Message 152 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread (and I love this one because this is your entire post): Message 157 of the "Religion in Government" thread: Enough of that thread. Message 157 of the "Religion in Government" thread: I think that's enough.You've done nothing but judge people from the moment you got here.Oh, what the hell. One last one: Message 166 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Telling somebody he's going to go to hell isn't exactly a non-judgemental act. Message 142 of the "Religion in Government" thread: Better get started on those relaxation exercises:

quote:

---

Its not marriage, thats how I feel, you expect me to change how I feel?

---

Yes. We always expect evil people to reform their ways once they are shown the evil of their ways.

quote:

---

The point of the verse, for the 100th time, is if she enjoys the rape, then its not really rape is it?

---

But the point you seem to be completely missing, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you, is that the only criterion that is being used to determine if she "enjoyed" the rape is whether or not she screamed.That's it. The only thing to show that she "enjoyed" being raped is that she didn't scream. So despite the fact that you have been given myriad examples of why a woman wouldn't scream, you still cling to this notion that if she doesn't scream, then she really must have enjoyed it.By the way, this attitude of yours still exists today. The State of New York routinely took the children of beaten mothers away because they called out for help. The reasoning? The mothers allowed the children to witness the abuse and thus the mothers were guilty of neglect. To call 911 would mean losing your children. It took court action to get this ridiculous practice stopped.Now tell us, riVeRraT: Are you seriously saying that there is no possible reason why a woman might not scream while being raped? That the only possible reason why a woman might not scream when being raped is because she is liking it?

quote:

---

You may think its not right now to stone a woman for cheating, but tell me a woman cheating is right.

---

That isn't the question. This isn't about cheating. It is about your over-reaction to cheating and the fact that you are insisting it is cheating when it clearly isn't. She was assaulted and simply because you don't like the way she decided to survive the experience, you're going to kill her for it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Where does it say you can't get a tattoo?

---

Leviticus 19:28: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.This is what happens when you claim to understand a book you haven't read.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Wait a minute lets not split hairs here. You think the bible says homosexuality is a sin right? And you say that you agree with the bible, right? So you ARE saying that homosexuality is a sin! As for how that dictates how you treat others see below. Richard Dawkins says that language should be our servant and not our master. If we call gay marriage "civil unions" then the law can have different rights for civil unions then it has for marriage! In fact this is exsactly what has happened when we institute civil unions! If you realy think that gays should have all the leagal rights as straight people then you should support gay marrage, Call them civil unions in your private life if you want but IN A LEAGAL CONTEXT they should be called marrage. If you disagree then you must have some other reason for not wanting to allow them to marry. Perhaps it is biblical? Even if the "moral meaning" of this verse is what you claim it is, you are still saying that 3000 years ago you would have stoned a woman to death just for cheating on you. I find that monstorus. Why is it entrapment? How is asking a simple yes or no question entrapment? Do you think the bible says homosexuality is a sin? Do you think the bible is right when it says this? If you think it's a sin why are you ahsamed to say so, if you are not ashamed to say so then how is this entrapment? See my thread "Harm in homosexuality?" Look call it what you want but if you don't call it marriage IN A LEGAL CONTEXT then people aren't going to have the same rights! Why does it bother you if people use words differently than you do; Praticularly in a legal context where they use words differently all the time? PERMISSABLE? PERMISSABLE?Alright its 3000 years ago. You are the high preist of the tribe of Levi and your people bring to you a woman who has been raped. They say she didn't cry out.Well according to your logic she must have enjoyed it! And she should be stoned to death. "Why didn't you scream?" you say, "You knew you would get stoned to death if you didn't ?" Where is your easy answer now? Go ahead and say that you would stone her to death, say the law is a just law, but I don't think you are that inhuman. It is a very serious charge to accuse people of being won over by the devil. I don't see how you think this is going to help the discussion. I can only see this offending people and cannot imagine how you think it will win people over to your side. When did I say I thought cheating was ok? I said that if I had a wife and found out she was cheating I would divorce her, or seek couples counceling. This means that I think there is something wrong with cheating.It sounds like you are saying the passage should be interpreted as follows: "If a woman has been raped her rapist should be stoned to death, the woman should be stoned to death if she was not raped but is an adulteress, if she didn't scream she is probably an adulteress. But she may or may not be an aduteress independant of whether or not she screamed." So why mention the thing about screaming at all?So you think we should "harden up" our laws to allow stoneing again?It was wrong to stone people 3000 years ago. It is wrong to stone people now, it has ALWAYS been wrong to stone people! You can try to justify this passage any way you want, you can say that they might deserve it, you can say that we all deserve it, you can swallow the sky and drink the ocean but it will not make stoning a rape victim or even an adulterss right!

Hey Lam,I realize you were specifically asking about the Christian Bible, but I found this passage from the Quran interesting: Three of the four references I found to homosexuality in the Quran condemn it with reference to the fact that only humans practice homosexuality.Apparently Allah and God are in the same category of poor naturalists, since plenty of creatures engage in homosexual activity besides humans...

Since the trouble is still there, I have to suffer to a degree, but there is victory in trials. The hard part is looking into the future and seeing the victory. Trusting God that it will happen. Then not really worry about it.

Nice, you still don't get it. You never will its your choice.

See you don't get it.If I quote the bible, that doesn't make me responsible for what it says.

Great, more words in my mouth. I never claimed to understand the OT. I claim to know God's word.

You are going to have to go back and read all the threads on this topic. A gay person wanted to know where in the bible it says its a sin.But I guess it was really just to find out who thinks its a sin, since they do not accept that the bible says it is a sin. Its so simple. Your asking me to use the same words to describe womething different. That goes against what you are trying to say. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.A man and a woman, is not the same as a man and aman, and that is not the same as a woman and a woman, my father is not a mother, and my mother is not a father, and my father is not married to my father, and my mother is not married to my mother. Well since your so aware of that, then I have done what I came to do.
I will not win anyone, you will win yourself. When you said the moral of stoning a woman is sick.

I still don't understand what you're getting at.1) How is homosexuality a moral?
2)How is homosexuality an act?

The moral of this story seems to be "if a woman doesn't do exactly what a man expects her to do while being raped, she is obviously a slut and a whore and so deserves punishment". That is just plain stupid, there is absolutely no way to rationalise it as a good moral to teach someone. It insults women, and more than that it's insulting to expect men to believe that. As has been pointed out to you many times you can't dictate what a women should or shouldn't do while being raped. The woman will follow her own natural instinct, which may be to scream blue murder or it may be to retreat into her shell to escape the torment of it. I don't care who is in the next tent, the woman is not going to be thinking rationally.

I realize we are getting off topic here, but I may have seen it mentioned within this forum. In my normal daily dealings though, I don't recall anyone.I do agree that knowledge or explanation of the Holy Spirit is lacking. I'm not sure all the clergy understand it. Hard to explain something that can't be seen.Even though I no longer function within organized religion and don't feel that Jesus was a deity, I don't feel that I have lost what I considered to be the Holy Spirit during my time within the church.Take care

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

What has stoning got to do with cheating? They are two seperate acts. I don't condone stoning no matter what the crime (or any other form of execution of physical torture). I also don't consider cheating a crime at all. The woman is entitled to do whatever she wants with her own body. Being married to a woman doesn't give you ownership of her. Obviously you don't have to like it, and you can leave her if she does it....and it is certainly a very cruel thing for her to have done. But then so is stoning, and an "eye for an eye" is a very very bad moral.

OMG dude. No wonder you are an atheist.

Is it your guide in life?
Thats why Jesus gave us him.