Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

@ NOG,

I could catalog all the fallacies in your above rebuttal (and there are so many it's exhausting) but I've now come to realize that the common ground I'm seeking here is impossible, at least with you. Illustrated nicely by this post:

Such moral absolutism is incredibly counterproductive, as is such confidence that the bible itself cannot be questioned (it is, at the end of the day, just a book). I haven't ignored your rebuttals, you just clearly, to me, aren't as knowledgeable on the subject as you think you are (and I clearly not as ignorant on the subject as you obviously think I am), and thus I find your answers wanting. They've consisted mostly of the "I know because I know" variety, with a few others coming close but not being definitive enough to disprove my claims. I know you think you've consistantly debunked me, but I regret to inform you that you haven't come close. You clearly don't think it's even a possibility that your interpretation of the Bible could be the interpretation that's wrong. Pride-o-rama.

There are other ways to interpret certain passages, other factors to consider, throughout the bible. And even if every word in the bible were crystal clear and correct, taking the bible literally and following it so unwaveringly completely misses the point. Where before I said you seemed to refuse to acknowledge other interpretations, you've now removed all doubt. You obviously don't have the humility to discuss this on a level with which I feel any progress and understanding can be made.

Hence, why I'm done with this topic for good now. This is clearly a waste of my time.

I'll end with one last question (which is rhetorical, so responding to it would kind of ruin the point) and then thank you for your time.

You won't believe anyone else when they tell you that's not what the bible actually means. Why should anyone believe you when you say the same? Why should anyone consider you any kind of authority?

DR out.

[ October 14, 2006, 00:53: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

People are saying that you can't prove God doesn't exist; well, that may be true, but you can provide a lot more evidence that the exist of God is unlikely than to the contrary. For example, take the creation myth: fossil evidence and carbon-dating have shown that the earth is billions of years old, rather than a few thousand as the Bible claims. I don't recall the scripture being changed by God on this subject, so His word has been directly contradicted by fact.

Also, if many of the older teachings were laws rather than God's word, what purpose did the "not wearing two types of fabric" thing come into it? Was it unhealthy?

 

and

Fine. Then please realize that your stance is forcing a confrontation. Be a mature character and accept the consequences of your resolve. Dont bring up a priest who was arrested for slander against people free of crimes. I do not care. From my perspective that was the only right thing to do. And by your own words you have nothing to show for his case. Your claims of superiority and perfection are unsupported - virtually.

You dont have to change your beliefs because they make me uncomfortable. Conversely I wont hear your argument how Christian clubs are unwelcome on school grounds. Why tell me how being called religious is an insult in the US? I am not sympathetic to your problems. The point I'm trying to make all along is that you yourself are the reason for the hostility.
The in-your-face attitude of *some* Christians to live by absolut standards is met with rejection it seems. Good thing. No-one has to put up with that.

 

So when is it a law of Israel and when is it a law of God?

He also never said about doing anything to try and stop homosexuals from being homosexuals.

If I remember correctly Christians shouldn't try and prevent others from sinning but rather just inform the sinners that they are sinning then let them decide if they want to stop or not. In the end only God can decide what is just and what isn't. An example of this would be God's law about never killing... try telling that to the Allied forces in World War II. They sinned but they couldn't help but sin, I don't think any would beg forgiveness for doing what they had to do, they don't think what they did was wrong. Who will judge them? God will.

If a man wishes to be legally bound to another man it's not your place to stop them. It harms nobody, it doesn't harm you directly, it doesn't mean they're even sinning since the Bible only forbids homosexual SEX, not homosexuality. If the Bible only fobids the sex then how is preventing homosexuals from being legally bound going to stop them from having sex?

 

@DR:
One, moral absolutism is just one more difference between your position and mine, and it is one on which many people in the world today agree with. I won't say its a majority because I don't know, but I'd guess its a rather close call. There's nothing unquestionable to say morality is absolute, but nothing unquestionable to say it isn't either.

Two, I say your interpretations of the scriptures are wrong in the most immediate sense possible. I'm not talking about whether or not the Bible says God is allpowerfull, or things like that which are never clearly spelled out but only hinted at, but rather the basic ideas like 'women in this passage doesn't refer to all women of the human species, but the group of women the letter was written to' kind of stuff. There's a vast difference. To the first, the text never spells out, even from the original context, what it's actual position is. To the second, not only does the original context reveal the real meaning of words and phrases like this, but such meanings then drastically change the meaning of the whole passage.

Third, I HAVE NEVER, NEVER CLAIMED THE BIBLE IS UNQUESTIONABLY TRUE!!! If you're going to make up things to criticize me for, at least make them realistic. From the beginning I have only been interested in clearing up what the Bible actually says, if you don't agree with it that's up to you, but don't misquote it.

Fourth, I have asked dozens of times for you to refute my claims, and you have refused. That is why I say you ignore my arguements. I refute a claim and you say nothing more on the topic. If I am wrong, PLEASE tell me how and cite any sources you can. So long as they are credible, I will give you due credit for them. But if you are so knowledgable on the topic and I am so not, then tell me what I have wrong.

Fifth:

Not one of them has. Not one time have I asked you to believe what I've said just because I say it. A few times I have said I know something just that way, but then I have told you I don't expect you to believe me. When I tell you what the society was like at the time, what the original word was and meant, what group or topic the author was addressing with that letter, I am not just giving you my interpretation and asking you to swallow it, I am giving you the background that led me and thousands of biblical scholars to just that conclusion.

For some passages and some 'interpretations' that is true. For example, I have mentioned two explanations for the 'sons of God' passage and not said either was absolute, but that is an example where the text just doesn't say and we don't know enough about the context to say for sure, it was too long ago. For other passages, like the 'women are not to talk in worship services', it isn't so true. The text meant one thing and the context tells us what that one thing was. The women are not all women, but the women of the church being addressed here, the talking is not all talking, but irreverant and distracting speach. I've given you the context that leads to that interpretation. If you can show that is the wrong context, or that another interpretation is valid from that context, then please do. But NO INTERPRETATION IS VALID THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS AND IGNORES THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT! This is a basic premis of history, archeology, philosophy, psychology, and literature.

Here is just a difference of opinions. I believe most of the Bible was meant to be taken literally, within the original context, but there are others that disagree and neither can prove the other wrong. Those interpretations I will admit have merit, though cannot be shown to be absolutely correct, however argueing the Bible is at fault because one possible interpretation is at fault is illogical. If any continuous interpretation is not show faulty, then the text can be assumed to be not faulty by assuming that interpretation to be true. In the end, only one interpretation is right for the Bible as a whole. For some passages we know which one it is, for others we are less sure.

Good, you have demonstrated a striking lack of logic in this last post.

A good question. The answer is because I give supporting evidence for my interpretations. I tell you how I got to it. You all just read it in a modern context (which is often the wrong one) and leave it at that.

@Clixby:

The Bible doesn't claim the earth to only be thousands of years old. I've explained this before, but you obviously missed those explanations. Suffice it to say, the people that came up with those estimates made some glaring mistakes. For one thing alone, we don't know how many generations were between Adam and Noah, so we don't even know how old the human race is by the Bible, much less the earth.

A good question. It has more to do with the fabrics available at the time. Just like Jesus's example of new wine in an old wineskin doesn't make much sense to us now without Him explaining it, the rules on different fabrics were based on realities of the time that no longer apply.

Quite to the contrary, there is massive evidence that suggests the universe has SOME kind of intelligent design behind it, and history, archeology, and modern documentation have lent significant credibility to numerous miracles. There's a reason several prominent atheists that set out to prove Christianity wrong ended up converting themselves. The evidence is there if you look for it.

@Dendri:

I have never claimed to be perfect, or to be superior. As I have said many times, if I am wrong, show it. Don't just say 'He's wrong' but give me some support behind it.

On the contrary. I say I believe homosexuality is a sin, but it is each individual's right and responsability to handle sin however (s)he choses. You then spend 8 pages trying to tell me how the Bible doesn't actually say that homosexuality is a sin, how the Bible contradicts itself, how the Bible has been changed and is no longer relevant to modern life, and a dozen other attacks on the Bible. The conflict spawned from that. I've spent all this time defending the Bible. If you had just said, 'So long as it doesn't bother me' we'd have been fine. And it wouldn't even have been hard for you to do. I've said the same thing. We'd both be sitting here believing our own beliefs and not bothering each other.

Then why do you attack the Bible? If you aren't trying to change my beliefs, then why are you saying anything? I haven't attacked your position by saying anything other than that I believe it is a sin, but that doesn't make you evil people.

That was only in response to your comments about respect. I respect your position just fine, I just don't agree with it. But now the tables have turned, from homosexuals being discriminated against to Christians being discriminated against (some times, it isn't a common problem yet and I never meant to suggest it was).

Tell me how 13 US highschool students trying to study the Bible together after school and not bothering anyone, even finding a Christian teacher to head it up, is forcing their beliefs on people? As far as I can tell, all that's forcing is the first ammendment to the US Constitution. Now we can drop this arguement about the 'christian pity party' right here if you want, just don't say we're the only ones throwing mud and fighting dirty.

In the end, it started with an innocent question of what the Bible actually said about homosexuality. From there DR started attacking the credibility of the Bible as a whole. It devolved from there. If you respect my position, and only bring up questions that you honestly want clarification on, not trying to attack my position, then we won't have any problems.

 

It’s right there where I came out and expressed a burning hatred of homosexuals. I never expressed such views either. But I also don’t see people belittling of my beliefs as anything short of hatred.

It’s hate the sin, love the sinner. Engaging in homosexual acts is a grievous sin, but this is not hatred of the people.

It is, but the “our side is right” is said in the same context as 2+2=4 is right. Not arrogance, but a statement of position.

Excuse me, but I did say earlier that I did go through several years of questioning my beliefs only to learn that they are indeed right. This is not blind, but going in with full vision.

And I should take seriously the repeated bludgeoning with a passage of historical record claimed by those opposing my Biblical stance on homosexuality as a stupid law to show me to be a hypocrite because I had Pork Chops for three meals the last two days? It seems like all the last few pages have been had been people firing those man made prohibitions thrown at us as divine law in an attempt to discredit divine law. It’s like accusing you of championing my position because you quoted my post but ignoring your rebuttal. If that’s the house rules, then thank you for your support…

Someone in one of these threads used the same tactic by accusing me of hating Homosexuals…

No, just counter statements. If however, you can prove that there is a genetic or neuro-chemical link to homosexuality, then they would be under a reduced accountability before God because of their condition. But to do that, it could be classified in similar to Downs syndrome (Genetic anomaly) or Schizophrenia (Neuro-chemical disorder). If you would be okay with such dehumanization, that’s your call, not mine. By calling it a temptation, I try to consider us equal to begin with.

But I’m not talking metaphorical here. I’m talking about the real one. I’m not sure I follow this.

Again, the point of Christianity is missed. It starts with Black and White rules, then it adds guidelines for how to go above and beyond that. It also provides for mercy to be extended so that we won’t automatically be damned when (that’s right, when, not if) we screw up. Core to the doctrine is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ so that we may be forgiven.

The Bible, and from what I hear, many other such holy books, also tell us of an adversary. The Bible identifies that as Satan. Satan comes in with the sole purpose to complicate the matter, confuse us all and to tempt us into sin, luring us away from the ideals that these holy books proscribe.

The Bible just says to have faith and to obey. It never states that it will be easy…

Perhaps the problem is that I care too much. From my beliefs, you are all my brothers and sisters. As such, the thought of you reaching less than your eternal potential is something I see that ought be resisted to the best ability.

That was pointed out as calling someone on a fallacy of responding to the source, not the actual points made.

I think one of the problems is that none of us are perfect, and when we venture under a microscope to debate an issue, those imperfections become more obvious. More obvious to everyone else apparently…

The key word there is refuse. To try and fail is one thing. To blatantly disregard the law is another.

I’m a little rusty on the definition of slander. It seems that I am still accused of hatred when the truth is a lack of support…

By our faith, common law relationships are also just as sinful. They have some recognition in some areas under law. Granting that recognition to homosexual couples would be fair without offending our religious faith…

Perhaps I put this a little too simply, but that’s the way I thought best to put it. I’m not perfect. It was a mistake in debate, not doctrine…

Equester: You once again mistake the laws of the land in ancient Israel with divinely given laws of God. But if you demand that all loyal Christians follow Leviticus explicitly, then they shouldn’t support the separation of Church and State either. I could give up Pork Chops, Bacon, Ham, sausage, shrimp, crab, lobster etc… if it meant that homosexuality was a capital offence…

But I don’t want to kill them, only change their minds. I admit that my techniques in such debate require more work, and I apologize for those I’ve seriously pissed off. The problem with Christianity is that when we tell you that you’re wrong, sometimes it ought to have a sting to it…

Moral relativism. I used to consider that valid, but no longer do. Further, Christianity does not subscribe to that either. In his epistles to the people in Corinth and other Greek cities, Paul still condemned practices common to the non-Christian locals.

I reject that as well. My religion is based on specific moral truths and the authority of God to give them.

I’m sorry if the truth is not flashy or complex enough for your tastes. If we had anything more palatable, then we would share it. Until then, your questions will be given such unsatisfactory answers.

But what if logic itself is inadequate? That is where faith comes in. When we go to faith, then we get to the things you claim are inadequate, so you repeat your question, only to get the same answer. Tempers flare, and we get what we have here. I know that there were many things I wanted to say, but having the luxury of longer posts, had time to think twice and deleted them before I really caught hell for saying something obviously against the rules (and probably quite stupid too).

It is as simple or complex as you want it to be. I sometimes wonder why you want to make it more complicated, while you wonder why I insist that it be so simple…

But what good is a strong, guiding faith if it is not followed? AS previously stated, I did not reach my conclusion blindly, but rather after years of misery brought forth by questioning it. The only difference between “Strong and guiding” and “Blind and Unquestioning” is in the words chosen. I think that my religion’s stance is Strong and Guiding, others call it blind and unquestioning.

But I have managed that reconciliation. To me it does make more sense than any alternative I’ve been presented with or could think of on my own. Why does it seem that this point is ignored?

My experience with doubt is less positive than you would make it sound. With doubt I felt mired in contemplation trying to understand all things on my own. When I returned to the religion I’d been taught in my youth, doubt vanished. But my imperfect, incomplete knowledge still demands more information, more study and more humility. I share from what I know.

I wouldn’t use the word beat, but when we lose our focus (and I myself have fallen into this trap myself), we tend to be accused of just that. The word I’d use for what we both try to do is convince. I’m trying to convince you that I’m right and others try to convince me that I’m wrong.

Yes, she does exist. I’ve seen one of her columns once. The points you bring up were mostly among the laws of Ancient Israel as written by the scribes and Pharisees (like our parliament). They apply to ancient Israel, not to us. The forbiddance of Homosexuality is a divine law (under the heading of adultery). That one is still in force. The Government of Canada has over 1400 pages of regulations for growing asparagus. What bearing do they have on overall morality? These laws are given by men, not God, and are akin to many of the prohibitions in Leviticus, as written by the Scribes and Pharisees.

But it all falls down if in fact, God does exist.

The phrase I have heard used is Creative periods. Not specifically 24 hours, nor has any specific amount of time actually mentioned. This reconciles that point. Evolution will make more sense when Jesus is marking our science text books like an exam paper…

I believe that NOG mentioned that it was for Priests to wear on the Lord’s Errand. Basically, it is a dress code for priests while participating in or officiating the ordinances of the church. Just like in my church, the priesthood are required to wear a white shirt and tie while blessing or passing Sacrement.

We know that, but we also have faith that we are right. When they do become “supported”, all will know it.

The reverse is also true. Some advocates of sin get right in your face too. Unfortunately, I can’t just tell them to shut up…

That's what we're trying to do. We just don't want out elected officials saying that what they are doing is okay.

[ October 14, 2006, 05:42: Message edited by: Gnarfflinger ]

 

Example, please?

But it is okay... it's also a sin according to some religion, but it's okay. Much like how according to some Islamic sects it's a sin for a woman to show her hair in public... but the politicians in America think it's fine and dandy. Not to mention "We're going to allow you to do this." doens't mean "We think what you are doing is a good thing."

 

NOG actually the Bible gives a very precise way to see how old it is, see we know that god created earth on a week (im not buying your creative periodes because you have provided nothing to back this up) at the end he created Adam, the fun part here is, we know how old Adam becomes, we know the age of his offspring through the entire bible, and we know the years that some of them died in, in our calender, therefor we can backtrack it. which gives a roughly 6000 year old earth.

Secondly, on some pages you say the bible are to be interpertated on some that its crystal clear, the fun part is, what strikes me as crystal clear, you want to interpertate since it dosn't fit you, what you find crystal clear( Generaly you dismiss all rules from Lavitus except the law against Homosexuals) , I can generaly also see as crystal clear i.a. God hates Homosexuals (at least in the old testemony) and thats one of the reason i dont like the bible.

Thirdly you have come up with no good arguments why your intepertation is better then anyones else, you generaly lack arguments and proves for your claims, when presented with bible qoutes that contradict what you say you dismiss them as out of context on missinterpertated ,eaten a pig, well me and the jews undestood that one as prety clear, guess you didn't and the best part, that law comes from the exact same book that says Homosexualty is sin.

I am Going to Follow Death Rabbit on this one, im Leaving this thread as it. You have failed to deliver decent arguments for your claims, the general beat of your post have been "my interpertation is the correct", sorry but if thats an argument, then my daddy can beat your daddy.

 

@Gnarf...there is only one 'evil'...it is called ignorance. Every 'evil' goes back to ignorance. Ignorance is the only adversary mentioned in the Vedas, and the concept of a Satan of some sorts is completely foreign from the Vedas, and from nearly all religious beliefs. There are demons, devils and the likes, but no central figure of pure evil, such as Satan, in any religion other than the Abrahamic faiths and the Zoroastrian religion - which, coincidentally, is where Judaism got the idea of a Satan like figure. The whole 'light vs dark' idea originiated not in Judaism, not in Christianity, nor even in Islam, but rather in Zoroastrianism.

So when you say that Satan is the cause of this and that, and when you use Satan as the scapegoat - Azazel I think it's name is - you are merely personifying human ignorance. And hasn't Jesus become the scapegoat through his supposed sacrifice? Doesn't that make him Satan then?

 

What evidence, and where? This is a prettty big claim to make.

 

Argh i promised to stop and stay out, but this one made me curius (curse you Curiosity)

I just wonder how you define man made law and devine law, i meen the whole Stuff about what you may eat is Moses passing on the words of god. not unlike the 10 commandmens, same guy, same god and think even same freaking mountain. So i just wonder, how do you just no, that on the eating prohibitions, it was man made and on the rest it was god made?

 

@Equester:
I never said creative periods at all, I said the entire account isn't even a chronological list, and if you want to ask professors of Hebrew and/or Biblical studies, be my guest. If you don't believe them and want to study it yourself, be my guest. Don't assume I'm wrong, though, just because you don't want to believe.

As for the ages of the people, you are correct. I was again thinking of another passage which details the descent of Jesus, but skips a number of generations in various places because everyone knew them. The Bible claims humanity originated roughly 4000 BC. But, as I said above, one cannot generate an age of the Earth from this.

In some texts, the Bible is intended to be a record passed down through the ages and, as such, it restricts its use of context to the point that a simple examination of history can give you all the information you need. This occurs in such books of history as Judges, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, etc. In other texts, however, the use of context is much heavier. This is especially noticable in the Books of the Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutaronomy, all of which were intended for the immediate use of the people at the time. Likewise, most of the New Testament is written to be heavily context-dependant.

Wrong, God doesn't hate anyone, He loves us all, but He punishes us for our sins, and He gets angry with us for our disobedience. God hates homosexuality, but not homosexuals.

My proof is very simple. YOU ARE USING THE WRONG CONTEXT. If you think people talked, acted, and thought, 3000 years ago or more, exactly the same as they do today, then you have removed all reasoning capabilities from your mind and there is no point in speaking to you. If you agree that they used different idioms, different standards, valued things differently, and generally were not the same as we are today here in America, or there in Danmark, then the application of proper context is crucial. If you won't admit that proper context is critical, you are commiting a catestrophic logical falacy. Unfortunately, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen that falacy on these boards.

Have you anything to suggest that I'm wrong? Again, this seems to come to context. If you can show the context I am applying is not the right one, then your agruements have merit, but you have not even tried to do this so far. You have simply said that context doesn't matter.

@Nataraja:
Zoroastrianism claims to be 6000 years old by the conservative members, but historical evidence places the founding member's life between 1000 and 1500 BC. The Hebrews fled from Egypt around 1500 BC, the older date, so how can you claim that this religion pre-dates Judaism if Judaism traces itself to Abraham, who was born around 2100 BC?

So many mistakes here. One, Satan means 'The Opposer', but not in a millitant sense in the Old Testament, but rather a legal sense. Satan is portrayed in the Old Testament as 'the accuser' or the prosecutor of human sins. He wishes to see humanity destroyed, but he does it in the rules. That is Satan. Christ is the substitution, the sacrifice that clears us of guilt.

On top of that confusion, you seem to be using two different meanings of 'scapegoat'. One being the one we blaim as the cause of sin and the other being the one that took our punishment for our sins. These are not the same, thus, no, Christ is not Satan.

@Clixby:

Mostly statistical evidence, though a lot of other stuff, too. You can get a good feel for it from books like "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". There's a lot of interesting stuff there. Now I never claimed it was absolute, just plenty to suggest it is a real possibility, so don't tell me statistics can't prove anything.

 

NOG - what are you doing to my posts?!
Dont you care that, by breaking it all down, you butcher with abandon what points I tried to make in context? (is there a chance that's your tactic?)

No, you did not say such a thing. But you make pretensions of that sort when it comes to your morality. And as long as you have nothing on your hands to justify your claim I need not support anything at all. I am free to call it all overcome nonsense, since you fail to deliever substance alongside your absolutism. You can bet I will do just that, for you paint an unflattering image of those unlike you.

Of course you are pushing for conflict. Why else is Christianity under fire? I am not speaking of these boards but in general terms. You (certain devout Christians) stick your finger in people's face, make judgement of their lifes and have no relevant basis for it whatsoever. Why, you are spiritual snobs. Mind telling me why anyone should put up with your bragging?

To your defense of the Bible: If the sentiments of unrefined desert tribes werent dragged into our modern day to deride people's way of life, no-one would care too much about it. Except those who find fulfillment in reading it.

I already told you why these things happen. I will try to rephrase: Your claims of absolute morality leave no space for alternatives in our communities, meaning you are offending a good many of people. Therefore it has been decided that you need to be constrained.
What befuddles me is that you really seem to miss respect for your intolerance, NOG.

 

@ NOG :
I don't exactly remember where you said it, but you were saying that God gives you logic and intellect to understand the world (that's basically what you said, right?). Well if you find no rationnal explanation to condemn homosexuality other than saying "God said so", isn't that blindly following faith, and not using logic?

To my knowledge, only one in the topic advanced a reason why homosexuality was a sin, STDs. Since there a more blood vessels in the anus, it's easier to transmit STDs. But in today's context, with contraception and everything, that is not really relevant. Shouldn't we say the same thing, that it no longer applies?

If you're referring to something like we would have said that "why should you judge homosexuality since it doesn't bother you?", then yes, I have said so, numerous times. But it's hard to do that when you say "It is a sin, it says so in the bible". If we want to argue, we have to argue over the bible.

While I'm not talking for anyone exept myself, I've never discrimated chirstians. If you interpreted my posts as such, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to do so. The entire point of the discussion was to talk about discrimination. And like I have said to Gnarff earlier (when he talked about how the Mormon's were roughly treated), I don't condone in any way discrimination against any minority, whether I agree with them or not. Of course, some minorities (like violent sects or the like) should be stopped since they discriminate themselves or at the worse jeopordize others, but that doesn't mean that they should be stoned in the streets and burned alive.

What makes me mad, and infuriate many others, is the lack of compassion from people like Gnarff. Whether you are a sinner or not, fact of the matter is not everyone believes in God, nor wants to be "saved". What they want is to be able to live a normal life (as in any other citizen). To impose your beliefs on them (as when you say they "need" to be saved and converted) is a sort of discrimination because you do not allow them to live as they should.

Before you bring murderers in, a homosexuality ahs no impact on your life, if you are not homosexual. If two men or two women decide to live and sleep together, what harm does it inflict on you? If the state decide to review the law and allow homosexuals to marry before the court (because I would totally agree with your stance if they were to be married in a church), what harm does it do to you? Some detractors to the gay community have said that it undermines the value of their marriage. That argument is non-sens since you're supposed to be married because you love someone, not the social impression it leaves.

And yes, it's a question of respect. Respect of one's choices and beliefs. People should respect your belief in God, and your choice to follow His principles. In the same way, you should respect people's beliefs (that there is no God) and their choice to love and marry same-sex partners.

Like Gnarff said, I also go "all-in" in my belief that God does not exist. If he does, and I am condemned to hell for respecting and fighting for my bretheren's right to live their lives in hapiness even if it contrary to God's laws (again, in the event that their hapinnes does not intrude on another one's), then I will GLADLY burn in hell for all eternity, because I would hold no respect a God who did that.

That is why this debate is pointless (at least, with some people).Whatever I might say, it's countered by "I have faith it is". While we cannot prove some points either, at least we're trying to rationnal explain things. Faith is counter-producitve to debate.

Because to keep talking about faith that whatever God is saying is right, and you'll find out later (probably in heaven) why he said these things. At least NOG is trying to explain the reason behind his belief.

But you forget one thing. As I have said before, same-sex marriage detractors don't want them to marry. Same-sex marriage supporters want them to get married. One group is acting upon antother, while the other group is acting upon itself. What you call "in you face" is seeing two men holding hans or something, and I have already told you before, look elsewhere if it bothers you.
(Gnarff : why didn't Harper already banned sex-marriage if it's not supported? Because he doesn't want to lose the coming elections. Call me naive or what you will , but a minority can't change the outcome of an election)

All in all, my point is that if a group's freedom does not infringe on your own (I don't consider your claim that homosexuality is a sin and thus homosexuals should be stopped from sinning, since their beliefs don't necesserily reflect yours), it's discimination to deny them that freedom.

 

@Dendri:

Sorry, didn't mean to do anything like that. Maybe, though, it will illustrate the importance of context.

If you're asking for sources behind my claims of context and language meaning (which I think you are, but I'm honestly not sure) then I'm getting most of my information from
"The NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition", Copyright 1995, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, MI 49530
The same stuff, however, can be found in numerous study and student Bibles, commentaries on the specified texts, and many concordances.

This is illogical. It assumes the answer it is trying to prove. There are plenty of reasons Christianity may be under fire. While I'll admit there are Christian extremists out there who are pushing for a conflict, it is a small minority. While I'll admit there are various cults that claim inspiration from the Bible, they are usually so twisted that any logical person can tell they have less to do with the Bible than Hollywood has to do with history. I'm talking about this thread right here. I never pushed for a conflict here, I never attacked your position, I only defended mine. I haven't said homosexuality is illogical, offensive to nature, an abomination of genetic mutation, or anything like that, only that it is sinful in my eyes, which you (or someone on this thread) asked about.

I am not a member of those 'certain devout Christians' you speak of. Sure, there are some extremists in Christianity, but there are some in Atheism, too. You don't see me decrying all atheists for the few that actively (and violently sometimes) attack religion, do you? Yes, there are some Christians that need a good swift kick in the humility. All those 'holier than thou' Christians who would rather look down their noses at drug atticts, homosexuals, prostitutes, and liars than to invite them to church are as offensive to God as anything else. They do the exact OPPOSITE of what Christ did.

Many things change drastically with technological progression, but many things don't. It is still just as bad to murder, steal, and the like. And as for the 'unrefined desert tribes', at one time Israel was the most powerful nation in the area. Under King Solomon, they recieved tribute from Egypt (this has been historically confirmed) and from some regions of central Africa. They expressed significant social, philosophical, architectural, and technological achievement throughout their years. The Temple of King Solomon was compared to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

So Atheists can teach their beliefs in school, gather to spread it after school, even make manditory school meetings to spread it, but a few students who want to study something else on their own time aren't allowed? I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. The truth is the principal was an atheist and didn't want any religion steping onto his school. A local judge over-ruled him saying he had no right to restrict access to a religious group that was represented in the student body. The ACLU took his case and appealed it several times, but never got a more favorable ruling. It was a matter of one man's prejudice against all religion.

On top of that, you seem to be arguing that you, and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists, and Daoists and anyone else has the right to practice their own religions however they want within legal limits, and even to try and spread their religion, converting people in legal and responsable ways, but Christians don't have that right.

@Triactus:

Logic is more than analysing a certain set of evidence and claims. It also means analysing the sources of that evidence for credibility. I'm not saying science is wrong, but if the only evidence that says anything specific is God saying it is bad, then logic dictates that we must consider this 'God' that says so. What other things has He said? What has He done? Has He been shown in history to be trustworthy and truthful? Essentially, should we take His word for it? I find more than enough evidence to take His word for it. That is logic, not a blind following.

That's assuming that was the one and only reason, which is a pretty poor one. Why not just forbid anal sex? There are other ways to have homosexual relations, and they are all included in one rule, which means the reason is most likely something common to the set of rules.

No, that's not really what I meant. In saying what you are saying, you imply that either I do not have the right to judge actions immoral for and from my own personal beliefs, something you yourself are doing, or that my judgement is inherrantly wrong. What I would like to hear is, 'So long as you treat your homosexual neighbors in a civil and proper manner, you can consider their actions however you like.' What you have often said ammounts to 'You have to agree with me', not 'We can agree to disagree'.

This is exactly what you shouldn't be arguing. If a Christian tells you it is a sin, you just tell him 'That's what you believe'. So long as you aren't a Christian, you don't have to agree with him, and at the moment, his belief is based on nothing more than his religion and morals, as is yours.

And here's what worries me. What do you consider discrimination? Do you think Christianity teaches discrimination when it teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but no more or less of a sin than lying, stealing, or anything else that people do wrong? Are you going to try to stop me from teaching it to my children because you think it is discrimination? If I tell my children a homosexual is less of a person or has fewer rights or the like because of it, then I can see discrimination, but condemning an action is not it.

And when has Gnarf forced the issue? So far as I can see, he has only spoken so when people have honestly and openly asked his opinion, in which case he has every right to answer the way he wants and no one has the right to stop him. If he forced it onto people, if he locked them in a closet and said 'you aren't getting out until you're saved', or even talked about things like that, then I would understand your concern. But when you tell me you get mad because someone else out there somewhere thinks to himself that, when you die, you're going to hell, well, I think it may be you with the problem, not him.

The only suggestion anyone has made of imposing our beliefs on others is the proposed ban on homosexual marriage. That is a legal issue, meaning if it is passed it is because the majority of America wants it to be and that's what you get for living in a democracy (cough, cough) excuse me, a republic.

Where did I bring in murderers? I may have said it was one of the examples of 'other sins', but I wasn't comparing it directly in any other manner, I assure you. As for what impact it has on me, it worries me about the moral fabric of our nation. That's it. And there are plenty of things doing that already. If the courts decide to recognize homosexual marriages before the court, I will add one more issue to my prayer list. That's all.

But does that mean I can't disagree with them? Many people disagree with my beliefs, as we have seen on this topic, does that mean they are disrespecting me? No, it means they just disagree.

I think you may think twice about that later on, but that's a side note. My issue here is your assumption that you would be right and God would be wrong. If my God is real, then He is infinitely just and good an His laws are there for good reasons. Homosexuality may just be wrong, a complete abuse of something He created to be beautiful and magnificent, in which case it would be His right to judge such offenders as He saw fit. This is all assuming my God is real, of course.

Someone else said it better. I think it was someone else at least. BLIND faith is counter-productive to debate. Faith that refuses to be questioned or analyzed is counter-productive to debate. I have only used my faith as a reason when it came down to there's no real reason for anyone to believe anything on this topic, but people do, and my faith is what lead me to my position.

This is good. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you leave it here and say 'Believe what you want, just don't try to force me to do the same' we'll all be good. Or at least you and I will be ok.

 

@ NOG :

ahhh, ok. There might have been a communication problem between us. We're atually saying similar things. You say that we should respect each other, not to impose our opinions. My whole post was just about that. But the thing is some same-sex relationship detractors (which includes Gnarff) want to prevent it (same-sex marriage) by saying it's a sin (true or not). That is imposing an opinion.
(and BTW, just because I put "@ NOG" at the begining of my post, it doesn't mean the whole post was adressed to you... )

Kinda like the Vatican...

That is a valid point. The only thing is since God speaks thru some humans, non-believers like myself have a hard time believing these people.

While I agree it's a poor one, it's the only one Ive heard on this thread (When I said topic, I meant this thread, not the whole general topic). If you want to bring one forth, go ahead.

Forgive me, it's harder for me to debate in english. When I say things that don't make sense, allow me (like now) a chance to clarify what I meant.
NOG -> if we had said "So long as it doesn't bother me" that, It'd be okay. (did I get it right?)
Me-> I said that numerous times. I don't hate religion. I have never said that religion should be banned form our society. All I'm saying is religion doesn't respect homosexual's right to hapiness. If religous people say about homosexuality (as some have said) "So long as it doesn't bother me", we have no quarrel.

Yes, you're right. But I'm so much trying to prove you wrong as to understand your point of view. But it works both ways : religous people should say "That's what you believe" to homosexuals.

Maybe the term is not accuratly what I was thinking. To me (negative discimination), is preventing someone of having the same rights and freedom as every other citizen. The context of the phrase you have quoted was in the event of a murder (violent sects like the Manson following). The murderer robbes a person of his right to live while soothing the murderer's spiritual hapiness (what he believes to be right). Maybe discimination is not the word for what I was thinking but I can't think of another one right now. The whole point was that "Whatever you do is okay, unless it impedes on the freedom and rights of others". I consider the stance of many conservatives to keep the defination of marriage between a man and a woman as discrimination is that view. I didn't mean that you can't teach your children that homosexuality is a sin. But it's a discrimination to prevent homosexuals of having a normal happy life. That's all I was saying.

By refusing to allow same-sex marriages, he is forcing his beliefs on to others and by not caring the treatment homosexuals receive is a lack of compassion. Is that what you meant by forcing the issue? (as I have said "lack of compassion" as in he doen't sympatise to the treatment of homosexuals since his people had a similar past). I was not pointing to the way he talks to others in this discussion, but to his beliefs on the matter.

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" as in NOG in particular. It was a general "you". A preemptive argument...

I never said that. If I thought so, I would be here... All I meant was that it's a lack of respect to say that all people (believers in God or not) should follow God's plan, as some have said. If we don't want to follow God's laws, leave us alone. We have a legal system to take care of order.

I'm not debating on this. It's absolutly His right (if He does in fact exist ). That's what I'm saying. If he sends homosexuals to hell for wanting a happy life, I don't have any love for the Man. If that happens, you'll see me in hell with all those people with a beer in my hand and a lovely gal at my side (or 22 virgins, like it is apparently in the muslim belief (someone told me that and I doubt it, but I found it funny... Meh, it beats hanging out with my grand-mother in heaven )

I was mainly refering to Gnarf. As I have said, at least your trying to understand the reason behind the laws.

That is precisly what I said at the beginning of my post. Along those 9 pages of debate, I have diuscussed on the legetimacy of homosexuality as a sin (like I said earlier, not so much to prove you wrong but to understand). But we're in a debate board after all, that's the purpose of posting here. Doesn't mean I either disrespect your beliefs or 'hate christians'. As long as you let homosexual life out their lives as they see fit (including marriage, or legal union or whatever you want to call it), it's a-okay.

It's still fun to exchange opinions and argments though.

[ October 15, 2006, 06:16: Message edited by: Triactus ]

 

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to show me some actual statistics and actual evidence.

uh, can I just say that atheists don't have beliefs? That's kind of the crux of atheism. Plus, schools are not spreading anything: they have been secularised, which allows for an unbiased education. I'd imagine Bible study groups are not allowed in that school because it would present a clear bias towards Christianity. Where's Nataraja's Vedas study group, huh? Or my Principia Discordia study group? Only a Bible one? No fair.

Also, what mandatory school meetings?I didn't realise schools were bastions of militant atheism.

 

Having spent 7 years of my life at a presbyterian school we did have Bible classes. What was interesting is that they taught us what the Bible says, certain events, certain people, certain dates and tested our knowledge on that come end of year. I surprised myself by scoring 90-100% every test. So I had a pretty good knowledge of what happened in certain periods of the Bible.

In science class we were taught the theory behind evolution and Darwin's theories. Never did they say "Christianity is wrong", they simply said "According to the evidence presented to us through the study and carbon-dating of fossils we come to the conclusion that man evolved from primates and many other modern-day species evolved from their own form of ancient counterpart". There's been no preaching of athiest views, telling people to be athiests, I dare say there's a complete lack of anyone telling anybody what to believe. There was some type of 'belief councilling' led by the CHAPLIN of the school and the surprising thing was he didn't push Christianity, he was happy with whatever you believed in and just wanted to ask and answer questions about it offering his wisdom to other people's uncertainty. When I became an athiest I told him my opinions and why I'm never going back to religion and he told me that he's happy for me - he was happy that I'd turned away from his faith.

In the end though there was NO athiest brainwashing classes in school, all they taught was the facts and the only time religion was mentioned was when you asked for it to be and it was often a one-to-one meeting.

 

How about every Gay Rights parade? Or the Pro Choice lobby. They suppport their sins in a rather vocal manner. The Soft spkoen Christians get ignored as their quiet demeanor is drowned out by the loud and attention grabbing actions of these minorities. Even some groups have attempted to silence religious speakers for saying that Homosexuality is a sin. One Religious group got attacked near my home because the local Gay community called religious teaching a hate crime...

How about refusing to prosecute (let alone execute) homosexuals, but also recognizing Marriage as an ordinance originating with the Abrahamic Religions, and specifically between a man and a woman. If religion disapproves, then figure some other way to get what you want.

That was me. You don't buy it? That's your problem. It's also off topic.

Wrong. God loves all of us, but he hates the sins we commit.

What price do you put on knowledge? And why must you assume that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Is that not ignorance of my beliefs?

Quite the contrary. Satan lures people to commit sin, whether they know what they are doing is wrong or not. Satan, on the other hand, Knows what he wants us to do is wrong.

No. He has paid the price of our sins that he may extend mercy to us at the last day if we are willing to acknowledge him and do our best to obey the laws of God.

But studying Leviticus more carefully. The Ten Commandments came directly to Moses from God. Homosexuality, Beastiality and Incest fall under the heading of adultery, and are clarified by the scribes and Pharisees, hence their inclusion in the Book of Leviticus.

Welcome to the Alleys...

Assuming that God does exist (and NOG and I believe that He does), and further that he is Omnicient (All knowing, which NOG and I also believe), then His words on right and wrong do hold merit. Further, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we have promised to obey the laws of God. God has forbidden Homosexuality, therefore we will not commit, advocate, support or defend homosexual behaviours.

Let me add to the concepts of "safe sex" the psychological and emotional components of sex. When it is indulged within the boundaries that the Lord has set, it is among the most rewarding experience imaginable. When it is used cheaply (casual sex, same sex relations, pornography) it diminishes the joy that ought to be felt when indulged within the bounds that the Lord has given.

It's funny that the first casualty of debate is the point...

If sin leads to misery, and I extend what I believe to be the best way to allieviate that misery, then I have done what I can. If you refuse what I suggest, then I accept your choice of continued misery. I have other places to expend my energy...

Then act like a normal citizen. As soon as you seperate yourselves from "normal" then you open yourself up to discrimination.

How about giving the Christian majority what they want. We recognize Marriage as a matter of Church, so the State has no right to impede that. the Conservatives are happy to oblige us...

That's why I'm not going there...

Stephen Harper really doesn't have the balls he claimed to have when he was campaigning against the Liberals...

LMAO. But you are right. Jesus would not have supported the Srusades or the Spanish Inquisition...

And that's two big objections. God and his Prophets. I have accepted both of those, and I believe that all will be helped if they can do this too. In doing so, I become the third point of questioning--the believers...

But I believe that Marriage is a religious ordinance, which requires covenents including Chastity. Further, Religion defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual relations do not fit that definition.

The idea is faith in something that does not Change. As a result, the rules from God don't change. That's where I am standing firm. If that hinders debate, then so be it.

If they can find a staff advisor and enough interested parties, that's fine.

 

Well at least in Denmark the state can perform marriages, since these have nothing to do with religeus cermonies i cant see why they should not be allowed for gay people (they are by the way in Denmark). The main Argument in Denmark was that we have seperation of church and state, so Churche Dogma could not apply, Secondle Numouros none Christian religions, including jews, muslims, hindues and Buddist could perform Marriages.
So as long as its the state that performs the union, i cant see how Church dogma can even apply, as long as your country as seperation of church and state.