The main thing people just realize is that some of these documents were written over 2000 years ago, the most recent are at least what? 1700 years old? They are written in the context of the times. I am sure someone here has enough knowledge on Christian theology and history to contribute to that point. I know the Qur'an represents a lot of societal norms/customs of pre-6th century Arabia. I am quite sure the Bible is similar. Those who are religious have every right to publicly state how they feel about homosexuals. I would never stop someone from expressing their opinion in a non-hateful way. It's not hateful to say you think it is sinful. It's another thing to say it's sinful and you are going to burn in hell. The LGBT need to realize that others have every right to disagree, and while I will always advocate on their behalf, it doesn't mean they need to call out everyone that disagrees with them. Freedom of speech goes both ways.
Yes, his main point is about sin in general, but it seems clear enough to me that listing homosexuality as an example (and perhaps even the culmination) of man's sinfulness means it is sin. I do believe that SSA is not sin since temptations come to us all, but indulging it or acting out on it is -- even if it seems like the temptation is "part of me" or "who I am" (this applies to heterosexuals as well). But God does love the world so much anyway (John 3:16), offers a different way of life, and he wants all people to be reconciled to him (2 Cor 5:19-20).
If I lived in a Muslim nation that was ruled by religion, I would strive and become an activist to help see that it did happen.
If the bible includes a poetic narrative about a gay relationship involving one of the kings of Israel and it doesn't end him with being stoned to death, I think it might be germaine to the topic.
Really dumb argument 'Found in Nature'... Should we allow murder, cannibalism, infanticide, rape, gang rape, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, the female to decapitate us during sex? All of these activities are found in nature, which humans are a part of.... Just saying. Franchiseblade, you wouldn't last an hour doing such a thing in a Muslim country. They would arrest you, torture you, do 'medical research' on your anus http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=279758 Then they would execute you, either by decapitation, hanging or AK47 The first picture is of the round-up of homosexuals for 'processing' by the religion of peace police.
Christianity being bent, twisted, and turned to place undue emphasis on homosexuality because it's a topic used by politicians to get frightened people to support positions that put them at economic disadvantages.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S1-ip47WYWc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
exactly. SC1211 insists that we have a bad Greek translation. That's the basis for his entire argument. It's unbelievable that he's still around in this thread.
Dude you do have good since when you want to i'm very proud of the fact that you have a open mind about the presecution and ostracism of someone who is different from you in there life style choices.
Genuine question: if being gay is a choice, why would somebody choose not only sexual pleasure, but the untold ridicule that society attaches to this "choice"? Why would somebody openly choose to become the object of scorn and, sometimes, physical violence? Why would they elect to override every impulse of common sense and instead give in to sexual desires that, if unnatural, are being chosen at the expense of their "natural" ones? "Choice" and "sin" imply a conscious acknowledgement, and rejection, of an alternative, in spite of "biological"/heterosexual impulses. On the flip side, if you condemn homosexuality, but don't believe it is a choice, where do you stand on predetermination? If a person is born gay, are they born a sinner and condemned to hell? Can a person be born fundamentally "bad," in the eyes of a fundamentalist, and have to work their way into the grace of God, considering the relative "innocent" status of babies (Catholicism not withstanding)?
Lots of good discussion in this thread, and lots of garbage, which is typical of any religious discussion you'll find, internet or otherwise. Someone else mentioned it, but I, like many (most?) Christians believe that we are not bound the law of the Old Testament (the Mosaic Law, or Ten Commandments). Colossians 2 indicates that that law was 'taken out of the way, having been nailed to the cross' when Jesus was crucified. So I think that any Christian citing Leviticus as the end-all be-all proof that homosexuality is wrong to be in error. That said, I do think that many of the New Testament writers, Paul included, clearly say that homosexuality is a sin. Even if you argue the fact that he never explicitly says so, or the translation is in error, the argument is clear that any sexual relationship outside the marriage bed, straight or gay, is sinful. And I think it is obvious (to me, at least), that the biblical definition of marriage is one man and one woman ... again, we're talking New Testament here. All that said, Christians do aim their vitriol towards homosexuals far more than other sinners. I have friends who are gay, have committed adultery, and could probably be considered drunkards. All are condemned by Jesus and his apostles and I disagree with all of their lifestyles, but I love each of them as good friends. Additionally, I have a hard time legislating my personal views, even if I feel I'm 100% right. I try and think of what I would want if there was a government that was led by a different religion. If we had a Muslim-led administration, I would not want them to pass sweeping anti-Christian legislation, even if they thought there beliefs were correct absolutely. Finally, Jesus also clearly says in Matthew 19 that the only people who can divorce their spouse and be able to re-marry in God's eyes are those who have been the victim of adultery. IMO, a person who thinks gays should be barred from marriage should also crusade to eliminate people re-marrying at-will legally. But that's not nearly as popular an opinion, so you don't see anyone balk at it.
These two sentences make no sense next to each other. Freedom of speech means that anyone can call anyone out anytime they want.
It's pretty simple for me. My attraction to men is insignificant enough to be almost non-existent. I couldn't have sex with a man because I could not obtain or maintain an erection. Were I biologically geared to be attracted to men the way I am attracted to women and women not at all, I certainly could not be "straight" just because society and religion expect it. I just couldn't. I guess if I were "religious enough" lifelong celibacy might be an option (but we are shown over and over again why that is problematic ((priest sex scandals)) To me this is simple logic....unless you are bi-sexual you don't really have a "choice" in these matters. And the MORE repelled and generally squicked out you are by the thought of same sex relations, the EASIER it should be to understand why someone is not going to override what their biology tells them to do to fit in with Leviticus.
Why worry about the Bible so much? A plagiariazation of thousands of religions that came thousands of years before? Christianity is a direct descendant to early people trying to characterize the solar system. If you practice a religion, you are a SUN worshipper, a believer in imaginary constellation based myths. Ever wonder why Christmas was on Dec 25th? Easter? Nothing to do with the birth of Jesus(Name your prophet), EVERYTHING to do with the solar system. The "SUN" of God. Horus= The God of the SUN Similarities of Horus and Jesus. Etc, etc, etc, etc... Thousands of prophets, all attributed to man's longing to be closer to the stars.
"Found in nature" is merely a response to people who claim homosexuality is wrong because its "unnatural". Also, all the activities you listed share something in common. There is a victim. Homosexual relations between two adults is a victim-less activity.
Lets all take notice of Bigtessy once again cherry picking his arguments for his sake. Its like talking to a rock. Tess...Women and slavery.... Tess....Leviticus and its hords of passages regarding killing people for sins. Was there any doubt the anal destroyer would take a pass on these subjects.
The real question is why anyone would waste their time arguing over translations of the equivalent of Harry Potter back in the day. That Bible... one entertaining story! Think they're going to make a movie?? Need more serious? I echo Major. If being gay is a choice, and you're not gay, then try and be gay. Go ahead and make that choice. What? You can't. You can't make yourself be gay? Must not be a choice then...
