Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
but one thing I do not like is how they try to force their kid to be gay
as well.
A few of my friends I knew growing up had this happen
to them. They rebelled accordingly, but after watching the news and
reading at a few forums, this seems pretty common."
While the news and a few forums aren't exactly the best source of deciding how common something is, there is no denying that its mention is proof of concept, at least on more than one occasion.
I"ll have to rest with Longfellow on this one though, the douchy couples aren't exactly good measuring sticks.
"Regarding your general analogy, it doesn't make
much sense if God is omniscient. If He is all knowing then why would He
change His teachings later on?"
I'll try to rephrase it again. It's not that his teachings changed, or that he developed a new mindset. It's just that a new set of orders were given.
Looking back the the who Leviticus deal, and the stuff about shellfish, I have taken a look, and found my answer pretty quickly. The passages talking about foods, for example, have a very important bit of literary importance in them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
I'll just snag the point right out of there:
"You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."
Notice "for you". What that means is that God isn't personally troubled by these things, but the people themselves are. And with good reason, too. The stuff he lists in there is quite dangerous unless handled properly.
Other commands, however, have a different statement attached. "An abomination unto the LORD". In other words, while commands are for one purpose, others are not.
"Also, every other passage about same-sex behavior is very vague. Romans 1
claims that God cursed people into having same-sex lust due to them
worshiping other deities. Do you think that is applicable in the real
world?"
Are you talking about this?:
"24 Therefore God gave
them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for
the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served
created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
error."
You misunderstand, what happened here is not that God made them homosexual, but rather he showed us his real wrath: He let them do what they wanted to do. No lightning bolts here, he just says "Fine, you can do what you want, but it's a bad idea". To an atheist this would be a dream come true, but to the Christian, God giving up on you is a horrible sounding fate.
"Also, please define "'homophobic' nonsense"."
It's just that the term has taken a ridiculous few levels, such that it has become a blanket term for "anti-gay", which sweeps everyone under the same rug. I've seen the term abused a lot, and seen it invoke a lot of strawmanning and demonetization.
"*Yeah, don't ever say "lifestyle" when on this topic. The word carries all kinds of offensive implications."
Sorry, I didn't think of that when I used the term, the last thing I need to do is upset someone.
"Anyway, I'm glad you're being so civil about this."
I appreciate that; for a while I was worried the fact that I'm so saccharine and civil all the time was actually making people angrier with me.
God does seem indecisive to me. In the OT He is a cruel being who inflicts plague and death on sinners, but in the NT he's all loving and forgiving now. And if He truly is some kind of a general, I don't know why He hasn't issued anymore laws because things have obviously changed since the New Testament.
Now, with the Romans 1 passage...Paul supports the oppression of women and accepts slavery in his other letters. Why is Romans 1 the one we listen to, but the others we ignore? Again, these kinds of passages were in fact used to justify sexism and slavery. I will cite sources of this if you really want me to.
While some people take the idea of homophobia too far like you've said, you do agree that it is extremely common and very persistent in our society? I don't see how you can also collectively "sweep everyone under the same rug" who uses this word.
My final point is this: being gay is not a choice and it is not a psychological disease. We can be equally good parents and lead equally productive lives according to many studies. What do you think is God's justification for hating a behavior that is harmless (as long as protection is used, of course)? Why would God make people gay if they're not allowed to enact upon it?
This seems like an overgeneralisation. I know plenty of Christians for whom homosexuality isn't a big deal at all. I've never heard it condemned in my church even once.
>Bad news. This is NT, as well. It's Paul speaking, though, so...
I don't see any condemnation of lesbianism there, only male homosexuality. «Unnatural sexual relations» is vague (and homosexual relationships and intercourse are perfectly natural, anyway, although I guess Paul didn't know that).
>It's just that the term has taken a ridiculous few levels, such that it has become a blanket term for "anti-gay", which sweeps everyone under the same rug.
«Homophobic» means «anti-gay», so that's perfectly correct usage. I don't like the word, because I feel it implies fear of homosexuals, which may be inaccurate or misleading, but «anti-gay» is the usual intended meaning.
point is this: being gay is not a choice and it is not a psychological
disease. We can be equally good parents and lead equally productive
lives according to many studies. What do you think is God's
justification for hating a behavior that is harmless (as long as
protection is used, of course)? Why would God make people gay if they're
not allowed to enact upon it?"
As I've said before, their is a line here between reasons for *us* to not do things (like eat pigs, back when doing so could get you a nasty disease), and reasons for *God* for us to not do things. I've said this in other debates, so I'll put it forward again: The issue lay in "holiness". There is no scientific reason, hell, it could even be beneficial, but that doesn't matter, because it is unholy. It is said we were created in God's image, great purpose is put towards continuing to reflect him. As for the mental disease thing, I hate that imbecilic term. Homosexuality, if caused by a genetic development in the brain, is still a deviation from how things normally work. "Mental illness" doesn't have to be harmful, anyhow, given that while most of "them" are perhaps dangerous, many simply create people of different and interesting character.
«Unnatural sexual relations» is vague (and homosexual relationships and
intercourse are perfectly natural, anyway, although I guess Paul didn't
know that).
It doesn't matter what a natural occurrence might be, however. Take due notice of how "the flesh" is constantly talked about. What is "natural" for us is almost always evil in and of itself. Even if it is genetically hard wired from birth, it is still "unnatural" because we do not behave how God tells us to act. If you are homosexual, this is not condemned inherently, but rather, you can choose to simply not pursue any relationships at all. Before anyone issues a complaint about God preventing someone from having a loving marriage, please note that we are to do as he says, and many people of character in the Bible and in our modern times dedicate their lives entirely to the Lord and dismiss relationships of the sort.
Drinking can be used as a similar deal, as there are causes that can bring you to be an alcoholic. Drinking wine isn't a sin on its own, but for some people, it becomes such. People give Christianity all kinds of flak for saying that homosexuality should be let go, but completely ignore us and are fine with it when we talk about giving up other things we love. Sometimes sacrifices must be made.
"It depends on your interpretation, Anonym. While you may think that
being gay is an abomination, why does God allow for the purchasing of
slaves from other countries in Leviticus 25:44? People who work on the Sabbath are to be put to death (Exodus
35:2). Kids who curse their parents shall be put to death (Leviticus
20:9). Why are these passages obsolete but the justification of killing
gay people is entirely relevant? Who gets to decide?"
Making an interesting distinction here, but it's not an abomination to me, rather, it is to God. The OT stuff listed were laws put forward by God to rule the country which they spoke to, and were dependent on the time. Like I said prior,those items maintain being against God, but the punishment has changed. "Forgiveness" entails exemption from punishment, on the grounds of an apology. Because of this, there are no stonings anymore.
As for the slave bit, that was common deal at the time, so there were rules regarding their treatment thereof. In that culture, one could willingly enslave oneself in order to pay off a debt. Slaves in that day were not the same as the fiasco America had with African Americans. At no point does anything say "thou shalt buy a slave", and other verses support that if you have one, you are NOT to treat them like dirt.
"Now, with
the Romans 1 passage...Paul supports the oppression of women and
accepts slavery in his other letters. Why is Romans 1 the one we listen
to, but the others we ignore? Again, these kinds of passages were in
fact used to justify sexism and slavery. I will cite sources of this if
you really want me to."
Indeed, please list the ones on your mind; I can't think of anything that I'm missing, myself.
If God says that all of these impulses we have are so immoral. Why did he give us to them?
Some sort of test? Sadism? Is the God who rules over us not the same one that created us?
There's a lot of things you should be suspicious of there.
Let's say that I have reason for believing it, but wouldn't want to spend all day talking about it when I already have something to talk about.
Of course, my god is a giant eyeball. So maybe I'm just calling the kettle black here.
I'm really confused why God would explain to people how to regulate slavery. Couldn't He have just said "slavery is wrong and so is sexism?" Wouldn't that have averted years and years of oppression and suffering? Also, the verse I sited talked about how enslaving people from foreign countries is justified, not people necessarily willing to be enslaved.
The OT stuff listed were laws put forward by God to rule the country which they spoke to, and were dependent on the time.
Yeah...every law I bring up is culturally dependent for the time period in your opinion with the clear exception of condemnation of gay people. I fail to understand your logic behind this.
If you are homosexual, this is not condemned inherently, but rather, you
can choose to simply not pursue any relationships at all.
No thank you. I'm not going to be miserable for the rest of my life in isolation and without love. That sounds terrible. I have no idea why you think God supports this.
Drinking can be used as a similar deal, as there are causes that can bring you to be an alcoholic.
Except being alcoholic is a self-destructive behavior that harms yourself and people around you. Being gay is perfectly harmless as long as you're safe. Not to mention that alcoholism is often considered a disease of the brain, while homosexuality is not a mental disorder of any kind.
Homosexuality,
if caused by a genetic development in the brain, is still a deviation
from how things normally work. "Mental illness" doesn't have to be
harmful, anyhow, given that while most of "them" are perhaps dangerous,
many simply create people of different and interesting character.
I don't want to accuse you of anything, but just be careful on how you phrase things. I detect a lot of Unfortunate Implications in this quotation.
Those don't assonate. :B
That said, I don't think that "Gay is good" is meant to imply superiority. Just equality.
to me...if it said something like "Gay is better" or "Gay is superior"
then I'd be worried. "Gay is good" is just trying to combat the idea of
how many people think it is the opposite. So, yes, I'd say it's more
about equality.
That said, I don't think that "Gay is good" is meant to imply superiority. Just equality.
Yes, but that doesn't meant the implications aren't there.
They're there if you want them to be, I guess.
I'm not seeing it, sorry.
I've never seen anyone describe something as "good" where "good" meant "superior to all other options."
I don't see it either. I am somewhat confused.
Gelzo: A classic.