Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

what is homophobia?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
the dictionary (collins 21st century edition) defines homophobia as "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality"

my point is...

there are big differences between:

approving of homosexuality
disapproving of homosexuality
having an intense hatred of homosexuality

People out there are very quick to brand someone as homophobic simply because they have expressed unhappiness or disapproval of something they feel is wrong

I support freedom and rights when they don't have a negative (or potential negative) impact on the lives of those around them.

My personal belief is that same sex sexual relationships are not "right"

I do not have an intense hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality but if I think something is wrong I believe I should be able to express my thoughts in a sensible, polite and courteous way (ie not too many :lol: 's) without being accused of being homophobic.


so, how do you define homophobia and what do you all think?


edited becasue I missed out some words!
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The term homophobia in itself is inaccurate. People who hate gays don't fear them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    The term homophobia in itself is inaccurate. People who hate gays don't fear them.
    No, the way the word is applied is inaccurate.

    I read a definition that homophobia was first used to describe people who had a fear or dislike of homosexuality because of a deep rooted and often subconscious belief that they themselves are homosexual.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: what is homophobia?
    Originally posted by hobbs
    My personal belief is that same sex sexual relationships are not "right"

    Why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    The term homophobia in itself is inaccurate. People who hate gays don't fear them.

    People tend to hate what they fear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I support freedom and rights when they don't have a negative (or potential negative) impact on the lives of those around them.

    The only worthy freedoms are those which don't infringe on others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: what is homophobia?
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    Why?

    mainly because of the same reasons I think murder, adultery, lying (etc) are wrong - they go against the moral, spiritual, social, cultural and biological framework in which I try to live.

    however - I also believe each person is accountable for there own actions, and that in the same way that I judge and treat other people I will also be treated and judged by others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is the way 'you' live of any importance to others?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: what is homophobia?

    I do not have an intense hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality but if I think something is wrong I believe I should be able to express my thoughts in a sensible, polite and courteous way (ie not too many :lol: 's) without being accused of being homophobic.


    so, how do you define homophobia and what do you all think?


    edited becasue I missed out some words! [/B][/QUOTE]

    So you think that is OK to express the fact that you think homosexuality is wrong. I don't really think you can do that in a polite way or otherwise because it would offend a members of a group.
    I think not agreeing with homosexuality isn't homophobic,
    but saying " they go against the moral, spiritual, social, cultural and biological framework in which I try to live" is bit over the top because you could have just as easily been born gay, it's not something that a person decides, it's just the way they are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: what is homophobia?
    Originally posted by dantheman So you think that is OK to express the fact that you think homosexuality is wrong. I don't really think you can do that in a polite way or otherwise because it would offend a members of a group.

    in the same way I can disagree with someones political/philosophical/religious views. so you have a fair point but I could mouth off, be rude and offend people or I can do it in a rational way without ridiculing.
    but by expressing my views and having a proper mature debate I can develop my ideas and views because I have looked at what shapes them and if i find this to be mis-guided then I can move on.
    Originally posted by dantheman I think not agreeing with homosexuality isn't homophobic,

    which was my point
    Originally posted by dantheman but saying " they go against the moral, spiritual, social, cultural and biological framework in which I try to live" is bit over the top because you could have just as easily been born gay, it's not something that a person decides, it's just the way they are.

    I was asked why and I answered, it does sound a bit over the top, but if I took each one individually and explained why that would be even more OTT and no doubt a hundred people would lay into me and toast me for being homophobic. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: what is homophobia?
    Originally posted by hobbs
    mainly because of the same reasons I think murder, adultery, lying (etc) are wrong - they go against the moral, spiritual, social, cultural and biological framework in which I try to live.

    however - I also believe each person is accountable for there own actions, and that in the same way that I judge and treat other people I will also be treated and judged by others.

    Let's think about this.

    Going on what you have said, I would think that you presently have no time for transexuals? "F*ck 'em! They're just perverts! Why should they have a sex changes on the NHS anyway?!" Yeah? Is that sorta like you?

    Science has recently PROVED that transexuals (and we will use males for the sake of example) feel the way they do (i.e. a woman trapped in a man's body) because of an area in the brain that is smaller in size than a hetersosexual male but the same size as in a woman's brain. This is down to the levels of testosterone that was released during pregnancy and their foetal development.
    Now, as you know, embryos are initially both sexes during early development and it is the release of testosterone that determines the sex of the baby. Lots makes a boy - very little or non makes a girl.
    However, when the sexual identity of the embryo starts to form into, say, a male, the release of testosterone may slow down causing the "male" foetus not to receive enough and not fully form as a male. In the most extreme cases, this results in a hermaphrodite baby i.e. a baby with outward signs of both sexual genitalia where testosterone dried up during the move to developing a male foetus. Therefore, a transexual may not outwardly show any signs of decreased testosterone levels but it has affected the development of it's "male" brain.
    So how does that tie in with your "biological" framework? Transexuals just cannot help themselves. Will this biological knowledge now change your view on transexuals? I would think not because you probably have a deep rooted prejudice. But I may be wrong.

    But let's take this further. Just because transexuals are an extreme case, who's to say that there are no biological reasons for people being gay - perhaps some "grey" area in between the extemes that cause transexualism and hermaphroditism? We all know nature is not perfect ... malformed babies, autism, Downs Syndrome etc. There have been studies into gay development and many credible theories put forward but as yet no concrete evidence has been proved - but it doesnt mean that it will not be proved in the near future. And science is pretty certain that it will find a "gay" gene or similar one day. As with transexualism which people thought was some psychological sickness, they may well find that there is a biological reason for being gay.
    So what then? What if they DO find a biological reason for people being gay - which is very likely? How will this fit into the "moral, spiritual, social, cultural and biological framework" in which you "try to live"? It doesnt make being gay is wrong - just different.
    I think that you really need to have a close look at your "framework" and realise that while perhaps you may have been sincere in your beliefs, you may possibly also be unwittingly prejudiced and misguided? It's understandable - society doesnt like people that are different to them but a sign of an evolving civilised society is one where people accept that everyone is different. It doesnt mean that you have to hang around with them. But if you are a half-decent human being, you will defend their right to live as human beings themselves and as equal contributors to our society. Good luck!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: what is homophobia?
    Originally posted by hobbs
    mainly because of the same reasons I think murder, adultery, lying (etc) are wrong - they go against the moral, spiritual, social, cultural and biological framework in which I try to live.

    however - I also believe each person is accountable for there own actions, and that in the same way that I judge and treat other people I will also be treated and judged by others.

    Homosexuality is a natural thing that stems from the biological framework we live within. Otherwise how could it have survived 2000 years of persecution. Homosexuality is also part of the social and cultural framework we live within - have you never watched Graham Norton, Queer As Folk, Will and Grace, Sex and the City etc. etc. Homosexuality is only now classed as immoral by bigoted right-wing pseudo-christians who wish to take us back to the C19. Homosexuals enrich our culture and diversity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Transsexualism and homosexuality aren't linked.

    Both may be biological in nature, yes, but that's the only similarity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Teagan
    Now, as you know, embryos are initially both sexes during early development and it is the release of testosterone that determines the sex of the baby.

    My embryology/endocrinology training taught me that an embryo was actually female - not both sexes and then as you say, develops according to testosterone levels, however this is not the only factor in embryonic development.

    with regard to a gay gene I hear what you are saying, but are you saying that if someone has a certain gene they have a medical condition? having a gene and gene expression are two different things - but I guess you know that.
    Originally posted by Teagan
    Will this biological knowledge now change your view on transexuals? I would think not because you probably have a deep rooted prejudice. But I may be wrong.

    could you point me in the right direction for this research so I can read it.

    Have I really come across as having deep rooted prejudice? - did you not read my last post in this thread? do you think I would have started this thread and carried on responding if I didn't want to learn and gain better understanding?

    Originally posted by Teagan
    But if you are a half-decent human being, you will defend their right to live as human beings themselves and as equal contributors to our society. Good luck!


    if you read any of my other posts i hope it is clear that I do not judge people by the way they choose/have to live, I respect life and choice and defend these rights, I also embrace diversity and that's a reason why i work as a volunteer naturopathic doctor at a drug treatment centre - I believe all people have a right to be contributers to society and should be given the chance to do so.

    Simbelyne - I don't have a TV so no I haven't seen any of those programmes you mention. (BTW I'm not a bigoted right-wing pseudo-christian)-

    just becasue something happens in society doesn't necessarily mean its right or normal.

    I started this thread to make try to make sure that the views I hold are balanced perhaps they arne't and I am grateful for the imput you've all given and I will work on my views.



    if something surviving 2000 years of persicution is a sign of it being natural this make christinanity a natural thing as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    Transsexualism and homosexuality aren't linked.

    Both may be biological in nature, yes, but that's the only similarity.

    I wasn't linking them directly. This was just an example of how prejudice based on the notion that transexuals were in some way to blame for their situation out of choice (a common view) has been refuted and that the prejudice was therefore unfair and unsubstantiated. So if transexualism has a biological cause perhaps gay people do too - which calls for tolerance and understanding.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by hobbs
    My embryology/endocrinology training taught me that an embryo was actually female - not both sexes and then as you say, develops according to testosterone levels, however this is not the only factor in embryonic development.

    I would agree but as most people are not qualified doctors etc on this board, easy-speak seemed to be the way to go. But for everyones benefit and for accuracy, in the human male fetus, testes develop by the 7th week and begin to secrete two hormones: anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) induces the regression of mullerian ducts, the anlagen of the uterus, fallopian tubes and upper vagina, upon binding to a specific membrane receptor, whereas testosterone induces the differentiation of the wolffian ducts into the epididymes, vasa deferentia and seminal vesicles. In some target tissues, testosterone is converted to dihydrotestosterone, which is responsible for masculinization of the urogenital sinus and external genitalia. Both androgens act upon binding to the same nuclear receptor. In the absence of AMH and androgen action, or example in the female or in abnormal male differentiation, the internal and external genital primordia differentiate following the female pathway, even in the absence of ovaries. In males, an impaired function of the AMH-dependent pathway results in the persistent mullerian duct syndrome, a disorder characterized by the presence of uterus and fallopian tubes in otherwise normally virilized boys. Several mutations found in the AMH and AMH-receptor genes explain the pathophysiology of this syndrome.

    Originally posted by hobbs
    with regard to a gay gene I hear what you are saying, but are you saying that if someone has a certain gene they have a medical condition? having a gene and gene expression are two different things - but I guess you know that.

    Having a certain gene does not make it a medical condition as if it can be treatable but it is an integral part of the biological makeup. So just as you cannot happily express yourself as a homosexual because of your gene programming, most homosexual men cannot express themselves as heterosexuals and be happy about it either. So while a gene and gene expression are two different things, they can be inextricably linked.
    Originally posted by hobbs
    Have I really come across as having deep rooted prejudice? - did you not read my last post in this thread? do you think I would have started this thread and carried on responding if I didn't want to learn and gain better understanding?

    In all fairness with the tens of thousands of messages on this board, I don't read every one. I was responding to this post and I was asking if YOU felt you may have a deep rooted prejudice because you felt that same sex relationships are "not right". What is "right"? As a heterosexual man, is having sex outside an attempt to procreate, "right"? Is oral sex or anal sex with your female partner "right"? Is sex across colour/race not "right"? Just because things may not appeal to you doesn't mean that they are not "right".
    Originally posted by hobbs
    if you read any of my other posts i hope it is clear that I do not judge people by the way they choose/have to live, I respect life and choice and defend these rights, I also embrace diversity and that's a reason why i work as a volunteer naturopathic doctor at a drug treatment centre - I believe all people have a right to be contributers to society and should be given the chance to do so.

    Once again, I can only respond to this thread in which you have laid out your argument as it stands. I would agree that you are not homophobic but it worries me that you think that gay people who contribute in enormous ways to our life and culture are "wrong" in expressing a love which comes ingrained and natural to them (without harming anybody else) ... and most gay people would just want to lead quiet, ordinary lives and what they get up to in their bedroom is their own affair - as is yours.

    Originally posted by hobbs
    if Simbelyne - I don't have a TV so no I haven't seen any of those programmes you mention. (BTW I'm not a bigoted right-wing pseudo-christian)-

    Just to interject, I don't think you are at all. Homosexuality raises all sorts of questions - some good, some bad - but the important question is how do homosexuals fit in society. Are they a drain on resources as a society? Gay people pay the same tax but get no allowances so, on average, probably pay a higher tax percentage than straight couples. Are homosexuals more inclined to be criminals? This would have become apparent quite quickly in any prison population census so I doubt this. There are many questions one could raise accordingly but I am sure that anyone would agree that homosexuals contribute enormously to your day to day life and affect you positively - albeit indirectly.
    Originally posted by hobbs
    just becasue something happens in society doesn't necessarily mean its right or normal.

    I would agree. But according to what standards are you measuring what becomes "right or normal"? Yours? Mine? The man down the road? Perhaps some people may think what you do with your wife in the privacy of your own home is not "right" or "normal"? But you are consenting adults so you would be inclined to tell them to take a hike, I would imagine.
    Originally posted by hobbs
    if something surviving 2000 years of persicution is a sign of it being natural this make christinanity a natural thing as well.

    Christianity/religon is not genetic. I think that Simbelyne was trying to say that if homosexuality was a choice, it would have been stamped out centuries ago. I mean, who CHOOSES to be persecuted if there is an easier option?
    Originally posted by hobbs
    could you point me in the right direction for this research so I can read it.

    Of course I will. :) Can you give me some time to locate the resources again as I can't remember which journals I read about it in? I seem to remember that gay/transexual men have the medial anterior hypothalamus area of the brain (implicated in male sexual behavior) much smaller than straight men. The size of this area of the brain is influenced by hormone production in the first trimester of fetal development.
    Originally posted by hobbs
    I started this thread to make try to make sure that the views I hold are balanced perhaps they arne't and I am grateful for the imput you've all given and I will work on my views.

    And you have tried to do so in a calm and applaudable manner. It's a very emotive subject. Some people on this board (who shall remain nameless) lay into gay people just because the ignorance of their environment has led them to be intolerant and hateful without ever really giving much thought to the implications of their words and actions on what are, after all, an easy target although they are kind, gentle, intelligent human beings like most of the rest of society. And I hope my reply has been the same. Anyway, anyone who has Hobbs as his avatar can't be all bad! :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :thumb:

    sorry I don't expect you to read every post - that would be just plain daft.

    As you say homosexuality raises all sorts of questions many of which I am trying to find answers to - so thanks for your help.

    [quote/]but I am sure that anyone would agree that homosexuals contribute enormously to your day to day life and affect you positively - albeit indirectly.
    [/quote]

    :yes: (and in my case directly as well) and benefit our lives in a very positive way

    but trying to sort out years of emotions, thoughts, teaching, misunderstanding etc can be a tricky thing... but there is light at the end of the tunnel for me

    I remeber now learning in philosophy that by saying something is right means that other things must be wrong - so therefore the terms right and wrong are subjective, based on many circumstances and perhaps not as absolute as we initially think - I should remeber these things when I post! (thanks for reminding me)

    cheers
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: what is homophobia?
    Originally posted by hobbs
    mainly because of the same reasons I think murder, adultery, lying (etc) are wrong - they go against the moral, spiritual, social, cultural and biological framework in which I try to live.

    How can you compare 2 people loving each other to murder, adultery and lying? What bizarre moral framework can do that? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    How can you compare 2 people loving each other to murder, adultery and lying? What bizarre moral framework can do that? :confused:

    if you've read above then hopefully it is clear that I am moving on from this, as I realise the flaws in my thinking,

    but the logic behind it is thus...

    the bible teaches that sex should be between male and female and inside a secure and lasting relationship called marriage. it teaches that sex with animals is wrong, sex with siblings is wrong, sexual promescuity is wrong (think about this: biblical sexual behaviour = no transmission of STDs) sex with parents is wrong, so far so good, but then it says sex between two men/two women is wrong and that is where the problems start.

    If something is wrong then in theological terms it is sin. Murder is also sin as is lying, gossip, slander, being malicious etc. All sin is wrong and therefore an impropper sexual relationships (a sin) are no different from from any other sin in the eyes of God.

    the problem is that "christians" ignore many "sins" but fixate on homosexuality and it take an inappropriate importance in their lives, when if they looked at the rest of their lives with the same intensity they would see many holes and flaws in their actions.

    the bible also teaches that you should respect and love your neighbour and not judge.

    I would say that mostly my moral framework is not that bizzare, but based on sound teachings (not just from the Bible) that I have grown up with, it just has some holes in that I am fixing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    People who hate gays don't fear them.

    The definition doesn't say that though, it uses the word or...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by hobbs
    the problem is that "christians" ignore many "sins" but fixate on homosexuality and it take an inappropriate importance in their lives, when if they looked at the rest of their lives with the same intensity they would see many holes and flaws in their actions.

    There is an awful lot of opinion that one could cover in what you have said but generaIly, I think that what you have hit upon is a widespread problem in day-to-day Christian thinking.

    The excitement of having a relationship with God can mislead people into being a little too boisterous about what constitutes as sin when, in fact, all He probably wants from His followers is humility, pureness of thought and spirit, devotion and love to Him and fellow mankind. The judgment of others should be left to Him ... "Judge not lest thee be judged".

    Personally, I believe that if one sins against other people (e.g. lie, cheat, murder etc) that this is a far worse sin than sinning against oneself (e.g. masturbation, consenting gay relationships etc) for the obvious reason that the innocent are not affected. I like to think that God may have the same opinion too. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Bible says you shouldn't eat shellfish. Have you ever eaten mussels?

    It also states that a parent must stone disobidient sons. If you have children, would you do this?

    Keeping the above example in mind, it's entirely plausible for a Christian to pick and choose from the Bible.

    I doubt there is any Christian who fully adheres to every moral guideline in the Bible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by hobbs
    if you've read above then hopefully it is clear that I am moving on from this, as I realise the flaws in my thinking,

    but the logic behind it is thus...

    the bible

    Ahhhhh...the Bible. A mish-mash of fact, fiction, allegory and metaphor written over 2000 years ago. What a sound basis for a moral framework. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    The Bible says you shouldn't eat shellfish. Have you ever eaten mussels?

    It also states that a parent must stone disobidient sons. If you have children, would you do this?

    Keeping the above example in mind, it's entirely plausible for a Christian to pick and choose from the Bible.

    I doubt there is any Christian who fully adheres to every moral guideline in the Bible.

    Yeah, but to be fair to Christians, that is all Old Testament where what you eat no longer applies in the New Testament and neither is that form of punishment applicable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    mono - happy birthday :D

    I am not turning this into a bible debating/bashing thread

    the Bible, and many other holy scriptures make a sound basis for morals when read in context

    even if you take god, prophecy, stories, vision out of it it still has many sound teachings covering respect, health, hygiene, "proper" conduct and as Teagan rightly says god wants humility, pureness of thought and spirit, devotion and love to Him and fellow mankind and that we should leave judgement to god.

    if christians did this (and others too minus the god bit) then the world would be a much better place

    mono: the Bible says children should be disciplined if they are disobediant - is this a bad thing? (start a new thread if you want) showing us what verse of the BIble says son should be stoned etc.
    regarding shell fish Mr Roll answered this a few weeks ago, go and do a search.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    Ahhhhh...the Bible. A mish-mash of fact, fiction, allegory and metaphor written over 2000 years ago. What a sound basis for a moral framework. :rolleyes:

    If this is an informed opinion due to many years of research on the subject, then the point is taken.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course disciplining children is not a bad thing. But most Christians I'd imagine would refrain from stoning them. As for shelfish, it states in the Bible that any animal in the sea without fins and scales is 'despicable'. Logically this includes fish but not prawns, mussels, oysters, etc.

    It also states it's wrong to eat pork in the Bible, yet few Christians would cease to eat pork products.

    My point is that it's futile to base one's ethics on the Bible if you pick and choose which moral judgements to adhere to.
    Yeah, but to be fair to Christians, that is all Old Testament where what you eat no longer applies in the New Testament and neither is that form of punishment applicable.

    All of the Bible is relevant to Christian belief.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    All of the Bible is relevant to Christian belief.

    No. It seems you may unfortunately seem to show a lack of understanding of the whole Old/New Testament thing but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

    What, in your opinion, is the reason why God sent Christ to earth in relation to the failure of the Old Covenant and the need, therefore, to introduce the New Covenant? If you can get the answer right, I'll happily engage in what will obviously be informed debate. If you get it wrong, I know that what you say is "pub time" debate (i.e. things you have heard but nothing you have ever taken time to investigate yourself) and, really, the whole subject is too huge to go into if someone doesn't really have a care to get the theology straight in the first place.
    p.s. I'm not a Christian by the way - but I am aware of the theology.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hmm

    this started out as a reasonably debate, and instead of discussing viewpoints, and what they mean, people have gone either for or against homosexuality

    i believe many gay people feel like they are born it, and cannot help but be themselves, but in principle to me it feels like it isnt right, but its not wrong because i have nothing against people doing what they want to do in private

    to all the people arguing over the bible here, all the things about not being able to eat pork, punishing your children is okay, and shellfish etc THESE ARE OLD TESTAMONT, okay the new testament is based upon this, but jesus discounts lots of these things, thats the fundamental difference between christians and jews, but the jewish holy book is what the old testamont is based upon(i think) okay now dont rip me on this because i dont study religion, nor am i religious, but i do think the basic message behind religious text is the important part and religious fanatics forget this

    now peace and respect *not to sound like a hippy :P*
    modern christianity is not based upon rules to every detail of life, it is about love and respect for fellow humans which is what jesus taught, thats the guiding line, so please can people stop bible bashing here, if you believe it fine, but it is a text which not everyone believes in so dont use it as fact

    like people have the right to practice consensual sex with whom ever they like (as long as it aint cheating!) people have the right to believe what they like, like the classic line "is it open minded to not accept the views of the closed minded"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: hmm

    i was going to post about old and new Covenants, peter's vision but decided not to...
    Originally posted by LonDoNErcHriS85
    but jesus discounts lots of these things
    nearly but not quite... i understand it as Jesus came to replace and fulfill the law it (the law) the law (old covenant) failed to acheive what it was meant to - ie bringing people to God

    The Bible has many facts and truths in it (some would argue its all truth and fact) that are supported by archeological and historical recordings - one example the works of Josephus (Jewish Historian)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: hmm
    Originally posted by LonDoNErcHriS85


    now peace and respect *not to sound like a hippy :P*
    modern christianity is not based upon rules to every detail of life, it is about love and respect for fellow humans which is what jesus taught, thats the guiding line, so please can people stop bible bashing here, if you believe it fine, but it is a text which not everyone believes in so dont use it as fact

    like people have the right to practice consensual sex with whom ever they like (as long as it aint cheating!) people have the right to believe what they like, like the classic line "is it open minded to not accept the views of the closed minded"

    That's simply not true.

    The Old Testament is just as fundamental to Christian belief as the Gospels or the New Testament in general.

    For example, Christians who are creationist base their views on the story in Genesis. Christians' views on homosexuality are based on the passage from Leviticus.
Sign In or Register to comment.