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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Love thy Neighbor? Judge not let the be judged?
Recognise those?
Which is pretty much what I was saying.
But this does not mean its "natural" or "unnatural" or "immoral" or anything. These terms are meaningless in this context.
yep they all just purely opinion based terms
I won't bother arguing with you on this anymore (unless I really feel like it - I sometimes enjoy making you look foolish), seeing as how you blatantly can't follow logical arguments and dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't fit in with your frankly quite fucked up world view.
You're a fucking nutter mate. See a doctor. Really.
Fancy a shag?
ps you from midwest america mixin hehe
Just one (or maybe not...) last thing -
Subtle thinking isn't really your strong point is it? Show me exactly where I have contradicted myself please.
I am saying that possibly there is a genetic component which might predispose a person to homosexuality, but how this predisposition manifests itself is influenced by various social and environmental factors. How a person views their own sexuality and gender is down to the society they live in. They are social constructs that depend very much on the social context they are in.
How a person defines themself and their social relations within that society and the behaviour that then follows has a social component. This, however, does not necesarily mean that it is a "choice".
Most gay people I know, knew they were gay (or at least different) from a very young age. Some as young as 5.
But occasionally poke him with sticks and laugh at him.
Oh come on, surely you saw it was a pisstake ?
I go by more modern texts... but I still haven't found Narnia
Christianity is a faith based religion and relies on blind faith to keep it going. However, Christianity's best friend is the Devil, who's kept them in business all this time. The thing with mythology (not meant in an offensive way) is whether you're dealing with Jesus, Odysseus, Morrigan or Beowulf... you don't need to look for explaination, instead look for the meaning. Who gives a fuck if Jesus couldn't truelly turn water in to wine, the moral of the story is that he didn't discriminate even the oppressed. As for the 'rules'... well before putting your cards on the table with the conventional Biblical texts, why not take a peek at
the Nag Hammadi texts as they expand a lot on the Bible. A friend of mine has done a fair bit of reading on Gnostic texts.
But seriously... shouldn't Christians model their behaviour on an inspirational and none-judgemental pacifist, instead of a cruel judgemental 'God' or sorts? I mean doesn't the Bible say "thou shalt not judge"?
Just my opinion.
'It mentions the word homosexual or am I wrong?'
From - wordIQ
The term homosexuality was coined in 1869 by Karl Maria Kertbeny in an anonymous pamphlet advocating the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws.
Not meaning to seem like I'm picking on you here but the bible never uses a word invented in 1869 - in fact every biblical reference is only about men, other than piccolo's reference which divides sexual behaviour between men and women rather than using an embracing term like homosexual.
If you're reading a translation that includes a gender neutral term like homosexuality in <b>1 Corinthians 6:9</b> (for example) I think you need to consider how you can take literally, as the word of God, a book that is translated in so many different ways.
You might also want to consider for whose benefit certain translations were used, for God or for the Church?
So, you support the death penalty for anyone who is homosexual, right?
And if not, then surely you can see that social attitudes change.
this is a well known "urban ledgend" letter
---
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
---
my challenges are (to those who believe in the Bible),
how literally should the Bible be taken?
why is homosexuality worse than telling lies, getting drunk etc (1 Cor 6:9-10)?
is the Bible concernerd about individual "sins" or sin in general?
Pretty much look forward to the response from those who like to do literal interpretations of the good book...
Some verses quoted here are clearly non specific- the anti-homosexual 18:22 states with no conditions "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." It is completely free standing.
However, most of Leviticus is very specific to the time at place; sewing two types of crops, slavery, sacrifice of bulls, etc. Perhaps God specifically spoke to Moses to address issues that he felt were important at this time and in this specific place, to set things right. Hence in a primitive society execution is the only effective means of running things, and in brutal times brutal answers are necessary, as is slavery for mankind to live.
Then God put his son, Jesus Christ, upon the earth to re-adjust his laws and commands to a more civilised time (the rise of classical civilisation- which still contains unecessary brutality- gladitorial games, crucifixion, etc); so Jesus preaches contradictions to Leviticus and other old testament books to update Gods word. Most importantly to Leviticus; "thou shalt not kill" (which is also a commandment) and also he specifically denounces the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth bit. So most of the stuff is superceded. But he does not contradict the assertion that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. " And therefore the Bible (and God) says that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination unto the Lord, and you will be banished to hell for being a practiser of buggery.
Gay relations only offend GOD, they are a sin against God, not you. They do not in any way have any impact upon you.
Yes, you may well think that homosexuals are going to hell, fair enough, thats your view point and you are totally allowed to say that.
But, there are many things that society allows yet some religions dislike, its part of having a multi-faith, multi-cultural society.
Would you, for example enforce a rule against eating pork, or beef?
No, but I wasn't arguing against that, I was arguing against the point that you cannot take a literal interpretation of the Bible, and because the book that God decrees that homosexuality is a sin says other stuff that might seem ridiculous to us, that we cannot take it to be Gods word.
so what about question two then, why is there tollerance for some sins and not others?
being banished to hell is not a biblical teaching rather a chruch interpretation of the bible.
how do you judge that one part of the bible is literal, one part context specific and another not relivant at all - surely all of those judgements are subjective - a personal opinion
All from Religioustolerance.org
Some translations are:
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .
The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality"
as to the original text -
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some for of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.
For example: The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."
On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."
The point about homosexuality being worse than other sins is a bit of an aside, but most Christians accept that all sin is equally bad and all sin can be forgiven.
Oh, and someone mentioned that parts of the Mosaic code are taken more literally than others. That is partly because Jesus discredited some. Without trying to get into it too much, Christians believe that Jesus' coming created a new world order and certain things changed. There is no longer a need for ritual sacrifice - Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for human sin - and equally some of the old purity laws including the Kosher food laws were "cancelled out" (for want of a better phrase) by Jesus. (For example, Mark 18-20) Since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality (or at least we have no record of any teaching by him) some Christians take that to mean that Lev 18-22 and others still stand. Others take it to mean that it's a non-issue.
Hope that makes some sense.
Would you consider that racist if the same was said about people following Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism?
I'd say the idiots are the ones who make such comments about the Bible without understanding how it is structured.
Such as?