Why take such a stand against homosexuality?

Justin.Parton · Mar 25, 2009

i didnt read the whole thread, that would be time consuming, but this:

Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

i want to see as many people go to heaven as possible. truth is truth. thats why i take a stand against

LightHorseman · Mar 25, 2009

Justin.Parton said:
i didnt read the whole thread, that would be time consuming, but this:

Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

i want to see as many people go to heaven as possible. truth is truth. thats why i take a stand against

Of course, you are assuming that "homosexual" in that context is an accurate translation from the Greek. Many contend it is not.

LightHorseman · Mar 25, 2009

dogar said:
Wow! You leave a post for a few days and it explodes! I thought it was time to jump back into the conversation, if only to say a tremendous : Thank you.

This discussion has given me a lot to think about and to: unclehermit, WiccanChild, b&wpac4 and especially LightHorseman I applaud you.

A note to Psalm1:3 Im sorry But you are losing a losing battle.

Thank you all once again for this in-depth and interesting debate.

Aw shucks, I'm all blushing and stuff!

Shane Roach · Mar 25, 2009

LightHorseman said:
Of course, you are assuming that "homosexual" in that context is an accurate translation from the Greek. Many contend it is not.

The first part is rather universally known as "man". The second part is a little difficult, but with its various connotations as sperm, and in the sexual context it is obviously situated, and with it being derived from "recline" or "couch", the legitimate alternatives begin to get vanishingly small.

Then there are the verses that just say, "burn in their flesh for each other" or "men, don't lie with men like you do with women," which are difficult to mis-translate.

Gosh this gets monotonous.

Oh yes, I was supposed to be relaxing....

lawtonfogle · Mar 25, 2009

Shane Roach said:
The first part is rather universally known as "man". The second part is a little difficult, but with its various connotations as sperm, and in the sexual context it is obviously situated, and with it being derived from "recline" or "couch", the legitimate alternatives begin to get vanishingly small.

Then there are the verses that just say, "burn in their flesh for each other" or "men, don't lie with men like you do with women," which are difficult to mis-translate.

Gosh this gets monotonous.

Oh yes, I was supposed to be relaxing....

For relaxation, may I suggest some triple integrals over 4D space? No, serious, I do stuff like this because it is mentally relaxing... maybe it is time I went to go see a shrink.

LightHorseman · Mar 25, 2009

Shane Roach said:
The first part is rather universally known as "man". The second part is a little difficult, but with its various connotations as sperm, and in the sexual context it is obviously situated, and with it being derived from "recline" or "couch", the legitimate alternatives begin to get vanishingly small.

Then there are the verses that just say, "burn in their flesh for each other" or "men, don't lie with men like you do with women," which are difficult to mis-translate.

Gosh this gets monotonous.

Oh yes, I was supposed to be relaxing....

Actually, if you approach the scholarly material with an open mind, there are a great deal of potential and seemingly valid ways to interpret those passages. It is interesting that the "correct" one just happens to be the one you agree with, nes pas?

LightHorseman · Mar 25, 2009

lawtonfogle said:
For relaxation, may I suggest some triple integrals over 4D space? No, serious, I do stuff like this because it is mentally relaxing... maybe it is time I went to go see a shrink.

I know the feeling

Shane Roach · Mar 25, 2009

b&wpac4 said:
We certainly will see.

"To what God shall a Gentile pray for a Jew?"

"To the same God who created them both."

Is that right? I think that's how it went... dang I can't remember the movie name, that's pathetic. With Liam Neeson's character saving Jewish prisoners from Nazi's?

Black and white?

Shane Roach · Mar 25, 2009

LightHorseman said:
Actually, if you approach the scholarly material with an open mind, there are a great deal of potential and seemingly valid ways to interpret those passages. It is interesting that the "correct" one just happens to be the one you agree with, nes pas?

There are always interesting and fun ways to understand words. There are also dreary, fundamental facts about context, history, inescapable reality.

If you wanted to present those arguments here you could, but the people who do rarely get far because despite the general consensus that Christians are ignorant doddies, there are a lot of people here who look into those things pretty thoroughly.

Really, this "you're being pretty presumptuous aren't you," back and forth is meaningless. I could turn the same argument right back at you with no editing and have as much relevance to the actual issue.

LightHorseman · Mar 25, 2009

Shane Roach said:
"To what God shall a Gentile pray for a Jew?"

"To the same God who created them both."

Is that right? I think that's how it went... dang I can't remember the movie name, that's pathetic. With Liam Neeson's character saving Jewish prisoners from Nazi's?

Black and white?

Schindler's List

Shane Roach · Mar 25, 2009

lawtonfogle said:
For relaxation, may I suggest some triple integrals over 4D space? No, serious, I do stuff like this because it is mentally relaxing... maybe it is time I went to go see a shrink.

You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity!

(1000 blessings to the first person to NAME THAT MOVIE!)

Shane Roach · Mar 25, 2009

LightHorseman said:
Schindler's List

WHEW!

T'anks. That was shaping up to be one of those all nighter naggers.

LightHorseman · Mar 25, 2009

Shane Roach said:
You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity!

(1000 blessings to the first person to NAME THAT MOVIE!)

Toy Story wasn't it? The first one I think?

LightHorseman · Mar 25, 2009

Shane Roach said:
WHEW!

T'anks. That was shaping up to be one of those all nighter naggers.

Yep, things like that keep me awake nights. Happy to help.

eMesreveR · Mar 26, 2009

Of course, there's always the idea that it doesn't really matter what the Bible says about homosexuality, as people inherently pick and choose from the Bible which parts they want to follow and which parts are, all of a sudden, archaic.

From Deuteronomy:
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die...

I don't expect anyone to do this. I don't expect anyone to condone this. But it's there, in the Bible.

Morality doesn't come from the Bible. It comes from society, and then you look in the Bible to find which parts match. In other words, it's part of our society to hate gays, and now people are using the Bible to justify it. Just as the Bible was used to justify the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials.

There are legitimate uses of the Bible. This is not one of them.

Shane Roach · Mar 26, 2009

eMesreveR said:
Of course, there's always the idea that it doesn't really matter what the Bible says about homosexuality, as people inherently pick and choose from the Bible which parts they want to follow and which parts are, all of a sudden, archaic.

From Deuteronomy:
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die...

I don't expect anyone to do this. I don't expect anyone to condone this. But it's there, in the Bible.

Morality doesn't come from the Bible. It comes from society, and then you look in the Bible to find which parts match. In other words, it's part of our society to hate gays, and now people are using the Bible to justify it. Just as the Bible was used to justify the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials.

There are legitimate uses of the Bible. This is not one of them.

Christians for a long time lived as a minority in much stronger nations. How would they have instituted any such laws? By the time Christianity was in full bloom and Rome had adopted it, the difference between the Jewish church and the Gentile church was all but gone. The Jewish church, which would have preserved laws of this nature, simply did not survive.

The reason things such as divorce, homosexuality, and so forth remain as points of contention is that the Bible very specifically lays out that even though Gentiles did not need the Jewish law, they did need to do a few things in addition to believe in Christ and obey the law in order to remain in good standing with the church. It's a short list.

1. Avoid fornication.
2. Don't participate in idolatry (usually expressed as not to eat things sacrificed to idols).
3. Don't drink blood.

Homosexuality falls under point number 1.

In any polite company, I would expect you to apologize for making such a brutal accusation without knowing anything about the topic on which you're presuming to instruct wayward Christians. Tell me, is this how you introduce yourself into conversations at parties, or when you meet someone new at a friend's house?

Everyone else in the world that disagrees with you is not a dribbling idiot.

Diane_Windsor · Mar 26, 2009

dogar said:
So my question is this: Why take such a stand against homosexuality?

Simple. If nature "wanted", (not the best terminology I know, but I was a history major) two men (or two women) to be able to reproduce and perpertuate the human species then we would have evolved different sex organs, etc. in order for two men (or two women) to reproduce on their own*. The fact is that two sperm cannot naturually meet up an produce another human. John and David cannot reproduce a Junior. The fact is that two eggs cannot meet up and naturally produce another human. Yes, I am aware that some scientists are trying to get sperm together and get them to reproduce on their own, etc. That raises serious ethical concerns. Why not take a stand to perpetuate our species instead of encouraging behaviors that directly challenge the very existence to our species?

*I'm sure a trained biologist can explain this much better than this history gal can, and for those interested I reccommend going to a bookstore and picking up books written by well-known evolutionists.

Notice that I did not mention God or cite any religious texts. This argument is completely secular and does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Andreusz · Mar 26, 2009

Diane_Windsor said:
Simple. If nature "wanted", (not the best terminology I know, but I was a history major) two men (or two women) to be able to reproduce and perpertuate the human species then we would have evolved different sex organs, etc. in order for two men (or two women) to reproduce on their own*.

Sex is not just about reproduction. In fact, I suspect that for the particpants, it is hardly ever about reproduction.

Diane_Windsor said:
Why not take a stand to perpetuate our species instead of encouraging behaviors that directly challenge the very existence to our species?

Are you seriously saying that legalization of gay marriage will endanger the human species by encouraging its members not to reproduce? Look, homosexuals are a very small minority (estimates range from 5% to 10%), and the human species is curently suffering from the effects of overpopulation.
And by the way, homosexuality is legal in most Western countries.

LightHorseman · Mar 26, 2009

Diane_Windsor said:
Simple. If nature "wanted", (not the best terminology I know, but I was a history major) two men (or two women) to be able to reproduce and perpertuate the human species then we would have evolved different sex organs, etc. in order for two men (or two women) to reproduce on their own*. The fact is that two sperm cannot naturually meet up an produce another human. John and David cannot reproduce a Junior. The fact is that two eggs cannot meet up and naturally produce another human. Yes, I am aware that some scientists are trying to get sperm together and get them to reproduce on their own, etc. That raises serious ethical concerns. Why not take a stand to perpetuate our species instead of encouraging behaviors that directly challenge the very existence to our species?

*I'm sure a trained biologist can explain this much better than this history gal can, and for those interested I reccommend going to a bookstore and picking up books written by well-known evolutionists.

Notice that I did not mention God or cite any religious texts. This argument is completely secular and does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Trained biologists disagree with you. If nature "wanted" anything, apparently it "wants" approximately 5-10% of people to be homosexual. Also notabley, 5-10% of a species being homosexual does not threaten the survival of a species.

Psudopod · Mar 26, 2009

Note as well that nature "wants" it in more species than just humans.

Why take such a stand against homosexuality?

Minister Justin Parton

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Light Fantastic

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Godspeed, Spacebat

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency