Homosexuality and Religion (Jesus Christ, agnostic, LDS, bible, God)

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by rheff78

Look, sex IS used for other puproses but that doesn't mean it wasn't jsut designed for procreation. Look, a wrench is designed to be a tool, I can use it as a weapon but it was DESIGNED for another purpose. Just because you use it for something else, doesn't make it right.

and i don't believe sex outside of a procreative, heterosexual marriage is wrong. i believe condemning the expressions of love between people to be wrong.

[rheff78]

So you jsut bypass what I said. And besides, if you love the person, why not marry them?

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by rheff78

So you jsut bypass what I said. And besides, if you love the person, why not marry them?

then allow gays marriage rights... but even then, why should i wait till i'm married?

andto keep with your analogy, i don't see anything wrong with using a wrench as a weapon... whether it was designed to be used as such or not.

[rheff78]

Originally Posted by Mike182

then allow gays marriage rights... but even then, why should i wait till i'm married?

andto keep with your analogy, i don't see anything wrong with using a wrench as a weapon... whether it was designed to be used as such or not.

Then my point still stands, it wa designed to use as a tool, even if you use it as a weapon, you're using it incorrectly, regardless of how you see it.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by nawab

Oh I am sorry, I forgot the Christians do not beleive in the whole bible they only beleive in John 3:16 (This is the teaching of the church, not the bible. when the Christian missionaries meet us on the streets, he wont talk abnout hygeine, ethics and morality he will only talk about John 3:16, the only thing he will tell us is that you dont have salvation)

The bible clearly states that: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil Mathew 5:17 (Jesus came to fulfil not destroy the old law, the claim made by the Chrsitians is that Jesus abolished the old Law for the Christians, this is not true)

So the law is fulfilled; it's complete. And the Epistles have a fair bit to say on the subject of the Law. For example, have a look at Romans 7:4-6:

4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Originally Posted by nawab

in the following verse: Mathew 5:20 except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisies you shall by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (How can Christians be better than the Jews by not keeping the commandments)

Mathew 5:19 - Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Anyperson who breaks the least command shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven).

If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" Matthew 19:17. said by Jesus.

You left out the first part of that verse: "'Why do you ask me about what is good?' Jesus replied. 'There is only One who is good.'" In the theology of most Christian denominations, nobody but Jesus Christ is worthy of Heaven: nobody but Him has any right to be there, but He gives it as an undeserved gift. You say that homosexuality makes some people unworthy of Heaven? Apparently, everybody is already unworthy of Heaven.

Also, read on in the chapter to verse 29:

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

I'm not familiar with any translation that adds "...unless they engage in homosexuality" to the end of that verse.

Originally Posted by nawab

but now these Christians have a nice way out they yes Jesus kept the commandments and ordained it but Paul saw a vision of Jesus in his Dream and Jesus told him the commandments are abolished
We should follow the Master Jesus not Paul, Some scholars claim that he only saw Christ once or twice. If Jesus wanted to ammend the commandments he should have came in all our dreams so that there wont be a conflict, again i say Follow Christianity not Paulinity. dont underestimate a very least commandment.

I've got problems with some of the Epistles, too, but I recognize that the teachings of Paul (or authors purporting to be Paul, but that's a whole other issue) are very important to many Christians. If you're asking Christians to disregard a large part of the Bible to accept your point of view, then you're not really basing your argument on the Christian religion.

Originally Posted by nawab

For lack of a shoe, a soldier was lost. For lack of a soldier, a battle was lost. For lack of a battle the war was lost.

Not sure where you're going with this, but for some reason, it puts me in mind of 1 Corinthians 13.

Originally Posted by nawab

David and Jonathon praticed Homosexuality, so did Samson had sex with a prostitute, and Judah with his daughter-in-law so is this acceptable as well. because neither did Samson or Judah repented. so if Homosexuality if permitted in the bible it should be also natural that Incest is also permitted. because there is 1 case of Homosexuality but 10 cases of incest..

Exactly we beleive that all the Prophets they had the knowledge of all the doctors, health inspectors, dietians, all worldly knowledge they would have. Our Almighty God he is the best doctor than all the doctors which have been, are , will be. so, No matter it is Adam, Eve, Moses or Jesus it doesnt make a difference, they have not permitted Homosexuality.

"Everything is permissible" - 1 Corinthians 10:23.

Originally Posted by nawab

In Islam, i dont know about other religions, having sex with our own wife is also one of the pleasures but only forbidden during the mensuratiuon period, other than that there is no maximum age for Sex. with your own wife it is encouraged, it is sinful with other womens who are not married to you.

So... what you're saying is that even after a woman has gone through menopause and is incapable of having children, it's still not sinful for her to have sex with her husband. Therefore, it's not always necessary for sex to have the potential for children.

And since it's not always necessary for sex to have the potential for children, the mere fact that homosexual sex is non-procreative is not by itself a proper justification for condemning it.

Originally Posted by nawab

I dont think you understood where did eating came in.

My point is just that lots of things we do cannot result in children. Most are not considered sinful just because of this. You claimed that homosexual acts are sinful because they won't create children; well, eating my dinner won't create children either, but I have yet to be told by anyone that eating dinner is a sinful act.

Originally Posted by nawab

Just answer a simple question can a guy and a guy beget a son. yes or no.

They can beget a son just as much as an elderly husband and wife can beget one.

Originally Posted by nawab

see you dont understand, when we meant marrying a girl it is commanding the Faithful men, how does it promotes lesbianism.

You said that marrying a woman brings a person closer to God. Therefore, if a woman marries a woman, that woman is closer to God.

Are women not permitted to become closer to God?

Originally Posted by nawab

So, giving the examples my ex-girls dogs, you behave like dogs than, what can i say. No wonder mankind is getting sicker because they are following the habits of dogs. keep up the good work

We have lots of similarities with dogs; we're both mammals, both social animals, etc., etc. Just because dogs do something doesn't mean its "sick".

But back up a moment: I never tried to justify homosexuality on the basis that if dogs do it, we should do it to. You implied that humans shouldn't engage in homosexuality because not even animals do. All I'm saying is that your original claim was factually incorrect (not to mention fallacious).

[Promulgatious]

Duetoronomy and a conscience should be all that is needed for this.

[Romulus]

Allow me to begin by saying that I applaud the mod for reminding us all that this is not a debate forum. That being said, I'm going to put an opinion in--please let me know if this crosses the line.

I think the reason so many people (religious or otherwise) are against homosexuality is because they aren't gay. A lot of us have some form of homophobia that we have to overcome when we're initially faced with a person our responses tell us to compete with that is attracted to our gender. That does not mean that that excuses homophobia or that most people do not quickly get over it, but I don't think it's that strange to be suspicious of something different--that's part of human nature.

You can argue for and against homosexual acts and homosexuality itself as much as you want, but the fact remains that in Christianity (because this thread was started as a question about Christianity), there are many opinions—even among gay Christians, as I learned from the link I (kind of) posted earlier. You cannot pin down an entire religious group with one view, as easy as it is to this, intentionally or not.

Basically, I'm not debating things like lifestyle, choices, or sex, but my point is about the orientation itself. Whether you belief it's a blessing, a curse, a challenge, or neutral, homosexual orientation is (in many cases, at least) something that cannot be healthily changed. Most people who are gay have tried to be straight at some point in their lives—who would honestly choose to do something considered morally reprehensible and wrong by so many people—who would choose to be alienated in that way, to face the possibility of rejection by people close to them? Most of the time, they can't become attracted to the opposite sex any more than any of us can become attracted to the same sex (assuming that most of the posters are heterosexual and ignoring small tendencies, phases, etc that most people go through).

Anyway, that's my opinion, as biased as anyone else's by religion, gender, and orientation.

*awaits being ripped apart...*

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Promulgatious

Duetoronomy and a conscience should be all that is needed for this.

At least in my case, those two things are incompatible.

[Somkid]

It's ok with Buddhism, some Buddhists are kind of weird about it but nothing in the teachings are against it and it is not considered unnatural, however we do not believe in god.