• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Morality Without The Bible and Homosexuality

firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
I deny everything that is only enjoined or condemned by religion, and for no other reason. If we, as humans, cannot see whatever "truth" you might suppose is there, then it is not a truth at all, as far as I am concerned.

God wants me to wear a special hat or headgear, or garments, or whatever? But it's different from religion to religion? Then no truth there, by definition of God. I shouldn't eat this or that sort of food? Show why not, or get over it -- we're gonna need to learn to eat a lot of things we don't think of right now, as earth's resources are being depleted.

Same thing with sex. Since nobody can possibly demonstrate the desirability of every single sexual act between two humans resulting in offspring, but it's easy to demonstrate that sexual acts are desirable, then reason alone leaves the field of possible acts wide open. Go forth and enjoy.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
Does sexual promiquity have reason to be wrong scripture assuming marriage isn't an issue?

If it doesn't harm others,not abuse, doesn't harm self, is the justification only cause God says so or is there another reason understood like murder?

If SP is only a religious law, why is it beside murder and theft?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with it brother. I personally believe that it was Sauls personal feelings. He despised homosexuality personally and put them in the midst of drunkards, thieves etc. But you see, so were Malakoi thrown into this. Malakoi means the effeminate. Men with effeminate behaviour if you know what I mean. Sincerely, I think that's an atrocious thing to do or think. Paul very clearly makes the word Arsenokoitus. Its elaborate in its own sense. Arsen means men. Koitus means coitus and you understand what I mean. It means those who commit coitus or covet with men. So he very clearly condemns them.

But the thing is the Bible should not be read so literally like that. I mean not in that level of literate sense of things.

But its your prerogative.
 
NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
InChrist said:
There is no way you had time to watch the videos or consider the points made, I don't think you are really thinking this subject through thoroughly.
Click to expand...

I have already thought it through thoroughly.

osgart said:
The battleground issues are
Click to expand...

osgart said:
environmental
Click to expand...

Agreed!

osgart said:
homosexuality
Click to expand...

Yes. It is intrinsically immoral to demonize and astracize and criminalize a group of people who really aren't hurting anyone, not even themselves, simply because they are different. Fortunately, the gay rights lobby is winning (though sometimes I think they go too far, but that's another topic).

osgart said:
charity
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I'm certain we don't stand on quite the same side, but that is another topic.

osgart said:
charity
Click to expand...

Agreed!

osgart said:
how we choose to make peace and war
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

shmogie said:
I served in law enforcement. One of my duties was to possibly lose my life in the protection of others. Do you think I did that just because the job description said I should do it ?
Click to expand...

My apologies. I understand where you are coming from.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
I don't agree with it brother. I personally believe that it was Sauls personal feelings. He despised homosexuality personally and put them in the midst of drunkards, thieves etc. But you see, so were Malakoi thrown into this. Malakoi means the effeminate. Men with effeminate behaviour if you know what I mean. Sincerely, I think that's an atrocious thing to do or think. Paul very clearly makes the word Arsenokoitus. Its elaborate in its own sense. Arsen means men. Koitus means coitus and you understand what I mean. It means those who commit coitus or covet with men. So he very clearly condemns them.

But the thing is the Bible should not be read so literally like that. I mean not in that level of literate sense of things.

But its your prerogative.
Click to expand...

It kinda gets frustrating asking questions in front a mirror. A lot people agree with me but what about those who don't. I can make inferences and most are 90% correct but this question I literally never got an answer from a Christian. Muslim or Baha'i even. It SP is wrong, what makes it wrong outside of religious morals.

I can say they are wrong all day, but where is the logic?

I tend to respect faiths when I understand the logic behind their disagreement. If not, it sounds hateful and worse than just saying, "I believe this how and why".
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
It kinda gets frustrating asking questions in front a mirror. A lot people agree with me but what about those who don't. I can make inferences and most are 90% correct but this question I literally never got an answer from a Christian. Muslim or Baha'i even. It SP is wrong, what makes it wrong outside of religious morals.

I can say they are wrong all day, but where is the logic?

I tend to respect faiths when I understand the logic behind their disagreement. If not, it sounds hateful and worse than just saying, "I believe this how and why".
Click to expand...

So you are asking me why sexual preference is wrong outside of faith? What do you mean SP?
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
leov said:
Except we have advanced consciousness
Click to expand...

And cheetah's are the fastest runners.


of creator.
Click to expand...

That's just what you believe religiously. You narcistically attach additional "special meaning" to the traits that are unique to homo sapiens. Off course every species (be it plants, animals or whatever) has unique traits. It's in fact those unique traits that makes them a seperate species.

It's just narcism and confirmation bias of a priori religious beliefs.
It has no bearing on reality.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
sealchan said:
That suggests that in order for someone to get out of a blind obedience to an unreasoned belief, they will need an unreasonable approach to doing so.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
They require just the realisation that irrational beliefs are not the way to go, if getting to accurate answers is the goal.

I'ld consider that a very reasonable approach. Applying a reasonable approach towards evaluating ideas, will exactly make sure that irrational beliefs aren't being held.



Skipping the rest of your post for now cause I'm short on time, sorry
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
I don't agree with it brother. I personally believe that it was Sauls personal feelings. He despised homosexuality personally and put them in the midst of drunkards, thieves etc. But you see, so were Malakoi thrown into this. Malakoi means the effeminate. Men with effeminate behaviour if you know what I mean. Sincerely, I think that's an atrocious thing to do or think. Paul very clearly makes the word Arsenokoitus. Its elaborate in its own sense. Arsen means men. Koitus means coitus and you understand what I mean. It means those who commit coitus or covet with men. So he very clearly condemns them.

But the thing is the Bible should not be read so literally like that. I mean not in that level of literate sense of things.

But its your prerogative.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet a great sum of cash-money, that Paul was gay himself, and disapproved. It would explain why so much of his crap is hateful. He was self-loathing and that is reflected in everything he touched.

There's plenty of reasons to think so too-- his insistence on always having at-hand, young men as ... ahem... a "companion".

It's a pity such a horrid example of hateful human had to be the primary author of Xianity.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Bob the Unbeliever said:
I'm willing to bet a great sum of cash-money, that Paul was gay himself, and disapproved. It would explain why so much of his crap is hateful. He was self-loathing and that is reflected in everything he touched.

There's plenty of reasons to think so too-- his insistence on always having at-hand, young men as ... ahem... a "companion".

It's a pity such a horrid example of hateful human had to be the primary author of Xianity.
Click to expand...

I have heard from others as well that most homophobes are secretly homosexual themselves but still in the closet and frustrated. Is it true? Does that apply to most other phobes and sometimes even those false accusers?

I know men who immediately mistrust others simply because they don't trust themselves with things like money, women etc. Theres an old saying that says "rogues think of everyone else as rogues".

Any way I'm just extrapolating I think. I haven't read a lot of research on this subject. All I know is that one research showed that some 20 or 30 percent of Giraffes were gay or had gay experiences. I cant remember the percentage exactly. And I have read the there are seals who have very long homosexual romantic relationships and they have this courtship dance. I know 10% of goats are gay.

Many people cant believe it and they get angry with you for this.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
So you are asking me why sexual preference is wrong outside of faith? What do you mean SP?
Click to expand...

No. Homosexuality isn't sexual preference. In one of my replies I shortened Sexual Promiquity to SP.

Medically, homosexuality isn't a preference, choice, illness, or anything like that. People though these things couple of generations ago though. We're laughing behind.

Is sexual promiquity (not specific to the biblical definition of homosexuality) only a religious sin or is it wrong for other reasons?

I know people say "it's not in nature, so it's not true" but that's a argumentive fallacy. Physiology is part of all animals.

So, aside from the religious view, is sexuality wrong any other way?

Does it differ depending on genitalia or is it something deeper?
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
No. Homosexuality isn't sexual preference. In one of my replies I shortened Sexual Promiquity to SP.

Medically, homosexuality isn't a preference, choice, illness, or anything like that. People though these things couple of generations ago though. We're laughing behind.

Is sexual promiquity (not specific to the biblical definition of homosexuality) only a religious sin or is it wrong for other reasons?

I know people say "it's not in nature, so it's not true" but that's a argumentive fallacy. Physiology is part of all animals.

So, aside from the religious view, is sexuality wrong any other way?

Does it differ depending on genitalia or is it something deeper?
Click to expand...

Ah. I understand brother. See I don't know any proper research conducted on this matter. So I don't know.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
firedragon said:
I don't agree with it brother. I personally believe that it was Sauls personal feelings. He despised homosexuality personally and put them in the midst of drunkards, thieves etc.
Click to expand...
Of course, there is always the possibility, as some (including Bishop John Shelby Spong) have argued, that Paul himself was a repressed homosexual, that that was his "thorn in the flesh." Certainly, in an age when men were expected to marry, especially Rabbis, Paul never did, preferring to wander the Middle East in the company of young men (like Barnabas, until some sort of spat involving Barnabas wanting to bring John Mark along...twice). That might also explain his misogyny, and his hatred of homosexuality, very much like we see today, when the fiercest anti-gays are exposed for having strong homosexual tendencies themselves.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Of course, there is always the possibility, as some (including Bishop John Shelby Spong) have argued, that Paul himself was a repressed homosexual, that that was his "thorn in the flesh." Certainly, in an age when men were expected to marry, especially Rabbis, Paul never did, preferring to wander the Middle East in the company of young men (like Barnabas, until some sort of spat involving Barnabas wanting to bring John Mark along...twice). That might also explain his misogyny, and his hatred of homosexuality, very much like we see today, when the fiercest anti-gays are exposed for having strong homosexual tendencies themselves.
Click to expand...
LOL !!!! Weren´t Jesus and Mohammed homosexuals too ? Napoleon, Lincoln, king Arthur, the behind schedule rabbit in Alice´s wonderland, Speedy Gonzalez, Dale Earnhardt, all homosexuals as well.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Of course, there is always the possibility, as some (including Bishop John Shelby Spong) have argued, that Paul himself was a repressed homosexual, that that was his "thorn in the flesh." Certainly, in an age when men were expected to marry, especially Rabbis, Paul never did, preferring to wander the Middle East in the company of young men (like Barnabas, until some sort of spat involving Barnabas wanting to bring John Mark along...twice). That might also explain his misogyny, and his hatred of homosexuality, very much like we see today, when the fiercest anti-gays are exposed for having strong homosexual tendencies themselves.
Click to expand...

Might there be the least tinge of it in the whole
"Jesus" thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top