Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
How? He's dead. Just saying associating gay people to the bible is not appropriate. Christians do it a lot but it gets annoying when LGBTQ allies do it.
-
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!
Catholic church cannot bless same-sex unions
- Thread starter Altfish
- Start date
How? He's dead. Just saying associating gay people to the bible is not appropriate. Christians do it a lot but it gets annoying when LGBTQ allies do it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I didn't connect it to gays in particular. I connected it to everyone, including them, in particular.
That doesn't matter. Having sex with the same sex, gay, bi, curious and experimenting, does not matter. They are all to be put to death.
Could it be that's what the OP is about? And it's what they rant about. It's not like their showing this kind of hatred towards those who are divorced and remarried (that's a sin too, according to the Bible).
Gay men have lustful thoughts and sexual intercourse with other men. It's appropriate because the Bible specifically states they are to be executed. Bisexual men are to be executed. Bicurious men are to be executed.
And I think it's annoying people try to downplay and dismiss the hatred of the Bible, and defend it as if it's not a book that demands most of us be put to death and thrown in a fiery furnace. A book that does call certain groups "abominations," and says their love is detestable before god. It's a book that is pro-slavery, anti-women, anti-reason, anti-logic, and pro-suffering, pro-death, pro-hating and condemning everyone who doesn't fall in line. It annoys me people defend this, because if the Bible were first published today it would be extremely controversial; the product of a sick, twisted, demented, deranged, and sexually deviant mind; parents would want their children to have nothing to do with it; and we'd question the moral compass of anyone who could even fathom calling it holy.
And good thing I'm not an ally then. It shouldn't be annoying then that I do this.
I bet there are many Catholic priests and nuns in same-sex relations too.
Interesting if the vow of celibacy only mentions opposite-sex marriages ...
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The Gospels 'fail to criticize' :
slavery
war
empire
sex industry
drugs
homosexuality
environment degradation
global warming
immigration policies
Greeks, Romans, Parthians, Egyptians, Moabites, Edomites etc..
The Gospels are not about making a better world but making a
better person - not so much better for this world but for the Kingdom
of Heaven.
Christians don't live by the Jewish culture or custom, reflected in the
Old Testament. There's a commandment about eating shell fish for
instance - Jesus said what goes into a person's mouth does not
effect them, it's what comes out of that mouth.
What the 'bible' thinks of good living is different to what modern
people think. Absolutely. Jesus said 'every generation is right in its
own eyes.' But my profile below shows the Gallop Poll stats on what
is becoming of our ideas about morality - and it's toxic reading.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Their decree was advised.
A human father holy. A human mother holy. Sex human continues holy life.
Without that union no life continues.
Babies born might be mentally emotionally bodily changed by man's first sin. Occult science UFO effect. Too much same dispersed radiation in atmosphere as mass.
Why it was not identified.
Extra radiation is just extra radiation.
They are not wrong by decree in nature.
Yet sexual change was medically notified in biblical text as the sin cause of man the scientist.
Who disobeyed natural universal laws binding.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
It's not just that he failed to criticize it, he often did mention it. But he spoke of it as though it is a normal, natural rightful thing of society, He criticized Pharisees for how they do this and that, he lamented Sadducees for how they do things, he talked about good fruits and bad fruits, he said it's basically impossible for a rich man to get into the kingdom, but when it came to slavery not a peep.
I really don't see how the Bible can make anyone better. If someone has to be taught not to kill, steal, rape, start fights, or lie they probably have some mental issues going on. We are social animals, we have empathy, we are naturally born to be pro-social.
But no sex outside of marriage? Women have to be submissive to their husband? Thinking how I want to be treated is how I should treat others is great moral advice? I find nothing in the Bible that will make someone a "better person." Not unless you think being a "better person" is getting your "righteous dad" (who just recently offered you up to be gang raped) drunk so you can rape him and get pregnant.
Jesus also said he did not come away to change, lessen, or do away with the Laws and Prophets.
And of course what we put in our mouths does effect us. This is divine stupidity to say otherwise. Eat healthy and generally your mind and body function better. Eat poorly and the mind and body can suffer. This can include priming us for "impure thoughts" and behaviors.
There is much that Bible considers "good living" that we today know is horrible. Like "spare not the rod." Today we know using the rod is abusive, we know it just does not going to work well for achieving desired effects, and it's very good at teaching kids to be afraid of the consequences and getting caught rather than teaching them right from wrong. We know today it's wrong to kill a woman because she's not a virgin on her wedding night, and it's know it's very wrong to assume she must bleed if she's a virgin and if she doesn't it's irrefutable proof she's not a virgin. We know how completely wrong that is today. Forcing a woman to have a miscarriage is illegal today.
And we've been over your signature before. All it means is Christianity is withering and dying, and good riddance. We really don't need them around to prevent a child in need of a home from getting that home and a loving, supportive, stable family life. They've done more than enough damage already with their arrogance that allows them to harm a child because they can't get over themselves and do what is best for the child.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I was looking up comments to give you an example of my point but not to debate.
My point is countries did not criminalized homosexuality, they criminalized people who had same-sex sex and other lustful deviated behavior of any sexual orientation. In the 20th century (early) we really didn't know much about sexual orientation (therefore homosexuality). In the US people got killed or fined (the sodomy laws) because of their behavior not their sexual orientation.
So, instead of saying the majority of muslim countries continue to criminalize homosexuality, it's more appropriate to say any person who had same-sex sex (or maybe sexual promiscuity) or another like word that doesn't accentuate a person's connection (via sexual orientation) to sinful behavior.
Christians do this all the time: the word homosexuality is written in the bible=same-sex sex is a sin=homosexuals are sinners because they have same sex sex.
Homosexuality is a sin in the bible (according to their definition) but now that we know of it today, it literally is not. What I'm saying is why don't we correct christians on this than use their language to confound the error?
I used your quotes to make a point but I see this a lot. I'm used to christians doing it but every so often I see an ally do it. Bothers me a bit, but, well...
My point is countries did not criminalized homosexuality, they criminalized people who had same-sex sex and other lustful deviated behavior of any sexual orientation. In the 20th century (early) we really didn't know much about sexual orientation (therefore homosexuality). In the US people got killed or fined (the sodomy laws) because of their behavior not their sexual orientation.
So, instead of saying the majority of muslim countries continue to criminalize homosexuality, it's more appropriate to say any person who had same-sex sex (or maybe sexual promiscuity) or another like word that doesn't accentuate a person's connection (via sexual orientation) to sinful behavior.
Christians do this all the time: the word homosexuality is written in the bible=same-sex sex is a sin=homosexuals are sinners because they have same sex sex.
Homosexuality is a sin in the bible (according to their definition) but now that we know of it today, it literally is not. What I'm saying is why don't we correct christians on this than use their language to confound the error?
I used your quotes to make a point but I see this a lot. I'm used to christians doing it but every so often I see an ally do it. Bothers me a bit, but, well...
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Just one point here - in the OT there were the
1 - commandments - morals
2 - judgments - tax, inheritances etc..
3 - ordinances - priestly rites etc
In the NT there is only the Commandments, and they are more onerous, ie
'Do not commit adultery. If a man looks on a woman in lust he is already
committing adultery in his heart.'
We have dispensed with these commandments. Now woman march in the
streets against 'sexism' and 'rape culture' and in Australia (which would
break your heart) there are 'remedial courses' for SIX AND SEVEN YEAR
OLD BOYS to learn that girls are not 'sex objects.'
Now, the NT is the spiritualization of the OT. We don't live under OT laws
of Moses. But here's the problem - instead of paying at least lip service to
that 'lust' issue above, we have totally politicized it, and everything else.
We are going back to the OT and living under a huge burden of laws and
lawyers once again.
I'm assuming in the following answers that all questions of being of age, of being fully informed, of being of equal bargaining power, of freely consenting, are answered affirmatively.
There you say
2001-2020 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:
Gay lesbian 40 to 72%.[/quote] What business is that of other people? Isn't it your view that sexual orientation is God-given?
Why is "marriage" as such important?
I number among my close friends two long-term couples who've never married, and who have children. What concern is that to you?
What on earth is your objection to casual sex here? What is it that concerns you?
What do you propose instead? Spouse murder? Smiling and saying, It's God's will, when subjected to domestic violence? When the bond is no longer there, do you think the couple ought to be punished by compulsory proximity?
Never understood polygamy myself. It's also illegal where I am. But it appears to suit some people, so as long as they're free to leave / divorce, I can't see any practical objections.
I can only assume you mean doctor-assisted suicide. Much suicide is the result of bad mental health, so I'm not in favor suicide as an open-ended right. I've also seen how gutting it is for family and friends of the suicide. But I'm also aware of cases where the option is on-coming dementia or total incapacity, and I have no moral objection to people who'd rather have control of that situation.
Again, addiction is the problem. I also don't like seeing it promoted as normal, so I'd be happy to see advertising restricted. But otherwise, it's not my business.
The alternative is that women are breeding cows. I've had many women in my life, grandmother, mother, aunts, sisters, girlfriends, my wife, my daughter, my granddaughter, on and on. They each have the right to choose, and I'm happy that Doe v Wade sets out a reasonable basis for abortion.
If the marriage is still afoot, that's bad faith. I don't hold with it.
Why do you so emphasize sexual things? Why not the greater morality ─ honesty, openness, decency, kindness, respect, inclusion, generosity ... The rest will follow from those.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Let's be clear - the nation with breeding cows will rule the world. This could be India, or Africa.
Most likely, Muslim.
If you love your own culture and democratic, scientific traditions this is big deal.
Marriage is a BIG DEAL when it comes to security of commitment to people, but importantly
more so, the life outcomes for children.
But 'what concern' is all this me? Largely because back in 'my' age of the 1960's the progressives
were saying most of this 'will never happen.' But it did. From the harmless 'tune in, drop out' of
Leary to the Beatles and their dope to the multi-billion narco 'companies' which feed the world
and destroy whole countries, beginning with their own.
So when people say new things 'will never happen' I take them to task. It most likely WILL happen
and it will effect those who don't approve of the 'progress.' For me I am offended at required speach
and the way people shut down other's POV with rants about 'sexism, facism, Zionism, racism' etc..
So women are conscripts, you say? The government should own them? The world needs more people, you say? Really?
That doesn't address what I said.
What has that to do with promoting decency, respect, honesty and openness, inclusion?
Or are you opposed to those, you think everything not forbidden should be compulsory, only rules and enforcers will serve?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Nit-picking and trying to split hairs doesn't change the fact the god of Abraham told his followers to execute any man that lies with a man. This, by default, is homosexual males. It includes those who aren't who have slept with a male, but there is no way to get around the fact the Bible demands that homosexuals are to be murdered. And in fact not only does it want them dead, it has the audacity to blame them for their murders.
Jesus comes along and basically does make it orientation with his idea of thoughts being sin. A man looks upon another man with lust, he is guilty of adultery with a man.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
No, Christians do not get to take credit for that. Christian lands even went for a very long time before acknowledge martial rape as a real thing and making laws against it.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:24
Christians, especially in America, don't even want that much sexual content being taught to their kids at school. It's like how Christians try to claim their religion for abolitioning slavery, but in reality god has no problem with slavery. It is these Christians who are saying something that god said is ok is not actually ok. Their views are directly at odds with their god, and it is they who proclaim they know better than their god.
If we were going back to anything that resembled the OT I would have been executed by the state many times over. But our sense of morality and ethics have evolved since the OT was written, and today I can be a proud apostate. Jehovah's minions can't (legally at least) put me to death for it.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I have to be nit picking because homosexuality does not mean same sex sex regardless what scripture says.
If we can get people not to equate same sex sex=gay people that would help a lot. Sodomy laws in the States is a huge example of stereotyping. That and the Bible is not written in English so I wouldn't be surprised authors had no other english word to use for people who have same sex sex with homosexuality.
The default is just males getting killed by sleeping with other males. We can either correct the stereotype or confound it just because the author uses that particular word to define same sex sex.
Gay people are people with sexual attraction of the same sex. That's it. Everything else: lust, who he sleeps around with, are behaviors not something we are born choosing. That's christian nonsense and the biblical authors are no less helpful because they knew nothing about sexual orientation just stereotypes of supposedly gay men having same sex sex. The 80s didn't help the issue. If the bible said homosexuals give people AIDS, they'd be promoting that too.
Splitting hairs doesn't make it less true. In this case, though, it would help a lot of gay christians if they weren't told their bible calls them sinners Just because they are homosexual.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
By 'going back to the law' that's what we are doing. Isn't there something like a million laws
in America now? But what passed for 'family honor' and 'reputation' and 'religious belief' is
being supplanted by the blizzard of rules and regulations.
You COULD say early Christians took credit for the great reduction in slavery during the
Roman era. But 'slavery' is a nuanced word, so too is 'Christianity.' But taking someone
against their wishes to serve you is a total abrogation of the Gospels - indeed, Jesus said
YOU are to serve others.
But just our adulterous and drug addled society today should put paid to any notion of a
'sense or morality and ethics.' What many people in other nations think of Westerners is
revealing - we are 'filthy' to them.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Don't forget the headlines in the News recently about many priests and their sexual preferences
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Homosexual does mean same sex. It is the literal meaning of the combined prefix of homo and root word of sexual.
Thus homosexual.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Levitcus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 18:26-27
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mena]">[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 9-10
Why should we lie about what the Bible says? Why not practice truth and honesty? The Bible does call homosexuals abominations, it does say what they do is detestable and unnatural, and it does say they are to be put to death. This is what the Bible teaches, and Jesus gave multiple warnings about lessening what the Bible says, trying to say certain things don't apply, and perverting the practice to openly allow sin. You see it as helpful to try to downplay this and cover it up. I see that as destructive, and the helpful thing to be honest about what the Bible clearly says right in front of us. Men who have sex with men don't go to Heaven. The "affirming Churches" are clearly in the wrong.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
That is a new height of apologizing for immoral and unethical practices. The Bible is clear, slaves are property. That is wrong. That is evil.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
One of those reasons is because instead of washing and cleaning we smear stuff around with toilet paper.
It has nothing to do with religion or what we find moral or immoral.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Surely you jest (and don't call me Shirley)
Take time to be with new immigrants from 'third world' countries and listen
to their feelings about Western culture - disrespect of authority, immorality,
cheating, lack of appreciation for what religion gave you, coarsened culture
etc..
There's a price to pay for 'progress.' When we stopped arranged marriages
we gave people more freedom, but more broken marriages.
And same too with 'fixing' irrecoverable marriages' by 'no fault divorce' led to
many marriage failing that would otherwise not have failed.
When we take away authority from teachers we give this authority to students
against teachers.
Spending less on our military meant just making bigger bombs.
Creating a 'safety net' for the poor increased the poor and created welfare
dependency.
and so on.
I am fine with some of the above 'cos I grew up with them. But I take offense
when people can't see that each new liberation leads to a new problem.