Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I side with your mom on this one - the fate of your eternal soul is something that is between you and God alone.
-
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!
I Have A Theory On Homosexuality
- Thread starter cardero
- Start date
I side with your mom on this one - the fate of your eternal soul is something that is between you and God alone.
Francis
UBER-Christian
I was wondering when someone would bring the scripture up. However, someone else said that that was already taken care of. What? 
When? Anyways, God doesn't hate gay PEOPLE: on the contrary, He loves them as much as anyone else. He hates gay ACTIONS. Like He doesn't care for cross-dressing and, er, gay relations. But he has NO problem with gay people themselves. Peace!
When? Anyways, God doesn't hate gay PEOPLE: on the contrary, He loves them as much as anyone else. He hates gay ACTIONS. Like He doesn't care for cross-dressing and, er, gay relations. But he has NO problem with gay people themselves. Peace!
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Don't want what? Gay people? You gonna start deporting us next?
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
I really doubt that God is concerned with what clothes people choose to wear and who we love. Really, doesn't God have more important things to concern itself with? Like, oh I dunno... starving kids in Africa?I was wondering when someone would bring the scripture up. However, someone else said that that was already taken care of. What?
Francis
UBER-Christian
Umm, starving isn't a sin. So in that sense, there's no reason there God NOT to focus on this. And also, the children are being cared for by us. But again, The starving children are rather irrelevant, once you think about the fact that God is one helluva multi-tasker.
Also, I don't know why homo-sexual acts are a sin.
That's God's choice. I, personally, don't care. Well, i know the reasoning, why it's a sin, but... my point is that God doesn't like the acts. The people are fine. Peace!
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Nah. What some primitive savages might have said in ancient times isn't remotely relevant. Sorry.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
God is offended that you're telling people what God thinks based on your own personal feelings.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I believe the bible is consistent on the matter of sex outside of marriage - that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong and therefore a (gasp) SIN. This would include heterosexuals as well as homosexuals who are not married.
This isn't a thread about gay marriage so I hope it doesn't morph into one of those vortexes.
My point is that according to Christian doctrine, sex outside of marriage is wrong. When Christians focus their ire on gays instead of being equally incensed by their own 25 year old daughter who's shacked up with her boyfriend across town, they they're being hypocrites.
I say "At least be consistent."
This isn't a thread about gay marriage so I hope it doesn't morph into one of those vortexes.
My point is that according to Christian doctrine, sex outside of marriage is wrong. When Christians focus their ire on gays instead of being equally incensed by their own 25 year old daughter who's shacked up with her boyfriend across town, they they're being hypocrites.
I say "At least be consistent."
keithnurse
Active Member
Kathryn: You are right, straight people should sweep around their own back doors before pointing at gay people. The Bible might be consistent in condemning sex outside of marriage, but, to me, that doesn't make it wrong. It might be wrong for other reasons, but not just because the Bible says so. I don't consider the Bible to be a reliable guide to morality and ethics because of 1st Samuel 15:2-3 and the implication in Genesis 19 that offering up your virgin daughters to be gang raped is an acceptable way to prevent your male houseguests from being gang raped.
Anti-thesisofreason
Explorer
My wife and I lived together for several years before getting married and 20 years later we are still together. Personally I would advise anyone who is planning on getting married to live together for at least a year before hand.
If you can't make it through at least that first year and get past all of the "getting used to living with each other stuff" then I would say the marriage is doomed to failure.
Both my brothers have been married and divorced three times and neither of them lived with any of their wives before getting married.
Plus I'm not Christian so I guess this doesn't really count.
keithnurse
Active Member
I agree with the idea of living together awhile before getting married. Everyone knows you don't buy a car without taking it for a spin first.
Are you referring to the god who is offended by those who eat shellfish? And equally offended by those who wear clothing made of two fabrics? Or are you referring to a sane god?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You don't really know someone, nor know yourself with them, until you live with them for awhile. People get married way too quickly. How can you make the decision to spend the rest of your life with someone, when you don't even know them. Additionally, they don't seem to realize that the infatuation stage doesn't last forever, and if you get married thinking that the rest of your life is going to be like that, you're in for a huge disappointment.
My wife and I were together for 12 years before getting married - and lived together for 8. In that time, I don't know how many couple we knew who met, got married, and got divorced, all in a matter of a couple of years.
People would ask me why I didn't "marry her" if I wanted to spend my life with her. That's backwards. We weren't in a hurry to get married, and didn't need to, because we knew we wanted to spend our lives together.
Basically, deciding to spend your entire life with someone who you really don't know is pure folly.
My wife and I were together for 12 years before getting married - and lived together for 8. In that time, I don't know how many couple we knew who met, got married, and got divorced, all in a matter of a couple of years.
People would ask me why I didn't "marry her" if I wanted to spend my life with her. That's backwards. We weren't in a hurry to get married, and didn't need to, because we knew we wanted to spend our lives together.
Basically, deciding to spend your entire life with someone who you really don't know is pure folly.
Anti-thesisofreason
Explorer
But why is it wrong?
Elessar
Well-Known Member
At least in the latter verse, from the Torah, I can tell you that the intent of the passage is not to imply the rightness or wrongness of what Lot does (namely, offer up his daughters to the crowd to protect his houseguests), but simply to record that he did so. Lot, honestly, is not a very righteous or virtuous man, in the eyes of Torah - he is spared for his righteous uncle, Avraham's, sake, not for any righteousness of his own.
Especially considering this same story goes onto record the two daughters in question entering a joint incestuous relationship with their father, an act which violates several mitzvot found in the actual lawgiving parts of the Torah, as opposed to the historical sections like this one.
I don't rememnber what happened in 1st Samuel 15 off-hand, so I can't speak on that subject without some study
[/off-topic]