- #1
- 417
- 0
Is it a sign of downgrading morality? Or a breakthrough ?
Church acknowledges Gay, good or not ?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Answers and Replies
- #2
- 417
- 0
The bible has many verses against homosexuality, buy the gay theology somehow justifies it with nes interpretation.
In malaysia, we do not accept homosexuality, we consider it Sinful.
I believe christianity is a false religion, therefore it will slowly compromise on many moral issues, because the bible has discrepancies and contradictions, up to human to interpret in the ways they prefer for their own good, and screw up at the end.
I'm tired of bible, i prefer to read buddhism scriptures, they are more clearcut and profound than bible.
In malaysia, we do not accept homosexuality, we consider it Sinful.
I believe christianity is a false religion, therefore it will slowly compromise on many moral issues, because the bible has discrepancies and contradictions, up to human to interpret in the ways they prefer for their own good, and screw up at the end.
I'm tired of bible, i prefer to read buddhism scriptures, they are more clearcut and profound than bible.
- #3
- 520
- 1
Originally posted by Saint
I'm tired of bible, i prefer to read buddhism scriptures, they are more clearcut and profound than bible.
could you provide a link?
- #4
- 417
- 0
i read buddhism scriptures in chinese.
i guess you do not know chinese.
i guess you do not know chinese.
- #5
eNtRopY
Many? Name more than one. I challenge you. Furthermore, I guarantee you that you will not be able to find one from the New Testament.
eNtRopY
- #6
eNtRopY
Which Buddhist scriptures do you read?
There are just as many forms of Buddhism, if not more, than Christianity. Those of the Vajrayana path often read the scriptures of writings of Gampopa.
Those of the Theravada path tend to read nothing more than the sutras which are common to most forms of Buddhism. However most of the sutras have not been translated from Sanskrit to any other language; so, I doubt this is what you are reading. Furthermore, in my opion, it is not very believable to think that the sutras are indeed the actual writings of Siddhartha. Do you really think that they could have survived all these millenia and retained their original form?
There are so many different aspects of the Mahayana path that it is difficult to generalize it. However, those of the Zen schools tend to read the commentaries of monks on the works of Dogin.
eNtRopY
Last edited by a moderator:
- #7
megashawn
Science Advisor
- 443
- 0
Not only moral issues, but issues of physical science. Ie, flat earth, center of universe, etc.
Really, what's quoted pretty much sums it up, imo. I think a big motivation behind acknowledging gays in church is simply to get more people in church.
I mean, when more and more people are turning away from a church, let's make a big announcement "Incoming message from big giant head (oops, wrong piece of fiction) God, he now decrees that being gay is not so bad, come on back to church, pay your tithe, all will be fine"
Personally, it makes me sick to see gay couples. I don't have anything against them, just prefer not to see it. As far as that goes, I don't like to see any couple all over each other in public, but that goes back to having a time and place for everything.
It should also be noted that while some churches are allowing gays, there is also a huge amount of people trying to get a different branch of episcopalian (can't spell it) in america, due to this change.
Personally, although I don't believe in Christianity, I don't see how this decision can be correct. I'm pretty sure that it states that homo sex is an abomination to the lord, in a few places.
I mean, why did god destroy Soddom if not for the homosexual activitys? And now, just because we've got more people complaining about being doomed to hell, they change the religion.
Has anyone actually provided any scriptual reasoning for allowing gays in church?
- #8
- 417
- 0
a christian told me that it is the Work of Satan.
the bible does say marriage is for man and woman, therefore gay couples can not be justified.
i believe it is also a gimmck to attract more people to church - gays! Because they need recognition.
church may be will be concentration camp or refuge for gays!
i wonder how gays release their sexual desire ? doing anal sex? isn't it nasty?
the bible does say marriage is for man and woman, therefore gay couples can not be justified.
i believe it is also a gimmck to attract more people to church - gays! Because they need recognition.
church may be will be concentration camp or refuge for gays!
i wonder how gays release their sexual desire ? doing anal sex? isn't it nasty?
- #9
- 1,600
- 3
Er... megashawn... I got to disagree with you.
I am overall in two minds about the whole thing. In one way, it's win-win. Either way we start to weaken the influence of the church, and hopefully move people into more free and enlightened ways of thought, as it has always been inevitable that the church falls apart. But in another way, I would far prefer a church that begins to accept it's place in the world, and the fact society changes to a church that is determined to fight progress with bigotry, as a focus for further hatred. I prefer a liberal church to the madness of the fundamentalists. ( and some of the things they are saying are truly mad.)
Many theologians have looked over this passage, and found that Soddom was almost certainly destroyed because it's inhabitations threatened to rape God's angellic messengers, and did rape the follower of God's daughter. It simply does not specifically link the destruction to homosexuality. Also, references to homosexuality as shameful etc were due to mistranslation.
I don't think this is reasonable. The bible does not explicitly state that blacks, or americans, or people called George Bush be allowed in church either. Rather it is assumed that as children of god, they all have the right to hear god's word, pass it on, and ask for forgiveness etc etc.
I am overall in two minds about the whole thing. In one way, it's win-win. Either way we start to weaken the influence of the church, and hopefully move people into more free and enlightened ways of thought, as it has always been inevitable that the church falls apart. But in another way, I would far prefer a church that begins to accept it's place in the world, and the fact society changes to a church that is determined to fight progress with bigotry, as a focus for further hatred. I prefer a liberal church to the madness of the fundamentalists. ( and some of the things they are saying are truly mad.)
- #10
BoulderHead
You tell me.
- #11
eNtRopY
Women love it. Why shouldn't gay men?
If you want to find out for yourself... you've got my email address.
eNtRopY
- #12
- 417
- 0
why women like it?
is it more sensational ?
- #13
BoulderHead
Only when your prostrate gland is stroked.
- #14
eNtRopY
Originally posted by Saint
why women like it?
is it more sensational ?
Well, I could tell you why, but I think that would involve getting a little too graphic for those of strong religious conviction on this Religion Forum.
eNtRopY
- #15
eNtRopY
Dude, I think you mean prostate gland.
The fact that you used the word prostrate tells me you've had a bit too much religion for one day.
eNtRopY
- #16
BoulderHead
I must have still been 'positioning' myself while making that reply.
- #17
- 417
- 0
don't hesitate, say it now!
- #18
megashawn
Science Advisor
- 443
- 0
I don't really disagree with any of what you said FZ. Thanks for the info you provided, that makes sense.
Today, episcopalians, next week, Southern Babtists.
Now that'll be a challenge.
Today, episcopalians, next week, Southern Babtists.
Now that'll be a challenge.
- #19
- 28
- 0
I take your chalange. That comes as easy too me. Romans Ch 1 verses 24-32.
Revilation 21 vers 8
Leviticus 20:13
Thats 3 verses. different chapters, two from the new testimaent. Now here is what I belive. The Lord does not hate the homosexuals. I hates their deeds. I believe that he wants them to repent and give up their sinful ways, or be punished. As stated in Revilations, "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral"( this means homosexuals as well as adulterors)", those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.". Personally, it doesn't sound like much fun to me. I believe that is why The Lord wants their immoral ways to be repented of. Now back in Biblical times, Sodomy was a plays of Homosexuals and adulter's. The Lord sent a messenger warning of their doom. The wanted to rape the angles, well, they were destroyed. I leave you in words of advice. Repent of homosexuallity.
You will be in my prayers
Last edited:
- #20
- 225
- 0
Yes, yes. AIDS is God's cure for fags. And the holocaust was God's cure for jews. And 9-11 was God's cure for americans.
(rolls eyes)
(rolls eyes)
- #21
- 1,600
- 3
I don't have much time...Too busy engaging in debauchery.. or maybe sleep.
Suppose Soddom was full of heterosexuals, and an angel was staying in there. A mob gathered threatening to rape them. Shortly afterwards, the town was destroyed.
Would you consider this to mean that God hates heterosexuals? Notice therefore that the Soddom case is a manifestation of your own bias in relaying the story, not actually the message of the tale.
Now, let's tackle the romans one.
Read it carefully this time, and keep careful note of cause and effect in the passage. Notice anything?
The "evil" at the cause is that of abandoning God, and taking false ones. In PUNISHMENT for that, God made them fools, and forced them into homosexuality and other acts. The word given to this is not sinful, but the greek word shameful - a shame akin to honour rather than divine law. This same word is used several times in the bible, once for example to describe a "shameful defeat". Did it mean the defeat was a sin? No. The factor is that homosexuality itself can be good in the eyes of god, and it was in this case brought down on the heretics to discredit and dishonour them in the eyes of the believers.
Let's try this one:
"You shall not give false testimony" (And this refers to talking garbage about homosexuality, misreading the bible, inserting your opinions and pretending it's the source, being a religious fundamentalist, making an argument on the basis of bias, ignoring inconvenient parts of a source, ignoring translational changes etc etc) "against you neighbour."
Exodus 20:16
3 different verses. All of them wrong.
I read an interesting article that showed an interesting way of showing how wrong this is.
Suppose Soddom was full of heterosexuals, and an angel was staying in there. A mob gathered threatening to rape them. Shortly afterwards, the town was destroyed.
Would you consider this to mean that God hates heterosexuals? Notice therefore that the Soddom case is a manifestation of your own bias in relaying the story, not actually the message of the tale.
Now, let's tackle the romans one.
Read it carefully this time, and keep careful note of cause and effect in the passage. Notice anything?
The "evil" at the cause is that of abandoning God, and taking false ones. In PUNISHMENT for that, God made them fools, and forced them into homosexuality and other acts. The word given to this is not sinful, but the greek word shameful - a shame akin to honour rather than divine law. This same word is used several times in the bible, once for example to describe a "shameful defeat". Did it mean the defeat was a sin? No. The factor is that homosexuality itself can be good in the eyes of god, and it was in this case brought down on the heretics to discredit and dishonour them in the eyes of the believers.
I kinda figure the bible doesn't use brackets in it's formatting. Perhaps a case of retranslation until you find something convenient?
Let's try this one:
"You shall not give false testimony" (And this refers to talking garbage about homosexuality, misreading the bible, inserting your opinions and pretending it's the source, being a religious fundamentalist, making an argument on the basis of bias, ignoring inconvenient parts of a source, ignoring translational changes etc etc) "against you neighbour."
Exodus 20:16
3 different verses. All of them wrong.
Last edited:
- #22
- 28
- 0
Ah, yes. But there lies the problem with anything written. It is open for intrepritation. I was mearly stateing my interpretation of the biblical passages. As for the bracketing, that was for anyone who had their head stuck too far up their own @$$. So under that understanding, Anything I now post could and may be misinterpreted and or shot down by someone like yourself. So, I now will stand by my faith and defend it in any way possible. Good hunting.
- #23
megashawn
Science Advisor
- 443
- 0
Standing by your faith is one thing. I suppose could be respectable.
Bending and molding stories provided by your faith to fit your personal bias is another. But don't feel bad, that's all religion is, a justification for existence. Some people can't accept life on its terms, and have to alter reality to deal with it.
But, isn't it atleast good, from a christian perspective, to get gays into church to hopefully save there immortal soul (or atleast there spincter). I mean, god is supposed to love everyone unconditionally.
Bending and molding stories provided by your faith to fit your personal bias is another. But don't feel bad, that's all religion is, a justification for existence. Some people can't accept life on its terms, and have to alter reality to deal with it.
But, isn't it atleast good, from a christian perspective, to get gays into church to hopefully save there immortal soul (or atleast there spincter). I mean, god is supposed to love everyone unconditionally.
- #24
- 1,600
- 3
I pity you. Sounds painful.
Funny that then. Since you admit your faith isn't based on the bible, where does it come from? Where does this interpretation allowing you to make pronouncements as to the judgement of god come from?
"Judge not, lest thee be judged thyself."
- #25
- 28
- 0
God does love everyone unconditionally, I never said he hates gays. He hates their sins. Not them. Like all sinners, he wishes them to repent and try to not sin again. Aknologeing gays in the church would be saying that being homosexual is alright and that they can remain gay and still not be sinners. That was and is my point. i do not descrimate aginst them, i just wish for theem to repent. Acknoleging gays would be like acknoleging un-repentent murderers as active members of the church. As for judging, I am only human. I, like yourself, am unable to not judge anyone. And my faith is learned from the bible. I don't know how you twisted my words to get the idea that my faith didnt come from the the Bible.
"...I have sinned aginst you in thought, word and deed..."
- #26
- 1,600
- 3
You see, it is clear to me that the element of anti-homosexuality does not come from the bible, but your interpretation of the bible. As with your "brackets", nothing in the bible confirms homosexuality as being equivalent to sexually immoral, or adultery, but you insert it anyway. By this token, the impetus to your interpretation - the idea that holds the whole thing up cannot have come from the bible, but from your education etc. Thus your faith, or opinion that homosexuality is a sin is not from biblical fact. In general, we assume something not to be a sin until the bible specifically says it is, and using the sort of "interpretation" you used, you can say everything is a sin.
So, where does the idea that homosexuality = sexual immorality, that homosexuality in the case of Soddom is more significant than rape, that the word honorable shame means something different from normal when used in the context of homosexuality come from? Certainly not the bible.
- #27
eNtRopY
Well, women especially enjoy anal stimulation during sexual intercourse because of the indirect pressure applied in the direction of the anterior wall of the vagina (where the Graftenberg Spot is located). You don't have to take my word for it either, next time your exploring yourself try it out... or do a Google search on the phrase double penetration and see what the professionals have to say.
eNtRopY
- #28
- 73
- 0
I set out 5 verses below including 3 from the New Testament. But I am more interested in your logic. Why do you say, "Name more than one."? Why shouldn't one be enough? Do you think God should have to repeat himself before it means anything? I have to say I do not understand your reasoning at all.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." - Leviticus 18:22
"If a man lies with a male as he lies 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
"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." - Romans 1:27
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators ... nor homosexuals ...will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"the law is not made for a righteous person, but ... for fornicators, for sodomites ... and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" - 1 Timothy 1:9-10
- #29
Zero
The church being aggressively anti-homosexual is extremely hypocritical, you know. Using Christian doctrine as I understand it, we are all sinners, no sin is any better than any other, and therefore singling out one group is hypocritical.
Basically, it is people using the Bible to justify their hate, nothing more.
Basically, it is people using the Bible to justify their hate, nothing more.
- #30
- 1,600
- 3
Everyone knows you don't lie with a man the same way as with a woman.
And from the way it is written, it can also be favouring lesbianism over heterosexuality.Also in that chapter... an eye for an eye and all the others we conveniently forget. Do you follow:
Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
or Leviticus 19:19 "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
And do you go around putting people that do so to death?
Mistranslation. See above.
The same sentence compares homosexuals to drunkards, whilst excusing female prostitutes. Does that mean alcohol is banned and prostitution should be legalised? The point of the statement is that judgement is made by God through saints, and that forgiveness comes from God. Man is not to judge, for man is full of sin. The passage is under the heading "Lawsuits among believers".
Strange. Fornicators etc are not used in the translation I am reading. But you are nevertheless missing the context of the statement - the purpose of the passage is to stop people from teaching false laws. The repeated theme in all of this is Judge Not. Which is what all this is missing.
A more complete argument:
http://www.lgcm.org.uk/bible/bible.htm [Broken]
Last edited by a moderator:
- #31
Tsu
Gold Member
- 413
- 63
Well, that's just a LOVELY Christian-like sentiment! I bet God loves you for THAT one!
- #32
eNtRopY
Well, if you were paying attention, you would notice that Saint originally stated that there are many passages in the Bible that state that homosexuality is a sin. This is the reason why I replied with, Name more than one.
Should God have to repeat himself? Well, a marketing executive once told me that the golden rule of marketing is repetition. People only remember those things that are continously hammered into their heads. So, if God is at least as smart as a Comm Arts major, then I think he/she would have figured out this little trick long ago.
But seriously, thanks for reading between the lines of the Bible and being a total @sshole.
eNtRopY
- #33
- 73
- 0
Can someone tell me why this debate (which we have had many times and seem to keep having) about what the Bible actually says about homosexuality generates such heated emotions and personal insults?
- #34
- 73
- 0
FZ+
On the point you raised about whether we need to obey all the laws that God gave to ancient Israel you should read what I said in this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2945&highlight=Laura
On the point you raised about whether we need to obey all the laws that God gave to ancient Israel you should read what I said in this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2945&highlight=Laura
- #35
Zero
If you can't figue it out on your own...
Oh, and I'll never understand how people can handle the schizophrenic nature of the Bible. The book says not to kill, then gives you a huge list of people to kill. And, of course, there is the selective nature of the rules Christians chhose to enforce...all the rules restricting the behavior of groups they don't like are in effect, but the rules restricting their own behavior don't count. It is especially that selectivity that to me outlines the hateful nature of Christians who yell and scream about how homosexulaity is an 'abomination'.