|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:00 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:20 pm
I don't believe in sin so homosexuality is not a sin (too me). I don't think its wrong. This might just be me but there are homosexual animals and Humans are animals. So how can this be a choice? There was an article in the weekly about homosexuality being genetic and something about chemicals in the womb having something to do with it. I don't know if I still have the article so I will paraphrase. They gave an example of twin boys. They had the same environment and influence. One was always feminine the other masculine. As they grew up one had mostly female friends and the other male friends. When the mother asked her child to act more like a boy he said something to the extent of If I could I would. They gave a percentage of twins where if one twin is gay then the other has about a 70% chance of being the same. Also most of these studies are on males. This is just what I remember of the article though so I will try to look for the article online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:28 pm
But, this is in no way comming from a Christian perspective or anyone who has studied sexuality much. Im sure you all know that lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:18 am
Being a Christian who may be a bit "too modern" I'm beginning to find it really annoying that so many Christians are putting the bad spotlight on gays/bis/les/trans and ONLY them. I mean, come on. In the Bible it clearly states (sorry, can't remember where) that all sins are just that: SIN! Meaning all are equal. So it really bugs me that someone goes around saying, "May the power of Christ compel thee, oh homosexual one!" and not going around saying, "May the power of Christ compel thee, oh pickpocketing one!" Wake up, seriously. If the Bible points out that the theif and murderer are just as bad as the homosexual (supposedly) and the liar than why are we holding gays over the fire more than those who rape or steal?
It just really bugs me...specially since we're supposed to love all, despite the sins. More and more hypocrites in my belief...*sigh* I swear, some people at my church could watch a news story and see this 12 year old girl saying she got raped and go "poor girl, I hope they find the guy who did it" and right after see a story on the gay parade and go "BURN IN HELL MOTHAF***ERS!!!" WTH is that all about?!
Arrrrg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:49 am
The modern misinterpretation of the bible today isn't really the looking down of a person's nose at sexual minorities, I think it's quite alright for them to think it's bad, just as many people are against smoking and drinking. What they're doing wrong is thinking that they should abolish what they believe to be sinful. The law was created to protect civilization in this life, not the afterlife. What these people are doing is putting words into their source's mouth and make the calls on society their doctrine supposedly leaves up to their creator and none other.
What they're doing by fighting what they think is wrong without necessarily being harmful to other people is shunning their very faith in their own deity, to believe It won't judge fairly without any need of them. If suffering and mistakes are the tests of their god, then they shouldn't teach people to cheat on it. They'll die eventually, as everyone does, and they'll figure out for themselves soon enough. That should be all the assuring these people need in their beliefs.
Of course, that's only talking about the people that vote for bans to homosexual marriage (Which, by "definition," isn't an act exclusive to one religion. Just because Webster leads to the right doesn't mean the whole damned nation should), and doesn't even count the people who propose the bans, who are really just rich people in office with friends in the insurance industry, as I see it.
Sad that the blindly faithful have become nothing more than pack mules for whatever money-making schemes a politician wants to get away with. They deserve to be treated with just a little more respect than that for their devotion to a cause for somewhat of the right intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:58 am
I have an international version. In Revelation 22:14 is states "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may go through the gates into the city." In 22:15 it goes so far as to say "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood"
But in the King James version it says (not word for word) that included in the "dogs" category were homosexuals. But another thing I don't understand is if the god is all-loving, why are homosexuals so persecuted. If I look at it through the eyes of a Christian, homosexuality is wrong. So from what I understand, the international version has been edited. Which is against the bible entirely. So apparently the King James version is the only one thats "any good". And it clearly states homosexuality is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:06 pm
Peace Love And Skate I have an international version. In Revelation 22:14 is states "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may go through the gates into the city." In 22:15 it goes so far as to say "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood" But in the King James version it says (not word for word) that included in the "dogs" category were homosexuals. But another thing I don't understand is if the god is all-loving, why are homosexuals so persecuted. If I look at it through the eyes of a Christian, homosexuality is wrong. So from what I understand, the international version has been edited. Which is against the bible entirely. So apparently the King James version is the only one thats "any good". And it clearly states homosexuality is wrong. How do you know the international one, and not the King James one is the edited one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:32 pm
Peace Love And Skate If I look at it through the eyes of a Christian, homosexuality is wrong. So from what I understand, the international version has been edited. Which is against the bible entirely. So apparently the King James version is the only one thats "any good". And it clearly states homosexuality is wrong. (blinks) In philosophy, this is known as "begging the question." Christianity, or at least your denomination of Christianity, states that homosexuality is wrong. Knowing what I do of those denominations that state that homosexuality is wrong, I will assume that your denomination believes this *because that is what the Bible tells you.* But if you look at a different translation of the Bible, it does not tell you that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, you believe there must be a problem with the translation that tells you something different. How much do you know about translation? No language carries an exact word-for-word parallel with another language. So anytime you translate a document from one language into another, there will be sections that cannot be translated exactly. The translators do the best they can, but bias and inaccuracies creep in even with the best of translations. When dealing with a dead language (like Ancient Latin or Greek), over time translators develop a more complete understanding of the possible meanings of some of those sections, and can therefore translate those sections with less bias and inaccuracy. What does this mean for the Bible? It means that you've just told me that because an old, less accurate and more biased (although undoubtedly more poetic) version of the Bible told you that homosexuality is wrong, then this newer translation with all these advantages must be the one with problems because it didn't translate that passage the same way. Granted, there will always be bias in translation; this is an unfortunate fact of translation. However, that doesn't automatically imply that somebody went through with white-out on the original translation to replace everything that he or she didn't want in there. Edited? No. Correctly translated? A lot more likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:19 pm
Mirima Chaotic, I'd have to say that after reading that, you've proven what I was saying in my first post. There is no where in the bible that states homosexuality, as in loving one of the same sex, is wrong. It only refers to homosexual sex.
Which version of the bible is that from? I tend to read and quote from the New American, because the King James version has too many translation errors.
Darktigress, yes, today that may be true, and sadly I don't think the bible was made like the American Constitution to be flexable with the times. But back then, sex was not used as a way of expressing love. It was veiwed as lust if two people, even married people, found pleasure in sex. These were Jewish people, so many times certian "pleasureable activies" such as sex, drinking, and partying, were veiwed as idoltry (sp?).
Sex was used most specifically for procreation. There are example of prostitution in those times, but it was the same as it is now, an act of lust.
Today, we do think differently, and sex is a way of showing emotion and caring. This is where my own thinking deviates from the bible. I don't think sex should be saved solely for procreation. But then again, that is why I'm not allowed to recieve the Eucharist.
Dark, your views fit very well with today's thinking, but that's not how it was 2000-some years ago. Mirima This misconception that all Christians believe that homosexuals are horrible people ane going to hell is started to get under my skin. Also, I am not bashing homosexuals in ANYWAY. I am simply trying to start a discussion about beliefs.
First of all, it is my belief that the bible does not condone (sp?) homosexuality it's self as a sin, but simply homosexual sex between men. Loving another man is a great thing, infact there are many times in the New Testament where Jesus shows a deep love for his disciples.
Homosexual sex, though, could be considered a sin. This is because back when the bible was written, people didn't use sex to show their love towards each other. Sex was only used for procration. So, sex between two men was nothing more than an act of lust, as is masturbation. True, this could be agrued now-a-days that one would show their love for another through sexual pleasure, but there are many more gratifying ways to show your love.
With this belief, any act of sodomy would be an act of lust. By sodomy, I use the strict definition of "any non-coiterous (sp?) act". That includes oral sex, masturbation, and different sexual positions.
To sum up my points, I am not against love, I'm against lust. If you truely love that man or woman you're with, there is a better way to show them than taking them to bed.
I'm open to hear your view points, but please keep it mature and PG-13. wink
I remember it saying that God not only created sex for procreation, but also for love and pleasure between two married people, and two stories becoming one. He didn't want Adam to be alone, so he created Eve. And sex is the binding of two people, two people becoming one. So sex is also used to express love between man and wife, and God wants them both to have pleasure in their marriage. Adam didn't just say "alas--finally someone to reproduce with!"
I'm not really sure about the homosexual part yet. All I know so far that it condoemns homosexual acts, not homosexuals. But then my bible study teacher said that homosexuals need to be saved and ask forgiveness, and can't enter the Kingdom of God without doing so. Meh, I don't know. @__@;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:15 am
 Of course straight homophobic haters are going to fight homosexuality. They have no way of ever understanding anything we do. They know nothing of what it is to be gay. They say something, and think it's right, just because a book said so. They aren't gay, they don't know. Period. I guess bisexuals could be in there too...Lol)
I only have one question. If homosexuality is wrong, then why?
It isn't I know that. But, if the bible says it is, why does it say this? Some bias? God being a hate mongerer? I just don't understand what has ever justified 'SAVE THE HOMOS!'. It's like, "Who said we need saving? And why did they say that?"
I've confused myself, but I do know that love is not wrong, and neither is expressing it.
Life is what you make it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:19 am
In sum: Why is homosexuality (supposedely) even a sin?
Life is what you make it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:11 am
From an amazing essay I read, what I understand is the majority of the bible condemning homosexual sex was originally the Jews condemning the Roman practice of men keeping young boy slaves for the sole purpose of having sex with them.
Though there is an essay on the subject that can be found at truthsetsfree.net, it might be a little pushing it at some places but all in all I found it fascinating.
Another thing is I was told about a book called "Misquoting Jesus: Who changed the bible and why" and it is true that the bible is not the same now as it was when it was first written and for many reasons. For one the original greek and hebrew does not translate directly to english. Second, many of the monks transcribing the bible were illiterate. Thirdly, because of the social climate during the times they were translated or transcribed they may have added or taken things away as they see fit. As they said in the DaVinci Code, The bible was not faxed to us from God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:06 pm
ScarredImage Being a Christian who may be a bit "too modern" I'm beginning to find it really annoying that so many Christians are putting the bad spotlight on gays/bis/les/trans and ONLY them. I mean, come on. In the Bible it clearly states (sorry, can't remember where) that all sins are just that: SIN! Meaning all are equal. So it really bugs me that someone goes around saying, "May the power of Christ compel thee, oh homosexual one!" and not going around saying, "May the power of Christ compel thee, oh pickpocketing one!". I could not agree with you more. But I think all people suck anyway, after Mother Theresa's death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:26 pm
I'm Christian and I support gay marriage and what have you... mostly because we don't have a state religion and most people's backing is religious. Jesus calls us to be open and accepting of everyone, including sinners. He actually hung out with sinners a bunch so why should we be like him?
Most is not all the vesus against gay marriage are in the Old Testement anyway, and we don't follow half of that anymore.
Regardles of if it's a sin, you're saved by grace of God, not the deeds you do. So... what's the big deal, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
