Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Ingledsva]

Speaking for myself, I don't say that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. Here's what I think it says:

- it does condemn homosexuality and declares it to be sin.
- it also condemns judging others, particularly non-Christians, for their sins.
- it proclaims broad principles that support love in general, and therefore romantic love between members of the same sex (BTW: I do not approach the Bible assuming that it can't contradict itself).

I also recognize that the Bible's mixed message on homosexuality is very similar in a lot of ways to its mixed message on slavery, yet even the most fundamentalist Christian these days doesn't have an issue in disregarding the Biblical passages that support slavery to argue against the practice. Therefore, I think there's inherent hypocrisy when such people choose not to take the same approach on the issue of homosexuality and overlook the nasty passages on that issue.

Edit: so the short version is this: I think that the Bible both supports and condemns homosexuality, but for people who interpret it as condemning it, the Bible forbids them from judging others or acting on their opinion other than as a guide for their own actions.

The problem with that is that none of them actually say anything about homosexuality.

They are about Sacred Temple Sex. Did they Sacred Qadesh perform anal sex? Yes.

Were they actually homosexual? NO!

They didn't hang a notice outside the Temple saying - "Gay men? Have we got a job for you!" LOL!

Children were dedicated to, or bought by, the Temples - and trained to be Sacred Prostitutes. This would mean they would be by vast majority HETEROSEXUALS trained to perform a Sacred Service. NOT HOMOSEXUALS.

I think part of the problem is that people are trying to use modern usage for the terms of the past. I have heard people say a man who has anal sex with a woman is doing a homosexual act. Well - that obviously is BULL - as he is a heterosexual.

Likewise you can't say the Qadesh are homosexuals -or that their acts are the acts of homosexuals. They are trained to provide a sexual service.

We may not like the idea today - but that doesn't mean we can call them something they weren't, - and then use it as proof that God hates homosexuals.

In other words - You can't take texts about HETEROSEXUAL Sacred Qadesh who have anal sex with men and women as part of the Temple service - and use such to falsely say the Bible condemns actual homosexuals.

The Bible does not say such - the writings of later men and their traditions say such.

 

[dgirl1986]

Raise your hand if you are tired of people debating whether homosexuality is wrong or not...

*raises hand*

Surely there are more important things that people could be concerning themselves with?

 

[Ingledsva]

Raise your hand if you are tired of people debating whether homosexuality is wrong or not...

*raises hand*

Surely there are more important things that people could be concerning themselves with?

This is very true.

BUT! Our ideas about homosexuality come from such religious ideas - and unless they are challenged - concerning those text actually saying that - they will continue to make life hell for gay people.

 

[dgirl1986]

This is very true.

BUT! Our ideas about homosexuality come from such religious ideas - and unless they are challenged - concerning those text actually saying that - they will continue to make life hell for gay people.

I just dont know why people think its any of the business to be honest. If its against your religion (not you in particular) and you dont like it thats fine. Just dont expect others to conform to your ideas of how things should be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Raise your hand if you are tired of people debating whether homosexuality is wrong or not...

*raises hand*

Surely there are more important things that people could be concerning themselves with?

I'm sure most people are by this point, but the fact is that there are still very large numbers of people (entire nations, in fact) who not only believe homosexuality is wrong but actively seek to punish, discriminate against or infringe upon the rights of homosexuals. I can't wait for the day when debating the moral implications of being gay is just as absurd a notion as debating the moral implications of being non-white, but sadly we've apparently still got a way to go...

 

[dgirl1986]

I'm sure most people are by this point, but the fact is that there are still very large numbers of people (entire nations, in fact) who not only believe homosexuality is wrong but actively seek to punish, discriminate against or infringe upon the rights of homosexuals. I can't wait for the day when debating the moral implications of being gay is just as absurd a notion as debating the moral implications of being non-white, but sadly we've apparently still got a way to go...

I get that people fear what they dont understand and will use any means to justify action and prejudice but at the same time I dont understand it at all. I mean if you look through history you read all these silly beliefs and concepts about different things that today is considered quite normal and they understand a lot more about it. It just seems ridiculous that in todays society we are still battling these kind of things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I get that people fear what they dont understand and will use any means to justify action and prejudice but at the same time I dont understand it at all. I mean if you look through history you read all these silly beliefs and concepts about different things that today is considered quite normal and they understand a lot more about it. It just seems ridiculous that in todays society we are still battling these kind of things.

I absolutely agree. I honestly can't wrap my head around the mentality of such people who exist in this day and age. I'm sure a hundred or so years from now, children will be sat in history lessons and their teacher will say, "and did you know that as recently as the year 2012, gay people in this country were still not afforded the right to marry - and some nations even outlawed homosexuality altogether!" and the children will wonder what the hell was wrong with us all.

 

[Maya3]

I absolutely agree. I honestly can't wrap my head around the mentality of such people who exist in this day and age. I'm sure a hundred or so years from now, children will be sat in history lessons and their teacher will say, "and did you know that as recently as the year 2012, gay people in this country were still not afforded the right to marry - and some nations even outlawed homosexuality altogether!" and the children will wonder what the hell was wrong with us all.

Yup!

Maya

 

[Shermana]

To "the God of the Jews", it was unacceptable for a woman to be in a leadership position over men, and it was acceptable (and sometimes encouraged) to own fellow human beings as property. Are you sure that God's view hasn't changed?

Where does it say it was unacceptable for a woman to be in a position of leadership? In the writings of Paul or in the writings of the Tanakh with stories like Deborah the Prophetess?

- it proclaims broad principles that support love in general, and therefore romantic love between members of the same sex (BTW: I do not approach the Bible assuming that it can't contradict itself).

I'd bet a thousand dollars that Angellous would also agree that the "Agape" mentioned has nothing to do with romantic love, and if the writings do talk about romantic love, the INTENDED context was between a man and a woman only.

 

[Ingledsva]

I just dont know why people think its any of the business to be honest. If its against your religion (not you in particular) and you dont like it thats fine. Just dont expect others to conform to your ideas of how things should be.

Yes, I agree, that is what is usually brought up by people trying to reform such old ideas, but many Christians seem to think their religious ideas should be in our government and laws.

 

[Ingledsva]

I absolutely agree. I honestly can't wrap my head around the mentality of such people who exist in this day and age. I'm sure a hundred or so years from now, children will be sat in history lessons and their teacher will say, "and did you know that as recently as the year 2012, gay people in this country were still not afforded the right to marry - and some nations even outlawed homosexuality altogether!" and the children will wonder what the hell was wrong with us all.

LOL! Indeed they will. :slap:

 

[Ingledsva]

FOR 9-10ths_PENGUINE

You didn't answer so I didn't know if you saw this. I decided to drop it to the bottom.

Speaking for myself, I don't say that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. Here's what I think it says:

- it does condemn homosexuality and declares it to be sin.
- it also condemns judging others, particularly non-Christians, for their sins.
- it proclaims broad principles that support love in general, and therefore romantic love between members of the same sex (BTW: I do not approach the Bible assuming that it can't contradict itself).

I also recognize that the Bible's mixed message on homosexuality is very similar in a lot of ways to its mixed message on slavery, yet even the most fundamentalist Christian these days doesn't have an issue in disregarding the Biblical passages that support slavery to argue against the practice. Therefore, I think there's inherent hypocrisy when such people choose not to take the same approach on the issue of homosexuality and overlook the nasty passages on that issue.

Edit: so the short version is this: I think that the Bible both supports and condemns homosexuality, but for people who interpret it as condemning it, the Bible forbids them from judging others or acting on their opinion other than as a guide for their own actions.

The problem with that is that none of them actually say anything about homosexuality.

They are about Sacred Temple Sex. Did the Sacred Qadesh perform anal sex? Yes.

Were they actually homosexual? NO!

They didn't hang a notice outside the Temple saying - "Gay men? Have we got a job for you!" LOL!

Children were dedicated to, or bought by, the Temples - and trained to be Sacred Prostitutes. This would mean they would be by vast majority HETEROSEXUALS trained to perform a Sacred Service. NOT HOMOSEXUALS.

I think part of the problem is that people are trying to use modern usage for the terms of the past. I have heard people say a man who has anal sex with a woman is doing a homosexual act. Well - that obviously is BULL - as he is a heterosexual.

Likewise you can't say the Qadesh are homosexuals -or that their acts are the acts of homosexuals. They are trained to provide a sexual service.

We may not like the idea today - but that doesn't mean we can call them something they weren't, - and then use it as proof that God hates homosexuals.

In other words - You can't take texts about HETEROSEXUAL Sacred Qadesh who have anal sex with men and women as part of the Temple service - and use such to falsely say the Bible condemns actual homosexuals.

The Bible does not say such - the writings of later men and their traditions say such.

*

 

[starlite]

Yes, I agree, that is what is usually brought up by people trying to reform such old ideas, but many Christians seem to think their religious ideas should be in our government and laws.

You seem to have missed the point I was making in my posts. And that is....God stated his rule of conduct back in ancient times and that has not changed down to this day. Sex outside marriage and between same sex partners is something God does not approve of. Those who uphold his standard do not follow trends. I am not attempting to point a finger....only stating God's view. Enough said and thank all for listening.

(John 17:14-16) I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 15 “I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. (NWT)

 

[McBell]

You seem to have missed the point I was making in my posts. And that is....God stated his rule of conduct back in ancient times and that has not changed down to this day. Sex outside marriage and between same sex partners is something God does not approve of. Those who uphold his standard do not follow trends. I am not attempting to point a finger....only stating God's view. Enough said and thank all for listening.

(John 17:14-16) I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 15 “I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. (NWT)

So are you saying that all 613 OT rules and regulations are still in effect for all?

 

[Ingledsva]

You seem to have missed the point I was making in my posts. And that is....God stated his rule of conduct back in ancient times and that has not changed down to this day. Sex outside marriage and between same sex partners is something God does not approve of. Those who uphold his standard do not follow trends. I am not attempting to point a finger....only stating God's view. Enough said and thank all for listening.

There was no marriage "in the beginning."

People just mated up - then somewhere in history they added a party, to share and show others that they are together. Then along comes religions and they add a blessing to their hook-up.

Again - no actual verses saying homosexuality is wrong.

And I might add that it is folks against homosexuals that are forcing them to "sin - as in sex outside of marriage," as they prevent them from marrying!

 

[Ingledsva]

So are you saying that all 613 OT rules and regulations are still in effect for all?

They are hypocrites when it comes to their Biblical laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FOR 9-10ths_PENGUINE

You didn't answer so I didn't know if you saw this. I decided to drop it to the bottom.

I just saw it. I was busy last night and worked all day, so I just wasn't around.

The problem with that is that none of them actually say anything about homosexuality.

They are about Sacred Temple Sex. Did the Sacred Qadesh perform anal sex? Yes.

Were they actually homosexual? NO!

They didn't hang a notice outside the Temple saying - "Gay men? Have we got a job for you!" LOL!

Did you have a look at the thread I linked to earlier? Given angellous' credentials (including the fact that he's invested a big chunk of his life learning how to read ancient Greek, taking into account its historical and cultural context), I'm not inclined to go with your opinion over his on this issue.

Also, if you're referring to the passage in Leviticus with the prohibition against "lying with a man as one lies with a woman", I don't think your interpretation makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where does it say it was unacceptable for a woman to be in a position of leadership? In the writings of Paul or in the writings of the Tanakh with stories like Deborah the Prophetess?

To a certain extent, that's me reading between the lines. IMO, the fact that a woman is numbered as part of her father or husband's property and the fact that her autonomy is in many ways at the discretion of her father or husband is incompatible with her actually holding authority.

You would agree that it's impossible for a slave to hold authority over her master, right?

I'd bet a thousand dollars that Angellous would also agree that the "Agape" mentioned has nothing to do with romantic love, and if the writings do talk about romantic love, the INTENDED context was between a man and a woman only.

I think we may be speaking past each other here. When I talk about romantic love, I don't just mean sexual attraction; I also mean the selfless love (i.e. "agape") that is often found in a healthy long-term romantic relationship... though I'm not suggesting that it can only be found in romantic relationships.

And I disagree with you about the intent. Or rather, I think that if the Bible authors thought about it at all, it wouldn't be so much that they decided that their positive description of "agape" applied to "agape" between opposite-sex partners but not "agape" between same-sex partners, but more that they really did mean to speak of it positively in general, and it simply didn't occur to them that it could exist in the context of a same-sex romantic relationship. These days, we know better.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Speaking for myself, I don't say that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. Here's what I think it says:

- it does condemn homosexuality and declares it to be sin.
- it also condemns judging others, particularly non-Christians, for their sins.
- it proclaims broad principles that support love in general, and therefore romantic love between members of the same sex (BTW: I do not approach the Bible assuming that it can't contradict itself).

I also recognize that the Bible's mixed message on homosexuality is very similar in a lot of ways to its mixed message on slavery, yet even the most fundamentalist Christian these days doesn't have an issue in disregarding the Biblical passages that support slavery to argue against the practice. Therefore, I think there's inherent hypocrisy when such people choose not to take the same approach on the issue of homosexuality and overlook the nasty passages on that issue.

Edit: so the short version is this: I think that the Bible both supports and condemns homosexuality, but for people who interpret it as condemning it, the Bible forbids them from judging others or acting on their opinion other than as a guide for their own actions.

First of all there's no mixed message about engaging homosexual behavior. There isn't one passage in the Bible which remotely hints that such behavior may be appropriate unless you count Jesus' "omission" of any specific references of men doing other men. As far as judgementalism goes. What's most bizarre is that many people have a crazy notion that to be judgemental is to actually make a moral judgement about behavior. This notion couldn't be more unbiblical. It essentially equates "judging" with "rebuking". Good luck finding a servant of God in the Bible that believes "rebuking" is evil.


FWIW: this comes from a guy that does find the message in the NT about slavery and the role of women in church to be confusing .

 

[Ingledsva]

I just saw it. I was busy last night and worked all day, so I just wasn't around.

Did you have a look at the thread I linked to earlier? Given angellous' credentials (including the fact that he's invested a big chunk of his life learning how to read ancient Greek, taking into account its historical and cultural context), I'm not inclined to go with your opinion over his on this issue.

Also, if you're referring to the passage in Leviticus with the prohibition against "lying with a man as one lies with a woman", I don't think your interpretation makes a whole lot of sense.

First let me say there is no - "as with a" in the text, or in your case, "as one lies," and it is usually translated as "and with man don't... - however that "with" is also "for."

And for man; don't lie down for sex in the beds of the women, idolatry it is.

LOL! We obviously agree to disagree.

Boy it really gets confusing when these long threads start branching out. It takes me a while to find my replies and answer them.

I didn't have to work today, I went to an employee party and ate way to much chocolate, candy, junk, prime rib with all the trimmings, dessert, drinks, ect. LOL! I am so stuffed all I can do for a while is sit here and pursue the debates. LOL!