Please explain what do you mean with that? Can you give one example of such thing and explanation why so?
-
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!
Outlawing Homosexuality Farcical
- Thread starter Brickjectivity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homosexuality
Please explain what do you mean with that? Can you give one example of such thing and explanation why so?
Sorry, I think it is a wrong interpretation to think it is not for Christians. Firstly, in Biblical point of view, disciples of Jesus (=”Christians”) are Jews, because:
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:28-29
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them, and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree; don’t boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear; for if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Romans 11:17-21
But, I don’t say everyone should become a Jew, or Christian. I just think it would be best for people.
And I think your interpretation about cleanliness is wrong, because Paul says:
Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.
1 Cor. 6:9-10
And, if person is truly a disciple of Jesus (“Christian”), it would be best to go with this:
"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19
I don’t believe God has changed His mind about what is detestable. I believe He has made some clean, but I don’t think it means that what makes unclean is clean now. Cleaning means that the matter that makes unclean is removed, not that it is made acceptable.
I don’t say they are disgusting, I say, by what the Bible tells the homosexual act is detestable. And I agree with it. And I think also that the act is not reasonable.
How “gay” can have children? The old-fashioned way needs woman and man. Man, and man can’t have children in old fashioned way. Are you suggesting that “gay” people have sex with opposite gender?
Hmmm… Why do you think it was hate speech?
Yes, of course they do. Both when they're in the closet (lots of closeted gay people start families) or because they still want children but can't afford the fees for adoption.
Surrogates are a thing.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
You wrote in your post. Detestable (disgusting)
Your words.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Perhap, because it was?
Replace all the words referring to homosexuals with a word that represents a race, or an ethnicity, and then re-evaluate.
Personally, I have a lower level of tolerance as to what I consider hate, than many governments would. If any group is subjected to death by a government (13 countries currently have the death penalty for homosexuality) than it's hate. It you want to kill somebody for being who they are, then in my book it's hate.
Last edited:
The last 3 Prophets to appear Jesus, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah made mention of these things. Jesus only ever recognised marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Jesus (Gospels)
Matthew 19 :4-6
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Muhammad (Quran)
And (remember) Lut (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn)?
Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)’”
[al-A’raaf 7:80-81]
Baha’u’llah (Most Holy Book)
We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires.”
Any supposed prophet who thinks gay sex is "the worst sin" really needs to re-evaluate his priorities, IMO.
It’s God’s Words. People are free to disagree with God if they wish to do so. God is All Knowing and All Wise. Do you know more than God? I don’t that’s why I don’t question His wisdom.
Alternatively:
A. It isn't God's words
B. God isn't all knowing or all wise.
A(2). I do know more than a bunch of men from hundreds or or thousands of years ago superimposed their cultural norms onto an entity they don't actually have any contact with.
Or, finally, a God that punishes people for trivial things like being gay isn't a God worth worship or adoration. And no 'might makes right' style argument will change my mind.
Outlawing it is not the way to go.
Point taken. People who believe in God and the Prophets will likely have opposing views.
I respect that. But we are all human and no matter what a persons belief or lifestyle I am strongly opposed to all forms of prejudice so as far as I’m concerned all are equal whether atheist, agnostic or gays. Because I’m religious I just wanted to mention our side of the story but with good intention.
Point taken. People who believe in God and the Prophets will likely have opposing views.
I respect that. But we are all human and no matter what a persons belief or lifestyle I am strongly opposed to all forms of prejudice so as far as I’m concerned all are equal whether atheist, agnostic or gays. Because I’m religious I just wanted to mention our side of the story but with good intention.
I don’t think it will ever be outlawed but that in the future people will not place so much emphasis on these things.
2 things there:
1) They're God's words - in your opinion. I don't agree with you. I think you have no way to demonstrate that. What we know for a fact is that they were words written by humans. And humans are wrong - a lot. Including humans who claim they speak for God. Whether that human had God whispering in his ear or not is up for debate.
2) Whether they're God's words or not doesn't actually explain why they're moral. Why does God have the view that two people of the same sex having sex is morally worse than say, genocide? Explain the moral reasoning there. If you don't have a good answer for that, then appealing to "they're God's words" is really just a cop out to shut down disagreement.
ETA: Posted this before I realized that @ADigitalArtist made much the same set of points more succinctly.
Last edited:
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
It is ritually unclean. Many things are, even childbirth.
We have a term called 'Anathema' which is the breaking down of themes, the exposure of mysteries. It is forbidden usually but not to me for various reasons, and I have good reason to break taboos. The deaths of homosexuals, Jews and others in the name of Christ is a good reason. It is exceedingly shameful. Even if I don't have permission and am not supposed to be doing it everyone can see that things have gotten so bad that it almost doesn't matter. If the ark was sinking wouldn't you plug the hole?
So here is the explanation given upon three pillars:
In the first pillar Matthew 19 and most of Matthew cannot be literal (which many Baha'i acknowledge, not that it is needed by me). In the second pillar no reason is given for the inclusion of the story of the marriage at Cana, so we must come up with our own reason for the story being there. Therefore you cannot say for sure what the purpose of the passage is, though someday it might be discerned. The third pillar is that Jesus refers to the story of the Garden of Eden, a story which shows its own self to be non literal in several places and really almost throughout the first chapters though I will give 3 specific points at which Genesis speaking literally of itself requires that you take itself non literally. It is only the veils and mysteries which deny this, but the text reveals itself.
If you believe Jesus to be ignorant of this non literal status of Genesis, then you underestimate his speech and thoughts and forget how he himself speaks to other people. His own speech is rarely literal, and he says so multiple times in Matthew, in this book that you have referred me to. Taking this, his non literal and confusing phraseology as literal and simple is to make him a paper doll to be danced about upon strings. Perhaps you think that is what I'm doing, but I am explaining precisely what I see. I do not see an ignorant Jesus or a Jesus who only takes Genesis one way or who expects us to. I see a Jesus who rebukes people who take his own words too literally and does so more than once, and where does he learn to do this if not from the Jewish scriptures? Here are the three:
The three examples in the third pillar: Sin tackles Cain, Noah is naked, Adam knows Eve. If taken literally all three of these are lies. Sin has no body with which to tackle Cain and is not a person. Noah is caught in a sexual sin, but the scripture verse says only that he is naked. Adam has sex with Eve but the scripture says he knows Eve. Figures of speech are not used. Rather the truth is obscured purposely, and this is both a precedent and a principle of scriptural interpretation. It is even alluded to by Paul like this:
23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, (1 Corinthians 12:23)
That is, the story of Genesis is about sex and is not spoken about directly by Jesus. He is a modest speaker, unlike me. Besides, indirect speech is more powerful, conveying more meaning and lessons.
There is also a fourth but it is from the Christian NT. The serpent in the garden of Eden is not a serpent. No, it is the devil and satan. So which is it? Is it a serpent or is it the devil and satan? Genesis lies to you, or Genesis expresses truth through non literal stories -- stories which did not happen in the way they were described? Which is it? Is it a serpent or not? If it is not a serpent, then why don't snakes have legs? If it is a serpent, then why does the NT say that it is the devil and Satan?
Let me be the one to say what the biblical view is, because I am qualified as anyone though no one is. The tongue is a universe of evil among the parts of the body, setting everything on fire, burning men and women and children, destroying. It is like a fresh spring which occasionally poisons the unwary traveler. It blesses God but then criticizes God by criticizing those made in God's image, breaking the commandment not to kill, killing the image of God. It is evil to live by words instead of by actions; and we are an evil generation born from generations of evil people who like to say nice things about ourselves while criticizing the evils of others though we occasionally speak the truth. Though we occasionally speak the truth it is only so that our lies may be all the better. This is a terrible thing, but God can shine through even us though not without burning us a little.
Jesus disciples never seem to understand what he is talking about, because he is always speaking truth through
I appreciate your wish to help and to do good. These are evidence of the spirit of God and of adoption in you, which intercede with groans which cannot be uttered. The words are training wheels. They are good, but they are keeping you from riding the bike, too; because in order for Jesus disciples to understand him they must always look beyond the words, ignoring the words, peddling without the training wheels.
Jesus who blatantly misleads his disciples and to the crowd by speaking in language he knows they won't understand says to you "I didn't come to destroy, but to imitate." This you read as "I didn't come to destroy but to fulfill" which is a phrase which makes no grammatical sense. Nobody fulfills laws. They keep laws or imitate laws. Similarly all uses of the word 'Fulfill' in Matthew does not mean 'Fulfill' but 'imitate'. So what does Jesus mean when he says he's not destroying the law but imitating it? Or if he means 'Fulfill' which is grammatically nonsensical then he could be misleading you and expecting you to look beyond his words to his real meaning, just as he does with his other disciples and with the crowd. I suggest that he is.
A Chick tract titled The Gay Blade would have you believe that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, but that is a lie. It is a lie and viciously poisonous one which has done much to destroy lives here in the USA.
One of the major prophets tells us what the evil of Sodom and Gomorrah is, and they don't say it is about sex. They say it is about rich people and oppression, oppressing poor people. That is the sin of Sodom and of Gomorrah as described by the prophet Ezekiel, and this bears up reading the story with this in mind.
When the LORD tells Abraham that the city Sodom is to be destroyed the reason given is not "sex between males" but "cries that have reached unto heaven." Sodom is a violent city, called 'Wicked' for the same reasons that the people before the Flood were called 'Wicked'. They were violent and were destroyed by a flood. Sodom was violent and was destroyed by fire from the sky.
After Abraham destroys the enemies of Sodom and Gomorrah to save his nephew, Lot, the king of Sodom offers Abraham slaves which Abraham refuses. He doesn't merely refuse but says he won't accept even a thong of a sandal. He is a man who loves people and chooses to live in peace and seals this by giving a tithe to the priest of justice Melchizedek who rules in that city named 'Peace'. It is Melchizedek whom Abraham allies with in the end and breaks with Sodom, because Sodom is an oppressive city which kidnaps and enslaves unwary travelers. That is the evil of Sodom, not homosexuality.
"But!" that Chick tract will say "The men of Sodom were going to rape him!" When the men of the city tell Lot that its just about sex they are lying. Lot offers them his daughters who are far more desireable for sex; but no they want the new people. They don't want to rape them. They want to enslave them.
And so you see that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not at all what was presented in the Chick tract nor what was preached by Jerry Falwell who claimed to be a prophet nor by so damned many men who pranced upon the stage and who so many put their faith in. It is not at all what Pat Robertson says. Its not what Kenneth Copeland says. Its not even what many Catholics and Lutherans and Calvinists and all kinds of people have said. All of them are ignorant and have shown themselves to be unreliable witnesses and patsies and have done harm to people who ought to have been left alone.
Nor the Primitive Baptists. Nor the so called Berean Christadelphians. Nor...however many thousands of different groups have claimed it to be about homosexuals. It is not and never was about homosexuals.