The bible and gays

[jojom]

Why do homosexuals always complain about the bible?

First of all, homosexuals don't always complain about the bible. Secondly, your generalization is speaking volumes about you, and it ain't good.

We Christians don't waste our time talking about Homosexuals all the time we have better things to do

Has someone said you do? And how nice of you to speak for all Christians. Your credibility quotient is getting lower all the time, j. p.

God hates sin and so do most of you , every one of you will judge a murderer or a robber you will judge a rapist.

And your point is what?


.

 

[loveendures]

Yes I agree, but the way many religious people carry on, you would think they knew everything he did, this is why I cannot take the bible too serious.

Have you read the Bible to yourself? Jesus was never religious, a matter of fact he was anti religious ( that costs his life) He did not invent a new religion called Christianity as most people think without reading Bible.

 

[Pudding]

Hi
It's quite sad to see people writing and talking about the bible, and take things out of context.
I have children and whether they do good or bad I still feed them, but I don't condone the wrong they do.
I have a question does God hate murderers
Does he hate people who commit adultery
Does God hate people that commit rape.

Why do homosexuals always complain about the bible? We Christians don't waste our time talking about Homosexuals all the time we have better things to do
.
God hates sin and so do most of you , every one of you will judge a murderer or a robber you will judge a rapist.

I understand that some interpretation to the bible may teach that homosexual is equally to the sin of murderers/adultery/rapist. It may equally same in that interpretation of religion/God's standards, but it's not equally same in [other interpretation of religion/God]/secular/humanity's standards.

In [other interpretation of religion/God]/secular/humanity's standards, homosexual is innocuous but murderers/adultery/rapist is harmful.

Why do opposers complain about [the bible's teachings which judge homosexual] or [some believer's action to use the bible's teachings to complain/judge homosexual]?

If those believer don't use their bible's teachings to complain/judge homosexual, sure then most probably no people will complain them.

 

[Jumi]

I heard of occasional homosexual intercourse in animals, but I'm yet to find long term partnering (I'll search for that). Maybe the occasional ones happen when the animal loses control in heat due to lack of the other sex's presence. I guess this could happen to heterosexual humans too. Also, should partnering exist, it could be a test from God thru animals since animals are mindless and probably don't face judgement for such a thing in the after life.

I don't see animals as mindless, but that's of course a different topic.

Yes. There is plenty of pairing between same-sex animals, I think the wikipedia page talked about a known pairing of 19 years and of 8% of male rams pairing with male rams to the annoyance of their owners wanting them to breed with the females. I'm far from an expert on the topic, but I have known of such pairings from long ago when it made local news when two male ducks paired up. It caused quite a stir, since gays were pretty universally hated in the area where I was born. The pair were most often seen near the local church.

Yes, even some Muslims don't (believe it or not ). My post was exclusively on what the Bible (the scriptures) has to offer (what the topic is about, I believe), not how people tend to it. Religion is religions and people are people, right?

Of course and people have different interpretations of the Bible. I'd tend toward New Testament without Paul myself and without crucifixion, if I was a believer.

 

[Jumi]

We Christians don't waste our time talking about Homosexuals all the time we have better things to do

Perhaps you don't, but it seems to be one of the top issues going on in religion now. I can't wait for this period to be over.

 

[Norman]

This seems to point to the only moral position being to give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they are "born that way" until it is KNOWN to be untrue. Wouldn't you agree?

Norman: Hi leibowde84, Yes, I would agree with you on that.

 

[JoStories]

Does the Bible say something against homosexuals? As far as I know, it says things against homo-sex intercourse.

Correct but some here seem to wish to point that to being gay period. And this is an example of what we were talking about in another thread Smart Guy.

 

[JoStories]

Jo people been rude to me on here as well. I am done with this and done with feeling guilty for having a different opinion then you guys and evening a Christian

Yes some have Ben. But so have you and here you lump me in with the people you say you're 'done with'. No one is asking you to be who you're not. They're merely asking you to explain your views.

 

[JoStories]

I felt I could only speak to what you said about where we came from. You left the rest of your comments undeveloped because you were tired and I took that to mean that you were going to return to those issues later. Besides, I'm not sure how to respond to reincarnation. I only have opinion and not reason to rebut to that. As for learning the lessons of life, I happen to agree with that aspect so there was nothing to comment on. I took "Bardo" state to mean the final resting place after mortality was finally over, which 'a rose by any other name', but it doesn't tell me much conditions there, so again, there was nothing to respond to.

The Bardo state, IMO, is the interim place we wait until we are reincarnated. We have a choice about whom we wish to be reincarnated to and what lessons we still need to understand. It is not like your heaven really. Like I said, an interim state. Reincarnation is mentioned, albeit in a round about way, in the Bible by Jesus with Elijah. Most argue that it is not saying that. Opinion is really all we have here so responding about your own opinion is fine.

 

[leibowde84]

Norman: Hi leibowde84, Yes, I would agree with you on that.

So, currently, you do consider homosexuality to be genetic and not chosen, then (until we can PROVE otherwise), granting homosexuals the benefit of the doubt? If so, I applaud you for your decency and reason.

 

[JoStories]

I see, you don't like my point of view, so you accuse me of not listening to yours. I am listening; I just disagree and am presenting an alternative point of view. That is called debating. Jo, If my point of view offends you, there is an ignore function. Attempting to silence me by getting me banned for violating forum rules (which I am not doing) is a cheap shot.

In no way am I attempting to silence you Ether. I am interested in your views but when it comes to this topic, you seem to have a myopic view and keep in mind that I am bisexual. There is nothing stated by Christ about this and only Paul speaks of this which even there, its not quite openly. And here again, as you know, I do not believe in Paulian dogma at all. I disagree with your POV and strongly so in many cases but I have been trying to understand yours.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I don't see animals as mindless, but that's of course a different topic.

Yes. There is plenty of pairing between same-sex animals, I think the wikipedia page talked about a known pairing of 19 years and of 8% of male rams pairing with male rams to the annoyance of their owners wanting them to breed with the females. I'm far from an expert on the topic, but I have known of such pairings from long ago when it made local news when two male ducks paired up. It caused quite a stir, since gays were pretty universally hated in the area where I was born. The pair were most often seen near the local church.

I think this is bad. If it increases, it could damage a natural source of food.

Hmm, animals being not mindless means they can make intelligent and complicated choices based on intended thinking too. This could prove really bad with time. Or it could not, I hope.

But anyways, back to topic, could it be the interference of human hands, like isolating males from females to prevent breeding when wanted, that caused this? I wonder if it happen in nature too. Observation is best credible when taken from nature. There are many interpretations that human hands causes destruction where ever it tries to alter/control things.

 

[leibowde84]

I see, you don't like my point of view, so you accuse me of not listening to yours. I am listening; I just disagree and am presenting an alternative point of view. That is called debating. Jo, If my point of view offends you, there is an ignore function. Attempting to silence me by getting me banned for violating forum rules (which I am not doing) is a cheap shot.

No offense, but you do come off as preachy in this conversation. Instead of trying to get at the truth, you seem to be pushing your subjective opinion. You refrain from addressing why your subjective views are correct, rather than mere opinions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why is the bible homophobic

Because the Bible was written by humans, each with their own likes, dislikes, beliefs, fears and so on. In that it accuses God of killing the whole world and ordering the slaughter of children and infants, it clealy hasn't got much to do with God. If there were a god, I sincerely doubt it would be much interested in who was diddling who, frankly.

 

[Norman]

And yet neither are you. Posting verses to me about something from your faith is not debate.

Norman: I was making a Statement.

Debate is giving your own opinion of something from your faith and then backing that opinion with facts or at least reasoned responses to your argument.

Norman: When I posted a passage of scripture that you responded to in post# 171, I was simply making a statement. You have never experienced debating with me yet. All your statements that you posted to me is not debating. You have been making statements. I know what debating is.

Your faith is not mine. That is a statement of fact. Your faith, by and large, has no meaning for me. That, too, is fact.

Norman: This is another example of what I was trying to say to you. This is a statement. It is not a debate. Every post you referenced to me was a statement or a one sided discussion on your part.

Do you want to try to explain to me why your faith should have meaning to me? Love to. Bring it on. I welcome that opportunity Norman.

Norman: No, because there is no proselytizing in the forum. Just an overview here.

Norman: Post #149,I was making a statement here. No debate and no discussion here.

Norman: Post #171, I was making a statement here.

Norman:Post #186, I was making a statement. No debate started.

Norman: Post #205, I was making a statement.

Norman: Post #207, you started to attack me here because I ignored sojourner. A one sided discussion by you. We can debate my response to the OP if you would like to and move on from here. However, Your Diatribe comments about me and my Church in post #207 is not a debate.

Norman: Post #213, I do not care about your statement about sojourner.

 

[leibowde84]

I think this is bad. If it increases, it could damage a natural source of food.

Hmm, animals being not mindless means they can make intelligent and complicated choices based on intended thinking too. This could prove really bad with time. Or it could not, I hope.

But anyways, back to topic, could it be the interference of human hands, like isolating males from females to prevent breeding when wanted, that caused this? I wonder if it happen in nature too. Observation is best credible when taken from nature. There are many interpretations that human hands causes destruction where ever it tries to alter/control things.

Smart_Guy, here is a list of (wild) animals in nature that display homosexual/bisexual behavior in roughly between 8-10% of their population. These are all animals in the wild away from any human intervention. To claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" shows an immense ignorance of what the term "natural" means. Homosexuality exists all over the place "naturally" in the wild. Anyone claiming otherwise is merely dishonest and/or ignorant.

• 4 Some selected species and groups
  • 4.1 Birds
    • 4.1.1 Black swans
    • 4.1.2 Gulls
    • 4.1.3 Ibises
    • 4.1.4 Mallards
    • 4.1.5 Penguins
    • 4.1.6 Vultures
    • 4.1.7 Pigeons
  • 4.2 Mammals
    • 4.2.1 Amazon dolphin
    • 4.2.2 American bison
    • 4.2.3 Bonobo and other apes
    • 4.2.4 Bottlenose dolphins
    • 4.2.5 Elephants
    • 4.2.6 Giraffes
    • 4.2.7 Monkeys
    • 4.2.8 Japanese macaque
    • 4.2.9 Lions
    • 4.2.10 Polecat
    • 4.2.11 Sheep
    • 4.2.12 Spotted hyena
  • 4.3 Others
    • 4.3.1 Lizards
    • 4.3.2 Insects and arachnids
      • 4.3.2.1 Dragonflies
      • 4.3.2.2 Fruit flies
      • 4.3.2.3 Bed bugs

 

[Norman]

So, currently, you do consider homosexuality to be genetic and not chosen, then (until we can PROVE otherwise), granting homosexuals the benefit of the doubt? If so, I applaud you for your decency and reason.

Norman: Yes leibowde84, I have looked for any genetic link for this, however, I have not found any. However, I will agree on the genetics giving the homosexuals the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jumi]

I think this is bad. If it increases, it could damage a natural source of food.

I don't think it's an increase. Nothing points to there having been a change. The ducks in the local church pond I was talking about were in the early 90s.

Hmm, animals being not mindless means they can make intelligent and complicated choices based on intended thinking too. This could prove really bad with time. Or it could not, I hope.

I think we have a different definition of mind here, leading to some confusion. Most animals don't plan long-term, beyond ability to solve multi-step puzzles. Not sure about some smarter ones like bonobos, they seem very humanlike and sometimes surprises me what they can do.

But anyways, back to topic, could it be the interference of human hands, like isolating males from females to prevent breeding when wanted, that caused this? I wonder if it happen in nature too. Observation is best credible when taken from nature. There are many interpretations that human hands causes destruction where ever it tries to alter/control things.

Yes, it happens without human intervention. The ducks in that church pond weren't limited by humans either.

 

[leibowde84]

Norman: Yes leibowde84, I have looked for any genetic link for this, however, I have not found any. However, I will agree on the genetics giving the homosexuals the benefit of the doubt.

I would suggest listening to the following podcast from "Science vs.". It changed the way I looked at this issue. It has become increasingly clear that homosexuality is genetic, but not due to some magical "gay gene". Our attraction for the opposite or same sex in various aspects of life are controlled by various genes. Homosexuality causes these attractions to occur more so for the same sex rather than the opposite sex. But, listen to the podcast. It is very intriguing.

https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Fscience-vs%2Fthe-gay-gene

 

[Norman]

Do you happen to recall the thread about insults? Its very hard to be kind to you when you tell me I am or rather that my opinions are absurd. NO opinions here are to be insulted or demeaned by anyone else. You are free to disagree with me but you will find that there are other people, some right here on this board, that agree with me and call people Paulian. And your opinion about Paul is just that, an opinion. And nothing more.

Norman: You dare ask ether-ore to not insult you when you did exactly that to me, you are a hypocrite. Let me help you remember.

Post # 207

1. Norman said: ↑

Norman: The only one giving Mormonism a black eye is you sojourner. You are on ignore, bye.

Click to expand...

Ah... the mark of someone with no ability to debate or even live up to their own faith. All too often, we see people of your faith ignoring others when they are faced with true debate. Sojourner is polite, articulate, funny, and always expressed his or her opinion well. I have no problem with you and what you believe. I do, however, lose a great deal of respect when someone has not the ability to live their faith and just shuts down. Sad really.

Norman: You started to attack me here because I ignored sojourner. You have no right to this comment you made "Ah... the mark of someone with no ability to debate" when we have not debated yet.