The bible and gays

[Kirran]

It is not.It just tells that this kind of lifestyle is not a normal one.Those who are gay, or know people who are gay, and agree with them, are the ones who call it homophobic.

Normal is subjective. That's why there is talk of 'normalising' - this refers to bringing things into public perception as being normal. So normalcy is just a social construct, and some people think being gay is normal, others disagree.

Those who are black, or who know people who are black and agree with them, might well call the writings of Dylann Roof racist. Are you saying they are not racist for those people who agree with his opinion? This is the same logic.

 

[sojourner]

It just tells that this kind of lifestyle is not a normal one.

1) No it doesn't. It merely says that male/male sex is wrong.
2) And, of cour

As I said earlier, I believe this physical body does indeed have innate desires which may predispose it to homosexuality, perhaps even genetically predisposed.

Yet, those desires are not as accepted as other desires, hence, not as deeply part of humanity.

In terms of my understanding what that means for a being who existed as a spirit before coming to earth to gain a physical body for the first time is that that individual has a significant hurdle to overcome if he wishes to achieve the goal God desires for him.

What do you think needs to be "overcome?" What does God "desire" for us?

heterosexuality does need to be overcome if it is not restricted to the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman.

So, am I to understand that you're conflating an identity with an act? Or are you saying that one must only be heterosexual with regard to marriage, but may be homosexual, or bisexual, with regard to other facets of one's life?

The coherence and cohesiveness of that story gives it credibility to some.

Where is the cohesiveness in two widely different accounts of creation?

The scriptures that proclaim against homosexuality combined with the overview of God's intended progress for His children

1) The scriptures don't "proclaim against homosexuality." They do maintain that sexual acts between two men are wrong.
2) What is God's "intended progress" for humanity, do you think?

are justification enough for me to say that homosexuality is not in accordance with God's will.

You haven't laid out yet either justification for saying that the bible is "against homosexuality," or elaborated about what this "overview" of God's intentions might entail. Therefore, how can they be "enough" for you to proclaim the dehumanization of many? You haven't proved enough for that sort of thing to take place with any sort of credibility or reason.

I merely state these things. I recognize that homosexuality will exist in spite of my opinions. All that is left is for me to mourn.

Words are powerful. We don't "just state" anything. Homosexuality does exist, it is a normal and healthy expression for human beings. You mourn human beings being true to who they were created to be. That's a rather untenable spiritual position to take, don't you think?

 

[Deathbydefault]

All communities have some sort of organization. Jesus organized a community around disciples and other followers.

The question is academic and moot, since the respondent's theological construction doesn't include a God who desires the death of others.

A ballsy statements from one whose knowledge of the person in question is so limited that I doubt you know enough about his faith to make such an assessment.

"Winning side?" There are no winners or losers, because there are no "sides."
BTW: What "evidence" do you think ought to be available?

What on earth would compel you to "tear" anyone "apart?" That's awfully aggressive, don't you think?

Yet, we are all members of the same human family. I'd say that, alone, has something to do with "your" life, yes?
(Just remember, you will also be a "faceless, nobody corpse" one day.)
What makes a certain belief "ridiculous," do you think? What makes that belief any more ridiculous than the ridiculous belief that 1) your life is your own, and 2) people don't matter?

I'd say that this statement is at least partially untrue. What he said matters enough to you that you bothered to post this diatribe, so, obviously, what he's said has gotten to you in some way, in order to inspire such a response.

Yet, you put up fences of aggression, closed-mindedness and sarcasm. Not a good practice to achieve the objective of having one's opinions swayed and one's beliefs questioned.

Judging by this statement, you're opting, instead, for some informed faith. What faith would that be?

You're blindly judging what sort of faith the respondent embraces. Do you think less of yourself for being so blind?

Of course, by your own criteria, what you "believe" isn't cogent to anything approaching reality. This belief of yours is a blind belief. you only think you know what he knows.




You can begin "thinking less of yourself" any time now.

Obviously, you don't know enough about Christianity to form an opinion that matters. If you did, you'd realize that Christianity is inseparable from Christ, since the church is the Body of Christ. to reject Christianity is to reject Christ.

Your parents are not indicative of the religion as a whole.
Your situation is not indicative of that of the rest of the world.

Ummmmm... because you're bitter?

It's supposed to hold weight outside his community? Really? What makes you think so?

Some of these show that you didn't read all of Ben and mines exchanges.
May want to prevent yourself from jumping to conclusions before saying I've jumped to conclusions.

Most of the rest of these are baseless and not worth a response. You know almost nothing of me or my experiences.
Nor do you know how educated I may be in concerns to this subject.
And you cannot infer anything about said knowledge from seeing me go on the offensive against someone who can't really play defense.

Now I'll give response to the ones that made me laugh a bit.

The question is academic and moot, since the respondent's theological construction doesn't include a God who desires the death of others.

Well if we're talking about the Christian God then what I said applies to almost all denominations.
Whether or not this God "desires" the death of others, he has asked for on occasion. Not to mention he wiped out the human race entirely once.

If this guy has a personal construct that says otherwise then he simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

A ballsy statements from one whose knowledge of the person in question is so limited that I doubt you know enough about his faith to make such an assessment.

Funny that you say that...

Yes I believe. I believe so much I would even be willing to give my life for my Lord. I don't care about evidence. I have Faith and for me that is enough.

Why would I ever say that someone like this only has a bind and irrational faith

Yet, we are all members of the same human family. I'd say that, alone, has something to do with "your" life, yes?
(Just remember, you will also be a "faceless, nobody corpse" one day.)
What makes a certain belief "ridiculous," do you think? What makes that belief any more ridiculous than the ridiculous belief that 1) your life is your own, and 2) people don't matter?

I'm aware that I'll be another forgotten corpse in the ground by my world view, and I'm fine with that.
People only matter innerpersonally, when they make themselves matter.
In the long run all we'll be is more dead people, from a very long line of dead people, that gave birth to the next generation of dead people.

I consider a belief ridiculous when it asserts something is true while providing no evidence for such a thing.
Fairies, unicorns, dragons, Gods, and any other myth you can think of. They are all equal to each other in my eyes.

Your parents are not indicative of the religion as a whole.
Your situation is not indicative of that of the rest of the world.

That was used as comparison and background information.
I was telling him why I got so aggressive and how his beliefs are similar to those of my fundamentalist parents.

It's supposed to hold weight outside his community? Really? What makes you think so?

The fact that he is posting comments on debate website, and that said comments were in concern to his religion.
They would have to hold some sort of weight if they are going to be respected, otherwise he'll be ignored or used for entertainment.

-

 

[sojourner]

Some of these show that you didn't read all of Ben and mines exchanges.

No, I didn't. Just jumping in with observations.

May want to prevent yourself from jumping to conclusions before saying I've jumped to conclusions.

I'm not drawing conclusions. Merely responding to your posts with observations and questions, based on those posts.

You know almost nothing of me or my experiences.

I'm responding specifically to what I read here. If these posts aren't an honest representation of your views, one has to wonder why they're not?

And you cannot infer anything about said knowledge from seeing me go on the offensive against someone who can't really play defense.

I'm not inferring anything. Merely responding to posts at face value.

Well if we're talking about the Christian God then what I said applies to almost all denominations.

I'm not aware of any denominational stances where God specifically requires believers to kill people.

Whether or not this God "desires" the death of others, he has asked for on occasion.

Oh? When, pray tell.

Not to mention he wiped out the human race entirely once.

How do you know that? Where are you getting this information? Perhaps from a metaphorical story that has no basis in history?

If this guy has a personal construct that says otherwise then he simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

How does a construct in which God does not desire the death of people "not make sense?" Based on what criteria?

Why would I ever say that someone like this only has a bind and irrational faith

I don't find lack of empirical evidence indicative of blindness and irrationality where belief is concerned. Now if we're talking about facts, that's a different story.

I'm aware that I'll be another forgotten corpse in the ground by my world view, and I'm fine with that.

Still a rather snarky thing to say to someone.

People only matter innerpersonally, when they make themselves matter.

Isn't he being interpersonal with you? He's a fellow human being. He has a right to matter.

In the long run all we'll be is more dead people, from a very long line of dead people, that gave birth to the next generation of dead people.

What about the here and now? Isn't that more important to our lives?

I consider a belief ridiculous when it asserts something is true while providing no evidence for such a thing.

I have no doubt that you do. I consider your criterion ridiculous, where faith-constructs are concerned.

Fairies, unicorns, dragons, Gods, and any other myth you can think of. They are all equal to each other in my eyes.

Open your eyes a little wider. There's a huge difference between fairies and God.

That was used as comparison and background information.
I was telling him why I got so aggressive and how his beliefs are similar to those of my fundamentalist parents.

Yes, I know. Your personal history is no excuse for poor form with others.

The fact that he is posting comments on debate website, and that said comments were in concern to his religion.
They would have to hold some sort of weight if they are going to be respected, otherwise he'll be ignored or used for entertainment.

If his beliefs hold no weight to others here, then your own beliefs, by your own criterion, also hold no weight here. So, tell me: why are you posting, again?

 

[Katzpur]

But what if I did lie and never said sorry. Your faith would have me in hell.

Actually, it wouldn't. Mormon doctrine does not include Hell (at least not as traditional Christianity sees it). According to Mormonism, you're almost guaranteed to end up in Heaven.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No, I didn't. Just jumping in with observations.

Oh, is that so?

I'm not drawing conclusions. Merely responding to your posts with observations and questions, based on those posts.

I can see that. It's quite obvious.

I'm responding specifically to what I read here. If these posts aren't an honest representation of your views, one has to wonder why they're not?

It isn't that they are dishonest, it's that there is more to them.
The way I construct my wording tends to force people to read all I have to say.
If you don't read all I have to say then you don't understand my position, simple.

I'm not inferring anything. Merely responding to posts at face value.

Indeed.

I'm not aware of any denominational stances where God specifically requires believers to kill people.

Not what I made inference to. I was talking about his reference in the bible.

Oh? When, pray tell.

Here.

How does a construct in which God does not desire the death of people "not make sense?" Based on what criteria?

The bible. I use the bible as the main structure for the Christian faith.
You don't need to follow the bible to be Christian, nor do you need to take it literally.
But if your view of the Christian God contradicts with the bible, well it doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't find lack of empirical evidence indicative of blindness and irrationality where belief is concerned. Now if we're talking about facts, that's a different story.

Empirical evidence isn't the main issue.
The main issue is his overdrawn faith, and lack of ability to take evidence into consideration.

Still a rather snarky thing to say to someone.

Welcome to my personality.

Isn't he being interpersonal with you? He's a fellow human being. He has a right to matter.

Innerpersonal. As in, he only matters to the people that care about him. Same vice versa.
It's the same with you and with me. I care about my girlfriend my youngest sister and my bestfriend, that's all.
You might care about your entire family, your pets, your neighbors, all you friends, and all the people starving.

What about the here and now? Isn't that more important to our lives?

Somewhat. The most important thing about life is living it, is it not?
I am not chained down to any form of faith such as religion, nor am I constricted by inner moral laws.
Living is what I do best, it seems.

I have no doubt that you do. I consider your criterion ridiculous, where faith-constructs are concerned.

Doesn't matter how we view each other, not really.
So long as there is discourse progress can be made, that's what matters here.

Open your eyes a little wider. There's a huge difference between fairies and God.

Not concerning evidence.

Yes, I know. Your personal history is no excuse for poor form with others.

Nope, but I can't change how I interact with people drastically enough to make everyone happy, nor do I intend to try.
If you don't like what I have to say or how I say it, there's an ignore function.

If his beliefs hold no weight to others here, then your own beliefs, by your own criterion, also hold no weight here. So, tell me: why are you posting, again?

They hold weight with those who enjoy having debates on the grounds of logic and reasoning.
They also hold weight within debates concerning scripture and "what did this actually mean".
But philosophy is my main structure, science is my second.

I enjoy open debates on the grounds of logic and have been in more than a few over the last couple years.
The main force of why my words hold weight is because I'm not a bigot. Present a belief to me.
I can tell you why I believe it, why I disbelieve it, or why I'm neutral. I can do it without positiving the word faith, too.

 

[sojourner]

I can see that. It's quite obvious.

Then why did you say otherwise?

It isn't that they are dishonest, it's that there is more to them.
The way I construct my wording tends to force people to read all I have to say.
If you don't read all I have to say then you don't understand my position, simple.

An economy of words is a sign of good writing.

Not what I made inference to. I was talking about his reference in the bible.

Why do you seem to think that just because it's in the bible, it must be fact? The stuff you're referring to is nothing more than mythic story, and we are not bound to see it otherwise.

Here.

So, you don't hold the bible to any empirical value, but you expect us to.

The bible. I use the bible as the main structure for the Christian faith.

Your mistake. The Christian faith has never been predicated on the bible alone. No matter wha the fundigelicals say. which, BTW, is why I don't put much stock in that particular ilk.

You don't need to follow the bible to be Christian, nor do you need to take it literally.

Then why are you holding us to that standard?

But if your view of the Christian God contradicts with the bible, well it doesn't make much sense to me.

Huh. The bible contradicts itself. The wise reader/apologist/interpreter knows which are archetypal themes and which are cultural anomalies.

The main issue is his overdrawn faith, and lack of ability to take evidence into consideration.

What evidence are you referring to?

Welcome to my personality.

Welcome to my sense of propriety.

Innerpersonal. As in, he only matters to the people that care about him. Same vice versa.
It's the same with you and with me. I care about my girlfriend my youngest sister and my bestfriend, that's all.
You might care about your entire family, your pets, your neighbors, all you friends, and all the people starving.

That's your prerogative, of course, but it fosters an awfully small world view of humanity, does it not?

Somewhat. The most important thing about life is living it, is it not?

Yes -- and we live in the now or we'r not really living.

I am not chained down to any form of faith such as religion, nor am I constricted by inner moral laws.

Neither am I chained down to any form of faith such as religion. I'm also not constricted by inner morals.

Living is what I do best, it seems.

Not sure how that's cogent here, but good for you.

So long as there is discourse progress can be made, that's what matters here.

I have a feeling you and may see more eye-to-eye than you think. My concern in my initial response was that your arguments seemed to be less than airtight.

Not concerning evidence.

Of course there is.

Nope, but I can't change how I interact with people drastically enough to make everyone happy, nor do I intend to try.
If you don't like what I have to say or how I say it, there's an ignore function.

I also have the right to comment on it.

They hold weight with those who enjoy having debates on the grounds of logic and reasoning.

Except that arguments from reason are grounded in fact. You're throwing around an awful lot of supposition as if it was fact.

But philosophy is my main structure, science is my second.

Theology doesn't appear to be on your radar of structure.

I enjoy open debates on the grounds of logic and have been in more than a few over the last couple years.

Logical debate can be fun.

The main force of why my words hold weight is because I'm not a bigot. Present a belief to me.

Your first couple of posts to which I responded seem to be highly bigoted against people of faith.

I can tell you why I believe it, why I disbelieve it, or why I'm neutral. I can do it without positiving the word faith, too.

Bully for you. But I wonder if you're adequately parsing the differences between theological constructions/avatars, and ontological arguments? It appears as though that's a weak point for you.

 

[RedDragon94]

Why is the bible homophobic

There could be a multitude of reasons why. The Israelites were a newly found nation is my best guess. For this reason they needed to grow their numbers and it's hard to procreate as gay couples.

 

[ether-ore]

There could be a multitude of reasons why. The Israelites were a newly found nation is my best guess. For this reason they needed to grow their numbers and it's hard to procreate as gay couples.

I find that very interesting and I'd like to expand on it a bit. I don't think it has ever been asked: What does God get out of all of this? The usual answer is obedience and worship. I think it is a little more that just that. I think He simply likes to be appreciated. Gratitude adds glory to His name because gratitude is increased by children being born into the world. But also, God's glory is increased by those who by eternal lives add glory to His name. A homosexual adds nothing to any of that.

 

[RedDragon94]

A homosexual adds nothing to any of that.

Now wait a minute. Gays can be grateful about life, they have friends.

 

[sojourner]

God's glory is increased by those who by eternal lives add glory to His name. A homosexual adds nothing to any of that.

Hold on, Cochise! In what way does a homosexual "add nothing" to glorifying God???

 

[psychoslice]

Actually, it wouldn't. Mormon doctrine does not include Hell (at least not as traditional Christianity sees it). According to Mormonism, you're almost guaranteed to end up in Heaven.

Yea one out of three lol.

 

[ether-ore]

Now wait a minute. Gays can be grateful about life, they have friends.

I said "gratitude is increased by children being born into the world". Homosexuals add nothing to that. Besides, they disobey the command to multiply and replenish the earth to say nothing of not being able to have eternal increase. Further, since they are disobeying God's morality laws, there is no way they are glorifying God by giving in to the lusts of their flesh.

 

[ether-ore]

Yea one out of three lol.

Correct. Those are the choices.

 

[psychoslice]

Correct. Those are the choices.

And you truly believe that ?.

 

[roger1440]

Why is the bible homophobic

I’ll give you the shortest and simplest answer. If Jewish Law didn’t forbid homosexual acts, them Jews wouldn’t exist today.

 

[psychoslice]

I’ll give you the shortest and simplest answer. If Jewish Law didn’t forbid homosexual acts, them Jews wouldn’t exist today.

That is silly, there are many gays today and there has always been gays, even many Jews are gay but keep it to themselves of course, is the world all gay today ?.

 

[ether-ore]

And you truly believe that ?.

Within Christian theology, there are two points of view. The majority opinion is that if you don't make it to heaven, then you burn in hell forever. The LDS point of view is that if one does not repent, then they must pay the penalty for their own sins. After that payment is made however, that individual goes to a state of peace for eternity. This concept sounds a bit more just to me, so, yes, I believe it.

 

[Nada]

1) No it doesn't. It merely says that male/male sex is wrong.
2) And, of cour

Yet, those desires are not as accepted as other desires, hence, not as deeply part of humanity.

What do you think needs to be "overcome?" What does God "desire" for us?

So, am I to understand that you're conflating an identity with an act? Or are you saying that one must only be heterosexual with regard to marriage, but may be homosexual, or bisexual, with regard to other facets of one's life?

Where is the cohesiveness in two widely different accounts of creation?

1) The scriptures don't "proclaim against homosexuality." They do maintain that sexual acts between two men are wrong.
2) What is God's "intended progress" for humanity, do you think?

You haven't laid out yet either justification for saying that the bible is "against homosexuality," or elaborated about what this "overview" of God's intentions might entail. Therefore, how can they be "enough" for you to proclaim the dehumanization of many? You haven't proved enough for that sort of thing to take place with any sort of credibility or reason.

Words are powerful. We don't "just state" anything. Homosexuality does exist, it is a normal and healthy expression for human beings. You mourn human beings being true to who they were created to be. That's a rather untenable spiritual position to take, don't you think?

Oh,ok.

 

[psychoslice]

Within Christian theology, there are two points of view. The majority opinion is that if you don't make it to heaven, then you burn in hell forever. The LDS point of view is that if one does not repent, then they must pay the penalty for their own sins. After that payment is made however, that individual goes to a state of peace for eternity. This concept sounds a bit more just to me, so, yes, I believe it.

Yea, but I think that was the whole idea of making up such a belief, just to make everyone happy.