The bible and gays

[suncowiam]

Nope. Biu that is not a precondition in order to be able to read it, is it? I also read Mickey Mouse when I was younger.

Ciao

- viole

You can't possibly believe this, can you? Many people who don't hold any religious beliefs and do not recognize any writings as "scripture" or indicative of the will of God read the Bible. It certainly isn't limited to people who grant it validity.

Since it was my fault for offering a simple short response, let me detail it more.

I believe anyone who believes the bible word for word are homophobic. Isn't that part of religion, to confirm with mere faith?

There's enough quotes in the bible to suggest this and it's easily been translated by a majority of religious leaders. Faith will take it home.

 

[viole]

Since it was my fault for offering a simple short response, let me detail it more.

I believe anyone who believes the bible word for word are homophobic. Isn't that part of religion, to confirm with mere faith?

There's enough quotes in the bible to suggest this and it's easily been translated by a majority of religious leaders. Faith will take it home.

Yes, of course.

If I believed word by word a book that says that gays are bad, then it is automatic that i am, or become, homophobic.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Since it was my fault for offering a simple short response, let me detail it more.

I believe anyone who believes the bible word for word are homophobic. Isn't that part of religion, to confirm with mere faith?

There's enough quotes in the bible to suggest this and it's easily been translated by a majority of religious leaders. Faith will take it home.

I would have to agree. I hate when my fellow Christians use the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" excuse. If you think that God is going to punish homosexuals in any way, and you agree that this punishment is even somewhat deserved, you have crossed the line into "homophobia". To the best of our scientific knowledge, homosexuality is not consciously chosen, so to judge homosexuals in your own mind as being "sinful" is just about as intolerant as it gets. Then when you look at those who actively try to stop CIVIL (not religious) marriage from including same-sex couples, it is clear that they are intolerant, not just of homosexuality, but of homosexuals and the way they choose to live.

 

[Nada]

Fine. Pick up your marbles and go home, then.

Ok,but I will use my toes.Thanks.

 

[sojourner]

To say that some human in not living up to their potential does not take away their humaity. I haven't lived up to my full potential, but I'm still human.

It certainly does if "living up to their potential" means "changing who they are," or 'becoming 'normal.'" For example, if you were to say that a black person isn't "living up to her potential" until she becomes white, that dehumanizes her, because black is what she is, and black is normal. If you were to say that a Jew isn't "living up to his potential" until he grows blond hair and his eyes become blue, that dehumanizes him, because Jewish by heritage is what he is, and Jewish is normal. Similarly, if you assert that lesbian isn't "living up to her potential" until she becomes straight, that dehumanizes her, because gay is what she is, and gay is normal.

I disagree that God made them that way.

It's not within your province to arbitrarily make that decision for other people.

It is the nature of the physical body which our spirits inhabit to have lusts, desires and appetites, and yes even to same sex attraction. It becomes an issue when it is acted upon.

There you go again, lumping normal, healthy, homosexual desires and actions in with abnormal, unhealthy sexual desires and actions. you don't get it: the medical and mental health communities have established long ago that the homosexual orientation is not abnormal. Therefore, the attendant healthy expressions of that orientation are, likewise, not an issue. Except for you, apparently.

I guess it is which version of the Bible one reads as to what it says. The KJV says: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: ... "

The KJV is hardly the exegetical standard these days.

7 million people living on one city is not mismanagement? There aren't other places to live?

I can't begin to state what all is wrong with that statement. First of all, look up the statistics and read my post. I said 7 billlion people (as in the population of the earth). There are over 1 million people living in Delhi, which is crowded for any city.

You're making an assumption, out of your entitlement, that they have the money, the means, and the wherewithal to move somewhere else. I opine that if you know so much, and have a better idea, you go and move them somewhere else. Be the good Samaritan.

Well, of course, that is a matter of opinion isn't it?

No, it's a matter of both good social form and responsible discipleship.

if someone rejects what God offers them, that doesn't make them less human, It just means that they have rejected what God has offered them.

God has offered that they be homosexual. You're the one, apparently, who has a problem with that. Therefore, I suggest that you stop spamming up the forum and go complain to God, if you don't like what God is doing with humanity.

No. It doesn't, but the former cannot be ignored either.

No one's ignoring. Overpopulation is real.

You do not know what you are talking about. Where besides in an LDS temple does anyone claim to be able to seal both on heaven and on earth?

Why do you think I prefaced that statement with "according to you?" My bible says that people are not married in heaven. I really don't care what your texts say.

That homosexuals have children in mortality says nothing of their ability (or permission for that matter) to do that after this life is over in the eternities.

Apparently, only the LDS are obsessed with having babies wherever and whenever and with however many wives they can. That may be your religious "thing," and that's OK, until it causes you to harm other people with the toxic sludge from the attendant theology.

The natural consequence I'm referring to has to do with what happens after this life.

What a cop out! Doesn't make any difference. Consequences are consequences. And the dehumanizing principle works just as well there as here.

From your point of view it may appear that I invented it, but my claim is that I did not.

Fine. Don't take responsibility for what comes out of your mouth, your pen, or your word processor. You propagate it willingly and proudly. It's yours.

The scriptures say God's laws don't agree with you.

The scriptures aren't cogent to modern culture science, or sensibility, just as you no longer follow Kosher for the same reasons.

Healthy sexual expression is only allowed by God's law within the bonds of marriage between man and a woman.

Now God is telling us that homosexual marriages are OK. Once, plural marriages were OK. Now they're not. You're an LDS, and you don't think God can change God's mind as situations change??? Really???

Wrong. Lust pertains to anyone. It is part of the human condition. But it is forbidden by God's law outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

"Lust," then, also needs to apply to heterosexual relationships, just as you've applied it to homosexual relationships.

Again, Apparently, God has changed God's mind about the marriage thing.

I do see what is attempting to fly under the moral radar.

There is no "the." That's part of your problem: unbridled entitlement where both religion and morals are concerned.

 

[sojourner]

do you believe the bible, word for word?

Why would we? The bible isn't the kind of document that was meant to be taken literally word-for-word.

 

[JoStories]

I would have to agree. I hate when my fellow Christians use the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" excuse. If you think that God is going to punish homosexuals in any way, and you agree that this punishment is even somewhat deserved, you have crossed the line into "homophobia". To the best of our scientific knowledge, homosexuality is not consciously chosen, so to judge homosexuals in your own mind as being "sinful" is just about as intolerant as it gets. Then when you look at those who actively try to stop CIVIL (not religious) marriage from including same-sex couples, it is clear that they are intolerant, not just of homosexuality, but of homosexuals and the way they choose to live.

Leibowde, I don't think I have said lately how much I love you dear one. oh and you get a speaks for me card for this.
kiss kiss darling.

 

[JoStories]

To be fair, God DOES "get something out of it." God gets to have loving relationship with all God's children.

Oh! Wait! Unless those children are homosexual, in which case, they don't "glorify God enough" to really be fully loved by God.

OTOH, they're not really quite human in the first place, because they've "chosen" to "not glorify God," so why worry about them? Simply dismiss their humanity and their personhood and sweep them under the very convenient theological rug. There! The House of Smith is all Neat and Tidy now.

Please tell me this was tongue in cheek. If not, then bad bad Sojourner. (kidding darling....LOL..loved this)!!

 

[JoStories]

First off, I'm not dehumanizing anyone. What I am doing is suggesting that some humans are not living up to their full potential. Your idea of dehumanization comes from your reaction to what I said and not from what I actually said.
Heterosexuals who happen to be sterile are not responsible for their condition for one thing and being sterile is not a sin for another, so they are excusable.
The command to multiply and replenish the earth was given to Adam and Eve and that command was never rescinded. I also disagree with you that the earth is full. That humans have not managed the living space very well is another thing.
Of course you realize I am LDS. The concept of eternal increase is most definitely a part of my theology. I dare say it is the most important concept of all. We believe that families created here on earth can be sealed together for eternity. Not only that, but that husbands and wives who have been sealed to each other according to God's law (Which is the sealing power... that what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven... remember that one... given to Peter?) which has been restored... they can have eternal increase; that is they can have children in the eternities.
Homosexuals cannot be sealed together in this way and they certainly cannot naturally have children, either in this life or in eternity. This is their choice. I am not dehumanizing them to say that. That is just the natural consequence of the lifestyle.

And, before you get off on homosexuality not being a choice; I do not deny that that spirit child of God who enters a physical body who's propensity it is for same sex attraction doesn't have to deal with that desire. It is the choice to act on the desire that is the problem. All our physical bodies have desires that need to be disciplined and overcome. Admittedly, some have different challenges than others, but we all came here in the first place to gain a body and to learn to control it and not give in to its inherent lusts.

Excusable?? Wow. I don't know whether to be shocked or annoyed. I mean that.
Let me ask you something. Are you in a relationship? IOW, are you married or involved and if so, do you have sex with your wife/husband? If you do, what excuse do you have for that? Do you make a fetus each and every time you have sex with them? If not, you are no better than I am. You speak as though gay people are only gay to have sex which to me means you don't know what the hell you are talking about. My late partner was an ill woman. Physical love, while a part on occasion of our love, was not that important. Love does not mean just sex. I swear that most Christians honestly don't know that. Yes, it's my choice to act on desire and since 1998, when she died, I have chosen celibacy. My choice. But before that, I didn't randomly go have sex with every woman I met. Did you?

 

[JoStories]

I do in fact believe that I have those answers. They are not my answers, but they are answers found in modern LDS scripture. I do not damn anyone. I only know what God's laws are and what non-conformity with them means. I do not claim to speak for God in the sense that I claim to be a prophet. I don't make that claim. But again, I do claim to understand God's will on certain issues. If I didn't make that claim, then I couldn't call my self a Mormon, could I? So there is no 'pride' here.
The purpose of life (according to LDS doctrine) is that we come here to mortality to gain a body and to learn to control it. The purpose of the church is to provide those sealing ordinances having to do with eternal marriage to which a homosexual is not compatible. I did care about my cousin, but he decided to act on his lusts contrary to God's law and there is nothing I can do about that but despair.

Great except those answers are for you and you alone or those like you. They are not my answers as your faith has no meaning to me. But what I find more important is that in my faith or any faith I might have chosen I would never...let me say that again..... NEVER say I spoke for God I am not good enough for that. I can express my views on some what of I believe God gave us, such as the Teachings of The Buddha, some of the things that Christ taught, Krishna, Mohammed, etc., but to say I spoke for God Itself, never.

 

[JoStories]

Norman, Hi JoStories, 2 Nephi 9:28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish

Is this supposed to mean something to me? Because I don't believe in the Christian faith or any of your writings so what you say means nothing to me at all.

 

[sojourner]

Please tell me this was tongue in cheek. If not, then bad bad Sojourner. (kidding darling....LOL..loved this)!!

It was a stab at this poster's ridiculous lack of theological responsibility.

 

[JoStories]

It was a stab at this poster's ridiculous lack of theological responsibility.

I don;t think it worked darling. He seems bent on telling me I am damned to hell or some such. All I can say is whatever floats your boat jack.

 

[sojourner]

Great except those answers are for you and you alone or those like you. They are not my answers as your faith has no meaning to me. But what I find more important is that in my faith or any faith I might have chosen I would never...let me say that again..... NEVER say I spoke for God I am not good enough for that. I can express my views on some what of I believe God gave us, such as the Teachings of The Buddha, some of the things that Christ taught, Krishna, Mohammed, etc., but to say I spoke for God Itself, never.

The problem arises when (as too often happens) one's own religious convictions cross boundaries and begin to try to control those outside the religion, or to just assume that one's world view should be everyone's world view.

 

[leibowde84]

Leibowde, I don't think I have said lately how much I love you dear one. oh and you get a speaks for me card for this.
kiss kiss darling.

Why thank you JoStories. It means a lot, and I feel the same way about you, my friend.

 

[sojourner]

I don;t think it worked darling. He seems bent on telling me I am damned to hell or some such. All I can say is whatever floats your boat jack.

His loss. So long as he doesn't try to float his boat in my lake and then complain that my lake is "wrong."

 

[Deathbydefault]

Really? So, I guess you didn't like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Jefferson, King, Niebuhr, Plato, Angelou, Tutu, and others who've "added on to known reality" by expanding our awareness?

Incorrect.

And then you whine about my posts to you??

I've whined about nothing.

1) The bible wasn't created to be a "standpoint against the Christian faith," so you're using it WRONG.

Opinion. It's meaning is one thing, how you use it is another.

2) The points you make "biblically, thus far, have been ill-conceived, having been based upon a more eisegetical approach, which is never accurate.

Lol. It's sad that you're probably serious.

But it's really about more than "what's in the bible." It's about what the bible really says, and, in order to do that, you've got to dig past your own bias (which you, admittedly, aren't doing), dig past language and culture barriers, do at least a little form, historic, and literary criticism, and stop reading ancient, Middle Eastern texts with a post-modern, Western mind set.

Holds no concern to me. The Bible says what it says, it's meaning back then was meant for forever.
I take it as it is and comment on the things I dislike, or the flaws I find with it.

1) All you're helping anyone to realize is how biased you are against religion.

Not like I care. I admit to being biased against a few religions, Christianity in particular.
So long as I don't blame the people for the religion, what's the issue?

2) It's not entertaining anyone but you. But, then, you've made it clear just how egocentric you are. You don't like people, and no one outside your little circle matters to you.

Exactly. I do things outside of my circle for my entertainment. Debates, discussion, education.
In my head I realize and am honest that I care about very little. I can't change that, it's the way it is.
I've accepted who I am and operate around it. Don't like it? Not my issue.

...Because you're losing the argument.

Incorrect. Because you're boring and tedious to reply to.

You know, what I'm quickly discovering is that, by these few posts, you appear to be as stubborn and closed-minded as those you seek to "bring to realization." The ONLY difference seems to be that they're stubborn about their beliefs, and you're stubborn about your beliefs. Wait! There is no difference.

I'm not stubborn about any of my beliefs. My beliefs are based off of what is logical and beneficial to society.
I can accept another point of view so long as it fits one or both of those criteria.
If it doesn't then I'll explain why I do not accept it, I don't just say "because it's dumb" and tell people to **** off.

 

[sojourner]

Incorrect.

What's the difference?

I've whined about nothing.

Please.

Opinion. It's meaning is one thing, how you use it is another.

The same could be true of a hammer. [Hint: I wouldn't use a hammer to do neck surgery.]

Lol. It's sad that you're probably serious.

It's sad that you think my being serious is funny.

Holds no concern to me. The Bible says what it says, it's meaning back then was meant for forever.

Nobody's gonna take you seriously, then. Yes, the bible says what it says, but your limited ancient-text-reading-vocabulary is woefully ill-equipped to discover "what it says."

I take it as it is and comment on the things I dislike, or the flaws I find with it.

You're stressing over straw men.

Not like I care. I admit to being biased against a few religions, Christianity in particular.
So long as I don't blame the people for the religion, what's the issue?

The issue is spam.

Exactly. I do things outside of my circle for my entertainment. Debates, discussion, education.
In my head I realize and am honest that I care about very little. I can't change that, it's the way it is.
I've accepted who I am and operate around it. Don't like it? Not my issue.

then be prepared for more of the same kind of rebuttal. It's gonna happen.

Incorrect. Because you're boring and tedious to reply to.

Only because you're losing the argument.

I'm not stubborn about any of my beliefs. My beliefs are based off of what is logical and beneficial to society.

If you care for no one, how do you know what's "beneficial to society?"

I can accept another point of view so long as it fits one or both of those criteria.

The world isn't a logical place. Be prepared for disappointment. Judging by your attitude thus far, you're not dealing with that reality well.

If it doesn't then I'll explain why I do not accept it, I don't just say "because it's dumb" and tell people to **** off.

So far, your "reasons" haven't been ... reasonable, in light of how you "read" and use the bible to support your untenable positions.

 

[suncowiam]

Why would we? The bible isn't the kind of document that was meant to be taken literally word-for-word.

Are you religious?

What should one pick and choose from the Bible if not literally all of it?

Then please answer your own hypothesis... What is the Bible meant for if not supposedly taken word for word?

 

[sojourner]

Are you religious?

What should one pick and choose from the Bible if not literally all of it?

Then please answer your own hypothesis... What is the Bible meant for if not supposedly taken word for word?

Depends on your objective as to what you read and study.
The bible is the authoritative and authorized collected, written Tradition of the people of God. It's a library -- a repository. It contains several different kinds of literature, most of which are poetic, mythic and metaphorical in nature.