It is currently Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:10 pm

The Bible Doesn't Condemn Homosexuality.

View active topics

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
 PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:19 pm   
Protein
Protein
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 94
Location: Carnivorous Howling Stump Monster Planet
The only person to speak of homosexuality in the New Testament is Paul. There's debate on if the words he used in the original text really meant homosexuals in general, but given Paul's other demented attitudes on sex, it wouldn't surprise me if he did think homosexual acts were 'sinful.'

You would think if it was such a big deal, the bible would have had Jesus mention something about it, but it doesn't. However, he does call someone who gets divorced then marries another person an adulterer, and adultery is in Paul's list as a big no-no. Yet, you don't see the Christian community up in arms about the social acceptance of remarried people, or upset over a divorcee being entitled to the benefits of marriage when she takes another husband.

_________________
"For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life." ~Albert Camus

"I have thoughts... and that can really fuck up the faith thing." ~Lewis Black


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:15 pm   
Plants
Plants
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 1:29 pm
Posts: 798
Let's not forget that Paul also supported adult circumcision. It's amazing how quickly Christians will glance over that.

I mean, for the love of all that's good in the world, even Christians realize that Paul was a man, a fallible man, and just because his stuff got put into the Bible doesn't mean it's endorsed by God.

Where does Jesus, the guy who Christians think is God, speak of Homosexuality? He doesn't.

The whole argument that if it's in the Bible it must be true is so incredibly, frustratingly stupid. It's pure argumentation from authority that doesn't even make sense from a Christian standpoint. It bugs me so much to think people actually think they can win an argument by quoting the Bible.


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:53 pm   
Reptile
Reptile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:41 pm
Posts: 3671
Location: James River in Richmond VA!!!
Esteban wrote:
I mean, for the love of all that's good in the world, even Christians realize that Paul was a man, a fallible man, and just because his stuff got put into the Bible doesn't mean it's endorsed by God.


Well technically Paul says that all the scripture (including his letters) are "God-Breathed" and infallible.

Of course, that's circular as hell (Paul says all he says is infallible, therefore he's infallible)... But that's the fundie argument.. (Timothy 3:16)

_________________
Keep on swimming...


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:52 pm   
Protein
Protein
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 94
Location: Carnivorous Howling Stump Monster Planet
Even when I was a Christian, I thought Paul was a douche bag.

But, maybe he was a genius. What better way to control people than to convince them their god doesn't like it when they have sex... or think about sex... or have sex a certain way... and that they need your particular brand of religion to make god happy again.

_________________
"For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life." ~Albert Camus

"I have thoughts... and that can really fuck up the faith thing." ~Lewis Black


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:54 pm   
Petulant Jackalope
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:10 pm
Posts: 6085
SpaceDog wrote:
Even when I was a Christian, I thought Paul was a douche bag.

But, maybe he was a genius. What better way to control people than to convince them their god doesn't like it when they have sex... or think about sex... or have sex a certain way... and that they need your particular brand of religion to make god happy again.


That would be a major component in most religions.

_________________
existence and logic are two things that cannot be in atheism, that you presuppose are. In Christianity, they are.
~godcontention (AKA Timothy McCabe)


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:12 pm   
Protein
Protein
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 94
Location: Carnivorous Howling Stump Monster Planet
Dharma wrote:
SpaceDog wrote:
Even when I was a Christian, I thought Paul was a douche bag.

But, maybe he was a genius. What better way to control people than to convince them their god doesn't like it when they have sex... or think about sex... or have sex a certain way... and that they need your particular brand of religion to make god happy again.


That would be a major component in most religions.


For the Judeo-Christian religions, yes. But it seems that most of the surrounding religions of that time were really into sex - to the point that they used sex as a form of worship.

_________________
"For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life." ~Albert Camus

"I have thoughts... and that can really fuck up the faith thing." ~Lewis Black


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:50 pm   
Petulant Jackalope
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:10 pm
Posts: 6085
SpaceDog wrote:
Dharma wrote:
SpaceDog wrote:
Even when I was a Christian, I thought Paul was a douche bag.

But, maybe he was a genius. What better way to control people than to convince them their god doesn't like it when they have sex... or think about sex... or have sex a certain way... and that they need your particular brand of religion to make god happy again.


That would be a major component in most religions.


For the Judeo-Christian religions, yes. But it seems that most of the surrounding religions of that time were really into sex - to the point that they used sex as a form of worship.


Agree. I might have been less than clear. Sex both positive and negative are significant aspects of religion.

_________________
existence and logic are two things that cannot be in atheism, that you presuppose are. In Christianity, they are.
~godcontention (AKA Timothy McCabe)


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:22 am   
Primordial Ooze
Primordial Ooze
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:14 am
Posts: 1
Location: France
I just thought of something else to add...

Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?


Top
 Profile WWW ICQ  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:28 am   
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 11:24 am
Posts: 14152
Location: Blocking your Toilet
leveJoila wrote:
I just thought of something else to add...

Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?


That statement would be far more effective on a forum for people who believe that god exists.....

The laws of logic say that you are a cunt. Are you offended by that 'truth'?

_________________
'Ello..Dave?

The aim of a joke is not to degrade the human being, but to remind him that he is already degraded.

George Orwell


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:00 am   
Fish
Fish
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:07 am
Posts: 1592
Location: UK
leveJoila wrote:
Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it ...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?


God doesn't exist or doesn't care; either way, you need to fix your broken moral compass, mate:


Quote:
In the late eighteenth century the deist Thomas Paine commented at length on Moses' Laws in The Age of Reason, and gave a view on his character:

Besides, the character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation, committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the history of any nation, of which I will state only one instance.

When the Jewish army returned from one of their plundering and murdering excursions, the account goes on as follows: Numbers, chap. xxxi., ver. 13:

"And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the Council of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than Moses, if this account be true. Here is an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters. Let any mother put herself in the situation of those mothers; one child murdered, another destined to violation, and herself in the hands of an executioner; let any daughter put herself in the situation of those daughters, destined as a prey to the murderers of a mother and a brother, and what will be their feelings? It is in vain that we attempt to impose upon nature, for nature will have her course, and the religion that tortures all her social ties is a false religion.

After this detestable order, follows an account of the plunder taken, and the manner of dividing it; and here it is that the profaneness of priestly hypocrisy increases the catalogue of crimes. Ver. 37 to 40, "And the lord's tribute of sheep was six hundred and three score and fifteen; and the beeves were thirty and six thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was three score and twelve; and the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred, of which the Lord's tribute was three score and one; and the persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was thirty and two persons." In short, the matters contained in this chapter, as well as in many other parts of the Bible, are too horrid for humanity to read or for decency to hear, for it appears, from the 35th verse of this chapter, that the number of women-children consigned to debauchery by the order of Moses was thirty-two thousand.

People in general do not know what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing; it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Moses

_________________
"Health consists of having the same diseases as one's neighbors." - Quentin Crisp


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:32 am   
Beaver Cleaver
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:00 pm
Posts: 10019
Location: Deteriorating biological mass.
leveJoila wrote:
Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?


Or, in another light...

"Some people are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it... does it mean you should not mention that disobedient children are to be brutally murdered in the eyes of God according to his word?"

_________________
Poo...


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:13 am   
Petulant Jackalope
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:10 pm
Posts: 6085
leveJoila wrote:
I just thought of something else to add...

Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?

Some people who maybe (sic) religious, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it... does it mean you should not mention that practicing religion is batshit crazy in the eyes of reasoned and thoughtful people according to empirical fact?


How about you fuck off?

_________________
existence and logic are two things that cannot be in atheism, that you presuppose are. In Christianity, they are.
~godcontention (AKA Timothy McCabe)


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:06 pm   
Amphibian
Amphibian
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:41 pm
Posts: 2434
Location: Jersey
leveJoila wrote:
I just thought of something else to add...

Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?


Well do you follow it up with "My god is a bigot."

_________________
Boycott BP - Thanks LC for finding this.


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:34 pm   
Reptile
Reptile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:41 pm
Posts: 3671
Location: James River in Richmond VA!!!
leveJoila wrote:
I just thought of something else to add...

Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?


I strongly agree with you.


The more people understand that God (as portrayed in the Bible) is an irrational bigot, the less likely they are to believe in him. Which is why gays are, on average, less likely to be religious and oftentimes outright hostile to religion.

Preach. You're doing us a favor.

_________________
Keep on swimming...


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:53 pm   
Ex-Puppy Killer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:00 pm
Posts: 14891
Location: Earth
jesusisacorpse wrote:
leveJoila wrote:
Some people, who maybe homosexual, are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it...does it mean you should not mention that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God according to his word?


Or, in another light...

"Some people are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it... does it mean you should not mention that disobedient children are to be brutally murdered in the eyes of God according to his word?"


Or, in another light...

"Some theists are just gonna be offended at the truth no matter how you say it... does it mean you should not mention that there is absolutely no evidence that their god exists and that they are basing their faith and a human hating doctrine that teaches people that they are filthy pieces of shit and which has caused suffering and misery to billions of people?"

_________________
"Don't you look at me in that tone of voice!" -- Character from Eureka

http://ephemeralsg.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:52 pm   
Unicellular prokaryote
Unicellular prokaryote
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:44 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Where I'm at, wench.
SuperNinjette wrote:
I know enough of ancient Greek to know that while "eunuch" wasn't a synonym for homosexuality, it was associated with it.

Eunuchs around 1 CE were thought of in 2 ways, - physically castrated males, and those unsuited for marriage.

It's not accurate in a historical sense to say eunuchs were all heterosexual men who willingly had their testicles removed. Eunuchs were men people trusted to have no interest in women. "Born eunuchs" were men who were effeminate and naturally not attracted to women.

Many texts of the time refer to "born eunuchs" as someone we today would call a "homosexuals," even though there was no word for "homosexual" at the time.

A "born eunuch" is not someone born without balls. -_-


I don't know if SuperNinjette still travels the corridors of AN but I would like to make a comment about this observation, as in eunuch being associated with male homosexuality. If that is the case then homosexuality is obviously not a sin in the eyes of the bible. I say this as in Matthew 19-11-12 it states: "But He said to them, all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: for there are eunuchs who were born from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

To me personally that reads that when it comes down to it, only eunuchs(which includes homosexuals) will make it into sky daddy's skydome home. :P

_________________
At the heart of every evangelical preacher is a used car salesman.


Top
 Profile ICQ  
 PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:40 am   
Amino Acid
Amino Acid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Posts: 47
I always think it's hilarious that Christians will quote Paul regarding homosexuality, and ignore the fact that Paul believed that women were idiots, good only to spit out babies and stay home.

My question is: If you take the words of Paul to be Christian law, does that mean you set him up as a false god?

And going back to free will: If God hated homosexuals... why not just make everyone straight? Does he not know who will become gay and who won't? If he knows, is he powerless to stop it? Either way, he's not much of a god. Even Zeus could do better.

_________________
Some of us were once Christians. Some of us prayed every day for years, yearning to feel God's presence. Some of us devoured the sacred texts as if they were ambrosia. Some of us begged, pleaded with God to send us a sign--- any sign--- that he was there, that he cared for us. Some of us realized that according to the Old Testament, he did this sort of thing all of the time. Some of us walked the earth, searching for answers, imploring God to reveal himself to us in even the most rudimentary fashion. Finding that our prayers fell upon unhearing ears, we became atheists. Some of us have never felt more liberated, in that we were now free to learn about the world around us without filtering it through the lens of an archaic mindset.


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:54 am   
Fish
Fish
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:07 am
Posts: 1592
Location: UK
kuribo wrote:
My question is: If you take the words of Paul to be Christian law, does that mean you set him up as a false god?


"Paul was just the vessel. All scripture is God-breathed."

Quote:
And going back to free will: If God hated homosexuals... why not just make everyone straight? Does he not know who will become gay and who won't? If he knows, is he powerless to stop it?


"Homosexuality is a choice. Taking away our choices removes our free will."


*scrubs himself clean in the shower*

_________________
"Health consists of having the same diseases as one's neighbors." - Quentin Crisp


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:19 pm   
Amino Acid
Amino Acid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Posts: 47
By whose word is Paul a vessel? His own? If that's all it takes, I too am a vessel of God's word and I say he says he's fine with gay marriage and abortion. Is it because he hung out with Jesus? Well, so did Judas. Is it because tradition holds that the early church recognized Paul's writing as God's opinion and everyone else just took them at their word? (hint: yes) If you ask me, "we always done it that way" is a pretty piss poor reason to do anything, especially basing your moral code upon.

_________________
Some of us were once Christians. Some of us prayed every day for years, yearning to feel God's presence. Some of us devoured the sacred texts as if they were ambrosia. Some of us begged, pleaded with God to send us a sign--- any sign--- that he was there, that he cared for us. Some of us realized that according to the Old Testament, he did this sort of thing all of the time. Some of us walked the earth, searching for answers, imploring God to reveal himself to us in even the most rudimentary fashion. Finding that our prayers fell upon unhearing ears, we became atheists. Some of us have never felt more liberated, in that we were now free to learn about the world around us without filtering it through the lens of an archaic mindset.


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:55 pm   
Unicellular prokaryote
Unicellular prokaryote
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:44 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Where I'm at, wench.
kuribo wrote:
I always think it's hilarious that Christians will quote Paul regarding homosexuality, and ignore the fact that Paul believed that women were idiots, good only to spit out babies and stay home.


Yes, the Paul character was a misogynist twat and also a bigot. If some christians also believe that the works attributed to the Paul character were written by ONE person, it points to him being either insane, or at the very least, suffering MPD.
It has been found however that the "letters" were penned by no less than 3 different people anyway; and all anonymous people to boot.

Quote:
My question is: If you take the words of Paul to be Christian law, does that mean you set him up as a false god?


Hmm. Pretty much, or at best (as far as bible believers go) a false prophet of what they alleged to be a "god inspired word". If the writings of the Christian Ebionites (christians prior to the pauline and other models) then the paul crap has little if ANYTHING to do with that the "first christians" (first being loose as there had been messianic jewish sects/cults even before the Ebionites) believed. The Chrisian Ebionites teachings pretty much held true to jewish "law" and as such all 600+ of "gods laws" were part and parcel of the belief system.

The stuff attributed to Paul were more a removal from the jewish beliefs, to make it them more palatable for the polytheists it was aimed at, hence the importance of the pauline doctrine being that "the christ" came to "fullfill" therefore in doing so, abolish all but 10 of the monotheistic god model's laws. "laws" which 9 of may I add, are nothing but what should be common sense anyway and probably what most people would recognise as "the norm". (back then all 10 would have been fair, as it was an agreement to follow and believe in only ONE god, rather than the multiple ones they had been worshipping)...and doing it "Paul's" way, then there would not be any snipping of the willy and a seafood feast would be fine!!

Quote:
And going back to free will: If God hated homosexuals... why not just make everyone straight? Does he not know who will become gay and who won't? If he knows, is he powerless to stop it? Either way, he's not much of a god. Even Zeus could do better.


Well, I don't even think the god model of Judaism had issue with homosexuality, but moreso the concept of idolatory and being inhospitable. Man on man or woman on woman "action", despite what some tronks want to glean from Deut or Lev. have ZERO to do with a man with a man, or a woman with a woman.

Yet again though, those usually doing the homosexual interpretations to the aforementioned verses, also reckon that Isaiah was speaking of their Jesus. If they actually READ the bloody thing, they would see clearly the references refer to the David character.

Wah.. I am finished.. getting coffee now. 8)

_________________
At the heart of every evangelical preacher is a used car salesman.


Top
 Profile ICQ  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group