You don't like the truth.

No, she doesn't like when people are being offensive to her, which you are a bit, in some of your posts.

No, she doesn't like when people are being offensive to her, which you are a bit, in some of your posts.

 

Well she doesn't like that obviously, as well as the truth.

You are constantly avoiding the questions concerning Leviticus though.

 

Let me ask one simple question: Do you wear clothes that are made of different materials and do you eat shrimps, lobsters etc.?

I'm not trying to avoid them, I'm just getting confused...honestly.

 

And yes to the first and no to the second.

Here, I'll explain something for you know:

Some God created Adam and Eve and rold them not to eat the fruit of one tree, they disobeyed, and now there is sin. Because there is sin, People have to offer God sacrifices to atone for their sin. God also gives them laws. When Jesus dies on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice, we are set free from the law. And I will ask someone more about this in the morning, so please don't jump all over me. I'm so confused right now.

Well she doesn't like that obviously, as well as the truth.

I was saying this for your sake.

I was saying this for your sake.

 

Then we're both looking out for eachother (Even though your vague messages sound like sinister threats) as I simply want you to understand how illogical you are being, and as you brought it up I pushed forward the question you can ask to anyone older and wiser then you about the contradictions you face.

You just love to attack me. Look at everything you believe. If you have a logical answer for everything you believe, then we can talk.

 

I think the primary revelation of this otherwise uncomfortable process is that you had very little to do with the formation of your 'beliefs'. Which is to say, you don't trust in or engage with the actual terms or tenements that you claim to hold dear so much as you do with the authority figures that hold them dear, and encourage you to do the same (which is why you'd be no fun to beat up on). Just try to understand that you can and are expected to have a logical answer for everything you believe. I'm pretty sure Reilly would've passed your test.

I'm not trying to avoid them, I'm just getting confused...honestly.

 

And yes to the first and no to the second.

Here, I'll explain something for you know:

Some God created Adam and Eve and rold them not to eat the fruit of one tree, they disobeyed, and now there is sin. Because there is sin, People have to offer God sacrifices to atone for their sin. God also gives them laws. When Jesus dies on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice, we are set free from the law. And I will ask someone more about this in the morning, so please don't jump all over me. I'm so confused right now.

 

Okay, sorry if I sound rude, but you don't need to explain the Bible to me. I've read it, in detail.

 

It's okay if you need some time to think, but I'd really like a more founded post from you concerning Leviticus because as it is now you are basing discrimination of a group of people on it while indeed you are not completely truthful to Leviticus either.

 

Don't just ask someone wiser than you! Go read the Bible, read Leviticus, make up your own mind. It's your religion! :smiley:

Don't just ask someone wiser than you! Go read the Bible, read Leviticus, make up your own mind. It's your religion! :smiley:

 

:nod:

Just try to understand that you can and are expected to have a logical answer for everything you believe.

 

This is what I found so astounding about her point at the time, that from this position she appears to be acknowledging how illogical she is, but feels it's okay because everyone is naturally illogical (By assuming that I am).

 

I don't believe in ghosts, aliens, folklore, an afterlife, and consider my beliefs to be reasonable or factual in some way, but if I was to believe in something with no evidence behind it (Which I have done in my life) then I definitely wouldn't acknowledge that as being fine just because other people believe in worse bullshit. That makes no sense at all.

Okay, sorry if I sound rude, but you don't need to explain the Bible to me. I've read it, in detail.

 

It's okay if you need some time to think, but I'd really like a more founded post from you concerning Leviticus because as it is now you are basing discrimination of a group of people on it while indeed you are not completely truthful to Leviticus either.

 

Don't just ask someone wiser than you! Go read the Bible, read Leviticus, make up your own mind. It's your religion! :smiley:

I do read the bible, and it says in the bible that the older Christians should teach and train the younger/newer Christians. I'm done on this thread for they night. My head is spinning.

I love how this thread went from a simple question of why homophobia existed, to a full-scale debate about religion... well, such is the way of the internet I suppose. :rolleyes:

edit

Like I've said in another thread, you can take everything on the Bible literally because there might be transcription/translation inaccuracies or some passages might have a more "metaphorical" meaning" or, as Celine said, they might be related to the mentality of those times.

Also, who said that Christian religion is against gay people?

We're on the exact same topic again... we argued last time... we discussed in the end about not being rude and thinking for yourself, the same people are being rude and the same people still don't know how to think for themselves... it's like a brick wall talking to a brick wall

 

man I really wish I could debate with you guys but this is just depressing to read

 

:nod: This is why I stay clear of religious arguments. I have a lot of views that I'd love to speak about but I know it'll just end up coming back to the same old things being said over and over again, without any kind of progress being made.

We're on the exact same topic again... we argued last time... we discussed in the end about not being rude and thinking for yourself, the same people are being rude and the same people still don't know how to think for themselves... it's like a brick wall talking to a brick wall

 

man I really wish I could debate with you guys, I have so many interesting things I think I can talk about, but this is just depressing to read

 

Yes you've seen it all before, you've grown out of these petty debates and feel the need to remind us of this, etc. etc. We understand this by now.

Yes you've seen it all before, you've grown out of these petty debates and feel the need to remind us of this, etc. etc. We understand this by now.

What?

 

Uh ok, the 'petty debate' thing I assume was when everyone was talking about people's personal lives when Kiame's SECRET IDENTITY was revealed, and it just overwhelmed me and ultimately irritated me a lot so I flipped my shit on you on MSN yes. And I remember apologizing, and if not, I'm sincerely sorry.

 

This is something different, this is everyone arguing left and right at the same teenage girl again, you know she can't carry she same level of debate with you, not because she's stupid or anything, just because she doesn't know what to say.

 

So if there's six pages of excellent debates but it's not going anywhere instead of overwhelming a girl who will obviously not debate back. I'm reading this and I wanna write this nice big post because I have some good things to say and I'm nearly as smart as you guys. But in my eyes it's going fucking nowhere in terms of debate but I'd still like to post something without going overkill or giving Troxley another novel to read, what would you like me to say. Seriously, write my post for me. Make me sound less pretentious.

 

When on earth did I mention "petty" anything except when we were talking about Kiame, and maybe yesterday when Nathan made that post in my thread, because I was just poking at the fact that it's been years and people have changed and come and went and he hasn't changed at all, which actually isn't "petty debates" at all, but that's the closest thing I can think of.

 

Ok whatever, from now on I will keep my mouth shut, i.e. don't send me a long reply about my logical fallacies and make a list of quotes I said in other threads, I will, from now on, not post my opinion about any threads, hopefully I will sound less "petty debates" to you. And everyone else if "we get this by now".

woah

 

***

 

FRAN I'LL MARRY YOU

 

aww :love:

 

I'm not trying to avoid them, I'm just getting confused...honestly.

 

And yes to the first and no to the second.

Here, I'll explain something for you know:

Some God created Adam and Eve and rold them not to eat the fruit of one tree, they disobeyed, and now there is sin. Because there is sin, People have to offer God sacrifices to atone for their sin. God also gives them laws. When Jesus dies on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice, we are set free from the law. And I will ask someone more about this in the morning, so please don't jump all over me. I'm so confused right now.

 

Okay, let's take this from a religious point of a view.

 

Yes, God created Adam and Eve. But God also created gay people. Why would he hate someone he created? Didn't he say that all humans should be treated equally? And that he loves all humans? Yeah he did. But the Church doesn't look at it this way. The Church looks at it from what Leviticus said. And Leviticus clearly isn't God. Leviticus said that men shall not lie with other men. But Leviticus also banned round haircuts, football, fortune telling, pulling out, tattoos, polyester, divorces, letting people without testicles into church, wearing gold, shellfish and wives defending their husband's life in a fight by grabbing their attacker's genitals. (http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway) Now, some of these things might seem funny to you. They may seem funny because people do most of those things every day, unlike before 2000+ years, when the Old Testament was written. But people still use Leviticus' quote from the Bible to fight homosexuality. Therefore, Bible is used as a weapon, while it was meant to be something that unites people. Also, as previously said, the rules in Leviticus were written more than 2000 years ago. I see no point in following those rules, unless you want to be stuck in time.

 

I'm not trying to attack you or something, I'm just giving my opinion. Also, if you find some time, you should watch this amazing movie, based on a real story: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZT9b9xp2DU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZT9b9xp2DU[/ame]

 

Luckily, there exist Churches that have positive views on homosexuality. But unfortunately, they're in minority.

Because people are insecure.

woah

 

***

 

 

 

aww :love:

 

 

 

Okay, let's take this from a religious point of a view.

 

Yes, God created Adam and Eve. But God also created gay people. Why would he hate someone he created? Didn't he say that all humans should be treated equally? And that he loves all humans? Yeah he did. But the Church doesn't look at it this way. The Church looks at it from what Leviticus said. And Leviticus clearly isn't God. Leviticus said that men shall not lie with other men. But Leviticus also banned round haircuts, football, fortune telling, pulling out, tattoos, polyester, divorces, letting people without testicles into church, wearing gold, shellfish and wives defending their husband's life in a fight by grabbing their attacker's genitals. (http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway) Now, some of these things might seem funny to you. They may seem funny because people do those things every day, unlike before 2000+ years, when the Old Testament was written. But people still use Leviticus' quote from the Bible to fight homosexuality. Therefore, Bible is used as a weapon, while it was meant to be something that unites people. Also, as previously said, the rules in Leviticus were written more than 2000 years ago. I see no point in following those rules, unless you want to be stuck in time.

 

I'm not trying to attack you or something, I'm just giving my opinion. Also, if you find some time, you should watch this amazing movie, based on a real story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZT9b9xp2DU

 

Luckily, there exist Churches that have positive views on homosexuality. But unfortunately, they're in minority.

 

I agree with everything said in this post but I should say that I've never seen any kind of "hostility" by religious institutions towards gay people here where I live.

I agree with everything said in this post but I should say that I've never seen any kind of "ostility" by religious institutions towards gay people here where I live.

 

Well, you're lucky then.

I won't go into details and post a novel here ( i could but i don't have much time now) but wasn't the bible written more than 2000 years ago? Different times people, you can't apply what it says there to the letter nowadays, it's illogical.

Fran, just finished that video you posted, wow. What a powerful film. Definitely worth taking the time to watch it.

Okay for you people pressing me for an answer, I finally have one for you.

 

The laws in Leviticus that we have been set free from, had to do with the temple or tabernacle and the fact that God was dwelling in it, so the Israelites had to remain pure (especially the priests and Levites). The laws regarding homosexuality and other such things do not have to do with the temple in any way and are also mentioned in the New Testament.

 

"For that reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their woman exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with woman and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Romans 1:26 and 27

 

But you should really read that whole section, starting at verse 18 to understand the context.

 

I hope that

How Rev. Lovejoy put it "Have you ever really read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."

Okay for you people pressing me for an answer, I finally have one for you.

 

The laws in Leviticus that we have been set free from, had to do with the temple or tabernacle and the fact that God was was dwelling in it, so the Israelite had to remain pure. The laws regarding homosexuality and other such things are not having to do with the temple in any way and are also mentioned in the New Testament.

 

"For that reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their woman exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with woman were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Romans 1:26 and 27

 

But you should really read that whole section, starting at verse 18 to understand the context.

 

I hope that

 

I was expecting that reply. It is quite common to disregard everything in Leviticus except for the part about a man lying with another man because it has been repeated in the Romans.

 

However, if you do some research, you will find that lots of historians and theologians around the world think that in the Romans he refers to homosexual idolatry in Pagan temples. The concept of a loving relationship between two people of the same sex simply did not exist back then.

 

Even the passage you quoted can't be seen as anything else than a prohibition of idolatry in form of sexual acts in Pagan temples. That is absolutely not applicable to homosexual people today.

 

I'm just going to leave this link here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.

 

Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual).

 

For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. One can interpret Paul's writing as stating that, for the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities.

 

As C. Ann Shepherd writes: "When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals."

Many English translations render the end of Verse 27 as "due penalty of their error." Their basic error was not homosexuality. It was for former Pagans who converted to Pauline Christianity to leave the faith, return to Paganism, and engage in idolatry. That is the main theme of the argument. From the idolatry flowed sexual orgies, sexual behavior against their nature, wickedness, greed, murder, etc. The intent of the passage is to show how idolatry leads to complete degeneration of their behavior: to evil, envy, treachery, spite, gossiping, etc. The reference to what was, for them, unnatural homosexual behavior seems almost incidental, to the story. It was merely one symptom of the results of Pagan idolatry.

 

Arland J. Hultgren writes:

 

"Paul is not speaking here of homosexual orientation. Instead, he is talking about the gentile world, a world of idolaters, who long ago rejected the worship of God and became a culture of abuse, in which power and conquest were established and displayed in sexual acts."

 

 

EDIT: And also this, which talks about misunderstandings due to different translations of the Greek version of the Bible: http://web.archive.org/web/20071018080921/http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/gensem.html

It also shows that the English Bible (as you and many other conservative Christians quote it) is after all just a translation of a book that was written in a language that didn't quite have the same concepts that contemporary languages have. It is also quite prone to abuse, because as you can see in this article, the term "homosexual" wasn't used until hundreds of years after the Bible was written. Some translations of the Bible even put Leviticus as saying "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden".

 

"In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship."