Nerdfighters

I stand against all the hate and bigotry that ignorant Christians promote in the name of loving their God.
That said, I am about at my wit's end with everyone saying that it is an absolute fact that Christianity opposes homosexuality.
All of the passages used to promote this theory can be refuted. The Bible has been translated countless times by the hopelessly corrupt in order to manipulate the population and distort the original messages for their own purposes.
You are using your religion as an excuse to ostracize a group of people who are just as legitimately people as you are. Very Christ-like of you.

Prove me wrong.
Back me up.
Discuss.

Views: 5679

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

File not found.

I again present the analogy of the weird kid in the playground who teaches his classmates how to play foursquare.

 

First, he tells them a few safety measures--no shoving, no kicking the ball really hard, no hitting others in the face with the ball. A few of them grumble, but mostly they accept it, because safety is important.

 

Then he tells them the rules of the game--how to play it. At first they listen, but after a while they start getting bored of all the seemingly pointless rules, and choose to just play it how they want to play it--they choose to have fun.

 

Now, I know that having fun sometimes causes someone to lose an eye, but so long as the safety rules are in place, there should be no problem.

 

To put it in other words, God first gave us some laws as to how to be good and not harm others--the safety rules in my analogy. Then he started giving us weird laws that made no sense--it didn't harm anyone to disobey them, and disobeying them made life better for his followers in some cases.

 

Homosexuality is one such weird law. So long as we follow his commandments about not harming others--no slavery, rape, adultery, prostitution (Especially non-consensual), et cetera--then homosexuality should have no negative side effect.

I'll admit that, like eating pork and whatnot, there was an excuse back in the olden days for eschewing homosexuality--namely, it negatively impacted the population growth, and was something done by really strange pagans to boot. However, neither of those apply today at a meaningful scale.

Problem with your analogy. It implies that everything God tells us isn't going to maximise the best in our lives. Like it or not, the rules have good meaning, and arn't just there to stop us having fun. I prefer Nicky Gumbell's analogy whereby there are rules because otherwise, the game wouldn't work.

I fail to see how not being allowed to practice one's sexuality maximizes the best in one's life. To the contrary, I think life is worse for all parties involved if everybody isn't allowed to love, marry, have children, and all other things we're actually required to do by the bible--at least, in the Torah/OT; I have no idea which of those were rejected by the NT. In short, the rules of the game may have good meaning in Thou-Knowest-Whom's eyes, but that doesn't mean we can't ask why. Given the fact that Little-Yud was cryptic about what he meant by sexual immorality, I find that the Christians can take a page out of the Jew's book and try to interpret it instead of trying (And failing) to correctly interpret an obscure, translated from greek, potentially edited portion of a book that wasn't neccesarily written directly after Jesus's death. (Note: That last bit is because I'm not sure if the gospel that talks about Sexual immorality being wrong was the one that has been proven to have been written shortly after Little-Yud's death. I concede that one of them was, but all of them is a bit of a stretch.)

Given the fact that Little-Yud was cryptic about what he meant by sexual immorality

 

Jesus was not cryptic. He was refering to the OT passages relating to it. Otherwise, he would not have spoken as he did. He was speaking to a anchient Jewish audiance, explaining to them just what he meant. So naturally, he is speaking about the OT understanding of sexual imoraltiy.

You don't have me convinced.

 

He just said sexual immorality. For all we know, he went into explicit detail, but it wasn't recorded. You can't just assume things.

No, we can't assume things, but we can infer things. He was talking to a Jewish audiance. It would make sense for him to be using terms they would understand. Also, lets not forget that on the many occasions where Jesus corrects or chasticies the dominant interpretation of Jewish law, he is very explicit. Things like the fact that holiness comes from what comes from your mouth, not what goes in etc (refering to words etc and not special food). If he was saying something else, we would know.

If those are your reasons for opposing homosexuality, then you don't have much of an argument, especially in today's age.  "It negatively impacted the population growth," is not a bad thing, and I would even go so far as to argue that today it would be a good thing is population growth were stunted or even reversed.  You yourself even say that neither of your reasons apply today at a meaningful scale, so I ask you, what are your reasons.  Tell me, and I am perfectly happy to strike them down as incorrect or irrelevant. 

Ryan, I don't see how homosexuality is, as you say "going against nature" if God made them the way they are? The bible doesnt say God tests us, it says he allows us to be tested by Satan, but Satan can only test us once God has made us. Many aspects of gender and sexuality are innate in the individual from birth so they must be part of God's plan, not tests by Satan that God allows.

Even without God there are plenty of animal and bird species where homosexual couples occur, including species that mate for life and thus rather that selflishly focussing on their own offspring spend that energy helping their communities. My favourite example of this is penguins but that's mainly cause they're cute.
I'm a catholic, and when most people hear this they think that I will be against gay rights. However, I have always stood by one simple belief: God does not hate or punish people for being who they are and bringing love into the world. The idea that gey people couldn't get married in a church always seemed slightly off to me: marriage is a way of saying that you were in a union so special to you that you want to share it with God. Saying that a type of love should not be able to express itself in that way seems to me a way of seperating yourself from something you find uncomforable. The problem with gay rights is not religion, its people who don't understand something because it's not 100% the same as them, and so they find excuses to shun and ridicule it. It's terrible that religion has been brought into it in such away, but I personally think that it's the people against gay rights that have the problem, and religions should be seperate from that.
Homosexuality IS a sin, it specifically says it multiple times in the bible. Leviticus 20:13

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

And also, just to clairify, people are not born that way. God creates/created everybody perfectly and in his image, but he also gave us free will and its what we choose to do with it that shapes who we are. Satan and his minions or devils are everywhere and tempting us all the time; through TV, Music, Internet, Video games...etc. We can either choose to take the wide path and fall into those tempations and crash and burn later on in life.....or we could take the narrow path and be men after Gods own heart and keep away from those temptations, so when you say that people were born that way its simply just an excuse for not admitting your sins and that you need help.

You can't go by what the bible put as a punishment as a good, reasonable model for what to do today.  On ships in colonial times it was very common to receive lashes for something as trivial as not getting up immediately when your captain told you to.  The bible, or rather that part of it, was written at a time when fathers had the authority to marry off their daughters, and sexism and rascism were the way of life, not the (mostly) distant memories that they are today. 

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service