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.

Views: 7381

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Simple, it was not what he intended for us, and as such it isn't as good for us as it could be, and thus it moves us away from him, which is bad for us.
But that is His choice, not ours. If it doesn't hurt us, why should He bother?
No, it does hurt us. We are designed by him in a particlar way. When we behave in a way that is contary to that design, it damages us. Spiritually as well as physically.
I doubt two gay people who would like to have sex would be damaged physically, because I'm sure they would be mighty pleased.
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.


Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service