Homosexuality = sin

I will consider your point to be that much illustrated when you go yourself to the Christian Scriptures of the Bible (also known as New Testament) and find me the "bad ones" there.

Even bofore you do so, I must direct your attention to the fact, that those I mentioned are basic and most important teachings of Christianity, so that any other teachings contradicting these quoted in my post cannot be called "Christian" teachings. Of course, in order to see it all you'll have to read yourself the passages in question.
And don't forget: I'm talking about the TEACHINGS, not about the millions of so-called "Christians"...

 

Yes, just as SOME kind of evidence for them who're ready to listen. I have much more evidence than that, for I personally know of thousands of examples of such people, who are living today on this earth.

I'm not trying to convince gays not to be gay. In fact, I respect everyone's right to be what he wants to be.

But you need to read again the OP question in order to understand WHY I'm saying what I'm saying. The question is asking about one's personal viewpoint, so here is mine. Is it OK?

 

Seeing as you linked Corinthians to us, I'm going to assume this is one of the 'teachings' you speak of.

THIS is a most important 'teaching' is it..

Going around saying that 'effeminate' people don't go heaven a good and moral thing to do is it?

This is what a loving god does is it, sends people to hell because they are 'effeminate'.

Can you explain that?

 

What you imply in your posts is so astoundingly obvious.

 

What IS astoundingly obvious to me, is that trying to meet God's standards implies great struggle for anyone; see how Jesus emphasized it:
"If anyone wants to come after me, let him DISOWN HIMSELF and pick up his torture stake and continually follow me." (Matthew 16:24)

He seems to be saying, that for anyone it will feel like "disowning himself", not just for "sexual minorities" only. In Ephesians 4:20-24 this is described as stripping off one's old personality and putting on a new one. The change implied being so radical, Jesus himself was in no disillusion regarding how many would have enough spirit to follow: "narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and FEW ARE THE ONES FINDING IT" (Matthew 7:13,14).
Though Jesus himself didn't have to change himself, for him it was a struggle nevertheless, for he had to die doing God's will, don't you see?

After long meditation upon the real meaning of all this, I think it wants to say that God is not willing to change us instantaneously to fit his standards; that he wants us to be absolutely sure that this is what WE want. And this isn't possible without the real faith in God's promises and in his ability to make us really happy. Happier, than we can ever become WITHOUT his guidance.

...These are the teachings of Jesus. Do you find them to be of any use for you? Then you can accept his invitation and be ready to "fight a hard fight for faith". Otherwise you can say: "I CAN'T change, I find the very idea to be ridiculous and offending and I don't want to even try! Neither am I WILLING to believe in a God who'll require SUCH things!".
But you can take my word, your choice doesn't change my respect for you as my fellow human. And I want you to be happy, and that won't change either.


I hope my point now IS clear enough?
Here is a short summary:
1)I don't give this right to humans to decide what is "sin" and what is not, nor to modify the standards given by God according to their preferences.
2)At that, everyone is free to apply or NOT to apply these to himself, and no other human being has the right to judge him for his decision.

 

Agree.
If "God is LOVE", he can't be torturing human beings in eternal fire for some 60-80 years of life, which is anyway far from being all bed of roses.
This is quite logical, isn't it.
However, here is what the Bible says about the state of the dead:"For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all..." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)
Those who are "conscious of nothing at all" cannot be tortured at the same time, can they?
Besides, according to the Bible, not only "bad" people are going to "hell" after death, but just everyone -- for example, righteous Job expected to go to "hell" (SHEOL in the original) once he dies, see Job 17:13-16. This HELL or SHEOL (HADES in Greek Scriptures) is just a common grave of all humankind, not a fiery place of torture.

"Not entering the Kingdom of God", however, is different from "going to hell".
The term "Kingdom of God" is linked to the future happy rule of God's Kingdom over the earth (read about it in Daniel 2:44, Revelation 21:3,4, Psalm 37:10-11, Isaiah 65:21-25 and many others). Those not entering it will not live to see this happy time, because they don't want to live up to God's standards.

Here's one example why some may not enter that Kingdom:
"Let anger alone and leave rage; do not show yourself heated up only to do evil. For evildoers themselves will be cut off...
But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace." (Psalm 37:8-11)

This passage says those paying back evil for evil will also "not enter into God's Kingdom". This implies a very large group of people living today, and they're in the same position as the "effeminate". And many of them find it to be ridiculous or at least "not effective" to start "loving their enemies" as Jesus says... They say they CAN'T change; that it is but natural to hate them who treat you badly; that if you don't punish the bad guys, the situation will be getting worse and worse.

... So you see. It's more or less about our willing to believe, that our Maker can make our life MUCH better than it is at present.
Let's think a bit. Are we absolutely happy at present? And our present state, is it not linked to what we ARE at present? So is it so impossible, that we could become happier persons if we'd change into something different?
Now the Bible says, if we change according to God's standards, we will be happier than we can ever be on our own. It also says, that such change is possible for anyone, given he's ready to sacrifice his present values because he believes in God's guidance and his ability to make him happier. Does it all sound so ridiculous after all? I think it's just a matter of a personal preference, whether or not you feel inclined to believe all this.

Granted, it is nobody's business to tell YOU how you should live your life.

 

I am hetero but homosexuality cannot be a sin as it is part of nature. It occurs across cultures, across species and down through history. Minority appearance, behavior, belief, etc, but that integrates well into the natural world over time cannot be a sin. Maybe in terms of the Christian God, created by a bunch of old light skinned men interested in maintaining the status quo, but that's just human cultural bullshit. In terms of the REAL (he he) world and the metaphysical something so natural cannot be a sin.

 

God's standards....

Human sacrifice. flooding the earth. Turning people into pillars of salt. destroying cities. Slavery. imprisoning and killing disobedient children.
Distributing captive virgins among the victorious soldiers...

That book is rife in sexism. Absolutely full of immorality...'Gods standards'...

You cannot reason why the 'effeminate' are evil. You simply say they are evil because the bible said it, which is not a justification.

Do you know that you cause suffering and hurt because you are so Ignorant?
You have no Idea how cruel you are, and how awful you make people feel.
Society has to bend over backwards to 'facilitate' you.
The future will look back on you the same I way I look back on the Spanish inquisition and witch burning.

I was once a christian, earnestly asking Jesus' spirit to come in to my life and steer me on the right path. I prayed for forgiveness and all the rest, and then I grew up.

Do I see a god? no
Do I hear a god? no
Do I smell, touch, taste a god? no no no.

No evidence, nothing at all to suggest it's existence. The bible is text on paper, written by men. It's moral code is inferior to ours of today. It's fantasy, and God is a figment of the imagination.

 

You don't need to say that to me, for I READ the book, and you didn't.
However, if you want to know the truth, you'll have to search for, find and make sure of it on your own, all by yourself. Just repeating other folks' words won't make it.

Oh yea? Well let's see now:
Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other.
Here is what the Bible says on that:
"Nevertheless, also, let each one of you individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband."(Ephesians 5:33)
Instead of "sexism" I can see here a very deep vision into the very heart of the problem as common in modern families, as it was I guess in the past: lack of real love with husbands and lack of respect with wives. Now this principle alone has helped many couples to improve their relations.
Yet, in Galatians 3:28 you read:"There is neither Jew no Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus."
So this is what I see: when sex matters the Bible gives a very wise council on that, and at the same time it says that for God and Christ NO sex is inferior or superior.

Or, let's rather say YOU are not much interested to hear my reasons. Nor anybody else here reading this thread, I suppose.

I agree: nothing in the world causes more suffering than does IGNORANCE.
Even if you don't know the true reasons WHY you need to suffer, still, suffer you must, there seems no way you could avoid it... But when you know the truth it brings great release. That is also how you know it is THE truth.

I'm giving up this little discussion, therefore. I was only answering the question of this poll and explaining a little bit. And I DON'T think they need to "facilitate" YOU. I'm still ready to accept you the way you are.

 

You didn't give any reasons

The thing about 'the truth' is that the it does not hide itself.
It's not encrypted in an old book.

I've read enough of the bible to know that it's not divine. It's grotesque. Did you like the part where Jeptath burns his daughter? or God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son?

It also said you should keep women silent in church. The head of every woman is man. the man not created for woman, but woman for man. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the lord. thats not even half of it.

Yea fine. bye

 

I just though I'd recap a little on my conversation with aguest.

Alot of people these days are questioning the followers of religions, namely the Abrahamic religions. This usually resulting in great debates.

what I and other people have observed is that the theists usually rely on a few common methods of conveying their contentions, some of which arise in aguests posts.

I thought I'd highlite some of these things so that you can protect yourself against the mental tricks that christians and other religious proselytizers use against others.

My first post was addressing a statement of his in regard to Corinthians 6:10.

He implies that Greeks, all being homosexuals (a false pretense) were converted to Christianity in the first century and subsequently stopped being gay.

The only historical data I could find on the topic suggest the christianization of greece took place in 314 AD

which amusingly said

"Immediately after its full legalization, the Christian Church attacks the Gentiles"

The next few hundred years in Greece were violent, the gentiles were killed in death camps. Temples were destroyed and the death penalty was placed on people practicing spiritual techniques of prior culture.

Aguest said "maybe they were led to something better"
Maybe because they would be killed otherwise?

Aguest then links to us Corinthians 6:10, which is a letter from Paul to the Christians in Greece.

Just pointing this out folks. 'Corinthians' might 'the word of god' to Christians, but in reality it's really just a letter. keep that in mind please.

The timing of this letter (around 50 AD) more accurately fits the time, but still fails to support aguest's claim about the greeks.

The letter was written in Greek, and the two words used to describe 'effeminate' are vague at best.
There was no such word for homosexuals back then.
The word effeminate didn't appear in the bible until the 1500's.
The word homosexual didn't appear until the late 1900's.

The original greek word 'Malakoi' comes from the word malakos, meaning 'soft'.
The other word 'arsenkotai' is very ambiguous, and there is a lot of speculation appears around it.

Some suggestion is that it means young male prostitutes (arsen = man, kotai = beds)

It might mean consensual gay relationships, but it's more likely he would have used the word "paiderasste" for this,

anyway..

Aguest then sais that he has 'evidence'.
Apparently, thousands of people on earth, living today, have changed their life.
He is extremely vague here, but I'm going to assume he is referring to ex-gays or a similar movement.

Now, he might have been able to link me to some 'success' stories.

However, I can equal, if not doubly return the amount of stories which high-lite the failure of this movement.

There is a list of 5 Ministers and councilors of ex-gay programs on Wikipedia that have been found guilty of sexually assulting their clients.

"I know, let's RAPE the gay out of them!":biker:

Even when Googleing 'ex-gay', the 'beyond ex-gay' site (for counselling the survivors of ex gay) has priority over the actual ex-gay website.
Beyond ex gay probably has thousands of shocking stories.

They use a pseudoscience that involves things such "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals,"
and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli.

Of course, the mental health community opposes this greatly.

If he get's to quote old letters and books, I get to quote Richard dawkins
It's only fair
Dawkins once said this on debating creationists:

"The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate.
Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them,
it is sufficient that the debate happens at all"

The presupposition that we all fall into when talking to people like aquest,
is that god is real.
Real is being capable of treated as fact.
Being real is means to be occurring in actuality.

God does not register on my senses and therefore incapable of my believing in him.
It's not even a choice to me, the same way I can't believe that 2+2=5.

I asked aguest, why is being effeminate evil?

Aguest then does what many christians like to do.
Which is quote seemingly random bits of scripture in some kind of effort to evade the question.
Matthew 16:24, Matthew 7:13,14, Ephesians 4:20-24 did not address my question.

He makes no effort to make reason or justify it, he simply resorts to quoting irrelevant scripture.

Presupposing that:

a) I believe in God
b) I think that being effeminate is evil
c) both a) and b) must be true because Jesus said following him is difficult.

Quoting his scripture suddenly makes sense to him.
It's fascinating how the Imagination can bend reality.

There are two other things that aquest did I will point out.
After giving examples of how the morality portrayed by God in the bible is actually Immoral, he returns argumentum ad hominum.

He states 'I have read the bible and you haven't'.

What this does is distracts the dialogue from my contention.
He does not back up his claim with evidence (something you really need to do in a debate)

And he doesn't address my contention!
which was related to the bible DIRECTLY, the very bible claims that I have not read.

Because theists don't have much to work with, they love just attacking logic and reason itself.
It's a bit like playing monopoly, where they just pick up the board and send it flying across the room.

The final thing that aguest did, is what is the worst thing, and I have heard so many christian preachers do this.

Projection.

They project negativity onto everything. 'We are fallen, our fallen state, we are in dark times'.
They do this so they can then offer you 'the cure' which is their indoctrination.
aguest projects onto me that I am suffering, which I don't really believe I am. No more then anyone else at least.
He just flat out makes the assumption that I am suffering.

Well
You know what makes me suffer aguest?

you and your religion.

 

Me? I couldn't care less what any two people do to each other with their wedding tackle.

 

"The VileBill say this, the VileBill says that".....well I'm fucked if I can find where Jesus specifically condemns homosexuality. Care to show me?

 

As far as I'm aware, Jesus himself never even mentioned homosexuality, let alone condemned it.

 

Therefore - seeing as Jesus did away with the nasty ol' Old Testament - his silence on homosexuality, coupled with his unhealthy (in the Hebrew priesthood's opinion) habit of co-habiting solely with the all male Village People apostles, must mean he repudiated his father's psychotic fixation with faggots, right?

 

Well since you seem to be really interested, I can tell you my reasons as they are very simple and even obvious. Perhaps even familiar to you? They can make a longer list, than one expects, but here they are, step by step:
1)Studying the nature, male and female sex organs. They "fit together" providing also all physical mechanisms for such usage, "revealing" thus the purpose behind it.

2)They "form a pattern" in this regard, and homosexual relations only follow the same pattern, substituting for either female or male organ correspondingly. At the same time, such substitution can never accomplish such purpose as the "original". It is obvious to me (and you are free to think otherwise), that our bodies are "not meant" for such usage.

3)Nobody is BORN homosexual: when a baby's born there's no way you can tell "ah, another homosexual come into this world". Also, everyone can recall the time when he wasn't either homo- or heterosexual -- he was just a little boy or girl. The formation process takes place some time later.

4)Since some time in our very early life we start having feelings, on the basis of which we are being formed into this or that. Homosexual or heterosexual. At that it's not uncommon for boys to have very strong feelings for boys -- I'm talking about feelings, that "surpass" simple friendly feelings, of course. But not all such boys develop into gays.

5)The process of being formed into homosexual or heterosexual involves quite a few of factors, both known and unknown. Among the known factors most influential seem to be one's relations with one's father and also relations between both parents. It is known that homosexuals never come from the families with good, warm, close relationships between fathers and sons. Well, here you can correct me if you know of some examples.

6)It's been my own experience, too, that what you think upon the matter plays significant role upon what you feel. This is not just "suppressing one's feelings", this is a more complex process of forming one's personality and attitudes. We're not only "physical" creatures blinded and driven by physical desires, we are also spiritual in that we can control such things by the power of our spirit and intelligence, and that differs us from animals. Somebody who can't control himself is usually very unhappy for that matter.

7)Even in the matters of sexual behaviour the attitude of others has a very strong impact upon one's own formation, as children are KNOWN to absorb the influence from the outer world, which , TOGETHER with what they have inside, forms them into this or that. Equally, NOT RECEIVING what we need for our proper development forces us to look for substitutes. We don't receive the needed love, so we start looking for what could substitute it for us. Hence teenage sex, drugs, gangs and all sort of things -- usually BAD things.

8)It is known (or am I mistaken?) that young gay boys seek "male models" to follow just as "straight" children do. Because when you're in a male body you want to be the best male creature you can make. Here is when the influence of others come into play: there is astounding LACK of good male models to follow in our society!
I'm not surprised therefore, that the "straight" develop into very poor males, while homosexuals, them being usually quite intelligent creatures, choose to follow their own way.

9)If you followed my reasons down to this point, you will understand the natural conclusion I draw from the above:
It's been my conclusion, that we can exercise control over our thinking and emotions; that homosexual is what people develop into, not what they're born.
I think there is some unique characteristic in certain ones among us, which, due to certain influence from the outside (or LACK of some influence they're meant to have) leads to developing them into homosexuals. It is not some physical "organ" we're born with, however, so I believe it can be changed, just like other feelings can be changed.
And since it is something for which our bodies "were not meant", I believe it's not good for our bodies and ourselves. And, since I started this I must finish, practising what is not good for us will bring us to no good ends -- hence, I believe it is "evil".
-------------------------
However, Christians were NOT given any authorization to punish those who won't follow Jesus' teachings. Therefore, "Christian Church" is not in fact Christian, as they're no followers of Christ according to all they do and teach.
This is my verdict and please don't call them "my religion", as I don't share any of their teachings.

Indeed. We have much more control over our lives given to us, then what many know of.

Thanks for your compassion and great patience, then.

 

Refreshingly considered, better than the usual tripe you hear from straight people, assuming you are, thankyou

3&9, I also dont believe people are born gay, but I think the influence of same age peers is far more important than parents or adults

4. Its just as much about the opposite sex as the same sex, and in relation to the opposite sex, I see us divided into two main types: aversion to the opposite sex or over familiarity with the opposite sex, I was the later, raised by girls basically, most peers from early on through to high school and beyond were female and its still that way today

5. Yes I didnt have a strong relationship with my father, but I saw that as the other way around, I 'started to show' very early around 4yrs and he had more of a problem with me being me than I had with him. And at 15, very difficult for a dad to deal with a teen chasing men twice my age

6. As much as we like to think our fate is in our hands, the choice comes from everyone else, not ones self

8. It is a generalisation, but straight guys do tend to be more immature at the same age, but I do think that has more to do with the gals in the end rewarding that kind of behaviour

And overall, I dont believe there is anything specifically genetic, but there is something very early on, in early childhood that ultimately results in a different orientation, and what they are 'born with' may just be as simple as that end range of temperament, androgyny or size difference

 

Listen aguest you've expounded on your negative message here long enough. Heres a message for you...many of us have no use for the bible and its bullshit messages. If you choose to believe it, good for you but take it elsewhere. Whats your point of coming here and spreading the kind of negative crap you support...you gonna convert some of us...save our souls? Your kind has tried to victimize us all our lives. We're sick of you. You offer nothing but your way or go to hell. Nobody needs it.

Who are you to pronounce "no one is born gay" What are your credentials, where's your research other than the bible bullshit you cling to? Gay folks are just trying to live their lives like everybody else...sometimes life is difficult because of circumstance, sometimes life is difficult because some biblebigot trys to rain their bullshit down on our lives. Who needs you man? Take your hate and take a hike. You gotta a lot of nerve to come in someplace and start telling people how doomed they are based on your bible and personal bullshit. You're good to go... do so now.

 

I read your post aguest. I read it through several times completely
and have attempted to comprehend your point.

I have broken it down and addressed these steps indiviually.

Your final point falls over as the previous points cannot support it.

If you were to study nature, you would see that physcial
attributes of living entities can be comprised of not one purpose, but many.

One example I can think of is a felines tongue.
It is rough, so it can remove the skin of a carcass, and
is also is very usefull in grooming.

A look at anatomy tells us that there is an abundance of nerve endings located in the rectum for both males and females.
In addition males have a prostate gland, which when physically stimulated, can
result in pleasurable sensations and can lead to orgasm.

If the harmonious shape of male and female parts indicates one purpose,
then the ability to achieve orgasms through anal penetration indicates another.

This means the purpose of our bodies is subjective.

The scientific data available renders this statement false.

A number studies have shown that Digit ratio (a measurement of the fingers) correlates with various behavioral traits, sexuality being one of them.

Digit ratio study has been noted in scientific literature since the late 1800's.

Also,

The mother will produce higher levels estrogen to regulate her hormonal balance if the fetus is male.
Her body improves her ability to do so if she has subsequent male babies.
Therefore it's more likely for a male with older brothers to be gay.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-29/...l-orientation-heterosexual-women?_s=PM:HEALTH

Because you have made a positive affirmation, The burden of proof here is on you.

"It is known" is not evidence, and It is not my responsibility to find evidence to support you're claim.

You bring no evidence, and tell me I have to do it.

Imagine if a lawyer in a courtroom did this,

"the defendant is guilty your honor. I have no evidence but I'm sure you could find some if you looked"

It's your word for mine. My relationship with my dad was good untill he died when I was 12. I know you'll probably say 'look! see! absent father! gay!' which is fine. But this really does not relate to effeminate being evil.

Again, you're making assumptions that I am 'blinded' and driven by physical desires.

I'm not finished but it's 2AM for me and I don't have the energy.
I will post again.

So far nothing really explains why the effeminate are evil anyway.

-aguest

at least you got 1 thing right.

let me just say that If this was a proper debate -i.e. a court case,
I would have mopped the floor with you several times over.

I'm not finished either.

for as long as you persist with your ignorance, I could spend the rest of my life destroying it

 

continued:

I'm running low on patience.

You're reason for effeminate being evil uses so many baseless assumptions.

You think sexuality is determined by some personal influence such as a role model. You think it's determined later in life. You think it's changeable.

None of these stand up in the face of recent scientific studies. see link above.

despite that

Your whole argument rests on a statement so flimsy and weak in constitution, that It makes me wonder why I bother

It's completely subjective and It's completely relative.

You have a different job then me. You like different ice cream then me. You
like go carts, I don't.

The 'purpose of our bodies' is differs from person to person, as people use their bodies for different things.

None of what you said works as an explanation on why effeminate is evil.
Even if sexuality was as much of a choice as wearing jewelry, it doesn't classify it as evil.
Even if the purpose of our bodies was objective, doing something that it wasn't 'meant for' doesn't classify it as evil.

If you come quoting scripture in the defense of religion
You're pushing an immoral agenda whether you believe in it or not.
The things you say, the scripture you link hurts people. I speak from personal experience.