I have often asked myself this question and with the issue of the gay Episcopalian Bishop election, how do those who follow Christ reconcile homosexuality and fornication practices when it so forcefully condemned in the Bible?

I ask this question in all seriousness because I have found it quite perplexing, and would like a serious answer. This thread is not a troll, I do not intend it to be so. I am not looking for an argument, bashing, or anything of the like. Please do not bash or ridicule, please post respectfully.

My own point of view is that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc. are all wrong and immoral. My view is love the sinner and hate the sin. I am not judging, not my place and heaven knows I better not be throwing stones. Christ loved all without regard, but condemned these things either by declaring it Himself or through His apostles. I am genuinely interested to know, again please be respectful, I am not judging, but asking to understand, I am not here to change anyone. Thank you.

I was surprised too at hearing a gay bishop being appointed.

" I have often asked myself this question and with the issue of the gay Episcopalian Bishop election, how do those who follow Christ reconcile homosexuality and fornication practices when it so forcefully condemned in the Bible?"

Well, to be a homosexual,and preform homosexual acts are 2 different things. It is immoral to be homosexual but thats the way life is. Its immoral to curse, steal etc, yet people do it and does that mean they are more excused then the bishop? That problem could very well be his "cross".
But the problem is what is he doing about it? Im not judging him or calling him evil, i just think that he kind of made a mitake of announcing it. Its kind of setting a bad example, in my opinion its even like a comerial. Its delivering the wrong message to people, its saying that homosexuality is okay.
These are my views, and as i said, im not judging him or calling him worse and more evil than others, since we ALL have our dark little problems.

You are right Smith, I probably should have clarified it more, though I kind of look at it with regards to "He that lusteth after a woman, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." There certainly is a difference between practicing and feeling that way, with any type. I am speaking of the sexual issues, I think most people will agree that stealing, murder, etc. are wrong. I am thinking more in terms of practicing homosexuality or fornication, etc. I am cetainly not judging, not my place, nor would I want that job, Christ commanded us to forgive and not judge the person, but stated what acts were wrong.

How can homosexuality be immoral?

Maybe I need someone to define the very meaning of the concept moral to me?

What more is immoral according to you?

In this case God, or God through his apostles, said don't do it. That's how I view it.

for your robban

Morality
mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-) n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties : An an entirly arbitrary system of values whereby actions are judged as right or wrong with no qualifying criteria to back up said values. ie "There is nothing inherently bad about homosexuals except that they are not moral."

does that clear things up?

Im sorry no.

Moral is a hard wired attribute to any human being. Each person moral differ from the other, while they all seem to share many common points. But for example, a retarded person have a different moral makeup than a sane. How do we know if this moral exist or not within us, we have to test it. For example, when I listen to my mother and that put a smile on her face, I feel right. My moral system is happy, I have agreed with it. When I yell at my mom, it feels awfull, my moral is not happy, I'm going againest my code. When my 2 year old goes to the toilet to drink from it, he think he's not doing anything wrong, only mommy says it's wrong, but his moral system doesn't oppose it. He is doing nothing immoral.

Same for gays, If a gay person can tell me that they have complete inner peace with themselves and feel that what they are doing is 100% right, then they are going with their moral and it's moral to be gay, but of course they could be lying to themselves, but I wouldn't know and it's none of my business, so is the reason for human judgement to see if humans acted right or wrong againest their own moral.

Flores:

Retarded and sane are not oppocites. Most retarted people are sane. Maybe you meant insane or demented or something rather than retarded

Spymoose,
It is really hard to tell what is retarded and what is sane and what is insane.....What I'm trying to get at is that people with disabeled functions have less moral responsbility than people with full able function. A retarded person might be optimizing his system and doing the best that he can, while a healthy peson can be an idiot who abuses all he got.

Flores: for once we agree :)

Conclution: blaming gay-people for being immoral IS by MY definition an immoral behaivor.

Saying that gay-people cant be x-ian is foolish. This is reverible: x-ian people can be gay.

Robban, that is my the point of my question. I am trying to understand how a homosexual, practising homosexual, fornication (pre-marital sex), etc. reconcile the acts, practices, whatever with what Christ said you should not do. You can certainly be Christian and be gay, what I am asking is effectively is what allows one to justify what they do, contrary to what they claim they follow, or more precisely what God commanded one not to do.

For example, if I stole money, I know it is wrong because God clearly said so. So if I engaged in fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, how do I in good conscience justify what I do with what I have been instructed by God not to do? I think everyone would clearly agree that if I stole, I am doing something wrong. What allows one to pick one part of God's commands to live, but disregard another. I picked gays and fornication, because I feel it is so prominent and so many feel it is okay and yet would not steal because that is wrong. Why the dichotomy?

This is what I am trying to get at. This is no judgment on anyone, or else I myself am a hypocrite and breaking a command not to judge or to forgive.

I think one reason that people will accept homosexual conduct as acceptable VS stealing is that in a theft there is a clear victem. You are depriving somone of something that is rightfuly thiers, and obtaining something that you did not have a right to.

With homosexuality it is difficult to find a victem (but there are several creative people who have tried) and some people are begining to get to the point where the search for a victem seems so hard that they cant even really beleive its wrong even if god says it.

I would guess that in the case of homosexuality, fornication, most likely the victim would be yourself, at the very least. I say that because you would be doing something you were told not to do.

This might be a very difficult question to answer. Please, do not take me as being rude or judgmental, it is just to me it all seems so hypocritical. A person says one thing and then does another. Or it seems like it is okay to pick one part of God's word to live, but this other thing does not apply to me. To me it is like saying, I will not steal, I don't think that is right, but hey, that guy deserves to have me quick his butt, so I beat him up. What's the difference?

I am being very sincere in my questioning, because I would truly like to at least know something about it.

I dont know Truthy boy, do you eat pork? Would you shun somone for shaving? Kill people who wear cloths woven of two types of cloth?

the bible is written so you have to live by some of "gods word" and not by others.

Originally posted by truth
Robban, that is my the point of my question. I am trying to understand how a homosexual, practising homosexual, fornication (pre-marital sex), etc. reconcile the acts, practices, whatever with what Christ said you should not do.

I can't remember Christ having said anything about homosexuals. But if it's just the fornication aspect that you worry about, would it be moral for homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior after having married one another? Or in other words would homosexuality be immoral if the church allowed homosexual marriages? It’s true that Leviticus condemns homosexual behavior, but it also names shaving and eating pork as equal sins, so are we to follow those too, or simply continue on paying the old testament very little attention (except perhaps when it serves our hateful agendas to pick and choose)? In this situation, would it not be the church, who denies homosexual unions, responsible for the immorality?


Originally posted by truth
You can certainly be Christian and be gay, what I am asking is effectively is what allows one to justify what they do, contrary to what they claim they follow, or more precisely what God commanded one not to do.

Well God commanded man to do a lot of things, and I'm not saying any of this to be contrary, I'm genuinely trying to play the theology game on your own terms here, but a lot of what he said contradicts things he says later, and then things he says through Christ later still. If people tried to obey every word in the bible our own society would not look that different from fundamentalist Muslim nations. Women and children would be second class citizens, and subject to adult males whims, stonings would be common place, and our lives would be full of strange and seemingly meaningless regulations and divine dictums.

Originally posted by truth
For example, if I stole money, I know it is wrong because God clearly said so. So if I engaged in fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, how do I in good conscience justify what I do with what I have been instructed by God not to do?

Well it could be done mostly through the reorganization that "sin" or disobedience of what God has told us to do through the bible, is an essential part of society. We've seen the world that such strict adherence brings, and chosen instead to act as though we are all good Christians and avoid sin and try hard to be righteous, but our very way of life is contrary to dozens of his teachings without a single tear shed, or thought given to the depth of our disobedience. The fact that we have created a secular government alone speaks volumes toward this end. We are a nation that has rejected God and theological morality as a valid source of authoritative power. We've recognized that building our society based more closely on laws and morals justifiable through secular or more logical means creates a better society for us than one based upon arbitrary, and often vague and even contradictory theological teachings.

Take a good look at the world man has built for himself, then compare it to the dark ages, or modern day Muslim fundamentalist nations, and ask yourself which you prefer. I’m not trying to make an argument for atheism with this (I know that’s very like me, but I’ve decided to play nice for this thread and won’t get into that) but just want to see if I can get you thinking about the nature of theological morality. If God is apparently a valid source of morality and authority, then you really must ask yourself if the bible is really his word.


Originally posted by truth
I think everyone would clearly agree that if I stole, I am doing something wrong. What allows one to pick one part of God's commands to live, but disregard another. I picked gays and fornication, because I feel it is so prominent and so many feel it is okay and yet would not steal because that is wrong. Why the dichotomy?

Well, again it's just society's own way of tending back toward standards of morality which are justifiable through more secular, natural and justifiable (if not always completely logical or rational) means. Stealing and murder are external actions which harm your fellow man, homosexuality however harms no one, and unlike stealing or murder no one but those involved in the homosexual act have any stake at all in it. For those reasons murder and theft are obvious choices for labeling as immoral, and homosexuality is not, as it would take and extra intrusion into people's private lives in order to condemn it.

Are we absolutely positive that it is Gods words? That is it Gods intension to live by there rules?

Matter of faith, yes i know.

But you must never forget that these rules was written for another timeframe. It is not easy to apply 3000 years old rules of life into out modern society.

The rules say more things that is hard to translate into modern times, like:

- If you buy a a hebrew slave you must free him after sex years.

- The one who hits his father or mother shall be punished with death.

- The one who curses his father or mother shall also die.

- If a bull hurt a slave, the owner of the bull shall pay 30 siklar to the slaves owner.


When solving disagreal of financial agreement, the law-people always try to look for the intension of the agreement rather than split words.

[content deleted because spymoose is now somehow having his posts show up as mystech]

Truth,

Morality is concerned with the choice between what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately mankind has yet to agree on what constitutes right and wrong.

There are two primary types of human morality, religious and rational.

Religious Morality.

Religious morality is a set of rules and guidelines defined and written by people who typically lived in a culture thousands of years before our own and where the dominant political control was authoritarian and usually barbaric compared to modern values. These were times where politics and religion were inter-dependent and political power was only considered viable if it had the support of the alleged gods or god concepts that were popular and/or fashionable at the time.

The rules were written as if they were inspired by supernatural forces to again add weight to their required authority, but ultimately the rules were designed to allow the ruling authorities (religious controlled) to control a largely ignorant populace by fear. A good example is the biblical ten commandments, which one should note are of the form ‘You shall’ or ‘You shall not’, as opposed to ‘this is good because…’, ‘this is bad because…’.

But what usually accompany such rules are the punishments for disobedience, and again the Ten Commandments are accompanied by suitable punishments which are often not highlighted by current Christianity because they are so obviously barbaric. Try this link and scroll down to the ten punishments. Eight out of ten demand death, but I do like number 10 –

10. Mal. 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name,... behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

Hmm – looks like favoritism to the priests (the rulers).

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf

The punishment for homosexuality is of course death again – see punishment number 7 –

7. Lev. 20:13 :If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

Note that lesbianism seems fine, but then in past cultures women were not considered seriously and were commonly treated as lower class citizens or the property of men.

Rational Morality.

Rational morality is a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness. A rational moral code must be based on man’s need for objective values, and his needs to determine those goals that are conducive to his well-being. A simple example: Food is of value to man, he needs it for his survival, but poison is not. If man is to survive then he must value food and disvalue poison. Man’s evaluations of a moral code must be based on, and agree with those things that are actually of value to him.

Homosexuality.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are lifestyles that provide mutual comfort and love to their respective adherents. Both have always been practiced and both are quite common in the animal kingdom, i.e. they are both natural.

But homosexuality appears to have been the subject of brutal discrimination because it is not the majority lifestyle and the heterosexual majority has simply bullied homosexuals into silence. But then minorities of all types have always been bullied throughout the history of mankind. This also seems to be a result of the natural evolutionary process of survival and where those that are considered ‘different’ represent an instinctive threat.

Fortunately those who have been able to rise above their basal primitive instincts welcome differences, variations, and newness as valid methods to increase knowledge and to increase civilized cooperation.

Unfortunately the primitive barbaric and intolerant nature of some religions especially Christianity and Islam reveal their ancient primitive roots and outdated thinking as they victimize and threaten others. As such they represent a direct threat to world stability and enlightenment.

The acceptance of a homosexual bishop shows some semblance of rationality within Christianity and recognition that common sense and modern tolerance can outweigh the primitive ideas of this redundant religion and its barbaric concepts of morality.

Well, my personal views on homosexuality are summed up rather well by a sticker I saw online once. "I'm straight, but not narrow." As to how a christian can be homosexual. How can christians go around with clean shaven faces eating bacon egg and cheese mcmuffins? Times change, morals are readjusted. Soon we'll have The New Testament. The third testament of the bible will reveal all the new laws we need for living in this digital age.

Originally posted by Mystech
[content deleted because spymoose is now somehow having his posts show up as mystech]

For the record I am not Spymoose, but we are connecting from the same gateway on the same network at the same university, so I guess this kind of thing is bound to happen now and again.

Originally posted by Angelus
The third testament of the bible will reveal all the new laws we need for living in this digital age.

A straight man shall not pose as a lesbian for the sake of approval in the chatrooms of such, such is an abomination and punishable by disconnection!

The words of 1337 are those of the devil, and shall not fall upon the ears of the righteous!

(haha ok I'm bored, I need to go find something better to do.)

Truth,

how do those who follow Christ reconcile homosexuality and fornication practices when it so forcefully condemned in the Bible?Because rational people can see nothing wrong with sex between consenting adults which means common sense and reason outweigh obvious faults with bible teaching. What you are witnessing is the continuing rational evolution of an antiquated religion into something more aligned with modern wisdom.

My own point of view is that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc. are all wrong and immoral.Why? Is that your true point of view or just the view of your religion which you are blindly following? Can you think for yourself and determine why these activities could or might be wrong? But first you would have to define what is meant by right and wrong.

If your basis of morality (what is right and wrong) is the alleged statements made by a fantasy then I see no value in such a debate. Your questions then are really a matter of Church dogma and not about what is right and wrong.

My view is love the sinner and hate the sin. I am not judging, not my place and heaven knows I better not be throwing stones. In very practical terms you are indeed judging others because you are evaluating them based on what you believe and have been told. If you knowingly meet a homosexual you will immediately condemn them as immoral – that is in a very real sense an active judgment on your part.

You are faced with an unfortunate dichotomy: You clearly do not want to appear judgmental and I applaud that, but you are also an adherent of a religion that is judgmental. If you believe what your religion tells you then you are necessarily judgmental and you cannot avoid that no matter what you say or deny.

Firstly, the three items in the header have all one thing in common. They all mean the same thing! I published a thread a while back about an english shirtlifting bishop - this is exactly the same - it should NOT be allowed. Clergy, of whatever persuasion, should be people that the gen public can look up to, someone who is morally correct and therefore be in an unassailable position to deliver advice without recourse.

Why does being gay automatically make him not morally correct?

Simple. To my mind, in MY opinion - he is perverted ergo immoral. My opinion of the subject will not be swayed either. How can this person, if approached, give guidance on child abuse or suchlike when people know what he does albeit in private!!!

Red Devil,

Clergy, of whatever persuasion, should be people that the gen public can look up to, someone who is morally correct and therefore be in an unassailable position to deliver advice without recourse.And why can’t a homosexual do that in the same way as any heterosexual? The problem doesn’t seem to be anything to do with homosexuals but entirely with those who have been conditioned to be bigots.

To my mind, in MY opinion - he is perverted ergo immoral. But his actions and lifestyle are loving and compassionate towards another human and does no harm to anyone, the same as the lifestyle of any heterosexual. I don’t see how you can consider such actions as immoral, wrong, or bad.

How can this person, if approached, give guidance on child abuse or suchlike when people know what he does albeit in private!!!Homosexuality has nothing to do with child abuse. But as for sex then heterosexuals participate in sex as well. Sex is for pleasure. What do you have against sex? And we are assuming of course that he does participate in sex, which isn’t necessarily the case.

But why couldn’t a homosexual be equally qualified to give advice on such matters as any heterosexual?

regarding the last point I did say "and suchlike" and not child abuse in particular. I stand by my own views and respect you yours.

CrisHomosexuality and heterosexuality are lifestyles that provide mutual comfort and love to their respective adherents. Both have always been practiced and both are quite common in the animal kingdom, i.e. they are both natural. I haven't seen homosexuality in any other member of the animal kingdom. Can someone enlighten me please? If this is natural then everyting is natural. Pollution becomes natural.

MarcAC,

I haven't seen homosexuality in any other member of the animal kingdom. Can someone enlighten me please? Sure. Try these -

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Extract –

As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. And any homosexual behavior you care to name - anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom.

And here are some book reviews on “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” -

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dtw/reviews/books/Biological_Exuberance.html
http://cellar.usc.edu:9673/review/iglr/review.html?rec_id=48
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

Biological Exuberance is a groundbreaking and important book that explodes the pervasive myth that homosexuality is not commonly found in nature. Research has documented homosexuality in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects and other animals worldwide, including instances of life-long homosexual bonding in species that show no evidence of heterosexual bonding for life. Bagemihl shows that the idea that animals engage in sexual activity simply for the sake of reproduction is an absurd distortion of nature and that in fact in some species the majority of individuals never have heterosexual intercourse in their lives.

Originally posted by MarcAC
If this is natural then everyting is natural. Pollution becomes natural. This comment scares me, because it shows you jumping to conclusions for no real reason. Why would homosexuality in animals/humans being natural make pollution natural. You missed a few steps.

Jesus did say that outside of heaven were the dogs. I don't really think that humans should base their morality on animals. Otherwise we'd find that stealing and murdering are just as natural in the animal kingdom as in ours, but both are wrong.

Originally posted by okinrus
Jesus did say that outside of heaven were the dogs. I don't really think that humans should base their morality on animals. Otherwise we'd find that stealing and murdering are just as natural in the animal kingdom as in ours, but both are wrong. But we also should base our morality just because it's in the Bible.

Regardless, the original comment was that homosexuality was 'unnatural'... which has been demonstrated to be wrong.

As for your last comment, life in the animal kingdom is based on making the best out of their situation. Humans do the same thing. The only difference is that humans seem to have a higher degree of guilt and community, which makes stealing and mudering not worth it.

Originally posted by okinrus
Jesus did say that outside of heaven were the dogs. I don't really think that humans should base their morality on animals. Otherwise we'd find that stealing and murdering are just as natural in the animal kingdom as in ours, but both are wrong.

This ventures into the arguement of Do Animals Have Souls. I think that, as far as the soul goes, yes they do. Why should WE be any different from animals? We are an animal ourselves after all.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Simple. To my mind, in MY opinion - he is perverted ergo immoral. My opinion of the subject will not be swayed either. How can this person, if approached, give guidance on child abuse or suchlike when people know what he does albeit in private!!!

What would stop him? We all screw in private last time I checked. . . well unless you're an exhibitionist. Hmm and as a Bishop I'd expect that he wouldn't be screwing anyone anymore. . . they are celibate, right?

Only (allegedly) Catholic ones...............:rolleyes:

Originally posted by truth
I have often asked myself this question and with the issue of the gay Episcopalian Bishop election, how do those who follow Christ reconcile homosexuality and fornication practices when it so forcefully condemned in the Bible?Sorry to come into the topic so late... I was on vacation. :D

It seems to me that Christianity allows for quite some latitude as to which of the OT prohibitions it deems worthy of respecting. The condemnation or allowance of certain behaviors has changed spectacularly over the past two thousand years. These changes have largely been based upon what is acceptable in a larger cultural sense and has been heavily influenced by our growing understanding of the world. Resistance to these changes has been constant; in any period one may find the conservative protest against the 'immorality' of new interpretations yet resistance to change is a futile endeavor. To put a fine point to it; our understanding of homosexuality has grown and as our culture adjusts, religion must likewise adjust to our understanding.

Homosexuality is no longer considered deviant except by religious conservatives and other cultural backwaters. It is not a choice for most but a natural proclivity. Psychologically, it is considered 'normal' within the range of human behavior. And as it harms none the argument against it is particularly weak. As it does seem to be inborn and not a volition one might view a condemnation of homosexuality as a condemnation of God or at least no more reasonable than condemning someone who prefers blondes.

As to the 'forceful' condemnation and the strength of that stance as derived from the Bible it seems to have been directed primarily at temple prostitutes rather than 'natural' homosexuality. I'll leave you with this reference:
http://milepost1.com/~gaydad/FAQ/WHATBIBLESAYS.html

But in the end, religion must grow or die. Some might applaud this end but I feel that it is too early in our evolution; too few are ready to step beyond religion into personal awareness. So grow it must. A heliocentric solar system was once considered heresy, is the realization that homosexuality is 'natural' really more difficult to accept than rearrangement of the heavens?

~Raithere

But we also should base our morality just because it's in the Bible.

No clearly the bible is not the base. Moses said that the Law was written already on the Israelites hearts. Sure the final details and punishment may have been exterior from themselves but we should be able to discern what is wrong.


Regardless, the original comment was that homosexuality was 'unnatural'... which has been demonstrated to be wrong.

As for your last comment, life in the animal kingdom is based on making the best out of their situation. Humans do the same thing. The only difference is that humans seem to have a higher degree of guilt and community, which makes stealing and mudering not worth it.

I don't see what the point is. Murder, stealing all happen in the animal kingdom and could be considered natural. The argument that homosexuality is unnatural must presume some sort of natural plan given to us by God. Otherwise we could declare everything natural and nothing wrong.

Originally posted by okinrus
I don't see what the point is. Murder, stealing all happen in the animal kingdom and could be considered natural.
They are. Animals murder for need... as do people. People however have the 'need' to not feel guilty, not be caught, and be a part of society. This is why people do not murder. Not because of some obscure randomly assigned moral. However, this is a different topic altogether.

The argument that homosexuality is unnatural must presume some sort of natural plan given to us by God. Otherwise we could declare everything natural and nothing wrong.
Everything is natural, but some people in these arugments never understand that natural does not mean right, and unnatural does not mean wrong. Is technology 'wrong'? No. So why bring use "homosexuality is unnatural" as an arguement. Simply because you have no other reason that is logical and consistent, as none exists.

There is an old saying... "If you can't explain why you believe something, you shouldn't believe it". Outside of biblical references nobody has given a logical explaination of why they believe homosexuality is wrong.

Originally posted by Raithere
It seems to me that Christianity allows for quite some latitude as to which of the OT prohibitions it deems worthy of respecting. The condemnation or allowance of certain behaviors has changed spectacularly over the past two thousand years.

Homosexuality is no longer considered deviant except by religious conservatives and other cultural backwaters.

But in the end, religion must grow or die.

~Raithere

1. By this I presume you mean that although the bible says this or that, two thousand years of further evolution of the social structure allows for the rules to be bent (pardon the pun). Or to put it another way, mankind can read what he likes into the biblical rules.

2. As I am not a religious conservative I must be living in a cultural backwater as I strongly oppose this form of sexuality!! I would disagree with that viewpoint.

3. Religion is not growing, it is on its way out to be replaced by reality, in my opinion.

Red Devil,

1. By this I presume you mean that although the bible says this or that, two thousand years of further evolution of the social structure allows for the rules to be bent (pardon the pun). Or to put it another way, mankind can read what he likes into the biblical rules.Or more accurately – a significantly increased understanding of human behavior and psychology is gradually showing the bible rules in this respect to be irrelevant, inappropriate, and unacceptable.

2. As I am not a religious conservative I must be living in a cultural backwater as I strongly oppose this form of sexuality!! I would disagree with that viewpoint.I think this is a matter of tolerance. There are some types of music I do not like but I don’t persecute those who do. Some people have different sexual preferences to me but they don’t interfere with my freedom so I don’t have any problem with them.

Does your strong opposition move you to persecute and attempt to interfere with the freedom of those who apparently offend you? If so then wouldn’t you be guilty of immoral acts that lead you to harm others?

3. Religion is not growing, it is on its way out to be replaced by reality, in my opinion.That’s just a matter of semantics I think. We could consider that religion is growing towards reality.

Originally posted by Cris
Does your strong opposition move you to persecute and attempt to interfere with the freedom of those who apparently offend you?

That’s just a matter of semantics I think. We could consider that religion is growing towards reality.

No Sir, I do not condone violence against anyone for reasons outside of war.

I suppose the religion aspect depends on one's viewpoint. From mine, an outsider, I see Science taking over more and more each day. I once said that religion is the tool of the ignorant to explain the unknown. Science is answering the unknown with coherent explanations. More and more so called mysteries are being explained by Science every day. Turin shroud for example has been proved to be a lot younger than 2003 years.

Originally posted by Red Devil
1. By this I presume you mean that although the bible says this or that, two thousand years of further evolution of the social structure allows for the rules to be bent (pardon the pun). Or to put it another way, mankind can read what he likes into the biblical rules.Why not? Christian morality today is nearly unrecognizable compared only 1000 years ago. Jesus himself introduced massive changes in his reinterpretation of OT Judaic Law, redirecting the focus upon the intent rather than the letter of the law. This progression away from rules of conduct and towards a personal awareness seems to be the norm in the development of religion.

2. As I am not a religious conservative I must be living in a cultural backwater as I strongly oppose this form of sexuality!! I would disagree with that viewpoint.I would suggest you examine the reasons that underlay your opposition. Is your conception of homosexuality truthful or does it contain misconceptions and falsehoods? Is your reaction based upon a comparison with your personal proclivities? If so, do you as strenuously oppose those who prefer different music (to borrow Chris's example) or find monkey brains to be a delicacy? People are different, how is it that you condemn one set of differences but not another... and are you certain yours are the 'correct' ones?

3. Religion is not growing, it is on its way out to be replaced by reality, in my opinion.Even as the fantastical is being weaned out of religion the mystical and transcendent remains a part of human experience. Religion is not dying, the western world is finally reaching the point of realization that several eastern philosophies discovered years ago; namely that religion is intensely personal and utterly subjective. It cannot be indoctrinated as a set of rules or coerced though threat of pain and death.

Broaden your perspective and look to the commonalities that run throughout the major religions, here you will find consistent truths of human experience. They show up again and again; in myth, in religion, in literature, in psychology, and in philosophy. These are all expressions of the human experience, look beyond the fantasy.

If these are not your favorite topics, look towards scientific philosophy. Read Tesla (what there is), Einstein, Feynman, Sagan, and Hawking. Their discussions are rife with the mysterious and the transcendent. And this is where I get truly excited... the common conceptions of heaven and hell are dull in comparison with the concept of a holographic universe or the perception of reality from the POV of a photon ala QED. Which is truth? None of them, they are all models; reality sifted through the filters of human perception and conception. But that which they reveal about reality is indeed mystical and transcendent.

~Raithere

Raithere: When talking about religions I tend to default in Christianity, my fault. As for the so called eastern religions, I suppose that mysticism does play a larger role. I actually own Cosmos by Carl Sagan and A Brief History of Time by Hawkins but have not read any other books by these two. There is only one religion on this planet that suggests true religion - Buddhism. If a person carrys his/her own religion beliefs in their mind/soul what need of solid representations eg: churches.

Homosexuality is wrong because god commanded us not to be homosexual.

But what if someone doesn't follow the christian religion? If their gods have no problem with homosexuality, why should they be forced to follow the orders and rules set by chrisitanity?

Well thats fine, they can follow their gods, but they are still sinning.

God said it is wrong to judge others. You may not believe that, but you are still sinning.

If god is a truly good god, he should forgive people for sinning, since we're all just how he made us, right?

Teh. Anyways, who is to say that christianity is the one true religion? No one is. So they cannot force their definition of a sin on people who don't believe in that definition.

Originally posted by Silivren
Anyways, who is to say that christianity is the one true religion? No one is. So they cannot force their definition of a sin on people who don't believe in that definition.

You are so correct! Xianity is a false religion that condemns all other faiths. I believe Xianity is the Anti-X. It's had 2000 years to lead its' millions of believers astray. Satan would be proud of his work. (But I don't believe in Satan--Satan is Xianity.) I will rejoice when Xianity falls. The end is coming soon!

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I will rejoice when Xianity falls. The end is coming soon! Did you ever finish teaching us the rules of Shabbat? :D

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Did you ever finish teaching us the rules of Shabbat? :D

I never attempted "to teach" the rules of Shabbat. I do not know the rules of Shabbat. What I do know is that the crucifixion as reported in the gospels, did not take place because of the approaching Sabbath.

Why do you condescend to everyone who posts? Are you really that insecure about yourself? Why do you waste everyone's time with your ridiculous remarks? If you can't add something intelligent to the forum, why do you keep insisting on making a fool of yourself? I can tell from some of your posts that you are quite knowledgeable about religion. Why can't you just share your knowledge with us instead of resorting to such childish remarks.

Originally posted by Persol
God said it is wrong to judge others. You may not believe that, but you are still sinning.

Then why did he state the homosexuality was wrong - is that not judging others too?

There are so many contradictions in the bible its unreal.

Originally posted by Agent Smith
Well thats fine, they can follow their gods, but they are still sinning.

That's pretty presumptuous, don't you think? From your statement I am taking it you believe your religion is the "true" and only? Prove it!

Originally posted by Red Devil
When talking about religions I tend to default in Christianity, my fault. As for the so called eastern religions, I suppose that mysticism does play a larger role.It's buried within the Judaic religions as well, you just have to search a little further for it. Unfortunately, here in the US we have such a preponderance of the evangelical, xenophobic, narrow-minded, crap that pretends to be religion that it is often difficult to see anything else.

I actually own Cosmos by Carl Sagan and A Brief History of Time by HawkinsBoth great books. I'd also recommend "The Demon Haunted World" by Sagan; "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Hawking; anything by Feynman but "QED" is essential; as to Tesla and Einstein I haven't read any books that were outstanding (perhaps someone could recommend some) but one gets a good impression through various quotations and articles. "Shrodinger's Kittens" by Gribbin is also an excellent read.

There is only one religion on this planet that suggests true religion - Buddhism.Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, certain schools of Hinduism (although these can be exceedingly confusing)... there are more. As to western schools look towards the gnostic traditions such as the Gospel of Thomas:
"3. Jesus said,"... Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.""
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

It is also evident in Greek Orthodoxy:

"We know God as transcendent, as far away; one of the feelings of truly authentic experience of God is that of awe, that of feeling annihilated in His awesome and distant Presence. However, it is also true that the opposite feeling is also part of true and authentic religious experience: that is to feel God as immanent, and intimately close and nearby and present.
...
Our Christian God, then, is not the "God of Philosophers." He is not a "Supreme Being" similar to other beings, another "essence" among many essences. The Christian God is "super-essential" and "super-existent" only in the sense that He is totally different from created existence. "If everything else is being, God is not a being," said St. Gregory Palamas."
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8038.asp

If a person carrys his/her own religion beliefs in their mind/soul what need of solid representations eg: churches.Indeed. The questions I often ask are: Who has the hubris to speak for God? If God is ineffable then what words define him? Typical practice attempts to put God in a box labeled "God is". Utter nonsense.

But in the end I find the conception counterproductive. Once labeled the natural tendency is to attempt definition. Better IMO to start with a clean slate such as ideally exists in science or philosophy or to cut away as in Buddhism.

~Raithere

The real reason Christians don't accept homosexuals is because they are confused. Their old leaders were bigots, and most of them haven't realized that Jesus Christ actually doesn't want them to disciminate against homosexual people.

Sad thing about Christians, especially America ones, is that most of them no next to nothing about their own religion. Jesus Christ commands everyone, "Take the log out of your own eye before you look for the twig(or something) in your neighbor's eye", but still nobody listens. People are still going against what Jesus wanted, even after he died to make his point. It's really sad.

Jesus Christ embraced and welcomed a whore. I bet you he would have embraced a homosexual man, if he found one, in fact, he probably did.

I'm not an actual Christian anymore, but the homosexual bashing was in the Old Testament. Also in the Old Testament, people had to slaughter animals for their God, slaughter enemies righteously, and shun all but pure Jews.

It's astounding how everyone can look over all these inconsistencies. More than astounding... it's simply unbelievable.

And also, remember: all sins are the same in God's eyes, therefore you, poor sinning Christian, are just as bad(if not worse for your hypocrisy) in God's eyes.

Separate the Old Testament and the New Testament cleanly and you will be less confused. My advice for an aspiring Christian: disregard the Old Testament entirely. Throw it away and burn it. It'll just weaken your faith. Focus your faith on Jesus, and you can do some good in the world.

Originally posted by Agent Smith
Homosexuality is wrong because god commanded us not to be homosexual.Just as long as you are following all of the details, make sure not to forget what else is forbidden in Leviticus:

heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (18:19)
harvesting the corners of a field (19:9)
eating fruit from a young tree (19:23)
wearing clothes that are made from a textile blend (19:19)
cross-breeding livestock (19:19)
sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19)
shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27)
tattoos (19:28)
even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18)
charging of interest on a loan (25:37)
http://milepost1.com/~gaydad/FAQ/WHATBIBLESAYS.html

Oh, and these rules proscribing certain actions as well:

a child to be killed if he/she curses their parent (20:9)
all persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)
the daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be killed (21:9)
a priest to marry a virgin (21:13)
ritual killing of animals, using cattle, sheep and goats (22:19)
observation of 7 feasts: Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Firstfruits, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles (23)
a person who takes the Lord's name in vain is to be killed (24:16)

When you pick and choose at your pleasure which rules to follow and which to ignore the argument looses its potency. Live up to ALL of the laws.

Additionally, the "commandment" against homosexuality is unclear at best. It is generally taken by linguistic scholars to be a proscription against homsexual temple prostitution.

~Raithere

(edited to remove unnecessary rudeness... sorry)

First of all, Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, all things became new. The law of Moses was one of carnal commandments. Christ gave the new. For example, circumcision was done away, the gospel preached to the Gentiles, the eating of unclean animals. Christ taught not to stone, such as the woman taken in adultery and Christ asked he who is without sin cast the first stone. Christ changed the law, He made it and He changed it.

Second, just because men change and want to make, unmake religion to suit or justify themselves, does not make it right. Unless God says it is okay, it is not. Who are men to change what God has decreed? That is like saying the traffic laws do not apply to me, I can speed if I want and who cares what is right.

I love how people claim that those who do not approve of homosexuality are labeled as bigots. I do not like adultery, does that mean that I am bigoted against adulterers? Garbage.

As to other religions, I do not know their beliefs regarding homosexuality, I am speaking specifically of those who are Christian and either practice it and/or condone it.

To those who say let whatever is natural be the rule. We are not animals! Is it excusable for a man to cheat on his wife because it is natural for him to want sex with more than one woman? There is no excuse for it.

If you are atheist, well I guess no rules apply, do whatever you want or those who think Christianity is awful, I guess you better hope you are right. If I am wrong, then I have done what I can to live a good and moral life. If you are wrong, hehe, that will be interesting to see. I can't lose, unless I am doing something contrary to God's will.

And for those who dislike Christ and His teachings, well, it is so terrible to have something that teaches right and wrong. Yes, people have used it incorrectly, and for that they will have to answer to God. No excuse for that!

As to God should forgive, He does if one repents and changes their ways. He forgives whom He will, we are commanded to forgive all.

As for the reasons about gays, read Romans 1:22-32, below. I think God's mind on the matter is pretty clear.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Truth,

Second, just because men change and want to make, unmake religion to suit or justify themselves, does not make it right. But Christianity is a creation of man and is constantly evolving and adapting to reality, albeit extremely slowly. For example in 1633 Galieo was forced by the inquisition to make this statement ……I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immobile, and that the earth is not the center of the world and moves,…….

Christianity has been constantly forced to change its rules and ideas each time science shows them to be wrong or when it becomes extremely obvious. For most of the past 2000 years Jews were heavily and brutally persecuted by Christians until the holocaust when Christianity finally announced that such persecution is wrong.

Unless God says it is okay, it is not. Don’t be silly. Imaginary gods have never said anything; they have always been and are still a figment of man’s imagination. The rules of Christianity were written by men for men.

Who are men to change what God has decreed? Those who can see reason.

That is like saying the traffic laws do not apply to me, I can speed if I want and who cares what is right.No, there is no valid analogy, because those laws were written by men in agreement of men to protect the freedom of men.

I love how people claim that those who do not approve of homosexuality are labeled as bigots. I do not like adultery, does that mean that I am bigoted against adulterers? Garbage.Homosexuality does no harm to others, adultery does.

To those who say let whatever is natural be the rule. Oh I hope not. There are many things in nature that are atrocious. But it is usually the religionists who claim that homosexuality is not natural in an attempt to justify their bigotry.

We are not animals!Yes we are.

Is it excusable for a man to cheat on his wife because it is natural for him to want sex with more than one woman? There is no excuse for it. Adultery has nothing to do with homosexuality. They are two very separate and unrelated issues.

The thing that separates us from the other animals is our ability to reason, but we are still driven by powerful primeval basal instincts just like all animals.

If you are atheist, well I guess no rules apply, do whatever you want But that doesn’t work. We all live in a society where we have generated rules and laws for the benefit of all. We use our ability to reason to build such rules. No recourse to a supernatural entity has ever been required.

And for those who dislike Christ and His teachings, well, it is so terrible to have something that teaches right and wrong. Yes, people have used it incorrectly, and for that they will have to answer to God. No excuse for that!The persecution of homosexuality as interpreted by current Christianity is clearly wrong. There appears no rational basis for such teachings.

As for the reasons about gays, read Romans 1:22-32, below. I think God's mind on the matter is pretty clear.Your idea of clarity leaves much to be desired. I only found this single verse from your quotes to be close to relevant.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

You might have done better to quote from the RSV which is much more explicit …27…and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

But the essence of the message is clear that homosexuality is considered by this author to be unnatural, but as we have shown earlier homosexuality is natural. The bible message is just simple bigotry.

End the discussion about gay now before you gays make a fool of yourself :)

In the year 1608 the swedish king Karl IX was persuaded by the priests into adding "Gods law" as an appendix to the civilian laws.

This resulted in (among other things):

300 innocent women slaugtered for a fairytale-crime

2000 men slaughered for bestiality

At least one man slaughtered for homosexuality (yes it is a rather low figure in this context. In central-europe ne figure was quite a bit higher.

I dont have numbers on adultery.

So.. how did the courts find all the suspects? Well rather simple. The (mostly) priests used "neighborr-turn-ins". In other words the son, wife, neighboor, friend, foe, whoever told a priest.

So how many in here think its a good idea to reestablish "Gods law"? If you dont, then there is no point at all in even discuss those laws.

P.S. By the nature of the laws and punishments in the bible, it is more likely that the ideas comes from the devil instead of God.

Originally posted by truth

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So if, in your opinion, it is wrong to disobey the bible (which you apparently view as gods word), and this is what he says, then why are you not out there killing homosexuals as we speak? You’re right it is very clear.

How do we know jesus wasnt a black, homosexual woman?

That would really piss the old gang of rasistic, homofobic, womenhating priests off.

Originally posted by truth
Second, just because men change and want to make, unmake religion to suit or justify themselves, does not make it right. Unless God says it is okay, it is not. Who are men to change what God has decreed?The problem is in the interpretation of the text not the alteration of the text. Certain 'rules' are no longer followed, generally because of changes in our understanding of the world. The prohibitions against pork and sex during menstruation, for instance, make sense within their historical perspective but not today. Whether you like it or not change has occurred and will continue to occur. Ignoring the historical setting in which the various books of the Bible were written only causes confusion and misunderstanding.

I love how people claim that those who do not approve of homosexuality are labeled as bigots. I do not like adultery, does that mean that I am bigoted against adulterers? Garbage.Bigotry depends upon your actions. Presently in the U.S. adulterers are not subjected to violence and outspoken condemnation. If a priest commits adultery or theft he is not generally defrocked or cast out of the church. The Bible is being used as an excuse for bigotry and hatred of homosexuals.

I can't lose, unless I am doing something contrary to God's will.If only Christians would put more faith in Jesus's words than Paul's: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned." It is not your part to approve or disapprove, to judge or condemn; is it?

And for those who dislike Christ and His teachings, well, it is so terrible to have something that teaches right and wrong.Please then do show us what Christ's thoughts were regarding homosexuality.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Mystech
So if, in your opinion, it is wrong to disobey the bible (which you apparently view as gods word), and this is what he says, then why are you not out there killing homosexuals as we speak? You’re right it is very clear.
All sins are "worthy of death" - but we are not in any authority to pass the sentence. The commandment holds: thou shalt not kill.

"Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death" (Ex.31).

I doubt that even Orthodox Jews enforce above law. We see two things here: the Bible commands that we be kept holy, and leaves no question about the severity of sin, but it prohibits us from exacting the punishment.

Homosexuality might have been associated with immorality in those times. That is no longer necessary. We know that homosexual adultery is no worse than heterosexual adultery.

From our side, we must obey the laws as far as our willpower permits us, while accepting that we are guilty of sin and in need of God's forgiveness. In the end you will be judged according to your morality (since this is a moral law). This is the same morality that will show whether you did God's will or not.

Originally posted by Raithere
Please then do show us what Christ's thoughts were regarding homosexuality.
He did not comment on incest, bestiality and all other possible acts of immorality as per OT. Did he approve of them.?!

Originally posted by everneo
He did not comment on incest, bestiality and all other possible acts of immorality as per OT. Did he approve of them.?!We don't know, do we? This is exactly my point.

Truth quoted Romans to us, which was written by Paul not spoken by Jesus. My opinion of Pauline doctrine is rather low even from a Christian view but regardless of that Paul's words are not those of an infallible deity are they? In any case my previous point still stands; Jesus did not give man the right of judgment, he was rather specific about that.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
We don't know, do we? This is exactly my point.
If you mean that we don't know whether He approved of those acts then i can ask what sort of sinners Jesus tried to resque from if he approved of those acts.? As you said "Jesus did not give man the right of judgment, he was rather specific about that." but He reserved the right of judgement and that is the reason for His call to those to come back to the righteous path.

Originally posted by Red Devil
No Sir, I do not condone violence against anyone for reasons outside of war.

Why do you make an exception for war? Do goverments have some kind of holy right that makes their decision to kill someone more "right" than an individuals?

Originally posted by everneo
what sort of sinners Jesus tried to resque from if he approved of those acts?All of us. It doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a sin or not. None of us are worthy. Why then does homosexuality get singled out so often? Where does any Church merit the right to act in judgment when Jesus himself refused to do so?

John 8:10 - 11
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

~Raithere

yes He said 'sin no more'. means repent that & not justify that.

Originally posted by everneo
yes He said 'sin no more'. means repent that & not justify that.And what business of yours would that be?

~Raithere