Homosexuality - Is It Right?

[Xsyven]

The last time Christians did any of those things was when it was commanded by God and recorded by Moses back *then*. The inquisition of the middle ages, which one might say upholds those Old Testament recordings, was not commanded by God and was very sinful.

Back then? Then how do we know what's true or not anymore, if things are being outdated? The bible is obsolete according to this logic.

No present-day Christians do those things, and no present-day Christians want to kill homosexuals. Present-day Christians should be showing the homosexual his/her sin, and then lovingly remind them that Jesus has died for it.

But God says to do so in the bible. You're going against God's will. Christianity has no modern-day prophet to tell you what's wrong, or what's right anymore.

If I'm going to blunt, unrepentant sinners (including active homosexuals) will go to hell.

This is what's wrong with modern-day religion. Times have changed. You guys don't kill anything anymore, because killing is wrong. How come it's not okay to be homosexual now?

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Killing isn't wrong. If it was, every Allied soldier that died in WWII would be in hell, Christian or otherwise. Thou shalt not murder is an entirely different subject than 'killing'.

You're missing the point, I'm afraid.

 

[EC_Joey]

From what I know of Christianity, taking another human life is a sin against God, regardless of the ulterior motives. Tailoring Christian precepts to fit your own needs or view only demeans Christianity further.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

You must do more research so that you can know more of Christianity, because what you know concurrently isnt enough to make an arguement about what it teaches.

 

[Xsyven]

Killing is obviously okay in situations where you have no choice. When you see a homosexual, and you throw rocks at him until he dies, that's a bit murderous, don't you think? If not, help me understand the point that you claim that I'm missing.

That, and you still never answered what makes doctrine outdated, or not.

 

[pockyD]

From what I know of Christianity, taking another human life is a sin against God, regardless of the ulterior motives. Tailoring Christian precepts to fit your own needs or view only demeans Christianity further.

God frequently orders people killed in the bible



and of course it's impossible to keep this thread on-topic lol

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Killing is obviously okay in situations where you have no choice. When you see a homosexual, and you throw rocks at him until he dies, that's a bit murderous, don't you think? If not, help me understand the point that you claim that I'm missing.

That, and you still never answered what makes doctrine outdated, or not.

Yes, that is murderous. It would be a sin to murder a homosexual.

You'd haft to define 'doctrine', because all accounts about OT mass killings arent doctrine. What doctrine ensues is the grace of God towards humans, i.e. showing sinners that they are forgiven by him and should accept Jesus into their lives, which i have been pressing this whole time.. How do they accept Jesus into their lives?
"Study the Scriptures because by them you have eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5:39).

 

[Xsyven]

Yes, that is murderous. It would be a sin to murder a homosexual.

You'd haft to define 'doctrine', because all accounts about OT mass killings arent doctrine. What doctrine ensues is the grace of God towards humans, i.e. showing sinners that they are forgiven by him and should accept Jesus into their lives, which i have been pressing this whole time.. How do they accept Jesus into their lives?
"Study the Scriptures because by them you have eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5:39).

Doctrine is beliefs. Christians believe in the bible-- but obviously, some things aren't to be believed anymore. Like murdering homosexuals. Why is still be bad to be homosexual, yet now it's not okay to kill them anymore?

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Murdering homosexuals isn't a commandment, is it?

Jesus told his disciples to go into town before him to get a donkey for him to ride on for Palm Sunday.

God told the nation of Israel to defeat the heathens in Canaan.

How in the *world* can these be doctrines? They're historical accounts, not the doctrinal parts of the Bible in any way. Yes, I do believe that the entire Bible is true. Every single verse isn't a commandment though!

 

[Aesir]

Wow is this ********.

Jesus never abolished the OT he came to uphold it. The whole bible is divine authority of god. case closed end of discussion there's no other way to look at it. The OT is the bible the bible is the word of god, thus it's right. Just because it conflicts with what you think is right doesn't mean anything.

/case closed.

Now about those homosexuals devil pacts.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Likewise, the laws that were meant to govern Israel as a nation now serve no direct purpose, because Old Testament Israel—in the sense of a special people divinely constituted for the purpose of bringing the Messiah into the world—no longer exists.

EDIT: About Jesus coming to uphold the OT, where do you get your sources??
Collosians 2:16-17
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

 

[RDK]

Hitler regarded Christianity as a religion for the weak, and based plenty of his beliefs on things such as survival of the fittest.

Wow, I actually agree with Hitler on something.

How in the *world* can these be doctrines? They're historical accounts, not the doctrinal parts of the Bible in any way. Yes, I do believe that the entire Bible is true. Every single verse isn't a commandment though!

The point is not about whether or not YOU should do those things, but the fact that God apparently ordered those things to be done sometime in the past, and that some of these things obviously conflict with already established Christian doctrine.

God ordered Abraham to kill his son Isaac. According to the 10 commandments, it's a sin to commit murder. The Bible says God doesn't tempt.

Obvious contradiction.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

The point is not about whether or not YOU should do those things, but the fact that God apparently ordered those things to be done sometime in the past, and that some of these things obviously conflict with already established Christian doctrine.

God ordered Abraham to kill his son Isaac. According to the 10 commandments, it's a sin to commit murder. The Bible says God doesn't tempt.

Obvious contradiction.[/QUOTE]

God ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son to him isn't any kind of doctrine. The reason Abraham went through with it was because he knew God had a plan, probably he thought he would raise his son Isaac (the only line to Jesus at that time) back to life if he did do it.

God ordered Abraham, not the modern Christian.

 

[Aesir]

17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

I dunno where you're getting the Idea that he was against the OT he clearly was for it, the OT was divinely inspired by god which he is endorsing.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Murdering homosexuals isn't a commandment, is it?

Neither is hating them. :D

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

On the first verse:
The fulfillment Jesus is talking about is about the prophecies of a Messiah coming, mostly those recorded from Isaiah to Malachi.

On the second verse:
That is true, but remember. The laws that were meant to govern Israel as a nation now serve no direct purpose, because Old Testament Israel—in the sense of a special people divinely constituted for the purpose of bringing the Messiah into the world—no longer exists.

 

[pockyD]

Should the 10 commandments be thrown out the door?

Or is your arbitrary bracket of laws to be ignored somewhere square in the middle of Leviticus?

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Should the 10 commandments be thrown out the door?

Or is your arbitrary bracket of laws to be ignored somewhere square in the middle of Leviticus?

The moral law is contained in the law code which God revealed at Sinai. We use part of this code, the Ten Commandments, as a handy way to teach God’s moral law—in other words, to explain how love will express itself in different aspects of life with God and in different human relationships. This is necessary because it is not enough simply to tell sinful human beings, “Love God and love your neighbor.” As we are by nature, we no longer know how to love. God, in his law, needs to spell it out for us.

EDIT: running out of old testament questions yet?

 

[Aesir]

On the first verse:
The fulfillment Jesus is talking about is about the prophecies of a Messiah coming, mostly those recorded from Isaiah to Malachi.

On the second verse:
That is true, but remember. The laws that were meant to govern Israel as a nation now serve no direct purpose, because Old Testament Israel—in the sense of a special people divinely constituted for the purpose of bringing the Messiah into the world—no longer exists.

From Matthew 5:18.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

According to this Jesus meant everything in the OT. Not selective prophecies. Jesus endorsed the OT and everything in it.

the Israel bit sounds like your own interpretation, what verse do you get that from?

 

[pockyD]

so the 10 commandments don't technically apply anymore, but are just used as a guideline anyway?

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

I've already mentioned it:

Collosians 2:16-17
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

For those of you who want us Christians to follow the Law, I give you this verse:
Romans 13:8-10
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

 

[Aesir]

Um maybe find a verse that supports your position because that clearly doesn't. That whole verse means not to substitute practices for god.

That whole verse says a lot, however it doesn't say you shouldn't celebrate just says you shouldn't follow absurdities. really doesn't prove anything you're trying to say.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Um maybe find a verse that supports your position because that clearly doesn't. That whole verse means not to substitute practices for god.

That whole verse is just says a lot. doesn't say you should celebrate just says you shouldn't follow absurdities. really doesn't prove anything you're trying to say.

...auf Englisch, bitte?

 

[Aesir]

Fixed it for coherency, I had a lot of thoughts in my head.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Well, my verse doesn't say anything about substituting those practices for God. 'Shadow of things to come' is OT practices; The reality of Christ just says that he gave Christians freedom from those practices by dying for their sins.

EDIT: about the second verse it does prove this: God isn't ordering Christians to murder homosexuals. He is ordering them to show homosexuals that what they are doing is wrong in his eyes (whether humans think its 'moral' or not) and that he wants them in heaven with him.

 

[Aesir]

Well, my verse doesn't say anything about substituting those practices for God. 'Shadow of things to come' is OT practices; The reality of Christ just says that he gave Christians freedom from those practices by dying for their sins.

Again no, the shadow is a again a representation of substituting practices for god. In no way is god frowning on these "Kill homosexual" practices. If he were he would be contradicting.

EDIT: about the second verse it does prove this: God isn't ordering Christians to murder homosexuals. He is ordering them to show homosexuals that what they are doing is wrong in his eyes (whether humans think its 'moral' or not) and that he wants them in heaven with him.

It does not though, it's simply pointing out that only focusing on the outward religious acts isn't correct.

This verse is really a big warning for Christians not to get so wrapped up in the practices to where they forget the purpose. For instance I can see this being used in the case of Christmas this is a religious holiday that has became *******ized to it's true purpose.

edit: If you want to continue this debate make a new thread, this is about is homosexuality right from a secular view not a religious view. right now it's derailed into a religious discussion so make a new thread.

now about those devil pacts.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

How is 'a Sabbath day' substituting God?

 

[Aesir]

I brought this up before, Jews went to absurdities when it came to their celebrations. Jesus didn't want Christians to follow the same suit. This verse is suppose to mean that you shouldn't feel compelled to follow the old rules to maintain in gods favor but rather you should always strive to maintain a personal relationship with Jesus.

Are we done? can we talk about Homosexuals now?

edit: Actually the more I think about it the more you could use this verse to say; "Christians don't have to follow the Sabbath law in the OT" I know many early Christian churches did this, but in no way does this void completely what Jesus said about not abolishing the OT, you would have to find a verse that says all OT laws are void not a select few.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

I brought this up before, Jews went to absurdities when it came to their celebrations. Jesus didn't want Christians to follow the same suit. This verse is suppose to mean that you shouldn't feel compelled to follow the old rules to maintain in gods favor but rather you should always strive to maintain a personal relationship with Jesus.

Are we done? can we talk about Homosexuals now?

I believe you just proved my point. If there were any old rules about 'murdering homosexuals', you just said that Christians aren't compelled to follow it. Did you just accidentally agree with me?

 

[Aesir]

I didn't though that verse doesn't say anything about Homosexuals that verse is only speaking of the Sabbath laws. Check my edit I made reference to that.

Is there a verse in the NT that says you shouldn't kill homosexuals?

 

[pockyD]

move to http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=179822 -_-

 

[Johnthegalactic]

edit: If you want to continue this debate make a new thread, this is about is homosexuality right from a secular view not a religious view. right now it's derailed into a religious discussion so make a new thread.

now about those devil pacts.

Let's read the original post!

Well, we have a gay marriage topic and a gay rights topic and both seem to degrade into this: Is homosexuality morally correct?

This topic will now serve as an end all for gay discussion. I'd like to merge the Gay Marriage topic, but that is a totally different issue, as well as Gay Rights. This should serve as a semi-debate/intelligent discussion of homosexual lifestyles.

After a lengthy and interesting debate in the Back Room, I feel there is no non-religious reasoning to be against homosexuality. Being completely atheist, or as Dawkins would say, De facto atheist, I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is practiced in the bedroom and should stay like that.

Now, this is the chance for the religious majority to explain their stance on homosexuality and not look like off-topic spammers. You are encouraged to show your side, staunchly.

Let's see how this turns out.

hmm....you are mistaken Aesir!

 

[Moustachio]

Since it will take me much too long to read all 11 pages of posts, then I shall simply state my view on this subject. Hmm...first of all, the question of homosexuality being "Right" seems too vague. First off, if this is viewed from a scientific point of view, then it would probably be considered "Wrong". Homosexuality simply is not compatible with natural selection. If it is viewed from a religious point of view then it is (usually) considered "Wrong". But, if the question of "Is homosexuality right?" is a question of freedom, then I think it is "Right". We as human beings should have the freedom to do anything we feel is right. But this is only my opinion...

 

[Eor]

Science never claims that Natural Selection has anything to do with morality. It's an observance, nothing more.

 

[EC_Joey]

I believe you just proved my point. If there were any old rules about 'murdering homosexuals', you just said that Christians aren't compelled to follow it. Did you just accidentally agree with me?

So, we've established killing homosexuals is a sin. Now why do you feel that being homosexual is a sin?

 

[link6616]

Well, being a homosexual myself, I'm willing to say I am very biased towards it being right.

However, by the Christan ruling it is wrong.

Sex outside marriage is wrong by Christian law is it not?
Marriage is exclusively for man and woman according to the bible is it not?
So, I'm willing to accept that in the eyes of god I am a terrible terrible person, but hey, letting your self esteem be governed by one person, however almighty, doesn't seem like a good idea.

All that stuff about devil pacts was just silly, unhelpful and makes life as part of this minority harder to deal with.

I think that homosexuality is ok. However I don't think the 'public' gay community acts remotely respectful towards other people. There is no need for these huge parades, I suppose that they might be seen as a 'coming out' thing, but I don't agree with the public display.

Moving on
There is no choice about being gay. And those that would choose it are brave, I wouldn't have chosen it given the way the word gay is used in general public (which strengthens the negativity around it, which is starting to diminish where I am)

Also, we've had alot of religious arguments, and that word has been thrown around alot in this topic. Most 'ancient' cultures though homosexuality and intersex were the best things since sliced bread. Man being wit man in greek society was though to be good, preferred to even when compared with heterosexuality.

My buddist theory is shaky, but I believe there is something similar in that, although I am happy to be proved wrong there is anyone says other wise.

In japan there has been large amounts of change to weather it's right or not, going from accepted to death for it.

The dark ages really stuffed up acceptance of homosexuality though, more info should be coming soon with that.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Our bodies are not built for that sort of relationship. It's against the will of nature. But hey, if they aren't bothering anyone around them then who's right is it to do intervene.

 

[blazedaces]

Our bodies are not built for that sort of relationship. It's against the will of nature. But hey, if they aren't bothering anyone around them then who's right is it to do intervene.

Appeal to nature fallacy (Hint: look up logical fallacies).

The "will of nature"? What does that mean? Is nature = god? Does nature have a plan? What is and isn't the "will of nature"? Seriously? Were computers in the "will of nature"? Was arsenic in the "will of nature"? If homosexuality wasn't in the "will of nature" then why does it arise all over the natural world, as in throughout the animal kingdom?

-blazed

 

[SkylerOcon]

Our bodies are not built for that sort of relationship. It's against the will of nature. But hey, if they aren't bothering anyone around them then who's right is it to do intervene.

Actually they are. Ever heard of the prostate gland? A male expiriences extreme pleasure when he's touched there. And guess where it is?

That's right, in the butt.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

why do they all (well not all, but a good portion of them) dress and talk and act a certain way? whats with the fake lisps? whats with the "pride parades" where they have to show us what it is theyre doing in their bedrooms? srsly gay people, give it a rest. go be gay and stop trying to involve everybody else in it.

After reading this, I went and asked my gay friend about your points. I never asked about the "dress and talk and act a certain way" bit, because that just depends on the induvidual really. Ben doesn't look or sound gay, and lots of people are shocked when they find out that he is.

Anyway,

(22:25) Mr Tyler: ben
(22:25) Mr Tyler: I need to ask you something
(22:26) Ben: hello
(22:27) Mr Tyler: hello
(22:27) Mr Tyler: right
(22:27) Mr Tyler: can I ask
(22:27) Mr Tyler: what's the point in gay pride parades?
(22:28) Ben: people want equality, same as u had the blacks parading in the 70's for there equality
(22:28) Mr Tyler: yeah but they are equal aren't they?
(22:30) Ben: no, gay couples have to do more to adopt, there is still alot of homophobia around, in america theres no same sex marrige still
(22:30) Mr Tyler: ah
(22:31) Mr Tyler: that homophobia in america wont go
(22:31) Mr Tyler: but that's only the religious
(22:31) Ben: thats what ppl dont like
(22:32) Ben: the religious views on it
(22:32) Ben: u know that likin guys cant be helped, its not a choice, many religions see it as a choice made purely to be ungodly
(22:33) Mr Tyler: yeah yeah I know that