Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Zealot inveighs:

quote:

---

You've already stigmatised all Christians into some group you despise.

---

How? By saying it figures that you might be a born-again type? I don't despise Christians any more than you hate sinners. I'll grant you that I might harbor a bit of prejudice which can border on bigotry at times toward fundie Christians, but for chrissakes I'm a gay man living in the Deep South! I've been hearing about "God's word" all my life and I'm sick of it. As a moral guide, the bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on! It's time more thinking people started standing up and saying so!

NotAHero gabbles:

quote:

---

Righteous, in the context Peter uses, is meant to say that Lot had placed his faith into the Lord.

---

Which is apparently all it takes in your small mind (or in Peter's for that matter) for a coward to be "righteous". Such a coward can still pimp out his daughters to a mob to be gang-raped. Such a coward can still lie about those same daughters in order to sweeten the deal for the mob. Such a coward can still get drunk and impregnate his daughters. All it takes is faith in "the lord".So as long as you have faith in the lord, you can do whatever the hell you want so long as you don't have gay sex? Is that it? Where in your precious bible does it say that?

quote:

---

Apparently you missed the part where I gave the very definition of fornication and how it implicates homosexuality.

---

How could I possibly miss it? You've included it in virtually every post. The trouble is it doesn't make any sense. It's circular logic, which is no logic at all.

quote:

---

Because homosexual marriage isn't specifically addressed, does NOT mean it is acceptable.

---

Nor does it mean it is unacceptable. The bible is silent on the subject of gay marriage. No matter how much you wish it weren't silent, it is!

quote:

---

I have yet to put words in Jesus' mouth. In fact, I used scripture and simple logic in order to form a reasonable conclusion.

---

...to show what you believe Jesus thinks of homosexuality. But unfortunately, Jesus never spoke of homosexuality at all. Therefore you have to put words in his mouth in order to tell us what he thinks of it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

quote:

---

If there were other suitable forms of marriage, I'm pretty sure that would have been in the Bible SOMEWHERE, don't you?

---

If the bible were inerrant perhaps. But, as has been amply established in many, many other threads, the bible is NOT inerrant.The bible does say, however, that the only acceptable reason for divorce is a woman's infidelity. That comes from Jesus own mouth in Matthew 19. Do you agree with that? What is a woman to do if her husband commits adultery? Just deal with it?Do you believe, as Jesus says, that second marriages are adulterous?On the subject of the pimping coward Lot impregnating his daughters, you observe:

quote:

---

This was not Lot's doing, it was their doing.

---

Yes, according to the bible women are always at fault whenever something like this happens. I don't buy it. If Lot was sober enough to get a hard-on, he knew who he was sleeping with. Even if I accepted your stupid notion that he didn't know he was fucking his own daughters, he was still committing fornication, huh? But he's still a righteous coward, isn't he?

quote:

---

We've been over this...this thread is about whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality, period. If you want to start another debate, go ahead and do so, but let's stay on track here, ok?

---

Sorry, you don't get to limit the scope of the debate. If we are going to discuss what the bible says, it is perfect reasonable to also discuss whether the bible is morally correct in what it says (or doesn't say).

Zealot asks:

quote:

---

How did Lot lie about his daughters being virgins ?

---

Pick up a damn bible and read it before you go asking such silly questions. The story of Lot starts in Genesis 19.His daughters were married, you fool!

quote:

---

Lot's daughters got him drunk and then they took advantage of him.

---

Yes, it's always the woman's fault, isn't it? Perhaps this is why the racist, sexist, homophobic apostle Paul says that women need to keep their mouths shut in church. Do you agree with Paul about that?

Lizard Breath notes:

quote:

---

Most people in this country are already saying that the Bible is a worthless document that is wasting valuable paper resources.

---

I don't know about "most", but I agree the numbers are increasing. It's an encouraging trend, indeed.

quote:

---

So what is it that you really want?

---

I want people to stop using the bible as an excuse to impose their bigotry on other people, especially people who are not willing to live by the words of the bible themselves. For just one example, when fundie women resume the mosaic cleansing rituals after childbirth, as did Mary after the birth of Jesus, I will believe that the fundies are serious about biblical morality. Until they do, they're just a bunch of bigots who want to impose their flawed morality on other people.

Melchior asks:

quote:

---

Are you of the opinion that most English translations are incorrect?

---

Yes, I am. However, I am arguing with people who equate temple prostitution with homosexuality in general when they cite biblical strictures. If they can use flawed translations, so can I.Besides, the point still holds. If Lot slept with his daughters, he was at least committing fornication. If those daughters were married, the fornication is extended to adultery.I will concede that a correct interpretation would mean that the pimping coward Lot was not lying about his daughters' virginity. If that enhances his position in your eyes, so be it.

Melchior writes:

quote:

---

I am basically on your side in the actual argument, but you really should chill out a bit.

---

I am sorry I mistook you, and I'm sorry if I seem to be too angry. I take your suggestion seriously and I will try to tone it down a notch.I will also take this opportunity to say that I have nothing personal against any of the posters I've been arguing with. If I say someone is being a fool, it is simply because I think their position is foolish, not because I think they are stupid. If I say someone is small-minded, it is because I feel they are refusing to look at something (in this case the bible) objectively.Smart people often have stupid ideas about some things. I'm sure I have some pretty stupid ideas, too. But on the subject of the bible, I've done the research. I have read it, as I believe some other posters have not, and I have read countless criticisms of it. I've read reams of Christian apologetics. I know whereof I speak. I suppose it is this fact that makes me impatient with people who want to use the bible to impose a flawed moral code on other people, especially if those people are unwilling to live by that same moral code themselves.I was aware of the error in translation you pointed out as well as some others, but given the size and scope of the bible, I'm sure there are many more translation issues than just those I am aware of. I'm not an expert, but one doesn't need to be an expert in order to see how silly and ultimately pointless so much of the bible is. The story of Lot is a classic example.