Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the bible condemn homosexuality?
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 302 of 311 (95885)
03-30-2004 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by berberry
03-30-2004 2:09 AM


More people need to speak out
quote:
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!
Most people in this country are already saying that the Bible is a worthless document that is wasting valuable paper resources. Just look at the lifestyles of the ones who are carrying them around on Sunday. Do you really think they believe what it says in those pages? Hardly. So even though they aren't throwing them down on the sidewalks and pissing on the pages, they ARE saying it's a worthless document. You've already won.
So what is it that you really want? I think you want to stamp out all reference to a grand design and make it a punishable crime because such a reference offends your lifestyle. That makes sence to me because your original quote is non-applicable when you observe our post-christian society in this country.
Our society is like a callander and Biblical morality is the water that is leaking out the bottom and the holes represent atheistic interpretation of law. You are screaming because you still see some water in the callander but just wait a minute because it's almost all gone. It certainly is dissappearing. If I were a homosexual I'd be more excited about what is going to replace the water then fretting about trying to make the holes bigger.
I'd put gold in the callander becaue it won't leak out the holes. Since Biblical morality is worthless, what would homosexual morality look like since it would be better? Or is the best social gold -no morality and social constraints at all? The Bible is very constraining to most.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by berberry, posted 03-30-2004 2:09 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by berberry, posted 03-30-2004 1:10 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 311 (95974)
03-30-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by NotAHero
03-30-2004 3:46 AM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by NotAHero, posted 03-30-2004 3:46 AM NotAHero has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 304 of 311 (95978)
03-30-2004 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Zealot
03-30-2004 8:02 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Zealot, posted 03-30-2004 8:02 AM Zealot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Melchior, posted 03-30-2004 1:51 PM berberry has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 305 of 311 (95981)
03-30-2004 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Lizard Breath
03-30-2004 8:14 AM


Re: More people need to speak out
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Lizard Breath, posted 03-30-2004 8:14 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 311 (95990)
03-30-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by berberry
03-30-2004 1:01 PM


I assume you refer to Genesis 19:14... Are you of the opinion that most English translations are incorrect? Most translations clearly mark that they are not yet married (and as such should be untouched) to their fiance's. Which specific translation do you prefer yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by berberry, posted 03-30-2004 1:01 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by berberry, posted 03-30-2004 2:27 PM Melchior has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 307 of 311 (96002)
03-30-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Melchior
03-30-2004 1:51 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Melchior, posted 03-30-2004 1:51 PM Melchior has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Melchior, posted 03-30-2004 2:54 PM berberry has replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 311 (96013)
03-30-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by berberry
03-30-2004 2:27 PM


The reason I said that was that I do not think it helps anyone's case to call people fools for not reading the bible, and then argue that the reason they are wrong is that they've read the bible.
I am basically on your side in the actual argument, but you really should chill out a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by berberry, posted 03-30-2004 2:27 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by berberry, posted 03-30-2004 3:20 PM Melchior has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 311 (96023)
03-30-2004 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Melchior
03-30-2004 2:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Melchior, posted 03-30-2004 2:54 PM Melchior has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 310 of 311 (96064)
03-30-2004 5:22 PM


Time to Close
Ah...a little bit passed the big 300 point.
Feel free to start round 2 somewhere. I know Berberry has a spin-off started here.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 311 of 311 (96157)
03-30-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by crashfrog
03-29-2004 9:38 AM


Longtimer goes postal!
Temporarily reopening this topic to comment on this:
Crash writes:
Sure. You're a gutless, spineless, cowardly piece of turd, and if I ever caught you so much as looking at a woman under my protection I wouldn't hesitate to stab you through the heart. What self-respecting woman would consent to bear your children knowing that you'd throw your daughter to the wolves to keep your son from having a bad day?
Perhaps phrased a bit too strongly? Your longtime constructive participation here buys you some leeway, but I think you perhaps owe Zealot an apology. No reply to me necessary, I'm reclosing this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2004 9:38 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024