Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

(resuming thread http://EvC Forum: God used Evolution in 6 days in an appropriate topic and section)

quote:

---

I don't think murder is as bad as homosexuality

---

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that an act between two consenting adults is as bad as taking a person's life. Welcome to Crazytown..

quote:

---

none of them ever stooped to the level of confusion and satanic worship of their own sexual lusts that most homosexuals do today

---

Oh, come now! When was the last time that you saw a building that said "First Church Of The Dark Lord" decorated with silk curtains and a matching couches which complement the imported rug?If you'd actually met and spoken to anyone who is gay or bi, you'd come to realize that most of them are Christians in this country! They believe in God and Jesus as much as the average American. Nor do they "worship their sexual lusts" any more than anyone else in their age/gender group, from my experience.

quote:

---

coming soon : Sodom and Gramorah part two, san francisco

---

A little off topic, but:"Gays Prevent Tornadoes; Baptists Cause Them"
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=3&id=359P.S. - Headcase, notice how the discussion about homosexuality tends to always almost exclusively about men (just as the discussion about transsexuality almost always focuses on m2fs.). Are you so riled about homosexuality that you forgot that [B]women count, too[B]? In the same manner that the Bible tends to forget that women are relevant to the society (with the brief exception of Mary, and Esther (who - guess what - sleeps her way to the top.).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-18-2003]

quote:

---

Nor do they "worship their sexual lusts" any more than anyone else in their age/gender group, from my experience.

---

I defy any homosexual (Or heterosexual, for that matter) to claim they worship their sexual lusts more than I do mine.

quote:

---

Are you so riled about homosexuality that you forgot that women count, too?

---

When dumbasses are railing about homosexuality, they're thinking about men only. It's that simple. My own guess is that it boils down to the silly old assumption that women don't want to have sex, so therefore lesbianism isn't something they need to fight.There's a hysterical story about the Victorian 'decency' law that wound up nailing Oscar Wilde. It's specifically phrased to refer to guy-on-guy action only. One of the chumps who passed the law suggested that lesbianism be included too, and the response was that women don't know about the possibility of lesbianism, so let's not go putting ideas in their pretty little heads.Sigh.No, there's no point to this story. Just taking a moment out for "The Great Idiots of History."

Dear me.Like most fundamentalists, headcase doesn't actually know his Bible.If he did, he'd know that Ezekiel said the sin of Sodom was not caring for the poor and needy - i.e. the 'commie bastard' God No wonder right-wing Christians ignore it. Much better to use it to comdemn something they don't like - homosexuality - than actually take a blind bit of notice of what the Bible actually says. If they do that, they might conclude that the next Sodom is actually a city that has inadequate welfare provision for its poorest inhabitants. Not the sort of message the Religious Right likes, though, is it?

Ugh... I generally agree with everything you say, especially about the Bible not condemning homosexuality, but referencing a lame kneejerk propaganda commercial is almost obscene when arguing against someone else's lame kneejerk propaganda.Also, I do not believe that most gays and bis are Xtian, though I do think there are many who are so. Not that my opinion is conclusive, and I'd be open to statistical research.Unfortunately I find this style of argument disturbing as it makes it sound like being a Xtian, or at least conforming to this religious norm, is somehow a sign of "goodness" in people who deviate sexually from the norm.And while I totally agree they (I mean people like me since I'm bi) do not on the average worship their lust anymore than anyone else, this does not truly counter headcase's point.He was making a personal assessment of the level of confusion and satanic worship they bring to their sexual lusts. Everyone can disagree, but how can anyone prove him wrong? It seems to me confusion and satanic are both pretty subjective terms that he can define any way he wants.I suppose it might be nice for him to supply some definitions and parameters so we can see if they are internally consistent, but as we are dealing with a guy that finds murder preferable to homosexuality this may be a bit much to expect.Personally I do worship my lusts more than most people, I'd wager more than Dan. And to Headcase I am sure it seems a confusion because he doesn't understand one is capable of finding anything other than the opposite sex attractive, not to mention satanic as it is not worshipping God (who I certainly do not worship). In that case I fit his bill nicely.Okay-doke, so now what? We all have to get along. This is where I think Dan's argument in the other thread was more on the nose... would he rather a guy lick his dick or stab him in the neck with a knife (if it was someone other than Dan, my apologies). My guess if it came down to a choice between laws against one or the other, he'd choose the latter.Certainly all evidence in the Bible supports the idea that God would choose the latter.(PS--- in the other thread you responded to a post of mine saying rape is about power not sex... this is totally correct, I was just trying to get all my points and remain brief... schraf has skewered me a number of times for the lengths of my posts)------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Ugh... I generally agree with everything you say, especially about the Bible not condemning homosexuality, but referencing a lame kneejerk propaganda commercial is almost obscene when arguing against someone else's lame kneejerk propaganda.

---

It is a joke. It is funny. But more importantly, it is satire. It illustrates what happens if you take the evangelist's premise seriously.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

#1) I can't tell what you are talking about. Are you saying that lame anti-tobacco propaganda commercial is funny, or that Rei's swiping it for use against an evangelist makes it funny? I'm being totally honest here, your statement could be read either way.#2) You can't tell me something is funny if I don't find it funny. I realize it is a joke, I am saying that I do not find jokes funny when used to prop up lame propaganda campaigns, and feel it undercut Rei's attack on an evangelist who is essentially using the same lame propaganda techniques (sans joke) for his own cause.But maybe I didn't make myself clear about what I was criticizing... I was only criticizing her use of the line "welcome to crazyworld." The rest of her argument... except where I gave specific critiques... was fine.------------------
holmes

Let me raise a question I asked in another thread, that relates to the actual subject of this thread.While I am now in agreement that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality (or specific sex acts related to homosexuality) directly, I do wonder if it is not considered "bad" in an indirect way.Clearly the Bible promotes sex within marriage as the only appropriate form of sex. And while Rrhain has made an argument that there were some homosexual marriage rites, even his sources on those rites (if they are to be believed) don't suggest that it was used much.Doesn't that mean that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as anyone else who has sex outside of marriage?Please be easy on the responses, I am not a Xtian and I am not trying to argue one way or the other. It just seems that it would kind of end up in that catchall portion of sex outside of marriage proscription.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-20-2003]

1) First off, CrazyTown (and "Crazy Town") have been around a lot longer than that commercial. In fact, there's even a band called "Crazy town", who was popular in 1999.2) Would you have been upset if I had made a joke about, "Can you hear me now?", or listed a bunch of costs and then said, "A debate with headcase: priceless."?3) Let's get the numbers...http://www.glcensus.com/press/08062003.htmlWell, of the religions that they list explicitly that are Christians, that's 41.1% Christian. However, their numbers for the top 10 don't even add up to 50%, while the total from their study showed 63.7% belonged to a religion, meaning that many belong to small churches. So, I think the best way to do it would be to get the ratio of Christians to all in the top 10, and then multiply that by .637. You get about 55% of gays and lesbians belong to a Christian church. And then there are those who are Christian, but don't belong to a particular church....I'd say that considering yourself Christian is a strong indicator that you don't worship Satan, unless you have a major short circuit up there. And I have to disagree with that latter assessment of yours about God's opinion. The translation of "qadesh" as "homosexual" is idiotic, given that the accepted translation of "qadeshah" as "prostitute". The only distinctly anti-gay person in the bible is Paul, and he's also highly anti-woman, and all sorts of other things.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-20-2003]

quote:

---

#1) I can't tell what you are talking about. Are you saying that lame anti-tobacco propaganda commercial is funny, or that Rei's swiping it for use against an evangelist makes it funny? I'm being totally honest here, your statement could be read either way.

---

Now it is my turn to be confused. I was talking about this: No webpage found at provided URL: http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=3&id=359I don't see anything else that is a joke or satire in the post, except for possibly the silk curtains and matching couches.

quote:

---

#2) You can't tell me something is funny if I don't find it funny.

---

Yes I can, but you don't have to listen.

quote:

---

I realize it is a joke, I am saying that I do not find jokes funny when used to prop up lame propaganda campaigns, and feel it undercut Rei's attack on an evangelist who is essentially using the same lame propaganda techniques (sans joke) for his own cause.

---

What is not effective about taking someone's premise and showing that it leads to conclusions the person would not wish to accept?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

holmes It would seem to me to be more likely that the source of problems with homosexuals is that it went against the " be fruitful and multiply " edict.Since a tribes strength lay a lot in numbers of people perhaps the elders of the tribe were concerned that sexual activity that did not result in both a stable household(thus the need for marriage) AND a continual expanding of the population would be detrimental to the success of future generations.

But you were using it because of the commercial right? I don't see how it could have been a reference to anything else (especially a band). If I'm wrong then I apologize, as it would be my misread. No. These are mindless commercials with no alternative propaganda value. "Welcome to Crazytown" links your current argument with a line from a specific piece of propaganda, which suggests you agree with that style of argument (which is horribly flawed). I realize it doesn't actually weaken your argument (other than by association) but it does leave your argument unpalatable (to me anyway).But let's get off of this subject as it is much less important than actual debate... Heheheh, how soon I get to spank someone using the same spanking I just received in another thread. Your statement was that most gays were Xtian. Did you forget about the rest of the world? Most certainly your reference did.Perhaps multiplying figures based on the percentage of Xtians in the world would begin to make the result more accurate... nahhhh. It was a biased study if one wants to talk about what Gays and Bisexuals are. All it suggests is that in the US, or perhaps just NY, there is a sizable number of gays and bis that are Xtian.I totally agree that anyone who says they are Xtian, do not worship satan. My guess is in China there are a lot more buddhist gays, and in India hindu gays, and in Japan etc etc than there are self-professed Xtians. You must have me confused with someone else... or maybe I wrote something wrong? I totally agree with you on this. In fact you were the one that supplied me with the word Qadesh in another thread (and I thank you every much for that).My only question about whether homosexuality is wrong was based on prescriptions of sex outside of marriage. So kind of against fornication and masturbation, that kind of thing. I am with you and Rrhain that there are no direct condemnations of homosexuality in the early versions of the Bible.------------------
holmes

We're just in a complete miscommunication here.The article was fine... funny even.I was talking about her "Welcome to Crazytown" line. That is the punchline for a horrible anti-tobacco ad campaign which has been all over Fox for a month (at least in my area). Given that up till yesterday Fox was the only station I could get in, that insipid ad and its attempt to inject a catchphrase into popular lingo was tattoed on my brain. Damn, it was like on at least twice a hour, every day.I LOATHE propaganda and to see someone aiding the introduction of that "new catchphrase we can all use to shorthand badmouth something we don't like", caused a pretty strong reaction in me.Something original and witty, or unrelated to propaganda wouldn't have bothered me at all. But propaganda, specifically "catchy" propaganda has to be nipped in the bud, before people accept it as a shortcut to thinking.At least that's how I feel about it and that's why I plunked down my two cents.------------------
holmes

This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at. And I'm really just asking a question. Doesn't homosexuality get labelled as a negative action according to these broader rules Xtianity espouses?------------------
holmes

if this were the justification, i see it as pretty week justification. maybe a bit more solid than trying to draw lessons from sodom and gramorah. to christians have to accept every law and moral described in the bible no matter where it's origin is from?i really hope that people reading the bible don't feel they can just turn their brain off, and take the scripture at it's superficial value. since there really aren't "tribes" any more, and since no group of people really derives it's strength from their numbers... isn't this a litte outdated?well, you probably weren’t offering the "be fruitful and multiply" argument as your justification for not allowing homosexuality... are there any god fearing folk here trying to explain why god doesn't like homosexuals?[This message has been edited by TheoMorphic, 09-21-2003]

Theomorphic I actually am not against homosexuality.I was pointing out the likeliness of the origin for repressing homosexuality.Perhaps it also has in modern times been a scapegoat for unwanted sexual advances by the same sex in which case I would agree that it is a wrong behavior.However it is not the homosexuality but the lack of consent on part of one member that is a crime.