Homosexuality in reference to Christianity

basilmarket.com forums : Chat | 15 posts archived

thread starter Clerism Aug 09 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Religion should never be used as a scapegoat to condone homophobia, unless of course those who do so, follow the bible rigorously. The Biblical objection to homosexuality is hypocritical, because those who condemn it do not condemn just as vigorously other prohibited behaviors such as wearing clothing made of two kinds of material (Lev. 19: 19), trimming or shaving sideburns (Lev. 19: 27), getting tattoos (Lev. 19: 28), and charging interest (Deut. 23: 19-20). People who condemn homosexuality do so not because the Bible tells them to, but, ultimately, because they want to. People who condemn others should first examine the morality of their own judgments. [/rant]

Marshmallon 08/09/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

o yea. i rembr that from a few hundrd yers ago, whitch is a l0ng tiem ago. i agri on wut u r tryin to say. u make cents!

Delete 08/09/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

I remember a thread exactly like this a couple weeks ago (same title and everything) Oh well this is night basil so people aren't going to be stupid and funny -leaves-

Clerism 08/09/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

I haven't made a thread like this before....

SmallxSteps 08/09/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

I personally don't beleive in religion. They even teach us in schools that the churches were corrupted. It's just one guy saying he's god trying to get people to listen to him.

CocaCola 08/09/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

so..basically..you're saying people who condemn homosexuals are hypocrites because....they just want to condemn them?

fireboy2326 08/09/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Homosexual are condemn through the bible, because the story of Adam and Eve is much more popular then the example previously stated. It's like comparing murder with sexual harassment. Murder being such an obvious thing and sexual harassment being such a detailed and small thing.

Mindstormer Aug 11 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Clerism : Religion should never be used as a scapegoat to condone homophobia, unless of course those who do so, follow the bible rigorously. The Biblical objection to homosexuality is hypocritical, because those who condemn it do not condemn just as vigorously other prohibited behaviors such as wearing clothing made of two kinds of material (Lev. 19: 19), trimming or shaving sideburns (Lev. 19: 27), getting tattoos (Lev. 19: 28), and charging interest (Deut. 23: 19-20). People who condemn homosexuality do so not because the Bible tells them to, but, ultimately, because they want to. People who condemn others should first examine the morality of their own judgments. [/rant] The Biblical references made need to be understood in their context. Wearing clothing made of two kinds of material (Lev. 19: 19) In the beginning God made different species of animals and plants. He never intended that there should be amalgamation of different kinds to the confusion of all. The rule against mixing wool and linen is not clear, nor is it explained elsewhere in the Bible. Its purpose may have been to impress upon the mind the principle as it applies to living things. The idea of keeping the different �kinds� intact as God created them is for the good of all. This may or may not have been in order to separate the appearance of the Israelite nation from that of the other pagan nations as is the case in the following example: trimming or shaving sideburns (Lev. 19: 27) A 'marred' beard marked its wearer the devotee of a heathen god. That part of the beard thus cut off may have been offered to the gods. God forbade His people to follow this heathen custom. In its context (vs. 26�28) this restriction could have meaning only as a safeguard against heathen religious customs. Its application to the modern custom of shaving off the beard is entirely unwarranted. getting tattoos (Lev. 19: 28) Cuttings in your flesh. - This was done by various ancient peoples in connection with ceremonial rites for the dead. Even today some heathen people follow such practices. Certain New Guinea tribesmen cut off a finger joint upon the death of a member of the family. Print any marks. - This may refer to tattooing, a custom not immoral in itself, but certainly unworthy of God�s people, since it tends to mar the image of the Creator. It is an elementary teaching that mankind was created in God's image and more importantly that it is not our own to simply abuse. (1 Cor. 6:19-20) charging interest (Deut. 23: 19-20) Usury - See Ex. 22:25. This injunction was part of the poor law of the land of Israel, and designed only for the benefit of those in actual distress (Lev. 25:35, 36; Neh. 5:2-5, 10�12). A stranger - A non-Jew, whether a resident in Israel or not. A foreigner who was converted was to be treated as a brother (Lev. 19:33, 34). Simply speaking: This rule along with others that went along with it with regard to giving to the poor were for the good of the nation. If practised by the nat

Sweetie Aug 11 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Religion = when people selectively believe what they want to believe so they can feel good about themselves

lilbabyviet 08/11/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Mindstormer : The Biblical references made need to be understood in their context. Wearing clothing made of two kinds of material (Lev. 19: 19) In the beginning God made different species of animals and plants. He never intended that there should be amalgamation of different kinds to the confusion of all. The rule against mixing wool and linen is not clear, nor is it explained elsewhere in the Bible. Its purpose may have been to impress upon the mind the principle as it applies to living things. The idea of keeping the different �kinds� intact as God created them is for the good of all. This may or may not have been in order to separate the appearance of the Israelite nation from that of the other pagan nations as is the case in the following example: trimming or shaving sideburns (Lev. 19: 27) A 'marred' beard marked its wearer the devotee of a heathen god. That part of the beard thus cut off may have been offered to the gods. God forbade His people to follow this heathen custom. In its context (vs. 26�28) this restriction could have meaning only as a safeguard against heathen religious customs. Its application to the modern custom of shaving off the beard is entirely unwarranted. getting tattoos (Lev. 19: 28) Cuttings in your flesh. - This was done by various ancient peoples in connection with ceremonial rites for the dead. Even today some heathen people follow such practices. Certain New Guinea tribesmen cut off a finger joint upon the death of a member of the family. Print any marks. - This may refer to tattooing, a custom not immoral in itself, but certainly unworthy of God�s people, since it tends to mar the image of the Creator. It is an elementary teaching that mankind was created in God's image and more importantly that it is not our own to simply abuse. (1 Cor. 6:19-20) charging interest (Deut. 23: 19-20) Usury - See Ex. 22:25. This injunction was part of the poor law of the land of Israel, and designed only for the benefit of those in actual distress (Lev. 25:35, 36; Neh. 5:2-5, 10�12). A stranger - A non-Jew, whether a resident in Israel or not. A foreigner who was converted was to be treated as a brother (Lev. 19:33, 34). Simply speaking: This rule along with others that went along with it with regard to giving to the poor were for the good of the nation. If practised by the nation as a whole, the economics of the nation would be stronger and poverty would be kept to a minimum. This was the ideal for the theocracy which Israel was. Though it could well be an ideal today, unfortunately greed would prevent this. In conclusion: • Confusion is what results when claims are made upon texts which an individual has little or no understanding, I trust that the above has clarified sufficiently. If not, feel free to question specifics further. • The position of the Biblically-based individual towards homosexuality should be the same of their position towards any other sin: Acceptance of a person without personal compromise when it comes to sin.

Orchid 08/11/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

my friend is one of those really loose christians who accepts everything i might switch to that instead of catholicism

Humanmango 08/11/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Sweetie : Religion = when people selectively believe what they want to believe so they can feel good about themselves Right, because nonreligious philosophies aren't like that at all.

Mindstormer Aug 11 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Sweetie : Religion = when people selectively believe what they want to believe so they can feel good about themselves While this may be the case for many, it certainly is not for countless others. The martyrs didn't choose to believe what they did because it made them feel better, they did it because they came to the conviction that what they believed was true, regardless as to whether it was convenient or made them feel good or not. I would say that one of the primary reasons alternate philosophies to the scripturally based paradigm came into existence in the first place was to avoid the responsibility necessitated by the existence of God as defined in Scripture. There is certainly evidence to support such a claim. In your own words: "to feel good about themselves"; or perhaps more clearly described by mine: To accept an illusory paradigm wherein they could feel free to satisfy their own carnal desires without the said sense of responsibility. _____ Lbv: Such could be taken offence to.

Sweetie 08/11/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Humanmango : Right, because nonreligious philosophies aren't like that at all. No idea what you're talking about. Science is definitely not about ignoring the inexplicable or the plainly nonsensical to make unfounded conclusions.

aznseal 08/11/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

IMO, the majority of the atheists that attack Christianity are not educated enough in the matter to have the right to attack. Don't take this the wrong way, but let me give a secular example. When reading Animal Farm or the Great Gatsby for the first time, one may just think the novel has good entertainment value. One may not understand the significance of some of the events and question the authors motives. Parts of the novel may even contradict other parts until one does a detailed analysis of the novel. This same thing can be said about the bible. A lot (not all) of the Atheists that attack the bible haven't even read the entire book. The most research they done was probably from a google search or a youtube video. This is an unfair attack on the bible (or other religious texts for that matter) because they have not done the proper research. A lot of the sources aren't even valid. The bible's best source of research is itself in other verses. Man made supplements might have error but the bible doesn't. (Sorry if that last sentence sounds stupid, but i am Christian) I respect everyone's beliefs and i respect the Atheists that have taken time to research the bible and then question. We are all taught to ask why and to question those we don't know/feel is right but i don't think it's fair for those to attack without knowledge.