Why are Christians anti-homosexual

[beneath the wheel]

why are christians so anti-homosexual?

where in the bible does it say anything that would hint that god does not like homosexuals? And if it does infact say somewhere that you should not be a homosexual, does this override the countless times that the bible says something like thou shalt love thy neighbor, or do onto others as you would have them do on to you. Also, does the fact that the bible was first written in in sanscrit, then translated into latin, then translated into english not mean that the words could have changed meaning, because languages do not always translate word for word. Also, could this be something to do with the culture at the time and have nothing to do with the moral that we derive from it.

i would like to add that i am not trying to bash christianity. i was born and baptised as a catholic, but i am not a catholic any more. i do believe in god, but not in organized religion, and i believe that god created the mysterious beyond that humans will never be able to comprehend.

[Question everything]

&#39;cuz the skyfairy told them to be <_<

[Loknar]

I cant speak for all Christins but here is why there is a hostility.

THere is a scripture in the New Testimate (ill find it if you need) which says men who lie with men shall not inherit the Earth.

THough, in my own opinion of what this means is thta. If they practice this life style then there is some issue. However, the fact they&#39;re gay would not make a difference. It is more or less in the act of &#39;gayness&#39; I suppose.

I have gay friends though...hell ive even been to gay dance clubs. I coluld care less what they do in their own homes. It is between them and God.

[Fodman]

the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, and I think that some Christians like to take what they want from it, in order to justify their already-festered prejudices

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:50 pm
I cant speak for all Christins but here is why there is a hostility.

THere is a scripture in the New Testimate (ill find it if you need) which says men who lie with men shall not inherit the Earth.

THough, in my own opinion of what this means is thta. If they practice this life style then there is some issue. However, the fact they&#39;re gay would not make a difference. It is more or less in the act of &#39;gayness&#39; I suppose.

I have gay friends though...hell ive even been to gay dance clubs. I coluld care less what they do in their own homes. It is between them and God.
In letivicus it says Gays should be put to death... We read that in religion class :D... <_<

[Yardstick]

Christians do not hate homosexuals. Many people hate homosexuals for a variety of reasons. Often times in an attempt to repress there own homosexuality men will lash out at homosexuals, particularly men.

There are a few verses in the bible that appear to condemn homosexuals, when in reality these verses could very easily be saying promiscous homosexual behavior is wrong.

I also agree culture and science of the time must be taken into consideration as well. For a very long time it was believed that a man had only a limited about of sperm and should not waste it on relations that did not procreate, thus the condemnation of homosexuality and masturbation. However we now know this idea to be false and the fear of both should be done away with.

And you are definintly right that &#39;love thy neighbor&#39; clearly overrides any sense that we should put to death any homosexual. Unfortunantly many people are unable to see Jesus&#39;s message clearly.

Interesting enough, divorce is condemn WAY mroe times than homosexuality, yet those willing to bash on gays are strangly quiet about those who divorce. This seems to show culture playing a much greater role than religion in the hatred of homosexuality.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:33 pm
Christians do not hate homosexuals. Many people hate homosexuals for a variety of reasons. Often times in an attempt to repress there own homosexuality men will lash out at homosexuals, particularly men.
Well the christians that don&#39;t outright preach hatred for homosexuals fall broadly into two categories:

1. Those that really wish homosexuals didn&#39;t exist so they don&#39;t have to think about them.

2. Liberal christians, who are massive hypocrites - they are deliberately going against what their sky wizard is meant to have said.


There are a few verses in the bible that appear to condemn homosexuals, when in reality these verses could very easily be saying promiscous homosexual behavior is wrong.
Condemning two men for lying with each other "as with women" with no reference to frequency seems to go against this analysis.


I also agree culture and science of the time must be taken into consideration as well. For a very long time it was believed that a man had only a limited about of sperm and should not waste it on relations that did not procreate, thus the condemnation of homosexuality and masturbation. However we now know this idea to be false and the fear of both should be done away with.
But today&#39;s christians think like the christians of the past, at least they should if they&#39;re to be taken seriously in their beliefs. Remember if they give up a core belief that the bible is infallible they are giving up a whole lot of the faith.


And you are definintly right that &#39;love thy neighbor&#39; clearly overrides any sense that we should put to death any homosexual. Unfortunantly many people are unable to see Jesus&#39;s message clearly.
Fred Phelps, The Spanish Inquisition and a lot of learned theologians disagree with you.


Interesting enough, divorce is condemn WAY mroe times than homosexuality, yet those willing to bash on gays are strangly quiet about those who divorce. This seems to show culture playing a much greater role than religion in the hatred of homosexuality.
It&#39;s not really that strange that their quiet given that they&#39;re hypocritical, moronic and only able to hold a limited number of ideas in their heads.

[freakazoid]

This was said in the thread in the religion section,

But then to counter claims that the bible is homophobic you present to us a website which claims that these verses are not to be taken at face value aka literally(which is a reasonable position)

It&#39;s not about not taking them at face value, it is about a problem with the translation.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:51 pm
This was said in the thread in the religion section,

But then to counter claims that the bible is homophobic you present to us a website which claims that these verses are not to be taken at face value aka literally(which is a reasonable position)

It&#39;s not about not taking them at face value, it is about a problem with the translation.
So all these problems are caused by mistranslation?
Which version of the bible is it that you have a hard on for?

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:51 pm
This was said in the thread in the religion section,

But then to counter claims that the bible is homophobic you present to us a website which claims that these verses are not to be taken at face value aka literally(which is a reasonable position)

It&#39;s not about not taking them at face value, it is about a problem with the translation.
Is this only the case when it comes to the bible&#39;s homophobia, or all the other reactionary garbage as well? In that case I wonder what god really meant in all the mistranslated texts, which ought to make up a huge majority of the book. You know, considering that the core message, the suggestion that there exists a supreme being which people should bow down to and whose morals and commands should be obeyed by all, is extremely reactionary and anti-human in itself.

The bible might just as well really be a collection of agricultural advice, or someones misplaced fucking cook book..

[IcarusAngel]

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament condemn homosexuality. The Bible contains praise for racism, imperialism, homophobia, sexism, and so on. The bible is filled with such nonsense:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

And yes it overrides love thy neighbor etc. because love thy neighbor only applies to certain circumstances for certain people, whereas things such as putting homosexuals to death and stoning recalcitrant children etc. are to be universally applied if you take the passages literally.

[freakazoid]

And yes it overrides love thy neighbor

No. Love your neighbor as yourself is the 2nd most important thing.

Mark 12

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: &#39;Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.&#39;[f] 31The second is this: &#39;Love your neighbor as yourself.&#39;[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

So. no, it doesn&#39;t.


And yes it overrides love thy neighbor etc. because love thy neighbor only applies to certain circumstances for certain people, whereas things such as putting homosexuals to death and stoning recalcitrant children etc. are to be universally applied if you take the passages literally.


You have no understanding of what Jesus taught.

And you seem to completely ignore my earlier post about homosexuality.


Is this only the case when it comes to the bible&#39;s homophobia, or all the other reactionary garbage as well?

Acts 4

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles&#39; feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Leviticus 25

35 " &#39;If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 " &#39;If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

1 Timothy 6

9People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Mark 4

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: &#39;Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.&#39;[d]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man&#39;s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God&#33;"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God&#33; 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Man, your right. That is really reactionary. Long live money, long live capitalism. <_<

[pusher robot]

The answer to the thread topic is:
"Because people are anti-homosexual, and Christians are people."

There is enough variation and lack of actual source material in the Christian religion that I think it&#39;s far more likely that one&#39;s beliefs on influences one&#39;s choice of denomination, rather than the other way around.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:51 pm
It&#39;s not about not taking them at face value, it is about a problem with the translation.
There are several different translations of the bible, all containing homophobia.

Naturally of course you will be able to find counter examples, that&#39;s the nature of the bible. There is little in it that isn&#39;t contradicted in a different section, that&#39;s what comes of having all those different writers. Nonetheless there is homophobia and it is found in all known translations.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 06:11 am
The answer to the thread topic is:
"Because people are anti-homosexual, and Christians are people."
O RLY? Most homosexuals aren&#39;t anti-homosexual and they are people.
Hell most people aren&#39;t anti-homosexual. Don&#39;t be a knob.

[Tower of Bebel]

Because they&#39;re scared of the unknown.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+May 19, 2007 09:50 am--> (Jazzratt @ May 19, 2007 09:50 am)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 06:11 am
The answer to the thread topic is:
"Because people are anti-homosexual, and Christians are people."
O RLY? Most homosexuals aren&#39;t anti-homosexual and they are people.
Hell most people aren&#39;t anti-homosexual. Don&#39;t be a knob. [/b]
I didn&#39;t claim that ALL people are anti-homosexual. My claim is that being anti-homosexual is more a product of exposure and upbringing and not religious commandment. If a person who is not anti-homosexual goes to a church that is, it is more likely they will go to a different church than change their mind.

[Yardstick]

But today&#39;s christians think like the christians of the past, at least they should if they&#39;re to be taken seriously in their beliefs. Remember if they give up a core belief that the bible is infallible they are giving up a whole lot of the faith.

This is not true. While it is easy to lump all christians together this is obviously not the case. The idea that only fundamentalists should be taken seriously as christians is laughable at best. It&#39;s not that the bible becomes fallible, it simply requires someone to use their brain.


Fred Phelps, The Spanish Inquisition and a lot of learned theologians disagree with you.

That&#39;s cool, because I and many others disagree with them.


It&#39;s not really that strange that their quiet given that they&#39;re hypocritical, moronic and only able to hold a limited number of ideas in their heads.
You missed the point in what seems to be a desire to simply insult chrisitans. My point was that most peoples beliefs are more a reflection of their culture than jsut the one aspect of culture that is religion. For instance: divorce is condemned many timse but noone preaches against it because so many Americans are divorced that it would alienate them. Homosexuality is a much smaller group of people and preaching hate against them is much more acceptable because of this.

This isn&#39;t BECAUSE of christianity. And &#39;Christians&#39; don&#39;t hate homosexuals. Many people hate homosexuals who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus.

[Janus]

Originally posted by Leviticus 18:22+--> (Leviticus 18:22)Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.[/b]


Leviticus 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The Leviticus passages are the most direct but there are also the passages in the story of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis as well as Deuteronomy, Judges, and Kings.

[freakazoid]

Janus - I see that you didn&#39;t read the link that I provided.


There are several different translations of the bible, all containing homophobia.

I see that you too didn&#39;t read the link.

:(

[Janus]

I see no link. Besides, the differing translations of these passages doesn&#39;t change the fact that homophobic Christians use these passages in order to justify their beliefs. When you have a book as important as the Bible, it&#39;s inevitable that there are going to be differing interpretations, what&#39;s important is how people interpret such passages. That&#39;s essentially what the original question was about.

[freakazoid]

The link is from the other thread. Here it is, http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/...s_james_do.html (http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2005/10/things_james_do.html)


. Besides, the differing translations of these passages doesn&#39;t change the fact that homophobic Christians use these passages in order to justify their beliefs.

Of course, but that isn&#39;t only in Christianity. The same thing could be said of communism.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:33 pm
Christians do not hate homosexuals.
So why are Catholic adoption agencies in the UK refusing to abide by the new law of allowing same-sex couples to adopt?

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:43 am
The link is from the other thread. Here it is, http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/...s_james_do.html (http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2005/10/things_james_do.html)


. Besides, the differing translations of these passages doesn&#39;t change the fact that homophobic Christians use these passages in order to justify their beliefs.

Of course, but that isn&#39;t only in Christianity. The same thing could be said of communism.
I&#39;d love to have seen the process by which you arrived at &#39;anarchism&#39; (and I use the term lightly, fuck knows what goes on in your head under this title).

Unlike you "Christian Anarchists/Communists" ( :lol: ), the rest of us reached our various political beliefs based on skeptical analysis of political texts, on the weaknesses of the current mode of production, looking at what appears to work in practice and what has the potential to work effectively etc. - this is not comparable to Christianity at all.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. are dogmatic and without evidence, and contain numerous contradictions within their own texts, to follow these principles is to follow them blindly because an ancient writer once decided they were true.

You reached your twisted version of anarchism because a few texts in the Bible mention caring for the poor, whilst totally ignoring the texts that advocate allegiance and respect to the state, such as Romans 13. And of course, being the walking link-machine that you are, you will no doubt have a link that explains how this is a mistranslation and Paul is actually telling the Romans about his fucking hunting trip or something. But the fact is, the Bible is bursting with contradictions, allowing deluded folk such as yourself to pick and choose the bits that suit them, and anyone who can deny this with any real conviction must be an absolute idiot.

[Yardstick]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;K+May 20, 2007 12:03 pm--> (Tommy-K @ May 20, 2007 12:03 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 05:33 pm
Christians do not hate homosexuals.
So why are Catholic adoption agencies in the UK refusing to abide by the new law of allowing same-sex couples to adopt? [/b]
Obviously because many people do not understand homosexuals and our culture is afraid of them. The fact is many people hate homosexuals without ever having read those passages in the bible.





So Janus, you agree with me then that it is the people that are homophobic and not the faith?

[freakazoid]

So why are Catholic adoption agencies in the UK refusing to abide by the new law of allowing same-sex couples to adopt?

Oh thats right, I forgot that Catholics represent all of Christianity, just like Stalinism represents all of communism. <_<

Comrade_J - I didn&#39;t become an anarchist by reading the Bible. I didn&#39;t link the two until after I became an anarchist. I didn&#39;t even care about politics until college. It was in some American History class that I came to say that I was a libertarian, I believed that the only purpose of the government was to uphold the Bill of Rights. At the time I thought that anarchism would be good but that the government was still needed. Sometime later I came to the conclusion that people could live without the government, and it would actually be better. Then sometime I discovered the site www.jesusradicals.com and I realized that to be a Christian would mean to actually reject all human government. Interestingly it wasn&#39;t until I became an anarchist that I actually started becoming more serious about my faith.
Are you saying that your way is the only way to become a leftist? That to come to the same conclusion any other way would mean that you are not a true leftist? And for that reason you wouldn&#39;t allow people like us to help at all, that you would reject us?
And on Romans 13. That is pulled out of context, something that you people seem to like to do. And you have no intention of actually looking to see what it means because you are perfectly happy making fun of Christians and you don&#39;t want to change that.
A short explanation on passages like Romans 13 is that it is saying not to become like them, do not repay evil with evil. Like if someone hits you you shouldn&#39;t go and slaughter him and his family. You have to keep in mind what the other passages also say, you can&#39;t take it out of context like you are doing. Also keep in mind that Paul had also been sent to prison for being a Christian. And when he was released from prison he demanded that he be given an apology by the head person.

[Comrade J]

Comrade_J - I didn&#39;t become an anarchist by reading the Bible. I didn&#39;t link the two until after I became an anarchist. I didn&#39;t even care about politics until college. It was in some American History class that I came to say that I was a libertarian, I believed that the only purpose of the government was to uphold the Bill of Rights. At the time I thought that anarchism would be good but that the government was still needed. Sometime later I came to the conclusion that people could live without the government, and it would actually be better. Then sometime I discovered the site www.jesusradicals.com and I realized that to be a Christian would mean to actually reject all human government. Interestingly it wasn&#39;t until I became an anarchist that I actually started becoming more serious about my faith.

Oh of course, my bad, you picked out the bits that fitted in with your existing beliefs, how did I not see that :lol: It&#39;s so very... Christian of you.
And of course Jesus Radicals... such a prominent central site within Christianity. How many of the thousands of Christian theologians do you now have in the membership? None? :D


Are you saying that your way is the only way to become a leftist? That to come to the same conclusion any other way would mean that you are not a true leftist? And for that reason you wouldn&#39;t allow people like us to help at all, that you would reject us?
Well for a start, what&#39;s with all the "your way" and "us" - by your previous statements, you came to the conclusion in much the same way as I and many other leftists did, by skeptical analysis and personal thought, it was only after that that you picked out the nice bits in the Bible that had to be taken literally and were in context (something of a coincidence, is it not, that all the pro-leftism parts are in context and can be taken at face value, yet all the slave-owning, pro-state bits are not in context - and yet most Christians would see it the other way round.)

So what I fail to understand, is why you are suddenly referring to "us" as though you are part of the group who came to believe in an anarchist society from Biblical texts.
If by "us" you mean Christians, then I suppose they could play as decent a role as anyone in a revolution, that is until the Church becomes decentralised and perhaps even violently opposed on some levels... then I think I know whose side they&#39;d take, and it wouldn&#39;t be mine.

Just out of interest, have you ever read any specific anarchist texts? Oh, let me guess, they&#39;re on your ever-growing &#39;list of books to read&#39;? :lol:


A short explanation on passages like Romans 13 is that it is saying not to become like them, do not repay evil with evil. Like if someone hits you you shouldn&#39;t go and slaughter him and his family.
Ok, if you say so, though most would disagree, otherwise predominantly Christian countries such as the United States would not have such vast numbers of patriotic citizens who swear allegiance to the state.

Also, what beats me, is why didn&#39;t Ole&#39; Paul just write something along the lines of "If somebody does you wrong, do not become like them and take revenge"?
Still, he was talking about the state so even if he meant that, it is barely advocating revolution, is it?

See, I don&#39;t know about you, but if the general message I wanted to tell somebody was not along the lines of "obey the state", I probably wouldn&#39;t put "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for there is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God" or "Obey those that have the rule over you" (Hebrews 13:17)

It&#39;s a very ambigious way of telling people to not commit evil, don&#39;t you think?

[freakazoid]

And of course Jesus Radicals... such a prominent central site within Christianity. How many of the thousands of Christian theologians do you now have in the membership? None?

What does this have to do with anything?


So what I fail to understand, is why you are suddenly referring to "us" as though you are part of the group who came to believe in an anarchist society from Biblical texts.

I refer to "us" as in anybody who is a Christian and would support the leftists.


Just out of interest, have you ever read any specific anarchist texts? Oh, let me guess, they&#39;re on your ever-growing &#39;list of books to read&#39;?

Well actually they are in my pile of to be read book, :P Although I have read the first 2 chapters out of the book called Reinventing Anarchy. I also have one called the Anarchist Papers, and at least one more or maybe 2, I would go check but they are in the trunk of my car and I am inside :P. My list of books to read keeps on growing, if I wasn&#39;t on this site all the time then it would be much shorter, :P lol


Also, what beats me, is why didn&#39;t Ole&#39; Paul just write something along the lines of "If somebody does you wrong, do not become like them and take revenge"?


Well actually I think he might of, or Jesus said something like that. I&#39;ll try to look it up later if you want.


Ok, if you say so, though most would disagree, otherwise predominantly Christian countries such as the United States would not have such vast numbers of patriotic citizens who swear allegiance to the state.

Sure almost all do, but there are some who do not. But I think that that is because of the same reason that most people swear allegiance to the state.

edit - I can&#39;t believe I didn&#39;t think about this, I have read Leo Tolstoys - A confession, and other writings. And I have read The Communist Manifesto, although I found it hard to read. I have also read Toreau&#39;s Civil Disobediance and other writings.


BGM edit - fixed ya quote tags :P

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:50 pm

So why are Catholic adoption agencies in the UK refusing to abide by the new law of allowing same-sex couples to adopt?

Oh thats right, I forgot that Catholics represent all of Christianity, just like Stalinism represents all of communism. <_<
The point I was trying to make is that they base this blatant hatred for homosexuals on the teachings of the bible.

And the last time I checked, the Bible was the holy book of all Christian denominations, not just Catholicism.

Other &#39;leftist&#39; christians carefully choose to ignore the bits about burning men who sleep together. How convenient. Just furthers the point I must have made thousands of times on this board that the Bible is so vague and contradicts itself so much that it can be used to justify anything. That&#39;s why Christian-led groups are as diverse as they are. For example, the Jesus Radicals and the KKK are both acting upon teachings from the Bible. How is it so that two groups of people with seemingly opposite morals and beliefs gather teachings from the same book. Because this book is so ridiculous and contradictory that it can be used to justify anything.

That&#39;s the point I was getting it. Go read the Bible and then tell me it&#39;s not homophobic.

[luxemburg89]

the bible...I always thought Thus Spoke Zarathustra was a far more truthful religious text :P

[RevMARKSman]

No. Love your neighbor as yourself is the 2nd most important thing.


The 2nd most important.

And what&#39;s the most important?

Love God with all your heart, mind, spirit, strength, etc.

Several times in the NT it says if you love God, you will obey His Word.

In "God&#39;s Word" there are passages in both the OT and NT stating that homosexuals should be put to death, or that they are inferior to heterosexuals and should be condemned.

So, if you love "God," you will obey him, and if you obey him, you obey his word, and if you obey his word, that means all of his ENTIRE FUCKING WORD in the bible (because you, freak, are a biblical literalist as you have stated many times), even the absolutely unjustifiable reactionary shit, and if you follow the absolutely unjustifiable reactionary shit, you are a reactionary.

Summary: If you really truly love "God," you are a reactionary.

[BlakSheep]

THere is a scripture in the New Testimate (ill find it if you need) which says men who lie with men shall not inherit the Earth.
I think what that means( if you are to actually listen to the writings of men who lived long before in a completely different culture and time setting) is men who have sex with men will not have children(inherit the earth). By inherit the earth, it possibly means living on through your children. Obviously if a man has sex with a man, or a woman with awoman, a child will not spring forth,so they wont "inherit" the earth. Of course now when there are so many options besides having sex with someone of the opposite sex to have a child, this means nothing. It is as reliable a source as writings from the 14th century that say the earth is flat. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, I should know since my mothers are gay (hence why I said "mothers" and not mother) and I am "Bisexual".

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by beneath the [email protected] 17, 2007 11:31 pm
Also, does the fact that the bible was first written in in sanscrit, then translated into latin, then translated into english not mean that the words could have changed meaning, because languages do not always translate word for word.
The Bible was never written in Sanskrit. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. And the commandment to murder homosexual men is indeed in the original Hebrew Old Testament, which is why Orthodox Jews share the same rabid hatred of homosexuals as fundamentalist Christians.

Also, could this be something to do with the culture at the time and have nothing to do with the moral that we derive from it.
I hear this argument a lot, but it just doesn&#39;t fly. In the Old Testament, the commandment to murder homosexual men comes directly from God&#39;s mouth. If you believe the Old Testament is really a holy text, how could God&#39;s word not be eternal? Did God change his mind and suddenly realize that the death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for the harmless act of male homosexual sex? No, of course not. If God knows everything, he cannot suddenly hold an opinion that was more correct than his previous opinion. With infinite knowledge, he can&#39;t learn anything, and he most certainly cannot change his mind.

If the death penalty was the perfect, divinely confirmed appropriate punishment for male homosexual sex then, it must be now as well. And if a Christian is going to ignore the commandments from the Old Testament, then they should shut up about the Ten Commandments too. The Ten Commandments which immediately precede a chapter where God describes how to appropriately sell your daughter as a sex slave. (seriously, look it up...Exodus 21)

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

[Yardstick]

Originally posted by Eleutherios+June 15, 2007 04:14 am--> (Eleutherios @ June 15, 2007 04:14 am)
beneath the [email protected] 17, 2007 11:31 pm
Also, does the fact that the bible was first written in in sanscrit, then translated into latin, then translated into english not mean that the words could have changed meaning, because languages do not always translate word for word.
The Bible was never written in Sanskrit. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. And the commandment to murder homosexual men is indeed in the original Hebrew Old Testament, which is why Orthodox Jews share the same rabid hatred of homosexuals as fundamentalist Christians.

Also, could this be something to do with the culture at the time and have nothing to do with the moral that we derive from it.
I hear this argument a lot, but it just doesn&#39;t fly. In the Old Testament, the commandment to murder homosexual men comes directly from God&#39;s mouth. If you believe the Old Testament is really a holy text, how could God&#39;s word not be eternal? Did God change his mind and suddenly realize that the death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for the harmless act of male homosexual sex? No, of course not. If God knows everything, he cannot suddenly hold an opinion that was more correct than his previous opinion. With infinite knowledge, he can&#39;t learn anything, and he most certainly cannot change his mind.

If the death penalty was the perfect, divinely confirmed appropriate punishment for male homosexual sex then, it must be now as well. And if a Christian is going to ignore the commandments from the Old Testament, then they should shut up about the Ten Commandments too. The Ten Commandments which immediately precede a chapter where God describes how to appropriately sell your daughter as a sex slave. (seriously, look it up...Exodus 21)

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160) [/b]
Technically God does &#39;change his mind&#39; when his son comes to Earth and says the greatest commandment of all is to love thy neighbor. This changes a great deal of the old testament laws.

The second part, atleast in the Englican church, and i believe the Catholic church as well, the civic laws of the old testament are not considered to bind christians.

The problem with most amateur Old Testament readers is that they don&#39;t understand the context of the Old Testament.

Many of the laws were put in place for reasons of survival. Why does God consern himself with sex and food? The purpose of sex is reproduction. Because of this, many were conserned with homosexuality because such acts would not bear children. This would be a consern when peoples lives were a great deal more fragile then they are now. This is the same reason such extensive rituals were used with relation to food. Food born illness was much more common than in our modern societies so care had to be taken.

The next deal with the old laws is that they were very extensive and impossible to follow for a reason. This reason was to show the people of Israel that they fell short of God. It was to humble them. When many people read the Old Testament they freak out at the idea of having so many rules, many impossible to follow. But the reason for sacrafices was exactly because the rules were impossible to follow.

I hope I have gotten across a few of the ideas that msut be held when reading the OT without havign to write an entire book :)

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:22 am

Technically God does &#39;change his mind&#39; when his son comes to Earth and says the greatest commandment of all is to love thy neighbor. This changes a great deal of the old testament laws.
Did you not read my post? My point is that it is logically impossible for God to change his mind. If he knows everything, then he knew before he changed his mind that he would change his mind, what he would change his mind to, and that his future opinion is better than his current opinion, which would force him to immediately change his mind before he changed his mind in the future.

When somebody changes their mind about something, and their new opinion is more correct than their old opinion, that means that they learned something, right? How can God learn anything if he already knows everything? Did he become more omniscient?

Besides, Jesus explicitly says that nothing about the Old Testament law can ever change until the end of the world:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)


The problem with most amateur Old Testament readers is that they don&#39;t understand the context of the Old Testament.

Many of the laws were put in place for reasons of survival. Why does God consern himself with sex and food? The purpose of sex is reproduction. Because of this, many were conserned with homosexuality because such acts would not bear children. This would be a consern when peoples lives were a great deal more fragile then they are now. This is the same reason such extensive rituals were used with relation to food. Food born illness was much more common than in our modern societies so care had to be taken.

The next deal with the old laws is that they were very extensive and impossible to follow for a reason. This reason was to show the people of Israel that they fell short of God. It was to humble them. When many people read the Old Testament they freak out at the idea of having so many rules, many impossible to follow. But the reason for sacrafices was exactly because the rules were impossible to follow.
And you call yourself an anarchist? Come on, seriously. Your God has so many rules so you feel like a tiny humble slave in comparison to your great cosmic dictator? And you worship this dictator?

Stoning people who work on the Sabbath is supposed to make us humble? Stoning women on their wedding night if they&#39;re not virgins is supposed to make us humble? Stoning homosexual men to death is supposed to make us humble? Having complex rules on how to sell your daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21) is supposed to make us humble? Fuck your religion, and fuck your God. He is the opposite of everything anarchism stands for. He is the ultimate slavemaster who is egomaniacally obsessed with getting his little minions to praise him and worship him and dedicate their lives to him, and who throws the most childish temper tantrums when people don&#39;t do what he says.

"This contradiction lies here: they wish God, and they wish humanity. They persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can come together again only to destroy each other. They say in a single breath: &#39;God and the liberty of man,&#39; &#39;God and the dignity, justice, equality, fraternity, prosperity of men&#39; — regardless of the fatal logic by virtue of which, if God exists, all these things are condemned to non-existence. For, if God is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and, if such a master exists, man is a slave; now, if he is a slave, neither justice, nor equality, nor fraternity, nor prosperity are possible for him. In vain, flying in the face of good sense and all the teachings of history, do they represent their God as animated by the tenderest love of human liberty: a master, whoever he may be and however liberal he may desire to show himself, remains none the less always a master. His existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him. Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty — by ceasing to exist." -Mikhail Bakunin

[Anatta]

It&#39;s also important to note that a variety of Christian denominations either a) allow their churches to decide on the matter individually (e.g. the UCC) or b) agree with gay rights, marriage, etc.

[freakazoid]

In "God&#39;s Word" there are passages in both the OT and NT stating that homosexuals should be put to death, or that they are inferior to heterosexuals and should be condemned.

Have you not read my other posts? You know, the one where I provided a link that was saying that it actually DOESN&#39;T condemn homosexuality?


The Bible was never written in Sanskrit. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek.

The Bible wasn&#39;t originally written in only Hebrew and Greek. Most of the Old Testament was written in vowelless Hebrew. Approximately 267 verses were written in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the language of the common people.

[RevMARKSman]

Have you not read my other posts? You know, the one where I provided a link that was saying that it actually DOESN&#39;T condemn homosexuality?

So, the passages don&#39;t actually MEAN what they say? If you read them they look pretty clear. And if you interpret them literally the results are pretty clear too.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

So, the passages don&#39;t actually MEAN what they say? If you read them they look pretty clear. And if you interpret them literally the results are pretty clear too.

its a work of historical fiction, not written by god but by religious scholars and other teachers .... much like any other book it is open to interpretation just like the Nibelungenlied, the Oddyssey, or the Book Of Lamentations .....

anti-religious people always seem to get so wrapped up in the bible, even though generation after generation has changed and altered their interpretations or actually edited the texts to suit the conditions of their times .....

think about martin luther, jan huss, the council of florence, the second vatican council .....

it has generally gotten more and more progressive and this is the trend ..... one hundred years ago there was virtually no debate within the church concerning the inclusion of women as preists and homosexuals as members of the church, today several churches have both women as priests and homosexuals as members

the bible itself is not the issue it is the interpretation of the church institutions, yes the bible can be used by the instituions and individuals to justify some good things and some horrible things .... just like any other text ....

critisism should be directed to the church institutions not religion in general, that is an arguement without end because there are literally an infinite amount of religous interpretations .... some of which are negative and some of which are positive .....

sorry if that was repetive, but some people seem to be using some selective reading here and i wanted to make sure i got the point across

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:50 am
It is between them and God.
But in your opinion we are all going to hell?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by beneath the wheel+May 18, 2007 01:31 am--> (beneath the wheel @ May 18, 2007 01:31 am) why are christians so anti-homosexual? [/b]
To answer this original topic question, I&#39;m a Christian and I have no idea what the big deal is about homosexuality. Yes, yes, there is that one passage in Leviticus condemning homosexual sex (note: Many Christian fundamentalists seem to believe that homosexual attraction alone can be sinful, though even in a literal interpretation of the Bible one can only find a condemnation of the sexual act itself), but honestly, Jewish Law contains many more important rules that Christians don&#39;t follow - such as circumcision - so why make a big deal about homosexuality in particular?

This is something I just can&#39;t wrap my head around. Yes, Jewish Law condemns homosexuality and even prescribes the death penalty for homosexual sex (alongside many other things). But Christians don&#39;t follow Jewish Law, damn it&#33; So why all the fuss?

I think it has more to do with patriarchy than Christianity.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Did you not read my post? My point is that it is logically impossible for God to change his mind. If he knows everything, then he knew before he changed his mind that he would change his mind, what he would change his mind to, and that his future opinion is better than his current opinion, which would force him to immediately change his mind before he changed his mind in the future.

When somebody changes their mind about something, and their new opinion is more correct than their old opinion, that means that they learned something, right? How can God learn anything if he already knows everything? Did he become more omniscient?
Indeed, it is impossible for an omniscient God to change his mind, but there is no particular reason why an omniscient God needs to always give us permanent, universal rules. An omniscient God may well say "follow this rule until I tell you to stop".

We, as Marxists, are aware that different laws, property relations and so on are appropriate at different stages of human history. Surely an omniscient God would know the same thing. A God that truly has humanity&#39;s best interests in mind would know that the rules sometimes need to be changed.

And then, of course, there is the Pauline argument that God never meant the rules of Jewish Law to be obeyed in the first place - the point was to show us that we can&#39;t obey them.


The Anarchist Tension
But in your opinion we are all going to hell?
This question wasn&#39;t addressed to me, but I&#39;ll answer anyway: No. You will not go to hell for your sexuality any more than you will go to hell for not keeping any one of the other 600-plus rules of Jewish Law. (note, by the way, that no curse of damnation falls upon homosexuals anywhere in the Bible)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 29, 2007 11:15 pm
This question wasn&#39;t addressed to me, but I&#39;ll answer anyway: No. You will not go to hell for your sexuality any more than you will go to hell for not keeping any one of the other 600-plus rules of Jewish Law. (note, by the way, that no curse of damnation falls upon homosexuals anywhere in the Bible)
Well, hell doesn&#39;t exist. My question was whether he thought I was going to go to hell.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, any Christian who says someone is going to hell is being an arrogant prick, since there&#39;s no way he could possibly know that. One may think that someone risks going to hell, but there&#39;s no way to know for sure.

[TC]

Christianity, like many religions, serves as an institution to defend oppression social relations, specifically the state and the patriarchal family.

Homosexuals avoid participating in patriarchal family relations. So do people who have premarital sex. So do people who use reliable birth control like pills and abortion.

so the church opposes all of these activities and instead only supports sex when sex is likely to trap people in patriarchal family relations; thats why they only support sex for procreation between husbands and wives...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:20 am
Homosexuals avoid participating in patriarchal family relations. So do people who have premarital sex. So do people who use reliable birth control like pills and abortion.
People who have premarital sex or use birth control avoid participating in patriarchal family relations? Ha&#33; If only abolishing patriarchy were that simple...

But you are of course correct that the Church endorses patriarchy (though the Church as an institution is not the same as Christianity as a religion; the patriarchal and reactionary bent of many Churches is a holdover from the cozy Church-State relations in feudal times). I&#39;m not sure if Church influence alone is sufficient to explain Christian homophobia, but it definitely plays a major part.

[Dimentio]

Levitus...

[The Feral Underclass]

Don&#39;t you mean Leviticus? Or am I missing the point?

[gilhyle]

First off, just in case anyone accuses me of not having read their posts properly, I admit it in advance :P

It seems to me this thread has gone the wrong way. The question was why are CHristians againts homosexuality.

First point (reiterating what others have said): the correct question is why are MOST or MANY Christians against homsexuality.

Second point (rejecting what some others have said): it is true that Christians make a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual orientation, saying they reject the former but not the latter. This is a spurious point and really an insult. Its based on the idea that God asks 10% of the population to live chaste as their only route to salvation. Its only a way for Christians to avoid the real significance of their position.

Third Point (reiterating and emphasising what others have said) : it cant be because the Bible contains a few condemnations of homosexuality. The whole history of Christianity is full of selective use of the bible to justify moral codes which clearly have another foundation.

So where does all that get us ?

If there is an explanation of why many Christians oppose homosexuality, it must have to do with how Christian religions embed themselves in society. WIthout linking up all the dots, Christianity tends to be closely associated with a prudish attitude to sexual issues which is the common coin of societies where inheritance of property is a critical factor. The answer lies somewhere here - in the sociology of Christiantiy. This is complex and also different in Europe and America and different again in Latin America and again VERY different in Africa. But there is a net point, and the net point is that Christian religions feed off and reinforce social relations which isolate individuals from fellow workers, which bind people tightly to family structures and which create cross class Church-based communities : all of which are threatened by behaviour patterns such as marital infidelity, homosexual acts and - maybe to a lesser extent - by gay ghettoisation.

Strangely paedophilia doesnt seem to be as serious a problem for Christian religions.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:50 pm

So why are Catholic adoption agencies in the UK refusing to abide by the new law of allowing same-sex couples to adopt?

Oh thats right, I forgot that Catholics represent all of Christianity, just like Stalinism represents all of communism. <_<
I didn&#39;t imply that Catholics represented all Christians. The post which I quoted bracketed all Christian denominations under the category of &#39;Christian&#39;. Catholics are Christians, Catholics hate homosexuals, so therefore, it would be wrong to say, &#39;Christians do not hate homosexuals&#39;.

[TC]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 29, 2007 10:15 pm

To answer this original topic question, I&#39;m a Christian and I have no idea what the big deal is about homosexuality. Yes, yes, there is that one passage in Leviticus condemning homosexual sex (note: Many Christian fundamentalists seem to believe that homosexual attraction alone can be sinful, though even in a literal interpretation of the Bible one can only find a condemnation of the sexual act itself), but honestly, Jewish Law contains many more important rules that Christians don&#39;t follow - such as circumcision - so why make a big deal about homosexuality in particular?

Thats true, but Paul wasn&#39;t a big fan of gays either and Christians follow his epistles.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, but the most that Paul ever asked was for his own followers to please stop having gay sex - which is a far cry from the attitude of most Christian fundamentalists today (and it also proves that homosexuality was prevalent enough in early Christian communities to warrant Paul writing about it to his followers).

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 01, 2007 04:14 am
Yes, but the most that Paul ever asked was for his own followers to please stop having gay sex
Oh is that all?&#33;?&#33;

It worries me that you say it so nonchalantly.

Seeing as homosexuality is genetic, that&#39;s like asking someone to stop having brown hair.

[praxis1966]

Well, what&#39;s really hilarious is the response you get when you ask a male Christian if it&#39;s ok to bludgeon him to shit with big fucking rocks. When they ask why, tell them it&#39;s because Leviticus states that any man who cuts the hair around his face, especially the temples, is subject to public stoning. Either that, or you can tell the female fundamentalist that she&#39;s going to hell for attending Sabbath while on her period. Leviticus bars this as well.

I&#39;ve said similar things to Christians before, to which they usually say something along the lines of &#39;Well, that&#39;s the Old Testament. We don&#39;t really believe that. All that&#39;s necessary to be a Christian is that you follow the New Testament/word of Jesus.&#39; To which I usually respond with, &#39;Well then why would you staple it onto the front of the New Testament, making it look so much like it&#39;s part of the Bible?&#39; Usually, the response I get is, &#39;It&#39;s just there for historical reference.&#39; So I say, &#39;Then what&#39;s all the fuss about gay people. I mean, it&#39;s not mentioned anyplace besides Leviticus.&#39; Usually they just stand and stare, looking like your dog does when you try to have a conversation with it.

It&#39;s really akin to someone calling themselves a Marxist and saying, &#39;Well, I believe in dialectical materialism, but I&#39;m not down with the whole class warfare thing.&#39; Pretty craptastic if you ask me.

[TC]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 01, 2007 04:14 am
Yes, but the most that Paul ever asked was for his own followers to please stop having gay sex - which is a far cry from the attitude of most Christian fundamentalists today

Oh, is that all. :lol:

Basically you&#39;re saying its okay to say "Love the sinner hate the sin" like every other homophobic pope-worshiper.

I love how you add phrases like "the most" and "please", like he&#39;s politely saying "please stop having gay sex".


1 Corinthians 6:9-11 -

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.




(and it also proves that homosexuality was prevalent enough in early Christian communities to warrant Paul writing about it to his followers).

Right, that was never in question Jesus-freak. It was common, didn&#39;t bother the Greek pantheists but Paul who you as a Christian acknowledge to be divinely inspired and a disciple of Christ your god, tells his follows (you) its a bad thing that has to be stopped.

He&#39;s writing *after* Jesus introduced a new &#39;covenant with god&#39; supplanting the old israelite one. So, apparently God doesn&#39;t mind shellfish, razors, roofs without fences, pork, foreskins, tunics without knotted edges, and so on, anymore, but he still thinks gays and thieves, drunks, effeminate guys, people who worship other gods, and so on go to hell.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;K+July 01, 2007 11:36 am--> (Tommy&#045;K &#064; July 01, 2007 11:36 am)
Originally posted by Edric O+July 01, 2007 04:14 am--> (Edric O &#064; July 01, 2007 04:14 am) Yes, but the most that Paul ever asked was for his own followers to please stop having gay sex [/b]
Oh is that all?&#33;?&#33;

It worries me that you say it so nonchalantly.

Seeing as homosexuality is genetic, that&#39;s like asking someone to stop having brown hair. [/b]
Well, not quite. Asking a homosexual person to stop feeling attracted to others of the same gender is like asking someone to stop having brown hair.

Asking someone to stop having a certain kind of sexual intercourse is a different matter, because it is within our control who we have sex with. And the reason I said it so nonchalantly was because Christian morality is very restrictive of sexual behaviour in general, so it is hardly a surprise that it is also restrictive of homosexual intercourse. Christians, for example, are expected to refrain from premarital sex. Does this mean that we advocate laws against premarital sex, or that we wish to persecute and deny human rights to people who have premarital sex? Of course not. The same applies to all the many other different kinds of heterosexual behaviour that Christians are expected to refrain from (such as having multiple partners, etc.) Again, I don&#39;t see what the big deal about homosexuality is.

Would a gay Christian be expected to refrain from all sex? Perhaps, depending on your interpretation of Paul. Is that difficult? Yes, of course. Did anyone ever say that being a Christian was easy? No.

Of course, none of this concerns non-Christian gay people, so I don&#39;t see the problem.


[email protected]
He&#39;s writing *after* Jesus introduced a new &#39;covenant with god&#39; supplanting the old israelite one. So, apparently God doesn&#39;t mind shellfish, razors, roofs without fences, pork, foreskins, tunics without knotted edges, and so on, anymore, but he still thinks gays and thieves, drunks, effeminate guys, people who worship other gods, and so on go to hell.
You forgot the part that says "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." So, in fact, they are forgiven and not going to hell after all. For that matter, hell is never mentioned and Paul does not threaten his followers with damnation for not following his standards of behaviour. It is not clear if he regards refraining from gay sex as a requirement for salvation or merely a standard of behaviour that Christians are expected to follow as an outward symbol of their faith or something like that.

But, again, this is a matter that concerns only gay Christians. If you don&#39;t like it, don&#39;t be a Christian. Problem solved. Paul didn&#39;t tell his followers to go and fight the "homosexual agenda" in the Hellenistic world.


TragicClown
Basically you&#39;re saying its okay to say "Love the sinner hate the sin" like every other homophobic pope-worshiper.
And which sin are you talking about, I wonder? Is it homophobic to "love the sinner hate the sin" if the sin is, for example, greed, or any of the many other sins that have nothing to do with sex? There are probably millions of different possible sins. Even if homosexual intercourse was one of them, that would not make gay people any more sinful than anyone else. "Love the sinner hate the sin" is only homophobic when a Christian uses it to single out gay people while forgetting that we are all sinners.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 01, 2007 02:08 pm
Even if homosexual intercourse was one of them, that would not make gay people any more sinful than anyone else. "Love the sinner hate the sin" is only homophobic when a Christian uses it to single out gay people while forgetting that we are all sinners.
(My emphasis)

What the fuck? How do you live with such a damning and self-hating worldview? If we&#39;re all sinners what exactly is the point in anything and why should we keep to any moral structure - we&#39;re condemned anyway after all and you have the fucking ovaries to say that atheists have nothing to base their moral behaviour on.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 01, 2007 04:29 pm--> (Jazzratt @ July 01, 2007 04:29 pm)
Edric [email protected] 01, 2007 02:08 pm
Even if homosexual intercourse was one of them, that would not make gay people any more sinful than anyone else. "Love the sinner hate the sin" is only homophobic when a Christian uses it to single out gay people while forgetting that we are all sinners.
(My emphasis)

What the fuck? How do you live with such a damning and self-hating worldview? If we&#39;re all sinners what exactly is the point in anything and why should we keep to any moral structure - we&#39;re condemned anyway after all and you have the fucking ovaries to say that atheists have nothing to base their moral behaviour on. [/b]
It is a very typical Christian worldview. I would call it cynical, realistic, and quite liberating, too. If I am a sinner, and all other human beings are sinners as well, then I have no claim to authority over them and they have no claim to authority over me.

And we are not all condemned, because God... oh come on, you don&#39;t really need me to "tell you about Jesus", do you? To make a long story short, the Christian view is that we are all sinners - we all fall short of the standard of goodness, and we have all committed evil acts - but God is willing to forgive us on certain conditions. One of those conditions is to admit that we are sinners; but in order to admit you have done evil things, you must first believe in objective good and evil - hence, we have a moral code.

[RNK]

I honestly believe that the entire thing was a way for early Christians to assault other cultures. Greece, Rome, were all highly accepting of homosexual acts, and it was only natural that in their counteraction to those foreign cultures, they made it a sin. Just like the idea of there being more than one god.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 01, 2007 10:36 am
Seeing as homosexuality is genetic, that&#39;s like asking someone to stop having brown hair.
Where is your evidence for that? How have you come to that conclusion?

If it is genetic, is it a defect and can it be "cured"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:19 pm
I honestly believe that the entire thing was a way for early Christians to assault other cultures. Greece, Rome, were all highly accepting of homosexual acts, and it was only natural that in their counteraction to those foreign cultures, they made it a sin. Just like the idea of there being more than one god.
That&#39;s a very interesting point. Also, lets remember that Greece and Rome were the dominating social, military and political force at that time.

This point would also fit with the theory that Jesus was a &#39;radical&#39; opposing the Roman occupation of Jude, which is also an interesting idea.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 03, 2007 02:57 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 03, 2007 02:57 pm)
Tommy&#045;[email protected] 01, 2007 10:36 am
Seeing as homosexuality is genetic, that&#39;s like asking someone to stop having brown hair.
Where is your evidence for that? How have you come to that conclusion?

If it is genetic, is it a defect and can it be "cured"? [/b]
Well, skin colour is genetic, but anyone who would suggest that a high amount of melanin in your skin is a "defect" that can be "cured" would be a racist asshole.

I am aware of the homophobic argument about "curing" genetic homosexuality, but it&#39;s a bunch of bullshit. It doesn&#39;t matter if sexual orientation is genetic or not. If it&#39;s genetic, it&#39;s no more a "disease" than having the wrong skin colour. If it&#39;s not genetic, it&#39;s still not a disease and you still have no possible ethical justification to force other people to change their sexual orientation.

I personally tend to believe that sexual orientation is genetic or otherwise hardwired because I can&#39;t imagine anything that would change my own sexual orientation. But I could be wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric O+July 03, 2007 09:40 pm--> (Edric O @ July 03, 2007 09:40 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 02:57 pm

Tommy&#045;[email protected] 01, 2007 10:36 am
Seeing as homosexuality is genetic, that&#39;s like asking someone to stop having brown hair.
Where is your evidence for that? How have you come to that conclusion?

If it is genetic, is it a defect and can it be "cured"?
Well, skin colour is genetic, but anyone who would suggest that a high amount of melanin in your skin is a "defect" that can be "cured" would be a racist asshole.

I am aware of the homophobic argument about "curing" genetic homosexuality, but it&#39;s a bunch of bullshit. It doesn&#39;t matter if sexual orientation is genetic or not. If it&#39;s genetic, it&#39;s no more a "disease" than having the wrong skin colour. If it&#39;s not genetic, it&#39;s still not a disease and you still have no possible ethical justification to force other people to change their sexual orientation.

I personally tend to believe that sexual orientation is genetic or otherwise hardwired because I can&#39;t imagine anything that would change my own sexual orientation. But I could be wrong. [/b]
The argument that homosexuality is passed down the gene&#39;s is not founded in any scientific evidence, except that some Italian scientists came up with a theory of how it could [theoretically] be passed down (through the mother according to them).

If people are going to claim in believing that homosexuality is genetic then they should proved evidence to support their claim, otherwise it&#39;s baseless and irrelevant.

I&#39;d like to see the evidence that suggests that homosexuality is a hormone imbalance?

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 03, 2007 10:25 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 03, 2007 10:25 pm)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 09:40 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 02:57 pm

Tommy&#045;[email protected] 01, 2007 10:36 am
Seeing as homosexuality is genetic, that&#39;s like asking someone to stop having brown hair.
Where is your evidence for that? How have you come to that conclusion?

If it is genetic, is it a defect and can it be "cured"?
Well, skin colour is genetic, but anyone who would suggest that a high amount of melanin in your skin is a "defect" that can be "cured" would be a racist asshole.

I am aware of the homophobic argument about "curing" genetic homosexuality, but it&#39;s a bunch of bullshit. It doesn&#39;t matter if sexual orientation is genetic or not. If it&#39;s genetic, it&#39;s no more a "disease" than having the wrong skin colour. If it&#39;s not genetic, it&#39;s still not a disease and you still have no possible ethical justification to force other people to change their sexual orientation.

I personally tend to believe that sexual orientation is genetic or otherwise hardwired because I can&#39;t imagine anything that would change my own sexual orientation. But I could be wrong.
The argument that homosexuality is passed down the gene&#39;s is not founded in any scientific evidence, except that some Italian scientists came up with a theory of how it could [theoretically] be passed down (through the mother according to them).

If people are going to claim in believing that homosexuality is genetic then they should proved evidence to support their claim, otherwise it&#39;s baseless and irrelevant.

I&#39;d like to see the evidence that suggests that homosexuality is a hormone imbalance? [/b]
Studies have shown that many animal species display homosexual behaviour and have homosexual &#39;groups&#39;. This, I think, pretty much shows that it is genetic. It&#39;s not confined to humans only.

A very good psychologist friend of mine hase conducted many studies into the issue and has concluded that homosexuality is genetic. I will try and get details of her research and post them on here.

[Colonello Buendia]

the fact that most christians are virtualy fortified in their beliefs may be one reason but the bible does have a tendency to mislead people. in one passage of the bible the only objection to gay sex is the fact that the intended victim is a visitor to the other mans village. like i said the bible misleads people

[Omar]

Originally posted by beneath the [email protected] 17, 2007 11:31 pm
why are christians so anti-homosexual?
Because their God&#39;s a homophobe.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Because their God&#39;s a homophobe.

as was suggested previously in this thread (before it was moved):


Can you try to contribute to the thread in some way, you know, like explaining your position?

such a comment is childish anyway, which may work perfectly well for you among your fifth grade buddies but doesn&#39;t carry a lot of weight with most others .... especially when they are having a (somewhat) serious debate ....

[freakazoid]

So, the passages don&#39;t actually MEAN what they say? If you read them they look pretty clear. And if you interpret them literally the results are pretty clear too.

The passage does mean what it says, in its original language. The problem is in when it became translated. Did you read the link?

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:13 am

So, the passages don&#39;t actually MEAN what they say? If you read them they look pretty clear. And if you interpret them literally the results are pretty clear too.

The passage does mean what it says, in its original language. The problem is in when it became translated. Did you read the link?
Just out of interest, have you ever read the Bible in its original languages?
Perhaps you ought to write a new translation, seeing as you apparently know so much about what everything is supposed to mean? Just think, all those millions of deluded Christians who think homosexuality is wrong, and that they must obey the state, and you of all people know the truth&#33; Thousands of Biblical scholars disagree and most prominent theologians find fundamentalist Christians an embarassment to their religion because of their literal interpretation of a text they know was written by men with their own motives, but you freakazoid, can prove them all wrong&#33;

[freakazoid]

Just out of interest, have you ever read the Bible in its original languages?

I wish, :D I had a teacher who could though. Well, at least the Hebrew portion, I&#39;m not sure if he can speak Aramaic.


Perhaps you ought to write a new translation, seeing as you apparently know so much about what everything is supposed to mean?

You seem to know so much about it, perhaps you should?


Just think, all those millions of deluded Christians who think homosexuality is wrong, and that they must obey the state, and you of all people know the truth&#33;

Just think, all those millions of deluded Christians who don&#39;t think homosexuality is wrong, and that they must not obey the state, and you of all people know the truth&#33;

Just think, all those millions of deluded capitalists who think wage slavery is ok, and that they must obey the state, and you of all people know the truth&#33;

I am not alone on what I believe. You can&#39;t refute what I have said so you resort to attacking the fact that there are few who believe what I believe as if that adds some kind of weight to your argument. <_<

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Thousands of Biblical scholars disagree and most prominent theologians find fundamentalist Christians an embarassment to their religion because of their literal interpretation of a text they know was written by men with their own motives

this is exactly why the bible or the religion itself cannot be blamed for homophobia or various other acts contained within the bible ....

i&#39;m sure there are problems with the "translation" although by this point i would call them revisions .... as they have been changed around and reinterpreted by each generation that followed the original Christians ....

but i tend to look at the bible as a work of epic poetry ... like the Aeneid, the Nibelungunlied, or The Book Of Lamentations .... meaning that just like a song or poem it is open to vastly different interpretations , some of those are positive (like giving to the poor) others are negative (like attitudes towards homosexuals) ...

the bible is not the problem, it is the leaders.