What do religions or you say about homosexuality?

[kakkarot]

i'm gonna go rape some babies now, cause that's just what i feel like doing. no really, i can't go against my desires, it's just who i am, i don't have any choice about it. so i'll be back on again tommorrow....

~kakkarot

[Huwie]

Well done for totally misunderstanding my post.  I'm finished with this thread, I'm not going to argue with people like you at xmas.  Bye! []

[kakkarot]

and you did any better for understanding mine?

have a nice christmas [|)].

~kakkarot

[Nagual]

You have not much control on the attraction level.
You have control on the acting upon that attraction.
IMO, you can be labeled has homosexual even if you don't act as such.

[Gandalf]

Sorry Kakkarot, but I think you lost that argument fair and square IMO.
Of course, your opinions are your own.

Douglas

[onefromsomewhereelse]

Let's face it....homosex is deviant behavior, both physically and spiritually.
Just because someone thinks up to 20% of animals are queers (I doubt it) doesn't make humans any less responsible for their sins.

[Gandalf]

hmm, except I dont accept the theory of sin.
I would still like a good explanation, with evidence of how homosex is deviant behavior, both physically and spiritually

Sound more like 'fear of something different' to me!

Douglas

[Arcane]

I remember reading something (i think it was in scientific American) that decided that it was due to a lack of oxygen at a certain stage of development.
I find it hard to believe that it should occur normally as this would be against the survival of a species (unless it occurs as a method of controlling population, but how would that work?).
It doesn't bother me that this exists though, i would be interested in knowing why.

[madonafrk]

First off, why go by a book written so long ago that has been interpretated hundreds of time, how do you know it hasnt been changed for personal reasons by those who interpretated it! (however you spell that word). Does the bible also say "love thy neighbor?"!
One of the reason homosexuality is frowned upon so much is because society puts that in your head when you are young growing up, so naturally, u will believe it is wrong when older! Also, my view is also, all you homophobes out there,,,when you bash us and say were going to hell,,,um, its been known that some of you have homo feelings dwelling deep inside of you that you are terrified to deal with. i remember having "these" feeling back as far as kindergarten!! Does that I mean i was a child that should of been punished or put to death??? Nobody knows for a fact what god feels about homosexuality!! Where is the evidence??? oh, thats right, the bible says so!! Do u always believe what others tell you??? Experience life to the fullest and understand other things first before making such judgemental decisions on others!!! Life is to short to worry about what others are doing behing closed doors,,,worry about your own path in life!

[onefromsomewhereelse]

You can either believe the Bible or just pick and choose.  You would not be convinced if the Lord himself payed you a personal visit and told you that homosexuality is deviant, wrong behaviour.

We all have sins; we are all sinners.  It is how you deal with sin which indicates if you have he spirit of God in you.  Everyone does not have the spirit in him.  If you are truly seeking the Lord's will, and feel convicted of sin, that's a good indication you have the spirit of God.

Perhaps some day you will be more spiritual regarding this matter, and seek wisdom from the Lord.  You will be in my prayers.

[James S]

Just an observation of the way the bible has been interpreted about homosexuality....

I can't think of a place where God actually said anything about homosexuality. Certainly Jesus never said anything about it. He showed tolerance to all people and never once singled out any particular group as being sinful, with the possible exception of the corrupt temple heirarchy.

The 'proof' if you wish to call it that, that Christians have used against homosexuality almost invariably comes from Leviticus. Trouble here is this is a modern interpretation of an ancient custom. Christian scholars will interpret the acts performed in Leviticus that God detested as being homosexual acts. Ancient historians will tell you that it was a custom of the time that a nation who has just defeated another nation, will take the captured soldiers of the defeated nation and parade them through the streets, publicly raping them as a part of a process of brutal humiliation.

If you look at it this way, God wasn't showing a dislike of homosexuality, he was showing a dislike for this custom of brutal public rape.

James.

[Gandalf]

You can either believe the Bible or just pick and choose

An example of a typically limited viewpoint.

More correctly, you either believe what's in the bible or you don't.

Perhaps some day you will be more spiritual regarding this matter, and seek wisdom from the Lord.

You are obviously of the blinkered 'if you dont believe in the bible you dont believe in god' world-view.

You will be in my prayers

Thank you. You have my sympathies.

Regards,
Douglas

[exothen]

quote:I can't think of a place where God actually said anything about homosexuality.

Trouble here is this is a modern interpretation of an ancient custom.

What Bible are you looking at? I'm sure I posted these at the start of this thread, but I'll do it again:

1 Corinthians 6:9, "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"

Romans 1:26-27, "26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Leviticus 18:22, "22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

There is no "ancient custom" even implied in Leviticus. I have no idea where you got this 'historical interpretation' idea from, but it has no bearing on this verse whatsoever. It is clearly talking about homosexuality.

[madonafrk]

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions becuase they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken or rumored by many. Do not believe anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not beleive in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."      Look inside yourself to determine what is the truth!!!! Only death will we see the absolute truth!!! you will be in my prayers "onefromsomewhereelse"!!

[James S]

quote:Originally posted by exothen


1 Corinthians 6:9, "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"

I think this is one of the classic cases where the text of the bible has been altered to suit the views of the church heirarchy through the ages. Firstly, exactly what translation of the bible uses the word "effeminate"? I just looked up that passage in my NIV and it does not make mention of this word at all. Thought they'd just trow that one in for good measure eh? Secondly, The term "homosexual" or any term like it could NEVER have been written in the originl texts. This term was coined in 1869 by the Hungarian physician Karoly Maria Benkert. Again, I think the church rulers at the time probably thought they'd make good use of the word once it had come into existance.

Nowhere in the bible will you find any mention of the ancient customs I described regarding Leviticus. This is one of those things that didn't need to be detailed there as people living in that time would have known about it. Think about how many customs we have today that when written of are not explained. That's because we don't need them explained to us. If those writings are read in 2000-3000 years time, the peopel reading about them probably won't have a clue what we're on about.

Remember that theres a lot written in the bible that was 'topical' for the period, and bears no relation to customs that we have today. Beth showed us this in a lot of her posts regarding biblical history.

If you're going to take these verses that you've posted literally by directly translating them into standards of todays society you're going to find yourself in a lot of trouble if you wish to maintain the word of the bible. Do you have a wife or girlfriend that attends church with you? Does she cover her head in church? Is she submissive to you as the head of the house? If not, you'd better look out because you are not fulfilling the word of God.

Petty, picky? Yes it is. But then so is using the bible as a means to condemn homosexuals. Jesus intended his teachings to be a means of liberating the human race from its self imposed slavery and condemnation. The bible has been used to put us right back into it again.

James.

[exothen]

James,

quote:Firstly, exactly what translation of the bible uses the word "effeminate"? I just looked up that passage in my NIV and it does not make mention of this word at all. Thought they'd just trow that one in for good measure eh?

Nothing has been altered; it is your misunderstanding of different translations of the Bible. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translation, whereas the NASB which I used, is a formal equivalence (word-for-word) tranlsation (as close as they can get and still have it make sense). Both versions are correct.

The word for 'effeminate' (malakos in Greek) means 'of a catamite,' 'of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man,' 'of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness,' or 'of a male prostitute,' which is what the NIV says. The NASB went with the actual word, the NIV went with the thought, the definition.

So, no, this is not a "classic case where the text of the Bible has been altered to suit the views of the church heirarchy through the ages." I suggest you do some research before posting such nonsense.

quote:Secondly, The term "homosexual" or any term like it could NEVER have been written in the originl texts. This term was coined in 1869 by the Hungarian physician Karoly Maria Benkert. Again, I think the church rulers at the time probably thought they'd make good use of the word once it had come into existance.

What does that have to do with anything??? The Greeks had words to describe such behaviour. Who cares if homosexual is a newer word; it is conveying the same idea as the Greek words. Even Plato wrote about such things.

quote:Nowhere in the bible will you find any mention of the ancient customs I described regarding Leviticus.

There is a reason for that - because it was not talking about an ancient custom. Wheteher or not there was such a custom is irrelevant to the issue; that is not what Leviticus is dealing with. The whole chapter is talking about sexual sins such as incest, adultery, and fornication. Why don't you mention ancient customs for those? Because that is not the point.

Leviticus is clearly talking about everyday homosexuality. What you have done is called eisegesis - reading something into the text that isn't there. If you read the rest of the OT, you would realize that if this passage was talking about an ancient custom, it would have mentioned it.

quote:Beth showed us this in a lot of her posts regarding biblical history.

Beth says a lot of things; some of it right, some of it wrong.

quote:If you're going to take these verses that you've posted literally by directly translating them into standards of todays society you're going to find yourself in a lot of trouble if you wish to maintain the word of the bible.

I have left these verses in the context of when they were written. The meaning remains the same whether speaking of it in today's terms, or of the time.

quote:Jesus intended his teachings to be a means of liberating the human race from its self imposed slavery and condemnation.

Don't twist what Jesus said and make him say what you want. Jesus's teachings were all about how salvation and freedom from sin are found in him alone. Jesus didn't mention a lot of things, but he didn't need to. The Bible clearly teaches homosexuality as a sin and Jesus, being a Jew, would most certainly have agreed.

[kakkarot]

the 1 corinthians thing was done on page three already. here was part of my post on it:

quote:the greek word used in 1 cor 6:9 for effeminate is also translated to an instrument of unnatural lust. it can also be used to denote: soft to the touch, delicate, softness, languor, indisposition, weakness, infirmity of body, though those definitions are not what is meant in that passage (i'd love to post the greek words as well, but i'd have to make an image to do that. maybe i will later and just edit it in)

the greek word used next (the one that exothen posted as homosexual) means: one who lies with a male, a sodomite. ... well, i guess i'm wrong then ^_^ , the bible is fairly explicit on homosexuality.

so at least one of the apostles taught that homosexuality is wrong. (and for whoever it is that is believing that the bible is all of jesus words or jesus wrote the whole thing, it's just not so. in one point in the bible i believe it was peter who mentioned something about gentiles being less christian than jews because the gentiles were uncircumcised. and in another place i believe it was paul who contended that and said that all people, gentile and jew, are all God's people. i'm likely wrong about some details in there since i'm doing this from memory so if anyone can provide a verse for that it would be helpful []. so the bible is not 100% "savvy" with itself, but i think people tend to forget that it's not the bible that is the christ, but jesus who is the christ [|)]. sorry, just stirring up more controversy [])

~kakkarot

[James S]

quote:Originally posted by exothen
Don't twist what Jesus said and make him say what you want. Jesus's teachings were all about how salvation and freedom from sin are found in him alone. Jesus didn't mention a lot of things, but he didn't need to. The Bible clearly teaches homosexuality as a sin and Jesus, being a Jew, would most certainly have agreed.

No, I don't think I am. I believe his is the difference between where many Theologins will concentrate on the words of the bible - picking apart meanings of verses, interpretings laws, as opposed to looking at the spirit in which Jesus was instructing us. His teachings were about love, tolerance and acceptance.

Rejecting homosexuals as the church has done, goes against the spirit of his teachings. I don't think that's twisting his words to suit my feelings on the matter. Whether or not his apostles spoke against homosexuality, Jesus spoke of love and acceptance of all people. The spirit of his words, living by the examples HE set, to me are of far more importance than focussing on interpretations of the laws and regulations of the bible.

I'm not a christian, though I spent 16 years of my life studying the bible and following the ways of christianity. For me Jesus has become far more real, far more important since I got out of the box that the modern christian dogma sought to keep me in.

I know this can sound like a bit of a cliche, but think about how Jesus himself would be treating this discussion if he were a member of this forum. Would he be finding scriptures to condem homosexuals, or would he be trying to help show others that all people should be shown the same level of appreciation and acceptance.

Kind regards,
James.

[Cynda Lee]

Beautifully put Beth, my feelings exactly, it's all about the energy.  

[exothen]

James,

quote:Rejecting homosexuals as the church has done, goes against the spirit of his teachings. I don't think that's twisting his words to suit my feelings on the matter. Whether or not his apostles spoke against homosexuality, Jesus spoke of love and acceptance of all people.

You are right, partly. Jesus would do the same as the apostles - accept the homosexual, but reject their sin. That is completely in line with everything that Jesus taught. But most of the church has lost its ability to do that; we tend to reject the sinner because of the sin instead of loving them despite it. I think that most Christians just don't know how to deal with it.

I am very sure that the apostles' teachings were inline with what Christ taught.

[kakkarot]

just an observation, but while the bible does speak against homosexuality jesus himself never denounced it. people tend to forget that *very little* of the bible is what jesus actually said. the rest is other people telling messages that are supposed to be from God.

however, that could create another rift in people's thinking: that jesus' words were right but the rest of the bible is merely guidelines.

anytime something is spoken out against the people who don't think it's all that bad will try to find whatever way they can to try and persuade people to believe that the "negative" message given about the controversy doesn't really mean what it says. for example, the apostles clearly did teach that homosexuality was wrong, as did the laws of the old testament, and yet people seek to use linguistic maneuvering to try and get around that and say "the bible doesn't really say that, it just looks like it does because of ..." and spout of any of the number of reasons that have been adopted up till now.

but anyway, what about other religions? some of the more "smaller" ones (maybe "overshadowed" would be a better word [])? does anyone have any insight into what other theological teachings declare?

~kakkarot

[James S]

quote:Originally posted by exothen
You are right, partly. Jesus would do the same as the apostles - accept the homosexual, but reject their sin. That is completely in line with everything that Jesus taught. But most of the church has lost its ability to do that; we tend to reject the sinner because of the sin instead of loving them despite it. I think that most Christians just don't know how to deal with it.

Yes I agree with this. Whether right or wrong the church has found many reasons to reject people throughout history. In some ways I see the churches treatment of homosexuals in this age as being similar to the way lepers were treated 2000 years ago.

James.

[FreeFaller]

i know i'm just now reading this but i think that the fact of being homosexual is wrong, and personally i have never met a homosexual christian before. but i also agree God does love all his children. i also think that over the many hundreds thousands of years people have changed the word of God. (thats for a diff post though) god doesn't hate anything even in the bible it says that he loves his enemy also in mels new movie(thats for a diff topic also)

[FreeFaller]

i know i'm just now reading this but i think that the fact of being homosexual is wrong, and personally i have never met a homosexual christian before. but i also agree God does love all his children. i also think that over the many hundreds thousands of years people have changed the word of God. (thats for a diff post though) god doesn't hate anything even in the bible it says that he loves his enemy also in mels new movie(thats for a diff topic also)


so frankly im not to sure. i have only read the first chapter Genisis so i dont know what the bible says

[Targa]

I read an account of a Near Death Experience once that was an older man who had a homosexual son.  This man was brought up in strict Christian beliefs, and felt that homosexuality was a sin.  In this NDE, he went down the tunnel of light and met Jesus, and the first thing he asked him was, "Jesus, of all people, why did my son have to be homosexual?"  To which Jesus replied, "Give the kid a break.  He just finished living 14 incarnations in a row as a female, and he needs time to adjust". (true NDE account by the man in question)