The Christian God Doesn't Hate Gays

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: SoylentGreen The Bible includes numerous meanings on a basis that an intention for all of It, is existent

I think I put a comma in the right place to make that sentence sound like English.
I won't say that it makes the sentence make any sense because it doesn't.
What means- "an intention for all of It, is existent"

[Jack]

Let's run it through the Babalfish and see what comes out.

[Will_00]

You are. Christians pick and choose from the Old Testament what they will accept and what they reject, with no Biblical support for their distinctions. If they are uncomfortable with gays, they choose to accept the O.T.'s condemnation of homosexual-like behavior. But if they want to wear clothes of mixed fabric, work on Sundays or eat pork, they conveniently ignore those prohibitions. They have no rational explanation for their selectiveness, so they usually resort to circular excuse making or simple obfuscation.

No, those parts. Sections of the Old Testament reference certain direct guidelines that you must follow, but are now not necessary due to Jesus Christ's dying on the Cross for our sins. Yet 1 Timothy 1:10 states thus (if you do not believe the consistency of the commands in the Old Testament): "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

As well, the Ten Commandments are still obviously held to existence. Just because it was stated in the Old Testament does not fully relieve it to be "unnecessary" at all.

[Jack]

Sections of the Old Testament reference certain direct guidelines that you must follow, but are now not necessary due to Jesus Christ's dying on the Cross for our sins.

Who decided which are obsolete and which are still pertinent? If some are still valid, why not all? If some are invalid, why not all?

[Will_00]

Who decided which are obsolete and which are still pertinent? If some are still valid, why not all? If some are invalid, why not all?

They are not obsolete, but unnecessary. The "commands" that are unnecessary are commonly more of sacrifices, and such. Those that stand to be relative today, are that of absolute Truths, e.g. When an explanation occurs, and leads into a commandment - E.g. Homosexuality is a sin.

[Jack]

And who made that arbitrary distinction? I thought there were only 10 commandments that are considered such. Where is homosexuality mentioned?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Will_00 They are not obsolete, but unnecessary. The "commands" that are unnecessary are commonly more of sacrifices, and such. Those that stand to be relative today, are that of absolute Truths, e.g. When an explanation occurs, and leads into a commandment - E.g. Homosexuality is a sin

It's a fine line between obsolete and unnecessary. Plus, now we have the precedent that some of the Bible can be ignored due to relevance. The Bible does give reasons for most of the laws I pointed out (Pigs are unclean, Sunday is a day of rest and for God, etc). However it gives a much less practical and more vague reason for why homosexuality is. Leviticus 18:22 "it is abomination"
Romans 1:26-27: "men with men working that which is unseemly"

A pig is unclean therefore unhealthy to eat. I get that.
However, homosexuality is an abomination and unseemly? Why?

The Bible offers no answer. A much lesser explanation.

Quote by: Will_00 The Bible includes numerous meanings on a basis that an intention for all of I, is existent

There are four passages in the New Testament that mention homosexuality as a negitive. For my sanity, considering most Christians dismiss Leviticus and Exodus law, I'm going to focus on the numerous meanings of these passages.

Romans 1-27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet"

This passage comes while describing how some Christians in Rome had returned to certain pagan rituals, worshiping idols of animals and such things. Pagan rituals included, at that time, huge sexual orgies. The rituals needed you to be in a drunk frenzied state so that regardless of whether you were homo or heterosexual, you just had sex with everyone. So the Bible may only be rebuking orgies and not homosexuality, especially when this passage only makes a pass at homosexuality without forbidding it. It's one meaning.

1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators...nor effeminate [makakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai]...shall inherit the kingdom of God."

First off, makakoi does not mean effeminate. It can mean anything ranging from loose morals, to lazy men. literally it means soft (i think). So it could be any of those "meanings"

Second, arsenokoitai's meaning is unclear. In fact, no one knows exactly what that means. Guesses range from temple prostitute, to gigolos, to men who sexually abuse boys. Just the kind people who translated the King James Bible took this meaning. And everyone else followed suit.
Once again, multiple meanings.

1 Timothy 1: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient... for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers (arsenokoitai)... and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

Again, arsenokoitai. Same argument as used in Corinthians.

Jude 1-7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that wanted to gang rape two angels and were wiped from the face of the earth by God. Literally translated, similar things were happening in these cities. So that means this passage is referring to rape as opposed to homosexuality.

So these multiple meanings mean the Bible doesn't have to be against homosexuality. The meanings did not stretch the literal meaning very far, in fact, some are more logical then their common counterpart interpretation.

[Anmon]

Can you show where the bible approves of homosexuality?
Just one passage will do.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: anmon Can you show where the bible approves of homosexuality? Just one passage will do.

The title says "the Christian God doesn't hate gays"

All I'm obliged to do is prove that the Bible says nothing against homosexuality.

If the Bible has to sanction everything your allowed to do then point to a place in the Bible that approves of surfing the internet.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Tycoon There is no decision in being homosexual, as Isherwood points out.

Except for DNA-related cases, am I to understand that an individual becomes a homosexualist and that process takes place beyond his/her consciousness and/or awarness and/or mental and physical (cap)abilities and/or acceptance, etc. ???
Following your approach, what is the reason an individual becomes a homosexualist, then ?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Rainbow Except for DNA-related cases, am I to understand that an individual becomes a homosexualist and that process takes place beyond his/her consciousness and/or awarness and/or mental and physical (cap)abilities and/or acceptance, etc. ??? Following your approach, what is the reason an individual becomes a homosexualist, then ?

The same way you develop something like OCD or any personality development (this is even harder to change because it is sexual).

It's not like you just choose one day.

[Jack]

homosexualist

I think I've asked before, but what's the source for this contrived term?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Winter wind The same way you develop something like OCD or any personality development (this is even harder to change because it is sexual). It's not like you just choose one day.

Would it be fair to say that an individual must and/or needs to follow a certain pattern of values, in order to become a homosexualist ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood I think I've asked before, but what's the source for this contrived term?

Are you after :
- meaning
or
- onomastics
?
Is the onomastics - I apply - beyond some conventions ?

[Tycoon]

Would it be fair to say that an individual must and/or needs to follow a certain pattern of values, in order to become a homosexualist?

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by homosexualist? I assume there's a difference between homosexualist and homosexual.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: rainbow Would it be fair to say that an individual must and/or needs to follow a certain pattern of values, in order to become a homosexualist ?

I'm talking about homosexuals and so is this thread. Where do homosexualists come in?

[Will_00]

And who made that arbitrary distinction? I thought there were only 10 commandments that are considered such. Where is homosexuality mentioned?

There are Ten Commandments. Those are simply some of them, though. God instructed other instructions throughout the Bible.

It's a fine line between obsolete and unnecessary. Plus, now we have the precedent that some of the Bible can be ignored due to relevance. The Bible does give reasons for most of the laws I pointed out (Pigs are unclean, Sunday is a day of rest and for God, etc). However it gives a much less practical and more vague reason for why homosexuality is. Leviticus 18:22 "it is abomination" Romans 1:26-27: "men with men working that which is unseemly" A pig is unclean therefore unhealthy to eat. I get that. However, homosexuality is an abomination and unseemly? Why? The Bible offers no answer. A much lesser explanation.

First of all, your statement that "The Bible offers no answer" is completely incorrect. Again, 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Know 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," and 1 Timothy 1:10: "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

There are four passages in the New Testament that mention homosexuality as a negitive. For my sanity, considering most Christians dismiss Leviticus and Exodus law, I'm going to focus on the numerous meanings of these passages. Romans 1-27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" This passage comes while describing how some Christians in Rome had returned to certain pagan rituals, worshiping idols of animals and such things. Pagan rituals included, at that time, huge sexual orgies. The rituals needed you to be in a drunk frenzied state so that regardless of whether you were homo or heterosexual, you just had sex with everyone. So the Bible may only be rebuking orgies and not homosexuality, especially when this passage only makes a pass at homosexuality without forbidding it. It's one meaning. 1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators...nor effeminate [makakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai]...shall inherit the kingdom of God." First off, makakoi does not mean effeminate. It can mean anything ranging from loose morals, to lazy men. literally it means soft (i think). So it could be any of those "meanings" Second, arsenokoitai's meaning is unclear. In fact, no one knows exactly what that means. Guesses range from temple prostitute, to gigolos, to men who sexually abuse boys. Just the kind people who translated the King James Bible took this meaning. And everyone else followed suit. Once again, multiple meanings. 1 Timothy 1: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient... for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers (arsenokoitai)... and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." Again, arsenokoitai. Same argument as used in Corinthians. Jude 1-7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that wanted to gang rape two angels and were wiped from the face of the earth by God. Literally translated, similar things were happening in these cities. So that means this passage is referring to rape as opposed to homosexuality. So these multiple meanings mean the Bible doesn't have to be against homosexuality. The meanings did not stretch the literal meaning very far, in fact, some are more logical then their common counterpart interpretation.

This is obviously incorrect - on your part. The Bible CANNOT be tweaked in any manner and used to say "I think" in this case. It is right There in the Bible.

It's not like you just choose one day.

Again, I will state that you wouldn't simply begin to sin involuntairly. That is wrong. It is voluntary.

[Jack]

Never mind, found it:

Gay or queer. As popularized by Daffyd from Little Britain Daffyd is a homosexualist and a gayer. The term homosexualist, as popularised by Matt Lucas's character Daffyd Thomas, is a useful one to mean those active homosexuals who are trying to make it compulsory for all. The term could extend to those try to force their own ideas on supposed equality for those of peculiar sexuality. It definitely includes those types who consider their same sex proclivities to be far superior to heterosexuals.

Urban Dictionary: homosexualist

[Jack]

Again, I will state that you wouldn't simply begin to sin involuntairly. That is wrong. It is voluntary.

Yet the Bible says all are born into sin. That sort of removes any aspect of voluntarism.

[Tycoon]

Again, I will state that you wouldn't simply begin to sin involuntairly. That is wrong. It is voluntary.

I could care less what you state. Unless you can back it with anything then we are not going to debate it.

Homosexual desires are no less real than heterosexual desires. Homosexual relationships are no less real than heterosexual relationships.

Participating in a homosexual action is voluntary, as are heterosexual actions. Unless you can give a reason why homosexual actions are wrong then heterosexual actions are just as wrong.