Off-Topic: Elton John today [Archive]

Nikolaj

02-19-2010, 09:25 PM

Moderators, please move this thread to a 'General Discussion' or correct forum, I looked and couldn't find it, I'm sorry. I feel like I'm cheating on The Ledge, because today I felt compelled to register and post, for the first time, at another site, at eltonjohn.com because I wanted to support him. I suspect he's taking a lot of criticism about his Jesus comments released in the media today. (For those who don't know, Elton said his envisionment of Jesus is as a gay man who was compassionate, and the right-wingers are furious). I feel Elton did a good thing. I did mention, in a very roundabout way, Mick Fleetwood in my message at Elton's site, and I feel like sharing what I wrote, and again, please, moderators, if you get a chance, put this in the appopriate forum if there is one,
I don't want to upset anyone here. Thank You! PS- I know everyone won't agree with what I wrote, and what I did not reveal, but I wrote it as I felt it....
**
Thank You To Elton John from a Christian (posted 1/19/2010 on eltonjohn.com)

I am so pleased to be able to write my feelings about Elton's comments about Jesus being a compassionate homosexual. I am a Christian, and I think it is fantastic that Elton has opened dialogue about gays and Jesus, even though I am sadly already seeing bigotry and distortion in the media. I believe that every person of every sexual persuasion benefits from seeking a relationship with Jesus, and I believe that Jesus loves ALL who love Him and accept Him, those who try to put Him first in the way each believer conducts their lives. Some people just are gay, and gay people need to be able to identify with Jesus just as would any heterosexual.
Most white people seem to envision Jesus as white, which makes sense. There wasn't a ton of uproar in the '70s when some feminists needed to identify with Jesus as a female Savior, and many African Americans have an image of Jesus as black, because Jesus is their Messiah as well. So, I see it as a need to be closer with Him and identify and relate to Him. I don't see why it should be considered an 'insult' that a gay man would possibly see Jesus as someone who relates to homosexuals, or could have had homosexual tendencies. It may well not be a stretch that Jesus loves and approves of homosexuals, because He himself created gay people, meaning those who have no choice about their sexuality.
Most of us have a family member who is gay, and I think we wish all of God's blessings for those we love who just happen not to be able to have sexual and/or romantic attraction to the opposite sex. IT HAPPENS. You can't throw a surprise party for Jesus, He knows all and still loves those who truly love him. It's a 'come as you are' proposition being a Christian, you can be who you are, so long as you put effort into learning The Bible and seek the Salvation that does come to anyone who in their heart wants to love The Lord and does love Him and does the best that they can. He is not a God for only heterosexuals, and I think Elton John's comment(s) were brave and insightful, and I believe Jesus is GLAD that Elton has opened a dialogue, because Jesus does need to be on our minds and in our discussions.
The link I saw online to a British tabloid used quotation marks when referring to Elton's "husband" which is an indication of a biased slant, no quotation marks would be used if, oh, Mick Fleetwood referred to his "wife", and Jesus does not want us judging each other.
Jesus certainly does not want anyone who loves Him and wants Him in their lives to be told they aren't "deserving" because of their sexuality, because in actuality, in Christian doctrine, NO-ONE is deserving of Salvation or fellowship with The Lord, it is a blessing, it is a GRACE that is given to anyone who sincerely desires to be One with The Father and The Son.
I have read through and made notations in all 582 pages of the King James New Testament, and homosexuality itself is not enough to keep a person who loves Christ from being accepted by Him. --
continued in next message, out of room- but THANK YOU ELTON.
...(to end)
I think Elton John provided a valuable service in reminding the world that gay people think about Jesus and need to relate to Him. Let the judgment of all matters, including sexual preference, not be made against each other, but made by our Creator. Love Jesus and love one another.
By coincidence, I went out to Target and bought the 1970-2002 Greatest Hits cd, today. I have a lifetime of great music to appreciate tonight. Again, I also appreciate the good that may come from his comments. I think Elton John is a brave man, and it's necessary for gay people to feel comfortable to discuss Jesus Christ, though traditionalists want to deprive gays of a union with God. Elton's comments will ruffle the self-righteous anti-gay bigots, but hey, I fully believe that Jesus himself is a liberal. He'll welcome anyone who comes to Him.
It's about time gay people claim what is theirs, and I think that Jesus himself is smiling down on Elton John today, saying "Yes, I indeed do love my gay sons and daughters and only want them to love Me, and it's up to Me to sort out the rest!"
Well done, Elton John. A true national (and probably international) dialogue about something Eternal, something that matters has begun, different than the plastic surgery celebrities du jour and a golfer with an overactive libido making a public statement, just filling up minds without feeding anyone's Spirit.
Substance at it's best. If EJ reads these messages and sees mine, just know there's a Christian out there who thinks you have reason to really be proud, do not let the right-wing extremists get you down, you did a good thing, and I understand and appreciate your comments.

rocknalittle

02-19-2010, 10:44 PM

Thank you- I am an open gay male, and I also have faith. That is just really great to hear other people supporting other people!

CADreaming

02-19-2010, 11:17 PM

Most white people seem to envision Jesus as white, which makes sense. There wasn't a ton of uproar in the '70s when some feminists needed to identify with Jesus as a female Savior, and many African Americans have an image of Jesus as black, because Jesus is their Messiah as well. So, I see it as a need to be closer with Him and identify and relate to Him.
... He knows all and still loves those who truly love him. It's a 'come as you are' proposition being a Christian, you can be who you are, so long as you put effort into learning The Bible and seek the Salvation that does come to anyone who in their heart wants to love The Lord and does love Him and does the best that they can.

It's true if you seek Him, you will find Him and if people read the Bible they will get to know the real Jesus. He wasn't and isn't something we create in our minds of what God is - the white man, the black man, the feminist or the liberal... If anyone is interested in His life they should research for themselves by reading His autobiography. I recommend the New Living Translation, which is much easier to read than the old King James.

Start in the book of John.

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” - Jesus (John 8:32)

Zombie

02-20-2010, 03:15 AM

Good for you, my friend. Way to show caring, compassion, and tolerance. And I mean that sincerely.

iamnotafraid

02-20-2010, 03:30 AM

It's a 'come as you are' proposition being a Christian, you can be who you are, so long as you put effort into learning The Bible and seek the Salvation that does come to anyone who in their heart wants to love The Lord and does love Him and does the best that they can. He is not a God for only heterosexuals - do not let the right-wing extremists get you down, you did a good thing, and I understand and appreciate your comments.

Romans 5:8
But God Demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we
were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer
in it?

John Chapter 8 An adultress faces Jesus.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been
caught in the act of adultery. And testing Jesus they said "Now Moses,
in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You
say we do?" And as they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and
said unto them, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first
stone."

And then Jesus said "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no
one condemned you?" She said "No, one Lord." And Jesus said to her "Neither
do I condemn you; go and sin no more.

Yes, we come to Jesus as sinners, but no where in the Bible does it state
that we are to continue dwelling in sin. The verses I pulled out of the book
of John backs this up. Especially verse 11 "go and sin no more".

You didn't particularly call me a "right winger", but everyone that thinks
homosexuality is a sin doesn't hate you. Nor do they want to control you
life. Many will tell you the truth because they are worried about where your
sin (all sin) will take you. And that's Hell.

Even if you don't believe in Hell, can you imagine not telling someone that
they need to be saved or need to repent? Love is the reason that some Christians
will try and lead you to Christ.

I have my own sins, so I'm not throwing stones at you. And I know that many on
this board are homosexuals by their own admittance. Some of my favorites on this
board are very open about it. I hold no hatred for them (or any others on this
board). But I wouldn't lie about my thoughts on the subject just to make friends.
And I do believe it is a sin. And I wouldn't want to be Elton John in the afterlife.
Christ commited no sin, He was and will always be perfect.

tilthefirefades

02-20-2010, 04:36 AM

holidayroad

02-20-2010, 09:14 AM

This is just my opinion, but I don't think people understand what it's like to be a gay male in today's society. For me, it gets harder almost everyday, realizing new challenges and new discrimination. Maybe I will just never understand why we can't just love each other, regardless of religion. Still yet good for Elton John for speaking about that.

I agree with you that the world would be a better place if people would not have hatred toward each other based on religious or sexuality biases. What confuses me a lot is that Christianity goes against itself so often and judges others when the bible says that they are to 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'. I don't base my liking of others on anything other than that they treat me how they would want to be treated.

tilthefirefades

02-20-2010, 09:39 AM

^ Good for you :thumbsup: that's very respectable of you.

Angel69

02-20-2010, 09:41 AM

It's also stated in Leviticus "......and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

As you can see, the book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig). Of course, fundamentalists do not choose to use this verse to preach against eating pork. Sadly, however, they have no problem abusing the Bible to condemn gay and lesbian people. Remember, it's about their personal prejudice against gay people, not about a true desire to understand what the Bible actually says.

Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know...

The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

tilthefirefades

02-20-2010, 09:51 AM

Angel69

02-20-2010, 10:16 AM

I was actually very surprised when I was reading the bible and came across this. I brought it up to a pastor, and he acted awkward about, and answered none of my questions. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is an incredible book, and addresses this directly. Everyone should read it, regardless of religion. It's not just an atheist's book, as most people seem to think.

What happens most of the time is that people skirt around the issues which directly affect them and cannot come up with an answer. The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

Most of the time someone will tell you the pork/fish thing was in the "old" Testament and things have changed with the "new' testament.

CADreaming

02-20-2010, 10:56 AM

What happens most of the time is that people skirt around the issues which directly affect them and cannot come up with an answer. The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

Most of the time someone will tell you the pork/fish thing was in the "old" Testament and things have changed with the "new' testament.

Interesting. Do you know the reason why the new testament okays the eating of pork? I noticed you only quoted the old testament and was curious if you were aware of the references in the new testament which describes the new covenant.

At any rate, pork is unhealthy for you --- and if people would stop looking at the Bible as a lists of "I can'ts" and instead as a book of instruction they would realize that the laws and rules that were put into place were for people's own protection.

Villavic

02-20-2010, 11:26 AM

jannieC

02-20-2010, 01:08 PM

This thread is interesting to me because in my line of work, everyone is so <i>tolerant</i>, sometimes nauseatingly so. :) Seriously though, I live in The South where intolerance is the norm, There are so many openly gay people where I work; I have lost count. And I know they love working where we do because they can be who they are and not feel all weird about it.

Oh, and I have always loved Elton John, especially as a child. I remember when I found out he was gay (as a kid) and thinking, "what's gay?" Didn't he have a wife at one point and people were speculating that she was a man, or is my memory going places on me?

CADreaming

02-20-2010, 01:30 PM

I don't like when a star wants to make controversy with his ideas. I'm not sure if Elton is looking for this, or was just authentic. Saying Jesus is gay will make upset lot of people. The topic is complicated, and we (all the humanity) will never agree 100%

Why he says that to the press? I don't find it necessary. And I want to make clear that I don't consider saying he was gay is an insult. Not at all.

I just think what I think about Jesus, God, and everything in life. And believe it's a lot different from what the church says. But I'm not looking for controversy. I love Elton but this time I don't think he did the right thing.

You made some very good points about celebrities creating controversy.

But, the "church" is really not an institution or a building - the church itself is the body of believers in Christ. People are in error when they mistake a church or a denominational doctrine for the word of God. This is why people should study the Bible for themselves if they are truly interested and not just go by what anyone else thinks or says. You get into a big mess when you do that. After all, it's not someone's else's faith/belief that will you through life - it's your own. So, make it personal. Christianity is about relationship with God through Jesus and with others, by serving and caring for one another.

louielouie2000

02-20-2010, 01:36 PM

I don't like when a star wants to make controversy with his ideas. I'm not sure if Elton is looking for this, or was just authentic. Saying Jesus is gay will make upset lot of people. The topic is complicated, and we (all the humanity) will never agree 100%

Why he says that to the press? I don't find it necessary. And I want to make clear that I don't consider saying he was gay is an insult. Not at all.

I just think what I think about Jesus, God, and everything in life. And believe it's a lot different from what the church says. But I'm not looking for controversy. I love Elton but this time I don't think he did the right thing.

I totally agree with everything you're saying, and I'm a gay man. How can Elton say in one line that he hates fame... and in the next line make some huge inflammatory proclamation bound to send out ripples? The answer is, he still very much loves fame. I don't know... everyone has their own way of approaching religion, spirituality, etc. My relationship with my beliefs is extremely private to me... like a marriage. I tend to think anyone who wears anything on their sleeves, be it their sexuality, their religious beliefs, whatever... has some unresolved issues of their own. There's definitely a difference between openness and wearing things on your sleeve, too. But, this is just my way of approaching things... to each their own, I say! :D

CADreaming

02-20-2010, 01:41 PM

I totally agree with everything you're saying, and I'm a gay man. How can Elton say in one line that he hates fame... and in the next line make some huge inflammatory proclamation bound to send out ripples? The answer is, he still very much loves fame. I don't know... everyone has their own way of approaching religion, spirituality, etc. My relationship with my beliefs is extremely private to me... like a marriage. I tend to think anyone who wears anything on their sleeves, be it their sexuality, their religious beliefs, whatever... has some unresolved issues of their own. There's definitely a difference between openness and wearing things on your sleeve, too. But, this is just my way of approaching things... to each their own, I say! :D

Louie, great points as well. I am a Christian but I certainly don't want anyone to be so turned off by my beliefs that they don't want to talk to me or think of me as a hater of anything. I don't believe hate produces any kind of good whatsoever.

Angel69

02-20-2010, 06:29 PM

Interesting. Do you know the reason why the new testament okays the eating of pork? I noticed you only quoted the old testament and was curious if you were aware of the references in the new testament which describes the new covenant.

At any rate, pork is unhealthy for you --- and if people would stop looking at the Bible as a lists of "I can'ts" and instead as a book of instruction they would realize that the laws and rules that were put into place were for people's own protection.

Please note that this was required by God of His people in the Old Testament.
He set up many laws to keep His people pure. As pigs were seen as animals that
ate garbage etc. God called them unclean. Pigs/pork was not an acceptable
sacrifice for the attonement for sins. However, in the New Testament, this law
was "lifted." Because of Jesus' death on the cross (and resurrection),
sacrifices were no longer needed as Jesus was the final sacrifice and faith in
Him was the only way man could be pure before God. It was no longer necessary
for God's people to leave by these strict rules. God declares this once
unclean food clean in the following passage in a dream to Peter.
Acts 11:4-10
"4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened:
5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw
something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners,
and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals
of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a
voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my
mouth.'
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that
God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up
to heaven again."

HejiraNYC

02-20-2010, 07:07 PM

You didn't particularly call me a "right winger", but everyone that thinks
homosexuality is a sin doesn't hate you. Nor do they want to control you
life. Many will tell you the truth because they are worried about where your
sin (all sin) will take you. And that's Hell.

Even if you don't believe in Hell, can you imagine not telling someone that
they need to be saved or need to repent? Love is the reason that some Christians
will try and lead you to Christ.

I have my own sins, so I'm not throwing stones at you. And I know that many on
this board are homosexuals by their own admittance. Some of my favorites on this
board are very open about it. I hold no hatred for them (or any others on this
board). But I wouldn't lie about my thoughts on the subject just to make friends.
And I do believe it is a sin. And I wouldn't want to be Elton John in the afterlife.
Christ commited no sin, He was and will always be perfect.

And what kind of sanctimonious bull**** is that? That you are somehow so chaste and pure of thought that you can go around judging others and deeming who will/will not go to your so-called "hell?" Really? Is it still the Spanish Inquisition? You know what? Please stop worrying about others' souls and leave them be. Worry about your own conduct and the way you appear to sneer down at others. Believe it or not, we will all survive and live our lives merrily without your divine judgment of our ways. :rolleyes:

Nikolaj

02-21-2010, 03:47 AM

Thanks for tolerating this thread!
I'd like to answer iamnotafraid, and thank him for the Scriptures, many of which I am familiar with. There's so much to absorb, it takes a lifetime.
Here's my take on 'staying in sin', as you put it. It isn't possible for any human not to sin. I was gay before I became a Christian, and did, in many ways, live a sinful life, but my sins were not because of being gay. I've been born-again for nine years. I'm still homosexual. I'm on my second Bible now, nearly 1300 pages and haven't begun my page-by-page copying of written passages and written meditation on those passages. It took me about 3 years to do so with the 562 page King James version, and it was at times daunting, but it was also very freeing and life-affirming. Of the 29 books of the New Testament, I found inspiration especially from Acts, Proverbs, Psalms and Hebrews.
In my reading, I was very much affected by the wording "homosexual offender"--- (as in 'the homosexual offender shall not enter the Kingdom of God'). Notice it did not say 'the homosexual shall not enter the Kingdom of God'--
So, one interpretation of several that I have, is that a homosexual offender is-- someone who offends a homosexual! Like gaybashers, homophobes...They won't enter the Kingdom of God. So, they should be more careful of how they treat men that God himself created. I also interpret it to mean that some homosexuals DO offend God. So do some heterosexuals.
Now, I do believe that before my salvation, I was guilty of amoral and at times immoral conduct in how I lived as a gay man. That has changed. God is first with me, and any relationship I may have will have to be with a man who believes in and has accepted Jesus. Then only could I have expectations of a lasting relationship, one that God is overseeing. It hasn't happened yet. It may never happen. But that doesn't mean I can retry heterosexuality and make it work. In fact, it would be sinful for me to betray a woman (again) by trying to be something I just am not.
I am as He made me. You may be able to find scripture that states homosexuality is a sin; there is a potential for sinfulness in heterosexual lust, in all sexuality. Why homosexuality is still such an issue, I think, speaks more about the persons objecting, than of the actual act, or the way Jesus views it. That in itself is a lesson to those who take such issue with gays and it's a continuing lesson for me, and certainly I don't have all the answers and I'm still learning.
But, in accepting and receiving Jesus as my Savior, I'm not destined for Hell, which I certainly do believe is true, Hell exists. I have died to self and sin. I do seek God every day of my life. I am not enslaved anymore. I'm saved.
But, I will be a student of Christianity for the rest of my life, I will continue to grow in faith and to do so, I need to read and absorb New Testaments, Old Testaments, attend Baptist, Catholic, Methodist and churches of all denominations, to find where I belong. I have a very hard time with organized religion, but I don't give up. My relationship with Jesus is the single most important decision I have made in my life.
"I am not afraid"... I will go to Heaven.
Even if I s*** c***.
Sorry for the vulgar (edited) ending of this message, but imagine how you'd feel if you were told the only reason you were going to Hell was because your inclination, your personal truth, your instinct, was to have sexual relations with a woman. It would be preposterous.

iamnotafraid

02-21-2010, 06:00 AM

And what kind of sanctimonious bull**** is that? That you are somehow so chaste and pure of thought that you can go around judging others and deeming who will/will not go to your so-called "hell?" Really? Is it still the Spanish Inquisition? You know what? Please stop worrying about others' souls and leave them be. Worry about your own conduct and the way you appear to sneer down at others. Believe it or not, we will all survive and live our lives merrily without your divine judgment of our ways. :rolleyes:

Me so chaste and pure? Did you really get that from what I wrote?
I wrote to the best of my ability not to sound judgemental. I wrote
about "my own sins". Without all the details I'm going through a horrible
time dealing with a family member. And right now I think I hate that person.
I believe it is one of the worst sins to commit, hatred for one's on brother. So
you're very wrong about me.

All sins lead to Hell. You might choose not to believe in such a place. And
the Lord has given you that right, or freedom to choose.

What type of person would I be, or any Christian for that matter, and just
pretended everything's going to be okay no matter what sin is committed?
Christ died in our place to save us from sin, yours and mine.

If you think I'm a horrible person I can't change that. If you look through
my post on this board I doubt you find little if any hate. Most of my post
are meant to be humorous. The reason I finally responded to this particular
thread was because of the blasphemy in Elton John's statement about Christ.

iamnotafraid

02-21-2010, 06:23 AM

I'd like to answer iamnotafraid, and thank him for the Scriptures, many of which I am familiar with. There's so much to absorb, it takes a lifetime.

In my reading, I was very much affected by the wording "homosexual offender"--- (as in 'the homosexual offender shall not enter the Kingdom of God'). I also interpret it to mean that some homosexuals DO offend God. So do some heterosexuals.

I don't have all the answers and I'm still learning.
But, in accepting and receiving Jesus as my Savior, I'm not destined for Hell, which I certainly do believe is true, Hell exists. I have died to self and sin. I do seek God every day of my life. I am not enslaved anymore. I'm saved.
But, I will be a student of Christianity for the rest of my life, I will continue to grow in faith and to do so, I need to read and absorb New Testaments, Old Testaments. My relationship with Jesus is the single most important decision I have made in my life.
"I am not afraid"... I will go to Heaven.

Nikolaj you are more than welcome for the Bible verses. They were mostly
from the "NEW KING JAMES VERSION".

I'm glad you are studying the Bible. And like you I'm still learning too.
And you're absolutely right that heterosexuals can offend God by committing
sin, just the same as homosexuals. The other poster seemed to miss the fact
that I said "all sin".

I'm also glad you read my post and didn't seem to think I was saying I'm better
than anyone else. I struggle as much or more than anyone on this board. And
most times, right or wrong I stay out of these serious discussions. But I was highly
offended by what was said about Christ. He paid such a huge price for us all, more
than our human minds can comprehend. When someone blasphemes against him
it hurts.

Nikolaj

02-21-2010, 07:07 AM

Well, you're welcome. But, it was very snarky and deceptive the way you copied and pasted my message, editing the point - the damned good point- I made about the 'homosexual offender' line- you totally removed my rebuttal, and attempted to change what I wrote by omitting two passages, yet made it look like that was the way I had written it by having it as 'Originally posted by Nikolaj"-- What you edited out was not what I originally posted, and you know it.
Not fair, not honest, and really, for all the nerve it took, I come away with the impression that you lack integrity. I win the debate by your default, and to be honest, I won it on merit.

Here's what you quoted, and I'm putting back in, bold, what you cut out that you couldn't handle or just chose to ignore:

In my reading, I was very much affected by the wording "homosexual offender"--- (as in 'the homosexual offender shall not enter the Kingdom of God'). Notice it did not say 'the homosexual shall not enter the Kingdom of God'--
So, one interpretation of several that I have, is that a homosexual offender is-- someone who offends a homosexual! Like gaybashers, homophobes...They won't enter the Kingdom of God. So, they should be more careful of how they treat men that God himself created. I also interpret it to mean that some homosexuals DO offend God. So do some heterosexuals.

OK- now that that's done with, I wish you well. Forgiveness is hard sometimes, in this case it's so easy, I don't even need an apology:)
P.S. Forgive your brother! (None of my business, I know!) But, forgive him! You'll feel better and it will please God.
double PS-- If "I" had a brother, I may not have turned out queer! I'm not complaining, I'm content with the truth. But he's in your life for a reason- God wanted it that way!
(Seriously, I do wish you well and don't mean to make light of whatever your situation is). Peace, bud :)

iamnotafraid

02-21-2010, 07:15 AM

Well, you're welcome. But, it was very snarky, and deceptive the way you copied and pasted my message, editing the point - the damned good point- I made about the 'homosexual offender' line- you totally removed my rebuttal, and attempted to change what I wrote by omitting two passages, yet made it look like that was the way I had written it.Not fair, not honest, and really, for all the nerve it took, I come away with the impression that lack integrity. I win the debate by your default, and to be honest, I won it on merit.
.

I wasn't trying to be deceptive at all.
What chapter and verse in the Bible
says the line you mention about offender?

Nikolaj

02-21-2010, 07:27 AM

[QUOTE=iamnotafraid;872876]I wasn't trying to be deceptive at all.

Yes, what you did was deceptive. You copied and pasted my message under a header of which the default is 'Originally Posted By (Nikolaj)' and then you removed a good portion of what I had written.

iamnotafraid

02-21-2010, 07:37 AM

Nikolaj,
I responded to the part of your post I edited. I do that all the time.
If I left in everything you said it would have been harder to understand
my response to your post. Again I wasn't trying to be deceptive in the least.

And you're right about my brother I should forgive him, but I'm struggling
with it.

Nikolaj

02-21-2010, 07:48 AM

I found the passage, right after- a second after- I asked God to help me find it, I found it on Page 282, I was growing weary of looking for it- I should have asked 281 pages earlier!
It's in Corinthians 1, Chapter 6:
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God".

And, I'll let it rest with this comment: that you said 'you do it all the time' doesn't make it right, to remove a key point I was making to make it more suit what you care to respond to.
My point was/is that 'homosexual offender' is DIFFERENT than 'homosexual'--
If HE meant that "no homosexual shall enter the Kingdom of God"...it would say that. It does not.

Have a great Sunday.

iamnotafraid

02-21-2010, 07:18 PM

Nikolaj,

Without using any of your response in my reply. I did not find what you had
said was written in the Bible. The following is what I found concerning the verses
posted:

NKJV
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

KJV 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
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, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the
kingdom of God.

Zombie

02-21-2010, 09:11 PM

tilthefirefades

02-21-2010, 09:34 PM

^ I couldn't have put it any better:thumbsup:

I too feel reassured with my atheism

jaycee

02-21-2010, 09:38 PM

Ah, good ol' self-righteousness. It's such an intoxicating feeling, isn't it? We all succumb to it sometimes, and sure, it may help you feel better about yourself at the time and let you rest easy that night, so secure in the knowledge that you know what's what... but one day, you may wake up to realize that you've treated good people in a heinous way they absolutely didn't deserve just because you like the feeling - real or delusional, whatever the case may be - of being right.

It's discussions like these that remind me to be thankful I am atheist. I don't need a book to tell me who is and isn't a good person - all I need to do is open my eyes and my ears, and listen when someone opens his/her mouth - for good or for bad.

And damned if I don't love it when it's as easy to suss out as it is in this thread.

You're right on the money here! :nod:
I find it astounding that people make various quotes from the Bible, working out what's acceptable and what isn't from it, and telling us we're all sinners with sin being an unavoidable part of being human. Can't they think for themselves and work out how to be nice and genuinely ethical with rationality? Or don't they have any?
And why not quote some other holy books, like the Qur'an or the Vedas? They seem just as internally inconsistent with the contradictory logic they employ throughtout their writings. Perhaps it's because Christianity is correct, because if you believe it hard enough, Christianity must be true. :shrug:
About the only religion I can tolerate anymore is Buddhism - despite the odd fault here and there (e.g. children born disabled are people that have done something terribly wrong in their past life), it seems a much more pleasant religion than any others (i.e. while other religions have a habit for turning out both good and bad people, buddhism doesn't seem to do the latter, so far as I know). I doubt I'd argue for a strong philosophical, rational basis for everything as passionately as I do nowadays if Buddhism was the only religion people might choose to follow that I had to "contend" with.
Please excuse the length of my rant! :o

carrie721

02-21-2010, 09:50 PM

Romans 5:8
But God Demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we
were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer
in it?

John Chapter 8 An adultress faces Jesus.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been
caught in the act of adultery. And testing Jesus they said "Now Moses,
in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You
say we do?" And as they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and
said unto them, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first
stone."

And then Jesus said "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no
one condemned you?" She said "No, one Lord." And Jesus said to her "Neither
do I condemn you; go and sin no more.

Yes, we come to Jesus as sinners, but no where in the Bible does it state
that we are to continue dwelling in sin. The verses I pulled out of the book
of John backs this up. Especially verse 11 "go and sin no more".

You didn't particularly call me a "right winger", but everyone that thinks
homosexuality is a sin doesn't hate you. Nor do they want to control you
life. Many will tell you the truth because they are worried about where your
sin (all sin) will take you. And that's Hell.

Even if you don't believe in Hell, can you imagine not telling someone that
they need to be saved or need to repent? Love is the reason that some Christians
will try and lead you to Christ.

I have my own sins, so I'm not throwing stones at you. And I know that many on
this board are homosexuals by their own admittance. Some of my favorites on this
board are very open about it. I hold no hatred for them (or any others on this
board). But I wouldn't lie about my thoughts on the subject just to make friends.
And I do believe it is a sin. And I wouldn't want to be Elton John in the afterlife.
Christ commited no sin, He was and will always be perfect.

i am not a religious person or a biblical scholar by any means. however, i was raised christian and devoted a lot of time and energy when i was younger to trying to reconcile the beliefs i was taught with the knowledge that i was gay. in the end, i couldn't, but that is neither here nor there.

what i don't understand is why so many christians get hung up on homosexuality. there are countless sins that people commit every day, but it seems overall that christians are inordinately concerned about homosexuality and some go so far as to spread lies and demonize us in order to strip us of basic human dignity.

i understand the biblical argument is that sex should be procreative and therefore acting on homosexual urges is wrong. however, i have seen firsthand the psychic damage that is caused when gay people lead straight lives, and that damage has a ripple effect. the struggle to deny something as fundamental as your sexuality is unimaginable.

honestly, i don't mind being told i'm going to hell because i don't believe in an afterlife. i mind more when people try to lead me to christ (or any religion) because the implication is that my life is less meaningful because i don't belong to a religion.

i think the human need for transcendence is a universal one. i don't think i'm better or smarter than anybody just because i'm not a christian. i am still awed and humbled by the beauty of the natural world, the kindness of others, the scope of our universe; even though i don't see the hand of god in any of it. but i don't feel the need to talk anyone out of being a christian, muslim, jew, etc. so it bugs me when someone tries to talk me into being one.

you know i like you and i am not talking about you in particular with any of this. i just wanted to explain how things look from the other side.

Yes, what you did was deceptive. You copied and pasted my message under a header of which the default is 'Originally Posted By (Nikolaj)' and then you removed a good portion of what I had written.

nikolaj, i do this all the time, quoting just the parts of someone else's post that are pertinent to my response. i have seen many others do it too. the intent is rarely if ever to passive aggressively denounce what was omitted. i don't even think iamnotafraid was trying to debate your point.

double PS-- If "I" had a brother, I may not have turned out queer! I'm not complaining, I'm content with the truth.

really? how come? i'm not challenging you, i'm just always interested in what people think is the root of homosexuality.

jaycee

02-21-2010, 10:16 PM

i am not a religious person or a biblical scholar by any means. however, i was raised christian and devoted a lot of time and energy when i was younger to trying to reconcile the beliefs i was taught with the knowledge that i was gay. in the end, i couldn't, but that is neither here nor there.

what i don't understand is why so many christians get hung up on homosexuality. there are countless sins that people commit every day, but it seems overall that christians are inordinately concerned about homosexuality and some go so far as to spread lies and demonize us in order to strip us of basic human dignity.

i understand the biblical argument is that sex should be procreative and therefore acting on homosexual urges is wrong. however, i have seen firsthand the psychic damage that is caused when gay people lead straight lives, and that damage has a ripple effect. the struggle to deny something as fundamental as your sexuality is unimaginable.

honestly, i don't mind being told i'm going to hell because i don't believe in an afterlife. i mind more when people try to lead me to christ (or any religion) because the implication is that my life is less meaningful because i don't belong to a religion.

i think the human need for transcendence is a universal one. i don't think i'm better or smarter than anybody just because i'm not a christian. i am still awed and humbled by the beauty of the natural world, the kindness of others, the scope of our universe; even though i don't see the hand of god in any of it. but i don't feel the need to talk anyone out of being a christian, muslim, jew, etc. so it bugs me when someone tries to talk me into being one.

you know i like you and i am not talking about you in particular with any of this. i just wanted to explain how things look from the other side.

nikolaj, i do this all the time, quoting just the parts of someone else's post that are pertinent to my response. i have seen many others do it too. the intent is rarely if ever to passive aggressively denounce what was omitted. i don't even think iamnotafraid was trying to debate your point.

really? how come? i'm not challenging you, i'm just always interested in what people think is the root of homosexuality.

I'm already back! :laugh: It's just because the ever-insightful carrie721 posted. :)
I find the universe all the more remarkable at the thought that it's all a natural process! It seems more remarkable than thinking it was all created with a bit of magic, at least to me anyway...
(In case you want to know, I personally think the universe is a physical manifestation of an underlying piece of grand mathematics. Of course, I study particle physics, so in a way that shouldn't surprise anyone. Also, my philosophy of mathematics is Platonic. The best evidence I can think of to justify that philosophy is the magic of complex numbers, which, by the simple positing of i^2 = -1, reveals a whole lot of unexpected relationships, particularly e^ix = cosx + isinx. :))
As for the roots of homosexuality, it's best described as a type of biological "misfire". As far as I can tell, this "misfire" and that of fetishes are related (i.e. the origins should be related, even though the desires can easily be independent). I myself have a latex fetish. :o (And, no, I'm not into forms of dom/sub, or much of anything beyond wearing latex. I'm rather boring in that way! :laugh:)
Ultimately these issues all come down to genes, although sometimes (perhaps with this instance, for example) that can be as helpful as saying that we're made of fundamental particles - certainly, that's where the answer lies, but it does nothing to help our brains understand the problem! :laugh:

carrie721

02-21-2010, 10:28 PM

I'm already back! :laugh: It's just because the ever-insightful carrie721 posted. :)
I find the universe all the more remarkable at the thought that it's all a natural process! It seems more remarkable than thinking it was all created with a bit of magic, at least to me anyway...
(In case you want to know, I personally think the universe is a physical manifestation of an underlying piece of grand mathematics. Of course, I study particle physics, so in a way that shouldn't surprise anyone. Also, my philosophy of mathematics is Platonic. The best evidence I can think of to justify that philosophy is the magic of complex numbers, which, by the simple positing of i^2 = -1, reveals a whole lot of unexpected relationships, particularly e^ix = cosx + isinx. :))
As for the roots of homosexuality, it's best described as a type of biological "misfire". As far as I can tell, this "misfire" and that of fetishes are related (i.e. the origins should be related, even though the desires can easily be independent). I myself have a latex fetish. :o (And, no, I'm not into forms of dom/sub, or much of anything beyond wearing latex. I'm rather boring in that way! :laugh:)
Ultimately these issues all come down to genes, although sometimes (perhaps with this instance, for example) that can be as helpful as saying that we're made of fundamental particles - certainly, that's where the answer lies, but it does nothing to help our brains understand the problem! :laugh:

you just blew my mind by bringing up i^2 = -1. i have thought about that every day since i learned about "i" in algebra 2 way back in 10th grade. i have no idea why, but it fascinates me. i should take more math classes or something. :laugh:

your point about the biological misfire is a good one. i haven't completely fleshed out my thoughts on the origins of homosexuality, but i definitely fall more on the "nature" side of nature vs. nurture.

Zombie

02-22-2010, 12:04 AM

You're right on the money here! :nod:
I find it astounding that people make various quotes from the Bible, working out what's acceptable and what isn't from it, and telling us we're all sinners with sin being an unavoidable part of being human. Can't they think for themselves and work out how to be nice and genuinely ethical with rationality? Or don't they have any?
And why not quote some other holy books, like the Qur'an or the Vedas? They seem just as internally inconsistent with the contradictory logic they employ throughtout their writings. Perhaps it's because Christianity is correct, because if you believe it hard enough, Christianity must be true. :shrug:
About the only religion I can tolerate anymore is Buddhism - despite the odd fault here and there (e.g. children born disabled are people that have done something terribly wrong in their past life), it seems a much more pleasant religion than any others (i.e. while other religions have a habit for turning out both good and bad people, buddhism doesn't seem to do the latter, so far as I know). I doubt I'd argue for a strong philosophical, rational basis for everything as passionately as I do nowadays if Buddhism was the only religion people might choose to follow that I had to "contend" with.
Please excuse the length of my rant! :o

Well, the Bible has changed many, many times over the years. You look at most of the copies of the Bible people have in their homes, and it is missing many of the other books that are out there - a group of dudes, several times over the years, has sat down to decide what Christians needed to read and didn't need to read, and they dumped off what they felt didn't jive with what they wanted you to read.

Mind you, it is possible to go now and read many of those deuterocanonical texts today, whereas it wasn't so easy to do so even 50 years ago. If people were able to read these texts with open eyes, then I think they'd be blown away at the sheer amount of material that was left out of the Bible, as well as the interesting and often completely contradictory information they provide.

And ignoring all of that, you have the problem of all the many different versions we have available now, each using their own unique language in a lot of cases. You have the King James Version and then you have the NEW King James Version and then you have the 21st Century King James Version. You have the New International Version and then you have the New International Version (UK) and then you have the TODAY'S New International Version. And on and on and on. They're all worded differently in spots. The translations differ. And depending on what version they were translated from, then you just get farther and farther from the translations that were used for the first slew of Bibles. A lot of people think that "dogs" in one of the previously quoted verses refers to homosexuals, but for all we know, 2000 years ago, they could've been talking about whatever was equivalent to today's popular teacup chihuahua. Who knows?

Nobody.
When you read the Bible, whatever you are reading is not the straight gospel truth coming from the lips of your deity of choice. You're reading a book that has been changed and modified to suit the needs of whoever was doing the writing at the time, over and over and over again, for hundreds and hundreds of years. So much for the word of god. You're reading the word of men. And men? Aren't exactly known for being super smart or rational or even reasonable a lot of the time. I'm just sayin.

And yet somehow, people think this book is the be-all, end-all final word that gives them the right to turn around and cast judgment and aspersions on someone else just because they happen to love differently than they do.

That is not being righteous. That is being self-righteous. And it is bull****.

Furthermore, I am tired of people couching their flat-out judgment and aspersions against others with, "But I said I sin, too! I'm admitting my faults! I'm humble!" like that somehow makes it okay to say someone else is an abomination and going to hell, again, just because they love differently than you do. What a crock.

Anyway, even the Dalai Lama has voiced aloud his issues with homosexuals, though that is mostly down to cultural mores rather than anything Buddhism actually says. I don't know any Buddhists that think what you said about disabled folks, nor do I recall anything like that in the texts I've read (and I've read a lot of them), but I mostly hung out with Soto Zen guys, and they are markedly lacking in the mumbo jumbo and the hocus pocus, unlike, say, the Theravadans.

i haven't completely fleshed out my thoughts on the origins of homosexuality, but i definitely fall more on the "nature" side of nature vs. nurture.

I figure it's nature. After all, I didn't have to "choose" to be straight. It's just how I am.

Fiver

02-22-2010, 12:46 AM

^ One of the things I find amazing about the King James Version is that, being based off the Textus Receptus for the New Testament, and the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament, it still matches up with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in 1947, and are far older. I've heard alot of people find the KJV to be confusing, since it was translated into old English, but I was raised reading it. I'm not against other translations, I just haven't used 'em much, so I have no room to speak on them.

As for the "Apocrypha", Catholic bibles include them. Protestants don't believe they are the inspired word of God as they believe the other accepted 66 books are, and the writers of these texts themselves never laid claim to this. Also, being raised as a Baptist, I can say that branch of Protestantism believes God gave His word to the Israelites to keep sacred and unchanged, and the Israelites took this deathly seriously. When copying the texts, if a single error was discovered in a manuscript, or some kind of blemish after use in public worship, the manuscript was promptly destroyed and the whole thing was re-transcribed. And those Apocryphal books? The Jews destroyed them when Jerusalem was reclaimed in 70 AD.

So, basically, what the Israelites accepted as canonical scriptures is what directed the decision to leave out the Apocryphal books.

Just thought I'd throw my two cents in regarding the Bible's validity and the accuracy of the translations available(Well, the KJV, atleast).

Nikolaj

02-22-2010, 03:57 AM

Hi- to Carrie, I see your point about the copying and pasting- it was just what was omitted with what was left was then all edited together to look like it had been written that way, I don't think you do that- I myself, of course, have copied a portion of what someone has written to reply to it, but I didn't edit out a substantial part and then leave pasted on an ending to it by the author that changed or left out the point that had been made. The paste job completely changed the content and what was omitted changed what I was saying.
But, maybe I'm wrong, and it's possible I shouldn't have even mentioned it. I can say it doesn't matter to me now, so I'm sorry if I over-reacted.
All I can say to notafraid, is that the word 'offender' is in there, right where I said, in Corinthians, in the 1986 Gideons International King James New Testament. If the word was left out of your Bible, there must have been a homophobe editor at work! Because, an 'amplified bible' which mine is not, may add passages, words, meditations, but for a word to be taken out, it's a shame. And I believe you. No wonder so many gays and lesbians have been turned off to God when so many believe we're doomed to Hell just for being who the f*** we are. I don't believe it, and encourage gays and lesbians to find the truth, too. Sigh. I've got no debate or fight left in me on this, you know what you know, and I know what I know. It's good. Peace and good will to not afraid.
Back to Carrie, my 'if I had a brother maybe I wouldnt have turned out queer' comment was partially joking, partially not. I was close to my mom and my sister. I didn't have that same connection with my Dad, and wanted it, but my Dad was just so foreign to me- wrong word, but close, we didn't connect. But he's in his late 70s now and we get along well. I'm a better son now than I ever was. And he has his good points that I appreciate now. I just lacked male relatability (?) as a child and I'm sure I overstated that me having a brother would have made me less apt to want to find a meaningful male closeness that I lacked growing up.
Boy, this is all too much, I think I had better stick to the 'which demo was best' discussions in the Nicks and Rumours forums.
Thanks for letting me pass some time here!

iamnotafraid

02-22-2010, 04:22 AM

All I can say to notafraid, is that the word 'offender' is in there, right where I said, in Corinthians, in the 1986 Gideons International King James New Testament. If the word was left out of your Bible, there must have been a homophobe editor at work! Because, an 'amplified bible' which mine is not, may add passages, words, meditations, but for a word to be taken out, it's a shame.

(note the above is edited for comment)

I also have The Gideons International King James Version (1980 Edition).
And the words "homosexual offender" is not in the text.

And on your "there must have been a homophobe editor at work" says a lot.
I need not comment further.

jaycee

02-22-2010, 04:24 AM

you just blew my mind by bringing up i^2 = -1. i have thought about that every day since i learned about "i" in algebra 2 way back in 10th grade. i have no idea why, but it fascinates me. i should take more math classes or something. :laugh:

your point about the biological misfire is a good one. i haven't completely fleshed out my thoughts on the origins of homosexuality, but i definitely fall more on the "nature" side of nature vs. nurture.

I doubt your fascination with i^2 = -1 could outdo mine! :laugh: Or that of Roger Penrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose). He wrote a book, "The Road To Reality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality:_A_Complete_Guide_to_the_Laws_of_the_Universe), in which he spent a whole chapter detailing the intricacies of complex numbers and the amazing relationships they produce. It was one of the few chapters that I could understand! :laugh: I think I've read ~40% of the book (non-sequentially), and understood little of it, but it's certainly worth buying if you're interested in maths and physics. Even when you don't understand it it's still enjoyable enough to read - it gives an insight into the thinking of a true genius, if nothing else! And that alone is worth the purchase. :nod:
As for nature vs. nurture, the best way to understand it is to think of genes reacting, or "switching on or off", depending on the environment you're in. Of course heterosexuality is prevalent, so nature is more likely in this case... for fetishes I'd expect nurture, in the sense that I'd expect it takes the sight of the object of fascination to be shown before your genes for the fetish "switch on"...
That's about as far as my minimal knowledge of evolutionary biology will allow me to speculate! :D

Nikolaj

02-22-2010, 04:28 AM

Interesting. My 1986 version must be the corrected version, without the homophobe editor! I stand by that comment. If your 1980 version had been complete and correct, they would not have changed it for the later printing, it happens all the time, errors corrected in a later publishing!
Oh, and since you made a point of noting your copying and pasting, which we all do, I just say thanks for doing so in a way that was completely honest this time.

iamnotafraid

02-22-2010, 04:37 AM

The NASB (New Amercan Standard Bible)
also uses the words "nor homosexuals" in
1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9.

Nikolaj

02-22-2010, 04:49 AM

"nor homosexual offenders" is obviously the unedited, original passage or it would not have been put back in. The 'offenders' was left off, with the 's' at the end of 'offenders' put at the end of end of homosexual.
It's too bad, but again, I'm not disputing that it's written the way you say it is in your editions. I don't have a scanner, but I could maybe get to one, should proof be required. I don't lie, but you don't know that. I haven't even learned how to use the camera on my cellphone. Maybe I'll try to learn, but I don't feel the need to prove what is right in front of me, it's there as I typed it yesterday.

Fiver

02-22-2010, 05:52 AM

Nikolaj, the greek word that was translated to "homosexual offenders" in your version and "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV along with many other terms in other versions. Comes from the Greek word 'arsenokoitai' which is apparently a compound word that Paul made up.

"arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds"

A common theory is that Paul derived the word from the greek translation of the old testament. Specifically Leviticus 20:13:

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (Lev 20:13)

Translated in the KJV as: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The only other translation I have on-hand is the NIV:

'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Just because someone translated it as homosexual, doesn't mean they were homophobic. I may believe homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't make me a homophobe.

what i don't understand is why so many christians get hung up on homosexuality. there are countless sins that people commit every day, but it seems overall that christians are inordinately concerned about homosexuality and some go so far as to spread lies and demonize us in order to strip us of basic human dignity.
And I just wanna say, I agree with this completely, and it's sad. It's one of the reasons I'm not sure I wanna be a part of the Baptist denomination anymore, though I still agree with the main Baptist doctrines. My own immediate family never taught me to be this way; treating homosexuality as some far worse sin than our own, and setting anyone professing to be homosexual apart.

Maybe it's because I have an uncle who is an "out" homosexual, and we wanted him to know that while we didn't agree with it, we weren't going to condemn him in any way, and we still loved him. So from as young as I can remember, my parents taught me 'tolerance', if that's the right word. More like, what I consider decency to your fellow man or woman. It all made perfect sense to me as a kid.

greendaze5

02-22-2010, 10:15 AM

Though the Bible is actually mum about Jesus having a sexual life or desires in any sense (whether with Mary Magdalene or any of the Apostles for example), I still say good for Elton John for speaking out, and to Nikolaj for the thoughtful letter. I applaud how you’ve been able to come to terms with being both gay and Christian.

Religion, when you take out the negativity (the judging and finger pointing, the intolerance, the righteousness, etc.) can be a good and positive force in people’s lives, and it’s sad when folks who do find comfort in their faith have to reject it, because of the notion that you can’t be gay and devotedly religious at the same time. To me, it’s not God Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, or whatever name He/She/It goes by that’s rejecting you, but the all too human religious authority figures.

A few years ago, Sister Helen Prejean (the nun who wrote ‘Dead Man Walking’, and who was played by Susan Sarandon in the movie version) came to my university to give a talk. The presentation was about prisoners’ rights, but she went off topic a bit, and she asked the audience a question – if Jesus was on earth today, to whom might He particularly want to minister to? I think everybody expected her to say wrongly convicted prisoners, drug adducts, victims of war or domestic violence, abused kids, disadvantaged visible minorities etc., etc. Her answer, surprisingly enough was gay people.

Not in the sense that queer people are the biggest sinners around and needed salvation, but that they are terribly oppressed and discriminated against, so much that Jesus, in Sister Helen’s opinion, would particularly want to embrace and give comfort to.

I always thought that was cool coming from a nun, and from someone from a religious background (traditional Catholicism) which is not known for embracing homosexuality.

HejiraNYC

02-22-2010, 10:41 AM

Maybe it's because I have an uncle who is an "out" homosexual, and we wanted him to know that while we didn't agree with it, we weren't going to condemn him in any way, and we still loved him. So from as young as I can remember, my parents taught me 'tolerance', if that's the right word. More like, what I consider decency to your fellow man or woman. It all made perfect sense to me as a kid.

Cutting through the fog of religious indoctrination for a moment, don't you see something incredibly appalling and hurtful by what you just said? How would you feel if someone said, "Well, we think black people are abominations... but we'll hold our noses and accept you despite your dark skin color." How is this considered "tolerance?" Do you think human sexuality is something that can be simply turned on/off like a switch? You have a right to your own opinion (as shortsighted and ill-informed as it may be), but please have the decency to let your uncle live his life without the scorn of your family's judgment. Life is hard enough as it is- why do you have to perpetuate misery for others under the guise of religious dogma? I don't think Jesus would have approved.

jaycee

02-22-2010, 11:22 AM

Fiver

02-22-2010, 01:36 PM

Cutting through the fog of religious indoctrination for a moment, don't you see something incredibly appalling and hurtful by what you just said? How would you feel if someone said, "Well, we think black people are abominations... but we'll hold our noses and accept you despite your dark skin color." How is this considered "tolerance?" Do you think human sexuality is something that can be simply turned on/off like a switch? You have a right to your own opinion (as shortsighted and ill-informed as it may be), but please have the decency to let your uncle live his life without the scorn of your family's judgment. Life is hard enough as it is- why do you have to perpetuate misery for others under the guise of religious dogma? I don't think Jesus would have approved.

Woah, religious indoctrination, really? What I believe in is my choice. Sure I was raised Baptist, but it's not like I even agree absolutely with what they teach anymore (not that it'd be wrong if I did) and I came to these conclusions myself. My family doesn't force me to believe or adhere to anything.

As far as abominations are concerned:

Proverb 6:16-19 of the King James Version, states: “These six things doth the LORD hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”

The seven are all sins but at the same time, are abominations to God. Honestly, I'm guilty of a majority of those. So I'm also an abomination. All sin is an abomination to God.

Sorry if what I said came across as holier than thou.

"Well, we think black people are abominations... but we'll hold our noses and accept you despite your dark skin color."

Is that really what it sounded like? I don't feel that way at all. I don't believe I have a right to 'hold my nose up' at anything. :(

You have a right to your own opinion (as shortsighted and ill-informed as it may be), but please have the decency to let your uncle live his life without the scorn of your family's judgment.

And we don't pass judgement. I said I believe it's a sin, because I believe that's how God classifies it, in the Bible. But it's not like I go up to my uncle everyday and say. "Before I give you a hug, remember, I think homosexuality is a sin!" I don't bring it up, and we don't forbid him to talk about his life, including his partner or anything to do with his sexuality. Just like he 'tolerates' us mentioning church or anything related.

Hope that clears things up. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I don't think I am causing anyone, my uncle especially, pain or misery, and it's not my intent to.

HejiraNYC

02-22-2010, 03:03 PM

Is that really what it sounded like? I don't feel that way at all. I don't believe I have a right to 'hold my nose up' at anything. :(

I think it's one thing to tell someone that smoking is bad for you or that playing loud music in your headphones will make you go deaf. But here you are talking about a trait that is intrinsic to ones identity, not unlike skin color, gender, height, etc., as being tantamount to being a one-way ticket to hell. Since you consider homosexual acts an "abomination," what do you propose as the non-abominational alternative for your uncle? Should he live a lonely, loveless, unfulfilled life? Should he enter a loveless, unfulfilled marriage with a woman who is emotionally and physically neglected? Can he pray the gay away? How can your uncle become redeemed so that he is no longer an abomination in your eyes?

And we don't pass judgement. I said I believe it's a sin...

Sounds like passing judgment to me!

Hope that clears things up. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I don't think I am causing anyone, my uncle especially, pain or misery, and it's not my intent to.

I'm not saying that you are intentionally trying to inflict pain. What I am saying is that you apparently seem to be insensitive to the hurt caused by statements like that- whether expressed in jest privately or broadcast via the internet. How would you feel if your entire family expressed disappointment because you were born female when they were hoping for a son? What would that do to your self esteem and your relationships with your family members?

Fiver

02-22-2010, 03:21 PM

I think it's one thing to tell someone that smoking is bad for you or that playing loud music in your headphones will make you go deaf. But here you are talking about a trait that is intrinsic to ones identity, not unlike skin color, gender, height, etc., as being tantamount to being a one-way ticket to hell. Since you consider homosexual acts an "abomination," what do you propose as the non-abominational alternative for your uncle? Should he live a lonely, loveless, unfulfilled life? Should he enter a loveless, unfulfilled marriage with a woman who is emotionally and physically neglected? Can he pray the gay away? How can your uncle become redeemed so that he is no longer an abomination in your eyes?

Sounds like passing judgment to me!

I'm not saying that you are intentionally trying to inflict pain. What I am saying is that you apparently seem to be insensitive to the hurt caused by statements like that- whether expressed in jest privately or broadcast via the internet. How would you feel if your entire family expressed disappointment because you were born female when they were hoping for a son? What would that do to your self esteem and your relationships with your family members?

I think you are taking what I say way too far. How is it okay for you to express your opinions on the matter, but not me? Or back on the topic, Elton John for that matter? I think he has a right to say what he wishes, and I don't believe in censorship. Even if what he says offends me.

I don't know what causes homosexuality, no one does. If you are sincerely asking me what I think gays should do in order to live in line with what the Bible says, I think it's a personal choice what they do. Celibacy, maybe? I'm not saying that lightly. I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't know if it's nature or nurture. I have no clue. Like I said, I don't have all the answers.

I don't think that doing homosexual acts means you go to hell. I believe if you deny Jesus as your Saviour you go to hell. Go ahead and find that offensive as well, that's just my belief. I believe those verses I quoted illustrate that we are all sinners who need forgiveness, we all have our own sins, and while they may be different from our neighbour's, we are all equally guilty.

I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, but I say ALL sins are an abomination to God, therefore we will all go to hell if we don't accept Jesus.

I'm sorry I have offended you, but I was just adding my opinion to the discussion.

HejiraNYC

02-22-2010, 03:36 PM

I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, but I say ALL sins are an abomination to God, therefore we will all go to hell if we don't accept Jesus.

Fine, but human sexuality is intrinsic whereas all of those other "sins" are the result of voluntary actions.

But that's beside the point.

My original point was that you show insensitivity and inflict pain to people every time you express your "opinion" about homosexuality which, as you've acknowledged, is not a choice. If you can call something "wrong" but cannot really articulate what "right" would be, how does that really help anyone? Again, you're entitled to your opinions (which I hope, for your sake, will evolve), but please think before you express them.

Fiver

02-22-2010, 04:10 PM

Fine, but human sexuality is intrinsic whereas all of those other "sins" are the result of voluntary actions.

But that's beside the point.

I don't look at it that way. The act of gay sex is voluntary. The act of adultery is voluntary. You can't choose not have the thoughts or urges, but ya have the choice whether or not to act on them.

My original point was that you show insensitivity and inflict pain to people every time you express your "opinion" about homosexuality which, as you've acknowledged, is not a choice. If you can call something "wrong" but cannot really articulate what "right" would be, how does that really help anyone? Again, you're entitled to your opinions (which I hope, for your sake, will evolve), but please think before you express them.

The only 'right' I can tell ya is that I choose to follow the principles I find in the Bible, but I don't want to force that on anybody, it's my personal belief. According to the Bible, it is a sin to engage in homosexual intercourse, so I believe you should abstain from it.

I know it's hard to come across as genuine through a post on a message board, but I don't want to cause anyone pain. I'm not saying any of this flippantly. I just joined into the discussion to try and clear up what I considered to be misinformation about the bible. Maybe it wasn't wise of me to also give my opinion on homosexuality, so I want to apologize if I came across as insensitive. Hope you won't hold it against me. I don't think I 'know it all', and I do take into account what you're saying.

HejiraNYC

02-22-2010, 04:33 PM

I don't look at it that way. The act of gay sex is voluntary. The act of adultery is voluntary. You can't choose not have the thoughts or urges, but ya have the choice whether or not to act on them.

That's pretty offensive- comparing gay sex (between two single consenting adults) with adultery (which has all kinds of violative connotations to it). So it does sound like your advice for your gay uncle is to abstain from engaging in the human experience and to become an unfeeling, uninvolved drone for the rest of his life. It seems like a rather cold, uncaring, spiteful god that would force punishment on people with these "urges," as well as people who eat shellfish and pork and wear cotton blend fabrics. That's why Jesus, the white knight with the surfer dude hair and Birkenstocks came down to earth to set right some of those pesky Old Testament teachings. What was his lesson? Forgiveness. Compassion. Civility. Live and let live. Did he denounce homosexuality? Nope. Did he embrace the persecuted? You betcha. And who is openly persecuted in modern day society more than GLBT? And why don't his so-called followers heed his example?

Fiver

02-22-2010, 04:44 PM

That's pretty offensive- comparing gay sex (between two single consenting adults) with adultery (which has all kinds of violative connotations to it). So it does sound like your advice for your gay uncle is to abstain from engaging in the human experience and to become an unfeeling, uninvolved drone for the rest of his life. It seems like a rather cold, uncaring, spiteful god that would force punishment on people with these "urges," as well as people who eat shellfish and pork and wear cotton blend fabrics. That's why Jesus, the white knight with the surfer dude hair and Birkenstocks came down to earth to set right some of those pesky Old Testament teachings. What was his lesson? Forgiveness. Compassion. Civility. Live and let live. Did he denounce homosexuality? Nope. Did he embrace the persecuted? You betcha. And who is openly persecuted in modern day society more than GLBT? And why don't his so-called followers heed his example?

When I said adultery I meant, having an affair. I guess I'm un-aware of the other, violative connotations, but whatever they are, they aren't included. I didn't mean to compare the two, I should have said 'fornication', as in out-of-wedlock.

And I just want to point out that the statement in bold is not part of Jesus' teachings, it was part of the laws the Israelis had to follow to keep themselves clean, before Jesus offered salvation. Like you said, he did away with those old testament beliefs that were no longer necessary after his sacrificial death. But the old testament wasn't alone in naming homosexuality as a sin.

Lastly, I don't think I have any more to add, other than I don't persecute homosexuals, and don't believe in the persecution of anyone who has different beliefs than my own.

paleshadow

02-22-2010, 04:54 PM

tilthefirefades

02-22-2010, 05:05 PM

paleshadow

02-22-2010, 05:19 PM

This made me think of a quote that says something like "today's religion is tomorrows mythology" I read it one time but I can't remember who said it, or what it said exactly..

I like that a lot! Why do people consider Zeuss and the Greek Gods, or the stories in the Mabinogion to be nothing more than romantic fiction, but think God personally delivered the Bible? What's the difference? Can someone explain that?

LikeAWillow

02-22-2010, 06:01 PM

Fine, but human sexuality is intrinsic whereas all of those other "sins" are the result of voluntary actions.

But that's beside the point.
.

There's evidence that sadistic personality disorder has biological routes. Should a sadist be accepted for acting on their impulses?

I know your finger is hovering over the reply button right now.Take a deep breath before you jump right back up on that soapbox.

I'm not equating homosexuality with sadism. I think what I just said was complete bull****. If it's not, I'm Tom Bundy for the relations I've had with other women. It is a hole in your argument, though, and when you have the balls to ask a poster with a thought out, structured, and well-intentioned post to

think before you express [your opinions]

,especially when your own are little more than rhetoric, you hurt our cause more than you help it. Fiver is trying to have a discussion with you. Being militant in response degrades that discussion.

jaycee

02-22-2010, 08:15 PM

I don't think that doing homosexual acts means you go to hell. I believe if you deny Jesus as your Saviour you go to hell. Go ahead and find that offensive as well, that's just my belief. I believe those verses I quoted illustrate that we are all sinners who need forgiveness, we all have our own sins, and while they may be different from our neighbour's, we are all equally guilty.

There are so many things I could say about this, but perhaps I won't bother... I'll ask something else instead.
Do you try to be a nice person just so that you can get into heaven? Or, put another way, would you be a selfish/exploitative person if you thought your god didn't exist? Or do you think everyone needs a god to be morally accountable and responsible?
I know they're all pretty much the same question...

Fiver

02-22-2010, 08:32 PM

There are so many things I could say about this, but perhaps I won't bother... I'll ask something else instead.
Do you try to be a nice person just so that you can get into heaven? Or, put another way, would you be a selfish/exploitative person if you thought your god didn't exist? Or do you think everyone needs a god to be morally accountable and responsible?
I know they're all pretty much the same question...

No, I don't think you have to be a Christian to be a good, honest or moral person. And I don't believe in Salvation based on works.

jaycee

02-22-2010, 09:42 PM

No, I don't think you have to be a Christian to be a good, honest or moral person. And I don't believe in Salvation based on works.

Well, you're one-up on quite a few people! :)

HejiraNYC

02-22-2010, 10:49 PM

There's evidence that sadistic personality disorder has biological routes. Should a sadist be accepted for acting on their impulses?

I know your finger is hovering over the reply button right now.Take a deep breath before you jump right back up on that soapbox.

I'm not equating homosexuality with sadism. I think what I just said was complete bull****. If it's not, I'm Tom Bundy for the relations I've had with other women. It is a hole in your argument, though, and when you have the balls to ask a poster with a thought out, structured, and well-intentioned post to

,especially when your own are little more than rhetoric, you hurt our cause more than you help it. Fiver is trying to have a discussion with you. Being militant in response degrades that discussion.

Are you drunk? What the hell was that? Before you call someone out on their so-called "rhetoric," why don't you learn to write in something other than some incoherent non-sequiturs? Is this the by-product of growing up in the Facebook and Twitter generation? What is a hole in my argument?

Oh, and if you are trying to sound smart and insist on namedropping, why don't you at least get the name correct? It's Ted Bundy. :rolleyes:

iamnotafraid

02-23-2010, 01:12 AM

HejiraNYC,
Why all the name calling? Do you think she deserved that?
We all have different opinions, but name calling and putting
people down isn't that a little silly and mean?

HejiraNYC

02-23-2010, 07:05 AM

HejiraNYC,
Why all the name calling? Do you think she deserved that?
We all have different opinions, but name calling and putting
people down isn't that a little silly and mean?

Please re-read. I didn't call her any names.

Secondly, if someone is going to call me out, then he/she had better have something rational to say. I love to engage in a friendly debate, but if you come on with the sole intention of stirring up **** without adding anything meaningful to the discussion, then you'd better be prepared to get as good as you can give. What can I say? I don't turn the other cheek. Jesus would not be proud!

holidayroad

02-23-2010, 09:32 AM

I think that if Jesus appeared on Earth and declared that all men and women were created equally and as God intended them to be, many people would denounce him. I believe the Bible can be a convenient way to support ones repulsions to things they don't understand, or agree with.

I'm not attacking anyone, but I would like to ask those who take the Bible so literally why they do? Why is it that the bible is the moral gauge? It was written by a person, and translated many times. Why do you believe that the author of the bible had a hotline to God and wasn't just someone who had an opinion, and felt a need to explain what couldn't be explained at the time? If I wrote a list of things I thought were right and wrong, dug a hole and buried it, and someone dug it up thousands of years from now, could my ideas about morality become a template for the morals of a whole civilization?

Even though I don't agree with them,I live where the majority of people take the Bible Very seriously (in the 'bible belt'). I can tell you (with their own words) why they take it so literally, because they are honestly afraid that if they don't, they will go to hell. You can not have a valid conversation with these people about the Bible, because to them, even questioning the bible and its meaning is a sin. When I have ever mentioned that man wrote the Bible and that there have been numerous versions/changes over the years, they will only say things like 'You shouldn't question the Lord'.This book is the 'word of God' to them and you cannot convince them otherwise. (I am not saying all Christians are this way, I have met many Christians who were not like this.)

paleshadow

02-23-2010, 04:10 PM

Even though I don't agree with them,I live where the majority of people take the Bible Very seriously (in the 'bible belt'). I can tell you (with their own words) why they take it so literally, because they are honestly afraid that if they don't, they will go to hell. You can not have a valid conversation with these people about the Bible, because to them, even questioning the bible and its meaning is a sin. When I have ever mentioned that man wrote the Bible and that there have been numerous versions/changes over the years, they will only say things like 'You shouldn't question the Lord'.This book is the 'word of God' to them and you cannot convince them otherwise. (I am not saying all Christians are this way, I have met many Christians who were not like this.)

Thanks for the reply. It is funny how none of the people who seem to reference the bible here answered. I have asked some people in person why they feel that way, but it is hard to find someone that follows the bible who A. will not get offended, and B. who will not try to lecture me. I asked someone I work with last night about this, and he just stood for a long time looking off into space and then finally said "I don't know". I guess it's just about blind faith, which I think is fine if it makes you happy, and a better person in general, but not when it encourages discrimination, fear, and hatred.

markolas

02-23-2010, 04:37 PM

Oh lord, I can't believe I missed this thread. The title makes it sound so innocuous! :laugh:

Even if you don't believe in Hell, can you imagine not telling someone that they need to be saved or need to repent? Love is the reason that some Christians will try and lead you to Christ.

I cannot imagine pestering someone about something they've made clear that they are not and never will be interested in doing.

If someone kept badgering me about "accepting Christ" after I'd told them I will never change my religion, I wouldn't think twice about cutting them out of my life. I couldn't care less if somebody thinks homosexuality is a sin. But if you make it obvious by doing things like ignoring my relationship with my boyfriend, insisting that I introduce him as my "roommate" or some such nonsense, not including him in invitations, or generally making it known that you think we're "living in sin," then you're not going to be a part of my life. Your religious freedom ends where my nose begins. Or something like that.

bucklind17

02-23-2010, 07:43 PM

It always boggles my mind a bit why so many are so concerned about this when it doesn't personally affect them. You (and that's a general you) care enough about their souls to remind them that they are sinning and will go to hell because of their actions, but you don't care enough about them as human beings to accept them as they are and let them live their lives their way. One might believe homosexuality to be a sin and all homosexuals will go to hell, but who does it help to remind those who don't believe any such thing that it is your belief? What makes one person's personal belief or interpretation to be more important than the belief of the person in question?

jaycee

02-23-2010, 09:25 PM

Thanks for the reply. It is funny how none of the people who seem to reference the bible here answered. I have asked some people in person why they feel that way, but it is hard to find someone that follows the bible who A. will not get offended, and B. who will not try to lecture me. I asked someone I work with last night about this, and he just stood for a long time looking off into space and then finally said "I don't know". I guess it's just about blind faith, which I think is fine if it makes you happy, and a better person in general, but not when it encourages discrimination, fear, and hatred.

Hmm... the only thing is several believers sincerely believe, for example, homosexuals are going to hell. So what they're in fact trying to do is help them, while the rest of society tells them not to help. (At least, I think that's probably the way many Christians feel about it...) So they don't really see it as discrimination in the same way as, for example, racism.
In any case, good beliefs are merely a shortcut to a rationally desirable outcome, like the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as they do unto you," or usually even better, "Treat others as you would like to be treated"), while bad beliefs... well, there's plenty of them, so I won't labour the point... anyway, as with any shortcut, people can tend to miss things - many anti-abortionists, proclaiming the sacredness of human life, don't spare a moment's thought on animal welfare. And often it's not because they haven't considered it, but because they think humans are much more intrinsically important - we're made in God's image, after all! :laugh:
Ultimately, I don't think anyone should justify any of their actions/behaviours/ethics according to simple, irrational beliefs. If you want to practice those sorts of things in your private time, that's okay - just don't let it deeply affect other aspects of your life.

Zombie

02-24-2010, 10:49 PM

Been sitting with this stuff for a couple days now so I could formulate my reply properly. Let's see how it goes...

I don't look at it that way. The act of gay sex is voluntary. The act of adultery is voluntary. You can't choose not have the thoughts or urges, but ya have the choice whether or not to act on them.

Any sex act is voluntary, both heterosexual acts AND homosexual acts - excluding rape, which is, by definition, y'know...involuntary.

If you can't choose what sexual thoughts and urges you have, that goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, yes? Then why is it only okay for heterosexuals to act on those thoughts and urges they were born with?

That's basically calling a large section of the population broken. "Sure, you were born thinking this way, but - and I'm not judging here, it's just the way it is, I'm real sorry - it actually turns out that it's bad wrong to be this way, so you can't have a normal, fulfilling love life with a partner of your choosing, unlike us lucky heterosexual folks that happened to be born with the "right stuff." Sorry 'bout that. But you can think about it all you want!"

Why in the world would a loving god create a large section of the population to be broken if he thought homosexual sex was such a bad thing? Why would he condemn these people to a life empty of the love, compassion and human connection with someone they are attracted to and connect to just as the heterosexuals are "allowed" to do, on pain of eternal damnation?

Or, perhaps more importantly, why on earth would you want a god like that?

That's pretty offensive- comparing gay sex (between two single consenting adults) with adultery (which has all kinds of violative connotations to it).

I found it offensive for entirely different reasons - adultery is easily avoided. Don't cheat on your wife/husband. If you want to get laid, you can always just go bang your spouse, and be abomination-free. That's easy.

Gay people, however, don't have that choice, according to this logic - they don't have the option of being able to have sex with someone they are actually attracted to without not passing go and heading straight to the Bad Place.

I think that's terrible.

There's evidence that sadistic personality disorder has biological routes. Should a sadist be accepted for acting on their impulses?

I know your finger is hovering over the reply button right now.Take a deep breath before you jump right back up on that soapbox.

I'm not equating homosexuality with sadism. I think what I just said was complete bull****. If it's not, I'm Tom Bundy for the relations I've had with other women. It is a hole in your argument, though, and when you have the balls to ask a poster with a thought out, structured, and well-intentioned post to

,especially when your own are little more than rhetoric, you hurt our cause more than you help it. Fiver is trying to have a discussion with you. Being militant in response degrades that discussion.

I may be reading everyone's replies wrong, but I don't think that your equating a person with "sadistic personality disorder" (which isn't actually a real clinical disorder, as far as I know) acting on those sadistic impulses with homosexuals acting on their "impulses" is actually a good way to try to point out a perceived hole in the argument.

Mind you, I am not defending or agreeing with anyone in this particular area of this thread (other than I do agree that less militant is usually good all around, in any discussion) - I just don't think that analogy is intellectually honest.

Sadism, by nature, hurts people. We stop violent sociopaths and psychopaths from acting on their harmful impulses because they are harmful impulses. They hurt people - of course they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. It's like trying to compare apples to 747s.

carrie721

02-25-2010, 03:13 AM

It's like trying to compare apples to 747s.

-both are delicious dipped in peanut butter
-apples can fly for a little bit if you throw them real hard.

point, set, match.

Fiver

02-25-2010, 03:19 AM

Hey Zombie, I've been thinking about this for the past few days as well. I've realized finally what HejiraNYC was trying to get across.

My statements weren't helpful to the conversation. I don't think the original poster was looking for an outside opinion on what he stated. If he was he would've asked, or gone to a church with similiar beliefs to my own and asked someone there. It really wasn't my place to bring up my view on the matter, and for that I wanna apologize again.

Like I said before, I initially just wanted to post to clear up things said about the Bible that I thought were inaccurate, but I went too far.

If this was a topic called say, "The Bible and Homosexuality" it would've been okay, but I do regret what I said, cause I feel it was out of turn. I know in most threads we meander and end up on totally different subjects, but seeing as how Nikolaj was looking for support, and that this is such a serious matter, I think this is different. As the saying goes, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I really do feel regret for any hurt feelings I caused, and think I made a mistake.

If you want to continue just for discussion's sake, and I don't mean this as a challenge or anything, then I'd rather do it through PMs.

The only thing I will respond to here is this

Gay people, however, don't have that choice, according to this logic - they don't have the option of being able to have sex with someone they are actually attracted to without not passing go and heading straight to the Bad Place.

I don't believe a person goes to Hell because they've had homosexual intercourse. It's like... if I lie once, I'm a liar. But if I ask God to forgive that sin, I'm not guilty of it anymore. That's what I believe the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is saying

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

because the very next verse says:

"And 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."

I know this is bringing up the issue again, but that's a very important statement to me, as I don't believe people who are gay go to Hell for being gay. As I said before, I only believe that those who don't accept Jesus' sacrifice will go to Hell. And once again, it's just a belief of mine, and I don't want to push it on anyone here, it's a personal choice to believe it or not.

T8rBoi

02-25-2010, 05:35 AM

I don't believe a person goes to Hell because they've had homosexual intercourse. It's like... if I lie once, I'm a liar. But if I ask God to forgive that sin, I'm not guilty of it anymore. That's what I believe the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is saying

And now gays are like liars. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I know you are gonna come back and say that isn't what you meant, but why does everyone keep making their points by comparing gays to adulterers or liars or sadists.

But the real point here is that you interpret the bible to say homosexual acts are sins. (just like the adulterers, people who wear mixed fabric clothes or men who shave - let's not just cherry pick our biblical sins, lets get them all out there)

Gays who act on their sexual impulses and desires are Sinners in your eyes. Unless they accept and get the forgiveness of YOUR god, they will be going to a place of unspeakable horrors for eternity.

I got that right, correct?

and I reiterate the point someone made above, how can you not let gays get married and then call their "out-of-wedlock" sex a sin?

jaycee

02-25-2010, 05:49 AM

I don't believe a person goes to Hell because they've had homosexual intercourse. It's like... if I lie once, I'm a liar. But if I ask God to forgive that sin, I'm not guilty of it anymore.

Excellent! That's means that we can do pretty much anything we like (except mortal sins), ask your god for forgiveness, and be forgiven! No harm done! That's the best morality I've ever heard of! Accountability to an imaginary friend is much better than the secular Golden Rule, or any form of accountability in which we're not accountable to each other! :rolleyes:
Joking aside, the thought that homosexuality is a sin in need of forgiveness is absolutely appalling. :distress: The thought that a person needs to ask your god for forgiveness for such an intrinsic quality as sexuality is disgusting. Actually, I think a quote from Richard Dawkins is suitable here:
"ANDREW DENTON: What's your moral code?
RICHARD DAWKINS: I suppose it's a version of the Golden Rule, don't do unto others what you wouldn't wish them to do to you. I do feel intense vicarious sadness when I encounter sadness in others. It doesn't have to be in my own species, I mean it could be of another species as well. My moral code is definitely nothing to do with the sort of busy-bodyish religious moral code that cares about what people do in private. What they do with their sex organs and things like that, seems to me to be an utterly private matter, nothing to do with morals. I despise that kind of alleged morality, deeply despise it."
(From http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/transcripts/s2757522.htm)
As usual, I couldn't have said it better myself! :)
But who am I to talk? I'm only an unbeliever that's going to go to hell when I die anyway...

David

02-25-2010, 12:09 PM

LiamMcConville

02-25-2010, 01:23 PM

Please re-read. I didn't call her any names.

Secondly, if someone is going to call me out, then he/she had better have something rational to say. I love to engage in a friendly debate, but if you come on with the sole intention of stirring up **** without adding anything meaningful to the discussion, then you'd better be prepared to get as good as you can give. What can I say? I don't turn the other cheek. Jesus would not be proud!

Why should any one grace you with a rational response when you've been posting nothing but irrational/extremist blabber?

Every post you've made in this thread has been equally judgmental & intolerant as the Christians you've accused throughout.

:shrug:

My original point was that you show insensitivity and inflict pain to people every time you express your "opinion" about homosexuality which, as you've acknowledged, is not a choice. If you can call something "wrong" but cannot really articulate what "right" would be, how does that really help anyone? Again, you're entitled to your opinions (which I hope, for your sake, will evolve), but please think before you express them.

What a joke. "I'm being a crybaby bitch because Christian's don't accept my sexual orientation, but I'm going to be equally intolerant and insensitive to their lifestyles. That will teach them! Ha!"

:rolleyes:

skcin

02-25-2010, 01:58 PM

I must say, I'm actually pretty impressed that this thread is still open. :laugh:

I don't have much to add to the discussion itself, except that you can believe something will happen (ie - all gays will go to hell) but that doesn't mean it WILL happen. it's NOT fact. it's belief. it's opinion. You can believe what you want, but others will probably disagree & that doesn't mean they are wrong.

I have noticed, Ed, that you've ended most of your posts with something like (this is NOT a direct quote) 'you have a right to your opinion, no matter how ignorant it is...' or something similar. Way to throw in YOUR judgement of others when bitching about them judging you. Haven't seen any of the "jesusy" people here say "you can do whatever you want, not matter how ignorant and disgusting and sick and horrific it is..." :shrug: Implying someone is less intelligent than you are soley becuase you disagree with what they believe is kind of f*cked up.

-both are delicious dipped in peanut butter
-apples can fly for a little bit if you throw them real hard.

point, set, match.

Always the voice of reason.

carrie721

02-25-2010, 04:19 PM

It doesn't make sense to me either. Imagine someone who devotes their life to good, does great things, affects positive change in the world, shows people incredible kindness and through it all shows great humility, yet because they have "laid with men" and not repented for that one thing, they would be turned away from heaven? Crazy. If people are to be judged surely it should be on how they have treated others and not who they have loved? (Not that I think it's a sin anyway).

yeah, i don't understand why god would care. if there were a god, i would think he'd just want us to be good to each other.

Why should any one grace you with a rational response when you've been posting nothing but irrational/extremist blabber?

Every post you've made in this thread has been equally judgmental & intolerant as the Christians you've accused throughout.

:shrug:

this is exactly why i've pretty much left the "gay community."

"i hate them because they hate us" is silly. i see the same kind of irrational groupthink in the gay community that they accuse the right wing/christians of exhibiting, except in the gay community it's laced with the acerbity of the so-called downtrodden. i left the church to get away from that sort of thing, not so i could running into the arms of another group that behaved the same way. it's not different or better if you're "right," it's the same old bullsh*t and it's plain ol' hypocrisy.

re my "so-called downtrodden" comment: of course i think gays get the short end of the stick in society. i'm not saying we should settle for that. but when you take on the mantle of victim and relish in it as so many have, that's when i have to step out of the ring.

Always the voice of reason.

well, i'm pretty smart n junk.

jaycee

02-26-2010, 10:33 AM

this is exactly why i've pretty much left the "gay community."

"i hate them because they hate us" is silly. i see the same kind of irrational groupthink in the gay community that they accuse the right wing/christians of exhibiting, except in the gay community it's laced with the acerbity of the so-called downtrodden. i left the church to get away from that sort of thing, not so i could running into the arms of another group that behaved the same way. it's not different or better if you're "right," it's the same old bullsh*t and it's plain ol' hypocrisy.

re my "so-called downtrodden" comment: of course i think gays get the short end of the stick in society. i'm not saying we should settle for that. but when you take on the mantle of victim and relish in it as so many have, that's when i have to step out of the ring.

Ooh, this is interesting! :) It's something I mull over (or related versions of it) quite a bit, and still haven't finalised an answer for myself! (See mum, I am unsure of myself occasionally! :laugh:)
On the one hand I can empathise (I won't bother explaining why here) with the frustration oppressed communities have to endure, and I can appreciate why so many get vocal and passionate about it all. On the other hand, it can get to a point where you do indeed appear to be just as bad as the oppressors, which doesn't win much in the way of support. But then if noise isn't made to attract attention, no progress is made because the community is ignored.
At the moment I'd tentatively agree with what Lennon said (http://www.bestofyoutube.com/story.php?title=youtube---i-met-the-walrus) about violence begetting violence, with peace/love being the only way forward. That said, my rationalism can often come across as aggressive, probably because I like to either have someone tell me why I'm wrong or agree with me, while I often get (at least with some people) a kind of "agree to disagree"/"we'll each believe what we want to" response about things, which I simply can't stand - I hate any form of stagnation, to be honest! I really don't care whether I'm right or wrong about things at any given moment, so long as I'm striving to be right about everything. I mean, if you took all the things I argue passionately about, I'd consider them each to have about a 95%-99% chance of being right, but because I argue passionately about a lot of things, I'd say there's very little chance that I'm right about everything I argue passionately about! :laugh:
By way of example, about... let's see, perhaps eight months ago, I ardently argued for scientific realism - I'd take on any anti-realist! Then I gathered more evidence and logic arguments, and I'm now an ardent scientific anti-realist! :laugh: A rather opposite viewpoint, to be sure!
Basically, all I'm saying is that I don't like the notion of holding personal beliefs that are held in the face of rational argument or evidence. So while I often appear very stubborn, I'm ultimately pretty flexible underneath! :) My "core belief" set is pretty minimal (e.g. physicalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism), with a lot of Occam's Razor employed! I try to get by with as few unprovable beliefs as I can!
What also usually doesn't help the appearance of my apparent stubbornness is that I don't like to argue about things I'm unsure of - I just listen to what people have to say, and slowly come to a well-defined, but in principle tentative, position.
Yet another rant from me! :laugh: I hope the only people that read them can enjoy them, or at least find them informative! :)
PS. carrie721's absolutely right when she says that no-one should relish in being a victim - how can progress be made when you enjoy being victimised?! :laugh:

EDIT: Wow! I didn't realise I had such a great capacity for irrelevance and stupidity! :rolleyes: This must be one of my best efforts at that!
I'd delete this post out of embarrassment, except I think it's probably better to admit to my occasional stupidity rather than cover it up...

LiamMcConville

02-26-2010, 02:58 PM

PS. carrie721's absolutely right when she says that no-one should relish in being a victim - how can progress be made when you enjoy being victimised?! :laugh:

Relevent to discussion.

Ooh, this is interesting! :) It's something I mull over (or related versions of it) quite a bit, and still haven't finalised an answer for myself! (See mum, I am unsure of myself occasionally! :laugh:)
On the one hand I can empathise (I won't bother explaining why here) with the frustration oppressed communities have to endure, and I can appreciate why so many get vocal and passionate about it all. On the other hand, it can get to a point where you do indeed appear to be just as bad as the oppressors, which doesn't win much in the way of support. But then if noise isn't made to attract attention, no progress is made because the community is ignored.
At the moment I'd tentatively agree with what Lennon said (http://www.bestofyoutube.com/story.php?title=youtube---i-met-the-walrus) about violence begetting violence, with peace/love being the only way forward. That said, my rationalism can often come across as aggressive, probably because I like to either have someone tell me why I'm wrong or agree with me, while I often get (at least with some people) a kind of "agree to disagree"/"we'll each believe what we want to" response about things, which I simply can't stand - I hate any form of stagnation, to be honest! I really don't care whether I'm right or wrong about things at any given moment, so long as I'm striving to be right about everything. I mean, if you took all the things I argue passionately about, I'd consider them each to have about a 95%-99% chance of being right, but because I argue passionately about a lot of things, I'd say there's very little chance that I'm right about everything I argue passionately about! :laugh:
By way of example, about... let's see, perhaps eight months ago, I ardently argued for scientific realism - I'd take on any anti-realist! Then I gathered more evidence and logic arguments, and I'm now an ardent scientific anti-realist! :laugh: A rather opposite viewpoint, to be sure!
Basically, all I'm saying is that I don't like the notion of holding personal beliefs that are held in the face of rational argument or evidence. So while I often appear very stubborn, I'm ultimately pretty flexible underneath! :) My "core belief" set is pretty minimal (e.g. physicalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism), with a lot of Occam's Razor employed! I try to get by with as few unprovable beliefs as I can!
What also usually doesn't help the appearance of my apparent stubbornness is that I don't like to argue about things I'm unsure of - I just listen to what people have to say, and slowly come to a well-defined, but in principle tentative, position.
Yet another rant from me! :laugh: I hope the only people that read them can enjoy them, or at least find them informative! :)

Irrelevent to discussion.

Nikolaj

02-26-2010, 03:21 PM

how can progress be made when you enjoy being victimised?
(concluded someone!)

I bet it can't be! Can it? And enjoying being victimized? Nah, that'd be wacky. Wouldn't it?
(I was feeling an expert on 'wacky' for starting this thread to begin with, and actually unplugged my laptop for 3 days!) I felt embarrassed and dumb to have started this thread, but I'm glad to have had so many incredible comments to read that mostly elevated it all.
I've said it before and don't mean it to sound kiss a** -- but man, there are some real literary talents here on The Ledge, really.
Hello to gldstwmn, wherever she may be. She was the first Ledge writer to really captivate me and keep me coming back, to discover other excellent writers here regularly. The Ledge is really something, isn't it?*
*Okay, that sounds kiss a** for sure. Stop typing, now

Zombie

02-26-2010, 06:36 PM

-both are delicious dipped in peanut butter
-apples can fly for a little bit if you throw them real hard.

point, set, match.

Aw shizz, you done got me there. That's it, everyone. The Internet is over! You ain't got to go home, but you got to get the hell out of here!

Hey Zombie, I've been thinking about this for the past few days as well. I've realized finally what HejiraNYC was trying to get across.

I snipped your reply for screen-saving's sake. I'm not upset with you or anything, and I think it takes a big person to own up to making a misstep or mistake, but we've all got to stop trying to compare sexual orientation to things like lying and adultery. As carrie pointed out, I can't say it's like comparing apples to 747s, as those are too similar after all, but they just don't belong in the same category regardless.

We would never compare engaging in hetereosexual activity to lying - something we shouldn't do because it has the potential to hurt other people or ourselves. As with heterosexual activity, as long as it is consensual, between partners that want to be there and are enjoying what's going on, homosexual activity doesn't hurt anyone like that.

Why should someone have to seek forgiveness for doing something that hasn't hurt anyone, that hasn't done anyone any wrong, including themselves? What's the point?

As for the "as long as I say I'm sorry, it's all better" portion of this, it may just be because I was dragged up quite Catholic, but I'm going to point to Canon 14 of the Council of Trent:

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

I know that if you are Protestant, you are going most likely going to take issue with that - I know that most Protestants are all about the sola fide - but even being the godless heathen I myself am, I try to make sure I walk the walk, because I do not think it is enough to just talk the talk (not that I talk that particular sin/abomination/hell/whatever talk to begin with).

It doesn't make sense to me either. Imagine someone who devotes their life to good, does great things, affects positive change in the world, shows people incredible kindness and through it all shows great humility, yet because they have "laid with men" and not repented for that one thing, they would be turned away from heaven? Crazy. If people are to be judged surely it should be on how they have treated others and not who they have loved? (Not that I think it's a sin anyway).

That's why I can't get behind religion - I mean, that, and the whole lack of belief in a deity thing, y'know. I don't need a book or other group of people to tell me what is and isn't the right thing to do. My own moral compass works just fine, and while I stumble from time to time, I genuinely try to be a good person. But that doesn't matter to a lot of people - they think I'm going to hell anyway.

Normative Judaism highly prizes the person who does good deeds, but nonetheless considers homosexual acts a sin. The concept of sin, however, has a vastly different resonance in Judaism--sin requires repentance, true, but even unrepented sin doesn't lead to damnation. The idea of damnation, in fact, is alien to normative Judaism. Eternal punishment is a Christian tenet, not a Jewish one.

I bring this up also to raise a question: Earlier someone said that Christianity doesn't accept homosexuality because of the fear of hell, & yet Judaism, with no fear of hell, also doesn't approve of homosexuality--or, more accurately, homosexual acts.

Does anyone know how other major religions view this?

I know that Islam definitely thinks it damns you, and quite often thinks it means you should be put to death so you can get to the damning part faster, though there is a small minority of Muslim people that believe the Q'ran doesn't actually disallow for it.

For the Hindus, it depends on who you talk to. The Hindu Council in the UK says Hinduism does not codemn homosexuality, and, for example, there is a long tradition of the "third sex" in Indian culture, since the time of the Vedas. Many sects have intersexed deities, as well.

Buddhism is a different animal. Buddhism doesn't talk about acceptable sexual activity in its Pali scriptures, but Numbah 3 of the Five Precepts says you should refrain from sexual misconduct - that's not referring to any specific activity, though, so the views any particular Buddhist has on homosexuality will usually stem from cultural influence, hence the Dalai Lama's rather outspoken previous condemnations of it.

...I read a lot.

Fiver

02-26-2010, 11:17 PM

I see what everyone is saying about comparing gays to liars and adulterers, but my intention wasn't to compare them, it was just to illustrate my point without singling out homosexuality as a sin.

So a better way to put it would've been; I commit *insert any sin here*, and I am a sinner. I actually don't know why I didn't do that in the first place. I just didn't wanna seem like I was setting myself apart from a person who happens to be gay, but it came across wrong. :sorry:

I know that if you are Protestant, you are going most likely going to take issue with that - I know that most Protestants are all about the sola fide - but even being the godless heathen I myself am, I try to make sure I walk the walk, because I do not think it is enough to just talk the talk (not that I talk that particular sin/abomination/hell/whatever talk to begin with).

I see what you're saying, but I think I'm just bad at making my point, and I also don't exactly disagree with you. I was raised in an organized religion myself, and for me it tends to make me take for granted that people already understand my specific religion's doctrine on things. I realize that's crazy, seeing as how many different belief systems there are out there stemming from the Bible alone.

So to clear up what I was trying to say about sins, and asking forgiveness...

It's not like a free pass on sin. What I meant, but didn't really explain, was that you can ask for forgiveness for anything you've done (1John 1:9), but it's necessary to be truly repentant (true remorse for your actions and the intent to avoid sinning again) to receive that forgiveness. If you sin with the attitude, "Oh, well, I can just ask for forgiveness later." that's not real repentance. (Hebrew 10:26)

to me this:

As for the "as long as I say I'm sorry, it's all better" portion of this, it may just be because I was dragged up quite Catholic, but I'm going to point to Canon 14 of the Council of Trent:

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

sounds like a take on 1 John 1:8-10

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

To me, to 'confess your sins' means to acknowledge that you have sinned, to agree with God that you have done wrong, and not act as if you are justified in what you've done.

Also, I'll point out again, since some have taken offense at my previous post saying you have to accept Jesus as your Saviour to go to Heaven. This is my PERSONAL BELIEF. I hold faith in these things. It's not that I think you're an idiot if you don't, or that me simply stating these things means you should all immediately convert, so please don't get upset. Freedom, religious or otherwise, to express what you believe is a wonderful thing.

Zombie

02-27-2010, 03:03 AM