Originally Posted by Murmayder
Obama thinks it's cool, Christianity did not invent the concept of religion, the denial of gay rights is a denial of human rights and thus is oppressive.
Christians are immoral people. To draw a simple parallel; would you say criminals are effectively immoral people, since they break the social conventions of society? I would say so. Most states do not allow criminals to vote (approx 2.5% of the voting population are disallowed because of their convictions), so why should Christians be allowed to vote?
Why am I even arguing that Christians should not be allowed to vote? Because it displays something very interesting; many people consider Christians to be as morally corrupt as criminals - if not more so! (for example, Hitler was a Christian, and he attributed his genocide of the Jewish people to be due to his interpretation of Christianity. While most Christians won't go that far, they do still hate homosexuals, women, science, and based on the odds, they probably hate you too!).
In other words, Christians have irrational hate for most people. But even if they do hate all things maybe they have good reason to, right? Well actually, that isn't how the brain works. You see, most Christians have been indoctrinated from a young age, or even if they have been later in life, it has been the result of much brain-washing. One of the core tenants of Christianity is to simply accept the beliefs of those above you without question (be it God, Jesus, the Pope, or the local boy-loving pastor). A human brain can easily assimilate an opinion, however if someone asks the owner of said brain to explain why they hold that belief, they will not answer "no particular reason", they will instead try to justify it - but since they are merely mimicking the opinions of those above them, they don't know the reasoning! This is "reverse chaining", working backwards from the conclusion to derive the hypothesis. Of course, this leads to ridiculous logic - "adam and eve, not adam and steve", "marriage is sacred", "it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man". Of course, if you "forward chain" (use the evidence to derive conclusions) then you can come to other conclusions - "incest is the way of God!", "divorce is far worse than gay marriage!", "selling your daughters as slaves is a great way to make income!". Of course, even for these ridiculous conclusions there are people who believe them too! (Ok, there probably aren't many people who sell their daughters as slaves in the west!)
To sum up, do we even need to respond to the arguments of brain-washed zombies (ironicly, I am using 'zombie' with a different meaning to the meaning that describes their savior Jesus) who don't even understand their own opinions?
| RayA75's Moderated Message: |
| Ok :( |
Last edited by Ray; May 19, 2012 at 03:56 PM.
I'll take this as an opportunity to clarify somethings I'd like to have a better idea on.
From what I can remember, the Bible only mentions homosexual relationships in the form of the Sodomites. Yet sodomy and homosexuality are entirely different things. So I'm wondering two things. One, is homosexuality actually outright mentioned in the Bible, rather than sodomy? Two, am I taking a modern interpretation of the definition of sodomy, and that sodomy and homosexuality were synonymous at the time of the Bible's writing?
From what I know, I've only seen the religious argument, at least from the Christian side, seem to hold little foundation with fundamental scripture and more so with personal ideology on morality. I'm just trying to see if my knowledge is incomplete in some way, or if my reasoning is justified.
From what I can remember, the Bible only mentions homosexual relationships in the form of the Sodomites. Yet sodomy and homosexuality are entirely different things. So I'm wondering two things. One, is homosexuality actually outright mentioned in the Bible, rather than sodomy? Two, am I taking a modern interpretation of the definition of sodomy, and that sodomy and homosexuality were synonymous at the time of the Bible's writing?
From what I know, I've only seen the religious argument, at least from the Christian side, seem to hold little foundation with fundamental scripture and more so with personal ideology on morality. I'm just trying to see if my knowledge is incomplete in some way, or if my reasoning is justified.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle;5499792
[QUOTE
[QUOTE
From what I can remember, the Bible only mentions homosexual relationships in the form of the Sodomites.
Even in apologetics, this is an unsure point. Debates go on about whether the sin of the Sodomites were that for hedonism, rape, or simply they were inhospitable to guests who turned out to be angels (this would be due to a recent war).
Source.
Also, there is a scripture verse in Corinthians that mentions homosexuality.
"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."
I shall address this later.
Yet sodomy and homosexuality are entirely different things. So I'm wondering two things. One, is homosexuality actually outright mentioned in the Bible, rather than sodomy?
I believe that sodomy is only mentioned in the Old Testament, while the only reference to homosexuality in the New Testament is above.
Two, am I taking a modern interpretation of the definition of sodomy, and that sodomy and homosexuality were synonymous at the time of the Bible's writing?
It is possible, but still the debate rages on about Sodom's sin.
From what I know, I've only seen the religious argument, at least from the Christian side, seem to hold little foundation with fundamental scripture and more so with personal ideology on morality. I'm just trying to see if my knowledge is incomplete in some way, or if my reasoning is justified.
I don't really think you made a point. Proper theses are hard to come by nowadays, but I will present mine right now:
The argument concerning Christianity's position on homosexuality is as follows:
Homosexuality is a temptation along the lines of hedonism, that it only exists for pleasure, as we interpret it in the Bible. This makes homosexuality immoral, and no government should condone it.
My argument is as follows:
Modern sexuality has a very different dimension to it than marriages in the Bible's time, it is romantic. Nowadays, we marry because we love each other. We also have reason to believe that homosexuality is genetic and natural, and that a man and another man or a woman and another woman can actually legitimately love each other and devote themselves to one another; just like heterosexual relationships and marriages. This means that we cannot make over-arching laws condemning homosexuality just because some may be simply hedonistic, just as it can be with heterosexuality.
Now, let's consider that verse from Corinthians: "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."
I use hedonism a lot in this post and my other ones. If you haven't googled it yet, I'll define it here.
Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).
So what Paul of Tarsus lays out and condemns in the passage is not homosexuality or fornication, but hedonism. Hedonism was rampant in ancient Rome and Corinth, and that was what Paul was addressing.
Had Paul known that two people of the same gender can fall in love, devote themselves to one another, raise children, and be properly functioning members of society, do you really think he would have condemned it?
I certainly don't.
And does this mean that the Bible is wrong?
No. Hedonism is still immoral and an imbalanced life style. The Bible is not wrong about that; and that is all the Bible addresses.
The Bible just does not apply to modern homosexuality or sexuality in general.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
The following is the most commonly quoted passage on the subject of homosexuality;
Source
Modern Christians interpret this to mean anything from "all gays must die" to "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry".
However much of the old testament is subverted by Jesus, for example the story of Jesus and the adulterer. Since the old testament is all about killing people for arbitrary reasons, and the new testament is mostly about being nice to other people (there is still some stuff about arbitrary murder of course!), so Christians have a tendency to pick and choose, ignoring or acknowledging in a sort of "divine confirmation bias".
EDIT: By the way, the word "sodomy" was coined after the bible was written. It's not like they said "Oh look at Sodom, all the Sodomites are doing so much sodomy!".
Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13
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.
Source
Modern Christians interpret this to mean anything from "all gays must die" to "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry".
However much of the old testament is subverted by Jesus, for example the story of Jesus and the adulterer. Since the old testament is all about killing people for arbitrary reasons, and the new testament is mostly about being nice to other people (there is still some stuff about arbitrary murder of course!), so Christians have a tendency to pick and choose, ignoring or acknowledging in a sort of "divine confirmation bias".
EDIT: By the way, the word "sodomy" was coined after the bible was written. It's not like they said "Oh look at Sodom, all the Sodomites are doing so much sodomy!".
Last edited by ImmortalCow; May 20, 2012 at 04:50 AM.
Gorman: Since people will probably actually think you're making points, I'm going to go ahead and reply.
Basically, yes. Unfortunately, they would be out of context and incorrect.
Jesus subverts the Old Testament because he was breaking down cultural divides. He was setting down a moral rule set based on love and happiness. This will make more sense in a little bit when I address what the Old Testament is.
The Old Testament was about killing people for arbitrary reasons because it was meant to be a strict cultural divide. The Jews were being set apart from all other people in their time who accepted such practices and were lenient to them.
Where is that again?
Where is this term defined? Certainly not here.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
The following is the most commonly quoted passage on the subject of homosexuality;
Source
Modern Christians interpret this to mean anything from "all gays must die" to "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry".
Basically, yes. Unfortunately, they would be out of context and incorrect.
However much of the old testament is subverted by Jesus, for example the story of Jesus and the adulterer.
Jesus subverts the Old Testament because he was breaking down cultural divides. He was setting down a moral rule set based on love and happiness. This will make more sense in a little bit when I address what the Old Testament is.
Since the old testament is all about killing people for arbitrary reasons,
The Old Testament was about killing people for arbitrary reasons because it was meant to be a strict cultural divide. The Jews were being set apart from all other people in their time who accepted such practices and were lenient to them.
and the new testament is mostly about being nice to other people (there is still some stuff about arbitrary murder of course!),
Where is that again?
so Christians have a tendency to pick and choose, ignoring or acknowledging in a sort of "divine confirmation bias".
Where is this term defined? Certainly not here.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
), they should have the right to. 
