Then I sure hope you've never eaten a rare steak or worn mixed fibers or eaten a grape that fell on the ground, or gossiped. Or, for that matter, slandered, (which your anti-gay attitude is), because if you happen to bother to read the verses in direct conjunction with the verses prohibiting gayness, you'd see there's a whole lot of other things mentioned there. learn how to read the bible in context.
shareOr just learn how to treat other human beings. I definitely don't believe in god, nor do I really like humans in general, but I really liked this film for all of the true humanity that is represented.
Yeah, I'm a c u n t most of the time, and I laugh at stereotyping sometimes, but it pisses me right off when people are scapegoated for whatever ignorant reason.
"Bacon is good for me!"
Yeah, except the religious right is made up of Christians, not Jews, and since the laws you refer to are for the ancient Jews, it wouldn't make sense for Christians to worry about following them.
Good try though.
I always wonder why people with very little Biblical knowledge think they can speak to complex Biblical issues and not look foolish.
Jesus makes clear in Matthew Mark and John that God created the world (in Genesis) so that a man would unite with a woman. He affirmed the Genesis story as the only moral way to live. A man leaves his family to join together with a woman (not a man). Christ affirmed several times that the only God-ordained sexual relationships were those as part of a marriage, a union in the eyes of God...and the only type of marriage was a heterosexual marriage.
The religious right are simply using the Bible to attack things the Bible itself says are wrong. Gays and supporters of gay marriage and such distort the Bible to fit their own worldview, just as some fools did during the Civil War to boost their absurd claim that the Bible condoned slavery, when it does no such thing.
[deleted]
1) No, I wasn't comparing people supporting gay marriage to those supporting slavery in any way other than that both groups are using the Bible and distorting what is very clearly written to push their own personal agenda.
2) Christians use the OT text and some of the laws there, yes. But- my point was the absurd comparison to homosexual relations and not wearing linen and wool mixed fabrics and such. That's a misreading of the text. That part of the law is not in effect for Christians. The homosexual relations part clearly is in effect today, as Christ affirmed that a man leaves his family to be in union with a woman and that the Genesis story was real and that it was the only valid way to live in the eyes of God.
The religion's founder himself spoke on the subject and made it quite clear- homosexuality, along with all other sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong and sinful...and he made it clear that marriage was a union between a man and a woman and no other union would be deemed acceptable in God's eyes. You can argue OT law, you can argue interpretation, etc, but what supporters of marriage "equality" (somehow I feel like these same supporters would frown upon polygamy) cannot argue with are the clear words of the man who shares a name with the religion.
[deleted]
"1) No, I wasn't comparing people supporting gay marriage to those supporting slavery in any way other than that both groups are using the Bible and distorting what is very clearly written to push their own personal agenda."
Sort of like how Christians project their own insecurities onto others by speaking out against homosexuality and, like the pro-slavery plantation owners of yore, use the Bible as their justification?
"2) Christians use the OT text and some of the laws there, yes. But- my point was the absurd comparison to homosexual relations and not wearing linen and wool mixed fabrics and such. That's a misreading of the text. That part of the law is not in effect for Christians."
I see. So it is a very literal example of the "cherrypicking" your faith is often accused of. The difference between you and other folks who often debate this issue is that you're very upfront about it. Your quote essentially reads "yeah, we just go ahead and choose what to follow, based on our personal prejudices and sexual hangups." Well, you have my respect for being forthright, but not for any sort of Biblical logic.
Why do people whip out Matthew 19 and skip the later part where the disciples say it might be better if you didn't marry and Jesus says that there are indeed some who are not meant to be married? He calls these people "eunuchs."
To say marrying a woman is "the only valid way to live in the eyes of God" doesn't just hurt gays, it also hurts single people who have not found partners. Say what you will about us gays (we get it all the time), but why also hate on people who are single permanently? Say what you will about same-sex partnerships degrading moral society, people who are just single ARE NOT.
Thus, to say Jesus says that we are to be married to the opposite sex is faulty and is in fact contradicted by Himself plainly in the chapter you brought up. People have even read a meaning of diversity of sexual orientation into that verse, taking a historical interpretation to say that "eunuchs" were actually homsexuals.
What we see and what we seem are but a dream. A dream within a dream.share
You're funny. Actually I have bible degree.
No one is distorting the Bible to say gayness is ok, it is simply recognized as being a cultural document referring to a group within. Even when Jesus is talking about marriage, he is not talking about the legal right of those not in an agreement with God. He is talking about those who follow God.
I always wonder why people with very little Biblical knowledge think they can speak to complex Biblical issues and not look foolish.
Jesus makes clear in Matthew Mark and John that God created the world (in Genesis) so that a man would unite with a woman. He affirmed the Genesis story as the only moral way to live. A man leaves his family to join together with a woman (not a man). Christ affirmed several times that the only God-ordained sexual relationships were those as part of a marriage, a union in the eyes of God...and the only type of marriage was a heterosexual marriage.
The Bible doesn't prove anything.
shareIn the NT, Jesus doesn't even mention about homosexuality one way or the other. He does say that divorce is wrong. Yet over 60% of marriages in the US (including Christians) will end in divorce.
Paul on the other hand does say that homosexuality is wrong; as it's as far as he is concerned, a pagan practice.
My prayer to Jesus
As you know, Jesus, I am gay. I know that you did not say anything during your time with us here on earth about homosexuality. I find it difficult to understand how all people in your church who proclaim otherwise. Fortunately, I am strong enough, with your help, to ignore their assertions.
Please help all of those in the LGBT society in the world who are being bullied and tortured because of their sexuality.
Amen
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality because it wasn't necessary. It was already clear his father isn't a big fan of sodomites.
shareUnfortunately for you, it IS clear that you don't actually know what occurred in the story of Sodom.
Try reading the bible for yourself, instead of just listening to what other people tell you it says.
I am the sod-off shotgun.
The truth is that the bible is not an authority on history of any sort.
Neither one of you knows what went on (or to) Sodom.
But as long as we're going to talk about the story, how come every time this comes up, nobody brings up Lot's daughters gang raping their sleeping father shortly after their mother was turned to salt?
THAT's the important part of the story. It tells you a great deal about the nature of the god who is claimed to have been in charge at the time.
With regard to this film and this thread, I would say that the important part of the story is the part where God straight-up says that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality to strangers. Not dudes loving each other.
I am the sod-off shotgun.
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality because it wasn't necessary. It was already clear his father isn't a big fan of sodomites.
Here's the big picture: the Bible is not law because that would mean that America would be a theocracy. What else would be illegal in that case? Premarital sex, tattoos, women's rights, eat shrimp, dancing on Sundays, and a ton of other ridiculous things taken out of context.
You have to be taught to hate something. Would God appreciate arbitrarily hating other human beings by only knowing one thing about them? Of course, the question remains as to WHY homosexuality is supposedly a sin. Who do they hurt? Certainly not the children they raise (many of which turn out to be straight) if they choose to adopt/artificially inseminate, or anyone else. Who does hatred of homosexuals harm? Well, anyone who doesn't want to be told that they are evil the entire time they're growing up.
I'm also not convinced that everyone on Earth is meant to reproduce. We're currently overpopulated and are using our resources at a rate (we would need 4 additional Earths if everyone used water as we do in America) that was not present in the time in which the Bible was written. But still what it boils down to is that the Bible is clear about one thing and for the most part, only one thing- do not hate another person. That is violated much more than most other passages.