Gay Rights

Discussion for Christian perspectives on ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and so forth.
User avatar
wrain62
Valued Member
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#76

Post by wrain62 » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:35 pm

Ivellious wrote:I don't remember anyone saying in the Bible that all people are created to be attracted to the opposite sex. Just that it should be illegal for anyone to do things sexually with the same sex.

You are right, I am attracted to the opposite sex only so I can't tell you from experience that homosexuality is a made-up thing, but I have never heard someone who identifies as homosexual or bisexual that they are living a lie or that they are just choosing to go against their natural desires. As far as the law in America goes, I have a problem with bans on same-sex relationships or sexual acts (not marriage itself, but many states still prohibit sexual relationships of homosexual people). It incriminates them for something that a straight person (i.e. everyone making these laws) cannot possibly prove. That's a "guilty until proven innocent" case right there, which is wrong in my opinion.

I admit I wasn't aware there was a list of sins that were totally bad. But don't you kind of contradict yourself by saying there is a list of sins that permanently ban you from heaven (including homosexuality), but that Christ can still save a homosexual? Or are you saying that you are among those that don't believe in "mortal sins" and that only certain Christians believe in the "unforgivable sins" deal?
If I may there is a point I disagree. What a natural desire is has no bearing on the morality of an action so natralness is irrelevant. I think that unnatural desire is an oxymoron anyway, so describing a desire as natural is useless. Even fetishes are not unnatural, only against social norms and that is it. Your resoning on this is unneccesary and a possible red herring if used in an arguement.

Now is my point. Can a man and a man be united as one flesh under God? Unless you got a positive answer there is no use arguing a Christian over it and of course legisislation of morality has proven to be unfeasable and counter-productive in todays society. As for marriage, the constitution recognizes the rights of individuals not groups; marriage should not even be under the state under the contitution. The whole idea that one group or family is entitled to other person's money or respect is not human rights. Charity and sympathy are always good but should not be forced. The hate of one group by another is not solved through legislation but through understanding and forgiveness which cannot be forced. What is gay rights?
A person with an uncontrollable condition cannot force anyone to accept him, and just as morality is hard to legislate so is the deliverence of the oppressed. I am growing weary that people want persecution complexand shout to gain moral authority, but then again what else can you expect a victim to do?
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#77

Post by Ivellious » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:05 pm

Well, to be honest I agree that technically homosexuality is against the social norm. So is being born a sociopath. But to argue that they are both mental problems and should be persecuted as such is silly to me.

Marriage is a complex issue, obviously. To a degree I agree that states shouldn't have to much control over them, but at the same time I see the problems with insurance, money management, security, taxes, and so on that would be a living nightmare if there wasn't some legal power behind marriage in today's society. The issue of child custody, inheritance, and so on would also be complicated. That said, if homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry in the Christian sense, and as long as the government continues to give benefits for marriage, homosexual couples should absolutely be allowed to have those same rights in their relationships if they choose to. Like you said, the Constitution doesn't protect married couples (though I disagree about it not giving rights to groups, as the right to assemble does). But it also is designed not to take away rights to couples either.

You said that you can't legislate morality except in the instances which are necessary to maintain a stable society (like no murder, etc). So do you believe that homosexual couples should have an equal legal protection that is totally equivalent to marriage, except in name?

User avatar
wrain62
Valued Member
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#78

Post by wrain62 » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:35 pm

Ivellious wrote:Well, to be honest I agree that technically homosexuality is against the social norm. So is being born a sociopath. But to argue that they are both mental problems and should be persecuted as such is silly to me.

Marriage is a complex issue, obviously. To a degree I agree that states shouldn't have to much control over them, but at the same time I see the problems with insurance, money management, security, taxes, and so on that would be a living nightmare if there wasn't some legal power behind marriage in today's society. The issue of child custody, inheritance, and so on would also be complicated. That said, if homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry in the Christian sense, and as long as the government continues to give benefits for marriage, homosexual couples should absolutely be allowed to have those same rights in their relationships if they choose to. Like you said, the Constitution doesn't protect married couples (though I disagree about it not giving rights to groups, as the right to assemble does). But it also is designed not to take away rights to couples either.

You said that you can't legislate morality except in the instances which are necessary to maintain a stable society (like no murder, etc). So do you believe that homosexual couples should have an equal legal protection that is totally equivalent to marriage, except in name?
The right to assemble is belongs to us as individuals. the right of groups to be special is another. The right married couples have to the government's money through benefits is another thing too. There should not be difference to what individuals are to be considered a married couple under the state. Legal specialties that are neccesary for couples should be a civil marriage and a religious marriage should be separated in meaning.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#79

Post by Ivellious » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:14 am

So, if I read that correctly, you believe in a system where everyone is entitled to a "civil marriage" or "civil union" that gives the benefits of marriage regardless of the orientation of the couple, but also having the religious marriage be a more personal affair between one couple and their religious group (but not affiliated with any sort of legal benefits)? I guess that would be more or less my perfect scenario. I guess in that case religious marriage would become a ceremony more or less, much in the vein of baptism or confirmation. Not really relevant to anyone but the couple themselves, but still significant on that personal level.

User avatar
wrain62
Valued Member
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#80

Post by wrain62 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:32 am

Ivellious wrote:So, if I read that correctly, you believe in a system where everyone is entitled to a "civil marriage" or "civil union" that gives the benefits of marriage regardless of the orientation of the couple, but also having the religious marriage be a more personal affair between one couple and their religious group (but not affiliated with any sort of legal benefits)? I guess that would be more or less my perfect scenario. I guess in that case religious marriage would become a ceremony more or less, much in the vein of baptism or confirmation. Not really relevant to anyone but the couple themselves, but still significant on that personal level.
Only if Marriage under the state is practically neccesary. It seems unfeasible now to take it away now in the US.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#81

Post by Ivellious » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:54 am

Very true. I imagine there would be riots if you abolished the legal benefits of marriage altogether in the western world...

cnk12
Recognized Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#82

Post by cnk12 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:48 am

Hi Katabole, thanks for your reply to my first post. I think this is an incredible website and I hope to be able to grow as a Christian (which is what I call myself), through it.

My first comment was kind of vague, so here's why I said what I said. For me personally, homosexuality has no appeal. And being a sinner myself, I'm not about to throw the first stone at someone else for being that way. I feel it's not my place to say, nor would I ever want to say that someone is or isn't going to hell. What I know for sure is I deserve hell, and I can only be saved by God's grace.

The point of the scriptures you quote are well taken. Without researching what they are, I know that many homosexuals have a number of scriptures they refer that they say support their lifestyle. I understand that if I were to quote them, you would refute them. The point is they believe in their interpretation of them, not the majority's. IMO the Bible has just a handful of themes that everyone agrees on. These are repeated over and over and over. I'm sure there's a very good reason for that too. What I'm talking about of course are things like faith in God, love, and forgiveness. The scriptures that espouse something other than the basic fundamentals are interpreted differently by different people, and different churches. They (churches) don't even agree on stuff like when and how often to take communion, or to baptize. When the Church or government gets into the business of making those interpretations and dictating a way of life to the masses, it invariably and historically leads to problems.

So I say, If a particular church, maybe they call themselves Christian, maybe not; wants to marry gays and no doubt does so with what they interpret as scriptural support, then that's their right. I wonder what offends God more; the homosexual living in "sin" who doesn't think he or she is sinning, or the "sins" I commit each and every day knowing full well what I'm doing. Surely your former friends who were gay already knew the position of the Christian majority. I wonder if your Christianity would serve to influence them in a more productive way if you agreed to disagree on that point and maintained a loving relationship with them anyway.

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gay Rights

#83

Post by CallMeDave » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:54 pm

Ivellious wrote:I don't remember anyone saying in the Bible that all people are created to be attracted to the opposite sex.
There are numerous places in the Bible where sex with the same sex is forbidden, a gross perversion, and an abomination to the Creator who made man for woman and vice versa. Read Romans chpt. 1 for instance. When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites. There are over a dozen specific STD's which directly come from penis-feces penetration alone not including hiv/aids which has offered a death sentence to over half a million so far . I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences.
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Oxford, UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#84

Post by BryanH » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:31 pm

There are numerous places in the Bible where sex with the same sex is forbidden, a gross perversion, and an abomination to the Creator who made man for woman and vice versa. Read Romans chpt. 1 for instance. When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites. There are over a dozen specific STD's which directly come from penis-feces penetration alone not including hiv/aids which has offered a death sentence to over half a million so far . I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences
I don't get your point at all: STD stands for sexually transmitted disease. No matter if you are gay or not, if you have sex with an infected person you will get the disease.
I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences.
Gay or not other people do that as well... Again don't see your point... Just highlighting that gay people do it as well seems somehow like a discrimination.
When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites.
You are trying to place the responsibility for STDs on gay people... Are you serious now? STDs have existed 2000 years ago and long before that as well. Homosexuality has been something present in history since more than 2000 years. The simple fact that today gay people are more visible in society today bothers you. Well, as I have said many times on this forum: panta rei!!
Ivellious, according to wikipedia, in Norway, same sex marriage was recognized on January 1, 2009. In Sweden, ss marriage was recognized may 1, 2009. Is 3 years really enough time to make the claim that same sex marriage does not destroy society? By the way, also according to Wikipedia, Finland and Denmark, don't even recognize ss marriage.
You forgot something quite important and you told only a small portion of the truth. There is one minor technical detail: Sweden legalized a civil partnership between gay couples in 1995 and Norway in 1993. Now you do the math and tell me it's only 3 years... And you also forgot Netherlands which has been the first country to legalize gay marriage in 2001. By the way, the first country to legalize a gay couple civil partnership was Denmark in 1989. And today in Europe the majority of countries have at least a law that offer civil partnership options to gay people. So you see, things are moving forward for the gay community.
As Rick already pointed out, gay marriage has been legal for only about three years in Norway and Sweden. That's definitely not enough time to evaluate the effects on the society. We would have to wait for at least a couple of decades to see how children raised in such unions will grow up.
As I have already pointed out on this forum there are several psychological studies which have demonstrated that children raised in gay couples actually are doing as good as children raised in heterosexual families or even better. Some will way that they want proof for my statement: I have already given some links for this, but feel free to search any psychology journals from what country you wish.
Marriage was created by God between one man and one woman. That is the unwavering Christian position for the last 2000 years or so.
I don't agree with God being the creator of marriage. God only speaks about the union between a woman and man. Period. If you analyze the history of marriage you will learn that marriage was more like a business arrangement between 2 families of same caliber. So again, marriage at its origins was a contract. Later on in history, marriage was given a spiritual characteristic.

Anyways the most important thing you should take into consideration before you quote the bible, is that the word "marriage" is NEVER used in the bible. The word union is used, but that's all. Keep that in mind. The same goes for the word GAY which I have seen in some bible translations.

So you see, in terms of history, God didn't invent marriage, but people did. So saying that God is against gay marriage is somehow out of place.

I have been offered some quotes from the bible which say that same sex relationships are against the word of God (by Reactionary and Jlay), but none of those quotes is very clear and they can be interpreted both ways.

The fact that some people have chosen to enforce a certain interpretation of some scripts from the Bible, well, maybe it's time for things to change. Maybe the people who interpreted those quotes were against gay relationships in the first place. So here we are today having this discussion.
From personal experience, I have told a number of people I have genuinely cared about, that gay marriage is wrong when they decided to accept and proceed with that lifestyle. And because of my Christian position on this moral value, I lost them as friends and was considered a homophobe and a person to be avoided. I told them out of love because I believe in the Christian God and I believe God is righteous.
Why did you lose them as friends? I don't get it. The fact that you are against gay marriage doesn't change who you are and doesn't change who they are... What happened?
When I stand before Christ on judgment day and just say He asks me, "So you claimed to believe in me, yet you supported all those things which I detest and even told others that there was nothing wrong with those actions?" I can honestly answer Christ back and say, "I told them what you claimed in your Word as truth because I believed your Word and I loved them, and they rejected me."
I think that by now we know that the bible does have a large number of metaphors and interpretations. What happens if you misinterpreted some bible scripts and you said some wrong things to people? What will you say then? Your actions could have changed someone's life for the worse...

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21398
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 200 times
Been liked: 1081 times

Re: Gay Rights

#85

Post by RickD » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:48 pm

BryanH wrote:
There are numerous places in the Bible where sex with the same sex is forbidden, a gross perversion, and an abomination to the Creator who made man for woman and vice versa. Read Romans chpt. 1 for instance. When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites. There are over a dozen specific STD's which directly come from penis-feces penetration alone not including hiv/aids which has offered a death sentence to over half a million so far . I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences
I don't get your point at all: STD stands for sexually transmitted disease. No matter if you are gay or not, if you have sex with an infected person you will get the disease.
I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences.
Gay or not other people do that as well... Again don't see your point... Just highlighting that gay people do it as well seems somehow like a discrimination.
When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites.
You are trying to place the responsibility for STDs on gay people... Are you serious now? STDs have existed 2000 years ago and long before that as well. Homosexuality has been something present in history since more than 2000 years. The simple fact that today gay people are more visible in society today bothers you. Well, as I have said many times on this forum: panta rei!!
Ivellious, according to wikipedia, in Norway, same sex marriage was recognized on January 1, 2009. In Sweden, ss marriage was recognized may 1, 2009. Is 3 years really enough time to make the claim that same sex marriage does not destroy society? By the way, also according to Wikipedia, Finland and Denmark, don't even recognize ss marriage.
You forgot something quite important and you told only a small portion of the truth. There is one minor technical detail: Sweden legalized a civil partnership between gay couples in 1995 and Norway in 1993. Now you do the math and tell me it's only 3 years... And you also forgot Netherlands which has been the first country to legalize gay marriage in 2001. By the way, the first country to legalize a gay couple civil partnership was Denmark in 1989. And today in Europe the majority of countries have at least a law that offer civil partnership options to gay people. So you see, things are moving forward for the gay community.
As Rick already pointed out, gay marriage has been legal for only about three years in Norway and Sweden. That's definitely not enough time to evaluate the effects on the society. We would have to wait for at least a couple of decades to see how children raised in such unions will grow up.
As I have already pointed out on this forum there are several psychological studies which have demonstrated that children raised in gay couples actually are doing as good as children raised in heterosexual families or even better. Some will way that they want proof for my statement: I have already given some links for this, but feel free to search any psychology journals from what country you wish.
Marriage was created by God between one man and one woman. That is the unwavering Christian position for the last 2000 years or so.
I don't agree with God being the creator of marriage. God only speaks about the union between a woman and man. Period. If you analyze the history of marriage you will learn that marriage was more like a business arrangement between 2 families of same caliber. So again, marriage at its origins was a contract. Later on in history, marriage was given a spiritual characteristic.

Anyways the most important thing you should take into consideration before you quote the bible, is that the word "marriage" is NEVER used in the bible. The word union is used, but that's all. Keep that in mind. The same goes for the word GAY which I have seen in some bible translations.

So you see, in terms of history, God didn't invent marriage, but people did. So saying that God is against gay marriage is somehow out of place.

I have been offered some quotes from the bible which say that same sex relationships are against the word of God (by Reactionary and Jlay), but none of those quotes is very clear and they can be interpreted both ways.

The fact that some people have chosen to enforce a certain interpretation of some scripts from the Bible, well, maybe it's time for things to change. Maybe the people who interpreted those quotes were against gay relationships in the first place. So here we are today having this discussion.
From personal experience, I have told a number of people I have genuinely cared about, that gay marriage is wrong when they decided to accept and proceed with that lifestyle. And because of my Christian position on this moral value, I lost them as friends and was considered a homophobe and a person to be avoided. I told them out of love because I believe in the Christian God and I believe God is righteous.
Why did you lose them as friends? I don't get it. The fact that you are against gay marriage doesn't change who you are and doesn't change who they are... What happened?
When I stand before Christ on judgment day and just say He asks me, "So you claimed to believe in me, yet you supported all those things which I detest and even told others that there was nothing wrong with those actions?" I can honestly answer Christ back and say, "I told them what you claimed in your Word as truth because I believed your Word and I loved them, and they rejected me."
I think that by now we know that the bible does have a large number of metaphors and interpretations. What happens if you misinterpreted some bible scripts and you said some wrong things to people? What will you say then? Your actions could have changed someone's life for the worse...
Image
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gay Rights

#86

Post by CallMeDave » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:04 am

BryanH wrote:
There are numerous places in the Bible where sex with the same sex is forbidden, a gross perversion, and an abomination to the Creator who made man for woman and vice versa. Read Romans chpt. 1 for instance. When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites. There are over a dozen specific STD's which directly come from penis-feces penetration alone not including hiv/aids which has offered a death sentence to over half a million so far . I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences
I don't get your point at all: STD stands for sexually transmitted disease. No matter if you are gay or not, if you have sex with an infected person you will get the disease.
I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences.
Gay or not other people do that as well... Again don't see your point... Just highlighting that gay people do it as well seems somehow like a discrimination.
When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites.
You are trying to place the responsibility for STDs on gay people... Are you serious now? STDs have existed 2000 years ago and long before that as well. Homosexuality has been something present in history since more than 2000 years. The simple fact that today gay people are more visible in society today bothers you. Well, as I have said many times on this forum: panta rei!!

..............
In order...

1. We are talking homosexuality in this thread which is why my replies are centered on such ; just because STD's are occuring in heterosexual hedonistic circles doesnt somehow nullify what homosexulity is bringing to the table . If the sex acts of homosexuality were so 'normal, permissible, and non perverted'...then we should not see the dangerous diseases which are coming directly from that kind of sexual play . Some 12 specific diseases coming directly from penis - in - anus is concrete evidence that it is wrong , foolish, and dangerous . Feces is supposed to go from the human body into an awaiting toilet without any interference. Very basic biology.

2. The sex acts listed pertain almost exculusively to homosexuality . The fascination with feces using penis, mouth, fists, toys , along with urine ...are trademarks of the homosexuality community by and large .

3. In the early 1960's , there were essentially TWO STD's : Syphillis and Gonnoreah. Today there are 33 plus STD's of which two (so far) can kill while others cause cervical and throat cancer. Most are permanent . A big price is paid for not wanting to follow Gods protective moral mandates . As for circa 2000, I dont know how many STD's were prevalent...probably none since it took till the 1960's for there to be two.

4. God wiped out entire towns due to the perversion of homosexuality in ancient times which is proof positive it was not part of the natural healthy order of creation. The norm is : One man for one woman in the context of marriage for sex to take place and that was to always be accompanied by commitment and integrity not to stray from the marriage bed. What a shame Man thinks he knows better ...by the devastating consequences of sexual immorality he obviously doesnt .
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gay Rights

#87

Post by CallMeDave » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:05 am

BryanH wrote:
There are numerous places in the Bible where sex with the same sex is forbidden, a gross perversion, and an abomination to the Creator who made man for woman and vice versa. Read Romans chpt. 1 for instance. When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites. There are over a dozen specific STD's which directly come from penis-feces penetration alone not including hiv/aids which has offered a death sentence to over half a million so far . I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences
I don't get your point at all: STD stands for sexually transmitted disease. No matter if you are gay or not, if you have sex with an infected person you will get the disease.
I wont get into the statistics on other popular homosexual practices such as : oral-feces , feces body smearing, anal- fisting, urination on body, and toy-anal penetration. Only a repromate mind would call these things non-perversional . Disobey Gods protective moral mandates, and suffer the sure consequences.
Gay or not other people do that as well... Again don't see your point... Just highlighting that gay people do it as well seems somehow like a discrimination.
When we look at the social consequences of homosexuality today, it is easy to determine that it is very wrong and very dangerous given the STD Epidemic in Casual Sex and male homosexuality in particular .... 61% of ALL STD's (33 in total) shared among 60,000,000 american adults, are from male homosexuals per CDC , Kaiser Foundation , and Avert websites.
You are trying to place the responsibility for STDs on gay people... Are you serious now? STDs have existed 2000 years ago and long before that as well. Homosexuality has been something present in history since more than 2000 years. The simple fact that today gay people are more visible in society today bothers you. Well, as I have said many times on this forum: panta rei!!

..............
In order...

1. We are talking homosexuality in this thread which is why my replies are centered on such ; just because STD's are occuring in heterosexual hedonistic circles doesnt somehow nullify what homosexulity is bringing to the table . If the sex acts of homosexuality were so 'normal, permissible, and non perverted'...then we should not see the dangerous diseases which are coming directly from that kind of sexual play . Some 12 specific diseases coming directly from penis - in - anus is concrete evidence that it is wrong , foolish, and dangerous . Feces is supposed to go from the human body into an awaiting toilet without any interference. Very basic biology which potty trained 4-5 year olds understand , yet adults would like to suppress .

2. The sex acts listed pertain almost exculusively to homosexuality . The fascination with feces using penis, mouth, fists, toys , along with urine ...are trademarks of the homosexuality community by and large .http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html . ALso, you can bet that plenty of sexually wayward Spouses are Bi-sexual and bringing back to the marriage bed Homosexual caught STD's to their heterosexual Partner ...which in turn (after divorce) gets spread around the heterosexual hedonist community.

3. In the early 1960's , there were essentially TWO STD's : Syphillis and Gonnoreah. Today there are 33 plus STD's of which two (so far) can kill while others cause cervical and throat cancer. Most are permanent . A big price is paid for not wanting to follow Gods protective moral mandates . As for circa 2000, I dont know how many STD's were prevalent...probably none since it took till the 1960's for there to be two.

4. God wiped out entire towns due to the perversion of homosexuality in ancient times which is proof positive it was not part of the natural healthy order of creation. The norm is : One man for one woman in the context of marriage for sex to take place and that was to always be accompanied by commitment and integrity not to stray from the marriage bed. What a shame Man thinks he knows better ...by the devastating consequences of sexual immorality he obviously doesnt ; yet he is willing to continue willfully suppressing his moral conscience in exchange for using others for mere copulations as Forest Animals do .
Last edited by CallMeDave on Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

Katabole
Valued Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:42 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 19 times

Re: Gay Rights

#88

Post by Katabole » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:27 am

BryanH wrote:Anyways the most important thing you should take into consideration before you quote the bible, is that the word "marriage" is NEVER used in the bible.
The word marriage occurs 21 times in the KJV Bible, 5 times in the Old Testament and 16 times in the New.

Hebrew word for marriage from Strong's concordance:

2859
chathan
khaw-than'
a primitive root; to give (a daughter) away in marriage; hence (generally) to contract affinity by marriage:--join in affinity, father in law, make marriages, mother in law, son in law.

The Greek word for marriage from Strong's is:

1062
gamos
gam'-os
of uncertain affinity; nuptials:--marriage, wedding.

The word is found in the following passages: Gen 34:9, Exo 21:10, Deut 7:3, Josh 23:12, Psalm 78:63, Matt 22:2, Matt 22:4, Matt 22:9, Matt 22:30, Matt 24:38, Matt 25:10, Mark 12:25, Luke 17:27, Luke 20:34, Luke 20:35, John 2:1, John 2:2, 1Cor 7:38, Hebrews 13:4, Rev 19:7 and Rev 19:9.

The word wedding occurs 7 times in the Bible, all in the New Testament.

The Greek word for wedding is the same as the Greek word for marriage, Gamos.

The word is found in the following passages:

Matt 22:3, Matt 22:8, Matt 22:10, Matt 22:11, Matt 22:12, Luke 12:36 and Luke 14:8.

You'd think Bryan that you could have done just a little study, instead of claiming that the word is never used.
BryanH wrote:I don't agree with God being the creator of marriage. God only speaks about the union between a woman and man. Period. If you analyze the history of marriage you will learn that marriage was more like a business arrangement between 2 families of same caliber. So again, marriage at its origins was a contract. Later on in history, marriage was given a spiritual characteristic.
BryanH wrote:So you see, in terms of history, God didn't invent marriage, but people did. So saying that God is against gay marriage is somehow out of place.

I have been offered some quotes from the bible which say that same sex relationships are against the word of God (by Reactionary and Jlay), but none of those quotes is very clear and they can be interpreted both ways.

The fact that some people have chosen to enforce a certain interpretation of some scripts from the Bible, well, maybe it's time for things to change. Maybe the people who interpreted those quotes were against gay relationships in the first place. So here we are today having this discussion.
Your statements are consistent with those I've heard before which are non-Christian and subjective. I checked your profile and your not a Christian so nothing new in your statements.
BryanH wrote:Why did you lose them as friends? I don't get it. The fact that you are against gay marriage doesn't change who you are and doesn't change who they are... What happened?
I've been childhood friends with a friend of mine, got to know his entire family. His younger brother I'll call Jim was dating a woman when he was sixteen. The relationship failed and then he decided he didn't want to date women anymore but men. He knew I was a Christian but nothing was brought up about my faith until he decided to get married and asked me to his wedding. I refused to attend, citing that I was Christian and believed strongly in the Christian definition of marriage. JIm replied by quoting Saruman from the Lord of the Rings, and he said to me, "Do you seek to humble me with your new found piety?" I said no, I was simply stating my Christian position on the subject. So I was called a homophobe and ostracized from the family except for his mother, which as the only semi-religious person in that family, understood where I was coming from.

Well, about a year and two months after that, Jim was killed in a car accident at an intersection by a tractor trailer. I went to the funeral. His mother was completely distraught and even fainted three times during the service. Jim's fiance, killed himself shortly after the accident. Ever since that time, that entire family changed. They are now Catholics and go to church three to five times a week. From his mothers point of view, only Jesus Christ could give her the comfort over the loss of her boy.
BryanH wrote:I think that by now we know that the bible does have a large number of metaphors and interpretations. What happens if you misinterpreted some bible scripts and you said some wrong things to people? What will you say then? Your actions could have changed someone's life for the worse...
You don't believe in Christ Bryan, so you evidently then don't believe in Satan.

You see Bryan, I've studied the character of Satan intently over the last few decades, trying to understand the enemy. As the apostle Paul said:

2Cor 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

This is a part of a paper I wrote about Satan a number of years ago in university:

The greatest of God's creations, in the beginning, was Lucifer, whose name in the Hebrew language means the bright morning star. Of all of God's creations, Lucifer was given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge. He was obedient to God and worked his way to the position of walking upon the holy stones of fire until the time arose that he spied the mercy seat; the throne of God and coveted it. But when he realized that in attempting to become God he simply became an instrument in God's overall theme in the devising of things which he had not imagined, then his power and knowledge were turned to evil purposes and he squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of light but when he realized he could not become God nor possess the Earth for himself he descended into darkness and the darkness of deception he used most in his evil works upon Earth. Human beings he found to be the easiest of prey and allured them with lies and treacherous gifts.

Satan would like nothing better than a person like yourself to wimp out and not be controversial against Satan's conspiracy. Do you know what Satan's conspiracy is Bryan? That Jesus is not God, the only Son of God and that His Word doesn't matter.

God instituted marriage right from the beginning in Gen 1 and 2 and Jesus sanctified it in the New Testamant. If you read Ezekiel ch 16, God Himself marries the landmass of Israel. But since you are an atheist and probably disagree, ask yourself the following questions:

1) What is it that makes human actions "wrong" or "right", which applies to all of humanity?
2) Is there some standard we can all recognise to know something is right/wrong, or is it just an inward recognition of something we perceive to exist?
3) Does right and wrong really exist, or is it just an evolved feeling?
4) If right/wrong really does exist, then what is its objective reality grounded in?
5) How does this moral grounding make moral actions wrong for all regardless of what others might believe, think or feel?
6) If I go against this moral grounding, then what is it that still makes my action(s) wrong?
7) If right/wrong doesn't exist, then I can't really say another person is morally right or wrong.

An atheist is left in a sticky position, especially when critiquing God and/or Christianity as evil and immoral. Let's say evolution just caused us to feel some things are wrong. But this doesn't mean actions really are wrong. Because having found out they just evolved, perhaps for the better of society, I can just decide to discard them for my own benefit. What is morally right/wrong just ultimately becomes what I find acceptable or unacceptable, unless I decide to give this up.

On the otherhand, Theism, in particular and especially Christianity, validates as true, our moral perception that some things really are wrong and evil (e.g., child abuse), and other actions to be morally applauded as good (e.g., self-sacrificing for others). There is a moral standard built into us which came from a Creator who stands above and outside of us. Thus, what we know to be good is rooted in our Creator. And unless we are psychopaths (considered as an abnormal mental condition), our recognition of this moral standard justifies and condemns us as we live out our lives depending on whether we uphold or break it.

Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries) and they have a sense of right and wrong. They often work with people who are religious and have ethical standards as well as work with other non-believers. So they are exposed to all sorts of moral behavior. In addition, they often form their own moral standards based on what suits them. Besides, robbery, lying, stealing, etc., can get you imprisoned, so it is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior, even though the reason Western socity has those laws as its benchmarks and foundation is because Western law is based on Biblical law. However you want to look at it, atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people.

Nevertheless, some Christians raise the question, "What is to prevent an atheist from murdering and stealing? After all, they have no fear of God and no absolute moral code." The answer is simple: Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior and getting along in society the same as anyone else.

At the risk of labeling the atheist as self-centered, it does not serve the best interests of an atheist to murder and steal since it would not take long before they were imprisoned and/or killed for their actions. Basically, society will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a nice life, murdering and stealing won't accomplish it. It makes sense for them to be honest, work hard, pay their bills, and get along with others. Basically, they have to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior or an enjoyable life.

On the other hand
Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes, the morals in a society can still change and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't right, the atheist can only tell us their opinion.

If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong and keeping to the topic, homosexual marriage is also wrong. If there is no God, then who cares. If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something called, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into present society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise and most people are uninterested to know how God controls society. Adolf Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by eradicating the handicapped and the Jews.

There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? If it serves ther self-interests, why not? Morality then, becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.

But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that they will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an anchor will eventually crash into the rocks.


The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian though it also teaches one to defend onself from harm and also and especially to hate evil. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self- serving.


Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's Word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals covered in human tradition that atheism offers.

So when I stand before God on judgment day, I'd rather be in the position I am presently in, then the one you are in.

2Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Well it may be the devil or it may be the Lord but you know you gotta serve somebody. Bob Dylan

Every one that is of the truth hears my voice. Jesus from John 18:37

User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Oxford, UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#89

Post by BryanH » Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:05 am

In the early 1960's , there were essentially TWO STD's : Syphillis and Gonnoreah. Today there are 33 plus STD's of which two (so far) can kill while others cause cervical and throat cancer. Most are permanent . A big price is paid for not wanting to follow Gods protective moral mandates . As for circa 2000, I dont know how many STD's were prevalent...probably none since it took till the 1960's for there to be two.
STDs are grouped into 2 categories: bacterial and viral. Both bacterie and viruses have existed for ages to put in a simple manner. Both bacterie and viruses mutate very often to adapt to new conditions of life.

In the early 1960's , there were essentially TWO STD's : Syphillis and Gonnoreah
The fact that since 1960 we had many medical brakthroughs which allowed us to detect some of the STDs doesn't mean that others didn't exist
Syphillis and Gonnoreah were the most prevalent ones, but where did the other come from? Outer space? And please don't say that gay people spread them around...

As for circa 2000, I dont know how many STD's were prevalent...probably none since it took till the 1960's for there to be two
In the year 0 BC there were aprox. 170 million people in the world. So you see today we have 40 times that population. As I said all the STDs we have today existed back then, but we didn't have the medical technology to detect and treat them.
Besides that, the life style has changed dramatically and people today have more than one sexual partner. Back then, STDs were advancing at a slower rate because of the society and its rules and of course because of the number of the population, the reduced mobility options etc etc
God wiped out entire towns due to the perversion of homosexuality in ancient times which is proof positive it was not part of the natural healthy order of creation. The norm is : One man for one woman in the context of marriage for sex to take place and that was to always be accompanied by commitment and integrity not to stray from the marriage bed. What a shame Man thinks he knows better ...by the devastating consequences of sexual immorality he obviously doesnt ; yet he is willing to continue willfully suppressing his moral conscience in exchange for using others for mere copulations as Forest Animals do .
So you are telling me that God KILLED people on PURPOSE? Nice to know that...

@Katabole
Before I answer you I would like to thank you for your post and for I have learned a few new things from you.
You'd think Bryan that you could have done just a little study, instead of claiming that the word is never used.
My bad. I have to admit my mistake here. Anyways, my main argument still stands: marriage has not been invented by God. It is man made invention and the fact that God was added into the equation doesn't change the way history works. The fact that marriage also has a spiritual characteristic today is mainly because it was added. Again please do some research on the history of marriage and you will see that it was practiced in other cultures where Judaism or Christiniaty had no influence. So God did not invent marriage.
The greatest of God's creations, in the beginning, was Lucifer, whose name in the Hebrew language means the bright morning star. Of all of God's creations, Lucifer was given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge. He was obedient to God and worked his way to the position of walking upon the holy stones of fire until the time arose that he spied the mercy seat; the throne of God and coveted it. But when he realized that in attempting to become God he simply became an instrument in God's overall theme in the devising of things which he had not imagined, then his power and knowledge were turned to evil purposes and he squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of light but when he realized he could not become God nor possess the Earth for himself he descended into darkness and the darkness of deception he used most in his evil works upon Earth. Human beings he found to be the easiest of prey and allured them with lies and treacherous gifts.
This is very nice and all, but as I said it many times: the bible is a book of metaphors and it was written by people who lived thousands of years ago and who had little to none understanding of some science concepts that we know today.

But getting back to the real issue here: one of the major problems of Christianity as I see it is their TOTAL REFUSAL of actually understanding two physics concepts called TIME and the UNIVERSE.

God may have created the world but that was a long time ago and since then many things have changed and has probably created other worlds as well. As time passes by things change, but Christianity seems to fail understanding that. You can't apply a ONE MEASURE for all things in life.
And the bible is mainly offering spiritual guidance and moral guidelines. Life isn't only about that, unfortunately.

The Universe is infinite (or anyways huge) and Christianity says that from this huge universe God selected the Jews on this planet as being his chosen people. Really now? It's kind of hard to believe that in terms of being rational.

Maybe Lucifer was indeed one of God's greatest creations but that was at the beginning of time. Since then a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of time has passed by. In the mean while maybe God had time to create other things and beings as well. Maybe he even made Lucifer/Satan disappear...

Christianity is in a position where they just say that God created the world all at once (or anyways in 6 days and on the 7th he rested) and then God never did anything else. He just stands there in Heavens and collects good souls. Bad souls are sent to Lucifer/Satan/Hell. Excuse me if I see this statement as completely childish.

You are telling me that God gave us some rules thousands of years ago and he didn't even bother offering an update... As things change with the passing of time, well, as we have all seen, rules change as well to accommodate to the new society.
Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries) and they have a sense of right and wrong. They often work with people who are religious and have ethical standards as well as work with other non-believers. So they are exposed to all sorts of moral behavior. In addition, they often form their own moral standards based on what suits them. Besides, robbery, lying, stealing, etc., can get you imprisoned, so it is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior, even though the reason Western socity has those laws as its benchmarks and foundation is because Western law is based on Biblical law. However you want to look at it, atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people.
As I have said before on this forum, there are other religions older than Christianity and Judaism which managed to do just fine or even better without a bible and without God speaking to them. So as far as I am concerned, Christianity has not proven that the God they believe in is the only out there.

even though the reason Western socity has those laws as its benchmarks and foundation is because Western law is based on Biblical law
Actually that can be debated. As I said above there other societies in the world who God didn't speak to and which didn't have a bible. As you might see, moral values are similar in such societies. So the Biblical Law is actually based on the reality that people lived in and not vice versa.

The Biblical Law was given long after moral values did exist in society so you can't say that modern Western values are inspired from the Biblical Law. Modern moral values are a byproduct of evolution and how societies developed over time.

It's like saying that before God talked to people and gave them the "LAW", morality wasn't there. That's a false statement.
The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian though it also teaches one to defend onself from harm and also and especially to hate evil. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self- serving.
You can't hate evil in the real world... Evil is part of human beings... You are hating yourself. That is not healthy...

Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self- serving

Random processes? Are we playing the lottery when talking about moral values? No, we are talking about how the society decides what is acceptable and what is not.

I already gave this example in a previous comment of mine: Christianity was forced into Europe because of a political agenda and interests. So in terms of how Christianity grew in numbers is very similar to what you say about atheists and how they see morality as something that comes with the evolution of society.
Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's Word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals covered in human tradition that atheism offers.
I will have to repeat something that I have already said: other societies which had a different religious system based on multiple or single deity have the same moral values or similar to the Christianity. Such cultures did not have a Bible to guide them and God didn't speak to them. They did just fine.

So you see you can't provide God as moral absolute. The history says that people can do that without the help of God as well.
So when I stand before God on judgment day, I'd rather be in the position I am presently in, then the one you are in.
Lucky you...

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21398
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 200 times
Been liked: 1081 times

Re: Gay Rights

#90

Post by RickD » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:02 am

BryanH wrote:
Anyways, my main argument still stands: marriage has not been invented by God. It is man made invention and the fact that God was added into the equation doesn't change the way history works. The fact that marriage also has a spiritual characteristic today is mainly because it was added. Again please do some research on the history of marriage and you will see that it was practiced in other cultures where Judaism or Christiniaty had no influence. So God did not invent marriage.
Bryan, marriage was instituted by God, at the creation of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2:21-25 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called [v]Woman,
Because [w]she was taken out of [x]Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

But getting back to the real issue here: one of the major problems of Christianity as I see it is their TOTAL REFUSAL of actually understanding two physics concepts called TIME and the UNIVERSE.

Bryan, that's a pretty broad statement. Care to elaborate?

God may have created the world but that was a long time ago and since then many things have changed and has probably created other worlds as well.

Bryan, God created the heavens and the earth in 6 creation "days". And then God rested from His creation works on the seventh day. We are still in the seventh day now, and God is still at rest from creating new things.

The Universe is infinite (or anyways huge) and Christianity says that from this huge universe God selected the Jews on this planet as being his chosen people. Really now? It's kind of hard to believe that in terms of being rational

The universe cannot be infinite. The universe had a beginning. God chose the Jewish race, as the chosen race, through whom the Messiah would come, to redeem mankind from sin. I admit, in our finite, rational minds, that an infinite, loving God would come as a human to die for my sins, does not seem rational. But, it is truly amazing nonetheless.

Christianity is in a position where they just say that God created the world all at once (or anyways in 6 days and on the 7th he rested) and then God never did anything else. He just stands there in Heavens and collects good souls. Bad souls are sent to Lucifer/Satan/Hell. Excuse me if I see this statement as completely childish


That idea of a false christianity is an awful misrepresentation of real Christianity.

You are telling me that God gave us some rules thousands of years ago and he didn't even bother offering an update... As things change with the passing of time, well, as we have all seen, rules change as well to accommodate to the new society.

By definition, objective morality cannot change. Right and wrong is always right and wrong, regardless of what society allows.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Post Reply