Topic: The Bible doesn't oppose gay marriage or homosexuality. Discuss
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #8,116
It only opposes anal sex.
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #141,278
I thought the passage about homosexuality was in the Old Testament, which was revoked once Jesus was born (iirc)
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #141,279
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #141,281
Laying with a man as you would a woman implies more than buttsex.
The Bible is obviously against both gay behavior and people, because it was written by a people that executed faggots.
The Bible is obviously against both gay behavior and people, because it was written by a people that executed faggots.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #141,282
@141,278 (hamfist !!mtq555+/1)
Anti-gay Christians pick and choose from the bible. There's lots of weird stuff in the old testament like you do this on the sabbath or you speak to a woman while she's bleeding and you are to be put to death that's mixed in with the anti-buttsex rules and conveniently ignored in favor of the anti-sodomy ones.
Anti-gay Christians pick and choose from the bible. There's lots of weird stuff in the old testament like you do this on the sabbath or you speak to a woman while she's bleeding and you are to be put to death that's mixed in with the anti-buttsex rules and conveniently ignored in favor of the anti-sodomy ones.
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #141,289
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #141,365
dreamworks joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #141,594
You're confusing the bible with the koran op
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #142,211
@141,282 (A)
> Anti-gay Christians pick and choose from the bible.
This. In the same book that prohibits gaysecks only a few chapters away it prevents getting tattooes.
> Anti-gay Christians pick and choose from the bible.
This. In the same book that prohibits gaysecks only a few chapters away it prevents getting tattooes.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #142,228
Christian Theology 101
Deuteronomical and Levitical (i.e. Torah/Old Testament) laws were sanctification (i.e. setting apart ["for God" is implied]) law codes for the Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite people. They are not universal moral or ethical codes.
Jesus' teaching in the New Testament were universal moral/ethical teachings. Paul's/other New Testament writings teaching were practical/specific applications of Jesus' teaching.
OT prohibitions against homosexuality (if indeed the laws are against homosexuality; they are worded vaguely) are not valid for anyone except Jews. Jesus did not speak about homosexuality. Paul mentions homosexuality in lists of negative behavior but uses ambiguous terms that may refer to other practices such as pederasty or temple prostitution.
Compounding the confusion around homosexuality are misconceptions. "Sins" should not be viewed individual, specific proscribed actions; rather, one should think of "sin". Sin is a state of operating outside the will of God: and God wills the best for us.
Paul writes that "All things are permissible; but not all things are beneficial." Christians, therefore, do not passively avoid "sins", but actively work for that which is beneficial. Jesus taught the law of love, and Paul the "law of liberty". These laws are active working good, not passively avoiding bad.
Deuteronomical and Levitical (i.e. Torah/Old Testament) laws were sanctification (i.e. setting apart ["for God" is implied]) law codes for the Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite people. They are not universal moral or ethical codes.
Jesus' teaching in the New Testament were universal moral/ethical teachings. Paul's/other New Testament writings teaching were practical/specific applications of Jesus' teaching.
OT prohibitions against homosexuality (if indeed the laws are against homosexuality; they are worded vaguely) are not valid for anyone except Jews. Jesus did not speak about homosexuality. Paul mentions homosexuality in lists of negative behavior but uses ambiguous terms that may refer to other practices such as pederasty or temple prostitution.
Compounding the confusion around homosexuality are misconceptions. "Sins" should not be viewed individual, specific proscribed actions; rather, one should think of "sin". Sin is a state of operating outside the will of God: and God wills the best for us.
Paul writes that "All things are permissible; but not all things are beneficial." Christians, therefore, do not passively avoid "sins", but actively work for that which is beneficial. Jesus taught the law of love, and Paul the "law of liberty". These laws are active working good, not passively avoiding bad.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #142,644
Bumping for discussion relating to my explanation.
Handel !khEOdtKF56 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #142,659
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
It's just a fucking book why do people get so anal over it? It's moronic.
It's just a fucking book why do people get so anal over it? It's moronic.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #142,668
Shitty trolling, OP. homosexuality was the first thing that Jesus said was a sin.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,091
@142,659 (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
Are you illiterate? How could you say that about literature? It is how we communicate. Books are incredibly important.
Are you illiterate? How could you say that about literature? It is how we communicate. Books are incredibly important.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,094
@142,668 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
lol why you ignore my post LOL
jesus didnt say that and you used a retarded definition of sin
lol why you ignore my post LOL
jesus didnt say that and you used a retarded definition of sin
Handel !khEOdtKF56 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,096
@143,091 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
It's a book that causes way too many problems than it fixes. It should be burned.
It's a book that causes way too many problems than it fixes. It should be burned.
dreamworks replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,099
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,142
@143,096 (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
What problems does it cause? Bad eyes from reading in the dark?
Problems the Bible would cause if followed:
Bankrupt the military-industrial complex
Lawyers would have less work
Less bureaucrats to enforce statism
No USA civil war because no slavery
What problems does it cause? Bad eyes from reading in the dark?
Problems the Bible would cause if followed:
Bankrupt the military-industrial complex
Lawyers would have less work
Less bureaucrats to enforce statism
No USA civil war because no slavery
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,143
dreamworks replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,145
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,147
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,155
@143,145 (dreamworks)
The Bible is many different books, but I read lots of extra-biblical books too.
The Bible is many different books, but I read lots of extra-biblical books too.
dreamworks replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,167
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
So you ignore the books by people with different points of view?
So you ignore the books by people with different points of view?
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,172
@143,147 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
No, Paul repudiates slavery in his letter to Philemon, a slave-owner who became Christian. His slave, Onesimus, ran away, and ended up meeting Paul. Paul taught Onesimus the Gospel and he believed. Paul then sent Onesimus back to Philemon, exhorting him to receive Onesimus as a brother and not a slave, which he did.
Paul also writes that there is neither "slave, nor free; Greek, nor Jew; male, nor female" in Christ. Societal distinctions mean nothing to Christians; all are equal partners in God's salvation plan. The slave/master relationship was an unequal one which does not fit within Christianity.
No, Paul repudiates slavery in his letter to Philemon, a slave-owner who became Christian. His slave, Onesimus, ran away, and ended up meeting Paul. Paul taught Onesimus the Gospel and he believed. Paul then sent Onesimus back to Philemon, exhorting him to receive Onesimus as a brother and not a slave, which he did.
Paul also writes that there is neither "slave, nor free; Greek, nor Jew; male, nor female" in Christ. Societal distinctions mean nothing to Christians; all are equal partners in God's salvation plan. The slave/master relationship was an unequal one which does not fit within Christianity.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,174
dreamworks replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,177
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
So if you found a new random book and you'd think it is better you would do everything it says?
So if you found a new random book and you'd think it is better you would do everything it says?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,186
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,212
@143,177 (dreamworks)
I was banned before I could reply sorry.
You seem confused about the order of operations. I choose Christianity because I agree with its ideas. I don't choose to agree with its ideas because I have Christianity.
I was banned before I could reply sorry.
You seem confused about the order of operations. I choose Christianity because I agree with its ideas. I don't choose to agree with its ideas because I have Christianity.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #143,213
@143,186 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Please read this post. I think it will explain the issue well to you.
@142,228 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Please read this post. I think it will explain the issue well to you.
@142,228 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)