Alt Lifestyle Part 2





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Alt Lifestyle Part 2
By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Being a gay male, I can give you all some insight into whether gay people are born gay or if this is a choice.

First of all, I must tell you all that I was born in a very Christian home. Growing up, I knew something was different about me from a very young age. I was better at arts (acting, singing) than sports like all the other boys. I got along better with girls more than I did with boys (even though I had plenty of friends of both genders).

When puberty hit, whenever I saw sexual material, the guy would attract me more. At this point, the concept of me being gay was never even a thought. I was a Christian. I couldn't be gay- God wouldn't make me this way. I dated girls, thought girls were cute, and always thought I was straight- but I secretly liked guys.

Eventually the dreaded thought entered my head- could I be gay? Upon this thought creeping into my head I tried extra hard to like girls. I prayed every night for God to make me straight. Who wanted to be gay? Who wanted to live their lives being discriminated against and being a freak? Not me. All I ever wanted was to fit in.

I don't see how any of you seemingly intelligent people can call homosexuality sinful and say it is a choice. I recognize that people do make that choice but they are the exception and not the rule. Why would all these people choose a life full of people such as yourselves call them sinful and don't allow them the same rights as everyone else?

I most definitely did not make the choice to be gay. Being straight would make my life a whole lot easier. Sorry this post is so long but I just have to let some of you know just how wrong you are.

By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Congrats to you killertofu. Excellent post.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

1) I don't think anyone should be denied rights
2) Why should you care if someone thinks you're sinful. Basically every action we make is sinful. Just because you sin doesn't make you any less of a person than me or a priest or a rabbi or whatever.
3) Sorry that you have to be gay, I could not imagine having such a central part of my behavior be considered abnormal by much of society. Good luck with overcoming the assumptions/opinions of such a large portion of society.
4) I think you're wrong for calling me wrong. I still don't understand why you take such offense to being called sinful.

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

) Why should you care if someone thinks you're sinful. Basically every action we make is sinful. Just because you sin doesn't make you any less of a person than me or a priest or a rabbi or whatever. >>

It's the fact that you say I'm sinful *for being homosexual* that is the problem.

4) I think you're wrong for calling me wrong. I still don't understand why you take such offense to being called sinful. >>

Once again, it's not that I'm being called sinful, it's that I'm labeled sinful for liking guys. It's not a choice I made. It's not a sin I'm commiting.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Excellent, killertofu. Excellent.

By Tdizzo (Tdizzo) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit

"Once again, it's not that I'm being called sinful, it's that I'm labeled sinful for liking guys. It's not a choice I made. It's not a sin I'm commiting."

I'd have to say it all comes back to your definition of what a "sin" is. Granted I'm no bible scholar, but I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. Under the traditional, Christian bible, you would then be commiting a sin. Of course this raises the whole question of what comprises choice and how it relates to sin. IF you unknowingly commited a sin, is it still a sin? If you do not choose to commit a sin is it still sinful behavior? Essentially it seems you're equating sin to choice. Which brings us right back around to whether or not you choose to be gay. Which of course is still a mystery...which means this question is unanswerable until there is some sort of definitive answer.

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Which brings us right back around to whether or not you choose to be gay. Which of course is still a mystery...>>

How is it a mystery? I'm gay and I am telling you gay people don't choose to be gay. LMAO shouldn't I know?

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

By Mrbesch (Mrbesch)
Congrats to you killertofu. Excellent post>>

Thanks.

Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp)
Excellent, killertofu. Excellent.>>

Thanks to you too.

By Tdizzo (Tdizzo) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

"How is it a mystery? I'm gay and I am telling you gay people don't choose to be gay. LMAO shouldn't I know?"

Let me clarify. I have no doubt that you personally believe that you didn't choose to be gay...however, can you scientifically prove it? Is there a gene you can point to, a part of your brain, anything that says "by genetics/the way this person is constructed they are now gay?" The answer is no. And that is all I am saying.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 06:55 pm: Edit

right. to elaborate on tdizzo, it's true you didn't consciously choose to be gay. it's hard to explain...like..what's your favorite color? hypothetically, let's say it's red. now you didn't say to yourself "i'm going to make my favorite color be red." it just is, maybe because you just like it or maybe because something happened to you as a kid that made you associate the color red with happiness or something. you wouldn't argue that there's a gene in your body that caused your favorite color to be red, would you?

i think i explained that the best i could.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Why does it matter if you choose or not? Not every sin is a choice (original sin is not a choice, being born with an addictive personality (an inclination towards doing drugs)) is not a choice, that doesn't mean it's not sinful. We just disagree, oh well, what can you do?

PS: My ex-boyfriend of an incredibley long time is gay or bi or...whatever. I HOPE he didn't CHOOSE to be that way (or what does that say about me?)

By Tdizzo (Tdizzo) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Lisasimpson...I think you perfectly described the way most gay people would describe why they're gay...the point I was trying to get at was that that definition would not be enough to overcome some homophobic rednecks argument against it. So long as anecdotal evidence is relied on there will be no definitive answer to the question of homosexuality (maybe that's the way it will always be, who knows?).

By Buckojackson (Buckojackson) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

I agree with GeniusAsh.

Some of the most "tolerant" people in the country are actually the most INtolerant. If someone chooses to think you're sinful, that's their business.

You have the right to be gay. Others have the right to dislike your lifestyle and think it's sinful. Period.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Right but as we've been through this before, they do not have the right to use their beliefs to restrict/discriminate/etc., which is what is happening.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Craigk10~
Um, you keep saying this. But who has been involved involved in discussion here who would fall under this category?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit

No one, but I think it is important to understand. You can believe whatever you want. I, nor no one else, should care as long as there are no consequences. But it would be foolish to think that your beliefs actually have had no consequences -- this needs to be understood.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit

My personal beliefs have had no consequences when it comes to this issue. Ignorant people who are unable to separate political beliefs from religious beliefs are the problem. And Frankly, I find your generalizations offensive.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 07:47 pm: Edit

I applaud you. I am sorry if I offended you in any way b/c I don't consider you part of the problem by any means -- that was not my intention. The key is your second sentence -- that's all I'm saying. As long as that belief is out there, there are going to be ignorant people who mix politics w/ religion -- and trust me, there are more than a few today. That's my only point.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 08:51 pm: Edit

"I prayed every night for God to make me straight."

.......... I never meant to offend you in anyway possible. They are other things I would like to say but I just wouldn't feel comfortable posting it here so I would email you...

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit

.......... I never meant to offend you in anyway possible. They are other things I would like to say but I just wouldn't feel comfortable posting it here so I would email you...>>

Posting of e-mail addresses or screen names is a violation of your Terms of Service. Please refer posters to your Profile, that's what it's there for. Repeat violators may be banned. --Admin

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit

I don't know you but I admire you very much. I hope your life ends up wonderful. I also hope that you will be proud to be who you are, if you are not already.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Killertofu-- I apologize for going off subject--your post was a wonderful addition to the debate by the way-- but is your screen name from the old "Doug" cartoon on Nickelodian? If you think this is a crazy question, let me clarify that "killertofu" was a funny song often played in the series.

Also, Yay Craigk10.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Yay. A post like killertofu's makes me REALLY happy. Thanks for making my day so much better. I totally applaud you for having the courage to confront the world.

Thanks.:)

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 08:04 am: Edit

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy)
I don't know you but I admire you very much. I hope your life ends up wonderful. I also hope that you will be proud to be who you are, if you are not already.>>

Haha aww thanks. I'm very proud of who I am, but it just makes me mad when people like LisaSimpson tell me I need therapy to change my "sinful ways". Please. I could say the same- that she needs therapy to open her mind and her heart.

By Anglophile (Anglophile)
Killertofu-- I apologize for going off subject--your post was a wonderful addition to the debate by the way-- but is your screen name from the old "Doug" cartoon on Nickelodian? If you think this is a crazy question, let me clarify that "killertofu" was a funny song often played in the series.>>

Don't apologize. :) YEp my SN is based off the song from Doug. "Killer Tofu" by the Beets. Oo wee oo! Killer Tofu!

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas)
Yay. A post like killertofu's makes me REALLY happy. Thanks for making my day so much better. I totally applaud you for having the courage to confront the world.>>

A post like yours makes me happy. :) I'm glad I'm not alone on this.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:51 am: Edit

You are not alone Killertofu. there are some here that understand you are who you are not by choice but by nature and keep in mind people were stupid enough to belive the world was flat for a long time and science proved them wrong, now people belive that homosexuality is a choice and science will someday prove them wrong..... ...

Yeah Craigk for another wonderful post...

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit

Okay, sorry, but what the hell is with the "some people here". You guys are trying to play the persecuted, and I don't like it...at all.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:49 am: Edit

I feel the same GA

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Thanks PI, I'm glad "some people here" understand where I'm coming from

By Thedad (Thedad) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit

I think it's important to recognize that gays are intrinsically born gay, that it's not a "choice"; otherwise, it gives fuel to all that "alternative lifestyle crap" as if it were something like choosing to be a surfer, a biker, a bookworm, whatever.


On a tangential note--cribbed from wisdom found in unlikely places like the "Pardon My Planet" comic strip--the sanctity of my marriage is not threatened by gay marriage, it's threatened by interesting straight women. :P

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Yay, Thedad. But I hope you mean gay marriage is NOT threatenting your marriage. Prithee, change it, if you could. :-p

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit

By Geniusash (Geniusash)
Okay, sorry, but what the hell is with the "some people here". You guys are trying to play the persecuted, and I don't like it...at all.>>

Perhaps you don't consider being told I need therapy because of my sexuality persecution. But I do. And I don't like it...at all.

By Thedad (Thedad)
I think it's important to recognize that gays are intrinsically born gay, that it's not a "choice"; otherwise, it gives fuel to all that "alternative lifestyle crap" as if it were something like choosing to be a surfer, a biker, a bookworm, whatever.>>

I totally agree.

By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Another thing- I don't understand why other straight guys have a problem with gays. Gay guys are GOOD for straight guys! That means more chicks for the straight guys! Plus, gay guys are usually in better shape AND better looking comparitive to most straight guys, so the ones the hot chicks are most likely to snatch up are out of the pool! Us out of shape straight guys have better chances!

Not only do I accept homosexuality, but I think its a benefit for straight guys everywhere.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit

LOL!!!! A benefit..

That's a good way of thinking about it! We need more people like that!

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Killertofu~
Who said you needed therapy?

Warm Regards,
Ashley

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Lisasimpson

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

By Mrbesch (Mrbesch)
Another thing- I don't understand why other straight guys have a problem with gays. Gay guys are GOOD for straight guys! That means more chicks for the straight guys! Plus, gay guys are usually in better shape AND better looking comparitive to most straight guys, so the ones the hot chicks are most likely to snatch up are out of the pool! Us out of shape straight guys have better chances!
Not only do I accept homosexuality, but I think its a benefit for straight guys everywhere. >>

LMAO! That's an interesting perspective.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Okay, have a nice day.

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit

By Geniusash (Geniusash)
Okay, have a nice day.>>

OK, you too.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Killertofu. You just changed my whole complete opinion on you...

Geniusash: Sorry for one being with you 100% on this thread.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Wait ... what just happened?

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:48 pm: Edit

I dropped it. (and yet I'm still checking this thread...)

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:53 pm: Edit

huh?? i said you needed therapy??

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:01 pm: Edit

I have no idea what's going on but I won't even ask. Yes, Lisa, when asked what homosexuals should do about their homosexuality you replied with "They should get therapy". It's in the first alternative lifestyle thread. Would you like me to find it for you?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Killertofu -

The true Christian viewpoint on homosexuality is basically that it is a cross to be borne. Gay inclinations in and of themselves are not sinful. But God does not want you to act upon them. Christianity considers homosexuality an aberration, something gone wrong with mother nature. It doesn't mean you are bad or evil, but it is disordered. This belief stems from the belief that man and woman were created to help each other and to procreate. The purpose of sex is procreation and to cement the bonds between the husband and wife. The purpose of marriage is procreation, although that doesn't always happen due to another kind of disorder of nature (infertility). The question I'm sure you'll ask is so what am I expected to do about it? The hard answer is the same for anyone not wishing to marry a member of the opposite sex: remain chaste and live out God's will for your life.

I'm just trying to explain the religious point of view. I know many so-called Christians don't understand it themselves and call you names and act in a hateful manner. But there are many who really do believe as I stated above and wish to offer you only kindness and understanding, but not condone your lifestyle. Just because someone doesn't condone the lifestyle and considers it sinful, don't jump to the conclusion that they are hateful and wish you any harm. But they do view the universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle to be harmful to society.

I believe you when you say you didn't choose to be gay. But there are many others who have different levels of inclination, let's say, who would be tempted to live the gay or bi-sexual lifestyle if it were more accepted, but who are otherwise capable of being heterosexual. And there are people who are inclined to sexual experimentation just for the sheer thrill of it and who feel they have to go to further and further lengths to get another thrill, which often includes gay sex (Madonna comes to mind). You get my drift. The more accepted the gay lifestyle and loose sexual morals in general become, the more hedonistic society becomes in general, leading to more AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, more breakups of families, more childless couples, etc.

The bottom line is that God has a plan for our lives, and gay sex isn't in the plan. We are all called to bear many difficult things in life. Jesus told many a man that to enter the kingdom of heaven, they must leave everything else behind. I don't expect you to agree with what I've said, but I just want to communicate another viewpoint that might help shed some light on what Christians are really thinking when they oppose gay marriage, for instance. It is not a personal attack on you. And please don't stop praying.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit

great post chavi. exactly how i was feeling, but i didn't have the words to put it so eloquently.

and killertofu, i definitely did not say you should get therapy yourself. i think i said that therapy does work for many homosexuals and that's a good option..or something to that effect.

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Thanks Chavi that was a really insightful message and it gave me a new perspective.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

If you want to see an interesting movie on this topic, see "But I'm a Cheerleader!". Great for christians and non christians, and it's funny too. Not a fabulous movie, but worth seeing. I am dubious about therapy working to change G/L/B. I've seen many documentaries stating the exact opposite, that it does not work and is a very damaging and negative experience. Yes, one could choose to deny who they are, but why should they if their actions aren't hurting anyone?-- yes I know the Christian argument against that statement, so no need to re-post.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This may not be the Christian way, but it is the American way. Let everyone pursue their happiness in peace!

Killertofu-- You rock, and YAY The Beats! Nice to meet someone who appreciates classic television :).

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

If you were born attracted to males or to females or to neither, that is your business and no one else's. More power to you. Where I get tired of the gay/lesbian movement is when they suggest they are victims, or demand that others accept them as if they are part of the rule and not an exception to it. Rosie O'Donnell offends more people than she convinces. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman for the benefit of their children. It borders on absurdity to suggest that it makes no difference whether two loving gay Dads raise a daughter or if a loving mother and father raise a daughter. If you add a little bit of water to Diet Coke, you still have Diet Coke, but it tastes funny. That is precisely what gay/lesbians are trying to accomplish with their sudden addiction to marriage. We live in a country where the majority rules and if the majority wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman, that choice should be honored until the majority changes its mind. Killertofu, if you work hard, obey the laws regardless of whether you agree with all of them, and treat others the best way you can, then you will be an honorable man regardless of your sexual orientation; and that is all our society can ask of anyone.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:21 am: Edit

Chavi's post is of *a* Christian viewpoint, not *the* Christian viewpoint.

If he said something like that in our church, people would look at him as if he had a squid hanging out of his mouth. My parish (Roman Catholic) church's congregation and pastoral staff generally has a far more enlightened and tolerant viewpoint.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:00 am: Edit

Thedad, you are absolutely right, and I apologize for my rude generalization. The vocal minority often give a bad name to the blameless majority. I'll amend former statement:

It may not be *Chavi's* way, but it is the American way.

:) No offense meant to Chavi, I understand that he is just stating his views, and he stated them very well.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:12 am: Edit

Ignore.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:21 am: Edit

Hey Craigk10. It seems to me that the books are less about "ethnic cleansing" (though that can certainly be inferred) than just a good suspense/thriller. Sort of like if Stephen King became a born again christian. If it's on the best sellers list then it can't just be appealing to the christian audience. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I was a little confused by it.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:25 am: Edit

Ignore.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:27 am: Edit

wrong place, but interesting subject...make a thread.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 07:36 am: Edit

why does craig keep saying ignore?

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:33 am: Edit

He probably made a post and then decided to delete it.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:37 pm: Edit

TheDad-

Maybe your priest and fellow parishioners should "enlighten" themselves by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Or maybe you prefer to remain closed-minded to it? For instance, Paragraph 2359: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Or Paragraph 23357, in part: "...tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Or Paragraph 2358: "...They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. ... These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

A harsh lesson to swallow, to be sure. But the mission of the Church is the saving of souls, not simply making life here on earth more comfortable by telling people not to worry, just be a basically good person and you'll be allright. We got kicked out of Paradise, and we are out in the cold cruel world with all of its hardships and imperfections. That is why we have sickness, accidents, birth defects, tornadoes, floods, etc. But we are not up the creek without a paddle. The Church is our paddle and our guide to find our way home. Sorry for preaching, but I felt I had to counter all the atheistic talk on here.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

"We live in a country where the majority rules"

Just wanted to point out that this statement is incorrect. And the founding fathers created it this way, to avoid (as much as possible) the problems of the minority being overruled by the majority. But, I've already said this on the previous thread.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Another movie recommendation: see "Saved!"
One of the best movies ever, and extremely accurate on all sides-- also directly applies to this discussion.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Thedad, Chavi was just stating his opinion, and it is rather immature and ignorant of you to claim your beliefs are more "enlightened and tolerant." Maybe from now on, you shoud stick to making your point insted of belittling other people's.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit

I want to throw out an analogy and see what people think (I am just looking for responses):
It was once strongly believed that Africans were the descendents of Ham (Noah's son) by many Christians. Because of this, they believed that Africans were meant to be enslaved with this Biblical justification.

First question -- is this true and is there more to the story?
Second question -- is this comparable in any way?

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:58 pm: Edit

1. no
2. no

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:59 pm: Edit

How about you give a little more? Like, oh I don't know, proof as to it not being true.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Um, if Africans are descendants of Ham so are we white folks (and all the other races, too). Therefore, we should all be enslaved, which we are. But our overseer is the almighty dollar. So there you have it.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit

How this compares with homosexuality... um, it doesn't.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

It compares vaguely in that both revolve around a biblical justification.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

I agree with Jenesaispas. We would all have Noahic blood which we do!

NEWSFLASH: We are all related!!!!

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Woohoo! We're all one big human (but not so happy) family! Every one show your support of this by giving virtual hugs... to blacks, whites, reds, yellows, oranges, greens, gays, lesbians, happy people, sad people, city people, mean people, grocers, bowling alley attendants, CEOs, the President, and to the entire world!

*HUG*

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit

*GROUP HUG*

Jenesaispas, your my distant cousin! LONG LOST! *hug*

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Maybe it would help to hear the story ...
The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Genesis 9:18-29)

The idea is that Africans were believed to be Canaan's descendents and thus meant to be enslaved.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Every time I read these type of threads, my knot of faith just gets looser and looser. the bible truly does contradict itself in so many ways. i wonder, is it reality or the best selling novel in the world?

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:54 pm: Edit

First of all, apparently we're all descended from alcoholics.

Poisin Ivy-- Faith is a good thing; just don't *believe* everything you read :).

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Craig -

Are you trying to say that we should disregard the Bible when it comes to what it says about homosexuality because it also seems to say that slavery is OK? The passage you quote does not say that slavery is OK, and anyone who uses that passage to try to justify it is wrong.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

I'm saying that the Bible has been used as justification in the past (this was widely believed at that point in time as well) for something we now consider unacceptable, so it's viable to say that it could happen again with homosexuality. I am just throwing out a somewhat similar (though clearly not perfect) analogy and nothing more.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:37 pm: Edit

You cannot take the Bible literally. Homosexuality is genetic. No one can control it. Therefore it is not a sin. It would be like saying "Being a minority is a sin"

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Again, You cannot take the Bible literally. After all, it does say that slavery is allowed. And it says that we cannot shave.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Your analogy is not only imperfect, put also pointless and irrelevant. The justification for slavery was that is was completely legal and people had been doing it for hundreds of years (and not only white Christians), although we now can see how immoral it was. Not all slave owners were Christians. Plus, let's not forget who was selling slaves to white Americans.....other Africans! That's right...people selling their own race to make a profit. Now, you're not going to tell me that their justification had anything to do with Noah, are you?

But anyway, this topic has nothing to do with slavery (as I already said), so sorry for the tangent.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit

The justification for anti-homosexuality is that it was completely legal and people had been doing it for hundreds of years (and not only white Christians), although people will soon see how immoral it is. Not all anti-homosexuals were Christians. Plus, let's not forget who had sexual relations with their own sex...people of all races! That's right...people having sex with people of their own sex to make pleasure. Now, you're not going to tell me that their justification had anything to do with Sodom and Gommorah, are you?

But anyway, this topic has everything to do with anti-homosexuality, so there is no tangent.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

And how can you explain that the Bible states that men are not allowed to shave their beards or sideburns?

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I love you nycneedhelp.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:48 pm: Edit

LoL, funny but it didn't actually make a point...

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Wait ... it doesn't matter that all slave owners/slave traders were not Christians. The Bible was used as a justification for slavery -- it wasn't that they did it because of the Bible. There's a key difference. I was not saying that slavery was caused by this biblical story -- I am simply saying that because of this many people were all right with it.

You really didn't say anything to disprove that ...

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

This is very pertinent by the way because it deals with something that is commonly accepted now (just like slavery was then) largely because of biblical justification.

You are just plain wrong on one aspect at least -- it is truth that proponents of slavery used this argument. If you don't believe me go read Noah's Curse by Stephen Haynes or one of the many articles.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

So what if someone uses the Bible to justify standing on your head for eight hours while eating a tomatoe? Does that mean the Bible is wrong, or that person is wrong? Besides, the passage you quoted might explain (I say might) how some of the descendants of Ham became slaves, but it doesn't say it is ok to treat people as slaves. I still don't get your point.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit

My point is that biblical justification as interpreted by many people has been plain wrong in the past so it shouldn't be taken without thought now. That's all.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:24 am: Edit

HEY THE BIBLE SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG! SO LET'S DO EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS!


"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations" - Leviticus 25:44

WOW SO NOW WE CAN BUY CANADIANS AND ENSLAVE THEM!

"Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard" - Leviticus 19:27

WHOOOOA OKAY NOW WE CAN'T SHAVE AND WE HAVE TO HAVE HUGE SIDEBURNS AND BEARDS


Well if you want to obey everything the Bible says, throw out all your razors!

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 02:20 am: Edit

I'd love to see a rebuttal to Mrnychelp's post.

By Jeffman85 (Jeffman85) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:14 am: Edit

This discussion gets so tired doesn't it? After a while you start to wonder why the hell this is such a big freaking deal.People need to just chill out and accept peoeple..damn. It really IS that EASY!!! Sorry...i just got home from work and read this and it made me all exhausted.

peace!

Jeff

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:27 am: Edit

I'm confused over what you are talking about Jeff.

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:34 am: Edit

Basically he is saying that this topic shouldn't even be necessary- that it's simple to accept everyone. He came home from work, read this thread, and it made him tired. lol

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:46 am: Edit

Ok, because I was unsure about what the acceptance part was -- homosexuality or religious people who have a problem with homosexuality.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:14 pm: Edit

No rebuttal? I guess the whole lot of Bible-thumping idiots ran away...

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:24 pm: Edit

rebuttal to WHAT? craig's post was a pretty good, peaceful ending. everyone should just accept (or leave alone) homosexuals and people who don't like homosexuals (not necessarily religious). geez. let's stop beating the dead horse.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

To my 1:24 post on 7/24. Because now you all know the Bible isn't 100% true.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

>>>>>>>>>>>"HEY THE BIBLE SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG! SO LET'S DO EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS!


"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations" - Leviticus 25:44

WOW SO NOW WE CAN BUY CANADIANS AND ENSLAVE THEM!

"Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard" - Leviticus 19:27

WHOOOOA OKAY NOW WE CAN'T SHAVE AND WE HAVE TO HAVE HUGE SIDEBURNS AND BEARDS


Well if you want to obey everything the Bible says, throw out all your razors!"


umm, i guess this isn't directed specifically at me, but i'll respond. i never, ever said the bible was 100% true. i never, ever even mentioned the bible in any of my posts. go check. i'll wait....
....

*30 seconds later*

...

ok then. i think it's time for me to post a quote too.

"sarcasm is the protest of the weak." -- john knowles (i think)

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

So how much of the Bible is true?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 12:03 pm: Edit

ummm, are you asking for a specific percentage or something? because you're not going to find that anywhere. i guess different people beleive different parts/amounts of it are true. personally, i'm not even christian and i never read the bible, so i only have a vague idea of what's even in it. i don't know how your question has anything to do with alternate lifestyles, though.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

The entire Bible is "true". But it must be read in historical context and with some level of education as to the meaning of specific passages.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

It's related to alternative lifestyles because one of the barriers that homosexuals face is the biblical interpretation that what they are doing is wrong. How much of the Bible is "true"? That doesn't really matter, but interpretations of it have been proved false in the past (that you must agree with) so it's unreasonable as a Christian to be so diehard about it now.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Lets keep in mind that the Bible was written by HUMANS

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit

"Bible-thumping idiots"? And you are the one who call for acceptance for everyone? Lol, how hypocritical. Anyway, that passage was from the old testament. Many things in the old testament are no longer applicable in today's society. When Jesus came to earth, many things changed (eating pork, coming of the holy ghost, etc.) Still, the old testament is a good resource for many things, but we do not go by its rules (besides the ten commandments) if they contradict with the new testament....there is your rebuttle.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 07:09 pm: Edit

But the Bible is "God's Word". How can you people not go by it's rules? Why are you all still shaving?

By Plot93 (Plot93) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Killertofu, I'm not sure I have anything to say that will be of help. I do believe that you did not choose to be gay. I don't think many people really choose to be gay. The reasons behind homosexuality are complex and they can vary somewhat from person to person. In some cases (not all, and quite possibly not yours) there can be psychological roots. I've heard of people who were molested when they were very young and grew up in very dysfunctional, confusing families, and that might not completely account for why they became gay but might have something to do it. In such cases, some form of psychotherapy could be helpful.
I don't know whether or not some people are born gay. I find that very controversial, and I haven't done much research into it.

I too am a Christian. You may have heard the saying "it's not a sin to be tempted, but it is a sin to act on the temptation." Or along the same lines "you can let the birds fly over your head, but don't let them nest there."
It's only a sin to act on a temptation.
I don't know how seriously you take "not sinning." You could live your entire live being celibate and not act on homosexual feelings. Assuming you don't fantasize sexually either, you wouldn't be sinning.
I have heard of some Christians who were gay and wanted to get over it. Sy Rogers was one of them. Such people started seeking God for help on the matter, and God did help and they eventually got over being gay. Some people might say it's impossible to stop being gay, but with God all things are possible. Of course, it took a lot of dedication and prayer and not giving up, yet it's not impossible.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Nycneedhelp- read Chavi's last post, he pretty much explained it for you. Sort of to add on- in order to bring humanity to salvation, God works within the realm of human understanding (although he transcends it), so God works within the customs, culture, morality, etc. of humanity- so thus in the Old Testment, God works within the culture of those people. Yes, the OT is literally true, but then it is further transcended in the NT with Christ- who explains why we shave, don't have slaves, etc.

The Bible is true, but must be UNDERSTOOD within the contexts of the literal, metaphorical, allegorical, and anagogical senses or methods. Most people who want to "disproove" Christians only go with a (uneducated) literal interpretation.

Chavi, feel free to clarify or correct anything if I made an error- I had Scripture class last year...but my brain is currently in Summer Mode.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 09:33 pm: Edit

So one day, when the world grows tolerant of homosexuals, God will work within its culture to make it acceptable, just as he did with shaving.

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Following Jesus' death, Christians were no longer bound to the "Old Law" (i.e. the aforementioned rules, as well as a million others, and the sacrificial system). Today, Christians live under the "New Law"...meaning that we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles/disciples. The Old Testament is still relevant...but the old laws are irrelevant because "the old has passed away and the new has come". Now, in order to apply this to homosexuality not being a sin because it is part of the "Old Law"...Paul (the apostle) mentioned homosexuality several times in his Epistles.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

So this means that the Old Testament exists solely for...historical purposes only? And that we should disregard the teachings and laws of the Old Testament and follow ALL the teachings in the WHOLE New Testament instead?

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:41 am: Edit

The Books of the Law (first 5 books) exist for historical purposes. This is not to say that I, or other Christians, am not convicted by the first five books--they are still inspired, but that we are not bound by their teachings.

The New Testament's teachings are all relevant, save for a small cultural issue regarding headcoverings.I

By Chavi (Chavi) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit

I heard it explained this way, and it made sense to me. In the Old Testament, we see God the Father (justice, mercy, discipline) at work, before the presence of Jesus the Son (sacrifice, forgiveness, love) or the Holy Spirit (inner faith, miraculous works, wisdom), bringing to fruition his plan of salvation beginning with the Jewish people. He made laws for them to obey that set them apart from other peoples of the time, and also kept them healthier (i.e. the prohibition against eating pork). There is both a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning for each happening in the Bible. And there are lessons for us to learn from every event. For example, Ham really did something terribly insulting and sinful, and Noah spoke those words condemning him and his progeny. This really happened, but it was not God who condemned him, it was Noah in his anger. But Noah also spoke words of prophecy. This passage may be an explanation for why some races/cultures were better off than others. This shows us how the sins of the fathers are visited upon their children. No, God didn't punish Ham's descendants because of Ham's sin. Ham punished them. Ham's sinfulness and lack of repentance resulted in his being separated from God and family. You can presume he continued in his sinful ways in the raising of his children and screwed them up, so to speak. This resulted in the creation of an entire culture that perisisted in sinful ways and was deprived of the blessings that God granted the rest of the family's descendants. Through God's guidance and blessings, the Jews became a society that shone as an example to the rest of the world.

Once Jesus came into the world in the New Testament, you see how God then extends his plan of salvation to the rest of the world, and the way us Christians help with this plan is through sacrifice, forgiveness (even if the trespasser is not repentant) and love. The Holy Spirit is then given as a gift to the Church to guide it in the ways our human eyes cannot see. This explains why you see so much war, death, and destruction in the Old Testament, as the Jews grow in power and size and God separates the wheat from the chaffe. But in the New Testament, it is the uniting of our burdens and sorrows to the suffering of Christ that brings about salavation and conversion for everyone. Phase Two, basically.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Ok then, in 1 Corinthians (Which is in the New Testament, by the way), it states,

"Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but they should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church" - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

So if we must follow the teachings of the New Testament, then today, women should be subordinate to men, right?

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:14 pm: Edit

=popcorn= This is good.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Culture again...read within the context of the time- Corinthians was written by Paul trying to guide the early Church in its inception...and hence is working within the times at something new to him. Beyond that, it is now interpreted to mean respect...it also talks about children doing the same- respect parents...and that husbands should devote themselves to their wives...

So yeah, that's how that shiznit is done. I'm wondering though, what are you trying to proove? That we are stupid for being Chrisitans? That Christianity is objectively bad or wrong? What's the point as we've kind of gone off topic...? Or are you just one who likes to (try to) proove people wrong to make yourself feel better?

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Culture again...read within the context of the time- Corinthians was written by Paul trying to guide the early Church in its inception...and hence is working within the times at something new to him. Beyond that, it is now interpreted to mean respect...it also talks about children doing the same- respect parents...and that husbands should devote themselves to their wives...

So yeah, that's how that shiznit is done. I'm wondering though, what are you trying to proove? That we are stupid for being Chrisitans? That Christianity is objectively bad or wrong? What's the point as we've kind of gone off topic...? Or are you just one who likes to (try to) proove people wrong to make yourself feel better?

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Culture again - Now that the world accepts women as equals to men, thus disproving the Bible, one day the world will accept homosexuals, disproving the Bible again.

And I am trying to prove that the whole Bible, Old and New Testament included, is not 100% true in its laws.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:36 pm: Edit

It is all true (assuming you are Christian) as it is the word of God written through inspired people. It is 100% true when you look at it through the senses I mentioned.

I would recommend reading a book (forget exact title) by Mark P. Shea. It was the book we used in my scripture class, and I though he did a good job explaining what you are trying to "disprove". There's also Mere Chritianity by Lewis along with the Catechism of the Church, and many other scholarly works written by people far more knowledgeble than I. It's a hard thing to explain, especially on a message board.

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Let me explain:

During Bible times, women who did not wear headcoverings or spoke in the church were considered to be, well, "loose". This has obviously changed. It can be applied to today, however, in meaning that all Christians should be an example of morality in their dress.

Homosexuality is spoken out against several times. It's just not something that changes.

And, BTW...Nycneedhelp...I do agree that in time that many churches will become politically correct and accept homosexuality. But I definitely feel that this is a result of misinterpretation of the Scriptures.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

I'm with you Nycneedhelp. As an outsider, it just seems like this whole process for Christians is one rationalization after another.

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Religion is abstract. There are very few "cut and dry" components to it. It's not rationalization, it's faith. As a non-Christian (or a non-Moslem, non-Buddhist, or whathaveyou), you can never understand how exactly the religion works without becoming personally involved in it. (i.e. having a relationship with God)

By Chavi (Chavi) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

The passage you quote from Corinthians still applies today. It illustrates Christ's intention that the priesthood and administration of the Church is the province of men. We can't fully explain all of God's reasons for this, although I can come up with a few. But this and further passages illustrate that the intended relationship between husband and wife is similar to the relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ is the head of the Church, and the Church nurtures the "children" and is the embodiment of Christ's teaching. Keep in mind, before you jump into the supposed unfairness of this arrangement, that Christ also died for his Church. He stands ready, willing and able to sacrifice his life for it.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:55 am: Edit

I am inspired by god and am going to write a book, thats says homosexuality is good- ( just for you Killertofu) and people will praise my book for years to come.

Sorry, not meaning disrespect to Christianity but if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, fine believe it but by saying the book says it's wrong just seems like an easy awsner.... that can't be the only reason you believe can it... cause and old book says so?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit

Gidget -

So, you compare yourself to Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, Mathew, Mark, James, or John? Are you just as knowledgeable and worthy as they? Did you heal the sick, feed the poor, raise the dead, lead an entire race out of slavery, father an entire race of God-fearing and blessed people who prospered and defeated every enemy? But, of course, they just wrote some old book and decided off the top of their head that certain things were sinful. What do they know?

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Where does it say in the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin?

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Me and a friend of mine had this debate a few days ago. She kept quoting all these scriptures where God was cracking down on gay sexual ACTS. For "practicing homosexuality". It never in fact said "homosexuality is a sin". It was always the act.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Chavi.... It was a joke... get it... humour...I don't compare myself to those people, I am asking for some other "evidence" that homosexuality is a sin, besides the bible.

As I said, I meant no disrespect to christianity, just curious about where people get their belief that homosexuality is wrong. I personally do not think it is, it hurts no one and everyone has the right to be happy, who am I to look down on them for loving someone ( note to eveyone: please don't bring up the 14 year old-adult thing, or incest thing again) - I mean that two unrelated adults, being of sound mind, should be able to live how they want to live and what business is it to the rest of the world?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:21 pm: Edit

well what if they're distant cousins and never knew it? would they have sinned???????

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:28 pm: Edit

We're all distant cousins. Eleanor Roosevelt and FDR were fifth cousins! They seem like pretty cool people.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Lisasimpson -

We are assuming that they are completely unrelated. What if your mom and dad are 100000th cousins? Would they have sinned?

And again, to all...Where does it say in the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin? According to Chavi, only the laws of the New Testament apply, so if it's not in the New Testament, it's not a sin.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:39 pm: Edit

When did I say only the laws of the New Testament apply? If I gave that impression, it was not intended. Jesus came to fulfill the old Covenant, not to supersede it.

Gidget - you seemed to be saying that the Bible is no better than any other old book written by any other old person. Just trying to point out the significance of the persons who wrote it and about whom it was written. And to answer your question, number one, I whoever started this thread asked our opinion. Number two, I offer my opinion in the hope it might keep someone from sin. Number three, widespread acceptance of homosexual partnerships and eventually gay marriage can cause harm to society in general. I understand your position and used to share it. I've just come to think differently about it in my old age, for reasons previously stated.

Nycneedhelp, try Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; and 1 Timothy 1:10.

By Justice (Justice) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

How about Jesus' most fundamental teachings? Throw out Leviticus, throw out the technicalities--what's left? Isn't the message of Jesus that of unconditional love? Love the thief and give him your coat too? Love the killer and forgive his wrongs? Sorry it's been a while since I read the Gospels so forgive me.

I'm not saying murder/larceny should be legalized. I just think that from a societal standpoint, we should respect differences which can be justified, and homosexuality is certainly justifiable.

If I'm not mistaken, Leviticus allows husbands to return their wives if suspecting that they are not fresh. I hope you're not fundamentalist Chavi...that's the one sect that I cannot stand.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Chavi,

Sorry it was Stephenpmi that said only the New Testament applies.

But, if the laws of both testaments must be followed, explain the bible quotes listed on my 7/24/04 - 01:24 am post...

And explain this,

"For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil" - 1 Corinthians 11:6

Now, if we have to follow all the laws of the New Testament, then all women should wear veils, or be bald, right? What are all these women doing walking on our streets without veils?! Heretics!

And why do you shave? It's against the Bible. (Leviticus 19:27)

And it would be okay for be to buy slaves then, right? (Leviticus 25:44)

By Conker (Conker) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 01:26 am: Edit

"Homosexuality is spoken out against several times. It's just not something that changes."

Well, veils don't change either. But you've reconciled that piece of scripture with your modern beliefs. If people are allowed to take the Bible for anything less than literal truth, then the whole book becomes useless. I could probably interpret the passages on homosexuality to fit my personal views. And then, people could also do away with some of the other good stuff the Bible says.

The Bible is an all-or-nothing deal. Some Christians have said that the Old Testament scriptures are no longer valid. Fine. The New Testament is an all-or-nothing deal as well.

By Jimster0489 (Jimster0489) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 04:09 am: Edit

I'm a Catholic by birth and initiation but a conservative quasi-fundamentalist Christian at heart.

Jesus Christ, the Word, was with God always and forever, as proclaimed in the Bible. He, the Word, was there when God divinely inspired those Biblical prophets and writers in the Old Testament as well. The Word became Flesh, as said, in the New Testament. God/Jesus is omnipresent during all times. (I'm sorry if I can not tell you where to find all this scriptural information specifically in the Bible, but it is all there.)

The Old Testament laws and teachings still are of significant meaning. Times have changed and so has the enforcement of these Old Laws. Jesus said that the Old Laws no longer needed to be so orthodoxically kept because he provided the New Law, the New Testament (testament also means covenant). In the New Testament, homosexuality is mentioned 3 or 4 times and is grouped among the most heinous of sinful crimes, ie. murder, thievery. Also in the New Testament, it states that even sinful thoughts were in itself a sin. My dogmatic conclusion is that whether you are a non-practicing or a practicing homosexual/bisexual: you are sinning. Your actions and thoughts are tainted with Satan.

I am a bisexual, a non-practicing one at that, and do have shame and disgust in being who I am. I pray that the power of God will one day rid me of my lustful desires that descend from the utmost evil, the victor of the Earth.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 04:46 am: Edit

After reading that, I have to say those beliefs are pretty unhealthy.

Isn't a lot of this interpretation though -- can't passages be interpreted different ways by different Chrisitians, etc.?

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:16 am: Edit

Conker -

So are you saying that the New Testament is all? That women should wear veils?

Jimster0489 -

Oh, then the whole Bible is all true? Then we would all be related, since we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. So then everything would be incest! And according to the Bible, incest is bad, so we can't have sex with anyone! So if no one ever had sex, there would be no population growth! And if there was no population growth, the whole human race would die out, thus rendering the literal interpretation of the bible totally useless, since there would be no one around to read it!

...And another reason why fundamentalism makes no sense...

And why did you attend biology class? Isn't evolution against your beliefs?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Wow, lots of stuff to talk about today. Let's start with Justice. Consider what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. He singles out sexual immorality as especially offensive to God. "Every other sin a man commits is outside his body, but the fornicator sins against his own body. You must know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is within - the Spirit you have received from God. You are not your own. You have been purchased, and at a price! So Glorify God in your body." Jesus' most fundamental teachings were "Love God above all things, and love your neighbor as yourself." Now, if you are "fornicating", i.e. engaging in any kind of sex outside of marriage(between a man and a woman, that is), your are dissing God, because your body belongs to Him. And you are not loving yourself very well, therefor not loving your neighbor, either. I can't say this is worse than murder, but it is an extremely disrespectful and even blasphemous type of sin. In sum, not justifiable.

Nycneedhelp, in Leviticus, Moses is speaking to the Jewish people, and handing down laws from God for them to be governed by as a nation. These passages have to be understood in the context of the customs of the time. Slavery comes in many forms, and is not necessarily intrinsically evil. It is evil now because we have the ability to outlaw it and take care of people in other ways. Many people sold themselves into slavery voluntarily because they were desperately poor and that was their way out. Even the Jews were allowed under Leviticus to sell themselves into indentured servitude for some period of time if they needed to. Also, many people were enslaved as the result of war. The alternative would have been death, because they did not have the facilities to imprison their enemies in order to protect themselves. Here, God is differentiating between the Jewish people and their enemies. They were allowed to purchase slaves from outside the Jewish nation, but not to enslave their own people. But nowhere does it say they can treat anyone cruelly. Keep in mind, these "slaves" were already slaves. Being owned by the Jews probably greatly improved their lot in life, and exposed them to the Jewish religion and thus to God.

Now, when it comes to veils, the culture back then considered a womans hair to be very sexually enticing. Baring ones' hair in public then was probably similar to baring ones' midriff now. It is exhibitionistic and titillating. You wouldn't do it in polite society (unless you were 16 or a Hollywood celebrity). Mores have changed and I don't think we consider a woman's hair to have quite the same impact, although until very recently we were required to cover it in church. But the point is the same, we should not go about exhibiting portions of our bodies in a way that attracts sexual attention. As for shaving, there were many laws regarding relatively minor things that were made for practical reasons and in order to set the Jewish people apart from others. God commissioned an orderly, uniform society, maybe in order to command respect from other nations. They may have also been tests of obedience. These were laws applied to the Jewish people, and in the New Testament, Paul taught that the Gentiles were not bound by these i.e. circumcision. The Jewish High Priests eventually took advantage and started prescribing all kinds of other miniscule little rules in order to enforce their own power over the people. Jesus made it clear that what they did was sinful and released His people from adhering to them. It is important that we take into account the traditions of the early Church, because they help with the interpretation of scripture. Further, Jesus established his Church on earth before He left, knowing it would be needed to interpret His teachings. He promised that He would be with it until the end of time and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Jimster, I didn't mean to leave the impression from what I said earlier that Jesus was somehow separate from God. But the Old Testament ocurred prior to Jesus' sacrifice, where he atoned for our sins and purchased eternal life for us, if we would only so choose it. I was just pointing out why the Old Testament speaks so much of justice and punishment, and not so much of love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Also, maybe to try to correct a little of what you said, having homosexual "feelings" or temptations is not sinful. But I agree that fantasizing about them would be. The fantasies you have some control over, you can push them from your mind and try to distract yourself. But please don't condemn yourself. You have to have hope to overcome this. Have you tried eXchange Ministries? They are a wealth of information and support. (407) 629-5770. For too long the Christian church has swept homosexuality under the rug and into the closet. One good thing about all the public attention lately is that it forces us to deal with it from a Godly perspective. I think the first inclination of most straight people is to feel disgust and avoid gays. It's a natural reaction because thinking about the physical act is, well, let's say it, REVOLTING to most straight people. But gays need Christ's love more than anyone else. God has recently placed my daughter's best friend in our home, and she is struggling with very strong feelings for another woman. She has agreed to get some counseling concerning her obsessiveness with this woman, and it will be very interesting to watch the outcome. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with her relationship with her mother, which is very unhealthy.

By Jimster0489 (Jimster0489) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

nycneedhelp- Its hard for me to be both a Christian and a believer in evolution. I don't believe in the fundamentals of evolution, that man evolved from a subordinate animal. "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16. I firmly believe in what is written in Genesis, and all other divinely inspired books of the Bible because it is all inspired by God. And because of this strong belief, I do take what people would consider a near-literal interpretation of Scripture. Why would we as humans only believe what we want to believe from the Bible and discard everything else or scrutinize it for further theological questioning? It's all right there. Who are any of us to critisize anything that God, the very Creator, mandated upon his most beloved children?

Chavi- The majority of people in this world have this mindset: All Israelites = Jews. That is not true. The 12 Tribes (actually 13 if you don't forget Manessah) were known as the nation of Israel, the people that God had set forth his commandments on. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and the most part of Levi) divided themselves from the rest of the nation of Israel and became known to the rest of the world as Jews. They maintain the sceptre, the grace that distinguishes them from the rest of the world, one evidence of this being their devout worship on Seventh Day- Saturday, a "test-obedience commandment" God had placed. The Jews were the minority. The Israelites were then compromised of the ten remaining tribes- Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph (Ephraim, Manessah), Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Before Israel (Jacob) died, he bestowed the birthright promise upon Ephraim and Manessah. I could write on and on about the significance of the Jews and Israelites in prophecy, but you should definitely check it out. The book, The United States and Britain in Prophecy by Herbert W. Armstrong, which is published free by the Philadelphia Church of God, is an entire dissertation on what I have spoken of. The point being that God didn't just instruct the Jews and command them, he constructed the entire nation of Israel (all 12 tribes), pre-schism.

And also Chavi, thank you so incredibly much for that contact number and the invitation to check out Life Exchange Ministries. It really is what I have been looking for. I do hope that your daughter's best friend is cured of this demonic plague. God bless.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

"cured of this demonic plague"

I don't know what to say.

By Jimster0489 (Jimster0489) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit

I was being a bit too overdramatic there.

It [homosexuality] is a sin caused by temptation. Who is the ruler of this Earth, the root of all sin? Satan. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

I get it ... but I still don't know what to say.

By Conker (Conker) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:41 am: Edit

"So are you saying that the New Testament is all? That women should wear veils?"

Read my post a bit more carefully. ;)

I'm not a Christian. I'm saying that if Christians want to use the New Testament as an argument against homosexuality, then they must also wear veils.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page