Homosexulaity and the Bible

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Just answer the question. It comes back to why are some biblical rules/ instructions followed and not others?

Just tell me why you're asking me this question.

Please point out exactly where you have "explained" what you meant by both of those statements.

actually, one was an explanation of the other.

Ah, so they weren't instructions from god? How do you know? Isn't the entire bible supposedly the word of word god?

I meant as a religious instruction, meaning that it was part of the religion.

Wrong: my explanation followed logically from your words.

That's what you tell yourself.

I have already shown where you reversed position and linked to a previous thread where you consistently did so.

No you haven't, it is just your tactic.

I mean that you have not, in any way, "covered" the subject, you have made vague statements that haven't been fully explained.

I've noticed you sidestep them very quickly.
That way you don't have to discuss them.

See above about the supposed origin of the bible.

I have, and it doesn't answer the question.
Maybe you can?

You being one of tlhem.

I know you'd like to think so, and of course you will maintain that deception, because it means you don't have to think, but the truth, straight from the horses mouth is, I'm not. Sorry.

Of course it needs asking: why is homosexuality viewed as bad thing (and the bible claimed as justification for this view) when other instructions in the bible are disregarded?

It's viewed as a bad thing because it is an abomination to God.
Didn't you know?
I think, as this is a big issue with you, and you are obviously searching
for the truth, .....
...you should read the bible again, clear your mind of all cliches and accepted modes of thought pertaining to the bible. Then take everything into consideration, not just the bit you want. Otherwise your just creating your own reasons, which are heavily biased to begin with.

Excuse me, are you seriously suggesting that there is no moral aspect to slave ownership or selling your daughter?

Here is a prime example of your tactic.
I didn't say there was no moral aspect to slave ownership etc..
But there are things to take into account as I have mentioned before, but you wish to omit.

If there were no question of morality to either of those do you think that they would have been abolished?

You can't help it can you?
You don't need me in the conversation, you're quite cabable of answering
for both sides, and coming to a personally favourable, and emotionally satisfying conclusion.

Which? Homosexuality or slavery?

Slavery.

And tell me why they think it's a bad thing if you don't think it's a question of morality.

Stop misquoting me.
If you live in a society where selling your daughter is normal everyday practice, and it has been for generations, then for that society, the moral aspect is not the selling, it is something that they deem immoral, not the standard of outsiders.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Just tell me why you're asking me this question.

I HAVE told you:

Of course it needs asking: why is homosexuality viewed as bad thing (and the bible claimed as justification for this view) when other instructions in the bible are disregarded?

Post #140.

Why should one set of rules be ignored and not another?

Post #138.

Does the bible contain rules?
Are these rules meant to be taken seriously?

Post #136.
Etc...

actually, one was an explanation of the other.

So now you're claiming that contradictory statements are explanations for each other?

I meant as a religious instruction, meaning that it was part of the religion.

So it was an instruction...
And is the bible the word of god or not?

No you haven't, it is just your tactic.

One more lie:
One reversal was noted here and the link to a previous thread is here. (And in fact your response to that last link was to ask why I'd given it, yet it was YOU that asked for examples of your duplicity).

I've noticed you sidestep them very quickly.
That way you don't have to discuss them.

Keep trying: there's nothing to sidestep since you fail consistently to state an actual position. Vague statements do NOT constitute explanation. Especially if you retract them or state the opposite any time I comment on them.

I have, and it doesn't answer the question.
Maybe you can?

Is the bible dictated by god or not? Are the laws given therein god's laws or can we ignore them any time please?

I know you'd like to think so, and of course you will maintain that deception, because it means you don't have to think, but the truth, straight from the horses mouth is, I'm not. Sorry.

Actually it was YOU who stated that they are clichés, so hard luck, It's not my deception at all.

It's viewed as a bad thing because it is an abomination to God.
Didn't you know?

But, since we don't have to bother following other instructions from god why should we listen to that one?

I think, as this is a big issue with you, and you are obviously searching for the truth, .....

Certainly I'm searching for the truth: I'm trying to discover why you, and other believers are such hypocrites.

Here is a prime example of your tactic.
I didn't say there was no moral aspect to slave ownership etc..

So what exactly did you mean by

Where do get the idea that any of these things are based on morals?

You can't help it can you?
You don't need me in the conversation, you're quite cabable of answering for both sides, and coming to a personally favourable, and emotionally satisfying conclusion.

So you don't have an actual answer?

Slavery.

In other words you're contradicting yourself again.

I state "but doesn't think twice when someone says that slavery is bad?"
And you reply
"I don't know that that's the case, generally speaking." (i.e. to slavery - as you have just stated) and then continue with "In my experience people generally think slavery is a bad thing."

Stop misquoting me.

I didn't misquote you.

If you live in a society where selling your daughter is normal everyday practice, and it has been for generations, then for that society, the moral aspect is not the selling, it is something that they deem immoral, not the standard of outsiders.

You think a society will maintain a practice it considers immoral? And make an institution of it?

One more time: if slavery is regarded as bad, but not on moral grounds, what is the criterion for judging it to be bad?

 

[Doreen]

Up till now Doreens has made twelve posts.
Which one should I read?

He was referring to my last one. The Bible makes it clear that slavery is ok. Why is it no longer OK for most Christians, despite clear biblical support for it? Why do Christians and no doubt yourself NOT follow other rules clearly set aside in the Bible? See my previous post for some of these.
Why have some morals been allowed to change and not others?

For example....I do not know if you are a woman or a man. Do you think men should avoid women during their periods and do you do this or make it easier for men to do this and judge them if they do not if you are a woman?

 

[jayleew]

He was referring to my last one. The Bible makes it clear that slavery is ok. Why is it no longer OK for most Christians, despite clear biblical support for it? Why do Christians and no doubt yourself NOT follow other rules clearly set aside in the Bible?

There are many reasons for Christians to think slavery is wrong.

For instance, one could argue that Christians no longer think slavery is ok because there are laws against it. The Bible does mention how they are to respect man's laws because God entrusted government with the authority to rule. Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-17

While it may be ok in the Bible to have slaves, it is not required in order to fulfill the law, so man's law overrides the biblical morality of having slaves.

It may be as simple as that, or it might be more condeluded like the Golden Rule, which comes straight from Jesus's mouth as the most important commandment.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The Bible does mention how they are to respect man's laws because God entrusted government with the authority to rule. Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-17

Nice idea, but wasn't it Christians who started the ball rolling on the anti-slavery movement and got the law changed?

 

[Doreen]

There are many reasons for Christians to think slavery is wrong.

For instance, one could argue that Christians no longer think slavery is ok because there are laws against it. The Bible does mention how they are to respect man's laws because God entrusted government with the authority to rule. Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-17

Homosexuality is legal in many countries as is, even, gay marriage. There are anti-discrimination laws relating to sexuality in many places. Are you saying that Christians should support these laws.

The bible also states that people working on the Sabbath should be put to death. And yet, somehow, Christians managed to overlook this rule. I am not even sure if the Bible goes so far as to say those engaging in gay acts should be put to death. In any case, if the Bible is 100% the word of God, this should not have changed.

IOW in the first case we have something that the Bible is against and is now legal. And yet some Christians still use the Bible to support their homophobia. Here some Christians rebel against human law and follow God's word. In the second case, with working on the Sabbath, we have something forbidden in the Bible, but legal and here Christians support the human law and not God's word.

so it seems that Christians ARE free to decide which portions they will follow and which they will not.

It may be as simple as that, or it might be more condeluded like the Golden Rule, which comes straight from Jesus's mouth as the most important commandment.

I suspect that on some level people realized that times changed and morals changed and this was good.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen;

The Bible makes it clear that slavery is ok.

A very misleading statement.
By slavery do you mean something like the African slave trade.

Why is it no longer OK for most Christians, despite clear biblical support for it?

What makes you think the bible is a book of rules to be followed by the whole of the human race, at all times, regardless of circumstanc

Why do Christians and no doubt yourself NOT follow other rules clearly set aside in the Bible?

Because our society doesn't (currently) approve of such acts.
Most people live by the rule do unto others has you would have done to yourself, regardless of whether they know that is in the bible or not.
In fact you will find that scripture deal with human nature, not politics.

Why have some morals been allowed to change and not others?

Do you think it is immoral to buy meat from a butcher which has been
slaughtered in a modern slaughterhouse?

For example....I do not know if you are a woman or a man. Do you think men should avoid women during their periods and do you do this or make it easier for men to do this and judge them if they do not if you are a woman?

Me man.

Do you mean should men and women still engage in sex during this time?
Or should men stay awnay from women at this time, period (no pun intended).
Can you cite the biblical passage that emphasise this.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

So it was an instruction...

Yes. To those particular people, at that time.

And is the bible the word of god or not?

Is the bible dictated by god or not?

I don't know.
But I would say it is inspired by God.

Are the laws given therein god's laws or can we ignore them any time please?

Everthing belongs to God.
As for the instructions given by God to Moses, yes, some did ignore them, some didn't.

But, since we don't have to bother following other instructions from god why should we listen to that one?

Some listen some don't.
Human nature.

I'm trying to discover why you, and other believers are such hypocrites.

You see/hear what you want to.
You're conditioning is such that it doesn't allow for anything which is in favour of anything to do with religion.
Until you fight of these conditions, you will not see anything else.

QUOTE=jan quoted by Dywyddyr..]Where do get the idea that any of these things are based on morals? [/QUOTE]

That was yet another question you failed to answer.
Answer it first, then we'll proceed.

You think a society will maintain a practice it considers immoral?
And make an institution of it?

To your first question; a society will maintain an immoral practice if the majority of people benefit from it. E.G, the heinous treatment, and slaughter, of innocent animals for the purpose unnecessary enjoyment.
As for your second question, regarding the biblical passages.
People don't make institutions of things they consider normal everyday practice. .

One more time: if slaery is regarded as bad, but not on moral grounds, what is the criterion for judging it to be bad?

You didn't understand what I said, did you?
Normal everyday practice. in a particular society, isn't seen as bad, although to an outsider it may be.
Is the slaughter of innocent animals for pleasure seen as bad by affluent western societies?
Now, is the slaughter of innocent animals for pleasure seen as bad by people within affluent western societies?
Let's say the answer to the first one is No, and the answer to the second is Yes.
Who is right?
Gpd does not condone meat eating, yet He gives instruction to a particular set of people, on how to prepare animals for consumption. Why?
Because there are people who will eat meat, despite it not being good for their spiritual advancement.

Nothing is straight foreward.

jan.

 

[NeptuneRise]

just refer to story of Sodom and Gomorrah and how Bible views the residents of those cities and how they should and were dealt with.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of criminal, corruption, greed, deception, incest, polygamy, promiscuity and prostitution. And I believe that's all the causes that got them destroyed. Especially the latter four. Sodom acts describe those four. So sodom acts performed by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. No form of Christianity has ever judged a committed, monogamous and loving pair of gay women or men. But afcourse, many are raised with that sort of thinking.

Islam, which is thought to be the most homophobic religion out there, is also promoted as such, yet has no real attitude towards a romantic and loving relationship between two men or two women.

Also, every single culture on earth was accepting of homosexuals and lesbians, until religions arrived and people started to interpret them in their own fashion. From north to south, from east to west, you choose.

Being a homosexual or acting as a homosexual? Can I get links to few of those studies that show that acting as a homosexual (meaning performing in homosexual sexual activities) is not a choice.

Just curious..

Peace be unto you

Being homosexual is not a choice. Homophobia is.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes. To those particular people, at that time.

So we're back to my question: which other instructions from the bible can we ignore?

As for the instructions given by God to Moses, yes, some did ignore them, some didn't.

That isn't what I asked: "Are the laws given therein god's laws or can we ignore them any time please?"

Some listen some don't.
Human nature.

And again you ignore the point: why should we listen to any of them? Can't we just say "Oh all of those instructions were meant for another people at another time, we've moved on"?

You see/hear what you want to.
You're conditioning is such that it doesn't allow for anything which is in favour of anything to do with religion.
Until you fight of these conditions, you will not see anything else.

No, that's an assumption of your that I'm conditioned. You'll have to do more than simply assert it.

Where do get the idea that any of these things are based on morals?
That was yet another question you failed to answer.
Answer it first, then we'll proceed.

Wrong again: if it isn't a question of morals what is it?

To your first question; a society will maintain an immoral practice if the majority of people benefit from it. E.G, the heinous treatment, and slaughter, of innocent animals for the purpose unnecessary enjoyment.

Oops, wrong. Since society decides what is moral then how can a society follow an immoral practice?

As for your second question, regarding the biblical passages.
People don't make institutions of things they consider normal everyday practice.

Huh? That's the definition of "institution":

in·sti·tu·tion (nst-tshn, -ty-)
n.
1. The act of instituting.
2.
a. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/institution
If it wasn't normal everyday practice it wouldn't be an institution.
Tell me, which planet do you actually come from?
How do you manage to be so profoundly ignorant of this one?

You didn't understand what I said, did you?

And you haven't answered the question.

Is the slaughter of innocent animals for pleasure seen as bad by affluent western societies?
Now, is the slaughter of innocent animals for pleasure seen as bad by people within affluent western societies?
Let's say the answer to the first one is No, and the answer to the second is Yes.

Since the question is about the point of view of the same society in both questions what do you mean by "who is wrong"?

Gpd does not condone meat eating

Does he not?
Quote the relevant passage please.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

So we're back to my question: which other instructions from the bible can we ignore?

You can ignore what you like.

That isn't what I asked: "Are the laws given therein god's laws or can we ignore them any time please?"

Please define "laws" as opposed to "instruction".

And again you ignore the point: why should we listen to any of them? Can't we just say "Oh all of those instructions were meant for another people at another time, we've moved on"?

You can say what you like.

Wrong again: if it isn't a question of morals what is it?

It's their society.

Oops, wrong. Since society decides what is moral then how can a society follow an immoral practice?

I'm afraid you're wrong.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=society

Morals are derived from the individuals personal conscience.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=morals

Huh? That's the definition of "institution":

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/institution
If it wasn't normal everyday practice it wouldn't be an institution.
Tell me, which planet do you actually come from?
How do you manage to be so profoundly ignorant of this one?

One thing you are consisten in, is being wrong about what things actually mean.
Do you get some kind of pleasure from it?
Here is a whole host of dictionaries defining the word "institution".
All of them stress that an institution is more than the day to day normal happenings.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=institution&ls=a

And you haven't answered the question.

I did answer the quesion, but your conditioning kicked in, and as a
result, you will never accept anything which gives explanation.
You will even lie, and pretend I didn't even address it

Since the question is about the point of view of the same society in both questions what do you mean by "who is wronEg"?

The critera for deciding what's good and bad, on a society level, is whatever the government decide is good and bad.

Does he not?
Quote the relevant passage please.

genesis;

"And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food."

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You can ignore what you like.

Then god's laws and god's instructions mean absolutely nothing?

I'm afraid you're wrong.
Morals are derived from the individuals personal conscience.

No, once again you look something up and take that as the sole definition. Society has morals: the morals of an individual are, of necessity, subordinated to what society decides is moral.

All of them stress that an institution is more than the day to day normal happenings.

Another lie from you:
Using that link we have:

4 informal a well-established and familiar person or thing

#
1. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Informal One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.

[countable] an important tradition on which society is based

And that's just the first three.
Please learn English and stop making stupid claims.
Tell me, do you lie deliberately, or are you simply incapable of preventing yourself doing it?

I did answer the quesion, but your conditioning kicked in, and as a result, you will never accept anything which gives explanation.

Wrong again, and stop assuming I'm "conditioned" unless you can substantiate the claim.

You will even lie, and pretend I didn't even address it

I'm afraid lying is your forte.

The critera for deciding what's good and bad, on a society level, is whatever the government decide is good and bad.

Also wrong. That's why governments change and bow to pressure groups.

genesis;
"And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food."

Which does NOT say, or even imply, that "Gpd does not condone meat eating". It merely says we can eat fruit.
And tell me why you ignored these -
Genesis 9:1-3: Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, now I give you everything.
Leviticus 11:2:These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

Since you have, once again, resorted to outright lies I'm done with you.
Go away, learn (and learn to practice) honesty and GET AN EDUCATION.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Then god's laws and god's instructions mean absolutely nothing?

To you, obviously.
But not in general

No, once again you look something up and take that as the sole definition. Society has morals: the morals of an individual are, of necessity, subordinated to what society decides is moral.

Also wrong. That's why governments change and bow to pressure groups.

Doesn't matter, whatever they decide and put into place, becomes the criterea.

Which does NOT say, or even imply, that "Gpd does not condone meat eating". It merely says we can eat fruit.

Actually it does, because "fruit" is a wrong translation, "meat" is the correct word. Sorry.

And tell me why you ignored these -
Genesis 9:1-3: Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, now I give you everything.
Leviticus 11:2:These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

Read this response;

Gpd does not condone meat eating, yet He gives instruction to a particular set of people, on how to prepare animals for consumption. Why?
Because there are people who will eat meat, despite it not being good for their spiritual advancement.

You need to get shot of that conditioning.

Since you have, once again, resorted to outright lies I'm done with you.
Go away, learn (and learn to practice) honesty and GET AN EDUCATION.

You know what?
You are truly pathetic.
You have no argument whatsoever.
You just want there to be no God, for whatever reason.
Fraid it doesn't work like that.

jan.

 

[wynn]

The bible also states that people working on the Sabbath should be put to death. And yet, somehow, Christians managed to overlook this rule. I am not even sure if the Bible goes so far as to say those engaging in gay acts should be put to death. In any case, if the Bible is 100% the word of God, this should not have changed.

IOW in the first case we have something that the Bible is against and is now legal. And yet some Christians still use the Bible to support their homophobia. Here some Christians rebel against human law and follow God's word. In the second case, with working on the Sabbath, we have something forbidden in the Bible, but legal and here Christians support the human law and not God's word.

so it seems that Christians ARE free to decide which portions they will follow and which they will not.

As an experiment: Try to think away the threat of eternal damnation if you don't do as some Christian tells you - and then take a fresh look at the way Christians pick and choose what from the Bible they will follow and what not.

 

[Dywyddyr]

To you, obviously.
But not in general

Yet you have stated that we need not take any notice of what god says.

Read this response;
Gpd does not condone meat eating, yet He gives instruction to a particular set of people, on how to prepare animals for consumption. Why?
Because there are people who will eat meat, despite it not being good for their spiritual advancement.

And where did you get that impression? Is this one more example of you reading something that isn't actually written? Where does it say that god does not condone meat eating? Since Genesis SPECIFICALLY STATES that meat eating is allowed then it is condoned.

You know what?
You are truly pathetic.

As if the opinion of a liar is worth anything.

 

[wynn]

What makes you think the bible is a book of rules to be followed by the whole of the human race, at all times, regardless of circumstanc

Because this is how Christians usually talk about the Bible.


You, Jan, are of course free to lead a rally against settled Christian practices, and publicly declare that people who call themselves "Christians" do not necessarily have monopoly over how to properly understand the Bible!
Woohoo!

Beginning with a re-translation of those passages on eternal damnation!



This is so exciting!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,,

As if the opinion of a liar is worth anything.

I would be very surprised if my opinion of you, had no effect on you.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because this is how Christians usually talk about the Bible.


You, Jan, are of course free to lead a rally against settled Christian practices, and publicly declare that people who call themselves "Christians" do not necessarily have monopoly over how to properly understand the Bible!
Woohoo!

Beginning with a re-translation of those passages on eternal damnation!



This is so exciting!

Actually, that's not how I see it.
I don't regard the bible as a christian scripture exclusively.
I think there is a difference between some christian/atheist interpretation of the bible, and what the bible actually says.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Actually, that's not how I see it.
I don't regard the bible as a christian scripture exclusively.

Excellent!

I think there is a difference between some christian/atheist interpretation of the bible, and what the bible actually says.

Tell me something: How come you don't take this up with the Christians (or at least people who call themselves "Christians")?

Personally, I am still terrified of Christians.
I have never previously seen that a theist from a different denomination would stand up against them.
I think it would have been quite encouraging to have seen that.

Someone actually standing up against their "you will burn in hell for all eternity if you don't do as I, the Christian, say" - and surviving.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I would be very surprised if my opinion of you, had no effect on you.

Yet another example of you vastly overestimating yourself.
I learned long ago that the opinions of deceitful, duplicitous ill-educated people aren't worth taking any notice of.