LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

The phrase abomination at the time it was initially translated to that meant cultural taboo. This fits with the meaning of the wording of the original. And once again, you are taking the line out of the context of a list of hygiene laws. There are people in the Bible who say all sorts of things that could be quoted out of context. You're cherry picking to insist this line means something different from the rest of what's in that speech.

And if they're all hygiene laws, then they've all been waived by Jesus because it's not "sexual immorality" (while adultery is, in my opinion, because it's a glaring breach of trust).

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:17:11 PM by Medinoc

I truly don't know how to explain this to you any better Shima. You keep saying I cherry-pick, and you continue to be wrong just like you were the last 100 times you said it.

Cherry picking would mean that the Bible, as it's written, says homosexuality is a sin one place, and then overturns it somewhere else, and I continued to say "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." That's not the case.

I'm telling you the words on the page are what they are. You are using a complex algorithm to say that the words on the page aren't really the words on the page. While you are welcome to do that, I don't.

I am not cherry-picking anything; I am rejecting your opinion. I don't know why you conflate the two, but nevertheless, they are not the same.

No, what you're doing is arguably worse because you're declaring something a sin even though the other things that use the exact same wording are not considered sins even by you. They're considered cultural taboos and hygiene laws. By singling this one thing out as a sin and not the rest of them, you're cherry picking.

And why not? Why can't a particular translation of the Bible be wrong? You don't want their to be any margin of human error in the Bible itself, but you have to admit that translation introduces some since it is a human putting the words together rather then your "god".

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:27:17 PM by LMage

Where? Where am I declaring something a sin even though the other things that use the exact same wording aren't considered sins??? Show me. I have posted in this thread and others numerous times, please find one. Show me just ONE instance where the Bible called something a sin, with no mitigating passages, and I ignored it.

Shima, honestly, I'm a bit galled by your display; you assert I'm cherry-picking the Bible, and yet I'm asking you for what feels like the hundredth time to show me where and how, and you've consistently failed to do so.

I've addressed your stance, several times, that the word "abomination" really means "cultural taboo". I don't accept that argument. At this point, either we agree to disagree, we generate a new argument, or we move on.

But don't tell me I'm zeroing in on homosexuals simply because that's the narrative you can accept. The Bible calls many things wrong; some of them are things I'm guilty of. I don't shy away from calling them wrong. The Bible used to say other things were wrong, and are now allowed. I don't continue to say they're disallowed.

Like I said, I think you mean to say "Starship you are not accepting my premise that perhaps the word doesn't mean what it does," in which case you'd be right. Nevertheless, unless you can show me where I've done otherwise, stop saying I have.

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:45:33 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Dude, speaking as a not-neutral person with a vested interest in it not being read in that manner, yes it can very definitely be read in that manner. Most of the OT is a war epic where everyone was killing everyone because nomadic society sucked balls, and the NT has 4-5 books of peace and love followed by a lot of Paul ranting and then ends on an acid trip where Jesus descends in a blaze of fire and decapitates people.

And on that note, only same-sex relations between men are condemned in scripture (one of the reasons we think it was a sanitary concern rather than moral). So what are your thoughts on lesbians? Because in any event it will be a fill-in-the-blank.

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:45:43 PM by Pykrete

Um...can I join in??

Okay, seriously. The Bible condemns guy-on-guy outright. And it's true there's no similar repudiation of lesbianism. With that said, the Bible, in several instances, always says that women should find a suitable man (just as the Bible always mentions women as a the suitable mate for a man).

Also, I do think Paul says it's not good to "exchange natural affection as for a man for a woman", but I don't remember where. I'd have to dig.

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:49:43 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It's the massive mental block you keep hitting your toes on, mate. <hugs>

You argue that practising homosexuality is a sin along the lines of committing adultery, blasphemy, etc... and that it shouldn't be penalised in a special way that makes it more of one than the rest... let alone above murder.

But, that's the problem. You do mentally class it as that, and it comes across. Markedly. Even if you don't meant it to.

He also advocates keeping slaves well and being a good slave, so slavery is, by extension, something that is OK to practice, as long as you do it humanely (the problem is, people are crap at keeping it humane). The guy had blinkers, as did the cultures the Hebrews grew up around and into. Note: cultures. Semites come in flavours over time.

Nope: Epistle to Peter. Sorry. And, if I remember rightly, somewhere in his Epistle to Philemon there's something about practical advice on being a slave properly to your owner. As in, not allegorical slavery to God.

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:02:30 PM by Euodiachloris

I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly. It sounds like you're saying I consider homosexuality a sin like any other. Which is true, I do.

But then you say it comes across that I think it's more of a sin than...not tipping...I suppose. But it seems as if others read that assertion. I fail to see where I've done anything that would suggest a homosexual is somehow more a sinner than me.

Edit: (Groan) Not the whole "The Bible supports slavery" bit again. Gah! Paul constantly speaks of slavery only in the terms of being slaves to God. The Bible doesn't support "Yes Massah Boss!" slavery in any way shape or form.

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:57:13 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

On lesbians: Maybe god likes to watch?

I'm trying to say there is dislocation between your assertion that it isn't a special sin... but, the way you feel about it (and, that does come across) argues otherwise.

If you take the QBL† version, then God is also Goddess, so...

†For a given definition of QBL, of course: there are several schools of thought.

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:57:48 PM by Euodiachloris

God likes to watch everything. Or rather, he has to. I bet he's like: "Oh Maria, why do you people watch that shitty Comedy Central channel all of the time?" or something by now.

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:00:08 PM by kay4today

Where, Euo? Where is my "unique" disdain of homosexuality? We're all disembodied personalities represented by some profile designations and, more importantly, by our thoughts expressed in these posts. There's something I'm writing that must be causing you to get that vibe. Or...is there?

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:03:12 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It's a general feel, mate: I'd have to dig through your (many, many, many, MANY) posts to find specific examples. -.-

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:04:09 PM by Euodiachloris

What would God think if I yelled "Haha, I'm a lesbian and there is nothing you can do about that!" in the sky?

... He'd just chuckle and ignore me, wouldn't he?

@Starship

I remember WAY back (possibly in another thread) that you mentioned previous bad experiences being hit on/whatever by other gay males, and how that was a factor in your treatment of them. This was back before you changed your position on gay marriage, and if my memory serves me was part of a larger defense of the church at large.e

Or here's an Alternative Character Interpretation. Perhaps, like many people, it is you who expects that because I hold certain beliefs that it must follow that I also have a 'special' view of homosexuality as a sin. And that belief colors every post I type, regardless of what I write.

This is NOT a personal rebuke to you. I'm saying it's something we all do and can do.

Also note: I've repeatedly said that a homosexual is no worse, no better, no more heinous, no more destructive, no more possessing a good or bad character, than anyone else who is flawed or sinning or imperfect in some way. I've used those words verbatim, and you could pick nearly any post at random to verify that.

That man was an angry little pisspot who hated himself and the Universe. I am no longer that man.

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:11:42 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Well, there is that thing about how heterosexual men like you can enter into committed long term relationships without inviting the wrath of god, but homosexual men can not. Not unless they try to stop being homosexual and settle down with a nice girl (with girl parts), which tends to not work out so well.

Seriously? I do try to read the words people write on their own terms, without prejudging their points of reference until they come up. It's... slightly due to training.

I can both tick boxes that indicated certain possibilities, but I try not the think myself into specific boxes, yet... am aware I'll find myself in the odd box canyon, even with the attempt at distance. I'd be a crap counsellor if I expected I knew everything about the person talking to me without them talking about stuff, and even worse if I couldn't maintain several potential possibilities (some contradictory) in mind as I chat.

Um. You have to think fast to do Psychology, mate. <shrugs>

Have I made a faux pas that suggests I have prejudged you?

I'm of the opinion that a major part of the problem is where the idea comes from: when you're a relatively small group of people divided into smaller tribes against the rest of the world in a world that is subject to major population shifts... You'd have a prejudice to reproducing the numbers to maintain enough strength not to diminish to nothing. So... your texts would be biased towards that end upon being written down (even if, for argument's sake, the spark of prophecy gave you the need to write in the first place, you'd be using that lens). <shrugs>

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:22:09 PM by Euodiachloris

@Starship

You know, there's always been something that bothered me about you, I mean as far as people go your pretty high up there on the scale of Douche Fuck to Chuck Norris (Read as: Horrible to Awesome), and you seem by all accounts to be a sound reasonable person. Yet you hold not only (by your own admission) extremely illogical and often contradictory views, and I think that's what keeps bugging me about you. That you refuse to apply your frankly far above average sense of reason and logic to your Religion, seemingly arbitrarily.

Why is so important to you, as a person, that every word of the Bible be utterly infallible? Why is your relationship with your God dependent upon not just this book, but an idealized version of it that no sane faction of Christians adhere to? Why do you personally, as both a man and a Christian in equal parts, need the Bible to be infallible?

Slightly unrelated, but my girlfriend (raised by Catholics, always wears a cross pendant and probably knows the whole bible inside out) liked to tell me this passage a lot whenever I was uh... pretty passionate about things regarding religion.

It usually calmed me down.

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:26:25 PM by kay4today

That's one of the best bits. Luke is, in itself, one of my favourite parts of the Bible. I'd reach in and hug the guy who actually wrote most of it, if I could. Nice guy.

Much prefer him to John, for a start. I'd not be so quick to buy that guy a pint. Can't really put my finger on why, though: maybe because he did way too much cutting and pasting for my taste.

edited 23rd Oct '12 2:28:57 PM by Euodiachloris

My girlfriend thinks so too.

There is something about those passages that I find incredibly beautiful.

This is kind of an eyebrower to hear from a gay guy. Chuck Norris's views on gay rights make Maxima look like a rainbow teddy bear.