LGBT Rights and Religion:

Total posts: [15,930]
1 ... 205 206 207 208 209
210
211 212 213 214 215 ... 638
Discussion of religion in the context of LGBT rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBT rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

edited 4th Oct '13 8:26:43 AM by Madrugada

Princess Ymir's knightess
>sleeping with a hot Latina that is not married to you.

>sin

Dead to me.
5227 Pykrete27th Nov 2012 02:20:24 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
When the Bible says something is situational it say so, e.g. allowing a rapist to marry their victim.

The only thing Jesus said was situational was allowing divorce. Beyond that he never explicitly stated which of the Mosaic laws were concessions because of Those Hardhearted Israelites — it was the rest of us who went "Ooh, like the rape marriage thing! We should toss that one."

Leviticus also condemned sleeping with a woman on her period. And do you consider that sexual immorality?

To be fair, the wording on that one makes it pretty clear in hindsight that it was talking about hygiene and not morality. "Revealing the source of one's blood" was understood to cause infection. I mean, this was a nomadic warrior tribe — they may not know the specifics, but they recognized what happens with exposed wounds.

edited 27th Nov '12 2:25:06 PM by Pykrete

NCC - 1701
So you do consider sleeping with a woman on the period sexual immorality. And you say you ignore it (like it's no big deal). Why.

Because trying to live one one-thousandth of the Bible is exausting. Sometimes I give up and do what the fuck I feel like.

Like the hot Latina in question. She was more beautiful than any other 3 women I'd ever seen. I wanted to sleep with her. I did.

That was my failing. Not the Bible's. And I regret failing the Bible, even I don't regret sleeping with her.
It was an honor
Princess Ymir's knightess
You hypocrite! XDDD
NCC - 1701
[up] Gee, thanks Kay! [lol]
It was an honor
5231 Haldo27th Nov 2012 02:28:47 PM from Never never land , Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
@Pyk They're both listed under Leviticus 18.

@Max It would appear that you take these less seriously than homosexuality.

edited 27th Nov '12 2:30:25 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
NCC - 1701
Your misinformed Haldo. I often say they are no better or worse. We're discussing homosexuality because that's the hot-botton topic. Fornicators and one-time adulterers like myself aren't campaigning to say "Hey the Bible says what we do isn't a sin."

Most say "the Bible said it's wrong. So freakin' what?" Others like me angst because we're reminded how badly we fail to meet our own ideals.

Truth is Haldo, I spend more time worrying about my failings than the perceived sinfulness of others, including gays.
It was an honor
5233 Pykrete27th Nov 2012 02:33:39 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
Yes, they're put in the same place, but read very differently.

The comparison to shellfish is more apt, as it actually describes the offense with the same word as with anal sex. Which, yes, is mistranslated in the first place, and even if it wasn't and really was an "abomination", was one Jesus tossed aside very flippantly as unimportant when talking about food.

edited 27th Nov '12 2:36:30 PM by Pykrete

5234 Haldo27th Nov 2012 02:34:33 PM from Never never land , Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
Where in the Bible does is say that Leviticus 18 is exempt from being written off?

Seriously. Where does your claim that Leviticus 18 holds more water than the rest of the book come from?

edited 27th Nov '12 2:57:15 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
5235 Haldo27th Nov 2012 03:07:15 PM from Never never land , Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
Fornicators and one-time adulterers like myself
I can't help but notice the lack of mention of having sex with a woman on her period. It's almost as if you don't think it matters.

I'd also like to note that Leviticus 18:22 only speaks of gay sex. Not being gay (that's perhaps the most important thing to remember). Not gay love. Not gay romance. Gay sex.

So, the Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. And believe me, it may not sound like much to you, but there is a WORLD of difference between saying "homosexuality is a sin" and saying "gay sex is a sin". A WORLD of difference.

In case you still don't follow: It's the difference between saying "If you have sex, it's a sin" and "You are constantly sinning every moment of your life because of your continued trend of breathing."

edited 27th Nov '12 5:19:48 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
I want Kat's glasses!
"be straight or constrain yourself to a life of abstinence" is still hardly acceptable, though. But coherent with the banning of doubleplusungood non-reproductive sex.

[down]Indeed.

edited 28th Nov '12 2:56:08 AM by Medinoc

Grandma, what big teeth you have! It would be a shame if anything happened to them.
I really can't wait for the day when the Bible is treated as nothing more than the book of myths and legends that it is.
Pirate Zombie
I always think it's funny how Christianity seems a lot more... Repressed than other religions.

Compare the Norse gods for example. Thor once cross-dressed to retrieve Mjolnir, Odin was a witch (which requires contact with someone else's semen in norse mythology) and Loki fucked a horse.
I have a tumblr. Read at your own risk. Of what, I have no idea.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Hey, there's some weird shit in the Bible, too. Just check out Lot and his daughters.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom for other people to call you out on your bullshit.
5240 Morgikit28th Nov 2012 06:19:55 AM from    Alabama    , Relationship Status: In season
Zorua Girl
All religions have their issues, and a lot of them are weird about sex. I read somewhere that in Iran, sharia law allows for sex changes, but because the high priests think they turn gay people straight. -eye twitches-

As for the Sodom and Gomorrah thing, I find it amusing that the 3 people who survived the celestial nuking of two cities are a guy who offered his own children to the Sodomite mob instead of the superpowered angels (because that would have been bad manners, apparently), and his two daughters who immediately engaged in incest with him, because they (somewhat understandably given the shock they experienced) thought they were in an Adam and Eve Plot.

edited 28th Nov '12 6:39:44 AM by Morgikit

"Morgi's thing is political activism, furriness, and being fudging adorable." - Enkufka
Pirate Zombie
I guess technically speaking that is a side effect.
I have a tumblr. Read at your own risk. Of what, I have no idea.
NCC - 1701
All religions have their issues, and a lot of them are weird about sex. I read somewhere that in Iran, sharia law allows for sex changes, but because the high priests think they turn gay people straight.

Not that's interesting.
It was an honor
I want Kat's glasses!
[down]Indeed.

edited 28th Nov '12 6:56:39 AM by Medinoc

Grandma, what big teeth you have! It would be a shame if anything happened to them.
Pirate Zombie
[up]I think you may have put that in the wrong thread.
I have a tumblr. Read at your own risk. Of what, I have no idea.
5245 Jhimmibhob28th Nov 2012 10:02:25 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine , Relationship Status: My own grandpa
Where in the Bible does is say that Leviticus 18 is exempt from being written off?

Seriously. Where does your claim that Leviticus 18 holds more water than the rest of the book come from?

Haldo: If you're genuinely curious, then for centuries now, exegetes have taken examples such as Mark 2 and Acts 10 (to name just a couple) as countermanding many Mosaic commands and proscriptions—dietary and otherwise. However, the Marcionite idea of supersessionism—that the OT is simply a dead letter—got thoroughly refuted more than 1800 years ago, along with Marcion and his anti-Semitic crowd.

So which OT injunctions are still in force, and to what degree? That's something that theologians have done a lot of heavy lifting to answer, from the earliest writings up to the present. Renewed NT admonitions against previously banned OT practices carry special weight, of course, but there's also been a ton of textual analysis, historical inference, and applied moral theology (see Aquinas, Tertullian, Philo, etc.).

You're perfectly free to contest the Church's reasoning on these issues, but it won't do to act as if no one's done any reasoning.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
Pirate Zombie
So why is homosexuality a sin? For what reason is it condemned?
I have a tumblr. Read at your own risk. Of what, I have no idea.
5247 shimaspawn28th Nov 2012 10:15:11 AM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
5248 Jhimmibhob28th Nov 2012 10:36:28 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine , Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up][up]A lot of the arguments turn around natural law—which isn't necessarily obvious sans special revelation—and the idea that various human thoughts and actions might be more or less consistent with a full, integral expression of human nature. Aquinas is the go-to guy for this, but Hildegard of Bingen also contributed a lot. For more recent summaries and arguments, there's JP 2's Theologia Corporis and the current Pope's encyclical Deus Caritas Est. Most Protestant arguments run along the same lines, but ultimately draw on most of the same sources.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
5249 shimaspawn28th Nov 2012 10:39:55 AM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up] Keep in mind that reading them can be a bit of a head trip. A lot of the pillars of their arguments are based on things we now know aren't true about the universe. This causes the arguments to look much weaker than when they were initially put out. Mostly because they're based on a flawed and ignorant understanding of how the world works.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
5250 Jhimmibhob28th Nov 2012 11:29:08 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine , Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up]Not especially. I'm hard pressed to think of relevant arguments that depend upon, say, Newtonian mechanics, or other advances in what they'd call "natural philosophy."
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

Total posts: 15,930
1 ... 205 206 207 208 209
210
211 212 213 214 215 ... 638