• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743:1845; 2006]

Who will still be standing


  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Taking the Bible out of context, not surprised.

Yes, I do believe that is what you're doing. And no, it isn't surprising.

Jesus brought compassion to the law. While he didn't change the law, he lived in a time when homosexual acts were quite common, yet he never said a word. Not one thing. When he did lose his temper, it was over greed, not sex of any kind, let alone homosexual sex. Many merely use religion to allow their hate to be spoken in the open and to justify that prejudice.

I'm not convinced the Bible actually addresses homosexuality. For every verse you can provide, I can show you a rebuttal. As this is the case, I prefer to let God worry about this. I'd much rather be quilty of letting two adults show love to one another than to harm their fellow man or woman in any way. I believe that is more a proper context of Jesus' message than your reading.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

When it comes to taking the bible out of context nobody is more experienced than a Christian. It's impossible to count the number of times someone has used Leviticus to condemn a certain thing and then completely ignore the rest of it on account of the fact that Jesus wiped the slate clean.

Homophobic Christians have no credibility on this issue.
Jesus is not an enabler.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

What's the homophobe agenda?
"Homophobe" is a term manipulatively misused by liberal activists in the hope of demonstrating to homosexuals that they belong in the Democrat party .. so that they can vote for liberal Dem economic policies.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Yes, I do believe that is what you're doing. And no, it isn't surprising.

Jesus brought compassion to the law. While he didn't change the law, he lived in a time when homosexual acts were quite common, yet he never said a word. Not one thing. When he did lose his temper, it was over greed, not sex of any kind, let alone homosexual sex. Many merely use religion to allow their hate to be spoken in the open and to justify that prejudice.

I'm not convinced the Bible actually addresses homosexuality. For every verse you can provide, I can show you a rebuttal. As this is the case, I prefer to let God worry about this. I'd much rather be quilty of letting two adults show love to one another than to harm their fellow man or woman in any way. I believe that is more a proper context of Jesus' message than your reading.

Please, show your Biblical Rebuttals. I'm intrigued.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

You do realize that Jesus did not wipe the entire slate clean correct? Murder is still wrong, adultery is still wrong, homosexuality is still wrong (and found in the NT).

Okay, then you have to acknowledge that Leviticus bans a large number of other practices that most people today recognize are irrelevant.

It's a no-win position: if you're going to cite Leviticus then you have to acknowledge all of it or none of it, or nobody you talk to you is going to think you have any credibility.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Okay, then you have to acknowledge that Leviticus bans a large number of other practices that most people today recognize are irrelevant.

It's a no-win position: if you're going to cite Leviticus then you have to acknowledge all of it or none of it, or nobody you talk to you is going to think you have any credibility.

Except that isn't true. That's like saying we should never cite Exodus to say murder is wrong because there are parts of Exodus that are no longer relevant. That's not the litmus test.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Except that isn't true. That's like saying we should never cite Exodus to say murder is wrong because there are parts of Exodus that are no longer relevant. That's not the litmus test.

Then you need to explain clearly for non-Christians why some parts of Leviticus are relevant and others aren't.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Then you need to explain clearly for non-Christians why some parts of Leviticus are relevant and others aren't.

I have, they don't listen. The cleansing laws, such as sacrifice, what animals you can eat, and such, were repealed as they were fulfilled by Christ and confirmed by Peter after his encounter. The moral laws, such as murder is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, adultery, lying, lust, etc are wrong, were upheld as confirmed by Paul.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

I have, they don't listen. The cleansing laws, such as sacrifice, what animals you can eat, and such, were repealed as they were fulfilled by Christ and confirmed by Peter after his encounter. The moral laws, such as murder is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, adultery, lying, lust, etc are wrong, were upheld as confirmed by Paul.

Where does it say this?
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Lets jump in, shall we?

First off, point out in the Bible where God commands two men (or two women) to unite in marriage.

First off prove the bible is the word of God. Since you cannot you have failed before you even begin.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Please, show your Biblical Rebuttals. I'm intrigued.

There are books on this and I can't link them. Religious Tolerance.org does the best job online of spelling it out. But I'll give you a an overview.

In Sodom and Gomorrah the sin is not homosexuality, but inhospitality. In Leviticus we find another misreading:

The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an ?Abomination?? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches

And in Romans, the language is heavily influenced by the time in which King James wrote the Bible. Books explain this better, so a visit to your library is likely in order. But the paraphrase is that King James, living in the time of a belief in natural order, added this idea to the Bible.

I can't really duplicate years of study for you here, but I think before you throw stones, some investigation on your part might be helpful. And seek those who disagree with your position if for no other reason than to know the rebuttal.

But I'll give you some reading all the same:

Church Tradition Only Condemn Homosexuality Not The Bible

Church Tradition Only Condemn Homosexuality Not The Bible

New Book: Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth

New Book: Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth | Truth Wins Out

What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality

Daniel Helminiak's Web site

All about religious tolerance: the ReligiousTolerance.org web site
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

First off prove the bible is the word of God.
Answer the question.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

There are books on this and I can't link them. Religious Tolerance.org does the best job online of spelling it out. But I'll give you a an overview.

In Sodom and Gomorrah the sin is not homosexuality, but inhospitality. In Leviticus we find another misreading:

The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an ?Abomination?? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches

And in Romans, the language is heavily influenced by the time in which King James wrote the Bible. Books explain this better, so a visit to your library is likely in order. But the paraphrase is that King James, living in the time of a belief in natural order, added this idea to the Bible.

I can't really duplicate years of study for you here, but I think before you throw stones, some investigation on your part might be helpful. And seek those who disagree with your position if for no other reason than to know the rebuttal.

But I'll give you some reading all the same:

Church Tradition Only Condemn Homosexuality Not The Bible

Church Tradition Only Condemn Homosexuality Not The Bible

New Book: Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth

New Book: Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth | Truth Wins Out

What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality

Daniel Helminiak's Web site

All about religious tolerance: the ReligiousTolerance.org web site

Jude 1:7 debunks your theory of Sodom and Gommorah:
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

To a certain point.
Tolerance ties in with Charity, which is the most important thing we can have. The real challenge tends to be not to confuse that with enabling wrong behaviors.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Tolerance ties in with Charity, which is the most important thing we can have. The real challenge tends to be not to confuse that with enabling wrong behaviors.

That is true. People think that just because I take a stand against homosexuality, means I hate people who practice that. It's not the same.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Jude 1:7 debunks your theory of Sodom and Gommorah:

Nope:

Commentary - Other translations include "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh" (KJV), "gave themselves over to fornication and followed after other carnal lusts" (Lamsa from the Aramaic), "became immoral and did all sorts of sexual sins" (CEV), "the fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah" (JB), "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust" (RSV), "were full of sexual sin and people who desired sexual relations that God does not allow" (NCV), "gave themselves us to sexual immorality and perversion" (NIV), "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh" (NKJV), "all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men" (LB), "indulged in sexual immorality and perversion" (TEV). and "immorality and every kind of sexual perversion" (NLT).

Except for a few who continue to insist that the sin of Sodom was male-male sex, Scripture scholars today simply do not see homogenitality in this text. Nonetheless, like any vague text in the Bible, people can take it to mean what they want, and some modern translations encourage misinterpretation, especially the Living Bible.

Jude faults the people of Sodom for lusting after "strange" or "alien" flesh. That is clearly what the Greek says "sarkos heteras." The King James Version is, surprisingly, the most accurate rendering of this text. The "alien flesh" it is referring to clearly means having sexual intercourse with angels, the true context of the Sodom story in Genesis 19. This text simply cannot be used in any argument against homosexuality.

I'm Christian. I'm Gay. Let's Talk.: Jude 1:7 & 2 Peter 2:10 - Sodom, Part 2
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Nope:

Commentary - Other translations include "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh" (KJV), "gave themselves over to fornication and followed after other carnal lusts" (Lamsa from the Aramaic), "became immoral and did all sorts of sexual sins" (CEV), "the fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah" (JB), "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust" (RSV), "were full of sexual sin and people who desired sexual relations that God does not allow" (NCV), "gave themselves us to sexual immorality and perversion" (NIV), "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh" (NKJV), "all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men" (LB), "indulged in sexual immorality and perversion" (TEV). and "immorality and every kind of sexual perversion" (NLT).

Except for a few who continue to insist that the sin of Sodom was male-male sex, Scripture scholars today simply do not see homogenitality in this text. Nonetheless, like any vague text in the Bible, people can take it to mean what they want, and some modern translations encourage misinterpretation, especially the Living Bible.

Jude faults the people of Sodom for lusting after "strange" or "alien" flesh. That is clearly what the Greek says "sarkos heteras." The King James Version is, surprisingly, the most accurate rendering of this text. The "alien flesh" it is referring to clearly means having sexual intercourse with angels, the true context of the Sodom story in Genesis 19. This text simply cannot be used in any argument against homosexuality.

I'm Christian. I'm Gay. Let's Talk.: Jude 1:7 & 2 Peter 2:10 - Sodom, Part 2

Twist it how you want, but you are not correct. You first said it was inhospitality, now you are saying it was sex with angels, male angels, which is it?

You can try to twist Scripture to justify homosexuality but you fail every time.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Twist it how you want, but you are not correct. You first said it was inhospitality, now you are saying it was sex with angels, male angels, which is it?

You can try to twist Scripture to justify homosexuality but you fail every time.

Yes, and that is one of the arguments. There are others. You asked for rebuttals, not my opinion. But it takes a lot of willing suspension of disblief to think Sodom and Gormorrah is about homosexuality, no matter what the alternative reading is.

My point is simple. Something Jesus says nothing about, despite it being all around him, causes so much hate in some Christians that it defies logic. Seems to me, if Jesus is your role model, you wouldn't be saying anything, as he didn't, and instead living by his compassionate example.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Yes, and that is one of the arguments. There are others. You asked for rebuttals, not my opinion. But it takes a lot of willing suspension of disblief to think Sodom and Gormorrah is about homosexuality, no matter what the alternative reading is.

My point is simple. Something Jesus says nothing about, despite it being all around him, causes so much hate in some Christians that it defies logic. Seems to me, if Jesus is your role model, you wouldn't be saying anything, as he didn't, and instead living by his compassionate example.

Not all of Jesus' words are in the Bible, however, Jesus DID speak out against sin. He did not condone it as you are trying to claim.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Not all of Jesus' words are in the Bible, however, Jesus DID speak out against sin. He did not condone it as you are trying to claim.

You first must prove the sin. And this was a sin he saw daily. If it were as important as you suggest, where is his condemnation?

Anyway, yet another reading of the text:

Ironically, I believe that these anti-gay Christians actually have it backwards. The true sin of the Sodomites as described in the Bible has nothing to do with same-sex acts per se. Rather, the ancient Sodomites were punished by God for far greater sins: for attempted gang rape, for mob violence, and for turning their backs on strangers and the needy who were in their midst. In other words, the real sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality. And, ironically, it is often anti-gay Christians who are most guilty of this sin today.

Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.: What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?

Notice what all that includes.
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Answer the question.

No where does Christ say homosexuality is bad. period. Though it is completely irrelevant as the bible is not the word of God and thus cannot be used in your argument. YOU FAIL
 
Re: Which religion will stand its ground against the gay agenda? [W:743]

Enought with the personal attacks, you don't know me.

I know you by your works. And it appears as though you feel you are a prophet telling everybody what Jesus thinks. You are right I don't know you personally. You have repeatedly attacked me on a personal level. Now that I am calling you out for saying things that are incredibly ill informed you get defensive.

Don't attack me personally if you don't wish to have the same done to you.

Just to make it clear you attacked me by telling me that I am not Christian because i don't adhere to your false doctrine. I am Christian your doctrine is false.
 
Back
Top Bottom