If Being Gay is alright in the eyes of God then.....

Originally posted by junglejake
Man, this thread is huge!

Don't know if this has already been posted, but I'd like to point out First Corinthians 6:9:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10...will inherit the kingdom of God.

Excellent point!!! The sad thing is that no one will care because they are sure that what they are doing is not sexually immoral. Some here will say it doesn't matter because religions are all fake, or that they are still going to heaven because they are good people.

The thing that alot of people miss is that many "good people" are in hell.

Is it just me, or at the end of that did both the virgin daughters have sex with thier own father and beared his childs?

I would have thought that wasn't ok with God in the Bible?

I'm confused.

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
Is it just me, or at the end of that did both the virgin daughters have sex with thier own father and beared his childs?

I would have thought that wasn't ok with God in the Bible?

I'm confused.

You are correct. Lots two daughters did have sex with their father, Lot, but not for pleasure. Lot had sex with his dauthers for procreations reasons alone. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of Salt the two daughters thought that the entire human race had been destroyed so they wanted to preserve the human race.

Genesis Chapter 19

30 � And Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zo'ar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben�am'mi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

The question itself assumes so many questionable and unknown things as truth that it is unlikely any rational answer would satisfy the questioner. Why does YHVH destroy and kill any town or person. If I recall, the one Biblical personnage who ventured the farthest in asking such questions, Job, basically gave up bothering to make sense of YHVH after the god begged Job's questions with a blustering tirade about how strong and mighty he was.
The decision to destroy Sodom, if indeed it was destroyed by such a decision at all, was made essentially before the angels came to visit Lot. So any particular encounter they may have had where some of the citizens felt attracted to the angels cannot of itself reasonably be said to be "the cause". Genesis doen't answer the question with any degree of specificity. It pictures Adonai (in the Septuagint) or YHVH in Masoretic text redacted some 300-400 years after the Septuagint) debating with himself about whether to tell Abraham that he is about to massacre another group of people again saying "the outcry against Sodom and Gommorrah is so great and the sin so grave,..." Now this "cry" comes to him from somewhere. He doesn't say. In fact, he doesn't even know if what he hears is true or not. That is why he has to "go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them" is true. Resolved, he says "I mean to find out". (Passages like this don't suggest much of a basis for the claim of omniscience).
In any case, when his staff go in his stead, a number of people wish to impose themselve on them, and rather forcebly it appears. Now wouldn't that be rape? And indeed, many of the Church Fathers, certainly early ones like Ireneaus describe the sin essentially as rudeness to guests. Now I have heard some make fun of this saying how ridiculous it would be for Yahweh to destroy a city because of rudeness. And I would agree but for the fact that Yahweh appears to relish his moments of fury so much, but in this case, the word "rudeness" is just diplomatic talk for "rape" or "attempted rape" as stated above. Yet who were the ones allegedly "crying" out to Yahweh? Not Sodomites, there were not supposed to be enough non-wicked folks in the city to do much complaining, besides, destroying the whole city would have destroyed the complainants. Perhaps a politician or Christian would do that but not one who supposedly represents some sort of justice. Unless he isn't just. Isaiah represents Sodom's sin in terms of social injustice (3:9 ad passim) while Ezekiel explicitly claims that it was because they were "proud and haughty" and "gave no help to the poor and needy" Ezekiel 16:49. Jeremiah 23:14 sees it in terms of general morality. Or is the non-presence of homosexuality a guarrantee of morality?
Yahweh essentially tells Abram to commit adultery and doesn't seem to blink an eye when Lot offered his daughters as chattel to be raped and done with as the crowd pleased nor when those daughters later get Lot drunk so they can have incest with him. In fact, he blesses the offspring of both the adulterous and the incestuous unions!
The first time Yaweh says anything objectionable to homosexual activety is in connection with rules governing sacrificial purity and sacremental relations. He objects to temple prostitution both straight and gay. The other objections are grouped with the same clusters of laws that ask menstruating women to leave town during their period.

You don't have much of a case.

Is celibacy anymore out there than homosexuality?

Should all the people who want a swinger lifestyle get their own state or secretly take one over like the retirees did in Florida?

Its only your business and those who NEED to know where you've been how you do it.

Ok as MOST people know.

Real Christianity does not permit for people to be gay.

Also God does not permit there be gays.

It says it clearly in Romans 1:26-28.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones(dildos)
27 In the same way the man also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lusts for one another.(gays) Man committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.(hiv/aids)
28 Furthermore, since the did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowlrdge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not be done.


This says it clearly for you few who still dont understand.

Out,
Russian




[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Russian]

So there is no atheist that can argue my post above?

I guess they understand it is very true.

Out,
Russian

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem

Originally posted by DeusEx
It's none of our fraggin' bussiness whether or not someone's gay

I'd agree except whos trying to DESTROY THE FAMILY? WHO?
The Gay Militants thats who. They want to (brainwash) any child to THEIR BELIEFS!! THAT BEING QUEER IS "ok" or "normal" well guess what ITS NOT!!

I've always been entertained by your posts...now, unfortunately, I have to put your on ignore. Bye Bye.

Originally posted by Russian
So there is no atheist that can argue my post above?

I guess they understand it is very true.

Out,
Russian

I could be wrong I suppose, but since atheists don't believe in God or the Bible, they have no reason to argue against your post. What the Bible says is only relevant to those who believe in the Bible.

Hint: Look at the TITLE of the thread.

Out,
Russian

Russian - What do you mean by REAL Christianity? If you mean someone who follows the literal word of every verse of both the Old and New Testament, there is no such person, there is contradiction of all kinds all through the Bible. Also doing so would mean such interesting things as never wearing clothes made of two different materials, never eating seafood, never eating pork never working on the Sabbath... I don't think anyone who has actually read and understood the Bible truly follows its every word.

So by REAL Christianity, I guess you mean : Here is a verse from the Bible written by Paul, a follower of Jesus a couple of thousand years ago. Despite the fact this totally contradicts what Jesus was saying all along. This section isn�t Jesus� word recounted, it�s a bigoted follower of Jesus called Paul�s word. It is not the word of God (even assuming Jesus is God incarnate). This justifies bigoted beliefs today how exactly?

Originally posted by janeszewski
Russian - What do you mean by REAL Christianity?

He means Orthodox Christianity. And as you rightly stated this is a religion that wasn't formed until the Council of Nicea, well after Jesus' time and based on Paulian thought - basically POLITICS and CONTROL.

You just have to laugh at these Christian anti-gays. Even if they do believe in Orthodox lies, Jesus preached forgiveness and tolerance, yet they are more rabid than any zealot in their protection of thier belief.
They continuously cast the first stone whilst blindly following dogma. Picking passages from the Bible to suit their own needs whilst totally ignoring others that disprove their point makes them reprehensible.

Fear of homosexuality in religion is based on IGNORANCE. Homosexuality was condemned for political and social reasons - not because of spiritual considerations. It is ironic, but according to Jesus' teachingsa, those who judge and condemn others are far more likely to suffer a hell than those whom they condemn.

so i see this thread aint going no were, no wonder he :]], but maybe this is a good question, how come if god doesnt like gay-people, how can it be that in the world he created they are there ?? And remember, its not only us humans, also animals commit homosexual acts..how can this be We humans have conciousness so we can make up our minds and say, we are gay..but animals....pz and have fun, joz

Originally posted by jozuph
so i see this thread aint going no were, no wonder he :]], but maybe this is a good question, how come if god doesnt like gay-people, how can it be that in the world he created they are there ?? And remember, its not only us humans, also animals commit homosexual acts..how can this be

We humans have conciousness so we can make up our minds and say, we are gay..but animals....pz and have fun, joz

Oh, I forgot animals commit homosexual acts. You know what I am sorry I ever started this thread because I forgot that animals commit homosexual acts. Your right my dog just the other day was humping my next door neighbors male dog so I guess that means he is gay. Oh, but wait a minute, come to think about it, he also humped my leg my wife's leg the coffee table and a number of other things. But you know what when I took him to breed with a female in heat he humped the hell out of her too, so is he bi? NO!!!!!! he is an animal following instinct.

For example, young goats will jump on each other, mainly because the dominant adult male monopolises the females.But this is temporary, as soon as they become adults and manage to become the dominant male in the group, they will then mate with females exclusively.

Yep, animals do it so it must be natural. Give me a Break.

Who cares, really?

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Yep, animals do it so it must be natural. Give me a Break.

What exactly do you define as natural? An inborn predispostion in a living creature is a part of that being's nature, and therefore natural. Just because it's not part of your nature, doesn't mean it can't be part of someone else's.

It has been proven through several unbiased, scientific studies, that homosexuality is not pathological. That means that it is not a psychological condition. If it is definitely not pathological, then it has to be somehow linked to the body's chemical or genetic make-up. When, and if, they will ever find what causes some people to be straight and some to be gay is not really relevant. Once it was determined that true homosexuality doesn't originate in the psyche, that most homosexuals don't choose to be gay, the only other option is that they are born with something that causes them to be gay (or we are born with something that causes us to be straight). That is, of course, unless you know of another part of the human species besides the body and the mind (the spirit, if you believe in one, is asexual and not involved in determining sexuality).

As for the procreation and family issue, procreation is all that requires a male and female, not parenthood. Nature's way of parenting is often abandonment or non-involvement by the father, and being raised by the mother, being raised by the animal's community as a whole, or sometimes even being eaten by one's parents as a sort of natural selection. Do you advocate these parenting techniques? They are all supported by nature, as well.

If a person is born gay should they fight that urge and deprive himself/herself of the chance to meet someone, fall in love, and experience what it is like to be intimate with someone to whom they are attracted? In case you haven't noticed, mankind's sex drive is one of the most powerful urges we were created with. It ranks up there with our need to love and be loved, and our need for food and water to survive. It is just as powerful in men who are sterile and women who are barren.

The act of homosexual sex, especially amongst women, is not dangerous to anyone. The only example of it being detrimental to those engaging in homosexual sex, is the greater risk of contracting a disease. This, however, is more a result of promiscuity and carelessness, than of being gay. Heterosexuals are just as guilty of being sexually promiscuous, and STD's are now just as prominent in the straight community, as in the gay community. Maybe, instead of making gay people out to be the villains, we should focus on the real issue of indiscriminate sexual practices amongst both the gay and straight communities.

Originally posted by janeszewski
So by REAL Christianity, I guess you mean : Here is a verse from the Bible written by Paul, a follower of Jesus a couple of thousand years ago. Despite the fact this totally contradicts what Jesus was saying all along. This section isn�t Jesus� word recounted, it�s a bigoted follower of Jesus called Paul�s word. It is not the word of God (even assuming Jesus is God incarnate). This justifies bigoted beliefs today how exactly?

Uh...Where exactly does Paul contradict Jesus?

Originally posted by jezebel
It has been proven through several unbiased, scientific studies, that homosexuality is not pathological. That means that it is not a psychological condition. If it is definitely not pathological, then it has to be somehow linked to the body's chemical or genetic make-up. When, and if, they will ever find what causes some people to be straight and some to be gay is not really relevant. Once it was determined that true homosexuality doesn't originate in the psyche, that most homosexuals don't choose to be gay, the only other option is that they are born with something that causes them to be gay (or we are born with something that causes us to be straight). That is, of course, unless you know of another part of the human species besides the body and the mind (the spirit, if you believe in one, is asexual and not involved in determining sexuality).

So when was it determined that being gay did not originate in the psyche?

It has to be something that you are born with? Then why do twins, who have 100% of the same genes, differ in the sexual tendancies?

Why dont they have the same fingerprints?

Originally posted by junglejake
Uh...Where exactly does Paul contradict Jesus?

It's just a contradiction in a little thing called "History".
Paul took it upon himself to become "Head Disciple" and most of what you see in modern Orthodoxy stems from his belief and his interpretation of Jesus' teachings. Strange that someone who never even met Jesus could hold such power over so many. Even Jesus' brother James refers to Paul as a liar - Acts 21:22-24.
It was then up to the Council of Nicea at around 323AD to add the icing to the cake and proclaim Jesus the Son of God. Prior to that he was "Messiah" which was nothing to do with being the Ultimate.
Look in your history book. You'll find that Christianity has been manipulated by power hungry men since it's conception. Of course, the fanatics plainly refuse to see this utter fact and therefore you have irrational arguments such as those contained within this thread.

Returning to Paul, you can find many pages on the web where his integrity comes under scrutiny:

www.voiceofjesus.org...

www.judaismvschristianity.com...

www.jdstone.org...

www.sevenmansions.org...

nov55.com...

www.sullivan-county.com...[url]

[url]http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_christ.htm