What does the bible say?

[CrazyThomas 0]

All this talk of gay and straight. hmmmm....let's mix in a little religion to heat things up.
Don't you think if God thought it was OK to be gay, he would have allowed some "reproduction clause" in the creation of earth and life. As in, men could have children with each other, without women. And women could produce babies without men.
But there is no such clause.
I'm not judging right or wrong here. I'm just asking you all to consider the natural cycle of life, and reproduction.
Here's a theory that is SURE to piss off gays/lesbians.
I believe Darwin started this.
"Natural Selection". The unfit will naturally be decreased in number in a population until the unfit either adapt, or cease to be.
hmmmmm.......I know I didn't quote Darwin perfect, but that is the general understanding I get from his theory of Natural Selection.
so, draw your own conclusions as you will.
Peace,
Thomas

[bobsled92 0]

It is in the BIBLE that Man shall NOT lay down with man,etc.
That's what printed in the big book.

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[narcimund 0]

Quote

let's mix in a little religion to heat things up.

Religion has the interesting feature of only mattering to people it matters to.

Quote

Here's a theory that is SURE to piss off gays/lesbians.

You've failed to piss off one homo. Your retelling of Darwin and my reading of Darwin both fail to say anything that bothers me. If the unfit decrease in numbers, and homosexuals are constant in numbers (as argued by cgross), then we can conclude homosexuals are not unfit.

Perhaps you're misconstruing Darwin to have been saying, "Any individual that does not breed is unfit." While it certainly is possible to make that argument, I don't believe either you or Darwin have done so.

On the other hand, there are fascinating arguments to be made for the unique ways homosexuals contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Since the value of breeding is the promotion of the survival of the species, if homosexuals provide other valuable contributions, they would deserve an interesting expansion of evolutionary theory. This is probably best saved for another day however

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[quade 4]

The Bible says a lot of things, only some of which we as a society choose to continue to listen to.

For instance, I don't really care how you count the days of the week, but my guess is that generally speaking there's a lot of us working on the seventh. And, according to the Bible, that's one of the Top Ten things that was handed down that we shouldn't be doing. You can look pretty hard in the Bible and find a lot of interesting interpretations as to what is and isn't allowed, but I don't think there's anything about being gay in the 10 Comandments.

Now, just so y'all don't think I'm some kinda perfect, I'll admit I've busted a majority of the Top Ten, but I'd like to think I'm a pretty good person. So, if -I- can bust a lot of the Top Ten and still consider myself to be a pretty good guy, who the F am I to judge somebody who's doing something that's not even mentioned in that list?

As for the "natural" line of reasoning, I think you'll find there's quite a bit of same sex play in the animal kingdom.

The fact is that a person's sexuality only matters between the sheets and, at least to me, isn't a factor in normal day-to-day dealings. More simply put, if ya ain't gonna do 'em, what the hell does it matter?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

All this talk of gay and straight. hmmmm....let's mix in a little religion to heat things up.

Ahh, Thomas.. stirring the shit as always..Ok, I'll bite.

Quote

Don't you think if God thought it was OK to be gay, he would have allowed some "reproduction clause" in the creation of earth and life.

First of all, not everyone believes in your god, remember? Second, even christians would have to be very selective about what parts to believe if they wanted to judge homosexuality by using the Bible. Many(most?) of the things said in the Bible really can't be applied to the 21st century.

Quote

"Natural Selection". The unfit will naturally be decreased in number in a population until the unfit either adapt, or cease to be.

Interesting point. If homosexuality was caused by a genetic difference, wouldn't it be "selected out" by now?

[happythoughts 0]

I try not to concern myself with it. Everybody seems to have a book to prove a point. If you stick with the original stuff, you would know that Thor causes lightning when his hammer strikes the anvil. Essential truths like these, and wearing hats with horns, will lead you to enlightenment.

[kmcguffee 0]

In the Bible homosexuality is a sin. Just like adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc. In God's eyes no sin is greater than another. According to the Bible we have all sinned and we will all sin again.

It also instructs you to love your neighbor and treat everyone as Jesus treated them. Jesus didn't call the prostitute that he met names or treat her bad. He treated her with respect and loved her anyway. So, if someone chooses to be gay, that is between them and God. Ultimately, everyone will answer for their sins and being gay is no worse than lying, stealing, murder, etc.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Zenister 0]

Quote

many(most?) of the things said in the Bible really can't be applied to the 21st century.

indeed the conflicting characters on the nature of god found in the bible are a prime reason why i cannot personally accept it as the "last word of the supreme being"

it is one cultures documents of thier experience of divinity. To accept it as the only "true" version of divinity is short sighted to say the least..

for example one can easily find instances of slavery and incest sanctioned by god (according to his word, the bible) to much of the will of man has found its way into the 'word of god' to use it as a complete guide for life..

my .02


wonders how long till this thread goes nuclear

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[tigra 0]

OK,

I probably shouldn't say this but......

Does anyone else find it kind of ironic that in another thread, Crazy Thomas talks about how he's reformed and changed his post whoring, trolling ways, and THEN he turns around and posts this garbage?? (Which seems to fit the definition of "troll" pretty well.)

I know I do!

maura

[lewmonst 0]

Thomas, are you trolling again? Or are you trying to decide who among us believes in a religion of sort?

and you made a good point about Darwin, but homosexuals and heterosexuals are all homosapiens, the same species. So unless you kill your own children becuase they are homosexuals, Natural Selection does not apply. If you did, you'd be breaking another of your rules...

Now, Thomas, would you still love your children if they were homosexuals?

i have to back up narcimund here.

why can't we all just get along.

edit: i can't spell

http://www.exitshot.com

[ernokaikkonen 0]

I think there's nothing wrong with his post. The Bible is frequently used as a tool in gay-bashing, and it's the most controversial subjects that tend to spawn the most interesting discussions.

[ltdiver 3]

Very interesting that this thread and the one about 'moderators being too strict' come on the same day.

Here's how I see it. Just the same as 'this is not a democracy' and HH has listed the rules of play if you want to remain in the 'dz.com family', so if there is a God, He makes the rules if you want to remain in his house.

No problem if you don't want to abide by the 'rules'. You can go and play somewhere else (applies to here on this NG and in God's heaven). Seems that some have seen that and have decided that their own rules make them more happy. Both HH and God let us choose -where- we want to play. Just don't go crying to them if you want back in and still want to play by your own rules.

Just my own .02,
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

but homosexuals and heterosexuals are all homosapiens, the same species. So unless you kill your own children becuase they are homosexuals, Natural Selection does not apply.

The point is that since homosexuals tend not to breed, natural selection should apply, if homosexuality is in the genes.

[CrazyThomas 0]

No, I was not just trolling. I was trying to make an interesting objection to a certain point, and carry substance along with it, instead of just the usual crap of "I think this...."
No, Erno makes a good point. The bible is only one religion, and who is to say that religion is correct? I don't even believe all the stuff in that book. I like some of the things I have read in it, and found they are good life guidelines. Not rules, but more like guidelines.
Religion.....that is another garbage filled diatribe I could go off on, but would rather not.
Thanks for the thoughts and words.
Peace,
Thomas

p.s. I would still love my children if they were homosexuals. There are much worse things than being gay. Would you still love your children if one of your children murdered someone?

[lewmonst 0]

Quote

Quote

but homosexuals and heterosexuals are all homosapiens, the same species. So unless you kill your own children becuase they are homosexuals, Natural Selection does not apply.

The point is that since homosexuals tend not to breed, natural selection should apply, if homosexuality is in the genes.

I see your point. However many homosexuals do reproduce, some by social pressures of trying to be heterosexual, some by choice of in vitro fertilization or having a surrogate mother. If homosexuality is in the genes, the best way to let Natural Selection reduce the homosexual population would be to let all homosexuals come out without social pressure to reproduce and be heterosexual. Yet that would still not eliminate homosexuals ability to reproduce.

without healthcare we could eliminate the poor population.

http://www.exitshot.com

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>without healthcare we could eliminate the poor population.

But poverty isn't in the genes...(I guess this could be debated as well)

By shutting down ALL healthcare and hospitals we could eliminate the weak, the stupid and the sick.

All joking aside, I'm afraid that in a couple of centuries the western man will be devolved in a creature that is unable to reproduce or even to survive without the aid of medicine.

Medicine is an enemy of evolution.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

Don't you think if God thought it was OK to be gay, he would have allowed some "reproduction clause" in the creation of earth and life. As in, men could have children with each other, without women. And women could produce babies without men.

This argument assumes that the only purpose of sex is reproduction. The fact that most people are willing to have sex (straight or otherwise) without wanting a child to come of it means that sex has purposes other than reproduction.

Also, consider the fact that women do not undergo heat cycles. They are perfectly capable and willing to have sex even if they are not fertile on that particular day. It is definately a fallacy to equate sex and reproduction.

Also, if your argument that engaging in a lifestyle that is not compatible with reproduction is sinful, then there are a lot of priests out there (except, of course, the ones that were molesting nuns) that are going to the big lobster pot in the ground.

Lastly, and the point was already made by others, there are a lot of laws in the bible that we do not follow, so quoting one law in the bible that forbids homosexuality is utterly irrelevant unless one wants to argue that we should follow ALL laws in the bible.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Gawain 0]

There is a problem by trying to bring the "Good Book" into the conversation. Bear in mind, I am not bashing any religion, but questioning the level of devotion some choose to pursue with their faith (in which faith, by itself, is good):

Man, by God's own definition, is imperfect.

Man, whether by divine guidance or not, wrote the Bible (and the Koran and Book of Mormon, etc.).

Therefore, the Bible is imperfect. Before you cast me down into the fire and brimstone, the fundamental foundations of all these doctrines are good. However, there is no way that anything, any theory, any history, gets passed through thousands of years without getting warped. Shit, look at 20th Century history already! Look at how many different versions of the Bible there are. The judaic faith has at least three prominent lines of thought (Orthodox, reform...um..?)

So, while I believe the basics of these scriptures is good, the message has been warped, touched, screwed with too many times over too many years...by...US, humans, mankind choose your noun. Therefore, the argument from a religious standpoint is flawed.

With that in mind, I have a spiritual life, and choose to let "Him" do the judging, cause if there really is a God, the only thing I know for certain is that I'm not Him.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

However, there is no way that anything, any theory, any history, gets passed through thousands of years without getting warped. Shit, look at 20th Century history already! Look at how many different versions of the Bible there are. The judaic faith has at least three prominent lines of thought (Orthodox, reform...um..?)

Good point, Gawain. Let's also throw into the mix human translators (the bible was translated at least twice before King James, and several times after) on top of human authors. That's going to affect the equation as well.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Sinkster 0]

Just to correct you about the laws/bible thing, the command forbidding homosexuality is repeated throughout BOTH the old AND the new testament.

The laws most people don't follow are the Old Testament laws that specifically applied to the Jews.

If you say homosexuality is ok according to the bible then you better be prepared to say murder is ok, and lying, and... well see for yourself from the new testament:

1 Timothy 1:9-10
"realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

My point? If you want to justify homosexuality don't bring the Bible into it unless you're a real good con-artist. I'd rather see it ignored than twisted in such an obvious way.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

throughout BOTH the old AND the new testament.

However, your examples and quotes were both from the New Testament. I am not a guru in that sense, so where, in the Old Testament does it substantiate your claim?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Well, consider the passage you just cited:

Quote

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

Emphasis mine

We do not live in a society that condemns fornication. One, of course, has a choice as to whether they personal believe fornication is evil, but early twenty-first century western culture does not
persecute fornicators in the same way that it does homosexuality, very often in the context of bible-thumping.

I stand by my point. If one is going to argue that the bible is the standard for all societal ideals, then that has to carry through with every single one of them.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Man, by God's own definition, is imperfect.

LOL. What I find very amusing is that you are trapped in a paradox by using the Bible to discredit itself! You say that according to the Bible humans are 'imperfect' and then that the Bible must be wrong because of that. But, if the Bible is wrong then are humans really imperfect since you got that from the Bible to start with? So you're argument is trapped in a paradox that I find very amusing.

What about assuming that God wants to communicate with us and that he can overcome whatever imperfections we have to get his message out like He wants it? There's another option for you. A novel thought in this day and age of excuses.

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

However, your examples and quotes were both from the New Testament. I am not a guru in that sense, so where, in the Old Testament does it substantiate your claim?

Here you go:

Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh." (right way)

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22)

Leviticus 20:13. "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act."

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

My point? If you want to justify homosexuality don't bring the Bible into it unless you're a real good con-artist. I'd rather see it ignored than twisted in such an obvious way.

And my point? You shouldn't try to condemn homosexuality using the Bible unless you also want to condone slavery, killing of infidels, "eye-for-an-eye"-justice etc.