Jump to content


Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?


  • Please log in to reply
1077 replies to this topic

#21 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,680 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 23 December 2006 - 07:37 AM

View Postcu in 4years Dan, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

typical moron who doesnt understand.we arnt to actually kill people, just dicourage and look down. the language then and now differs alot.
well maybe then the word "abomination" actually just meant "not the coolest thing". are you really arguing that you can't pick and choose what you believe in the bible, but you CAN pick and choose what the bible means? I can't even really write out how your argument is coming across because it hurts my brain too much. I like cheese but I don't like cheese. yeah.

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon

#22 BWToth

BWToth

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:Poker, Philosophy, Liberalism.
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Hold'em, Omaha Hi/Lo

Posted 23 December 2006 - 08:49 AM

Wang, Shake, The problem is I don't think many of these people understand when they are being hypocritical, they are just spewing out dogma that they've been taught since childhood without actually questioning it. It's shameful really.Dan, Isn't Leviticus in the old testament? Isn't there something about the 'old' law and 'new' law? I think a guy named jesus came and talked about that? So the 'old' law is not to be used anymore, only as a guideline on how to live a good life.Think about Jesus, the type of person he supposedly was, the ideals he taught...what do you think he would have said to gay people today? Do you think he would be understanding? I'll go so far as to give you that fact that homosexuality is not 'right', but only to the point that bipolar disorder isn't right, or psychosis isn't right. That is they are abnormalities.

#23 Flack_attack

Flack_attack

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 854 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh

Posted 23 December 2006 - 08:52 AM

View Postcu in 4years Dan, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

typical moron who doesnt understand.we arnt to actually kill people, just dicourage and look down. the language then and now differs alot.
RKIGS calling Wang a "moron"? Now, I've seen everything. If you don't follow some stuff in OT, how do you know to follow any of it? How you would know if the language of the Ten Commandments "differs alot"?
..and your wedding figurines, I'd melt so I could drink them in.. -Death Cab for Cutie



#24 digitalmonkey

digitalmonkey

    Unenjoyable Annoying Retard

  • Members
  • 37,754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sudbury
  • Interests:sports, music, movies, photography
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hi/Lo Chicago

Posted 23 December 2006 - 09:26 AM

The sin is condemning someone for having a lifestyle that hurts nobody.Eating meat is more of a sin than homosexuality in my opinion. And yes, I know RonMexico will not understand the difference between homosexuality and eating meat.
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

#25 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 23 December 2006 - 09:28 AM

View Postcu in 4years Dan, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 1:07 AM, said:

im pretty sure the bible actually directly talks about the issue:"if a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a women, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surley be put to death" Leviticus 20:103.now while i dont like the thought of killing, the bible directly says homosexuality is a sin, and God looks down on it.that being said i do not hate gay people, i actually have a handful of gay friends who are perfectly good people.so i do not want to berate them, but i dont want them to continue their lifestyle as it is against my beliefs.
Yikes, not true. Leviticus is often used to condemn homosexuality, but it should be noted that eating shellfish and cutting your hair were part of the same text. In the New Testament Jesus clearly states that we are not under the laws of Leviticus at all. That one book in the Bible is one that many hateful Christians use to prove that God condemns gays. In fact, God doesn't. At all. A Christian had me read the following: http://www.rbc.org/b...wers/30778.aspx and this was my reply: I read that page and still didn't really find anything from God condemning homosexuals. It did say this:"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." This could easily be about straight men who decide to have sex with other men. If "leaving the natural use of the woman" isn't natural to a homosexual person, they wouldn't be leaving it. In fact, it would seem unnatural for a homosexual man to have sex with a woman. There was nothing on that page that shows God condemning those that are of homosexual orientation. Many of the things written in the Bible about sex wouldn't not seem appropriate to our society today. Whether it be stoning a woman who was found to not be a virgin, to executing couples who have sex during the menstral cycle. Aside from sexual practices between 11-13 year olds, the one that really struck me as being bizarre in today's world would be that it says, if a man dies, his widow is to marry and bear children with his eldest brother, and if unsuccessful, must continue to do so until she bear a boy to one of his brothers. Doesn't that sound kinda sick? I think a huge mistake is being made in the way that homosexuality is perceived from the Bible. The Bible isn't fallable, but we as humans are. Meaning, that we could easily misinterpert it's meaning and I think that's the case here. As Christians we need to trust the Holy Spirit and when Jesus left he said that the Holy Spirit would "teach us all things." In my heart, I feel like this is just one more example of people misinterperting the teachings of the Bible, and it's caused so much bloodshed and pain to an innocent group of people that love God just as much as the next person.
Posted Image

#26 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 23 December 2006 - 09:35 AM

View Postcu in 4years Dan, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 1:11 AM, said:

i totally agree.the bibls says that it is a sin, it also says it is a sin to change the bibles words or follow different ideas than what is written in the bible.its not like we can just say "well just for today i dont think killing people is a sin so im going to kill people today". you follow what is written by God in the bible. end of story.
You guys obviously didn't read the link. Many people talk about what's written in the Bible without actually studying what it means. If you would have read the link you would see a compelling argument against the idea that God condemns those with homosexual orientation.-I don't believe that being of Homosexual orientation is a sin.-I beleive that homosexuals are born that way.-I don't bleieve that the Earth was created in 7 days (at least not in the way we percieve 7 days).-I don't beleive that the Earth is a few thousand years old. That doesn't mean, however, that I think the Bible is "lying" or is untrue in any way. I simply question the interpertation of what was written.
Posted Image

#27 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 23 December 2006 - 09:41 AM

View Postcu in 4years Dan, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 7:02 AM, said:

typical moron who doesnt understand.we arnt to actually kill people, just dicourage and look down. the language then and now differs alot.
Huh? Look down? Huh? Jesus talked about loving one another and NOT judging others as that's for God to do. Nowhere does it say you should look down on gays. Also, a lot of you guys don't know a lot of information that seems to be messing with your view about what the Bible is, how it works, and what it says. Any punishments written in the Old Testament no longer apply after Jesus came. He paid the price for all of us so that we no longer had to be punished for our sins. Too many people quote the Old Testament to show how ludicrous the punishments were, but neglect to understand that none of that applies to today, nor does the Bible claim that it is supposed to.
Posted Image

#28 crowTrobot

crowTrobot

    the hands of satan assembling his flock

  • Members
  • 4,411 posts

Posted 23 December 2006 - 10:04 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 9:28 AM, said:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." This could easily be about straight men who decide to have sex with other men. If "leaving the natural use of the woman" isn't natural to a homosexual person, they wouldn't be leaving it. In fact, it would seem unnatural for a homosexual man to have sex with a woman.
wow you must want to come out BAD to come up that lame justification lol. obviously paul is making no such distinction in the passage and it wouldn't make any sense if he was.

#29 crowTrobot

crowTrobot

    the hands of satan assembling his flock

  • Members
  • 4,411 posts

Posted 23 December 2006 - 10:09 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 9:35 AM, said:

You guys obviously didn't read the link. Many people talk about what's written in the Bible without actually studying what it means. If you would have read the link you would see a compelling argument against the idea that God condemns those with homosexual orientation.-I don't believe that being of Homosexual orientation is a sin.-I beleive that homosexuals are born that way.-I don't bleieve that the Earth was created in 7 days (at least not in the way we percieve 7 days).-I don't beleive that the Earth is a few thousand years old. That doesn't mean, however, that I think the Bible is "lying" or is untrue in any way. I simply question the interpertation of what was written.
so pretty much the whole bible IS wide open to interpretation to fit modern science and your personally derived views of what is common sense? how conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient...Posted Image

#30 crowTrobot

crowTrobot

    the hands of satan assembling his flock

  • Members
  • 4,411 posts

Posted 23 December 2006 - 10:12 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 9:41 AM, said:

Also, a lot of you guys don't know a lot of information that seems to be messing with your view about what the Bible is, how it works, and what it says. Any punishments written in the Old Testament no longer apply after Jesus came. He paid the price for all of us so that we no longer had to be punished for our sins. Too many people quote the Old Testament to show how ludicrous the punishments were, but neglect to understand that none of that applies to today, nor does the Bible claim that it is supposed to.
irrelevant. a sin is still a sin whether it's covered by jesus or not.

#31 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 23 December 2006 - 10:46 AM

View PostShimmering Wang, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 8:10 AM, said:

Really? Seems like it's pretty literal to me. Seems to ME like you're picking and choosing. What's the difference? You're selectively choosing which parts of the Bible to believe. I don't think it was common at ANY time for "we should kill them both" to mean the same as "we should make 'tsk-tsk' noises and gestures at them both, you know, in general. Mostly we should just make them feel bad, is what I'm saying." That's hypocritical garbage, and you know it. Wang
They shall surely be put to death is in no way telling me to kill- since I know vengeance belongs to the lord I know that it is not my place, or even my desire to dole it out. This is also alot like the scripture that says the wages of sin is death- it's reffering to a spiritual death. Look, it's not like Daniels alone here. Most religous orginizations are trying to find some way to accept homosexuality-it just further proves my case, that religion as a whole is a farce. God says this as well in the bible. It has little to nothing to do with God and everything about delivering what the people want, and we know from plenty of examples in the bible how God feels about that. That being said, if you wanna be gay, just be gay. To each his own. Just don't expect to find some loop hole in the bible saying it's o.k., because it doesn't exist. Sin is sin, and that happens to fall in that category. Any sin can keep you out of heaven, whether an abomination or just a perpetual liar. It's all requires that heavens doors are closed to the perpetrator.
So much for a comeback.

#32 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 23 December 2006 - 10:57 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:28 AM, said:

Yikes, not true. Leviticus is often used to condemn homosexuality, but it should be noted that eating shellfish and cutting your hair were part of the same text. In the New Testament Jesus clearly states that we are not under the laws of Leviticus at all. That one book in the Bible is one that many hateful Christians use to prove that God condemns gays. In fact, God doesn't. At all. A Christian had me read the following: http://www.rbc.org/b...wers/30778.aspx and this was my reply: I read that page and still didn't really find anything from God condemning homosexuals. It did say this:"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." This could easily be about straight men who decide to have sex with other men. If "leaving the natural use of the woman" isn't natural to a homosexual person, they wouldn't be leaving it. In fact, it would seem unnatural for a homosexual man to have sex with a woman. There was nothing on that page that shows God condemning those that are of homosexual orientation. Many of the things written in the Bible about sex wouldn't not seem appropriate to our society today. Whether it be stoning a woman who was found to not be a virgin, to executing couples who have sex during the menstral cycle. Aside from sexual practices between 11-13 year olds, the one that really struck me as being bizarre in today's world would be that it says, if a man dies, his widow is to marry and bear children with his eldest brother, and if unsuccessful, must continue to do so until she bear a boy to one of his brothers. Doesn't that sound kinda sick? I think a huge mistake is being made in the way that homosexuality is perceived from the Bible. The Bible isn't fallable, but we as humans are. Meaning, that we could easily misinterpert it's meaning and I think that's the case here. As Christians we need to trust the Holy Spirit and when Jesus left he said that the Holy Spirit would "teach us all things." In my heart, I feel like this is just one more example of people misinterperting the teachings of the Bible, and it's caused so much bloodshed and pain to an innocent group of people that love God just as much as the next person.
That's ridiculous DN. Thats like me writing this sentence, and lets pretend that I am God for a second. "It is a sin for a man to share a bathtub with another man. That that should be with your wife." Your interpetation would mean that you could then break down classifications of men, and really whos job is that? Gods. How in the world could you possibly make the jump that it's only talking about straight men? Look, it's not an easy thing to look at some of my friends, who are gay, and know what I know. They know how I believe, and they have read the bible, most of them, but it's no different than any other sin. Thye have decided to reject what they see because they want to be who they are- how they are who they were is debatable, and really know one knows. How does anybody latch on to a certain sin and can't change? It becomes a part of who you are.
So much for a comeback.

#33 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 23 December 2006 - 11:01 AM

View PostcrowTrobot, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 11:12 AM, said:

irrelevant. a sin is still a sin whether it's covered by jesus or not.
Exactly- and broaden that to ANY sin will keep you out of heaven, if you believe in the bible. Crow and I don't agree on much, but he said something awhile back that struck me as pretty insightful and it is the rock solid truth. Most people who claim christianity have no idea what the bible actually teaches, and if they did they would realize that they actually aren't really following christianity, but a weaker interpetation of it. I think it was Crow, but it might have been Yorke.
So much for a comeback.

#34 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 23 December 2006 - 11:03 AM

View PostBWToth, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 9:49 AM, said:

Wang, Shake, The problem is I don't think many of these people understand when they are being hypocritical, they are just spewing out dogma that they've been taught since childhood without actually questioning it. It's shameful really.Dan, Isn't Leviticus in the old testament? Isn't there something about the 'old' law and 'new' law? I think a guy named jesus came and talked about that? So the 'old' law is not to be used anymore, only as a guideline on how to live a good life.Think about Jesus, the type of person he supposedly was, the ideals he taught...what do you think he would have said to gay people today? Do you think he would be understanding? I'll go so far as to give you that fact that homosexuality is not 'right', but only to the point that bipolar disorder isn't right, or psychosis isn't right. That is they are abnormalities.
Sure. Manson gets a pass because he is abnormal.
So much for a comeback.

#35 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 23 December 2006 - 11:05 AM

[quote name='ShakeZuma' date='Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 8:37 AM' post='1607364']well maybe then the word "abomination" actually just meant "not the coolest thing". are you really arguing that you can't pick and choose what you believe in the bible, but you CAN pick and choose what the bible means? I can't even really write out how your argument is coming across because it hurts my brain too much. I like cheese but I don't like cheese. yeah.[/quote So much for loving others as you would yourself. CUIN4YEARSDN is completely wrong on this issue. We are not to look down on others, treat everyone with respect, sinner or saint. Christ never advocated anything less.
So much for a comeback.

#36 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 23 December 2006 - 11:24 AM

View PostcrowTrobot, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

wow you must want to come out BAD to come up that lame justification lol. obviously paul is making no such distinction in the passage and it wouldn't make any sense if he was.
You are missing something. In those times homosexual offenders were often straight men and it had nothing to do with sex, but instead was all about power. In wars, men would rape the other men but it wasn't a homosexual act at all. It was forced rape.
Posted Image

#37 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 23 December 2006 - 11:26 AM

View PostcrowTrobot, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:12 AM, said:

irrelevant. a sin is still a sin whether it's covered by jesus or not.
You sound really seem ill-informed sometimes. The "sins" in Leviticus for example, weren't sins at all. Did you read the link at all or are you just making assumptions?
Posted Image

#38 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 23 December 2006 - 11:46 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 12:24 PM, said:

You are missing something. In those times homosexual offenders were often straight men and it had nothing to do with sex, but instead was all about power. In wars, men would rape the other men but it wasn't a homosexual act at all. It was forced rape.
The scripture specifically says burning in there lusts towards one another- that's not rape, thats desire to get it on. There is no possible way to get around this scripture. It is as clear and concise as any scripture that condemns a particular sin. Here is a question for you- there are plenty of scriptures that address how men should treat there women, and likewise women there men, all located in the New Testament. Why do you think that the bible doesn't even bother laying perameters for gay relationships? Simple- it doesn't condone them.
So much for a comeback.

#39 Mattnxtc

Mattnxtc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston

Posted 23 December 2006 - 12:43 PM

View PostBWToth, on Friday, December 22nd, 2006, 11:56 PM, said:

I'm assuming the gay person believes in god. Those people do exist you know. That being said, he could be ****ing a dude in the *** and have a heart attack and die, and according to what the bible says about god, that person goes to heaven.Furthermore, if we are within the realm of the bible, then it IS possible to make inferences about god based on what is laid out in the bible. The bible does address every single circumstance that could ever come and assess it based on godly standards. But you can use these godly standards and apply them to a situation and make an estimate of what god would determine in a given situation.YOU SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE OR NO UNDERSTANDING OF REASONING, LOGIC, OR DEDUCTION.How do you even make a single decision in your daily life. What happens when a situation arises whose circumstances haven't been discussed in scripture, do you just lay down and go to sleep and avoid it?How do you know the situation with the 5 yr old is any different, does god say so in the bible?You have major gaps and flaws in the way you're mind works, you use irrational arguments to make your point because the point you are trying to make cannot be made without being irrational.At what point do you reject god.Hypothetical, instead of the bible stating love your neighbor, the bible said at the age of 28 you must kill your mother. Would you kill her in order to follow the word of god? Remember that story of abraham and isaac? abraham had more faith than anyone, and he could barely bring himself to kill his son.Do you honestly believe that if you were put in the same circumstances as him you could go through with it.
entire post made me laugh...you equate being christian to being a robot...good one
www.mattnxtc.blogspot.com

#40 qyayqi

qyayqi

    ketchup is murder.

  • Members
  • 5,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:regina

Posted 23 December 2006 - 01:16 PM

View Postcu in 4years Dan, on Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 1:11 AM, said:

its not like we can just say "well just for today i dont think killing people is a sin so im going to kill people today". you follow what is written by God in the bible. end of story.
ah, but people regularly decide it is okay to kill people in the name of religion. to kill gay people.the problem with any religious authority is how people decide that they are the arbiters for it. if they believe someone is going to hell for sinning, why do the religious feel obliged to join them there by committing murder? really. let them get there in their own time. i'm not religious, so if there is a hell i'll get there in a few years.in the grand scheme of thousands of years of humanity, me out here sinning (not gay, but assorted other sins) for a few more is none of your business aside from maybe pointing it out once.
qyayqi
railing 101 video

crush their dreams like aluminum cans.
then take them in for recycling.
5 cents a dream, man.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users