According to the Bible, gay is not okay.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe?

 

I personally don't approve of being black but does that make me a racist?

 

There's a distinction between disliking a behavior and hating someone for that behavior.

 

 

For example' date=' let's say you have a relative that smokes in their house. Every time you visit them, you have to deal with the horrible smell. You wish they wouldn't smoke, but you don't hate them for it, do you?

[/quote']Methinks that, by RA's logic, disapproving of homosexuality makes one homophobic, but not a homophobe. It's still pretty bad, but it's better than being a homophobe.

 

...semantics, semantics.

 

Let's change the subject back to something Crab brought up earlier: What, exactly, is bad about being homosexual? Who or what does it harm?

 

ITT: The only two opinions possible on anything is either extreme irrational hatred and persecution or absolute, loving support and benevolence.

 

 

>_>

 

 

 

And just for the hell of it:

 

What exactly, is good about homosexuality? Who or what does it benefit?

[Fidel Castro]

God has a plan for everyone. Perhaps his plan does not allow a person to repent?

[Silas Angel]

Since this is a topic about the bible i feel like i should make a theological arguement.

 

God has a plan for everyone. God has the power to destroy sinners. Gays according to the bible are sinners. God has yet to destroy gays' date=' so that means a person being gay is just a part of his divine plan.

[/quote']

 

Yes. Everything is a part of His divine plan, everything.

 

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." -Proverbs 16:4

[Icy]

Let's change the subject back to something Crab brought up earlier: What' date=' exactly, is bad about being homosexual? Who or what does it harm?

[/quote']

 

It would only cause a problem if more than 50% of the Planet were gay (not Bisexual mind you) and were unable to give birth to a child or unwilling. Otherwise, it's purely personal taste =/. Nothing wrong with it and it doesn't harm anyone. (Save for the rare emotional cases).

[seattleite]

God has a plan for everyone. Perhaps his plan does not allow a person to repent?

 

Jesus died for the sins of all.

 

Everyone who has been on this earth (except jesus) has sinned. Why in the world would he not allow someone to repent? Is that fair?

[Silas Angel]

God has a plan for everyone. Perhaps his plan does not allow a person to repent?

 

Jesus died for the sins of all.

 

Everyone who has been on this earth (except jesus) has sinned. Why in the world would he not allow someone to repent? Is that fair?

 

Be careful now, not everyone is elected unto salvation. Jesus's death was not for all, because if He provided atonement for all, then all would be atoned for and none would be damned. I know it might sound like heresy, but it's Biblical. =)

[Fidel Castro]

God only allows sinners to exist as a trial for his people. That said without sinners he can have no means to gain followers.

 

So essentially this means that their will be some who are irredeamable. Which is a part of his aformentioned 'divine plan'

 

And im a Agnostic Thiest. (I beleive that their is a god in some form but i put no belief into religion)

 

Edit - Ninja'd

[seattleite]

God has a plan for everyone. Perhaps his plan does not allow a person to repent?

 

Jesus died for the sins of all.

 

Everyone who has been on this earth (except jesus) has sinned. Why in the world would he not allow someone to repent? Is that fair?

 

Be careful now' date=' not everyone is elected unto salvation. Jesus's death was not for all, because if He provided atonement for all, then all would be atoned for and none would be damned. I know it might sound like heresy, but it's Biblical. =)

[/quote']

 

Not for all? So you think jesus would have just a select few that he would give atonement to, and the rest be damned? Atonement gives you the ability to repent, not the assurance of salvation.

 

And biblical? That thing from proverbs just proves that sin is needed in the world, it doesn't mean all that other stuff.

 

 

God only allows sinners to exist as a trial for his people. That said without sinners he can have no means to gain followers.

 

So essentially this means that their will be some who are irredeamable. Which is a part of his aformentioned 'divine plan'

 

 

Yes, but not to the extent that some people are made just to be damned. Thats called predestination.

 

ninja'd back at you.

[Fidel Castro]

Just like jesus was predestined to be killed for our sins?

[Silas Angel]

God has a plan for everyone. Perhaps his plan does not allow a person to repent?

 

Jesus died for the sins of all.

 

Everyone who has been on this earth (except jesus) has sinned. Why in the world would he not allow someone to repent? Is that fair?

 

Be careful now' date=' not everyone is elected unto salvation. Jesus's death was not for all, because if He provided atonement for all, then all would be atoned for and none would be damned. I know it might sound like heresy, but it's Biblical. =)

[/quote']

 

Not for all? So you think jesus would have just a select few that he would give atonement to, and the rest be damned? Atonement gives you the ability to repent, not the assurance of salvation.

 

And biblical? That thing from proverbs just proves that sin is needed in the world, it doesn't mean all that other stuff.

 

Acts 13:48, John 1:12-13, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11, Rom. 9

 

It is entirely Biblical. God has predestined everything: rain, snow, kings, kingdoms, nations, deaths, and even salvation.

[seattleite]

 

Acts 13:48' date=' John 1:12-13, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11, Rom. 9

 

It is entirely Biblical. God has predestined everything: rain, snow, kings, kingdoms, nations, deaths, and even salvation.

[/quote']

 

Acts 13:48 : "ordained to eternal life" means baptism

 

John 1:12-13 : "But as many as received him" - this proves my point and not yours? those who recieve him will be saved

 

Romans 8:29-30 "Predestine" here is not the kind of Predestination i'm talking about. Here it's saying that people are chosen before they are born - for a calling. Chosen for a purpose - in the same way Christ was chosen to die (yes asdfth)

 

Ephesians 1:5 : "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself" - i'll come back to this one, i need more research

 

Ephesians 1:11 - same as Romans 8: 29-30

 

 

BTW, how did you get these so fast?

 

---------------

 

EDIT: Ephesians 1:5, predestinated = foreordained, same as romans. Adoption of children = children of god

[Fidel Castro]

why does the bible preach accepting others, yet condemming gays as evil and not worth acceptance?

[seattleite]

why does the bible preach accepting others' date=' yet condemming gays as evil and not worth acceptance?

[/quote']

 

I could say:

 

"because it's a choice and as a choice and a sin it will not be accepted by the bible because the bible doesn't accept sins it defines what they are and it doesn't condemn gays it only condemns the sin like they say hate the sin love the sinner *gasp* "

 

Of course, that's only if you think it's a choice.

[Silas Angel]

 

Acts 13:48' date=' John 1:12-13, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11, Rom. 9

 

It is entirely Biblical. God has predestined everything: rain, snow, kings, kingdoms, nations, deaths, and even salvation.

[/quote']

 

Acts 13:48 : "ordained to eternal life" means baptism

No... it doesn't =/ How can you support that view?

 

John 1:12-13 : "But as many as received him" - this proves my point and not yours? those who recieve him will be saved

This was only put in here to show you that I am not one of those people who say, "Everything is predestined, so there is no responsibility on our part! Let God do it, I'll just sit here." That's not what I believe, and I put this verse here to show a responsibility on man's part.

 

Romans 8:29-30 "Predestine" here is not the kind of Predestination i'm talking about. Here it's saying that people are chosen before they are born - for a calling. Chosen for a purpose - in the same way Christ was chosen to die (yes asdfth)

Yes... =/ people are chosen, chosen unto salvation, chosen to be sons of God. Read the whole passage, those who He predestined... He also justified, and glorified. He's telling us that those who are predestined, are those who will be saved.

 

Ephesians 1:5 : "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself" - i'll come back to this one, i need more research

Okays.

 

Ephesians 1:11 - same as Romans 8: 29-30

=/ You really don't seem to be understanding what I'm trying to say, are you?

 

BTW, how did you get these so fast?

I'm used to these discussions =P Bookmarks and such are my friends ^_^

---------------

 

EDIT: Ephesians 1:5, predestinated = foreordained, same as romans. Adoption of children = children of god

I'm really not seeing what you're trying to say about these =/ You aren't being clear, really. More or less, you're dodging the point. We can continue this discussion on PM if you'd like. This thread really isn't the place for it, unless everyone else wants to hear it.p

 

why does the bible preach accepting others' date=' yet condemming gays as evil and not worth acceptance?

[/quote']

 

It doesn't. The Bible does not teach acceptance for anyone. In fact, quite the opposite: the Bible teaches us to separate ourselves from fornicators, adulterers, revilers (those who swear), idolaters, and homosexuals. We are not to associate ourselves with them. I'll cite if I'm asked too, I'm feeling pretty sick and don't feel like looking everywhere for it... =/

 

EDIT: Except of course it does preach the acceptance of us sinners into the adoption of God, and the acceptance of Gentiles into God's people.

 

why does the bible preach accepting others' date=' yet condemming gays as evil and not worth acceptance?

[/quote']

 

I could say:

 

"because it's a choice and as a choice and a sin it will not be accepted by the bible because the bible doesn't accept sins it defines what they are and it doesn't condemn gays it only condemns the sin like they say hate the sin love the sinner *gasp* "

 

Of course, that's only if you think it's a choice.

 

yes, it is a choice. No, sin is never tolerated by God or the people of God. But you are wrong, the Bible does condemn homosexuals, but remember, it also condemns liars, thieves, murderers, idolaters, sexual immoral, and revilers. And you are also wrong, that phrase, "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner." is a lie. God hates the sinner and they are the object of His divine wrath and hatred. (Psalm 5:5, 11:5).

[seattleite]

Okay, PM it is. This is kinda off topic anyway.

[T. Sankara]

 

Acts 13:48' date=' John 1:12-13, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11, Rom. 9

 

It is entirely Biblical. God has predestined everything: rain, snow, kings, kingdoms, nations, deaths, and even salvation.

[/quote']

 

Acts 13:48 : "ordained to eternal life" means baptism

No... it doesn't =/ How can you support that view?

 

John 1:12-13 : "But as many as received him" - this proves my point and not yours? those who recieve him will be saved

This was only put in here to show you that I am not one of those people who say, "Everything is predestined, so there is no responsibility on our part! Let God do it, I'll just sit here." That's not what I believe, and I put this verse here to show a responsibility on man's part.

 

Romans 8:29-30 "Predestine" here is not the kind of Predestination i'm talking about. Here it's saying that people are chosen before they are born - for a calling. Chosen for a purpose - in the same way Christ was chosen to die (yes asdfth)

Yes... =/ people are chosen, chosen unto salvation, chosen to be sons of God. Read the whole passage, those who He predestined... He also justified, and glorified. He's telling us that those who are predestined, are those who will be saved.

 

Ephesians 1:5 : "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself" - i'll come back to this one, i need more research

Okays.

 

Ephesians 1:11 - same as Romans 8: 29-30

=/ You really don't seem to be understanding what I'm trying to say, are you?

 

BTW, how did you get these so fast?

I'm used to these discussions =P Bookmarks and such are my friends ^_^

---------------

 

EDIT: Ephesians 1:5, predestinated = foreordained, same as romans. Adoption of children = children of god

I'm really not seeing what you're trying to say about these =/ You aren't being clear, really. More or less, you're dodging the point. We can continue this discussion on PM if you'd like. This thread really isn't the place for it, unless everyone else wants to hear it.p

 

why does the bible preach accepting others' date=' yet condemming gays as evil and not worth acceptance?

[/quote']

 

It doesn't. The Bible does not teach acceptance for anyone. In fact, quite the opposite: the Bible teaches us to separate ourselves from fornicators, adulterers, revilers (those who swear), idolaters, and homosexuals. We are not to associate ourselves with them. I'll cite if I'm asked too, I'm feeling pretty sick and don't feel like looking everywhere for it... =/

 

EDIT: Except of course it does preach the acceptance of us sinners into the adoption of God, and the acceptance of Gentiles into God's people.

 

why does the bible preach accepting others' date=' yet condemming gays as evil and not worth acceptance?

[/quote']

 

I could say:

 

"because it's a choice and as a choice and a sin it will not be accepted by the bible because the bible doesn't accept sins it defines what they are and it doesn't condemn gays it only condemns the sin like they say hate the sin love the sinner *gasp* "

 

Of course, that's only if you think it's a choice.

 

yes, it is a choice. No, sin is never tolerated by God or the people of God. But you are wrong, the Bible does condemn homosexuals, but remember, it also condemns liars, thieves, murderers, idolaters, sexual immoral, and revilers. And you are also wrong, that phrase, "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner." is a lie. God hates the sinner and they are the object of His divine wrath and hatred. (Psalm 5:5, 11:5).

 

You forget: we are all born unto sin, but we are given the opportunity to repent, and have our sins cleansed from us. The only unforgivable sin is suicide.

[seattleite]

^ I probably shouldn't comment on this anymore, but just gotta clear one thing up: your last sentence is wrong. Read Mark 3:22-30.

[Silas Angel]

You forget: we are all born unto sin' date=' but we are given the opportunity to repent, and have our sins cleansed from us. The only unforgivable sin is suicide.

[/quote']

 

I do not forget. =/ I knew we are all born in sin, and yes, we all have the command from God to repent. But not all will. In fact, very few will. And no, the unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which in the context of the passage, it's referring to the Pharisees calling the work of the Spirit the work of Satan. When you attribute the work of God to the work of His enemies, you have committed the unforgivable sin, the sin unto death. Not suicide. Suicide is just the hopelessness of the enemy of God.

[GraveHorizon]

Wait, are there people in here actually preaching the word of God? I can't tell who's pointing out the fallacies, irony and craziness of the Bible and who really believes what they're saying.

 

And the last time I checked, it was not proven that homosexuality is a choice. Or does the Bible explicitly mention that it is? Not that it matters, since the Bible still isn't a reliable source on scientific issues.

[Dr. Cakey]

Wait' date=' are there people in here actually preaching the word of God? I can't tell who's pointing out the fallacies, irony and craziness of the Bible and who really believes what they're saying.

 

And the last time I checked, it was not proven that homosexuality is a choice. Or does the Bible explicitly mention that it is? Not that it matters, since the Bible still isn't a reliable source on scientific issues.

[/quote']

 

More precisely, Crab answered that in two lines, and people ignored him, because actually listening to the words of your God is a dangerous thing (c itz funy bcuz were talkin abt god n crab is ycmz god).

 

My darling Max C., it's hard to believe that such a minor thing as blasphemy is the unforgivable sin. It's a pity, I was hoping to give away all my possessions to charity, but I guess there's no point now, huh? teh eternal fire does at least seem like an interesting place. I'll be able to ask Machiavelli if he was writing satire.

 

why does the bible preach accepting others' date=' yet condemming gays as evil and not worth acceptance?

[/quote']

 

I could say:

 

"because it's a choice and as a choice and a sin it will not be accepted by the bible because the bible doesn't accept sins it defines what they are and it doesn't condemn gays it only condemns the sin like they say hate the sin love the sinner *gasp* "

 

Of course, that's only if you think it's a choice.

 

But you know who Jesus really hated most? Do you? The hypocrites.

 

That would be you. Now please read this and invite yourself into the 21st century.

[CrabHelmet]

I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe?

 

I personally don't approve of being black but does that make me a racist?

 

I think homosexuality is a choice. That's what's different.

 

I think being black is a choice.

 

If you're going to have an opinion about a factual statement' date=' it is your duty to ensure that your opinion makes sense - you cannot simply say "I think homosexuality is a choice" or "I think apples fall up" without doing any study to determine the truth or falsehood of those statements. As it happens, it's very easy to find out whether homosexuality is a choice; an introductory Psychology textbook will address the issue, and the short answer is "it's not a choice".

 

This leaves you with two options: incorporate the accepted facts into your thoughts, or conclude that all psychologists are involved in a massive evil conspiracy to hide the truth and continue to hold your belief without evidence.

 

Since this is a topic about the bible i feel like i should make a theological arguement.

 

God has a plan for everyone. God has the power to destroy sinners. Gays according to the bible are sinners. God has yet to destroy gays, so that means a person being gay is just a part of his divine plan.

 

As i said quite a few pages back... If gayness is a sin then why do we have 'devout' cathloic priests 'playing' with the altar boys?

 

I fail to see God striking down serial killers. I also fail to see God striking down pacifists. If God exists, He certainly doesn't seem to be doing much smiting nowadays. This argument doesn't seem to go very far. (Then again, I can't hear the phrase "God has a plan for everyone" without thinking of Six and Baltar...)

 

And don't even try to confound homosexuality with pedophilia and rape. Those Catholic priests are pedophiles and rapists, which are obviously Bad Things rather than anything devout, but homosexuality really isn't relevant there; pedophilia and rape are equally bad regardless of whether the targets are young boys or young girls.

 

I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe?

 

I personally don't approve of being black but does that make me a racist?

 

There's a distinction between disliking a behavior and hating someone for that behavior.

 

 

For example' date=' let's say you have a relative that smokes in their house. Every time you visit them, you have to deal with the horrible smell. You wish they wouldn't smoke, but you don't hate them for it, do you?

[/quote']

 

In that situation, why do I wish they wouldn't smoke? Well, that's simple. It's unhealthy and smells bad.

 

Now, in this situation, why do I wish they weren't gay/black/female/left-handed? The answers, regardless of the exact details or whatever doublethink you use to convince yourself that they're fine ("We don't hate gays! We just think they should enter heterosexual marriages and pretend they're not gay! We love them, but we don't love them enough to want them to be themselves or to avoid years of misery and trauma from self-denial!"), are all forms of homophobia/racism/misogyny/et cetera.

 

What exactly' date=' is good about homosexuality? Who or what does it benefit?

[/quote']

 

I hate to pull the racism card again, but it's just so easy and so effective that I really can't not pull it.

 

What exactly, is good about being black? Who or what does it benefit?

 

Let's change the subject back to something Crab brought up earlier: What' date=' exactly, is bad about being homosexual? Who or what does it harm?

[/quote']

 

It would only cause a problem if more than 50% of the Planet were gay (not Bisexual mind you) and were unable to give birth to a child or unwilling. Otherwise, it's purely personal taste =/. Nothing wrong with it and it doesn't harm anyone. (Save for the rare emotional cases).

 

What's this 50% nonsense? I'm sure you think that 50% is some cutoff point below which the human population must spiral downward, but in actual fact you'll find that no such cutoff exists. Even assuming that all gays are unwilling to have children (an assumption not reflected in real life, where many gays and gay couples have or want children), humanity could still survive very high rates of homosexuality through large heterosexual families; if 75% of the population is gay, then humanity survives by each non-gay having an average of eight children (higher than the modern standard but lower than it has often been in history). (This model is a ridiculous oversimplification in which all gays want no children, all straights want children, and everything else in the LGBT spectrum does not exist. However, it can be made accurate with one simple Ctrl+H change: change all references to gays to people who do not want children and all references to straights to people who do want children.)

 

Also, the "rare emotional cases" are caused not by being gay but by being gay in a homophobic society. So, once again, it's not homosexuality causing harm but homophobia.

[Junk Raver]

If i go to hell i go to hell, at least it will be a gay orgy down there :P more like heaven to me ^_^

[The Dark One]

I hope Max C is a troll.

 

I really really do.

 

After reading the last few pages, I was all set to argue about a bunch of stuff, but Crab got to most of it and I forgot what the other stuff was, so I'll just leave it at this for now.

[CrabHelmet]

I came here to respond to Revolver Amethyst's big post, but it seems he has since deleted it.

[GraveHorizon]

What's this 50% nonsense? I'm sure you think that 50% is some cutoff point below which the human population must spiral downward' date=' but in actual fact you'll find that no such cutoff exists. Even assuming that all gays are unwilling to have children (an assumption not reflected in real life, where many gays and gay couples have or want children), humanity could still survive very high rates of homosexuality through large heterosexual families; if 75% of the population is gay, then humanity survives by each non-gay having an average of eight children (higher than the modern standard but lower than it has often been in history). (This model is a ridiculous oversimplification in which all gays want no children, all straights want children, and everything else in the LGBT spectrum does not exist. However, it can be made accurate with one simple Ctrl+H change: change all references to gays to people who do not want children and all references to straights to people who do want children.)

 

Also, the "rare emotional cases" are caused not by being gay but by being gay [i']in a homophobic society[/i]. So, once again, it's not homosexuality causing harm but homophobia.

 

Are we talking about survival as in humans (no matter the number) simply existing, or humans continuing to reproduce at an exponential rate unsustainable by whatever environment we currently inhabit? That sci-fi/fantasy scenario where there are less humans by non-violent means doesn't sound so bad, but yeah, it's just way too unrealistic. The main reason homosexuals can't have kids is because the homophobes won't let them.

 

And I think the human cutoff point is 2 humans left (0.00000000029%). Whatever gender combination, it just wouldn't work.