Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[TheFightingPikachu]

And I think I made my point.

No, you didn't. Let's take a look:

"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." - Leviticus 19:27

There you go.

Note that according to the Wikipedia article on Hasidic Judaism, many do cut their hair--shave it off in fact! And the very fact that not all religious Jews are Hasidic indicates that the interpretation of this passage most commonly used by atheists and pro-gay people is cherry picked to put the worst possible spin on it.

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you." - Leviticus 11:7-8

Think of that before you order a ham and cheese on rye.

There is no problem here. So far as I am aware all branches of Judaism (except perhaps for a few like Reform Judaism) follow this command about Kosher foods. For Christians who have a New Testament, though, there is no requirement to follow Jewish dietary restrictions (see Acts 15:5-30).

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:28

Tattoos are sinful, it seems.

Flesh-cutting and tattooing were widely used in the ancient world in other religions. More than likely, this command was to keep Israel distinct from people of other religions. Despite what some Christians have said, it is doubtful that this command applies to Christians.

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." - Deuteronomy 23:1

As if what happened to John Bobbit wasn't bad enough. According to this, he isn't allowed in church.

There was no "church" in the Hebrew Bible. They had a Tabernacle (later a Temple) and rules of purity restricted who was and was not allowed to enter (or how far certain in certain people were allowed to go).

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." - Leviticus 10-11

Seems seafood is bad too. (Notice that a lot of this stuff is in Leviticus?) Btw, this contradicts that story about Jesus feeding the crowd with loaves and fishes.

Leviticus certainly contains guidelines about which seafood is Kosher and which is not. Sure, some fish don't pass the test, but that doesn't mean all fish were considered unclean. Fishing for a contradiction just netted you...a boot! And guess what? The boot's yours, because you are doing a great job of kicking your own butt!


Much of the rest of what you mentioned involves things that I have no problem calling sin (i.e., gossip, sexual immorality). Some others contain very basic misunderstandings of the nature of the Mosaic Law as a national law for the nation of Israel. The church is not a nation, so we don't exercise judicial punishment. This means that even in cases where the same moral rules are followed, the same punishment does not. This is the reason the church doesn't stone gays.




Now, I also notice that your post failed to address the topic, which is about homosexuality. I really would like to see evidence that the views of most Islamic people on gay rights will "likely" have changed in a decade or even half a century. I could even cite some evidence on the opposite side, like the fact that some Middle Eastern nations still stone gays while Israel doesn't. Or we couldextend it further. This article helps explain what I mean. Major Nidal Hassan, who shot people at a base at Fort Hood, defends himself by basically saying he's a terrorist. I think this helps indicate that in general, Islam has changed very little since it started, and, in fact, many of its adherents express a desire not to change. So, what do you have to indicating that many Islamic people worldwide will change their views of homosexuality? Anything that even suggests this?

 

[Maedar]

Each reply you make does not deny that people ignore what the Bible says.

When you say that "they do" cut their hair, you are, in fact, admitting they are in defiance of the Bible. By saying that Christians are okay with defying Leviticus 11:7-8, you are, in fact, saying that it is okay not to take the entire Bible at face value and CHOOSE what parts of it you want to follow (the thing that drive me crazy about these people.).

In short, you are admiting that all this stuff is in the Bible but is routinely ignored. So what is so special about the passage in Leviticus 18:22?

Oh, and btw, let's look at that one for a minute:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Note the wording. Apparently, this only applies to men. Being a lesbian is okay. Of course, whenever I mention that to these people, they say it "can be interpreted" to mean women too, but they are never able to give me any valid argument as to why. (The closest they can get is logic that, in effect, admits that whoever wrote Leviticus were chauvanists who never considered women, which I guess makes sense.)

 

[JDavidC]

There's a lot more to what goes on in Christianity than people cherry-picking parts of the Bible they like. Viewing the Bible as history/prophecy FIRST, before trying to figure out what to take away from it, is the best way to go. Then, there is the issue of massive corruption with 9001 translations (some of which may very well be intentional). You can't simply take what crops up in the Bible at face value, there's no chance of figuring out what's going on if you do that. You have to separate what is intended specifically for people at that time/location, to what is also intended for all time; it is not the same as cherry-picking. A lot of the punishments for law-breaking in Leviticus, for example, would be flat-out ridiculous today. You also have to compare what you read compared to what was actually written in the original texts!

As for what God thinks on the homosexual issue, I don't see any clear evidence from (as close as I can get) to the *original* text that it is explicitly condemned either: specifically in the past, or for all time. I find many English translations of the Bible horribly unreliable due to this doctrine of eternal suffering for some people that keeps getting mistakenly perpetuated. Why do I say it is mistaken? I say this, because it, without any shadow of a doubt, contradicts the nature of an all-loving God, and I'm certain MANY atheists would agree with me on this point. Therefore, I have to be wary of any other lies that may have crept into English translations. Even though I have seen at least one explicitly condemn homosexuals, I seriously doubt whether that happened in the original document for that book of the Bible.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Even though I have seen at least one explicitly condemn homosexuals, I seriously doubt whether that happened in the original document for that book of the Bible.

I think you've seen two (Romans 1:24-27; I Corinthians 6:9). When we last debated this, you did not present any linguistic resource indicating that these words were mistranslated, only some pro-gay websites that believed that they were (along with some times when you got your own interpretation in front of what the text says, assuming that Romans means homosexual actions are sinful "for straight people," which it does not say). And you cannot just use your skepticism about what the Bible originally said as proof. I could argue that some difficult passage or another "must have been added," but that would not be an honest way to deal with the difficulty.

You mention that you reject many translations because they clearly indicate eternal punishment, but you failed to mention several things. First, you previously stated that you hold that many (if not all) will go to hell, just temporarily (for "purification," which is never stated in the Bible). I doubt many atheists would agree with you in thinking that this is consistent with an all-loving God.


I'm serious, JDavidC. For your own good, you've got to let the data guide your beliefs rather than letting your beliefs dictate what you think the data says.

Each reply you make does not deny that people ignore what the Bible says.

When you say that "they do" cut their hair, you are, in fact, admitting they are in defiance of the Bible. By saying that Christians are okay with defying Leviticus 11:7-8, you are, in fact, saying that it is okay not to take the entire Bible at face value and CHOOSE what parts of it you want to follow (the thing that drive me crazy about these people.).

In short, you are admiting that all this stuff is in the Bible but is routinely ignored. So what is so special about the passage in Leviticus 18:22?

Oh, and btw, let's look at that one for a minute:



Note the wording. Apparently, this only applies to men. Being a lesbian is okay. Of course, whenever I mention that to these people, they say it "can be interpreted" to mean women too, but they are never able to give me any valid argument as to why. (The closest they can get is logic that, in effect, admits that whoever wrote Leviticus were chauvanists who never considered women, which I guess makes sense.)

I made no attempt to deny that some people (plenty, in fact) ignore what the Bible says. However, I made an effort to show that the commands of the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament do not apply directly to people who believe in and follow a New Testament. There is no picking and choosing about it. The New Testament states in multiple places (especially the ruling of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15) that people under the New Testament are not required to be circumcised, keep the Mosaic Law, etc.

And I don't think you want to make the claim that all these branches of Judaism "are in defiance of the Bible." I pointed that out because they know about this stuff. Few if any of them interpret Leviticus 19:27 as an absolute prohibition of shaving (let alone haircutting!). Are you saying you know more about this command than they do?


And there is nothing special about Leviticus 18:22. It prohibits male homosexuality to all under Judaism. It didn't mention lesbianism because this was very, very rare in the ancient world. It also doesn't involve the same actions that male homosexuality does, so I don't see a problem with the Law treating male homosexuality differently (because it is different).


There are passages in the New Testament which indicate that people who believe this New Testament are not to engage in homosexual actions. Both male and female homosexuality are mentioned and prohibited in the New Testament. This is uncontroversial--except, that is, among pro-gay people, especially on the internet.




And really, is it that hard to include something in your posts that actually addresses my counterargument on Islam? Why do you think the view of gay marriage held by most Muslims is likely to change within the next half-century?

 

[Maedar]

Why not? The view held by most Christians on this country on it has changed a lot in the past half-century.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

It is not a sufficient response to ask why most Muslims wouldn't change their view. I am asking for a positive reason why they would.

If you think science will convince them, then you forget that among many Muslims (i.e., powerholders in the Middle East), science is viewed as almost nothing more than "that thing that can help us make nukes."


Aaaaand, there's the problems with the research in this area. It is far from certain that homosexuality (or bisexuality) is inborn and unalterable. To recycle something I discussed earlier, consider this scientific article. I'll just quote the most important portion:

In 1990, we described the first brain difference related to sexual orientation in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN)—the brain's “clock”—which in HoM is twice the size that it is in HeM. We later induced a similar brain difference in rats by pharmacologically disturbing the interaction between testosterone and the developing brain, using the aromatase inhibitor ATD in the neonatal period. This experiment yielded bisexual adult rats that had a larger-than-normal number of vasopressin neurons and total cells in their SCNs. The difference in the SCN of HoM was, therefore, not caused by a difference in sexual behavior, as was suggested at the time, but by an atypical interaction between sex hormones and the developing brain.

But, there are several problems with using this as evidence that bisexuality is inborn:

(1) This experiment was conducted on rats in the neonatal period; the rats were already born.
(2) The change in brain structure resulted from hormonal changes, not genetic changes. Plenty of people on this Forum have argued that a difference in brain structure must mean something genetic (hence innate). But this actually does the opposite and proves that brain structures are not solely based on genetics. And it proves that such structures can change (if only in newborn subjects).
(3) If such an alteration of brain structure results in an organism that is only partly homosexual, what alteration is necessary to result in one that is completely homosexual? It would be impossible for them to reduce the influence of testosterone to less than zero! It is also worth noting that they say that this part of the brain is twice as large in homosexual males, but fail to ask why none of the rats ended up homosexual as opposed to bisexual. This is a definite flaw in the method they used for "proving" that behavior couldn't be the factor that changed the brain structure in homosexual males.
(4) It must be emphasized that the scientists did something abnormal to the rats. The hormonal interruption on the rats' developing brains caused a difference in brain structure and of sexual orientation. This is not evidence that different sexual orientations are "perfectly normal."

In fact, they could have proceeded from this experiment to the conclusion that some (perhaps many) instances of homosexuality or bisexuality are caused by hormonal imbalance. But it is obvious why they did not. By definition an imbalance is abnormal! It is not something that "needs to be accepted" or anything like that. In fact, a hormonal imbalance sounds distinctly like something that can be corrected! Aside from politically-correct pussyfooting, most doctors would recommend treatment to correct an imbalance.


And I don't need any outraged protests of "How dare you suggest that homosexuals might have a hormonal imbalance!" I do not claim anything about the origin of homosexuality (or bisexuality) in all cases; but this study may be evidence of what happens in some cases. My main point is that many of the studies cited in support of a biological origin of homosexuality/bisexuality don't provide anywhere near as much support as many pro-gay people think. But more importantly, being a critical thinker necessitates asking the hard questions, not just the ones people want asked. Science should not allow political correctness and special interest groups to intimidate them into (or out of) certain research or conclusions of said research.

 

[Maedar]

You're making the claim that Bachman's husband does now. (That homosexuality is an "illness".)

Sorry, Pikachu, I will no longer listen to someone who tries to pass off Bachman's claims as fact. The woman is not only a sorry excuse for a politician, but a sorry excuse for a woman AND a human being.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Apparently, you read neither my claim, nor the evidence behind it--a blunder-ridden, pro-gay scientific article that should not have passed peer review. Why not dismiss any further claims from me? You didn't read what I said before!

 

[JDavidC]

Spoiler: Reply to TheFightingPikachu, spoilered for length

I think you've seen two (Romans 1:24-27; I Corinthians 6:9). When we last debated this, you did not present any linguistic resource indicating that these words were mistranslated, only some pro-gay websites that believed that they were (along with some times when you got your own interpretation in front of what the text says, assuming that Romans means homosexual actions are sinful "for straight people," which it does not say). And you cannot just use your skepticism about what the Bible originally said as proof. I could argue that some difficult passage or another "must have been added," but that would not be an honest way to deal with the difficulty.

Technically, I said I doubt whether this was true in the original Bible. Now I'm going to see what I can get off the NET Bible...

Romans 1:24-27... It's hard to try to read Greek directly as I don't know it at all, all I have is translations of individual words of Greek to work with. I've had to look through the parallel translations as well to see what I can come up with for what was said originally.

People exchanged heterosexual relations for homosexual ones seems to be the gist of it, specifically regarding sexual intercourse, and this got condemned. However, there are two distinct possibilities that arise here.
Is it a case of heterosexual people switching to an act against their own nature that is being condemned, or simply homosexual sex alone, regardless of sexual orientation, that is being condemned?

There are two plausible possibilities here:
1. Heterosexual people switching to homosexuality being condemned, and really defying the natural design of their own bodies (including their sexual orientation).
2. Homosexual sex itself being condemned, regardless of sexual orientation, due to health and safety risks mainly which go against the physical design of the human body (excluding any anomalies in the brain). I should point out I don't see anything against a homosexual relationship without homosexual sex, or simply having a homosexual orientation.

Both seem plausible to me... I will admit the 2nd one seems the most likely if I break out Occam's Razor, as it does not apply any strange complications. However, I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the 1st possibility can be discounted.

However, when I look at 1 Corinthians 6:9... There seems to be condemnation aimed specifically at homosexuals in English translations. I had to dig deeper and focus on a word... arsenokoitai, http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/
The only way 1 Corinthians 6:9, as it is written in Greek, and the previous verses mentioned in Romans can make sense together is if homosexual sex, not merely being homosexual, is what is being condemned. I can understand condemning homosexual sex on health and safety grounds, but not on someone being homosexual by nature. Condemning people based on their nature and the way they were made is nonsensical. At the very least, if the nature is a mental illness of some kind, then God would be obliged to offer a cure for it in the after-life, otherwise it would be cruel and unloving.

You mention that you reject many translations because they clearly indicate eternal punishment, but you failed to mention several things. First, you previously stated that you hold that many (if not all) will go to hell, just temporarily (for "purification," which is never stated in the Bible). I doubt many atheists would agree with you in thinking that this is consistent with an all-loving God.

You said I failed to mention several things, but you only mentioned one thing, and even then, you were incorrect. I stated that there *may* be a hell, and I do not recall stating that many (and certainly not all!) would end up going there, if it exists. Furthermore, if there IS a hell, I believe it would function like a prison, not a place of torture. If this is true, then people would be released from said prison upon serving their sentence. Getting into Heaven, however, is another matter entirely. Said people would have to choose it (which I believe would eventually happen, sooner or later, in all cases), and they would also have to willingly choose to do what the bible strongly suggests doing (i.e. genuine repentance). Again, I believe, that... eventually, all people will end up unsatisfied if they try other options, and will, sooner or later, turn to that option when their patience with trying other ways runs out (and I would also imagine God would have this all planned from the very beginning of time, not to mention God could easily outlast anyone else when it comes to patience).

I'm serious, JDavidC. For your own good, you've got to let the data guide your beliefs rather than letting your beliefs dictate what you think the data says.

The thing is, my beliefs are based on the data in the Bible that clearly makes perfect sense! Anything involving love, specifically, God's love and how to use love, along with critical thinking and obtaining knowledge is right there in the Bible, and is the basis of my belief system. Furthermore, the only reason I may still have faith in the Bible, in spite of all the inconsistencies that pop up, is due to evidence that I cannot use in a debate (I can mention it if you want, but it's purely anecdotal and can't be used to support any claims I make in this debate forum).

Now, regarding what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, here are some verses I'm referring to:
- Matthew 22:34-40 'The Greatest Commandment', the Ten Commandments in Exodus are based on the two commandments mentioned in those 6 verses, and all 10 of them seem fine and applicable.
- Continuing with the love theme, Matthew 5:43-48 'Love for Enemies'.
- As for wielding love, 1 Corinthians 13, particularly verses 4-7.
- Putting this together in a nutshell, I believe 'Love all sentient beings with all your heart, soul and mind', along with treating everyone as equals is the message.

Now, as the Bible even goes as far as making this bold claim that God is love, I will hold him to these standards when judging other parts of the Bible.

As far as critical thinking and obtaining knowledge is concerned, I have mentioned such verses in a previous conversation (I'll just say 1 Thessalonians 5:21, and some verses in Proverbs that I can't be bothered looking up (such as zeal without knowledge not being good) for now).

On to my next point, why do I reject eternal suffering? It BLATANTLY contradicts the verses I have quoted. Condemning anyone to eternal torment most blatantly contradicts 'Love always protects'. This is elementary propositional logic. 'God would condemn people to Eternal Punishment' amounts to 'God is NOT all loving', as love (by HIS standards), always protects. The Bible states most explicitly that God IS love, i.e. 'God is all loving'. Now I am going to utterly destroy the notion of eternal suffering using Proof by Contradiction (Google it if you need to).

A = 'God will condemn people to eternal punishment'
B = 'God is all loving'.
C = 'God is NOT all loving'.

To carry out my proof, I will assume A is true, and accept B as the sole premise of this argument, and show that this leads to a contradiction.
A -> C, that is, C is true if A is true, as I have outlined already.
Given that B is true in this case, as well as C, then B AND C is also true.
Let's write out B AND C in plain English. 'God is all loving and God is NOT all loving'. i.e. C = NOT B!
In other words, B AND (NOT B) must be true! However, B AND (NOT B) is, in propositional logic, a statement that is always false, which is the very definition of a contradiction in propositional logic. Basically, 1 = 0 if A is true! (1 represents 'true', 0 represents 'false').
Clearly something has gone wrong. The logic is fine except for one point, the initial assumption. A implies a contradiction, therefore A is false. i.e. 'God will condemn people to eternal punishment' is a contradictory, flat out, FALSE statement. IMHO, it goes as far as to be extreme blasphemy against God. IMO, it is a most vicious, Satanic lie, and I would be very, very surprised if Satan didn't cause this to come about himself. On this point, I am in full agreement with Richard Dawkins (even though I do not share his beliefs), this doctrine is EVIL and needs to stop.

You may be wondering why I'm not judging God based on any actions he has taken, or has not taken. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt because he is omniscient, and anything he has/has not done so far, including massive killing sprees and orders to mercilessly destroy people and so on in the Old Testament. Any damage inflicted is temporary in nature, and he has the power to ultimately turn it into a long/infinite term gain, which is what he had better be doing. Here is where I disagree with Richard Dawkins. He only analyses God superifically, using human standards and thinking, without taking omniscience into account.

However, when it comes to what he wants to do in the infinite term, that is where I can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't require omniscience to judge someone based on THESE circumstances. Eternal torment contradicts 'Love always protects', and leads ultimately to my proof by contradiction that eternal punishment is a blatant LIE.

If you disagree with me on this issue, then I have a question to put to you. Where, in the ORIGINAL Hebrew/Greek texts, does it mention eternal suffering? (Be careful of multiple possible interpretations of words such as aionios while you're at it).

Given the anecdotal evidence I mentioned earlier, I had to search for some explanation for this blatant contradiction (which also completely screws up the point of Jesus Christ being crucified on the cross btw)... I will say this much, research 'Universalism' in Christianity, particularly parts about 'Hell' not being in the Bible originally. BTW, for the purpose of making it easier to debate with me, I will say that I am a Christian that follows the Universalism school of thought (although my beliefs are not identical to that of other universalists).

Finally, for anyone who believes I'm straying off topic; whether or not God exists, and hence, whether certain parts of the Bible regarding homosexuality are to be trusted, is a key part of this debate, given that Christianity is widespread.

 

[Steampunk]

Sorry in advance cuz I'm on my mobile Atm.

Actually you'd be supprised. The Bible uses the word hell but never describes the place itself...for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. Without havering to quote scripture, logic can disprove its existance.
Most people picture the devil as being the master of hell, yet why would God give the devil rule over humans to his enemy? The simple answer is, he wouldn't. Combined wig the fact that he is love. The basis for hell is completely unfounded. The actually definition of the word hell is "th common grave of mankind" or "the place to which you are going".

And then the question is "how and will the evil be punished?" Site Ecclesiastes 5:9 (may be 9:5 cant remember Atm XD) sways that "the dead are conciliate of nothing at all" and other scriptures also back up this fact. This is because that when God created Adam and eve...he didn't make them to die, he made them to live forever. But due to their sins they died. And they didn't go to hell or heaven. But by disobeying, they were in effect saying: we don't have to obey, we can rule ourselves. And then God basically said "go ahead, rule yourselves, see where that gets you. In time it will be obvious that humans cant rule themselves." So he let humanity go on as it did. But soon he will step in again as ruler and he will give everyone life who died and deserved it. (Ill ad scriptures for this later but its hard to c+p on my kindle)

 

[Maedar]

True, but even the modern Vatican denies that hell is actually a place.

Pope John Paul II (someone who I held in highest regards I might add, in an organization full of leaders I often hold in utter contempt these days) stated on July 28, 1999 that, in speaking of hell as a place, the Bible uses "a symbolic language", which "must be correctly interpreted … Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy." Some have interpreted these words as a denial that hell can be considered to be a place, or at least as providing an alternative picture of hell.

He also wrote, and I quote:

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. " Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

In other words, he is suggesting that "hell" is not a place, but an absence of a place, a state involving definitive self-exclusion from communion with God.

Regardless, no leader of the Church in modern times has ever gone so far as to say they believe someone (as in, give a name) has gone there. (Did Hitler go there? If you asked Pope Francis what his opinion on that was, he'd say he didn't have the right to give his opinion on it, most likely.) Quite possibly, the message is that Hell is an allegory, not an actual place.

(And more than likely a plot element for fiction writers who never get tired of depicting it as a "fire and brimstone" type of thing.)

Edit: Btw, IMOPO, I don't believe in Hell, and this view is more common than you think. (Far more than common than those who don't believe in God, I might add.)

 

[Steampunk]

Hmm, interesting. Ive actually found that most of the doctrines taught in the churches do not line up with what the bible actually says, i try do what the bible says, not what the church says.

Finally, for anyone who believes I'm straying off topic; whether or not God exists, and hence, whether certain parts of the Bible regarding homosexuality are to be trusted, is a key part of this debate, given that Christianity is widespread.

Not at all, i also agree that its quite neccessary, and in fact i had a debate some time back with another user on that topic so ill link it.

In other words, he is suggesting that "hell" is not a place, but an absence of a place, a state involving definitive self-exclusion from communion with God.

hmm, if i understand you correctly, then the bible actually backs you up on that:
Ecclesiastes 9:5,10
5 For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest.

As for the argument that hell exists, id like to cite these:
Revelation 20:13-15
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Ok, these verses come up usually when people think of hell, mostly due to the fact that verse 15 said that people were cast in to the lake of fire. But if you look 1 verse up....you see that hell itself was cast into the same sea of fire! Now in some translations it uses the word gehenna to describe the sea of fire. Now the word gehenna means "Valley of Hinnom" and that was an actual place outside Jerusalem, and it was basically a pit that had a constant raging fire at the bottom, and things like trash and the bodies of people not deserving burial. But the key is, No living thing was ever cast in there. Everything was already dead. And like those earlier verses, it says that death is a state of inactivity. Another interesting fact is this:

Job 14:13
13 “O that Thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that Thou wouldest keep me secret until Thy wrath be past; that Thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
The word translated "the grave" in this verse is the same word that is translated Hell in other verses, now why would the faithful man Job go to hell? Simple, he wouldn't so that is further proof that hell isnt real.

However, when I look at 1 Corinthians 6:9... There seems to be condemnation aimed specifically at homosexuals in English translations. I had to dig deeper and focus on a word... arsenokoitai, http://www.equip.org/articles/is-ars...at-mysterious/
The only way 1 Corinthians 6:9, as it is written in Greek, and the previous verses mentioned in Romans can make sense together is if homosexual sex, not merely being homosexual, is what is being condemned. I can understand condemning homosexual sex on health and safety grounds, but not on someone being homosexual by nature. Condemning people based on their nature and the way they were made is nonsensical. At the very least, if the nature is a mental illness of some kind, then God would be obliged to offer a cure for it in the after-life, otherwise it would be cruel and unloving.

Read on.

1 corinthians 6:9-11
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[Maedar]

See, Ansem, that's the point I try to make to these people. The Bible is contradictory.

Why? Because it had more than one author. It had dozens of authors, and was written over a span of centuries.

The claim that it was "written by God" is meant to be taken figuratively. It was written by several men interpreting the word of God (who often interpreted other men who interpreted it). Not even the most conservative of religious leaders are stupid enough to think that this claim should be taken literally.

Their followers, however...

 

[Steampunk]

See, Ansem, that's the point I try to make to these people. The Bible is contradictory.

Umm, when did i say that? I was pointing out that what the churches teach doesnt line up with what the bible actually says, not that it contradicts itself.

Why? Because it had more than one author. It had dozens of authors, and was written over a span of centuries.

Very true, but, it does line up hundreds if not thousands of times, and as you said, it was over the span of centuries, so there was no possibility of collaboration. And the times that it doesnt line up (like the mosaic law not having to be followed) are explained if people would actually take the time to read it.

The claim that it was "written by God" is meant to be taken figuratively. It was written by several men interpreting the word of God (who often interpreted other men who interpreted it). Not even the most conservative of religious leaders are stupid enough to think that this claim should be taken literally.

uhh, i dont know anyone who thinks that god actually sat down with a piece of paper and wrote the bible. He had men write it down for this simple reason: They were human. Yes god is all knowing, but he knew that a human who was experiencing things on earth would be able to get across what he wanted to other humans, including their own examples (good and bad).

Their followers, however...

Yes, there are many whackos who take the bible and listen to what other people say about it without reading it for themselves. Its like the classic playground game, the more a word of mouth message is repeated, the more it changes. Its how a simple "Im sorry, and i want you back" and turn into "You're hairy and smell like a yak".

 

[Maedar]

Yes, like a game of "Whisper Down the Alley" taken to such an extreme that people have been killed over it.

 

[Psychic]

Guys, this is not the place to argue about the existence or hell of the legitimacy of the Bible. If you want to discuss something other than homosexuality, make a new thread or take it to the Tangents thread.

Also, I'd like to specify that what a religious doctrine says only affects those who follow it. The real question is why should anyone who isn't a part of that religion be affected by that religion's laws, or why should one religion's laws be the laws of a state that is separated from the church?

My Torah says that I can't eat pork or shrimp, and whether I obey this law is one thing, but I can't force others to do the same, whether by making laws or by guilting them about it. Frankly, I have no problem ignoring my own religious text; like most of my Jewish friends, I'd never give up shrimp. Maybe I'm going to Jewish hell (not that my faith believes in hell) for that, but that's also my decision and not anyone else's business. This entire idea of telling people what to do because X or Y religion says so is ridiculous.

Also FightingPikachu, I have no idea where you got the idea that Jews had no house of worship (if I'm understanding your post correctly). Also, nobody said that seafood = all things that live in the water. Also-also, there are hundreds of types of Judaism and many levels of observance, from those who won't even wear mixed fabrics to those who cherry-pick whatever laws and customs are convenient to them to those who are entirely secular. Most of us don't really care about what the others do; as long as everyone is left to worship how they please, Shlomo isn't going to be bothering anyone about what laws they do/do not follow.

~Psychic

 

[Mr Dragon]

Unfortunately, it is a minority of religious people who cause the problem by using their religion to cover for their homophobia. There is no other way about it. It doesn't help that a fundamental part of any religion's core involves trying to force others to carry out your practices and share your beliefs.

Besides, if it's the US we're talking about, then I'm pretty sure that there's a rule which says that religion shouldn't be a sole determining factor in the existence of a law (feel free to correct me on this). Can anyone give a reason, other than religion as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married.

Oh, and don't bring up a linguistics argument either, words change their meaning's all of the time.

 

[JDavidC]

Guys, this is not the place to argue about the existence or hell of the legitimacy of the Bible. If you want to discuss something other than homosexuality, make a new thread or take it to the Tangents thread.

Also, I'd like to specify that what a religious doctrine says only affects those who follow it. The real question is why should anyone who isn't a part of that religion be affected by that religion's laws, or why should one religion's laws be the laws of a state that is separated from the church?

The thing is, religious doctrine does NOT just affect those who follow it. Lots of people who do end up forcing said doctrines on others. Twisted doctrines end up exacerbating the situation which leads to a lot of the homosexual bashing in the first place. The Westboro Baptist 'Church' is a prime example of this. Due to people doing this, the validity of the Bible, it's correct translation, whether it was purely man-made or not *IS* a major issue, so I fail to see how discussions on the validity of the Bible are NOT relevant to this debate, especially due to people forcing their beliefs on others (the whole eternal punishment doctrine is an extremely major factor here, as it leads to a violation of another doctrine to *NOT* force beliefs on eithers in either a desperate attempt to save people from eternal suffering, or as a sick excuse to abuse homosexuals while appearing holy in their own eyes or the eyes of others). Also, lots of people would not read the Bible, but they may listen to sermons from possibly misguided preachers. I also explicitly stated why I considered my previous post relevant to this thread. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning carefully.

It doesn't help that a fundamental part of any religion's core involves trying to force others to carry out your practices and share your beliefs.

Sorry, but that is not true of real Christianity. For starters, the doctrine of eternal punishment is bogus and was never there to begin with. More importantly, if you read 1 Corinithians 13:4-7, there should be a part that says 'Love does not insist on its own way.'. i.e. In general, you do NOT force your beliefs on others (exceptions would be to protect people from harm, but that bogus doctrine I mentioned previously messes things up a lot). That counterexample completely disproves your statement. Regarding homosexuals, I'd say be careful of health risks involved with homosexual sex when considering if it is worthwhile or not.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Besides, if it's the US we're talking about, then I'm pretty sure that there's a rule which says that religion shouldn't be a sole determining factor in the existence of a law

Unfortunately, no. In the United States, you can practice whatever religion you chose, but we don't actually have Separation of Church and State in our law. A politician can use their religion as the sole argument in favor of their position. Just ask Rick Santorum

 

[Maedar]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

You're right. Seems like the First Amendment actually gives us Freedom From Religion, which means we're even less bound by it.