Respecting Christians

[Legend]

I'd take issue with most of it, but I have a lecture to write. I certainly don't think you deserve eternal punishment though, true enough. The notion the bible is equal to Christianity is something I constantly fight, simply because it is heretical (and silly). I fully understand your logic though, and sympathise if you have to deal with hypocritical asshats on a regular basis condemning you on some Biblical text or the other and ignoring all the ones they break every five minutes

cj x

Interesting, thanks.

I consider the Bible the only tangible link a Christian has to his god and his god's teachings. I'm not sure from where else you could generate your belief, nor do I know what purpose the Bible would serve if not to be the reference source for those who weren't lucky enough to interact with Christ like the few hundred Christians two thousand years ago who were.

What are your opinions on those points?

 

[cj.23]

Interesting, thanks.

I consider the Bible the only tangible link a Christian has to his god and his god's teachings. I'm not sure from where else you could generate your belief, nor do I know what purpose the Bible would serve if not to be the reference source for those who weren't lucky enough to interact with Christ like the few hundred Christians two thousand years ago who were.

What are your opinions on those points?

The thread has been so long and troubled that I never really developed my discussion of this, but I mention it here earlier a bit --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8324629#post8324629

I'd also like to extend my invite of Hellfire to you --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8323365#post8323365

And as this is your thread my original response remains pertinent --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8318377#post8318377

Apologies if my rambling rows with Dafydd have repeatedly sidetracked the discussion That was never my intention, and I apologise unreservedly. I thought the OP was very interesting, and worthwhile. And sorry to not respond properly and just link to previous posts now but I have to write this blasted lecture as the Science Festival starts tomorrow and i will be too caught up in events to write my talk if I don;t so it today I will try to respond though to any reply.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

So being gay is not a sin?

No. Neither is being straight, asexual, or a Golden Retriever.

cj x

 

[JoeMorgue]

So something the Bible very clearly calls an "abomination" isn't a sin under Christian guidelines?

Which of the rules, guidelines, and admonishments mentioned in the Bible are sins and which aren't?

 

[cj.23]

So something the Bible very clearly calls an "abomination" isn't a sin under Christian guidelines?

Which of the rules, guidelines, and admonishments mentioned in the Bible are sins and which aren't?

I'll discuss the verses in question if you like, but it will need a new thread and time. I don't recall the Bible says being gay is an abomination however or a sin? It outlaws some homosexual acts* sure, but being homosexual is not in itself condemned? And as i said, eating shellfish, looking lustfully upon a woman and working on the Sabbath are equally condemned? (I avoid the latter, and working on any other day if I can. Homosexuals are not going to be condemned for looking lustfully upon a woman, so they beat me hands down in the morality stakes on that one).

cj x

*I think homosexuals playing with toy trains, going for a walk or eating rice crispies are on safe ground to give a few examples. Being gay is not all about sex I assume? I could be wrong, being straight, but I rather doubt being gay means one becomes a sex obsessed creature that never gets out of bed. If so I may have to change my sexual orientation as that sounds better than working for a living.

 

[dafydd]

So something the Bible very clearly calls an "abomination" isn't a sin under Christian guidelines?

Which of the rules, guidelines, and admonishments mentioned in the Bible are sins and which aren't?

Back to the cherry-picking again, which is my main problem with Christianity, but cj seems unwilling or unable to understand that.

 

[dafydd]

I'll discuss the verses in question if you like, but it will need a new thread and time. I don't recall the Bible says being gay is an abomination.

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I would think he was a racist, wife-beating necrophiliac that could play a good game of scrabble, but I still wouldn't respect him...

At least you didn't call him a sadistic hippophilic necrophile.

 

[cj.23]

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).

Yes , I know Leviticus. but where does it say being gay is an abomination???

cj x

 

[dafydd]

Yes , I know Leviticus. but where does it say being gay is an abomination???

cj x

Can't you read? I'm out, you can practice your sit-down comedy with somebody else.

 

[Jeff Corey]

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It gives a free ticket to lesbians, however.

 

[cj.23]

Can't you read? I'm out, you can practice your sit-down comedy with somebody else.

So you believe being gay predicates you must be

a) sexually active
b) engage in I presume anal sex as the intended meaning?

That will disappoint a lot of gay men I know who will have to invent a new word. I had no idea being homosexual meant you had to be all about sex, and that particular type of sex. It must be terrible to be so reduced to one expression of love, sexuality and sensuality. It's all about anal then?

Even if that were true, why is it worse than eating shellfish, or looking lustfully at a woman? You can argue the first from the Bible easily enough (I'm being facetious there: the food laws are repealed) but the second is from Jesus himself?

cj x

 

[JoeMorgue]

And as i said, eating shellfish, looking lustfully upon a woman and working on the Sabbath are equally condemned?

If we are working under the assumption of the Bible as a source of moral guidelines then yeah.

And so what if they aren't "equally" condemned. They are all still condemned. Hell the Bible orders death for working on the Sabbath. How much "bigger" do you exist a sin to get?

Even playing the "Okay well the Bible says both this and that are a bad thing, but we know this is a little bad thing and that is a really bad thing" is still a form of cherry picking.

Here we'll make this clear. Have you or anyone else listening killed (or turned people into the authorities and demanded the death penalty) for people that committed the following acts?

- Murder
- Adultery.
- Bestiality.
- Sodomy
- Rape
- Picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
- A woman being raped that didn't scream out loud enough.
- A woman who was discovered to not be a virgin on her wedding night.
- Worshiping other Gods.
- Practicing Witchcraft.
- Taking the Lord's Name in Vain.
- Cursing a Parent.
- Kidnapping.

I'll tell you right know I have personally done 3 of the things on that list (before speculation bites me in the ass it would be yardwork on both Sundays and Saturdays, cursing my parents, and taking the Lord's name in vain.).

Do you plan on killing me for these sins? If not you have forfeited your right to point at anything in the Bible and claim it inherently moral unless you can provide some logical* reason why we can ignore certain parts of an supposedly holy book.

*And I've already heard most of the common copouts. "I only follow the New Testament, I only follow the teachings of Jesus, I think the parts I don't agree with aren't really the words of God...."

 

[arthwollipot]

...That is why I have no respect for the beliefs of Christians, which is the topic of the thread.

Not so much. The thread is about respect for Christians, not the beliefs of Christians.

Can't you read? I'm out, you can practice your sit-down comedy with somebody else.

Let me be a go-between here, because I can see clearly what cj.23 is trying to say, and you obviously cannot.

The act is a sin, the orientation is not. A gay person is not a sinner unless he (specifically he) actually performs an act of gay sex. A man can love cock all he wants, but unless he actually sticks one in his mouth, he isn't sinning.

 

[dafydd]

So you believe being gay predicates you must be

a) sexually active
b) engage in I presume anal sex as the intended meaning?

That will disappoint a lot of gay men I know who will have to invent a new word. I had no idea being homosexual meant you had to be all about sex, and that particular type of sex. It must be terrible to be so reduce dot one expression of love, sexuality and sensuality. It's all about anal then?

Even if that were true, why is it worse than eating shellfish, or looking lustfully at a woman? You can argue the first from the Bible easily enough (I'm being facetious there: the food laws are repealed) but the second is from Jesus himself?

cj x

Ok, I'll respond. You claim to be a Christian, it's your bible, you tell me. I think it's all fiction so I can't take any of the babble seriously.

 

[dafydd]

Not so much. The thread is about respect for Christians, not the beliefs of Christians.

Let me be a go-between here, because I can see clearly what cj.23 is trying to say, and you obviously cannot.

The act is a sin, the orientation is not. A gay person is not a sinner unless he (specifically he) actually performs an act of gay sex. A man can love cock all he wants, but unless he actually sticks one in his mouth, he isn't sinning.

So if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart it is a sin, but he can lech on other men till his eyes bubble? cj seems to have trouble in understanding what I am trying to say. That is probably because the Anglican church is primarily a social organization, the bible is an afterthought.

 

[cj.23]

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It gives a free ticket to lesbians, however.

Yep. Lesbians are clearly not homosexual to dafydd, presumably because they don't do anal with their own bits? (apologise if this is all in terrible taste, but I'm trying to make a serious point: why do straight people, and i speak as one, endlessly characterise homosexual in terms of the single point of difference, their sexuality, and then try to make that sexuality central to another human beings persona? I'm straight but I'm not all about heterosexual copulation. Sometimes I stop and have a coffee or post on forums, though with all my typos you might not realise I do stop it to post here...)

cj x

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fine split the hair all you want to my opinion is the same for both sides of it. Condemning someone for homosexual acts is no better then condemning someone for homosexual thoughts.

 

[dafydd]

Fine split the hair all you want to my opinion is the same for both sides of it. Condemning someone for homosexual acts is no better then condemning someone for homosexual thoughts.

As long as gays don't actually manipulate any willies it sees to be fine with god. Honestly, the daftness of religion never ceases to amaze me.

 

[cj.23]

The act is a sin, the orientation is not. A gay person is not a sinner unless he (specifically he) actually performs an act of gay sex.

Exactly!

A man can love cock all he wants, but unless he actually sticks one in his mouth, he isn't sinning.

I don't think it's condemned? As far as I can see oral sex is OK? I'm glad you raised it though, because it, like kissing, stroking, masturbation, teasing, caressing, holding hands, walking in the park, arguing, and watching TV together are all part of many gay relationships I presume?

The Bible condemns sexual immorality strongly, and I'm really happy to have a discussion about what Biblically, and in the eyes of the Church through history, has constituted Sexual immorality. I am happy to talk about specific verses. The only issue is I have only 2 days to prepare my talk now so it will have to wait. If it has not been done to death on the forum before I'll happily talk about it.

I don't condemn gays, I have never been gay and know almost nothing anything about it, but I do intensely dislike the notion that being gay is all about anal sex and gay males can be no more than anal sex addicts who spend all day in bed. That seems like a weird hetero fantasy version, but not appealing to may one like hetero male stereotypes of lesbians, but with gay me a rather sinister reductionist one. It probably underlies some of the opposition to gay marriage?

cj x