jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (359 posts)

Why do so many Christians believe the bible to justifies homophobia?

  1. Justin Earick profile image80
    Justin Earickposted 3 years ago

    Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape).  Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex, swearing).  Paul was talking about vastly different subjects (lust, guilt, boy temple-prostitutes, metaphors & bad translations).  Most importantly to Christians, Jesus never said a solitary word against gays, and in fact constantly preached acceptance of others - so why do some Christians use the bible to justify their hate-the-sin-not-the-sinner strictly agape quasi-acceptance, to Catholic denial, and unabashed Westboro-esque bigotry? 
    Understanding that more and more churches are accepting of LGBTQ Christians and clergy each and every Sunday; how can more be compelled to follow the teachings of Jesus and accept those that would accept Him, rather than casting stones?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's a tough question. Christians are not unlike anyone else. The society they grew up in is perceived as right. If they are religious, that right is perceived as right in the eyes of their god, or gods. Christianity has, historically, been a hot bed of debate on issues surrounding what is right in the eyes of God and has slowly accepted each premise which allowed people to be more accepting and all inclusive. Both sides have given reasons why God said what; but the general population within Christianity, after being presented with both sides, eventually chooses the side that is more in line with what you perceive as Jesus's message. Religion was used to push, and fight, ideas on slavery, the equality of the races, the equality of women and other social issues. It is a positive and negative force in the fight for LGBT rights, as it was on other issues.

      Think about the upheaval of the sixties. Compare it to society today. The old school within Christianity is the vocal minority and will be pulled forward on LGBT issues just as it has been on other issues. Society can't change overnight.  Beliefs aren't changed overnight. That isn't the way of society in any other venue. Why should religion function differently?

      1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
        SwordofManticorEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Christians are unlike anyone else? Try living as a homosexuel in Iran.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are you saying Christianity is the less of the evils?

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think he was saying he doesn't take the time to read a post.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Read the whole post, or don't take offense. I didn't imply, or say, that.

          1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
            SwordofManticorEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My, arn't we touchy.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              smile I suppose that could be one take. You appeared offended and I was actually attempting top defend the Christian moderates.

              1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
                SwordofManticorEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sometimes words can give the wrong impression.

    2. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Out of curiosity, what do you mean by Catholic denial?

      1. Justin Earick profile image80
        Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good question.
        Initially I was thinking that the Catholic church is somewhere between Westborough and agape quasi-acceptance on the scale, so I wanted a single word to characterize that. 
        Denial came to mind, and perhaps denial wasn't the right word.  I was thinking more about papal response to the Catholic church's in-house sexual issues (which I think largely eminate from the celibacy requirement), in relation to the whole "gay lobby" thing et al. 
        It was a clumsy attempt to compare Catholics favorably to Westborough, without leaving them completely off the hook.  And considering their pedophilia problems, maybe that premice is incorrect.
        Regrardless, I was thinking specifically on the subject of homosexuality, and then I chose a word that didn't entirely fit that.
        See, bad choice of words - and good question.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the clarification.  The official teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality is different from the Evangelical belief and teaching in that the CC teaches that no certainty exists as to the genesis of same sex attraction.  The Evangelical teaching tends to be very cut and dried.  It's sinful and therefore evil and an abomination.  Rather than attempting to re-program, or rehabilitate or whatever it is some of those ''programs'' try to do, the Church accepts homosexuals for who they are.  Where the problems exists is that sexual activity outside of marriage is prohibited by the Catholic Church - and the Church does teach that marriage is only sanctified between a man and a woman.  Therefore, any single man or woman, whether hetero or homosexual is to remain celibate.

          That being said, as regards the pedophilia issue.  Not every human being who chooses celibacy, and certainly not every human being of a same sex orientation, is a pedophile.  That's an incredibly important point to keep in mind.  I in no way excuse the cover up of pedophilia and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but it must be pointed out that many protestant and evangelical ministers have been found out as having committed sexually immoral acts with members of their own congregation.  I personally know an evangelical youth pastor who was convicted of several counts of child molestation.  The history and inviolability of the Catholic Church has served as a wonderful hiding place for men who are sexual deviants - and that is what pedophiles are - sexual deviants.  God willing, now that the cover has been ripped away, and those men exposed for what they are - perhaps the Church can begin to help the victims heal, and maybe heal a bit on its own.

          Pedophilia is a disorder.  Monogamous homosexuality is not, nor is celibacy.  These two things are a choice, just like monogamy among heterosexual people. 

          Am I making any sense?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Right up to the celibacy.  To say that homosexuality is OK but only if the person is celibate seems a major cop-out.  Much like "hate the sin, love the sinner".  Lip service to what is right, but ending there with no action.

            Particularly as voluntary celibacy is practice ONLY by homo sapiens.  Of all the animal world only humanity has come up with that one, and virtually always for religious reasons.  Other animals can be homosexual, they can rape, they can practice inter-species sex.  But none are celibate, and that makes it a disorder.  Deviant behavior, although without the negative connotations of that word.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not saying that I agree with the celibacy directive, wilderness, was just pointing out what the teaching is.  But, one can choose to be celibate.  One can choose to be monogamous.  If it can be chosen, I do not believe it is a disorder.  And, keep in mind that the Catholic Church teaches that any and all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong - gay or straight.

              And, as far as priestly celibacy goes, there really isn't any precedent for it.  Priests, hell, even popes, have been married in the past.  But there are men and women with no religious proclivities whatsoever who go through chosen, deliberate periods of celibacy.  That doesn't make them pedophiles or deviants.

              *Edit - and I want to point out also that the youth pastor I mentioned above was married with multiple children.  So, what was his excuse?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Be careful, Motown - to be a pedophile may or may not be a choice - to act on that desire is most definitely a choice.  That doesn't make it any less of a disorder, though.  And I didn't mean to insinuate that your explanation was also your personal take on the subject - I've read too many of your posts to think that of you.

                Understand about Catholic teachings about extra-marital marriage - to a large degree they come from a 4 century deviant bishop who stuck in all kinds of weird requirements.  But adding the marriage to be male/female kind of of cements what I said - giving the OK to homosexuality is just show with no substance.

                Didn't mean to say that the only celibates are religious, though most are, or that celibate men/women are pedophiles.  There is no connection there that I'm aware of.

                But deviant doesn't mean just pedophilia; it means any difference from accepted norm, and that includes voluntary celibacy, or at least a lifetime of it.  Many young men and women are still celibate until marriage, but few remain that way much past 25 or 30 years of age.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, wilderness, you make a good point - deviant is just something that's different from the accepted norm. Here's what I think from everything I've been taught or learned on my own about my faith.  Anything that happens sexually between two consenting adults who love each other is fine by me.  I have my own personal issues with polyamory, polygamy, etc.  I believe that any romantic relationships should take place between two adults.  Sex is not a team sport, nor a spectator sport, IMO.  If there is any major difference between humans and others in the animal kingdom, that's it.  I think that we are the only species for whom sexual intimacy is about procreation AND bonding.  God knows I could be wrong, but I've seen little in my life to disprove that.

                  I have VERY - V E R Y - strong feelings about anyone who defiles a child through any sort of sexual activity.  I believe that any intellectually sound adult (not necessarily mentally sound, obviously) who sexually abuses a child will find a very special place in the hell I'm not so sure I believe in.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, I'm with you nearly all the way - that's why I didn't see your post being your personal views.  Just explanation of Catholic views in general.

                    That "almost" comes as a result of knowing that quite a few animals mate for life.  I believe that there is a bonding there, just as there is in us - they are "in love" just as we are, in their own way. 

                    The rest, I'm pretty much the same.  "Poly" marriages, whether multiple males, females or both are fine - for someone else.  Not for me.  Same for same sex marriages or celibacy - fine for someone else.

                    And children - those defilers need to find that hell soon.  As in when the proof is in and the verdict is handed down.  They don't need the inside of a jail cell.  I understand that there are very gray cases (the 16 year old that seduces an 18 or 19 year old for instance) but the rapist of a 6 year old doesn't need their life any more.

    3. SwordofManticorE profile image75
      SwordofManticorEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      God is the potter, we are the clay. If God hates homosexuallity, why does He make them Gay? Gay people dont choose to be gay, they choose the day to step out of the closet, and good for them.

    4. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      While being homophobic is not right, the Bible doesn't record Jesus saying marriage is also for members of the same sex.

      Matthew 19:5:

      and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

      He didn't say, "...or two men or women..."

      So while I do not have a problem with gay people it does not appear to be supported by Jesus as what God finds ideal.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Which is, of course, totally irrelevant to the discussion of why Christians justify homophobia (fear/hatred of homosexual people). 

        Unless they have the same attitude towards anyone doing anything that Jesus didn't specifically condone?  Drinking distilled spirits or living a celibate life maybe?

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I was not trying to say it justifies homophobia.  I was just responding to the claim that Jesus did not speak out against homosexuality.  He is saying marriage is reserved for straight people.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Funny. I've read the gospels and I missed that particular point. Did Jesus actually say 'marriage is for straight people'? And, did he ever say that his followers were to go forth and judge those who weren't his followers? For that matter, did Jesus say you were supposed to sit in judgment on anyone's actions? You guys spend a lot of time attempting to make others feel guilty about their choices. Apparently not as much time is spent understanding who Jesus was and what he stood for. That's a pity.

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              +1

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'll second that motion.

            3. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Jesus said marriage was for a man and woman.  It's there in the scriptures.  I'm just pointing out what's in the Bible since homosexuality and scriptures are the topics at hand.   Who said I was judging? I don't look down on gays.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Please point me to that particular scripture where he says, exclusively, that marriage is only between a man and a woman. This might help.

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Matthew 19

                  1It happened when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2Great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.

                  3Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" 4He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?' 6So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart."

                  I think this is pretty self-explanatory.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry. That is only self explanatory for the issue at hand at the moment he spoke. It doesn't say anything on the subject of homosexuality.

                    A question. This addresses the question of marriage for a man and a woman. What of his conversation with the woman at the well? Was there any condemnation? Any statement to go forth and sin no more? If not (and there was no condemnation) then why?

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You're also not helping this minority by hiding behind scripture (if it exists) by attempting to point it out and thereby judge rather than doing what Jesus most likely would have done (according to the bible) which was spend time with them and except their differences as he did with others.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good point. It's irritating when they say 'Jesus said' when he didn't say, but they aren't judging you by saying it.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What makes it worse is we don't really know what was said 2000 years ago. Time to start thinking for themselves. What's right and what's not right rather than a 2000 year old book says that someone said...

                2. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh my goodness...isn't this forum about scriptures and homosexuality? It's nothing about me judging.  It's just pathetic for you to say that.  Homosexuals can do what they like.  I'm not there to persecute them.  They can get married in court but just not in church because that is not what Jesus condoned.

                  1. The Suburban Poet profile image82
                    The Suburban Poetposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I understood what you meant Clara... there is no debate. Homosexuality in the Bible is a sin and Jesus made mention of man and woman being made for each other in the context of a conversation about divorce. If the debate is whether or not the Bible condones homosexuality then it's a slam dunk. It doesn't. To say that it doesn't is not evidence that one is against homosexuals. I could tell you what Hitler said about Jews in Mein Kampf and from some of the comments around here you would expect to be accused of being a Hitler admirer. There is a lot of emotion about the topic but lets let the chips fall where they may and the truth is the truth.

          2. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Claire, I think it's possible that some of us may have just misinterpreted the intention of your post.  I thought you presented information that was helpful to the conversation.  Thank you! smile  Funny, btw, I was just thinking of you and praying for you the other day, and here you are!  Hope you're well.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for your prayers!

        2. willrodgers profile image79
          willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness. This entire string is base on a question about "what the Bible says".  Therefore the Bible is extremely relevant in this string. Just because you do not believe in the inerrant Word of God does not give you the right to slap down Claire for quoting Scripture.  If you do not want to hear what the Bible says in a discussion of "What the Bible says" then exit the discussion.

    5. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Eh.......first of all I neglected to mention that your title is misleadingly accusatory.    How many Christians do you think believe the Bible "justifies homophobia"?    .......Because "homophobia" is an invalid term anyway.
      What most Christians believe is that the Bible justifies the belief that homosexuality is wrong.  Matter of fact, the word of God is the main source for that belief.    You seem to want to divert from the truth when you hint that the Bible justifies an issue that's invalid;   your argument proceeds from a false assumption.

      1. willrodgers profile image79
        willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda.  ........Amen

      2. Justin Earick profile image80
        Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not at all, most Christians just go to church and believe what the preacher tells them.  Most churches are part of a larger church family - be it four-square, catholic, or what have you - that the church answers to.
        There is a hierarchy with bylaws and the like.
        Church is a business - and there are plenty of competitors perfectly willing to extract 10%+ from a congregation of locals.
        The bigger donors also have a say in what the message is, there are church politics.  My father was a pastor, I got to see plenty of that.
        The entire point is that over time the church has reinterpreted the bible in order to push their own moral agenda. The bible as we know it was put together by old men a thousand years after it was written by authors who never even met Jesus.  They picked an chose what to include and exclude. 
        The church survives by reproducing more Christians, and gays don't generally assist quite as much in those regards.
        As has been pointed out, the bible can be used to justify anything from slavery to the abolition of slavery. 
        If you or your church chooses to use the bible an excuse to justify bigotry and suppression - then I'm here to point out how extremely unChrist-like that behavior is.
        How many?  Westborough Baptist comes to mind.
        How many?  Look at all of the churches breaking up because the homophobic members are unwilling to accept their gay brothers and sisters.
        Look at Pope Francis and his paranoia of a "gay lobby" in the Vatican.
        Look at all of these fabricated notions of what "traditional marriage" means as an excuse to exclude and demean people they don't believe are equals, when history (the bible included) tells an entirely different story of women as property, polygamy, incest, taking of brothers wives etc...
        The founding family of Western religion (Adam & Eve, et al) is not only the first family ever - but also the first family to quash the "traditional marriage" argument by way of rampant incest!   
        Look at the lies they tell themselves, exclaiming that LGBTQ want "special treatment", when all they are asking for is equal treatment by the state - not by the church.
        Look at the conflation of marriage and weddings to feign religious oppression - failing to understand that marriage is a legal status between couples and the state, while a wedding is a religious ceremony of couples before "god".

    6. jlpark profile image90
      jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't have a huge amount of time today - but  I wish to pose this question - if God has such an issue with it, why did he not have a problem with the relationship between Jonathan and David in the book of Samuel?

      Before you write it off as "but they weren't explicitly sexual in the Bible, they were just mates." - look at the verses.  "Johnathan made a covenant with David as he loved him as himself.", "that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David." and on Johnathan's death - " I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women".

      One can be in a romantic relationship without being sexual.  Homosexuality is NOT all about sex (and funnily enough, it's the NON-Homosexuals, and USUALLY the ANTI-HOMOS who think about homo-sex more often than those who are actually homosexual do...fixated much?>??).  A romantic relationship doesn't need to have sex explicitly described in it - think of your friends - you know they are in a relationship, yet have they explicitly told you they are doing the "horizontal mambo'? No, but it doesn't make their relationship less does it?

      So if God has all these apparent issues with homos - why not these two? Or is it that the interpretation of the translator has become the 'word of God" when it's actually not what was originally said? Also - Paul writing much of his anti-homo stuff - NOT God, Paul. Man is fallible, remember - yet so much stock is put into Paul's word. Would that not be considered worshipping a false idol - putting so much energy into quoting Paul's Corinthian scriptures as evidence of God's dislike for the gays?

      One more - divorce - are there not something like 12 verses admonishing divorce? Yet this is PERFECTLY alright. There are SIX, yes SIX verses admonishing the gays, yet this is wrong?  Don't get me started on the 300+ verses admonishing the sexual practices of HETERO's.

      So, David and Jonathan....

  2. willrodgers profile image79
    willrodgersposted 3 years ago

    It looks like the respondents to this issue have failed to see the real agenda of the LGBT community.

    I urge you to read Janet Folger's book " The Criminalization of Christianity".. In it she details the long range plans the LGBT folks have for our society.  LGBT really focuses on the basic tenet of God's Creation:  Marriage. 
    This is not an argument of what Paul or any of the gospels say about Homosexuality.  Look at the first book of God's Word and see that He created Man in His Image and Likeness, and He then Created an equal and sexually compatible Mate for Man: Woman.  He  united them within the natural order of the universe He created.
    The LGBT community hates this argument because it does not really directly argue against the things they want to achieve:  Homosexuality; pedophilia; Incest; bestiality; any sexual interaction that goes against the time honored one man one woman institution of marriage Ordained by God. They want you to believe that their forms of sexual behavior are the same as any monogamous marriage, with just a slight twist.
    If the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8 and the other part denouncing DOMA. What else will our society accept.  It is one step closer to allowing the sexual activity listed above.  Will your personal liberal views accept a man who marries his daughter or his son?  There is no end to the practices which marked the ancient pagan world.  Will we willingly go back to Molech, Ashur and Baal and the worship rituals which required the  sacrifice of burning new born babies to these pagan gods.  [or are we  there now with people like Dr.Gosnell baby killings fresh from the womb?]

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think I've seen a bigger pile of crap in any forum in the three years I've been here.

      I would have given with a reasoned response until I got to the third paragraph.  That one is so far out of line it makes the entire post into nothing but a hateful rant with not a useful word in it and the last, basically equating the "gay agenda" to the burning of infants goes downhill from there.

      You might take your hate rants to the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church or other radical Christian group - they welcome such trash with open arms.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

        (oop's, done it again smile )

      2. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for saying what needed to be said, with such restraint, Wilderness.
        smile

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have to admit that may have been a little out line.  Such nonsense tends to anger me just a bit and anger is not particularly conducive to gentle, kindly responses.

          So, maybe, out of line a tiny bit.

      3. willrodgers profile image79
        willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You did not understand the explanation I gave of the ancient Pagan society the Jews were surrounded by 3000 years ago. The pagan practices faced by the Jews was being likened to the same societal changes Christians face today.  Today we still kill [abort]babies as a sacrifice to our own egos, and as a show of disrespect for God's creation. Further, your angry response and name calling was fully expected .  I don't see how calling me "trash" "KKK and a "Christian radical" furthers the discussion.  Have you ever read the GLBT agenda that was offered at the Democratic National Convention? Gays have couched their agenda as a Civil Rights Movement, but what about the Civil rights of a 110 year old organization like the Boy Scouts of America [BSA]? Do they have the right to remain "Morally straight" as has been in their Oath since 1910? Marriage between Man and Woman was instituted by God when He created humans.  The general population supports DOMA.  The case before the Supreme court is there because one judge challenged the 14 million people of California who voted for DOMA.  Do we honestly believe that 12 people in Black robes are more powerful than God Almighty?  DOMA and the BSA are the two most targeted moral issues GLBT want to destroy.  That is because DOMA and Straight sex is the prevailing attitude of an orderly society and  have been since God created Adam and Eve.  The Gay community comprises about 4% of the population.  Do we really need more "tail wagging the dog" legislation and court rulings.  Gays can already marry legally in 12 states and D.C.( naturally).  So what GLBT wants is not approval they want acceptance and the expansion of this practice more widely spread into the general population.  Now if you have no clear discussion to the contrary just spew out more name calling or don't reply !

        1. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I must be out of the loop, but no one ever gave me my "gay agenda handbook" when I came out of the closet at 17.  Who knew that me and other gays were just out to take over the world?

          Sheesh.  You sound like my mother.

          Hint: this is sarcasm.

          1. willrodgers profile image79
            willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your admission that you have a mother is a strong argument against gay male couples.  You see McFarland.  Men cant make children.  God made  it that way.  As for taking over the world, why do gays want a Supreme court decision to marry when it is already legal?  The want it have acceptance and practice not just a nod from the Justice of the peace.
            Gays actually feel out of place in our society. Therefore, they are pushing the other 96% of us feel bad for them and accept them and to justify their actions. They want this from "Straight People" because they cannot feel comfortable in their hearts about the way they live and act.  Forcing others to accept them and teaching youngsters this is normal makes them feel less uncomfortable about what they are doing.  As to A movement, it is clear that the homosexual community wants special Class Protection under the cover of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Let me  add excerpts from an article by Dr. Jay Lee Jagers, PhD on Steve Sternbergs studies on Homosexuality.  This focuses on the idea of Homosexuality as a Civil Rights movement :
            "It is a telling commentary on our society that it often requires tragedy and brutality to move us to self-examination. As a university community, it is important to be confronted with the “real world” so that we can seek to prevent the kind of brutality and violence that took Allen Schindler’s life.

            Gay Awareness Week at SMU gave the campus the opportunity to evaluate information that the gay community desires to have us know. The topics of discussion did not of necessity coincide with those made during Dorothy Hajdys’ visit to SMU but we would do well to closely and critically examine three frequently made claims that arise during discussions about homosexuality (Daily Campus, Oct. 21. pg. 1). They are: “10% of the population is homosexual”; “homosexuality is genetic (it is something you’re born with)”; and, “homosexuals are not asking for special rights.”

            Each of these claims, however, is misleading and false. We must remember that homosexuals do not number 10% of the population, that there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic and that homosexuals are asking for special rights (so-called “gay rights”).

            First, numerous independent studies have shown that homosexuals do not number 10% of the population but rather between 1%-3% of the population at most (Univ. of Chicago study as reported in TIME). Even though the myth of 1 in 10 has been known for a long time, this erroneous statistic is nonetheless repeated, uncritically reported and often accepted without question. However, it simply isn’t true. No matter how often 10% is claimed, 1 in 10 is not a homosexual.

            Second, there are no scientific data that support the claim that homosexuality is genetic. While the studies by LeVay, Pillard, and Hamer, which claim a genetic link to homosexuality, have raised interesting questions, the results of these studies are inconclusive at best. The National Cancer Institute’s press release of Hamer’s study stated, “the findings do not permit determination of an individual’s sexual orientation . . . . because complexities of sexuality cannot be fully explained by a gene or genes.” All of the above studies have received wide criticism within the scientific community. Charges of researcher bias have also arisen. Hamer himself gives the impression of being somewhat of a “spin doctor.” He told a P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) group that sexual orientation is like being left handed and “if you tell the press what to write about a scientific study, they’ll write it.” In addition, he ignored the Byne and Parsons’ study (Columbia Univ.) which confirmed that “there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory.” No matter how often genes are cited, there is no evidence to support a genetic link to homosexuality.

            Third, homosexuals are asking for recognition as a class with full protected class minority status and privileges (under the Civil Rights Act, 1964) based on their homosexual behavior (or mere desire) alone. The special protected class status and advantages (special rights) homosexuals are seeking are not the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed to all Americans under the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that citizens may benefit from all fundamental rights and protections without possessing special, protected class status, which is reserved for truly disadvantaged, politically powerless and obviously distinct minorities, under strict court established criteria (Frontiero vs. Richardson, 1973; SAISD vs. Rodriguez, 1973; Mass. Bd. of Retirement vs. Murgia, 1976; Plyler vs. Doe, 1982; City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Ctr., 1985; Jantz vs. Muci, 1991). Not all “minorities” are eligible for protected class status. Even members of the gay community acknowledge that they are not educationally, economically or culturally disadvantaged, are not politically powerless and are not an obviously distinct minority. Therefore, as a group, homosexuals are not a true minority but rather a very powerful special interest group. Nonetheless, full protected minority class status and the special rights that go alone with it are being sought. No matter how often it is denied, “gay rights” are special rights.

            Keeping this in mind, the goal of “Gay Awareness Week” was to change the campus’ perception of the GLBSO from reactive and negative to positive and proactive. I, for one do not consider the GLBSO as either reactive or negative. However, it seems to me that “Gay Awareness Week” was just another indication of the SMU gay community’s goal to have their sexual behavior/preferences confirmed or legitimated and not just tolerated. This is the point of contention. This strategy includes many activities, for example: AIDS Awareness Week, Joseph Steffen and Dorothy Hajdys, not to mention, jeans and T-shirts, Log Cabin Republicans, Thanksgiving Dinner, and an AIDS Canned Food Drive. These activities are both proactive and positive. However, these events or activities are unrelated to sexual behavior/preferences or “out and proud.”

            Pirates and priests can wear T-shirts; Pimps and Philanthropists can vote Republican; the KKK and Kindergartners can collect cans; Pilgrims and Prisoners can come to Thanksgiving Dinner. Homosexuality is about sexual behavior, as is adultery, “free love”, a one night stand, serial monogamy, open marriage, and marriage fidelity. Homosexuality is not about jeans, cans, Republicans or Thanksgiving any more than it’s about gabardine, bottles, Democrats or Labor Day.

            The gay community defines itself by their sexual behavior/preferences. Levis and turkey only divert one’s attention from the “main thing,” which is the goal of the GLBSO education: the ‘normalization’ of homosexual behavior/preferences and attaining special, protected class status (i.e. special rights) for homosexuals.

            If the GLBSO desires to take a positive and proactive step, let them cease perpetuating the 10% myth, the genetic myth, and the myth that “gay rights” are not special rights. If the GLBSO is serious in its attempt to educate the campus community then truth telling and not myth making should be a part of their message. 10%, a genetic link, and “gay rights are not special rights” are myths and neither proactive or positive.

            The GLBSO should continue to have canned food drives, encourage people to vote, support friends and acquaintances and continue bringing speakers to campus. However, these activities have nothing to do with homosexuality. For the observer to confuse the two is to lend credence to myth and forget the truth."

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I was wrong.  the statements did get dumber and more full of absolute garbage.

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Has it ever occurred to you that it doesn't really matter how one arrived at the acceptance that they are homosexual...we should be accepting? What good comes from hate? Doesn't everyone have a basic right to be happy, without others judging them?

            3. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, evolution made it that way. And, since evolution is completely indifferent to the results of it's process, we can safely say that love and making children are separate concepts. Hence, two people in love don't necessarily have to make children.

              Evolution also made it such that some women and men are sterile, hence two loving Christians (man and woman) couldn't have kids, anyways. Did God make it that way, too?



              They wouldn't need any protection if you'd just left them alone.



              No, they're just folks who don't want to hear homophobic bigotry from religious zealots.



              Yes, that would be misinformed bigotry.

              1. willrodgers profile image79
                willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I too would be troubled if I were still espousing a dead theory from a non-scientist in the 1850's.  The current crop of molecular and genetic Secular Scientists have so greatly disproved Darwinism as a fraud and pseudo-science that it is laughable for people to still lean on the hollow non scientific musings of a "Naturalist" who drew some very lovely birds and reptiles along with wild conclusions of how complex life forms grew out of an undefined and undiscovered primal "ooze".  When I   think of two people loving each other, and I agree that that need not take place only between man and woman, I still find the natural need to procreate in order to further future generations who too will desire love and affection.

                However, no matter how you slice it, it takes the workings of male and female biology to produce those loving beings.  The long term and wide spread practice of male homosexuality would lead to the extinction of  homo sapiens.  Therefore, Darwin was  on to something in his theory of natural selection.  Man naturally selects a woman for a mate in order to procreate the dominant species.  Those are the biological facts; not bigotry or religious zealotry.
                In fact it is interesting that you selected Darwin as the straw with which to hang your string on.  In 1871 Darwin wrote " The Descent of Man, In Relation to Sex." again, Darwin's speculation on the desire for colors and scents the opposite sex must subtly employ in the "natural Selection [mating]" process suggests that he was more of a homophobic than any accused commentators in this string to date. [BTW he started out early in life as a devout Christian]
                I have no answers as to why God does things.  Man cannot comprehend fully his Creator.  God does things His way, and we mortals can only observe in Awe the Mysteries of the complex system of relationships and environments God has given for us to enjoy, and sometimes fear, and rigorously study.  It is so captivating that God has given us so many  wonders to muse upon.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, so you admit to not knowing anything about evolution. That's typical of most believers who attempt to discredit it but have no idea what they're talking about.



                  It's unfortunate believers are compelled to lie about science, but that is all they have to work with in the first place, lies.



                  YOU find the need? Why should those who love each other care about what you need? What does that have to do with anything? Do you decide how people should live?



                  You mean, like creating life in a test tube, for example?



                  That is entirely false and silly to say the least. The entire male population of the world is not homosexual. In fact, the world population is out of control. You have little to fear in that regard.



                  But, what you're talking about most certainly is bigotry and religious zealotry. You also said the theory was dead? Curious how you now bring it up?



                  So what? Pretty much everyone was a devout Christian, or Muslim or Jew, or...



                  Yes, we know, no one has any logical or reasonable answers regarding their gods.

                   

                  Then, by your own words, you most likely are wrong about homosexuality.

                   

                  Yes, he acts immoral and unethical, that is His way.



                  Yes, that's the religious nonsense.

                  1. willrodgers profile image79
                    willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    sorry, This is just an unconnected string of comments and name calling. It makes little sense.

                2. Quilligrapher profile image91
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good evening, Mr. Rodgers. There is one point on which I am skeptical.

                  While I am aware of many studies that disagree with Darwin on some issues, I know of none that has been embraced by the majority of today’s scientific community for having “so greatly disproved Darwinism as a fraud and pseudo-science that it is laughable.” I would greatly appreciate your naming just one that concludes all of Darwin’s theories were “laughable.” I am looking forward to reading it.

                  Thank you, Mr. Rodgers, for making the time to reply. A name or a link to just one study would be greatly appreciated.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            4. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If one, then refuses to accept the possibility of a genetic component to homosexuality - in short, accept that homosexuals are born homosexual, then they must also reject that everyone is actually born heterosexual and just chooses to be gay.  See the catch 22 there?  Like you said, the results of the study are inconclusive at best, but they really seem to say to me that if ''the complexities of sexuality cannot be fully explained by a gene or genes,'' then neither than can they simply be explained away as being a matter of choice.  AND, if you want to simplify it even more by using this argument, then ultimately everyone's sexuality - straight, gay, or otherwise - is simply a matter of choice.

              So, which is it?

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You did know that this is 2013, not the Jewish society of 4,000 years ago?  Not the society that kept slaves, stoned people for minor offenses and made sacrifices to mythological creatures in the sky?  What those barbarians did or thought has little meaning today.  We've grown up, or at least some of us have.

          I did not call you "trash" - I called your hate filled rant trash.  Because it is and because the KKK and Westboro welcomes such rhetoric.

          That the BSA requires all scouts to be "straight" doesn't make them "morally straight"; it makes them insincere in following the Golden Rule.  The straightest morality ruler there is and the only one nearly universally accepted.  Except, of course, by religious radicals that think only they have answers.

          Doma.  You mean the law that has been found unconstitutional by 8 federal courts (including the 1st and 2nd court of appeals), that the President has refused to enforce and that the founders now say should be repealed?  That Doma?  I'd have to say that if gays want it repealed they're in pretty good company.

          Certainly 12 people in black robes are more powerful (and morally right) than your imaginary creature that instructs in how to keep slaves.  You want to discuss gay rights (or anything BUT mythology) you need to keep your personal myths clear of your responses.  They don't add anything.

          As there was no Adam, no Eve and no god to create them, I guess it's fair to straight sex is the prevailing attitude since then.  On the other hand it was certainly not the prevailing attitude in Rome - a country and culture that was far older than the US is.

          Yes, we definitely need more tail wagging the dog.  Anytime a minority is abused and "disallowed" because some people want everyone else to accept their false myth as truth we need more wagging.  Learn some tolerance, accept that your beliefs are no better than anyone else's and give everyone the same rights you have.  You will be a LOT closer to being "morally straight".

          1. willrodgers profile image79
            willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Nothing I said was hate filled.  I just disagree about  homosexuality hiding  behind Civil Rights.  Also, I do not have to be tolerant of beliefs that offend me and my God, nor do you.  Yes, I agree that Gays are a minority, but their lifestyle is not and should not be protected under the Constitution.  From your comments, I sense that you do not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you seem to rely less on the Freedoms defined by our Constitution.  However, like many in your mind set you would not openly and as strongly take part in this string if the question was "Why do So Many Muslims Believe the Koran Justifies Homophobia.?" Christians are not out to change anyone's lifestyle.  We are here to help people see there are alternatives which result in the reward of Eternal Life with God, a belief you call "Mythology".  I have proselytized many, many folks who still do not believe.  However, I nor does any other Christian ask the Government to pass a Law to protect me from my detractors.  Christians are now becoming a part of the minority in the US as Secular Humanism expands.  We know that, and know that the other "Agenda" from the Muslim Believers is to institute Sharia Law.  It is happening in many communities in America, and Europe is close to full envelopment by 2030. The Word of Jesus is Freely offered and freely accepted.  Grace and acceptance costs you nothing.  Take it or leave it.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'll leave it, thanks.  People, Christian or otherwise, that attempt to force their lifestyle (heterosexual marriage, for instance) onto the rest of society aren't typically people I care to be around.  I find that I'm a much happier and better person for accepting people for what they are, not what I think they should be.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Bravo!

              2. willrodgers profile image79
                willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Wilderness.  The only people I see forcing their lifestyle on others is the LGBT's .  I am not going to the Supreme court saying that all Americans must believe what I believe.  Christians are more live and let live than you seem to think.  The Homosexual community wants to fundamentally change society's long held belief that marriage is between man and woman.  It is the Gays trying to change the belief that 96% of the population holds.  So don't tell me I'm forcing my belief on the 3-4% who wish to live a non-standard life style.  I do not want to live that life style for whatever reason.  Therefore, I find it offensive that I am being told to accept it as the norm.  I will not.
                Further, you are not ,"  accepting people for what they are.' you have posted a long series of strings telling me and others to shut up and you call us names because we do not believe the way you do.  I believe people should be what they want to be, but when you force my children to read books like "Jimmy has Two Dads"; you invade a solid organization like the Boy Scouts to infiltrate them with YOUR ideas of what is normal; you forcefully move bills through Congress and the Supreme court that redefine traditional Marriage.  Then you are not practicing your liberal "Live and let Live philosophy; you are infringing on the life style of a majority of Americans.  The time for Political Correctness is past.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well said.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I especially liked the part about "I believe people should be what they want to be".  When we can all accept and believe that people wanting to be married to the one they love should be married to the one they love we'll be a better culture.  At least we have a small start here, with just one person espousing that right.

                    The rest of it may be just nonsense (96% of people won't let gays marry, gays are forcing others into their lifestyle, making up definitions for "traditional" marriage etc.) but that one small step does show promise.

                2. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So the government is forcing everyone to be gay, now?

                  News to me.

                3. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But gays aren't telling you that they, and only they, can define marriage.  They aren't forcing all marriages to be biblical.  They aren't even telling you that your own heterosexual acts are evil and sinful, sending you to Hell.  They are leaving those calls to God, while you are the one judging them and trying to force them to live as you do.

                  You're proabably right in that only a few percent of the population is gay, but you are very, very wrong in claiming that 96% of the population believe that ONLY hetero marriages are acceptable; the votes are coming in much, much closer than that and as you know 1/4 of the states have already made a total lie out of the statement.  A great many people, gay or not, are willing to live and let live; they recognize that allowing their neighbor a same sex marriage does not force them to do anything at all.

                  No one is forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuality as "normal" (presumably meaning over half the people are hetero); just that they need to accept the abnormal as OK - something we all need to learn.  That the gays are far ahead of too many Christians in this basic facet of morality says something about both.

                  Interesting that you declare traditional marriage as one man and one woman.  Throughout history mankind has tried nearly every possibility under the sun and most of those are in use somewhere.  Some 4,000 years ago the nation of people we now call "Jews" used polygamy as the "traditional marriage" - marriage that was sanctified and approved of by God Himself.  What in the world gives you the right to change that much older definition from what God decreed?  That you wish to force your own idea of "traditional" on a nation doesn't make it. 

                  Gay marriage does NOT infringe on your lifestyle one tiny bit, except perhaps to deny you the ability to control others quite so much.  You are still free to marry as you choose.  That you claim it does simply exhibits the bigotry and intolerance of the radical Christian, much in the same manner the radical muslim community forces their will on the surrounding population.

                  Calling you names - I have not called you anything.  Should you see yourself in some of the groups I have described as bigoted, intolerant or immoral (the far right radical Christians, specifically) it is you making that call, not I.  Only you can put yourself into any group - no one else.

                  Nor have I told you to "shut up"; you have the right to speak as you wish, whether reasonable conversations of care, kindness and love or hate filled rants at anyone not of your religious persuasion.  Just as I have the right to call you on it.

    2. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Seriously?! 

      Would that I could bleach my eyes.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you have any eye bleach, send me some too.  I need it.

    3. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I thought people who fell in love with someone of the same sex just had a plan to be in a relationship with that person.  Shows what I know.

      (You have quite the imagination.)

    4. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/Forum%20Junk/Punch.gif

  3. secularist10 profile image91
    secularist10posted 3 years ago

    Why do so many Christians believe the bible justifies homophobia?

    The Bible can be used to justify pretty much anything. It was used to support slavery, and to end slavery. It was used to support racial segregation, and to fight against racial segregation. It has been used to justify mistreatment of women, and to support gender equality. It has been used to divide, and to unite.

    There is no way for anybody to conclusively demonstrate that their specific interpretation of the Bible--whether pro-gay, anti-gay, or anything else--is the objectively "correct" one. Thus the problem is not with a specific Biblical interpretation per se, the problem is with the use of the Bible as a basis for moral reasoning in the first place.

    1. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Amen.

      1. willrodgers profile image79
        willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The main thing Bible readers overlook is the secret to understanding Scripture.  If you are not aware of how the Bible tells people how to understand it, then please read I Cor2: 14:
        "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          One of the Bible's many, many cop-out verses. Paul was clearly a hipster.

          "You think it's dumb? Well, that's just because you don't get it, maaaaan."

        2. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So, in other words, "if my interpretation differs from your interpretation its clearly because the spirit likes me better than you and I can be justified in calling you stupid because of it"

          Its the biblical equivalent of "nanananananana"

  4. jlpark profile image90
    jlparkposted 3 years ago

    By virtue of the fact that they need to remove verses from their cultural and historical contexts, not to mention even the context of the surrounding chapter, they are cherry-picking their way through the Bible to justify what they want to say.

    To use the Bible to say "Oh, no, it's not hatred or bigotry, the Bible says it", to hide behind the Bible instead of owning up and taking responsibility for their own hate, they are as far from the person Jesus or God would want them to be.

    If you hate, dislike, don't understand something - be it homosexuality, race, the eating of shellfish, etc etc - come out and say it.  Take responsibility for your own emotions, your own thoughts and feelings on things.  If you are filled with hatred - OWN IT.

    I have more respect for the character of a person who states "I hate this, because of this" rather than "You shouldn't do this, cause my God says so" - at least the first example OWNS their emotions, thoughts and ideas.

  5. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Justin, outrageously wonderful! How many Christians are being un-Christian? You could ask the same question about how many presidents are being un-American -- signing legislation that betrays their oath of office and shreds the Constitution. It's all ego -- selfishness.

    Jesus didn't care about the lusts of this world, so long as the person was humble and wanted spiritual awakening. That's why he accepted thieves, prostitutes, lepers and likely even gays. The arrogant Pharisees (and others) who thought they were already saved could not be saved. Sounds like many Christians, today. They're lazy, arrogant and think they know it all. I've made a few discoveries, but it only teaches me that I know very little.

    You said, "Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality." Bravo! In fact, I suspect that God smote both Sodom and Gomorrah because of a reason very similar to that of Noah's Flood -- the genetic survival of humanity.

    Both destructions were acts of love. Many people don't readily get this, because they think of the deaths of so many bodies. But God created His children in His own image and likeness, and He is not Homo sapiens! Let that thought sink in for a moment.

    If the church had always been about Christ's teachings -- Love -- then we would not have had the political machinery set up by Constantine and Justinian. We would not have had the condemnation of an early church father (Origen). We would not have had the Crusades, the murder of the Cathars, the burning at the stake of so many intelligent thinkers, the Spanish Inquisition, the house arrest of Galileo and the persecution of Native Americans and their cultures.

    Such crimes were borne out of ego -- the antithesis of Christianity. So, we've had a religion which has been spreading lies along with the truth.

    How many popes have walked on water? Only one, it seems, and Peter likely never thought of himself as Catholic. And he walked on water for only a few moments before doubt set in. He almost had it.

  6. Seth Winter profile image84
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    I tend to think that it's because many Christian's have the bible wrong. Read the gospels. Jesus pretty much says to follow him you have to do two things. Love god, and love your fellow man. That's it. Later organized religion and other books added all these extra rules to the religion, because let's face it, a religion that says you just have to love man and god is simple, sweet and not really requiring of a church. But one that ignores the "Great Commandments" and focuses on the evils of man (and not loving them) would require a church to guide the sheeple (cross breed-Father of man and Wife of stupid sheep ;-).

    The OP is right would Jesus cast a stone at homosexuals or would he try to hangout with them?

    1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
      SwordofManticorEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did Christ not heal the Centurian's favorite servant? Ask yourself what was so special about this slave that required a Centurian to ride far to get him healed. This is something also to concider.

  7. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    My perspective is different than yours when it comes to a homosexual lifestyle. The King James Bible use some strong language when referring to this act. As I recall Lot offered up his daughters to the crowd for their sexual pleasures rather than giving them the guests in his home for their pleasure.

    The other visitor, who was the Lord, stayed behind. He revealed to Abraham that he was going to destroy the cities because of the evil ways of their people. Abraham, a special friend of the Lord, began to bargain with God to spare the cities if there were righteous people in them.

    http://christianity.about.com/od/bibles … morrah.htm

    Leviticus 18:22  ESV / 172 helpful votes 

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10  ESV / 93 helpful votes 

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    http://www.openbible.info/topics/man_sh … y_with_man

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So God's okay with lesbians, then? And bisexual men? And those who are genderqueer and don't fall into any particular group?

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you check the Bible I believe you'll find that's not okay either.

    2. jlpark profile image90
      jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I had this long winded explanation on how historical and cultural context explains all that.

      But, then I thought "Actually, this guy is the PERFECT example of cherry-picking bible verses".

      SpanStar - SMH. Own your dislike of homosexuals. Don't hide behind religion.  Or if you insist on doing this learn two things: The historical, cultural and chapter context of the verses you use to defend your dislike AND Find out what Jesus (He who should be followed, who we should strive to be like etc) himself said about homosexuality and homosexuals.

      Actually, in a less than long winded way I can help you with number two - Jesus said NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about homosexuality.

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        jlpar,

        Whatever your prejudgment of me is about is irrelevant.

        It is my belief that some people are under the impression that they are waiting to be judged which will occur but not in this reality.

        NOTE: Everyone is already on their way to Hell and only by accepting Jesus AND Repenting-(Changing Our Ways) will we avoid that final destination of Hell according to the Judeo-Christian belief.

        I believe Jesus said I do my father's will-I am in the father and the father is in me.

        1. jlpark profile image90
          jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Funnily enough I'm not prejudging you. I'm looking at the information you gave and responding to it. Whether you believe that my pointing out your inaccuracies in using said verses to serve your point is judging is your business. I merely asked you to learn your history and stop cherry picking.
          It's exactly what was done with slavery and the bible - cherry picked verses were used out of context to biblically condone slavery. Do you still think cherry picking works? Do you disagree with the apparent Biblical condoning of slavery? Because if you do, because they were cherry picked verses, then why do it with this?

          You also didn't read the original question - why do you think the bible justifies homophobia? Instead you provided the verses used to promote homophobia. I'd like yr answer not the one you've been taught to give.

          Judging? Nope I don't assume I am. I merely responded to your producing of the verses. I didn't assume you were judging - merely cherry picking - why? Because I am living the life that I was destined to live, by the God I know. We are all made in his image - even the gay ones. If he didn't like us, why'd he make so many of us? (So not getting into the 'choice' discussion - at least not here)

          Anyway - each to their own. I'm just suggesting a bit more education is all.

      2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        jlpark you said, "Jesus said NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about homosexuality."

        What did Jesus say about pedophilia, incest, and polygamy?

        Do you consider pedophilia, incest, and polygamy to be morally acceptable behaviors?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Pedophilia doesn't include consent between two adults, so putting it on the same level as homosexuality is a fallacy.

          On the other hand, incest is how the Bible says we all got here, and polygamy is encouraged by the Bible in many places, most prominently the Old Testament. You hear that whistling sound? That's your argument falling out of the sky.

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Zelkiiro,

            I merely asked two questions in my post, both addressed to jlpark, in reference to what she said. You chose to respond to me, but not directly to either of the questions.

            Now, based upon what you did say, I could speculate about what your answers to the questions might be, but I don't want to do that, speculate.

            So I'll ask you directly: Do you consider pedophilia to be morally acceptable behavior? Do you consider incest to be morally acceptable behavior? Do you consider polygamy to be morally acceptable behavior?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As Zelkiiro said, paedophilia does not involve consenting adults and so mentioning in the same debate as homosexuality is a distraction.

              Some cultures accept incest and polygamy as morally acceptable but again they are just a distraction from the topic.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do you see a connection between those three things and homosexuality?

              1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                John Holden and Rad Man, I specifically addressed the statement that "Jesus said NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about homosexuality."

                If someone makes the point that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality to justify the morality of homosexuality, then why can't someone make the point that Jesus said nothing about pedophilia to justify the morality of pedophilia? Perhaps someone from NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But the discussion was about homosexuality, not the other three things you chose to use as a distraction.

                  You are using the bible to justify the immorality of homosexuality.

                  1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Then a reference to eating at Red Lobster is more of a distraction in the discussion of the immorality of homosexuality. So is a reference to racism.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Straw man argument. We are discussing homosexuality here. You are bring up completely irrelevant things.

                  1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The person I initially addressed on this thread brought up eating shellfish. The OP just said in his last post, "Leviticus lists homosexuality the same, an "abomination", as eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabics."

                    Polygamy was mentioned several times before I used the word.

                    I guess it depends on what side of the debate you are on whether these other subjects are distractions and irrelevant.

        2. jlpark profile image90
          jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jack - I can't say right this minute what Jesus said about paedophilia or incest. This is because I am at work and answering this on a mobile in my break. And don't have a bible at hand.

          However comparing homosexuality - which is sexual relationship between two consenting adults - with incest or paedophilia - which is sexual abuse of non consenting Children - is both a distraction from the argument at hand, and insulting.

          I do know that the use of Gen 19 Sodom and Gomorrah to support condemnation of homosexuality is also a condoning of the other acts in the chapter. To use this chapter is to condone rape, and incest at the same time as condemning homosexuality. So, it would appear that people who use this chapter have more of a problem with two consenting adults having sex than with daughters being given over to an angry mob to be raped, and a father having sex with his daughters (Lot).

          To compare homosexuality with the abuse of children shows that those who compare these have no understanding of the concept of CONSENT and ADULT - which I find disturbing.

          Jack - ill answer  your question properly when I get a chance when I get home.

    3. secularist10 profile image91
      secularist10posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

      So... pretty much almost everybody. Sounds like Hell is going to be crowded! Lol.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. Which means most are railing against themselves. Isn't that the nature of judgment though? Those who do usually hide behind the exposure of others doing the sane thing. Hoping that by diverting your attention you won't take the time to notice them.

        1. 59
          Julietanitaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What if I'm not a Christian and I don't agree with homosexuality, am I homophobic? If I disagree with you am I being judgmental? What about other religions that don't agree with homosexuality are they homophobic? Live Your life I'm not judging you. Please allow me to live mine without being judged because I disagree with you. Let's agree to disagree without the derogatory name calling.

          1. willrodgers profile image79
            willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            well said Julie T

            1. 59
              Julietanitaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think what the homosexual community should realize is while Christianity is the largest religion in the US, Islam is the fastest growing religion and while the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to God nowhere in the Bible does it mention killing  homosexuals. Read the Kuran.
              I am a Christian. I don't hate you , why do you hate me. Yes I disagree with your lifestyle and obviously you disagree with mine, but I don't hate you. If I want to believe in my God and His holy word, allow me to do that without calling me homophobic. I pray that the love of God finds you through His Son Jesus Christ...Be Blessed

              1. JMcFarland profile image90
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's a lie.

                Leviticus 20:13
                If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall beupon them.

                1. secularist10 profile image91
                  secularist10posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha, once again, the nonbelievers know the Bible better than the believers themselves.

                  Here's atheist Penn Jillette on how reading the Bible is the quickest way to turn atheist:
                  http://bigthink.com/videos/reading-the- … an-atheist

                  1. 59
                    Julietanitaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can honestly say I completely forgot about LEVITICUS.I apologize, I was w wrong. But one of my points was why do you only call Christians homophobic What about other religions?

                    My main point is why is it ok for you to live your life the way you want, but because I disagree I'm homophobic?
                    Live your life, but please let me live mine without the hatred simply because we disagree.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So, your the lesser of two evils?

        2. secularist10 profile image91
          secularist10posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yep. We project onto others our own shortcomings and insecurities. This is actually a bona fide phenomenon recognized in psychology.

  8. Seth Winter profile image84
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    Question to Justin Earick regarding the question and a somewhat personal matter.

    Justin, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

  9. The Suburban Poet profile image82
    The Suburban Poetposted 3 years ago

    In my view, it is clear that homosexuality is considered to be a sin in the Bible. To me it's obvious. That doesn't mean that I agree because I am for the legalization or what have you of gay marriage. But if you're narrowing the dicussion to the Bible, then it's a sin and it is the same as adultery then and though Christ did preach about not throwing stones he also told the woman to sin no more. So there is theory about "serial" sinning. If a Preacher commits adultery believe me, he gets judged by the Church. It may be that he repents and they give him a chance, but if he does it again and again, then he becomes a serial sinner. In that case, I'd say the Church would send him packing. So, unfortunately, an gay person is a serial sinner IN THE EYES OF THE CHURCH and they would put a gay person in the same category as a someone who repeatedly commits adultery. So the question could have been asked another way, "Why do so many Christians believe the bible justifies oppressing adulterers."

    Again, this is an academic discussion on what the book say's.

    1. Justin Earick profile image80
      Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "In the eyes of the church" is the entire point - they are getting it completely wrong.
      Your premise of homosexuality equalling adultery is straw-man.  Leviticus lists homosexuality the same, an "abomination", as eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabics.   
      Romans (Paul) uses the same term "natural" to describe men with long hair (when mens hair grows long by nature, but custom dictates short hair) in his larger points about lust and Gentile (Greek Christians specifically) guilt over abandoming the old-covenant, ceremonial Levitical code - which Paul later describes as a yolk of slavery. 
      Sound familiar, guys?
      Corinthians and Timothy are modern (in the the last 75 years) misinterpretations of arsenokoites and malakos.  Paul is describing soft + bed (passive orientation), and abuseres of one's self with mankind, specifically with hints of monetary and likely sexual exploitation.  In other words; boy temple-prostitutes, and their abusers.  Nothing consensual about it.
      There are only six verses out of 30,000 that some Christians falsely use to condemn monogomous and consensual same-sex relations, while there are countless instances of adultery, lust, and incest shout-outs that no one uses to condemn all of heterosexual relations.
      They are just cherry-picking the bible to justify their personal beliefs and uncomfort with others.

      1. jlpark profile image90
        jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. There are 360 plus verses admonishing heterosexuals  and their practices - it's not that god doesn't love straight people, it's just they require more supervision (borrowing a quote from Lyn lavner)

        Anyone that has sex in any other position than missionary should really read up - they could be sinning!

      2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Justin Earick, you said, “Corinthians and Timothy are modern (in the the last 75 years) misinterpretations of arsenokoites and malakos.  Paul is describing soft (passive),  abuseres of one's self with mankind, specifically with hints of monetary and likely sexual exploitation.  Boy temple-prostitutes, and their abusers.”

        Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that arsenokoites was misinterpreted from the time Paul coined the word until around 75 years ago? So finally 75 years ago somebody got it right? Is that what you are saying?

        1. Justin Earick profile image80
          Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is nothing even remotely close to what I said;  Up UNTIL the last 75 years, the interpretation was "abuser's of one's self with mankind", FOR the past 75 years that established definition has been changed into homosexuals and sodomites.
          They changed the words in the bible to fit the church's preffered narrative. 
          Same as they did with cellibacy, the rapture, papal infallability...
          That is what I was saying.

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not wanting to change the focus of this,  just wanna ask if you'll please make a distinction between the Catholic Church's beliefs and "the Church" in general.   Many denominations (like Evanagelicals and Baptists) are worlds apart from the Catholic Church when it comes to belief in Papal infallibility, attributes of Mary, transubstantiation, even some aspects of salvation itself.

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              yet without the catholic church and their preservation of ancient documents, it's highly unlikely that there would be a christianity today, and therefore no religion for you to believe in.  While you're free to disagree with their doctrines or dogmas or teachings, they are responsible (almost solely) for the existence of christianity today.  Without them, the christian belief would have died out over a thousand years ago.  It's something that bears keeping in mind.

              1. Jerami profile image79
                Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Here I go being foolish again....    I always thought that the RCC is the mother of ALL Christian denominations which use the canon as its foundation.    I thought that the NT and OT is the foundation of the RCC ????     The bible says we must respect our parents.   

                I read someplace that Martin Luther accused the RCC of being the beast as described in Rev 13.
                Therefore through this movement "Some" church doctrine was changed and Protestants were born. They then had children who changed some doctrine and these children had children who did the same thing …etc. etc.
                Does this mean that God and Jesus does not exist????     No it don’t!  And don’t prove that they do either.  However I believe they do exist due to my own personal reasons.

                1. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  no, the RCC was not the "first" christianity, but they were the most prolific.  From the beginning, there was a split between the Gnostics and the Eastern Orthodox church - but the RCC condemned the gnostics as heretics and destroyed a large portion of their writings while the Eastern Orthodox church was all but extinguished by the origin and spread of Islam in the East. 

                  The biblical cannon as we have it today was debated and decided in a series of council meetings as a direct response to a "heretic" who was building his own bible and deciding on his own cannon, so the church fathers decided to make their own - and that's the one we have (for the most part, plus or minus certain books) that we have today.

                  The base fact of the matter is that without the Catholic church, we would have no cannon, and no religion called Christianity (at least not that could be recognized as similar) to the one that we have today.  When constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome and made other, lesser pagan cults illegal, the church gained a political foothold - and that's what allowed it to continue.  Without it, christianity would not exist today.

                  Does that make god real or not real?  No.  Absolutely not.  Truth is truth regardless of circumstances, but while you have had personal experiences that make you believe it's true and that's evidence enough for you, I disagree and think it's more likely that it's not.  It happens.  Nobody agrees on everything all of the time.

                  1. Jerami profile image79
                    Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hello julie  or JMcFarland sorry it took so long to reply.
                    You may not agree but I think we are saying  pretty much the same thing only you said it better. And I'm seeing the shadows differently.
                    I never thought thr RCC was the first , just that if we were to build a family tree for Christianity as we know it today, most ALL christian denominations will find that they are but limbs and branches which springs from the RCC.   The RCC rose to power by eleminating all of the other conflicting  theologies that existed at that time, in the Roman Empire. 
                    As you said,  Organized Christianity owes their existance to the RCC.  I would go as far as to say that the RCC IS the Mother of all forms of Organized Christianity (as we know it today).

            2. Justin Earick profile image80
              Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't feel particularly compelled in that respect - few if any Christians care about the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or Rohingya Muslims.
              I take your point on papal infallability, but evangellicals (I would submit) are more proactive in their condemnation of gays overall. 
              They both shun the agnostic gospels and espouse the fallacy of the rapture.
              Also, Christians and Muslims are fairly equal in their suppression of women and gays, though Muslim nations generally practice more strictly orthodox theocracies than Christians. 
              Beyond that, the variances are few and far between in those regards - just look at this gay-marriage debate and the constant conservative attacks on women's ownership and choices regarding their own bodies.
              The religious right simply refuse to separate their own personal religious beliefs from the governing of society on whole - and repeatedly claim that this is a christian nation, when nearly all of the founding fathers professed otherwise.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Whatever.  You can try to lump all who claim Christianity into one category if you wish.   But that won't make it a true description.

                There are no conservative attacks on women's bodies, unless you're talking about the (probably-few) people who think rape victims shouldn't have some recourse.   Other than that, all that is evident is the constant attack by liberals on children's right to live, and the constant attack on anyone who stands up for those children's rights.

            3. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              To be a little more fair, Brenda, when most people refer to the Bible's specific wording, they use versions like the KJV, the ESB, etc.  None of those versions is used by the Roman Catholic Church, nor have they ever been.  As a matter of fact, the protestant versions of scripture used by the average protestant or evangelical church today are not now, nor have ever been used by the Roman Catholic Church.  I understand the depth of your desire to be in no way affiliated with the "Catholic" Church, but keep in mind that there was no such thing as a difference between the "catholic" Church and any other until the 11th century.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, there was.
                The "churches" that the Apostles set up.   It's my understanding that those were basically meetings in homes, etc.........
                When Paul wrote letters to the different "churches",  I don't think those were RCC churches!

                It doesn't matter which denomination or church brought the Scriptures to the public;  it only matters that it was brought.  I believe God had His hand in that;  that He saw to it that the Gospel would be available to all of mankind, and He used people to accomplish that.

                I've said before that I have respect for some of the Catholic Church's doings,  but there does need to be that distinction made between "Catholic" and "Protestant".............Matter of fact, just the fact that anyone outside the Catholic Church is called "Protestant" is a separation, a distinction that I assume originated with the Catholic Church!   They also call believers like me "separated brethren".   I find both terms a bit offensive,  but I'm trying to believe that they don't mean to offend by those terms.    Because, you see, I feel that way about the Catholic Church.  I believe they formed an entity that was supposed to mimic the original ways of the Apostles, but that it veered off onto a different tangent in its setup and interpretation of Scripture.
                I have friends and family who are Catholic.  I love them!   I have just found that they're sometimes very defensive about the Catholic teachings,  but that they don't consider that us "Protestants" may have a sensitivity about what THEY call us or how they view us.    They don't want to be considered just Christians, is my understanding;  they want it to be known that they're Catholic.    Well, not only is it fair that we also make that distinction, but it is important in how nonbelievers view the different denominations;  the Catholic Church is so big and powerful that its doctrine is often taken as the epitome of the doctrine of all Christians, even viewed that way by sinners.   

                I'm a Christian, first and foremost.   And when someone asks me, that's what I tell them.
                It has been my experience that most Catholics, when asked if they're Christian, will say yes they're Catholic. 
                Am I not telling you the truth?   Catholicism is considered a "Faith" in itself, isn't it?
                You see, I don't see Baptist or Methodist or any denomination including Catholicism as a "Faith".
                Christianity is the Faith,  or should be, no matter which denomination a person claims.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I was just making the point that the Christian Church existed as a whole until the 11th century.  That's when the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today came into existence.  That was all.  And, yes, I tell people I'm Catholic when they ask about my 'religion' because that is the religious tradition that I follow.  If someone simply asks me about my faith, I say I'm a Christian.  But I don't think it makes much of a difference since I've always been a Christian whose denomination is Catholicism.

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay.
                    I've just heard so many people including Catholics who refer to it as the Faith.

          2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Justin Earick you said, “Not is nothing even remotely close to what I said;  Up UNTIL the last 75 years, the interpretation was "abuser's of one's self with mankind", FOR the past 75 years that established definition has been changed into homosexuals and sodomites.”

            What do you think “abusers of one’s self with mankind” means?

            The King James translates arsenokoites to “abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Douay-Rheims, which is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate published well over 400 years ago, translates arsenokoites to “liers with mankind.”

            What do you think “liers with mankind” means?

            So, several hundred years ago you had English-speaking Protestants using the King James and English-speaking Catholics using the Douay-Rheims. Do you suppose they had different understanding of what arsenokoites is translated to in 1 Corinthians 6:9?

            1. Justin Earick profile image80
              Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I expained very clearly what it means, and what it meant to the church up until the past 75 years; boy temple prostitutes, and their abusers.
              Homosexuality is a modern revelation - before that, people who practiced same-sex relations were simply considered to have an excess of lust in those days.
              Paul is talking about sexual/monetary exploitation and abuse, not consensual and monogamous same-sex relationships.
              How could Paul have been describing something (sexual orientation) that wasn't recognized in Christian society until nearly two thousand years later?
              And why would you use such an assumption to justify poor treatment of strangers - which was in fact the sin of Sodom (Matthew 10:44)?

              1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Justin Earick, you've heard of Martin Luther I assume? He said:

                "The vice of the Sodomites is an unparalleled enormity. It departs from the natural passion and desire, planted into nature by God, according to which the male has a passionate desire for the female. Sodomy craves what is entirely contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversion? Without a doubt it comes from the devil. After a man has once turned aside from the fear of God, the devil puts such great pressure upon his nature that he extinguishes the fire of natural desire and stirs up another, which is contrary to nature."

                Do you think he is talking about the poor treatment of strangers?

                Paul isn't describing an orientation. He is describing a willful action -- males having sex with males, and it isn't limited to boy temple prostitutes.

                How do you think Paul came up with the word arsenokoites?

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Just a thought...Paul didn't come up with that word.  It's Greek.  Paul was Jewish and Roman.  Hence, he would most likely have been using Aramaic/Hebrew and Latin to teach the dictates of Christianity.

                  Just sayin'.  Obviously, I could be mistaken, but there are others here who could correct me if I am wrong...Julie, what say you?

                  1. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It's a tricky word - so much so that it's been translated to mean just about anything - according to the particular translator's bias.

                    Arsenokoitēs (αρσενοκοίτες) is a Greek word found in the New Testament, specifically in some verses that are generally considered a prohibition against homosexuality. It is a portmanteau of arsen, the Greek word for man, and koite, the Greek word for bed, echoing the phrasing of the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus 18:22.[citation needed]

                    The verses in question are in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, both part of Paul's writings. In context, the lines say "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor manbedders..."[1] and "and immoral men and manbedders and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching..."[2]

                    Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek - so rare, there is no other extant use predating or contemporary to the Bible. Philo is often claimed to have used it around 35 CE. That claim is in fact, false.[3] The context in which it is used in Corinthians is not enough to determine the original meaning. As such, the translations of this word into English and other languages are little more than guesses. Some liberal Christians insist it refers specifically to pimps or pederasts, but there's no more evidence to support this meaning than any other.

                    "Malakoi", (as used in 1 Cor 6:9 just prior to "arsenokoites") means literally "squishy." Linguists generally understand this word to be a form of showy effeminism; it may also indicate cowardice. Malakos is used in Matthew to describe the unnecessarily fine and showy clothing of the King. Unlike "arsenokoites," malakos is word is seen in other writers of the time, indeed as an indictment of cowardice, or sometimes vanity, or other "feminine" vices; the sexual sense of effeminate is typically referred to not by this word, but "kinaidia."

                    Over the centuries, there has also been a range of interpretation of how best to translate "arsenokoites" into the different European languages.

                    The medieval Latin translation in the Vulgata Clementina was "masculorum concubitoribus," implying concubinage or pimping, not homosexuality specifically. Martin Luther's 1545 German translation employs the word "Knabenschänder" (from "Knaben", boys or young children), implying that "arsenokoites" was interpreted as pedophilia as early as the 16th century. A modern German translation speaks of "Kinder sexuell missbrauchen" ("to abuse children sexually"). The 1649 Giovanni Deodati Bible in Italian refers to "quelli che usano co' maschi". The term "maschi" can refer either to men or boys, but has a more general sense of boys, as in the traditional Italian expression "Auguri e figli maschi" (literally, "Congratulations and may you have many male children.")

                    Though certainly no European translator before the 20th century approved of homosexuality (least of all Martin Luther), the rendering of the word "arsenokoites" into modern European languages clearly does not imply a clear consensus on whether this specific term covers homosexuality in general. Yet the avoidance of the term "homosexual" may also have been merely to provide euphemisms for something considered "unspeakable" by many, and thus may have been a form of mere bowdlerism on the transators' part:

                  2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Motown2Chitown you said, “Just a thought...Paul didn't come up with that word.  It's Greek.  Paul was Jewish and Roman.  Hence, he would most likely have been using Aramaic/Hebrew and Latin to teach the dictates of Christianity.

                    Just sayin'.  Obviously, I could be mistaken, but there are others here who could correct me if I am wrong...Julie, what say you?”

                    The article JMcFarland didn’t really address what you said here.

                    Paul was from Tarsas, a large trade center on the Mediterranean. Greek was extensively spoken there, and Greek was the most common language spoken in many Gentile places where Paul went to spread the Word. But before he did that, he went to Jerusalem to study, so likely he was also fluent in Aramic and Hebrew.

                    The manuscripts Paul most likely used were from the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, because that is the language most common among those he was preaching to. Also, the Gospels were first written in Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew, which may have been first written to some extent in Aramaic or Hebrew.

                    JMcFarland questioned whether I agreed with the article she posted in response to you. The statement “Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek – so rare, there is no other extent use predating or contemporary to the Bible” makes sense to me.

                    So it appears that Paul was the first to use that word. I personally believe he made the new word arsenokoites by combining two words he found in the Septuagint.

                    Where in the Septuagint do you suppose he found those two words he used to make arsenokoites?

                    Please note: I didn’t copy and paste what I said above from anywhere. I just made it up.

  10. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Wilderness, take a +1 for everything you have written and everything you are likely to write in this rather odious thread.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hah!  You're just trying to give me a heart attack so I won't beat you up in some other thread. big_smile

      It is rather odius, isn't it?  While the OP may (MAY!) have been a reasonable question it didn't take long to degenerate.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Curses, rumbled lol

        I usually steer well clear of religion and philosophy for these very reasons. The sub section should perhaps more honestly be called "hatred and bigotry".

  11. Justin Earick profile image80
    Justin Earickposted 3 years ago

    Are you suggesting that MLKs views were concurrent with the those of the hierarchy of the church in his time?  Interesting.
    Not to conflate him with Malcolm X, but MLK was considered a radical in his time - just ask the FBI.
    Dr. King was a hero, but that does not mean that I am not allowed to disagree with him on any subject at all.  He was a reverend, and he was espousing his (and the church's) view on a particular subject at that time.  I have no doubt that he believed fully in what he said, but...
    I like Obama, but disagree on surveillance and counter-terrorism overall; I like Corey Booker, Barney Frank, and Harold Ford, but disagree on the financial sector; I like Rand Paul, but disagree with his views on minorities and the poor; I like Hillary, but largely disagree with her relatively hawkish foreign policy.
    No one is infallable, and thus I could not agree with any person on every single issue.
    How many of our founding fathers owned slaves while claiming that "all men are created equal"?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't believe the comment was about MLK, but about Martin Luther.  A catholic priest around 1500 AD.

      1. Justin Earick profile image80
        Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My mistake, and even better.  Martin Luther holks no sway with me.  But he seems to be channelling St. Paul and the common theory of lust ie "the fire of natural desire" leading to excess; it seems to be a reprisal of Romans 26,27 - which I've already explained.
        We are going back to the way "natural" is used and I would suggest that Martin Luther was using the term the same way Paul was i.e social norm (men with long hair, when hair naturally grows long).
        And I am not at all swayed by the "willful action" gay-by-choice, hate-the-sin style argument.
        Nothing new here.

        1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Justin Earick, did you read what JMcFarland posted about arsenokoites?

          Specifically, "Though no European translator before the 20th century approved of homosexuality (least of all Martin Luther)" is of interest.

          And regarding Martin Luther King Jr., what did he say about homosexuality?

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Probably not much.  In his personal life, he was far more concerned with adultery to give much thought to that which didn't affect him.

          2. Justin Earick profile image80
            Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I really couldn't care less if MLK had anything to say about it, and I've already explained why - so I'm not sure what your question is.
            And once again, homosexual orientation wasn't a thing that was recognized until recently (Martin Luther included)  - sexuality was guaged by passivity or aggression, and on a range of lustfulness.  Same-sex acts were simply considered to represent an excess of lust, and likely boredom with conventional relations that were easily attained, in comparison to same-sex conquests. 
            That doesn't mean that prudes never looked down upon people who practiced such not-so-prudish lifestyles - I think we can safely asume that they did. 
            St. Paul serving as a fine example.

          3. JMcFarland profile image90
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Even regardless of the fact that I cross-referenced and double checked, you don't actually disagree with anything I posted, from rational wiki or anywhere else, so that tends to make ridiculing the source a tad ridiculous.

  12. 0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    Claire, if I misunderstood your intent I apologize. I didn't read what precipitated your post. To be honest, this desire to insist a deity is the author of hatred is disappointing and rather shameful. I thought you were giving one more tragic explanation.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't have a desire to insist a deity is the author of hatred unless he is Satan.  My God is certainly not hateful because of homosexuals.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You appear to be the minority Christian voice on this thread. It appears Will Rodgers believes he worships a homophobic God. Brenda Durham appears to be walking hand in hand with Will. Why do you think their God is homophobic and yours isn't?

        1. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Neither Brenda or Will believe in a "homophobic" God, nor have they said they do.  That is your choice, to use the politically charged and disingenuous buzzword to apply to God.  Smoothly interjected though. wink

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sorry. This was not intended to offend. It's a simple disagreement. Is God the author of hate? I think Jesus answered that question quite ardently. If there are those who call themselves Christian, who choose not to follow his example, it shouldn't be glossed over.  If there was one who apparently understood the will of God who is pointedly ignored when attempting to argue the intent of God, whose opinion takes precedence? The opinion of Jesus, or an opinion couched in fear and hatred?

          2. willrodgers profile image79
            willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks smile  I see no fear or hatred in this discussion only misunderstandings of individual positions.  I only Fear God, and I know what the Bible says and the many stories of what happens when man turns his back on the One True Living God Who has given man life and Who offers us Eternal Life with Him.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I wouldn't presume to argue that there are parts of the Bible which tend to lead one to believe that homosexuality was not preferred by the Jewish people. My problem is that there is no clear mandate from Jesus's words to condemn this lifestyle as anti God. You use everything else. While ignoring his words and his example. I think this speaks volumes as to your agenda.

              1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Emile R you said, “My problem is that there is no clear mandate from Jesus's words to condemn this lifestyle as anti God. You use everything else.”

                I assume you and others who say Jesus said nothing about homosexuality are seeking some statement like Leviticus 18:22, which states: “Thou shalt not lie carnally with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”

                What did Jesus say about bestiality? The verse right after the one quoted above is: “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”

                Did Jesus say “No pets allowed!” when speaking of sexual matters? So because Jesus did not give what you consider to be a clear mandate pertaining to bestiality, it is not sinful behavior?

                What about incest and polygamy? Did Jesus give what you consider to be a clear mandate that these are sinful behaviors? How about pedophilia? 

                Jesus did give a clear mandate. Claire Evans pointed you in the right direction of Matthew 19 as a starting point to understand that. A marriage blessed by Jesus is a monogamous one between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, a man or a woman and a dog, a man and a boy, or a man and two women, or Mr. Ed and his owner. I’m sure I can come up with other examples that Jesus would not regard as appropriate. But like I said, Matthew 19 is but a starting point.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Does all marriage have to be before God? I get that your belief has led to your homophobia as the original question asks as you are arguing against the human rights of homosexuals. But why do people oppose gay marriage in a secular society? We have laws against the other things you mentioned and some countries have laws against homosexuality, is that the direction you'd like the U.S. to go?

                  1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Rad Man, before I discuss with you same-sex marriage strictly from a secular perspective, you said, "your belief has led to your homophobia."

                    How do you define homophobia?

                    What did I say that you consider to be homophobic?

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The discussion was on homophobia. There are a lot of things Jesus didn't weigh in on. I think pit bulls should be banned for breeding, but the guy never said a word about it. Go figure.

                  I think, what you are missing is that you aren't a child who is unable to put two and two together. You aren't a child who can't look to the words he did speak and the example of his life; in order to come to conclusions as to how he would respond on this subject.  If you stop and think, you will see how ridiculous your argument is. If you aren't willing to think, all we would do at this point is go back and forth.

                  As to the woman at the well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that if she didn't perceive it as sin, neither did he. See how opinions work?

                  1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Emile R you said, “As to the woman at the well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that if she didn't perceive it as sin, neither did he. See how opinions work?”

                    Emile R, I’m not sure who you are addressing this to. I have said nothing about the woman at the well. You said this, “A question. This addresses the question of marriage for a man and a woman. What of his conversation with the woman at the well? Was there any condemnation? Any statement to go forth and sin no more? If not (and there was no condemnation) then why?” and Claire Evans responded to you.

                    Like I said, I have no clue why you addressed this to me, and I do not understand what point you are attempting to make.  If the point is about condemnation, then I would point to what about what Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery in John 8:11? “And Jesus said unto her: “Nor do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.’”

                    Jesus said he didn’t condemn her. The Old Testament condemned certain sinful behaviors. The penalty was death. Under the New Testament no one is “condemned” for sinful behavior because Jesus gave us all the opportunity to repent and reform such behavior.

                    If you are making some other point, and you are addressing this to me, please clarify exactly what it is you are talking about.

                    Since you are confused about who you discussed the woman at the well with, I think you may be confused about what my argument is that you consider to be ridiculous, if in fact you are even addressing me.

                    If you would care to state exactly what you think my argument is, and why you say it is ridiculous, I would be happy to respond.

        2. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We must differentiate between homophobia and not condoning homosexual sex.  God does not feel contempt for homosexuals, they can't help being born that way, but he most certainly does not condone homosexual sex.  I know you aren't going to like this but the practice of homosexual sex is extremely important in Satanism, one being Baal worship, along with casual sex and perverted sex.

          Please read:

          http://freemasonrywatch.org/sexmagic.html

          In fact our world leaders are so obsessed with homosexual sex that Washington DC proudly erects Baal's penis which is the obelisk.  At the ground level, the obelisk measures 555 feet which is 666 inches.

          http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 … ati/dc.htm

          As in ancient pagan practices, homosexual orgies were practised by pagans.  It's not different to our world leaders.  Many come together at Bohemian Grove in July to practise gay sex with boy prostitutes.

          Richard Nixon comments on the activities at Bohemian Grove:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPb-PN9F2Pc

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Get help Claire. I'm not going to grace that disgusting post with any rebuttal other than to say if this is honestly how you think and you aren't simply an atheist attempting to pretend to be a crazy Christian (on second thought, either way) you have my sincere sympathies. Your mind is apparently stuck in a gutter.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't need help.  I'm just stating facts and just because it isn't palatable to you doesn't mean I'm wrong.  Why shoot the messenger? Do I need help for saying casual sex is wrong?

              I'm not hear to butter people up.  I'm here to state facts.  You didn't seem to mind to agree with someone who said Jesus was the result of God raping Mary.  How dare you point fingers.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You are delusional Claire.  I've never participated in a conversation as to the moment of the conception of Christ.

                You aren't a messenger. You aren't stating facts. What you are apparently doing is attempting to use your imagination to justify some seriously flawed conclusions. And, embarrassing the name of Jesus in the process.

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you lying to me?  This is the conversation I had with you, you responding to Mark's comment made a while back on Mary being raped by God.



                  Claire:It doesn't say much for you if you respect for Mark.  Do you?  He has been very inflammatory in his lambasting Christianity.

                  Emile:I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of someone being banned for that comment. Is it offensive to your sensibilities? Of course. Is it casting  that part of the story in the worst possible light? Of course. However; think about the story Claire. If you omit the encounter with the angel Gabriel prior to conception (which most retellings do); that isn't such an outlandish take on the events.

                  Claire: Wow...you've let yourself down badly.  You are not worthy of respect if you think it is okay that obscene comments like that were made.  I'm telling you, if someone made a comment about you being raped, you wouldn't be happy. 

                  Ask yourself why Motown didn't find it acceptable.


                  Emile: If you cry foul every time you've allowed your sensibilities to be offended, people will see it as insecurity. It isn't your job (or anyone else's for that matter) to defend the name of God against foolish interpretations. The value of the message resides solely in what effect it has on the heart.

                  Claire: Actually, I don't.  I've used the report button once for obscenity and after I was banned, I used it twice to test the moderators' consistency. 

                  There are ways of articulating things and saying God raped Mary with the sole purpose to rile me up and upset me is unacceptable.  He made no attempt at being constructive.


                  Remember now?  So did you write these things or not?

                  You can call me delusional.  I'm hardly going to sob.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You appear to have reading comprehension problems. I didn't participate in the conversation, by that information you posted. I simply commented on whether or not a person should be banned for it. Different people think differently, Claire. He didn't think he was being offensive and there was a way to look at the account which allowed him to see it that way. That was my point.

                    So, you still appear to be delusional. You are imagining things in order to be offended. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Jesus. You do not represent anything that resembles his example, or his message, with this behavior or any of your posts. I really wish you would be more honest.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, the monument measures 55' 1 1/2 inches across at the base, or 661 1/2" - not 666 inches.

            The height is 6665 1/8 inches, not the 6666 reported in your link.

            Choosing the "right" units of measure, coupled with the "right" rounding off (even if it goes against all standard practices) can always produce a number that "obviously" points to a conspiracy.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The obelisk is 555 feet and 5 1/8 inches tall. 

              5 inches is 0.416667 and 1/8 of an inch is 0.0104166667 feet.  Add those two numbers together and you get 0.427084 feet.

              That equals 6660.512500799967 Inches.


              You are right about the 55 thing.

        3. willrodgers profile image79
          willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Emily the premise of this question is false.  The Holy Bible does not teach Homophobia and generally Christians do not think of themselves as Homophobic.  As I said in several strings, the LGBT people have a political agenda, and Christians pray for all people who live self destructive life styles.  The gift of Grace is a great wonder from a God who forgives those who curse and defy Him.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think, if you think about this statement, you will realize you are somewhat off base. The Holy Bible couldn't be very clear on homosexuality being self destructive. Quite a few faiths not only bless their unions, they ordain homosexual ministers. Surely, these good people do not consider themselves going against the Bible.

            As to the political agenda of LGBT. Of course they have one. They obviously need one in order to be treated with the respect and dignity of any other couple. I think, if you took the time to understand the struggle of a homosexual couple, the hurdles put before them, you might sympathize.

            As to self destruction. I think they are more interested in self preservation. I think you, and those like you, have enough destruction in mind for them already. I'm not going to lie to you. I think the animosity comes from both directions and sometimes we see what can be construed as a bit of militancy from some in the LGBT community. But, I see this as a reaction to those such as yourself. Those who preach a message of hatred and intolerance. You can say you don't hate them, but when you counter that with a statement that they are self destructive and they curse God, no one believes you don't hate them. You curse what you don't know.

            1. willrodgers profile image79
              willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't hate them.  This is what you read into my words.  In fact, after reading about the life style, I feel sad for these people who turn their back on God, and accept such self deprecation. Here is a quote from a medical source about the life shortening effects of homosexuality:
              "The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a "victim" image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay" gene.
              Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a "gay" gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no "gay" gene.
              On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims -- but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.
              Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.
              "All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case."

              Now, do you hate your child when you tell them not to play with fire, or advise them on the basics of hygiene?  I think this is your responsibility.  I find it my duty as a Christian to help people find a better path in life.  I do not see that as hate.  Oh, you will argue it is their choice and none of my business.  What you would have me do is to let a person I see floundering at sea drown because it is not my business as to how they got into that position or why they can't swim and may drown.  My human instinct tells me to jump in and help them preserve their life.
              God feels the same way when he sees people destroying the precious life He has given them.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why is that you provide information loosely related to medical sources, yet when others provide similar data from similar sources, it is rejected or denied?



                First of all, we are not your children to be advised of anything, we are adults who can think for themselves.It is not your responsibility to say or do anything, far from it. Secondly, it may not be so much hatred, but it certainly is disrespect and selfishness of those who believe it is their duty. Disrespectful, because you are forcing your beliefs on others who don't want to hear it. Selfish, because evangelism is only about the person who is doing the evangelism, they do not care for others, they only care for themselves and getting in good with their gods.

                We all know about Christianity, you need not say anything to us at all in that regard. So, please stop evangelizing.



                We are not floundering, we are not drowning, you are quite mistaken in that regard. Your instincts are totally wrong.



                That's God's problem, not yours.

                1. willrodgers profile image79
                  willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Troubled man.  I find no string post where I rejected medical information concerning homosexuality.  There was none posted for the reasons I stated in my last post.
                  Yes, we are all adults.  However everyone is the child of another person,.  The Biblical Parent-child analogy stands true eternally.
                  Evangelizing is not a way of "scoring points" with God.  Philosophies which some think of as religion may teach that one has to do so many "good Works" to gain eternal bliss.  Christianity does not teach this. My belief is that Jesus Christ taught us to share His message of Grace, Forgiveness and its result being Eternal Life with our Creator in Heaven.
                  I have a God given right to believe this and act upon it in my daily life.
                  My gut instinct is that many are floundering and are not really comfortable with what they believe mostly because their beliefs are only skin deep.

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know how to respond to your post in a delicate manner. But, seriously Will, I think we all come into contact with a little fecal matter from time to time. I'd be very interested to know where the article was written and read it myself. This sounds a little biased. An attempt to justify thought patterns.

                I suppose there is an argument that promiscuous sex puts people in a position to catch diseases which would shorten a lifespan. But gay couples can be as monogamous as heterosexual ones. I doubt their lifespan is shorter simply because they have a same sex partner. Heterosexuals who are promiscuous would have the same statistics as promiscuous gays, I would think.

                You are not your brother's keeper. Good thing, I would think. I really don't think I'll read anymore of your posts. I don't see the point. You don't care about others, you simply want to make sure everyone understands you don't consider yourself homophobic. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

              3. jlpark profile image90
                jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Can you provide the source from which you found that information?

  13. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago

    JMcFarland, so how did I disrespect you? Because I don’t agree with your arguments and I’m not impressed by some theology courses you took that you keep bringing up again and again?

    You said, “I'm saying when quoting the Torah, there is no reason to suspect or suggest that a former Pharisee would use a greek translation of the Septuagint rather than the original Hebrew.”

    Did I call you a liar? Specifically, did I say that’s a lie? Like you said to julieanita “That’s a lie” when she misremembered something? Did I say regarding your post in quotes that, “The statements did get dumber and more full of absolute garbage” like you did about what willrodgers said?

    You indicated that there is no reason to suspect or suggest that Paul used the Greek Septuagint. Not only is there reason to suspect or suggest that Paul used the Septuagint, there is reason to conclude that he did, as least for me. I offered some support for my argument that there is reason to suspect or suggest that Paul used the Septuagint, although I could provide much more. You offered no real support for your side of the argument that I can see, other than you said your theology professors never mentioned it.

    Some may ask why does this matter anyway. Because to say that Paul created the word arsenokoites as a special message to his Greek audience, if it is established (like you, JMcFarland apparently are attempting to do), that Paul didn’t use Greek manuscripts, it substantially weakens the argument that he created the word arsenokoites to emphasize to his Gentile Greek audience in particular that “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination” is a general prohibition and not about boy temple prostitutes and their abusers, as the OP Justin Earick maintains.

    The OP Justin Earick in his very first post alludes to the word arsenokoites in establishing his premise that “Many Christians believe the Bible justifies homophobia.” In later posts he does actually use the word, and expounds upon same, quite erroneously in my opinion. Although I hesitate to call him a liar because he is confused and mistaken. Apparently that doesn’t bother you, JMcFarland.

  14. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago

    For some reason I can not reply directly to Rad Man’s recent post.

    Rad Man said, “Do you think it's reasonable to ponder wether Jesus ever spoke those words. After all the writers never met him and were writing 30 to 100 years after Jesus was gone. It's reasonable to assume that at least 3 of the 4 gospels were lies as they vary in their description. It's then possible to assume that if 3 out of 4 were lies than the possibility of the 4th to be a lie is greater than 75%. So we have no idea what anyone Jesus said or did.”

    Rad Man, I was just about to reply to the questions you keep whining about that I didn’t answer, but then you go off with this.

    I understand that you are an atheist and your agenda is to make Christians look foolish in any way possible. But, c’mon man. This is lamer than a three-legged dog. And not just because it is way off the OP's premise.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He's right, though.

      The writers of the Gospels never met the man, so why should we believe them? Of course, it is possible to follow history by analyzing written records, but when your only written records were written long after the man in question's death, then it becomes suspect.

      And of course, the biggest question of all is this: If Jesus was a rabbi, where are his writings? Rabbis write like rabbits breed, and they do so about everything. Where are Jesus' writings?

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Zelkiro you said, "The writers of the Gospels never met the man, so why should we believe them?"

        You mean to tell me that Matthew and John were not among the twelve apostles?

        So the Pope lied to me?

        Well, I'm not Catholic, but I would assume that someone who is, like Motown2Chitown would be very offended by that statement. And such a person would spend countless hours and words challenging your statement and Rad Man's statement that, "It's reasonable to assume that at least 3 of the 4 gospels were lies as they vary in their description. It's then possible to assume that if 3 out of 4 were lies than the possibility of the 4th to be a lie is greater than 75%."

        Hey, but I'll bet you two guys have made those statements on numerous "religious" threads before. But you want to hear the answers again?

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          By which would I be offended?  If someone told me a pope lied?  Or if someone who told me that there were notable differences in the texts of even the synoptic Gospels, which are the three that basically tell the same story?

          People lie.  Popes lie.  Over history, they've lied, contracted murder, and done other things that aren't so wonderfully biblical. 

          Does it hurt my feelings to hear those things?  Well, it hurts my heart, because I love my Church and it saddens me to be reminded that it is led and peopled by broken and sinful human beings.

          big_smile

        2. Justin Earick profile image80
          Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why don't all of the gospels bother to mention the virgin birth?  Seems like a pretty integral part of the story.  Seems like possibly the most far-fetched part of Jesus' story as well.  (A commonly recycled story-line in ancient Mesopotamian faiths, in fact.) Curious, that.
          Additionally, they can't even keep the creation story straight.  Why did god create man and woman in Genesis 27, then all of a sudden in Gen 2:22, Eve is created because Adam was alone in the garden and it was not good? 
          What happened to the first woman, to Lilith? 
          They cannot even keep the creation story straight, or the circumstances (let alone the season) of the saviors birth - it's pitiful.

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Justin Earick, since you are examining the first two chapters in Genesis, please help me out here.

            Where does it say, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, WHO IS ANOTHER MAN, and they shall be one flesh" I wonder.

            I've been searching frantically, but I can't find it.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              When did this particular conversation become about gay marriage.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                lol

              2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                When did this particular conversation become about who wrote the Gospels and whether the writers ever met Jesus. Not to mention Lilith.

                1. Justin Earick profile image80
                  Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's very simple and completely germane (far moreso than bestiality) - if you are using the bible to justify your opposition to equal rights for fellow American citizens, you might want to consider the short-comings of the book overall.
                  Y'all seem perfectly willing to overlook the disparities, which stands to reason since faith is the inevitable answer to everything complicated or outright contradictory therein.

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't believe you can fairly include me in your "y'all" but okay.  I do not use the Bible to justify anti-homosexual sentiments, because I have none.  And is the entirety of equal rights for homosexuals now tied to ONLY marriage?  To which I also have no opposition.  I just didn't think that a discussion of gay marriage was what you intended with your OP.

                  2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Justin Earick, so Lilith is more germane than bestiality?

                    As I recall, bestiality is mentioned in the Bible in Leviticus 18:23: “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” The verse right before that is Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

                    Who could possibly see a connection between those two subjects that appear one right after the other?

                    Now, about Lilith. You ask, “What happened to the first woman, Lilith?”

                    Where did you find Lilith in the Bible? What makes you think Lilith was the first woman? I mean, besides “Cheers.”

    2. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jack, to be honest, I'm a Christian, and I believe in the divine origin of Scripture, but this is A) not an unreasonable question, and B) completely related to the topic at hand.  If we, as Christians, should be following the words, directives, and examples of Christ, and we intend to use the Bible to justify our anti-homosexual beliefs, then we should be able to point out very clearly where Christ spoke those words, or displayed those behaviors.  And, not every atheist wakes up every day with the mission to make Christians look bad.  Even if this is what Rad Man was trying to do, he wouldn't have been successful because he's not making Christians look bad, he's just trying to get them to look deeper into the Scriptures they hold up as God's word.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        and or if necessary look past the scripture and decide what's right on your own. We look past the scripture as a society when we look at slavery, why not homosexuality?

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

    3. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have evidence that I'm wrong or is this just your opinion? Is it your response that I'm lame? You may be correct in that, but it nothing to do with my post? Don't pretend you were about to answer my questions.

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'll answer your questions when I get around to it. Answering your questions isn't my day job.

        And then when I answer your questions, you'll answer mine, right? Promise? The ones I asked you before the ones you asked me you are whining about? The ones you avoided?

  15. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago

    No doubt how well Judas was hung is an important issue that keeps some posting about it up at night.

    But now that this thread has been going on for 10 days, I would like to know this:

    So who thinks that somebody on this thread has made a homophobic comment?

    Tell us who and exactly what he/she said and why you consider it to be homophobic. Not your interpretation of what was said or the person thinks this or that, what exactly the person said.

    C'mon, man up.

  16. Justin Earick profile image80
    Justin Earickposted 3 years ago

    Thats easy - perpetual comparing of LGBTQ Americans to beastiality, incest, pedophilia, adultery etc..

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My point on those issues is that they are closer analogies to homosexuality than is racism or gender.

      You understand that, right?

      Does a person make a choice about race or gender?

      Does a person make a choice whether or not to engage in bestiality, incest, pedophilia, adultery, or homosexuality?

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Race? no.. Gender? these days yes

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure. I think MJ may have made a choice as to which race he wanted to be associated with. Gender? Certainly. Homosexuality is not a choice. You don't have to participate to be homosexual. Adultery is not a choice for me. Pedophilia is not something I'd ever even consider. Incest and bestiality are not choices for me.

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I question whether gender can truly be changed since chromosomes can not be totally changed. Yes, I realize one can change their anatomy sufficiently to be legally recognized. But no matter, it makes no difference to my point if a few individuals can change their race or gender. Race and gender are distant analogies.

            The definition of homosexuality in part is “erotic activity with another of the same sex” according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. I have been very careful to illustrate exactly what I am talking about in repeatedly referring specifically to Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind”) and similar verses in the New Testament. I am talking about a willful action.

            Rad Man, do you believe that “mankind lying with mankind” is a choice?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, if mankind didn't lie with mankind then the whole issue becomes moot in about 70 years.

              1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The issue is mankind lying with mankind instead of womankind.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yeah, guys should never lay with other guys as with women. The positioning is all wrong. Someone could get hurt.

                  Guess God knew that.  Glad he wrote that disclaimer for first-timers though.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you ask me that question when I've asked the same question and you refuse to answer it?

              No. homosexuality is not a choice. Why would someone choice a harder life? I can't chose to be homosexual, I'm not attracted to guys. I was just in a change room with 15 naked men and it does nothing for me and the thought of sex with a man seems odd to me, but I don't think about what two people are doing behind closed doors in the privacy of their own home. To be honest I try not to imagine what my straight neighbours are up to.

              Tell me Jack, do lesbians give you the same distain?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Only the ugly ones who won't let others watch.

                1. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know about ugly, but you must mean every self-respecting lesbian who has better things to do than let guys get their jollies by watching them?  No wonder some people seem so angry.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, that was pretty much what I meant Julie.

                    Didn't you know that Lesbians were made specifically to entertain heterosexual male fantasies? But being gay is wrong.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So all those lesbians on the internet are not self-respecting. Darn... well that just ruins things... not.

      2. Justin Earick profile image80
        Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Black - No, ignorant clown, LGBTQ people have exactly zero to do with beastiality, pedophilia, incest...
        No, digusting bigot, those have exactly zero to do with consensual same-sex relations.   
        Joke - Leviticus has no standing, given Christ's death and new covenant.
        Also, gender is not based solely upon genitals - I understand that this may be difficult, but not everyone is created in the same repetitive
        mold.

        1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Justin Earick,

          So now I’m a clown and a disgusting bigot?

          I’d tell you exactly what I think of you, but Rad Man would get me banned.

          You said, “Black - No, ignorant clown, LGBTQ people have exactly zero to do with beastiality, pedophilia, incest...
          No, digusting bigot, those have exactly zero to do with consensual same-sex relations.”

          I didn’t say anything remotely resembling what you are claiming. If you think so, quote what I said directly rather than twist it into some mindless rant.

          What I said was that engaging in bestiality is a willful act and is sinful behavior according to the Word of God. Same for mankind lying with mankind. Those two appear one after the other in Leviticus.

          I merely made an analogy. Did I say lesbians are more likely to have sex with animals?

          In fact, lesbians are less likely to have sex with animals. That’s why they don’t have sex with men, according to Rad Man, the resident expert on lesbians who is not a lesbian on this thread. Couldn’t you follow the conversation of last night?   

          Now, there are no specific prohibitions against bestiality in the New Testament. Does that mean it is not sinful behavior?

          I’ll explain what standing Leviticus still has AGAIN, but I don’t have time to do it now. Work calls.

          I didn’t say gender depended on genitals. You can buy genitals, right? What I said was I’m not sure gender can be totally changed. I don’t believe that chromosomes can be totally changed. You know, the XY thing.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Go ahead. Tell him what you really think. I didn't press the report button last time and I won't press it this time. You are far to entertaining.

            1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
              BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You're rather entertaining yourself, Rad Man.

              Last night as I listened in on your conversation with the ladies, I was beginning to believe that YOU were a lesbian.

              I fantasized as you posted you were wearing lipstick and something sexy from Victoria's Secret. Not fantasizing in a sexual way. A comedy.Like you were Moe in "The Three Stooges Go Drag."

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You didn't know?? Rad Man is a lesbian.. just trapped in a man's body...LOL

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If I was a women, I'd most certainly be a lesbian.

                1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
                  BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Women?

                  Now you want to be more than one woman?

                  This is really getting strange.

                  Two or more separate and distinct women? Or like conjoined twins?

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    oooopppps. Funny. Next time I'll remember to bring up your grammatical errors. It's just not my style though.

                    Didn't you say you were going to get to the questions I asked a while back?

  17. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Brenda Durham wrote:
    Hi wilderness.
    You know I don't look at it that way.    People do have the right to be whatever they want, as long as their "rights" don't infringe on others' rights WITHIN the acceptable moral standard that's already established. 
    = - = -
      me ..     Don't know if I'm awake yet    CAUSE  .....   I just had a flashback to the 60s .  When Martin Luther King had his agenda to change the american standards. Imagine blacks boys going to the same schools as our white sisters and riding the same school buss.   What next ? interacial marriage becoming the NEW standard?   Who knows ...   It is hard to imagine but someday a black men might  be a foreman  of a job telling white men what to do?   It's sacrilage I say!     What is the world coming to?                                       I believe in equal rights as long as "THEY" stay in their place and don't disturb mine.
    ===========
    Many gays (blacks) do not play political games, do not harrass conservatives, etc.    But indeed a bunch of them do!    And they are doing wrong; yes, we both know they're trying to change the established norm and change everyone's view of right and wrong, and in so doing they are infringing upon the rights of most people (whites).     
    = - = - =
    It is the same game as before; different players is all.

    1. willrodgers profile image79
      willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami this is old hat. Obama played the race card and got elected.  It won't work for Gays. I said in an earlier string that the GLBT agenda is based on a racial model.  This is the foundation of the agenda.  " Gays must be treated as a special class" .  So far Gays  have nor been able to push that balloon uphill, so I don't think it will work here either.  No court has yet to recognize them as a "Special Class". 
      See my posting from a week ago.:
      "Third, homosexuals are asking for recognition as a class with full protected class minority status and privileges (under the Civil Rights Act, 1964) based on their homosexual behavior (or mere desire) alone. The special protected class status and advantages (special rights) homosexuals are seeking are not the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed to all Americans under the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that citizens may benefit from all fundamental rights and protections without possessing special, protected class status, which is reserved for truly disadvantaged, politically powerless and obviously distinct minorities, under strict court established criteria (Frontiero vs. Richardson, 1973; SAISD vs. Rodriguez, 1973; Mass. Bd. of Retirement vs. Murgia, 1976; Plyler vs. Doe, 1982; City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Ctr., 1985; Jantz vs. Muci, 1991). Not all “minorities” are eligible for protected class status. Even members of the gay community acknowledge that they are not educationally, economically or culturally disadvantaged, are not politically powerless and are not an obviously distinct minority. Therefore, as a group, homosexuals are not a true minority but rather a very powerful special interest group. Nonetheless, full protected minority class status and the special rights that go alone with it are being sought. No matter how often it is denied, “gay rights” are special rights;[ not Civil Rights]".

  18. Cheryl Renee profile image78
    Cheryl Reneeposted 3 years ago

    Quite simply: Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
    —Matthew 7:1

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you pick cherries for a living?

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why?  Are you looking for some help?  You seem to be all about Leviticus, but not so much about those anti-judgment verses.  Why is it okay when you do it, but not others who respond to this thread?

        1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong, again.

          I'm willing to put all the verses together, even the ones about judgement.

          I started to do it again with MelissaBarrett on the DOMA thread last night, as you are aware, in a debate she initiated. But she backed off before I could even get beyond Leviticus.

          Perhaps you (or anyone else?) would like to debate with me? I'm thinking about competing hubs. Like dueling banjos. Hubs would be preferred because the author can control totally irrelevant comments and banter that is better left to chat sites.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't battle wits with an unarmed opponent.  It's just not fair.

            I do think the banjo is the perfect instrument for you though... and Deliverance is a great reference to use in regards to your arguments.

          2. JMcFarland profile image90
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your arguments are the same arguments that I could find in any apologetics tract.  I don't find you to be a challenge, and you haven't presented anything that I haven't heard a hundred times over, and you seem hell bent on just ridiculing and attempting to demean anyone who disagrees with anything you post.  I've read the style of your hubs, and I'm sorry - I just can't take you seriously enough to debate with you.  I've debated apologists before.  If I wanted the same old garbage, I'd debate with them again, and have a few lined up, actually.  So no.  I'm not interested in listening to repetitive, meaningless nonsense.  I have better things to do, with people who are better equipped.

          3. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            MelissaBarett, you initiated a debate with me last night, but soon backed down and dropped it because it didn't take long for you to realize it was not going well for you.

            JMcFarland, you and I debated whether Paul referred to the Septuagint, and when you realized you were likely wrong, you ran off in a hissy fit.

            What, no takers on the debate I proposed?

            Surprise, surprise.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Some people don't like to play football with arm-chair quarterbacks.  In debate, the people who know what they're doing don't need to beg people to debate them, and, in general, when they see someone at an obvious disadvantage, they generally choose not to embarrass you.  In most cases, I figure it's because they feel you're doing well enough on your own.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In general, If I want to argue against homophobic arguments, I'll go find someone who holds those views that is also intelligent... if such a creature exists.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think that there are intelligent people out there who do not necessarily consider homosexuality something that fits into the natural order of things.  BUT, they choose not to argue against it for two reasons:  Because they believe in the right of every individual to determine how they want to live their lives and because they may believe that while a person may make their own determination about HOW to live their lives, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is what comes easily or naturally to them.

                  Does that make sense?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can go with that. Yet I don't really consider those kinds of people as homophobic. 

                    The phobia is expressed in the fact that they have an innate need to try (ineffectively) to change the situation. Their fear demands action, even if it's just spouting hatred on a message board.  To me, living your life with that kind of fear negates intelligence.

            2. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh yes, of course.  That's exactly why I stopped.  Because I "clearly lost"..  (this is sarcasm, in case you missed it.  With you, who knows?)

              Saying you "won" may give you the warm and tinglies that you like so much, but it doesn't make it true.  This is exactly why I don't take too seriously, though.  Thanks for brilliantly proving my case for me.

          4. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The problem with using hubs in a debate instead of forums is that not only can the author delete the banter and irrelevant comments, they can also delete the comments that raise points that can damage the author's whole stance, which can lead to a dishonesty in debate and claiming victory where there might be none

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know anyone who would just "claim victory" by dishonest and ad hominem arguments.  Surely you are mistaken.

              Oh.  Wait...

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nah.. I'm mistakken

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  PS, you should work on your spelling. LOL

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    lol oops

  19. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago

    JMcFarland, what you and the other two ladies do best is rant, and rant, and rant even more. I have yet to find much strength of argument from any of you.

    Speaking of proving one’s case: JMcFarland, what you specifically said that initiated the debate in question was, “Paul, being a former pharisee, most likely did NOT use the septuagint, since he was fluent in Hebrew and very familiar with the Torah.”

    I disputed that statement, which is woefully weak when one examines the literary-historical evidence. You couldn’t support your statement upon scrutiny, and went off in a rage like the drama queen you are with some nonsensical parting words.

    And as for debating certain issues in a hub as I proposed, I never expected anyone to take up the challenge. See, what yinz remind me of is the stuff you find in a chicken coop, and I’m not talking about eggs. I’ll be writing the hubs whether anyone chooses to debate me or no. Not to worry, I will be referring to some of the mindless drivel that you three ladies ranted. Not to mention that of the OP on this thread and others who commented as well.

    It appears to me that you three ladies are saying that intelligence and opposition to same-sex marriage are mutually exclusive.

    Deepes Mind, deleting comments contrary to one’s premise on a hub would be intellectual dishonesty, right? I don’t do that and I can prove it. The way you get around that if someone does that to you is to post the deleted comment on your own hub and critique same. It puts the person deleting the comments in a very unfavorable light. Works quite well, actually. Of course, I can show you examples.

    1. JMcFarland profile image90
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      yes, dear.  Whatever you say, dear.

      What bothers me is that you cannot even recognize how much you're looking down your nose at others - and why that plays a role in the reason why others aren't interested in discussing things with you.  It's not because your arguments are epically sound and wonderful - it's your demeanor and your attitude and your condescending, ridiculing approach.  I don't have time for that.  I have a lot of time for well-reasoned, intelligent and respectful dialogue - I do it all of the time with many christians.

      I'd ask why you think so many people are refusing to discuss things with you, but I already know your answer.  Clearly it's because you're so "wonderful and amazing" that no one can compete.  That may be enough to help you sleep at night, but it's not the reality.  You're the common denominator - and christians and atheists alike are leaving conversations with you in droves - because of your behavior, not your arguments.  If no one wants to talk to you, it's most likely because of the way you talk to them - not the lack of substance in the things you actually say.  No matter how many times people point that out to you, you ignore it.  That's on you - not anyone else.

      I would also like to add that I did not begin on this thread by speaking to you.  I was asked by a friend (who happens to be a Christian) about a word in Romans, and I responded to her request.  You then jumped in and made fun of the fact that I chose to post the explanation from a site you consider to be sub par - even though you agreed with everything it actually said.  I tried to maintain a respectful discussion until it became clear that you were not interested in offering any respect our actually discussing the point intelligently.  Therefore your synopsis of what happened is also dishonest.  Why again should we take you seriously?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Gee, that was much more involved than my "I'm ignoring you because I don't feel you have anything of value to say"

      2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image85
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        JMcFarland you said: “I would also like to add that I did not begin on this thread by speaking to you.  I was asked by a friend (who happens to be a Christian) about a word in Romans, and I responded to her request.  You then jumped in and made fun of the fact that I chose to post the explanation from a site you consider to be sub par”

        You have a rather distorted view of the truth. Not only with respect to your statement above, but on other matters as well.

        Motown2Chitown was responding to me when she included a question to you. It’s not like I wasn’t involved in the conversation. And what exactly I said after you copy and pasted a lengthy article from RationalWiki was, “thank God for RationalWiki, ‘eh?” Actually, I’m surprised you didn’t object to the “thank God” part instead of the “RationalWiki” part. You’re fine when you are copying and pasting. It’s when you come up with something on your own like, “Paul, being a former pharisee, most likely did NOT use the septuagint, since he was fluent in Hebrew and very familiar with the Torah” that you get in trouble.

        Yeah right, JMcFarland, people won’t talk to me. That’s why a recent hub I wrote has  more than 700 comments. I don’t write more hubs and post more on the forums because I feel guilty because I can’t keep up with everything people want to talk to me about. Look at Rad Man. He keeps whining I didn’t answer all his questions. But like I said, I’m working on some new hubs due to the motivation you and some of these others have provided. Thank you! The first one will likely be entitled, “How Homophobic Are You?”

        You have an agenda, JMcFarland. You want affirmation, not information. If some do not agree with your LGBT agenda, woe to them. 

        So what do you think about the statement that, “The problem with that (same-sex marriage) is that those groups crying out for the change in the law are not interested in just acquiring the benefits, they want a confirmed admission of guilt and an open arms acceptance of their lifestyle practices by the general public” I wonder.

        Maybe you missed it. Wayne Brown said it over on the DOMA thread. Please don’t reply to me. I didn’t say it. Go rant at him. You’ve put me to sleep with your mindless rants enough already.

    2. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I was not implying that you would. I was merely pointing the possibility. You have nothing to prove to me and I am not asking you for proof. 




      The problem with that is that if someone has to go through the trouble of posting a deleted comment on their own hub because the hub author is dishonest then what's the point of holding a debate of any kind? A debate on the forums is still the most viable option (IMO) because even if you see a bunch of nonsensical comments, you can ignore those in favor of responding to the comments that
      are actually on topic. This would require separating your emotions from your beliefs and the topic at hand.

Closed to reply
 
working