Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 88

Thread: A Challenge To Easyrider on Homosexuality

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040

    A Challenge To Easyrider on Homosexuality

    I'm serious. I want a legitimate debate once and for all on this issue.... You can use scripture or what not but keep it clean and non demeaning if you can...

    BUT you must also have other reasoning BESIDES scripture for your argument....

    So here is the challenge. Why is homosexuality wrong and how does it affect the Constitution or the well being of other American Citizens?

    In other words how does a gay person being gay affect the daily lives of Joe Schmo in a NEGATIVE manner.... And what would the detriment to the every day citizen be if homosexuals were given equal rights in employment, marriage, and other basic rights that heterosexuals now have...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    I'm serious. I want a legitimate debate once and for all on this issue.... You can use scripture or what not but keep it clean and non demeaning if you can...

    BUT you must also have other reasoning BESIDES scripture for your argument....

    So here is the challenge. Why is homosexuality wrong and how does it affect the Constitution or the well being of other American Citizens?

    In other words how does a gay person being gay affect the daily lives of Joe Schmo in a NEGATIVE manner.... And what would the detriment to the every day citizen be if homosexuals were given equal rights in employment, marriage, and other basic rights that heterosexuals now have...
    You get one post:

    Homosexual sin - No harm?

    A number of reasons. First, "gay pride" (two sins). They flaunt it in our faces and try to legitimize it. You don't hear of "adultery pride" parades or "necrophilia pride" parades do you? But even if there were we'd take an equally stellar stance against those. We don't want to hear about it.

    Second, most homosexuals who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many (many) into perdition and hell. We don't want to see even one soul lost.

    Third, most homosexuals distort (or deny) the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin. The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthly arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself. We defend the Word and God.

    Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.

    Fifth, they attack the Sons and Daughters of God when we stand up for the truth of God's Word. They call us bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance.

    Sixth, they push their illicit agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them. They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong. Nine year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it. They push their agenda in our faces until we're quite sick of it. We don't need to know which way people perform sex acts.

    Seventh: They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases they give to each other. It costs us all money out of our pockets.

    And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.

    And there's more but that's for starters.


    Let's look at the Scriptures and see what you're trying to sweep under the rug in order to try to justify your illicit gay sex sin:

    Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

    Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

    1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

    Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

    And to close:

    “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” - Thomas Jefferson

    Amendment VIII: Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments

    And that's all I have to say on that.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,485
    Easy, this is what I got from your post (in layman's terms), correct me if it's wrong.

    Reasons for not tolerating homosexuality:

    1) The bible says it's a sin.
    2) If we do, we'll be cursed by magic.
    3) Homosexuals spread AIDS.
    4)Thomas Jefferson the slave rapists says so.
    5) By not staying in the closet for all of eternity, they are aggressively pushing their agenda on us.

    Now, the only points you make about homosexuals doing direct or indirect harm are points 2 and 3. Point 3 is invalid because heterosexuals spread AIDS too, and point 2 is invalid due to lack of proof. Point 4 is invalid because of TJ's overall poor behavior (like raping his slaves). Point 5 is debatable and could be right. It is a good point because its the only one (besides point 1) that you provided real evidence for.

    However Point 1 is the clear winner in terms of truth. Yes, the bible does condemn it. But, you know what the bible also condemns much more harshly than it does homosexuality? Divorce. If we are going to put a stop to homosexual behavior, it would be hypocritical to ignore making divorce illegal.
    "They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years, and [heck], we're not using it anymore."
    -Jay Leno

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    You get one post:
    I thought this was going to be a debate... Whatever ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Homosexual sin - No harm?
    First of all you already equate homosexuality as a sin within the first sentence of posting... Please try being a little more detailed next time...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    A number of reasons. First, "gay pride" (two sins). They flaunt it in our faces and try to legitimize it.
    I don't take part in Pride parades Easy. Many do not flaunt it and simply, your misinformed. You are already using typical stigma against homosexuals as grounds or as evidence it's not valid...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    You don't hear of "adultery pride" parades or "necrophilia pride" parades do you?
    Easy your equating two separate things entirely. One, necrophilia is not legal, and second the "pride" portion is not in flaunting what you do sexually it is simply about being out and not having to live a lie that chokes you...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    But even if there were we'd take an equally stellar stance against those.
    Who is we? You and Jesus? be more specific and don't use "moral Americans" or other bunk like that use actual proof if you can....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    We don't want to hear about it.
    Correction you don't want to hear about it. Personally I don't want to know what you do in the bedroom it doesn't mean I judge you because your strait either though....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Second, most homosexuals who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many (many) into perdition and hell.
    The Bible has thousands upon thousands of interpretations depending upon the reader, this has no concrete evidence telling me why it may be wrong.. Your simply trying to scapegoat others who have a different belief on scripture...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    We don't want to see even one soul lost.
    And yet you could care less if a Gay teen blows his brains out.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Third, most homosexuals distort (or deny) the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin.
    Easy to an extent you distort and twist literal scripture. It is your interpretation. Just because it is a different viewpoint does not make it wrong....

    And how is saying the Bible says this: equate to justifying sin? Your already assuming such things as fact before you even weigh the issues.... Assumption is wrong, foolish, and dangerous...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthly arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself. We defend the Word and God.
    Easy you mean that you believe your take on the Bible is under attack. Your opinion, your mindset.... There is not one homosexual that I know of that is out to destroy God or your right to faith.....

    You however say that a homosexuals very open existence is an affront to your faith and an attack.... Why do you feel so strongly against these phantoms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.
    Easy once again interpretation. You have given me nothing so far to conclude that homosexuality is wrong....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Fifth, they attack the Sons and Daughters of God when we stand up for the truth of God's Word.
    How so? Your the one's protesting at pride parades, or screaming homophobic slurs, or beating gay people senseless all in the name of a deity... I have not seen or heard of one attack of where a homosexual threatened a person of faith because of their faith...

    I have however seen and heard of many accounts of faith based people threatening and demonizing gays simply because they are gay...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    They call us bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance.
    Easy yours is not just a matter of disagreement. You blame the woe's and hurts of nations upon the backs of homosexuals!!You blame them for the world's hurts, demonize, and paint targets upon them simply because they wish to go about their daily lives in peace and partake of the same rights you take for granted on a daily basis...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Sixth, they push their illicit agenda into every corner of America.
    Another bunk non factual point... Please stop assuming hyperbole is fact let alone Dobson Propaganda.... You've given me nothing....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them.
    Because they refuse to let openly gay fathers join because they cry pedophile.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong.
    Gay agenda? And how exactly would you impress the mind of a child when they have not even reached puberty? Do you think you can teach children to be gay and teach them to be strait?

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Nine year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it.
    Easy sorry but once again bunk. Your basing gays upon what they do in the bedroom not whom they are as people in profession or in public life... I wouldn't want my child to hear who's doing you either....

    So stop with the stupidity if your even going to try and hold a debate..

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    They push their agenda in our faces until we're quite sick of it. We don't need to know which way people perform sex acts.
    Who is we???? And I have never heard of something where detailed sex acts are discussed when talking about gay rights, or the history of the gay movement. You base your entire argument against homosexuals on the mere carnal...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Seventh: They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases they give to each other. It costs us all money out of our pockets.
    So why not then cure AIDS? And why are you playing upon the old Gay Aids myth? once again not one point that is relevant to the questions I asked... Your just shifting blame and scapegoating...

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.
    Easy many who go back in the closet or try to be strait kill themselves... IS this the measure of "repentance?" Must all homosexuals do this in despair for your God to love them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    And there's more but that's for starters.
    And yet not one point that is actually credible to what I was asking...


    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Let's look at the Scriptures and see what you're trying to sweep under the rug in order to try to justify your illicit gay sex sin:
    If I'm trying to sweep something under the rug why am I challenging you to a debate on it then???

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
    PASSAGE 3
    LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13
    THE HOLINESS CODE

    Let's move on. What do the two verses sometimes cited from Leviticus say about God?

    Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." On the surface, these words could leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just below the surface is the deeper truth about God -- and it has nothing to do with sex.

    Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)

    So what's a holiness code? It's a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

    At the age of 10, I signed a holiness code written by the Women's Christian Temperance Union that said I would never taste beer, wine, or liquor. I thought signing it would please God and my grandmother. That's a holiness code. When I was in high school we evangelical Christians had an unwritten holiness code that went like this: "I don't drink, smoke, or chew, or go with girls who do." Now I know what you're thinking. That last part about "girls who do" proved especially easy for me. But the point is that I obeyed this evangelical holiness code because my parents said that breaking these rules didn't please God, and I knew it didn't please them.

    We had another evangelical holiness code while I was in high school that prohibited dancing. I was student body president, yet I refused to go to the prom because I had promised not to dance. I did this to please God and my mother -- whose mother had made her sign a holiness code that she wouldn't go to dances either.

    What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, "abominations" (TO'EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God.

    Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality.

    But wait, before we go any further, let's ask: What does this text say about God? Even if the old holiness codes no longer apply to us as Christians, it's important to remember that in every age, people of faith are responsible for setting moral and ethical standards that honor God. But we people of faith must be very careful not to allow our own prejudices to determine what those standards should be.

    Instead of selecting one item from an ancient Jewish holiness code and using it to condemn sexual or gender minorities, let's talk together about setting sexual standards that please God -- standards appropriate for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, standards based on loving concern, health, and wholeness for ourselves and for others.

    Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality?

    I'm convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here's why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation:

    "He spilled his seed on the ground... And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" (Genesis 38:9-10).

    For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?

    Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.

    The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk "wasting" even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

    The Apostle PaulWe've talked about the passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that are used (or misused) by some people to condemn sexual minorities. Now let's look at three verses from the letters of the apostle Paul in the Christian Scriptures that are used the same way. Remember: First, we'll ask what the text says about God; second, we'll consider what it may or may not say about sexual orientation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
    PASSAGE 4
    ROMANS 1:26-27
    NATURAL AND UNNATURAL

    What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

    For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange "natural use for unnatural" and non-Jewish men who "leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other."

    This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let's go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

    Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

    The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we're in deep trouble.

    When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God's children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul's time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us -- and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives.

    Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don't think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

    In our Soulforce video, There's a Wideness in God's Mercy, the Rev. Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist, describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with homosexuality:

    SMEDES: "The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity."

    SMEDES: "The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?"

    SMEDES: "Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex."

    SMEDES: "And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people do... their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be."

    Thank you, Dr. Smedes. (To get a copy of the video featuring Dr. Smedes, There's a Wideness in God's Mercy, visit Soulforce : Freedom for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People.)

    Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana. Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

    You'll also note that Romans 2 begins with "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God's business, not ours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
    PASSAGES 5 AND 6
    1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10
    THE MYSTERY OF "MALOKOIS" AND "ARSENOKOITAI"

    Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

    Moses holding the ten commandmentsPaul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

    Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

    The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

    Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

    After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

    That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

    So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

    Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

    As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

    In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

    In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

    Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

    We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

    Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”
    PASSAGE 2
    GENESIS 19:1-14
    THE STORY OF SODOM

    Now let's consider the second biblical text used by some people to condemn God's gay children. You remember the ancient story of Sodom. First, what does the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 say about God?

    When Gary and I arrive at a college or university to speak, there are often protesters carrying signs that read, "Mel White, Sodomite." (Has a nice ring to it.) Actually, I'm not from Sodom. That city was buried beneath the Dead Sea centuries ago. I'm from California -- but perhaps that just confirms their suspicions!

    Once again, this story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about?

    Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom.

    Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

    Today, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do well to remember that we break God's heart when we spend all we earn on ourselves, when we forget the poor and hungry, when we refuse to do justice or show mercy, when we leave strangers at the gate.

    I admit, there are a lot of gay folk who are Sodomites (and a lot of straight folk as well). Sodomites are rich and don't share what they have with the poor. Sodomites have plenty and want more. While millions are hungry, homeless, and sick, Sodomites rush to build bigger homes, buy bigger cars, and own more property -- putting their trust in safer stock portfolios and more secure retirement accounts.

    Whatever teaching about sexuality you might get out of this passage, be sure to hear this central, primary truth about God as well. God has called us do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our Creator. Sodom was destroyed because its people didn't take God seriously about caring for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast.

    But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing.

    It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge, not about homosexuality or homosexual orientation. And it is still happening.
    Louima
    Louima

    In August 1997, Abner Louima, a young black immigrant from Haiti, was assaulted by several police officers after he was arrested in Brooklyn. Officer Charles Schwarz held Louima down in a restroom at the precinct, while Officer Justin Volpe rammed a broken stick into Louima's rectum. These two men and the three other officers involved in this incident and its cover-up were not gay. This was not a homosexual act. It was about power.

    The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.
    God is not and your interpretation of a religion holds no sway upon the Constitution nor upon the rights provided to all men whom are created equal under God and endowed with certain inalienable rights that you nor your religion cannot wash away....

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    And to close:

    “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” - Thomas Jefferson

    Amendment VIII: Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments

    And that's all I have to say on that.
    A paper by a man 200 years ago.... Once again no current evidence. You proved my point, you have no case against Homosexuality whatsoever....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Quad Cities IL
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post

    Sixth, they push their illicit agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them.

    Just have to say something on this. If the boy scouts didnt receive federal support and get special deals from the government then they would be able to exclude whoever they want. However since they often hold their meetings in public schools for free and rent public lands for discounted price or even sometimes for free they cannot discriminate against gays and atheists. So they have to make a choice.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    I am afraid easy rider I don't think you met the standard of the challenge. It is a non-sequitur to say that something is bad because the people who support it are confrontational.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    I am afraid easy rider I don't think you met the standard of the challenge. It is a non-sequitur to say that something is bad because the people who support it are confrontational.
    The Word of God says it's wrong. And it's not my challenge. I don't have to jump through hoops to meet some challenge. I refer you back to my previous post.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    The Word of God says it's wrong. And it's not my challenge. I don't have to jump through hoops to meet some challenge.
    I rest my case fellow forum members.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    I rest my case fellow forum members.....
    Agreed with above.
    Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither. [Anonymous]

    "The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science---or of any honest intellectual inquiry." Stephen Jay Gould

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    171
    Jason totally won that.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason
    Easy to an extent you distort and twist literal scripture. It is your interpretation. Just because it is a different viewpoint does not make it wrong....
    This is incorrect. What easy does is intentionally quote the bible out of context, refuses to even consider any REASONABLE interpretation of its meaning, and intentionally chooses to IGNORE the plain meaning of passages which are crystal clear when they do not align with his prejudices.

    It is WRONG. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own fact, and about 90% of the time when Easy uses scripture he is, in fact, manufacturing his own facts. He is intentionally and dishonestly using it out of context and outside of its clearly established meaning in order to push an agenda of hate.

    The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.
    This is also incorrect. I just had a long discussion about this with easy, and the fact is that properly translated, there is no reference to homosexual sex or rape in the story of Sodom.

    The thread is in the economics forum:

    http://www.4forums.com/political/eco...nbiblical.html

    Here are kind of the high points as far as the whole sodom thing goes:

    The word sodomy comes from the 6th century AD when the Emperor Justinian use it in his Corpus iuris civilis (body of civil law). Prior to that date, nobody had ever used it in that manner that we are aware of. In fact, the idea that gay sex was one of the primary reasons that Sodom was destroyed was a brand new theory put forth by Justinian. He used it to prosecute his political opponents when he could not find any other charges to lay against them because at the time gay sex was common.

    The church actually argued AGAINST Justinians theory and it would have been forgotten to history except that a monk known as Benedict the Levi used it in the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals. The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals were FAKE documents prepared by a group of Frankish monks that were supposed to have been the writings of early popes. They were FAKE. They were a LIE. He used Justinians theory in FAKE writings that he attributed to Charlemagne. He also broadened the definition to all sexual acts not related to procreation (yep, that blowjob was sodomy).
    This is pretty much the root of the connection between Sodom and gay sex. The original theory was put forth by a politician as a power play and the church opposed it...they said it was untrue. Then Benedict the Levi used it in a series of FALSE documents supposedly written by Charlemagne several hundred years later. That is the only reason that the connection between gay sex and sodom became dogmatic. When the church realized that the documents were fake, it was pretty much too late (infallibility...they cant exactly remove dogma like that and say "whoops" after they have already put people to death...they were supposed to be infallible).

    Look at the bolded part. ALL THE PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER. Check the original text....it is there. In every single version of the original text that we have. In fact, the original hebrew is anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom, which can translate as EITHER "the men of the city, the men of sodom" OR "the people of the city, the people of sodom". However, "all the people from every quarter" can not possibly be translated to mean anything BUT "all the people".

    That changes the story COMPLETELY. It is not just every man in town that is standing outside the house, it is every PERSON in town. That means that either the men are surrounding the house, while the women and children stand beyond. OR, they were just saying "all the people, all the people of sodom, all the people from every quarter". I have to admit, I was kind of trying to lead you here with the "every man in sodom was gay" thing, but since your eyes and ears have been closed by satan, it flew right past you.

    Regardless of which translation you prefer (personally I feel the second makes more sense), the fact is that ALL THE PEOPLE of Sodom were there. So, for this to be about gay sex, the men of sodom would have pretty much had to have invited their wives and children (and it does specify children) to a giant homosexual rape party. Does that still sound reasonable to you?
    Feel free to fact check me if you want, or my translation. The FACT is that no matter how you read it, ALL the people of Sodom were there, not just the men as is usually claimed. ALL THE PEOPLE. Suddenly the idea they wanted to rape the guys to death seems pretty thin.

    Then, in your understanding of the story, offers his daughters to this gang of men who are just hell bent on doing some homosexual raping. Now, I am not gay, but even I know enough to know that you are not going to placate hundreds of homosexuals that are just hell bent on raping some men by offering them women. Gay men dont have sex with women. That is what makes them gay men. If the men in front of lots house actually intended to rape the visitors, it would have made a LOT more sense for Lot to either offer himself as a replacement, OR offer his wifes fiances, which under the law at the time he COULD have done. But, instead of offering the gay men different men to rape, he tries to pass women off on them. That simply does not make sense.

    It is also worth noting that the term used in the original text is yada...to know or to be familiar with. It is used as a euphamism for sex in about 10 places in the bible, for example it is used when they say that "adam knew his wife and she concieved". The rest of the time it is used like "God knew David" (hint...god did NOT have sex with david). The other 10 times it is used in the bible in regards to sex it is basically a discreet way used by the narrator to describe sex.

    The problem is that if your version of the story is correct (frankly a version that, by now, looks pretty silly) the there was a mob standing around lots house hell bent on anally raping a couple of strangers, yelling "send them out so we can have some private grown up time" (my wifes euphemism for sex if she is afraid that little ears might be listening). This would have to be the most polite rape mob in the history of the planet earth. There are plenty of hebrew verbs to describe sex. Agav is used in the bible, and is at least somewhat vulgar (not quite so vulgar as the F word, but somewhere along the same lines as "bone" or "bang")
    Again, feel free to check my facts and translations if you want. They are both bulletproof. I have used this argument against top homophobe bible scholars and none of them have ever managed to scratch it.

    I have looked into early Jewish texts, basically on the logic that this was essentially a Jewish story out of the Torah, so they should understand it. None of the early Jewish authors saw fit to comment on exactly what the people of Sodom intended to do with the strangers...others were pretty much supposed to already know (back to the problem with the story...after being handed down for generations verbally it does not make sense anymore...at the point that, for example, the Talmud was written, the story would have been much fresher and probably actually still made sense).

    One thing that we CAN establish is that nowhere in the early jewish writings do they ever equate Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality. In the Mishnah (Avont 5:13) they say "He who says, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours"--this is the common type, though some say that this is the type of Sodom." This very clearly indicates that according to the early jews, the people who would have been familiar with the unadulterated version of the story, the sin of Sodom was an economic one...the same as that put forth by Ezekiel.

    Again, fact check it if you have time to XXXX. You will find they are in order.

    Now, since I am as vain as the next guy, I am going to C&P my own theory about what the story of sodom means:

    I actually have my own theory about what the people of Sodom intended to do to the angels that makes sense under ALL the biblical passages and can be supported historically. I think the people of Sodom intended to eat the strangers. The people of Sodom were Canaanites. There are 2 other places in the bible where you see the phraseology used in Jude for "strange flesh" or "different flesh". The first is in relation to angels having sex with human women to create the nephilim. The second is in referring to cannibalism among the Canaanites.

    That actually explains the entire thing and ties up every loose end, including why it was written so obtusely. Cannibalism was so taboo among the Jews that they were not supposed to even discuss it, much less actually write about it. It has been suggested that the prohibition against eating pork is because pork resembles cooked human so closely. These people were EXTREMELY anti cannibalism.

    That is why when they talk about Canaanites indulging in cannibalism they resort to talking about eating "strange flesh" as opposed to just coming out and saying "they ate babies". Jude would have known this, and been bound by the same taboo, thus his use of the same phrase...one that his contemporaries would have immediately recognized as a euphemism for cannibalism. That also explains why early jewish authors did not delve into the story. They, too, would have been bound by the taboo. It would not, however, be unusual for them to expect that the readers in such a case would already know and understand what was up, people tend to remember the cannibal neighbors.
    Granted I cannot prove my theory is true, but I think it makes a lot more sense than any of the others floating around out there...especially once you realize that it was not all the MEN of sodom standing outside, but all the PEOPLE of sodom, and the idea that they were gathered there for a giant rape party is more than a little silly.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    This is incorrect. What easy does is intentionally quote the bible out of context, refuses to even consider any REASONABLE interpretation of its meaning, and intentionally chooses to IGNORE the plain meaning of passages which are crystal clear when they do not align with his prejudices.

    It is WRONG. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own fact, and about 90% of the time when Easy uses scripture he is, in fact, manufacturing his own facts. He is intentionally and dishonestly using it out of context and outside of its clearly established meaning in order to push an agenda of hate. .
    You're full of horse manure. Both of you.

    With few exceptions, my religious beliefs are consistent with those of mainstream religious denominations such as the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God.

    Yours are consistent with the bath houses of San Francisco and liberal-minded nut bags.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackAttack1887 View Post
    Jason totally won that.
    A gay sides with another gay sinner in order for both to try to justify their sin. Surprise!
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    You're full of horse manure. Both of you.

    With few exceptions, my religious beliefs are consistent with those of mainstream religious denominations such as the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God.

    Ah. Ok. Just not with the bible, Jesus, or the word of god. Great. That is awesome!!

    I am sure that when you die and are being sent to the pit for actively opposing the word of god, you will take great comfort in the fact that your views are consistent with some of the other people you will be meeting there.

    Facts is facts, easy, and they are not on your side in this case.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Ah. Ok. Just not with the bible, Jesus, or the word of god. Great. That is awesome!!

    I am sure that when you die and are being sent to the pit for actively opposing the word of god, you will take great comfort in the fact that your views are consistent with some of the other people you will be meeting there.

    Facts is facts, easy, and they are not on your side in this case.
    Hogwash. Your politically correct theology is a loser, pure and simple.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •