Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet he didn't offer himself. Or money. Or just tell them to **** off. He offered his daughters. He clearly had ****ed up priorities and was a terrible father. And the moral you get from this story is to be like (your misinterpretation of) Lot. It's better to have your daughters raped

You seem to be assuming a great deal here. The only moral that I've stated so far, is that homosexuality is a grave sin. I agree with you, he was a terrible father and made the wrong choice. But it does not negate the fact that homosexuality is sinful.

It's a given for most of human history.

Yet, appears nowhere in the text. Odd that. Reading your opinion into the text is wrong.

Where does Jesus affirm homosexuality?

He doesn't.

Thank you. So why are you arguing vehemently that homosexuality isn't sinful?

don't worry about the sins of others

Am I my brother's keeper?

love and respect everyone

Accept correction as discipline.

worry about your own salvation.

And I say to you, whatever you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me.

To which you spend your life judging others, condemning them, all the while ignoring your own faults.

Who among you with a lampstand, keeps it hidden?

And everyone with reading comprehension higher than a first grader knows how there's nothing there to support your beliefs.

Digging the hole deeper.

Romans 1:26-7.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It's obviously something integral to your core beliefs, something you can't let go of.

Gosh, did that take blinding insight. Yes, it is, because it's what Christ teaches.

Lot is a pathetic excuse of a father, certainly not someone who's choices should supercede the teachings of Jesus.

So when Jesus explicitly says that marriage is to be between a man and a woman for life, you argue that Jesus is wrong?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm taking BK to task so harshly for placing a choice made by Lot above the teachings of Jesus (which are for the most part good, decent values)?

Because Jesus explicitly teaches that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, for life. Everything outside of it is sinful.

[Ben Kenobi]

Voluntary euthanasia is perfectly ok.

No, it's not. Killing someone because they ask you to kill them is wrong.

[Flubber]

If people who attend higher education are more likely to hold a particular view, and that view grows stronger with every year that a person attends, then yes, it's a reasonable presupposition that this view is taught by higher education.

Its equally reasonable to state this as the more informed a person becomes, the more likely they are to hold the particular view.

I attended 7 years of university for instance and no professor ever spoke on abortion, it thats your example topic.

[Aeson]

No, it's not. Killing someone because they ask you to kill them is wrong.

We will just have to disagree about this. I see it as humanitarian to end the suffering of someone who asks for the suffering to be ended. You want to effectively force people to live lives that are worse than death.

[MRT144]

Then burn I shall. If the state would execute me for stating that homosexuality is sinful, then I shall welcome seeing Him.

Where does this happen you delusional ****face.

[Flubber]

If this were so, then divorce would be impermissible because it would mean depriving someone of their right to be married.

This is logical idiocy. A right to become married is not an obligation to remain married. The right would be all about your ability to choose whether or not to become (or remain)married

[Ben Kenobi]

Its equally reasonable to state this as the more informed a person becomes, the more likely they are to hold the particular view.

That's making the assumption that the 'more informed view' is this one. I held this view as well, but as I became more informed about the issue, it became clear to me that I was wrong, and the prolife view is the correct one.

I attended 7 years of university for instance and no professor ever spoke on abortion, it thats your example topic.

I took bioethics. So, yeah. We covered it, as well as in my ethics classes that I took. I'm surprised that a lawyer wouldn't take at least one ethics class...

[Ben Kenobi]

This is logical idiocy. A right to become married is not an obligation to remain married. The right would be all about your ability to choose whether or not to become (or remain)married

Divorce, as it is unilateral, assumes that one does not possess a right to remain married. If one had a right to remain married, no one could get divorced unless it was by mutual agreement.

This is one of the problems with marriage, in that it requires two to get out of it, and only one to break it.

[MRT144]

Divorce, as it is unilateral, assumes that one does not possess a right to remain married. If one had a right to remain married, no one could get divorced unless it was by mutual agreement.

This is one of the problems with marriage, in that it requires two to get out of it, and only one to break it.

Why do you love abusive husbands?

[Ben Kenobi]

Where does this happen you delusional ****face.

Apparently formal logic eludes MRT. If X, then Y.

[MRT144]

Apparently formal logic eludes MRT. If X, then Y.

You have no standing on logical arguments. As it stands, why would you assert such a non sequitar?

[Asher]

Ah, I see. So when Jesus clearly said 'women', he meant 'men'. Right. I see how that could happen. Easy mixup.

"women" was a translation error. The original source said men.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you love abusive husbands?

So women are the only ones to initiate divorce?

[MRT144]

So women are the only ones to initiate divorce?

You can't think of ANY ****ING REASON TO ALLOW THE DISSOLUTION OF A MARRIAGE BY ONE PARTY? Stick to the ****ing logical point you stupid ****.

[Ben Kenobi]

We will just have to disagree about this. I see it as humanitarian to end the suffering of someone who asks for the suffering to be ended. You want to effectively force people to live lives that are worse than death.

I believe we should treat people for their suffering rather than kill them because they suffer. If someone wants to die, then that is a cry for help, and we should help them.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't think of ANY ****ING REASON TO ALLOW THE DISSOLUTION OF A MARRIAGE BY ONE PARTY? Stick to the ****ing logical point you stupid ****.

Seeing as I believe marriage to be a sacrament, where even by separation, marriage isn't ended, no I don't. If he's abusive, separate from him, and live elsewhere. This is why you should be careful before you get married.

[MRT144]

Seeing as I believe marriage to be a sacrament, where even by separation, marriage isn't ended, no I don't. If he's abusive, separate from him, and live elsewhere. This is why you should be careful before you get married.

You're hopeless.

[kentonio]

Then burn I shall. If the state would execute me for stating that homosexuality is sinful, then I shall welcome seeing Him.

Are you ever capable of not being dishonest? Who the hell said anything about the state? I was talking about teh way that for most of the Catholic churches history you'd have faced execution for insisting that your own interpretation of gods will was higher than the churches. That **** used to get people burned alive.

[gribbler]

Seeing as I believe marriage to be a sacrament, where even by separation, marriage isn't ended, no I don't. If he's abusive, separate from him, and live elsewhere. This is why you should be careful before you get married.

Yes, it's your own damn fault if you fail to anticipate how your spouse will behave in ten or twenty years.

[MRT144]

Yes, it's your own damn fault if you fail to anticipate how your spouse will behave in ten or twenty years.

I really want to interfere with his life by sending these things to potential girlfriends of his.

[gribbler]

I believe we should treat people for their suffering rather than kill them because they suffer. If someone wants to die, then that is a cry for help, and we should help them.

You seem to love big government. If you didn't, you would let people decide what is best for themselves.

[Elok]

Are you ever capable of not being dishonest? Who the hell said anything about the state? I was talking about teh way that for most of the Catholic churches history you'd have faced execution for insisting that your own interpretation of gods will was higher than the churches. That **** used to get people burned alive.

I think, technically, it was trying to set up your own church that got you the torch. I'm not sure, though. The distinction being that, when a church holds material power (land, peasants, and all related assets in addition to political authority), an attempt at establishing independent authority constitutes a form of treason against the established ruling class. BK could think his interpretation was better, but trying to convince others (from a non-privileged position outside the church hierarchy) would likely earn him a flogging at minimum.

[Flubber]

That's making the assumption that the 'more informed view' is this one. I held this view as well, but as I became more informed about the issue, it became clear to me that I was wrong, and the prolife view is the correct one.



I took bioethics. So, yeah. We covered it, as well as in my ethics classes that I took. I'm surprised that a lawyer wouldn't take at least one ethics class...

You are surprised because your assumption is wrong. We had a required one called professional responsibility but abortion was never a topic. It raises no particular ethical issues for a lawyer in their role as lawyer. We spent more time on our duties to clients and a lot of time on things about:

1. when we might be required to breach confidentiality (i.e. awareness of a planned future violent crime in many jurisdictions)-- now at continuing legal education seminars they talk about some of the money laundering and anti-terrorist requirements
2. issues around known and unknown perjury
3. issues around becoming aware of evidence

etc etc

Abortion is easy... Only lawyers that can fully discharge their duties to act in their client's interest should take a case-- and that applies to abortion no differently than any other issue

[kentonio]

I think, technically, it was trying to set up your own church that got you the torch. I'm not sure, though. The distinction being that, when a church holds material power (land, peasants, and all related assets in addition to political authority), an attempt at establishing independent authority constitutes a form of treason against the established ruling class. BK could think his interpretation was better, but trying to convince others (from a non-privileged position outside the church hierarchy) would likely earn him a flogging at minimum.

I think you could probably get away with discussing differences in interpretation amongst theologians for instance, but walking around saying that if the church disagreed with you, you'd reject the church is a pretty clear challenge to its authority and pretty heretical to boot. I'd definitely wager 10 farthings on a Kenobi kebab by sunrise.

[Flubber]

Divorce, as it is unilateral, assumes that one does not possess a right to remain married. If one had a right to remain married, no one could get divorced unless it was by mutual agreement.

This is one of the problems with marriage, in that it requires two to get out of it, and only one to break it.

I don't see the problem-- It requries two people wanting to marry to get married-- and later it requires both of them wanting to stay married for them to stay married--- no problem

[Flubber]

That's making the assumption that the 'more informed view' is this one....

Yes thats the assumption

Its every bit as compelling as your assumption that all higher learning institutions are teaching that abortion is good

[Aeson]

You seem to be assuming a great deal here. The only moral that I've stated so far, is that homosexuality is a grave sin.

Worse than the rape of your daughter. Yes we know. Thanks for admitting you base your moral stance on this story.

Yet, appears nowhere in the text. Odd that. Reading your opinion into the text is wrong.

They didn't say the sky was blue.

You don't have to be a genius to understand that Lot didn't highly value his daughters. He offered them to be raped. This naturally leads to the following conclusions:

a) Lot didn't let his daughters choose if they would be raped or not, he was willing to force them to do his will
b) Lot didn't value his daughters enough to even try to stand up for them
c) You're an idiot for not realizing a and b, and doubly so since it's blantantly obvious that for most of history women were second class citizens

Thank you. So why are you arguing vehemently that homosexuality isn't sinful?

For starters, Jesus never said it was sinful. Of course I don't see it as sinful. I will argue your religion with you to show how you are ****ing up when reading your own religious texts ... it doesn't mean I believe in that religion.

Am I my brother's keeper?

Not for lack of trying...

Accept correction as discipline.

You are not an authority to correct or discipline anyone. This is another clear case where you are hypocritical. You want to correct and discipline others, but won't accept it for yourself.

And I say to you, whatever you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me.

It's good you can admit you didn't accept and love Jesus.

Who among you with a lampstand, keeps it hidden?

You are confusing judging, condemning, and discriminating against people with "being a good example". You definitely are not a good example.

Romans 1:26-7.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Yes, it is, because it's what Christ teaches.

Those are what Paul teaches. Christ did not teach against homosexuality. Thanks for giving another example of how you choose to supercede the teachings of Christ with others' bigotry. I'll also point out that your claims about how "grave" a sin homosexuality is (worse than raping women) cannot be supported by these passages, and so you once again are affirming how your views actually originate from the story of Lot.

So when Jesus explicitly says that marriage is to be between a man and a woman for life, you argue that Jesus is wrong?

If he is saying that is the only way marriage can be, he is demonstrably wrong. (The other problems with your treatment of this passage have been adequately pointed out earlier.)

[MrFun]

Seeing as I believe marriage to be a sacrament, where even by separation, marriage isn't ended, no I don't. If he's abusive, separate from him, and live elsewhere. This is why you should be careful before you get married.

Marriage through a government justice of peace is not a religious sacrament.

[Flubber]

Ben-- does this article sum up your biblical provisions

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
You unfortunately have to start with the premise that the KJV bible, along with others have misrepresented the original language and intent of the scripture either knowingly or unknowingly and we in the 21st century have put too much emphasis on the cultural norms of a tribe from 2500 years ago. We know slavery is condoned in the bible but as a civilized culture have worked beyond that ignorance. No true Christian today would support the literal, biblical, word on slavery and we should not do it either for homosexuality.

The most well known passages that seem to be against homosexuality are as follows:

Genesis 19:1-5 - Story of sodom and Gomorrah - but consistant translation of the original language points to God condemning the people not because they were homosexual but because they were cruel, selfish and showed no mercy or compassion to others as shown in Ezekiel 16:49-50

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 - Holiness Codes - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" and "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

If you look at the context of Lev 18:21 you will see that it sets up the transition to forbidding ritual child sacrifice (to the Pagan god Molech). The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh. Moving sequentiallyto 18:22 the translation also focuses on forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple (male protstitution/religious sex at another temple). And Lev 18:23 continues onto known sexual idololatry within other religions, "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself". There is a clear distinction between the moral code of who you should not have sexual relations with in Lev 6-20 and those that follow as temple idolatry.

As well, the word "abomination"in those passages is from "Tōʻēḇā" which the bible also uses in context to dietary restictions, temple prostitution, etc

For Lev:20:13 - This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Some fertility worship practices found in early Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

Our societal, sexual, and psychological understanding of homosexuality in a 21st century culture VS 500 BC tribal culture should lead all christians to be more temperate in their understanding.

As well, here are the rest of the Mosaic code that should be followed literally, if you also condemn homosexuality:

The code requires:

A child to be killed if he/she curses their parent (Leviticus 20:9)
All persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)
The daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be burned alive until dead (21:9)
The bride of a priest to be a virgin (21:13)
Ritual killing of animals, using cattle, sheep and goats (22:19)
Observation of 7 feasts: Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Firstfruits, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles (23)
A person who takes the Lord's name in vain is to be killed (24:16)

The code prohibits:

Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),
Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),
Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),
Cross-breeding livestock (19:19),
Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),
Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),
Tattoos (19:28),
Even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),
Charging of interest on a loan (25:37),
Collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing,
Wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials; today this might be cotton and polyester, and
Eating of non-kosher foods (e.g. shrimp, lobster).

Last, Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior although Paul is referenced in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 as "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." . The term "abuseers of themselves with mankind" its often taken to mean homosexual, but Ii Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. Instead he used, "arsenokoitai" which may translate to male prostitutes or pedophiles