Parts of the Bible Ruled Hate Literature in Canada

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
But the trouble is that the Bible isn't just anti-gay, it's aggressively so. It is not the golden rule, it is not tolerant, and It's not a live and let live scenario. It's a live my way or else my followers will persecute you in life and I will damn you to Hell in the afterlife scenario.

---

Christianity is all about forgiveness. Yes homosexuality is wrong, but it's just as wrong as any other sin, whether it be murder or pirating software; it doesn't matter.

Christ's death on the cross means that any person can ask for unconditional forgiveness and receive it because he has already died for our sins. I am a sinner too, but I reach out to other unreached people in loving kindness. Sure they are sinning, but I want to see them reconciled to God through Christ the Son. I don't condemn them to a particular fate, but there are consequences to everything that we do and the bible clearly tells us what those are.

That is what Christ did time and time again, He hung out with the bad people who really needed Him and spoke out when it was warranted. As far as I'm concerned, we need to all be more like that and stand up for what we believe, instead of this political correctness walking on eggshells nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
But the trouble is that the Bible isn't just anti-gay, it's aggressively so. It is not the golden rule, it is not tolerant, and It's not a live and let live scenario. It's a live my way or else my followers will persecute you in life and I will damn you to Hell in the afterlife scenario.

And God or no God, that's dirty pool.

So you should either allow the Bible's opponents the same freedom of speech... or censor those parts of the Bible. Nothing else is fair.

---

There is a difference between satire and sin (Rom. 1:27,28). The Bible does not call for Christians to ridicule homosexuals, even satirically (Titus 3:2). It does not call for Christians to persecute, harm or punish homosexuals (Rom. 12:14). It specifically states that judgement and punishment are the Lord's (Matt. 7:1-2,2 Tim. 4:1) and that Christians are to love all sinners no matter what their sin (Luke 6:35).

Moreover, the Bible does not specifically codemn those who satirically criticize Christians in the free marketplace of ideas. Even Christ asked forgiveness for the very people who were crucufying him. Neither are Christians to react harshly to critical statements. In fact, it instructs Christians to resist anger and react with love (Prov. 29:22, Matt. 5:22).

There are numerous other references I can site but I am tired and getting ready for bed.

My vote is always for a free, open exchange of ideas. I think censorship of any kind is wrong as it is man's attempt to impose his own morality forcefully on others. My faith is strong and I believe the Bible can hold its own in the marketplace of ideas. Christians who get their spiritual rocks off by bashing or persecuting homosexuals (or anyone else for that matter) are not demostrating any of the signs of true Christianity. And any Christian who feels they cannot take open criticism of their beliefs should take another look at their faith. To quote another great religious work:

"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"

- from Howard the Duck

P.S. This is not an attempt at flaming Clammy or spreading Christianity, just wanted to offer a contrasting viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacGyver
That is what Christ did time and time again, He hung out with the bad people who really needed Him and spoke out when it was warranted.

---

Let's see....Christ hung around with prostitues (John 4:7), tax collectors (Luke 19:2), beggars (Luke 18:35-43) and the worst of all.....children (Luke 18:16).

Ok maybe the children weren't so bad. I'll quit now.

:p

This whole Bible/homosexuality things is scarry. Why can't we just accept people for who they are? Don't these 'men of God' know that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature? Scientists have observed it in monkeys and other species. Like the human species it occurs in apes about 10% of the time.

Its a natural mutation, and I don't see anything 'sinful' about it. If you ask me I think the real sinners are those people who defy Christ's commandment to love another.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orangeman
This whole Bible/homosexuality things is scarry. Why can't we just accept people for who they are? Don't these 'men of God' know that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature? Scientists have observed it in monkeys and other species. Like the human species it occurs in apes about 10% of the time.

Its a natural mutation, and I don't see anything 'sinful' about it. If you ask me I think the real sinners are those people who defy Christ's commandment to love another.

---

About 10% of apes also eat their young .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
About 10% of apes also eat their young .

---

My example is only intended to show that mutations occur in nature and there is nothing we can do about it. - and it certainly isn't a sin if God created those 'sins.'

As for apes eating their young, I'm sure that early cavemen ate their young too. (before they learned to cook --- gosh, maybe they cooked their young too)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orangeman
This whole Bible/homosexuality things is scarry. Why can't we just accept people for who they are? Don't these 'men of God' know that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature? Scientists have observed it in monkeys and other species. Like the human species it occurs in apes about 10% of the time.

Its a natural mutation, and I don't see anything 'sinful' about it. If you ask me I think the real sinners are those people who defy Christ's commandment to love another.

---

In regards to homosexuality occuring naturally in animals, this would indicate a temporary occurence, not a "lifestyle". 10% is a very high incidence rate and think that the percentage should be revised downwards, for starters. Personally, I try never to base my opinions on pre-digested stats, unique sources of data or Oprah. I'm just funny that way. ;)

In regards to the natural mutation argument, I would disagree also on the grounds that, for the most part, this mutation would never passed be on to the next generation and is self-defeating. I tend to lean more towards social/psychological sources for homosexuality, but it's a lot more complex than that.

Homosexuality is not genetic or inherited (for the same reasons as stated above). There are even documented cases of people having come out of homosexuality with and without psychotherapy. If it were genetic, identical twins should therefore both be homosexual, but that is not the case (50% incidence that such is the case)

Your last sentence is something I agree wholeheartedly with, but it seems to be confusing the lines between loving/accepting a person and loving/accepting what a person does. There is a line here that tends to be blurred.

I know this is a long one, but I also wanted to express my thanks to KINGofBLEH for his earlier post. I find it a fitting explanation of what the Bible does teach. You might have missed it:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
There is a difference between satire and sin (Rom. 1:27,28). The Bible does not call for Christians to ridicule homosexuals, even satirically (Titus 3:2). It does not call for Christians to persecute, harm or punish homosexuals (Rom. 12:14). It specifically states that judgement and punishment are the Lord's (Matt. 7:1-2,2 Tim. 4:1) and that Christians are to love all sinners no matter what their sin (Luke 6:35)...

---

PS - Please don't take my comments as a flame if you disagree with them. I'm currently studying this very topic from various angles (mostly psychological studies) and wanted to take the opportunity to adress some of the common misconceptions associated with homosexuality (which, unfortunately, are often promoted as facts by the mainstream media - think about where the money comes from) and christianity (hateful/fearful of anything not fitting the "proper mold").

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orangeman
...- and it certainly isn't a sin if God created those 'sins.'...

---

A "sin", according to the biblical definition of it, is attempting to live without any regard to God or his will for our lives. In that, all humans fail. The original term carries the connotation of aiming at a target and missing it. It doesn't necessarily imply a moral transgression as such.

In a nutshell, the Bible states that even though God did create the world (Earth and the universe), he placed it in the hands of mankind to manage it. The current state of the planet is a direct expression of man's management and not God's. This is also an argument for those who like to point out "If God exists, why is the planet/society/our country in such a mess?". The fact that the argument is even thought of indicates an acknowledgement of there being morality - which cannot be explained by naturalistic theories (but that's another topic altogether).

Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by a d e p t
In regards to the natural mutation argument, I would disagree also on the grounds that, for the most part, this mutation would never passed be on to the next generation and is self-defeating. I tend to lean more towards social/psychological sources for homosexuality, but it's a lot more complex than that.

---

I have always puzzled over the homophobia. Regardless of whether situation/genetics/nature/God created the mindset, I still don't understand why society insists that they "lead a normal sexual life" Surely being left to themselves the community will be self limiting.

The other problem I have is that the anti homosexual chapters mentioned in the article are in the OLD Testament, not the New...

Anyone also considered that homosexuality might now be ok with God because somehow the population has to level off?

Did God really set up this earth with the words "Go forth and multiply" and think that the earth would not be able to sustain all the fruit of his creations loins?

It has occurred to me more than once that fatal illnesses such cancer and various viral diseases are God's way of drawing lots. It does seem to me that we either have a major war or a major disease every couple or three generations which have the effect of removing thousands if not millions from this earth.

I believe that God was invented to explain the inexplicable... If you go back through the history of religions everyone has a creation story, each designed to answer the question, "what am I doing here?"

It could be argued that God does exist and He allows us to believe whatever we want, that's also fine with me BUT if you accept that God allows the freedom to believe as you wish, to sin or not to sin - in other words free will, how does that automatically give you the right to impose your beliefs on others?

OK I will shut up now, before I find myself trying to impose my beliefs on others.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by a d e p t
PS - Please don't take my comments as a flame if you disagree with them. ....

---

So if I shouldn't take them as a 'flame' why did you put those words in fine print where I could possibly miss reading them? ?:flame: :D :D Okay, so by your own admission the incidence of homosexuality among identical twins is 50% - which is At Least 5x the incidence in the population at large. I don't know much about genetics but that sounds like a pretty good genetic argument to me:D :D :D

Have you ever been in a store and saw somethign just laying there with not a store clerk in site?

Your mind says I could take that and walk out of here so easily

or

It says I better not take that.

the first decision was from Satan the Enemy trying to lure you into his ways.

the second Decision was from God telling you to smarten up because you know better.


That is how simple sin is.

Everyone and I mean everyone deals with situations like this.

Unless of course they are so controlled by satan that the only thing stoping them from taking that somthign is a store clerk that walks into the picture. and to add to it they Curse that person under your breath.

or

Unless you are in tune with God so much that the thought doesnt even enter your mind or you decide to tell the store clerk that they left the store unattended for too long as a kind reminder.


These last 2 statements go for anything.

So whether you are controlled by satan or god in every move. you could be blind to that fact that you are sinning or being helpful.

Choose your faith its not hard.

The bible says that Homo sexuality is wrong so to a believer its not hard to figure out and to a non believer its a confussion set by satan to make anger and hatred in your heart.

The statment in the article says that is causes "hatred among people" is for the people who read bible verses out of context without the whole understanding of the christian faith.

Anyway its too early inthe morning to say anythign else.

go ahead and pick me apart. :D ;)

Okay, let me answer for myself.

Quote:

---

Before I do end I will debate the statement that science was in any way shape or form responsible for twisting the words coming from the bible or causing people to take anything literally. I have yet to see a scientist who uses religion as a means to an empirical ending of an experiment but see quite a good deal of the religious who bastardize science to attempt to prove their faith. I should point out that science is in no way a belief but a system of gathering data and interpreting it and any theory welcomes open debate attempting to disprove it. Sorry, it just bugs me when the religious try to take a shot at a simple theorem that you need to give some shred of proof and to back up a hypothesis. Again, not trying to attack anyone, it just bugs the heck out of me.

---

Think about it for a brief moment. The Scientific Revolution was all about going back to the source. Before, (and I cannot remember whether the Protestant Reformation came first or not - I think not) the people relied on their priests to do the interpretation for them - aside from the fact that the Bible was in Latin at that time, and some 97% of the people couldn't read Latin...

Quote:

---

To continue on with that thought, everyone is living in sin (not just homosexuals). This is what I find so amusing about Christians that criticize homosexuals. Yes, the homosexuals are living in sin, but so is everyone else. "Let ye without sin cast the first stone" (not an exact quote, but close enough).

---

Bull. As Jedilab mentioned, there's a [I]hell{/I] of a lot of difference (excuse the pun) between living in sin then repenting, and living in sin and not repenting.

And YEAH, did the cleetus merrily walk down the street arm and arm with his fellow bretheren(and sisteren, and couserin, and horserin and sheeperin and so forth) and they lived life the best they could, yeah though they did falter, they did sway, they did their mother, they lived life to the fullest, the treated everyone with respect, and they gave. For the cleetus had already left the church becuase he knew the true meanings, the truthtest to the teachings. Treat everyone well, give what you can to those less fortunate, and don't dwell on what really doesn't affectith you.

Here endeth the lesson.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jediab
You are right, Jesus did say that. He said that about a woman that was about to be put to death by stoning for adultry.

The woman that Jesus saved made a mistake, a mistake that equaled a sin. Jesus was referring to making mistakes and forgiveness, not an ongoing lifestyle of sleeping with married husbands

Jesus expanded the commandment Thou Shall not Kill, to Thou shall not hate. If you don't hate, then you won't kill out of hate.

---

It was also a trap laid out for Him; remember, this was a "crime" committed by the woman, but it does take two to tango, thus the "Those without sin..." phrase shifted the burden to those wishing to stone her.

And "Thou shalt not kill" is a mis-translation, the original is "Thou shalt not murder." Killing as an act of self-defense was allowed, otherwise why would you "pick up your sword; if you have not, then sell your cloak to obtain one"....paraphased, I know, but the message is still there.

This topic could go on for weeks....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NooNoo
...Anyone also considered that homosexuality might now be ok with God because somehow the population has to level off?...

---

Well, I for one never considered this. I do know that God is not petty and will not change his mind, his teachings and his very own nature on a whim. He wouldn't be God if he wasn't constant.

Quote:

---

...Did God really set up this earth with the words "Go forth and multiply" and think that the earth would not be able to sustain all the fruit of his creations loins?...

---

Actually, I understand the earth (in the state it was originally created) could sustain life for much more population than we could anticipate, but that's another theological topic on its own. ;)

Quote:

---

...It has occurred to me more than once that fatal illnesses such cancer and various viral diseases are God's way of drawing lots. It does seem to me that we either have a major war or a major disease every couple or three generations which have the effect of removing thousands if not millions from this earth...

---

Again, God is not capricious. He does not act detached and aloof from the plights of mankind. His desire is the spiritual, physical and emotional well-being of all humans. Unfortunately, war and pestilence have been wrongly attributed to the wrong guy throughout the middle ages and even today.

Quote:

---

...I believe that God was invented to explain the inexplicable... If you go back through the history of religions everyone has a creation story, each designed to answer the question, "what am I doing here?"

It could be argued that God does exist and He allows us to believe whatever we want, that's also fine with me BUT if you accept that God allows the freedom to believe as you wish, to sin or not to sin - in other words free will, how does that automatically give you the right to impose your beliefs on others?...

---

Man does have free will. His decision to follow God would have no merit without it. As a matter of fact, free will is another argument for the existence of an "outside entity". But I fail to see how that gives anyone the right to impose their belief system upon others... I hope I'm not coming across like that myself personally.

You and I and others have been sharing our viewpoints on this topic - and it's always a touchy one - but I do hope nothing appears like "preaching". :confused: ;)

I enjoy speaking on this topic as I've been researching world religions, thelogy and now recently psychology to better understand the purpose of human life. For me, years of studying this have all pointed me in the same direction and my beliefs are the culmination of this search.

The christian belief system is, IMO, the one which best fits the facts. It explains the current condition of man, his intended role, his drives and motivations. It offers hope that man can be and accomplish more than expected. Have you noticed that it is probably the only belief system which would have been un-natural or illogical for men to devise? Other popular religions do not require a lifestyle change and cater to man's ego: the improving of one's self. Christianity sets forth the precept that others are to be loved/respected/seen to/helped firstly. It points outwards (community) instead of inwards (individuality), as opposed to almost all other belief systems. It stands out in the "crowd" of other religions. Just food for thought. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orangeman
So if I shouldn't take them as a 'flame' why did you put those words in fine print where I could possibly miss reading them? ?:flame: :D :D Okay, so by your own admission the incidence of homosexuality among identical twins is 50% - which is At Least 5x the incidence in the population at large. I don't know much about genetics but that sounds like a pretty good genetic argument to me:D :D :D

---

Actually, the incidence of homosexuality in twins would be higher than that if genetic, as you seem to be assuming that 10% of the population is homosexual, which is not the case - it's lower. The concept remains that, logically, it should be 100% if it were genetically inherited. The fact that it is not is more supportive of the theory that it is socially/psychologically induced. In this case, their incidence rate would then be expected to be higher than "standard" as both twins are subjected to the same environment, more often than not.

I do hope you were kidding about my flaming you, Orangeman. I'd hate to appear like I'm condescending. It just so happens that I do know a lot about this subject - enough to feel comfortable speaking openly about it.

My intentions are merely to inform, not convince.

In the end, it remains a personal choice what you'll believe about anything. That's the beaty of free will. I just wanted to make sure that more information was given on that particular topic so that the decision-making was not based on misinformation and disinformation.

It doesn't change the fact that homosexuals are human beings and should be respected as equals.