Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

By doing a quick google search (sorry if this link is already posted), I found this collection of views about Leviticus 18:22, including the mention of the word "homosexuality" in two translations. It leans towards no conclusion and provides no bias.

_________________

It's interesting how none of the anti-gay stuff in the New Testament comes from Jesus himself.

Does any of it come from "The Voice of God" in the Old Testament even?

I hate to say it, but did it occur to some Xians for a second that maybe that much of the Bible is opinion rather than "God says to do this"? I mean, that's always the way I saw it as a kid...

Do you kids know what an "abomination" is, by the way? It's not the same as a sin.

That link pretty much proves that "I can be a bigot because the bible says so" is an invalid defense. It's probably been posted a few times and ignored though. I can't understand people who wish to actively prove their religion discriminates.

The original phrase in Leviticus that some form(it is unclear, as the passage appears unfinished) of homosexual intercourse is "ritually unclean", i.e. unfit for doing while engaging in some form of ritual.
It's most likely that it says that homosexual intercourse on a woman's bed is ritually unclean.

But again, people will fight for the original less logical, discriminatory interpretation. I find it hard to have any respect for someone that does.

_________________
CLOCK

That's what I base my opinions off of.

But, if it's in the bible sometimes it's better tobe safe then sorry.

_________________

... to be safe by not being born gay? Or to be safe by spending your entire life lonely because you're not allowed to be gay, even though you are.

_________________
CLOCK

Rosalie, you're going to have to stop calling people "kids." It's disrespectful (and no I don't care whether or not they've been respectful to you) and disingenuous and does nothing to further your arguments or any discussion. I don't want to hear your opinions or justifications on this matter, just stop doing it, forever. You were given a second chance; you will not get a third.

_________________

No, I meant people who are against it would rather be safe then sorry. Even though it wouldn't effect them anyways either way.

_________________

I think he means "Yes, I base my opinions off the word of Christ (and, as such, the word of God)... but then again, the whole thing is holy text, not just the parts that are Christ speaking, so I'm just going to play it safe and listen to the whole thing, whether or not it's Jesus speaking. As such, even though Jesus doesn't condemn homosexuality, I will because it's in the Bible." Am I right, KISS? Not trying to say anything of it, just asking honestly if that's what you meant.

If so, Rose, then it's the second one, but only in regards to those who withhold their homosexuality because they believe God condemns it, not in regards to those who wish to keep it from society because society condemns it.

EDIT: Dang, he beat me. Although I think this means I was right. XD

^ Yes Sui that's what I was saying. But I do kind of mix some teachings together so that they make more sense to other teachings.

_________________

It's meant as an affectionate term, not an offensive one, and if you "don't want to hear" that's just means you have your mind made up what you want me to be saying, which hardly wins anyone props in an argument either, and you further clarify that you're singling me out by refusing to care whether other people have been respectful to me, which, from what I've seen, is pretty true, "second chance" or no. If you wish to set a good example on how to be respectful in a debate, I suggest you treat the people you are setting the example to with respect and not telling them that they have no right to disagree with you or clarify why they said something. This isn't the first time you've set a prime example of not practicing what you preach. I respond very well when shown respect, so don't blame someone for reacting to what you give them. It is not in my nature to take such disrespectful commanding lightly, and isn't something I have control over due to issues I doubt you'd care about, so please be fair.

OOI, is anyone here really *that* offended by me calling them "kid" now they know it's not meant to be demeaning or offense? I don't think it's fair to moderate someone's talking habits, colloqualisms and such. If it really offends people then I apologise.

_________________
CLOCK

Rosalie, when you say "Do you kids know what an "abomination" is, by the way?" and every other instance which I can think of when you've used similar language, you're clearly talking down to others, which you're in no position to do. I'm not here to make anybody, least of all you, respect me or like me or agree with me; I'm here to make you either start earning that respect you keep talking about, or, if you're unable to do so, to remove you from this community.

In conclusion, toast paint.

_________________

Yea Rosie, that does sound like you're talking down to people...i didnt feel any affection...

anyways, nobody here has brought up any points FOR homosexuality. We have one article that didnt say whether it was allowed or disallowed in the sight of God. We have a few saying that its wrong. I for one believe the Bible, because it is the inspired word of God. Just because the Bible doesnt list it in quotes saying that God directly said it, doesnt mean that it isnt to be believed.

I can prove that it is guided by God, because anybody who believes in the Book of Genesis knows that god created Heaven and Earth before he created humans. Yet somehow we have an account of how he created everything... I wonder how they knew that! God guided people when they wrote scripture. Its not some random person's opinions on life. These people arent philosophers that just graduated college and decided to write a book about God. These are people that have been guided by God to create a book about how to live. It's like an instruction manual to life.

_________________

So... God helped people write Genesis = God helped people write everything else is what you're saying? Wow, I like your logic. I wish I knew how to use logic that way, then I wouldn't have to... you know... be right.

Yes, I'm being snide, and that's because you're trying to prove a point by making a point which has no bearing on the first point, i.e. making a point with absolutely nothing backing it (in terms of what you've done to prove it, and setting the matter of pure faith aside. Later in this post, I shall speak from the perspective of someone who takes God aiding the writing of Genesis as fact, so don't cry unfair just yet). I think trying to make a point with nothing backing it is just a bit of a debating faux pas.

And once again, I'm not doubting religion, but the way in which it's being defended.

EVEN under the assumption that the Christian God is the real God, you can't say that because there were no people around when He created it, He must have told people what happened. They could have written the accounts of what had happened (temporarily speaking from the point of one who takes the Bible as history) during their lifetimes, and the lifetimes of their ancestors, and made up the rest. You haven't disproven that.

For those about to cry unfair:
And EVEN under the assumption that that was the case (and we can't assume it was, as I pointed out), God having guided someone in writing Genesis does not mean God guided anyone in writing anything else.

So no, you haven't proven that it was guided by God, and because you state you've proven it and then go on to provide no proof, you sound quite arrogant, as if you think that your having said it is proof enough and that you need no actual proof besides your having said it.

ok first off, doesnt make any sense to me...so i wont respond to that part...

secondly,i said that if u believe in genesis then it would be proof.

so, ur counter attack was complete crap. if you believe that he guided people in genesis, then it would make sense that he guide them in other places. if you believe in the bible, then u believe that our anscestors didnt just make crap up. if I thought that my ansestors made things up for the Bible, I wouldnt be a Christian.

_________________

In essence, you're trying to prove B by saying A proves B, when in fact A doesn't prove B.



*cough* I addressed that, as a matter of fact, so you have no right to sound indignant, OR call my counterattack 'complete crap'. You also have no right to call my counterattack anything, as I've got a valid point in that you haven't proven anything.



Genesis being true is what I called A earlier in this post. As I said, you haven't shown how A proves B (B being that God helped to write the rest). You have said "then it would make sense that he guides them in other places", but just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's true. Show me how A proves B, and my words will be eaten.

yea, i'm not a retard. what i'm saying is that it would make perfect sense that he guided people in other areas. if the Bible says that something is wrong, then its wrong.

I dont know why you're being so mean about this... i'm just presenting my points... cool off...

_________________

Okay, I'm not being mean about it. You're being mean, if anyone is, in calling my points complete crap. I'm annoyed, yes, but mean? No. And I think I'm allowed to be annoyed in response to arrogance (for why it's arrogant, look back to the first post of mine in the current argument), or someone attempting to debate with nothing. Or at least, nothing that belongs in a debate.

Even for a person of faith, A doesn't prove B. You believe B for the same reasons you believe A, and that's a matter of your faith. I'm not saying you can't believe it, though! However, unless you can explain it in at least somewhat universal terms, it has no place in a debate, so don't bring it into this one. That's what I'm annoyed about. To make it relevant, you can believe that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible said so. You have your reasons for believing the Bible's words, and while I may not agree with them, you still have your reasons. The thing is, while you have those reasons, they can't be used in a debate unless they have a basis in logic, which is universal, as opposed to blind faith, which is not. Blind faith is doing it because the book says it (because in your opinion, the book is the word of God); logic is not (not calling you illogical-I'm saying it's within reason, your reason, but not logical reason. To logic's side, if you will, as opposed to being on the other side of the line). And if it's not universal, then it can't be used in a debate.

So I'm not mad at you, or your beliefs, just at the fact that you're trying to debate by using beliefs. I'm sorry, but "because the book said so" is not a valid argument. It may seem like it to you, but it's not by the conventions of argument, so it can't be used. You choose to believe without reason (accounts of witnessing miracles aside), but arguments require reasoning, so you can't use your beliefs in an argument, UNLESS you can give me the reasons for which you believe what you do, and if you can give me reasons, I would like to hear them (would be quite interesting...).

And I do know that I repeated myself many times up there-I'm just trying to make sure I get my point across without coming off as insulting.

i think it's pretty clear that Leviticus is prohibiting anal sex between men. i don't see why Christians get so bent out of shape over it, though; eating shrimp is also called "an abomination" and they don't seem to have any problem with that. i really don't understand how Christianity differentiates between the laws that Jesus supposedly "fulfilled" and thus are no longer in effect, and the ones that he didn't and so still have to be observed. is there a list or something?

as a Jew, though, i think that ALL the laws are still binding (on me, since non-Jews were never expected or commanded to uphold Torah laws anyway). it's fortunate for me that i have no desire either to eat shrimp or to have anal sex with men, but for those people who do, it's simply none of my business and i'll let God deal with it as He sees fit to. i've got plenty of my own sins to worry about without having to concern myself with anyone else's, you know?

Thank you, Cobalt. Seriously.

FOLLOW COBALT'S EXAMPLE!

Whether or not a person is gay, or not, is nobody's business but their own... I don't care if you say you're "serving the lord" or "showing you christ" (yeah... like people haven't heard of him until you came along)just serve that lord on your own time and to your own personal prefectures and don't inflict people unwilling and apathetic with such unwanted onslaught. If they wish to hear it, they will heed you. It is not like I have inflicted my spirituality on you. My arguement is based on logic, reason, and making sure all people have their rights.

Yes, you have the right to disagree. But, at the same time, you would feel disenfranchised if you were unable to do so or even practice your faith.

So, how in good conscience, can you even support an idea that would take people's right to live their life the way they wish or get married to whomever they choose? Is that not tyranny? How in good conscience, being of a religion that bore strife from the Romans, be so apathetic and hypocritical once you receive power? Is it that the formely bonded now holds the whip? Is it now the toiler who is now the tyrant? Is this not megalomania which further led to hegemony? Is it not stated in your...book... that you've no right to cast the hand of judgment upon your fellow man? HAVE YOU EVEN READ THAT ------ BOOK?!

Christian bigotry toward homosexuality... or anything or anyone else for that matter... is nothing shy of hypocrisy and history repeating itself.

_________________

The world would, without a doubt, be a much better place if Leviticus hadn't had that passage in it. I don't see how you can say otherwise.

_________________
CLOCK

I agree with it, I know a gay, who works with my mother, and he isn't some kind a bad person. Sometimes even he makes better jokes than other, it's wrong to humiliate them.

_________________
Visit our site: http://s15.invisionfree.com/GCH/index.php?

i'm not attempting to prove that the Bible was written under the guidence of God, I'm trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong... this whole Genesis thing is getting off subject. If you want to start a thread about Genesis, go a head, I'll debate there, but for here, toast paint.

_________________

I have a very important question... Why do people care so strongly about homosexuality?
If you're gay, then I can see why, but, straight people, I ask you, "why does it matter?!?". Does it hurt you, personally, if gays and lesbians are married? My guess is no. (I suppose it would if all gay weddings ended with "let's go kill us some straight people!", but, somehow, I doubt that's the case).

I am apathetic with regards to homosexuality.
I don't care if it's right or wrong.. I've got my own life to deal with. When I can point a finger without 3 more pointing back at me, THEN, I'll start worrying about whether it's right or wrong, but, unless I cut some fingers off my hands, I'm not gonna be able to do that.

I'm going to assume it IS a sin for a minute (I don't know if it is, but bear with me). If it is a sin, then it will be judged accordingly. All sins are equal. Therefore, a straight person who commits a sin like (all people commit sins) is no better than a person who happens to love someone of the same sex. Somehow, some forget that.
That's assuming, of course that it is a sin to be gay. Like I said, I don't know if it is, and don't really care, as it doesn't affect me. I have gay friends, and they don't seem to have a problem with my "apathy"..

Apathy is a kind of tolerance, sometimes.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Intriguing. Where'd you get that?

I heard that in Church. The pastor was preaching about how people like to blame everything on gays and other "heathen", when, in fact usually those doing the blaming are the ones to blame.. I really wish he videotaped his services or recorded them some other way. I want to watch it again, just to take it all in.

Admittedly, they may not truely be equal, BUT, in the end, if you go to Hell for your sins, you go to Hell. From what I've heard, Hell is Hell.. There is not a seperate Hell for each type of sinner.

Using this thinking, it would seem that, even if they aren't exactly the same, if your sins land you in the same Hell, as someone else's sins, they are equal..

I'd kinda like to know what Didymus thinks about this idea (but that's a different topic)..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Yes and no. The basic point is that all human beings who sin fall under the same category: those who need forgiveness. All sins separate us from God, and all sins ultimately lead to death, and in that sense, all sins are equal. This is really helpful to remember the next time you look down on the sins of others without compassion, and without taking account of your own sins.

However, the consequences of various sins differ, and for that reason, they aren't all equal. For example, lust (mental adultery) will probably not produce the same results as actual adultery. This doesn't mean there aren't consequences, but rather that the consequences may not be as obvious. Disliking a person probably won't get you sent to jail, but assault and battery certainly will.

Jesus did once say something (Matthew 11:21ff) to indicate that the eternal consequences of certain sins will merit worse punishments than others.

But the important thing to remember is that, just as all sins separate us from God, so his mercy and forgiveness are able to restore us and reconcile us equally. In God's eyes, a forgiven drug dealer is no worse than a forgiven liar; both have been cleansed and are new creations in him.

_________________

Agreed with Didymus.

Thanks for typing all that out for me.

Works for me... Kinda

I read that to say that those who repented are going to fair better with the Judgement, but, like I've said before, I'm not a theology scholar, by any means..
I'm going to have to read that entire chapter now.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Good answer Didy.

To me, every sin separates us from God. In that sense, all sins are kind of binary. 1 or 0. If one guy refuses to repent of thinking he's the most important person in the world, and another guy refuses to repent of wife-beating, either way, you are separated from God.

However, on another level, it takes widely differing amounts of repentance to be freed from different sins. This is on a sinner by sinner basis as well as a sin by sin basis. It might be easy for one guy to give up anger, but he might find it very difficult to give up lust. And another guy could be just the opposite. So is anger or lust the worse sin in that case? Whichever is the hardest to give up.

Another thing that makes some sins harder to repent from is that God expects us to try and make restitution to those we have harmed. This could be through returning something we stole, publicly rejecting incorrect things we have publicly taught, etc.. For some sins this is inherently tricky or even impossible. Gossip is a tough one to make full restitution, but it's the kind of thing where I think a good effort goes a long way, as long as you are sincere. Taking someones life, or someone's virtue are two other things where restitution is very difficult, and physically impossible. Also, for murder, it may well be impossible to even get into a state where sincere, heart-deep repentance is possible.

I guess I'm rambling. So a summary: All sins are equal in that they separate us from God. However, it's easier to repent for some sins than others.

Perhaps we should toastpaint this and start a seperate thread...

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Its amazing how much i agree and didsagree with your statements...

Its true that everybody sins. its true that just because gay people are sinning doesnt mean we need to pick on them. its true that they deserve equal rights (like marriage) because our gavornment can't enforce God's law, and its true we should mind our own buisness.

Its wrong however that all sins are equal. very wrong. thats like saing that stealing a dollar bill off sum1s desk at school is the same as killing somebody. its not true. There are things called mortal sins, and there are things called...well i forget what the name for lesser sins is, and i dont have time to look it up right now... but anyways, there are different degrees of sinning. but then again, thats now about sexuality, so i wont talk about that here

_________________