Religious Controversies: Homosexuality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

God also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.

22

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I’m a Christian and someone asked me a few years ago if being gay was wrong. I said yes, but I couldn’t explain why. [/quote]

Are there other things you think are “wrong” but can’t explain why?[/quote]

Well, its not that I don’t know how to explain why, its more so that I have a hard time finding reasons outside of the Bible to explain my stance. I know to just say to an unbeliever “the Bible says so” is not good enough. Heck, sometimes for me its not good enough. I know in the evolution thread, Push and Irish were using scientific theories to explain why they believe macroevolution is not a viable theory. So in this case, I’m just looking to see what those who are opposed to it and those who support it have to say. It helps to know both sides of the argument. [/quote]

I dont mean to be direspectful to you here, but it sounds to me like you’ve already made up your mind and you’re looking for “better” arguments against homosexuality. [/quote]

Not at all. I simply want to know why those that believe it to be ok think that, and those that believe its wrong think that. When I was younger I thought that Jesus and God were entirely different. Then someone presented me with evidence to suggest Jesus was in fact God in the flesh. My beliefs changed. However thats a topic for the Trinity thread. I’m just trying to illustrate a point.

I also want to make it clear that I am in no way a homophobe or a gay hater. One of my best friends in high school was gay. All I’m simply doing is tying to understand both sides.[/quote]

Ok.

One thing I’ve noticed on this subject is that the bigots usually make the following statement: “Being gay is wrong because its unnatural!”

Now, the wiley bigot is a tricky foe, and this is a favorable line of attack for him, for a number of reasons. Firstly, he manages to make two statements (being gay is wrong) and (being gay is unnatural), and be wrong three times. Being gay is not wrong. Being gay is not unnatural. AND, something being unnatural doesn’t necessarily make it “wrong”.

The real problem here is that, when you attempt to respond to any one part, the bigot takes that as a signal that you must agree with the other. Watch:

“Being gay is wrong because its unnatural!”
“Being gay isn’t wrong, there’s no moral basis to say this”
“Ha! So you admit its unnatural!”

or

“Being gay is wrong because its unnatural!”
“You don’t have much basis for saying this, considering sociology, psychology, biology, sexuality, etc are complex subjects, and members of many species are homosexuals, homosexuality does occur naturally”
“Yeah? So does pedophilia! Thats wrong too, and if you say its ok to be gay because it happens “naturally” than you have to agree that pedophilia is ok because it happens “naturally”!”

23

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Religiously sex is only good within the confines of a sound traditional marraige. More specifically, “becoming one” is supposed to entail the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. I would say it’s valid to think all of those can’t happen in a homosexual relationship.

[/quote]

Why would that be valid?[/quote]

Because coming together in the spiritual sense is an entirely personal belief. I think it’s reasonable and you can’t say someone is wrong about it.[/quote]

Yes I can. A person can hold those beleifs when it comes to themselves, not to others. Would it “be valid” that I said you and your wife/girlfriend could “come together in the spiritual sense” because of a belief I held about the two of you? How you two come together is up to you, not someone else.

Homosexuals connect physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, energetically, philosophically, etc, etc, same way heterosexuals do – its up to the people involved, not people outside of them.[/quote]

You are confusing what I think is wrong with what I think I have the right to judge. I never said anyone has the right to prevent homosexuality. I’m saying thinking it’s wrong is a valid opinion. You are saying I can’t believe 2 men cannot connect the same way as a man and wife. This is dumb.[/quote]

I’m saying I believe your belief to be invalid.

24

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
According to the bible, men lusting for other men is a sin. Period.

But I think a healthy Christian would see that everyone sins, and being gay isn’t any worse than committing adultery even in your heart (lusting after other women), or sex outside of marriage.

I’ve never understood the logic in thinking homosexuality is some how a special sin that should be singled out.

How can a guy that sleeps around condemn others for homosexuality?[/quote]

Well, see, the bible was written by a bunch of men. Sure, they claim Sky Wizard made them do it, but lets say, for the sake of argument, it was written by a bunch of heterosexual men.

Now, if it is the case that the bible wasn’t, in fact, divinely inspired by a General Omnipotent Diety, we’d probably find that most of what it teaches favors those who wrote it. Notice how the bible puts men in charge of everything, suggests that men are superior to women and women should defer to them, identifies each member of its holy trinity as men, etc?

Most straight guys are uncomfortable with homosexuals/homosexuality. Put enough of them together, and you start getting anti-gay bigotry (often called homophobia, but calling a bias a fear isn’t exactly the right wording).

So, maybe, just maybe, the men who wrote the bible weren’t exactly cool with homosexuals, so they decided to put a “no gay shit” rule in, yeah? Of course, they wouldn’t actually have to back up their position with logic or reason or any of that stuff… their iron clad defense was (and still is) “Sky Wizard says its bad.”[/quote]

lol. not true. The bible never insinuates that men are better than women. If anything, the bible (and even more so jesus) teaches an equality of the sexes that was thousands of years ahead of it’s time.

Mush of what you see as gender choice in language in the bible has to do with the limitations of language and translation. For example English has no third person singular gender neutral pronoun. Translators have to chose between make a statement plural or adding a gender.

You just sound hate blind.[/quote]

Ephesians 5:22-24 – The husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of the church (see other verses below). Neither his wife nor their parents are the authority in his family (cf. Gen. 2:24).

Does that sound like men are superior, that he is the “head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church”?[/quote]

No, it’s family structure.

Where you work your boss is in a position of authority over you. Does that mean that your company is saying he is better than you? Or just that they realize, structure is conducive to a properly functioning company.

There is no other person at my work that can effectively do my job, but I still have a boss. A family unit doesn’t function properly without the woman either.

And finish the passage “Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . . For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shal.1 be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh”

Treating your wife as yourself makes them equals. If the husband is following a the biblical definition, he is the head of the family and his wife is an equal. It isn’t a biblical marriage if he only abides by the first part of the passage.[/quote]

Always giving final authority to the man in a marriage denotes him as being superior. [/quote]

No it does not. You are reading whatever you want to read. It absolutely does not give final authority to the man.

1, it has to be in accordance with gods law, making god the final authority.

2, in order to be in accordance with gods law, he has to treat his wife as part of himself. This means a wife is considered in decisions the same way a person considers his own thoughts and morals.

3, decision making and value are distinct things as I’ve already proven

I’ve logically destroyed your argument in multiple ways, repeating over and over, “no, it’s not equal” isn’t a rebuttal.

25

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
According to the bible, men lusting for other men is a sin. Period.

But I think a healthy Christian would see that everyone sins, and being gay isn’t any worse than committing adultery even in your heart (lusting after other women), or sex outside of marriage.

I’ve never understood the logic in thinking homosexuality is some how a special sin that should be singled out.

How can a guy that sleeps around condemn others for homosexuality?[/quote]

Well, see, the bible was written by a bunch of men. Sure, they claim Sky Wizard made them do it, but lets say, for the sake of argument, it was written by a bunch of heterosexual men.

Now, if it is the case that the bible wasn’t, in fact, divinely inspired by a General Omnipotent Diety, we’d probably find that most of what it teaches favors those who wrote it. Notice how the bible puts men in charge of everything, suggests that men are superior to women and women should defer to them, identifies each member of its holy trinity as men, etc?

Most straight guys are uncomfortable with homosexuals/homosexuality. Put enough of them together, and you start getting anti-gay bigotry (often called homophobia, but calling a bias a fear isn’t exactly the right wording).

So, maybe, just maybe, the men who wrote the bible weren’t exactly cool with homosexuals, so they decided to put a “no gay shit” rule in, yeah? Of course, they wouldn’t actually have to back up their position with logic or reason or any of that stuff… their iron clad defense was (and still is) “Sky Wizard says its bad.”[/quote]

lol. not true. The bible never insinuates that men are better than women. If anything, the bible (and even more so jesus) teaches an equality of the sexes that was thousands of years ahead of it’s time.

Mush of what you see as gender choice in language in the bible has to do with the limitations of language and translation. For example English has no third person singular gender neutral pronoun. Translators have to chose between make a statement plural or adding a gender.

You just sound hate blind.[/quote]

Ephesians 5:22-24 – The husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of the church (see other verses below). Neither his wife nor their parents are the authority in his family (cf. Gen. 2:24).

Does that sound like men are superior, that he is the “head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church”?[/quote]

No, it’s family structure.

Where you work your boss is in a position of authority over you. Does that mean that your company is saying he is better than you? Or just that they realize, structure is conducive to a properly functioning company.

There is no other person at my work that can effectively do my job, but I still have a boss. A family unit doesn’t function properly without the woman either.

And finish the passage “Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . . For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shal.1 be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh”

Treating your wife as yourself makes them equals. If the husband is following a the biblical definition, he is the head of the family and his wife is an equal. It isn’t a biblical marriage if he only abides by the first part of the passage.[/quote]

Always giving final authority to the man in a marriage denotes him as being superior. [/quote]

No it does not. You are reading whatever you want to read. It absolutely does not give final authority to the man.

1, it has to be in accordance with gods law, making god the final authority.

2, in order to be in accordance with gods law, he has to treat his wife as part of himself. This means a wife is considered in decisions the same way a person considers his own thoughts and morals.

3, decision making and value are distinct things as I’ve already proven

I’ve logically destroyed your argument in multiple ways, repeating over and over, “no, it’s not equal” isn’t a rebuttal.[/quote]

No, you haven’t. The fact that the bible teaches that, in every marriage, the husband has final say in all decisions, regardless of what process he must use in making those decisions, denotes him as being superior to his wife by putting him in that position of authority.

27

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?[/quote]

That isn’t what it says.

But why should a woman always get to carry the child. Is that unequal?

28

You’re right, though, that this is a discussion for another thread. Lets get back to the topic of homosexuality, eh?

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?[/quote]

That isn’t what it says.

But why should a woman always get to carry the child. Is that unequal?[/quote]

Jesus. Don’t compare biology to social convention, its stupid.

30

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
According to the bible, men lusting for other men is a sin. Period.

But I think a healthy Christian would see that everyone sins, and being gay isn’t any worse than committing adultery even in your heart (lusting after other women), or sex outside of marriage.

I’ve never understood the logic in thinking homosexuality is some how a special sin that should be singled out.

How can a guy that sleeps around condemn others for homosexuality?[/quote]

Well, see, the bible was written by a bunch of men. Sure, they claim Sky Wizard made them do it, but lets say, for the sake of argument, it was written by a bunch of heterosexual men.

Now, if it is the case that the bible wasn’t, in fact, divinely inspired by a General Omnipotent Diety, we’d probably find that most of what it teaches favors those who wrote it. Notice how the bible puts men in charge of everything, suggests that men are superior to women and women should defer to them, identifies each member of its holy trinity as men, etc?

Most straight guys are uncomfortable with homosexuals/homosexuality. Put enough of them together, and you start getting anti-gay bigotry (often called homophobia, but calling a bias a fear isn’t exactly the right wording).

So, maybe, just maybe, the men who wrote the bible weren’t exactly cool with homosexuals, so they decided to put a “no gay shit” rule in, yeah? Of course, they wouldn’t actually have to back up their position with logic or reason or any of that stuff… their iron clad defense was (and still is) “Sky Wizard says its bad.”[/quote]

lol. not true. The bible never insinuates that men are better than women. If anything, the bible (and even more so jesus) teaches an equality of the sexes that was thousands of years ahead of it’s time.

Mush of what you see as gender choice in language in the bible has to do with the limitations of language and translation. For example English has no third person singular gender neutral pronoun. Translators have to chose between make a statement plural or adding a gender.

You just sound hate blind.[/quote]

Ephesians 5:22-24 – The husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of the church (see other verses below). Neither his wife nor their parents are the authority in his family (cf. Gen. 2:24).

Does that sound like men are superior, that he is the “head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church”?[/quote]

No, it’s family structure.

Where you work your boss is in a position of authority over you. Does that mean that your company is saying he is better than you? Or just that they realize, structure is conducive to a properly functioning company.

There is no other person at my work that can effectively do my job, but I still have a boss. A family unit doesn’t function properly without the woman either.

And finish the passage “Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . . For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shal.1 be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh”

Treating your wife as yourself makes them equals. If the husband is following a the biblical definition, he is the head of the family and his wife is an equal. It isn’t a biblical marriage if he only abides by the first part of the passage.[/quote]

Always giving final authority to the man in a marriage denotes him as being superior. [/quote]

No it does not. You are reading whatever you want to read. It absolutely does not give final authority to the man.

1, it has to be in accordance with gods law, making god the final authority.

2, in order to be in accordance with gods law, he has to treat his wife as part of himself. This means a wife is considered in decisions the same way a person considers his own thoughts and morals.

3, decision making and value are distinct things as I’ve already proven

I’ve logically destroyed your argument in multiple ways, repeating over and over, “no, it’s not equal” isn’t a rebuttal.[/quote]

No, you haven’t. The fact that the bible teaches that, in every marriage, the husband has final say in all decisions, regardless of what process he must use in making those decisions, denotes him as being superior to his wife by putting him in that position of authority.[/quote]

If youd even read my posts, or the scripture, youd see your error.

Decision making isn’t a denotion of superiority. I’ve shown this.

Decision making isn’t always the right of the husband. I’ve shown this.

31

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hurting no-one else in no way ties into what I consider good or bad. I think suicide is wrong too.[/quote]

You really think suicide only hurts the person killing themselves??

32

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
According to the bible, men lusting for other men is a sin. Period.

But I think a healthy Christian would see that everyone sins, and being gay isn’t any worse than committing adultery even in your heart (lusting after other women), or sex outside of marriage.

I’ve never understood the logic in thinking homosexuality is some how a special sin that should be singled out.

How can a guy that sleeps around condemn others for homosexuality?[/quote]

FTW - the Bible identifies a lot of sins, and it definitely identifies homosexuality as a sin. As El Duce points out, it is no better/worse than any other sin. I personally think liars are more harmful to humanity as a whole.

So within the belief system of Christianity (which btw only applies to Christians), it is a sin. End of story, nothing left to discuss.

Now, if Christianity is correct (and I believe it is), then that condemnation resulting from that sin applies to everyone, as does the same for lying, adultery, stealing, covetousness, worshiping false gods, etc, etc. Whatever your very first sin was, that was the sin that condemns you to hell, everything else is just you following your chosen course in life. So am I shocked to learn that sinners sin? No, it is expected . . .

If Christianity is wrong, then it doesn’t matter.

If you are not a believer, it doesn’t matter to you anyway. You don’t care what Christians values are, so why should you be concerned about what we believe is a behavior that we are not to engage in?

It’s hilarious to watch all of the non-believers pop into threads like this to state how wrong it is for Christianity to consider it a sin, when they don’t believe in the tenets of the Faith anyway. What does it matter to someone outside of Christianity what Christians classify as sin or not?

Doesn’t seem to me that they have a dog in this fight . . .

Islam condemns (and kills on a daily basis - try being gay in any Sharia ruled nation) homosexuals - nobody complains about that

Buddhism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Judaism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Rastafarian beliefs condemn homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Jainism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Sikhs condemn homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Taoism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Even Zoroastrianism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

JW’s and Mormons condemn homosexuality - nobody complains about that

33

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?[/quote]

That isn’t what it says.

But why should a woman always get to carry the child. Is that unequal?[/quote]

Jesus. Don’t compare biology to social convention, its stupid.[/quote]

If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.

34

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hurting no-one else in no way ties into what I consider good or bad. I think suicide is wrong too.[/quote]

You really think suicide only hurts the person killing themselves??[/quote]

You really think a homosexual relationship effects no one but the consenting adults?

35

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?[/quote]

That isn’t what it says.

But why should a woman always get to carry the child. Is that unequal?[/quote]

Jesus. Don’t compare biology to social convention, its stupid.[/quote]

If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Sky Wizard doesn’t exist. :slight_smile:

36

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.

37

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
According to the bible, men lusting for other men is a sin. Period.

But I think a healthy Christian would see that everyone sins, and being gay isn’t any worse than committing adultery even in your heart (lusting after other women), or sex outside of marriage.

I’ve never understood the logic in thinking homosexuality is some how a special sin that should be singled out.

How can a guy that sleeps around condemn others for homosexuality?[/quote]

FTW - the Bible identifies a lot of sins, and it definitely identifies homosexuality as a sin. As El Duce points out, it is no better/worse than any other sin. I personally think liars are more harmful to humanity as a whole.

So within the belief system of Christianity (which btw only applies to Christians), it is a sin. End of story, nothing left to discuss.

Now, if Christianity is correct (and I believe it is), then that condemnation resulting from that sin applies to everyone, as does the same for lying, adultery, stealing, covetousness, worshiping false gods, etc, etc. Whatever your very first sin was, that was the sin that condemns you to hell, everything else is just you following your chosen course in life. So am I shocked to learn that sinners sin? No, it is expected . . .

If Christianity is wrong, then it doesn’t matter.

If you are not a believer, it doesn’t matter to you anyway. You don’t care what Christians values are, so why should you be concerned about what we believe is a behavior that we are not to engage in?

It’s hilarious to watch all of the non-believers pop into threads like this to state how wrong it is for Christianity to consider it a sin, when they don’t believe in the tenets of the Faith anyway. What does it matter to someone outside of Christianity what Christians classify as sin or not?

Doesn’t seem to me that they have a dog in this fight . . .

Islam condemns (and kills on a daily basis - try being gay in any Sharia ruled nation) homosexuals - nobody complains about that

Buddhism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Judaism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Rastafarian beliefs condemn homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Jainism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Sikhs condemn homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Taoism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

Even Zoroastrianism condemns homosexuality - nobody complains about that

JW’s and Mormons condemn homosexuality - nobody complains about that [/quote]

Sources? I’ve never seen homosexuality condemned within Taoism or Buddhism. Please cite.

38

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?[/quote]

That isn’t what it says.

But why should a woman always get to carry the child. Is that unequal?[/quote]

Jesus. Don’t compare biology to social convention, its stupid.[/quote]

If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Sky Wizard doesn’t exist. :)[/quote]

Then right and wrong as philosophical concepts don’t exist and you can’t argue absolute right or wrong to begin with.

39

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.[/quote]

And assault them. And use “faggot” and “gay” all the time as general negatives, causing them psychological damage. And treat them as second class citizens. And sit back quietly while others abuse them and say/do nothing, but get all riled up when the same thing happens to a straight person.

40

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.[/quote]

I never said he does exist. But the argument wasn’t about his existence, it was about the right or wrong of text.

And you need to check what you are saying about me because you’re showing yourself as an idiot resorting to stereotypes rather than actually addressing me or my beliefs.