View Single Post
  #21  
Old 07-14-2010, 12:07 PM
catbird's Avatar
catbird catbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: columbia, mo
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quath View Post
It was an interesting discussion. They were arguing over gay marriage and gay rights in general. It started off with Bible verses. The cons side went with some Old Testament stuff and how some of the New Testament re-emphasized it. The idea was that if God wanted homosexuals killed before and called it an abomination, why would he approve it now?

I pointed out that the Old Testament commandment was to kill homosexuals. So the sinner was technicallly the person who refused to do so, not necessarily the homosexual.

The other Christian pointed out more New Testament stuff like the emphasis on love and not being judgemental. He mentioned that thew New Testament stuff against homosexuality was not convincing since it was Paul's views; it could have referred to pedophilia; could have referred to pagan worship; and/or could have referred to a heterosexual engaging in homosexuality.

The first Christian said that it was not ambigious because it referred to the Old Testament which was very clear. Also, the story about the adulterous woman was not part of the original New Testament and was added later (another Christian mentioned this one). They said it was a moral imperative to outlaw homosexuality just as we outlaw other abominations like murder.

The otehr Christian said it was not like murder since no one was hurt. But the first countered by saying that they were spiritually harmed. They accused the first of cherry picking Bible verses to support and ignore.

I pointed out that the anti-homosexual Christians were doing the same thing by ignoring the other Old Testament laws like killing non-virgin brides or treating lobsert like an abomination. They kind of both agreed that since I was not Christian, that I could not interpret the Bible without the Holy Spirit. However, they both said they were acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit.

In the end, no one was convinced by the other's argument.
How do you do, Quath? Pleased to meetcha. Permit me to respond backwards through what you have to say here.

First, It doesn't matter if you're not a Christian, you still get to read the Bible and make out of it anything you feel like making out of it. I also have the Holy Spirit, Who says you get to.

Second, what is a "lobsert"?

Third, people have always, throughout history, used the Bible to prove their opinions, sometimes going so far as to put their words into God's mouth. There are many ways of correcting that and I'm sure you have your own.

Fourth, most Christians today have finally learned the lesson not to pass judgment on people, and don't much anymore, or try not to. As far as commands in the Bible are concerned, some are false, not to put too fine a point on it. Which are and which aren't? Who would be able to tell you? You have to decide for yourself, and make sure it's your self that is saying, not some authority figure from the past whispering to you what you 'ought' to think.

Fifth, as far as homosexuality being an abomination is concerned, most straight guys are grossed out by the idea of male gay sex. I imagine the ancients were the same, so they reasoned that 'anything that gross' was an abomination, something the Lord wouldn't like. So they wrote it down that way and it became canonized.

Sixth, adultery. A pretty big deal! A big issue. Who cares if it wasn't part of the 'original' scriptures? Killing witches was part of the original old testament. Slaughtering every man, woman and child in a village was part of the original old testament. Hopefully, prayerfully we can force ourselves not to do those things anymore.

Faith is a cafeteria, Quath. You pick and choose what to believe. It's always been so. If you discuss faith with another having a difference of opinion is guaranteed.
__________________
I cannot brain today. I have the dumb.
Reply With Quote