Reply to Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel. [/quote]

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married. [/quote]

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people?  This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to. [/quote]

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children? 
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals. 
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.[/quote]
Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?[/quote]

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality.  I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful.  But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right.  You just snuck that premise in there.[/quote]
If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this. [/quote]

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island.  But none of us do.  Our moral decisions have knock on effects.  Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones.  Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is [b]forced to tolerate immorality.[/b]  [/quote]
So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?[/quote]

Not their existence.  That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes.  That is a burden to society.[/quote]
You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all. [/quote]

How does people having sex in a public place affects you? Same for indecent exposure?
Why do you think we don’t allow it?
We could just ignore them? Right? Or maybe you would allow it?

[b]Open and flagrant immorality [/b]isn’t good for society. It negatively affects people.[/quote]

As long as people - gay or straight - aren’t having sex out in public then we are all good. [/quote]

That’s your idea of morality? As long as people aren’t having public sex- anything goes? Seriously? [/quote]

The PP was concerned about “open and flagrant”. There is nothing immoral about committed, consenting adults having sex (gay or straight) privately. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics