Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Or neither. I don't think anyone on here deserves to go to hell/is evil/deserves to die. I'm a big promoter of good works and that if you were to truly believe a certain way and still be a good person (as is the majority), then if there truly is a heaven, that's where you'll go. On the flip side, I also believe that evil people can exist in all religions including my own.

 

Try not to generalize. Not all of us are Bible-thumping fundies out to make you miserable or feel terrible about yourself.

Not all Christians do, but it's a common theme, especially among the big and powerful ones, is it not? I agree that I need to be more careful about generalizations, but it was for the sake of simplicity, not because I actually think that all Christians think those things.

 

Anyway, I don't want to argue about it. If you prefer: "Some sects of Christianity and Islam preach that unbelievers will go to hell, or are evil, or deserve to die."

 

There.

Share this post


Link to post
Try not to generalize. Not all of us are Bible-thumping fundies out to make you miserable or feel terrible about yourself.

It does worry me, though, when non-Bible-thumping Christians don't speak out more against the activities of the Bible thumpers. It seems to imply consent, or to suggest that what the Bible thumpers are doing is A-okay.

 

Look at the antics of the Salvation Army, which routinely turns away transgender and two-spirited people from its shelters (including at least one incident where a trans woman froze to death as a result) and which has, in the past, lobbied to get funding refused to cities that have LGBT non-discrimination laws in play, among other anti-LGBT activities. Why aren't other Christians speaking up about this and trying to get it stopped? It saddens and puzzles me.

Share this post


Link to post
It does worry me, though, when non-Bible-thumping Christians don't speak out more against the activities of the Bible thumpers. It seems to imply consent, or to suggest that what the Bible thumpers are doing is A-okay.

 

Look at the antics of the Salvation Army, which routinely turns away transgender and two-spirited people from its shelters (including at least one incident where a trans woman froze to death as a result) and which has, in the past, lobbied to get funding refused to cities that have LGBT non-discrimination laws in play, among other anti-LGBT activities. Why aren't other Christians speaking up about this and trying to get it stopped? It saddens and puzzles me.

I wonder about those things too. Even from a Christian perspective, BEING gay isn't sinful. There's no reason an OUTREACH organization should be discriminating against people if their goal is to reach people with a Christian message. They're having the opposite effect they want, and if they can't realize that... idk. If they're teaching the message of Christ, He certainly didn't shy away from helping the sinners that crossed His path. Do they know better than Christ Himself how to treat the unbeliever?

Share this post


Link to post
Why aren't other Christians speaking up about this and trying to get it stopped? It saddens and puzzles me.

Perhaps because it's not something that is widely known about them? Perhaps other Christians are trying to get it stopped, but they aren't as 'loud'?

 

Hell, I didn't even know the Salvation Army was Christian. I bet I'm not the only Christian that doesn't keep tabs on every charity that alleges to be affiliated with her religion.

Share this post


Link to post
It does worry me, though, when non-Bible-thumping Christians don't speak out more against the activities of the Bible thumpers. It seems to imply consent, or to suggest that what the Bible thumpers are doing is A-okay.

 

Look at the antics of the Salvation Army, which routinely turns away transgender and two-spirited people from its shelters (including at least one incident where a trans woman froze to death as a result) and which has, in the past, lobbied to get funding refused to cities that have LGBT non-discrimination laws in play, among other anti-LGBT activities. Why aren't other Christians speaking up about this and trying to get it stopped? It saddens and puzzles me.

O.o I had no idea. I know that Salvation Army is Christian but that event had not reached my ears. I don't keep tabs on every charity, just the ones that I want to volunteer at (which atm is only the Humane League due to no transportation to others and no time to do ANY).

 

You'll find the quiet majority wishes Westboro Baptist would either shut up or go stuff it up their-- *cough* We recognize that those organizations give us a bad name, we don't like them, and we'll often fuss about it along with non-Christians who do the same thing. Everyone in my city was outraged when a particular group said the earthquake in Haiti was caused by voodoo and homosexuality. And this is Amishland, where conservatives rule and hostility towards other religions is treated as "okay". Just because we're not loud doesn't mean we don't speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Even from a Christian perspective, BEING gay isn't sinful.

That depends on what branch your talking about. Also varies among individuals. I've heard many people who claim to be "Christians" (but generally behave in a very un-Christlike way...) say that even thinking about being gay is a sin, and if you actually ARE gay, well, you're going to hell for sure because hey, only straight people are worthy of heaven!

 

 

 

And then I'm curious, if being gay isn't a sin, why is there a problem with it? Or is it "okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it because ACTING on your gayness is a sin"? Which I personally see as pretty much the same thing, just a "nicer" way of phrasing it.

 

 

 

Re: Salvation Army:

 

Wow. I had no idea. That's just not right. I mean, that's just... D: I vaguely recall hearing they were Christian, but I'd never heard about that kind of behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
That depends on what branch your talking about. Also varies among individuals. I've heard many people who claim to be "Christians" (but generally behave in a very un-Christlike way...) say that even thinking about being gay is a sin, and if you actually ARE gay, well, you're going to hell for sure because hey, only straight people are worthy of heaven!

 

 

 

And then I'm curious, if being gay isn't a sin, why is there a problem with it? Or is it "okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it because ACTING on your gayness is a sin"? Which I personally see as pretty much the same thing, just a "nicer" way of phrasing it.

 

 

 

Re: Salvation Army:

 

Wow. I had no idea. That's just not right. I mean, that's just... D: I vaguely recall hearing they were Christian, but I'd never heard about that kind of behavior.

It's getting into technicalities, but going purely on scripture regarding sexual activity and homosexuality...

 

According to the Bible sex outside of marriage is sinful. Biblical marriage is defined as one man and one woman. So it follows from those passages that homosexual activity is sinful. Experiencing same-sex attraction isn't condemned anywhere in scripture, just the act. Again, this is just going by purely what is said in scripture. Depends on how you look at it I suppose.

 

 

 

Just as a side note, I really don't want to get into an argument about this xd.png my point is, regardless of whether or not they think it's a sin, they aren't following the example of Christ in scripture. Whether or not you think they're a sinner doesn't mean you shouldn't help them the same as anyone else. That's absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
And then I'm curious, if being gay isn't a sin, why is there a problem with it? Or is it "okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it because ACTING on your gayness is a sin"? Which I personally see as pretty much the same thing, just a "nicer" way of phrasing it.

This is my own morality and view on it, not to be pressed upon anyone else, so take it for what it is:

 

"Acting on your straightness" is a sin a vast majority of the time, too, as I see it, since in my view, marriage consists of a. agreeing to marry and b. consummating the relationship. So there are people all over the place consummating their relationships but not committing to one another. That strikes me as wrong and fits in what I understand is the 'sin' category. It really doesn't matter who you're doing that with, if you're doing it, you're doing it.

 

So there's the issue I have, anyhow. And as you can see, I have it every bit as much with straight people. perhaps more so, than I do with gay people. But I'm not sitting here condemning the world to everlasting fire and damnation about it.

Share this post


Link to post
This is my own morality and view on it, not to be pressed upon anyone else, so take it for what it is:

 

"Acting on your straightness" is a sin a vast majority of the time, too, as I see it, since in my view, marriage consists of a. agreeing to marry and b. consummating the relationship. So there are people all over the place consummating their relationships but not committing to one another. That strikes me as wrong and fits in what I understand is the 'sin' category. It really doesn't matter who you're doing that with, if you're doing it, you're doing it.

 

So there's the issue I have, anyhow. And as you can see, I have it every bit as much with straight people. perhaps more so, than I do with gay people. But I'm not sitting here condemning the world to everlasting fire and damnation about it.

Yesyesyes.

Share this post


Link to post

The Salvation Army, if I've heard correctly, is not only affiliated with Christianity but an actual church. It's not just a charity organization, it's literally a church. Weird, huh?

 

I'd also like to point out that even though the Westboro Baptist Church says some pretty hateful things, they don't actually hurt anybody. I have a much higher opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church than I do of anyone who would actually harass or beat people for being gay or even watch people suffer and refuse to help because they're transgender or gay (like the Salvation Army).

 

There's a difference between preaching horrible things and doing horrible things.

Share this post


Link to post
The Salvation Army, if I've heard correctly, is not only affiliated with Christianity but an actual church. It's not just a charity organization, it's literally a church. Weird, huh?

 

I'd also like to point out that even though the Westboro Baptist Church says some pretty hateful things, they don't actually hurt anybody. I have a much higher opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church than I do of anyone who would actually harass or beat people for being gay or even watch people suffer and refuse to help because they're transgender or gay (like the Salvation Army).

 

There's a difference between preaching horrible things and doing horrible things.

I did notice that. In the Boy Scouts of America, you are required to identify with a church of some kind. It doesn't matter what religion, but you are required to conform to a belief in a higher power of some kind. At Philmont Scout Ranch, we were given a chart that showed all the different religious emblems you could earn (religious emblem program being a set of requirements between the scout, scoutmaster and church leader to grow in their knowledge of their particular faith, and achieve a small medal to wear on the uniform), and it had several for the Salvation Army. I found that rather interesting xd.png

Share this post


Link to post
It does worry me, though, when non-Bible-thumping Christians don't speak out more against the activities of the Bible thumpers. It seems to imply consent, or to suggest that what the Bible thumpers are doing is A-okay.

 

Look at the antics of the Salvation Army, which routinely turns away transgender and two-spirited people from its shelters (including at least one incident where a trans woman froze to death as a result) and which has, in the past, lobbied to get funding refused to cities that have LGBT non-discrimination laws in play, among other anti-LGBT activities. Why aren't other Christians speaking up about this and trying to get it stopped? It saddens and puzzles me.

That's exactly why my family and I don't donate to the Salvation Army and refuse to send charity their way. :| We go to homeless shelters and battered womens'/childrens' shelters instead.

 

 

As per the Boy Scouts, that totally annoys and sickens me. I've known about that for a while and it has always ground on my nerves that they do that. They won't accept boys with gay parents, either :/ I hope there's a secular Boy Scouts organization out there, somewhere. I like that the Girl's Scouts don't have religious affiliation, though.

Share this post


Link to post
That's exactly why my family and I don't donate to the Salvation Army and refuse to send charity their way. :| We go to homeless shelters and battered womens'/childrens' shelters instead.

 

 

As per the Boy Scouts, that totally annoys and sickens me. I've known about that for a while and it has always ground on my nerves that they do that. They won't accept boys with gay parents, either :/ I hope there's a secular Boy Scouts organization out there, somewhere. I like that the Girl's Scouts don't have religious affiliation, though.

Agreed and agreed. I don't have cash to spare often, but when I do, I donate to Doctors Without Borders. I admire that they will pretty much go anywhere and help anyone.

 

And I was in Girl Scouts for years... still meaning to get that lifetime membership. I was really surprised to learn that Boy Scouts were religious -- I'd assumed for so long that they were 'sibling organizations.' Through Girl Scouts, there are options to earn religious medals, but that's the choice of individual churches, and of course of individual girls to pursue or not; the organization never really mentioned or promoted them, but a few girls in my troop opted to earn a couple of the Catholic ones together. It was something we did on the side, in weekend meetings at one of the leader's houses, or on a retreat, not something we did in troop meetings or on camping trips, and definitely not mandatory.

 

Also, @ Princess Artemis, I like your post. It sounds a lot like how I feel about the whole thing, myself.

Share this post


Link to post

As per the Boy Scouts, that totally annoys and sickens me. I've known about that for a while and it has always ground on my nerves that they do that. They won't accept boys with gay parents, either :/ I hope there's a secular Boy Scouts organization out there, somewhere. I like that the Girl's Scouts don't have religious affiliation, though.

 

I hadn't heard that. About gay parents I mean. I've never been questioned about my parents, so for all they know I could have gay parents. My mom never comes to meetings and my dad is a drug addict, so parental involvement isn't a huge deal.

Share this post


Link to post
This is my own morality and view on it, not to be pressed upon anyone else, so take it for what it is:

 

"Acting on your straightness" is a sin a vast majority of the time, too, as I see it, since in my view, marriage consists of a. agreeing to marry and b. consummating the relationship. So there are people all over the place consummating their relationships but not committing to one another. That strikes me as wrong and fits in what I understand is the 'sin' category. It really doesn't matter who you're doing that with, if you're doing it, you're doing it.

 

So there's the issue I have, anyhow. And as you can see, I have it every bit as much with straight people. perhaps more so, than I do with gay people. But I'm not sitting here condemning the world to everlasting fire and damnation about it.

This, plus the fact that the word "homosexual" didn't enter the Bible until recent history (before it was just sexual immorality), Sodom heavily implies rape, most of the Leviticus laws are broken nowadays anyway, and Paul was of no more relevance than a Pope or priest (and I'm really frustrated that his letters are seen as just as high or higher than the gospels. Jesus > Paul. One is God. The other just goes off his interpretations). Jesus said nothing blatant about homosexuality, the verses that even come close have multiple interpretations.

 

As for Boy/Girl scouts, I know Boy Scouts can kick you out for a number of reasons. If you're gay is one of them, but another is refusing to pledge allegiance to the American flag. During my short stay in Girl Scouts, we were told to recite the Lord's Prayer and the Girl Scout Promise, which is:

 

On my honor, I will try:

To serve God and my country,

To help people at all times,

And to live by the Girl Scout Law.

 

Notice it's not "my god" which would imply religious freedom, but "God" as in the Christian God. Thus I thought they were a Christian Organization too. Granted they seem to be a bit of a joke compared to the Boy Scouts so the rules might be less strictly enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Notice it's not "my god" which would imply religious freedom, but "God" as in the Christian God. Thus I thought they were a Christian Organization too. Granted they seem to be a bit of a joke compared to the Boy Scouts so the rules might be less strictly enforced.

Actually, I don't think adding "my god" instead of "god" would be much better. It has a religious connotation either way. It's not necessarily Christian (though that was likely the intention), but it still excludes kids that do not believe in a god or that believe in multiple gods.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
This, plus the fact that the word "homosexual" didn't enter the Bible until recent history (before it was just sexual immorality), Sodom heavily implies rape, most of the Leviticus laws are broken nowadays anyway, and Paul was of no more relevance than a Pope or priest (and I'm really frustrated that his letters are seen as just as high or higher than the gospels. Jesus > Paul. One is God. The other just goes off his interpretations). Jesus said nothing blatant about homosexuality, the verses that even come close have multiple interpretations.

 

As for Boy/Girl scouts, I know Boy Scouts can kick you out for a number of reasons. If you're gay is one of them, but another is refusing to pledge allegiance to the American flag. During my short stay in Girl Scouts, we were told to recite the Lord's Prayer and the Girl Scout Promise, which is:

 

 

 

Notice it's not "my god" which would imply religious freedom, but "God" as in the Christian God. Thus I thought they were a Christian Organization too. Granted they seem to be a bit of a joke compared to the Boy Scouts so the rules might be less strictly enforced.

Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

 

The act of homosexuality is definitely in the OT, homosexuality is just the modern word for it... think whatever you want about the veracity of the Bible, but don't deny its content tongue.gif

 

The Apostles were given Godly authority, and that is why Paul's letters can be held as scripture. They are inspired by God in the Christian belief.

 

 

 

The "God" referenced is most certainly not exclusively the Christian God. The same phrasing is used in the Boy Scout oath,

 

On my honor

I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

To obey the scout law

To keep myself physically strong

Mentally awake

And morally straight.

 

If the God referenced was exclusively the Christian God, they would not have religious emblem programs for pretty much every religion imaginable. It references whatever deity you hold worthy of worship. The BSA is a RELIGIOUS organization, but not an exclusively Christian one (depending on where you are at).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

That line refers to male prostitutes, not a man not of that profession. It's a mistranslation as has been stated many times in this thread, Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
That line refers to male prostitutes, not a man not of that profession. It's a mistranslation as has been stated many times in this thread, Phil.

I thought the whole "male prostitute" mistranslation argument applied to this verse...

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the whole "male prostitute" mistranslation argument applied to this verse...

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

...

 

Okay, just throwing this out there, this is like the... fifth or sixth version of that verse I've heard.

 

I've never seen 'male prostitute' in there in any of the previous ones, and I could've sworn there was something about witches somewhere.

Edited by Dr. Paine

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

Okay, just throwing this out there, this is like the... fifth or sixth version of that verse I've heard.

 

I've never seen 'male prostitute' in there in any of the previous ones, and I could've sworn there was something about witches somewhere.

I just grabbed the first one that came up on my Bible app. Here's a couple alternatives.

 

 

 

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

 

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

 

 

Anyways, I've never heard the "male prostitute" argument applied to the levitical law, just that passage.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

 

The act of homosexuality is definitely in the OT, homosexuality is just the modern word for it... think whatever you want about the veracity of the Bible, but don't deny its content tongue.gif

 

The Apostles were given Godly authority, and that is why Paul's letters can be held as scripture. They are inspired by God in the Christian belief.

I know they're there. I said:

 

most of the Leviticus laws are broken nowadays anyway

 

If you shave, wear two different materials at once, or eat bacon, you're also sinning according to the same laws. Women could not wear men's clothes. Why are some allowed to be broken but not others? Also what Skins said, also a verse used to condemn anal sex with women (and, to a further extent, any "unnatural" sex such as oral as well). How many good Christian men engage in those too?

 

Paul also said women should wear head coverings at all times and couldn't lead Churches. He taught that women should always fall under the authority of men, not the other way around. He had God's inspiration, but he was also left to interpret it his own way, as we all are. Thus you already have a plethora of denominations and old order vs new order, etc, because of different interpretations of the Bible. Paul was human, he had human baggage just like the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the whole "male prostitute" mistranslation argument applied to this verse...

 

*shrug* Eh. I'll let NobleOwl debate that. I just go by what she said, since her version of the bible and her knowledge is far more vast than mine.

Edited by skinst

Share this post


Link to post
Notice it's not "my god" which would imply religious freedom, but "God" as in the Christian God. Thus I thought they were a Christian Organization too. Granted they seem to be a bit of a joke compared to the Boy Scouts so the rules might be less strictly enforced.

I just looked at a few websites, and it looks like it's "God" in the same way Alcoholics Anonymous has God.

 

Whether they were originally Christian or not, I don't know, but they seemed kind of watered down to me, too.

 

As for Leviticus being mistranslated, maybe, but it's not the famous "we don't even know what arsenokoitai means" verse. That's Greek.

Share this post


Link to post

I know they're there. I said:

 

 

 

If you shave, wear two different materials at once, or eat bacon, you're also sinning according to the same laws. Women could not wear men's clothes. Why are some allowed to be broken but not others? Also what Skins said, also a verse used to condemn anal sex with women (and, to a further extent, any "unnatural" sex such as oral as well). How many good Christian men engage in those too?

 

Paul also said women should wear head coverings at all times and couldn't lead Churches. He taught that women should always fall under the authority of men, not the other way around. He had God's inspiration, but he was also left to interpret it his own way, as we all are. Thus you already have a plethora of denominations and old order vs new order, etc, because of different interpretations of the Bible. Paul was human, he had human baggage just like the rest of us.

The difference is if I shaved in ancient Israel, I would be ceremonially unclean... If I was found lying with a man, I would be put to death...

 

 

 

As for Leviticus being mistranslated, maybe, but it's not the famous "we don't even know what arsenokoitai means" verse. That's Greek.

 

I've never quite understood what the difficulty is in translating it. I realize it's not a word, but two words together. Literally, are the two words not translated "man-lier"? Or something of the sort?

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.