|
|
LionoftheNorth
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
posted February 09, 2011 08:38 PM |
- penalty applied by Corribus on 14 Aug 2011. |
Edited by Corribus at 06:59, 14 Aug 2011.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The rights of the child must always come first.
And by making them stuck at orphanage, you're protecting their rights.
yeah.
Quote:
Common.. there are loads of threads and statements on this form that could be taken as "offensive" to us christians, but that doesn't make me demanding people to self-censor themselves for the sake of what
us christians really like to focus on other people's lives and tell them how immoral are they, don't we?
You really like to blow up straw-men, don't you? I am a great friend of adopting children, especially as an alternative to abortion, but those children still have the right of a good upbringing in a surrogate family.
Well.. it is immoral to not tell people that they are doing immoral stuff if they are. You do wrong by not helping the people who are doing it wrong, if you get what I mean.
MOD NOTE: Penalty applied for unauthorized posting by a previously banned member.
____________
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 08:46 PM |
|
|
Even a gay couple who have a child, can love it like parents would and the child to love them back. They have as much of a fair chance as everyone else to have a happy family.
If anyone will probably ruin it for them, is the other people who won't accept easily a gay couple with a child. But that's not the gay couple's fault.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Still also doesn't answer WHY. *shrugs* 'Just because I say and think so' is not an answer.
I don't get it.. I thought I gave a pretty clear response. The rights of the child must always come first.
Since when was it a child's right to have a mother and a father?
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 09:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You really like to blow up straw-men, don't you?
Actually, I have no clue what you just said. Must be my crappy english.
Quote:
I am a great friend of adopting children, especially as an alternative to abortion, but those children still have the right of a good upbringing in a surrogate family.
And yet orpahanages are overpopulated. Guess the world isn't really that great of a place, isn't it? Meaning, you have to decide between giving the child gay parents or no parents. Which feels better to you?
Quote:
Well.. it is immoral to not tell people that they are doing immoral stuff if they are. You do wrong by not helping the people who are doing it wrong, if you get what I mean.
Sure, the homosexuals are so wrong. Why couldn't we see this before you told us?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 09:36 PM |
|
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 09:47 PM |
|
|
Good question.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 10:25 PM |
|
|
|
Well, the god of the Jews said it would suck, so that's making it what some Christians define as sin, and sinning is immoral.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 10:38 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 22:40, 09 Feb 2011.
|
Quote:
Since when was it a child's right to have a mother and a father?
Exactly. Not having a mother and father has nothing to do with a child's rights.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 11:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, the god of the Jews said it would suck, so that's making it what some Christians define as sin, and sinning is immoral.
The funny thing is that a lot of Old Testament researchers consider Old Testament NOT bashing homosexuality at all. That's what my gay friend told me (he did a research on this - I'm not that good at this, however)
According to him:
- Homosexuality as sin would be better translated to "performing sexual male acts in temples is a no-no"
- Researchers point out that "you cannot have sex with a man like you have with woman like the old testament condemns because it's a logical error.. You can't have sex with a man like you have with woman... you have sex with man like you have sex with men, no more, no less 
- The Sins of Sodomah and Gomorrah were plentiful, but homosexuality wasn't the case.
Do whatever research you want, if you wish. Not my business, however, I felt it suitable to quote here 
Lets not forget Jesus has never condemned gays, too, so what's the whole deal with gay-bashing religious nutheads?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 09, 2011 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The funny thing is that a lot of Old Testament researchers consider Old Testament NOT bashing homosexuality at all. That's what my gay friend told me (he did a research on this - I'm not that good at this, however)
According to him:
- Homosexuality as sin would be better translated to "performing sexual male acts in temples is a no-no"
- Researchers point out that "you cannot have sex with a man like you have with woman like the old testament condemns because it's a logical error.. You can't have sex with a man like you have with woman... you have sex with man like you have sex with men, no more, no less
- The Sins of Sodomah and Gomorrah were plentiful, but homosexuality wasn't the case.
Do whatever research you want, if you wish. Not my business, however, I felt it suitable to quote here
Lets not forget Jesus has never condemned gays, too, so what's the whole deal with gay-bashing religious nutheads?
lol?
It amazes me how far people will go to re-invent their religion instead of having the tenacity to either follow it or abandon it.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 02:18 AM |
|
|
The Old Testament always was the embarrassing redneck cousin of the New one, nothing new about that. I never found that to be reason enough to entirely abandon Christianity, though.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 02:36 AM |
|
|
Yeah I agree. Why wouldn't I be able to say that certain parts of the bible are rubbish which was either there for political purposes or has outlived its value? It's not so much being selective as it's being rational. Why would I give up my faith simply because the supposedly holy scripture is flawed? Christianity is far more than the bible.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 02:41 AM |
|
|
The Old Testament writings are intricately in the fold of Christianity. Passages from it are literally quoted several hundred times in the New Testament, not to mention the continuous liturgical allusions that aren't direct quotes. One of the main subjects - possibly the main subject - of the epistles is the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament condemns homosexuality in an even more obvious manner than the Old Testament.
1 Timothy 1: 5-11
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Now yes, out of some people's desperation, they have made mind-numbingly poor arguments that the verse isn't talking about homosexuality and that somehow for the past 2,000 years, thousands upon thousands of scholars that are enormously fluent in ancient Greek all somehow managed to get it wrong, but now suddenly a few liberal Christian scholars in the recent century (mysteriously at the exact same time that homosexual rights starts popping up) figured it out.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 02:42 AM |
|
|
Then again everything a "moderate" christian says on this board is quickly burried in an avalance of zealotry. Well... atleast we don't lack perspective.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah I agree. Why wouldn't I be able to say that certain parts of the bible are rubbish which was either there for political purposes or has outlived its value? It's not so much being selective as it's being rational. Why would I give up my faith simply because the supposedly holy scripture is flawed? Christianity is far more than the bible.
Well I suppose you can take that stance, but if I call myself a Leninist and then I say that Lenin's writings are inaccurate crap, and I cease to even follow several tenets that he put in place and start following different tenants according to what is most convenient to my life and what spares me from social awkwardness / social pressure, and I put away my Hammer and Sickle flag and start driving around with a picture of Margaret Thatcher on my bumper sticker, then it begs the question: why do I even bother to identify myself as a Leninist?
Anyway, this has drifted from the LGBT topic so I'll leave it at that; you can put in a final note if you wish.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 03:31 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 03:33, 10 Feb 2011.
|
Quote:
if I call myself a Leninist and then I say that Lenin's writings are inaccurate crap
But where exactly did Jesus say anything about gay people?
Being a Christian and not being homophobic is more akin to being a communist and not supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat.
...
Final note, ha!
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 03:49 AM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 03:57, 10 Feb 2011.
|
Well I'm certainly not eloquent enough to put a final note to this (especially not at this hour lol) but I'll give you my thoughts hoping the LGBTs will forgive me.
You're right it seems odd to call yourself Christian and discard some or even a large sum of biblical passages as rubbish simply because it appears to be more convenient.
While I can't speak for any Christian beside myself I think the idea should be easy enough to understand: Christianity in our day and age is different from both what was preaced in the middle ages and the times to come and who preached it and with what authority behind it. The book from which has been preached and all manner of different conclusions have been drawn is pretty much the same however. So that one book leaves room for different interpretations. Now I'm not going to say that passages where it says "Thou shalt kill all homosexuals, heathens, heretics, untrimmed beard wearers, etc. etc." don't mean exactly what they say and that they're methaphors for something else (because they're not) but I'm questioning their relevance to christianity as a religion.
Like any ideology Christianity has some core beliefs like the roots of a tree and from those fundamentals grows a trunk which will ultimately split into a crown of different branches. Now you can cut and trimm a tree as much as you like and form it to suit your own taste the tree will be different depending on the person sculpting it but it will always stay a tree as long as you don't deroot it.
Disregarding/Ignoring homophobic or genocidal passages of the bible doesn't strike me as a means to selfishly "spare me from social awkwardness / social pressure" it is simply admitting that that part of Christianity is wrong and that it does not stem from the same roots as your beliefs. I'm very much of a new testament man myself and I believe that the core of Christianities teachings lie with Love thy Neighbour, Forgiveness and Love. Those aren't things I conveniently picked out for myself they're pretty much "official" for Christianity nowadays since they're the teachings of Jesus. So as long as my tree grows from those roots I do not see why I should not rightfully and without shame be able to call myself a Christian.
All the quotes that are so very far removed from fundamentals of the new testament yet are still part of it aren't exactly what you'd call defineing for Christianity. They're ideas or old concepts that branch off the roots quite early or some fungi that simply grow on the trunk. So why should people be able to come to me and say "You're not really a Christian because you don't believe in everything it says in your book. And since its your rulebook you have to believe that everything it says is right, or else it wouldn't be your bible would it? You don't play by the "rules" ergo you're just picking the parts you like the best. You're not really Christian". Is it so unplausible that parts of a book that has exsisted for quite a few hundred years now (or even already then by our standards) simply are contradictory, wrong and to a part outdated? Why should I not be able to find my fundamentals in a part of it without accepting everything else too? Especially if the parts contradict each other. The obvious example being the idea of "An eye for an eye" vs the teachings of Jesus.
I really don't understand the idea of seeing a guy that buys everything the bible says as "more" christian than the one who only believes in the new testament for example.
Like I said I'm not doing the topic nearly enough justice but I wanted to say this nonetheless especially considering the nonchalance with which people are often regarded here when it comes to them defending their Christianity.
EDIT: **** you Bak... I sit here sacrificing like and hour of my sleep which would be better spent sleeping so I can learn for my exam in two days (well techncially tomorrow) and you ruin my efforts with your witty oneliners. In all honesty I was tempted to go for something along those lines too but Bboy was being a tad to lofty for me so I'd rather try and go with something a bit more substancial. Not sure whether I succeded though lol. Curse you!!!
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 05:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Even a gay couple who have a child, can love it like parents would
No they can't, otherwise they wouldn't be, you know, gay. Homosexual couples, that's another issue all together though.
Ahem, and this is where I step in. Just because you have a preference for someone of the same gender doesn't mean that the sight of a poor starving child in a depraved country doesn't melt your heart. And then, when gay (Root meaning of the word is "Happy) couples go to orphanages, they can still feel the same connection to a child as anyone can. (Of course, from the point where they adopt the little tyke on might be a different story, but...)
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 07:32 AM |
|
|
Let's try to bring some sense into it.
Queastion was why homosexuality is supposed to be immoral.
Answer: Because the Jewish god forbid it, at least within it's chosen people, so he must have considered it at least unclean or something like that.
Since this is also Allah and Christ's father, homosexuals have had a hard time there and homosexualiry was cconsidered immoral.
While Jesus has said on one hand that all laws of his father would still be in effect, he also said on the other, that the commandments would evolve to the love thy neighbor one. He also said, don't judge for that you are not judged.
Logically, therefore, Jesus' and therefore Christianity's stance would be, considering that we are not God's chosen people anyway)
a) yes, homosexuality is a sin, so everyone should keep away from it
b) if others are sinning, love them anyway and don't judge them for it (that's God's business)
Obviously this is a pretty "healthy" point of view - one that was as obviously very difficult to cling to, considering history.
It makes sense for the whole "moral" stuff like adultery and so on.
However, it's also a difficult position.
While it IS imaginable that believing Christians indeed mind only their own business, the "moral stuff" is STILL considered sinning, and they would have to ask themselves, whether they should stand by and watch how the immoral people (homosexuals, people who are not married and have sex, people who commit adultry) not only are sinning, but try to tell the whole world that what they do isn't sinning, but perfectly ok, and that they try to "turn around" society to "embrace" their way of living.
For believing Christians therefore - and that's why our Norseman stated what has been quoted with so much joy here - "sinners" should keep a low profile, at least. Yes, what people do behind their doors is between them and god and should keep that way, but
"Gays should realize that they are... well, sinners", that's what behind it, and I don't think there's any way round this "realization" for a believing member of the Abrahamic religions.
And I would guess, that this is the pov of the wide majority of conservative Christians: Fine, let them be gay, let them have their mistresses, let them fornicate unmarried, BUT
bear the consequences, if there are any, and don't start telling our children that all this is perfectly normal and even desirable.
Which is where the difficulties start. You can't really go and forbid Christians to try and press their pov, when gays press theirs. I mean, if the sinners start to parade and declare openly that sinning is great, you can't expect Christians to stand by. What are they supposed to tell their children?
The bottom line is that Christianity in general can ignore "the problem" and avert their eyes from it as long as the problem isn't poking them in the eyes.
Naturally, if living in a secular society where gaiety is no crime, BOTH groups have a right to press their pov, and both groups will have to live with the fact that they are entitled to their opinion.
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted February 10, 2011 07:58 AM |
|
|
I remember reading in Leviticus how umm.. was it God? Don't remember... Asked of his followers to punish, torture, exile from their societies and families or even kill those who where homosexuals... I shall try to find this part and paste it here.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
