Where in the Bible is homosexuality prohibited?

[Nadsat]

But it has lots on anachronisms that are indeed fairly amusing.

Can you identify one of the anachronisms? An anachronism is something that appears in a work of fiction that is temporally impossible. For example, when a clock is heard tolling in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, because tolling clocks did not exist in ancient Rome. As a more recent example, The Green Mile is set in 1935, but Louisiana did not execute by electrocution until 1940.

The Book of Mormon does have anachronisms, for example, it describes the use of steel weapons centuries before steel was invented.

 

[Justice Smith]

I'm not too sure if it's been mentioned but isn't another reason because pre-marital relations (SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) is a sin, or against GOD, and GAY couples for the most part cannot be wed.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ If you want to be picky, and follow St. Paul's meditation on the matter, there's no such thing as "pre-marital sex". By his definition of marriage, the moment a guy and chick "do it", they're married, i.e. "one flesh". Anything after the first is adultery....

As far as being wed -- God's law on that doesn't give a hoot what man's says. There were times and places in history where a government didn't recognize Jewish weddings -- but they were still married.

But whether gay couples come under that heading is a different matter.

 

[dexyboi86]

Luckily for us, it's all a bunch of foolish hogwash.

I disagree strongly, and consider that statement to be offensive and a 'flame'.

I believe very stongly in the scriptures. I base my life on them.
However, different people interpret them differently.

I thank you for not making rude and hateful statements.

 

[voyager6]

I disagree strongly, and consider that statement to be offensive and a 'flame'.

I believe very stongly in the scriptures. I base my life on them.
However, different people interpret them differently.

I thank you for not making rude and hateful statements.

Anything can be interpreted as Offensive if it goes against your own personal beliefs....

Differing interpretations of the bible are what gives us so many christian denominations

 

[Kulindahr]

I disagree strongly, and consider that statement to be offensive and a 'flame'.

I believe very stongly in the scriptures. I base my life on them.
However, different people interpret them differently.

I thank you for not making rude and hateful statements.

If you think it's a flame, report it.
I do agree it's offensive!

 

[Kulindahr]

Anything can be interpreted as Offensive if it goes against your own personal beliefs....

Differing interpretations of the bible are what gives us so many christian denominations

The post he referenced seemed to be saying that the whole Bible is hogwash, which would indeed be a flame -- just like someone coming into the Sports area and saying that all sports are garbage would be a flame.

Differing interpretations of the Bible arise quite rapidly when people read different translations, too. That's one of the reasons the Roman church once upon a time outlawed translations -- it wasn't to keep people ignorant, but to force them to read it in the original. Wise denominations nowadays require their clergy to learn Hebrew and Greek (truly wise ones get in two years of each in college before they even go to seminary).

 

[Negasta]

I disagree strongly, and consider that statement to be offensive and a 'flame'.

I believe very stongly in the scriptures. I base my life on them.
However, different people interpret them differently.

I thank you for not making rude and hateful statements.

Why if I say that Marxism or Ludism is "foolish hogwash", people give me the right to do so and do not call me "rude" or "hateful"?

Why must religion (especially Christianity) be given a free pass on deserved criticism, with all the atrocities and unreal, unscientific nonsense that is written in the pages of the "Good Book".

I assume that you are one of the "New Testament laws negates the Old Testament laws" people? The New Testament is filled with all kinds of horrifying things such as the sado-masochistic concept of atonement for original sin and the subjugation of women. Any person who truly based their morality on the Bible (Old or New Testament), would be either in prison or a mental hospital.

All of the truly moral concepts that we adhere to today, that can be found in the Bible (there are very few), were thought up long before Christianity or even Judaism existed and are just as valid when divorced from their religious roots as when not. I myself find the Golden Rule of Jainism far more moral than any Christian moral code.

If a law or scientific theory is no longer relevant, it is relegated to the history books, so why if you don't follow 90% of the laws laid out in the scripture, don't you just remove them like any other piece of useless detritus?

Luckily for us, it's all a bunch of foolish hogwash.

I would say that it is unlucky that the Bible is all a bunch of foolish hogwash, because the people who have been gullible enough to swallow the hogwash for the last two millennia, have caused incalculable suffering and death because of those beliefs.

Though the fact remains that it is hogwash.

 

[dexyboi86]

If you think it's a flame, report it.
I do agree it's offensive!

I have reported it.

Why must religion (especially Christianity) be given a free pass on deserved criticism, with all the atrocities and unreal, unscientific nonsense that is written in the pages of the "Good Book".

I would say that it is unlucky that the Bible is all a bunch of foolish hogwash, because the people who have been gullible enough to swallow the hogwash for the last two millennia, have caused incalculable suffering and death because of those beliefs.

Though the fact remains that it is hogwash.

This is not a matter of the accuracy or validity of scriptures. It is a matter of personal insult. I choose to believe it, and that is my own personal situation. You can tell me that you do not agree, but you can't call it hogwash or something like that.

Example: I do not believe in the Qu'ran. But I do not refer to it as 'foolish hogwash' oranything of the sorts. I just say I do not believe in it. Just because I do not agree with it does not mean that I can insult all Muslims by calling it 'foolish hogwash'

 

[Negasta]

..............................................................

 

[darcey]

Any true beliver ignores the ignorance of those who - many times thru fear- try to denigrate Belief. If there is not threat, there is no need for defense.

 

[Eagle653]

Hi folks, just for the record, yes, this is a No Flame Area.

However, strongly voicing an opinion about religious beliefs (or lack of them) does not constitute a flame. The fact that some people may be offended by someone else's religious beliefs does not constitute a flame, either.

A flame is a personal attack. We've read these posts, and the ones reported in particular, and do not find a flame nor personal attack. We find a spirited discussion about personal beliefs, by people who feel strongly about their respective sides. That's fine. Sometimes words get a little strong in closely held beliefs, e.g., thinking someone else's views are "hogwash" (if I remember the term correctly). Note, though, that the person is not calling the other person a hog, but just that they don't buy into their views. There's a big difference.

Anyway, carry on. I just wanted you all to know we got (and considered) the Post Reports on this thread. Thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have reported it.

Oh very mature, tattling on those mean brutes who hurt your feelings.

Far more mature than you -- he knows where he is, and behaves accordingly.
Your behavior here is like someone who goes into the restroom and takes a dump on the floor, when everyone else knows the crap belongs in the toilet. JUB has a place for dumping crap, and it isn't in the no-flame zone.

People like you provide "cover" for the extremists of the world by insisting that nobody's religion may ever be insulted/criticized or questioned even if it is justified.

Even assuming your point is true, it is irrelevant: this is not "the world", it is a no-flame zone.

The Qu'ran is foolish hogwash, but just to be fair, so is The Bible, The Torah, The Bhagavad-Gita, the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and any other holy book.

I don't know whether that counts as one flame, or a handful.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hi folks, just for the record, yes, this is a No Flame Area.

However, strongly voicing an opinion about religious beliefs (or lack of them) does not constitute a flame. The fact that some people may be offended by someone else's religious beliefs does not constitute a flame, either.

A flame is a personal attack. We've read these posts, and the ones reported in particular, and do not find a flame nor personal attack. We find a spirited discussion about personal beliefs, by people who feel strongly about their respective sides. That's fine. Sometimes words get a little strong in closely held beliefs, e.g., thinking someone else's views are "hogwash" (if I remember the term correctly). Note, though, that the person is calling the other person a hog, but that they don't buy into their views. There's a big difference.

Anyway, carry on. I just wanted you all to know we got (and considered) the Post Reports on this thread. Thanks.

Given the discussion in the stickys for this forum, I have to disagree. Dropping into a thread where the question is what a particular writing says only to attack the value of that writing isn't "congenial" or respectful, nor does it constitute a mutually enlightening discussion.
If a no-flame zone is supposed to be a place where people feel safe talking about things up close and personally important to them, then you just threw that out the window, averageguy.

 

[Eagle653]

Kulindahr, I appreciate your views on this, but I refer you to my Post #59 above. Disagreeing with someone does not, in itself, constitute a Flame. A flame is a personal attack, not disagreeing with someone else's beliefs. There is disagreement here among beliefs. Personally, I would prefer if people expressed those disagreements without inflammatory words that suggest judgmentalism, but that's not our business (they have to live with their own reputation and feedback). We just need to make sure it doesn't get personal--and calling someone's ideas hogwash is not personal. Calling someone a hog or a pig would be and then we have trouble.

As a reminder to all, though. let's be civil and respectful in asserting our opinions about this topic. It really will go further in having people respond to your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Any true beliver ignores the ignorance of those who - many times thru fear- try to denigrate Belief. If there is not threat, there is no need for defense.

And those weaker in faith?
And when in a place that it's supposed to be safe to open your mouth without being ridiculed, what then?

 

[Spensed]

I agree with the Moderator that the hogwash comment is about the beliefs not the believers.

It's interesting that the people attacking it didn't just ignore it or dismiss it or put it in their own context. They want to eliminate it. Even weak faith is hardly going to be changed by such an exaggerated attack so my guess is that believers don't like it because it touches on a nerve of doubt that, IMHO, it's better to face directly.

Also trying to silence extreme criticism is a group thing to do. The group tries to structure and control the dialogue by their own required piety and "respect" around the subject. You see it in the Roman Catholic Church around nonsense like the cult of the Virgin...i.e. did Mary remain a virgin after the birth of Christ?.... (and you also see it in the Wizard of Oz before you find out what's behind the curtain).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all faith based stuff is hogwash, but it has to be intellectually rigorous enough to withstand skepticism, doubt and, yes, even other people thinking that it's hogwash.

Back on topic, the Bible's pronouncements on homosexuality, despite what various Churches would have you believe, is the subject of considerable debate and uncertainty. Also there is the possibility that the Bible is a historically important, but not a God driven document. It's obviously wrong or superseded in a number of areas and the final books in particular make about as much sense as Scientology science fiction.

No harm in using it as a moral guide, especially Christ's own teachings, if it's helpful to do so, but to use it to torture oneself about one's sexuality makes about as much sense as going back to rubbing two stick together to light a fire.

 

[Kulindahr]

I want to eliminate it because it doesn't belong here, especially not in that language. According to the description of the religion forum given by the moderator, this is supposed to be a place to discuss things congenially and respectfully. Calling someone's beliefs "hogwash" is neither of those. There are over a dozen people I'm aware of who have left the Religion forum and sworn never to come back, because of posts like this, which are nothing more than ridicule This is supposed to be a place where you don't have to worry about ridicule,
For a time I thought the invasion of threads by people whose only purpose is to rip apart and attack was over, but this new one shows it isn't. Such an attack is flaming, and if the mods don't call it that then I may decide what others have, and leave this forum to those who hate and despise and aren't mature enough to behave congenially and respectfully.
If someone wants to take the position that religions are "hogwash", that can be done in a separate thread. It can also be done without such a derisive word. And anyone worth talking to will do it without such a derisive word.

How would we all take it if someone came onto JUB declaring that "being gay is hogwash"? We'd call it homophobic and gay-hating, and take it as flaming. This is no different -- the poster called religion hogwash, and that's religio-phobic and religion-hating, and it's flaming.

Abusive postings belong in Hot Topics, not here. Anti-religious threads are fine here if they're done respectfully, which these posts weren't.

 

[Spensed]

One could can "eliminate it" (the hogwash comment) by ignoring it, dismissing it as the poster's own opinion, putting it in your own wider context, pointing out the the use of harsh language itself declares an interest, etc., etc.

I agree that the language is unnecessarily hostile and, if that were the tone of the board, it would be a problem. But, it isn't. Also if harsh language is actually a threat to one's faith, I suspect there are bigger issues afoot.

It doesn't make much sense to me just to use censorship to protect folk of weak faith or to insulate believers from their harsher critics.

As for leaving the board, I see occasional believer-non-believer clashes, but, as I say, the threads don't suggest that they're that much of a problem. The board isn't as good as it could be because there's more pontificating than continuity or follow up.

 

[darcey]

And those weaker in faith?
And when in a place that it's supposed to be safe to open your mouth without being ridiculed, what then?

As much as I respect your posts, name me one place where it's safe to open your mouth if everyone hasn't been brain washed to not think? Someone may mock my beliefs, but if I TRUELY believe them, I can ignore the mockery. I believe that people will turn to their Creator not because of what I might say, but because they see what I DO! If I don't "walk the walk" I'm that noisey gong Mr Saul wrote about. However, I usually "trip, stumble, & fall" far more often then I'ld wish