Welcome to America, AKA Sideshow Central (Another Torgo Political thread)

BSE has the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever fucking seen. In his world view, God created everyone straight, but you have to choose your sexuality. Lol wat.

He's not alone in that line of thinking. It's prevalent in all three major monotheistic religions because of some of the shifty texts that do mention homosexuality in their holy texts.

Of course it doesn't make a lick of sense, but good luck breaking through the static there. Understand you're probably talking to someone who believes in a talking snake, or that the psychotic act of sacrificing your own son to prove your worth to a talking supernatural being in the sky is a good thing.
 
People choose their sexuality.

As for race and gender, you were made that way - by God - who has a perfect will for your life.

If you don't believe in God and Christianity, then let's just drop this right now before it turns into a huge argument that doesn't accomplish anything.

This is amazing.

God makes you a certain way and that's that apparently. Unless your gay, he didn't make you that way. If your straight though he totally did. He makes everybody straight. This is of course based on the foolproof science of a highly self-contradictory and clearly amoral book that is thousands of years old and is blatantly cherry picked and reinterpreted in order to have the illusion of validity in the face of modern ethics and scientific understanding of how the world actually works. Your Bible is stupid, you're wrong about god, and you don't know anything about gender or sexuality.

Also, the phrase "God has a perfect will for your life" makes no sense.
 
This entire deal is devolving off topic, but....



I always find funny that folks who advocate the concept of God and his plans think they are in some position to interperate them and explain those plans to other people.



GOD'S. PLANS.




Like, do you sincerely not realize that if God was such a thing (I am one who thinks he is) your little bitty pea human brain probably can't even fucking fully comprehend him, or anything approaching its plans.

It slays me when people who claim absolute faith in an ULTIMATE COSMIC BEING have the arrogance and lack of self awareness to go around speaking for said cosmic being.


Just who the fuck are YOU



Taking umbrage with a book written by men is not doubting God. Perhaps the men who wrote the book did not quite fully grasp the thoughts and will of a SUPREME COSMIC BEING


If God is real, and God does not make mistakes, then he made gay people, and TG people, and they are not a mistake. You know science has proven definitively through pheromone research that being gay is not a choice? As in, they biologically react to someone of their preference the same way you would to a woman?

It is not the supreme being who is to be doubted. It is the flawed men who use his existence to further their own interests and beliefs about morality.
 
Ok, ok. I get it. You all are not Christians, and I have no idea why I even brought it up. If you're not saved and not in God's will, then you're just not going understand. Sorry for wasting your time.
 
Ok, ok. I get it. You all are not Christians, and I have no idea why I even brought it up. If you're not saved and not in God's will, then you're just not going understand. Sorry for wasting your time.

Disclaimer; this is coming from a Jew.

Damn, that's some pretty big assumptions, here, homey. I'm not Christian, but I'd be pretty pissed with anyone questioning my faith, on their own personal view of sexuality.

I'm legitimately curious, what makes someone like... I dunno, NorCal any less Christian than you?

You know, for science...
 
Ok, ok. I get it. You all are not Christians, and I have no idea why I even brought it up. If you're not saved and not in God's will, then you're just not going understand. Sorry for wasting your time.

Exactly, we will never understand using your religion as a shield against hard questions or simply ignoring those topics that an interpretation of a religion did not foresee arising hundreds, even thousands of years ago.
 
Ok, ok. I get it. You all are not Christians, and I have no idea why I even brought it up. If you're not saved and not in God's will, then you're just not going understand. Sorry for wasting your time.
Correction- we are all not people who share your particular interpretation of Christianity. You brought it up when we asked you to explain your stance that people are born they way they are "for a reason". I've spent more time than most people studying religions, but I'm personally having a very tough time understanding how since a guy got stapled to a cross, gay people must be confused and ashamed. This is why we're asking you to elaborate.

Don't be sorry about wasting our time, that's why most of us are visiting these boards in the first place. If you'd like to make it worth everyone's while, you could explain the particular Christian teachings that support your point of view. While you'll certainly run into some people here with the "religion = bad" reflex, there are many of us here familiar with the various Christian churches who are curious what doctrine you are using to reach your viewpoints, or whether you are using religion as a crutch to avoid challenging pre-existing points of view.

Case in point; the Episcopalian Church allows gay clergy and performs gay marriages. Their interpretation of Christianity clearly disagrees with your interpretation. What teachings have you learned from Christianity that support your "people is who they is" interpretation?
 
The bible says you shouldnt eat shrimp more times than it says you arent allowed to be gay.

I cant understand the big deal about Jesus. He claimed he was the son of god, the king of the Jews, performed miracles, was crucified and spent his time hanging around prostitutes (he married one too, but the church has tried to hide that). None of which can be proven and whats written in the bible is likely to highly inaccurate as it was written generations after Jesus had come and gone.

Back to being serious for a second, I actually cant understand why people try to use religion in examples like these. I thought that one of your amendments (or maybe its your constitution) state that religion has to be kept separate?
 
Back to being serious for a second, I actually cant understand why people try to use religion in examples like these. I thought that one of your amendments (or maybe its your constitution) state that religion has to be kept separate?
The First Amendment (which is considered part of the Constitution- the Amendments are the changes we've made to the Constitution, either by trying to fix oversights or because we can't resist fucking up a good thing) just says that the government can establish no law that infringes upon freedom of religion (and speech, assembly, etc.), which is interpreted very broadly.

It's why the US Government can't pass a law that says "churches now have to participate in gay marriages or else", but they can require that county clerks (agents of the government) sign marriage licenses for gay couples.
 
Ok, ok. I get it. You all are not Christians, and I have no idea why I even brought it up. If you're not saved and not in God's will, then you're just not going understand. Sorry for wasting your time.

Actually, I am a Christian, but I don't pretend to understand God's will. While I know some Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, I personally have trouble believing that because there's too many contradictory statements. I'm a suspicious person by nature and there are many portions in the Bible that strike me as prime examples of human beings inserting their personal belief into doctrine and calling it the word of God. Maybe I'm wrong and, if so, then I'm wrong as it all boils down to us simply doing the best we can.

Some of the contradictions I alluded to, Jesus himself seemed to be open to everyone. As far as the lifestyle and choices of others, Matthew 7:1-5 states:
"1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


I'm hardly a biblical scholar, yet this seems to be a particular verse from the Bible that many zealous Christians seem to conveniently forget. Contrary to what some might want you to believe, Christians aren't perfect as they're still as flawed as anyone else is.

I believe that we stand before God when our time comes; I understand some don't have that same belief, which is perfectly fine with me as I'm not intending to start some sort of debate that can't be won by either side. But if my belief is correct and those who're gay are judged and cast into Hell then, the way I look at it, they chose their fates as they've had opportunities and options to choose a different path. Now that doesn't mean that I believe being genuinely homosexual is a choice, because I don't, but choosing to act upon those desires is a choice. While people can't choose how they feel, they can choose how they behave and are responsible for their own actions. However, if God allows them into Heaven, that's perfectly fine with me as I leave the judgment of others where it belongs: in God's hands. If God doesn't condemn them, then who exactly am I to do so?

In many cases, I think the refusal to provide marriage licenses to gay couples is ultimately a way to express prejudice legally. Back in 1996, convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as The Night Stalker in the mid 80s, married a freelance journalist named Doreen Lioy. Ramirez was convicted of a panoply of crimes including 13 counts of first degree murder and 11 counts of rape and he was a proud, practicing Satanist who stated that his crimes were done to honor Satan. During his trial, he would often cry "Hail Satan" at various times in the middle of court proceedings. What's the point? My point is where were all the various Christian groups condemning this? Where were the protests and picket lines? Where were the petitions to keep this from taking place? A man that proudly admitted to killing more than a dozen people and raping almost a dozen women in the name of Satan is allowed to be married with the same legal rights as any other heterosexual yet people who have done no harm to anyone else and are law abiding citizens shouldn't have the same rights as a satanic serial killer & rapist because they're in love with someone of the same gender? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

Can you be a Christian and still condemn homosexuality as sinful? I don't see why not seeing as how Christians seem perfectly tolerant of people who live otherwise sinful lives every single day. Everyday, someone commits adultery, yet they're not hauled out into the street and stoned to death. Everyday, someone takes God's name in vain yet there aren't throngs of Christians demanding that they be hanged for heresy. Everyday, there are people who've been living together in sexual relationships prior to marriage walking into a county clerk's office wanting marriage licenses and aren't turned away because how they've been living goes against said clerk's religious beliefs. You can still have a Christian attitude towards everyone even if you don't agree with certain aspects of their lives while still doing your job.
 
Actually, I am a Christian, but I don't pretend to understand God's will. While I know some Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, I personally have trouble believing that because there's too many contradictory statements. I'm a suspicious person by nature and there are many portions in the Bible that strike me as prime examples of human beings inserting their personal belief into doctrine and calling it the word of God. Maybe I'm wrong and, if so, then I'm wrong as it all boils down to us simply doing the best we can.

Some of the contradictions I alluded to, Jesus himself seemed to be open to everyone. As far as the lifestyle and choices of others, Matthew 7:1-5 states:
"1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


I'm hardly a biblical scholar, yet this seems to be a particular verse from the Bible that many zealous Christians seem to conveniently forget. Contrary to what some might want you to believe, Christians aren't perfect as they're still as flawed as anyone else is.

I believe that we stand before God when our time comes; I understand some don't have that same belief, which is perfectly fine with me as I'm not intending to start some sort of debate that can't be won by either side. But if my belief is correct and those who're gay are judged and cast into Hell then, the way I look at it, they chose their fates as they've had opportunities and options to choose a different path. Now that doesn't mean that I believe being genuinely homosexual is a choice, because I don't, but choosing to act upon those desires is a choice. While people can't choose how they feel, they can choose how they behave and are responsible for their own actions. However, if God allows them into Heaven, that's perfectly fine with me as I leave the judgment of others where it belongs: in God's hands. If God doesn't condemn them, then who exactly am I to do so?

In many cases, I think the refusal to provide marriage licenses to gay couples is ultimately a way to express prejudice legally. Back in 1996, convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as The Night Stalker in the mid 80s, married a freelance journalist named Doreen Lioy. Ramirez was convicted of a panoply of crimes including 13 counts of first degree murder and 11 counts of rape and he was a proud, practicing Satanist who stated that his crimes were done to honor Satan. During his trial, he would often cry "Hail Satan" at various times in the middle of court proceedings. What's the point? My point is where were all the various Christian groups condemning this? Where were the protests and picket lines? Where were the petitions to keep this from taking place? A man that proudly admitted to killing more than a dozen people and raping almost a dozen women in the name of Satan is allowed to be married with the same legal rights as any other heterosexual yet people who have done no harm to anyone else and are law abiding citizens shouldn't have the same rights as a satanic serial killer & rapist because they're in love with someone of the same gender? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

Can you be a Christian and still condemn homosexuality as sinful? I don't see why not seeing as how Christians seem perfectly tolerant of people who live otherwise sinful lives every single day. Everyday, someone commits adultery, yet they're not hauled out into the street and stoned to death. Everyday, someone takes God's name in vain yet there aren't throngs of Christians demanding that they be hanged for heresy. Everyday, there are people who've been living together in sexual relationships prior to marriage walking into a county clerk's office wanting marriage licenses and aren't turned away because how they've been living goes against said clerk's religious beliefs. You can still have a Christian attitude towards everyone even if you don't agree with certain aspects of their lives while still doing your job.
I'd rep you if I could, but I don't rep people enough to rep you as many times as I'd like to. I don't particularly agree with what you have to say, but you clearly have viewpoints which you've considered beyond 'this is just the way things are, and that's it.' It's nice to hear a genuine Christian argument.

BSE, this is what I'm talking about. It's fine to be able to say that you think a certain way because you're Christian, but you should be able to provide a few supporting arguments from how Christianity guides you to the beliefs that you have. There are billions of Christians on this planet, and you'll find a wide disparity of opinions on the gay issue amongst them.
 
Actually, I am a Christian, but I don't pretend to understand God's will. While I know some Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, I personally have trouble believing that because there's too many contradictory statements. I'm a suspicious person by nature and there are many portions in the Bible that strike me as prime examples of human beings inserting their personal belief into doctrine and calling it the word of God. Maybe I'm wrong and, if so, then I'm wrong as it all boils down to us simply doing the best we can.

Some of the contradictions I alluded to, Jesus himself seemed to be open to everyone. As far as the lifestyle and choices of others, Matthew 7:1-5 states:
"1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


I'm hardly a biblical scholar, yet this seems to be a particular verse from the Bible that many zealous Christians seem to conveniently forget. Contrary to what some might want you to believe, Christians aren't perfect as they're still as flawed as anyone else is.

I believe that we stand before God when our time comes; I understand some don't have that same belief, which is perfectly fine with me as I'm not intending to start some sort of debate that can't be won by either side. But if my belief is correct and those who're gay are judged and cast into Hell then, the way I look at it, they chose their fates as they've had opportunities and options to choose a different path. Now that doesn't mean that I believe being genuinely homosexual is a choice, because I don't, but choosing to act upon those desires is a choice. While people can't choose how they feel, they can choose how they behave and are responsible for their own actions. However, if God allows them into Heaven, that's perfectly fine with me as I leave the judgment of others where it belongs: in God's hands. If God doesn't condemn them, then who exactly am I to do so?

In many cases, I think the refusal to provide marriage licenses to gay couples is ultimately a way to express prejudice legally. Back in 1996, convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as The Night Stalker in the mid 80s, married a freelance journalist named Doreen Lioy. Ramirez was convicted of a panoply of crimes including 13 counts of first degree murder and 11 counts of rape and he was a proud, practicing Satanist who stated that his crimes were done to honor Satan. During his trial, he would often cry "Hail Satan" at various times in the middle of court proceedings. What's the point? My point is where were all the various Christian groups condemning this? Where were the protests and picket lines? Where were the petitions to keep this from taking place? A man that proudly admitted to killing more than a dozen people and raping almost a dozen women in the name of Satan is allowed to be married with the same legal rights as any other heterosexual yet people who have done no harm to anyone else and are law abiding citizens shouldn't have the same rights as a satanic serial killer & rapist because they're in love with someone of the same gender? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

Can you be a Christian and still condemn homosexuality as sinful? I don't see why not seeing as how Christians seem perfectly tolerant of people who live otherwise sinful lives every single day. Everyday, someone commits adultery, yet they're not hauled out into the street and stoned to death. Everyday, someone takes God's name in vain yet there aren't throngs of Christians demanding that they be hanged for heresy. Everyday, there are people who've been living together in sexual relationships prior to marriage walking into a county clerk's office wanting marriage licenses and aren't turned away because how they've been living goes against said clerk's religious beliefs. You can still have a Christian attitude towards everyone even if you don't agree with certain aspects of their lives while still doing your job.

Could you maybe give an example of those contradictory statements?

I do agree that people insert their own personal beliefs into the Bible and call it God's word.

I also know Christians are not perfect. See Romans 3:23

Homosexuality is sinful though. See Romans 1:26-27

I understand Christians aren't supposed to judge others, but I do feel like they are supposed to stand up for their beliefs. That's why Christians are so opposed to Homosexuality.
 
Homosexuality is sinful though. See Romans 1:26-27

I understand Christians aren't supposed to judge others, but I do feel like they are supposed to stand up for their beliefs. That's why Christians are so opposed to Homosexuality.

That's actually incorrect, and just an excuse people too lazy to actually try to study and understand scripture and history use to excuse their hatred. Just as many people like you use religion not as a pursuit to understand and do things greater than yourself, but as a security blanket thay you can hide under when having to face tough questions or decide how you feel about various things.

Romans 126 and 127 is about idolotry, and pagan practices.

And even if it was, like has been said, science and common sense has proven indeed thay Homosexuality is naturally occuring thing....so you just simply ignore scientific fact?
 
That's actually incorrect, and just an excuse people too lazy to actually try to study and understand scripture and history use to excuse their hatred. Just as many people like you use religion not as a pursuit to understand and do things greater than yourself, but as a security blanket thay you can hide under when having to face tough questions or decide how you feel about various things.

Romans 126 and 127 is about idolotry, and pagan practices.

And even if it was, like has been said, science and common sense has proven indeed thay Homosexuality is naturally occuring thing....so you just simply ignore scientific fact?

No, it's a reason Christians give as to why they're opposed to Homosexuality.

Romans 1:26 and 1:27 clearly says Homosexuality is forbidden.

Perhaps some people are homosexual by nature. If they want to obey God's word, they have to resist those desires, like Jack-Hammer said.
 
Firstly, I do not identify with any form of organised religion. I do however believe that there is at the very least one God. If I had to lock it into an exact religion it would be another variation of Christianity

I really don't think any religion should be using an ancient text to decide what is wrong these days. You would have to be totally ignorant to not think the bible has become outdated. Its even more frustrating when the bible is used in situations like these because:
1. Divorce is rampant in society
2. Tattoos arent allowed
3. Eating shrimp
4. Pulling out
5. Pro Slavery
6. There are passages that encourage rape
7. Murdering people is encouraged as well

See what I mean, the bible is completely outdated.
 
Romans 1:26 and 1:27 clearly says Homosexuality is forbidden.

HEY, lets play this game were you just say the same thing over and over is clearly stated, when the passage is anything but "clear" and what you are saying is untrue anyways.

Christians love to play that game. It is plainly sympomatic of what I just said....Your "faith" has caused you to get comfortable and lazy with simply parroting others interpretations so you dont have to face tough questions or try hard.

Ok. You wanted this.



"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:26-27

Because all scripture is given in a biblical cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic, literary and religious context, those factors must be part of our thinking as we seek to understand scripture. Romans 1:26-27 was given in a very clear context. YOU chose to interpret your own way, to justify your ignorant and hateful beliefs.

There is no cultural indication, no doctrinal indication, no historical indication, no linguistic indication, no literary indication, no religious indication, that Paul intended to blast lesbians and gays in Romans 1:26-27.

Instead, Paul chooses as his illustration, the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles, the sin of idolatry, so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his rhetorical trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, in chapter 3:23, everyone is guilty. Here is how Paul puts his argument together.

The context of Romans 1 is pagan worship of false gods, particularly Cybele, known in the first century as Protectress of Rome or Magna Mater - Great Mother.


Early Christian writers like Aristides understood Paul to be describing Cybele worship. Paul has a particular goal in mind when writing to the church at Rome. That goal involved presenting the glorious gospel of Christ, Rom. 1:16-18.

The gospel reveals and declares the wrath of God against sin, that God punished Jesus for our sins when Jesus died, as us for us, as our Substitute. Yet no one gets saved until s(he) understands that s(he) is a sinner who has transgressed God's holy law for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Cybele as the Phrygian goddess had five temples in mid-first century Rome. As the consort of Jupiter, she also had another temple in Rome besides her five Cybele temples. Cybele was featured on Roman coins used in mid-first century Rome and throughout the empire.

Cybele was also called Magna Mater and Protectress of Rome. Paul illustrates idolatry by using an example with which all of his Roman readers would be familiar - Cybele worship. Yet his intention wasn't to attack lesbians and gays. His intention is to support his idolatry argument with easy to recognize illustrations so that his Jewish audience will be nodding along as they read, as a literary trap for his revelation later.

So in chapter 1 Paul indicts and condemns Gentiles for the sin of idolatry. In chapter 2 Paul indicts and condemns Jews because, says the apostle, you do the same things the Gentiles do. In chapter 3:10-23, Paul concludes that all are under sin, both Jews and Gentiles.

That is the historical context, the religious context, the cultural context and the spiritual context of Romans 1. Idolatry is the focus of Paul's argument, not gays and lesbians. The cultural and religious context is unfamiliar to some modern readers because many modern readers are unfamiliar with Roman history and Jewish history in the first century AD.


Early Christians like Aristides and Justin Martyr understood Paul to be condemning shrine prostitution. If Paul was not describing committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships in AD 58 when he wrote Romans, then it is wrong to insist that those verses are dealing with committed same sex partnerships now.

Christians need to do more reading and study before concluding that the first notion that pops into our head when we read Romans 1 is infallibly correct. Sometimes, the first thing we think when we read a verse of scripture is wrong. That is why we are encouraged to "Study to shew yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." -2 Timothy 2:15
 
The bible says you shouldnt eat shrimp more times than it says you arent allowed to be gay.

I cant understand the big deal about Jesus. He claimed he was the son of god, the king of the Jews, performed miracles, was crucified and spent his time hanging around prostitutes (he married one too, but the church has tried to hide that). None of which can be proven and whats written in the bible is likely to highly inaccurate as it was written generations after Jesus had come and gone.

Back to being serious for a second, I actually cant understand why people try to use religion in examples like these. I thought that one of your amendments (or maybe its your constitution) state that religion has to be kept separate?

To add to this, the fact that the main Gospels weren't written until about seven decades after Jesus' death, and that before that everything was spread by word of mouth is something to point out. Not to mention they were written by unknown authors in the language of Greek (Except Matthew it's believe that was first written in Hebrew and then translated over to Greek).

Bibles and gospels are simply the ideals of what Christianity is. This isn't a question on whether or not Jesus was there and existed, it is simply saying that the Gospels were written many years later in how people then portrayed what happened. Most of it, and I'm not saying this in an Atheist way, is a story. A story that people can use to determine how they want to fit Christianity and Jesus Christ into their own lives.

The earliest factual writings we have are actually the Letters of Paul.

I think these facts are one of the more surprisingly ignorant things among Christians. They follow the bible like it's...well the bible. When really it isn't the bible they should be believing, but more so how they interpret God and Jesus Christ based on what they know.

How does this relate to the subject at hand, or well any subject where people try to use the bible as a source? It doesn't matter what it says, because the people that wrote them wrote them the way they wanted Christianity to be perceived. Then as they wrote more they picked out what they wanted in and what they didn't. Not to mention the translation after translation after translation. Every play a game of telephone? Yeah it's like that. So using the bible as a source in an argument about gay marriage or the confederate flag or whatever the hell a nine year old kid and their family do in their personal life makes your argument almost entirely invalid.

For the record, this is just information that I learned through a course I took on the New Testament last semester at my college. I go to a private Christian school, and my professor was a Christian minister. That's the gist of what I learned through that course.
 
Firstly, I do not identify with any form of organised religion. I do however believe that there is at the very least one God. If I had to lock it into an exact religion it would be another variation of Christianity

I really don't think any religion should be using an ancient text to decide what is wrong these days. You would have to be totally ignorant to not think the bible has become outdated. Its even more frustrating when the bible is used in situations like these because:
1. Divorce is rampant in society
2. Tattoos arent allowed
3. Eating shrimp
4. Pulling out
5. Pro Slavery
6. There are passages that encourage rape
7. Murdering people is encouraged as well

See what I mean, the bible is completely outdated.

And a good few of its adherents are incredibly selective in which parts of it they continue to follow, such as people getting tattoos of passages 'forbidding' homosexuality when the very next chapter forbids tattoos.

And what about the forbidding of having a Christmas tree indoors?
 
Firstly, I do not identify with any form of organised religion. I do however believe that there is at the very least one God. If I had to lock it into an exact religion it would be another variation of Christianity

I really don't think any religion should be using an ancient text to decide what is wrong these days. You would have to be totally ignorant to not think the bible has become outdated. Its even more frustrating when the bible is used in situations like these because:
1. Divorce is rampant in society
2. Tattoos arent allowed
3. Eating shrimp
4. Pulling out
5. Pro Slavery
6. There are passages that encourage rape
7. Murdering people is encouraged as well

See what I mean, the bible is completely outdated.

The Bible is not outdated just because some people aren't obeying it.

1. You're acting as if it should be. Also, I believe God does allow divorce IF one person is being abused.
2. Well, your body is the temple of God. They can somewhat hinder your message if you decide to witness to someone.
3. Although I'm not 100% sure on this one, I believe it was just God testing Israel's faith, and it was NOT supposed to carried out into the New Testament.
4. You're not supposed to engage in sexual activity before marriage.
5-7. Give some scripture.
 
I have some Bible passages of my own I'd like to share.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." - Deuteronomy 22:23-24

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." - Exodus 21:7-11

This is why bringing a discussion about your Bible and your God is absolutely relevant to the debate. You have chosen to reject the described experiences of gay and transgender people, as well as the consensus of the scientific community. You know, the psychologists whose job it is to study and understand these things. Instead the only thing you site is a so-called "Holy Book", whose scriptures contain disgusting immoral passages as well as passages that are clearly factually incorrect despite the fact that it is the "Word of God" and that God is supposedly an all-knowing, all-powerful being. It is of course impossible to debunk the idea of a generic celestial entity, or "higher power", but that is not your claim. You claim that the Christian God of the Bible is the true God, a God that had a son that was himself and that he somehow had to sacrifice to forgive sins even though he is all-powerful. A God that condones rape, slavery and genocide and views women as secondary people equivalent to property. A God that inspired the writing of the Bible, which includes information that is incorrect such as the age of the Earth and the fact that everyone is descended from the same two people. By squaring that book with our own proven understanding of things, it is logically impossible to reach that conclusion that the God of the Bible is all-knowing or any kind of moral guide, and therefore your entire notion of God and what you have based your faith on falls apart. Therefore your basis in this debate falls apart because that is the only thing you are trying to stand on.
 
a God that condones rape, slavery and genocide and views women as secondary people equivalent to property. A God that inspired the writing of the Bible, which includes information that is incorrect such as the age of the Earth and the fact that everyone is descended from the same two people.

Boy, that sure doesnt sound like something some groups of men slanted and catered towards their own interests, does it.
 
Boy, that sure doesnt sound like something some groups of men slanted and catered towards their own interests, does it.

No not at all. I'm sure the Bible is the true Word of God and not a product of people and the time in which it was written. I mean why else would it perfectly mirror the backwards morality of societies at that time and contain knowledge limited only to what people knew at that time?
 
The child is happier
The parents are happier that the child is happy
The school has no problem with it
The other children have no problem with it

And if I stopped there this would actually be a nice and all-too-rare story of acceptance and progress. Unfortunately, some people still seem to think it's their business to interfere, complain, rabble rouse, judge and project their fears and insecurities onto a 9 year old child who they don't know and have no connection to.
People, this is only a problem if you make it a problem. You can foster your trans or homophobia, you can contribute to the misery of people you don't know & you can continue all this in the mistaken belief that they'll be "fixed". Or you can simply accept it and let people live in the peace and happiness that they've chosen.
 
Man, this would be much more interesting if the guy arguing on the other side wasn't completely ******ed.

I'm with you guys like 99%. The only issue I have with these things is that I don't believe that prepubescent children should be having sex-change surgeries. I'm not trying to undermine the issue by saying that it may just be a phase in some cases, but it stands to reason that it is a phase in some of these kid's cases. If you're not capable of consenting to sex, I really don't think you're capable of making these kind of decisions.
 
Man, this would be much more interesting if the guy arguing on the other side wasn't completely ******ed.

I'm with you guys like 99%. The only issue I have with these things is that I don't believe that prepubescent children should be having sex-change surgeries. I'm not trying to undermine the issue by saying that it may just be a phase in some cases, but it stands to reason that it is a phase in some of these kid's cases. If you're not capable of consenting to sex, I really don't think you're capable of making these kind of decisions.

It's tough because, while what you are saying is definitely a possibility, for those kids are are transgender and realize it at a young age, transitioning is a lot easier and presumably cheaper if it is done prepubescently. The trouble is that I don't believe there's any way to know for sure that the child is transgender, so it's up to the parents and (I assume) child psychologist to make an educated guess that irreversibly changes the kid's future.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,823
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top