You pic doesnt fit me: I think homosexuality is sinful but think gay marriage should be allowed because of seperation of church and state.
I appreciate the picture (well, not really, ha ha), but there is a lot more to these arguments than seen here. It is obvious that lots of people, who dont know the bible and have never studies biblical interpretation on both the liberal and conservative sides are saying a lot. As a person who has, I wish they would keep their trap shuts when they dont know what they are talking about. For one, anytime you reference scripture in an argument, you always reference speciifc stories, books, or the verse itself - this just haphazardly thorws stuff out there with no context, which is really just as bad as the conservatives this pic is meant to mock.
Honestly, I am not against homosexuality. But at the same time I won't do it myself. If you want to 'sin'; go ahead. I can't stop you, nor should I stop you when it comes to this. It's your choice. Not mine. It’s your free will to practice whatever it is that you want to do.
But I will say this concerning some of the arguments against the Christian belief of homosexuality being wrong:
No, Jesus did not directly state not to practice homosexuality, but he does say to stay clear from sexual immorality. Homosexuality in the Old Testament was a part of sexual immorality.
Yes the Old Testament did say not to eat certain types of food, but when Noah got off the ark, god said to him that all was available for food. in other circumstances, when god did tell people not to eat foods, he told groups of people not to eat something, often times this is because those foods would have weakened them or killed them. Sometimes god told people not to eat or drink something because it would set them apart from the group. God does tell everyone that all things are clean to eat, but he tells specific people not to eat something because it would protect them or get them further down their path if they didn't. The fabric thing, I won't lie. I don’t really have a debate against that because I have not looked into that before. I think it might have something to do with setting apart his followers.
About Paul saying that women should not be allowed to speak: this is actually a subject that I researched for a while on. at the time, women were not given an education of any kind, that was just the society back then. Because of the lack of education, women only knew what they were told. When men told women things that were not true, they believed it. Paul did not want women to teach others because at that time, they were corrupted by lies. He was not saying that women were inferior by any means, but more that women were not educated in what was true. Women were not allowed to 'speak' because Paul did not want the corrupt to corrupt others. The context is what matters here.
About the polygamy debate; I do not have much to add. Again I don't know a whole lot about that subject. The fact that god states that homosexuality is immoral and that Jesus says to refrain from sexual immorality, should be enough to conclude the Christian debate about homosexuality.
I am not against others practicing homosexuality, even though I am a Christian. But I will not allow myself to practice it because I simply believe that it is not natural for two women, or two men to either be married or to participate in sexual activities. I think of it more like a puzzle; two out pieces do not fit together, nor do two in pieces fit together. But an out and an in piece may fit just right (some tweaking and searching for the correct pieces may be required).
interesting picture though. but context is key when it comes to debating about the bible. without context, yes it seems like you won right there. but If people look into the context of situations things become much clearer. god said a lot of things that require context to fully understand.
As a rather funny example I once heard: Look at harry potter. with out knowing that he has magical abilities, he looks just like an ordinary, skinny, wimpy kid with a stick. but it you knew the context of what he has the ability to do with that stick, you would think twice before challenging him to any fight. Context matters.
@jordon@revelife - [About Paul saying that women should not be allowed to speak: this is actually a subject that I researched for a while on. at the time, women were not given an education of any kind, that was just the society back then. Because of the lack of education, women only knew what they were told. When men told women things that were not true, they believed it. Paul did not want women to teach others because at that time, they were corrupted by lies. He was not saying that women were inferior by any means, but more that women were not educated in what was true. Women were not allowed to 'speak' because Paul did not want the corrupt to corrupt others. The context is what matters here.]
I'm sure there were very many ignorant, uneducated men as well, especially in a population with a literacy rate of less than 1 in 10. Why not make the "context" here "don't talk unless you know what you're saying" instead of speaking in misogynistic-sounding catch-alls? Also, if it's oh so apparent that this message of Paul's no longer pertains to us today, why do his words about homosexuality still apply?
@GodlessLiberal - The reason that he states that women should not be talking or teaching is because women were targeted as ones to be taught incorrect statements, truths, morals and values. Women were being taught things directly so they could bring the church down. paul said to not allow women to teach the church as a way of protecting the church from those who soul purpose was to tear down what the church believed in. this message no longer pertains to us because women now have the ability to have an education in many countries. plus, the letters of paul were meant for specific churches. his letters were meant for Christians. if you are a christian, then follow the bible. if you are not then anything that is written in the word of god, you have the choice not to obey it. but do know that there is that chance that god is real. there is a chance that he just might condemn people to hell. if you don't believe there is a chance, why attack? why even try do debate this? this epistle that paul wrote was specifically meant for one church. it is in the word of god because it holds truth in its words. with trut there must be context. the homosexuality part still applies because god said so. did god say to not allow women to speak? no, paul did. god placed down what was immoral and what was not. not paul. paul simply reminded the church and the world what god found to be moral. You ask why some things that paul spoke should be kept today, while others should not? because the ones that require context to understand are meant for a circumstance that no longer is relevant to today. homosexuality is still relevant because the circumstance from the context that is portrayed through the word is still lurking in the world today.
Ultimately the answer to your question really is; because god said so. if your not a christian, or do not believe that there is a creator, and have no want to believe that, why are you wasting your breath by asking these questions and creating debates? debates find answers. what if the answers I give disprove all of your debate arguments? where would that leave you if you still to choose to believe differently? ignorant? unresponsive? prove to me that there is no god. show me he does not exist. but how could you do that? it seems that it is possible to prove that he does exist, because I've witnessed it first hand. I've seen things happen that can not be explained in any way besides that god is real. I have felt things that only god could be the result of. I know because I have been given proof. Physical proof that will cause me to believe for the rest of my life. you cant take that away. you have no way of disproving what I've felt and what I've seen. so why continue to debate?
[I've seen things happen that can not be explained in any way besides that god is real. I have felt things that only god could be the result of. I know because I have been given proof. Physical proof that will cause me to believe for the rest of my life. you cant take that away. you have no way of disproving what I've felt and what I've seen. so why continue to debate?]
(1) Does it not give you pause that every member of every religion that has ever existed has claimed the same things? The fact that non-Christians, including Satanists, deists, animists, and even atheists, claim that they have similar "religious" experiences seems to indicate that the human mind is responsible for these phenomena, not any particular conception of God.
(2) Christians are making the proof-positive statement ("There is a God"), and thus, the burden of proof is on them to prove that statement. Atheists have no rational reason to disprove something which has never been proven. It would be like me walking into a bar and saying, "Unicorns exist, I saw one today. You all have to prove that I didn't see one earlier today or else unicorns exist." It's impossible for anyone to prove with absolute certainty that I didn't see a real unicorn, hallucinate a unicorn because of drugs, etc. Permitting such an approach would make argumentation impossible because people could assert whatever they wanted without providing any verifiable evidence.
(3) I find it interesting that you seem to have removed faith from your religious experience. That's an approach to Christianity that the Bible seems to reject. For instance:
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:1 (NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
If your religious views are based on things you know with absolute certainty because you have empirical and objective evidence to support those beliefs, you aren't even engaged in a religious practice any more. You have removed faith from Christianity and made it inherently un-Christian (faith is a central component of Christianity). There's really no basis for this in the Bible. There's a basis for having faith so strong that you are certain of unseen/unknowable/unproven things. E.g., "Heb 11:1 (Wey) Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see." However, this seems to be quite different from what you propose.