The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[Landlord]

I actually agree with your point on natural not necessarily meaning good. That's absolutely right. In every case you have to apply reason to assess harm. In the case of murder, theft, and rape, ask yourself what kind of civilization we could build where these were the norm. The result would be a (short lived) disaster. Homosexuality is not theft, rape, or murder. It is a natural instinct of a certain small percentage of our population that results in the wonderful bonding and loving relationships that everyone else enjoys. What is Christianity with its outdated, outmoded scripture to tell these people they should be ashamed of themselves or each other?

 

 

It's the resurrection of the Christ as God on Earth. What kind of civilization can we build where homosexuality is the norm? Would also be short lived, would it not? I mean I think procreation is a pretty essential part of building a civilization.

[Husker_x]

I actually agree with your point on natural not necessarily meaning good. That's absolutely right. In every case you have to apply reason to assess harm. In the case of murder, theft, and rape, ask yourself what kind of civilization we could build where these were the norm. The result would be a (short lived) disaster. Homosexuality is not theft, rape, or murder. It is a natural instinct of a certain small percentage of our population that results in the wonderful bonding and loving relationships that everyone else enjoys. What is Christianity with its outdated, outmoded scripture to tell these people they should be ashamed of themselves or each other?

 

 

It's the resurrection of the Christ as God on Earth. What kind of civilization can we build where homosexuality is the norm? Would also be short lived, would it not? I mean I think procreation is a pretty essential part of building a civilization.

 

Homosexuality isn't the norm. Even the most outlandish statistics would put it at a meagre 10% of the population, and that number is incredibly high. The answer to this objection is that even if some magical force turned the entire population into homosexuals (not even bisexuals), there would still be artificial means at our disposal to keep procreation going. But that's extremely unlikely. It's not a reasonable objection anymore than wondering what would happen to civilization if everyone up and decided to become garbage men. Ain't gunna happen.

 

Also there's nothing comforting in the idea of a blood sacrifice expunging the non-sin of homosexuality from a perfectly healthy, normal, moral individual. It's unnecessary and useless, a relic of the primitive concept of men altering their circumstance by appealing to invisible gods or forces, no different than astrology, omen reading, or the human sacrifices practiced in other barbaric cultures. The torture and murder of persons or gods does not remove your ethical responsibilities or mine. The odd fixation Yahweh has with blood and the smell of burning animal corpses is, once again, outdated and obsolete. We're past this way of thinking.

[krill]

It's unnecessary and useless, a relic of the primitive concept of men altering their circumstance by appealing to invisible gods or forces, no different than astrology, omen reading, or the human sacrifices practiced in other barbaric cultures...We're past this way of thinking.

 

It seems conspicuously apparent that many people are not.

[bennychico11]

Homosexuality isn't the norm. Even the most outlandish statistics would put it at a meagre 10% of the population, and that number is incredibly high. The answer to this objection is that even if some magical force turned the entire population into homosexuals (not even bisexuals), there would still be artificial means at our disposal to keep procreation going. But that's extremely unlikely. It's not a reasonable objection anymore than wondering what would happen to civilization if everyone up and decided to become garbage men. Ain't gunna happen.

 

I agree. And this relates to what I was talking about above about putting the verses in context with the time they were written. I think the reason why many stress that the actual translation of "to’evah" should actually translate as "not-customary" or "undesirable thing" is because during tribal times like these, procreation really was important then. To have children who could guarantee the future of the tribe. This is why in Genesis Onan was killed by god for "spilling his seed" on the ground. He had ignored the principals of a Levirate marriage.

But, customarily, these days...procreation ISN'T as important anymore in society. Sure, we support everyone who wants to have a family and to "be fruitful and multiply", but it's not a necessity to humans as a whole anymore. If this Earth was a forest and we were deer...we'd probably have a few hunters being hired to pick us off to thin out the crowd a bit. Instead, I'd say it's more important to support loving relationships that better us as a human race.

[SoCalhusker88]

All that being said, I find Brown and the whole Bible's concept of sin ridiculous. I don't agree with it and think if a god actually judges people based off of some of these insane rules that are only subject to assumption by interpretation because we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies of terribly contradictory pages (compiled by humans)...then he's more fallible and unloving than many think.

Let people love who they want to love and allow them to have the inalienable human rights we all deserve. It's really not that hard.

 

I agree. I find it absurd to rely on a convoluted interpretation of the bible to distinguish whether or not something is moral. A similar type of logic was used to justify discrimination against African Americans. I implore anyone who believes that homosexuality is a distasteful sin to speak to some homosexuals and reason it out yourself whether or not it is a sin. Based on my experience, the only way to assert that homosexuality is a sin is to argue that heterosexuality is a sin as well.

If you read my long post up about 10 responses or so you will notice i point this out.....Adam and Eve only became aware of their sexuality after sin entered the world. and there is only one circumstance by which sexual impulse can be acted upon and is not a sin. However, even hetro-sexuals commit sins of sexual immorality on a daily basis through lust and the such.

[Lil' Red]

All that being said, I find Brown and the whole Bible's concept of sin ridiculous. I don't agree with it and think if a god actually judges people based off of some of these insane rules that are only subject to assumption by interpretation because we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies of terribly contradictory pages (compiled by humans)...then he's more fallible and unloving than many think.

Let people love who they want to love and allow them to have the inalienable human rights we all deserve. It's really not that hard.

 

I agree. I find it absurd to rely on a convoluted interpretation of the bible to distinguish whether or not something is moral. A similar type of logic was used to justify discrimination against African Americans. I implore anyone who believes that homosexuality is a distasteful sin to speak to some homosexuals and reason it out yourself whether or not it is a sin. Based on my experience, the only way to assert that homosexuality is a sin is to argue that heterosexuality is a sin as well.

If you read my long post up about 10 responses or so you will notice i point this out.....Adam and Eve only became aware of their sexuality after sin entered the world. and there is only one circumstance by which sexual impulse can be acted upon and is not a sin. However, even hetro-sexuals commit sins of sexual immorality on a daily basis through lust and the such.

 

So god creates some people who are attracted to the opposite sex which is construed as love but he creates various people that are attracted to the same sex and their attraction is considered sinful?

[Hoosker]

All that being said, I find Brown and the whole Bible's concept of sin ridiculous. I don't agree with it and think if a god actually judges people based off of some of these insane rules that are only subject to assumption by interpretation because we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies of terribly contradictory pages (compiled by humans)...then he's more fallible and unloving than many think.

Let people love who they want to love and allow them to have the inalienable human rights we all deserve. It's really not that hard.

 

I agree. I find it absurd to rely on a convoluted interpretation of the bible to distinguish whether or not something is moral. A similar type of logic was used to justify discrimination against African Americans. I implore anyone who believes that homosexuality is a distasteful sin to speak to some homosexuals and reason it out yourself whether or not it is a sin. Based on my experience, the only way to assert that homosexuality is a sin is to argue that heterosexuality is a sin as well.

If you read my long post up about 10 responses or so you will notice i point this out.....Adam and Eve only became aware of their sexuality after sin entered the world. and there is only one circumstance by which sexual impulse can be acted upon and is not a sin. However, even hetro-sexuals commit sins of sexual immorality on a daily basis through lust and the such.

 

So god creates some people who are attracted to the opposite sex which is construed as love but he creates various people that are attracted to the same sex and their attraction is considered sinful?

 

Quite the master plan, huh?

[HuskerShark]

All that being said, I find Brown and the whole Bible's concept of sin ridiculous. I don't agree with it and think if a god actually judges people based off of some of these insane rules that are only subject to assumption by interpretation because we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies of terribly contradictory pages (compiled by humans)...then he's more fallible and unloving than many think.

Let people love who they want to love and allow them to have the inalienable human rights we all deserve. It's really not that hard.

 

I agree. I find it absurd to rely on a convoluted interpretation of the bible to distinguish whether or not something is moral. A similar type of logic was used to justify discrimination against African Americans. I implore anyone who believes that homosexuality is a distasteful sin to speak to some homosexuals and reason it out yourself whether or not it is a sin. Based on my experience, the only way to assert that homosexuality is a sin is to argue that heterosexuality is a sin as well.

If you read my long post up about 10 responses or so you will notice i point this out.....Adam and Eve only became aware of their sexuality after sin entered the world. and there is only one circumstance by which sexual impulse can be acted upon and is not a sin. However, even hetro-sexuals commit sins of sexual immorality on a daily basis through lust and the such.

 

So god creates some people who are attracted to the opposite sex which is construed as love but he creates various people that are attracted to the same sex and their attraction is considered sinful?

 

You could see it that way, or you could see it as God created man and woman for each other, and some people sin by choosing to enter homosexual relationships.

[Hoosker]

All that being said, I find Brown and the whole Bible's concept of sin ridiculous. I don't agree with it and think if a god actually judges people based off of some of these insane rules that are only subject to assumption by interpretation because we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies of terribly contradictory pages (compiled by humans)...then he's more fallible and unloving than many think.

Let people love who they want to love and allow them to have the inalienable human rights we all deserve. It's really not that hard.

 

I agree. I find it absurd to rely on a convoluted interpretation of the bible to distinguish whether or not something is moral. A similar type of logic was used to justify discrimination against African Americans. I implore anyone who believes that homosexuality is a distasteful sin to speak to some homosexuals and reason it out yourself whether or not it is a sin. Based on my experience, the only way to assert that homosexuality is a sin is to argue that heterosexuality is a sin as well.

If you read my long post up about 10 responses or so you will notice i point this out.....Adam and Eve only became aware of their sexuality after sin entered the world. and there is only one circumstance by which sexual impulse can be acted upon and is not a sin. However, even hetro-sexuals commit sins of sexual immorality on a daily basis through lust and the such.

 

So god creates some people who are attracted to the opposite sex which is construed as love but he creates various people that are attracted to the same sex and their attraction is considered sinful?

 

You could see it that way, or you could see it as God created man and woman for each other, and some people sin by choosing to enter homosexual relationships.

 

And what about animals who act purely on instinct?

[HuskerShark]

And what about animals who act purely on instinct?

 

I don't understand the question.

[Landlord]

All that being said, I find Brown and the whole Bible's concept of sin ridiculous. I don't agree with it and think if a god actually judges people based off of some of these insane rules that are only subject to assumption by interpretation because we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies of terribly contradictory pages (compiled by humans)...then he's more fallible and unloving than many think.

Let people love who they want to love and allow them to have the inalienable human rights we all deserve. It's really not that hard.

 

I agree. I find it absurd to rely on a convoluted interpretation of the bible to distinguish whether or not something is moral. A similar type of logic was used to justify discrimination against African Americans. I implore anyone who believes that homosexuality is a distasteful sin to speak to some homosexuals and reason it out yourself whether or not it is a sin. Based on my experience, the only way to assert that homosexuality is a sin is to argue that heterosexuality is a sin as well.

If you read my long post up about 10 responses or so you will notice i point this out.....Adam and Eve only became aware of their sexuality after sin entered the world. and there is only one circumstance by which sexual impulse can be acted upon and is not a sin. However, even hetro-sexuals commit sins of sexual immorality on a daily basis through lust and the such.

 

So god creates some people who are attracted to the opposite sex which is construed as love but he creates various people that are attracted to the same sex and their attraction is considered sinful?

 

 

Even though I don't agree with this statement, say it was hypothetically true; why is it a problem? Who is the pot to question the potter? If there is a Creator, He can do what He wants justly and doesn't have to answer to the clouded perceptions of morality of the created.

[Hoosker]

And what about animals who act purely on instinct?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

There are tons homosexual animals out there.

Animals don't have the capacity to comprehend that "homosexuality is wrong".

Why would God (in his infinite wisdom) create homosexual animals or even allow them to have homosexual urges if they cannot comprehend that it's "wrong"?

[HuskerShark]

And what about animals who act purely on instinct?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

There are tons homosexual animals out there.

Animals don't have the capacity to comprehend that "homosexuality is wrong".

Why would God (in his infinite wisdom) create homosexual animals or even allow them to have homosexual urges if they cannot comprehend that it's "wrong"?

 

Sometimes a couple of bulls in a pen get a little rowdy and start humping each other, but I can't say I have ever seen a purely homosexual bull before. The same bull will ride a heifer or cow if he gets in a pen with one.

[bennychico11]

Even though I don't agree with this statement, say it was hypothetically true; why is it a problem? Who is the pot to question the potter? If there is a Creator, He can do what He wants justly and doesn't have to answer to the clouded perceptions of morality of the created.

 

The potter isn't asking the pot to worship and love him purely because he created it. If a god wants us to assume he's benevolent and loving of all his creatures, he'd respect what his creation considers moral. Because if you're right and your god demands love and worship purely because he created us...I'm sorry, but I can't give him that. Love is earned, not given at demand.

[bennychico11]

Sometimes a couple of bulls in a pen get a little rowdy and start humping each other, but I can't say I have ever seen a purely homosexual bull before. The same bull will ride a heifer or cow if he gets in a pen with one.

 

Just because you haven't witnessed it...doesn't mean it doesn't happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior