• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, that wouldn't be a very Christian thing to do:

But didn't you, the Christian, just say exactly that?

The Christian thing to do seems to be to pity gay people, to pray for them and hope they see the error of their ways.

Personally, I tend not to judge people on their sexual preference at all, instead I just think to myself, "are you a bit of a dickhead? No? Well OK then!"
 
Josh said:
Next time I hang out with one of my gay friends, I'll ask them if it's OK to reject them because their spirituality is impure then
But didn't you, the Christian, just say exactly that?

No, I said nothing like that. I said their love is not as God intended. I never suggested rejecting them at all.

Josh said:
The Christian thing to do seems to be to pity gay people, to pray for them and hope they see the error of their ways.

Personally, I tend not to judge people on their sexual preference at all, instead I just think to myself, "are you a bit of a dickhead? No? Well OK then!"

Slightly demeaning depiction of Christian attitude, but I expected as much. As for them being nice people, I agree, I have lot's of gay friends, which is why I would never suggest rejecting them for who they are. They simply may not be aware that their love is "unintended" or have any idea of what God or true love is. Why we must not judge ( John 7:24 ) or exclude them (1 peter 4:8 )
 
Last edited:
And just how is that not treating gay people less favourably than heterosexuals?


First off Christianity does not see a person limited or defined by being "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It see's us as spiritual beings, distinguishing us completely from our primitive desires for the flesh. ( Romans 8: 6 ) it see's all forms of fleshy desire as something to outgrow, discard and progress as we get closer to our souls. (Galatians 5:17)

So true love does not exclude, favour or limit anyone of us. It see's us as equal and can be achievable by anyone. Chastity is a pursuance for both those who formerly may have considered their sexual orientation as heterosexual or homosexual.

The form of pure love is through man and woman. Rather than man and man, or woman and woman. Because man and woman is the chosen implementation for true love to exist, does in no way subordinate or favour anyone because of their previously held self-depictions of being "gay", "bi" or "straight". Man and woman as soul mates is nothing more than the most practical way for it to exist - firstly the very act of sex is more convenient. Going to a sperm clinic is less of a problem - the lovers can have their own child, whereas a gay couple would have to adopt or lesbians would have to get the sperm and subsequent genes from a third party. It would undoubtedly be better for a child to have a male and female role-model and so on and so on.
 
Last edited:
And just how is that not treating gay people less favourably than heterosexuals?

Having a belief about what God intends is clearly not treating gay people less favourably than straight people. You can believe that homosexuality is not what God intends without letting it colour the way in which you act towards people. It's no more homophobic than saying someone shouldn't believe that is religiophobic.

As soon as you start letting that belief differentiate your actions between gay people and straight (as for instance the Catholic church amongst many others do) then it clearly is homophobic.

tldr: Life would be much easier if everyone kept their fucking beliefs to themselves.
 
unless you are god you can have no idea of what gods will is. and that is the big secret about Christ. he wasn't a man it is a state of consciousness. we are each and everyone of us our own god.
 
Raas: "Bollocks", says who and why? The verse is completely relevant, because your quote was about sending Homosexuals to death, and you suggested it might be a nuanced spiritual death. Later in the chapter it talks of "spiritual death" because of "fleshly desire", it couldn't have been more relevant in shedding light onto your quote.

It seems to refer to a spirit of "peace and life" being disrupted and "killed" by desires for the flesh. It's not some invented "bollocks" but actually quite a common belief throughout religions of the word; attachment to material desires being harmful to the soul. Even Russell Brand had quite a lot to say on it. Though I can't stand the guy and now i've had to mention his name am respectively ending the post.
I said it was bollocks because the bit i quoted was plainly talking about real death of real homosexuals (and whisperers) and not nuanced spiritual death - you've added that by linking it to another bit elsewhere in Romans (funny how you can do this interpretation for death, but not homosexuality). Even if it was only spiritual death, isn't that the only type of death that's real to a christian, and therefore even worse than the other type. You've then tacked on some talk of the death being caused by 'fleshly desires', and futher tried to link it to the common idea of attachment to material desires being bad for the soul. I agree that desire is the cause of suffering (though that's buddhism more than christianity), but that's not what the passage i talked about was on about - it was on about homosexuals and fornicators being worthy of death. (I don't know why you don't like russel brand - he's an example of a pretty good christian these days as far as i can tell).

Talking about people being different types of spanners helps show what i'm talking about: Who gets to define the socket set? Who decides what heads fit with which shafts? ("This long pointy one seems to fit alright in this short fat one if you jiggle it about a bit and add some lubrication").

I found the following text on golden plates when i was digging in my garden in utah:

"In the ancient days of the chosen spanner people, there were two tribes called 'Snap-On' and 'Draper' - the people of Snap-onia lived by the letter of the ancient "holy socket set manual of the lord", wherein it is written (on whatever it is that they write it on up there), that "verily, these sockets shall from this day forth, only ever be used with official Snap-On shafts; they who defy this commandment will suffer eternal death in a lake of sulphur (and void their lifetime warranty)".

However, over in the land of the Draper tribe, the people had lost their holy manual, and they did wiggle their shafts in whichever brand of hole they seemed to fit in - some of the sockets didn't work as well, but they found that mostly the sockets worked fine in non official holes. Sure they coupldn't make baby sockets (stay with me), but most of the people continued to follow the traditional ways of the socket, handed down orally, so enough baby sockets were created anyway. Of course, the people who didn't follow the traditional ways forfeited their "Holy Lifetime Socket Replacement Gurantee" with their actions, but very few of them had ever actually applied for replacement sockets anyway, and some whispered that the lifetime guarantee was actually a lie invented by the early priest-mechanics for their own ends.

Nonetheless, the people who found no pleasure in standard socket configurations lived peaceably as part of the community. What's more the intellectual freedom continued to grow in draperland as the people started to question all the ancient tool texts to work out if they were still relevant to their time - some they kept as they were useful, but many they discarded as they had lost relevance since the great allen key plagues.

Meanwhile, over in Snaponia, the culture languished in a dark age as the focus on the rightness of ancient times prevented them from living in the present and looking to the future"
 
Last edited:
You can believe that homosexuality is not what God intends without letting it colour the way in which you act towards people. It's no more homophobic than saying someone shouldn't believe that is religiophobic.

Very nice analogy. A lot of people think religious beleifs are wrong, does that mean people should hate all religious folk? Of course not. I think it's very easy to see there is a difference between thinking something is wrong, and then having actual malice towards that person. Christianity is very blatantly not homophobic. The fact so many people have tried so hard to ascribe that term to it, suggests to me they have prejudice of their own against the religion.

Raasyvibe said:
The form of pure love is through man and woman. Rather than man and man, or woman and woman.
That bit is homophobic.

How can God choosing to have intended love between a man and a woman homophobic? What are you suggesting, that he makes true love through people of the same sex also - forcing them to adopt, go to clinics, not be able to give children the best ro-models to help their development.... just for the sake of being PC?

He's a perfect God remember, and just because same sex relationships is not the perfect way for intended soul-mates to co-exist, does not at all, make him a homophobe.

Raasyvibe said:
I have lot's of gay friends

I would argue that you are quoting me selectively here. In context, I answered Josh appropriately, who was accusing my beliefs of rejecting homosexuals. I stated I believe in friendship not rejection.

Is this your best contribution to the discussion then, Ceres?





Virtual, you'll find most religions coalesce greatly in beliefs as they all tend to have the goal of spiritual refinement. Both Bhuddists and Christians believe attachment to material, whether flesh or object, as being a killer to the spirit and that's what the verse was speaking about. I thought I had made it clear by referencing similar verses from the same book - but clearly not. I'll provide your castigations later, I've done enough work for today.
 
How can God choosing to have intended love between a man and a woman homophobic?
Because that counts as treating gay people less favourably than heterosexuals.
What are you suggesting, that he makes true love through people of the same sex also - forcing them to adopt, go to clinics, not be able to give children the best ro-models to help their development.... just for the sake of being PC?
Oh, please -- not this tired old fallacy again. It is neither necessary nor desirable for every adult to be involved in breeding.
He's a perfect God remember, and just because same sex relationships is not the perfect way for intended soul-mates to co-exist, does not at all, make him a homophobe.
Yes, it does.
 
^ no it's a matter of practicality. Not personal discrimination.

becomingjulie said:
Because that counts as treating gay people less favourably than heterosexuals.

already answered this:

raasyvibe said:
First off Christianity does not see a person limited or defined by being "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It see's us as spiritual beings, distinguishing us completely from our primitive desires for the flesh. ( Romans 8: 6 ) it see's all forms of fleshy desire as something to outgrow, discard and progress as we get closer to our souls. (Galatians 5:17)

So true love does not exclude, favour or limit anyone of us. It see's us as equal and can be achievable by anyone. Chastity is a pursuance for both those who formerly may have considered their sexual orientation as heterosexual or homosexual.

It doesn't limit anyone's definition to being "gay". It says they are far greater than such primitive understandings, and that they can achieve sexual chastity and true love like any other individual.
 
ceres said:
Raasyvibe said:
I have lot's of gay friends

lolled

I would argue that you are quoting me selectively here. In context, I answered Josh appropriately, who was accusing my beliefs of rejecting homosexuals. I stated I believe in friendship not rejection.

Is this your best contribution to the discussion then, Ceres?



.

I guessed as much.
 
raasclart your babble is so full of holes it doesn't really warrant any serious response. Have you ever considered like
They simply may not be aware that their love is "unintended" or have any idea of what God or true love is. Why we must not judge ( John 7:24 ) or exclude them (1 peter 4:8 )
that perhaps you are the unenlightened one here? Also that statement looks pretty judgemental to me.

Also you seem to be confusing your bizarre notion of 'pure love' with sexual intercourse.

It see's us as spiritual beings, distinguishing us completely from our primitive desires for the flesh.

if you genuinely believe that then your whole ridiculous argument falls apart.
 
Last edited:
Virtual, you'll find most religions coalesce greatly in beliefs as they all human creations. And it shows.

Fix'd.

I found the following text on golden plates when i was digging in my garden in utah:

"In the ancient days of the chosen spanner people, there were two tribes called 'Snap-On' and 'Draper' - the people of Snap-onia lived by the letter of the ancient "holy socket set manual of the lord", wherein it is written (on whatever it is that they write it on up there), that "verily, these sockets shall from this day forth, only ever be used with official Snap-On shafts; they who defy this commandment will suffer eternal death in a lake of sulphur (and void their lifetime warranty)".

However, over in the land of the Draper tribe, the people had lost their holy manual, and they did wiggle their shafts in whichever brand of hole they seemed to fit in - some of the sockets didn't work as well, but they found that mostly the sockets worked fine in non official holes. Sure they coupldn't make baby sockets (stay with me), but most of the people continued to follow the traditional ways of the socket, handed down orally, so enough baby sockets were created anyway. Of course, the people who didn't follow the traditional ways forfeited their "Holy Lifetime Socket Replacement Gurantee" with their actions, but very few of them had ever actually applied for replacement sockets anyway, and some whispered that the lifetime guarantee was actually a lie invented by the early priest-mechanics for their own ends.

Nonetheless, the people who found no pleasure in standard socket configurations lived peaceably as part of the community. What's more the intellectual freedom continued to grow in draperland as the people started to question all the ancient tool texts to work out if they were still relevant to their time - some they kept as they were useful, but many they discarded as they had lost relevance since the great allen key plagues.

Meanwhile, over in Snaponia, the culture languished in a dark age as the focus on the rightness of ancient times prevented them from living in the present and looking to the future"

Threadwinner <3
 
Raas said:
What are you suggesting, that he makes true love through people of the same sex also - forcing them to adopt, go to clinics, not be able to give children the best ro-models to help their development.... just for the sake of being PC?

So does god hates infertile couples more or less than he hates gays?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top