Bibles view on Homosexuality

[elliotfsl]

Homosexuality—Is the Bible’s View Reasonable?

ARE you a homosexual? If so, you may feel that you are the object of much unfair discrimination and that you suffer unjustly because of what you consider to be a personal matter—the choice of sex partners. The world at large, in your opinion, may be very narrow in its outlook on homosexuality.

But there is an old saying that ‘a sword cuts two ways.’ So, one needs to be careful not to be guilty of the same bias that one sees in others. Have you taken time to examine carefully what the Bible has to say on the subject of homosexuality? Or, have you, as it were, cast the Bible aside as unworthy of your consideration?

You may know that more religious people than ever who claim to represent the Bible are speaking out in favor of homosexuality. For instance, “Father” Henry Fehren says in U.S. Catholic magazine that anti-homosexual views have been “based on misinterpretations of stray Biblical texts written for another age and culture.” Echoing his words is Günther Hintze, a Lutheran Evangelical priest in Augustenborg, Denmark: “The Bible’s view on this matter cannot have any validity for us today.” And Jewish rabbi Philip Horowitz recently said in Cleveland, Ohio: “The modern homosexual would resent the fact that his behavior is considered immoral.”

But why do these men turn away from the Bible? Notice, again, what they say: the Bible is for “another age,” and is not “modern” or “for us today.” The Bible is considered out-of-date for use in dealing with this problem. But is that the case? Fair-minded persons interested in the truth and in the approval of God are willing to find out.

It is true that the Bible is a very old book. But that of itself does not disqualify it as a guide on personal moral matters like homosexuality; quite the opposite is the case. The Bible’s very age contributes to its value as a moral guide. Why do we say this?

Well, for one thing, people are essentially the same now as they have ever been. Regardless of the time period when they lived, men have had the same basic physical and emotional needs. Logically, if the Bible is the Word of God by which men should direct their lives, is it not understandable that it would have a long history? Certainly. Thus the Bible’s age is a factor in its favor and lends weight to what it says on homosexuality.

THE EFFECTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

The Bible is not oblivious to homosexual practices. Such things are specifically referred to several times in the Scriptures. For instance, we read at Romans 1:26, 27, according to The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips:

“God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another.”

But thereafter, most importantly, it accurately details the effects of homosexuality:

“Men with men performed these shameful horrors, receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity.”

Is the Bible’s diagnosis given here actually correct? Homosexuals by their words and actions say Yes. They point to the instability of homosexual “marriages,” of the promiscuity of searching for sex partners and of the dishonesty in trying to hide behind a facade of respectability while secretly carrying on homosexual activity. Not their enemies, but homosexuals themselves speak of the “dread of growing old alone.” The hopelessness of their future, homosexual William Carroll observes, leads to “cynicism, despair and even suicide.” Yes, homosexuals themselves admit that they receive “in their own personalities the consequences” of the homosexual way of life.

The Bible therefore accurately depicts the results of this practice. But why do these adverse traits appear in “their own personalities”? The apostle Paul says it is because they engage in that which is “abnormal and unnatural.” Advocates of homosexuality say that what makes something “natural” or “unnatural” is purely subjective, and is a matter that must be decided by each person for himself. But is that really the case? Is it not obvious to virtually all persons that male and female are counterparts, opposites sexually? Is it not apparent that their sex organs were designed to “fit” together?

On the other hand, does it seem “natural” to you for two lesbians to come together sexually? One of the pair must often use some type of artificial substitute for a male organ to satisfy the other. And consider male homosexuals. Both may claim to be men, but must not one assume a female role in some sense? In the case of male and female homosexuals, one way or another, a substitute must be supplied for what the opposite sex supplies “naturally.” How reasonable is that? The Bible correctly refers to the actions of homosexuals as “abnormal and unnatural.”

The Bible therefore accurately depicts the results of this practice and informs us as to why these results appear. Consistently, would it not thereafter clearly condemn the practice? That would be reasonable.

So we read at 1*Corinthians 6:9, 10: “Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion .*.*. will possess the kingdom of God.” (The New English Bible) Or, as the verse is paraphrased in The Living Bible: “Homosexuals—will have no share in his kingdom.”

Biblically speaking, the matter is quite clear, is it not? The Bible just plainly shows that homosexuality is wrong. The Scriptures are thus consistent, not just showing the bad effects of this practice, but also properly condemning what produces those ill effects.

But it has become fashionable among homosexuals to argue that primarily the apostle Paul, not Jesus Christ, spoke against homosexuality. How valid is that contention?

JESUS AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Well, to start with, those who so argue ignore the fact that the Bible refers to the words of Paul as part of ‘Scripture’ and thus beneficial for “setting things straight.” (2*Tim. 3:15-17; 2*Pet. 3:15,*16) But an honest examination of the words of Jesus shows that he, too, did indeed speak against homosexuality.

He said, as recorded at Matthew 19:9 according to the Revised Standard Version (RSV): “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The Greek word for “unchastity” that Matthew here employs in penning Jesus’ words is por·nei´a. Por·nei´a is related to the verb por·neu´o, meaning “to give one’s self to unlawful sexual intercourse.”

The best way to understand what is taken in by these terms is to find out how they are used in other places. A similar word appears in the Bible at Jude*7 in describing the sin of certain ancient cities: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally [an intensive form of por·neu´o] and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (RSV) For what type of ‘immorality’ or por·nei´a were those at Sodom and Gomorrah condemned? The Bible narrative at Genesis 19:4, 5 answers:

“The men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’”

These men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals. In fact, the English word “sodomy,” which particularly means ‘intercourse between two men,’ is drawn from the name of the city of Sodom. The Bible would call their sin por·nei´a. Jesus said por·nei´a was so wrong morally that it was a basis for severing the marriage bond.

Further, remember that Jesus was a Jew living under the law of Moses. His use of por·nei´a, says Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, apparently includes ‘all intercourse interdicted by the Mosaic Law.’ That Law included among its injunctions: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.” (Lev. 18:22, The Torah, The Five Books of Moses, by the Jewish Publication Society of America) Por·nei´a, the word used by Jesus, obviously embraced this command of God.

Also, it should be noted that homosexuality had been condemned by God before the law of Moses was even given. The account about Sodom and Gomorrah, referred to earlier, proves this fact; those cities were destroyed by God over 400 years before the law of Moses came into existence. Jesus was aware of that.—Luke 17:28, 29, 32.

Beyond doubt, therefore, Jesus did in fact condemn all such ‘unchaste’ practices as homosexuality. As reason would indicate to us, the Bible is consistent on this matter. Paul’s words are backed up by the authority of the Son of God.

[Basil]

What is the Bible's position on hermaphrodites? Could you clear that one up for me as well?

[Dyrwen]

First off, seems like this isn't all your text, seeing as some of it has been reproduced word for word here (http://www.dansjp3page.com/comments.asp?id=1370-a). So if you're quoting an article, cite it, don't say it's yours. If that page belongs to you, then good, if not, well that's your problem.



But there is an old saying that ‘a sword cuts two ways.’ So, one needs to be careful not to be guilty of the same bias that one sees in others. Have you taken time to examine carefully what the Bible has to say on the subject of homosexuality? Or, have you, as it were, cast the Bible aside as unworthy of your consideration?
I do love when folks care to argue that some people just haven't examined the Bible thoroughly enough to be able to believe in it. It isn't like every homosexual is an atheist and casts the Bible aside. Some (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm) people (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm) have thoroughly looked into what the Bible has to say on homosexuality, hence all the discussion around the topic these days.


But why do these men turn away from the Bible? Notice, again, what they say: the Bible is for “another age,” and is not “modern” or “for us today.” The Bible is considered out-of-date for use in dealing with this problem. But is that the case? Fair-minded persons interested in the truth and in the approval of God are willing to find out.
Turn away from the Bible? They're reinterpretting it. Just like you are. If you wanted to follow it literally, then start stoning all the atheists, adulterers and homosexuals, but if you're willing to argue against doing that, then you've reinterpretted it again. It's a book of literature, so it's always going to be interpretted different ways.

I'll give you the fact that people looking to seek the approval of God on the subject will continue to look into the ideas involved, but that doesn't mean that some people won't just notice that the book is in fact out of date in terms of practices. When you don't sacrifice lambs at the altar, yet still go to church every sunday, one has to realize that some "modern tuning" of the religion is going on.


It is true that the Bible is a very old book. But that of itself does not disqualify it as a guide on personal moral matters like homosexuality; quite the opposite is the case. The Bible’s very age contributes to its value as a moral guide. Why do we say this?

Well, for one thing, people are essentially the same now as they have ever been. Regardless of the time period when they lived, men have had the same basic physical and emotional needs. Logically, if the Bible is the Word of God by which men should direct their lives, is it not understandable that it would have a long history? Certainly. Thus the Bible’s age is a factor in its favor and lends weight to what it says on homosexuality.
The same now? It's been translated thousands of times, by hand, and many of the originals were lost over time. It isn't the same as it ever was. The Bible's age means about as much as any old book and by your own idea of age being meaningful, I could leave a Star Wars book in the ground and in 2,000 years call it useful accurate religion. If you want to live by the "Word of God" (even if it was transcribed by men, around people whom were illiterate and didn't know any better) then go ahead, but you might want to stop interpretting it and start following it.


Is the Bible’s diagnosis given here actually correct? Homosexuals by their words and actions say Yes. They point to the instability of homosexual “marriages,” of the promiscuity of searching for sex partners and of the dishonesty in trying to hide behind a facade of respectability while secretly carrying on homosexual activity. Not their enemies, but homosexuals themselves speak of the “dread of growing old alone.” The hopelessness of their future, homosexual William Carroll observes, leads to “cynicism, despair and even suicide.” Yes, homosexuals themselves admit that they receive “in their own personalities the consequences” of the homosexual way of life.
Oh come on now. "The instability of homosexual 'marriages'"? Christian, straight, marriage divorce rates average at 24% (http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/index.php?page=CrimeAndDivorce) and even higher at 30% for Jewish couples. In the US alone the divorce rate is somewhere around 60% last time I checked and the majority of the US population is Christian and straight. Homosexuals are only carrying out "secret homosexual activity" because of the overwhelming discrimination against them in today's age. Luckily it's been getting lessened as of late, so that some can at least be open about who they are. It isn't like gays weren't around in the Roman times. There's plenty of research alone about the genetic traits of homosexuality (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519) being passed on through parents. And to your final statement there, everyone has a fear of dying alone. It isn't like they become gay because they can't find a straight partner, they're not attracted to the opposite sex, so they find people of the same sex whom are attracted to them and vice versa. It's quite the strawman to try to insinuate that homosexuals have chosen their "way of life" for some magical reasoning of fear.


The Bible therefore accurately depicts the results of this practice. But why do these adverse traits appear in “their own personalities”? The apostle Paul says it is because they engage in that which is “abnormal and unnatural.” Advocates of homosexuality say that what makes something “natural” or “unnatural” is purely subjective, and is a matter that must be decided by each person for himself. But is that really the case? Is it not obvious to virtually all persons that male and female are counterparts, opposites sexually? Is it not apparent that their sex organs were designed to “fit” together?
Designed to "fit" together doesn't mean that it is purely natural. There's gay animals all over the world and they find it quite natural to try and fit together. Men happen to "fit" because they've got a hole to stick themselves into, which is all that thing was designed to do. It gives pleasure, not reproduction, but that doesn't make it any less natural.


On the other hand, does it seem “natural” to you for two lesbians to come together sexually? One of the pair must often use some type of artificial substitute for a male organ to satisfy the other. And consider male homosexuals. Both may claim to be men, but must not one assume a female role in some sense? In the case of male and female homosexuals, one way or another, a substitute must be supplied for what the opposite sex supplies “naturally.” How reasonable is that? The Bible correctly refers to the actions of homosexuals as “abnormal and unnatural.”
You apparently don't know anything about lesbians or the female body. A woman can please another without a penis, or even a dildo. It's called a clitoris and it only takes a nimble tongue or a talented finger. Your claim that some male couples have a female-like partner is only right in some cases, a lot of the time they act exactly the same or hey, how about this, just like normal couples of people that are good friends. They've just got benefits to their relationship and merely because some happen to act more male or more female doesn't make their love for another any less natural, but good try, really.


Biblically speaking, the matter is quite clear, is it not? The Bible just plainly shows that homosexuality is wrong. The Scriptures are thus consistent, not just showing the bad effects of this practice, but also properly condemning what produces those ill effects.

But it has become fashionable among homosexuals to argue that primarily the apostle Paul, not Jesus Christ, spoke against homosexuality. How valid is that contention?
Just because the Bible says its wrong, doesn't mean it is. Though I suppose if you're going to adhere to the Bible, you've got me there. To your phrase about Jesus, one is supposed to follow Him to get to Heaven, not the Bible, as some are told. But then again, that's up for interpretation, now isn't it?


Beyond doubt, therefore, Jesus did in fact condemn all such ‘unchaste’ practices as homosexuality. As reason would indicate to us, the Bible is consistent on this matter. Paul’s words are backed up by the authority of the Son of God.
Whatever you say, just don't go into public office with that on your mind for the lawbooks.

[i_rock_poems]

Why do we argue over what we believe and dont believe in we all agree on differneces we just cant accept them i am aginst homosexuality and i voice my opinion but i don not shoot people down who have it
you cannot control your feelings i think we all know that we are homos bc we have done evilly wrong and god has punished us horribly and that is that

[subterranean]

Agree with Dyr's point there about "it's all about one's interpretation". When I was in college, I know this guy who is a gay and he's a Christian as well. He told me that once when he was still a teenage, he went to church and the priest who gave the sermon, was preaching about homosexuality...that God is against the homesexuals and the Bible is strongly stated God's stand on this issue (the punishment of Sodom and Gommorah, is one of the examples). Then he told this matter to his family, who are all Christians as well, but totally supported him for his sexual prefference. His father said "that priest can say anything he likes. He doesn't have any right to judge other people and he doesn't own heaven or hell. Long as you trust on Jesus and do good towards others, then it never matter whether you're gay or not.".

Same goes with the issue of celibacy I think. Paul once stated that being married is good but not getting married according to him is better. (I think more or less thats what he said). So I think that's only Paul's personal intepretation cause God himself never stated that.

[Stanislaw]

I tink the issue that is being adressed in the Bible, is the lustfull nature of Homosexual (don't thinkI can say it here, age limits and all) uhm, bedchameber business. The business between a man and a woman is for that of producing children, however that of the homosexual variety is just to fullfill a lustfull desire, it can't possibly lead to children. So Homosexuals, along with heterosexuals, who engage in leasure, uhm, bedroom business are both considered to be breaking a holy sacrament.


However, if these are not your own words, don't plagerise then eh?

[Stanislaw]

What is the Bible's position on hermaphrodites? Could you clear that one up for me as well?

:rolleyes:

real mature bradly.

[Scheherazade]

Oh the humanity...

[baddad]

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm confused. The bible suddenly becoming the final word on homosexuality?? Is there anything that most fabled book cannot do???

Sexual persuasion/preference is dominated by brain development. Not religious doctorine.

While some people may decide to try 'same-sex' sex as an exploration of sexual fantasy, a little harmless exploration of self, homosexuals make no such choices. And of course, all segments of a society have people who are promiscious, and this is not limited to homosexuals. And this is neither startling, or new. It happens today, it was happening in biblical times. I think the lord may have destroyed a city or two over some such thing..........

But back to the biology of brain development:

People with homosexaul tendencies don't suddenly wake up one day and decide that it would be fun to live a life that invites descrimination, prejudice, taunting, ridicule, persecution, threats, deadly virus's, incredible amounts of stress and social outcasting. Females don't go to great efforts to accentuate attributes that are more commn to men. Men don't go to great efforts to accentuate attributes that are more more common to women. Some people of both genders have opposite attributes as a matter of course from birth , just as a matter of the great differences amongst us all.

Those with a proclivity toward their own gender are completely normal, in the sense the they were born with the tendency towards sexual attraction to either males, or females, regardless of their own gender.

This is not a crime under any curcumstances, and certainly not a crime against nature as is proposed here, for nature made these people who they are. They are as 'natural' as anyone else.

The reality of homosexuality is scientificly solid, much moreso than that legendary 'Virgin birth"....

People in glass houses........

[Stanislaw]

*cough* *cough*

I am not stating that the Bibal is the determining factor on homosexuality, I am merely stating what is infact housed in the Bibal, sex for the sake of sex is not an encouraged thing.


And of course, all segments of a society have people who are promiscious, and this is not limited to homosexuals. And this is neither startling, or new. It happens today, it was happening in biblical times.

Well I think that is what I said when I stated that:

So Homosexuals, along with heterosexuals, who engage in leasure, uhm, bedroom business are both considered to be breaking a holy sacrament.


People with homosexaul tendencies don't suddenly wake up one day and decide that it would be fun to live a life that invites descrimination, prejudice, taunting, ridicule, persecution, threats, deadly virus's, incredible amounts of stress and social outcasting.
That in itself is a very narrow minded statement, Homosexual people are not actively discriminated against in this fashion, to my knowledge they are the only group wich demands to celebrate a pride day. Also much of the prejudice is directed to those who flaunt there sexuality infront of others. ie, those who dress pornographically on pride days, those who make out at bustops, airports etc. Personally I am prejudice towards anyone who flaunts there sexuality, I could really care less what you and your partner do in the bedroom.


Those with a proclivity toward their own gender are completely normal, in the sense the they were born with the tendency towards sexual attraction to either males, or females, regardless of their own gender.

well scientifically speaking, some cases are due to hormonal imbalances, not all Homosexuals are naturally homosexual by nature.


The reality of homosexuality is scientificly solid, much moreso than that legendary 'Virgin birth"....

As in scientific terms none could produce an offspring???

Also this is one area of strong belief within the christian world (now apparently very much seperate from the "real" world) which is solely based on faith and belief of a holy text.


People in glass houses........
heh, I'll give you that one: Judge not lest ye be judged. This is just a flashbang topic anyways, ment to get a rise out of people, looks like we didn't let em down now?




Another forgotten point is that though Homosexuality, like promiscuity, is condemmed in the Bibal Jesus Christ taught us not to judge, and to love our neighbour, so though we may not personally engage in these activities, we musn't judge, because each of us if far from perfect.

http://forums.brainerddispatch.com/bb/graemlins/peace.gif

[baddad]

...cute little icon there Stan. Love his peace sign sign!

[Stanislaw]

'twas the least I could do, besides, nothing would come of the debate, just arguing. :cool:

[Adelheid]

The Bible should be the basis for our lives. (For christians and those who believe in it at least.) Since it is the Word of God, and all His commands and warnings are lovingly written in it, we should take care before doing something that God warns us about. That includes homosexuality and other sins.

[Miss Darcy]

Oh dear...Christianity makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Firstly, let's get this straight (no pun intended) - homosexuality makes me squirm. I don't like it. I think it's pretty horrific. But then again, gays...can't really help being gay. They are either born that way or reared in an environment that makes them so. For example, take Tchaikovsky. Brilliant man. A genius. Pure music. And? He went to an all-boys' school that had a lot of homosexuals and became one himself. He was extremely guilty about it - he didn't want to. But it happened. He did his very best to suppress it. He even married a woman to try to change - unhappily, she was mentally unstable and he felt a sort of repugnance towards her. He called her "the serpent". So poor old Tchaikovsky. And the same goes for Oscar Wilde - a brilliant mind, literary genius. And he got imprisoned for being gay. Do you think it was his fault?!

Now that is a *lot* longer than I had intended. It's not the kind of subject I enjoy writing about. But I felt I had to defend the poor guys, at least for the sake of the two genii I talked about.

*Shakes head at herself* No more, now, no more.

Darcy.

[Dyrwen]

So Homosexuals, along with heterosexuals, who engage in leasure, uhm, bedroom business are both considered to be breaking a holy sacrament.
If the issue of promiscuity was a higher priority than homosexuality then I guess people would make a point of it, though I feel your mentioning of that idea in the Bible is pertinent, since if one is to follow the Bible's word on homosexuality, one also has to follow its word on heterosexuality. If one isn't trying to have a child, then one shouldn't be having sex, so sayeth the Lord, if I do say so myself, heh.

Personally I'm all for promiscuity in terms of getting out there and finding people you like, so long as you aren't willfully cheating on folks in the process, though to force gays to be celibate merely for the fact that they cannot produce children is a bit much. What if they manage to get a test tube baby or adopt? Heh, aren't they entitled to some degree of pleasure from their lover while they father/mother their child?

Also, although Basil may have appeared smart-assed, I'd say that it is a pertinent question, since they have both sexual organs (hermaphrodites, that is) and therefore will be one or the other, or just bi, depending (as I understand it) so how would their actions be justified in any case?

[IWilKikU]

Soddam and Gohmorra:

According to Mike Pearson (Dphil Oxford Ethics, Phd Reading University Biblical Languages) S&G were destroyed for 'perversions of life'. There is nothing in the Hebrew to suggest that these perversions were sexual in nature at all. The crowd who intended on boinking Lot's male strangers was NOT the cause for the destruction. The order of events in the bible is an unhappy coincidence for gays, but there isn't any corrolation outside of speculation.

Don't forget that 'homosexuality' wasn't even a concept until recently. Throughout history influential leaders (including James I, you know the one who commissioned the BIBLE, yeah. That one) have had male 'favourites' and it was never even deemed immoral by the clergy. Throughout Greek, Roman, Mideval, Rennaissance, and even into the early-modern period homosexual activity was looked on with a attitude of 'boys will be boys'. The Bible NEVER explicitly gives an opinion on it, and you can be sure that there was enough of it going on back then that if it WAS important, than certainly the Bible would have been more clear. We are talking about 0 AD. The hight of Roman rule. Practically EVERY important Roman had male lovers including young boys. It was a respectible practice, and the Bible... respected it. People who are looking to the Bible to condemn homosexuality will have just as much luck finding condemnation of breaking the speed limit or insider trading.

[Jay]

Oh dear...Christianity makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Firstly, let's get this straight (no pun intended) - homosexuality makes me squirm. I don't like it. I think it's pretty horrific. But then again, gays...can't really help being gay. They are either born that way or reared in an environment that makes them so. For example, take Tchaikovsky. Brilliant man. A genius. Pure music. And? He went to an all-boys' school that had a lot of homosexuals and became one himself. He was extremely guilty about it - he didn't want to. But it happened. He did his very best to suppress it. He even married a woman to try to change - unhappily, she was mentally unstable and he felt a sort of repugnance towards her. He called her "the serpent". So poor old Tchaikovsky. And the same goes for Oscar Wilde - a brilliant mind, literary genius. And he got imprisoned for being gay. Do you think it was his fault?!

Now that is a *lot* longer than I had intended. It's not the kind of subject I enjoy writing about. But I felt I had to defend the poor guys, at least for the sake of the two genii I talked about.

*Shakes head at herself* No more, now, no more.

Darcy.

I don't mean to be offensive... but that's the most homophobic piece of... writing I've read in a long time.

[i_rock_poems]

I think sometimes it is pitiful that you have to bring religion into some one elses life to tell them that they are wrong. Thats just inhumane.!

[Jay]

And narrow-minded... and I think I better shut up now, lol.

[lhaeber]

I agree with you Jay, narrow. I always ask people who "gay-bash" what if you were born in a world where the norm was being with the same gender, but you were attracted to the opposite. How would you control that? I mean, people that pick their noses make me squirm, but I look away. Homosexuality is what it is. Religion is what it is. I never answer my door on a Saturday morning to two men, or two women, etc., asking me to join their "way", handing out literature on how I could become a better person, have a better life if I just "turned". It's about sexuality, I don't question what, in my interpretation may be freaky, my friends or family do in their bedrooms, it's none of my concern, 'cause I'm not there. I guess I have a simple approach to this, but, really, there are too many variables, conditions, to why you have a certain lifestyle or personality.

[subterranean]

....I'm just wondering where's the limit of human freedom stands....


And Kik...the word boinking...:lol: :lol:..make me laugh

[Stanislaw]

uhm kik, read the bibal, perhaps you will find the anti homosexual references.



Dyrwen: Your idea that they should be entitled to pleasure... The bibal states that sex for the sake of pleasure is wrong, regardless of whom/what is doing it, If a child cannot come of the union it is bad. simply put.

[Dyrwen]

Dyrwen: Your idea that they should be entitled to pleasure... The bibal states that sex for the sake of pleasure is wrong, regardless of whom/what is doing it, If a child cannot come of the union it is bad. simply put.
I figured as much, thanks.

Good ole' contradictory human nature. God'll give ya endorphins to enjoy sex, good foods and crazy stuff, yet lust, gluttony and a few other things that occur merely because of chemical reactions end up making one a sinner. heh

[baddad]

....oh yeah baby!!!...Grab the torches!!! Grab the swords!!! Tonight we march on Salem!!!! "BURN THE WITCHES!!!!.......

[atiguhya padma]

Someone once said that all the boring people go to heaven, the cool place to be is hell. I think that more or less says it all really. I think it was William Blake who once said that the best way to get people to pack the pews in church, was to hand out free beer. Now he had a good idea. Even I might go to church then!:)

[Stanislaw]

I figured as much, thanks.

Good ole' contradictory human nature. God'll give ya endorphins to enjoy sex, good foods and crazy stuff, yet lust, gluttony and a few other things that occur merely because of chemical reactions end up making one a sinner. heh

That I have also perhaps figured out, life is designed as such to be a test. That why everything fun is illegal, immoral, or dangerous :D

It is all based off of believing, not comprehension.

[IWilKikU]

uhm kik, read the bibal, perhaps you will find the anti homosexual references.

Stan, I've read the Bible, and I've read the anti-homosexual translation errors, the anti-homosexual notes in the margins, the anti-homosexual modern commentary, and the anti-homosexual insinuations that are taken out of context in the soddam and ghammora story. But I havn't read anything, ANYTHING against homosexuality in A) the 10 commandments. B) the Levitical and ancient Hebrew laws (and there are ALOT about sexuality. If homosexuality was a sin it would have been adressed here). C) The words of Jesus Christ (words which trump any other written law in the Bible. Keep in mind that this was written during the hight of Roman rule when homosexual favourites, including young male slaves [8-12 years], were the norm among the majority of rich Roman aristocrats. If it was an issue that Christ felt strongly about one way or another it would have been mentioned here). With so many other sins explicity denounced I don't understand where people can invoke the Bible against something it is so vague on. If anyone ANYONE can give me a text that specifically denounces homosexuality, that isn't some Jerry Falwell sponsored translation that translates 'perversions of life' as homosexuality, I'll go stone a homo with you and we can celebrate by going to hooters and watching a monster-truck rally.

[lhaeber]

kiku;

http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/relationships/relations_11_homosexual.cfm

speaks of passages, but mind who it's "sponsored" by.

[lhaeber]

While I was looking this up (see above) and posting, I was thinking, this is sad. It's more about our interpretations, like you said kiku, about the vagueness. While I don't have the equipment to scratch while watching the gals with big tips serve me at hooters, I'd gladly go with you, should someone take you up on your offer.

[IWilKikU]

unfortunately I can't access that site because my crappy university network doesn't have that port open, but I've heard it before and I can gaurentee you that people have added interpretations of very ambiguous phrases. But thats pretty messed up that you would take me up on my offer to stone a homo, but hey, wasn't it Jerry Falwell who said he would gladly murder a homosexual for Jesus Christ?

[lhaeber]

ahhhhhhh, see, i thought you said get stoned with a homo

[subterranean]

You make me remember of this cartoon sketche I saw in a magazine. A guy was asked whether he want to go to heaven, and he said "Nope, I prefer hell"..And he was asked again "Why", and he said "I'd like to meet Madonna"..


Someone once said that all the boring people go to heaven, the cool place to be is hell. I think that more or less says it all really. I think it was William Blake who once said that the best way to get people to pack the pews in church, was to hand out free beer. Now he had a good idea. Even I might go to church then!:)

[baddad]

Dear Mr. Happy Button:

Hi, its me, J. Falwell. Been a bit under the weather lately, my health is deteriorating, and I'm unlikely to have the strength handle the stress of attending a Hooter's hooters restaurant. However, with my mighty mouth and my little slingshot I would be happy to stone some homosexuals. Count me in. My demise is probably imminent, I'll be seeing 'HIM' soon and I'm sure this final act of mine would truly please God..............................your friend the raging homophobic, Jerry.

[IWilKikU]

Nice baddad! :lol:

I think it was Mark Twain who said something like
"There are only two things to worry about: wether you're sick or well. If you're well then all is well, but if your sick there are only two things to worry about: wether you live or die. If you live then all is well, but if you die there are only two things to worry about: wether you go to heaven or hell. If you go to heaven then all is well, and if I go to hell I'll be too busy saying 'hello' to all my friends to worry about anything else."

[Jay]

Nice one, Kik :D

[frozenlight]

i haven't read the bible and probably never will, so i don't know what exactly it states about homosexuality, but i refuse to consider as "the words of god" something written about 2000 years ago by humans who i don't think were better than anyone writing on this forum, for example.
to get straight to the point, i don't have anything against homosexuals or lesbians as long as they don't exhibit their sexuality, and i would probably be as annoyed by seeing a gay or straight couple make sex in front of me. as far as i'm concerned, anyone can **** whoever one wants as long as both parties consent.

[Jay]

Define 'exhibit their sexuality', frozenlight. I don't mean to ruin your 'I don't mind homosexuals as long as they don't exhibit their sexuality' idea of being ... homo-tolerant? If by 'exhibit their sexuality' you mean two guys/girls having sex on a lawn in a park, I'd agree with your comment entirely, some things are not supposed to be done in public. But if you meant a guy/girl hoding hands with another guy/girl or, what a horrid picture :rolleyes:, them kissing or touching... the way straight people do most of the time, as 'exhibiting their sexuality'... you getting what I'm trying to say?
It all depends on your idea of 'exhibiting one's sexuality' though so I guess I better stop being a pain in the mik'ta and ... shut up again.

[frozenlight]

yes, i meant something like 2 guys/girls having sex on a lawn.

i would probably be as annoyed by seeing a gay or straight couple make sex in front of me

[lhaeber]

Egads, it would be horrible to see dogs doing it on a lawn, heterosexuals as well, the whole idea of strolling along seeing fornication instead of lawn gnomes bothers me, but why is it people think only homosexuals are sexually extroverted enough to display their acts? Yes, I know, they have parades, et al, but there remain a few laws or so I have here in my country which prohibit us from doinking in public.

[Stanislaw]

Well call me an old fogey... but I think any public display of sexuality is pretty obscene. well with the exception of holding hands, but that doesn't involve the exchange of any bodily fluids.


Define 'exhibit their sexuality', frozenlight. I don't mean to ruin your 'I don't mind homosexuals as long as they don't exhibit their sexuality' idea of being ... homo-tolerant? If by 'exhibit their sexuality' you mean two guys/girls having sex on a lawn in a park, I'd agree with your comment entirely, some things are not supposed to be done in public. But if you meant a guy/girl hoding hands with another guy/girl or, what a horrid picture :rolleyes:, them kissing or touching... the way straight people do most of the time, as 'exhibiting their sexuality'... you getting what I'm trying to say?
It all depends on your idea of 'exhibiting one's sexuality' though so I guess I better stop being a pain in the mik'ta and ... shut up again.

[Basil]

it would be horrible to see dogs doing it on a lawn, heterosexuals as well, the whole idea of strolling along seeing fornication instead of lawn gnomes bothers me

One time I saw a couple of lawn gnomes fornicating on a lawn. I was shocked and repulsed at first. I mean, I don't hate them just because they're different from me: I'm no gnomophobe. But surely they shouldn't be doing it right there on a lawn for everyone to see, should they?

Then it occurred to me: where else would lawn gnomes be doing it, other than a lawn?

[Scheherazade]

Maybe they should wait till it is dark/everyone is fast asleep so that noone sees them.

[Basil]

http://www.taylorgifts.com/images/p25210b.jpg

HAVE THEY NO SHAME?

[subterranean]

I know that there are some parts in the west where "old fogeys" like Stan :) still exist, though sometimes I think public display of sexuality, like kissing, is a very common thing there...


Stan, you should move to my country...;)



Well call me an old fogey... but I think any public display of sexuality is pretty obscene. well with the exception of holding hands, but that doesn't involve the exchange of any bodily fluids.


Interesting picture Basil :rolleyes:

[Stanislaw]

Just what be ye getting at? :D

[subterranean]

Nothing Stan...Nothing...:D

[Logos]

PDA's (public displays of affection) are fine by me and should be encouraged. :D (hugging, kissing, holding hands, arms about each other etc.) but it's another matter altogether if people, and I don't really care what orientation said `people' consist of, are contravening laws which disallow nudity and `lewd' acts in _public_. There are some things better left to the privacy of behind closed doors.

[subterranean]

Well Logos, different culture means different norms and values :)

[Stanislaw]

Yes, even the same culture, just different time periods shows the ever changing views.

ANd I guess to each their own. :nod:

[baddad]

Two things: First, I enjoyed Basil's disturbing little gnome home.......I mean, who wouldn't??

Secondly, Ya know, for some reason I think that 'gay pride' parades are a bit 'over the top. I don't really mind the display, but I ask myself why anyone would want to have a parade to showcase their sexual preferences? And then I remember "Marti GRAs', a fantastic hetersexual celebration/parade heralding (of all things) the beginning of the christian recognized period of 'Lent' . Yes, me thinks we live in very, VERY, strange times.....

[lhaeber]

PDA's (public displays of affection) are fine by me and should be encouraged. :D (hugging, kissing, holding hands, arms about each other etc.) but it's another matter altogether if people, and I don't really care what orientation said `people' consist of, are contravening laws which disallow nudity and `lewd' acts in _public_. There are some things better left to the privacy of behind closed doors.


So, THAT's what pdas are...my son always talks about them on his MSN and I keep clenching my hands, oh whirl whirl whirl, what on earth is he talking about, what lewd, devious act :brow: is that?
Now, I don't have to tell him I been sneeking and peeking on his computer. Thank u!

[Scheherazade]

Secondly, Ya know, for some reason I think that 'gay pride' parades are a bit 'over the top. I don't really mind the display, but I ask myself why anyone would want to have a parade to showcase their sexual preferences?
Maybe to make a point. I know it is 'in your face' (a lot) but maybe some people's homophobic attitudes and unbelievable notion that they can dictate other people's sexual preferences might be calling for such drastic measures.

How about Rio carnival? It is even crazier that 'gay pride' parades but it is *mostly* beautiful girls in something barely more than small bikinis.

[Stanislaw]

I strongly disagree with all of these exhebitionist parades...If I wanted porn, I would go and buy it, I dislike having it forced on me.

[Scheherazade]

You surely don't have to go and watch them? With similar logic, one might say they s/he does not like watching porn so porn movies should be banned.

[Stanislaw]

well... I would support the banning of porn movies aswell.

[Basil]

And what's with all this wanton displaying of the flesh? Unnecessary and unseemly, if you ask me. We should all wear beekeeper's outfits.

http://www.mannlakeltd.com/images/catalog/page60/cl-179.gif

[baddad]

Maybe to make a point. I know it is 'in your face' (a lot) but maybe some people's homophobic attitudes and unbelievable notion that they can dictate other people's sexual preferences might be calling for such drastic measures.

How about Rio carnival? It is even crazier that 'gay pride' parades but it is *mostly* beautiful girls in something barely more than small bikinis.

My point exactly, but of course the knots in my tongue made it come out much less succinct ...Thanks Sher. But How can I honestly like Rio Carnival, and yet dislike gay pride parades if I espouse equality for all people? I think I just discovered a chink in my moral armor......just call me Double Standard Boy....... *gotta get a costume to go with that*

P.S. BAsil: Nice Queen Bee....

[atiguhya padma]

I think once the Church can openly discuss whether Jesus himself may or may not have been gay, then it will have 'grown up' and entered the 21st C.

Personally, I think it cannot be ruled out. He liked to have plenty of men around him, none of his disciples were women; he was very tactile with men; he had called one of the disciples his beloved (note how this is said of only the one disciple). I think it is possible that Jesus may have been gay. He seems to show some homoerotic behaviours that, if observed in today's world, might make people wonder whether he was gay or not.

Certainly the movement Jesus inspired has shown plenty of homosexual tendencies throughout history. Paul, when talking about marriage and women, sounds very gay. I mean he obviously preferred men to women.

I mean, all those disciples leaving the comfort of their families and joining a merry band of men. It makes you wonder what they got up to doesn't it? Those nights in the desert can get so terribly cold...

[IWilKikU]

I keep getting a spam fowarded to me by people I know (all of them devout Christians) that includes a petition against a play (that I don't believe actually exists cause I can't find it on the net :rolleyes:) called corpus christi. It portrays Jesus & friends as gay and is verrrrrry bad and terrible! The spam says its going to be made into a film if I don't sign my name and forward it to everyone I know including the person who sent it to me :eek:. Does anyone know if this is for real, cause I would love to see the play.

[Miranda]

Yes, I WilKikU it is for real though I haven't received any such spam about it. I read about it months ago when Christians were demonstrating against it outside a theatre in Edinborough where it was being shown. It is called Corpus Christi, written by Terence McNally - and directed by Stephen Hendry though I suppose it depends on who is putting on the play, who it is directed by. I think it originated in America. My opinion is this..they wouldn't dare write a similar play about Mohammed. That would be blasphemy. But it's okay to say any old thing about Jesus it seems.

Miranda


I keep getting a spam fowarded to me by people I know (all of them devout Christians) that includes a petition against a play (that I don't believe actually exists cause I can't find it on the net :rolleyes:) called corpus christi. It portrays Jesus & friends as gay and is verrrrrry bad and terrible! The spam says its going to be made into a film if I don't sign my name and forward it to everyone I know including the person who sent it to me :eek:. Does anyone know if this is for real, cause I would love to see the play.

[baddad]

Yes!!! Kiky, this is ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!!! People all over the world may be subjected to another artsy/fartsy financial flop if you don't contribut to the hysterical reaction generated by these spammy emails!!!!!! So act today!! Forward the spam to anyone who's computer needs to be blocked up with (fill in your own explitive here)!!!I personally suggest a mass e-filing of protests to the vatican,www.thepopeshouse.vc

[Logos]

Ack, the worst kind of spam, from people you actually know!


I keep getting a spam fowarded to me by people I know (all of them devout Christians)

[atiguhya padma]

Miranda,

It should be OK to say any old thing about Mohammed too. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, doing so can be seriously damaging to your health. Would you prefer to see the same kinds of reaction in the Christian world to those who voice their opinion on Jesus, as was shown to Salman Rushdie after he wrote the Satanic Verses? Quite honestly, the only reason we can say mostly any old thing about Jesus in the West, is because us dissenters have had the courage to stand up for reason and freedom against a persecuting church and state in the past. We've been through the burning of heretics and the drowning of witches, and we can now see that those reactions were totally despicable, even though they were inspired by the bible's teachings. The freedom we have today in the West was hard won by those who fought against religious fanaticism. We still have a long way to go to make it safe to say what you want about Mohammed. And it is even becoming more difficult to say what you want about Jesus.

[Stanislaw]

Why is it considered freedom when one attakcs something that they don't fully comprehend, and it is considered harrasment when a christian does it?

[atiguhya padma]

Stanislaw,

1) Attacking an idea, or a concept, should be permitted shoudn't it? Or should we have a more Orwellian society?

2) The burning of witches or heretics shouldn't be permitted. I don't think it is adequately described under the term 'harrassment'.

[Stanislaw]

You just contradicted yourself,

If a non-christian is allowed to attack and idea or concept, than it would be wrong to not allow christians the same freedom.

[atiguhya padma]

I have no problem with Christians attacking concepts or ideas.

[baddad]

Censorship of any kind, except that specifically targeted to promote hate against an identifiable group, should never be allowed. No voice, no person, should ever be silenced from fear of persecution for their ideas. There are no addendums to this rule, there are few exceptions. Freedom to speak is one of the few freedoms humans must always maintain. If we don't like what someone says, fine, your are allowed that. But 6.5 billion humans on this planet have 6.5 billion different perspectives. All of these, with few exceptions, are valid. No one voice has the right answers to every question. No one voice should be allowed to dictate the morality of speech, art, media, etc. I for one will fight to my last breath to preserve this right and to expend every effort to extend this right throughout the world. Freedom is not some artsy/fartsy concept but the basis of our human existence. Freedom of speech's abuse horrifies most individuals on the planet, but many fear speaking out, fear reprisal by their governments, their church, or their maniacal leaders. Censorship is disgusting, a crime against humanity, a foolish ploy by those who fear the truth of their own stance will be compromised by rational thinking people.

[baddad]

....P.S. Uhh.....Stan.......your gelatin.....uh, avatar, seems to be.........molting??

[Stanislaw]

....P.S. Uhh.....Stan.......your gelatin.....uh, avatar, seems to be.........molting??

Well he is a freshly baked pizza thing, what else could he do? :D


Now back on topic:

What would be the limits of freedom of speech, technically it could be argued that one is allowed to preach that the holocaust never happened because of freedom of speech?

[baddad]

[QUOTE=Stanislaw]Well he is a freshly baked pizza thing, what else could he do? :D QUOTE]


uhhh....Stan....I said, MOLTING, ...not MELTING!

[baddad]

Now back on topic:

What would be the limits of freedom of speech, technically it could be argued that one is allowed to preach that the holocaust never happened because of freedom of speech?

Canada has a specific law against the very thing actually, but it has been extremely difficult to prosecute.

So yeah, sure, freedom of speech would allow for this delusional approach to history to be spoken of. And why not? So a few people listen, pretend history never happened. It is obviously their delusion, their fantasy, it will not shake the world, or cause great damage. Most people will not listen, they know history, it is recorded and will not be forgotten. And those that know the truth will make their displeasure well known to those espousing such nonsense, they will be shunned for their madness, made social pariahs. But to put limits on what people say is to limit what they think, and I can not abide that under (almost) any circumstances.

But the holocaust is one of, but not the worst case, of slaughter in history, but is deemed 'untouchable', a holy grail never to be sullied by using the word to describe any other atrocities. The very word holocaust is RESERVED, never to be discussed except in the most reverential tones for any reason. Well, what about the 10 million Stalin slaughtered? What about the tens of thousands Miloshovich slaughtered? What about the genocide with the tutsis, 800,000 slaughtered? No one is prevented from discussing those atrocities, these holocausts. But the actual WORD, 'holocaust', well now, use it at your own peril if you are not directly referring to the WWll slaughter.

The world freaks out if anyone speaks about the holocaust or uses the term in any way not associated with the horrific slaughter that took place in Europe. But ' Holocausts' are happening today, this very minute, and people are denying it, people are ignoring it, and no one is up in arms. Need I list the countries where there is currently ethnic cleansing (a soft and gentle euphism created to hide the horror of mass murder, and a term 'responsible' governments can use publicly to soften the fact that they sit idle and allow murderous slaughter to happen, because the word 'slaughter' doesn't sell well on television) , or countries which in very recent years have imploded with incredible violence against ethnic minorities?

SO.....if someone claims (and they are) that the current slaughter in the Sudan (and elsewhere) is not happening.........do we view it the same way we would if they were taking about 'THE' holocaust? Do we enact laws designed to shut them up? The answer is a resounding NO!!..... and herein lies my peeve about limiting speech, even bull**** concerning the ......HOLOCAUST......it is a misdirection away from the real problems in the world, and censorship is SO NOT the answer.

I mean no disrespect to anyone having suffered at the hands of others, but limiting freedoms of voice and thought do not improve communiction between people.......

Hell, there is so much to say that deserves well thought out argument rather than this short little 'pet peeve' spew........my apologies....

[subterranean]

I think Islam has different culture, which Mohammad built. He managed to established himself as a holly prophet, last to come but sit in number one rank of all God's prophets. Also, the middle east (where this belief rooted and expand) got different culture and condition..There's no industrial revolution there, no Reinassance (sp), etc.

When this one time the Time magazine put a carton sketch of young Mohammad, many muslims people in my country bought it, they were so curios cause none ever know what he looks like, and yet they also felt furious at the same time that a magazine have the guts to do that since the prophet is considered almost as holy as God...and who can draw God's face????

[Stanislaw]

I completely agree with you, I think the term Holocaust should be applied to all of those genocides. The problem is that the holocaust has taken on a new meaning, and seems to be apllied ony to the Jewish peoples, I understand what they went through was terrible, however the polish, ukrainian, chekoslovakian and french went through it too. And aside from the more modern holocausts you mentioned, there is also Cambodia.

I think cencorship is a sign of ignorance, and a fear that the truth cannot be defended. Perhaps this is to protect half truths. (I am not saying that the holocaust didn't happen just to clear things up, my family did expierience loss during the Holocaust in Europe).


Canada has a specific law against the very thing actually, but it has been extremely difficult to prosecute.

So yeah, sure, freedom of speech would allow for this delusional approach to history to be spoken of. And why not? So a few people listen, pretend history never happened. It is obviously their delusion, their fantasy, it will not shake the world, or cause great damage. Most people will not listen, they know history, it is recorded and will not be forgotten. And those that know the truth will make their displeasure well known to those espousing such nonsense, they will be shunned for their madness, made social pariahs. But to put limits on what people say is to limit what they think, and I can not abide that under (almost) any circumstances.

But the holocaust is one of, but not the worst case, of slaughter in history, but is deemed 'untouchable', a holy grail never to be sullied by using the word to describe any other atrocities. The very word holocaust is RESERVED, never to be discussed except in the most reverential tones for any reason. Well, what about the 10 million Stalin slaughtered? What about the tens of thousands Miloshovich slaughtered? What about the genocide with the tutsis, 800,000 slaughtered? No one is prevented from discussing those atrocities, these holocausts. But the actual WORD, 'holocaust', well now, use it at your own peril if you are not directly referring to the WWll slaughter.

The world freaks out if anyone speaks about the holocaust or uses the term in any way not associated with the horrific slaughter that took place in Europe. But ' Holocausts' are happening today, this very minute, and people are denying it, people are ignoring it, and no one is up in arms. Need I list the countries where there is currently ethnic cleansing (a soft and gentle euphism created to hide the horror of mass murder, and a term 'responsible' governments can use publicly to soften the fact that they sit idle and allow murderous slaughter to happen, because the word 'slaughter' doesn't sell well on television) , or countries which in very recent years have imploded with incredible violence against ethnic minorities?

SO.....if someone claims (and they are) that the current slaughter in the Sudan (and elsewhere) is not happening.........do we view it the same way we would if they were taking about 'THE' holocaust? Do we enact laws designed to shut them up? The answer is a resounding NO!!..... and herein lies my peeve about limiting speech, even bull**** concerning the ......HOLOCAUST......it is a misdirection away from the real problems in the world, and censorship is SO NOT the answer.

I mean no disrespect to anyone having suffered at the hands of others, but limiting freedoms of voice and thought do not improve communiction between people.......

Hell, there is so much to say that deserves well thought out argument rather than this short little 'pet peeve' spew........my apologies....

[Stanislaw]

[QUOTE=Stanislaw]Well he is a freshly baked pizza thing, what else could he do? :D QUOTE]


uhhh....Stan....I said, MOLTING, ...not MELTING!

Molting, melting whatevah! :D

[IWilKikU]

So are we done talking about the Bible's view on homosexuality? ;)

[atiguhya padma]

The holocaust discussion is a bit off topic, but I'd like to say the following:

The point about the Holocaust, is the sheer scale, the intent, and the compliance with which it happened. Is it possible that any other race was persecuted like this? Not only the numbers (6 or so million), but also the percentage of deaths during the war years of the Jewish race must be staggering. That is why it is considered to be a Jewish experience. That is why the Holocaust is known as THE HOLOCAUST.

Sure, many gypsies, homosexuals, political subversives etc died during the holocaust. But this cannot be compared in the same way to what happened to the Jews.

[IWilKikU]

Here's another 'holocaust' and it's reception.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/12/wdres12.xml

[subterranean]

[QUOTE=baddad]

Molting, melting whatevah! :D

Yes Stan...what exactly is that anyway?????

[Amra]

"I think Islam has different culture, which Mohammad built. He managed to established himself as a holly prophet, last to come but sit in number one rank of all God's prophets. Also, the middle east (where this belief rooted and expand) got different culture and condition..There's no industrial revolution there, no Reinassance (sp), etc.

When this one time the Time magazine put a carton sketch of young Mohammad, many muslims people in my country bought it, they were so curios cause none ever know what he looks like, and yet they also felt furious at the same time that a magazine have the guts to do that since the prophet is considered almost as holy as God...and who can draw God's face????"

I found so many things that are simply not true in this post that I had to reply. MOhammed a.s never established himself as holy. That is the main teaching of Islam; namely, that no one is holy nor deserves to be worshiped in any way except God. There are many narrations confirming that fact. One famous is when there was a battle, someone saw Mohammed a.s fall of his horse, and that person assumed that the Prophet had died. The person spread the news and people started to cry and panick. Then, Mohammed's companion Ebu Bekr addressed them saying that "Those of you who worshiped Mohammed; he is dead; those of who you who worship Allah s.v.t; He is the Living and Eternal". So, that reinforced the significance of understanding that the Prophet is only a human being; one who is close to God because of his obedience and faith, but not holy in any way. The muslim culture forbids sketches of him or anyone associated with him because we don't know how they looked like, and because of the fear that people will start to worship those images, as was the case many times in different religions. It is not allowed to degrade or ridicule the Prophet or his family, and that has to do with respect on has for him. I always wondered what the gain is in being able to ridicule authority and if that has anything to do with the concept of free speach? Do people change anything if they have Jay Leno ridicule president Bush, while he attacks nations all over the place and increases the deficit every day? What do I really have from being able to laugh publicly at him? Is that a real right or simply a masquarade for people that gives them the ilusion that they do have influence, when in fact no one even considers their voice? Freedom of speach is not being able to ridicule the authority, it is about being able to actually change things.. I am very satisfied that the muslim countries have not let it come to that where every fool would be able to make fun of the Prophet and the teachings of the religion, like I have seen people do to Jesus and Christianity in the western societies. I have nothing against reasonable critisizm but ridiculing and insulting something that many people live by is disrespectful and primitive. There has to be a limit to everything, even to free speach..and as we know..no right is absolute..and thank God for that.

[subterranean]

Thanks for the clarification Amra.

By the way, do you think those beautiful artwork in many churches/temple in the world were made with the intention that people would worship images? Futher, do you think those images degrade or ridicule the persons described, and show less respects towards them?
And one other thing, if NO one knows what they look like (i suppose you were reffering to the prophet and his fellows), so how can people be sure that they are for real and not just legends??

[Stanislaw]

The Jewish people did lose a great amount during this time, however, other holocausts should not be belittled because of one event, during 1933 - 1945 Many peoples were persecuted.

And just to clear up one point, though Rwanda only lost C. 800,000 people, that was in the course of little more than a week or two. statistically, hitler could've learned from the rwandans.

Also it was done mostly with machetes, and farming implements.


The holocaust discussion is a bit off topic, but I'd like to say the following:

The point about the Holocaust, is the sheer scale, the intent, and the compliance with which it happened. Is it possible that any other race was persecuted like this? Not only the numbers (6 or so million), but also the percentage of deaths during the war years of the Jewish race must be staggering. That is why it is considered to be a Jewish experience. That is why the Holocaust is known as THE HOLOCAUST.

Sure, many gypsies, homosexuals, political subversives etc died during the holocaust. But this cannot be compared in the same way to what happened to the Jews.

[Stanislaw]

[QUOTE=Stanislaw]

Yes Stan...what exactly is that anyway?????


Well, it is Pizza the Hutt, from Mel Brooks Spaceballs. :D

[Miranda]

AP, I agree with your post that freedom of speech is a good thing. Probably I am at odds with many other christians when I say a blasphemy law would be a bad thing, this is what I believe. Everyone should be free to question and criticise another's religion, although no one should be allowed to persecute anyone for holding to their particular religion. I am not sure where the dividing line should be, maybe you have some ideas?

I do not agree that the reason we have free speech in the West is because of 'us dissenters'. The dissenters against the persecuting church and state of the past were actually christians - those so called heretics burned at the stake, their mission being to have the bible translated into English and made available for everyone to read. The church of the past has a lot to answer for and as you say, those reactions were totally despicable.

It is indeed becoming harder to say what you want about Jesus in this climate of multiculturism. Not very long ago Birmingham City Council renamed Christmas 'Winterval' out of consideration for its large Asian poplulation that might have been offended by the mention of Christ in Christmas. Is this contrary to the concept of freedom of speech? I think that it is.

However in this same town last year, the Sikh community forced a theatre to discontinue a show called 'Behzti,' by a demonstration that became a riot. Behzti portrayed rape and violence within a Sikh temple and was generally inflamatory against Sikhism. This is definately contrary to the concept of freedom of speech, but none the less, the sikh's objective was successful. I wonder if Iwilkiku would be so enthusiastic to go and see this play as he would be to see the other one portraying a 'gay' Jesus - and if not, why not?

More recently when the BBC showed 'Jerry Springer:The Opera' and this resulted in one of the BBC directors being harassed out of his home after a Christian website advertised his private address and telephone number. The report that I read at the time..and which I can't find on the internet, said that he had received death threats from militant christians. This too is contrary to the concept of freedom of speech - and I think to the concept of Christianity as taught by Jesus.

What really angers me is that whereas it is usually ok to denigrate Jesus and Christianity, there is an outcry when other religions are given the same treatment and there is no even handedness from the authorities. The Behzti play was unusual in that it was allowed to be performed in the first place and I think that this is probably an exception to the rule. But it was eventually closed down anyway in order to ensure the safety of the audience and staff at the theatre.

'The Opera' also was an exception to the rule because normally Christian demonstrations are passive but in this case degenerated, like the Sihk's protests, into militancy. I think this militancy is contrary to Christianity and to the teachings of Jesus - and that because Christians are normally passive, that they are much more likely to have their religion derided in the arts and media.

It isn't true AP that the burning and torture of 'witches' and heretics was in inspired by the bible's teachings. It was inspired by the usual human traits that dominate mankind - greed for money and power and the need to have subordinates, albeit within the church. No one following Christ would advocate or support inflicting such cruelty on their fellow men and this is the meaning of the word Christian - a follower of Christ. These people even though they may have been called bishops etc, were definately not Christians by the New Testament's definition of the word.

Miranda







Miranda,

It should be OK to say any old thing about Mohammed too. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, doing so can be seriously damaging to your health. Would you prefer to see the same kinds of reaction in the Christian world to those who voice their opinion on Jesus, as was shown to Salman Rushdie after he wrote the Satanic Verses? Quite honestly, the only reason we can say mostly any old thing about Jesus in the West, is because us dissenters have had the courage to stand up for reason and freedom against a persecuting church and state in the past. We've been through the burning of heretics and the drowning of witches, and we can now see that those reactions were totally despicable, even though they were inspired by the bible's teachings. The freedom we have today in the West was hard won by those who fought against religious fanaticism. We still have a long way to go to make it safe to say what you want about Mohammed. And it is even becoming more difficult to say what you want about Jesus.

[subterranean]

I do not agree that the reason we have free speech in the West is because of 'us dissenters'. The dissenters against the persecuting church and state of the past were actually christians - those so called heretics burned at the stake, their mission being to have the bible translated into English and made available for everyone to read. The church of the past has a lot to answer for and as you say, those reactions were totally despicable.
Miranda

Agree...Luther's effort is also an example. I don't know, in Indonesia you can't say anything bad about any particular religions..it is against the law and could lead to riots...Which can be politicized (SP) easily. I also think that those witches burning were somewhat happened cause of the role of religious authorities...which shamellesly(sp) thought that they were better than those witches..and twisted the teaching instead..I mean didn't Jesus sit and eat with whores and tax collector?

[Amra]

"Thanks for the clarification Amra.

By the way, do you think those beautiful artwork in many churches/temple in the world were made with the intention that people would worship images? Futher, do you think those images degrade or ridicule the persons described, and show less respects towards them?
And one other thing, if NO one knows what they look like (i suppose you were reffering to the prophet and his fellows), so how can people be sure that they are for real and not just legends??"

I don't think it was initially made with the intention that people should worship them, but with time, they became objects of worship. It always startles me that people have generally accepted Jesus to be a white male, with blue eyes and blondish hair, when in fact, he could not have looked anything like that. Mary is also portrayed in a similar way. How can people ascribe them these physical attributes and accept them as being the truth, when they only show the dominance of the white male during that time, who wanted even God to look like him? It's absurd. When I said it was disrespectful to show images of the Prophet and his family, I meant when people degrade them and make plays to ridicule them. Showing only images of them is not disrespectful, and that is not the reason it is forbidden. However, it is a certain way of opening the door to worship of someone besides God. That is the main reason behind that prohibition. The disrespect grows out of that, because people have no limits. So, if you open that door, and let people draw images of God and the angels, than for sure, you will have someone take advantage of that "freedom" to express their own(however distasteful) opinions in regards to that matter, and then one will have no argument against that.
Also, one doesn't derive the truth about the Prophet's life and his message by showing images of him, but by many other, steadfast facts we have and believe in. Besides, there are numerous hadith telling us how the Prophet p.b.u.h looked like, and the images are not necessary to know that. They would simply open ways to things that are danagerous and unnecessary. They open ways to worship of someone else but God, and they open ways for people to use that freedom and, if they wish, ridicule and degrade those images in any way they choose to.

[Miranda]

Sub, Thank you for your post and the reminder of how valuable our freedom of speech is. We have to be careful on this thread because it is against the forum rules to discuss politics and if this discussion goes that way, it will be locked. But freedom of speech in relation to religion I think is allowed. The people branded as witches were often just old women - anyone could be branded as a witch in those days and then burned, all in the name of religion - but only in the name of religion and certainly not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Yes, Jesus did associate with publicans, sinners and prostitutes and the outcasts of society and these accepted him, while the so called spiritual leaders of the time rejected him.

Sorry this is completely off topic Iwilkiku and nothing to do with homosexuality. The discussion seems to have taken off in different directions...

Miranda

[subterranean]

Posted by Amra
I don't think it was initially made with the intention that people should worship them, but with time, they became objects of worship. It always startles me that people have generally accepted Jesus to be a white male, with blue eyes and blondish hair, when in fact, he could not have looked anything like that. Mary is also portrayed in a similar way. How can people ascribe them these physical attributes and accept them as being the truth, when they only show the dominance of the white male during that time, who wanted even God to look like him? It's absurd.

Well, the Jesus picture in my house doesn't show a blond man with blue eyes. It shows a man with long brown hair and eyes, like typical adult Jewish man. Also, I once see this poster (in a documentary movie or something like that) in a black man's house, saying "Jesus is a Black Man", with a Jesus figure describe as a black man. To say it in the extreme way, if horses have god of their own, then they would have describe their god as horse as well...So I don't agree with your opinion of white male dominance. And futher these diversities are merely people expressions from various nations/ethnic groups, and again doesn't mean as a disgrace towards Jesus himself. Many people also said that the Buddhists worships statues, since they often pray and bows down infrot of the Buddha's status. But personally, I see it beyond that..people sometimes pray with looking above towards the sky or kissing the ground, whatever...They are merely just expressions or variance of how to worship god..Apologize, if you think you are better than them, then I don't understand with all those religious acts and ceremonies that the Muslims do in Meccah..I mean, I often heard people saying that a person who died there is lucky coz he/she went straight to heaven, since s/he died in the holy land of God.....


When I said it was disrespectful to show images of the Prophet and his family, I meant when people degrade them and make plays to ridicule them. Showing only images of them is not disrespectful, and that is not the reason it is forbidden. However, it is a certain way of opening the door to worship of someone besides God. That is the main reason behind that prohibition.

Well, for Christians, Jesus is God Himself, so in other words, Christians are not creating another image to worship other than God himself..


The disrespect grows out of that, because people have no limits. So, if you open that door, and let people draw images of God and the angels, than for sure, you will have someone take advantage of that "freedom" to express their own(however distasteful) opinions in regards to that matter, and then one will have no argument against that.

Personally I think, religious freedom is as important as skin colors. I know that in some established religions, there are authorities who control the "yes" and "no" related to their religions, which in some cases are based on human calculations and thoughts. That's why I'm not really in to religions anymore...


Besides, there are numerous hadith telling us how the Prophet p.b.u.h looked like, and the images are not necessary to know that. They would simply open ways to things that are danagerous and unnecessary. They open ways to worship of someone else but God, and they open ways for people to use that freedom and, if they wish, ridicule and degrade those images in any way they choose to.

Excuse me, if I'm not mistaken, the Hadith was written by the prophet himself right?! So he himself describe his own figure and told people to take it as it is...

Please excuse me if I have written something inapporipriate or wrong...I'm here to learn...

[Amra]

"To say it in the extreme way, if horses have god of their own, then they would have describe their god as horse as well..."

Well, that is exactly where my problem with images starts. Who gives human beings the power to limit God to images we can conceive? If it is difficult for us to imagine God, is it justified to show images of Him, just to satisfy our curiousity? As for Jesus being God, that is a totally different issue, and as a muslim, of course, I do not agree with that. It seems rather that people have elevated Jesus to that level, by the same process other religions have elevated the statues that were initially used as manifastations of the Supreme Being, to that being itself. Jesus was a prophet, he passed on God's message, like any other prophet before him, he never told people to worship him, nor did he tell them to show images of him and worship those. That all came afterwards with human curiosity and imagination.

"Many people also said that the Buddhists worships statues, since they often pray and bows down infrot of the Buddha's status. But personally, I see it beyond that..people sometimes pray with looking above towards the sky or kissing the ground, whatever...They are merely just expressions or variance of how to worship god.."

Worship is not simply a physical performance; it goes far beyond that. If people simply bow in front of someone, that doesn't necessarily mean they are practicing an act of worship. If a Budhist thinks that the statue can do something for him, that it has power, that it can influence his life, and BECAUSE of that, he bows to it, than that is considered worship. Muslims do not bow to anyone but God, because of that belief. By the way, muslims do nt kiss the ground, they put their foreheads on the ground, because it is the ultimate way to show obedience and submission to God. Our greatest asset as human beings is the power to think and to make decisions based on reason, and submitting that reason to God is the ultimate way to worship Him.

"Apologize, if you think you are better than them, then I don't understand with all those religious acts and ceremonies that the Muslims do in Meccah..I mean, I often heard people saying that a person who died there is lucky coz he/she went straight to heaven, since s/he died in the holy land of God..."

Islam teaches us that human beings are categorized by their obedience to God; meaning that those who are most obedient are the best. That is how I look at it also. I don't know what exactly you do not understand about the ceremonies in Meccah, so I don't know how to answer that question.


"Excuse me, if I'm not mistaken, the Hadith was written by the prophet himself right?! So he himself describe his own figure and told people to take it as it is..."

Hadith are sayings, teachings, and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed, that were narrated by his followers and compiled in various books. So, it doesn't necessarily mean that every hadith is a saying of the Prophet himself, but it could be a narration of one of his followers as to what Prophet Mohammed did, or didn't do. So if his wife Aisha r.a. says that Prophet Mohammed prayed in a certain way, that is also considered a hadith, because she is considered a trustworthy person. In regards to the look of Prophet MOhammed a.s. , there are hadith by his followers describing his appearance.

[Bandini]

Miss Darcy - "...homosexuality makes me squirm..." - glad your enjoying it.

That piece of writing was beyond satire! I am still not sure if your not a satirical Guerilla. Surely noone can be that clueless?

Oh, reading an old page....hang on, I'll catch up!

[subterranean]

Well, that is exactly where my problem with images starts. Who gives human beings the power to limit God to images we can conceive? If it is difficult for us to imagine God, is it justified to show images of Him, just to satisfy our curiousity? As for Jesus being God, that is a totally different issue, and as a muslim, of course, I do not agree with that. It seems rather that people have elevated Jesus to that level, by the same process other religions have elevated the statues that were initially used as manifastations of the Supreme Being, to that being itself. Jesus was a prophet, he passed on God's message, like any other prophet before him, he never told people to worship him, nor did he tell them to show images of him and worship those. That all came afterwards with human curiosity and imagination.

People make songs, poetries, plays, sonnets, etc about divine being...still potraying god's image, even in a very beautiful way, is considered as blasphemy????


And for the rest of your post, I'm not going to give another comments. We see it in diferent point of views. I don't say yours are wrong, since this sory of things are subjectives...but if you want to say that my opinions are wrong, well I don't care really..

[atiguhya padma]

In reply to Miranda's post #85:

<AP, I agree with your post that freedom of speech is a good thing. Probably I am at odds with many other christians when I say a blasphemy law would be a bad thing, this is what I believe. Everyone should be free to question and criticise another's religion, although no one should be allowed to persecute anyone for holding to their particular religion. I am not sure where the dividing line should be, maybe you have some ideas?>

Religion is so wrapped up with persecution, that it seems to come naturally to religious institutions like the church to respond to any threat upon its belief with persecution. I don't think the world will ever be able to eradicate persecution from religion, just as the world will never become totally secular. Persecution is a difficult term. When does constant criticism of belief become persecution? I don't see many philosophers complaining of persecution from their colleagues who hold opposing views, and yet philosophy is filled with debate and criticism. Even a philosopher who is constantly harangued by religious believers, like Peter Singer, would not see well-argued, but intense criticism as persecution.

<I do not agree that the reason we have free speech in the West is because of 'us dissenters'. The dissenters against the persecuting church and state of the past were actually christians>

It's very easy to call them christians now - do you think they would have been seen by the majority of the church as christians in their day? In fact, I'm not even sure that the term christian is that meaningful anymore. mormons, jehovah's witnesses, Shakers, Anabaptists, Catholics, Cathars, Ranters, Methodists, Mennonites, etc are all christian aren't they? And yet they all seem to be greatly different to each other.

<It is indeed becoming harder to say what you want about Jesus in this climate of multiculturism. Not very long ago Birmingham City Council renamed Christmas 'Winterval' out of consideration for its large Asian poplulation that might have been offended by the mention of Christ in Christmas. Is this contrary to the concept of freedom of speech? I think that it is.>

How do you feel about racists speaking freely about their views to the general public? Should they be allowed to voice their opinions and try to convert others to their beliefs?

<What really angers me is that whereas it is usually ok to denigrate Jesus and Christianity, there is an outcry when other religions are given the same treatment and there is no even handedness from the authorities.>

What would you call even-handedness? There are far more people who claim to be christian in this country than any other religion. Would you rather have all those christians given the freedom to denigrate their competitor religions? Or should we not ever criticise religion? Its a bit rich for a person professing to be christian to condemn the criticism of religion, seeing as christianity itself was built upon criticism of religion. How do you think christianity won over pagan Europe? By calling a peace gathering maybe and explaining the 'truth's' of the gospel to them?

<It isn't true AP that the burning and torture of 'witches' and heretics was in inspired by the bible's teachings>

I don't suppose Exodus 22:18 (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live) had anything to do with it then. And I suppose that the recent disgraceful conduct of christian religious believers in the UK, where a child was persecuted for being possessed, had anything to do with Mark 9:29, or Mark 5:2-15, or Mark 16:17, or Matthew 12:43-45. Mark 9:38-40 says this:

"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us"

The idea of spirit possession is a superstitious nonsense, promoted by the bible.