Originally Posted by Hayzel

For the first part, if you're not going to read the verse in context, then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

- NIV

That says men who sleep with men will not go to Heaven. If you think it says something else, I'd like to see the justification.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

In the second case it said 'irrational fear or aversion' meaning that if the fear or aversion is irrational or without reason. Christians have a reason. Even if it doesn't make sense to you or anyone else there is still a reason.

Are you arguing that there is something inherently aversive about gay people? If Christians have a rational reason to find homosexuality aversive, I'd like to hear it.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

I don't think it's a sin, but, I've heard his argument before elsewhere, and I do agree. The bible has been translated time and time again by many different people, and a word that may have had a different meaning thousands of years ago, is being translated as this or that.

That said, I'm not a christian, I'm an Atheist, so I can't really comment on much else. I do have to say I like his argument though. :3

I agree, I don't think it's a sin. You can love whoever you want to, gender is just a slight difference. The bible is translated by different people and a lot of times words get lost in translation. I'm also an Atheist, so I can't really say anything else.

That says men who sleep with men will not go to Heaven. If you think it says something else, I'd like to see the justification.

XD Reading it in context means you read the verses around it as well, not JUST the verse. But like I said, I'm not going to explain if you don't bother reading it in context. Secondly eternity is spent on the New Earth, not Heaven.

Are you arguing that there is something inherently aversive about gay people? If Christians have a rational reason to find homosexuality aversive, I'd like to hear it.

That would be called twisting words. All I said was there was a reason. Christians avoid homosexuality(not homosexuals) because the Bible tells them to, it's their reason. Because they have a reason, it's not irrational. They don't avoid homosexuality just because they feel like it, there is a reason behind it.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

XD Reading it in context means you read the verses around it as well, not JUST the verse. But like I said, I'm not going to explain if you don't bother reading it in context. Secondly eternity is spent on the New Earth, not Heaven.

Context only has value if it contributes something to the meaning of the passage that might otherwise be missed or misinterpreted. I'm asking you what I've misinterpreted - and you're clearly dodging.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

That would be called twisting words. All I said was there was a reason. Christians avoid homosexuality(not homosexuals) because the Bible tells them to, it's their reason. Because they have a reason, it's not irrational. They don't avoid homosexuality just because they feel like it, there is a reason behind it.

There are rational reasons and irrational reasons for believing any given thing. There are reasons schizophrenics believe the police are after them and UFO nuts believe they've been abducted by aliens, but that doesn't make those beliefs rational. "Because the Bible says so" is reasoning from faith, not rationality.

The NIV is a translation of a translation of a translation. In other words, it's a game of telephone.

Somewhere earlier in the thread there's a mention of the Greek words that are translated as that; "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."And as the writer points out, there really -isn't- an exact intrpretation of those, or at least the meanings have been long ago lost.

Add to that, the Bible is written by men. It may or may not be the word of God, but it's being channeled thru imperfect beings. You really have to take it with a grain of salt.

Context only has value if it contributes something to the meaning of the passage that might otherwise be missed or misinterpreted. I'm asking you what I've misinterpreted - and you're clearly dodging.

I'm not dodging, I'm annoyed because you're not bothered to read the text in context.

Originally Posted by Corinthians 6:7-11

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The verses are saying that unbelievers who do those things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If you're a believer then you will. It has nothing to do with being homosexual. See? When you read in CONTEXT it has a different, more correct meaning.

There are rational reasons and irrational reasons for believing any given thing. There are reasons schizophrenics believe the police are after them and UFO nuts believe they've been abducted by aliens, but that doesn't make those beliefs rational. "Because the Bible says so" is reasoning from faith, not rationality.

Someone who is Schizophrenic sees and hears things as if they are real, so it's hardly fair to say their irrational. They're reacting based on what their brain is telling them is or isn't there. They look crazy and irrational to us because we are not seeing and hearing the same things and we understand it's all in their mind. But they don't understand that. And you cannot be the judge of someone else rationality. Reasoning from faith is still reasoning. Everyone reasons from faith. It's also called assuming. I don't know for a fact the sun will come up tomorrow but I assume it will since it usually does. That is reasoning based on faith. Evolution is also reasoning from faith because it has not been proven, it's still just a theory. So anyone who believes in Evolution, really is having faith that it's correct. Everyone has beliefs, and everyone rationalizes using the parameters of their belief system. Irrationality comes in when someone does something that does not have any reason behind it. If you say someone is irrational because their reasons are based on something of faith, then saying things like 'The sun will come up tomorrow' is also irrational because it is based in faith.

And if you feel like using the argument faith has to do with religion, don't.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

If you'll notice, religion isn't mentioned until the 3rd definition.

If Christians avoid the practice of homosexuality due to their faith, then they have a reason and it is therefor not irrational. No single person can define what is rational or irrational because rationality is not a concrete thing. It's incredible subjective to the viewer, so while it may not be rational to you, it is completely rational to other people and something you do may seem irrational to the people you consider irrational. However if you're into tolerance then you can't say someone or something is irrational because that would be intolerant of their beliefs. And no, Christians are not intolerant because they have no problem with homosexual people, they THEMSELVES just avoid homosexuality. And there really isn't anything wrong with that.

Okay To get this discussion back on track - Hayzel - what other parts of the bible do you think forbid homosexuality?
And here's where I'm getting my information from (and for those who also want to read it :) it helped me a lot )
Whosoever Magazine
^ Might need to scroll down
Six Bible Passages

That is one cool article. :)

Originally Posted by Hayzel

The verses are saying that unbelievers who do those things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If you're a believer then you will. It has nothing to do with being homosexual. See? When you read in CONTEXT it has a different, more correct meaning.

"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed..." <- This is just justification for the "pray away the gay" mentality that so many neoconservative Christian groups hold. The idea is that thieves can become lawful citizens, adulterers can become loyal spouses, and gays can become straight. Well, hate to break it to you, but one of these is not like the others.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Someone who is Schizophrenic sees and hears things as if they are real, so it's hardly fair to say their irrational. They're reacting based on what their brain is telling them is or isn't there. They look crazy and irrational to us because we are not seeing and hearing the same things and we understand it's all in their mind. But they don't understand that. And you cannot be the judge of someone else rationality.

A schizophrenic person's perceptions are skewed, and any judgments he or she makes based on those perceptions are also inherently skewed. The same thing happens to people under the influence of psychedelic drugs. The output isn't rational because the inputs are flawed. I'm not blaming these individuals for anything, but I'm also not willing to call their unsupported beliefs "rational."

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Reasoning from faith is still reasoning. Everyone reasons from faith. It's also called assuming. I don't know for a fact the sun will come up tomorrow but I assume it will since it usually does. That is reasoning based on faith.

There is a mountain of scientific evidence supporting the belief that the sun will rise, on schedule, tomorrow morning. To say that you're taking that "on faith," is essentially the same as saying that gravity is a matter of faith.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Evolution is also reasoning from faith because it has not been proven, it's still just a theory. So anyone who believes in Evolution, really is having faith that it's correct.

Technically, gravity is a theory - as well as a law. A scientific theory is not simply an unproven hypothesis, but rather an explanation for a vast series of results (generally from multiple disciplines) that fits the data as perfectly as possible. There is a great deal of support for evolution (and, more specifically, natural selection) because it fits a remarkably vast collection of data.

Scientific theories are selected, modified, and refined based on their efficacy - their ability to make predictions about the future. You could just as easily say that you have "faith" in modern medicine because you don't understand why it works, but the people who do understand it don't have faith - they have data that supports their prediction that taking such-and-such medication will make you get better.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Everyone has beliefs, and everyone rationalizes using the parameters of their belief system. Irrationality comes in when someone does something that does not have any reason behind it. If you say someone is irrational because their reasons are based on something of faith, then saying things like 'The sun will come up tomorrow' is also irrational because it is based in faith.

And if you feel like using the argument faith has to do with religion, don't.

Under your definition, virtually anything a human being does is rational. I think this is mostly a matter of language confusion.[/QUOTE]

neoconservative Christian

Excuse me but I find that very insulting. You assume that because I have a particular viewpoint I have all these viewpoints as well and quite frankly you're wrong when it comes to interpreting the Bible, but it's not like I can flash my degree.

I'm not even going to bother refuting your arguments because you don't debate fairly. You use insults and name calling and quite frankly in order to prevent myself from doing the same I just have to walk away.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Excuse me but I find that very insulting. You assume that because I have a particular viewpoint I have all these viewpoints as well and quite frankly you're wrong when it comes to interpreting the Bible, but it's not like I can flash my degree.

I'm not even going to bother refuting your arguments because you don't debate fairly. You use insults and name calling and quite frankly in order to prevent myself from doing the same I just have to walk away.

I don't think neoconservative christian is supposed to be an insult, if you're not one, simply say you're not--perhaps even use the words that you'd rather be called.

I don't think you need to get so upset... You can disagree, but that doesn't automatically mean they're being offensive.

Hm Well in order to get this discussion/debate back on track - I have a new article that claims not only to say the bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin, but may also affirm it O.O - Please read before you comment :)
Gay Christadelphians: Biblical Affirmation
So, what do you think?
Does the bible affirm same-sex relationships and sex? Just same-sex relationships? Etc.

Hayzel, if you can't or won't respond to my points, that's your choice. But I think it's pretty clear that (a) "neoconservative Christian" is not meant as an insult and certainly isn't "name-calling," and (b) I never even assumed you were a neoconservative Christian; I just pointed out that the passage we're discussing is used to justify the (neoconservative Christian) idea that homosexuality can be "cured."

If you have evidence that I'm wrong, by all means, show it. Even if you could "flash your degree" online, it wouldn't change the fact that you have to back up your assertions. If my interpretation is objectively incorrect, you should be able to provide a compelling case for WHY it's wrong.

Dest1218 - It's an interesting take, but it relies on some assumptions that I don't think are very fair. For example, the author seems to assume that non-romantic/sexual friendships are universally less passionate or committed than romantic relationships, and thus feels comfortable assuming that strong dedication is evidence of romance.

Hm I don't think it makes that assumption, especially when you read further, but I sort of sometimes think that romantic relationships are more passionate...