It's in the same passage that condemns homosexuality, I believe.
My favorite biblical rule is still exiling women on their periods, and then making them sacrifice two white doves in order to regain purity before they can re-enter the village. If only we followed that one today.
Oh, controversy could follow this one till the cows either die or come home, whichever comes later.
Difference/inconsistency between how long term steady relationships models m/f are treated compared to m/m and f/f?
Yep, it's a serious question. Because the thrust of scientific literature is to say "well they're basically the same, or so we'd like to think!"
And... Just ouch, to the thought of that nozzle hump...
I know, I know. I was thinking the same thing- "don't you get...friction burn?" How about getting kinky and...hm. No, actually I can't say the next part because it would be explicit and that's against policy >_<
@Strop: Hmmmmmmmm... I would guess there are differences, but I am not sure how obvious they are... If we're just talking long term relationships and not actual marriages... But presumably the differences are that they have to deal with being called 'unnatural' and all that garbage which straight couples don't? ... I honestly just don't know.
I know, I know. I was thinking the same thing- "don't you get...friction burn?" How about getting kinky and...hm. No, actually I can't say the next part because it would be explicit and that's against policy >_<
Some laws in the old testament were mainly to protect the people of Israel. i.e. Pork was forbidden because back in the day, they didn't know how to properly prepare the meat in order to eat it. They would have gotten sick because of all the bacteria in pork. The same can go for oysters. I'm not sure, however, that God would still approve of homosexuality.
The same can go for oysters. I'm not sure, however, that God would still approve of homosexuality.
It doesn't matter. Just because you can justify the law of God and explain why it existed doesn't mean you can now disregard it. You can not pick and choose what parts of the bible you follow. You can not condemn an entire group of people with one verse while ignoring the next verse because you think it's now obsolete.
People ignore massive sections of the bible and that's okay? The bible was used as a justification of slavery but once slavery in the US was abolished people magically started to ignore the verses talking about how slavery was okay.
But yet again it comes back to the bible, which seems to be the only consistent argument against homosexuality. But it still will only convince people who believe in your god, and it still won't even convince all of them (take the recent Episcopalian schism over the issue). There is simply no normative maxim that you could apply to Homosexuality that would make it immoral (unless you're a strict Kantian, which I don't recommend).
Just because it is in the bible does not necessarily mean it is the truth. Why do you refuse to realize this?
1) it was not a spam post, i answered your question 2) i did quote you 3) God is truth and the bible is Gods word wich means the bible is true, what dont YOU get about that?? 4) moderator, without the bible there is no morality
This isn't about the Bible, although things do get quite Biblical in there a lot, this is about a person's choice and sexual preference. There's nothing bad about it, them being gay won't drag you down to Hell when they die (IF they go to Hell when they die).
1) Alright, but it was close to spam. Just too short. 2) I meant: Provide a quote to the text in the bible that you say is there and use as an argument. Sorry I didn't make that clear. 3) Because I agree with the Hindus.
Most Hindu sects do not seek converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, as long as it is practiced sincerely.
Your God is not the only possible truth. I am not saying it is NOT the truth, I just ask you to consider that it is possible. 4) I know that wasn't directed at me, but that is not true. Are you saying there's no morality in places where people does not believe in Jahve?
Dang, misread a word. What I don't get about it? It's that you are so convinced in your belief that you refuse to open up to others' opinions on the matter.
) I know that wasn't directed at me, but that is not true. Are you saying there's no morality in places where people does not believe in Jahve?
not all the time but, yeah for the most part, look at somalia.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).
that seems pretty clear.
Your God is not the only possible truth.
truth is abselute, if there were more than one truththey would contradict, and therefore its logiclly impossible, also th bible (yeah the bible) is the truth, the one and only
