THIS BIBLE.

[zzo38]

The more important question isn't whether the Bible condemns it or not, but rather whether you should condemn it or not. Can you be Christian and be ok with the gay couple down the street?

_{* "you" being general and not referring to anyone specific, of course.}

There is not enough information here about the gay couple down the street to possibly answer this question. If they do not bother anyone in this way, then it doesn't seem sensible to condemn them, although disapproval is different (I do not know who does and does not and should and should not disapprove). They should have the right to live together if they wish to do so, if that is who they like to live with (although Christians should not make the wedding for them, but it should not be required anyways). However, sexual acts among homosexual couples clearly does not make sense, and this is what Leviticus seems to be describing, although that is of very old laws for a different time and place, so they should not apply today, although it does make clear sense to not be sexual acts among homosexual couples. (However that isn't for condemning either even if you disapprove.)

many people have written down things, and different people have "see God" in different ways (my wording is off but it is difficult to explain properly)

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01388.htm ?

That can be of some interest I suppose, although not really what I meant at all. Rather, all of these religious ideas (including my own) are a kind of approximation, and it is too difficult to describe GOD properly so we do with what we have. It is not necessarily right or wrong, although maybe it is. When people write down, it may be from all sorts of circumstances and ideas and so on.

[Myask]

Right, I mean that, just as that a colorblind person sees a different image than a tri- or tetrachromat, without needing to suppose an omnipotent being, different assumptions, presuppositions, worldviews, perspectives, and, most importantly, one's understanding of language will affect the interpretation of one's image of/prophecy from a god, be it Zeus, Ra, Odin, Enlil, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Xenu...

[zzo38]

Right, I mean that, just as that a colorblind person sees a different image than a tri- or tetrachromat, without needing to suppose an omnipotent being, different assumptions, presuppositions, worldviews, perspectives, and, most importantly, one's understanding of language will affect the interpretation of one's image of/prophecy from a god, be it Zeus, Ra, Odin, Enlil, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Xenu...

Yes, this is much closer to what I mean. You make good points here.

[BioMechanical Dude]

How do homosexual acts not make sense? Sure, people cannot reproduce with them, but sex is not always about reproduction. In nature, sex is also good for relieving stress and strengthening bonds between individuals. In fact, there is a theory that different species evolved to include homosexual behavior for that purpose. When an individual (whether it's an animal or a human) has sex with other individuals, whether they're of the same or the opposite sex, they develop stronger bonds than they ever would otherwise, which would mean they would protect each other, increasing their chances of survival.
And if the part about the pleasure doesn't make sense, well... it does. Anal sex, for instance, is pleasurable, because the anal tract is right next to the prostate. When it is rubbed (through the anus) it stimulates it and can soon lead to ejaculation.
So, there's nothing nonsensical about homosexual acts. As previously discussed, the people who originally condemned it most probably did it because:
a. It would put the Hebrew people against, say, the Greek people, who were more tolerant towards homosexuality
b. Contain the spread of STDs, which people didn't really know how to deal with at the time
c. Personal agenda / misunderstanding of homosexuality
d. All of the above
Hm... might have been a bit aggressive here. It's just that I've seen enough homophobic remarks, that I jump at everything now I do think these points are valid, though, and I'm sure people will agree.

[tokumaru]

Sex is about reproduction as much as eating is about providing energy to our bodies, but we still eat junk food and all sorts of things because they're pleasurable, not nutritious. Are Christians against eating anything that isn't healthy or strictly necessary for your bodies to function? Is that what the sin of gluttony is all about? They're certainly more relaxed about that than homosexuality! What about alcohol? Alcohol has all kinds of bad side effects on the human body and yet wine is mentioned positively in the bible many times, or so I've heard.

[tepples]

Some denominations condemn even non-abortifacient birth control, perhaps based on the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".

Jesus drank but did not smoke. Paul warned: "Don't get drunk on wine, which leads to reckless acts. Instead be filled with the spirit." (Ephesians 5:18) I think he meant don't get high on substances that cloud your judgment, but instead get high on God. But one could take that out of context to mean that distilled liquor (sometimes called "spirits") is superior to wine.

Jehovah's Witnesses, a Christian denomination known for perseverance in proselytizing and an unorthodox Arian interpretation of scripture, condemn smoking. A lot of the arguments against smoking would apply equally to drugs, while junk food is grouped with alcohol because both at least provide energy for the body. But Jesus taught that what goes in the body doesn't defile someone nearly as much as what comes out.--Matthew 15:11.

[DRW]

Jesus drank but did not smoke.

Right. And he never drank cola. Guess why.

[B00daW]

Pretty sure everybody is wrong and everybody is right at the same time. Paradoxes are usually truths.

The only thing I would go toward is allowing all people to be as they are as long as there is respect for others and their rights to be as they are; even if you hate them.

No matter what side, the concept of being a "moral majority" is incorrect in all senses and creates hivemind violence. I see it in religious people and I see it in the LGBT/HBT communities. That's why even though I would love to preach "acceptance" to all and let it be, it seems the more rational goal is "tolerance". Your hatred begets your hatred. If you want peace from your hatred you need to tolerate your hatred and the hatred belonging to others. At that point you may be able to accept another person as they are due to shared hatreds. (It's a step...)

Feelings are usually not logical, so it's not logical to rationalize feelings. Feelings can come from all sorts of stimulations that are not easily decoded; coming from very chemical and subconscious sensation. People trust their feelings, so they react with them. Feelings come quicker than ideas.

[dougeff]

Some denominations condemn even non-abortifacient birth control, perhaps based on the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".

Wrong. The reason some oppose ALL birth control, is because it promotes pre-marital sex. The standard, since early days of Christianity is chastity.

By the way, the percent of Chritians having pre-marital sex is north of 90%.

Even in Puritanical early American days...statistics show a large spike of first child being born very prematurely... or, more likely, girl got knocked up, and family got a quick wedding before the judgemental neighbors got wise.

[zzo38]

How do homosexual acts not make sense? Sure, people cannot reproduce with them, but sex is not always about reproduction. In nature, sex is also good for relieving stress and strengthening bonds between individuals. In fact, there is a theory that different species evolved to include homosexual behavior for that purpose. When an individual (whether it's an animal or a human) has sex with other individuals, whether they're of the same or the opposite sex, they develop stronger bonds than they ever would otherwise, which would mean they would protect each other, increasing their chances of survival....As previously discussed, the people who originally condemned it most probably did it because:
a. It would put the Hebrew people against, say, the Greek people, who were more tolerant towards homosexuality
b. Contain the spread of STDs, which people didn't really know how to deal with at the time
c. Personal agenda / misunderstanding of homosexuality
d. All of the above

Well OK; sorry but clearly I am not a biologist. Now we can learn better! Thank you for information. It is certainly possible that the reasons you listed are some possible reasons it could have been written.

However it is nevertheless my opinion to consider the consequences what you will do, deal with them, and don't cause the problem for everyone else and the rest of the universe in this way. I also believe that one person or couple should not have hundreds of children (it can cause overpopulation as well as difficuly with proper family management, and possibly financial issues and others). Therefore, if sex is also good for relieving stress and strengthening bonds between individuals and different species evolved to include homosexual behavior for that purpose, then that is not condemned (science wasn't invented by Biblical times, so they would have logic as ignorant as I had; this may be like your reason "c" above). But if they develop stronger bonds than they ever would otherwise, then it does seem reasonable to me as a reason to be caution against premarital sex (although this does not indicate necessarily being condemned, nor does it indicate that a formal wedding is necessarily required). I am not against making such scientific experiments for such purpose however.

But by my own choice I do not want to do sex (although this does not really seem to be important here).

Pretty sure everybody is wrong and everybody is right at the same time. Paradoxes are usually truths.

The only thing I would go toward is allowing all people to be as they are as long as there is respect for others and their rights to be as they are; even if you hate them.

No matter what side, the concept of being a "moral majority" is incorrect in all senses and creates hivemind violence. ...

Feelings are usually not logical, so it's not logical to rationalize feelings....Feelings come quicker than ideas.

These are good points (as well as the stuff I elided). What you say about paradoxes may need to be elaborated on, although I can see some of the points being made by such statement, even though perhaps it is itself some kind of paradox in that way. You cannot explain it with words and you cannot explain it without words, therefore it is explained with paradoxes.

...Is that what the sin of gluttony is all about? ... What about alcohol? Alcohol has all kinds of bad side effects on the human body and yet wine is mentioned positively in the bible many times, or so I've heard.

Yes alcohol can have bad side effect although if you do not use too much then you will not be too much drunk. Alternatively you can abstain entirely (this is my own position, but that's for myself and not necessarily for everyone). If you eat too much also then you can be problem. Some part of book of Proverbs does warn against drunkenness (although perhaps in a way which is slightly strange to modern English speaking people).

Someone (it may have been a Discordian) said "Satanism is the Christian's way of becoming enlightened". I can understand the point and can think that it can even go both ways. These list of "seven deadly sins" are certainly the kind of things which should not be overdone or done in the way which can cause severe problems (whether to yourself, others, or both); this is the sins and why you should avoid to sin. Moderation is the key. Satanism has their own list of sins including stupidity and counterproductive pride and so on. Anyways if you harm yourself it is different to if you harm others, so especially do not harm others, but if you harm yourself only then it is your own consequence. Wicca even has their own statement: "Do as you will and harm none" (actually this isn't quite right, because I have written it in a more modern way than the old way, but it is similar). This is also of reasonable.

Just don't do bad thing! We can and should all learn better and then we can know better. I do not intend to harm anyone by these messages; the purpose of these message is so that we can learn.

[BioMechanical Dude]

But if they develop stronger bonds than they ever would otherwise, then it does seem reasonable to me as a reason to be caution against premarital sex

Not necessarily. Although having sex with someone just once or a few times wouldn't start a romantic relationship, it would kinda bring the two people closer... I can't exactly explain it. They might not be romantically interested in each other, but they would have a more developed sense of trust. That kind of thing.

Moderation is the key. Anyways if you harm yourself it is different to if you harm others, so especially do not harm others, but if you harm yourself only then it is your own consequence.

I agree. I believe we should be free to do whatever we want, as long as we don't hurt anyone or ourselves. We should be more relaxed, but just have enough self-discipline to keep things healthy. We shouldn't be clinging to one extreme end or another. We should be somewhere in the middle about things and keep balance. That's what I think. Furthermore, all these societal norms and ideas how we should behave, how we should dress ourselves, what/who we should like are all pointless, in my opinion. People can be hurt by them (especially when it comes to stuff like homosexuality or even gender identity) As long as we don't hurt anyone physically or mentally, we should be allowed to express ourselves however we want and be who we want to be.

[Myask]

I believe we should be free to do whatever we want, as long as we don't hurt anyone or ourselves.

For consideration: Consensual Crime.

[ShaneM]

Well, there's 6 pages to this thread so tl;dr. My main focus is on OP's post.

[In reply to THIS ASSHOLE.]

WARNING: RANT!
Man, I'm tired of all the sexism, racism, homophobia going on in the world. Especially the homophobia (I may be white and male, but I'm not straight, so it affects me the most). Like, seriously, why should there be so much hate towards people who are different in some sort of way?! Can't we all just be OK with each other?! All because of the stupid evolutionary instinct to be afraid of what's different, without considering whether it's actually good or bad. Because of this now we have all kinds of extremists telling everyone what's right and what's wrong. A lot of Christians are doing so, which is quite baffling, considering what Jesus was actually trying to teach. And we also have Donald Trump trying to chase away all the Muslims and Mexicans... God! I'm so fucking sick of all this.
RANT END

Sorry, had to get it out somewhere. Here's some food for thought: our development as a civilization is quite strange, when you think about it. We're advancing technologically at an incredibly fast pace (and still gaining speed), but ideologically we're really slow. Makes me wonder if there are alien civilizations somewhere in this galaxy and how this is going with them.

Well, my main reason for posting is the OP wanted our "thoughts" on the issue. So here's my 2 cents. No matter how hard we try, there'll always be debates, wars, confusion, division, hatred, multi-phoebias, etc. The important thing is having patience. This may be easier said than done, but that's what keeps most of us sane at the end of the day, taking in life with a grain of salt. It may be hard at first, but with practice it becomes easier.

I'm not religious, nor do I really follow any set of particular beliefs. But, anthropologically speaking, I believe religion was invented as a way for modern man (thousands of years ago) to explain our existence here as well as reconcile if there's a creator why he does not "show himself". Man's reasoning is that we have offended this creator in a way that he does not "show himself". That's the main reason why religion tends to have so many rules and regulations, to try and reconcile. (There's also cultural influence on this, too. But I'm referring to the primary, original reason.) Originally, religion started out polytheistic, but like everything else, developed and changed overtime to having monotheistic ones.

The reason we have hatred and division is because people (we being animals) like to form our own groups or 'clicks' with individuals that are like us. We are AFRAID of change and of those who are different from us. Be it color, beliefs, etc. Though I believe man's brain is still evolving, there will always be that primal instinct that we share with untamed animals, because, well...that's what we are! Just more intelligent, meaning we leave a deeper impression.

I think some of us get so tired of these topics because the media pushes these on us too much and all these "rights" movements in Western Civilization. It also has to do with popularity on these issues as some people on YT can actually make a living making videos on these topics.

Well, this is my opinion on the matter. --ShaneM

EDIT: One more thing, I think following someone for the sake of numbers or fear of being different shows weakness. We evolved with brains, it is our human right to excercise it and to think for ourselves. Though there are moments to excercise judgments and be unique. Part of living in society is following community rules and regulations, this has nothing to do with that. It has to do with being able to reason with one's self.

[zzo38]

I have read all of these messages. It is remarkable with many good points and other points of view and stuff we can see many things (there are a lot of things which are commonly said before, although through the discussion results in many new points too). Do not destroy.

I have the interest in the discussion of philosophy especially philosophy involving religion, and believe it is worth it and not tired of it (if you are tired of it you do of course have the choice to ignore it); we can learn and think of new things with this (as well as with various other kinds of philosophical works; it has been said that a serious philosophical work can be made that consists entirely of jokes, as well as that a serious philosophical work can be made that consists entirely of questions (without including answers); I am certain of the former because I have seen it done). While many old things may be said too, they lead to new things too, so we can learn both, and being both progressive and traditional, rather than only one possibility. There are other sources too. The Bible is certainly one (a very old one), although there is also Wikipedia, Patheos, etc. (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so you can find full articles about such stuff.)

If you are interested in these things, I would also suggest to you to read all of these messages on this thread, as well as the Wikipedia articles about religion and the other issues mentioned in this thread (e.g. homosexuality), and of course others. But we can learn to not make mistakes (I have above made a mistake through "ignorant logic", and once shown my error, admit it and corrected myself) such as condemning or complaining about something that you do not even understand or doing bad thing due to differences in opinion or whatever; we will all make mistakes, and we can learn from our mistake and learn to do better next time. This is true of anything, whether religion or science or something else; all of these are things to learn.