Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"

[The Grand Nudger]

The story might not make sense, but the Quran can't be used as a definite condemnation of homosexuals. For that you would need hadiths.

It...can't be...? Aren't you ignoring that it is....? I think you mean here, that you don't or can't. Good for you (honestly..lol).

[Nintentacle]

Actually, gay rights within the template of Christianity proves flaws with gay rights.

[Losty]

What are your standards for deciding what real Christianity is?
How do you know what Christ is like?

The only thing I know for certain is that if he existed it was a long time ago. So when I imagine him showing up now, I always picture him being so caught up and amazed by the food and technology that he wouldn't even notice how people were living. I imagine him walking around like a large child with a confused and excited look on his face being amazed and surprised by everything he sees. I also imagine he'd have a pretty bad case of diarrhea due to the food being so different from what he is used to.

What are my standards for deciding? Okay
1) look at the most devoted Christian you know. Perhaps a priest or a layman?
Does he/ would he- defend rape, throw stones at a prostitute, beat his wife, EVEN if there was no law against it?
if Christians don't do all that, they're not faithful. Because they're not following Christian law. But that's not the case. Would you say they aren't Christians? There is nothing wrong about any faith. It's the people on top who guide the people below them to do bad things in the name of religion.

Now why do I believe in gospel accounts and letters 2000 years old? Because they not only showed what he did but also what others did for their belief in him. Who would die for something false? (note I'm writing about before the new testament) they did die, and many Jews were Christian even before Paul went to Rome. You can't say that Acts didn't happen (Christianity had to have SOME beginning)
The letters and gospels and acts may have come later simply because they felt writing it down would allow more people to learn. (It us explicitly said that the gospel of luke was written for that reason alone)

Ps- and seriously, connecting present day christians to murderous christians in middle ages is like comparing modern romans to ancient romans who gathered to watch lions eat people up

On whose authority have you developed these standards?
Are these standards included in the bible?
Is there a secret club of actually real true Christians that made a how to guide for deciphering true Christianity from false Christianity?
Did god himself tell you that you are the one true decider of what Christianity is and isn't?


I probably don't know the most Christianiest Christian that you know, does that mean that true Christianity varies from person to person depending on how truly Christian their most Christianiest acquaintance is?

How do you know what Christ was like?

Is the bible the only reason you believe in the bible or do you have any other reasons to believe? I mean, I know at least Eminem agrees with your logic. "I am whatever you say I am, and if I wasn't, then why would I say I am?"
But I'm still not sure I'm convinced that whatever Eminem says about him is true just because he says it. I'm also not sure I'm convinced that the bible is true because the bible says so. Maybe you could explain that logic to me. Or I guess I could always ask Marshal, but he's just so darn hard to get in touch with.

Lastly, I can't say I've looked at this thread in a while. I don't remember connecting Christians today with Christians from the past. But since you brought it up...
How do you justify the attrocities committed in the name of Christianity? Better yet, how do you justify the attrocities committed in a bible that is still used by Christians to this day?
Did Christianity get a new god?
If not, did god change?
If so, does that mean the way he behaved before was wrong?
If stoning gays to death is so wrong today that true Christians wouldn't do it, then why wasn't it wrong back then?
If it was wrong back then, then why isn't god held accountable for his wrong doing?
If god isn't to blame but the men who did/wrote it, then why didn't god stop them? Why didn't the true Christians stop it? Were there no true Christians at the time?
Why is there no disclaimer is books like Leviticus letting people know that it wasn't written by true Christians? Is the whole bible not the word of god?


Anyways, I suppose if you answer all of those questions, I may have a few more later.

[Cheerful Charlie]

I belief in the Bible and it kinda goes against the definition of a marriage and it is forbidden. This doesn't mean I just hate gays.

There is a problem with this. Archaeology has now proven that the OT from the Egyptian captivity to Joshua's invasion of Canaan is not true, none of this happen, it was a priestly tall tale. Which includes Moses on the mount and the "laws" of Moses are false. Including Leviticus 21 et al. Its odd to ignore commands to kill homosexuals, but use these verses commanding that to deny gay marriage.

Even more unacceptable to ignore archaeology and modern scholarship on this matter. Sumerian laws, the earliest written down do indeed allow gay marriages, so its not like its an unknown thing.

I don't hate gays either but I do hate bigotry based on ancient oriental tall tale teller's lies.

[strawdawg]

Your poll indicates that you do not understand that sexual orientation is not a choice.

It's not a choice in many people but in around half it's simply a preference.

[DramaQueen]

Those people are called bisexuals

[dyresand]

who cares about what religion says specifically the christian one.
they didn't invent marriage they just annexed it like they annexed christmas from the pegans.
marriage predates christianity just no one in the public really said anything about it.

[Esquilax]

Those people are called bisexuals

And even they don't have the kind of choice that people think. It's rarely a fifty fifty split, for one; speaking personally, I'm mostly attracted to females, with a much narrower range of what I find attractive in men. It's a harder headspace for me to get into than lusting after women is, it's not as though I can just flip from one to the other at will. The set of girls I'm attracted to, and guys I'm attracted to, are vastly different sizes.

[DramaQueen]

I thought that I can get attracted to masculine men only..I was wrong

I guess it's a bit like that