forbidding people to love each other

[The Grand Nudger]

Religion isn’t what makes calculus work.

It doesn't prevent it from working either... which is what you seem to imply by ridiculing religious belief. Newton thought that the laws of physics are a manifestation of God's omnipotence, atheists these days think these laws don't need a lawgiver, it's already clear whose position is ridiculous.

You might want to explore the idea that -what I seem to imply- is more on your end. I’ll tell you that your beliefs are ridiculous directly.

Your statements about what Newton believed are particularly rich, and you might want to go do some research on what sorts of things he believed. The guy was a complete loon, like some very smart people tend to be. You’d be disappointed.... but all of it is less than worthless, as always, because you appear to be incapable of stumbling into any valid inferences, even by accident.

Here in the us, the state authors laws informed by representatives of the people. We don’t need a god for that.

Scientific laws, for their part, are descriptive. Don’t need gods for those either.

Did you have any thoughts on my question?  What happens to your beliefs when you insist that a false thing must be accepted?

I don't think I understand your question. what false thing?

Anything, really. If you insist that to be a Muslim you must believe x, and x turns out to be untrue, what does that mean for Islam? The obvious application to the thread would be getting something about homosexuality wrong, as you tend to do.

[WinterHold]

If you don't have a trusted source book that is revealed from God to back your sayings; then debating you is a worthless "walls of texts".

I do have verses from the Qur'an to back my sayings, surprise surprise  .

Your fellow man1 is neither misguided nor astray. Nor does he speak of his own whims. 
It is only a revelation sent down ˹to him˺. (53:2-4)

Now tell me, dear Quranist, according to the verse above, anything our fellow man the prophet PBUH speaks is a revelation sent down to him. Where is the prophet's everyday speech in the Qur'an ? 

The source book I follow and debate from it is the "Quran". All Muslims agreed that it's the source book of the religion. Please keep your folklores away because "they are rejected" by me . I only discuss what all "Muslims" agreed to call "source book and a heavenly revelation".

As I told you in previous threads, the Qur'an orders you to pray, and never explains how to perform prayer, how do you reconcile this fact with :

We have revealed to you the Book as an explanation of all things, a guide, a mercy, and good news for those who ˹fully˺ submit. (16;89)

I will send you one thousand dollars if you solve this riddle based on the Qur'an alone.

HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT TO BE HARMED ACCORDING TO THE QURAN.

Don't misrepresent my position, I don't advocate for actively prosecuting homosexuals.

The NT condemns homosexuality, but Jesus never did.

To Christians, yes, Leviticus is God’s covenant with the children of Israel. But Christians don’t live under that covenant, and never have. They live under Jesus’ ‘New Covenant’. So, since Jesus never spoke against homosexuality (Paul did, but Paul was a full-blown whackaloon), Christians are not required to condemn homosexuality.

Well isn't the NT the word of God according to christianity ?? If what Paul wrote isn't divinely inspired, then christianity is false. I don't think many christians will agree with this. 
And if Paul is actually divinely inspired, then his sayings should be as authoritative as Jesus's ...?

Please, bring a clear explicit verse from the Quran saying that homsexuals should be punished, killed, or prosecuted. Then we continue.
Thank you.

[R00tKiT]

To answer your questions:
1. You're being judgmental when you say things like "Oh... I see. So my argument from nature wasn't quite dead... right? Now repeat after me : riding men is bad, it's disgusting."

How is defending my arguments judgmental ? How is expressing my feeling towards some act judgmental ?? 
penetrating a rectum whose function is to evacuate stool is disgusting by definition. do I really need to spell these things out?

2. My Bible is quite clear on lots of things, but monogamous, consensual homosexual intercourse isn't one of them.
3. I humbly acknowledge that you typed the correct english translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9. There are a few others as well you missed. If I were a cherry picking literalist that only had that verse though I would be hard pressed to disagree with you and concede. That is not the case however and we obviously have different interpretations of the scripture in it's entirety, or you're cherry picking what you think supports your views. I clearly laid out my beliefs in post 143. We could debate the specifics and have an exegetical study on biblical homosexuality, but I feel it's been done, and this isn't the thread  for it.

Unless you have some biblical passage explicitly telling us to ignore Corinthians 6:9, I frankly don't see any way around condemning homo sex for a christian, do you? And your accusation of cherrypicking is really weird to me, the 4 quotes in my previous message are (1 in the OT, 3 in the NT) are probably all there is about the homosexual act, and they are, all of them, really clear. Now, re you telling me I ignored passages in favor of the act? Where are they ?

What kind of exegetical study will transform this,

"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"

into "let the Lord rectify that, we're fine with men who have sex with men".

It's fairly simple:
A. Either sexual orientation of every type is part of/ or informed by how we were made by God or it isn't
B. Either the people who willfully do those acts are in violation of God's commands or they aren't.

But neither of those is the actual question being posed to you or Drich. You both clearly have a problem with homosexual sex. The forum just wants to know why:
A. You don't like it because it's unnatural
B. You don't like it because you don't understand it
C. You don't like it because that's what you're told to believe
D. You don't like it because that's what you believe God means
E. You don't like it because it disgusts you
F. You don't like it because ....

From what you've both said I feel it's some combination of all of them plus some extras. The forum just wants you to be clear and upfront about your homophobia. 

I am note sure I am having a discussion with a christian here. You're putting religious beliefs hand to hand with personal feelings and preferences; I am telling you, and I insist, that your bible strongly condemns the act you're apologizing for. And rather than trying to revise your position -that you might be promoting not-very-christian sexual practices- you are more interested in my personal views on homosexuality. I'll satisfy your curiosity : 

I hate the entire LGBTQ+ spectrum from head to toe, I am explicitly homophobic.

Are you satisfied?

It's enough for me that you think some magical exegetical study will delete Corinthians 6:9. 

Your bible recounts to you, with vivid detail, the breathtaking-intense action sequence of destroying two big fat cities because of the homosexual act, and you think you can just ignore the whole event with some exegetical sleight of hand. This is ridiculous, and I think you know it. I will go further and say that you are disingenuous. You can be more frank and tell us you don't really believe the whole Bible is the word of God, or that the Bible has been altered.

Let's even accept the distinction some make to apologize for homo sex, that of the sexual orientation and of the homosexual act. Can you at least condemn the homosexual act, which is incontrovertibly condemned in your bible ?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01540819 

Quote from the article: "Homosexual acts are clearly condemned by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Romans 1:26-27) ".

Can you do like St. Paul ?

This back and forth is tiring and tedious. We get it you don't like homosexuals.

We also get it, you're ashamed of your Bible.

[no one]

Huly buuks are fucking embarrassing!

[Fake Messiah]

How is defending my arguments judgmental ? How is expressing my feeling towards some act judgmental ?? 
penetrating a rectum whose function is to evacuate stool is disgusting by definition. do I really need to spell these things out?

It it's not up to you to tell people what to do just because you find it disgusting.

[Fireball]

---

I am sorry but where, exactly, did I judge anyone here? I simply quoted your bible, you bible is extremely direct and clear about sodomy, and you should be ashame of yourself for even trying to apologize for such a trivially forbidden act;

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

26 For this reason God gave them up to ddishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (1 Corinthians, 6:9)

So, unless one is blind (or OT isn't the word of God), homosexuality is an obvious non-starter for any christian. The question now is, are you honest enough to acknowledge what your bible says and explicitly condemn the act?

And how exactly do you get from sin to sodomy ? In any case, you are free of course to label yourself a sodomite. 


Did the believers you're referring to read the passages above ? Are you sure you're not defending homosexuality just because it's lawful in your country ?



Homosexual sex is condemned by your bible, do you disagree with your bible?

---

To answer your questions:
1. You're being judgmental when you say things like "Oh... I see. So my argument from nature wasn't quite dead... right? Now repeat after me : riding men is bad, it's disgusting."
2. My Bible is quite clear on lots of things, but monogamous, consensual homosexual intercourse isn't one of them.
3. I humbly acknowledge that you typed the correct english translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9. There are a few others as well you missed. If I were a cherry picking literalist that only had that verse though I would be hard pressed to disagree with you and concede. That is not the case however and we obviously have different interpretations of the scripture in it's entirety, or you're cherry picking what you think supports your views. I clearly laid out my beliefs in post 143. We could debate the specifics and have an exegetical study on biblical homosexuality, but I feel it's been done, and this isn't the thread  for it.
(aside)4. I'm not particularly fond of you putting a fellow believer in the position of I'm either blind or God is a liar. It isn't really becoming during a civil discussion in the pit of vipers we find ourselves.
5.  This isn't about me or my beliefs, because you clearly missed the real point I was trying to make in 143: This topic is titled forbidding homosexual people to Love.

It's fairly simple:
A. Either sexual orientation of every type is part of/ or informed by how we were made by God or it isn't
B. Either the people who willfully do those acts are in violation of God's commands or they aren't.

But neither of those is the actual question being posed to you or Drich. You both clearly have a problem with homosexual sex. The forum just wants to know why:
A. You don't like it because it's unnatural
B. You don't like it because you don't understand it
C. You don't like it because that's what you're told to believe
D. You don't like it because that's what you believe God means
E. You don't like it because it disgusts you
F. You don't like it because ....

From what you've both said I feel it's some combination of all of them plus some extras. The forum just wants you to be clear and upfront about your homophobia.  And all that is still an aside from the main conversation which is:

Why can't two men love each other romantically? Is it just the sex you have a problem with? What if 2 gay men, never copulated and just mutually masturbated each other? What if. they just kissed.. tons of scenarios that we can't even get to because you both are defending your bigotry and spreading a message of condemnation and bigotry. Listen I get it.. defenders of the faith and all.... but if you really believe it's God will that homosexual sex is a sin, and you believe to hate what God hates, you could have just stayed out of the thread entirely. You came in to spread your condemnation, bigotry and hate, IMO.

This back and forth is tiring and tedious. We get it you don't like homosexuals. I'd like to just press on in the thread without them and save any more comments in this train of derailment for my PM box. Night all.

[/2cent]

This place needs a more-than-one rep capability.

[R00tKiT]

Your statements about what Newton believed are particularly rich, and you might want to go do some research on what sorts of things he believed.  The guy was a complete loon, like some very smart people tend to be.  You’d be disappointed.... 

Well it's true that Newton was interested in alchemy for example. OFC smart people can have erroneous beliefs/positions. But such beliefs are usually related to mundane subjects like the interpretation of some natural phenomenon, not beliefs about ultimate reality, which are -we can assume- something that these people very carefully thought about.

Gödel even attempted a mathematical proof of God, a formulation of Anselm's variant of the ontological argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del...ical_proof

And some fools here are trying to convince me Gödel is a moron because he believed in God

Here in the us, the state authors laws informed by representatives of the people.  We don’t need a god for that.

Scientific laws, for their part, are descriptive.  Don’t need gods for those either.

If scientific laws are descriptive, they describe a universe that is in accordance with these laws. This universe still needs an explanation (according to the principle of sufficient reason, as it's usually called) and a lawgiver is by definition a better explanation of a universe following laws than some ordinary natural cause.

[Astreja]

How many times should I repeat it to you, two or three thousand ? It's a category mistake to ask for empirical evidence for an non-empirical being by definition.

As far as I'm concerned, a "non-empirical being" is indistinguishable from an imaginary being and can just be ignored.

You are, just like any other human being from an evolutionary POV. It gets worse -since you are an atheist, you are an animal, just a little higher in the evolutionary ladder than worms or viruses.

I have no problem with that. Yes, I'm an animal. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some cutlery to sharpen. *evil grin*

[no one]

You know, kpop, for someone so dead set against homosexuality, you sure do think a lot about the motions.

[Astreja]

You know, kpop, for someone so dead set against homosexuality, you sure do think a lot about the motions.

Apparently there's some sort of resonance there.  Normally people focus on their own sex lives and don't bother worrying about what other people are doing.  Why concern yourself at all with what other people are doing with their private parts, behind closed doors, in consensual adult relationships?