World’s first 'gay bible' published

[David Henson]

Wow, not everyone has the courage to step up and say something like that. If that is the decision you have made, I say good on ya, keep it up. It's refreshing to see that a person's faith can still mean so much to them that they would give up so much to retain it. The popular media try and tell us that people like you don't exist, it's good to see the popular media wrong again

Well, thank you very much, Paranoid Android, I really appreciate your encouragement.

[David Henson]

Understatement of the day?

The punishment for homosexuality under Shariah law is DEATH. That is a whole different ballgame than the most firebrand christian nutcase teacher can come up with.

Remember when Ahmedinejad visit the US and bragged that there are no homosexuals in Iran? Someone reporter took him up on that, and Ahmedinejads response was "if you know any, give me their addresses". Of course, they would have a short half-life.

So again, bashing the bible is pathetic. You want to take on a real issue? Publish a homo Koran.

It is unfortunate when politics and religion mix. A volatile mixture indeed. The two most destructive powers of man.

[David Henson]

It's sad that to see you happy that someone denies themselves the possibility of love. Not surprising, just sad and disgusting.

The fact that people like him can be so manipulated by belief is absolutely appaling.Yet what do you do? Praise him. Demanding people give up their chances of love is cruel and twisted.

It's amazing that giving up your humanity is something worthy of praise to you.

I think you are way out of line. My humanity is decided upon by where I put my . . . you are being almost unimaginably quixotic.

[Zaphod222]

It is unfortunate when politics and religion mix. A volatile mixture indeed. The two most destructive powers of man.

Well, in a political religion, they are mixed by definition.

"It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded."

(Montesquieu, “Spirit of the Laws,” 1748)

[David Henson]

Well, in a political religion, they are mixed by definition.

"It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded."

(Montesquieu, “Spirit of the Laws,” 1748)

I don't believe I've heard that term used before, Christendom would be considered a political religion? I suppose Christendom is more political than Christianity itself is exclusively political religion?

[Frank Merton]

I don't want to seek those websites out because I know that the sentiment isn't correct. As a former practicing homosexual, meaning I am homosexual but no longer practice or engage in homosexual activity due to my beliefs, I can say that I wouldn't be displeased if it were true, but it isn't. It is, I think, a growing attempt to influence the consensus of the uninformed.

What that tells me loud and clear is that you have your mind locked and will not explore other possibilities; in short, you are a waste of time.

[Zaphod222]

I don't believe I've heard that term used before, Christendom would be considered a political religion? I suppose Christendom is more political than Christianity itself is exclusively political religion?

Sorry, I don´t know how you define "Christendom". As for Christianity, it is by nature not a political religion. Consider that it was founded by pacifistic celebate hippie who allowed the authorities to kill him.

That is entirely different kettle of fish than a religion founded by a warlord and ruler, who led 37 wars of conquest, and who is considered to be the "perfect man" to be emulated, with his rule and laws re-created everywhere on earth.

I think the local Christians will be happy to explain to you that Christians have some lofty "spiritual" goals for your soul and some such, but not to establish a Caliphate where the Old Testament serves as the constitution.

So again, trying to relativize these two is misguided.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Zaphod222

[David Henson]

What that tells me loud and clear is that you have your mind locked and will not explore other possibilities; in short, you are a waste of time.

You give up too easily. I am open for debate on the subject. Open my mind. However, I'm not willing to go out of my way to investigate further what the new trend of atheists who don't take the Bible seriously would dictate to me through nothing more than what appears to be wishful thinking. I don't care what anyone, including myself even as a homosexual, would like for the Bible to say. I want to know what it actually does say.

Having said that, I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again, I'm sure. At the same time, whether my mind is open or closed on the subject I see an important division between church and state. They shouldn't meddle in the politics or standards of one another unless absolutely necessary. Being no part of the world I don't influence the world regarding homosexuality, abortion, etc. Politically correct or not.

From the atheist perspective that should be enough, and I would only ask the same in return. Is that fair? I think so. Had I lived in ancient Israel I would have a choice of either staying or leaving to engage in homosexuality. As a Bible believer I have the same choice. It is mine, and to each his own. I have no animosity or disrespect for those who choose otherwise.

[Space Commander Travis]

It's sad that to see you happy that someone denies themselves the possibility of love. Not surprising, just sad and disgusting.

The fact that people like him can be so manipulated by belief is absolutely appaling.Yet what do you do? Praise him. Demanding people give up their chances of love is cruel and twisted.

It's amazing that giving up your humanity is something worthy of praise to you.

yes, i have to say that I find it very sad that anyone would be prepared to surrender a fundamental aspect of themselves in order to comply with ancient regulations that were set out in an ancient document for a completely different time and way of life to the one that people (in the West, at any rate) live today. Very sad indeed.

[shadowhive]

I could keep arguing, but I really doubt it will lead anywhere, so instead I'll bid you "adieu", Shadowhive.

i think that's the sad thing, that you turn and run and generally be dismissive instead of facing up to the harm your beliefs actually do.

[Frank Merton]

I don't mind people using ancient writings, ignorant and prejudiced though they may be, if they can extract wisdom from them. But to use them for hateful and harmful purposes is not something I can tolerate.

[+Paranoid Android]

i think that's the sad thing, that you turn and run and generally be dismissive instead of facing up to the harm your beliefs actually do.

I'm not running, I've looked at your argument, found you to be completely wrong. We'll just never agree, so there's no point in continuing.

[shadowhive]

I'm not going to argue with that, though I don't see why they couldn't do all three.

They should do all three. However, the problem is the bible's so highly regarded they don't want to seee past it. The bible offers an absolute and people don't see willing to think past that.

That isn't entirely correct. They were surrounded by homosexuality and all sorts of perversion. Pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality were far more accepted and the norm than today.

First homosexuality is completely different to those things. Lumping it in with perversions doesn't make you come off well and I'm tired of religious people making the flipant comparison.

Second, homosexuality was used in a different context to how it's used now. In Greece (for instance) homosexuality was commonplace, but not as a loving relationship. So the comparison between people back then having sex for the sake of it shouldn't be used to as a comparison to loving relationships.

Third, it's dangerous to use biblical times as a template. The people of the bible treated hetrosexuality differently. They still saw women as inferior and not much better than property.

Homosexuals are accepted into the congregation so long as they make the choice on their own. What Christians need to do is stop assuming they were placed in a position of moral police of the world which they are not to be a part of. The world needs to recognize that the Christians have their own regulations within the congregation as well. Separation of Church and State is a real good idea for everyone involved.

And the pressure to make that 'choice' is extreme.

The problem with that 'choice' is look at the flipside. Is a hetrosexual asked to make the same choice? Nope. Sure, they're asked not to have sex before marriage (and sometimes, thankfully, not even that) but they can still have relationships and (or course) marry. By comparison a gay person is expected not even to have a relationship. Now to me that's a horrible double standard.

I agree they need to stop being moral police of the world. However, I also think that giving people the excuse to act like moral police in congregations isn't acceptable either. Why should we allow christians to perform witch hunts as long as they're only confined to congregations?

The bible says a man that lies with another man should be stoned. Should we allow congregations to follow that literally too? After all, it's in the bible too.

Christians are a part of this world and should start acting like it instead of holier than thou moral superiority.

I agree completely.

Good. I'm tired of people using their religion as an excuse for everything they do/don't do.

Your only alternative to following the word of Jehovah God is to follow you and the growing acceptance of the masses? That isn't my choice. Who are you to question my choice in the matter?

Actually, no. There's many choices. There are gay christians and they are christians accepting of them being in a relationship REGARDLESS of what the bible says. The bible says many things and people don't follow parts they don't agree with. The thing is, homosexuality isn't a cornerstone christian belief and yet christians seem to act like it is. The belief is hardly up there with (say) jesus being the son of god or him dying on the cross.

Yes I do question your choice absolutely. I question why you did it. I question if you made it freely. I question if you were pressured. You know why I question your choice? Like I said to PA, it's because your 'choice' is taken by those christian 'moral police' as being the expectation of all gay and bisexual people and that's incredibly dangerous.

Well, again, I'm not going to argue that the Bible hasn't been abused, misused, and discounted out of convenience by apostate Christendom, but that is no reason to continue to do so.

At the first part of this post you say thatyou agree with what I said that people should look outside the bible at the world. Now you're essentially saying 'nah, let's not'.

Like it or not, we are living in the 21st century. We are not living in the time of the bible. It is incredibly dangerous to use the bible at face value. It's been used to keep women as second class citizens and to justify keeping black people as slaves. lt's been used to justify the destruction of indigious peoples and to imprison gay people and atheists. But you know something? We in the western world have grown up in spite of the bible. Parts of the bible have been disregarded to stop those things from happening and for good reason.

Why should part of the bible that's open to misuse and abuse be continued to be held as truth, when doing so will continue that to lead to people being abused?

It is also no longer in effect. The Mosaic law only applied to the Jews and only up until shortly after Christ's resurrection.

Funny isn't it, how there's always an excuse to not follow something in the bible when you look hard enough, even if it's 'obvious'.

I think you are way out of line. My humanity is decided upon by where I put my . . . you are being almost unimaginably quixotic.

Love and sex are two different things. Denying yourself the possibility of love because the bible says so comes off as cowardice and I'm not going to praise you for it.

Edited February 6, 2013 by shadowhive

[shadowhive]

I'm not running, I've looked at your argument, found you to be completely wrong. We'll just never agree, so there's no point in continuing.

No I think you've looked at the arguement, gone 'nah that doesn't fit with the bible' and ignored it. Well as long a people keep being made to suffer because of homosexuality being a sin, I'll always be against it and those that endorse it.

I think all you want is to maintain a clear conscience, that as long as you're not advocating people being harmed, you can be content that your belief is ok.

Edited February 6, 2013 by shadowhive

[Beckys_Mom]

If Christians did drop the faith in gay is sinful, the homophobia all over the world will never go away.. If the bible never gave homosexuality a mention, homophobia would still be here regardless ..

Homophobia is part of human nature for many... However, more people in this present day and age, are more accepting than they were say 50 -60 years ago.. It used to be illegal to be gay in so many places, and now people have come a long way since then, and it will get to a stage were most of the population will be more accepting.. The only ones left who will not be accepting are the religious and other homophobes who hate homosexuality and think it is wrong

Edited February 6, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Zaphod222]

I don´t even know what you are arguing about any more.

Fact is, publishing a homo bible is no big deal, and nobody got killed for it.

Now go and try to take on a religion with fangs.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Zaphod222

[shadowhive]

If Christians did drop the faith in gay is sinful, the homophobia all over the world will never go away.. If the bible never gave homosexuality a mention, homophobia would still be here regardless ..

Homophobia is part of human nature for many... However, more people in this present day and age, are more accepting than they were say 50 -60 years ago.. It used to be illegal to be gay in so many places, and now people have come a long way since then, and it will get to a stage were most of the population will be more accepting.. The only ones left who will not be accepting are the religious and other homophobes who hate homosexuality and think it is wrong

I've never said christianity dropping it as sinful would make homophobia go away like that. However, getting rid of it wouldn't hurt. A lot of people are homophobic because of that belief, or use that belief as a shield to hide behind. They're homophobic, but say ''oh it's because of my religion' and so refuse to listen to any reasoning. That and look at the leadership of religions. You have religious leaders comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or some saying ti should be cured' or that people should be murdered for it. People listen to these people and act on their words, simply because they're religious leaders.

People are more accepting, but that's not because of religion, it's very much in spite of it.

[Zaphod222]

I've never said christianity dropping it as sinful would make homophobia go away like that. However, getting rid of it wouldn't hurt.

Can you already stop harping on Christianity about this? Who gives a rat´s behind about what some stupid priests are saying?

If you worry about religion-gay relations, address a real issue, like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/07/iran-executes-men-homosexuality-charges

Sheesh, talking about barking up the wrong tree.

[+Paranoid Android]

Can you already stop harping on Christianity about this? Who gives a rat´s behind about what some stupid priests are saying?

If you worry about religion-gay relations, address a real issue, like this:

http://www.guardian....xuality-charges

Sheesh, talking about barking up the wrong tree.

And talk about barking up the same tree over and over, I believe this is the third time you've posted virtually the same thing in this thread (albeit this time you provided a link to back up your comments). I think we got the idea of what you were trying to say, in any case.

[freetoroam]

i find it funny how people deflecting the topic to islam

was this queen james a muslim ? i doubt it

it's about gay bible .. face it jeez what islam has to do with it ?

just asking, or does gay only mean one religion?

[Frank Merton]

I think there is a parable attributed to Jesus to the effect that one can tell a false prophet by the fruit he or she bears. Those that preach homophobic hate are therefore by this definition alone false.

[Zaphod222]

just asking, or does gay only mean one religion?

Well, apparently to you, it does. Since you keep harping on the gay bible.

Well, the gay bible came, and that was it. No riots, nobody got killed about it, it is an interesting trivia piece, but a non-event. So why keep harping on it?

Or does gay only mean one religion to you?

[freetoroam]

Don`t get it, if someone is gay and wants to follow a religion, great on them, but if they know there will be opposition from some of the followers, then why push it in their faces? do not see why the religious gays do not go out and do what all the other religious breakaways have done, start their own cult.

[Space Commander Travis]

Don`t get it, if someone is gay and wants to follow a religion, great on them, but if they know there will be opposition from some of the followers, then why push it in their faces? do not see why the religious gays do not go out and do what all the other religious breakaways have done, start their own cult.

it's entirely possible to be gay (or least, to be drawn to one's own sex, which needn't necessarily mean having to define yourself as Gay, with all the stereotyping that goes with that) and be drawn toward the teachings of Jesus and the concept of God that he wanted to encourage, (which really I think meant having to be bound by all the rules & regulations of the old Testament, but to see God in a whole new light). This may well have little to do with conventional Christian dogma, true; I wonder if maybe it is time to ditch all the baggage of Christian dogma and go back to the basics of what Jesus had to say, and not the views of people, however respected they may be, (e.g. Paul), on what they thought Jesus was about. It's always seemed strange to me that "Christianity" is very largely about what Paul, and St Augustine, and so on, thought was the "meaning" of Jesus, (and not even what they thought his teachings were about, it's all about "sin" and "redemption" and all those Big Concepts, about which Jesus said very little), and very little about what Jesus had to say and how he wanted people to behave. And he was never quoted as saying a single thibng about Homosexuality; and neither did he share Paul's views about the position of women in the church.

[freetoroam]

Well, apparently to you, it does. Since you keep harping on the gay bible.

Well, the gay bible came, and that was it. No riots, nobody got killed about it, it is an interesting trivia piece, but a non-event. So why keep harping on it?

Or does gay only mean one religion to you?

Harping on? how have been harping on about it? I ask a question and you call that harping on? I do not care if John and Paul or Julie and Lisa want to create their own bible, I just want to know why they have to use someone elses "teachings" when they know it could cause a problem. Personally I think the novels are all a bunch of fairy tales and myths, but i would not insist they accept me if they do ont want to, i would just start up my own cult................jesus did.