No. That is, not anymore than the bible causing fornicatophobia, adulteraphobia, liarophobia, stealophobia (a lot of red dots), etc.
This is a continuation from a discussion that veered off topic in the better explanation/origin universe thread with Theweakeredge.
--> @RoderickSpode
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.
It's a sin to practice homosexuality (and heterosexual adultery), yes.As far as persecution, I don't deny it at all. But persecution of homosexuals is universal, and not tied to any religion or ideology. The Bible doesn't make people homophobic. And if someone is homophobic, it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not.Um.... as Stephen (though I do not agree with them on most things, these specific things is true) pointed out, there are multiple verses in the bible that demonstrate, yes, the bible is a specific cause of homophobia. What matters is that the bible spreads homophobia, by calling it a sin. It is homophobic to consider someone's sexuality evil. Does that necessarily make the person homophobic? No. It means they are doing something homophobic, and that they should stop that, before they actually buy further in and become fully homophobic.
Do you know anyone who became homophobic specifically due to reading the Bible?
If so, how would you know they weren't already homophobic?
Some things to consider, particularly if you're American.
The founding fathers spoke very little, if anything about homosexuality. More than likely, it was so taboo that it wasn't discussed publicly. There were more Christians in America amongst European immigrants than anything else, so we could have become a religious state akin to Islamic nations. Instead, the finding fathers decided to allow freedom of choice in terms of religious (or lack of) belief. And homosexuals could have been ostracized like today like they are in the Middle East. Instead, Christian Americans determined through the years that what people do in their bedroom is their business. And eventually we now have same sex weddings. It would certainly appear that Christians are more tolerant than our founding fathers were.
Do you really think you have cause for worry? I've seen these references often about the potential danger (a danger that isn't even present) of the bible, Christianity, and religion. You seem to be saying something like "You need to stop reading the bible because it might turn me into a homophobe".
And there's kind of a catch-22 here as well. It seems like some people are disappointed that Christians don't try and carry out, or claim contemporary need for OT punishments. And I think logically the reason would be because if we did, it would provide great reason to claim Christianity a detriment to society.
When some atheists read the OT, they see it as cannon fodder for claiming the bible is evil. The Christian (generally speaking) sees it as God showing us how serious sin is, and how much grace is being extended to us. And then we also can't help ignore the verses (that some atheists ignore) admonish us to not judge others, and to focus primarily on our own faults (and sins).
We also understand that certain laws are applied in certain circumstances where they are not in other circumstances. For instance, laws for civilians are not the same as is
within the military.
So you probably don't have much to worry about as far as American or western religion is concerned.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity.Sorry, you lost me. Particularly (but not limited to) the reference to one's ethnicity.My point was that someone does not choose their sexuality any more than they choose their ethnicity. My points previously are that churches who accept gay people are cherry-picking verses, and while I love the fact that they are being less homophobic, it is factually correct that they are not interpreting gods will correctly.
Again, that catch-22. If we don't persecute homosexuals, we're not doing our job, and are a big disappointment for those looking for people to play the role of the evil religious oppressors. We must be cherry-picking.
My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!I think you have to admit though. You have changed your tone a bit here. In a prior post you suggested your view that God is evil was maybe subjective, or personal opinion.When I said my morality, I meant the moral philosophy that I applied to, while it is subjective - so it all morality - and that what I meant wasn't to claim that god was objectively evil in some kind of tonal difference, but point out that even according to god's own rules, she is immoral.
One of the magnificent things about our free pluralistic (so far) society is that you have freedom to draw that conclusion. And you probably won't ever lose it.
What more could you ask for?
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.I think you're misunderstanding me (emphasis on I think).If 2 people of the same gender are married, and at a still young age one of the partners had an accident or became ill to where they couldn't have sex together, would the healthy partner remain faithful?If the healthy partner needs to have sex with someone else (another person of the same gender), then I would say that yes, it's a lifestyle. The person can't do without it. It may not be as much of a lifestyle to them as the bar-hopping one-night-stand person. But still.I thank you for your humbleness, but I must digress:
I think it sounded a bit arrogant myself.
In some cases no, but this also applies to heterosexual relationships. Is a relationship between two men or two women any less likely to fall apart than one between a man and a woman due to cheating? I do not think so, and since this is a claim that is indicative of a change in status, it should be backed up with evidence.
I don't make any claim that a man and woman relationship is less likely to fall apart.
To your second claim, how is someone doing (what you assert as necessary) a necessary function a lifestyle? That's like saying someone who needs to eat and therefore is an eaterby lifestyle. I suppose you could semantically argue the point, but it wouldn't be true.
Eating can certainly be a lifestyle. I think it quite obviously is for a number of people.
This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course.No, I make no suggestion at all that marriage is the ideal relationship. To myself, platonic relationships would be ideal. But what I'm doing is simply giving you the biblical model of marriage, which pretty much coincides with the traditional marriage vow. After all, it's the bible we've been talking about, right?
Perhaps it was a misinterpretation from me, but the point is, using marriage in your premises would imply that your points and impacts are based on the relationship model of marriage, I was simply pointing out that Marriage is not at all ideal, and therefore not a good piece of information to have in one premise.
What I was inferring was that faithful monogamous marriage is the standard for the love that encompasses the examples you gave earlier in terms of a biblical model.
I am curious, why is a platonic the most ideal relationship platonic? Not saying I disagree or anything, I'm just curious as to your reasoning. To the last question, I suppose? I thought we were talking about god in general. I just so happened to believe in the one of the bible.
What I meant was, for me, in a selfish sense would consider platonic relationships more ideal (or convenient). But what is ideal or convenient is not a good standard as far as unconditional love is concerned.
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Why do you think polygamy is a perfectly valid area of relationships?Why isn't it? First of all, if we're talking about the bible, then you should know that in genesis it explicitly favors polygamy, or at least a descendent of adam is not punished for having two wives.
The bible doesn't favor (or condone) polygamy. It refers to specific individuals who practiced it. But that's not condoning it.
Second of all - as long as it's a healthy relationship between consenting adults, and isn't toxic, it really isn't a bad thing at all, in fact, I would argue that polygamy can be more ideal than monogamy, as each partner is given more love and affection (in a healthy relationship anyway).
How is each partner given more love and affection?
