Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

ADMIN NOTE: T-Count didn't make the original argument, I'm just posting it here since the other one was a troll thread, but some people genuinely wanted to seriously debate it. (T-Count isn't the troll!)

I feel as a Christian that lesbians and gays are wrong and doing acts of sodomy are absolutely sinful and disgusting. Here is what the bible has to say about it:

Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

"God sends two angels disguised as men into the city of Sodom to tell its people their homosexual acts were evil and wrong. There, the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men. Even after, the men still try to have sexual contact with the angels and God destroys the city with a river of fire."

What I have to say about it:

1. Many people have said Homosexuality happens in nature: Yes,some dogs hump other dogs of the same sex and other animals do crap like that, but we aren't meant to be like those animals. We have a more proper thinking mindset. Not only that, but animals do a lot of crap. Some eat each other and their own shit. Next time you see a guy running around naked and eating shit, I guess he has the excuse "It happens in nature." Ridiculous, right?

2. Many people say there's a 'Homosexual gene': Lately, I noticed people saying there's a homosexual gene. This can't be true for several reasons. Here are two: 1) All of the genes in the human body have been mapped no 'homosexual gene' was found. Some say it's called dark matter, but an invisible matter can't be seen, heard, or measured in the human body is likely not to exist. By the way, matter is a physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy. That's saying a spiritual energy makes people gay. That's more like some kind of satanic shit than science.

3. Many people say time has changed, so it's okay now: Many people have said, "Times have changed, man. It's okay to be gay now." So... because it's a different year, it's okay to be gay? Sins depend on the time period? That's absolutely ridiculous. It's turning 2017. So that means satanism and murder is okay? Come on, it is almost 2017 after all! That's exactly how it sounds to me.

4. People say homosexuality has almost always existed: Yes, it has always existed, but people kept it to themselves. They didn't walk around kissing the same gender and guys wearing skirts. Homosexuals knew what they were doing was wrong and didn't march through the streets proudly and demanding special marriage rights and such. They kept it to themselves. That's how I feel it should be nowadays.

-----------------------------------------------------

T-Count's Response

Super-ass late, but, eh, I want to join the fun and scream hate at gays, too!

But, frankly, as a practicing Christian myself, I can find a thousand worse sins than homosexuality. Not surprising that someone as unimaginative as kain couldn't, but rape, child sex, prostitution are just sex-related sins worse than homosexuality. Heck, even adultery and sex before marriage is biblically wrong, yet no one gives a shit 'bout that? And homosexuality being the ultimate sin? Not actively forcing children to have sex? Not threatening to burn one in a river of fire? Not spamming forums with bullshit hate threads? How do you even compare the heinousness of a sexual act to one that ends a person's LIFE? You live in a pretty strange and sheltered church, my friend (and/or you were trolling, but this thread is too long for my dyslexia, lol).

Honestly, this guy should've just been banned from the get-go.

EDIT: And everybody likes lesbians, man.

Yes! SHUN OTHER OPINIONS! Also, I love the counter-argument put forth. "I mean, it's not as bad as raping and murder!" Well done, very articulate.

I think you misunderstood my post.

"I can find a thousand sins worse than homosexuality", or in other words, you're blatantly admitting it is wrong.

Sin is a crime against God.

The Bible states it to be wrong. So yeah Biblically, it is.

I didn't write it. But for whatever reason it's a no-no.

But honestly it's like jaywalking, as far as I'm concerned. A crime. But who's gonna lock you up for it?

So yeah, your couner-argument is "Well, it's bad, but other things are worse".

Well, yeah. I guess. Not bad to my standards, but to others, maybe. Don't see how that makes a cunt, but sure.

You're a practicing Christian who considers homosexuality as a sin, but is not against sin?

Sin is sin. Written in the book. Not really up to my consideration.

I do practice Christianity. Am I against practicing it? Yes. Will I jump on strangers with a flaming Bible in my hand if I see one being committed. Nah. I'll work on myself.

Will I restrain from having homosexual sex? Of course. Will I go Westboro Baptist if I see two men on a date? Of course not. Especially because I personally see nothing wrong with homosexuality except that

1.) It doesn't appeal to me (doesn't mean others can't do it).

2.) The Bible says no.

Maybe one day I'll find out the reason why every single sin is wrong, including homosexuality. But until that day 1000 years from now, I'll realize that despite being the smartest guy on the site, I don't know everything and can't speak for everyone.

Edit: (tagging @Steve24833 Just to clear things up.)

So you practice Christianity, but you're against practicing Christianity? That is retarded.

I practice Christianity. I allow others to practice what they believe. Or not practice at all due to lack of belief. I don't see what you're misunderstanding?

I don't care what you allow, since you have no power whatsoever to enforce anything. It's what you belief that we're discussing, and you both say that homosexuality is a sin, yet you're not against it, a contradictary position.

Not contradictory. People do "wrong" things all the time (although again being gay isn't that wrong in my eyes). It's not my job to "fix" them, fight them, scrutinize them, etc. I suppose I am against being gay myself. But if someone else is, who cares?

And even then the whole idea of homosexuality is so insignificant to me, I don't know why'd I even preach against it. Thousands of other things would be offensive towards God. Probably thousands of other things would put me in a bitter mood. Homosexuality and all that - feh.

Yes, it is. A Christian who doesn't think sin is wrong is absolutely contradictonary.

Contra - dictionary?

Then I repent. Send me to the light, Steve, my Lord and Savior, so that I may shoot flaming arrows from the heavens to bring just deaths to the dreaded homosexual heretics. I'm sorry I don't worship the way you say I should.

But really. Either I'm a lousy Christian or I just don't care enough about the particular topic. Sin is wrong, but I don't quite feel compelled enough to have everyone change their views to fit mine.

EDIT: Hey, we have our own thread. Cool.

That doesn't link to anything.

I don't give a fuck if you care enough to ask people to change. You're a contradictionary fuck who says "Homosexuality is sin", "Sin is wrong" but refuses to admit "Homosexuality is wrong", which is a position only a weasel of a cunt could hold.

It was supposed to link to a pic of a dictionary, but eh.

Homosexuality is indeed a sin. But, honestly, it's hardly a thing to get worked up about. To me, anyways, it's like jaywalking. Maybe something Sent said about needing babies is one thing, but in today's day and age, it's not gonna burn the world down.

Sin is wrong, true. Biblically wrong. And in my belief, going against God is not okay. But there's forgiveness. And there's the fact that some sins are far worse than others.

Now of course, when you get down to it, just about all of them are bad (disregarding select scenarios) for some reason or another. But I really see no problem with certain ones. Maybe I could preach against homosex. But geez I don't really have any vendetta against it. For me to knock on your door and say, "Anyone having gay sex in there? No, just checking." is a shameful thing to do if I still have sins on my own hands. I'm not a priest so I'm not necessarily gonna have paragon Christian values. So, for my sake, homosexuality is a sin, sins are wrong, but I'm not gonna Holy Joe against all sins because I just am not "saintly" or arrogant enough to tell people what sins they can and can't commit. I'll say, "Homosexuality is [biblically] wrong," but I'm not gonna rub in anyone's faces or let it bitter me up. I can only hate gays the same way I hate atheists, other religions, or even other sects of Christianity, but because I don't know everything that is right and wrong and can't debate to fault why what is acceptable and what is intolerable, I don't expect anyone else to, and I have no hatred for such persons.

(btw it's contradictory)

You keep bringing in other things, like whether it's very wrong, or whether you want to enforce against it or whatever, but it doesn't matter. I don't give a fuck if you want to enforce your beliefs or not, or if you think it's very immoral or slightly immoral or whatever the fuck, we're discussing whether it's immoral or not. You add in biblically for some reason, but assuming you're Christian, the Bible is correct, so homosexuality is wrong. 

I really don't see what there is to discuss at this point. To God, homosexuality is wrong. To me, it's just a sexuality. I'm not judging everyone because I'm not God. If I could say whether or not it's wrong, I'd have to be able to understand the persons doing it and the reasons for it. And again - I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S WRONG.

It may be immoral because it's against God's word, and yeah, shame on you for not following my faith (because of course I know everything about religion), but other than that, do what you will. You're just about as wrong as any non-Christian, but it doesn't mean you'll be getting heat from me. It's not immoral to man, so I can't complain. I don't choose to use my religion to defend hate, but if you think me a pussy for that, I'm sorry to have failed your standards.

Maybe if I felt strongly on this, I'd give more solid answers as to the morality of sex and other things in Scripture, but whatever. I have trust in who I believe to be Creator, but for the most part, morality is subjective.

Who knows? Maybe I could think about homosexuality in a more negative way and be wrong. Paradise could be filled with homosexual couples! Honestly, if you want a more definite answer on immorality and whatnot, ask an expert. There are way too many gray areas that I'll probably never distinguish, and again, frankly, if you're asking about opinions on the morality of a certain sexuality, you're asking the wrong guy.

I said before, I don't care if you want to enforce anything. I care that you're acting like a weasel and going back on what you said. You say homosexuality is a sin and sin is wrong, but that you act refuse to connect those too and talk about shit like how you don't know why it's wrong.

Going back? My opinion on the matter was the same as when we started. The only thing wrong about it is, as far as I'm concerned, is that God says no. It's just about as wrong as not being a Christian. So yeah, it's wrong.

Terrific, you finally say it's wrong without the need to weasel around. Well now that we're here, that is why I called you a cunt in the first place.

- __ -

A cunt I am then. Conglaturations.

Note: Anyone reading this post, do bother to read the others.

Yes, you are a cunt. Glad we made it here.

Nope, this one's going on my profile out of context whenever I get enough quotes to justify another update.

There's plenty of reason why it's wrong.

Why does Leviticus say it's wrong? Because if you want to live in the Holy Land, a place every other world power wants to own, you need a lot of babies so they can grow up and be your standing army. And you need a lot of babies in wedlock. This is only gonna happen if the only thing you're allowed to do sexually involves baby-making. You can't eat pork, because we have no antibiotics and cooking it wrong will kill you, you can't own a pet that people might find dangerous, because the last goddamn thing we need is a feud started over some dog somebody stabbed for scaring them/some kid getting bit by a big dog somebody owned.

Revelations says it's wrong because children are easy converts, and the whole point of Revelations is that it's a series of letters trying to keep Christianity from dying early.

And Will does bring up an interesting point: Religious texts were chosen for the bible by a bunch of biased bishops, mostly to compile them before one mad monk created an "Official" bible and made his weird fan theory the Christian Canon. And you know something the Catholic Church wanted during the Dark Ages? BABIES, of course! How else are we gonna keep those brown people out east from getting their Islam all over everything!? Birth control was a sin. Non-childbearing relationships were a sin. Masturbation was a sin. Any texts saying that God was okay with homosexuality or just didn't give a shit were rejected, maybe even burned.

The whole reason that the Bible hates them gays is because it's easier for a sociopolitical faction to grow and defend itself if everyone is doing their part and adding people to the cause. It's politics, pure and simple. Homosexuality just isn't practical in a world where everyone else wants to kill you and take your things.

Also take note that these things decrying gayness were written by men, which are imperfect, and not God, who is an infallible and unknowable thing, and that's been confirmed by Theologists older than dirt. They were politically motivated when they wrote these things. God was not politically motivated when he wrote the Ten Commandments. And that was the only set of commandments we received directly from God. Leviticus was written by politicians and lawmakers, and Revelations was written by a mortal man. Granted, he did have some Jesus powers, and he ostensibly received messages from God, but God is incomprehensibly weird and omni-everything, so it's very possible he didn't understand. It's also very possible that God's revelations mentioned nothing about homosexuality and he mentioned that because a fledgeling new religion needed babies.

Love to see your input, Sent. Now we can distinguish this from another of Steve's anti-religion arguments. hahalol

To be honest, a lot of the Old Testament laws consist of things that very clearly applied to only then. Christians that try to adhere to those things now present themselves in a foolish way and only serve to irritate the greater majority of the population. I'm not quite sure what that means for homosexuality in the future, but I suppose that's another debate. Most of these laws seem to be guidelines. I can almost remember other instances where there was sex laws demanding people to impregnate their wives and such, where there were punishments for not doing so. But that can't exist in today's world. We're more or less peaceful with diplomatic relations often preferred over war, and we're a world struggling with overpopulation, so the whole idea of more more more babies isn't gonna cut it. Just look at China. Part of understanding a religious text is understanding context.

And I've got to say the idea of political corruption in the writing of a holy text is an interesting idea. It makes sense though, holy inspiration doesn't necessarily negate personal desires and ambitions, as shown time and time again in the Bible. It's all too easy for a church to corrupt religion for political ventures, so personally, I believe that when it comes to religion, people should have their own freedom of separate views because no man -- not even some as ingenious as me -- knows every nuance of every person's life. (Which is what I was trying to stress above.)

Honestly, the Bible is just a thing of beliefs. Damn good ones, I say, tried and true. But as much as I trust it, I can't say for certain it's absolutely right for everyone, especially considering it was written by men and for men.

All in all, times change. Take the afterlife for example. Would the 10 commandments even hold true? People are supposedly immortal, so things like murder laws and whatnot won't even hold true then. But homosexuality? - I'll wait for the new verdict before I can take a purely religious stance on it. Just for now, all I can say is purely secular: "Keep yo dick outta my ass."

We've no more reason to believe the Ten Commandments are directly from God than anything else to be honest, and seeing as there's excess laws that result in execution rather than, say, slavery, your childbirth hypothesis seems unlikely. Plus, if they were going simply for maximum children, it seems adultery wouldn't be as frowned upon.

The Ten Commandments came out of the myth of how the Holy Land itself was founded, whereas Leviticus is a legal document and Revelations is just a dude. Allegedly, Moses was told directly to write exactly what was in the Ten Commandments, whereas Leviticus is lawyers and governmental agents trying to control people, and Revelations is John trying to preserve a new religion, so it's very different when it's just someone else's documentation of Moses where it was directly mentioned that these laws were recieved directly from God and not man.

Again, back then, you were either part of the tight-knit community, or you weren't. In a world before locks, anyone the wider tribe didn't trust was fucking dangerous. Probably not as dangerous as they believed they were, but as long as the good people (Who better adhered to the religious organization that wanted their babies) reproduced and the bad ones (Who didn't) were executed, everyone was fine. It could be argued that the religious organization didn't want people who committed certain crimes reproducing, because it fucks with their organization.

And adultery is different. Humans have a lot of things that either make them very monogamous by nature or not. Since it takes two, it's easier to mate with just one person, so we naturally have monogamous marriages in most cultures, and when one monogamous person is cheated on, even if the other partner doesn't feel like it's a big deal, it's hurtful to the first person. Monogamy, being the social norm, makes the people in charge assume it's the same for everyone, and in the current cultural climate, hurtful to one partner or not, it causes conflict between people in this monogamous culture, issues with family organization, and makes it easy to cast aspersions on people's trustworthiness and virtues. That, and the fact that rules against adultery were much older than the days where they needed to hold a hotly contested piece of land against other people with armies, and when you're claiming to have the OG word of God on your side, it's hard to just revamp anciently held beliefs against Adultery. (And the people who wrote it probably held those beliefs themselves, so they were just adding things where they could to better their overall population growth.)

Yeah, it says Moses went up to the mountain, but it says many times in the rest of the bible that God said this or that or inspired this one or that. Moses meeting God is as fallible to the whole "not understanding" thing as the rest. 

The difference is that the Exodus is a part of the big mythological canon of the Abrahmic religions, the other two are just people regulating it. Moses was told what to write down by a perfect being over the course of weeks. He could have misunderstood, but the difference is that the deity was actively communicating with Moses, whereas in Revelations it was more John's personal aside than anything, and with Leviticus it was local government using religion as a mouthpiece for what they were doing. God wasn't directly involved with the latter two rulings, but was interpretted by flawed animals.

What are you on about mythological canon? That's not a thing, that's why there are different Abrahamic religions. Moses talking to god is as likely to misinterpret as anyone else. Also, you don't know the motives of Moses and whether he was using religion as a mouthpiece anymore than any other viewpoints of the bible.

Moses' exodus is mythological. It's telling the story of how something came to be, and directly involves God. There is nothing establishing Leviticus as something God did except Leviticus saying that they have the mandate of God in making these laws. It's a government document with religious backing. And it's true that Moses could have been using Religion to get his way, but all the same, it doesn't say anything about homosexuality and it pretty much just lays down what was loosely established in previous stories: God is not one of your knowable Pagan entities, being a dick is a bad thing, and be kind in general.

They're both cases where Why does whether it says anything about homosexuality have anything to do with how trustworthy it is as what God wants compared to Leviticus? Both are said to have Moses as the author, so it is the prophet of God in both cases. You can't say him speaking for God when he does one thing and not when he does the other. Plus, Leviticus does have God, he directly talks and gives the mandates in the same way he gave the Commandments.

The fact that Leviticus is said to be authored by Moses makes it even less trustworthy, tbh. On the one hand, Exodus is a folktale that's generally considered to be more of a figurative event. I don't doubt that the Hebrew people escaped Egypt after much trial and tribulations, but a figure like Moses being sourced to this official list of laws written by a governing party is a lot like one of the History tomes in China being sourced to Bushy Beard the Wuxia hero. Historically unlikely and probably brought up to control peasants who didn't really know any other reliable sources except folk heroes. Exodus is a longtime oral tradition, written more or less by everyone who was involved in the event. Leviticus was written by people who wanted to keep the freed Hebrews under control under circumstances less simple than the desert and is not part of the mythology, which is more likely to be godly than something concocted for commerce and government control. It bears the marks of things that were very much of its time and only of its time, and that's why plenty of different Jewish subsets don't follow Leviticus anymore.

If you're going to bring what's historically likely into it, then it's unlikely that either event occurred and the exodus probably didn't happen, at least not in any relatable way to what actually happened. You blatantly say Leviticus isn't part of the mythology, but of course it is, it's part of the Old Testament or Torah or what have you. You can prescribe motives to those who supposedly wrote Leviticus, but I can just as easily do that to Exodus, where there's a great deal laws placed down upon the Israelites.

I read the OG argument and then figured that it would go down the way it would, but I figured OG was another extremist-Christian troll. But I don't think T-Count is trolling here :/ I'm a Christian, and the one thing I wanted to say in this post is that none of us can judge another person. This is what I believe. There's a widespread view that Christians give themselves this podium upon which to judge other people, and honestly I know a few people like that. But being a Christian is about humbling oneself, not shaming others. Because everyone sins, but to God, every sin is the same. It's impossible to live your life without sin. I apologise on behalf of all the Christians you ever meet who think that they can judge someone else, whilst living a sinful life themselves. Jesus said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” James said "There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?" One of the primary aims of a Christian should be to follow the footsteps of Jesus. And legit, this is a guy who laid his life down for people who hated him and mocked him so that they could have the chance to enter his dad's kingdom where they should belong. Like, the Bible tells us that this guy was perfect . There's no reason why he should have sacrificed himself for people who didn't deserve it. But he did, and I think every Christian should learn something about humbling themselves, because none of us are without sin. Rant to every single extremist salem Christian that I read about in the news, over.

Of course I wasn't trolling. That was the plagiarist who got banned. The points I made were even in opposition to his.

Added a note that you weren't the troll in the admin edit just so it's clearer now.

Same standing as last time, I think if you're into that shit then it's fine.

 

I was so proud of my response to Necro's thread but alas, it now resides in the world of deleted things. Instead of trying to rewrite all that from memory, I'll just restate my main points. Leviticus is the book in the Bible wherein homosexuality is labeled a sin. Christians do not follow the vast majority of Leviticus laws, in fact, they barely follow any of them at all. The only group that does try to follow all laws in Leviticus are ultra-Orthodox Jews and they can't even follow all of the laws because the Beit Hamikdash has been destroyed...twice. Back to my point, it seems many people choose to cherry pick the Bible to follow their own prejudices. If you don't eat kosher, which is more important in Leviticus than homosexuality, or if you wear clothing that mixes fibers, why do you think you have the right to call someone a sinner? People sin every day. You, yes YOU, the person reading this, sin everyday. (If you don't believe in sin, you're exempt.)

Why does a certain sin anger you so much? Do you make angry internet posts every time someone disrespects their parents (one of the Ten Commandments)? Do gays make you less religious? Do they shoot laser beams out of their eyes and hurt you? Seriously, what's even the problem? Okay, it's a sin. SO IS BASICALLY EVERYTHING THE MODERN PERSON DOES! Did you eat meat and dairy within six hours of each other? Sin. Do you trim your beard? Sin. Do you wash your tablecloths between every meal? If not, that's a sin. Do you stand in the presence of the elderly? If the answer is no, then you're a dirty sinner! (Jk..but really though) Those are all Leviticus laws but people would rather cherry pick the Bible and use it to support their own prejudices than actually face their own hypocrisy. If you don't follow every law in Leviticus, then you're just being arrogant to be prejudiced against those who also don't follow every rule in Leviticus.

 

There's a bit of blurb in Revelations where the guy's like "Ay guys, along with all this other stuff I told you that's necessary to be a church, STAY STRAIGHT! That other shit's dangerous!"

I'm Jewish so I've never read the New Testament. Didn't know that...

Revelations is a riot. It's like the one thing you look into the religion for because of how amusing and insane it is. Buddhism has Naraka, Ancient Japan has all the Youkai, Judaism has the Judges, (And angels that'd make H.P. Lovecraft turn his head.) Egypt had the Afterlife and all its rules, the Vikings had their Ragnarok, and Christianity has Revelations.

Wait, trimming your beard is a sin?

Whew, glad I've been going for the crazy hobo look.

Do I even want to jump in to this debate?

Disclaimer: I'm too lazy to source anything but fuck it.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"

Alrighty from a conservative Jewish perspective, at the place and point in time that the Old Testament was written no one was openly gay. If gay sex happened, it was almost certainly rape. This was the abomination. The only gay sex explicitly referenced in the Torah was the attempted rape of angels in Sodom.

Also as for the gay gene argument, you have a clear misunderstanding of how genetics work. There are about 20,000 genes in the human genome. Not all of them have been "mapped out", and nearly all genes interact with other genes. The "gay gene" theory is possible.

As far as the "times have changed" argument, I'd argue that sins are purely a social construct (holy shit I'm becoming Morgan) and that if the majority of people in a given area and time are ok with a "sin", then it is not sinful.

For argument 4: Not really?

That's a slippery slope to say that whatever people are fine with is okay.  Is there really a distinct difference between right and wrong or is that all made up by humans.  I must say that it is interesting that all around the world in all different cultures similar things were chosen as okay and other things were chosen as wrong.  We can find this in religion and in laws depending on the area.  So this begs the question do humans truly know what is right and wrong?

I cannot speak for anyone else and their moral compass because I am not them, however I believe that we have to draw the line for ourselves at a certain point.  At a certain time slavery was perfectly alright in America. Thank God that we got rid of that and people realigned their moral compasses.

Whatever your definition of sin is, you must ensure that you do not fall down the rabbit hole of he is doing it and everyone is cool with it so it's fine.  There is a right and wrong whatever it may be.

Oh shit I actually did a paper on this in my Jewish Studies class.

One side argues that because man was created in God's image and man did not know right and wrong before eating the forbidden fruit, God must not know right and wrong. From this argument you could say that God does not know right and wrong, and God knows all so right and wrong must be arbitrary and non-perfect rules, or you could argue that God created the tree of knowledge and right and wrong are set in stone rules that God created. Obviously there are other arguments that will be made by edgy atheists on reddit under the assumption that God is not perfect (there are contradictions in the bible God cannot be perfect), but the bible was not written by God so I'm just going to ignore that.

That was not meant to be offensive to atheists, but I hate r/atheism for a variety of reasons, including that argument.

The other side of the argument argues that Lilith was punished before the forbidden fruit was eaten and that right and wrong still exist even if we do not know the details.

 

From a non-religious perspective I believe that right and wrong are social constructs. To some eating meat is the same as murder. To some eating meat is nothing more than eating a carrot. It all depends on one's own perspective. However some perspectives are socially wrong as a pedophile might not see the wrongness in his actions, but as a society we condemn in and must punish it to keep a functioning society where we can agree on basic principles.

I just fear that we slip into the realm of relativism.  

Google definition: Relativism - the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

The general meaning is that whatever you believe is right is okay.  This is quite a scary concept and means that nothing is true and that people are fine to do whatever they would like.  This also means that there is no right way to make it to the end goal.  In every religion anywhere it seems that there is some type of end goal.  In relativism, if every action is fine then the end goal does not really exist and there is no way to properly prepare for the end goal.  This is actually quite terrifying! Our lives are not made for a specific purpose so it is fine to do whatever we want with them.

Meh, I'm completely fine following societies rules even if they do happen to be completely wrong.

That's pretty scary because that's the entire world even if they don't know it.

Social Conformity

 

Whether that is scary or not is a social construct.

It's scary that a group of people can be brought into a world with all these preexisting 'rules' and then follow them.  Eat, go to school, sleep, eat, go to school, sleep. Eat, work, go sleep, eat, work, go to sleep, eat, work, go to sleep, die.  

It's tough to fathom that these are the rules of human existence and that by following them 'better' we get more money and are therefore better than others.  It's all a social construct.  As someone who exists, especially in a world like this, I feel that there is something much greater.  That is all.

It might be more of a case of survival instincts though. I'm also aware of the fact that being so lucky as to live in a world like this, it feels like there is something much much greater I could be doing. However, what's scarier than conforming to society, is the stepping out of society. Going to school and working is a pretty safe bet ya know, for survival. Stepping into the unknown? Not so much. We follow these rules from the day we are born because as a social animal, we're influenced by the people around us since that's the way our species has always survived. That's the logical way of looking at it.

EDIT: What Orange said lmao :I

To follow the rules of society is about survival on the most basic instinctual level. This helped humans work together building shelters, finding food, inventing new things, and avoiding conflicts. It's hard wired in our brains. Why is it scary if it's been the thing that helped us advance this far? Without conformity, we wouldn't have advanced civilizations, trade wouldn't exist (meaning we'd all have to find our own food,) and we probably wouldn't even have harnessed fire because it takes conformity to teach others that art. 

Conformity is good in a sense and bad in a sense

Good Conformity - Not becoming a serial killer and deviating from the social norm in that way

Good Nonconformity - Fighting for African American rights (Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King)

Good Conformity - Acting as one and avoiding conflicts

Bad Conformity - Supporting your country no matter what and going blindly into war against others because that's what everyone else says is good and supports

Good Conformity - Trading ideas and items with others to help them advance

Bad Conformity - Making money literally the most valuable thing in the world and letting it control our lives

Hang on, no way you can say it would've had to been rape. It doesn't specify that its rape, it clearly says that its the act of lying with another man that is an abomination, not rape. Not only that, but there's a much less harsh penalty for rape, namely a fine and being forced into marriage. As well as this, people have homosexual relations in many circumstances. There's gay relations in endless places that have as bad a stance on homosexuality.

I'm not saying that it was 100% rape. I honestly think it's just a cultural difference between now and then. I'm just talking about what I heard from a Rabbi at my school.

The cultural difference being that they didn't like homosexuality, not that gay sex only happened in rape back then. That's some Legion-esque shit right there.

Yes. However there was likely a lot of gay rape as it is most prevalent in hypermasculinized environments such as prison or the military. 

In those environments a lack of women also tends to contribute, and I doubt the Israelite tribes were nearly as hypermasculinized as these examples. While I'm sure homosexual rape did occur, I highly doubt it was even close to a majority of what occurred, seeing as the bible doesn't even specify instances of it occuring or differentiating it from normal homosexual sex.

It's more or less agreed upon that rape was attempted upon the angels of Sodom, at which Lot offered up his daughters which could signify that gay rape was seen as worse than heterosexual rape. 

However, I also don't know for sure as the bible does not always give great descriptions and much of what we agree upon is interpreted from the text.

I'd say Lot offering his daughters was more an act of sacrifice on his part rather than him trying to change one immoral act for a better one. Plus, to say angel rape is gay seems to be a bit of a stretch, as they're not human and I don't think the angels there actually had their genders, if angels even have genders. I mean, angels are described as like having six wings and dozens of eyes at some points.

The angels were described using a male pronoun, and in Jewish folklore they have one leg and six wings IIRC.

But that does bring up the argument that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, and is actually up for interpretation. 

OK so masculine, but still not human, and this wasn't like an example of a thing that happened a lot to the tribes.

I mean, you can go down the allegorical path as people have done since Augustine of Hippo, but there's a difference between what is a straight up message and what could be a metaphor. Adam and Eve could easily be a metaphor for a shift from hunter-gathering to agriculture in many ways, but when it's straight up rules being layed down, you can't really take a metaphorical approach with them.

I'll just put this out there (I don't plan on responding to any replies). I'm tired of listening to straight people telling me I hate gays, when gays have been more understanding of my position. I'm tired of listening to gay friends being called self-hating or hypocrites...how intolerant of the supposedly tolerant...

Well, for the possibility of a vacuous rant starting...I'll stop right there so I won't.

This entire thread is stupid, but I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to even say. So congratulations, you win the cake.

I'll be honest, maybe you should reply, because I have no idea what point you're making here.

I don't mind people attacking me, insults rarely work on me (most of what really could has already been said by myself). But as soon as you try and say you're the tolerant one, then you attack friends that are "supposed" to be against me according to you, that's NOT okay with me. Religion and politics aside even.

Then you attack friends that are supposed to be against me according to you? Genuinely mate, you are not clearing yourself up.

I'll respond the best way I can (I'm not quite sure I understand this [it'd be hilarious if you edited it before this was posted]), but I do try my best to be reasonable and stay calm. I've never had someone of opposing beliefs who was hostile towards me (until I frequented the social parts of the internet). Besides, declare me less manly for it (I really don't care), but you can tell if I feel like I'm about to go too far, because I try and force myself to cry, instead of blowing up and possibly doing something I'll regret.

Now, I vaguely think you're trying to make a point about not hating other people for their beliefs or getting angry, but I genuinely can't tell. Why do you force yourself to cry, exactly?

It's a way of mental control. Actually, I skimmed through a book coauthored by Temple Grandin once and found that I'm not the first person to do it.

I'll try and cry instead of screaming or acting in a burst of anger. I'm the type who prefers being belittled over causing fear in others.

I'm going to admit, I'm confused as well despite reading this three times.

I say we best assume he's coming out of the closet. Well done to him.

I'm a Conservative Christian who loves girls, trusts them more than guys, finds it easier to be around girls than guys. So no. I'm not even a secret homosexual.

To be fair, that's what I'd say if I was pretending to be straight, and that's the kind of thing I'm sure people like Ted Haggard said.

I can see where you're coming from, but sometimes I'm afraid that I'm being clingy or something. That's the way I am.

It's probably scary that I think I know what Endeavour is saying, here's my attempt at translation.

Basically he's bitching about SJWs calling him a bigot because his beliefs require him to believe being gay is a sin. He's also saying he gets more shit from straight SJWs about his beliefs and all that, more than the actual gay folks that he believes are going to hell.

For another translation of this example think of it like this:

Say I used the word "tranny", I would probably get 10 times more shit from the average straight white dude at CoG, than say Steve who wouldn't give a shit if I used it or not despite the fact that he's one of the LGBTOMGBBQ crowd.

I guess that could work...

Hang on, is that what you were trying to say or isn't it?

I really don't want to get into apologetics, so I'll just say this, fire and brimstone talk is just as bad as the Joel Osteen stuff. (I highly doubt he implied this, but you don't threaten someone with hell, like your stereotypical fire and brimstone preacher)

What? It's a yes or no question. Is his translation of what you said correct, or is it not?

Yeah, so far as I can tell. I just get sidetracked by certain pieces of statement that aren't too relevant sometimes, sorry...

Oh, the LGBT whoa some many letters bit. Overdone, End. Would've been funnier if you just called me a fag or whatever.

If a fag is also a cigarette, does that mean he's also saying that you're smoking hot?

Uh, that's even worse than the letters bit.

Don't expect me too make many good funnies or witties (if not funnies).

Honestly I've seen versions of the LGBT thing with about that many letters (If different ones) so it's not that far off. I know they've added A, I, and Q at times.

I'm familiar with LGBTQAIIP

What are the double I's? I assume one of them is intersex?

I think so, wherever I got it from (I think Louder With Crowder), just listed the letters.

I am unfamiliar with this...

I can't quite remember where I got it from.

As far as I know the Q means "questioning", I is "intersexed" and A either means "allied" or "asexual"

Not sure what the P and the extra I is for the version Endeavour posted though.

LGBTQQIAAP stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies and Pansexual, with all other nine laying under the umbrella of Queer.

Oh.

Some of those seem redundant. There have been gay folks that have even said the “alphabet soup” is getting silly at this point.

Allies are just plain old straight people that don't hate "da gays". Queer is just a different word for gay. A pansexual is just a bisexual on steroids (Steve) and questioning could be anyone.

In fact “questioning” makes it sound like some fetish of asking other people questions rather than actually having sex with anyone.

Lol. Queer is for people who have a unspecified preference that isn't covered by anything else, I believe.

I'm not big on alphabet soup style identitarian politics. I'm partial to LGBT+.

Pansexual is bisexuality that rejects gender binary. I suppose by the definition I fall under it, but I prefer bisexual because pansexual seems to imply there's more than two genders. Queer is like a catch all for just "Fuck it, I'm not straight" and I presume questioning is if for all those twats who can't find the label they want.

Q is Queer and P is pansexual.

Thanks.

Oh that makes sense. It's the same thing as like if someone said, "yer a dirty kike, Orange," and I wouldn't care but people that aren't Jewish would go up in arms.

Thank you End, for the translation ^_^

And yes, a little scary given how I understood all of TinyTerd's stories perfectly fine.