The church is in many ways homophobic-- your thoughts on this?

What you have mentioned does not invalidate the points which GypsyEyes made. As she stated mistakes were made etc.. Note there was an additional problem of scripture editing done by theologians to produce their own approved spin doctored scriptural texts.


Discrepancies Within The Bible

Romans 1:26-27



26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 18:22


22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.



1 Corinthians 6:9-10



9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God


There is many other place in the old and new testament that mentions and condamn hommosexuality.

Anyway, I just wanted to point some of them.

Natural sex lover

The "Good Book," while there is much wisdom in it, is a book that has been used for great evil in the world. It is not the word of God, but the work of men attributed to God with translations and variations of text over thousands of year based on the agenda of the translator and those that use it.

Interesting how there are over six hundred laws in Leviticus and only one of them is fanatically quoted by the the self-righteous in the religious community. When all of them are observed, I'll reconsider my position on Leviticus 18:22. However, if they do observe all of them and exact the appropriate punishments, there will be a lot of dead people and how will they justify "Thou shalt not kill."

Is this the truth and nothing but the truth, or you own and personnal beleive?

Natural sex lover

It is my "own and personal" belief and "truth" based on information you can find all over the internet.

Photos (8)

I assume you're not buying any of that crap for a moment.

You have to be carefull with what you read on internet. It could be a great source of information but also be great lies.

Natural sex lover

Beleive it or not, i'm someone that is questionning my self a lot, about spirituality and other things. I just dont blind my self with first apparences, is it funny for a immature guy ;)

Natural sex lover

Which "church" are you referring to? Christianity alone has 34,000 different denominations, and their views about homosexuality vary all over the map. Stop talking as if there is only one monolithic Christianity.

Photos (5)

I most assuredly appreciate the Life Force (God,Mother Nature, The Grand Poobah, your choice) of the universe, but, as a sentient and reasoning conglomerate of atoms, I do not fear the unknown and thus have no need for any failed philosophies in the form of cults, dogmas or religions.
Thank you, and have a pleasant life.

I lost my virginity, but I still have the box it came in.

Photos (5)

Yup, the is almost always the very first passage mentioned.The problem is that this passage does not mention homosexuality. Those who have already decided that being gay is "aganinst nature" and "unseemly" assume that's what this passage is talking about. The TRUTH of the matter is that we do not know specifically what the author was referring to when he says things like "leaving the natural use of the woman" which could be just about anything. Maybe it's cooking, cleaning and taking care of the family. Maybe the women in question here have neglected their families to hang out with their female friends. We simply DO NOT KNOW what this passage refers to. To ASSUME it talks about homosexuality is just that, an ASSUMPTION and nothing more. It carries no theological weight and is the weakest kind of theological deduction.

This is usually the second most often cited verse but it poses a couple of serious theological problems.

Leviticus is a book that details the specifics of the Hebrew Law for the fledgling nation of Israel. It outlines what Christian theologians call the "Old Dispensation." The New Testament and the teachings of Christ are the "New Dispensation." According to both Catholic and Protestand Christian Theology, when Christ came, he fulfilled the old Hebrew law on our behalf thereby FREEING us from its bonds.

Leviticus is FULL of laws that no longer apply ot Christians under the New Dispensation. Christ himself says the Law is One, meaning that you either follow it all or you follow none of it. And for Christians, because Christ has satisfied the requirements of the Old Law on our behalf, Christians are not bound by it. In other words Christians follow the teachings of Christ which sum up the whole of the OT Law and do not follow the letter of the OT Law.

That's the theology, now here's the practice: Anyone who cites this Levitican law as "proof" that homosexuality is a sin is probably among the greatest sinners themselves. They may eat pork (banned in Leviticus), they may eat shelfish (also banned), they probably violate the Law by what they wear, by how their ouse is positioned, and by not leaving town when mentsurating. In short anyone who uses this verse is cherry picking what they like and what they don't like. If you're a Christian you can't do that. You are either Jewish and follow Jewish Law or your a Christian and follow Christ's teachings. You can't pick and choose what you want form both just to try to support a point of view. Well I suppose one can but if they do they're on tremendously weak theological ground.

Ok, so where's the mention of homosexuality in here? It's not there. Maybe you think "abusers of mankind" is homosexuality? If you think that then that's somethign YOU'VE APPLIED to the text. It's not there in the text itself.

Adultry and fornication is not unique to gays so adulterers isn't a "no gay" admonition.

Are you referring ot the word translated "effeminate"? This word is translated a number of different ways and it is unclear what it referrs to. There's no evidence that suggests it referrs to homosexuality.

So again just as with the Romans passage any understanding that this text is talking about beign gay, is an understanding that is APPLIED to the text, NOT FOUND WITHIN it.

As we can see, you have not yet pointed out even one. What are the others?

OzCock2009, if we beleive in God for what we want to ear then we dont beleive in God, beleiving in God means having faith on everything he says.

You can interprete as much as you wish, but the message is clear...

Now I have says what I wanted to say, and I retreat myself from this post.

Natural sex lover

Belief in God and belief in the Bible as the word of God are two different things, Castello. Bigotry, discrimination, and hatred endorsed by the religious community based on ancient texts is unacceptable.

Photos (28)

I'm a born and raised Catholic - gay Catholic to be specific. I never ever thought that I was damned because of my sexuality. I have always felt that God and I have a personal relationship. He made me in HIS image and likeness so therefore, He's gay too. And He loves me for it. I think what He hates is the promiscuity that is so rampant these days. Any committed, loving relationship is blessed regardless of whether or not it's two men, two women or man and woman.

I go back to what someone said earlier and agree that the right wing, protestant moral majority in the United States should be considered a hate group and monitored by the government for some of its subversive actions. Yes, people can stand up for their beliefs but some of their actions go beyond what might be considered normal.

It'll be interesting when the Abrahamic religions are as dead as those of the ancient Greeks and Romans. What will historians say about them I wonder...

I learned on LPSG:
- The men are here to get laid, the women are here to get attention.
- Penis enlargement is a scam.
- Foreskin restorers need psychiatric help.
- "Bone-pressed" is for pansies.
- No you don't have a 10" dick, nor have you ever met anyone who does.
- "Squirting" = pissing
- If you know the exact dick length of a relative, you're insane.
- 99% of women don't care unless you're tiny or huge. Neither is good.
- You're lying unless you have a photo with a ruler next to your junk.