68 replies to this topic

[Hassan]

I am somewhat torn on the homosexuality and Islam thread. On the oe hand I agree with the outrage expressed that some individuals still consider valid archaic mandates that insist death is a fitting punishment for the monstrously egregious crime of two men or women engaging in a consenting sexual relationship. On the other hand I find the outrage from conservative Catholics somewhat hypocritical, which makes the outrage seem hollow and feigned.

Let's set aside the long history of anti-sodomy laws in historic Christendom. Laws I do not recall the Vatican ever mounting a vigorous campaign to oppose as antithetical to the message of Christ. Instead my focus is on Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Supposedly Moses recorded this commandment from God Almighty who believes that a man lying with a man as he lies with a woman (and presumable a woman lying likewise with another woman) has committed a 'detestable' action. An action so detestable as to merit there prompt execution. The execution shall be just and their blood is upon no one other than themselves.

I take from this that a Catholic cannot believe that it is intrinsically wrong to murder people for having a homosexual relationship, but merely circumstantially. As things are Christ has died for our sins and established his New Covenant. Therefore the gays may persist in their morally egregious behavior until they stand to face the wrath of a just God. Christians must love and respect homosexuals until the Christian God damns them to unending torture for their unrepeated detestable actions. But were circumstances different, were this BC times rather than AD, killing homosexuals would be not only acceptable, but the just fulfillment of holy law.

[Servus_Mariae]

I shouldnt write at 2:00 AM...I'll do something with this later...

Edited by Servus_Mariae, 14 December 2009 - 12:54 AM.

[Resurrexi]

Let's set aside the long history of anti-sodomy laws in historic Christendom.

I know that not many people will agree with me on this, but I think that the anti-sodomy laws found in medieval Europe were a good idea, just as I think the anti-heresy laws were a good idea.

Edited by Resurrexi, 14 December 2009 - 12:54 AM.

[rkwright]

I know that not many people will agree with me on this, but I think that the anti-sodomy laws found in medieval Europe were a good idea, just as I think the anti-heresy laws were a good idea.

Anti-Sodomy laws are a lot more recent than medieval Europe. Lawrence v. Texas overruled anti-Sodomy laws in the United States - that case was in 2003.

[Hassan]

Anti-Sodomy laws are a lot more recent than medieval Europe. Lawrence v. Texas overruled anti-Sodomy laws in the United States - that case was in 2003.

Yep. So does anyone challenge that a Christian must only believe that killing gays for having sex is only circumstantially wrong?

[organwerke]

I know that not many people will agree with me on this, but I think that the anti-sodomy laws found in medieval Europe were a good idea, just as I think the anti-heresy laws were a good idea.

Yes you are right saying that not many people agree with you...not myself, at least.

Hassan, I think you are only intentioned to do a silly provocation with a rhetorical question so I think people don't answer because don't consider this is a serious thread. Not myself, at least.

[MissyP89]

Hassan, I think you just got told by a newbie. Your reputation is slipping, my friend.

[Hassan]

Hassan, I think you just got told by a newbie. Your reputation is slipping, my friend.

I agree that my reputation is slipping and that the quality of my posts and attitude has been poor as of late. I think this thread, however, is absolutely legitimate and not at all silly.

[Socrates]

Yes you are right saying that not many people agree with you...not myself, at least.

Hassan, I think you are only intentioned to do a silly provocation with a rhetorical question so I think people don't answer because don't consider this is a serious thread. Not myself, at least.

You catch on fast.

[Jesus_lol]

Hassan, I think you just got told by a newbie. Your reputation is slipping, my friend.

that new guy is gonna be trouble, i can feel it...

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is a pic of the new person that I found on the interwebs.

[Jesus_lol]

[jaime]

I wish the Catholic church did go around calling for the execution of homosexuals, it would help boost the Aethiest movement.

I wish atheists knew how to spell

[Winchester]

I despise your spelling, Im sorry.

http://www.urbandict...p?term=aetheist

Excuses.

[Nihil Obstat]

I despise your spelling, Im sorry.

http://www.urbandict...p?term=aetheist

Contrary to popular belief, urbandictionary isn't really a valid reference.

Although if you must use it, I'm going to have to insist that you cite it with APA 5th or 6th edition, because a hyperlink is simply unacceptable.

[Winchester]

I'm going to stop now because you're a bit thick.

He works out for that body.

[Nihil Obstat]

I obviously know the differences between spelling the word Athiest and 'Aethiest'. Did you neglect to see how I spelled it under (Religion: Athiest)?

I'm going to stop now because you're a bit thick.

Any school worth its tuition would fail you for such poor citations of your sources. It's tantamount to plagiarism.