Out of the Closet, at Gunpoint

I disagree that it's hopeless to reform them, but nearly every major Western or Abrahamic religion still advocates murder of gays due to the Leviticus verse. Being a man who identifies as bisexual, all I can say is that they'll need more than two rednecks to Matthew Shepard me.

R.I.P., Matt. You are still missed.

So, under your theory that gays are abominations because we do not procreate, would you say the same about a straight person who is infertile? Should they avoid having sex, even if married, because there is no hope that they will have children? Or would their straight sex also be an abomination?

Great post. You are a fine example for people of your faith. While you have your own set of beliefs, you are willing to accep that there are those out there with different ideas and beliefs, which is something lacking, especially with those who post on these boards.

As to why atheists tend to be on the attack towards people of faith, I think it's because the vocal majority, again especially on boards like these, but also in the public spotlight, are those who refuse to accept that there are other people with other faiths and they need to be respected. I personally find it akward to listen to those who say this country was based on Christian values so we must adhere to those for everyone, also forget that this country was also based on the idea of inclusion. We are called "the melting pot" for a reason, and should recognize that in such a society all faiths, or lack there of, should be given the same respect, and that our laws cannot be based on the spiritual beliefs, but the rational facts. As that is a point missed by many of the more vocal people of faith, the atheists move into attack mode, showing intolerance in the face of intolerance. It's not right, but I do believe that's how it is.

"the key word in the article is "lust" - homosexuality is born out of lust. acting on it is CHOSEN behavior."

Homosexuality is born out of nature. Acting on it just like acting on heterosexuality is a choice. There is no difference and it is ALL natural.

Lot wasn't sent by God, rather, he *chose* himself to live in Sodom. This is why people who use the story of S&G to condemn homosexuality really disappoint me. That account isn't about homosexuality; it's about rape, an act of violence which offends the sensibilities of everyone. It wouldn't have mattered whether Lot or the angels were male or female. The members of that mob were incited by lust, and likely they wouldn't have cared what gender their targets were. That Lot was willing to mitigate their intent to rape strangers by offering his daughters to them is, by today's sensibilities, deplorable, it was still in that society much more preferable than to allow strangers to endure a gang-rape; strangers who came to the city specifically in search of Lot and his family and who came under the protection of his house.

Those two cities were destroyed for their depravity in the respect that they violated one of the most important tenets in that region of the world at that time: hospitality to strangers. It is a nice foil for Avraham, who was regarded as a friend of God and who extended hospitality to strangers, even during the days of his recovery from circumcision, something which most people probably wouldn't have done.

So stop using this story to demonstrate how much God hates homosexuality, when it clearly includes rape as a vital element in the character of those who were destroyed. There are other scriptural citations you can use to condemn a person's sexuality, if you must. But why do people who profess themselves to be Christians feel that they can pick-and-choose which of the Mosaic laws to uphold (e.g., the prohibition against consensual sex between two men), and yet ignore other equally important laws which are expressed alongside them, such as those of kashrut (don't eat pork, shellfish, etc), not working on the Sabbath (Saturday), not having sex with a menstrual woman, not wearing clothing of mixed fibres. The list of your own abominations goes on and on. You profess that you needn't worry yourselves with the "old law" as you put it, because Christ died for your sins. But do you really know what that means? It's not a licence for sinning. Your messiah Y'shua spoke in defence of keeping the Torah; never in any of the surviving gospel record was he ever cited as speaking to the contrary. If you're going to truly live by his example, I would think that this is where you should begin, and then ask yourself why a church supposedly built in his name for his glory would ask any differently of you.

Also, try to remember that in the surviving record of the Christian gospels, the Christian messiah Y'shua had absolutely *nothing* to say about or against homosexuality. More of you so-called "Christians" should pack away your neuroses about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and focus your attention more on the lessons of tolerance and peaceful co-existence which he strove to tea

Lot wasn't sent by God, rather, he *chose* himself to live in Sodom. This is why people who use the story of S&G to condemn homosexuality really disappoint me. That account isn't about homosexuality; it's about rape, an act of violence which offends the sensibilities of everyone. It wouldn't have mattered whether Lot or the angels were male or female. The members of that mob were incited by lust, and likely they wouldn't have cared what gender their targets were. That Lot was willing to mitigate their intent to rape strangers by offering his daughters to them is, by today's sensibilities, deplorable, it was still in that society much more preferable than to allow strangers to endure a gang-rape; strangers who came to the city specifically in search of Lot and his family and who came under the protection of his house.
Those two cities were destroyed for their depravity in the respect that they violated one of the most important tenets in that region of the world at that time: hospitality to strangers. It is a nice foil for Avraham, who was regarded as a friend of God and who extended hospitality to strangers, even during the days of his recovery from circumcision, something which most people probably wouldn't have done.
So stop using this story to demonstrate how much God hates homosexuality, when it clearly includes rape as a vital element in the character of those who were destroyed. There are other scriptural citations you can use to condemn a person's sexuality, if you must. But why do people who profess themselves to be Christians feel that they can pick-and-choose which of the Mosaic laws to uphold (e.g., the prohibition against consensual sex between two men), and yet ignore other equally important laws which are expressed alongside them, such as those of kashrut (don't eat pork, shellfish, etc), not working on the Sabbath (Saturday), not having sex with a menstrual woman, not wearing clothing of mixed fibres. The list of your own abominations goes on and on. You profess that you needn't worry yourselves with the "old law" as you put it, because Christ died for your sins. But do you really know what that means? It's not a licence for sinning. Your messiah Y'shua spoke in defence of keeping the Torah; never in any of the surviving gospel record was he ever cited as speaking to the contrary. If you're going to truly live by his example, I would think that this is where you should begin, and then ask yourself why a church supposedly built in his name for his glory would ask any differently of you.
Also, try to remember that in the surviving record of the Christian gospels, the Christian messiah Y'shua had absolutely *nothing* to say about or against homosexuality. More of you so-called "Christians" should pack away your neuroses about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and focus your attention more on the lessons of tolerance and peaceful co-existence which he strove to teach.