Good Arguments against Bible Thumpers: Or for better understanding of how Gay works with the bible.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 5:05 AM GMT
    Ok I am a philosopher and I have studied the bible. I am a bible thumper, because when a bible thumper thumps at me I thump right back:

    Here are the arguments, roughly mix it up as you need it, it applies to gayness in general:

    The bible goes against Gayness (according to the thumpers) in primarily 3 ways and places. there may be others but they relate to these and the same arguments can apply.


    I'll start with the last

    Paul says that a man should not bed with a man, or a woman shall not bed with a woman.

    Now we can take the more facetious approach that those who practice bible thumpery won't like:

    1.) The bible does not define what a man or woman is.
    1A)Is a man/woman defined by soul, sexual part, behavior, interests?
    1AA)Many seem to call people gay based on behavior not sex, that does not fit.
    1B)Many call people and/or Gay people "unmanly": thus they are not men and it is OK.

    And of course it is not literally a bed though I know some that would actually argue that; to which you can facetiously say, "We sleep on large couches." Or something of that sort.

    Genesis discusses the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Now I am not going to type the stuff up but if you look at Genesis 18:23-33
    You will see what the story may have been really meant for. The goal possibly having been to elucidate the nature of God's treatment of blasphemers, as it suggests with regards to Sodom and Gomorrah, and how God would not destroy anything if there was a chance he would destroy an innocent such as lot. But most thumpers won't like that one.
    (It has Abraham repeating questions to ask if God would destroy the cities if they had x good people, if it had y...so on until 10 and then there is the show that 1, being lot, was considered) Basically it is to show how Just God is, I prefer to use the story to show how our justice system is inefficient and that we should at least try to take God's actions for example.

    So we Have:
    Genesis 19:4: "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:"

    1) The story does not state specific sexual acts that are wrong.
    2.) It does not state that it was wrong because men were trying to have sex with men: it is equally open to meaning that it was wrong for them to try to rape the Angels, not specifically have male on male sex. And definitely not male on male relations (be that cuddling..kissing... or what)

    Lastly we have the story of Tamar in Genesis that states
    Genesis 38: 9-10: "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass , when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also."

    In that culture it was expected that should a brother die that the other brother serve children for that brother, this is what Onan was expected to do but did not and so it can be said what was wrong was that he had sex with her pointlessly. But most read that it was wrong to waste the seed specifically.

    Now that is the primary argument that leads to it all. The only logical reason why God would have banned gay sex of any sort, or the sexual behaviors of Sodom and Gomorrah if that is the case, could only have been because it was in acts of spilling the seed. In other words wasting the sperm. In which case it all only applies to men. But then Paul says women as well (Maybe he was Jealous) but then that was added hundreds of years after Jesus was around, and Jesus did not address that himself. And so on... so it seems more likely female-female sex is irrelevant.
    But regardless if one says maybe that it meant that it is wrong to have sex not for the sake of procreation, that then can be the only reason that it is wrong: in so far as it what destruction of potential life.

    In other words at the most the bible only says it is wrong to have non procreative sex.

    Thus if one is gay, lesbian, or bi, that is not wrong. The only thing that could be wrong is if they had sex. Of course that would leave out transgenderism period because the removal of the sexual organs could be considered waste of the seed. Just bare with me I'm going by what the thumpers can actually argue by the book.

    The entire basis of the anti-homosexualism and what not, can only be based on the fact that one cannot spill their seed. A sufficient thumper might say that the bible says gay people are wrong (which it doesn't) and hold to that, but then one can at most point out that God doesn't do stupid things, or things that make no sense, or that are "just because" he gave us brains and I would think that he expected us to use logic. And by deduction the only reasonable 'reason' that something like that would be wrong was because of the seed spilling.

    Anyways here is the rub: If anyone harps on someone for being Gay they are wrong it doesn't say gayness is wrong, it only implies the sex is (even if one thinks spilling seed is OK); but really the sex is wrong because it is the waste of the seed; how many thumpers do you know that have not wasted their seed?
    Exactly! If someone rants on you for being gay ask them if they have ever had protected sex, or wasted the seed in some way, and if they say yes you need to only say they are hypocrites to their own religion and that they are just as bad if it is bad, and probably worse for being hypocrites.


    Of course these aren't cure-alls because many don't listen to logic...but illogical arguments if shown illogical will not pass in most discussions including media discussions, and this should at least aid some too see.

    In the end any act, even as close to sexual as one gets, would technically be reasonably permitted according to the bible so long as it did not result in cumming in a wasteful manner.

    But then we have that a vivisection according to what I know does not remove the capacity to produce sperm it just prevents it from entering the mix.

    Now I would appreciate these arguments being passed on, as I see that if they were viral it might aid many. E-mail them to a friend plz, or something. You may not like some but many will, and let it help who it may. Just because the blind won't see doesn't mean there aren't some with eyes who can.


    (Disclaimer: Personally, I am straight and I am actually against non-procreative sex wherein it wastes a males (fertile) seed: that is to say not for the sake of love or life. But I don't see that as being worth pushing on anyone or even plausible to push in this world as it is now. I accept waste of seed being wrong only in so far as it is logically the destruction of potential life, in the more immediate knowable sense. And the counter part to this in women, while free to masturbate and such, would be wrongness in Abortion as it can be the destruction of potential life; again left to free choice.)
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Aug 16, 2011 5:07 AM GMT
    The only thing I tell people is that when Jesus came and died on the cross that the Old Testament was fulfilled thus null and void. All the people that use the bible for gay bashing only cite the Old testament. Jesus never said anything about gays or anything. In fact he hung out with hookers and dudes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 5:56 AM GMT
    But then there is the Paul arguments, which I think I well argued...but I'm just adding a drop to the lake.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 6:00 AM GMT
    JP85257 saidThe only thing I tell people is that when Jesus came and died on the cross that the Old Testament was fulfilled thus null and void. All the people that use the bible for gay bashing only cite the Old testament. Jesus never said anything about gays or anything. In fact he hung out with hookers and dudes.
    ^this
    The only reason the old testament is still around is to let us know how bad things used to be.
    I'm agnostic; but if Jesus did exist, the one I read about never said a hateful word to anyone except the "teachers of the law and Pharisees" - which in our day would be the leaders of all organized religions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 6:30 AM GMT
    I find value in much of it, if one listens to the moral of the old testiment much of it is more reasonable then the new, though the gospels of Jesus are definitely valuable, you then have things like the revelation of John where it is said that Jesus Hates the Nicolaitanes, which does not go with anything Jesus preached, he spoke against hate, for love, but with regards to those like the Pharisees he only gave dislike....there is a difference... One can love a child even after they go to prison for murder...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 6:42 AM GMT
    Jesus is my virtue....but Judas is the demon I cling to icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 9:05 PM GMT
    If you are straight, why do you have a profile on this site?

    (Straight: A heterosexual person; one who is attracted only to the opposite sex.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 9:55 PM GMT
    NotThatOld saidIf you are straight, why do you have a profile on this site?

    (Straight: A heterosexual person; one who is attracted only to the opposite sex.)

    He's straight, 98 years old, and lives in Israel, according to his profile, which contains scant else. How much you wanna bet he was given this site address in order to post propaganda?

    We've got too many propaganda agents here already, mostly from the US right-wing. Now we get them from Israel, too? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • qd2009

    Posts: 164

    Aug 16, 2011 9:58 PM GMT
    JP85257 saidThe only thing I tell people is that when Jesus came and died on the cross that the Old Testament was fulfilled thus null and void. All the people that use the bible for gay bashing only cite the Old testament. Jesus never said anything about gays or anything. In fact he hung out with hookers and dudes.


    So are you saying that before Jesus the universe was at that time around 4,000 years old (at around the 1st century BC), and after he died on the cross, the universe suddenly acquired 13.7 billion years of history? icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:01 PM GMT
    Ariodante saidJesus is my virtue....but Judas is the demon I cling to icon_twisted.gif

    icon_lol.gif Just a holy fool, oh baby it's so cruel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:43 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    NotThatOld saidIf you are straight, why do you have a profile on this site?

    (Straight: A heterosexual person; one who is attracted only to the opposite sex.)

    He's straight, 98 years old, and lives in Israel, according to his profile, which contains scant else. How much you wanna bet he was given this site address in order to post propaganda?

    We've got too many propaganda agents here already, mostly from the US right-wing. Now we get them from Israel, too? icon_rolleyes.gif

    That was meant as a joke I think I also specified the territory where Nazareth is and that wasn't a choice but i picked the next closest city. All to further the silliness of the name I chose that also critiques the USA in that it remarked slightly the Christian nature of the US but also implied how ridiculous it can be by saying Geez US!

    I don't see how you would call it propaganda because it seems to me mostly to be in support of homosexuality and to supply refutations to views otherwise, I imagine i should have removed my base remark on my own sexuality as it seems every body is sexually discriminant, to some degree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:44 PM GMT
    NotThatOld saidIf you are straight, why do you have a profile on this site?

    (Straight: A heterosexual person; one who is attracted only to the opposite sex.)


    It was one of the few gay related sites that had such a high traffic level of the forum...And I wanted to see what sort of reactions and thought might be proposed to what I said. Plus it did not say gay only, that I saw.