NationStates Jolt Archive

Hindu views on homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_of_homosexuality)
I found this on wikipedia. It was interesting to me as I was raised Hindu, but now identify as agnostic.
There is a debate going on within Hinduism that I was basically unaware of. I like that the people who think homosexuality is sanctioned by hinduism are pro gay marriage. Hurrah.I really can't imagine anyone who will fight for Homosexuality and be anti-gay marrage... [thinks really hard] ok now I can. Waitaminute... so that means that Hinduism is also split on this subject... I gotta see this.

so that means that Hinduism is also split on this subject... I gotta see this.
Well... Hindu's have differing views on the subject. Since there is no organisational body whatsoever, there isn't a "split" as such like there is within the church. It's just people thinking differently. That's probably why I've never witnesses an argument/debate on the matter.

Well... Hindu's have differing views on the subject. Since there is no organisational body whatsoever, there isn't a "split" as such like there is within the church. It's just people thinking differently. That's probably why I've never witnesses an argument/debate on the matter.Sorta like a "it wasn't mentioned so we kinda don't care?" [thinks for a moment] makes sense.

Here you go. It's kinda long and dry though.
http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

Interesting stuff, read it all. Thanks!

Sorta like a "it wasn't mentioned so we kinda don't care?" [thinks for a moment] makes sense.
In a way. I suppose it's a "my religion doesn't condemn it, and it doesn't hurt me, so why should I condemn it?" Although most of the Hindu people I'm around aren't particularly religious anyway, so I'm not sure how more conservative Hindus are.
And besides, it's the perfect faith for people who don't need someone telling you what to think. You can basically believe whatever you want. Well, that's just the religion, it's the tradition where problems start to creep in. :p

But I shall stop rambling now.

In a way. I suppose it's a "my religion doesn't condemn it, and it doesn't hurt me, so why should I condemn it?" Although most of the Hindu people I'm around aren't particularly religious anyway, so I'm not sure how more conservative Hindus are.
And besides, it's the perfect faith for people who don't need someone telling you what to think. You can basically believe whatever you want. Well, that's just the religion, it's the tradition where problems start to creep in. :p

But I shall stop rambling now.Not rambling... informing...

Speaking of "informing" I have an article here that's kinda related, which I'm reading now. I'll post the link and stop hijacking the thread. :p
http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/512/512%20comment.htm

There's only one thing that bugs me about the gay debate, and that's the small number of them that say it's perfectly normal or natural. Most of them at least admit that they have just chosen better sexual partners than what the oppisite sex has to offer. But to the one who say it's natural, I say we wouldn't exist as a species if it were. :)

In this age of the 'Global Village'. Religious leaders need to realise that they cannot be the only religon any more, so they can still call it a sin, if that turns their crank, but we need to crack down on the discrimination that they then try to impose to 'turn the gays around'.

I've sat in a Destiny Church, and heard what is said. They are practically telling christian to persecute gays, instead of loving - or at least accepting - them like Christ's teachings actually said.

Time for the christians with minds of their own to stand up and tell their pastors to "SIT DOWN!" :)

Is this why you yourself have repeatedly equated homosexualty to murder etc.

I equated it to murder yes (That was an error on my part, I should have been a little more general) but homosexuality is also equatable to lying, stealing, blasphemy etc. Any sin. It is a sin.


And as far as gay pride marches go what the hell business is it of the church to percieve that as an in your face act anymore so than the Church spewing anti-gay literature, influencing government and law to support discrimination against homosexuals not to mention there was a time when Christian beliefs were the basis of the psychiatric field as viewing homosexuality as a severe personality disorder and thus as well criminal behavior.


The Church has only seen to be institutionaly homophobic in recent times because everyone else has become so liberal. We havn't changed. It is still love the sinner, hate the sin in the doctrine. We have just had to make our stance more clear because of recent challenges. As for the Gay pride marches I have agreed with people on the point that Gay pride marches alone do not constitute oppostition to the church. However calling the church institutionaly homophobic does.


I should also add in a number of versions of the bible it calls for the killing of homosexuals if not the outright expulsion of them from the church if not society as a whole and this love the sinner hate the sin is utterly PC bullcrap that evolved in the last few decades because the mantra of the church prior to that was somewhat less liberal.


Please show me the version of the Bible that calls for the hunting down of homosexuals. And the love the sinner hate the sin idea is not an old idea. Jesus himself did not say it, but he did say to always forgive and never to hold sin against anyone as all have sinned. And love the sinner, hate the sin is the basic principal behind Jesus's death on the cross. He died for all siners so they may be saved and destroied their sin in the process by taking it upon himself


Do you even understand what gay pride means?


Pride in homosexuality presumably, which is what the church has a problem with. As I said, the seperation between sin and sinner is made harder if the sinner is proud of their sin and unrepentent. At that point the chuch can do little more than oppose them in words. We cant force them to do anything.


Any idea what those colours on that flag mean? No you do not and they represent such things as spirituality and healing, not unlike Christianity itself. Something not to be had by homosexuals in Christianity unless as a second class member at best. Perhaps if the church dispensed of its draconian biblical brain farts "the line" between would disappear. If you dislike gay pride marches too bad coz its a reaction to being denied elsewhere what it represents and the church has only itself to blame for what it sees as an affront to its beliefs.

Homosexual Christisans are a problem for the church. As a homosexual you (to the church) are saying "I am a sinner, proud and unrepentent" but as a Christian you are saying "I know I am a sinner and I am ashamed of it. Thanks to God though my sins are forgiven and from that point on I will do my best to continue not to sin". Now those two are contridictory. You can apreciate the Churchs postion I am sure.

Sounds like a step in the right direction (though homosexuals should have ALL the same rights).

The problem with it however is that it gives these rights to homosexuals and refuses them to people who need them more e.g. Two sisters living togther, two elederly people living togther, a single parent family, a parent with a dependent child (because of disablity) etc.

"We hate black skin but not black people."

Please. It's homophobia. Just deal.


NO ITS NOT. For the following reasons

1) The Bible has nothing to say about coulor of race. It is in no way raceist. It does however make distinctions between christians and non christains.

2) Black skin you are born with, Homosexuality you are not.



One moment--I thought you were going with the second creation story? You know, the one where they aren't treated as equals? And either way, that precedes the fall--the fact that Eve ate the apple first has often been used to keep the ladies down throughout history.
Also, if you're going to say it goes against the Old Testament, please be correct. Have you even read the OT?! Do I have to show you all of the misogynistic laws and verses in the OT? Better to say that it goes against the New Testament, where Jesus is mostly for equality with women.


All of this stuff is post fall. My point was, if Adam and Eve were both in the Garden of Eden, how could being a women be wrong? (as someone suggested that that is what the Bible says)


Of course, you can't pick and choose which of Pauls writings were shaded by his personal feelings and which weren't, can you? It's all or nothing.


I agree, but what you can do is see which ones are supported by the old testement and which arnet. Though there is lots of anti women stuff in the old testement but that was becuase of the post fall fallout (no pun intended) God predicts the mistreetment of women throughout history, but that doesnt mean he supports it. In the same way he predicted the devestation of Samalia but he did not like it. Jesus himself never was a mysigonist. And before you say "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality either" I say that Pauls writitngs are supported by parts of the old testement which are not invalidated by the new. The Bible is not a simple book, its message is basic but you people are determined to pick apart the non essential bits to undermine the message.

and to the rest of the world, it's a societal thing.

stop assuming everyone worships the same god you do.

Yes but for the *This rearly is quite rediculous now* time, we are dealing with Christianity and why Christians think what they do

When he decided to make people born into homosexuality.


As has been discussed many times, you canot say people are "Born" homosexuals as there is no proof to make that a certiantiy. For that to be the case it would need to be 100% genetic and that has already been disproved.

Your church maybe. Some churches do sadly.

Then those churches are wrong. No where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect of "Fear and hate sinners" or homosexuals. If we were to believe that then we would fear/hate ourselves.

Yup, clearly God abandoned "them" to homosexuality. Strange thing is, most folks don't actually have an inclination to homosexuality. The ideas that the law is what is stopping everyone from becoming homosexual, and that homosexuality consists of nothing but lust are very curious ones. It sounds to me like Paul was a closet-case.

Many people misinterpret this to saying "God made them homosexual" but actually what it means is that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle and that is the kind of lifestyle you live if you disobey God. There are plenty of 'good' people who are not Chritsitans. They however have there sins still marked agaisnt them. Christians (as one American bumper sticker put it) are "Not perfect, just forgiven"

2) Black skin you are born with, Homosexuality you are not.

Right... so all the researchers that say that sexual preference is actually influenced by genetics are wrong? Nice to know that. It may not be 100% genetical, but a large part of it is.

The bible states in the book of Leviticus that men sleeping with men is an abomination. There are no other books or parts of the bible that state so, OR that it is a sin.
And... If you choose to believe the entire bible, do so... don't make excuses for Exodus 21:7 (slavery!) or Exodus 35:2 (go ahead, kill me... I work on sabbath at times), or the Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (execute me! I rebelled against my parents!) Or Leviticus 19:19 (kill me! kill me! I wear clothes made from two different fabrics!)
Making excuses for those parts of the bible should allow you to open your mind far enough to see that the bible's opinion on homosexuals is archaic and just dumb bigotry.

Wow you guys have been talking about this for a long time...and I bet saying the same things over and over again (excuse me for being too lazy to read them). I've been a Christian. I didn't like it. Mostly for reasons like gay marriage bans and stuff like that. I think I still might even believe in god a little, but his supposedly "most dedicated followers" like to use the bible with a strict constructionist view when it pertains to something they don't like. They don't have to marry someone of the same sex, they never have to go to a wedding. I think some of these fundamentalist politicians have secret gay relationships, but are scared of commitment, and a ban on gay marriage lets them avoid it.

The problem with it however is that it gives these rights to homosexuals and refuses them to people who need them more e.g. Two sisters living togther, two elederly people living togther, a single parent family, a parent with a dependent child (because of disablity) etc.

Heterosexual marriage denies those rights to all those people you listed, yet you don't have a problem with the government recognizing those. You don't deny rights to one group because it may or may not give them to another set of people who may or may not need them. Two sisters living together aren't going to have to worry about not visitng each other in the hospital and they are already possibily the next of kin, two elderly people could get married, a single parent family has no need of marriage rights because the parent is single, a parent with a disabled child already gets help and doesn't need the rights of marriage either. So basically, if you are single, you don't need marriage rights. If you are family members, you don't need marriage rights. If you are unmarried and living together but could get married, you've chosen not to accept your marriage rights. Homosexuals howeer cannot get married, so they aren't choosing to not take the rights, they aren't being allowed to have them.

Wow you guys have been talking about this for a long time...and I bet saying the same things over and over again (excuse me for being too lazy to read them). I've been a Christian. I didn't like it. Mostly for reasons like gay marriage bans and stuff like that. I think I still might even believe in god a little, but his supposedly "most dedicated followers" like to use the bible with a strict constructionist view when it pertains to something they don't like. They don't have to marry someone of the same sex, they never have to go to a wedding. I think some of these fundamentalist politicians have secret gay relationships, but are scared of commitment, and a ban on gay marriage lets them avoid it.I say more Guilty Concsence...

Right... so all the researchers that say that sexual preference is actually influenced by genetics are wrong? Nice to know that. It may not be 100% genetical, but a large part of it is.

The bible states in the book of Leviticus that men sleeping with men is an abomination. There are no other books or parts of the bible that state so, OR that it is a sin.
And... If you choose to believe the entire bible, do so... don't make excuses for Exodus 21:7 (slavery!) or Exodus 35:2 (go ahead, kill me... I work on sabbath at times), or the Deutericanonical 21:18-21 (execute me! I rebelled against my parents!) Or Leviticus 19:19 (kill me! kill me! I wear clothes made from two different fabrics!)
Making excuses for those parts of the bible should allow you to open your mind far enough to see that the bible's opinion on homosexuals is archaic and just dumb bigotry.


Its kind of true

I know we have all read the Leviticus argument, with all the crazy laws and such.

Usually denounced as being only relevant to other times. And I can see passing over the book in its entirety by cristians saying “just ignore that part”

But if they feel like picking and choosing from within the book itself it gets kind of ridiculous … that the rule they choose to enforce is buried in all those other ridiculous ones. How is it that one more powerful/important then the shell fish one or about mixed weave clothing?

There is nothing put in there to indicate “importance” at all …

Lol and wow is this topic is long lol

*Quietly walks in*

For the Christian in all of you.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

And don't tell me you are "more of a Christian" tan they are. Bullshit.

*Quietly walks out of the thread*

One moment--I thought you were going with the second creation story? You know, the one where they aren't treated as equals? And either way, that precedes the fall--the fact that Eve ate the apple first has often been used to keep the ladies down throughout history.
Also, if you're going to say it goes against the Old Testament, please be correct. Have you even read the OT?! Do I have to show you all of the misogynistic laws and verses in the OT? Better to say that it goes against the New Testament, where Jesus is mostly for equality with women.
All of this stuff is post fall.No it is not.
In the second account:
Unlike the first account, man was created first, and women second.
The women was created to be his helper. Unlike other versions of the bible, the NSRV describes her as a partner, but does this mean they are equal? After all, some animals were considered as possible "partners" first.
Even in the NSRV, the woman is described as taken out of man, and as a derivative version.
Eve eats "the apple" and gives one to Adam to eat.
All pre-fall, or the fall itself.
My point was, if Adam and Eve were both in the Garden of Eden, how could being a women be wrong? (as someone suggested that that is what the Bible says)Moving goalpost: you claimed that Adam and Eve were created equal. In the second creation story that's just not so.
I agree, but what you can do is see which ones are supported by the old testement and which arnet. Though there is lots of anti women stuff in the old testement but that was becuase of the post fall fallout (no pun intended) God predicts the mistreetment of women throughout history, but that doesnt mean he supports it.Oh puleese. Firstly, not all the anti-women stuff is post-fall. And secondly, some of it is in God-given laws. How is that not support?
Leviticus 19:20 (NRSV)
If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed;
Deuteronomy 22 (NRSV)
23 If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, 24 you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Deuteronomy 22 (NRSV)
28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
Jesus himself never was a mysigonist.Now, that I believe.
The Bible is not a simple book, its message is basic but you people are determined to pick apart the non essential bits to undermine the message.I may disagree with the basic message (whatever that may be), but it is primarily your message that homosexual practice is a sin that I am seeking to undermine. In seeking to support your position, you keep making claims about the Bible that are simply not true. As these claims are important parts of your argument, it is hardly nit-picking to point out that they are wrong.
I am not qualified to interpret the Bible (not that that stops me). But I have read the five books of Moses, and it doesn't take an expect to see that much of what you say about the OT is wrong.


Non-Jews, or Gentiles, could adopt the Jewish covenant and become "prostelytes", but there was no special law and relationship offered that was for the Gentiles as the Old Testament was for the Jews.I think I accidentally deleteded my response to this, and I wanted to address it. There were the laws given to Noah in Genesis 9:1-7 (the Noahide laws). It seems to be more of a Jewish idea that keeping those laws gives you a place in the next world, but I would refer you to Acts 15
13After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘My brothers, listen to me. 14Simeon has related how God first looked favourably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,
16“After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it,and I will set it up,
17so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—
even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things 18known from long ago.”
19Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. 21For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.’
...
28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’(NRSV)

The series of words "Giant noisey flying Iron eagle" in an anchient language can be translated as meaning "Fighter jet" (if one happened to travel back in time) in the same way the words "Men who love and sleep with other men" can be translated as meaning "Homosexual". Its just that our language has evolved to the point where eight words can be replaced with one.

Or, maybe a previous culture didn't have a seperate word for homosexuals, because they considered it the equal of heterosexuality - and not even needing it's own 'separate' term.

So, our language has evolved to the point where it has invented a word, to fill a void where no word was needed.

Go, progress.

Or, maybe a previous culture didn't have a seperate word for homosexuals, because they considered it the equal of heterosexuality - and not even needing it's own 'separate' term.

So, our language has evolved to the point where it has invented a word, to fill a void where no word was needed.

Go, progress.


Yeah though to be fair specialization really tends to be one of the key features of progress at all (including specialization of languages)

I mean in jobs and everything

So it doesn’t surprise me that we came up with a separate term for it … we like to classify everything :-D

Pride in homosexuality presumably, which is what the church has a problem with. As I said, the seperation between sin and sinner is made harder if the sinner is proud of their sin and unrepentent. At that point the chuch can do little more than oppose them in words. We cant force them to do anything.

Nope. Gay pride is being proud of standing up for who you are, no matter what other people might think of you.
It's pride in being able to say 'I am gay', even when others are saying 'gays are evil'.

Nope. Gay pride is being proud of standing up for who you are, no matter what other people might think of you.
It's pride in being able to say 'I am gay', even when others are saying 'gays are evil'.


Though be fair … I’ve had people come up to be saying “I’m gay” and I in no way said “gay is evil” lol

I tend to lean towards being bi myself (still working that one out)but I was sitting at a bus stop sheesh I was pissed that my thoughts were interrupted (issues with gf) more then anything.


Anyways I am glad you have pride but it does get annoying when it is intrusive

I just want it to be so that we don’t even have to ask … it is just there and accepted by all

This thought may have already been advanced, but since I'm too lazy to read all 197 pages of this thread I'll risk repeating it.

An amendment to ban gay "marriage" was passed in 11 states by a wide majority. "Marriage" is a committment in the name of God in the minds of most Christians. As the Bible specifically condemns homosexual behavior, gay marriage is considered sacreligious.

Gays say they are looking for the same rights as heterosexual marriages. 60% of people polled during the election said they would be in favor of civil unions. Why can't we offer 2 forms of legal binding? Marriage as defined a union between a man and a woman in sight of God, and a civil union available to gays, atheists, and anyone else not wanting a church involvement in their personal lives?

Gays insist it be called "marriage" and reject "civil union". Could it be they're not really looking for equal rights or just trying to raise a fuss?

See, it's stuff like this that makes people like me have to get involved.

I am married, and I am straight.

But, I am not a christian. My marriage is not a 'christian' marriage... because I am not a christian.

Christianty does NOT own marriage, and it's about time that the government stopped chasing the christian right votes (Bush's advisers have admitted that the 'gay marriage ban' referenda were put there to attract voters) and actually dealt with the fact that marriage is a LEGAL issue.

Well, it's not going to happen on Bush's watch, obviously.

So we now want to have two "Seperate but equal" types of unions?

So we now want to have two "Seperate but equal" types of unions?


Well some
But we have all learned separate is not equil

Most of us that have learned that lesion want EVERYONE to have a civil union being the legal base (for both gay and strait marriages)

With an optional religious title of “marriage” which in no way effects the base rights

Separate is never equal

(I understand you were pointing out that issue)

Genesis 3:16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.(due to the eating the apple thing). Which fits in with Genesis 2:18-22
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Now the first creation story is a very different one. The adam was created "male and female" in the image of God (which the original Hebrew is sometimes described as male, and sometimes as female (and sometimes as plural) by the grammar). There is none of the sexism there is in the second account.

The translation "rib" in the second version is highly suspect, noone really knows what the original word means, and appearantly it's used only in one other place in the Bible in the description of the tabernacle. But look at the surrounding language. Rather than describing the splitting of the adam into male and female halves, it describes the woman as being taken out of the adam, a derivative version if you will.

Equality is supported by one creation account, but not the other. (The verse you like quoting, Gen 2:24, is in the sexist account).

Excellent post. Take a bow, Dettibok.

For those of you questioning Dettbok's facts - Genesis 1 lists the name of the creative force as 'elohim' - which is plural - and implies, at least in the original view - a pantheistic origin to the Hebrew's faith.

The creative force, listed as the "Spirit of God" or 'Breath of God" is female "Ruwach" - which is consonant with most of the contemporary religions (except for Egyptian belief), which had female 'creative forces'.

This 'female creative force' continues - since God doesn't, for example, create the plants on the earth - instead, he tells the earth to create the plants herself ("And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass") - where earth is " 'erets", another feminine.

Even in English, it is apparent that the first 'creation' of people, was the creation of males and females (or, perhaps a hermaphrodite). "in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Even though the Bible assumes a predominantly 'male' edge after this, there is still evidence of the feminine aspect - e.g. the "Breath of Life" in Genesis 2 is "Neshamah" (another feminine)... also, 'Shekinah' is the (feminine) term for the indwelling spirit of god, within the "Holy of Holies". (Coffman says "Desolate ... What a dreadful word! Once the holy Shekinah was there within the Holy of Holies).

It would be very hard to mistranslate Pauls passage in romans on the subject. Its not just one word that is said but several individual words, and describes men becoming inflamed with unnautral lusts for one another, and the same for women.

This has already been dealt with.

Proved you wrong, now leave it.

(Go search my posts, if you can't recall my reply).

NO ITS NOT. For the following reasons

1) The Bible has nothing to say about coulor of race. It is in no way raceist. It does however make distinctions between christians and non christains.


See - up until you posted this, I thought you had READ the bible.

It will obviously be in next years 'things you are allowed to think' course...

I think Neo's a lady. I am however basing that on something I think I read about 40 fucken pages ago!!! Mental. I have no idea on your's or Keru's qualifications in hebrew and really don't much care to be honest. I have a couple of Bibles and read them on a hideously infrequent basis. But I do read them. And regardless of the jeers of others when I say this, I do feel actively steered when I read. Ze leetle voices een my head!!

I'm glad that people take the time and effort to examine the Bible but am very cautious of them when they do so in a manner not according to God's will as you do. The fact that God points out (through the Bible and therefore through men) that people will actively distort and twist the Bible for either their own gains or just to try and deceive, inveigle and obfuscate (hmm Gillian Anderson) poor little humans, only reinforces this caution when I hear something that sounds wrong. I'll then go check ye wrong sounding thing in me Bib and see what I reckon.

There is, however, a problem with overexamination of the Bible as with many things. I'm sure there will be someone somewhere who claims to have derived three sets of commandments to apply to cyberfraud from John 11:35!! And I'm also sure that someone can linguistically argue that the Hebrew therein can actually be seen to foretell the nuclear apocalypse. But.. I don't care. God has seen fit for me to read the Bibles I have which say what they say, flawed or not.

Free will and pull the Black Watch out

I thoroughly enjoy reading the bible.

I have gained much insight from the text, and I believe I am a better, wiser and more 'evolved' (how ironic) person for it. However - that ISN'T because I think that the book used it's god-magic on me (sorry to trivialise), it's just because I find good stuff in those pages - but I find much the same sort of thing in Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy", or "The Lord of the Rings", or even "Harry Potter".

What I dislike, is people setting up a 'camp', of political agenda, and then using a verse from the bible to 'prove' their argument - usually totally out of context, almost always from a verse that was poorly translated in the first place, and, often - with no ACTUAL reference to the particular agenda that they espouse.

Even if the book WAS a code of laws for living, that time is past. The Old Testament was retired a thousand years after it was written, and the Moslems believe that the New testament was retired about 300 years after it was written.

I don't just 'pervert' the books of the bible - I can find positive things, too. But, what call is there for that on the forum? On the forum, I am the protector of what is ACTUALLY in the text, while others try to pervert it to their causes.

Yes there is. It says Men and Women. And international law is kind of defunct as there is no court to try it in. That of course is all the Amricans fault. My point is that there is no National convention of rights which says it. International law is stupid in most cases as what is law without a court and some concequences behind it.

You are correct... it does say men and women.

But it doesn't say they HAVE to marry, only that they may... and it doesn't say that they have to marry each other, either.

So, constitutionally, there is nothing to stop gay marriage, until the church regime rewrites the basic laws of the nation.

(Which they are doing at the moment).

Excellent post. Take a bow, Dettibok.:blush: Thank you. I'm glad I attended that extracurricular presentation in university. I'm finding reading the Bible itself a bit of a slog, but the beliefs and practices of the people and societies in the Bible are fascinating.

In the UK in December 2002 there was an introduction of something called "Civil partnerships" which granted gay couples some of the same rights as married couples, see here

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-064.pdf

This is not adopted policy yet. But if the government continues down this route it will be. However things come unstuck at where the ceremony for this will be performed. At present Churches have the right to say "no we will not house your ceremony" but there is a question as to wether or not they will be allowd to do that if this is passed. I personally think they should as its their beliefs. It would be like asking a Mosque's Imarm (thats proberbly spelt wrong) if Christians could use the hall to celebrate the end of the crusades (not that we do, this is just a metaphor).

Wow, so England is still screwed up. At least in the US, we know that separation of church and state will clearly keep churches from ever performing ceremonies they don't agree with.

Of course, that then leads to the question of why they still oppose a legal contract between two people which they have nothing to do with...

NO ITS NOT. For the following reasons

1) The Bible has nothing to say about coulor of race. It is in no way raceist. It does however make distinctions between christians and non christains.

Actually, it does tell people not to marry outside of their culture, which is pretty much the same thing as racism. After all, if people never married outside of their culture, they could never allow those of another race/religion/nationality into their culture, and thus would never mix.

2) Black skin you are born with, Homosexuality you are not.

Ah, so to be a trait, you have to be absolutely positively born with it. Never mind that it is quite obviously not a choice, you weren't born with it!

I wasn't born menstruating. I guess that means I can be discriminated against based on my menstruation. (Hell, the Bible certainly allows for that).

All of this stuff is post fall. My point was, if Adam and Eve were both in the Garden of Eden, how could being a women be wrong? (as someone suggested that that is what the Bible says)

And again, you completely ignore the first Creation story, which actually does place men and women on an equal standing.

I agree, but what you can do is see which ones are supported by the old testement and which arnet. Though there is lots of anti women stuff in the old testement but that was becuase of the post fall fallout (no pun intended) God predicts the mistreetment of women throughout history, but that doesnt mean he supports it.

Just like "God says it's ok to beat slaves, but that doesn't mean God supports it" or "God says girl children are dirtier than boy children, but that doesn't mean God thinks women are lower" or "God says to force a woman to marry her rapist, but that doesn't mean God supports hurting anyone."

The Bible is not a simple book, its message is basic but you people are determined to pick apart the non essential bits to undermine the message.

*We're* picking up the nonessential bits??!!! Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

It says "Wife" so marriage is implied

Actually, if you read the entire passage, what it is doing is this. Genesis 2: 18 - 25 are all about the creation of Eve with Adam. It explains this and how it happened and Genesis 2: 24 explains why marriage is the way it is. It is the way it is because of what happened with Adam and Eve in Eden, and their relationship and how it worked.

One Corinthians 7: 9

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion"

And again

Mathew 24: 37 - 39

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark"

And it does'nt say you should either.

The word 'wife' is a mistranslation of the Hebrew... 'woman' would be a closer match.... and also, bears no necessity for this to be a marriage. So - your claim is invalid.

And, I love this: How to justify Homosexual marriage, my thanks go to Neo Cannen, for providing the PERFECT justification One Corinthians 7: 9 "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion"

And, in regard to the Noah thing, since you brought it up... and directly AFTER the flood, Noah is sexually assaulted by one of his sons, in the 'Perfect" new world...

:blush: Thank you. I'm glad I attended that extracurricular presentation in university. I'm finding reading the Bible itself a bit of a slog, but the beliefs and practices of the people and societies in the Bible are fascinating.

It was praise well deserved.

The bible can be hard going, but there is plenty in their to keep you going.

Try imagining the whole invasion of Canaan going on now... or the laws about rapists marrying their victims, or not eating shellfish... try to imagine that world NOW, and it puts a different perspective on it... especially since, for example, the invasion and genocide in Canaan are a 'good thing' in the bible.

So - let's imagine China turning around and rolling tanks across India, destroying every city, machine-gunning all the men and boys, and raping all the women.

But - if you really want some bible fun, you might want to skip straight to the Song of Solomon - which is, in effect, porn. Poetic porn. But porn, none the less.

the women.

But - if you really want some bible fun, you might want to skip straight to the Song of Solomon - which is, in effect, porn. Poetic porn. But porn, none the less.


Lol I agree ... was pointed out to me in a bible literature class

Very intresting stuff

edit
(surpizing because I went to catholic elementry school till the 6th grade and devout family) but dident hear about it till a senior (in public highschool) level literature class)

Lol I agree ... was pointed out to me in a bible literature class

Very intresting stuff

edit
(surpizing because I went to catholic elementry school till the 6th grade and devout family) but dident hear about it till a senior (in public highschool) level literature class)

I just couldn't believe what I was reading, the first time I looked at that page and thought... huh, that sounds a bit... racy... and then carried on looking down the page, and becoming enlightened to a whole new side of scripture!

I just couldn't believe what I was reading, the first time I looked at that page and thought... huh, that sounds a bit... racy... and then carried on looking down the page, and becoming enlightened to a whole new side of scripture!


"your breasts are like towers"

or
"let me frolic in your garden"

(sorry dont have my bible handy so am pharaphrasing from what I remember)

Actually, it does tell people not to marry outside of their culture, which is pretty much the same thing as racism. After all, if people never married outside of their culture, they could never allow those of another race/religion/nationality into their culture, and thus would never mix.


Again, we are looking at the Old testemnt to undermine the new.

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all"

Colossians 3: 11

The point of the Old Testement was for Jews not to marry Gentiles as what it would do (So they thought) would be to make them follow God less. The ways of the others at the time when the old testement, were not at all Godly. The basic idea was, do not marry non Jews, but in the New Testement we see otherwise. The Bible advises Christians against marrying non Christians but does not outrightly stop them. The best example of it all going horibly wrong is sampson.


Ah, so to be a trait, you have to be absolutely positively born with it. Never mind that it is quite obviously not a choice, you weren't born with it!

I wasn't born menstruating. I guess that means I can be discriminated against based on my menstruation. (Hell, the Bible certainly allows for that).


Being Black is completley geneticly determined and not affected by your surrondings at all. Being Gay there is a mix. If a factor is beyond your control, God will not peanalise you for it. God never tempts beyond our means. And anyway, as I have stated, it is the homosexual act which is a sin, not homosexual attractions.


Just like "God says it's ok to beat slaves, but that doesn't mean God supports it" or "God says girl children are dirtier than boy children, but that doesn't mean God thinks women are lower" or "God says to force a woman to marry her rapist, but that doesn't mean God supports hurting anyone."


How can I put this in a way you will understand. God may predict something but that does not mean he likes what is going to happen. For instance, Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him three times, but doubtless he didnt want him too. And a lot of your Old Testement examples are made oboslete by the new testement, see "Love your neighbourgh as yourself" etc. Whereas homosexuality is not.


*We're* picking up the nonessential bits??!!! Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Do you want to know the basic message of the Bible. Ok here is is



God created the world, and everything in it, including man and women


At this time God had a special relationship with man and could go down and talk to him. He gave him one special command though not to eat the fruit of on particular tree


Adam and Eve broke this command and sin entered the world. Thus mans relationship with God was broken and Man would now die as the wages of sin are death. Not only physical death but spiritual death in Hell.


God vowed at this time that one day someone would come to fix the problem of sin. To make things right, to make sure that man and God could be reconsiled


Aproximately 2000 years ago, that man Jesus Christ of Nazerath came along and lived the perfect sinnless life. During that time he taught many others how they shold lead their lives in God's eyes


Then he died on a cross. BUT he had not sinned. And the Bible teaches that the wages of sin are death. This broke the cycle. Now man need no longer die spirtiually, but could live with God forever. All that was needed from man was sincere acceptance of what Jesus had done for them


Thus if a man accepts Jesus then all his sins are removed in the sight of God and are forgiven. And man can enter the kingdom of Hevan and be with God.

THAT is the crux of the Bible. The fact that Humans can be saved from death in hell.

I think she's trying to tell us something.

The word 'wife' is a mistranslation of the Hebrew... 'woman' would be a closer match.... and also, bears no necessity for this to be a marriage. So - your claim is invalid.


I never said you had to be married. I just said you have to be married if you wanted to have sex.


And, I love this: How to justify Homosexual marriage, my thanks go to Neo Cannen, for providing the PERFECT justification


You are getting on your postmodern high horse here if you think all marriage is is a commitment thing. It is a commitment thing FOR MEN AND WOMEN ONLY. Genesis 2: 24 is explaining why marriage is the way it is (IE between man and women). Marriage is how it is because that is how it was in Eden. One man and one women is how it was in Eden and how it should always be.


And, in regard to the Noah thing, since you brought it up... and directly AFTER the flood, Noah is sexually assaulted by one of his sons, in the 'Perfect" new world...

Who ever said the world would be perfect post flood. And the sexually asulted bit is his son seing him naked after being drunk.

The bible can be hard going, but there is plenty in their to keep you going.

Try imagining the whole invasion of Canaan going on now... or the laws about rapists marrying their victims, or not eating shellfish... try to imagine that world NOW, and it puts a different perspective on it... especially since, for example, the invasion and genocide in Canaan are a 'good thing' in the bible.

So - let's imagine China turning around and rolling tanks across India, destroying every city, machine-gunning all the men and boys, and raping all the women.


Hark, do I hear the sound of people once again who are uneducated about the Bible. The reason that Cannen was entered and God told the Isralites to go and massacare everyone in it was that THAT WAS THEIR PROMISED LAND. Post fall/pre Crucifixtion, God could have at any time killed us all and been completely justified. Why, because we had sinned and the wages of sin are death. Pre crucifixtion there was nothing you could do abouts sin except roll it back with sacrifices, store it till the day that God would send someone to deal with it and 2000 years ago, he did. So telling the Isralites to go massacre them was efectively God doing the killing and God had every right to do the killing then. You can be shocked all you like but it is the Biblical truth.

Again, we are looking at the Old testemnt to undermine the new.

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all"

Colossians 3: 11

The point of the Old Testement was for Jews not to marry Gentiles as what it would do (So they thought) would be to make them follow God less. The ways of the others at the time when the old testement, were not at all Godly. The basic idea was, do not marry non Jews, but in the New Testement we see otherwise. The Bible advises Christians against marrying non Christians but does not outrightly stop them. The best example of it all going horibly wrong is sampson.

Ok, I see. So you either illogically believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing God can change God's mind or you believe (as you say here) that the Jews wrote the Bible, not God.

Being Black is completley geneticly determined and not affected by your surrondings at all. Being Gay there is a mix. If a factor is beyond your control, God will not peanalise you for it. God never tempts beyond our means. And anyway, as I have stated, it is the homosexual act which is a sin, not homosexual attractions.

Skin color is very much affected by your surroundings. My mother (although caucasian) can tan to the point that she is darker skinned than many "black" people I know. This is a result of being in the sun. People have freckles because of their environment.

And, since any environmental factors that influence sexuality happen during childhood and before puberty, by your own admission God would not penalize homosexuals for being homosexual. Of course, saying "You people, and only you people, shall heretofore be disallowed from finding a partner and feeling romantic love just because of things beyond your control" sounds like a penalty to me.

How can I put this in a way you will understand. God may predict something but that does not mean he likes what is going to happen. For instance, Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him three times, but doubtless he didnt want him too. And a lot of your Old Testement examples are made oboslete by the new testement, see "Love your neighbourgh as yourself" etc. Whereas homosexuality is not.

First, making a law and making a prediction are two different things. Either you believe that God actually stated all of those Old Testament laws, or you don't. But you can't hide behind "God made a law that said you should force a woman to marry her rapist but that was just a prediction." Such a statement is completely illogical. So, which is it? Do you believe that God decreed the Old Testament laws, or do you believe that flawed human beings wrote them *thinking* that they were doing the will of God, but quite possibly being mistaken?

Do you want to know the basic message of the Bible. Ok here is is

God created the world, and everything in it, including man and women

Ok, good. That is certainly part of it.


At this time God had a special relationship with man and could go down and talk to him. He gave him one special command though not to eat the fruit of on particular tree


Adam and Eve broke this command and sin entered the world. Thus mans relationship with God was broken and Man would now die as the wages of sin are death. Not only physical death but spiritual death in Hell.

This idea comes from a metaphorical interpretation of only the second version of the creation story. And Hell didn't come into it until much, much, much later in history, after the Babylonian exile. Up until then, the descendents of Abraham did not believe in a hell, or a Satan.

You could argue that the "human beings are sinful and therefore need help from God to attain spirtual immortality" is a main point, but the exact Adam and Eve details are far from it.


God vowed at this time that one day someone would come to fix the problem of sin. To make things right, to make sure that man and God could be reconsiled


Aproximately 2000 years ago, that man Jesus Christ of Nazerath came along and lived the perfect sinnless life. During that time he taught many others how they shold lead their lives in God's eyes

kk, sounds good.


Then he died on a cross. BUT he had not sinned. And the Bible teaches that the wages of sin are death. This broke the cycle. Now man need no longer die spirtiually, but could live with God forever. All that was needed from man was sincere acceptance of what Jesus had done for them

This is a matter of interpretation. I personally prefer the Abelardian view, which has just as much Biblical backing. Basically, Christ died to demonstrate the depth of God's love so that we would turn to God and follow in love, rather than in fear. Loving God would enable us to hear God's voice and thus stay away from sin.

But you could say that the "main point" was that humankind needed help and God sent Christ to give it. Atonement was offered to humankind as a result of Christ's death.


Now, I noticed that in none of that was the term "homosexuality is bad, mmmmkay!" a part of the "main point" of Christianity.

See - up until you posted this, I thought you had READ the bible.

It will obviously be in next years 'things you are allowed to think' course...

What does the bible say on coulor and race. I know but I am interested to see what you think

Hark, do I hear the sound of people once again who are uneducated about the Bible. The reason that Cannen was entered and God told the Isralites to go and massacare everyone in it was that THAT WAS THEIR PROMISED LAND. Post fall/pre Crucifixtion, God could have at any time killed us all and been completely justified. Why, because we had sinned and the wages of sin are death. Pre crucifixtion there was nothing you could do abouts sin except roll it back with sacrifices, store it till the day that God would send someone to deal with it and 2000 years ago, he did. So telling the Isralites to go massacre them was efectively God doing the killing and God had every right to do the killing then. You can be shocked all you like but it is the Biblical truth.

So genocide is fine and dandy, as long as you think God said so? I mean, wholesale slaughter including innocent children and infants can't possibly be objectively evil. You believe in a pretty evil God there, hon.

So genocide is fine and dandy, as long as you think God said so? I mean, wholesale slaughter including innocent children and infants can't possibly be objectively evil. You believe in a pretty evil God there, hon.


Hehehe hate to bring it up but maybe that mixed fiber wearer better read Leviticus if he/shethinks the punishment for sin is death … lol better take his/her cloths off :-D

Ok, I see. So you either illogically believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing God can change God's mind or you believe (as you say here) that the Jews wrote the Bible, not God.


God said to the Isralites at the time that it was a bad idea to marry into other cultures as they did not follow God and they would only lead them astray. Some did, and as they found out they lead them astray (Samson and Deliaiah).



Skin color is very much affected by your surroundings. My mother (although caucasian) can tan to the point that she is darker skinned than many "black" people I know. This is a result of being in the sun. People have freckles because of their environment.

And, since any environmental factors that influence sexuality happen during childhood and before puberty, by your own admission God would not penalize homosexuals for being homosexual. Of course, saying "You people, and only you people, shall heretofore be disallowed from finding a partner and feeling romantic love just because of things beyond your control" sounds like a penalty to me.


To the skin coulor point, what I meant was this. If two white people have a child then it is likely the child will be white. In fact it is more than likely, it is almost certain bar some random mutation or a recessive allue popping up. And as I have stated before it is the homosexual act that is a sin, not homosexuality itself (Being attracted to members of the same sex)


First, making a law and making a prediction are two different things. Either you believe that God actually stated all of those Old Testament laws, or you don't. But you can't hide behind "God made a law that said you should force a woman to marry her rapist but that was just a prediction." Such a statement is completely illogical. So, which is it? Do you believe that God decreed the Old Testament laws, or do you believe that flawed human beings wrote them *thinking* that they were doing the will of God, but quite possibly being mistaken?


You are taking this "law/prediction" thing out of the context I orrignaly said it in. Ages ago now someone said that the punishmet of Eve post fall was evidence of God being anti women. This I said was not the case, God merely punished her as was fit for what she did. As did he to Adam.




This idea comes from a metaphorical interpretation of only the second version of the creation story. And Hell didn't come into it until much, much, much later in history, after the Babylonian exile. Up until then, the descendents of Abraham did not believe in a hell, or a Satan.

You could argue that the "human beings are sinful and therefore need help from God to attain spirtual immortality" is a main point, but the exact Adam and Eve details are far from it.


I was talking about the Bible as a whole, not individual passages. People forget the Bible is one long book which does have a core running through it.



Now, I noticed that in none of that was the term "homosexuality is bad, mmmmkay!" a part of the "main point" of Christianity.

EXACTLY. This is what I have been trying to get you people to see for ages now. The whole thing that Christians see homosexuality as a sin is a tiny part of the big picture of the Bible, which is Jesus and God's sacrifice in our place and what said sacrifice offers to us. I can explain to you why homosexuality is a sin till the cows come home and none of you would change your minds BUT the central message of the bible is the mind boggling part. Gods graces to us and what he has done for all of us/can do for all of us if you let him.

So genocide is fine and dandy, as long as you think God said so? I mean, wholesale slaughter including innocent children and infants can't possibly be objectively evil. You believe in a pretty evil God there, hon.

Check what i said out, that only worked between the fall and the crucifixtion. Between those times sin and the sinner could not be seperated. But NOW because of the Cruifixtion, the wages of sin are no longer spirtiual death and God has not got the right to kill any of us whenever he wants because we have a choice. We can either continue living our sinful lives or we can turn to him and accept what he did on the cross and become Christians. Becuase we can do that at any time in our lives, God will give us life for as long as he can. He wants us to be saved, he wants to be with us at the end. Pre crucifixtion God could kill any of us at any time. The wages of sin would always be death, no matter what pre crufixtion. The only way to avoid it then would be to go for the immensely strict path of sacrifice and offerings which rolled back our sins till when someone would come along to deal with them. 2000 years ago that person did come.

God said to the Isralites at the time that it was a bad idea to marry into other cultures as they did not follow God and they would only lead them astray. Some did, and as they found out they lead them astray (Samson and Deliaiah).

So, again, you believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing God can change God's mind. It's pretty illogical, but if that is your belief, that is fine.

To the skin coulor point, what I meant was this. If two white people have a child then it is likely the child will be white. In fact it is more than likely, it is almost certain bar some random mutation or a recessive allue popping up. And as I have stated before it is the homosexual act that is a sin, not homosexuality itself (Being attracted to members of the same sex)

Which means that you believe God has condemned a certain subset of people to a life without ever finding a romantic love and lifelong partner. If that is your belief, that is fine, but at least admit that it is your belief. You believe that some people are gay, but God doesn't wish for them to find that type of love. I disagree. *shrug*

You are taking this "law/prediction" thing out of the context I orrignaly said it in. Ages ago now someone said that the punishmet of Eve post fall was evidence of God being anti women. This I said was not the case, God merely punished her as was fit for what she did. As did he to Adam.

I was pointing out the fact that, if you believe that God wrote all of the laws in the Bible, then God *is* anti-woman. The punishment of Eve may not be good evidence, but the rest of it certainly is.

I was talking about the Bible as a whole, not individual passages. People forget the Bible is one long book which does have a core running through it.

As was I.

EXACTLY. This is what I have been trying to get you people to see for ages now. The whole thing that Christians see homosexuality as a sin is a tiny part of the big picture of the Bible, which is Jesus and God's sacrifice in our place and what said sacrifice offers to us. I can explain to you why homosexuality is a sin till the cows come home and none of you would change your minds BUT the central message of the bible is the mind boggling part. Gods graces to us and what he has done for all of us/can do for all of us if you let him.

And not *all* Christians see homosexuality as a sin, because there are many ways to interpret specific parts of the Bible. As long as the main point is there, we are all Christians - with some disagreements. However, I have been told in this thread more than once that I am not a Christian. You have explicitly stated that homosexual Christians themselves are a huge problem to the church. However, "homosexuality is a sin" is not a main tenet of Christianity. Thus, while you may argue that it is, I may argue that it isn't, and the gay bishop in the Anglican church may argue that it isn't, our view on the matter doesn't make anyone more or less of a Christian, nor does it take away from the main point - that we should accept Christ, love God with all our hearts, and do unto others as we would have done unto us.

Check what i said out, that only worked between the fall and the crucifixtion.

So God was allowed to be evil before now. Gotcha.

Between those times sin and the sinner could not be seperated. But NOW because of the Cruifixtion, the wages of sin are no longer spirtiual death and God has not got the right to kill any of us whenever he wants because we have a choice.

If you really believe that God is all-powerful, God has the right to do whatever God pleases. God simply may choose not to do so.

Now, could you please explain to me how an infant sins?

We can either continue living our sinful lives or we can turn to him and accept what he did on the cross and become Christians. Becuase we can do that at any time in our lives, God will give us life for as long as he can. He wants us to be saved, he wants to be with us at the end.

This I agree with. However, I take issue with the idea that this particular God would tell someone to go out killing infants.

Pre crucifixtion God could kill any of us at any time. The wages of sin would always be death, no matter what pre crufixtion.

Again, infants and very small toddlers have not sinned, they haven't got the capacity to do so, unless you are like Augustine and you think that when a baby cries, it sins.

The only way to avoid it then would be to go for the immensely strict path of sacrifice and offerings which rolled back our sins till when someone would come along to deal with them.

Funny how God didn't instruct the Israelites to try and teach the Caananites how to do that.

Ever notice how one of the biggest misconceptions Christ got rid of *before* the cross was the idea that the Jews were somehow better than everyone else and should disregard all the Gentiles?

Hehehe hate to bring it up but maybe that mixed fiber wearer better read Leviticus if he/shethinks the punishment for sin is death … lol better take his/her cloths off :-D

You misunderstand. When I say, "The wages of sin are death" I do not mean that people who sin should be killed. I mean "If you sin, eventually you will die" and that is spirtiual death, not physical. That law was broken by Jesus and so everyone else can break it too.

It's adorable and cute to see all you people arguing so vociferously over Christian mythology.

I equated it to murder yes (That was an error on my part, I should have been a little more general) but homosexuality is also equatable to lying, stealing, blasphemy etc. Any sin. It is a sin.

Again, that it is equateable to any "sin" is an insight into the psychology of Christianity and once more you equate it to lying, stealing, and blasphemy and not some other bizarre interpretation of Levitican code or other biblical obscurities.

The Church has only seen to be institutionaly homophobic in recent times because everyone else has become so liberal. We havn't changed. It is still love the sinner, hate the sin in the doctrine. We have just had to make our stance more clear because of recent challenges. As for the Gay pride marches I have agreed with people on the point that Gay pride marches alone do not constitute oppostition to the church. However calling the church institutionaly homophobic does.

Wrong! I think Sigmund Freud and more recently, Alfred Kinsey, had a few things to say about homosexuals and the Christian church but that's neither here nor there though this so called "hate the sinner, love the sin" is a liberalization of previous attitudes. Has it ever occurred to you why "Sodomy" until very recently was illegal in various US jurisdictions, and going further back, illegal period. What is the etymology of 'sodomy' and why was the proper definiton of said term not used to imprison heterosexuals?

In all fairness if you can refer to homosexuals as sinners in such manner, why take such offense to being referred to as an institution of homophobia? A good deal of academics agree with me on this one namely psychologists and sociologists. Thin skinned are we? Last I checked the church/religious beliefs isn't in control of law and society as it once was, the reason being is opposition to the church which is kinda how any church reformation came about including protestantism.





Please show me the version of the Bible that calls for the hunting down of homosexuals. And the love the sinner hate the sin idea is not an old idea. Jesus himself did not say it, but he did say to always forgive and never to hold sin against anyone as all have sinned. And love the sinner, hate the sin is the basic principal behind Jesus's death on the cross. He died for all siners so they may be saved and destroied their sin in the process by taking it upon himself.

The basis for social exclusion.

Deuteronomy 23:17. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (KJV)

God hates it so let's kill em.

Leviticus 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Darby Translation) -- reiterated in Romans.

Of course I could go on about the destruction of Sodom and why it was destroyed but common opinion is it was "homosexuality!" as opposed to quite a few other things mentioned.

Pride in homosexuality presumably, which is what the church has a problem with. As I said, the seperation between sin and sinner is made harder if the sinner is proud of their sin and unrepentent. At that point the chuch can do little more than oppose them in words. We cant force them to do anything.

You missed the point what gay pride is actually about and whatever the church percieves is really its own problem.

Homosexual Christisans are a problem for the church. As a homosexual you (to the church) are saying "I am a sinner, proud and unrepentent" but as a Christian you are saying "I know I am a sinner and I am ashamed of it. Thanks to God though my sins are forgiven and from that point on I will do my best to continue not to sin". Now those two are contridictory. You can apreciate the Churchs postion I am sure.

Homosexuals period are a problem for the church though it should tell you something that homosexual Christians find it hypocritical to suppress themselve's for the comfort of fearful others when 'lying' is a sin. Like man, are all sins not created equal? :rolleyes:

Religion is a man made invention and therefor is a totally flawed conception. As with any man made invention interpratations will be many and varied, the God that man invented was probably intended to keep the masses in line lest we have anarchy at every turn, inventing an omnipotent being who is all seeing and all good and who must be obeyed (or at least his laws must be obeyed) for fear of whatever punishment he thinks suitable has, on the whole, backfired big style over the centuries.
The millions who died during the holy crusades.
The many still dying in the "holy" states.
The sectarian murders in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

All these, and many other wars and deeds have all been done in the name of religion.
If that doesn't tell you that religion is a fictional state thought up to keep the "peace" (LOL) within the masses then I dont know what does.

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, it happens in the animal kindom too, it just two people loving each other for gods sake! (irony eh? he he)

Many of the morals written in the bible are a pretty good code by which to live your life by, many of them are just plain wrong, but they were written many years ago when we were maybe not as advanced (or liberal) in our thinking as we are now.
Give gays a break and go think how to live your *own* life better.

Religion is a man made invention and therefor is a totally flawed conception. As with any man made invention interpratations will be many and varied, the God that man invented was probably intended to keep the masses in line lest we have anarchy at every turn, inventing an omnipotent being who is all seeing and all good and who must be obeyed (or at least his laws must be obeyed) for fear of whatever punishment he thinks suitable has, on the whole, backfired big style over the centuries.
The millions who died during the holy crusades.
The many still dying in the "holy" states.
The sectarian murders in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

All these, and many other wars and deeds have all been done in the name of religion.
If that doesn't tell you that religion is a fictional state thought up to keep the "peace" (LOL) within the masses then I dont know what does.

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, it happens in the animal kindom too, it just two people loving each other for gods sake! (irony eh? he he)

Many of the morals written in the bible are a pretty good code by which to live your life by, many of them are just plain wrong, but they were written many years ago when we were maybe not as advanced (or liberal) in our thinking as we are now.
Give gays a break and go think how to live your *own* life better.
Oh yes, well put, well put. Let us hope they keep their silence now.

So God was allowed to be evil before now. Gotcha.


God was justified. All have sinned. Wages of sin are death. Before the crucifixtion God could kill anyone and be justified because they had sinned



Now, could you please explain to me how an infant sins?
This I agree with. However, I take issue with the idea that this particular God would tell someone to go out killing infants.
Again, infants and very small toddlers have not sinned, they haven't got the capacity to do so, unless you are like Augustine and you think that when a baby cries, it sins.


Two words "Original sin"


Funny how God didn't instruct the Israelites to try and teach the Caananites how to do that.


Pre Crucifixtion God was God to the Isralites. All the others were worshiping idols and or devils etc. They would have pounded Israel into the ground before listening to their religious ideas. Have you read the descriptions of how many people there were in Cannen at that point and who they were. I have and I can tell you that while with God's help they were perfectly able to wipe them out but they were right to be afraid

It's adorable and cute to see all you people arguing so vociferously over Christian mythology.

I like you :fluffle:

"We hate black skin but not black people."

Please. It's homophobia. Just deal.



One moment--I thought you were going with the second creation story? You know, the one where they aren't treated as equals? And either way, that precedes the fall--the fact that Eve ate the apple first has often been used to keep the ladies down throughout history.

Also, if you're going to say it goes against the Old Testament, please be correct. Have you even read the OT?! Do I have to show you all of the misogynistic laws and verses in the OT? Better to say that it goes against the New Testament, where Jesus is mostly for equality with women.

Of course, you can't pick and choose which of Pauls writings were shaded by his personal feelings and which weren't, can you? It's all or nothing.



Faggot is an insult for homosexuals originally meaning "a bundle of sticks". I don't see you complaining about that.

Language evolves. Deal.



Valid excuses. Just as genes and the environment are valid excuses for being tall.

So people don't have a choice to be republican? Democrat? Conservative? Liberal? I guess not. I guess it is environment or genes... Except that homosexuality is not natural. the main reason men have dicks is to procreate, not to stick in everything you can.


My guess is that gays just couldn't get a girlfriend so they either just thought they were gay because of their inability to get a girlfriend or went gay to get sexual pleasures from at least another human being besides themselves. They use the environment or genes and saying it's not their own fault to justify it. Like I said a few times and ive yet to get a response about it what forces men to screw each other? The environment? Yeah that's it. the enviroment makes men screw each other.


and the whole definition of gay thing... IT WAS A JOKE!!! GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!

God was justified. All have sinned. Wages of sin are death. Before the crucifixtion God could kill anyone and be justified because they had sinned

You go ahead and keep rationalizing evil acts. That's what they did in the Crusades too; that's what the terrorists who brought down the twin towers did; that's how the people who burned women as "witches" rationalized it too.

God can kill whoever God wants, you are right. But I don't believe for a second that God would ever give leave to human beings to commit wholesale slaughter.

I would be justified in going around, finding rapists, castrating them with a rusty knife, and letting them die of infection. However, I don't believe that God has given me leave to do so.

Two words "Original sin"

One word: Augustine.

Original sin is a construct of the church with what little Biblical backing it has largely centered around a mistranslation.

Pre Crucifixtion God was God to the Isralites.

Haven't read your Bible much, have you? *Before* Christ died, he made it quite clear that God was *not* only God to the Jews. He made it quite clear that the Jews' disdain for everyone else was wrong.

Why is it so hard for you to even consider the idea that some of what is included in the Old Testament is due to the early worshippers' misconceptions about God and that Christ taught as he did to dispel said misconceptions? If you really examine your reasoning, you will probably find that it is hard because it isn't "what you have always been taught."

All the others were worshiping idols and or devils etc. They would have pounded Israel into the ground before listening to their religious ideas.

Yes, and this is why Christianity has spread so far - because we just murdered all the Romans.

Have you read the descriptions of how many people there were in Cannen at that point and who they were. I have and I can tell you that while with God's help they were perfectly able to wipe them out but they were right to be afraid

The very fact that they wanted to "wipe them out" demonstrates how very barbaric that society was.

So people don't have a choice to be republican? Democrat? Conservative? Liberal? I guess not. I guess it is environment or genes... Except that homosexuality is not natural. the main reason men have dicks is to procreate, not to stick in everything you can.

Nature = unnatural, gotcha.

My guess is that gays just couldn't get a girlfriend so they either just thought they were gay because of their inability to get a girlfriend or went gay to get sexual pleasures from at least another human being besides themselves. They use the environment or genes and saying it's not their own fault to justify it. Like I said a few times and ive yet to get a response about it what forces men to screw each other? The environment? Yeah that's it. the enviroment makes men screw each other.

Your guess is wrong. Try again.

And read up on higher order mammals who exhibit homosexual behavior in which they pass up perfectly willing opposite sex mates because they are *ONLY ATTRACTED TO THE SAME-SEX MATE*

Give gays a break and go think how to live your *own* life better.

I was thinking this exact same thing. Setting the facts I believe aside believing homosexuality is a sin has no effect on the way I practice my life. Ok I believe what they are doing is wrong but that doesnt efffect me or the way I live my life. Though it does affect my actions here, as here I am explaining Christian views to non Christians.

Nature = unnatural, gotcha.


If homosexuality was nautral then being hetrosexual would be un nautral. You cant have it both ways, one of them has got to be unnautral.

So people don't have a choice to be republican? Democrat? Conservative? Liberal? I guess not. I guess it is environment or genes... Except that homosexuality is not natural. the main reason men have dicks is to procreate, not to stick in everything you can.


..and this is why one of the male G spots (the other one that isn't the penis) is inside your anus. Obviously.


My guess is that gays just couldn't get a girlfriend so they either just thought they were gay because of their inability to get a girlfriend or went gay to get sexual pleasures from at least another human being besides themselves.


Exactly how much baloney can come out of one mouth at once? Get your waders on folks, it's flowing deep!

If I didn't like being with men, I wouldn't be with them. I'm not a slave to my sex drive, even if you are. Have you ever heard of a psychological phenomenon known as "projection"?

Read up on it. That's you, that is.


They use the environment or genes and saying it's not their own fault to justify it. Like I said a few times and ive yet to get a response about it what forces men to screw each other? The environment? Yeah that's it. the enviroment makes men screw each other.


and the whole definition of gay thing... IT WAS A JOKE!!! GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!

Oh obviously it was a joke. That's why you're saying that I'd only get with a man because I can't find a girlfriend. Oh let me guess, is that a joke as well?

Well here's another joke: You're a foul, perverse, evil little retard with no thought outside what your daddy told you when he was finished beating the shit out of your mother for having sex with your sister.

HAHA! FUNNY!

Enjoy your arse. Here it is on a plate.

Nature = unnatural, gotcha.

... wtf does that mean? sounds like you just randomly blurted out something to try to say something bad about iwhat i said. doesn'teven make any sense toward what I said.


Your guess is wrong. Try again.

hey, my guess is as good as any. we all have are problems. Especially gays.

And read up on higher order mammals who exhibit homosexual behavior in which they pass up perfectly willing opposite sex mates because they are *ONLY ATTRACTED TO THE SAME-SEX MATE*

Humans are not like animals in the least bit. They follow instincts. They are animals. God gave us an Intellect and free will. The two things that separate us from the beasts of this world. We choose whatever we do. Animals don't choose much if anything of what they do. Mostly it is instinct. We have the power to make decisions for ourselves. They don't. They have instinct. Just like if you feed a goldfish too much. what happens? It dies. Why? IT ATE TOO MUCH. If you put a bowl of meat in front of a dog he will eat it. Give him more, he will eat it. But a human knows when to call it quits when he has eaten too much. So how is comparing us to beasts a valid arguement?

If homosexuality was nautral then being hetrosexual would be un nautral. You cant have it both ways, one of them has got to be unnautral.

I have come to expect somewhat intelligent comments from you, so I will ignore this little bit of stupidity.

This is like saying "If being white-skinned is natural, being black-skinned must be unnatural. You can't have it both ways, one of them has got to be unnatural."

If it occurs in nature, it is natural. The entire range of sexuality exists in nature. Thus, it is natural.

... wtf does that mean? sounds like you just randomly blurted out something to try to say something bad about iwhat i said. doesn'teven make any sense toward what I said.

You stated that homosexuality was unnatural.

Since homosexuality is a natural occurence, you just stated that nature was unnatural. Congratulations on being stupid.

hey, my guess is as good as any. we all have are problems. Especially gays.

No, it isn't. The scientific view is based on actual evidence, and is thus an *educated* guess. Yours is simply bigotted idiocy.



Humans *are* animals. Most of us have more intelligence than other animals, but we are animals nonetheless.

[QUOTE=PyradThey follow instincts. They are animals. God gave us an Intellect and free will. The two things that separate us from the beasts of this world. We choose whatever we do. Animals don't choose much if anything of what they do. Mostly it is instinct. We have the power to make decisions for ourselves. They don't. They have instinct.

We have instinct as well. Part of that instinct is who we are attracted to. We do not choose who to be attracted to, only what we do about it. Thus homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals are not unnatural - they are attracted to specific human beings by instinct. They could choose not to act on those attractions, just as I would choose not to act on my attractions if I were attracted to a married man. However, they cannot choose to not be homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual.

So how is comparing us to beasts a valid arguement?

For you? I think it goes without saying.

Well sorry but unless you say so otherwise, thats how you seem to be. You are ignoring someone who was willing to die for you, not you and everyone else, just you. I personaly think purposeful athiests (People who go around their entire time intentionaly trying to prove that God doesnt exist) must be very insecure if they feel threatened by the idea of God when all it realy is is God wanting them to be with him in hevan.

If one MUST go by the reasoning that those of us who do not believe in your version of a supreme entity... and we MUST take your pushy, illogical and all-encompassing unChristian Christianity in the spirit in which you offer it, then I must say this:

I do not hate God. I have no problem with the idea of such an entity whatsoever, despite the fact I do NOT believe in the version of such a being people like yourself push on the rest of the world. I DO have serious issues with people, LIKE YOURSELF, who cannot even defend your faith without twisting it into something ugly, oppressive and utterly hateful to force it down the throats of we poor, deluded, hellbound heathens.

You can't even accurately and rationally work with your own religious texts, twisted, misquoted, changed and poorly translated as they are. You choose bits at random to support your own hate, bigotry, misogeny and intolerance, glossing over or outright ignoring others as it suits you. You cannot acknowledge the fact that the book itself is a LIBRARY of many different books and accounts, ALL originally written by the hands and from the minds of human men rather than divine entities, then over the centuries changed to suit other human men in their desire to subjugate their fellow men by use of the power of religion and superstion without inconveniencing themselves -cough-KingJames-cough-.

Your OBVIOUS discomfort with and dislike of homosexuals shines through in nearly every sanctimonious and narrowminded posting you've made in this thread. This speaks to me very clearly, placing you in very dubious and unrighteous company - by the tenets of your own faith.

I've known a lot of Christians in my lifetime, of many different sects and varieties. Some very few actually practice their religion as the New Testament (God's New Deal, so to speak) according to the accounts of what JESUS said it was meant to be... while the rest of you seem very much to be using your God and your religion as a combination of social club / weapon against anyone you personally disapprove of on your own personal preferences. Which I MUST say is a most unChristian thing to do. Your Fan-Club to God is in no way representative of what the true faith was outlined to be, even in your corrupted, inaccurate versions of the Bible.

Jesus was reported to have happily allowed a prostitute to wash his feet to the dismay of his disciples. He basicly told them to settle the hell down when they griefed about it. He'd do the same for you on this entire homosexuality crusade you're on. Strive to be more like your savior, FFS, and less like some brown-shirt wearing Bush Youth candidate. Even if it doesn't win your faith more converts, it might make it less certain that you too will fry for all of eternity with more honest sinners who look at you and your kind and say "If that's what God is all about, I'll go without, thank you".

You wouldn't know a Universal Truth or an Unconditional Love if it bit you in your supposedly pristine hindquarters.

Well here's another joke: You're a foul, perverse, evil little retard with no thought outside what your daddy told you when he was finished beating the shit out of your mother for having sex with your sister.

HAHA! FUNNY!

Enjoy your arse. Here it is on a plate.

FLAME ALERT!! FLAME ALERT!!!!!! WHEN GAY MEN GO MAD!!!!! nyuck nyuck. get it???

Note: his post WAS a flame and a serious one at that. He wasn't joking. Just has hates me because I think homosexuality is bad. If this is how gays argue then I am not going to waste my time with you. I just hope you have a REAL good time when you meet your maker.

If homosexuality was nautral then being hetrosexual would be un nautral. You cant have it both ways, one of them has got to be unnautral.

Incorrect logic. Both tall and short people are natural. Blondes and Brunettes are both natural. Something does not have to be the most common to be natural. Just because something is not the norm does not mean it is not normal. Just because something is not the mean does not mean it does not fall in the normal distribution (forgive the pun).

You stated that homosexuality was unnatural.

Since homosexuality is a natural occurence, you just stated that nature was unnatural. Congratulations on being stupid.



No, it isn't. The scientific view is based on actual evidence, and is thus an *educated* guess. Yours is simply bigotted idiocy.



For you? I think it goes without saying.

Another example of flaming. If you don't want civilized arguements then I am not going to waste my time with you. If you are going to flame everything I say then to hell with you.

Incorrect logic. Both tall and short people are natural. Blondes and Brunettes are both natural. Something does not have to be the most common to be natural. Just because something is not the norm does not mean it is not normal. Just because something is not the mean does not mean it does not fall in the normal distribution (forgive the pun).

i think what he is trying to get at is you cannot be tall and short at the same time. And heterosexuals are both gay and straight.

note: thanks for the apology. appreciate it. I wish some other people were like you and use civilized conversation. *looks at dempublicans and moonshine*

i think what he is trying to get at is you cannot be tall and short at the same time. And heterosexuals are both gay and straight.

note: thanks for the apology. appreciate it. I wish some other people were like you and use civilized conversation. *looks at dempublicans and moonshine*

Heterosexuals are NOT both gay and straight. By definition they are STRAIGHT only. Homosexuals are GAY only while bisexuals are the only ones that are both. It does not follow that any of those are abnormal simply because they are common.

You go ahead and keep rationalizing evil acts. That's what they did in the Crusades too; that's what the terrorists who brought down the twin towers did; that's how the people who burned women as "witches" rationalized it too.


This, again is PRE CRUCIFIXTION. God had promised them this land and because God had the right to kill anybody because they had sinned and then there was no remtion for sin, he asked the Isralites to do this. Note HE did. There was no non clarification here, he spoke directly to them.


God can kill whoever God wants, you are right. But I don't believe for a second that God would ever give leave to human beings to commit wholesale slaughter.


Not anymore he wouldn't you are right.


One word: Augustine.

Original sin is a construct of the church with what little Biblical backing it has largely centered around a mistranslation.


"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Romans 3: 23

That may or may not be true, however the Bible does make it clear that it has a policy on infant death. If someone dies before they can take responsablity and are too young to know God then they will enter the kingdom of Hevan


Haven't read your Bible much, have you? *Before* Christ died, he made it quite clear that God was *not* only God to the Jews. He made it quite clear that the Jews' disdain for everyone else was wrong.

Why is it so hard for you to even consider the idea that some of what is included in the Old Testament is due to the early worshippers' misconceptions about God and that Christ taught as he did to dispel said misconceptions? If you really examine your reasoning, you will probably find that it is hard because it isn't "what you have always been taught."


I may be lacking in understanding on God's position with all the other peoples pre Crucifixtion but whilst he was everyone elses God he seemed to speek directly only to the Isralites.


Yes, and this is why Christianity has spread so far - because we just murdered all the Romans.

The very fact that they wanted to "wipe them out" demonstrates how very barbaric that society was.

The reason behind the wiping out of the Cannenites was that God wanted his people to have their promised land. The enemies in there would not share it with them. They would have killed them all, this was a kill or be killed situation.

Heterosexuals are NOT both gay and straight. By definition they are STRAIGHT only. Homosexuals are GAY only while bisexuals are the only ones that are both. It does not follow that any of those are abnormal simply because they are common.

excuse me, i got mixed up with bis and heterosexuals.

excuse me, i got mixed up with bis and heterosexuals.

That still has nothing to do with homosexuals not being normal. Or bisexuals either for that matter.

Another example of flaming. If you don't want civilized arguements then I am not going to waste my time with you. If you are going to flame everything I say then to hell with you.

Pointing out facts is not flaming. You did call nature unnatural, which is quite clearly a stupid thing to say. You are making a completely uneducated guess when you make comments like "Gays just can't get girlfriends" whereas science says something completely different.

How exactly is pointing out the truth flaming?

Just has hates me because I think homosexuality is bad.
Don't you see the fallacy in that? "OMFG ROFL LOL!!!!111111 H3 d1slikeZ mE jUsT bEQaUse 1 diSliQe hIM!!11111" :rolleyes:

No one likes to be hated (duh). If you were only slightly considerate and tried to figure out why the main cause of death among homosexuals is suicide, you just mi-i-i-ght realize that homophobia and negative feelings on homosexuality is very, very hurtful. I've been gay. I know.

I find it very odd that you cannot bear a single outburst like that yourself but still find it perfectly reasonable to hate a whole minority group :confused: .

If this is how gays argue then I am not going to waste my time with you.
Most pro-homosexuals argue rationally and without insults, as opposed to most homophobes. Taking one single show of temper and generalizing a minority group of millions just shows to me how you debate.

If homosexuality was nautral then being hetrosexual would be un nautral. You cant have it both ways, one of them has got to be unnautral.
Over 300 species have homosexuality in them (source: largelly renowned, best-selling popular-scientific magazine "Illustrert Vitenskap" of Scandinavia).

Natural: Occuring in nature.

If what is unnatural is wrong, then why are you typing on a computer? Unless you somehow found natural computers growing on computer trees, you're a sinner by your own reasoning. It's also natural for humans to go to war, and for humans and other species to commit rape. I suppose you think that's OK as well? I thought you didn't. Now, next time think before you post :mad: .

Well sorry but unless you say so otherwise, thats how you seem to be. You are ignoring someone who was willing to die for you
Willing to die for you? Last time I read the Bible it said nothing about Jesus wanting to be crusified (spelling?)... Quite the opposite.

Oh, and lots of gays in the Army are willing to die for America if it is invaded -which translates into being willing to die for you. But I suppose it doesn't count if it makes your point wrong ;) ?

... wtf does that mean? sounds like you just randomly blurted out something to try to say something bad about iwhat i said. doesn'teven make any sense toward what I said.
You know what does sound like blurting? Posting a short post containing no grammar whatsoever as well as bad language :p .

Oh, and look up "sarcasm" :rolleyes: .

Oh, and here are some other Biblical quotes:
-Love your neighbour like you love youself. :fluffle:

-Do not do onto others what you do not wish to be done onto you (person I quoted in the beginning of my post, this means you ;) ).

-...And the raven Sin let loose evils upon the world, and the first was intercourse... --Ban heterosexual marriage before the devil gets them!

But OK, I'll get back up to my own level.

That still has nothing to do with homosexuals not being normal. Or bisexuals either for that matter.

What I am saying is this. Homosexuality cannot be a nautral occernce for the following reasons

1) It goes against nautral selection (A note, nautral selection and evolution are diffrent things) . If it were some kind of non benefical random mutation it would have been filtered out eons ago

Well hot damn ppl are going crazy over this topic huh?
Ok time to start fresh on this topic and stop it from being so damn cut throat.

First i am not homophobic!
Second i don't think its a sin!
Third God doesn't hate gays!
Fourth I personally think God did intend for man to be with woman. I mean it just makes sense.
Fifth God understands if one has true homosexual feelings for another one of the same sex. But i think god thinks your being dumb if your "just expirimanting" Seriously people.
Sixth I am Catholic and I do NOT take the old testament WORD FOR WORD like if the book of Leviticus was true and God was really like that, then we would not be alive to talk about it.

you guys have fun with life ok? ;)

What I am saying is this. Homosexuality cannot be a nautral occernce for the following reasons

1) It goes against nautral selection (A note, nautral selection and evolution are diffrent things) . If it were some kind of non benefical random mutation it would have been filtered out eons ago

Natural selection is the basis for and the mechanism of solutio (also called survival of the fittest). And you have not proven that it is not beneficial in some way. Granted, I haven't proven that it is. However, given that it occurs in every mammal species and continues to occur in humanity, there is every reason to believe that it does serve a beneficial purpose. Some of which have already been explained to you (population control, altruism, protection of sibling's young). Something does not have to be good to the individual to be good for the entire population.

<Editorial Addition>

I should also point out that it is only detrimental mutations that are completely filtered out. If a mutation does not actually hurt the ability of the people who carry it, then it will persist even if it does not confer an advantage. In particular, if the negative impact of the mutation is only seen in the homozygous form and heterozygotes see none of the impact in their ability to reproduce, then then mutation is far more likely to continue and to persist in at least fifty percent of the population (75% if you include those who are homozygous for the mutation).

This, again is PRE CRUCIFIXTION. God had promised them this land and because God had the right to kill anybody because they had sinned and then there was no remtion for sin, he asked the Isralites to do this. Note HE did. There was no non clarification here, he spoke directly to them.

No, they *say* that God wanted them to do it. You may believe that, but I do not. Remember that we are talking about a society which took *anything* their priests said and figured it must come from God.

And pre-crucifixion does not mean pro-evil. Genocide is an evil act. Period. There is no way around this.

Not anymore he wouldn't you are right.

So if God had told everyone to rape their children *before* crucifixion, that would've been alright with you, just as long as it didn't happen afterwards?

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Romans 3: 23

That may or may not be true, however the Bible does make it clear that it has a policy on infant death. If someone dies before they can take responsablity and are too young to know God then they will enter the kingdom of Hevan

All who are capable of sinning have sinned. However, infants do not sin, as they are incapable of choice. As for the Bible making it clear that children will enter the kingdom of heaven, much of the church disagrees with you (although I do not). Where does the Bible make it so clear that all of the Catholics, Lutherans, etc. are wrong?

I may be lacking in understanding on God's position with all the other peoples pre Crucifixtion but whilst he was everyone elses God he seemed to speek directly only to the Isralites.

Christ himself accepted Gentiles and scolded the disciples for not doing so, thus pointing out that the Jewish view that they were somehow better than the Gentiles was wrong.

The reason behind the wiping out of the Cannenites was that God wanted his people to have their promised land. The enemies in there would not share it with them. They would have killed them all, this was a kill or be killed situation.

Infants don't kill anyone. Toddlers wouldn't kill anyone. Women would have been very unlikely to kill anyone in that time and place.

Want to try again?

1) It goes against nautral selection (A note, nautral selection and evolution are diffrent things) . If it were some kind of non benefical random mutation it would have been filtered out eons ago
Cancer, siamese twins, diabetes, muscle weakness, and tons of other illnesses.

Another negative things that are genetical: Alcoholism.

Oh, and natural: Occuring in nature. Homosexuality occurs in nature. Why are you even posting here when you blatantly ignore everyone who disagree with you?!

Your definition on natural seems to be "something positive". Well, look up natural and then get back here. For your convenience, I took the time (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural). AIDS occur in nature among animals. Rape occurs in nature among animals. Drowning occurs in nature. Miscarriage occurs in nature. Those aren't positive things, but hey... they are natural.

Do I need to go on or do you get the point?

Natural selection? Bible doesn't mention it so it's odd that you bring it up :D . But OK, let me address it.

Not only the strongest survive. If that was so, the Earth would have a very, very small population of humans instead of the odd billions we have today. You can be a street peddler or a beach comber without dying out.

What I am saying is this. Homosexuality cannot be a nautral occernce for the following reasons

1) It goes against nautral selection (A note, nautral selection and evolution are diffrent things) . If it were some kind of non benefical random mutation it would have been filtered out eons ago

You haven't been paying attention in this topic at all, have you?

The beneficial aspects of homosexuality have been pointed out TIME AND TIME AGAIN and yet you still ignore them.

(a) There is evidence that male homosexuality may have a genetic component on the X chromosome. This same component seems to make a female MORE FERTILE, thus making her more likely to procreate.

(b) In social groups, homosexuality is a benefit to the pack, as homosexuals contribute to raising and providing for offspring without using resources to create their own. Their genetic material is somewhat passed along because they help take care of their neices, nephews, etc.

Now, if you ignore it this time, I'm going to assume you are being obtuse on purpose.

I should also point out that it is only detrimental mutations that are completely filtered out. If a mutation does not actually hurt the ability of the people who carry it, then it will persist even if it does not confer an advantage. In particular, if the negative impact of the mutation is only seen in the homozygous form and heterozygotes see none of the impact in their ability to reproduce, then then mutation is far more likely to continue and to persist in at least fifty percent of the population (75% if you include those who are homozygous for the mutation).

Not to mention that the suggestion that something which exists along a spectrum (like sexuality or skin color) and is extremely complicated (like sexuality, intelligence, etc.) must be controlled by only one gene is absolutely absurd. Most likely a combination of genetic components, all of which serve other purposes as well, contribute to sexuality -- thus, it is not a single gene that could "bred out."

Now that is interesting, do say more.

GOD didn't nuke the city. He destroyed it. That was back in Abraham's day when the people of the land of Canaan were extremly immoral and sinful. Lot, a relative of Abraham's, was living in Sodom, a city in Canaan. The people of Sodom had no regard for the teachings of Lot and practiced homosexuality. (This is where the term "sodomite" came from.) They were also murderers, thieves, drunks, and gluttons. GOD passed judgement on the city and destroyed it. This passage is in Genesis. If you want to know where let me know.

*I am a baptized Christadelphian and homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong. That does not mean that you are condemed to eternal damnation. As long as you are alive, you always have the chance to turn back to GOD's way. I'm not a homophobe, but I don't condone homosexuality.*

As this thread goes around in circles, why don't we just close it?

The homophobes have lost the debate time and time again -probably litteraly a thousand times, if the trend present on these few last pages repeats itself throughout the rest of the thread. Every single anti-gay argument has been shot down.

Close the thread, please. Homophobes and anti-gays, bring up the white flags and surrender your positions. Concede defeat and you will be treated with all due dignity and respect.

Not to mention that the suggestion that something which exists along a spectrum (like sexuality or skin color) and is extremely complicated (like sexuality, intelligence, etc.) must be controlled by only one gene is absolutely absurd. Most likely a combination of genetic components, all of which serve other purposes as well, contribute to sexuality -- thus, it is not a single gene that could "bred out."

Very correct--but sometimes you have to simplify :)

As this thread goes around in circles, why don't we just close it?

The homophobes have lost the debate time and time again -probably litteraly a thousand times, if the trend present on these few last pages repeats itself throughout the rest of the thread. Every single anti-gay argument has been shot down.

Close the thread, please. Homophobes and anti-gays, bring up the white flags and surrender your positions. Concede defeat and you will be treated with all due dignity and respect.

Oh come on now, this is how I've taken to entertaining myself (insert procrastinate when I should be studying and it is true). Somehow proving peoples incorrect scientific assumptions wrong never gets old!

The people of Sodom had no regard for the teachings of Lot and practiced homosexuality. (This is where the term "sodomite" came from.) They were also murderers, thieves, drunks, and gluttons.
Let's start World War III and nuke every Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Taiwanese, Iraqi, Saudi-Arabian, Iranian, Pakistani and Korean city. For a start.

[Sarcasm ends]

Look, your quote, to me, describes every single city in the world. Those things occur everywhere. The fact that you add being non-Christian to the list of things that justifies a massacre of innocents is horrific at best.

Oh come on now, this is how I've taken to entertaining myself
Never mind. Sorry to ruin your source of happiness. :D

Never mind. Sorry to ruin your source of happiness. :D

Just my source of entertainment. My happiness comes from my man and all "the joy life sends--family and friends" (ten virtual dollars to anyone who knows where that came from).

Okay that was cheasy. Anyways, back to the battle :)

There is shit all wrong with being gay.okay, so maybe i do constantly use it to insult people, but it's just force of habit, no hard feelings. But If a guy feels attracted towards other guys, fairplay, it's not like it can be helped, you're born gay. If you wanna swing the other way, so be it. i say gd luck to them. In a way i'm jelous. At least then you can actually fully understand what the fuck you're partners thinking and feeling and why, guy's just naturally don't know what the fuck is going through a woman's head, not our ignorance, just the two sexes are completely different. In a way, apart from all the prejudice, they've got it easyer than straight guys, and allso, a lot of hot guys are in fact gay, meaning more and more hot girls have to turn to ugly fuckers like myself.

Gay People,

I Salute You!

(I know this post doesn't continue on from what's just been said, but i needed to say it)

FLAME ALERT!! FLAME ALERT!!!!!! WHEN GAY MEN GO MAD!!!!! nyuck nyuck. get it???

Note: his post WAS a flame and a serious one at that. He wasn't joking. Just has hates me because I think homosexuality is bad. If this is how gays argue then I am not going to waste my time with you. I just hope you have a REAL good time when you meet your maker.

You're right, I wasn't joking. Neither were you, and don't pretend you were. Your "jokes" are the sort of "jokes" someone plays on someone smaller than them, and they usually aren't appreciated by that other person.

And I don't dislike you because you think homosexuality is bad - though that is not going to make me warm to you. I dislike you because you are an unthinking moron. I managed to stay civil towards a certain well-known nazi here for longer than I did you, which should say something about how utterly impervious to reason or intelligence you are. Hell, I was quite polite to the nazi up until the point where she labelled me and everyone like me as a "race traitor" and effectively said I'd be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

That said, I'll be ignoring your drivel from now on, as I'd get less repetative results out of a stuck record. I'm also on the Op team for one or two NS-themed IRC channels, and I want to maintain at least a semblance of decorum for that role. Have an interesting life, and may whatever you wish or hope for me be delivered unto you tenfold.

How can I put this in a way you will understand. God may predict something but that does not mean he likes what is going to happen.We understand what you are saying fine.
And a lot of your Old Testement examples are made oboslete by the new testement, see "Love your neighbourgh as yourself" etc.Ok, sure. But that's aside the point. You keep implying that God did not support the mistreatment of women. How is a commandment from God that a (non-betrothed, vigin) women that is raped must marry her rapist (Deut 22:28-29), not support the support the mistreatment of women? In the english translation it is very clearly a commandment, not a prediction. Yes, that commandment is very likely void now, but you keep implying that God did not support the mistreatment of women in the old testament. And on its face Deut 22:28-29 sure looks like support for the mistreatment of women. So far the only explanation you have given for why such passages were not support for misogyny was that they were merely predictions. But that's just not consistent with the English text.
If you have read the Bible, how is it that you are continually surprised by our confusion when what you say is contradicted by the plain text of the english translations? Sure, that text may be incorrect or misleading for various reasons, but so far you have been loathe to give most of those reasons.

Not to mention that the suggestion that something which exists along a spectrum (like sexuality or skin color) and is extremely complicated (like sexuality, intelligence, etc.) must be controlled by only one gene is absolutely absurd. Most likely a combination of genetic components, all of which serve other purposes as well, contribute to sexuality -- thus, it is not a single gene that could "bred out."
Hurray, that's my theory too. It's a bell curve of sexuality people, a bell curve! Although I'm not quite sure how that would work since most people seem to prefer the opposite sex, rather than be bisexual...

Another negative things that are genetical: Alcoholism.

Oh, and natural: Occuring in nature. Homosexuality occurs in nature. \

Do I need to go on or do you get the point?

Natural selection? Bible doesn't mention it so it's odd that you bring it up :D . But OK, let me address it.




Aight lil man. Listen up. If you show me proof that Alcoholism or Homoseuality is Genetic i will believe it. but seriously this is not even a valid arguement. WHETHER ITS GENETIC OR NOT DOES NOT MATTER! This started on a spiritual level and i think we should keep it that way. But just to have fun i will disprove the quotes that i... quoted.

Who cares whether or not it occurs in nature?!?!? The point is that we as humans are ABOVE all other creatures and every religion believes it. If your athiest then it should still be blatantly obvious. As Humans we are SMARTER than animals. I am not saying gays are retarded but i'm saying that there should be some serious thought that goes into your desicion to be gay. not so "o im expirimanting" bull shit. God made male for female and humans are smarter than animals make the connection.

The POPE (leader of the catholic church) HIMSELF says that the creation stories are historically bull shit and that evolution occurred. So the man who thought up evolution (Darwin) also came up with natural selection. They go hand in hand. (If you know what they mean :mp5: ) The point is in summary that genetics is no excuse, natural selection doesnt have to be in the Bible, the fact that it occurs in nature has no significance, and I WIN :sniper:

WHAT THE HELL IS SO FACINATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS I THINK KILL THEM ALL :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

WHAT THE HELL IS SO FACINATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS I THINK KILL THEM ALL :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
There seems to be some unwritten rule that one of these posts pops up every few pages on any homosexuality thread.

There seems to be some unwritten rule that one of these posts pops up every few pages on any homosexuality thread.Nah, they appear on any thread... not just the Honosexuality ones. It's like... a sickness or a disease or something.

Nah, they appear on any thread... not just the Honosexuality ones. It's like... a sickness or a disease or something.

It's like some kind of bot.

WHAT THE HELL IS SO FACINATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS I THINK KILL THEM ALL :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

It's like some kind of bot.
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE :D

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE :D

DANGER, ELLEN DEGENERES, DANGER!

pbbtdddttpddt :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

^---my lame attempt to write gun noises

And as I have stated before it is the homosexual act that is a sin, not homosexuality itself (Being attracted to members of the same sex)

If this has been your stance all this time, how come you kept bringing up the "they're living a life of sin without repenting" argument against same-sex marriages?
If it's ok to be homosexual, just not to have sex with someone of your own gender, it's ok for homosexuals to marry.

Aight lil man. Listen up.Oooh, good start.
If you show me proof that Alcoholism or Homoseuality is Genetic i will believe it.The usual ways to prove a genetic component for something like this is to either compare identical twins to fraternal twins, or to compare adopted children with different biological family histories. Proof I don't have as I am too lazy to do a search for the appropriate studies.
but seriously this is not even a valid arguement.I don't think Nordfjord was arguing what you think he was.
WHETHER ITS GENETIC OR NOT DOES NOT MATTER!Sure, I'd be happy to agree when it comes to homosexuality. But not when it comes to alcoholism.
Who cares whether or not it occurs in nature?!?!?Anyone who would like to put forward the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. (There's been a few in this thread). Unfortunately for them the premise is wrong.
The point is that we as humans are ABOVE all other creatures and every religion believes it.Every?
If your athiest then it should still be blatantly obvious.As an athiest I'm wondering what you mean by "above".
As Humans we are SMARTER than animals.And we have some pretty fancy equipment for making moral decisions with. Near as I can tell that's what you're getting at.
I am not saying gays are retarded but i'm saying that there should be some serious thought that goes into your desicion to be gay.You're assuming that it is a decision.
not so "o im expirimanting" bull shit.You say that like experimentation is a bad thing.
God made male for female and humans are smarter than animals make the connection.Actually if you read the second Genesis account, God made female for male. And what has the intelligence of humans have to do with this?
The POPE (leader of the catholic church) HIMSELF says that the creation stories are historically bull shit and that evolution occurred. So the man who thought up evolution (Darwin) also came up with natural selection. They go hand in hand. (If you know what they mean :mp5: )Not really. There was an alterate theory of evolution: the Lamarkian theory. But I don't see what this has to do with anything.
The point is in summary that genetics is no excuse,Excuse for what? Homosexuality? Sounds like a pretty good excuse to me, not that one is needed. Homosexual acts? Yeah, it's no excuse for that. But none is needed.
natural selection doesnt have to be in the Bible,???
the fact that it occurs in nature has no significance,Assuming your talking about homosexuality and morality, I agree.
and I WIN :sniper:Yup. You sure showed that stawman what-for.

I now know the joy that is fisking.

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE :DNono, those were cyborgs :p

Nono, those were cyborgs :p
Really, I always thought the Dalecks were robots. Then again I only saw that once... A LOOOONG time ago... when I was a kid... gave me nightmares for weeks after that. :eek:

Really, I always thought the Dalecks were robots. Then again I only saw that once... A LOOOONG time ago... when I was a kid... gave me nightmares for weeks after that. :eek:It's been a long time since I've seen Dr. Who. But they've got organic bits inside them. I remember an episode where someone got the bright idea to spray-paint the eye (very effective at disabling a dalek), and then the Dr. took out the blasted lumps of flesh and brain from a couple.

As I recall, they were very fond of saying "exterminate". I quite agree that the moronic posters that pop up like weeds are like Daleks (minus the ray guns).

No, they *say* that God wanted them to do it. You may believe that, but I do not. Remember that we are talking about a society which took *anything* their priests said and figured it must come from God.

And pre-crucifixion does not mean pro-evil. Genocide is an evil act. Period. There is no way around this.


I think you are missing something here. Firstly the Christian's believed this to be the case and secondly this has little to no effect on how we live our lives now. God had every right to kill any one of us at any time Pre Crucifixtion. Why? becuase all had sinned and the wages of sin were death (Physical and spirtiual) Because then the only way to remove your sins were the way God explained to them through the patterns of ritual sacrifice that they used. The Cannenites were not going to listen to this, they would have slaughtered them all before listening to convertion ideas.



So if God had told everyone to rape their children *before* crucifixion, that would've been alright with you, just as long as it didn't happen afterwards?


Not rape children, as the wages of sin are not rape. But to kill if told directly by God in the Anchient Isralite times then yes. And you are forgetting that he was speeking either to Moses, Joshua or whoever was in command at the time. NOT The high priests.



All who are capable of sinning have sinned. However, infants do not sin, as they are incapable of choice. As for the Bible making it clear that children will enter the kingdom of heaven, much of the church disagrees with you (although I do not). Where does the Bible make it so clear that all of the Catholics, Lutherans, etc. are wrong?


Here is a table explaining it

Category of Sin:
Inherited sin (non christian generations)

Temporal Penalty for sin:
Spirtiual death

Ultimate Penalty:
If not reconsicled, eternal sepertaion from God


Category of Sin:
Imtuted sin (original sin, Adam)

Temporal Penalty for sin:
Physical death

Ultimate Penalty:
None


Category of Sin:
Personal Sin (act of willful disobedience)

Temporal Penalty for sin:
Results in broken relationship with God for Christians, requiring confession of sins

Ultimate Penalty:
Confirms inherited Sin in unbeliever - resulting in eternal death.



Christ himself accepted Gentiles and scolded the disciples for not doing so, thus pointing out that the Jewish view that they were somehow better than the Gentiles was wrong.


I am not disputing that the Jews were somehow better than everyone else, but it is true that they were Gods chosen race and that he spoke to them


Infants don't kill anyone. Toddlers wouldn't kill anyone. Women would have been very unlikely to kill anyone in that time and place.

Want to try again?

What would you have the Isralites done with said children. Take them into their own and indoctinate them into becoming Isralie, or left them alone to survive in the desert. You also forget that back then, nations were not just political organisations but ethinic groups. And it was a kill or be killed situation. Dont try and deny it. But all this is irelevent. As you said Jesus removed the racial diffrences and spoke to all in a diffrent way. The possible Genocide of the Cannenites does in no way affect our lives today as Christians. It is a history lesson and a testement of the faith that the Isralites should have had, they should have trusted God to give them the ability to take the promised land. But thats not relevent now and does not affect the way we live now.

True. Well, at least according to certain verses in the Bible. Three passages to be exact. However, this does not let the Fundamentalist off the hook. In each occasion where we read of God's displeasure with homosexual behavior, we also read of other displeasing behaviors that either God says he doesn't like but Fundamentalists ignore, or that Fundamentalists dislike and yet God seems to think is okay. Confused? You should be.

The most common reference against homosexuality comes from a story in Genesis. In Chapter 18 of the book, we see God about to destroy the evil twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. God sends two angels to warn the one godly family of the imminent demise of these cities, only to have the locals demand that these two angels, who appeared like men, come out so they could have sex with them. Of course this didn't please God very much. However, Lot, the father of this one so-called godly family, does an interesting thing. In chapter 19, verse 8, the Bible tells how Lot offered to give his virgin daughters to these men so that they might rape them instead. Is this how God wants us to protect ourselves from the "homosexual agenda," by offering to let them rape our virgin daughters? Ask that to the Fundamentalist and see how much they squirm.

Likewise, in the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, we're told it is wrong for a man to be with another man. However, within the same book we are also told that it is wrong to eat pork. If Fundamentalists use the Leviticus verses, simply ask them when was the last time they had bacon. According to the same Old Testament book that condemns the practice of homosexuality, they would also be condemned to hell for eating a BLT sandwich. However, they would not be committing sin if they still owned slaves, since Leviticus tells us such activity is okay. Think the Fundamentalists will agree with that?

Forced out of the Old Testament in their crusade against homosexuality, the Fundamentalist will quote from Romans, or more specifically from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, both written by the Apostle Paul. He offers a list of sins that will keep a person out of Heaven. Among them is homosexual behavior. However, also listed among these is adultery. Such a revelation won't phase the Fundamentalists until you remind them that in Luke 16:18 Christ defined a man or woman who has divorced and remarried as also being an adulterer. Ask these Fundamentalists how many of their church's members have been divorced and remarried. Then ask them if their church performs the weddings for these adulterous members. If homosexuality is to be condemned, should not these fellow church goers also be condemned? Challenge these Fundamentalists to go back to their churches and apply the same rules to their adulterous remarried members as they apply to homosexuals. What? They won't do it? Why on earth, then, are they picking on homosexuals? Are they selecting one sin as being worse than another? Of course they are - and you've just called them to the carpet for it. Why are they allowed to commit some sins yet feel free to condemn someone else's?

Hurray, that's my theory too. It's a bell curve of sexuality people, a bell curve! Although I'm not quite sure how that would work since most people seem to prefer the opposite sex, rather than be bisexual...

There are many distributions other than a bell curve. It could be more of a biphasic.

Aight lil man. Listen up. If you show me proof that Alcoholism or Homoseuality is Genetic i will believe it. but seriously this is not even a valid arguement. WHETHER ITS GENETIC OR NOT DOES NOT MATTER! This started on a spiritual level and i think we should keep it that way. But just to have fun i will disprove the quotes that i... quoted.

Who cares whether or not it occurs in nature?!?!? The point is that we as humans are ABOVE all other creatures and every religion believes it. If your athiest then it should still be blatantly obvious. As Humans we are SMARTER than animals. I am not saying gays are retarded but i'm saying that there should be some serious thought that goes into your desicion to be gay. not so "o im expirimanting" bull shit. God made male for female and humans are smarter than animals make the connection.

There is no "decision to be gay." You are attracted to who you are attracted to, period. It has nothing to do with intelligence, attraction is one of the parts of human beings that are still very much controlled by instinct.

I think you are missing something here. Firstly the Christian's believed this to be the case and secondly this has little to no effect on how we live our lives now.

Actually, it does. If the ancient Israelites took anything their priests said as God's word, then we cannot believe that everything in the Bible is absolutely God's word without assuming, as they did, that the priests were infallible.

Do you believe any simple human being is infallible?

God had every right to kill any one of us at any time Pre Crucifixtion. Why? becuase all had sinned and the wages of sin were death (Physical and spirtiual) Because then the only way to remove your sins were the way God explained to them through the patterns of ritual sacrifice that they used. The Cannenites were not going to listen to this, they would have slaughtered them all before listening to convertion ideas.

This is an assumption based on what the people doing the slaughtering said.

Suppose I went and slaughtered a whole bunch of people. Then, I said, "But they were going to kill me if I didn't! God told me it was ok to do it! In fact, God said that I *had* to do it!" You wouldn't believe me. Why do you believe an ancient barbaric society that hated women and believed that there were many gods with theirs being the highest?

Not rape children, as the wages of sin are not rape. But to kill if told directly by God in the Anchient Isralite times then yes. And you are forgetting that he was speeking either to Moses, Joshua or whoever was in command at the time. NOT The high priests.

Stop rationalizing God. You cannot speak for God. You say that God can tell people to do an evil action, and it is ok because God said so. By that logic, it must be ok for you to commit *any* evil action, as long as God says so.

And, since you are not Moses, Joshua, or whoever was command at the time (who would have had the same authority as a priest), you do not know what was said to them. All you know is what writers hundreds of years later who had passed the story by word of mouth thought that God had said to them.

Check any society in history. Pretty much every one did horrible things in the name of God. Their excuse? "God told me to do it!"

Here is a table explaining it

<snip>

Having a table doesn't make it any more correct.

I am not disputing that the Jews were somehow better than everyone else, but it is true that they were Gods chosen race and that he spoke to them

Funny, because you should. Christ pretty much point blank said it.

What would you have the Isralites done with said children. Take them into their own and indoctinate them into becoming Isralie, or left them alone to survive in the desert. You also forget that back then, nations were not just political organisations but ethinic groups. And it was a kill or be killed situation. Dont try and deny it. But all this is irelevent.

Do you realize what you just said here? You said, "Whatever the society at the time thinks is what God thinks too." You have basically just said that society controls God.

If God was truly all-good, taking them in is exactly what God would have wanted them to do, ethnic or not. This is clearly evidenced by Christ's teachings. However, they didn't *want* to do this, so they decided that God would not have wanted them to do it either.

This is like saying, "Today, most people think that it is ok to be promiscuous. Obviously this means that God wants them to do so."

As you said Jesus removed the racial diffrences and spoke to all in a diffrent way.

By saying this, you have basically said that God is not constant. You have said that God used to hate all other races, but now God loves them. There is a clear logical problem here. An all-loving, all-knowing God would have *always* wanted to remove the racial differences. Having Christ come was just a way to demonstrate that clearly, since the society had developed the wrong way.

The possible Genocide of the Cannenites does in no way affect our lives today as Christians.

Actually, it does. We either have to believe in a neutral or evil God, rather than a good one, or we have to admit that every single word in the Bible did not flow directly from God's mouth.

Aight lil man. Listen up. If you show me proof that Alcoholism or Homoseuality is Genetic i will believe it.

studies on identical twins prove that there is SOME genetic component to homosexuality and alcoholism, in the form of predisposition; an individual may carry sort of leaning toward either, but different events in their life (as well as their personal choices on the subject) will determine how that predisposition is expressed.


but seriously this is not even a valid arguement. WHETHER ITS GENETIC OR NOT DOES NOT MATTER!

agreed.


Who cares whether or not it occurs in nature?!?!? The point is that we as humans are ABOVE all other creatures and every religion believes it. If your athiest then it should still be blatantly obvious.

wrong. many religions don't see humans as above nature or other animals, and it most certainly is NOT "obvious" to anybody with a basic education in biology. humans are supperior in many ways and inferior in many others; the context determines our "rank" relative to other animals, and it is useless to try to reduce the matter any further.


As Humans we are SMARTER than animals.

depends on which humans and which animals.


I am not saying gays are retarded but i'm saying that there should be some serious thought that goes into your desicion to be gay.

how much thought did you give to being straight? at what point were you seriously considering being gay, and when did you deliberately and consciously CHOOSE to be attracted only to members of the opposite sex?


not so "o im expirimanting" bull shit. God made male for female and humans are smarter than animals make the connection.

you must prove, beyond any doubt, that God exists before you can make this argument. you must also prove that God intended humans to only have sexual contact between members of the opposite sex. how you plan to prove the intentions of an infinite, all-powerful being is beyond me, but you're welcome to try.


The POPE (leader of the catholic church) HIMSELF says that the creation stories are historically bull shit and that evolution occurred. So the man who thought up evolution (Darwin) also came up with natural selection. They go hand in hand. (If you know what they mean :mp5: ) The point is in summary that genetics is no excuse, natural selection doesnt have to be in the Bible, the fact that it occurs in nature has no significance, and I WIN :sniper:
so the fact that religious texts give flat-out FALSE information somehow proves your point? the fact that you are totally ignorant of the actual development of the theory of evolution supports your point? the fact that you have provided no evidence for your positions proves you right?

wow, i wish i lived where you do. in my world, logic, reason, evidence, and solid arguments are necessary to support or prove a point...your magical way of eliminating such concerns must be refreshingly easy.

The most common reference against homosexuality comes from a story in Genesis. In Chapter 18 of the book, we see God about to destroy the evil twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. God sends two angels to warn the one godly family of the imminent demise of these cities, only to have the locals demand that these two angels, who appeared like men, come out so they could have sex with them. Of course this didn't please God very much. However, Lot, the father of this one so-called godly family, does an interesting thing. In chapter 19, verse 8, the Bible tells how Lot offered to give his virgin daughters to these men so that they might rape them instead. Is this how God wants us to protect ourselves from the "homosexual agenda," by offering to let them rape our virgin daughters? Ask that to the Fundamentalist and see how much they squirm.


I agree with you. But this is Lot's response not God's. Throught the bible there are plenty of examples of humans making stupid mistakes under pressure and this is an example of one. God never once endorces what Lot did or supports his choice. In fact earlier he advises him against going near Soddom and Gomoragh because of what they do.


Likewise, in the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, we're told it is wrong for a man to be with another man. However, within the same book we are also told that it is wrong to eat pork. If Fundamentalists use the Leviticus verses, simply ask them when was the last time they had bacon. According to the same Old Testament book that condemns the practice of homosexuality, they would also be condemned to hell for eating a BLT sandwich. However, they would not be committing sin if they still owned slaves, since Leviticus tells us such activity is okay. Think the Fundamentalists will agree with that?


You have got to be kidding. When you saw the length of this thread did you rearly imagine that this has not been covered before? A note here to all newbs, you rearly should take not of the fact that this thread is over 3000 posts long and over 200 pages long. That alone should be enough to convince you of the unlikelyness of you bringing anything new to the debate, least of all a bible verse. But to humour you, I will explain your point away. Firstly the stuff about pork you quoted was a cultural law. And the laws about any food are explained latter in the new testement

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Acts 10: 9 - 16

And another passage later deals with all the old testement ritualistic laws

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin

Hebrews 10: 1-18



Forced out of the Old Testament in their crusade against homosexuality, the Fundamentalist will quote from Romans, or more specifically from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, both written by the Apostle Paul. He offers a list of sins that will keep a person out of Heaven. Among them is homosexual behavior. However, also listed among these is adultery. Such a revelation won't phase the Fundamentalists until you remind them that in Luke 16:18 Christ defined a man or woman who has divorced and remarried as also being an adulterer. Ask these Fundamentalists how many of their church's members have been divorced and remarried. Then ask them if their church performs the weddings for these adulterous members. If homosexuality is to be condemned, should not these fellow church goers also be condemned? Challenge these Fundamentalists to go back to their churches and apply the same rules to their adulterous remarried members as they apply to homosexuals. What? They won't do it? Why on earth, then, are they picking on homosexuals? Are they selecting one sin as being worse than another? Of course they are - and you've just called them to the carpet for it. Why are they allowed to commit some sins yet feel free to condemn someone else's?


We do not condem one sin above another. Homosexuality is a sin, like any other. People have made the mistake of thinking the church is homophobic because the rest of the world seems more tolerant. No where in the bible does it say anything to the effect of "Go kill gays". To percecute sin would be to percecute ourselves . And if you check up on your Luke refernce it says

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"

Now look closer, specificly at the other Gospels

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery

Matthew 19: 9

http://www.lookup.org/divorce/BiblicalGrounds.html

Thats the URL for a website explaining it in more detail

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery

so abuse isn't a valid reason for divorce?

Why is it that every christian (or other equally deluded follower of any religion) sees fit to push quotes and references from an ancient book written by the (then) equivelent of say, Alasdair McClean or Tolkien?

If everyone could see past religion and it's outdated and outmoded morals and just started loving their fellow human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation/colour/shape or nationality the world would be a far better place to live in.
Religious zealots kill in the name of their appointed God, not good!
Many Christians (and other religious types) look upon Athiests as evil, WRONG!
Many (if not nearly all) wars have been fought in the name of one religion or another, not good!

There's a pattern here if people would only open their eyes and see it.
Religion [can] = intolerance, murder, exclusion and war
Athiesm = Peace within.

*At this point I should say that the debate here is not about the posible genocide of the Cannenites but I will answer you anyway*


This is an assumption based on what the people doing the slaughtering said.
Suppose I went and slaughtered a whole bunch of people. Then, I said, "But they were going to kill me if I didn't! God told me it was ok to do it! In fact, God said that I *had* to do it!" You wouldn't believe me. Why do you believe an ancient barbaric society that hated women and believed that there were many gods with theirs being the highest?


Because, they were going to kill them and they God had told them to (is what I believe) Hate to point it out to you but the Anchient Isralites were not a barbaric society. There were plenty of babaric socitys around but the Isralites were not one of them. The laws in leviticus show that, though the included the death penalty on a vast number of things, so do many countries today. And so far you havnt shown me any proof that the Cannenites would have been peaceful if the Isralites had gone into Cannen. They would have seen them as invaders and atempted to wipe them out.


Stop rationalizing God. You cannot speak for God. You say that God can tell people to do an evil action, and it is ok because God said so. By that logic, it must be ok for you to commit *any* evil action, as long as God says so.

And, since you are not Moses, Joshua, or whoever was command at the time (who would have had the same authority as a priest), you do not know what was said to them. All you know is what writers hundreds of years later who had passed the story by word of mouth thought that God had said to them.

Check any society in history. Pretty much every one did horrible things in the name of God. Their excuse? "God told me to do it!"


You miss my point. The Bible says it and acording to John 1: 1 (read it) God himself has edited the bible.


Having a table doesn't make it any more correct.


I was trying to explain my views to you


Funny, because you should. Christ pretty much point blank said it.


I was agreeing with you, but misworded it. Chirst does say the Jews are no better than everyone else BUT God did speek to the Isralites directly.


Do you realize what you just said here? You said, "Whatever the society at the time thinks is what God thinks too." You have basically just said that society controls God.

This is like saying, "Today, most people think that it is ok to be promiscuous. Obviously this means that God wants them to do so."

If God was truly all-good, taking them in is exactly what God would have wanted them to do, ethnic or not. This is clearly evidenced by Christ's teachings. However, they didn't *want* to do this, so they decided that God would not have wanted them to do it either.


Explain how I said that and I will listen to you. God said to them something to the effect of "kill them all". All, universal.


By saying this, you have basically said that God is not constant. You have said that God used to hate all other races, but now God loves them. There is a clear logical problem here. An all-loving, all-knowing God would have *always* wanted to remove the racial differences. Having Christ come was just a way to demonstrate that clearly, since the society had developed the wrong way.


This is a "First/Second" Covenent issue, which I have already explained. I will let my web page do the explaining again. The point was God chose the Isralites as he revealed himself to them. He could have just as easyly chosen the Icinei or the Mongols, it didnt matter (and I have a theory that in some parralel universe he did) the point was he had comited himself to them and he would not allow other peoples to stand in their way. They were to be his people and he wanted to give them his blessing. To do that he had to give them their land, which was occupied by others. So he gave them the order to go and kill everyone in that land. He had that right, as I have explained the wages of sin are death, God had every right to kill them at any time pre crcuifixtion.


Actually, it does. We either have to believe in a neutral or evil God, rather than a good one, or we have to admit that every single word in the Bible did not flow directly from God's mouth.

No it doesnt for the following reasons

1) There are no morals. God does not say anywhere in the account "For it is best to go and kill your enemies every time they get in your way" or anything to that effect

2) It is pre-Crucifixtion. Not to invalidate anything pre crufixtion but in this case you cannot wave it out saying "God commits murder". Firstly it was not God direcly but the Isralites and secondly these people were murderous sinners. They were not going to come quietly. They would have killed all the Isralites if they had come in to Cannen.

Here is a further website with an explination regarding the Cannenite slaughter

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-slaughter.html

I never said you had to be married. I just said you have to be married if you wanted to have sex.


Actually - you said that the passage was about being married, and I said it wasn't... which you have just denied... so here is your own post for you to look at...

"It says "Wife" so marriage is implied

Actually, if you read the entire passage, what it is doing is this. Genesis 2: 18 - 25 are all about the creation of Eve with Adam. It explains this and how it happened and Genesis 2: 24 explains why marriage is the way it is. It is the way it is because of what happened with Adam and Eve in Eden, and their relationship and how it worked.



You are getting on your postmodern high horse here if you think all marriage is is a commitment thing. It is a commitment thing FOR MEN AND WOMEN ONLY. Genesis 2: 24 is explaining why marriage is the way it is (IE between man and women). Marriage is how it is because that is how it was in Eden. One man and one women is how it was in Eden and how it should always be.


Do you actually know what "postmodern" means?

Prove Eden. Prove Adam and Eve. Prove that the Genesis 2:24 transaction took place, as it says in scripture - which I have already proved is a nonsense. Prove that THAT model has any relevence today.

You are all opinion, and no proof. You are bringing nothing to the table.

As I've pointed out, several times now, the bible doesn't say ANYWHERE that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. Not even in Genesis 2:24.

It also never says that homosexuality, or even homo-sex, is bad - only that the LUSTS are bad - but that is ALSO the case for heterosexuality.


Who ever said the world would be perfect post flood. And the sexually asulted bit is his son seing him naked after being drunk.

1) God destroyed the 'evil' but saved the 'good' in the form of Noah and his family - so the world should have been 'perfect', no? Or, are you saying god is not a very good judge of character?

2) No - he "uncovered his nakedness", which means more than just seeing him naked - if you had ACTUALLY read the bible, you'd know this.

There's a pattern here if people would only open their eyes and see it.
Religion [can] = intolerance, murder, exclusion and war
Athiesm = Peace within.

I have heard this before. The old "Religion causes wars/hate/vilonce etc and should be done away with" idea. Its similar to the "Guns dont kill people, rappers do" point made by Goldie looking chain. The point of goldie looking chain was that while rapping may encourage vilonce etc, it doesnt do it. Its the murderes that do it. In the case of religion, it can be exempted even further. Religion, while it may be the "Suposed" cause of people going round killing people, does not support killing people (I may sound like I am contridicting the Cannenite post I just made but read the entire post and It makes more sense)

Hark, do I hear the sound of people once again who are uneducated about the Bible. The reason that Cannen was entered and God told the Isralites to go and massacare everyone in it was that THAT WAS THEIR PROMISED LAND. Post fall/pre Crucifixtion, God could have at any time killed us all and been completely justified. Why, because we had sinned and the wages of sin are death. Pre crucifixtion there was nothing you could do abouts sin except roll it back with sacrifices, store it till the day that God would send someone to deal with it and 2000 years ago, he did. So telling the Isralites to go massacre them was efectively God doing the killing and God had every right to do the killing then. You can be shocked all you like but it is the Biblical truth.

No. You do not hear the sound of "people once again who are uneducated about the Bible". Quite the opposite, in fact.

In terms of someone not having read the bible... the wages of sin ARE death - but not the physical death - the death of the spirit AFTER the physical death, as opposed to the union with god, AFTER the physical death.

It isn't a matter of being 'shocked' at the 'biblical truth'. I can show you dozens of references to show that biblical 'truth' is a fallacy, since the text is not consistent, is full of translational errors, and directly contradicts ITSELF... how can you derive a consistent 'truth' from such a text, other than "Take EVERYTHING you read with a pinch of salt"?

God did not kill the Canaanites. The Hebrews did. And THEIR defence was that 'god told me to do it". By the way, that defence didn't work for Charles Manson...

Or, are you saying, if Hitler had said "God TOLD me to do it", it would have been okay? The Holocaust is only 'bad' because the Nazi's DIDN'T blame god?

And, assuming that Canaan DID belong to the Hebrews first (which it didn't, as can be proved), and that they were reclaiming their promised land (which is THEIR defence for genocide)... how does that justify killing the children, and raping the women?

Actually, the scripture has only "condemned" homosexuality for only about 75 years. We must remember that the bible was not written in English - it has been translated numerous times from the ancient languages. In the New Testament, when Paul supposedly wrote letters condemning homosexuality, he was not referring to homosexuality as we know it. Directly translated, the word and concept he was referring to was pederasty - the sexual exploitation of young, often effeminate boys by older, powerful men. Paul never condemned homosexuality, he condemned child molestation!

What does the bible say on coulor and race. I know but I am interested to see what you think

Excellent defence. I haven't heard that one since I was 6.

It's hard to know where to start.... didn't you expressly DENY there was anything against colour or race?

Just let me get a straight answer to that... so I can use it as the tagline for all my posts, once I prove you wrong (again).

You misunderstand. When I say, "The wages of sin are death" I do not mean that people who sin should be killed. I mean "If you sin, eventually you will die" and that is spirtiual death, not physical. That law was broken by Jesus and so everyone else can break it too.

Well done.

Jesus bought us free from the punishments of sin, by taking our sins onto him, if we accept him as saviour.

Which means... if you want to be a homosexual, you should be a Christian homosexual, because then you can go to heaven.

No. You do not hear the sound of "people once again who are uneducated about the Bible". Quite the opposite, in fact.

In terms of someone not having read the bible... the wages of sin ARE death - but not the physical death - the death of the spirit AFTER the physical death, as opposed to the union with god, AFTER the physical death.

It isn't a matter of being 'shocked' at the 'biblical truth'. I can show you dozens of references to show that biblical 'truth' is a fallacy, since the text is not consistent, is full of translational errors, and directly contradicts ITSELF... how can you derive a consistent 'truth' from such a text, other than "Take EVERYTHING you read with a pinch of salt"?

God did not kill the Canaanites. The Hebrews did. And THEIR defence was that 'god told me to do it". By the way, that defence didn't work for Charles Manson...

Or, are you saying, if Hitler had said "God TOLD me to do it", it would have been okay? The Holocaust is only 'bad' because the Nazi's DIDN'T blame god?

And, assuming that Canaan DID belong to the Hebrews first (which it didn't, as can be proved), and that they were reclaiming their promised land (which is THEIR defence for genocide)... how does that justify killing the children, and raping the women?

Go read my earlier posts on the subject a page or so back. I am not going to reiterate something I said a few posts ago.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367071&page=208&pp=15

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-slaughter.html

Is a URL of a site I used before. Go read it before you respond

Well done.

Jesus bought us free from the punishments of sin, by taking our sins onto him, if we accept him as saviour.

Which means... if you want to be a homosexual, you should be a Christian homosexual, because then you can go to heaven.

Flaw in your logic. Though Jesus made us free of sin, he also said to do our best not to sin anymore. Its not like saying "You are free to do whatever you want". Implicit in your forgiveness is the accepence of yourself as a sinner and Jesus said to do your best to change that.

Excellent defence. I haven't heard that one since I was 6.

It's hard to know where to start.... didn't you expressly DENY there was anything against colour or race?

Just let me get a straight answer to that... so I can use it as the tagline for all my posts, once I prove you wrong (again).

Let me start by saying that you havn't proved me wrong. Once. I did expresively deny that the bible said anything against coulor and race so I was curious what the author of the post I orignally replyed to was refering to as I wanted to put him straight. As of yet I havent seen him respond.

so abuse isn't a valid reason for divorce?

See the URL for more info

http://www.lookup.org/divorce/BiblicalGrounds.html

See the URL for more info

http://www.lookup.org/divorce/BiblicalGrounds.html

That doesn't say that abuse is grounds for divorce.

That doesn't say that abuse is grounds for divorce.

Try this one

http://www.divorcehope.com/abuseinmarriage.htm

Just my source of entertainment. My happiness comes from my man and all "the joy life sends--family and friends" (ten virtual dollars to anyone who knows where that came from).

Okay that was cheasy. Anyways, back to the battle :)

"Once More, With Feeling"

SMG singing it to Hinton Battle, in the form of "Sweet".

More virtual dollars for that?

In the Bronze? More virtual dollars?

Knowing that it was Marti Noxon singing the 'hydrant' song? More dollars?

And this really IS on topic... since there is also the song about being "spread benath a Willow-tree"....

:)

Because it is something that is fairly explicitly layed out in the scripture many times. And many people believe the scriptures are the infallible word of god. Ergo, people condemn homosexuality. Dont try to make an existentialist argument out of this, it wont work.

It's been a long time since I've seen Dr. Who. But they've got organic bits inside them. I remember an episode where someone got the bright idea to spray-paint the eye (very effective at disabling a dalek), and then the Dr. took out the blasted lumps of flesh and brain from a couple.

As I recall, they were very fond of saying "exterminate". I quite agree that the moronic posters that pop up like weeds are like Daleks (minus the ray guns).

At the risk of going a little off topic, and showing myself to be a geek:

Correction: Dalek's are neither robots, nor cyborgs.

They are the 'powered armour' that Davros created to enable the Kaled race to defend itself and wage war... the Kaleds are the little blobby things IN the armour.

Because, they were going to kill them and they God had told them to (is what I believe) Hate to point it out to you but the Anchient Isralites were not a barbaric society. There were plenty of babaric socitys around but the Isralites were not one of them. The laws in leviticus show that,

You miss my point. The Bible says it and acording to John 1: 1 (read it) God himself has edited the bible.



The code of laws in Leviticus is copied from the Baylonian code of laws... which was, guess what, carved in stone (so it CAN be verified)...

And, if you think the Hebrews to be non-barbaric... what IS barbaric? Murder, rape, slavery come under the heading of 'kind of barbaric' for me...

If god had really edited the bible, why are there so many mistakes in it?

If god had really edited the bible, why are there so many mistakes in it?

Can you be a little more specific when you say mistakes

By saying this, you have basically said that God is not constant. You have said that God used to hate all other races, but now God loves them. There is a clear logical problem here. An all-loving, all-knowing God would have *always* wanted to remove the racial differences. Having Christ come was just a way to demonstrate that clearly, since the society had developed the wrong way.

Actually, God IS pretty inconsistant within the Christian Bible. I don't know if you've noticed, but in the Old Testament, God gives Joshua and the Isrealites permission to destroy Jericho, as well as other cities and tribed, because they are, essentually, infidels who do not believe in or correctly follow God's laws.

In the New Testament, Christ, who speaks for God, tells the people that all people are equal in God's eyes, and anyone can be won to God with love, but only love, and not with violence. Apparantly, God rralized that by killing everyone who wasn't his follower, he really wasn't getting many followers, and attempted to change all that.

This brings us to the messy, sticky issue of Christ saying that the ONLY way to Heaven was through HIM, which means that anyone who lived and died before his crucifixion could not, logically, be saved, and, logically, were condemned to hell, including Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Isaiah, etc, (except Elijah, who was taken to Heaven in a whirlwind), but this is of course, a tangent.

Actually, it does. We either have to believe in a neutral or evil God, rather than a good one, or we have to admit that every single word in the Bible did not flow directly from God's mouth.

Actually, no words in the Bible could be claimed to have flowed directly from God's mouth, unless one is quoting Christ to other Christians, or, arguable, using the Ten Commandments to talk to Christians or Jews.

Originally Posted by Blobites
There's a pattern here if people would only open their eyes and see it.
Religion [can] = intolerance, murder, exclusion and war
Athiesm = Peace within.


Originally posted by Neo Cannen

I have heard this before. The old "Religion causes wars/hate/vilonce etc and should be done away with" idea. Its similar to the "Guns dont kill people, rappers do" point made by Goldie looking chain. The point of goldie looking chain was that while rapping may encourage vilonce etc, it doesnt do it. Its the murderes that do it. In the case of religion, it can be exempted even further. Religion, while it may be the "Suposed" cause of people going round killing people, does not support killing people (I may sound like I am contridicting the Cannenite post I just made but read the entire post and It makes more sense)

It's silly to just dismiss an idea with sentiments like that [and yes, before you reply I am guilty of the same thing the way I dismiss religion as a load of old clap trap] but to use a Goldie looking chain analogy to dismiss the fact that most wars ARE started in the name of religion is a typical God Botherers way of avoiding the issue.

Whether or not the bible (which is only one interperatation of one religion, and it's off shoots), supports killing is besides the point.
The fact that one religion shouts "infadels!" at another and so tries to kill those who are not followers shows that "religion" is a rather unstable and anti social institution.
Yes it is man who interprates what the bible says but if things were'nt so damned ambiguous to *need* translation or interpretation then maybe there would be millions of people who actually got to live out a peaceful exsistance instead of being blown to smithereens because they worshipped a different God to their neighbours.

Guns *do* kill people, melt all the guns and Joe Shmo would have a harder time killling the lunch time patrons of his local McDonalds.

Analogies don't work when you are talking about religion, the festering sore that is all religion is too deeply implanted in mankind to make light of religions guilt as the biggest mass murderer known to mankind.
Earlier in this thread I read someone (I know not who and can't be arsed trawling through over 3000 replies to find it) who declared that their God told the Israelites it was ok to go kill because he [god] had declared them the chosen ones. Does that sound like something that good people want to be part of?

I feel obligied at this point to point out that actually religion is not the sole purpretratior of conflict. Granted many ancient wars maybe, but then and today there are plenty of other guilty parties. Teritorial/financial greed, racial hatered, control of trade routes, politcal ideologies etc have been known frequently to enduce conflict. The truth of the matter is that many people say "Religion is the cause of all wars" because they are pointing the finger not at humans, but up into the clouds at something else. That is a convienet way to avoid the fact that mans sinful nature is more often the cause of war than God saying so to do it. And in response to these repeated claims about the Cannenites, see this URL (I have posted it a few times now but no one has commented on its contents)

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-slaughter.html

I agree with you. But this is Lot's response not God's. Throught the bible there are plenty of examples of humans making stupid mistakes under pressure and this is an example of one. God never once endorces what Lot did or supports his choice. In fact earlier he advises him against going near Soddom and Gomoragh because of what they do.

Actually, what God does is speak to Abraham after the fact and tell him that Sodom is a "wicked place full of wicked men who do not honor the laws of the Lord." As we have already noted, this could mean anything, like eating pork, or using a pulley to draw water from a well on the holy day.

so abuse isn't a valid reason for divorce?

Not according to the Bible. Remember, the Bible teaches that women are inferior to men, having been created for their companionship and pleasure, and thusly, a man can have the right to have as many wives as is pleasing to him, and also, to do with her what he wishes.

But to humour you, I will explain your point away. Firstly the stuff about pork you quoted was a cultural law.

However, the stuff about homoexuality that you are refering to is also a cultural law. In those days, as has been said, these were actual Tribes, family groups. The entire future of the tribes depended on the people reproducing. The elders decided to pass laws in their tribes to limit men to women, and women to men, in an attempt to insure children would always be produced. It had nothing to do with the God they believed in, and everything to do with keeping their children together in order to create new generations. This is also one of the reasons pork was considered unclean. The tribes of Israel were sheep farmers, and the other people in the area, mostly Caananites and Philistines, were pig farmers. IN order to prevent their children from leaving in order to marry into other tribes, they passed laws declaring those tribe's major labours to be unclean "in the eyes of their God". You see? Now, the kids have to stay home, and they have to be with memembers of the oposite sex. Ta-da! No problem continuing the tribes!

And as for Paul in the New Testament--- Paul is a man, and he often pissed God off because he had a tendancy to do things his own way, and let his own personal feelings interfer with his work. This happened a lot with the men of the NT (as seen with Peter in your Sheet-of-Meat example).

One man's interpritation of an ancient law cannot be the standard for a religion. That's mad.

However, the stuff about homoexuality that you are refering to is also a cultural law. In those days, as has been said, these were actual Tribes, family groups. The entire future of the tribes depended on the people reproducing. The elders decided to pass laws in their tribes to limit men to women, and women to men, in an attempt to insure children would always be produced. It had nothing to do with the God they believed in, and everything to do with keeping their children together in order to create new generations. This is also one of the reasons pork was considered unclean. The tribes of Israel were sheep farmers, and the other people in the area, mostly Caananites and Philistines, were pig farmers. IN order to prevent their children from leaving in order to marry into other tribes, they passed laws declaring those tribe's major labours to be unclean "in the eyes of their God". You see? Now, the kids have to stay home, and they have to be with memembers of the oposite sex. Ta-da! No problem continuing the tribes!


If the only problem is that of reproduction at that time, then surely they would not stone them to death if they had done it. In fact they would'nt stone anybody. This is the flaw in the logic of those who say "It only says that because of reproductive needs". The problem with saying "We know why God said we cant do X and have found a way around it" is that we are not God. We dont know for certain why he said certian things and therefore it is best to keep them if we dont know why unless God says that they are irrelevent now (as he does with the ritualistic and cultural law of the old testement)



And as for Paul in the New Testament--- Paul is a man, and he often pissed God off because he had a tendancy to do things his own way, and let his own personal feelings interfer with his work. This happened a lot with the men of the NT (as seen with Peter in your Sheet-of-Meat example).

One man's interpritation of an ancient law cannot be the standard for a religion. That's mad.

Can you explain what you mean when you are refering to the Sheet of meat incident. And this isnt one man's interpretaiton of an ancient law. Its the view of many learned individuals too.

Try this one

http://www.divorcehope.com/abuseinmarriage.htm

but that's not what the bible says.

the bible says that divorce is only permissable if the woman cheats on the man.

it's funny though, because the man could cheat on the woman then, and it would be fine, right? 'cause women weren't allowed to divorce men then, now were they?

but that's not what the bible says.

the bible says that divorce is only permissable if the woman cheats on the man.

it's funny though, because the man could cheat on the woman then, and it would be fine, right? 'cause women weren't allowed to divorce men then, now were they?

This is a website explaining the complete Biblical understanding on divorce, it is very comprehenisve but complex. All I can say is if you want answers, read this.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/PPages/DRB/

Just to clarify my goldie looking chain analogy, the songs predominant lyric is "Guns dont kill people, rappers do". This was an insult to the conservative politicans and thinkers who place the blame of gun vilonce onto rappers/computer games etc and think that the youth is sweet and naieve. In the same way, I was saying the people who blame war on religion should rearly be blaming war on those who take its name to go fight wars, not the thing itself.

Try this one

http://www.divorcehope.com/abuseinmarriage.htm

That also gives no Biblical support for divorce due to abuse. It just says you should study the bible if you are being abused.

That also gives no Biblical support for divorce due to abuse. It just says you should study the bible if you are being abused.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/PPages/DRB/

Is one which while complex, does answer your questions. See all the links off it for individual questions.

"Once More, With Feeling"

SMG singing it to Hinton Battle, in the form of "Sweet".

More virtual dollars for that?

In the Bronze? More virtual dollars?

Knowing that it was Marti Noxon singing the 'hydrant' song? More dollars?

And this really IS on topic... since there is also the song about being "spread benath a Willow-tree"....

:)

<forks out 1 Million Virtual dollars for that one>

God I love that episode.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/PPages/DRB/

Is one which while complex, does answer your questions. See all the links off it for individual questions.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not interested enbough in this topc to be willing to read all that :) My previous statements were to show that the two linsk you had given didn't actually answer the question. I'll leave it to someone much more interested to read that one cause I have a feeling I would be here all day and I'm just not that patient.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not interested enbough in this topc to be willing to read all that :) My previous statements were to show that the two linsk you had given didn't actually answer the question. I'll leave it to someone much more interested to read that one cause I have a feeling I would be here all day and I'm just not that patient.

Well I just wanted to point out to you that there are answers to your questions.

You also forget that back then, nations were not just political organisations but ethinic groups. And it was a kill or be killed situation. Dont try and deny it.Even in this you are contradicted by the Bible. Joshua was tricked by the Hivites into guaranteeing their lives (Joshua 9), and made them slaves (Joshua 9:23). Were the Israelites killed because of this? Well no. And what of the Jebusites (Joshua 15:63)?
And God gives the reason the nations were to utterly destroyed in Deuteronomy 7:
2and when the LORD your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.(NSRV)

In fact the genocide by the Israelites was incomplete, and they did not completely exterminate the Canaanites, but instead put them to tribute (Judges 1:29).
And what happened? Well, they lost wars (over and over) and were enslaved (over and over). But this was because God turned against them and helped their enemies (He was pissed off that they had turned to other Gods). (Judges)
You might want to re-read the Bible; those of us you accuse of being uneducated about the Bible seem to know more of its contents than you do. Heck, Grave_n_idle has read it in Hebrew, and is quite familar (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7404082&postcount=2101) with at least Genesis. And zie's been kind enough to share some of what zie knows.

They are the 'powered armour' that Davros created to enable the Kaled race to defend itself and wage war... the Kaleds are the little blobby things IN the armour.Ah, I see. For some reason I thought the Kaleds needed the armour to live.

Can you be a little more specific when you say mistakesWell, there are two inconsistent creation accounts for a start. The ones we bring up when you bring up Gen 2:24. Dempublicents described (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7397558&postcount=2018) some of the differences (and they differ in more than just the order things happen in). Is God really that bad an editor? Or was the Bible written by people and not in fact infalliable? The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) has a whack more, though not having read it I can't vouch for its quality.

The usual ways to prove a genetic component for something like this is to either compare identical twins to fraternal twins, or to compare adopted children with different biological family histories. Proof I don't have as I am too lazy to do a search for the appropriate studies.

Allow me to help.

In 1991 and 1993 studies were conducted by Bailey and Pillard on the correlation between homosexuals and their identical twins, fraternal twins, non-twin siblings and adopted siblings. While the results may very well be biased (the survey was not a random sample but rather a voluntary sample), there is a clear trend in the likelihood that identical twins will both be gay and that the biological siblings of homosexuals are more likely to be gay than adopted siblings. So what about the bias? In 2000, Kendler, Thornton, Gilman and Kessler conducted a similar study of a random sample of twins and siblings (thus eliminating the possibility of bias) which gave very similar results. The conclusion, according to the offical psychological report, was that "familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation."
Keep in mind that it is a psychological belief that environment and brain anatomy as well as heredity are responsible for homosexual tendencies.

And God said to Moses,"Come forth!" but Moses came fifth and God lost all his beer money!

Even in this you are contradicted by the Bible. Joshua was tricked by the Hivites into guaranteeing their lives (Joshua 9), and made them slaves (Joshua 9:23). Were the Israelites killed because of this? Well no. And what of the Jebusites (Joshua 15:63)?


I was talking about the original time they arrived at Cannen, sent spies in and got scared and left.

Because, they were going to kill them and they God had told them to (is what I believe)

So you believe God told the Israelites to commit genocide, which is an objectively evil act. Fine, but quit trying to rationalize an all-good being condoning an objectively evil act, because it simply isn't posisble.

Hate to point it out to you but the Anchient Isralites were not a barbaric society. There were plenty of babaric socitys around but the Isralites were not one of them. The laws in leviticus show that, though the included the death penalty on a vast number of things, so do many countries today.

Any society that does not object to genocide is barbaric.
Any society that denigrates women as a part of their societal structure is barbaric.
Any society that approves of slavery is barbaric.
Any society that worships only out of fear is barbaric.

The fact that there were societies that were worse than the Israelites does not change the fact that they were a fairly uncivilized, barbaric group themselves.

And so far you havnt shown me any proof that the Cannenites would have been peaceful if the Isralites had gone into Cannen. They would have seen them as invaders and atempted to wipe them out.

And you haven't shown me any proof that they would'nt have been peaceful. All we have is a story passed down for hundreds of years before it was ever written down, written down by those who were apparently the victors. The victors get to put whatever spin on things they want to.

You miss my point. The Bible says it and acording to John 1: 1 (read it) God himself has edited the bible.

Then how did God get things wrong? Why didn't God notice the mistranslations? Why didn't God remember in what time frame Christ was born? Why didn't God know how Judas died? Why didn't God realize that God cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing and still talk about having mistakes or regret?

God has edited this post.

Great, now you have to believe every single word in this post came directly from God.

Explain how I said that and I will listen to you. God said to them something to the effect of "kill them all". All, universal.

Genocide is unarguably an evil act. Period. If God condones it, God must be evil, or at least neutral to good and evil.

This is a "First/Second" Covenent issue, which I have already explained. I will let my web page do the explaining again. The point was God chose the Isralites as he revealed himself to them. He could have just as easyly chosen the Icinei or the Mongols, it didnt matter (and I have a theory that in some parralel universe he did) the point was he had comited himself to them and he would not allow other peoples to stand in their way. They were to be his people and he wanted to give them his blessing. To do that he had to give them their land, which was occupied by others. So he gave them the order to go and kill everyone in that land. He had that right, as I have explained the wages of sin are death, God had every right to kill them at any time pre crcuifixtion.

God has that right, of course. However, if God does it, we cannot state that God is all-good. That's all I'm saying.

Personally, I believe in an all-good God. Therefore, I do not believe that evil acts committed in God's name were actually condoned by God.

No it doesnt for the following reasons

1) There are no morals. God does not say anywhere in the account "For it is best to go and kill your enemies every time they get in your way" or anything to that effect

So you would argue that genocide is not evil?

2) It is pre-Crucifixtion. Not to invalidate anything pre crufixtion but in this case you cannot wave it out saying "God commits murder". Firstly it was not God direcly but the Isralites and secondly these people were murderous sinners. They were not going to come quietly. They would have killed all the Isralites if they had come in to Cannen.

I didn't say "God commits murder." I said that the Bible says that God *condones* murder. Genocide is murder, plain and simple.

Here is a further website with an explination regarding the Cannenite slaughter

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-slaughter.html

The only explanation this gives is "They might lead the Israelites astray." Explain to me how an infant or toddler, who has not even figured out the world yet can do this. Explain to me why an all-good God who specifically said to deal with the beam in your own eye first would order a people to murder sinners so that they themselves will not sin. That's like telling me to go out and murder all the greedy people so that I won't be greedy.

I Religion, while it may be the "Suposed" cause of people going round killing people, does not support killing people (I may sound like I am contridicting the Cannenite post I just made but read the entire post and It makes more sense)

Actually, no it doesn't. Either God condones murder and genocide, or God does not condone such actions. The fact that the supposed reasoning was "so we don't sin" doesn't make it any better than all of the other reasons people have used for murder and genocide.

Actually, no it doesn't. Either God condones murder and genocide, or God does not condone such actions. The fact that the supposed reasoning was "so we don't sin" doesn't make it any better than all of the other reasons people have used for murder and genocide.

Shall I make this unequivently clear. GOD HAD THE RIGHT TO KILL ANYONE AT ANY TIME PRE CRUCIFIXTION. The reasons for this I have already explained. God is extremely mercifiul to let Humans exist at all

not my writing, but i do support what it is saying.

IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?
Yes, homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." That is stated as plainly and clearly as you can get. The Bible commands us that we are not to have intercourse with people of our same sex. It is not only a sexual sin, but it is an abomination (something that is impure and illicit in God's eyes).
The verse does not say that homosexuality is okay if you are in a loving, committed relationship. It states that you shall not do it, period! We find a similar verse in Leviticus 20:13. It reads, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
The earliest account of homosexuals can be found in the book of Genesis, Chapter 19. The place was the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah. Similar to our time today, Sodom and Gomorrah were places where all kinds of sexual habits were practiced. The people of that place had turned their backs on God's laws and did whatever their wicked minds told them to do. God eventually destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their wicked ways.
The verses above from Leviticus are in a section of the Bible that lists immoral acts and the penalties for them. Homosexual activities are listed right alongside other immoral acts such as having sex with animals, incestuous relationships, adultery, etc. God does not say that this behavior is something that you should have "gay pride" about. God calls it a sexual sin and says that because of such practices, the nations in the land were being cast out. Leviticus 18:24, 30 reads, "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God."
Are you going to believe the world and continue thinking that homosexuality is perfectly okay, or are you going to believe the One who created you?
HOW DOES THE BIBLE DEFINE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR?
People in our generation are as bad as if not worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah. People are trading in God's laws and making up their own rules and worshipping the god of self by doing whatever they want to do instead of doing the things that God says are right. But God will not force His righteous truths on you. If you want to practice immorality by taking part in homosexuality, God will not stop you from sinking lower and lower in your perversion. But ultimately there will be a price to pay if you do not turn from your sin and seek God.
Let's read what the Bible says about homosexual behavior and see how God feels when we turn our backs on His laws and embrace an "anything goes" attitude:
Romans 1:24-28, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves, who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly (shameful), and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."
Here the Bible shows us that homosexuality is defined as something that is unclean, a dishonoring of the body, a vile passion, something that is against nature and unnatural, shameful, something that occurs when you have a mind that has sunken to a place away from God. It is an act that people engage in when they do not retain God in their knowledge and when they have changed the truth of God for a lie.
WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?
Let's start with the question what is sin? Sin is when we know that something is against the law and will of God and we continue to practice it anyway. We have already read that according to the law of God, homosexual behavior is a sin. It is an unnatural practice. It is an abomination in God's eyes. It is against God's natural order.
God created men to be husbands of wives, and women to be wives of husbands. That is God's natural order. When God sought to make a suitable mate for man, He created woman. Genesis 2:24-25 shows us this when referring to the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve. It reads, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
And Ephesians 5:28,33, "So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself."
The only sexual relationships that have God's blessing are that of a husband and wife. Any sexual relationship that is outside of this is a sin. And homosexuality is labeled a sin and an abomination.
Also, we know that homosexuality is a sin and that it is against what God wants people to do. This is evident in the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce. The one way that we humans get to be like God is by our God-given ability to create, to reproduce. Two men together could never have a baby and two women together could never have a baby because what they are doing is not of God.

So, again, homosexuality is a sin because the person is willingly choosing to engage in behavior that is against what God would have him or her do.
DO GENETICS CAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY?
Some people will say, "But I was born this way. Since I was a child I was attracted to members of the same sex." To that I will say no, you were born a sinner and that at a young age your sin started to manifest itself. When I was perhaps six, I can distinctly remember going to a store and stealing from the store. I shoplifted for many years after that as well. Does that mean that I was genetically just a born thief or that my behavior should be accepted because I had had those feelings since my childhood? Of course not. Stealing was a sin I committed. It was not who I was.
And even if so-called experts try to tell you that there is some kind of "homosexual gene," remember that these are sinful men telling you sinful tales. Be careful when you start to listen to and believe the men of this world instead of believing what God's Word tells you. This world will tell you that murdering babies is okay. It even gives the act a pleasant term, "pro choice." This world will tell you that alcoholism and drug abuse is okay and that you just "have a disease." This world will even tell you that there is no God and that you came from a monkey. The Bible warns us of such people. Isaiah 5:20 reads "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
God's Word says that God created you and that homosexuality is wrong. God would not have created you as a homosexual and then called homosexuality an abomination. So who are you going to obey? "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
And for those people out there who try to say, "Well, some people are born with male and female body parts" (hermaphrodites), to that I say you cannot use that as justification for you to engage in homosexual activities. Some people were also born as Siamese twins. If a Siamese twin gets married and has sexual relations, the act would have to involve three people being present, both twins and the spouse, but does that mean that God gives His approval to group sex? Of course not! God is going to judge each of us according to who we are, not according to how He created someone else.
CAN SOMEONE PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY AND STILL LOVE CHRIST?
Jesus said in John 14:15, 23-24, "If ye love me, keep my commandments. If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings."
So I would say that if you truly love Christ, you would want to do what pleases him. And as we have already read, homosexuality does not please the Lord.
And 1 John 2:4 reads, "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." And 1 John 1:5-6 reads, "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth."
Christ said that you are either for Him or against Him. You cannot pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like and then ignore the parts that don't fit your lifestyle. God will give you the strength that you need to overcome your homosexual desires, but you have to love the Lord enough to turn from that sin. You cannot have it both ways. "If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27). You have read the truth. Are you going to continue wilfully sinning?

Shall I make this unequivently clear. GOD HAD THE RIGHT TO KILL ANYONE AT ANY TIME PRE CRUCIFIXTION. The reasons for this I have already explained. God is extremely mercifiul to let Humans exist at all

God didn't kill the Caananites.

Let's start World War III and nuke every Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Taiwanese, Iraqi, Saudi-Arabian, Iranian, Pakistani and Korean city. For a start.

[Sarcasm ends]

Look, your quote, to me, describes every single city in the world. Those things occur everywhere. The fact that you add being non-Christian to the list of things that justifies a massacre of innocents is horrific at best.


Never mind. Sorry to ruin your source of happiness. :D


GOD made examples in the Old Testament. Sodom and Gommorah was one such example. HE does not destroy every city in the world today because in the Bible it says that GOD will not interfere will the course man has chosen for himself until the day of HIS son's return. When Jesus return, my good fellow, you will see the true power of GOD bringing the world under his son. Read Revelations. It's an eye opener!

Hi Pacinist States, welcome to the forum and the thread. Can you give me a hand here? Can you explain why homosexuality is immoral from a purely logical point of view without referring to religion? Because no one else has managed to do it yet, so I think some fresh blood might help.

So 2 people of the same sex want to get it on or shack up or get married. Why is that so harmful? Let people get on with it. If its consentual sex and they're happy then leave them be :)

Spewing forth quotes from the bible to try and persuade people that homosexuality is wrong is fine if you are a believer in religion.

Has anyone got an answer to the origonal question "Why is homosexuality a sin" that doesn't spew a load of shite from a bible?

Shouldn't the answer be, to all the "good" people in the world (Good, as in inherintally good, people who care about their fellow human beings more than the utterings of a second rate 2000 year old novel i.e. the bible) that it matters not a jot whether you are asexual, homosexual,bisexual or heterosexual as long as you harm no one in your pursuit of personal happiness?

I really wish all the god botherers here would get down from their mistaken moral high ground and start loving each other despite any differences of opinion we may hold.

I think those who argue that homosexuality is a sin based on their religious scriptures have a point, because those scriptures form the basis of their entire religion. Sin is a religious concept, different from crime. I think it's adequate, then, to base their view of something as a sin because it's been presented in the Bible or whatever book they follow.

That said, I think a lot of people forget that whether or not you think the Bible is the Word of God (literal, divined, metaphoric, etc), *every* version used by Christians has been translated. Not all of the books were originally written in the same language, and it was a long time in Europe before they were written in the vernacular. There's a lot to suggest some major errors. The words in English are not divined from God, even if you believe that the original words, when written down, were. They're the works of faulty men, who might not have as firm a grip on language as you might think.

Not to mention, there's a lot of stuff in Leviticus that no person today would think was moral or right. I know I don't, and I'm a Catholic. I have no problem with homosexuals, though I'm not one myself.

First, homosexuality cannot possibly be in society's interests. If we were all homosexuals, there would be no society. So called "victimless crimes" harm the larger social order. For example, if I want to shoot up with heroin every day and I don't harm others, should I be allowed to do it? Suppose I want to have sex with a child, and the child's parent gives consent. Is that OK? Wait, are you saying that might harm the child and therefore the parent can't possibly give consent? Is this the same parent that had the right to kill the child before it was born? Generally speaking, societal rights outweigh individual rights. If this weren't true, there could never have been a draft, and certainly, no one would pay taxes. Society has an interest in legislating morality. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is irrefutable that our founding fathers engendered this Nation on Christian principles. Homosexuality is destabilizing to society. It was always meant to be "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

First, homosexuality cannot possibly be in society's interests. If we were all homosexuals, there would be no society.


But we aren't all homosexuals, and never will be. Don't exaggerate.


So called "victimless crimes" harm the larger social order.


Why?


For example, if I want to shoot up with heroin every day and I don't harm others, should I be allowed to do it?


Heroin is intensely physically addictive. That said, if you're stupid enough to want to do that then go ahead. It's your body. Just don't steal to feed your habit, because then I'd have no problem with the book being thrown at you.


Suppose I want to have sex with a child, and the child's parent gives consent. Is that OK?


Children cannot give informed consent. They do not know all the ins and outs of sexual relations with an older person.

And I'd suggest you don't try to argue with me on that matter.


Wait, are you saying that might harm the child and therefore the parent can't possibly give consent? Is this the same parent that had the right to kill the child before it was born?


Small pinhead-sized blob of vaguely-recognisable cells, complete with gills and tail != baby.


Generally speaking, societal rights outweigh individual rights.


That depends. In the case of gay marriage, interracial marriage, jews, political dissidents and other minority groups, you have made an incredibly false statement.


If this weren't true, there could never have been a draft, and certainly, no one would pay taxes. Society has an interest in legislating morality. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is irrefutable that our founding fathers engendered this Nation on Christian principles.


Only Christians seem to think that, and even then, only some Christians. Most Americans I know seem to call the founding fathers Deist. And not to mention that handy little quote from one of your founding fathers that states that America is in no way founded upon Christian principles.


Homosexuality is destabilizing to society. It was always meant to be "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

No, homosexuality is destabilizing to your sensibilities and your view on marriage. Your problem, not mine or anyone else's.

Should I mention that 50% divorce rate again?

I was talking about the original time they arrived at Cannen, sent spies in and got scared and left.Okies... so we're just talking about Jericho then? What was the point of killing them all? So they couldn't fight back? Bit of overkill there.

GOD HAD THE RIGHT TO KILL ANYONE AT ANY TIME PRE CRUCIFIXTION. The reasons for this I have already explained.Ah yes, the Canaanites and everyone else were wicked. (I'd overlooked Deuteronomy 9).
God is extremely mercifiul to let Humans exist at allNo. There are good people in this world; kind and compassionate people. Not without their faults, but not overshadowed by their faults. Think of the people you know. Are they really that bad; that sinful, that it takes extreme mercy merely to let them live? How would you feel if they were killed? And what would you think of someone who killed them?

Genocide is unarguably an evil act. Period. If God condones it, God must be evil, or at least neutral to good and evil.I'm with Dempublicents on this one. Jesus reportedly said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits". What fruits to you ascribe to God? Genocide. Very harsh laws. These fruits are bitter and astringent and without nourishment for the soul. You try and attribute their vileness to all of us. But it's not true.

You do not have to try and pretend these fruits are sweet. You don't have to believe everything in the Bible, many Christians don't. Indeed there are good reasons not to: the internal contradictions. You can verify these for yourself. What you do have to be afraid of? When Peter doubted and started to sink, did not the Christ catch him?

I am an atheist, but I am honestly not trying to convert you to my religion. I am trying to convert you to a more positive view of humanity, a view shared by people across many different faiths.

First, homosexuality cannot possibly be in society's interests. If we were all homosexuals, there would be no society.


That's a big if. Plus, its untrue so its a moot point.


So called "victimless crimes" harm the larger social order. For example, if I want to shoot up with heroin every day and I don't harm others, should I be allowed to do it?


My understanding of why drugs are illegal are because of the risk they pose for you to be a threat to others. Homosexuality poses no threat to others that heterosexuality does not.


Suppose I want to have sex with a child, and the child's parent gives consent. Is that OK? Wait, are you saying that might harm the child and therefore the parent can't possibly give consent?


Pedophilia is wrong because the child cannot give informed consent. They cannot consider the ramifications of their actions.


Is this the same parent that had the right to kill the child before it was born?


I'm leaving this one to someone else. Abortion is not my area.


Generally speaking, societal rights outweigh individual rights. If this weren't true, there could never have been a draft, and certainly, no one would pay taxes.


Societal rights outweight individual rights when there is a compelling public interest in preventing those individuals from having rights (IE taxes are necessary to maintain order, criminals go to prison, the draft can be instituted when a society must be defended). No one has shown a compelling public interest in banning gay marriage that holds up to any type of scrutiny.


Society has an interest in legislating morality. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is irrefutable that our founding fathers engendered this Nation on Christian principles. Homosexuality is destabilizing to society. It was always meant to be "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Actually, can you show me where the engendered this nation on Christian principles? There is no mention of God in the Consitution, most of the founding fathers were Deists and the first treaty we entered into (The Treaty of Tripoli) specifically says that we are NOT a Christian nation. This nation was founded on the principles of equality and rights for all. We've been slow to recognize those rights, but we'll get there some day.

And the government does not legislate morality. Why not? Whose would you legislate? Sure the biggies are all agreed upon (murder, theft, rape) but there's a lot of leeway between different groups. That is why the government legislates rights. That's why we have the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Morals.

not my writing, but i do support what it is saying.

(Same old bullshit)

Sweety, these arguments have been ripped to pieces like a fat little pig in a cage full of starving wolverines in this thread alone several times already.

Originally Posted by Pacinist States
So called "victimless crimes" harm the larger social order. For example, if I want to shoot up with heroin every day and I don't harm others, should I be allowed to do it?


My understanding of why drugs are illegal are because of the risk they pose for you to be a threat to others. Homosexuality poses no threat to others that heterosexuality does not.

The social order is overrated anyway. ;)

No, homosexuality is destabilizing to your sensibilities and your view on marriage. Your problem, not mine or anyone else's.

Should I mention that 50% divorce rate again?

I could easyily prove to you that the rise in divorce is linked to several factors not least of which is the decline of religion. And as for your point about your sensablities, kindly remember what we are discussing. Why homosexuality is a sin. The people who think it isn't only have the right to debate on the scriptual and religious grounds and so far no one has succeeded in doing that. No one can find a quote that supports homosexuality and we have found several that condemn it. Ergo the scripures are opposed to it.

I could easyily prove to you that the rise in divorce is linked to several factors not least of which is the decline of religion.
I'm not getting into the "sin" aspect of homosexuality, but as for divorce, I'd say it has more to do with female liberation than anything. When men cheated, their wives could not get divorces. Now they can. I'd say in this case the higher rates of divorce do not bother me, but are rather an encouraging sign that people do not feel compelled to stay in bad marriages out of guilt. Divorce is not a good thing, but staying in a bad/abusive marriage is way worse.

I could easyily prove to you that the rise in divorce is linked to several factors not least of which is the decline of religion.By "linked to" I presume you mean correlated with? And you really don't want to go there; if you look at demographics rather than history fundamentalist Protestantism doesn't come off too well: The United States leads the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_div_rat) in divorce rate, and the Bible belt has the highest (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html) divorce race in the U.S.
No one can find a quote that supports homosexuality and we have found several that condemn it.No you found one: A quote by Paul (Romans 1:26-27), that called homosexuality "vile affections". The other quotes don't condemn homosexuality, but rather male-male sex (the exact nature of which is debated). I see you are continuing your sloppy use of the word "homosexuality".


I'm not getting into the "sin" aspect of homosexuality, but as for divorce, I'd say it has more to do with female liberation than anything. When men cheated, their wives could not get divorces. Now they can. I'd say in this case the higher rates of divorce do not bother me, but are rather an encouraging sign that people do not feel compelled to stay in bad marriages out of guilt. Divorce is not a good thing, but staying in a bad/abusive marriage is way worse.Sure, a rise in divorce is not necessarily a bad thing, but the rate of divorce in the U.S. and Canada seems more than a little high to me. I'd say it has more to do with the availability of easy divorce than anything else, but that's definitely not the whole story.

By "linked to" I presume you mean correlated with? And you really don't want to go there; if you look at demographics rather than history fundamentalist Protestantism doesn't come off too well: The United States leads the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_div_rat) in divorce rate, and the Bible belt has the highest (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html) divorce race in the U.S.


Ah but in the UK there are more divorces per thousand than in the US. (Note this is from a sociology textbook. I can show you the book but at present I cant find the statics online) and we are the least reliogous country in Europe and have the highest divorce rate


No you found one: A quote by Paul (Romans 1:26-27), that called homosexuality "vile affections". The other quotes don't condemn homosexuality, but rather male-male sex (the exact nature of which is debated). I see you are continuing your sloppy use of the word "homosexuality".

Well the passage in Romans explains these "Unnautral Lusts" which I presume are homosexual attractions. And though some say "Those are un nautral lusts, hetrosexual men being attracted to men, nautral lusts are between homosexuals and other homosexuals" the phrase "Unnautral" in that context basicly means "Not normal" which I think you will agree homosexuality is. However I do agree that the only actual sinful part of homosexuality is homosexual sex, the attraction is the temptation to sin.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

A very Good website which adresses the problems you all have with the Cannanite massacare. Many people have legitamte questiosn such as

Did God actually tell them to do it or did the priests just make it up?

Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?

(Exert from the site)

"We really didn't go into this side of the question, but we have enough clues in the above data to take a stab at this

Israel didn't really want to do this AT ALL, so why would they make it up?!

The post-Exodus Israel was a whining (e.g. Num 11.1; Ex 16.2-3), grumbling (e.g. Ex 15.24; 17.3), bunch of folks who wanted to go back to Egypt (Num 14.1-3)! They were constantly afraid of the inhabitants of the Land (e.g. Num 14; Deut 7.19). They never even finished the job (Judges 1.1-3.5). And besides...what good would a forged passage or two in their sacred literature be?! It wouldn't be useful to 'appeal to' in disputes over land. It couldn't have been written centuries later and 'inserted' into the text to give some kind of legitimacy to Israel, because the land descriptions and details are too ancient/obscure to have even be known/made up that later.

No, the data all indicates that IN SPITE OF ISRAEL, the land-grant orders were authentic and ancient."

And many other problems. I suggest you go look for yourseleves.

Ah yes, the Canaanites and everyone else were wicked. (I'd overlooked Deuteronomy 9).
No. There are good people in this world; kind and compassionate people. Not without their faults, but not overshadowed by their faults. Think of the people you know. Are they really that bad; that sinful, that it takes extreme mercy merely to let them live? How would you feel if they were killed? And what would you think of someone who killed them?


Romans 3: 23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

And then

Romans 6: 22 - 24

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

Spewing forth quotes from the bible to try and persuade people that homosexuality is wrong is fine if you are a believer in religion.

Has anyone got an answer to the original question "Why is homosexuality a sin" that doesn't spew a load of shite from a bible?
That would depend on your definition of sin. If you asked a moslem about homosexuality he would quote from the qu'ran. The reason Bible quotes are getting thrown around is that sin is by and large a Biblical term.

How would you define sin?

Shouldn't the answer be, to all the "good" people in the world (Good, as in inherintally good, people who care about their fellow human beings more than the utterings of a second rate 2000 year old novel i.e. the bible) that it matters not a jot whether you are asexual, homosexual,bisexual or heterosexual as long as you harm no one in your pursuit of personal happiness?
You mean all the good people of the world should indulge in pure selfishness? How would they be caring about other people if they're in the pursuit of personal happiness? How do you know how to care about others if you're only interested in yourself?

Bit of a paradox..

I could easyily prove to you that the rise in divorce is linked to several factors not least of which is the decline of religion. And as for your point about your sensablities, kindly remember what we are discussing. Why homosexuality is a sin. The people who think it isn't only have the right to debate on the scriptual and religious grounds and so far no one has succeeded in doing that. No one can find a quote that supports homosexuality and we have found several that condemn it. Ergo the scripures are opposed to it.

From what I've read you've found several that appear to condemn it but that does not hold up when alternate translations and/or ways of interpreting it. At best you've proven that YOU think it is a sin but that another, logical human (and I'm not saying you aren't) could easily think it isn't. It all depends on your viewpoint.

From what I've read you've found several that appear to condemn it but that does not hold up when alternate translations and/or ways of interpreting it. At best you've proven that YOU think it is a sin but that another, logical human (and I'm not saying you aren't) could easily think it isn't. It all depends on your viewpoint.

My point of view is from within a turnip … how does that affect my view on homosexuality?

Well the passage in Romans explains these "Unnautral Lusts" which I presume are homosexual attractions. And though some say "Those are un nautral lusts, hetrosexual men being attracted to men, nautral lusts are between homosexuals and other homosexuals" the phrase "Unnautral" in that context basicly means "Not normal" which I think you will agree homosexuality is. However I do agree that the only actual sinful part of homosexuality is homosexual sex, the attraction is the temptation to sin.

You "PRESUME" the unnatural lusts are homosexual attractions? PRESUME? You are willing to believe that a group of people who are otherwise no different than you are going to hell on presumption? Even worse, you are willing to deprive them of rights for something that by your own wording you THINK is true but might not be?

My point of view is from within a turnip … how does that affect my view on homosexuality?

By PoV I was referring to whether or not you were looking to make homosexuality a sin anyways--or whether or nto your views were formed by those who were.

You "PRESUME" the unnatural lusts are homosexual attractions? PRESUME? You are willing to believe that a group of people who are otherwise no different than you are going to hell on presumption? Even worse, you are willing to deprive them of rights for something that by your own wording you THINK is true but might not be?


You know the old saying “better safe then sorry” :-P

You know the old saying “better safe then sorry” :-P

That could work both ways. God could be sitting up in heaven as ticked as anything that people who claim to follow him are treating other people like dirt when he said to do not such thing.

Oh wait, even if he did say it was wrong, he still said that you shouldn't mistreat others.

That could work both ways. God could be sitting up in heaven as ticked as anything that people who claim to follow him are treating other people like dirt when he said to do not such thing.

Oh wait, even if he did say it was wrong, he still said that you shouldn't mistreat others.


I agree ... was making a flipent remark ... I happen to agree with you ... lol I havent made my sillyness aparent enough today

Originally Posted by Blobites
Spewing forth quotes from the bible to try and persuade people that homosexuality is wrong is fine if you are a believer in religion.

Has anyone got an answer to the original question "Why is homosexuality a sin" that doesn't spew a load of shite from a bible?


That would depend on your definition of sin. If you asked a moslem about homosexuality he would quote from the qu'ran. The reason Bible quotes are getting thrown around is that sin is by and large a Biblical term.

How would you define sin?

My question asked for an answer that didn't relate to religion, I am still waiting!
Sin may be, by and large, a biblical term but it's meaning can be construed as a "wrongdoing", so let me rephrase the origonal question (if it makes it easier for you to be less pedantic) to "Is homosexuality wrong?"

Shouldn't the answer be, to all the "good" people in the world (Good, as in inherintally good, people who care about their fellow human beings more than the utterings of a second rate 2000 year old novel i.e. the bible) that it matters not a jot whether you are asexual, homosexual,bisexual or heterosexual as long as you harm no one in your pursuit of personal happiness?

You mean all the good people of the world should indulge in pure selfishness? How would they be caring about other people if they're in the pursuit of personal happiness? How do you know how to care about others if you're only interested in yourself?

Bit of a paradox..

Ok, we can (and do) read into questions nuances that are not there, of course I didn't mean personal happiness to the exclusion of others, at least not in a selfish sense.
I meant, though I perhaps worded it wrongly, that if we were happy in ourselves and had no gripe with others over things like religion or belief, then what does it matter who loves who?
Being homosexual is not a disease, or illness, or indeed a state of mind, being homosexual is as natural for a gay person as being heterosexual is to the rest of us.
Who the f*ck are we to condemn someone who's only crime is to love another human being?
Why are so many Christians so intolerant of others as to deny deny them chance of happiness?

If I could paraphrase a part of the bible I would say "Let those who have done no wrong cast the first stone"
There isn't a person alive who could, in all honesty, pick up that stone and throw it!

I was having this debate the other day in my politics class and I sort of came to the conclusion that only the act (i.e: sodomy) is a sin and rather 'love' is not. Thus I wouldn't go so far as to say that homosexuality is a sin, it certainely isn't desirable and shouldn't be promoted but its not a sin.

There isn't a person alive who could, in all honesty, pick up that stone and throw it!

I'm sin free, lol!

I'm sin free, lol!
If you were a decent consequent bible-reading Christian, you'ld know that all people are sinners, even if they themselves did nothing wrong. It's part of this "erfzonde" (dutch word, the sin you inherit, like in Adam and Eve eating that wrong apple). You'ld know that the only way to get into heaven is to love Jesus (a man, whoa, talk about being gay :D ). Though I usualy figure everyone should do as he thinks is good and not bother too much about what other people do, unless it affects other people, against their will. (so even if you believe gay people will go to hell, it's their problem and not anybody elses)

Go read my earlier posts on the subject a page or so back. I am not going to reiterate something I said a few posts ago.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367071&page=208&pp=15

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-slaughter.html

Is a URL of a site I used before. Go read it before you respond

well, first - your post doesn't actually respond to mine, in any but the most abstract fashion - so... DENIED. Fell free to take another attempt at answering my questions, if you can.

Second - I went and read the website, and I admit, I gave up halway down - because it was, not only religious propoganda, but also lies.

See - I HAVE studied Mesopotamian myth. And, I can now see that you have NOT - otherwise you would see that the 'pantheon' allocated to the Canaanites is a very poor attempt to describe any actual canonical list of gods. And the 'evil' acts allocated to those gods are surely nothing in comparison to the drowning of millions of people and animals, the burning death reigned on tens of thousands, or the sacrifice on an altar of your own son.

Also - let's face it, most of the stuff they allocate to the various gods is made up for effect, and would be referred to as 'flaming' or at least 'flamebait' if generated in THIS format.... Anath promotes Bestiality? Anath may have been associated with temple prostitutes (although, I'd argue against that), but how does someone leap from there to sex with animals?

Low site. I am disgusted that you even ATTEMPT to use it as justification.

I really hope you are ashamed.

My question asked for an answer that didn't relate to religion, I am still waiting!
Sin may be, by and large, a biblical term but it's meaning can be construed as a "wrongdoing", so let me rephrase the origonal question (if it makes it easier for you to be less pedantic) to "Is homosexuality wrong?"

I'm feeling psychic today, so I predict that Neo Cannon's response to this will be something along the lines of: "But we're discussing why homosexuality is a sin in regards to religion! Stick to the topic!" :rolleyes:

I'm sin free, lol!

Oh, me too. *eats a baby*

If you were a decent consequent bible-reading Christian, you'ld know that all people are sinners, even if they themselves did nothing wrong. It's part of this "erfzonde" (dutch word, the sin you inherit, like in Adam and Eve eating that wrong apple). You'ld know that the only way to get into heaven is to love Jesus (a man, whoa, talk about being gay :D ). Though I usualy figure everyone should do as he thinks is good and not bother too much about what other people do, unless it affects other people, against their will. (so even if you believe gay people will go to hell, it's their problem and not anybody elses)

Jesus....I was only messing about (and yes I did blaspheme).

Let me start by saying that you havn't proved me wrong. Once.


I guess you must be reading a different thread to the rest of us.

As far as I can tell, you have offered no evidence at all (except one lame URL, which has pretty much screwed your chances of ever giving a supported argument, I think)... and I have pointed out the errors in every single thing you've posted.



I did expresively deny that the bible said anything against coulor and race so I was curious what the author of the post I orignally replyed to was refering to as I wanted to put him straight. As of yet I havent seen him respond.

So, you DO deny that there is anything against colour and race?

Jesus....I was only messing about (and yes I did blaspheme).
Did you just call me your Messiah? :D

Did you just call me your Messiah? :D

No....I don't think I did.

Aight lil man. Listen up. If you show me proof that Alcoholism or Homoseuality is Genetic i will believe it. but seriously this is not even a valid arguement. WHETHER ITS GENETIC OR NOT DOES NOT MATTER! This started on a spiritual level and i think we should keep it that way. But just to have fun i will disprove the quotes that i... quoted.

Who cares whether or not it occurs in nature?!?!? The point is that we as humans are ABOVE all other creatures and every religion believes it. If your athiest then it should still be blatantly obvious. As Humans we are SMARTER than animals. I am not saying gays are retarded but i'm saying that there should be some serious thought that goes into your desicion to be gay. not so "o im expirimanting" bull shit. God made male for female and humans are smarter than animals make the connection.

The POPE (leader of the catholic church) HIMSELF says that the creation stories are historically bull shit and that evolution occurred. So the man who thought up evolution (Darwin) also came up with natural selection. They go hand in hand. (If you know what they mean :mp5: ) The point is in summary that genetics is no excuse, natural selection doesnt have to be in the Bible, the fact that it occurs in nature has no significance, and I WIN :sniper:


After seeing this I just had to reply:
The only reason we see dogs and other animals going at it male to male is because even the animals were cursed when Adam and Eve fell in the garden of Eden. Originally all critters ate grass, they didn't eat each other. But the whole animal kingdom fell with us. Poor innocent creatures!
But yeah, God made us with bodies like animals but our brains are obviously far beyond--we are supposed to use the mind that God has given us in order to overcome our physical problems.

You "PRESUME" the unnatural lusts are homosexual attractions? PRESUME? You are willing to believe that a group of people who are otherwise no different than you are going to hell on presumption? Even worse, you are willing to deprive them of rights for something that by your own wording you THINK is true but might not be?Wel, after all, it is his (her?) opinion that maybe the guy who wrote that chapter, who may or may not have gotten exactly what god meant (again, presuming god said anything - and it's not just a case of some guy deciding to write this several thousand years ago) down right, and further assuming a good transalation from the original, on which he/she is basing his/her presumption that those un-natural lusts are homosexual attraction.

Sounds fair...ly ridiculous

Can you be a little more specific when you say mistakes

I can be as specific as you like.

I have literally hundreds of examples of biblical mistakes... the question is, where to start???

The really stupid stuff, like god not knowing that crickets have six legs, or that bats aren't birds?

Tell you what, how many children does Michal have?

Let's start with that one. Show your scriptural support.

After seeing this I just had to reply:
The only reason we see dogs and other animals going at it male to male is because even the animals were cursed when Adam and Eve fell in the garden of Eden. Originally all critters ate grass, they didn't eat each other. But the whole animal kingdom fell with us. Poor innocent creatures!
But yeah, God made us with bodies like animals but our brains are obviously far beyond--we are supposed to use the mind that God has given us in order to overcome our physical problems.I'm sorry, I can't tell if this is intentional sarcasm, or if you really believe that nonsense.

I can be as specific as you like.

I have literally hundreds of examples of biblical mistakes... the question is, where to start???

The really stupid stuff, like god not knowing that crickets have six legs, or that bats aren't birds?

Tell you what, how many children does Michal have?

Let's start with that one. Show your scriptural support.


Phhht! The biggest mistake is the title of the book.

You might want to re-read the Bible; those of us you accuse of being uneducated about the Bible seem to know more of its contents than you do. Heck, Grave_n_idle has read it in Hebrew, and is quite familar (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7404082&postcount=2101) with at least Genesis. And zie's been kind enough to share some of what zie knows.

Ah, I see. For some reason I thought the Kaleds needed the armour to live.



Perhaps the Kaleds did need the armour... I think their planet had been wrecked in war, and they were a dying race... but Davros wanted an army... so maybe he was 'killing two cybermen with one stone".

Isn't it scary how the side arguing AGAINST the biblical interpretations that sponsor hate, know the scripture so much more thoroughly than the side that espouses persecution or inequality?

In most of Europe,and larg parts of Asia peope just done CARE.

For those of you who do define people by theyr sexuality.
Do you ever wonder how you best hetro friends have sex ?
No ?

So why so obsessd with the sex life of gays ?

Who cares what these people do in theyr bedrooms.
I sure dont care if my friends jerk of with theyr right had or theyr left.

I agree ... was making a flipent remark ... I happen to agree with you ... lol I havent made my sillyness aparent enough today

It's okay, I'm not feeling well so I'm pretty apt to misread humor.

Read Revelations. It's an eye opener!

Now, this part IS true. It really IS an eye-opener.

How can the religion that was losing popularity to Mithraism in the Late Roman Empire, manage to steal the 'revelations' almost word-for-word from Mithraism, and try to palm it off as their own?

Of course, when they stole 'revelations', they changed some of the names...

I do find myself wondering why god gave 'revelations' to someone else first, though?

Wel, after all, it is his (her?) opinion that maybe the guy who wrote that chapter, who may or may not have gotten exactly what god meant (again, presuming god said anything - and it's not just a case of some guy deciding to write this several thousand years ago) down right, and further assuming a good transalation from the original, on which he/she is basing his/her presumption that those un-natural lusts are homosexual attraction.

Sounds fair...ly ridiculous

I like you.

I could easyily prove to you that the rise in divorce is linked to several factors not least of which is the decline of religion. And as for your point about your sensablities, kindly remember what we are discussing. Why homosexuality is a sin. The people who think it isn't only have the right to debate on the scriptual and religious grounds and so far no one has succeeded in doing that. No one can find a quote that supports homosexuality and we have found several that condemn it. Ergo the scripures are opposed to it.

This is all lies.

Grow up.

You cannot PROVE that divorce has anything to do with religion.

You can show statistics that might draw a parallel - but that isn't proof. How does the researcher know that cellular phone technology doesn't contribute to divorce??? Because they choose to focus on certain issues, to try to identify correlations... and a correlation is not PROOF.

I have proved that homosexual love and marriage are condoned in the bible.

I have also disproved your 'attempts' to prove that it was condemned.

Ergo, the scriptures do not oppose it.

In most of Europe,and larg parts of Asia peope just done CARE.

For those of you who do define people by theyr sexuality.
Do you ever wonder how you best hetro friends have sex ?
No ?

So why so obsessd with the sex life of gays ?

Who cares what these people do in theyr bedrooms.
I sure dont care if my friends jerk of with theyr right had or theyr left.


While I appreciate your tolerance (really) I want to take this opportunity to point out that its not just about sex. Everyone keeps talking about homosexuality as if it was just guys sleeping with guys. Its much more than that. Its about love and emotional fulfillment, its about dates and romance and waht makes you happy. No one says being a heterosexual is just about guys sleeping with girls, so why do people keep assuming that homosexuality is just about sex?

<Editorial Addition>

My apologies to my lesbian sisters for leaving them out :) Homosexuality isn't just about women having sex with women either.

sexuality in itself is no sin. no matter what gender. we are not the only species that choose same sex mates. theology is only a human function. we are not better nor worse than any other species. and i'm not just talking about mammals here. we don't worship what has given us life. which is the earth. not some deity floating around somewhere above this world.

I could easyily prove to you that the rise in divorce is linked to several factors not least of which is the decline of religion. And as for your point about your sensablities, kindly remember what we are discussing. Why homosexuality is a sin. The people who think it isn't only have the right to debate on the scriptual and religious grounds and so far no one has succeeded in doing that. No one can find a quote that supports homosexuality and we have found several that condemn it. Ergo the scripures are opposed to it.
1. You can link the rise of divorce to the decline in religion - that's so easy it's almost absurd. Of late (last several hundred years) Christianity has been opposed to divorce. At the same time, Christianity has threatened anyone who didn't "Toe the line" with eternal damnation. As people move away from allowing whoever purports to have the authority to write the rules for all christians, and towards allowing themselves to make their own choices, the fear they have of each of the "rules" lessens. This leads to less people believing they will be eternally damned if they decide to get a divorce. There - I did it for you.
2. You are discussing why homosexuality is a sin. I am discussing why homosexuality ISN'T a sin.
3. What/who determined that those of us who take the viewpoint that homosexuality ISN'T a sin are limited to finding such proof in religion and/or scriptures? I can give you a long history lesson on thousands of things religion has been WRONG on over the past several thousand years (a very SHORT list - Burning witches, the Spanish Inquisition, Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun). As to scriptures - which scriptures? Which translation? Who gets to decide which parts are mistakes? Which side of the multiple contradictions is right, and which is wrong?
4. What are "scripures"? (that's a joke, to lighten the mood a bit)

I like you.I like you, too :)

I think homosexuality is a complete nonissue. We have more serious things to worry about than two people of the same gender being in love.

And the issue of being a Catholic and categorically against gay marriage ... that's just ridiculous. Some of us are a little more open-minded than that. In the Catholic religion, we're to be taught that the Bible is a guide book for life, not a rule book. Who knows, maybe my priest is just a little more liberal than the rest?

I like you, too :)

Wanna have sex? :fluffle:

And yes this is a joke people.

I just figured I would through it out for the momentary edification of those who think gay mean ONLY think of sex ALL the time with ANY man regardless of ANYTHING else (like his sexuality). :rolleyes:

This is all lies.

Grow up.

You cannot PROVE that divorce has anything to do with religion.

You can show statistics that might draw a parallel - but that isn't proof. How does the researcher know that cellular phone technology doesn't contribute to divorce??? Because they choose to focus on certain issues, to try to identify correlations... and a correlation is not PROOF.

I have proved that homosexual love and marriage are condoned in the bible.

I have also disproved your 'attempts' to prove that it was condemned.

Ergo, the scriptures do not oppose it.

To address the appologitics reference in your earlier post, there are just as many sources disproving your sources that prove the Bible is inaccurate, or incorrect. I assure you, the Bible is infaliable and without error.

Here is one scripture that makes it very clear. The purpose of the Law of God is for the sinners and the saved to identify why they need a savior. I will say no more on the issue, but please deeply consider this passage and remember that you can be forgiven and saved. I was and I didin't deserve it. No one does.
Romans Chapter 1
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[3] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[4] unmerciful; 32who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

I assure you, the Bible is infaliable and without error.
Oh...well, of course, if you can assure us...

I can assure you that the bible is riddled with error.

This is all lies.
You can show statistics that might draw a parallel - but that isn't proof. How does the researcher know that cellular phone technology doesn't contribute to divorce??? Because they choose to focus on certain issues, to try to identify correlations... and a correlation is not PROOF.


Firstly accusing me of lieing is a big flame and highly insulting. Dont do it. Second, there are several sociological phonominan which you can link directly to the rise of divorce of which include the decline of religion. It is not just a statistical link, but a sociological one. I could explain myself if you wish but I do not wish do drag us off topic any further


I have proved that homosexual love and marriage are condoned in the bible.



1) No you havnt. No one has provided a shread of Biblical evidence to support homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. There is no verse that says anything to the effect of "Homosexuality is a god given expression of love" or anything resembling a positve endorcement of homosexuality and since the Bible works on both positive and negative freedoms, you have to show me an example of where it says it is supported.


I have also disproved your 'attempts' to prove that it was condemned.

2) No you havn't. No one has yet found a way of refuting my point that the Moral law of the old testement still stands and that the writings of Paul too condem homosexuality. As of yet there have been some poor attempts to wiggle round translation errors and such but nothing significent.

And as for your earlier points about my URL's here are some more for you to digest

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

2. You are discussing why homosexuality is a sin. I am discussing why homosexuality ISN'T a sin.


Agreed, I was just responding to someone else


3. What/who determined that those of us who take the viewpoint that homosexuality ISN'T a sin are limited to finding such proof in religion and/or scriptures? I can give you a long history lesson on thousands of things religion has been WRONG on over the past several thousand years (a very SHORT list - Burning witches, the Spanish Inquisition, Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun). As to scriptures - which scriptures? Which translation? Who gets to decide which parts are mistakes? Which side of the multiple contradictions is right, and which is wrong?


Well since we are disussing why and why not homosexuality is a SIN and since SIN is a religious term, you must use scripture to disprove it because that is the evidence that holds up in Christianity. If you are debating the rights and wrongs of something inside the Christian faith, it is only fair to use argments from within the Christian faith.


4. What are "scripures"? (that's a joke, to lighten the mood a bit)

In this case the Bible primaryly (though there have been a few other religions flying about in the thread of late but predominantly its the Bible)

As far as I can tell, you have offered no evidence at all (except one lame URL, which has pretty much screwed your chances of ever giving a supported argument, I think)... and I have pointed out the errors in every single thing you've posted.


I have offerd tons of Biblical evidence, you just havent read it. And what errors? You havnt been on here the whole time I've posted. There is still plenty of stuff which stands up. Please expalin what you "Think" you have disproved and I will explain why you havnt.


So, you DO deny that there is anything against colour and race?

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

Galatians 3:28

The Bibles stance on racisim

Firstly accusing me of lieing is a big flame and highly insulting. Dont do it. Second, there are several sociological phonominan which you can link directly to the rise of divorce of which include the decline of religion. It is not just a statistical link, but a sociological one. I could explain myself if you wish but I do not wish do drag us off topic any further

No one accused you of personally lieing. You were simply repeating lies you heard somewhere else. Actually calling you a liar would imply intent which I don't think was there.

The rising rate of divorce has little to do with religion or lack thereof. It has to do with the fact that people are lazy. There are two types of people getting married these days, and they've both got it wrong. One type is the ones who are "'til death do us part, even if you're the one to kill me." This types stays married to the detriment of their health. The other is the "We had a fight, let's get a divorce type." These people are too lazy to *work* at a marriage (and any long-term relationship does take work).

1) No you havnt. No one has provided a shread of Biblical evidence to support homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. There is no verse that says anything to the effect of "Homosexuality is a god given expression of love" or anything resembling a positve endorcement of homosexuality and since the Bible works on both positive and negative freedoms, you have to show me an example of where it says it is supported.

Nothing in the Bible says "Go out and drive cars either" but no one is claiming it is a sin. God is love. God wants human beings to love. Homosexual love is exactly the same as heterosexual love.

2) No you havn't. No one has yet found a way of refuting my point that the Moral law of the old testement still stands and that the writings of Paul too condem homosexuality. As of yet there have been some poor attempts to wiggle round translation errors and such but nothing significent.

And you have only explained why the food laws don't apply. You still haven't told us why a woman isn't unclean for twice as long after a girl baby, why we can wear poly-cotton blends, or why you can sit in a chair after a menstruating woman sat there.

You also have yet to explain why "A man shall not lie with a man..." was not a social law rather than a moral one, even though the reason to believe it was has been pointed out time and time again.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

Galatians 3:28

The Bibles stance on racisim

An omniscient being cannot change its mind. This means that either the OT statements that race and ethnicity matter were wrong, or this statement was wrong.

((I'm gonna go with the OT statement being wrong.))

If someone is gay it is because their brain is shaped different then it should be or they have a hormonal imbalance or they have chemical imbalance in the brain. So because it is not a gay persons fault that they are gay then it can't be a sin. I'm not sure if what I just said made any scince but it will be ok.

I still don't understand how an argument like this could go on for 215 pages. But meh, I guess people like to argue, huh?

Anyway, this is how I see it:

Gay marriage in the church is wrong. Plain and simple. The purpose of the uniting of a man and a woman is to produce children. Gays can't do that. So, it isn't allowed.

But, marriage outside of the church is acceptable, because gays deserve all the social benefits that marriage provides. This is completely acceptable, for the fact that it isn't violating some religion because the marriage is not in the church.

Take it or leave it, people.

If someone is gay it is because their brain is shaped different then it should be or they have a hormonal imbalance or they have chemical imbalance in the brain. So because it is not a gay persons fault that they are gay then it can't be a sin. I'm not sure if what I just said made any scince but it will be ok.

It makes perfect sense. You don't just wake up one day and decide to be gay. You don't have a choice, its just how you are. No matter how much you might try to change it, nothing short of a frontal lobotomy can sway you otherwise. And I don't think people like chunks of their brain being removed.

So we know that it isn't a sin, as long as its not in the church. The only issue remaining is, can people accept it? The answer, is that the majority of the population of the U.S. simply can't abide by the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, even if its outside the church.

Biblical information on Homosexuality

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)

Genesis 19


Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [1] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, [2] please! 19 Your [3] servant has found favor in your [4] eyes, and you [5] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. [6] )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities-and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD . 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

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.

1 Corinthians 6

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

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

Biblical information came from: Biblegateway.com and remember a bible will not lie. God still loves gay people but condemns those kinds of behavior. If you are gay and need to seek help go talk to a trusted Christian counselor and pray to God. Prayer isnt like magical but prayer is to communicate to God. So, Take care.

Brother in Christ,
Ryan

The rising rate of divorce has little to do with religion or lack thereof. It has to do with the fact that people are lazy. There are two types of people getting married these days, and they've both got it wrong. One type is the ones who are "'til death do us part, even if you're the one to kill me." This types stays married to the detriment of their health. The other is the "We had a fight, let's get a divorce type." These people are too lazy to *work* at a marriage (and any long-term relationship does take work).


I agree there is that factor. However the religous stigma of divorce being lost is another. Aroximately eighty years ago there would have been a great deal of snearing and looking down the nose by the (then far larger and more serious) religous community. However with the rise in postmodernism and the decline of the church's power and influence in socity (UK here, possibly not so much elsewhere) people saw divorce as less and less of a stigma and more and more of a choice. Also there are the relaxing of sevearl divorce laws and other factors which I could go into now but would take a while (I just wanted to explain the part religion played)


Nothing in the Bible says "Go out and drive cars either" but no one is claiming it is a sin. God is love. God wants human beings to love. Homosexual love is exactly the same as heterosexual love.


The car example is stupid since cars were not around then and as we have stated you cannot use "love" as it could open up a floodgate of other things. Just saying "I deeply love X" does not and should not give you everything you want.


And you have only explained why the food laws don't apply. You still haven't told us why a woman isn't unclean for twice as long after a girl baby, why we can wear poly-cotton blends, or why you can sit in a chair after a menstruating woman sat there.


The clothing and the food laws go hand in hand as it was the case that you only killed the clean animals to make clothes as it was to get food. And rather than show you what law has been removed, I will show you the law that remains. Its what the new testement does. Here is another URL to explain it and an exert from it towards the end

(Exert begins)

"When the statement is made that the Law had ended, this does not mean that God no longer has any laws or codes for His people. This does not mean that there are no moral precepts to be followed. The New Testament speaks of the "law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2), the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2), and the "royal law" (James 2:8). This "law" includes numerous commands, both positive and negative, which form a distinct code of ethics for today. [13] It is here that the pro-homosexual exegetes have made their mistake. As a unit the New Testament code is new, but not all the commands in the New Testament are new. There is overlap, deletion, and addition. Some of the commands in the Mosaic code have been reincorporated into the New Testament code.

But if the Law was done away, how can parts of it be repeated in the New Testament? The answer lies in the distinction between the Old Testament code and the commandments which were contained in that code.

The Mosaic law has been done away in its entirety as a code. God is no longer guiding the life of man by this particular code. In its place He has introduced the law of Christ. Many of the individual commands within that law are new, but some are not. Some of the ones which are old were also found in the Mosaic law and they are now incorporated completely and [are] forever done away. As part of the law of Christ they are binding on the believer today. [14]

This throws much light on the statements made by those who would justify homosexuality from a biblical standpoint. It serves to bring their emotional rhetoric into proper focus. The laws concerning diet, punishment by stoning, or wearing mixed fabrics have been abrogated. However, the proscriptions against homosexual behavior have been repeated in the New Testament code (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:9-10). This should be a major concern of pro-homosexual advocates simply because it totally destroys the point they attempt to make with regard to the Old Testament law. It is false to say that something which was sin under the Law is no longer sin under grace.

What this all means is that the commands dealing with homosexuality in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:13 are still highly relevant because they have been reincorporated into the New Testament code. A moral unity exists between the Old and New Testaments. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have sexual relations with animals, and to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex. God has dealt with people in different ways at different times, but His standard for righteousness has never changed. If morality has changed then the character of God has changed, because the basis of morality is in the character of God who is immutable (Mal 3:6).

(Exert ends)


You also have yet to explain why "A man shall not lie with a man..." was not a social law rather than a moral one, even though the reason to believe it was has been pointed out time and time again.

See above

If someone is gay it is because their brain is shaped different then it should be or they have a hormonal imbalance or they have chemical imbalance in the brain. So because it is not a gay persons fault that they are gay then it can't be a sin. I'm not sure if what I just said made any scince but it will be ok.

Care to prove this (Note hear, the burden of proof is on YOU since it is YOU who is making this claim)

An omniscient being cannot change its mind. This means that either the OT statements that race and ethnicity matter were wrong, or this statement was wrong.

((I'm gonna go with the OT statement being wrong.))

The Old Testement speeks about inter cultural marriage with a nasty sounding tone because then God wanted Israel to be as pure as possible. With no direct removal of sins the only thing to do was to impose strict laws on intermarriage to stop the sinful ideas of the other cultures comming in. The Old testement is not "Wrong" its just in this case it is irrelvent.

The car example is stupid since cars were not around then and as we have stated you cannot use "love" as it could open up a floodgate of other things. Just saying "I deeply love X" does not and should not give you everything you want.

No, but stating that homosexuals cannot have relationships essentially states that God has chosen them, and them only, to be fully excluded from one of the highest forms of love.

The clothing and the food laws go hand in hand as it was the case that you only killed the clean animals to make clothes as it was to get food. And rather than show you what law has been removed, I will show you the law that remains. Its what the new testement does. Here is another URL to explain it and an exert from it towards the end

This is not a Biblical reference, but someone else's interpretation of the Bible. Paul was a Jew and a fallible man, and as such may have held on to some laws that he should not have. Paul also seems to be condemning lust in his passage, not love. Perhaps he, like so many other people, was of the impression that homosexuality is a choice and that it never involves love. We know now that this is not the case.

And, of course, none of this explains why some of the obviously un-Godlike laws were included in Mosaic law to begin with.

Care to prove this (Note hear, the burden of proof is on YOU since it is YOU who is making this claim)

I guess that means I can't prove the point for him :D

.. not like I already did, in some way ..

The Old Testement speeks about inter cultural marriage with a nasty sounding tone because then God wanted Israel to be as pure as possible. With no direct removal of sins the only thing to do was to impose strict laws on intermarriage to stop the sinful ideas of the other cultures comming in. The Old testement is not "Wrong" its just in this case it is irrelvent.

So much for personal responsibility.

Of course, part of the verse you used also said that we should not discriminate between men and women, which is a statement completely opposed by most of the Bible.

Hopefully this won't spark another hot debate, but I have to say it anyways.

As long as you believe in God, want to be with him, and ask forgiveness of all your sins, you will go to heaven.

A man was murdered by a shameful criminal. When the man went before the heavenly father, he was not admitted into heaven because he was angry at the criminal.

The murderer, however, asked God for forgiveness of what he had done, and when he passed away, the Lord let him in.

.. Just a summary of something I heard in church, once.

No, but stating that homosexuals cannot have relationships essentially states that God has chosen them, and them only, to be fully excluded from one of the highest forms of love.

Perhaps he (Paul), like so many other people, was of the impression that homosexuality is a choice and that it never involves love. We know now that this is not the case.


Perhaps I should point out again that "Love" cannot be used in a reasoned debate. The reason why is that it cannot be quantified. While I have no doubt that love exists, in the framework of the debate it cannot be quantified if homosexual and hetrosexual love are the same (and on another note I have agreed that only homosexual sex is a sin and not the attraction)


This is not a Biblical reference, but someone else's interpretation of the Bible. Paul was a Jew and a fallible man, and as such may have held on to some laws that he should not have. Paul also seems to be condemning lust in his passage, not love.

And, of course, none of this explains why some of the obviously un-Godlike laws were included in Mosaic law to begin with.

Read the URL, dont dismiss it because its human. And lots of the mosaic laws are removed by the new testement but NOT ALL. The reason for the seeming strictness and "Un-Godlike" nature of the laws (Although who are we as humans to say what is and isnt God like in the Bible) is that pre Crucifixtion there was nothing to seperate sin from sinner so the only option God had was to make the laws very strict so that as few people would sin as possible.

So we know that it isn't a sin, as long as its not in the church. The only issue remaining is, can people accept it? The answer, is that the majority of the population of the U.S. simply can't abide by the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, even if its outside the church.

Actually the majority of the US population (~70%) are for some form of legal reognition of gay unions. What they aren't all for is gay "marriage" because most of the people are too stupid to see that marriage != religion.

I personally don't believe in gay marriage because if two people of the same gender were meant to be together, then they would be able to birth children. There would not be a difference in gender if it was not supposed to matter. I do believe that marriage has been ruined by the government, with all of the divorce and such, but there are some who still believe in the tradition of a man and wife wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. I also believe that if two people (emphasis on the word people) want to be together, then by all means. But marriage was based on religion to begin with, so if two homosexuals want to be together, then call it something different. Leave something to hold on to for those of us that don't like change. If religion doesn't apply to you, then think scientifically. Either way, it shouldn't happen.

Read the URL, dont dismiss it because its human. And lots of the mosaic laws are removed by the new testement but NOT ALL. The reason for the seeming strictness and "Un-Godlike" nature of the laws (Although who are we as humans to say what is and isnt God like in the Bible) is that pre Crucifixtion there was nothing to seperate sin from sinner so the only option God had was to make the laws very strict so that as few people would sin as possible.

Sin is breaking the laws set by God is it not? So if you want as few people as possible to sin, why not make the laws LESS strict and easier to follow?

So much for personal responsibility.

Of course, part of the verse you used also said that we should not discriminate between men and women, which is a statement completely opposed by most of the Bible.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

Galatians 3:28

Its where you find it in the bible thats often important

But marriage was based on religion to begin with, so if two homosexuals want to be together, then call it something different. Leave something to hold on to for those of us that don't like change. If religion doesn't apply to you, then think scientifically. Either way, it shouldn't happen.

Those who refuse to change are inevitably doomed to extinction. That's a scientific precept. Scientifically thinking, there ARE reasons for homosexuality that make sense. And finally, separate is NOT equal. If religious people don't want homosexuals to be "married" in the eyes of the government, then they need to be willing to NOT be married either. Let everyone get a civil union and I think you will find that most gays will agree to it. Of course, I'm willing to bet most striaghts want because they already see themselves as better than us.

Its where you find it in the bible thats often important

This statement is completely incompatible with the belief that the entire Bible is the word of God.

Sin is breaking the laws set by God is it not? So if you want as few people as possible to sin, why not make the laws LESS strict and easier to follow?

Sin is NOT just breaking Gods law. It is not living the life that God wanted us to.

Ok, I have nothing wrong with gay people. I have gay friends. I dont see being gay as a sin exactly, but I do not believe gay marriage should be legalized. I know alot of people on here have made comments to the Bible and we all know that homosexuality is deemed a sin in the Bible's eyes, but just think of it from a life/reproductive standpoint. Gay people cannot reproduce and since one important part of marriage is to have children there is not reason for gay people to marry because they cannot carry this out. Secondly, if things (people/plants/animals/etc.) were meant to be gay, they would have been made all one sex and been made to reproduce that way....they weren't which is another way it proves that homosexuality is not just another way of life...LIfe could not go on if we were all gay.

This statement is completely incompatible with the belief that the entire Bible is the word of God.

No its not. The Bible is God's word. Some parts of it do not affect us today, some do, depending upon which parts God said do.

Perhaps I should point out again that "Love" cannot be used in a reasoned debate. The reason why is that it cannot be quantified. While I have no doubt that love exists, in the framework of the debate it cannot be quantified if homosexual and hetrosexual love are the same (and on another note I have agreed that only homosexual sex is a sin and not the attraction)

We are talking about religion here, are we not? Love is a big part of Christ's teachings, and thus the Christian religion. Leaving out love basically cuts out all talk of religion.

Read the URL, dont dismiss it because its human.

You didn't post a URL, but I read the part you posted. If it is human, then it is fallible, and no more credible, in fact *less* credible to me, than my own interpretation.

The reason for the seeming strictness and "Un-Godlike" nature of the laws (Although who are we as humans to say what is and isnt God like in the Bible) is that pre Crucifixtion there was nothing to seperate sin from sinner so the only option God had was to make the laws very strict so that as few people would sin as possible.

You are the one who simultaneously says that God doesn't hate women but God made Mosaic laws against them. How is it a sin to menstruate? How is it a sin to have a female child? How is it a sin to not bleed on your wedding night (and don't say this is a sure sign that you are not a virgin, because it is not), how is it a sin to be female? There are Mosaic laws that make no moral or rational sense. This is a fact.

Here's a really interesting one: If two men are fighting and a woman tries to break up the fight by grabbing the crotch of one of the men, she shall be stoned. In all truthfulness, this is just silly. First of all, how often would that even happen? Second of all, how is it any more immoral to stop the fight that way than to grab him by the ear? You want to know why that law was there? It was because the *men* who wrote the laws thought women were inferior, plain and simple.

It's not that I refuse to change, it's just certain things I will not budge on, such as gay marriage.The reason for not making laws less strict and easier to follow is the same reason that people don't lower their standards: because of those who do more than minimum requirements. If the law said don't steal, it applies to everything. It doesn't just mean don't steal cars; why is stealing one thing worse than stealing another? It is the act of stealing that is the problem.

No its not. The Bible is God's word. Some parts of it do not affect us today, some do, depending upon which parts God said do.

"Women are inferior" doesn't apply one day and not apply the next. It is either true or it is not.

Isn't the statement 'Women are inferior' an opinion rather than something true? Doesn't it depend on the person whether or not this is true?

It's not that I refuse to change, it's just certain things I will not budge on, such as gay marriage.The reason for not making laws less strict and easier to follow is the same reason that people don't lower their standards: because of those who do more than minimum requirements. If the law said don't steal, it applies to everything. It doesn't just mean don't steal cars; why is stealing one thing worse than stealing another? It is the act of stealing that is the problem.


ok the logic was rather twisted here ... or at least hard to follow

but if you want to expand on that act of stealing into sexual representation

Then I could also ask you why is sex with women any better then sex with men?
it is the act of sex that is the problem?

Seems rather silly but maybe try to rephrase and such

Isn't the statement 'Women are inferior' an opinion rather than something true? Doesn't it depend on the person whether or not this is true?

Can God hold opinions?

And no, in the OT, it is made very clear that women are dirtier and less important than men - in all cases, not on a case by case basis.

Hopefully this won't spark another hot debate, but I have to say it anyways.

As long as you believe in God, want to be with him, and ask forgiveness of all your sins, you will go to heaven.

A man was murdered by a shameful criminal. When the man went before the heavenly father, he was not admitted into heaven because he was angry at the criminal.

The murderer, however, asked God for forgiveness of what he had done, and when he passed away, the Lord let him in.

.. Just a summary of something I heard in church, once.

I said I wouldn't post anymore, but I just can't resist this.

This story is an example of poor handling of the word of God and is evidence of the fault of the church right now. Grace saves, not works and not remembering to repent everyting. The poor pastor who gave that message was sadly mistaken. If those men were saved and in repentance of their sin, in other words dealing with the attempt to turn away from it, they would have been permitied into heaven and spared of eternal hellfire, Biblicly (truthfuly) speaking.

You can't base the level of satisfaction of sex on gender alone, it depends on each person you do it with. I wasn't saying that either one was better than the other. I just meant that if two people of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

We are talking about religion here, are we not? Love is a big part of Christ's teachings, and thus the Christian religion. Leaving out love basically cuts out all talk of religion.


I meant dont say "Homosexual love is as good as hetrosexual love" because it is impossible to quantify. We dont know.


You didn't post a URL, but I read the part you posted. If it is human, then it is fallible, and no more credible, in fact *less* credible to me, than my own interpretation.


"*less* credible to me than my own interpretation" if thats not arrogence I dont know what is.



You are the one who simultaneously says that God doesn't hate women but God made Mosaic laws against them. How is it a sin to menstruate? How is it a sin to have a female child? How is it a sin to not bleed on your wedding night (and don't say this is a sure sign that you are not a virgin, because it is not), how is it a sin to be female? There are Mosaic laws that make no moral or rational sense. This is a fact.

Here's a really interesting one: If two men are fighting and a woman tries to break up the fight by grabbing the crotch of one of the men, she shall be stoned. In all truthfulness, this is just silly. First of all, how often would that even happen? Second of all, how is it any more immoral to stop the fight that way than to grab him by the ear? You want to know why that law was there? It was because the *men* who wrote the laws thought women were inferior, plain and simple.

I dont know all the reasons for all the Mosaic laws, but this I do know, very few of them survive the comming of Jesus. And here are said URL's

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM

And some other stuff on the Cannanite massacre

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

You can't base the level of satisfaction of sex on gender alone, it depends on each person you do it with. I wasn't saying that either one was better than the other. I just meant that if two people of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two dogs of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two cats of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two elephants of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two giraffes of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two apes of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two monkeys of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two rats of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two mice of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two guineau pigs of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two sheep of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two cattle of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two dolphins of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two walruses of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two hummingbirds of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two swans of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two squirrels of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two geese of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two flamingos of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two woodpeckers of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

If two finches of the same gender were meant to have sex, then there would not be a difference in gender.

Need I go on?

Sin is NOT just breaking Gods law. It is not living the life that God wanted us to.

So still, why not make it easy for us to live if he doesn't want us to sin?

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

Galatians 3:28

Its where you find it in the Bible thats often important
Exactly. When paul explains that men should treat women like the weaker vessel he means to treat them gently and kindly.

More over, he is refering to the responsibilty a man has to his wife and his children. Too many things are taken out of the full contex of what is written. You can't take two lines out of a Stephen King book and understand the whole story, why would you be able to do it with the Bible?