NationStates Jolt Archive

And the idea of Eden being perfect is based off of a biblical passage lol

You are missing the point. Grave_n_idle thought I was saying "Anything in the Bible is right as its in the Bible" where as what I was saying is that "In this case what happens in the Bible is what God intended as thats how he created it in Eden, and how it was in Eden was how God wanted it to be"

No, God already gave them free will. They chose to disobey, and how would God have wanted that?
wait, so you are saying that Adam and Eve had free will BEFORE they ate the fruit? that means that there was free will before humans were capable of evil!

whenever i ask religious people why God allows evil to befall the world, they say that it is because God wants us to have free will and that the price of that free will is that we are able to choose to do evil. but you are saying that it is possible for humans to have free will even if they are pure and innocent...so why would God allow there to be evil in the world?

EDEN was perfect????

You mean the perfecht snake? The perfect stupid Eve? The perfect lie of god telling Adam and Eva they would die suddenly die after eating the forbidden fruit? And then they lived afterwards a lot of years...


God tells them they will "surely" die after eating the fruit, not suddenly. Before eating the fruit they were Immortal, but that was not the case afterward. And the serpant (Though evil in itself) reperesnts in my view the fact that God does not brainwash us. He did not give himself the position of being the only entity in the garden to speek to them, if he had it would have been indocrination. Its the old idea of there being no light without dark

No light without dark, good without evil is an old Eastern concept that has only made its way into the west relatively recently. It was not around 5k years ago.

Sorry they were not inmortal before eating the forbidden fruit... ;)

Just read your bible. Just before throwing Adam and Eve out of Eden god says something like ... and i throw them out BEFORE they eat from the tree of inmortality and are like god... ;)

Sorry, i have no english bible and my english is surely very bad, but you will find this in the "Genesis".

and EDEN is only referred to in the BIBLE so you're still saying "because the BIBLE says so"

and what's more, you're only referring to one specific part of the bible. thereby not even using all of your ONLY source to back up your argument.
plus, how can eden be perfect with no dykes, fags, and assorted queers?

and obviously it WASN'T perfect, because even in the BIBLE, god had already had that unfortunate incident where he created a woman who wouldn't blindly do her husband's bidding, and kicked her out. that mistake in the divine plan happened in EDEN. maybe i'm just crazy, but god fucking up the divine plan seems like an indication that EDEN wasn't so perfect. that gods's means of rectifying this mistake involved exiling lilith, arguably the most interesting personality on the PLANET (since, as the story goes, there was only her and adam, and adam seems like he probably had all the personality of a Ken doll) only confirms my suspicion that god was ad-libbing, at best.

God tells them they will "surely" die after eating the fruit, not suddenly. Before eating the fruit they were Immortal, but that was not the case afterward. And the serpant (Though evil in itself) reperesnts in my view the fact that God does not brainwash us. He did not give himself the position of being the only entity in the garden to speek to them, if he had it would have been indocrination. Its the old idea of there being no light without dark

And then he chooses not to tell them that the serpent lies?

Whichever way you look at it, either 'god' is a pretty poor caretaker, or he lied.

The saddest part is that it's often not anybody's fault; it's just the way things happen when you try to translate from Hebrew to Latin to English. Going through a mediary language can easily destroy the original meaning of the text.

and all those church conventions where they set up an orthodoxy and cut out all those parts of the bible that were inconvenient to their doctrine, and scrapped the gnostic gospels and revised the old testament and got rid of that story about jesus killing a kid for stomping his sandcastle, those were all just translation errors too. nobody's fault.

You are missing the point. Grave_n_idle thought I was saying "Anything in the Bible is right as its in the Bible" where as what I was saying is that "In this case what happens in the Bible is what God intended as thats how he created it in Eden, and how it was in Eden was how God wanted it to be"

I disagree. God created the serpent? God created a force of evil, who would serve the purpose of deception?

If so - then god was creating a less than perfect world - so your 'perfect' story doesn't hold up.

If god didn't put the serpent there, then we are to believe that another entity has sufficient power that it can insert itself in the creation of the one true god? How can another entity be that powerful? That it can enter the garden, and thrive undetected?

Did god mean for all animals to always eat vegetables? Isn't that supposedly in Eden?

And then he chooses not to tell them that the serpent lies?

Whichever way you look at it, either 'god' is a pretty poor caretaker, or he lied.

It is both!

Without knowing anything about "good and evil" it was imposible for Adam and Eve to know that it was bad to disobey.

A few weeks ago i was visited by Testimonys of Jehowa (i hope you called them so) and we talked about the Genesis and Adam and Eve. At the end they had to say that it is posible that this chapter was bad translated because it shows clearly that god lies and that he made a very bad job in his creation.

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

If you're referring to Sodom & Gomorrah, homosexuality was never mentioned. Sodomy is not an exclusively homosexual act, but Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed for their numerous transgressions against God, not just because of homosexuality. If this were true, many ancient cities were destroyed, as homosexuality was a common practice of pagan religions in their temples as well as homosexual temple prostitution all over the world.

As for me, being at one time a devoted Christian (one of those "blind-sheep" type) and now having turned from religion and came out as homosexual, I have a deep, personal understanding of this. Do your research before quoting from the Bible.

Ok. And what would a devot Christ say to: Lev 20, 13?

It is both!

Without knowing anything about "good and evil" it was imposible for Adam and Eve to know that it was bad to disobey.

A few weeks ago i was visited by Testimonys of Jehowa (i hope you called them so) and we talked about the Genesis and Adam and Eve. At the end they had to say that it is posible that this chapter was bad translated because it shows clearly that god lies and that he made a very bad job in his creation.

Thanks for your input... it has to be said that your english is better than many of the english/american posters, so don't let that stop you!

We would probably call them Jehovah's Witnesses (if we are talking about the same organisation).

As you say - it clearly shows that god either lies, or has no control... both of which are theoretically impossible under the christian theology... but, obviously one, or both, must be true.

Or, of course... it's just a story - and people are paying WAY too much attention to the Hebrew equivalent of "Spot's First Walk".

EDEN was perfect????

You mean the perfecht snake? The perfect stupid Eve? The perfect lie of god telling Adam and Eva they would die suddenly after eating the forbidden fruit? And then they lived afterwards a lot of years...

If the cars from General Motors were half so perfect as Eden, they would have a lot of problems.

Just read again the "Genesis" and you will find a lot of funny things about Eden.

The first versions of the creation:

Human 1.0: Adam and Eve

Failure - Eve convinces Adam to eat forbidden fruit.

Human 1.0a: Kain and Abel

Failure - Kain kills his brother

Humans 3.7c: Humanity without Noah

Failure - must be killed by god because of their failures

OK, time to get facts straight:
1) The Garden of Eden was never said to have been created perfect (read about the creation of the garden, Gen. 2). The serpent, not snake, was said to be "the most crafty" of any creature God made (Gen. 3:1
), it was never said that it was perfect. As far as God saying that if they ate of the tree that they would "suddenly die" as you put it, God actually said that they would "surely die." When God created Adam and Eve, he created them as immortals, but when they ate of the tree, he took away their immortality, so, he was correct in saying that they would surely die, he just didn't specify when (gen. 2:17).

Homosexuality is wrong for a few reasons.

First you can not bear children (women/women or man/man).

Sodomy is not something that can just be done at any given time, it takes prepartion and can cause a lot of harm. There are no natural body-made lubricants for that area of the body.

I am not even talking about Biblical reasons since that won't change your mind on anything.

Christians are widely viewed as "close minded" but I think people just want to justify the things they know are inherintly wrong. People know what is right and wrong, and saying "its wrong for you since you are Christian, but its not wrong for me since I am not" is a futile argument. If it was OK for a Christian (for example) to Kill homosexuals, would that make it right for non-Christians to say it's wrong? Of course it would be wrong to kill anyone for that reason, but wrong is wrong, there is no middle ground. TO me, saying that it is OK to have sex with a person of the same gender is right as long as you are not CHristian is a very closed minded argument because you already disregarded all other arguments contrary to your beliefs. Anyone can justify doing wrong by saying "it's not wrong for me to do that, since I don't feel it is wrong". Is being a serial killer and thinking it is a good thing to do OK? If someone enjoyed beind a serial killer, thought it was OK to be a serial killer does that justify it?

Ok. And what would a devot Christ say to: Lev 20, 13?

Christians are not bound by old testament law, which is what this is. Jesus came to create a new testament, or "word of God" which laid out new laws, which were to govern how people got to Heaven.

Christians are not bound by old testament law, which is what this is. Jesus came to create a new testament, or "word of God" which laid out new laws, which were to govern how people got to Heaven.


So he found the errors of his ways and tried again … maybe there will be a third testament to correct the errors in the second one

(also if Christians are not bound by the old testament what happens to following the 10 commandments?)
As well as most of the evidence supporting anti homosexual pov

Homosexuality is wrong for a few reasons.

First you can not bear children (women/women or man/man).

So if a man marries a woman who can't have children, it is wrong?

Homosexuality is wrong for a few reasons.

First you can not bear children (women/women or man/man).

Sodomy is not something that can just be done at any given time, it takes prepartion and can cause a lot of harm. There are no natural body-made lubricants for that area of the body.

I am not even talking about Biblical reasons since that won't change your mind on anything.

Christians are widely viewed as "close minded" but I think people just want to justify the things they know are inherintly wrong. People know what is right and wrong, and saying "its wrong for you since you are Christian, but its not wrong for me since I am not" is a futile argument. If it was OK for a Christian (for example) to Kill homosexuals, would that make it right for non-Christians to say it's wrong? Of course it would be wrong to kill anyone for that reason, but wrong is wrong, there is no middle ground. TO me, saying that it is OK to have sex with a person of the same gender is right as long as you are not CHristian is a very closed minded argument because you already disregarded all other arguments contrary to your beliefs. Anyone can justify doing wrong by saying "it's not wrong for me to do that, since I don't feel it is wrong". Is being a serial killer and thinking it is a good thing to do OK? If someone enjoyed beind a serial killer, thought it was OK to be a serial killer does that justify it?


First: the children thing is irrelevent. A homosexual can have children - just not with their preferred gender, without a little outside help. It is about love, and sometimes, it is about sex.

Sodomy is a catch-all phrase, referring to a variety of practices, some of which would involve copious availability of perfectly servicable lubricant. I believe, you are referring to 'anal intercourse' - which is no more common in homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals - and for which, by the way, there are at least two natural body fluids that can be used as a lubricant (although one of them would usually turn up too late) - and harm is only really a risk when it isn't done carefully.

Oh, and lesbians seem to be in the lowest grouping for incidence of anal sex, which must make them the most morally right?

I am sorry, but bringing murder into it is just unbelievably ignorant.

Killing is NOT THE SAME as homosexuality... because.. even if homosexuality WAS a crime, it is not one that causes harm (unlike murder), or that (should) be practiced outside of consent (unlike murder).

So he found the errors of his ways and tried again … maybe there will be a third testament to correct the errors in the second one

(also if Christians are not bound by the old testament what happens to following the 10 commandments?)
As well as most of the evidence supporting anti homosexual pov

The 10 commandments were the 10 laws that the Jewish people had to follow to get into heaven. Jesus is the new way into heaven, no longer needing the 10 commandments.

So he found the errors of his ways and tried again … maybe there will be a third testament to correct the errors in the second one

(also if Christians are not bound by the old testament what happens to following the 10 commandments?)
As well as most of the evidence supporting anti homosexual pov

Christians may argue against it, but Islam teaches that the Koran IS the third testament.

The 10 commandments were the 10 laws that the Jewish people had to follow to get into heaven. Jesus is the new way into heaven, no longer needing the 10 commandments.

Sorry, friend, but you are wrong.

The commandments were SOME of the laws that the Hebrews had to follow, but they did NOT guarantee entrance into 'heaven'.

Christians may argue against it, but Islam teaches that the Koran IS the third testament.


Cool … I thought it took more then a prophet to make a testament (and Islam believe Jesus was only a prophet, so the second testament really wasn’t a testament) so wouldn’t that make the Koran the second?

Or I could just be confused :) that happens sometimes lol

The 10 commandments were the 10 laws that the Jewish people had to follow to get into heaven. Jesus is the new way into heaven, no longer needing the 10 commandments.


Yay no more having to worry about things like lusting after my neighbors wife getting me into hell!

Sorry, friend, but you are wrong.

The commandments were SOME of the laws that the Hebrews had to follow, but they did NOT guarantee entrance into 'heaven'.
i stand corrected. in my attempt to make a point, i did give some mis-information. many thanks :)

Cool … I thought it took more then a prophet to make a testament (and Islam believe Jesus was only a prophet, so the second testament really wasn’t a testament) so wouldn’t that make the Koran the second?

Or I could just be confused :) that happens sometimes lol

Well, the Islamic faith accepts both the Old Testament and the New Testament to be holy books within their faith - just not as accurate as the 'real thing'.

Kind of like the way christians accept the Old Testament, but ignore all the bits they don't like, I guess.

As for what a testament IS... I guess it depends on your interpretation...

It could just be a story, or collection of stories.

It could be a covenant between man and god - which is either embodied by christ (if you believe Jesus was the Christ), or revealed by Jesus (if you believe him to be just a prophet - as Islam does).

I guess that, either way, the Old Testament is (at least) one testament (since it actually has several covenants between man and god), and the new testament can be interpreted as a testament (even with Jesus as prophet)... so the Koran is AT LEAST the third testament.

Yay no more having to worry about things like lusting after my neighbors wife getting me into hell!

Or coveting her ass... or something...

Or coveting her ass... or something...
How bout worshiping other false asses :-D

OK, time to get facts straight:
1) The Garden of Eden was never said to have been created perfect (read about the creation of the garden, Gen. 2). The serpent, not snake, was said to be "the most crafty" of any creature God made (Gen. 3:1
), it was never said that it was perfect. As far as God saying that if they ate of the tree that they would "suddenly die" as you put it, God actually said that they would "surely die." When God created Adam and Eve, he created them as immortals, but when they ate of the tree, he took away their immortality, so, he was correct in saying that they would surely die, he just didn't specify when (gen. 2:17).

1. I don´t say EDEN was perfect. I only answered to another saying EDEN was perfect. I say Eden was not perfect - like the rest of god´s creation.
2. Sorry it was a serpent (I apologize for my bad english. I meant the serpent. And the serpent was god´s made creature... and Adam and Eve too - without the ability to difference between good and bad. Glorious plan from the creator!

And I can not find the part in the genesis where is told that Adam and Eve were inmortals. Only the part where god says they would die if they eat the forbidden fruit - it is not the same. But look at (gen 3:22). God does not want humans to be inmortals! And he does not want them with the ability to diference between good and evil.

For me God is like Bill Gates and his creation is like Windows. It is very important for our society but it needs a lot of patches and service packs to work somekind of properly. And each new version has its own failures!

;)

This argument is completely arbitrary -- what is moral is arbitrary and what the Bible says is completely arbitrary.

How can what you say be right and what another man says be wrong? Who are you to decide what is right for other people? Did they elect you? Even if you say they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're wrong because you are the person of authority.

The Bible is completely arbitrary because it is a religion. There are many religions in the world. Is one of them right because it says all the others are wrong? What's right and wrong is completely arbitrary. One man's rubbage is another man's treasure.

Keep your hands to yourself ;)

The Bible is also very arbitrary because there are a thousand and one different ways of interpreting it.

crime P Pronunciation Key (kr m)
n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
So rape is based off of the act of crime and crime off of law … so it is in the violation of a law

The other definitions are common knowledge definitions including serious offenses and unjust situations … they can be used for the team “crime” but they are neither hear nor there because they are dependent on morality

And morality varies … so if the rapist sense of morals do not include forced sex under the “bad” heading it is not rape? Or is it only the “victim”?

edit I put victem in quotes because it could be argued as the reciving end of a crime when we are argung the existance of such

Actually, my dictionary says
"A grave offense especially against morality." So it does not *have* to involve any type of morality - it simply has to be a grave offense against the victim. I'm pretty sure this would apply.

Genesis 2: 24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Gods definiton for marriage. The "This reason" that the passage is talking about is how things were in Eden. It is because Eden was one man and one woman, that that is how marriage should be in perfectness.

You still have yet to explain why you discount the first version of creation and take the second as literal truth.

Why? Most of these slaves had been in battle against the Isralites. Would you have them kill them all? No of course not, that would be barbaric wouldn't it! The Isralites were very luck to keep them as slaves. They were POW's more than slaves. Well treated POW's I might add. They were given food and shelter which would have been a precious drain on resorces. The others were debt ridden who could not afford to pay it off. The economy was not Economy as we know it. Besides, if there was the need for slaves, it was only because they were not obeying GOD

Insufficient argument. According to you, all of those laws came from God. Therefore, God instituted slavery. It has nothing to do with disobeying God because, according to you, God *TOLD* the Israelites to have slaves.

And as for them being POWs, I wonder what would happen if we decided we could own our POWs and beat them to death (as long as they survived a night or two).

And though the Bible uses the word "Slave" many times it means those subordiante in socity to you (If you had a title the word applied to all those who's title was less than yours) So in conclusion if there were slaves then

It *sometimes* means subordinate. Other times it quite clearly means "person that you own."

A) Its because they were members of an opposing army and so became well treeted POW's

Yes, we should make all of our POW's slaves.

B) Its because the Isralites were not running their socity as they should and were not being as generous and kind to those in debt as they should have been.

Possibly, but then it would disprove your idea that God actually came up with all of those laws.

The Bible is also very arbitrary because there are a thousand and one different ways of interpreting it.
Yeah that and also translation errors … logical errors … contextual ambiguity

All factors
All pointed out

All ignored because you have to “believe”

Sorry, friend, but you are wrong.

The commandments were SOME of the laws that the Hebrews had to follow, but they did NOT guarantee entrance into 'heaven'.

True. Especially considering that there was no concept of heaven and hell at the time that the 10 commandments were received. As far as they were concerned, all rewards and punishments occurred on Earth, in *this* life. All souls went to Sheol after death. Israel didn't even have a concept of Satan until after the Babylonian exile.

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

It's amazing how many "hang out" at unimportant single-issue sites. Worse; many vote for President based solely on whether they can get abortion-on-demand or marry-their-polysex-penguin. You "guys" were a great help to Kerry. You have 4 years to gear-up for Hillary(ous).

It's amazing how many "hang out" at unimportant single-issue sites. Worse; many vote for President based solely on whether they can get abortion-on-demand or marry-their-polysex-penguin. You "guys" were a great help to Kerry. You have 4 years to gear-up for Hillary(ous).
Well some of us feel passionate about things like equality...
And are you aware that Kerry did not support gay marriage?
Are you aware that there are people in other countries who feel passionately about things like this?
Are you aware that not everyone who's left of Republican is a Democrat?

And your Hillary joke... that was gold man. :rolleyes:

Well some of us feel passionate about things like equality...
And are you aware that Kerry did not support gay marriage?
Are you aware that there are people in other countries who feel passionately about things like this?
Are you aware that not everyone who's left of Republican is a Democrat?

And your Hillary joke... that was gold man. :rolleyes:

Keep your gayness in your private b-room. The world has more important things to "hand"le.

Keep your gayness in your private b-room. The world has more important things to "hand"le.
I'm straight... :eek:
And yet another brilliant display of wit...

I'm straight... :eek:
And yet another brilliant display of wit...


Thou doth protest too much.

Thou doth protest too much.

Wath that a lithp? :D

Wath that a lithp? :D

Resthrain thy thelf.

Firstly, over 3500 posts. Bloody hell.. (..as an expletive. read nothing else into that little outburst)

wait, so you are saying that Adam and Eve had free will BEFORE they ate the fruit? that means that there was free will before humans were capable of evil!
Well yeah. They had the free will, the choice, to obey God or to follow Mr Crawlybelly. The fruit thing was to gain the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not free will.

whenever i ask religious people why God allows evil to befall the world, they say that it is because God wants us to have free will and that the price of that free will is that we are able to choose to do evil. but you are saying that it is possible for humans to have free will even if they are pure and innocent...so why would God allow there to be evil in the world?
because free will begat evil. grammar.. failing...

There is something in this debate that many of us (myself included) have forgoten. Which is this. Wether or not you believe homoesexuality to be a sin has no impact on how Chirstians lead their lives. It is for God to judge who is and isn't a sinner. Christians have no grounds to treat homosexuals any diffrently because of their sin. In God's sight sin is sin and one is no better than the other. If you're not a Christian then these relgious concerns are of no consecquence to you. The only people this debate truely affects are Homosexual Christains who have to pray, soul search, and study the Bible to find what God has to say to them. A great deal of the time Christians have to walk the line between explination of beliefs and forceful preaching. That is what I have been attempting to do here. The only reason I have been debating this is that I am trying to get my point across.

Insufficient argument. According to you, all of those laws came from God. Therefore, God instituted slavery. It has nothing to do with disobeying God because, according to you, God *TOLD* the Israelites to have slaves.

And as for them being POWs, I wonder what would happen if we decided we could own our POWs and beat them to death (as long as they survived a night or two).


You convinently did not quote the verse and the next part of what I was saying. The only two reasons for slaves to have existed were A) POW's who were taken in and B) Debt ridden people who could not pay off their debts. Now while the POW's arguement is fair (What would you have them do? Kill them all? Thats barbaric! Have them all kept like we do now? the Isralites didnt have the resorces to do that) and the Debtors argument says that there shouldnt have been any poor and that any poor that did exist only existed because the Isralite society was not being run as it should have been.



Yes, we should make all of our POW's slaves.


What would you have them do? They couldnt kill them all as that would have been barbaric and they couldn't keep them in prisons as they didnt have the resocres to keep them and feed them. You may think the Isralites were barbaric but if you read of the other socitys you would see that they are real barbarians.


Possibly, but then it would disprove your idea that God actually came up with all of those laws.

Its rather like the Cannanbis legaisation thing (Which I dont support but this is an anology). It may be bad but it will be even worse if we just illegalise it and dont regulate it. God did not want slaves to exist, but since they were going to, he regulated it strictly.


It *sometimes* means subordinate. Other times it quite clearly means "person that you own."


You miss the point, the idea of new world slavery and Anchient Near Eastern slavery are very diffrent.

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin. It's acting on the desire.

It's the same reason masturbation is a sin - it spills the seed in the dirt.

So feel free to LOVE another man, just don't screw him. The ultimate Christian/Jewish ideal is that people don't ENJOY sex, but rather see it as a responsibility.

And if anyone argues that lesbianism is therefore OK because there's no seed to spill, it's still *LUST*, which is one of the seven deadly sins (although these came along in their current form in the middle ages). So you can't argue that, because lust has always been implied as extremely bad.

Homosexual marriage is wrong because marriage is seen as a licence to have children. Homosexuals can't naturally have children, so naturally they shouldn't have marriage.

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin. It's acting on the desire.

It's the same reason masturbation is a sin - it spills the seed in the dirt.

So feel free to LOVE another man, just don't screw him. The ultimate Christian/Jewish ideal is that people don't ENJOY sex, but rather see it as a responsibility.

And if anyone argues that lesbianism is therefore OK because there's no seed to spill, it's still *LUST*, which is one of the seven deadly sins (although these came along in their current form in the middle ages). So you can't argue that, because lust has always been implied as extremely bad.

Homosexual marriage is wrong because marriage is seen as a licence to have children. Homosexuals can't naturally have children, so naturally they shouldn't have marriage.

Only G-d can define sin. This topic is blasphemous, and is being used by gayists to promote their blasphemy.

You convinently did not quote the verse and the next part of what I was saying. The only two reasons for slaves to have existed were A) POW's who were taken in and B) Debt ridden people who could not pay off their debts. Now while the POW's arguement is fair (What would you have them do? Kill them all? Thats barbaric! Have them all kept like we do now? the Isralites didnt have the resorces to do that) and the Debtors argument says that there shouldnt have been any poor and that any poor that did exist only existed because the Isralite society was not being run as it should have been.

It still doesn't matter. The reasoning behind slavery doesn't matter any more than the reasoning behind genocide. Slavery is wrong - plain and simple. One person cannot "own" another person.

What would you have them do? They couldnt kill them all as that would have been barbaric and they couldn't keep them in prisons as they didnt have the resocres to keep them and feed them. You may think the Isralites were barbaric but if you read of the other socitys you would see that they are real barbarians.

They either needed to integrate them into society, banish them from Israelite lands, or figure out how to get resources for prisoners. Slavery certainly isn't the answer.

And the fact that the depictions we have of Israelite society were *less* barbaric than other societies does not change the fact that they were still, in fact, barbaric.

Its rather like the Cannanbis legaisation thing (Which I dont support but this is an anology). It may be bad but it will be even worse if we just illegalise it and dont regulate it. God did not want slaves to exist, but since they were going to, he regulated it strictly.

And now you purport to make God live by human rules. God doesn't have to do something for convenience. If slavery is wrong, an all-good God isn't going to say "Oh well, if you have to do it, go ahead, but be nice about it" any more than God will say "Oh well, if you have to murder, go ahead, but do it quickly" or "Oh well, if you have to commit adultery, go ahead, but do it in secret." Evil acts are expressly forbidden.

You miss the point, the idea of new world slavery and Anchient Near Eastern slavery are very diffrent.

It doesn't matter. Slavery still involves one person owning another, which is wrong on its face.

It still doesn't matter. The reasoning behind slavery doesn't matter any more than the reasoning behind genocide. Slavery is wrong - plain and simple. One person cannot "own" another person.



It doesn't matter. Slavery still involves one person owning another, which is wrong on its face.



Now even though I am on your side the truth of these two statements is in themselves based on your current morals which I happen to agree with but are influenced by where you live and your history

People with different morals may not necessarily feel that slavery is bad (gasp) so saying it is plain and simple wrong is really saying it is wrong by your morals

Not everyone holds the same morals


So maybe a little justification on the viewpoint they had is called for if we are trying to truly understand

Now even though I am on your side the truth of these two statements is in themselves based on your current morals which I happen to agree with but are influenced by where you live and your history

Of course they are, but we are arguing for whether or not *God* condones slavery - which would not be dependent on where and when it happened.

People with different morals may not necessarily feel that slavery is bad (gasp) so saying it is plain and simple wrong is really saying it is wrong by your morals

Not everyone holds the same morals

If Neo Cannen would like to argue that slavery is a good act, and thus God *does* condone it, then at least it will be consistent. However, this is not what she has been arguing.

So maybe a little justification on the viewpoint they had is called for if we are trying to truly understand

It would be, if we were talking about *their* viewpoint (which I actually believe we are). However, according to Neo Cannen, all of the laws in the Bible are *God's* viewpoint on the morality of slavery, which, by definition of an omniscient, omnipotent being, would be unchanging.

Of course they are, but we are arguing for whether or not *God* condones slavery - which would not be dependent on where and when it happened.



If Neo Cannen would like to argue that slavery is a good act, and thus God *does* condone it, then at least it will be consistent. However, this is not what she has been arguing.



It would be, if we were talking about *their* viewpoint (which I actually believe we are). However, according to Neo Cannen, all of the laws in the Bible are *God's* viewpoint on the morality of slavery, which, by definition of an omniscient, omnipotent being, would be unchanging.


yup and always dependent on his/her existance :)

And now you purport to make God live by human rules. God doesn't have to do something for convenience. If slavery is wrong, an all-good God isn't going to say "Oh well, if you have to do it, go ahead, but be nice about it" any more than God will say "Oh well, if you have to murder, go ahead, but do it quickly" or "Oh well, if you have to commit adultery, go ahead, but do it in secret." Evil acts are expressly forbidden.


You still dont understand. Slavery in the Anchient Near East is not "Owning someone" as you have put it. When you own something you can treet it however you want but God doesnt say that. And more to the point, the reason I use that arguement (legailse cannabis thing) is that God knew that the Isralites would need slaves of some kind. So therefore he compensated for it by showing them how they should run it. It SHOULD have been very rare/non existant

"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut 15.4)"

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. … There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (Deut 15.7)"

So if there was an economic need for slavery then it was only because the society of the anchient Isralites was not being run properly. So when God gave Moses the slavery laws, he did so in order to make sure that those few who were going to become slaves were well treeted. It was not in a mind of "Go get as many slaves as you can". It was an 'if' clause, which was a nesscity, unlike murder which has no nessecty. And as for the POW slaves, the Isralites did not and would not have the resorces to imprison them and keep them alive. In fact keeping them in the tribe would not be representing the fact that they fought against them in battle. If they simpley left them in the desert they would have died, no question. If they had imprisoned them then firstly, it would have been far too much of a drain on resorces and secondly it would not be a fit punishment to let them live in the comfort of Isralite camps. Its not like today where imprisonment is worse than freedom. Freedom would be wandering the desert alone and death (soon). Intigrating them into Isralite socity was not an option as has been said, it would not respect the fact that these people had fought agaisnt them in battle. So in conclusion, there was no senseable option but to make those forign captives slaves. This way they are paying back to the Isralites for their opposing them in battle and they are being treeted reasonably for who they are (given food and shelter in good supply etc)

You still dont understand. Slavery in the Anchient Near East is not "Owning someone" as you have put it. When you own something you can treet it however you want but God doesnt say that
Put it however you want god didn’t say ANYTHING some people said they were divinely inspired :)

Put it however you want god didn’t say ANYTHING some people said they were divinely inspired :)

Fine, the Bible doesnt say that

You still dont understand. Slavery in the Anchient Near East is not "Owning someone" as you have put it.

Actually, yes it is. At least one of the laws quite clearly states that slaves are property.

When you own something you can treet it however you want but God doesnt say that.

Making up our own definitions now, are we? This is untrue. There are and have always been regulations one what you can do with things that you own. They don't change the fact that you own it.

And more to the point, the reason I use that arguement (legailse cannabis thing) is that God knew that the Isralites would need slaves of some kind. So therefore he compensated for it by showing them how they should run it. It SHOULD have been very rare/non existant

Again, an all-good God would not regulate an evil act, God would get rid of it. So you are either arguing that God is not all-good or that the belief that you can own another person is not evil. Which is it?

In fact keeping them in the tribe would not be representing the fact that they fought against them in battle.

You're right. I suppose your country should kick out anyone from any country that has ever fought you. The US should kick out.....well, pretty much everybody!

Intigrating them into Isralite socity was not an option as has been said, it would not respect the fact that these people had fought agaisnt them in battle.

This is silly. Maybe if you reread it you can figure out why.

So in conclusion, there was no senseable option but to make those forign captives slaves. This way they are paying back to the Isralites for their opposing them in battle and they are being treeted reasonably for who they are (given food and shelter in good supply etc)

So you are arguing that it is a good act to own another human being?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin. It's acting on the desire.

It's the same reason masturbation is a sin - it spills the seed in the dirt.

So feel free to LOVE another man, just don't screw him. The ultimate Christian/Jewish ideal is that people don't ENJOY sex, but rather see it as a responsibility.

And if anyone argues that lesbianism is therefore OK because there's no seed to spill, it's still *LUST*, which is one of the seven deadly sins (although these came along in their current form in the middle ages). So you can't argue that, because lust has always been implied as extremely bad.

Homosexual marriage is wrong because marriage is seen as a licence to have children. Homosexuals can't naturally have children, so naturally they shouldn't have marriage.

Masturbation isn't a sin.

Again, an all-good God would not regulate an evil act, God would get rid of it. So you are either arguing that God is not all-good or that the belief that you can own another person is not evil. Which is it?


God IS all good and Slavery is evil. The reason it is in the Old testement and regulated by God I cannot tell you for certian as I am not God. However I can explain to you to the best of my knowege why its there. As far as I can interpret the reason God regulates it is that if he didn't then the Isralites would have mistreeted their slaves severely. And again you are missing the point that

A) There should be no economic need for slaves (see the verses)

B) There was no other option but to enslave those captured because
1) Treating them as prisoners as we do now (IE keeping them confined but fed and shelterd) would have been an afront to the fact that they fought against the Isralites as then, freedom was not prefrable to imprisonment (freedom being alone in the desert and death within a few days) and the Isralites did not have the resorces to do so.
2) Murdering them would have been barbaric, as you have pointed out.



You're right. I suppose your country should kick out anyone from any country that has ever fought you. The US should kick out.....well, pretty much everybody!


Again, you miss the point. I am speeking in the context of the Anchient Middle East. Keeping them in the comfort of the Isralite camps, where space was limited as was food and driking water would have been an affront to those whose loved ones he had killed. Doing all that but making them work seems fair, as while there work cannot bring back the dead, it is a suitable punishment for there work.

2) The Bible DID outlaw homosexual sex in the Old Testement and it is not one of the laws that is made obsolete by the NewWhere? Because, it's not Leviticus 18:22, which if it deals with sex at all, deals with male-male sex.

Christians have no grounds to treat homosexuals any diffrently because of their sin.Freudian slip: being homosexual isn't a sin, remember?

If you're not a Christian then these relgious concerns are of no consecquence to you.I can get married to my love, because we've got the standard complement of genitals in our relationship. So yes, these concerns do not affect me personally. But they do effect more than just homosexual Christians (and for that matter why should I ignore the plight of homosexual Christians?).

And more to the point, the reason I use that arguement (legailse cannabis thing) is that God knew that the Isralites would need slaves of some kind.What!? For what did the Isralites need to own people?

Where? Because, it's not Leviticus 18:22, which if it deals with sex at all, deals with male-male sex.


There and the description of the Cannanite practices and homosexuality is ammong them and God specified that they were wicked in what they were doing.


Freudian slip: being homosexual isn't a sin, remember?


True, apologies, it is Homosexual sex that is the sin.


I can get married to my love, because we've got the standard complement of genitals in our relationship. So yes, these concerns do not affect me personally. But they do effect more than just homosexual Christians (and for that matter why should I ignore the plight of homosexual Christians?).


What I meant was that Christans should not be affected by what is and isnt a sin. Thats for God to judge. You can state your beliefs when asked but thats all. You have no positon to go around insulting/harrasing people because of their sin as a Christian. No one does.

God IS all good and Slavery is evil. The reason it is in the Old testement and regulated by God I cannot tell you for certian as I am not God. However I can explain to you to the best of my knowege why its there. As far as I can interpret the reason God regulates it is that if he didn't then the Isralites would have mistreeted their slaves severely. And again you are missing the point that.

Of course, if God had told the Israelites not to have slaves, there would have been no worry of slaves being mistreated.

*And* the logical conclusion would be that God did not write those laws, human beings did. Then you wouldn't have to bend over backwards trying to make an all-powerful God somehow subject to human society.

Again, you miss the point. I am speeking in the context of the Anchient Middle East.

No, *you* are missing the point. If God's viewpoint on slavery is regulated by human society, then you are stating that human society controls God. You have just argued against the idea of an all-powerful God, as you have subjected God to constraints based on time period and current society.

Keeping them in the comfort of the Isralite camps, where space was limited as was food and driking water would have been an affront to those whose loved ones he had killed. Doing all that but making them work seems fair, as while there work cannot bring back the dead, it is a suitable punishment for ther work.

Do remember that the Israelites could have been the aggressors here and that the Israelties also would have killed the slaves' loved ones. Also remember that the women and children would have been unlikely to have killed anyone.

Making them work and making them property are two very different things. I wasn't stating that the Israelites should have put them up in posh comfortable homes. If they had been prisoners on work detail for a time and then given a few supplies and left to go along their way, that would be one thing. Lifetime slavery is another.

Note: slaves in the biblical sense were more like what we would call endentured servants (spelling?). They were not treated as property, and were released after a certain amount of time. Now that that has been settled, please feel free to continue.

I think it is primarily because christian fundamentalists primarily see sex as a way to reproduce and fill the earth -- not as means of expressing values or having a great time ;)

Note: slaves in the biblical sense were more like what we would call endentured servants (spelling?). They were not treated as property, and were released after a certain amount of time. Now that that has been settled, please feel free to continue.

Been covered, and it's wrong. *Male* *Hebrew* slaves were given the option of leaving after a set time period (although they could be forced into staying forever if they had married or had children while slaves and wanted to keep their wife/children). However, female or non-Hebrew slaves did not have to be given this option. A female slave only got out of it if her master married her and then decided he actually didn't want her - then she got to go free. A foreign slave pretty much never got out of it.

And the Bible specifically states that it is ok if you kill your slave by accident or by beating (if they survive a day or two) *because they are your property*.

In that case, I fall back to my default argument: the Bible has been translated and re-translated enought that either one of us could be wrong.
So there. :D

No, *you* are missing the point. If God's viewpoint on slavery is regulated by human society, then you are stating that human society controls God. You have just argued against the idea of an all-powerful God, as you have subjected God to constraints based on time period and current society.


No, YOU are missing the point. God was (As far as I can see) trying to help the Isralites to suvive out there. He must have known that without slaves (or some sort of forced labour system) they could not survive. I cant explain fully why God wanted to make captured warriors slaves. I'm not God. I have only offerd my best interpretaition. And I hardly think that the Old Testement use of slaves is a significent part of the Biblical message.


Do remember that the Israelites could have been the aggressors here and that the Israelties also would have killed the slaves' loved ones. Also remember that the women and children would have been unlikely to have killed anyone.


Check the records. The Isralites were never the agressors. They only attacked where an enemy was in the way of their land that God had given them. And when Isralites were captured they recieved a far worse fate than their 'slavery'


Making them work and making them property are two very different things. I wasn't stating that the Israelites should have put them up in posh comfortable homes. If they had been prisoners on work detail for a time and then given a few supplies and left to go along their way, that would be one thing. Lifetime slavery is another.

They needed all the work they could get. It wasn't like they forced them into brutal conditions. The slaves were fed and sheltered. Sending them on (out of the camp) would have meant death for whoever left. I am sure that the captured enemy's prefered their slavery to leaving and having to fend for themselves. And even today it is possible to get a life sentence for murder and even a death sentence in the US (in some areas), so a lifetime sentence of any kind is still available even today.

No, YOU are missing the point. God was (As far as I can see) trying to help the Isralites to suvive out there. He must have known that without slaves (or some sort of forced labour system) they could not survive.

Now you've changed your argument. First, it was "the Israelites weren't living right, so they needed slaves." Now it is "they couldn't survive without slaves!"

Either way, if slavery is objectively evil (which you have stated), an all-good being would not endorse it. Period.

I cant explain fully why God wanted to make captured warriors slaves. I'm not God. I have only offerd my best interpretaition. And I hardly think that the Old Testement use of slaves is a significent part of the Biblical message.

And again, the logical conclusion would be that God didn't want to make anyone slaves in the first place. Anything else is bending over backwards and limiting God to human society.

And the use of slaves is not a significant part of the Biblical message - it is simply part of the evidence that the entire Bible is not implicitly God's word.

Check the records. The Isralites were never the agressors. They only attacked where an enemy was in the way of their land that God had given them.

...which would still make them the agressors.

And when Isralites were captured they recieved a far worse fate than their 'slavery'

The fact that it was somehow *less* wrong doesn't mean it wasn't wrong in the first place.

They needed all the work they could get. It wasn't like they forced them into brutal conditions.

I never claimed this. But the designation of a human being as property is pretty brutal on its face.

The slaves were fed and sheltered. Sending them on (out of the camp) would have meant death for whoever left.

Yes, and this is why we never hear of anyone traveling in the Bible. Oh, wait...we do.

I am sure that the captured enemy's prefered their slavery to leaving and having to fend for themselves. And even today it is possible to get a life sentence for murder and even a death sentence in the US (in some areas), so a lifetime sentence of any kind is still available even today.

Again, imprisonment and designation as property are two very different things.

Look, the existence of an Omniscient God, an Omnibenevolent God and the Evil are mutually exclusive. You can have any combination of the two, but not all three at the same time. Do the math, folks.

I think that's what Dempublicents is trying to get at.

There and the description of the Cannanite practices and homosexuality is ammong them and God specified that they were wicked in what they were doing.But none of the books of Moses appear to mention female same-sex sex as among the things the Cannanites were doing. He told the Israelites not to take after the practices of the Cannanites nor the Egyptians. But He did not tell them (AFAIK) that everything the Cannanites did was forbidden or wicked; that wouldn't have made any sense. It's a bit nitpicky, but I can't find a prohibition of homosexual sex in the Old Testament; only male-male sex.

True, apologies, it is Homosexual sex that is the sin.I'm glad you don't think that homosexuality is a sin.

What I meant was that Christans should not be affected by what is and isnt a sin. Thats for God to judge. You can state your beliefs when asked but thats all. You have no positon to go around insulting/harrasing people because of their sin as a Christian. No one does.I'm glad you think that way. There is far, far to much malice towards gays in North American culture, and it has to be very hurtful. Naturally, I'd like to convince you that same-sex sex is a-ok. But at least you're not one of the "gays should be shot" morons. That's got to be incredibly hurtful to someone who hasn't grown a thick hide.

I think it is primarily because christian fundamentalists primarily see sex as a way to reproduce and fill the earth -- not as means of expressing values or having a great time ;)Ah, that would be Paul's doing. He had issues when it came to matters of flesh. And while that is not all sex is, it has a decided carnal nature.

In that case, I fall back to my default argument: the Bible has been translated and re-translated enought that either one of us could be wrong.
So there. :DFortunately, some of us (not me) speak the languages the Bible was written in. But we do not have the original texts; the texts we have, while being pretty stable for centuries, show signs of being derived from earlier texts no longer in existance. (No I don't remember details of this, but the two inconsistent Genesis accounts discussed in this thread would be an example of this evidence.) Another issue is that languages drift over time, and nuances and meanings can be lost.

But none of the books of Moses appear to mention female same-sex sex as among the things the Cannanites were doing. He told the Israelites not to take after the practices of the Cannanites nor the Egyptians. But He did not tell them (AFAIK) that everything the Cannanites did was forbidden or wicked; that wouldn't have made any sense. It's a bit nitpicky, but I can't find a prohibition of homosexual sex in the Old Testament; only male-male sex.

I'm glad you don't think that homosexuality is a sin.

I'm glad you think that way. There is far, far to much malice towards gays in North American culture, and it has to be very hurtful. Naturally, I'd like to convince you that same-sex sex is a-ok. But at least you're not one of the "gays should be shot" morons. That's got to be incredibly hurtful to someone who hasn't grown a thick hide.

Ah, that would be Paul's doing. He had issues when it came to matters of flesh. And while that is not all sex is, it has a decided carnal nature.

Fortunately, some of us (not me) speak the languages the Bible was written in. But we do not have the original texts; the texts we have, while being pretty stable for centuries, show signs of being derived from earlier texts no longer in existance. (No I don't remember details of this, but the two inconsistent Genesis accounts discussed in this thread would be an example of this evidence.) Another issue is that languages drift over time, and nuances and meanings can be lost.


You mean the Bible wasn't handwritten by God in English and in its present form?!?

/sarcasm

Look, the existence of an Omniscient God, an Omnibenevolent God and the Evil are mutually exclusive. You can have any combination of the two, but not all three at the same time. Do the math, folks.


No, you can have an Omniscient, omnibenevolent God and Evil. I will explain. God is not a dictator. He will not step in to "Stop" people doing evil. It is their choice. The best analogy is a parent (which is why God is so often called father). A parent will have a child and will allow it to make its own choices. It will punish it when it does the wrong thing for it to learn but it will let it make its own choices and learn. The greatest thing for a parent to see in its child is it following the rules because the parent said so alone, not in fear of the reprsial that would come. God has proved that he is omnibenevolent (all loving) by sending his son to die in our place so that we would be with him again. Sin (our disobeying God) perminantly cut off our relationship with God, but because of Jesus we can come back to him. It is however our choice. God will not force you to become a Christian, he gives you a choice.

No, you can have an Omniscient, omnibenevolent God and Evil. I will explain. God is not a dictator. He will not step in to "Stop" people doing evil. It is their choice. The best analogy is a parent (which is why God is so often called father). A parent will have a child and will allow it to make its own choices. It will punish it when it does the wrong thing for it to learn but it will let it make its own choices and learn. The greatest thing for a parent to see in its child is it following the rules because the parent said so alone, not in fear of the reprsial that would come. God has proved that he is omnibenevolent (all loving) by sending his son to die in our place so that we would be with him again. Sin (our disobeying God) perminantly cut off our relationship with God, but because of Jesus we can come back to him. It is however our choice. God will not force you to become a Christian, he gives you a choice.
Then why do so many cristians not follow his example

he alows "wrong" to happen ... so leave well enough alone and let people have some rights

and while your at it quit trying to make everyone a cristian ... as you said he is not forcing you ... so why are you playing in the legal field? to force people to accept your views

if your god is as you say he is people should learn some lessons from him

Now you've changed your argument. First, it was "the Israelites weren't living right, so they needed slaves." Now it is "they couldn't survive without slaves!"



I am talking about the two types of slave. For economic reasons the only cause of slavery would be the Isralites not running the society properly. But POW slaves they needed.


Either way, if slavery is objectively evil (which you have stated), an all-good being would not endorse it. Period.


Please show me a verse were God endorses slavey. Not a verse where he regulates it or says how it should be done but says something to the effect of "Using enforced labour is something noble and good and any other system is wrong".


And again, the logical conclusion would be that God didn't want to make anyone slaves in the first place. Anything else is bending over backwards and limiting God to human society.


I have already stated I agree with this. God didnt want slavery but knew it was going to happen and that the Isralites would need it (POW slaves) so he regulated it as best he could.


And the use of slaves is not a significant part of the Biblical message - it is simply part of the evidence that the entire Bible is not implicitly God's word.


Why? As I have explained God did not endorse slavery (say it was good etc) he merely regulated it so that the Isralites would not come up with their own abusive system. You misunderstand, nowhere in the Bible does God endorse slavery or anything, he merely regulates it.


Yes, and this is why we never hear of anyone traveling in the Bible. Oh, wait...we do.


Tell you what, go travel back in time, wear anchient near eastern clothes and wander around the desert for a few months. You would be dead fairly soon. Casting someone out of the camp would be barbaric as it would mean near certian death and doubtless if that had been the case, you would be complaining about it now. Keeping them as prisioner but not working them would have been a strain on resorces which the Isralites did not have. Killing them would have been barbaric as would kicking them out, and intigrating them would not acknowlge the fact that they were enemy soldiers. So what would you do?


Again, imprisonment and designation as property are two very different things.

Please explian how said property could own other property? Slaves had oxen that they used and farming tools they bought themselves. Please show how the system of POW slavery in the ANE is much diffrent to the imprisonemnt system? It is possible to have life sentences now (and indeed death sentences in America) so you cant claim its the length of time. Nor can you claim the conditions as conditions in ANE camps were proberbly better than some prisions. And more to the point, conditions as a slave in the camps were better than going free.

and while your at it quit trying to make everyone a cristian ... as you said he is not forcing you ... so why are you playing in the legal field? to force people to accept your views


If your talking about my activities on the forum, I am explaining my views on a topic I was asked about. To ask me to shut up about it would be stupid as it would mean that one side of the debate are simpley not allowed to speek.

if your god is as you say he is people should learn some lessons from him

I do aggre with you on this one. I hate those people on the tube and in Victoria shouting "Sinner! Sinner" at the top of their voices at everyone passing. They have no way of knowing who is and isnt a sinner, and even if they did it is not their place to judge.

he alows "wrong" to happen ... so leave well enough alone and let people have some rights


Just because God allows evil to happen doesnt make it right. A great quote on the subject of evil is this

"All that is needed for Evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing"

Homosexuality is a sin because God said he did not want man with man and women with women. But since i am a christan I have believe love the sinner and hate the sin.

I do aggre with you on this one. I hate those people on the tube and in Victoria shouting "Sinner! Sinner" at the top of their voices at everyone passing. They have no way of knowing who is and isnt a sinner, and even if they did it is not their place to judge.
Lol you remind me of on campus last year

Had a Gideon’s person chuck a bible at me … hard cover … managed to break skin right above my eye (turned around when he shouted whore at her and bam just as I turned)

The reason…

I was walking with my girlfriend who had a dress suit on (one of those with the skirt and jacket)
But the skirt was only knee length! God forbid not floor length!

I always wondered why those people thought they were helping their cause

They are the kind of people that any group that wants to have credibility has got to drag out of the lime light … they do any cause more harm then good

(I understand not all are like that … the logical gaps in religion is what bothers me more then anything … too much of a comp geek … logic is my god lol)

Homosexuality is a sin because God said he did not want man with man and women with women. But since i am a christan I have believe love the sinner and hate the sin.
Yay thanks for the thoughtfull contribution
[/sarcasm]

I think this whole thread could be wrapped up now by saying those who believe in God and sinners think homosexuality is wrong but that those who practice it are to be loved and pitied for their lifestyle.

Those who do not believe in god, and for whom the word sin means to do wrong, either don't see homosexuality as a sin but rather lifestyle they have no control over (you either are, or are not homosexual, it's not a choice thing), or agree with the fundamental point the christians are saying that homosexuality is wrong but don't bash gays cos they can't help it.

Apart from all the debate about who reads the correct translation of which bible, which should really have a thread of it's own, then I don't think we will ever get closure on this issue.

No, YOU are missing the point. God was (As far as I can see) trying to help the Isralites to suvive out there. He must have known that without slaves (or some sort of forced labour system) they could not survive. I cant explain fully why God wanted to make captured warriors slaves. I'm not God. I have only offerd my best interpretaition. And I hardly think that the Old Testement use of slaves is a significent part of the Biblical message.

Check the records. The Isralites were never the agressors. They only attacked where an enemy was in the way of their land that God had given them. And when Isralites were captured they recieved a far worse fate than their 'slavery'

They needed all the work they could get. It wasn't like they forced them into brutal conditions. The slaves were fed and sheltered. Sending them on (out of the camp) would have meant death for whoever left. I am sure that the captured enemy's prefered their slavery to leaving and having to fend for themselves. And even today it is possible to get a life sentence for murder and even a death sentence in the US (in some areas), so a lifetime sentence of any kind is still available even today.

1) I thought god would provide for those who had faith?

Where does that connect with him allowing slavery?

2) If you attack and kill someone for 'parking in your spot', you would probably find that it would be legally assumed that you were the aggressor.

3) So - your defence of slavery is that, once the Hebrews had stolen the women, and occupied their towns, those people were left without support? Wouldn't NOT invading their towns have been another way of allowing them means to support themselves?

Also - if you think that Jericho was in a desert, you REALLY need to go back to your bible, my friend.

No, you can have an Omniscient, omnibenevolent God and Evil. I will explain. God is not a dictator. He will not step in to "Stop" people doing evil. It is their choice. The best analogy is a parent (which is why God is so often called father). A parent will have a child and will allow it to make its own choices. It will punish it when it does the wrong thing for it to learn but it will let it make its own choices and learn. The greatest thing for a parent to see in its child is it following the rules because the parent said so alone, not in fear of the reprsial that would come. God has proved that he is omnibenevolent (all loving) by sending his son to die in our place so that we would be with him again. Sin (our disobeying God) perminantly cut off our relationship with God, but because of Jesus we can come back to him. It is however our choice. God will not force you to become a Christian, he gives you a choice.

So what, Sodom destroyed itself?

The flood was a coincidence of heavy rain?

Just because God allows evil to happen doesnt make it right. A great quote on the subject of evil is this

"All that is needed for Evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing"

What about when god does evil things, or makes people act in evil ways, or sends evil to someone?

Is evil actually good, then?

No, you can have an Omniscient, omnibenevolent God and Evil. I will explain. God is not a dictator. He will not step in to "Stop" people doing evil. It is their choice. The best analogy is a parent (which is why God is so often called father). A parent will have a child and will allow it to make its own choices. It will punish it when it does the wrong thing for it to learn but it will let it make its own choices and learn. The greatest thing for a parent to see in its child is it following the rules because the parent said so alone, not in fear of the reprsial that would come. God has proved that he is omnibenevolent (all loving) by sending his son to die in our place so that we would be with him again. Sin (our disobeying God) perminantly cut off our relationship with God, but because of Jesus we can come back to him. It is however our choice. God will not force you to become a Christian, he gives you a choice.

The greatest evil is when good men do nothing.

Just because God allows evil to happen doesnt make it right. A great quote on the subject of evil is this

"All that is needed for Evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing"

Which is what, by your own admition, God sits back and does.

Which is what, by your own admition, God sits back and does.

And what would you have him do? Use his omnipentence to control everyone and stop them doing evil. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

1) I thought god would provide for those who had faith?
Where does that connect with him allowing slavery?


"God provides" does not mean he will magicaly lift the building blocks of the tabanacle every time they need to set down camp. He provided them food (Mana) and with guidence (the pillar of fire) and many other things. God provides for his people on many occations (talking latter day now) and for everyone but people still sin to get the provision. God knew they were going to need slaves (he said take the captured enemies as slaves) and so regulated it to stop them abusing the slaves too much.


2) If you attack and kill someone for 'parking in your spot', you would probably find that it would be legally assumed that you were the aggressor.


The Promised Land (Cannen) is a little more than a parking space. It was the land promised to them by God.


3) So - your defence of slavery is that, once the Hebrews had stolen the women, and occupied their towns, those people were left without support? Wouldn't NOT invading their towns have been another way of allowing them means to support themselves?


See above. God was not going to welch on his promise.

And what would you have him do? Use his omnipentence to control everyone and stop them doing evil. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

You're the one who said he couldn't do evil. But he cannot sit back and allow it and be all good--by your own statements.

"God provides" does not mean he will magicaly lift the building blocks of the tabanacle every time they need to set down camp. He provided them food (Mana) and with guidence (the pillar of fire) and many other things. God provides for his people on many occations (talking latter day now) and for everyone but people still sin to get the provision. God knew they were going to need slaves (he said take the captured enemies as slaves) and so regulated it to stop them abusing the slaves too much.


So in other words, he played favorites among his creations and committed an evil against one group to help out another one. Sounds like bad parenting to me. Through in the fact that he could have provided without making one group slaves and well, its pretty crappy.

i don't believe that homosexuality is a sin.
I think that careful observation of the so called evidence of this would provide some surprising results.

So in other words, he played favorites among his creations and committed an evil against one group to help out another one. Sounds like bad parenting to me. Through in the fact that he could have provided without making one group slaves and well, its pretty crappy.

You miss the point. There were only two condtions for slavery amoung the anchient Isralites

1) Economic, meaning you were in so much debt you had to work it off

2) Millitary POW's who were working to contribute to the society they had fought against

Now the first condition shouldnt have happened as has been pointed out.

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut 15.4)

and there are many laws regarding how the society should be compassionate and not so harsh as to demand slave labour from those who could not pay debts. So if there anyone does have an economic need to become a slave, then it is because the Isralites are not running their society properly.

The second condition is only like that because the other options for the POW are either babaric or impractial. These options have been pointed out to me and I will explain why each one is impractial or barbaric

1) Keep them prisoner like today. IE - keep them confined but still watered and fed

2) Cast them out of the camp entirely

3) Kill them

4) Intigrate them into Isralite society

And now the reasons why none of those work

1) Isralite resorces were slim and streched. Having a person who was not contributing to their society in any way but still consuming their resorces was hidesiously impractial. Not to mention the fact that keeping them in a tent like that would be a gross insult to the families of those whom he may have killed. The reason for this is that (unlike today) freedom outside the camp is far worse than imprisonment inside it.

2) That would have meant death. Casting them out into the desert or other unfamileir territory without a map (there were no reliable maps then) or other supplies would have been barbaric.

3) Again barbaric

4) Intigrating them into Isralite society was not a reflection of the fact that these people had been in battle with the Isralites. There had to be some kind of punishment.

ANE slavery worked so well for many reasons

1) It was not brutal to the slaves and the POW's were contributing back to the people they had attacked

2) It meant that everyone would get more food (including the slaves) which was scarce at that time. The more slaves the more produce and that was good for everyone including the slaves

3) It meant that those who would otherwise have gone into the desert or other forigen land all alone and would have likely died were given food and shelter.

You're the one who said he couldn't do evil. But he cannot sit back and allow it and be all good--by your own statements.

What would you rather have? A God that controls our every move and thought?

Wow, 240 pages. This is one hell of a debate.

What would you rather have? A God that controls our every move and thought?
he was just pointing out the contradictions in your statements. perhaps it would be better if you just got your beliefs straight before trying to tell other people how to live their lives based on them.

he was just pointing out the contradictions in your statements. perhaps it would be better if you just got your beliefs straight before trying to tell other people how to live their lives based on them.

Im not "telling" people how to live their lives. I am describing my beliefs and dispelling some of the ideas about them.

Im not "telling" people how to live their lives. I am describing my beliefs and dispelling some of the ideas about them.
and you're supportive of legislation that prevents people who don't believe the same thing as you from living a normal life with their partners, are you not?

Why is placing your erect penis inside the anus of a close male companion and inching it in and out rhythmly wrong? Why is it wrong if he does it to you? And why is it wrong for you or him to place the other's erect penis inside the mouth and to suck as if it were a lolly?


I'll tell you why; it's because it secretly turns on those who object to it and are scared of admitting it!

First let me start out with this comment.God exist.God made the earth in his own image.God made all beautiful people in his own image and he made not one single person in the wrong way.What does this have to do with homosexuality?Men can't fertilize men and women cant fertilize women.So we go back up to the comment above.What did you read?God made people in his own perfect image.He made Eve for Adam, not Steve for Adam. Homosexuality is wrong is you're a CHristian...PERIOD!You're not a Christain of you believe in being gay.And I can say that proudly.Now, about the bible.I can defend that too.Man shall not ly with man and woman shall not ly with woman.Where in the bible I don't know but Ive read before.Everyone understands the above comment.Alright, let's move on.God said not to hate anyone.I won't hate you if you're gay.Oh no!BUT, I will not think of you the same.I may not talk to you as uch.I will respect you, but I won't accept your decision and I probably won't trust your judgement anymore than I'd trust a drunk driver's.Preachers say they will recieve a blessing from God but the reality is,no,you won't.God will still love you since God loves everyone no matter what.It doesn't mean you're going to heaven.Just like you may apoligize to the victim's family after you kill someone they love.And even after they forgive you, that doesn't mean that you won't spend jail time.

(1)What about when god does evil things, or (2)makes people act in evil ways, or (3)sends evil to someone?

Is evil actually good, then?
1) Show an example of God doing an evil thing, please.
2) I never realized that God made people do anything; I stupidly believed he gave man free will.
3) The only example of this that I know of is the book of Job, which many Christians believe is a fable, not fact.

First let me start out with this comment.God exist.God made the earth in his own image.God made all beautiful people in his own image and he made not one single person in the wrong way.What does this have to do with homosexuality?Men can't fertilize men and women cant fertilize women.So we go back up to the comment above.What did you read?God made people in his own perfect image.He made Eve for Adam, not Steve for Adam. Homosexuality is wrong is you're a CHristian...PERIOD!You're not a Christain of you believe in being gay.And I can say that proudly.Now, about the bible.I can defend that too.Man shall not ly with man and woman shall not ly with woman.Where in the bible I don't know but Ive read before.Everyone understands the above comment.Alright, let's move on.God said not to hate anyone.I won't hate you if you're gay.Oh no!BUT, I will not think of you the same.I may not talk to you as uch.I will respect you, but I won't accept your decision and I probably won't trust your judgement anymore than I'd trust a drunk driver's.Preachers say they will recieve a blessing from God but the reality is,no,you won't.God will still love you since God loves everyone no matter what.It doesn't mean you're going to heaven.Just like you may apoligize to the victim's family after you kill someone they love.And even after they forgive you, that doesn't mean that you won't spend jail time.

So if god made everyone beautiful in his own image, why was my childhood friend stricken with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, ending up bent and mis- shapen, unable to walk before dying at the age of 19.
Why was my uncle born with an extra chromasone, a downs syndrome baby who even now, at the age 45, cannot do anything for himself.
Why are there babies born with spina bifida?

Your god must be some kind of saint to create people like that.

3) The only example of this that I know of is the book of Job, which many Christians believe is a fable, not fact.

What, part of the Bible is fiction and not fact?!? <shock!>

The idea of homosexuality didn't even exist when the Bible was writen. If a man had sex with another man, they simply said he had to much passion. So using the scriptures to say homosexuality is a sin is WRONG!

1) Show an example of God doing an evil thing, please.
2) I never realized that God made people do anything; I stupidly believed he gave man free will.
3) The only example of this that I know of is the book of Job, which many Christians believe is a fable, not fact.

1) 2 Th.2:11-12
"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."

-- God makes some people believe wrong things so that they will go to Hell.

2) Rom.8:29-30
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

-- Seems a pretty clear case of predestination to me, which refutes the free will argument.

3)1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
See also: 2 Chr.18:22

Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

--God sends spirits to do "evil" things he himself has commanded us not to do. In essence, God lies by proxy. Lying is a sin, and sin is evil, yes?

Well argued. I would be hesitant to speak of predestination, myself. That was the cause of several strings of unfortunate events in the early Calvinist Church. (Trying to figure out if you're destined for Heaven or not can make you go crazy)

What, part of the Bible is fiction and not fact?!? <shock!>
That just warped my fragile little mind...:p

Well argued. I would be hesitant to speak of predestination, myself. That was the cause of several strings of unfortunate events in the early Calvinist Church. (Trying to figure out if you're destined for Heaven or not can make you go crazy)

Thank you. All quotes courtesy of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

Because people love to talk about FAGGOTS!

And I get alot of attention for saying FAGGOT because it's INSENSITIVE well, you guys are PUSSIES. Face it, no matter how much you are for gay marriage, like myself, people will always call them faggots, so get off your high horse, and call them gay NOT homosexuals. Save the PC for a legal document, fairy.

Because people love to talk about FAGGOTS!

And I get alot of attention for saying FAGGOT because it's INSENSITIVE well, you guys are PUSSIES. Face it, no matter how much you are for gay marriage, like myself, people will always call them faggots, so get off your high horse, and call them gay NOT homosexuals. Save the PC for a legal document, fairy.

Um, is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Is there some kind of sarcasm I'm missing here?

The idea of homosexuality didn't even exist when the Bible was writen. If a man had sex with another man, they simply said he had to much passion. So using the scriptures to say homosexuality is a sin is WRONG!
You could equally say that when the Bible was written the people (Israelites) were much closer to God and homosexuality did not exist. When people started moving away from God homosexuality sprang up. Is that what you're saying?

Because people love to talk about FAGGOTS!

And I get alot of attention for saying FAGGOT because it's INSENSITIVE well, you guys are PUSSIES. Face it, no matter how much you are for gay marriage, like myself, people will always call them faggots, so get off your high horse, and call them gay NOT homosexuals. Save the PC for a legal document, fairy.
What's your thoughts on the word "******"?

Religion should never be cited or used as a basis for what is basically a legal or legislative issue. I did, however, recently read an interesting article that stated the 75% of single straight men would actually marry another man in order to get better health insurance. I wonder which special interest groups might be behind keeping "gay" marriage illegal/unconstitutional?

It's funner this way.

What's your thoughts on the word "******"?
If it is used by a group to descibe themselves then it is an acceptable term. If the word is offensive it will not be used. Words cannot be offensive if I say it but not if you say it. That kind of racism/sexism is as bad as those that use the word with the intention of being derogetory.

So if black people use it then it becomes an acceptable word. As would fag if gay people used the word. Groups can't own words.

No, you can have an Omniscient, omnibenevolent God and Evil.

But you cannot have an omniscient, omnibenevloent, omnipotent God who performs or endorses evil.

I am talking about the two types of slave. For economic reasons the only cause of slavery would be the Isralites not running the society properly. But POW slaves they needed.

And if they *needed* slaves, they *needed* evil, unless you are changing your argument to say that slavery is not evil.

Please show me a verse were God endorses slavey. Not a verse where he regulates it or says how it should be done but says something to the effect of "Using enforced labour is something noble and good and any other system is wrong".

You don't have to explicitly say something is good to endorse it. If you say "It's ok if you accidently kill this person, since they are your property," you have clearly stated that the slavery system is right and proper.

If God regulates evil, then God is evil. An omnibenevolent God would have outlawed it altogether.

I have already stated I agree with this. God didnt want slavery but knew it was going to happen and that the Isralites would need it (POW slaves) so he regulated it as best he could.

And this means that society controls God. If God didn't want slaves, but indirectly endorsed it anyways just because society did it, then society controls God.

Why? As I have explained God did not endorse slavery (say it was good etc) he merely regulated it so that the Isralites would not come up with their own abusive system. You misunderstand, nowhere in the Bible does God endorse slavery or anything, he merely regulates it.

Regulation implies that it is right, thus endorsing it. Stating very clearly that another human being is "your property" is quite clearly endorsing slavery. Stating that if you kill a neighboor's slave, you are not tried for killing a man, but only have to give your neighboor an ox or cow, is clearly endorsing the idea that human beings who are property are lesser beings.

Tell you what, go travel back in time, wear anchient near eastern clothes and wander around the desert for a few months. You would be dead fairly soon.

And yet we hear about people doing it in the Bible.

Casting someone out of the camp would be barbaric as it would mean near certian death and doubtless if that had been the case, you would be complaining about it now.

I didn't say cast them out emptyhanded. I said that they could have made them work for a time, then give them supplies and send them along their way whereever they wish to go.

Keeping them as prisioner but not working them would have been a strain on resorces which the Isralites did not have.

I didn't suggest this either. In fact, I clearly stated that you could have prisoners on work detail.

Killing them would have been barbaric as would kicking them out, and intigrating them would not acknowlge the fact that they were enemy soldiers.

Women and children were soldiers??!!

Please explian how said property could own other property?

Please explain how this refutes anything when the Bible clearly states that they *were* property. My dog is property, but he owns his toys.

Slaves had oxen that they used and farming tools they bought themselves.

Doesn't stop them from being the property of other people. The Greek and Roman system of slavery also allowed slaves to own property and have money. The antebellum south system of slavery was not the only one to ever exist, you know.

Please show how the system of POW slavery in the ANE is much diffrent to the imprisonemnt system?

We don't claim to own the prisoners, nor do we treat them as such.

Beating a prisoner to death (regardless of whether or not he managed to survive a night) would be considered murder, not "no problem, he was your property anyways".

We don't con prisoners into staying in prison after their sentence is over by holding their wife and children hostage.

Female prisoners are not considered in a different light than male prisoners, nor does their ethnicity matter.

Prison is for a set term. We *do* attempt to integrate those who finish their sentence into normal society.

If you hit a prisoner with your car, you are not supposed to replace him with a cow.

And more to the point, conditions as a slave in the camps were better than going free.

Conditions have nothing to do with it. Treating a human being as property is wrong, even if you're nice to them. I'm really nice to my car, since I don't want it to get broken. I'm nice to my house, since I don't want to mess it up.

So if god made everyone beautiful in his own image, why was my childhood friend stricken with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, ending up bent and mis- shapen, unable to walk before dying at the age of 19.
Why was my uncle born with an extra chromasone, a downs syndrome baby who even now, at the age 45, cannot do anything for himself.
Why are there babies born with spina bifida?

Your god must be some kind of saint to create people like that.

He is talking about Eden, Eden was Adam and Eve and it was good. That word has been over used lately and so its meaning has been lost.

Dr. James "Diddle Head" Dobson Speaks

The bottom line is that homosexuality is not primarily about sex. It is about everything else, including loneliness, rejection, affirmation, intimacy, identity, relationships, parenting, self-hatred, gender confusion, and a search for belonging. This explains why the homosexual experience is so intense -- and why there is such anger expressed against those who are perceived as disrespecting gays and lesbians or making their experience more painful. I suppose if we who are straight had walked in the shoes of those in that "other world," we would be angry too.

This man is taking the Freudian view that sodomites need to be understood and receive our patience. Also, note that Dobson does not say that sodomy is about sin. Sin is what makes the sodomite mad. Straights are not in a sin of "abomination" simply because they practice heterosexual sex. Some heterosexual activity is wholesome, being in the bounds of marriage. Other heterosexual activity is sinful, being in fornication or adultery. But, ALL sodomy is sin by definition of the Word of God. Heterosexual sex is about procreation. Sodomy has nothing to do with "be fruitful and multiply." Sodomy IS about sex, dirty sex, Satanic sex, urinating in one another's mouths (golden showers), defecating in one another's mouths (scat), and licking one another's anuses (rimming).

This is NOT a "search for belonging."

This is demon possession. So, we are not Victorians here-- we tell you what sin is and what the fruit of sin is. We hate sin in ourselves, we hate sin in the world, and we hate it when men parade under color of Christendom, while they soften sin to make it merely a matter of "rejection" and "gender confusion"-- BAH.

I have studied the life of Osama bin Laden long before his big trick in New York City. He was also a man who was rejected. He had "parenting" problems. He lacked" affirmation." Osama, with 56 brothers and sisters, undoubtedly missed some " intimacy" with his Daddy. But, Osama bin Laden is defined, world wide, as a murderer, and he will be killed in a flash if he is caught. He will not get off for "temporary insanity" because some shrink like Dr. Dobson whines on Osama's behalf. No one wants "understanding" for Osama. I am not saying Osama is equal to sodomites. I AM saying that sin is sin, and it is wicked to redefine it in softer language from Maslow or Skinner.

I have been asked, by a sincere reader, if I am too graphic. I can appreciate his concern. Sodomy cannot be discussed rationally in pleasant terms. The problem today is that sin is not made dirty enough to jolt the complacent mind of the average couch potato in Christendom. The average preacher does not make the effort to learn what sodomites do, and how they think, so the whole Church is "ignorant of his devices." Also, I can assure you that I have held back the worst of the sodomite picture, though you may wonder how much worse it can be than the above mentioned activities.

Romans 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Sodomy is filthy, and it must be made "exceeding sinful," that is, if we are to preach "sin and righteousness and judgment"-- "that which is good." Sodomy makes its followers sick almost all the time with all manner of trouble in the bowels and with kidney and urinary infections frequently. Sodomy is about AIDS, with about 95% of all sodomites positive. Sodomy is about men smelling like body fluids and excretion. Sodomy is about young men being aroused by the smell of a urinal in a restroom. Sodomy is about sorrow, guilt, and stupidity.

So, the guilty hate the innocent. You may tell me you know a very civilized sodomite. So do I, and I am delighted that many of them restrain themselves in public. But, sodomy is the single most powerful addiction on earth. Once a young man commits himself to this sin, his chance of deliverance is almost zero. Any inhibitions he had which he acquired from the salt of a Christian family, society, or spouse will be tossed to the wind. And, when the day comes that he can no longer attract young men, there is a very high risk that he will kill himself.

Dr. Dobson is a shrink who has now dipped his little bucket in the fountain of Satan's queer Freudian do-gooders. Dr. Dobson is the servant of a devil who is promoting the agenda of filth and Satan. Nothing else can be assumed about this "natural brute beast." Dobson reverts to the logic of the damnable New Agers as he suggests we would benefit by walking "in the shoes of those in that other world." Is Dr. Dobson a sodomite? He sure sounds like it. Indeed, he sounds like he is a recruiter from Castro District.

For the record, there is more hope of the average sodomite being born again than for Dr. Dobson. This man has set his face against God, and the cash flow will NOT permit him to now retrace his steps. Mark it down.

In all fairness, we also must note that when straights are confronted with their sins of adultery, divorce, gluttony, racism, and other wickedness, they too lash out at the one declaring the truth of the Word of God. All willful sinners hate to be confronted with the holiness of God, no matter what alleged "life style" they choose. Indeed, every Bible believer must agree that hard nosed right minded Bible teaching is the fastest way a pastor can get into trouble in a Fundamental Baptist Church. Expose Freemasonry, and some Mason will start a rear guard move to oust the pastor. Preach against divorce and remarriage, and a deacon with three wives will start handing out Dr. Peter Ruckman's apologetic book on the glories of divorce.

Also, we go on record that we do NOT give up on sodomites. Practicing sodomites do not go to heaven when they die. There are no sodomite born again Christians. BUT, they may repent of their sin and be delivered by The Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE they die. They will then leave their sodomy and be changed into heterosexuals by the Holy Ghost. There were NO sodomites in the Garden of Eden-- only procreators. And, God never made a baby a sodomite in the womb. This is blasphemy.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

So, let a man take heed lest he fall.

Are we too harsh? Let me tell you the other side of the story. Evolution defines life on earth in terms of the "survival of the fittest." Evolution also stands solidly on the presupposition that procreation and reproduction are absolutely essential for natural selection to prevail. When a species sets about to do same sex acts and abandons heterosexual acts, that species is written off by evolution. Indeed, the strong are exonerated if they devour such throw backs. They are defined as weak, and their instincts are deformed. They are worthless to the evolutionary model.

The politically correct gang believe this, yet they defend sodomy as natural and normal. I like to see evolutionists make fools of themselves. However; I must say that I have seen in highly placed One Worlders, such as Scull and Bonesmen, and the Aspen Institute think tank, a temperament to destroy sodomites. They DO believe in the evolutionary model, and they intend to destroy sodomites as unproductive.

So, let us hear none of this rubbish that Christians are the enemy. Bible believers, real ones, never give up on anyone until they are dead. Salvation is offered to every filthy urine smelling sodomite in San Francisco. Jesus Christ did not exclude one of them when he died on the Cross for the sins of all men.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

When you find a Christian showing only hate for the sodomite, or when you hear talk at the church house of killing sodomites, you are not in a Bible believing church house. Move on down the street and find one where the sin is hated, but the sinner is loved and offered salvation through Jesus Christ.
An alternate cristian view on homosexuality
from
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/sodomy.htm
(note I find this rediculous but figured I would post it :) )

4) Intigrating them into Isralite society was not a reflection of the fact that these people had been in battle with the Isralites. There had to be some kind of punishment.

Yes, those evil, evil people were living on land they and their ancestors had lived on for years and didn't know it had been given to the Israelites. They must be punished because God didn't tell them any better!!!

Wow, if we killed all the squatters today...

1) Show an example of God doing an evil thing, please.

Telling people to murder women and children just because they happen to be of a certain ethnicity - aka genocide.

Condoning slavery.

Condoning the denigration of women.

Of course, this only means that God did evil *if* you take the entire Bible as absolute, literal TRUTH.

He is talking about Eden, Eden was Adam and Eve and it was good. That word has been over used lately and so its meaning has been lost.

And again, why do you choose the second creation story over the first?

You could equally say that when the Bible was written the people (Israelites) were much closer to God and homosexuality did not exist. When people started moving away from God homosexuality sprang up. Is that what you're saying?

Ah yes, human hormones suddenly changed to make people gay. And all the animals moved away from God too - there was prime real estate elsewhere.

And again, why do you choose the second creation story over the first?

Im sorry, I'm getting a little fed up of hearing you say this. In my Bible, there is only one creation story Genesis 1-3 aprox. I dont know where you getting this "two stories" idea from but I dont think its in my Bible

Ah yes, human hormones suddenly changed to make people gay.

It wasnt a sudden change, and were not talking about attraction were talking about the act.

Yes, those evil, evil people were living on land they and their ancestors had lived on for years and didn't know it had been given to the Israelites. They must be punished because God didn't tell them any better!!!

Wow, if we killed all the squatters today...

The Cannanites DID know it was God's land they were living on, so that pretty much shatters your arguement. See this website again, and read it in detail

(Extract begins)

Abraham also lived among these peoples, and had close relationships with both Amorites (e.g. Gen 14.7,13) and Hittites (e.g. Gen 23). Esau actually married Hittite wives (also called 'Canaanite'), but this was a bad experience for the family (Gen 26.34-35 with 27.46-28.1). So, there would have been numerous points of contact (in generally friendly settings--but cf. Israel's fight with Amorites in Gen 48.22) in which worldviews would have been 'discussed'.

Of special significance would be the words of Melky upon the victory by Abraham and his Amorite allies (Gen 14.18): Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.". This statement that God had fought for Abram--in such a victory of striking proportions!--would surely have registered with his Amorite companions (Gen 14.13), and been remembered in their legends.

The Canaanites/Amorites would have witnessed God's judgment on Sodom and the cities of the plain! Abraham had delivered those cities from a Mesopotamian king in Gen 14 (and perhaps the Amorite cities in v.7), only to see them destroyed in Gen 19. Abraham (and Lot) were witnesses to the theological understanding of a highly visible (and internationally applauded, no doubt!) action by God. The peoples of the Land should have taken notice and warning.

The above items are 400 years+ before the 'judgment' on them begins!

During the 400 years in Egypt, the Canaanites would have had much interaction with Egypt, much of which probably "went through" Goshen--the place of the Hebrews. They also were probably in constant contact with Joseph (and the tribes) during the early famine years. (It is likely that Egyptian influence into Palestine was expanded due to this commercial interaction.)

During the 400 years, the Canaanites would have still been surrounded by offspring of Abraham--through Ishmael and Esau, not to mention that of Lot. The nations of Moab, Ammon, Edom would have preserved early traditions about Elohim for 'exchange' with the nations.

Immediately after the Exodus, word 'got out' about the Hebrews, and made its way into Canaan. By the time Israel made it to Jericho, a common prostitute in the city could say (Josh 2.9ff: "I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. 10 We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts melted and everyone's courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.).

Rahab had heard about the Exodus (some 40+ years earlier), the conquest of the Amorite Kings Sihon and Og (a few months earlier), and the land-grant promise by YHWH(!)--given 400 years earlier. News traveled fast back in those days, so they probably had at least 40 years notice of Israel's coming. [Remember that Amalek knew of the Exodus WITHIN DAYS and attacked Israel.]

(Exert ends)

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

Im sorry, I'm getting a little fed up of hearing you say this. In my Bible, there is only one creation story Genesis 1-3 aprox. I dont know where you getting this "two stories" idea from but I dont think its in my Bible

I believe he is talking about this:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

If you are interested, here is a more scholarly account:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

Im sorry, I'm getting a little fed up of hearing you say this. In my Bible, there is only one creation story Genesis 1-3 aprox. I dont know where you getting this "two stories" idea from but I dont think its in my Bible

Proof positive that you refuse to actually *read* your Bible. There are clearly two stories, written by two different authors. Events happen in completely different orders.

If you don't even have enough reading comprehension to determine this, you are either purposefully ignoring it, or you are in no place to make comments on *anything* you read.

An example of this would be:

From what were the fowls created?

From the waters.

Gen.1:20-21
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

From the ground.

Gen.2:19
"And 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."

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

I have already demonstrated how this source tends to twist things to make whatever point it wishes to make. Here, it focuses mainly on Abraham, generations before the events we are talking about. Generally, when a people is gone, you assume the land that used to be theirs is up for grabs.

Meanwhile, the idea that all Canaanites would have known what the Israelites believed is absolutely absurd. On top of that, it wouldn't have mattered. Did it matter to the Native Americans when Great Britain, Spain, and France dropped in and said "We have been given this land by the grace of our god"? Of course not. They had no way of knowing what God had told the Israelites, nor any reason to believe them if the Israelites did relay it.

The Israelites believed that there were many gods, and that theirs was better. The Canaanites would have believed the same thing about their gods. If God was truly only trying to be the god of the Hebrews, why would the Cannanites have listened, even if they knew and believed what the Israelites said?

Interesting song I recently heard:

There are many people who will say they're Christians,
And they live like Christians on the Sabbath Day,
But from Monday morning till the coming Sunday,
They will fight their neighbors all along the way.

Oh, you don't love God, if you don't love your neighbor
If you gossip about them, if never have mercy,
If he gets into trouble and you don't try to help him,
Then you don't love your neighbor, and you don't love God.

In the Holy Bible, in the Book of Matthew,
Read the 18th chapter in the 21st verse,
Jesus plainly tell us that we must have mercy,
There's a special warning in the 35th verse.

-Rhonda Vincent

Many of the Christians, not all, replying here, seem to have little to no respect for their neighbors.

One thing is for certain, the Bible speaks volumes on Love, Mercy, and Respect. The passages on homosexuality, if they exist at all, are at times vague and at best are open to interpretation.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

(Isn't it time to let this post go onto greener pastures, as in retirement.)

Meanwhile, the idea that all Canaanites would have known what the Israelites believed is absolutely absurd. On top of that, it wouldn't have mattered. Did it matter to the Native Americans when Great Britain, Spain, and France dropped in and said "We have been given this land by the grace of our god"? Of course not. They had no way of knowing what God had told the Israelites, nor any reason to believe them if the Israelites did relay it.

The Israelites believed that there were many gods, and that theirs was better. The Canaanites would have believed the same thing about their gods. If God was truly only trying to be the god of the Hebrews, why would the Cannanites have listened, even if they knew and believed what the Israelites said?

Simple reason. SODDOM AND GOMOROUGH. Whether or not you believe it was destroyed because of homosexual sins or pure wickedness is irrelevent to the point I am about to make. They would have know about how the Isralites God destroyed that city and how all those in it were destroyed and killed except Lot and his family who listened to him. And untill you quote the site in its entriety and systematicly disprove it in an impartial light (and somehow prove that you yourself are not twisting the words to your viewpoint) then you HAVENT disproved it.

Proof positive that you refuse to actually *read* your Bible. There are clearly two stories, written by two different authors. Events happen in completely different orders.

If you don't even have enough reading comprehension to determine this, you are either purposefully ignoring it, or you are in no place to make comments on *anything* you read.

Please cite their locations. I havent read the *entire* bible, but large parts of it.

Simple reason. SODDOM AND GOMOROUGH. Whether or not you believe it was destroyed because of homosexual sins or pure wickedness is irrelevent to the point I am about to make. They would have know about how the Isralites God destroyed that city and how all those in it were destroyed and killed except Lot and his family who listened to him.

And this would have been so long ago that it would be legend to the Canaanites. Some people would believe that their own gods did it. Some might believe a rival god did it. Others would disbelieve that it happened altogether. And *none* would have known the story that the Israelites knew, unless there was an Israelite missionary to go relay it (which there wasn't since such things weren't even heard of).

And untill you quote the site in its entriety and systematicly disprove it in an impartial light (and somehow prove that you yourself are not twisting the words to your viewpoint) then you HAVENT disproved it.

I never claimed to have "disproved it." I have shown that it is clearly a biased site that ignores scripture whenever necessary, which is all that I claimed in my last post.

Simple reason. SODDOM AND GOMOROUGH. Whether or not you believe it was destroyed because of homosexual sins or pure wickedness is irrelevent to the point I am about to make. They would have know about how the Isralites God destroyed that city and how all those in it were destroyed and killed except Lot and his family who listened to him. And untill you quote the site in its entriety and systematicly disprove it in an impartial light (and somehow prove that you yourself are not twisting the words to your viewpoint) then you HAVENT disproved it.
... despite the bible clearly stating otherwise, yes, two ancient cities were destroyed by God because of the homosexual population. :rolleyes:

Please cite their locations. I havent read the *entire* bible, but large parts of it.

Hey, GOOBER! I just did that like three posts ago. But, just so you don't have to bother yourself by going to either of those sites:


The two contradictory creation accounts.

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)

Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And 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.

Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And 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 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; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Please cite their locations. I havent read the *entire* bible, but large parts of it.

I've done this before *in this very thread*, but sure.

Through study of both the stories in the Torah, and literary analysis of them, theological scholars have found that the first five books of the Bible were written by no less than two authors, both with different viewpoints, focuses, and writing styles. When the scriptures were combined, accounts from both were often "melded" into what some read as a single story, although it is quite obviously not.

Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 is the "Priestly" account of Creation. It was written by an author who wanted to get across the power of God. In it, everything is created in order, with humankind being last. Humankind is created in God's image, male and female.

In this account, God creates humankind as the pinnacle of creation, part of nature, but essentially the best and most important part of nature. This was also part of the view of the priestly author.

Genesis 2:4 begins the "Yahwist" account of Creation. It was written by a completely different author. In it, a special garden (Eden) is created. God places a single man in this garden, then makes all the animals and has Adam name them and look among them for a "helper." None is found, so God makes Eve from Adam. Everything is perfect up until they sin and get kicked out.

This account doesn't see man as the pinnacle of creation, but as the entire purpose. Man was made and everything else was essentially made for him. Another interesting point is that it does not focus on the power of God. In fact, God is made to look pretty bumbling - creating lots and lots of animals as "helpers" before realizing that "hey! all the other animals are male and female, maybe humans should be too!"

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)

Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And 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.

Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And 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 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; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Ok, it does look a little strange. At present I dont have an explaination but let me ask you this, if I had one that was fully to your acceptence and understanding (and dont go saying "But you dont" as this is hypothetical) would you change your beliefs about any of this. Most of the people here are saying "This is wrong look here" and "That contridicts that" etc. What they are doing is picking at the non essential parts of the Bible to delude themselves from the rest of the truth behind it.

my lord will this frikkin thread EVER die!? :headbang:

Ok, it does look a little strange. At present I dont have an explaination but let me ask you this, if I had one that was fully to your acceptence and understanding (and dont go saying "But you dont" as this is hypothetical) would you change your beliefs about any of this. Most of the people here are saying "This is wrong look here" and "That contridicts that" etc. What they are doing is picking at the non essential parts of the Bible to delude themselves from the rest of the truth behind it.

Some of what God said is non-essential?!? <shock!>

Ok, it does look a little strange. At present I dont have an explaination but let me ask you this, if I had one that was fully to your acceptence and understanding (and dont go saying "But you dont" as this is hypothetical) would you change your beliefs about any of this. Most of the people here are saying "This is wrong look here" and "That contridicts that" etc. What they are doing is picking at the non essential parts of the Bible to delude themselves from the rest of the truth behind it.

Have you ever stopped for a moment and thought "hey, maybe I have this bible and god thing all wrong"?
All through this thread you keep trying to convince people that your God is a good and benevolent being who just happens to allow slavery sometimes, is ok about people killing each other in his name or for "the greater good" and absolves himself from all blame because he thought it would be fun to give man free will. He also seemed to have a lot of fun creating a world full of natural disasters that kill millions of innocent people.

Is it any wonder that many people find the idea of a God odd to say the least?

The two contradictory creation accounts.

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)

Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And 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.

Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And 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 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; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
In my translation, Gen 19 says God "had formed" the animals. He just brought them to man at this point. Also, Gen 1:27 doesn't contradict Gen 2:21-22. 1:27 just says that God created man and woman, it doesn't say he made them at exactly the same time.

Also note that Gen 1:1 through 2:3 are an introduction, and 2:4 to 50:26 are the actual story.

Some of what God said is non-essential?!? <shock!>

Parts of it are yes. There is a central message which is outlined in the Gospels. After that there are the details, and while these are important, understanding them and being able to justify what they tell you is not nessecary to be a christian

Some of what God said is non-essential?!? <shock!>
No, but some of the Bible (some, not all) is faulty simply because the book was written by man, and no man is perfect. Tell me, have you ever taken notes in a class and later been able to look at your notes and recreate word-for-word what the teacher said? Same basic concept.

Ok, it does look a little strange. At present I dont have an explaination but let me ask you this, if I had one that was fully to your acceptence and understanding (and dont go saying "But you dont" as this is hypothetical) would you change your beliefs about any of this. Most of the people here are saying "This is wrong look here" and "That contridicts that" etc. What they are doing is picking at the non essential parts of the Bible to delude themselves from the rest of the truth behind it.

Not at all. What I am doing is pointing out flawed parts of the Bible to demonstrate a point. If part of the Bible is flawed, it is not all literally God's word. Thus, one must examine it in prayer and reflection to determine what God's word really is. Through prayer, reflection, and examination of all the evidence, some of us have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not wrong. Because the Bible itself is obviously flawed, that conclusion is no less valid than the opposite conclusion, as none of us can be sure that we know God's will.

"God provides" does not mean he will magicaly lift the building blocks of the tabanacle every time they need to set down camp. He provided them food (Mana) and with guidence (the pillar of fire) and many other things. God provides for his people on many occations (talking latter day now) and for everyone but people still sin to get the provision. God knew they were going to need slaves (he said take the captured enemies as slaves) and so regulated it to stop them abusing the slaves too much.

The Promised Land (Cannen) is a little more than a parking space. It was the land promised to them by God.

See above. God was not going to welch on his promise.

The tabernacle was a tent, right? Your telling me that the Hebrews had to slaughter tens of thousands of innocents, rape their women, and enslave the men, because they needed help setting up a tent?

You show me where in the bible GOD says that the Hebrews NEED slaves?

No. The 'promised land' is a lie. It was the story the Hebrews used to justify the genocide and rape of an innocent race, the same as the lies about the Nephelim, the Grigori, etc.

The city of Jericho shows clear archeological evidence of having existed for thousands of years BEFORE there even were any Hebrews. Jericho (which is, remarkably, mostly still fairly well intact) existed before Ugarit, which seems to have been the birth place of the Hebrew language, even.

Sorry, but the 'promised land' story doesn't hold any water - because the promised land, which the poor little Hebrews were reclaiming, had already belonged to other people for 7000 years before the Hebrews came to 'reclaim' it... so, when exactly did they first occupy it?

Why wouldn't god welch on his promise? It wouldn't be the first time he had lied.

Have you ever stopped for a moment and thought "hey, maybe I have this bible and god thing all wrong"?
All through this thread you keep trying to convince people that your God is a good and benevolent being who just happens to allow slavery sometimes, is ok about people killing each other in his name or for "the greater good" and absolves himself from all blame because he thought it would be fun to give man free will. He also seemed to have a lot of fun creating a world full of natural disasters that kill millions of innocent people.

Is it any wonder that many people find the idea of a God odd to say the least?

Firstly, I find it insulting that you even consider that I havent. The Bible is not simple, its message is. Free will does not "absolve blame" from God. Would you rather be without it and have your mind controlled by God and every action and slightest move controled by God? Nautral evil (disasters) is hard to explain but I can tell you one thing, they are not punishments. Post Crucifixtion God does not say "He has done too much evil, kill him" becasue "evil" is no longer quantifyable. Sin is sin and all of it can go by accepting yourself as a sinner and asking God to enter your life. After that, the promise is sealed and you can do nothing to break that. People then say "Ah but I could kill 50 people after that and still make it to heven" and I say to that, sin is un quantifiable. All sin is gone past and future. If you go and kill 50 people post becoming a Christian, the likelyhood is that when you became a Christian, you werent sincere. If you "Sincerely" want to be, and become, a Christian then you will accept the life he wants you to lead. You may fail in trying but you still try.

In response to "Endless Rehersals"

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

All of these quotes from the Bible are from the Old Testament, hence, the OLD covenant with God. Most of those things no longer apply because of New Testament. Also, #10 (as requoted above), is called symbolism. Not everything is literal. God is referring to the marriage of a Christian and a non-Christian (2 different kinds).

Parts of it are yes. There is a central message which is outlined in the Gospels. After that there are the details, and while these are important, understanding them and being able to justify what they tell you is not nessecary to be a christian

So to be a Christian, you go with what Christ said and all that rest of the stuff from Paul and the OT is unecessary.

Why are you arguing against homosexuality then since Christ never mentioned it?

In my translation, Gen 19 says God "had formed" the animals. He just brought them to man at this point. Also, Gen 1:27 doesn't contradict Gen 2:21-22. 1:27 just says that God created man and woman, it doesn't say he made them at exactly the same time.

Also note that Gen 1:1 through 2:3 are an introduction, and 2:4 to 50:26 are the actual story.

The NRSV, by far the most accurate translation I have found, states "So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."

Gen 1:27 clearly occurs *after* all the animals are made. Of course, with a different translation, one might interpret it differently.

However, theological scholars are quite clear on the fact that the two accounts were written by two different authors. The first is often used as an introduction, but is not to meant to be, and in fact has a different focus altogether.

No, but some of the Bible (some, not all) is faulty simply because the book was written by man, and no man is perfect. Tell me, have you ever taken notes in a class and later been able to look at your notes and recreate word-for-word what the teacher said? Same basic concept.

That's what I already believed. I was being facetious.

The bible is a book written by a man - it is a story, which some off us do not believe. If your basis of good and evil is coming from a piece of fiction, then your answer can be what ever you choose. As long as you do not hurt anyone else, I do not care what you do.

I am not a homosexual, but I feel they should have the right to marry whomever they want. I do not want to be married, but if I did I would like to think I could marry whomever I want to.

Why should homosexual couples be denied the benefits and privleges that heterosexuals get?

The tabernacle was a tent, right? Your telling me that the Hebrews had to slaughter tens of thousands of innocents, rape their women, and enslave the men, because they needed help setting up a tent?


Its a little more than a tent. Read Leviticus and you will see why.


No. The 'promised land' is a lie. It was the story the Hebrews used to justify the genocide and rape of an innocent race, the same as the lies about the Nephelim, the Grigori, etc.


I doubt this very much and here is why. The promised land "Story" was told to Abraham when he lived in Ur. Ur if you didnt know was the Notting Hill of the Anchient Near East. It was an extremely rich and afluent area and God asked Abraham (then Abram) to leave it all behind to go find some desert land. I personaly doubt he would have agreed unless he knew God had told him.

All of these quotes from the Bible are from the Old Testament, hence, the OLD covenant with God. Most of those things no longer apply because of New Testament. Also, #10 (as requoted above), is called symbolism. Not everything is literal. God is referring to the marriage of a Christian and a non-Christian (2 different kinds).

(a) I thought an OT law didn't apply since it was part of the old covenant.

(b) How can anything from the old covenant refer to Christians, as they didn't even exist at the time?

That's what I already believed. I was being facetious.
Oh, I have no doubt you were being facetious, but there is also a good chance that someone on this board needed that answer.

You miss the point. There were only two condtions for slavery amoung the anchient Isralites

1) Isralite resorces were slim and streched. Having a person who was not contributing to their society in any way but still consuming their resorces was hidesiously impractial. Not to mention the fact that keeping them in a tent like that would be a gross insult to the families of those whom he may have killed. The reason for this is that (unlike today) freedom outside the camp is far worse than imprisonment inside it.

2) That would have meant death. Casting them out into the desert or other unfamileir territory without a map (there were no reliable maps then) or other supplies would have been barbaric.

4) Intigrating them into Isralite society was not a reflection of the fact that these people had been in battle with the Isralites. There had to be some kind of punishment.



I was going to post a reply to this, but I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Neo Cannen. This is rubbish, you DO know that, don't you?

Your first line is a lie! One that proves you are gaining all your information form 'some other source' than scripture... my guess is a 'defending christianity' website. There are more than two types of slavery, carried out BY the Hebrews, in scripture. Go look it up, please, before you argue this any more.

I had points to post in response to 1,2 and 4 from your post. But, I'm too disgusted to bother even trying to discuss this issue with you until you read your bible, and retract that ridiculous first line.

OK, keep the benefits and marriage separate, that's my idea (which was given me by a wise person).

So when you go to the Government Office and get registered as "united for life" or whatever, you get the benefits, no matter who you "marry". However, this has nothing to do with Church, meaning that the Christians won't feel that they have their "rights impeeded" or whatever :rolleyes: .

That'd allow gays to marry and be a first step. Then we can start working on disallowing the Churches to discriminate based on orientation.

So to be a Christian, you go with what Christ said and all that rest of the stuff from Paul and the OT is unecessary.

Why are you arguing against homosexuality then since Christ never mentioned it?

Wheter or not you beleive homosexuality is a sin has nothing to do with how you live your Christian life (if you are hetrosexual, it is a little more complicated for Christian homosexuals). I didnt say that the OT and Paul's writings are unessescary, they are important but not essential. It is not essential to believe that X is or isnt a sin, since it is not you who will be doing the judging on that score later. The principal reason I am arguing here is to explain my views to you.

OK, keep the benefits and marriage separate, that's my idea (which was given me by a wise person).

So when you go to the Government Office and get registered as "united for life" or whatever, you get the benefits, no matter who you "marry". However, this has nothing to do with Church, meaning that the Christians won't feel that they have their "rights impeeded" or whatever :rolleyes: .

That'd allow gays to marry and be a first step. Then we can start working on disallowing the Churches to discriminate based on orientation.

its up to a church what their beliefs are if you dont like it go to another or dont go at all

Then we can start working on disallowing the Churches to discriminate based on orientation.
Don't think that'll work. Just like nobody can force me to allow a Jehova's Witness in my house, I don't think you can force a church (which is non-profit, so it's not the same as a restaraunt (sp?) or hotel) to allow people they don't like in. Of course, the churches I've attended don't discriminate, but I'll take your word for it that there are churches that do.

I was going to post a reply to this, but I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Neo Cannen. This is rubbish, you DO know that, don't you?

Your first line is a lie! One that proves you are gaining all your information form 'some other source' than scripture... my guess is a 'defending christianity' website. There are more than two types of slavery, carried out BY the Hebrews, in scripture. Go look it up, please, before you argue this any more.


Please show me another cause of slavery besides economic or captured enemy soldiers or civilians. I dont know of any.

Wheter or not you beleive homosexuality is a sin has nothing to do with how you live your Christian life (if you are hetrosexual, it is a little more complicated for Christian homosexuals). I didnt say that the OT and Paul's writings are unessescary, they are important but not essential. It is not essential to believe that X is or isnt a sin, since it is not you who will be doing the judging on that score later. The principal reason I am arguing here is to explain my views to you.

You do realize that essential and necessary are synonyms right?

And while I will agree that lately you have managed to stay in the realm of the religious, you have several times previously explained why you think Christians with views such as yourself find it acceptable to interefere in a secular government with religious reasons to forbid gay marriage. So forgive me if I don't find your motives all that sugar and spice.

Firstly, I find it insulting that you even consider that I havent. The Bible is not simple, its message is. Free will does not "absolve blame" from God. Would you rather be without it and have your mind controlled by God and every action and slightest move controled by God? Nautral evil (disasters) is hard to explain but I can tell you one thing, they are not punishments. Post Crucifixtion God does not say "He has done too much evil, kill him" becasue "evil" is no longer quantifyable. Sin is sin and all of it can go by accepting yourself as a sinner and asking God to enter your life. After that, the promise is sealed and you can do nothing to break that. People then say "Ah but I could kill 50 people after that and still make it to heven" and I say to that, sin is un quantifiable. All sin is gone past and future. If you go and kill 50 people post becoming a Christian, the likelyhood is that when you became a Christian, you werent sincere. If you "Sincerely" want to be, and become, a Christian then you will accept the life he wants you to lead. You may fail in trying but you still try.

Firstly, I apologise, I didn't mean to offend you.
You say that natural disasters are hard to explain as far as God is concerned, but you also, by way of your chosen religion, believe that God created the universe and all that is in it (Earth being part of that), you also believe that he created every molecule, blade of grass, Volcano, ocean, ice-floe. Many of the things you believe he is responsible for react against each other and cause natural disasters, ergo God is responsible for an unstable planet that kills millions of innocent people. If you God was such a great being why didn't he create a utopian world where the climate was forever temperate, with bountiful harvests so no one went hungry, with mild weather fronts that didn't cause hurricanes and tidal waves to raze property to the ground?

I think these are perfectly valid questions to ask but I have yet to hear a convincing answer.

Don't think that'll work. Just like nobody can force me to allow a Jehova's Witness in my house, I don't think you can force a church (which is non-profit, so it's not the same as a restaraunt (sp?) or hotel) to allow people they don't like in. Of course, the churches I've attended don't discriminate, but I'll take your word for it that there are churches that do.

I don't think he meant that we will be working through the judicial system or legislature to change the way churches act, but rather from within. The movements are already there in many groups (Episcopals and Methodists come to mind), its just going to take time. We realize that the government shouldn't interfere in religion--we claim separation of church and state after all. However, members of those congregations are generally free to try to change the groups dogma.

And while I will agree that lately you have managed to stay in the realm of the religious, you have several times previously explained why you think Christians with views such as yourself find it acceptable to interefere in a secular government with religious reasons to forbid gay marriage. So forgive me if I don't find your motives all that sugar and spice.

Why is it acceptable for ANY group of ANY political/social/religious/ethnic group to interfer with secular government if Chrsitans cant? Forgive me but I think you are playing the dog with two bones here.

First let me start out with this comment.God exist.God made the earth in his own image.God made all beautiful people in his own image and he made not one single person in the wrong way.What does this have to do with homosexuality?Men can't fertilize men and women cant fertilize women.So we go back up to the comment above.What did you read?God made people in his own perfect image.He made Eve for Adam, not Steve for Adam. Homosexuality is wrong is you're a CHristian...PERIOD!You're not a Christain of you believe in being gay.And I can say that proudly.Now, about the bible.I can defend that too.Man shall not ly with man and woman shall not ly with woman.Where in the bible I don't know but Ive read before.Everyone understands the above comment.Alright, let's move on.God said not to hate anyone.I won't hate you if you're gay.Oh no!BUT, I will not think of you the same.I may not talk to you as uch.I will respect you, but I won't accept your decision and I probably won't trust your judgement anymore than I'd trust a drunk driver's.Preachers say they will recieve a blessing from God but the reality is,no,you won't.God will still love you since God loves everyone no matter what.It doesn't mean you're going to heaven.Just like you may apoligize to the victim's family after you kill someone they love.And even after they forgive you, that doesn't mean that you won't spend jail time.


God made the earth in his image?

One assumes you are no christian... or they don't have 'bibles' (that's a special 'christian book') at your church.

Then we can start working on disallowing the Churches to discriminate based on orientation.

Churches can discriminate based on eye color for all I care, I just won't go to that church. Only those within a church should worry about changing it.

Why is it acceptable for ANY group of ANY political/social/religious/ethnic group to interfer with secular government if Chrsitans cant? Forgive me but I think you are playing the dog with two bones here.

I have no problem with religious individuals being involed in a secular government, as long as their reasons for anything are secular. Laws should not be created that favor one religious group over another. The only way to avoid that is to come up with laws based in logic and not in religion.

(a) I thought an OT law didn't apply since it was part of the old covenant.


Parts dont parts do, the New Testement explains this


(b) How can anything from the old covenant refer to Christians, as they didn't even exist at the time?

Ok you are now getting complicated but basicly this idea comes down to the breaking point between Christianity and Judaism. Christians and Jews (and Muslims for that matter but lets not go there now) both follow the same God. They split on the issue of Jesus. Christians belive he was the Son of God, Jews dont. But the same God was doing everything for the Hebrews that the Bible and the Torah says he was. God gave the law to the Hebrews before Jesus was there and so the laws affect Christans (not all of them)

I have no problem with religious individuals being involed in a secular government, as long as their reasons for anything are secular. Laws should not be created that favor one religious group over another. The only way to avoid that is to come up with laws based in logic and not in religion.

Thats like saying "The fox hunters should be allowed to lobby the government, as long as their motives are not based in the intersts they have in fox hunting"

Thats like saying "The fox hunters should be allowed to lobby the government, as long as their motives are not based in the intersts they have in fox hunting"

Fox hunting is not a religion.

1) Show an example of God doing an evil thing, please.
2) I never realized that God made people do anything; I stupidly believed he gave man free will.
3) The only example of this that I know of is the book of Job, which many Christians believe is a fable, not fact.

1) Well, straight off the top of my head... how about Joshua 23:15 : "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."

I can probably find you more, if you would like.



2) How about Exodus 7:13 "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

and Exodus 7:14 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go."

3) Try: Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech"

or 1 Samuel 16:15 "And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee".

I assume you don't read the bible much?

Many fundamentalist Chrisitans condem homosexuality because it is described as an 'abomination' (then why one in ten? Hmm?) The same section of the Bible that describes homosexuality as an abomination also describes eating shellfish and wearing mixed fiber clothing (no joke) are also abominations....so, that kind of makes me wonder about the people who thump the Bible on that one...do they eschew shrimp cocktail? 100% polyester suits?

If you want to take a step back from the matter, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, amongst cattle, dogs, cats, rats, primates, etc... To look at it from an anthropological perspective, here is a productive member of society, who is not going to add any more mouths to feed. I dont know why the average person is so freaked out by the notion.

I do understand that everyone can not be perfect...Those 9 out of 10 heterosexual, are cool, as well as those 1 out of 10 homosexual...but then look to the rest of us, perfect, pure, and ready for anything: the 1 in 35 bisexual!

Thats like saying "The fox hunters should be allowed to lobby the government, as long as their motives are not based in the intersts they have in fox hunting"

There is no amendment stating that the government shall not make laws about fox hunting.

Simple reason. SODDOM AND GOMOROUGH. Whether or not you believe it was destroyed because of homosexual sins or pure wickedness is irrelevent to the point I am about to make. They would have know about how the Isralites God destroyed that city and how all those in it were destroyed and killed except Lot and his family who listened to him. And untill you quote the site in its entriety and systematicly disprove it in an impartial light (and somehow prove that you yourself are not twisting the words to your viewpoint) then you HAVENT disproved it.

Show me Sodom. Let's go look at the evidence of god's vengeance, shall we?

Just by the way:

Try visiting THIS site:

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

God didn't plan for homosexuals, so since there aren't random smitings from God, s/he must of accepted it, like people are forced to accept things they are too comfortable with everyday. Since God created man in his/her own image and we have the capacity for acceptance s/he must to.

Sorry if this came up before i just skimmed a few pages on this thread.

Please cite their locations. I havent read the *entire* bible, but large parts of it.

Genesis 1 v's Genesis 2.

How is it that you argue scripture... but haven't read it?

Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical?

I'm a hetero Protestant I say go go ahead, no sence condeming people that aren't immoral or for reasons they can't control in my opinion

Excuse me if this has already been presented as an argument, but there's no WAY in hell I can read 275 pages of posts.

In Revelations, the Angel of God speaks of the end of the world;

Revelations 22:14-15
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Similarly, in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10;
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And finally in Timothy 1:8-11;

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

In my mind, it comes down to this; if you believe in the Bible and its message, homosexuality is a sin. It is clear-cut, there is no black-and-white about it. I know on the first page I saw someone refer to Christians as 'closed-minded'. This seems to be a term commonly applied to anyone who does not agree with another person's point of views.

For instance, are you aware that there is a organization called the "Northern Association for Man-Boy Love"? The campaign for the right of older men to have sex with young boys; pedaphilia. How much would you like to bet that they call everyone who disagrees with them 'closed-minded'? This isn't to say that you, the reader, are a member of that group, or hold with their beliefs, merely proving a point.

If you choose not to trust in the Bible, that is a matter of personal choice, and homosexuality becomes a matter of law. It is still being debated in the courts, and whatever opinions we may have won't matter once the Supreme Court makes its statement.

Briefly, let me comment on an earlier post;

[Cout]
> God didn't plan for homosexuals, so since there aren't random smitings from > God, s/he must of accepted it, like people are forced to accept things they > are too comfortable with everyday. Since God created man in his/her own > image and we have the capacity for acceptance s/he must to.

According to the Christian belief, God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He knows everything, and sees everything, past, present, and future. It is impossible to say that he 'didn't plan' for homosexuals, as we are all part of His plan. For God to have 'accepted' homosexuality, it would invalidate the Bible and the infalibility of God and His word, and is therefore impossible.

Finally, people are forced to accept things they are uncomfortable with every day.. by the people performing those acts. If homosexuals did not insist on pushing their agenda on the people of the United States, heterosexuals would not have to be 'forced to accept' it. If atheists had not insisted THEIR rights were being violeted by prayer in schools, Christians would not have been 'forced to accept' THEIR faith being supressed.

I sincerely doubt I'll come back to this forum.. it's updating so rapidly I can't keep up, but here's my two cents. I'll gladly discuss it in Telegrams in the main game if anyone really wants to bite my ass over this.

Its a little more than a tent. Read Leviticus and you will see why.

I doubt this very much and here is why. The promised land "Story" was told to Abraham when he lived in Ur. Ur if you didnt know was the Notting Hill of the Anchient Near East. It was an extremely rich and afluent area and God asked Abraham (then Abram) to leave it all behind to go find some desert land. I personaly doubt he would have agreed unless he knew God had told him.

Don't patronise me.

I have read Leviticus. Probably a hundred times, in a dozen languages, including the Hebrew and the Latin.

The 'promised land' wasn't a desert. Read your bible.

In my mind, it comes down to this; if you believe in the Bible and its message, homosexuality is a sin. It is clear-cut, there is no black-and-white about it. I know on the first page I saw someone refer to Christians as 'closed-minded'. This seems to be a term commonly applied to anyone who does not agree with another person's point of views.

Believing in the Bible and its message and believing that every single word of the Bible came straight from the mouth of God are two very different things.

Excuse me if this has already been presented as an argument, but there's no WAY in hell I can read 275 pages of posts.

In Revelations, the Angel of God speaks of the end of the world;

Revelations 22:14-15
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Similarly, in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10;
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And finally in Timothy 1:8-11;

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

In my mind, it comes down to this; if you believe in the Bible and its message, homosexuality is a sin. It is clear-cut, there is no black-and-white about it. I know on the first page I saw someone refer to Christians as 'closed-minded'. This seems to be a term commonly applied to anyone who does not agree with another person's point of views.

For instance, are you aware that there is a organization called the "Northern Association for Man-Boy Love"? The campaign for the right of older men to have sex with young boys; pedaphilia. How much would you like to bet that they call everyone who disagrees with them 'closed-minded'? This isn't to say that you, the reader, are a member of that group, or hold with their beliefs, merely proving a point.

If you choose not to trust in the Bible, that is a matter of personal choice, and homosexuality becomes a matter of law. It is still being debated in the courts, and whatever opinions we may have won't matter once the Supreme Court makes its statement.

Briefly, let me comment on an earlier post;

[Cout]
> God didn't plan for homosexuals, so since there aren't random smitings from > God, s/he must of accepted it, like people are forced to accept things they > are too comfortable with everyday. Since God created man in his/her own > image and we have the capacity for acceptance s/he must to.

According to the Christian belief, God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He knows everything, and sees everything, past, present, and future. It is impossible to say that he 'didn't plan' for homosexuals, as we are all part of His plan. For God to have 'accepted' homosexuality, it would invalidate the Bible and the infalibility of God and His word, and is therefore impossible.

Finally, people are forced to accept things they are uncomfortable with every day.. by the people performing those acts. If homosexuals did not insist on pushing their agenda on the people of the United States, heterosexuals would not have to be 'forced to accept' it. If atheists had not insisted THEIR rights were being violeted by prayer in schools, Christians would not have been 'forced to accept' THEIR faith being supressed.

I sincerely doubt I'll come back to this forum.. it's updating so rapidly I can't keep up, but here's my two cents. I'll gladly discuss it in Telegrams in the main game if anyone really wants to bite my ass over this.

Your bible quotes are wrong.

They a) do not match the 'accepted' translations; and b) do not match the Hebrew or Greek.

Thus, your argument that homosexuality is wrong to chrsitians, is flawed... since the bible says nothing against homosexuality, EXCEPT in poor translations.

Please show me another cause of slavery besides economic or captured enemy soldiers or civilians. I dont know of any.

Then, don't state it as a fact, that there are ONLY TWO reasons why someone might be a slave in the Hebrew society.

You have a bible. (One assumes).

Read it.

I can think, straight away, of at least one other reason why their were slaves in Hebrew society, and it has already been discussed (in passing) on this very thread.

Ok. I have no problems with gay people getting the rights that go along with marriage. I have no problems with gay people in general. I DO think that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, but that is beside the point.

Here is my solution for everything:
Marriage as such is no longer a function of government. Instead, the government's province is civil unions, which gives the same rights to both gay and heterosexual couples. Civil unions are the only legally acceptable tie. The word "marriage" is no longer part of the legal vocabulary.

Instead, "marriage" is a religious function, which is as it should be. After getting a civil union, a couple can go to a church and petition to get married. If a gay couple can find a church to marry them, they can have a marriage as well as a civil union, and the same goes for heterosexual couples.

If it is against your religion to have gays marry, then just tell them that they can't marry in your church. They can argue it out with churches on their own. They might find it harder to find a church that will marry them than a heterosexual would, but face it, gays are a minority and will always have trouble being fully accepted. At least they would have the same legal rights and the churches can feel happy that they're upholding their religion.

Do you guys see what I mean? Many people don't object to CIVIL UNIONS for gays, just MARRIAGES. If the rights we're talking about didn't apply to marriage, then it would be no problem. Marriage would be something purely religious and separate churches could give it or deny it as the pleased.

I've been told before that this solution is FAR too logical too ever be implemented, but I keep hoping.

Ok. I have no problems with gay people getting the rights that go along with marriage. I have no problems with gay people in general. I DO think that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, but that is beside the point.

Here is my solution for everything:
Marriage as such is no longer a function of government. Instead, the government's province is civil unions, which gives the same rights to both gay and heterosexual couples. Civil unions are the only legally acceptable tie. The word "marriage" is no longer part of the legal vocabulary.

Instead, "marriage" is a religious function, which is as it should be. After getting a civil union, a couple can go to a church and petition to get married. If a gay couple can find a church to marry them, they can have a marriage as well as a civil union, and the same goes for heterosexual couples.

If it is against your religion to have gays marry, then just tell them that they can't marry in your church. They can argue it out with churches on their own. They might find it harder to find a church that will marry them than a heterosexual would, but face it, gays are a minority and will always have trouble being fully accepted. At least they would have the same legal rights and the churches can feel happy that they're upholding their religion.

Do you guys see what I mean? Many people don't object to CIVIL UNIONS for gays, just MARRIAGES. If the rights we're talking about didn't apply to marriage, then it would be no problem. Marriage would be something purely religious and separate churches could give it or deny it as the pleased.

I've been told before that this solution is FAR too logical too ever be implemented, but I keep hoping.

It's an idea that's been kicked around here a lot and one that a lot of peopel support. Kudos to you. Hopefully logic will win one day.

[Grave_n_idle]
Your bible quotes are wrong.

They a) do not match the 'accepted' translations; and b) do not match the Hebrew or Greek.

Thus, your argument that homosexuality is wrong to chrsitians, is flawed... since the bible says nothing against homosexuality, EXCEPT in poor translations.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from Grave, but allow me to rebuke your statements;

a) Who are you to declare what the 'accepted' translations are? The quotes come from the NIV Bible, and is 'accepted' by me and most of my friends. If you choose not to accept it, that is your choice, but I have the freedom, as I stated in my post, to not accept your imposement of 'accepted' onto my quotes. They are correct.

b) I'm sorry I don't have a convenient Hebrew/Greek Bible handy with a translator sitting nearby, but I'll have to make do with the King James and NIV Bibles.

I would suggest to you that you get a copy of the Bible and read it for yourself. It clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, and I will stand behind my argument. Further, if you want to prove me wrong, I have no interest in opinions. Everyone has them, and they mean nothing without backing. I gave quotes and facts backing what I said, and unless you can do the same, I suggest you avoid posting further. I will refute you with proof.

[Dempublicents]
Believing in the Bible and its message and believing that every single word of the Bible came straight from the mouth of God are two very different things.

I do apolagise for that statement. That was rash of me, to make the statement that everyone believes in the total infalibility of God. You are correct sir.

Ok. I have no problems with gay people getting the rights that go along with marriage. I have no problems with gay people in general. I DO think that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, but that is beside the point.

Here is my solution for everything:
Marriage as such is no longer a function of government. Instead, the government's province is civil unions, which gives the same rights to both gay and heterosexual couples. Civil unions are the only legally acceptable tie. The word "marriage" is no longer part of the legal vocabulary.

Instead, "marriage" is a religious function, which is as it should be. After getting a civil union, a couple can go to a church and petition to get married. If a gay couple can find a church to marry them, they can have a marriage as well as a civil union, and the same goes for heterosexual couples.

If it is against your religion to have gays marry, then just tell them that they can't marry in your church. They can argue it out with churches on their own. They might find it harder to find a church that will marry them than a heterosexual would, but face it, gays are a minority and will always have trouble being fully accepted. At least they would have the same legal rights and the churches can feel happy that they're upholding their religion.

Do you guys see what I mean? Many people don't object to CIVIL UNIONS for gays, just MARRIAGES. If the rights we're talking about didn't apply to marriage, then it would be no problem. Marriage would be something purely religious and separate churches could give it or deny it as the pleased.

I've been told before that this solution is FAR too logical too ever be implemented, but I keep hoping.

Hooray for rationality!

[QUOTE=Vidium]I would suggest to you that you get a copy of the Bible and read it for yourself. It clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, and I will stand behind my argument. [QUOTE]

The Bible also "clearly" states plenty of things that are in direct contradiction to each other. So how does using the Bible to justify any argument hold water?

BTW, here's my favorite Bible contradiction:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/barefoot.html

It is three different tellings of the same story, with two different sets of details, in direct contradiction to each other. And yet the word of the God is infallible, right? Ummm...hello.....

And untill you quote the site in its entriety and systematicly disprove it in an impartial light (and somehow prove that you yourself are not twisting the words to your viewpoint) then you HAVENT disproved it.That's just not the way things work. Such an exercise is pointless, and in any event the website probably gets at least some things right. What has been demonstrated is that the website is unreliable, and as such should not be used as an authority, because it cannot be trusted. It may not have been disproved in toto, but if it is badly unreliable, it is useless.

I've done this before *in this very thread*, but sure.Posts #2018 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7397558&postcount=2018) and #2173 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7406049&postcount=2173) to be specific.

Its a little more than a tent. Read Leviticus and you will see why.Eh? Exodus has the description. It's a big tent with a lot of furnature.

[Mickonia]
It is three different tellings of the same story, with two different sets of details, in direct contradiction to each other. And yet the word of the God is infallible, right? Ummm...hello.....

I don't pretend to be a religious scholar.. in fact, I'm about as far outside that reach as you can get. What I do believe is that religion is more about faith. Some things you simply must take on faith that it was true. In this instance, I can only say that humans erred. 'To err is human', as the saying goes, and it is possible that since those three books were written by three different Apostles, they heard/wrote different things. I read somewhere that whenever eyewitnesses at a crime scene are interrogated, there's usually about 10 different descriptions of what happened and who was involved.

*shrug* Sorry I don't have a witty comeback or something else to toss to that.. it's entirely possible that I'm wrong. That's what gives us a choice; as I pointed out, someone can still choose to say I'm wrong. That doesn't mean I am, and it doesn't mean I'm not. It means that the person made a choice, and that's fine with me. For my part though, I believe in the infalibility of the Bible, and the word of God. I've made it clear what I think about homosexuality.. anyone is free to agree or disagree with me as long as I get to do the same to them.

Then, don't state it as a fact, that there are ONLY TWO reasons why someone might be a slave in the Hebrew society.


Hate to break it to ou GNI but the burden of proof is now on you. I have asked you to provide evidence that there are other causes of slavery beyond economic and millitary enslavement and so you must do.

That's just not the way things work. Such an exercise is pointless, and in any event the website probably gets at least some things right. What has been demonstrated is that the website is unreliable, and as such should not be used as an authority, because it cannot be trusted. It may not have been disproved in toto, but if it is badly unreliable, it is useless.


But my point was no one has quoted it to prove it is unreliable. You have to find considerable inaccuracies to prove it unreliable


Eh? Exodus has the description. It's a big tent with a lot of furnature.

Read it and you will see that is is A) Huge B) Extremely complicated and difficult to set up and C) extremely significent. Its more than a tent.

It is three different tellings of the same story, with two different sets of details, in direct contradiction to each other. And yet the word of the God is infallible, right? Ummm...hello.....

Does it rearly matter in what order the beings of Earth were created? If I were to give you an well reasoned explaination that you were completely happy with, would it change your beliefs at all? (Dont say "But you havent" as this is hypothetical)

The Bible also "clearly" states plenty of things that are in direct contradiction to each other. So how does using the Bible to justify any argument hold water?


Please can you show a clear contridiction of a moral basis that is not rationalised by the first/second covenent?

As a christian I believe that the bible is the word of God. I believe that homosexuality is a sin and that the bible definitely condemns it. Regarding the argument about the sandals and staff OR barefoot and no staff, that is a completely different matter. The sandals story comes from the gospels which are accounts by MEN who were present at the events during the life of Jesus, or got their information from bystanders at these events. i.e. These words are NOT directly from GOD They simply are like diary events to let us know the story of the life of Jesus. getting back to homosexuality and the "accepted" version of the bible - I agree WHO ARE YOU to say what is accepted Grave?!? There is no reference in the bible that agrees with homosexuality as has already been quoted however there are plently of reference condemning it as an abomination. I do not hate gay people, infact I love the people and hate the sin, however i do believe that they are bringing judgement and the wrath of God upon themselves!

As a christian I believe that the bible is the word of God. I believe that homosexuality is a sin and that the bible definitely condemns it. Regarding the argument about the sandals and staff OR barefoot and no staff, that is a completely different matter. The sandals story comes from the gospels which are accounts by MEN who were present at the events during the life of Jesus, or got their information from bystanders at these events. i.e. These words are NOT directly from GOD They simply are like diary events to let us know the story of the life of Jesus. getting back to homosexuality and the "accepted" version of the bible - I agree WHO ARE YOU to say what is accepted Grave?!? There is no reference in the bible that agrees with homosexuality as has already been quoted however there are plently of reference condemning it as an abomination. I do not hate gay people, infact I love the people and hate the sin, however i do believe that they are bringing judgement and the wrath of God upon themselves!

Amen! :rolleyes:

Don't patronise me.

I have read Leviticus. Probably a hundred times, in a dozen languages, including the Hebrew and the Latin.

The 'promised land' wasn't a desert. Read your bible.

Yes but he would have had to wander around IN A DESERT for a long time before getting there. He was asking him to leave a very comfortable lifestyle in Ur and exchange it for a long walk in the Desert to a land undeveloped. It would have been swaping extreme luxery for extreme hardship, so unless Abrabham was certian God had spoken to him, then he wouldnt have left.

Your bible quotes are wrong.

They a) do not match the 'accepted' translations; and b) do not match the Hebrew or Greek.

Thus, your argument that homosexuality is wrong to chrsitians, is flawed... since the bible says nothing against homosexuality, EXCEPT in poor translations.

Arrogence beyond belief here! ARE YOU ON THE TRANSLATION COMMITTIES? If not then you have no place saying what is and isnt accepted. And also you have yet to produce anything approching a positive endorcement of Homosexuality in the Bible.

<snip>
'To err is human', as the saying goes, and it is possible that since those three books were written by three different Apostles, they heard/wrote different things.
<snip>
For my part though, I believe in the infalibility of the Bible, and the word of God.


How can it be infallible if there are errors in it?

Does it rearly matter in what order the beings of Earth were created? If I were to give you an well reasoned explaination that you were completely happy with, would it change your beliefs at all? (Dont say "But you havent" as this is hypothetical)

One of the most important tenets of fundamentalist Christianity is that the Bible is infallible, because it is the Word of God. When contradictions, things that say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE THING of each other, are present in a book that is supposed to be infallible, I must question the validity of this tenet. And if the Bible is infallible IN ANY WAY, then it is useless as a purveyor of "Truth".

I have seen many posts that say "the Bible clearly states..." in this thread, but the problem is that the Bible doesn't "clearly state" much at all. For almost every Big Rule in the Bible, there is a contradiction or an exception somewhere else in it.

So, to answer you question, yes, if you could justify, logically, all the inconsistencies in the Bible, then I would reconsider my position. That's what being a scientist is all about. Being open to new data. Can you honestly say that YOU are opinion to having your opinion changed? I doubt it.

Please can you show a clear contridiction of a moral basis that is not rationalised by the first/second covenent?

How about this one:

Can women be church leaders?

Yes, they can.
Rom.16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church.

("I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church." -- The Revised Standard Version)

No, they cannot.
1 Cor.14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Tim.2:11-12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


All three quotations are in the NT, so there is no old/new covenant issue.

Here's another, if that one's not clear enough for you.

How are people judged by God?

By their words and deeds.
Mt.12:37
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Lk.10:26-28
"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

Jn.5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

By their beliefs.
Mk.16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Jn.3:18, 36
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him

Heck, two of those quotations are IN THE SAME BOOK and say different, contradicting things.

It's a sin because filling your asshole with lube and getting a penis violently thrusted up and down until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a disgusting mix of semen, lube and shit pouring out your asshole, onto your bed (or public toilet floor) upon withdrawal is fucking disgusting.

You seem to know in intimate detail about this "disgusting" practice...hmm...

My suggestion to you: Use the bathroom FIRST next time, and cut down a little on the lube. It won't be quite so slimy that way. You could try a little coitus interruptus if you have that much control. I doubt that, given the shit you spew out of your computer. I'd be more worried about that than any shit you spew out of your asshole.


Ge-Ren

[Grave_n_idle]
Your bible quotes are wrong.

They a) do not match the 'accepted' translations; and b) do not match the Hebrew or Greek.

Thus, your argument that homosexuality is wrong to chrsitians, is flawed... since the bible says nothing against homosexuality, EXCEPT in poor translations.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from Grave, but allow me to rebuke your statements;

a) Who are you to declare what the 'accepted' translations are? The quotes come from the NIV Bible, and is 'accepted' by me and most of my friends. If you choose not to accept it, that is your choice, but I have the freedom, as I stated in my post, to not accept your imposement of 'accepted' onto my quotes. They are correct.

b) I'm sorry I don't have a convenient Hebrew/Greek Bible handy with a translator sitting nearby, but I'll have to make do with the King James and NIV Bibles.

I would suggest to you that you get a copy of the Bible and read it for yourself. It clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, and I will stand behind my argument. Further, if you want to prove me wrong, I have no interest in opinions. Everyone has them, and they mean nothing without backing. I gave quotes and facts backing what I said, and unless you can do the same, I suggest you avoid posting further. I will refute you with proof.

[Dempublicents]
Believing in the Bible and its message and believing that every single word of the Bible came straight from the mouth of God are two very different things.

I do apolagise for that statement. That was rash of me, to make the statement that everyone believes in the total infalibility of God. You are correct sir.

The accepted translations are those of the King James Bible, and other bibles that follow that pattern. Your quotes lack the content of the KJV text - therefore, they are in contravention of the 'accepted translations'.

That's not MY accepted translations... those are the 'standard'.

It is not my fault you cannot read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. I find it hard to believe that you are using your ignorance of the actual scripture as a DEFENCE. Show me a passage that you think condemns homosexuality - and I will translate it FOR YOU.

I have read the bible. More than once. And not just the 'bible-for-dummies' editions that are so popular today. I'm not going to revisit my bible-reading-history, but you can rest assured that the ORIGINAL texts do not condemn homosexuality.

I suggest you re-read my earlier posts. Most of the 'evidence' you present has already been thoroughly refuted... this is not my 'opinion', this is fact.

Hate to break it to ou GNI but the burden of proof is now on you. I have asked you to provide evidence that there are other causes of slavery beyond economic and millitary enslavement and so you must do.

Hate to break it to you, NC, but you made the initial statement that there were only two forms of slavery (the economic and the military). I am saying that that is a lie - and one that has already been shown as erroneous in this thread.... there is no burden of proof on me, here... you made the initial insupportable comment, not I.... I have just called your bluff.

I am almost tempted to give you some more hints... but, I think I might make you work for it a little longer - maybe you'll begin to understand how debate 'works', and won't just come in posting random 'facts', that are untrue, and that you haven't checked yourself.

As a christian I believe that the bible is the word of God. I believe that homosexuality is a sin and that the bible definitely condemns it. Regarding the argument about the sandals and staff OR barefoot and no staff, that is a completely different matter. The sandals story comes from the gospels which are accounts by MEN who were present at the events during the life of Jesus, or got their information from bystanders at these events. i.e. These words are NOT directly from GOD They simply are like diary events to let us know the story of the life of Jesus. getting back to homosexuality and the "accepted" version of the bible - I agree WHO ARE YOU to say what is accepted Grave?!? There is no reference in the bible that agrees with homosexuality as has already been quoted however there are plently of reference condemning it as an abomination. I do not hate gay people, infact I love the people and hate the sin, however i do believe that they are bringing judgement and the wrath of God upon themselves!

I have already covered the 'accepted' translations in another post.

I can assure you, the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, except in very poor translations.

Tell you what... let's do this one more time.

YOU present a passage that you believes condemns homosexuality, and I will provide you with a translation.

Once you see the translations, will you admit that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality???

Or is your objection to homsexuality STRONGER than your conviction that the bible is god's word?

Arrogence beyond belief here! ARE YOU ON THE TRANSLATION COMMITTIES? If not then you have no place saying what is and isnt accepted. And also you have yet to produce anything approching a positive endorcement of Homosexuality in the Bible.


No - I am not on the translation commitee.

How am I arrogant? You are using a book that you ADMIT you cannot read in the original language, as your evidence in this debate.

THAT, my friend, is arrogance.

I have posted quotes that would condone homosexual union... and, more importantly, I have THOROUGHLY discredited your weak translations.

The bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.

If your translation DOES, then your translation has departed from the original scripture, and, therefore, you have no RIGHT to call it the word of god.

Yes but he would have had to wander around IN A DESERT for a long time before getting there. He was asking him to leave a very comfortable lifestyle in Ur and exchange it for a long walk in the Desert to a land undeveloped. It would have been swaping extreme luxery for extreme hardship, so unless Abrabham was certian God had spoken to him, then he wouldnt have left.
Perhaps you mean Jesus? Or maybe you mean Joshua or Moses?

Avram's passage is quite clear - he circumnavigated the banks of the Euphrates... a very fertile area.

Maybe you are talking about a different Abraham story?

Hate to break it to you, NC, but you made the initial statement that there were only two forms of slavery (the economic and the military). I am saying that that is a lie - and one that has already been shown as erroneous in this thread.... there is no burden of proof on me, here... you made the initial insupportable comment, not I.... I have just called your bluff.


You have said my statement is false, therefore you have to prove why. THat is basic debating practice.

Perhaps you mean Jesus? Or maybe you mean Joshua or Moses?

Avram's passage is quite clear - he circumnavigated the banks of the Euphrates... a very fertile area.

Maybe you are talking about a different Abraham story?

I am talking about Abraham. He left Ur, a rich civilised area to wander through an unoccupied area, and after Lot chose the rich nicer land (near Soddom and Goumorugh) a very un furtile land. My point is, why would he "Make something up" that would cause him to leave his comfortable nice lifestyle in Ur?

How are people judged by God?

By their words and deeds.
Mt.12:37
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Lk.10:26-28
"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

Jn.5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

By their beliefs.
Mk.16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Jn.3:18, 36
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him [/I]

Heck, two of those quotations are IN THE SAME BOOK and say different, contradicting things.

Ah one of the greatest debates in the enitrity of the Christian faith. Justification. I personally believe that sincere faith justifys yourself into heven, but sincere faith does not just mean belief. For if you have faith in God then you believe in what he said to do. Ergo part of believing is putting those belifs into practice (ot at the very least trying to). Not one of these verses is saying anything like "you will be judged by faith ONLY" or "you will be judged on actions ONLY" so I see no contridiction here.

b) I'm sorry I don't have a convenient Hebrew/Greek Bible handy with a translator sitting nearby, but I'll have to make do with the King James and NIV Bibles.

If you use the King James version, you clearly don't care what the original Word was anyways. That is the absolute worst translation around.

I do apolagise for that statement. That was rash of me, to make the statement that everyone believes in the total infalibility of God. You are correct sir.

And yet you still miss the point. I didn't say that God was not infallible. I said that many people believe that the Bible (which was written by fallible human beings) is not infallible. This can be neatly proven, but many people don't want to hear it because their faith is so weak that the knowledge that every word in the Bible isn't historical truth scares them.

But my point was no one has quoted it to prove it is unreliable. You have to find considerable inaccuracies to prove it unreliable

Actually, I did. I clearly demonstrated that they leave out key verses that they can't explain away. An example was the verse stating that a woman is more unclean after a female baby is born. Another was the "proving" of virgninty.

Does it rearly matter in what order the beings of Earth were created? If I were to give you an well reasoned explaination that you were completely happy with, would it change your beliefs at all? (Dont say "But you havent" as this is hypothetical)

Does it really matter? No.

Does it demonstrate clearly that the Bible is not infallible? Yes.

The accepted translations are those of the King James Bible, and other bibles that follow that pattern. Your quotes lack the content of the KJV text - therefore, they are in contravention of the 'accepted translations'.

Please tell me you're kidding. Theological scholars all agree that the KJV is basically a crock. It is the absolute worst and most biased English language translation out there (except perhaps for those that take the KJV and make it more modern - which is then just a translation of a shitty translation).

How about this one:
Can women be church leaders?

Yes, they can.
Rom.16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church.

("I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church." -- The Revised Standard Version)

No, they cannot.
1 Cor.14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Tim.2:11-12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


This is a contridiction within the new testement that can be easily solved. Jesus DIRECTLY contridicts Rabbi's of the time in terms of his attitude to women, here is an extract from another website explaining that Jesus did not consider men and women as supiror and subordinate.

(Extract begins)

Snapshot--Paul compared to the Praxis of Jesus

What I want to do here is to repeat the material we studied in In the life and ministry of Jesus, where we compared Jesus versus Rabbinical attitudes--and add a comment per topic to see if Paul was "more like a Jesus or more like a Rabbi"...


Jesus vs. The Rabbi's--with a Glance at Paul

Jesus disagreed with the Rabbi's that association with women led inevitably to lust. The logic that led to segregation within Rabbinix found no place in Jesus' teaching. Jesus does not warn his followers against looking at women, but rather against doing so in lust. Women's association and traveling with the apostolic band was NOT to be restricted due to the "natural desires of men"! (WS:WIB:45-46).

[GLANCE AT PAUL: Paul never segregated women at all. He actively sought them out and set up operations in their homes (Lydia, Acts 16). Women and men were supposed to worship together (I Cor 11-14), and women were to pray and prophesy in church (e.g. I Cor 11.4). He actually warns the young church against 'forced celibacy' in I Tim 4.3!]



Jesus asserted that a woman could divorce her husband; the Rabbi's said only a MAN could initiate divorce (WS:JWGRP:143: "Thus far it should be clear that divorce was always the right and responsibility of the husband to initiate. Jewish law was asymmetrical in this respect, as opposed to Roman law, which grants the wife the right to divorce her husband.")

[GLANCE AT PAUL: Paul apparently asserts the same standard in I Cor 7.13: And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him..]



Jesus touched "unclean women" (e.g. the woman with the flow of blood in Mt 9.18ff); Rabbi's would not do so.

[GLANCE AT PAUL: Actually, we don't have a similar situation in the historical narrative. We simply don't have any data on this one. Although, given Paul's general position and praxis toward the ritual of the Law, I would expect this to be a non-issue for him, as per Romans 14.1-18 and Galatians 2.11ff.]



"Jesus not only spoke freely with women, healed them, allowed them to touch him and to bring their children to see him, he also allowed them to serve him. This was not, of course, unusual in a family situation, but it was unusual for a Rabbi, as the Rabbis strongly disapproved of women even serving them at tables." (WS:WIB:48)

[GLANCE AT PAUL: Paul consistently let women help him! He refers often to women as 'fellow-laborers' and helpers--cf. Phil 4.3; Rom 16.1-2, 6, 12, et.al. Phoebe in Rom 16.1-2 is specially called a "deaconess"--a server, and he obviously stayed at Lydia's home (Acts 16).]



"Rabbinic parables pointedly avoided mentioning women, but Jesus often told stories relating to the life of women." (WS:WIB:48)

[GLANCE AT PAUL: Although Paul doesn't use a lot of stories, he doesn't shy away from stories or comparisons centered around women--cf. The comparison of Sarah and Hagar in Gal 4.21ff , or of HIMSELF and a mother--I Thess 2.7. He uses the same household 'yeast' metaphors as Jesus--I Cor 5; Gal 5. ]



Jesus often spoke to women in public; Jewish men shunned this (Aboth 1:5)

[GLANCE AT PAUL: This is fairly obvious, for Paul preaches to women in public consistently, speaks directly to them in cultic settings (Lydia), works with them in private homes (Priscilla), addresses them in his correspondence (Phil 4.2; Philemon 2). There seems to be no setting in which Paul does NOT address a woman!]



Jesus conversed at length with the Samaritan woman (surprising even his disciples!); Rabbi's would not do so--Samaritan women were considered "perpetual menstuants"! (Niddah 4.1).

[GLANCE AT PAUL: Although Paul obviously traveled THROUGH Samaria (Acts 15.3), it does not give us any data one way or another on this matter.]



Women were used as witnesses in the resurrection accounts; they were not allowed as witnesses (generally) under Rabbinic law [WS:JWGRP:163f].

[GLANCE AT PAUL: The closest data we have to this type of situation is two-fold: (1) that Paul entrusted the 'official' letter-carrying task to a women (Phoebe, Rom 16.1-2; cf. The 'official' status of this role in Acts 15.22f ); and (2) the fact that he admitted women prophets! (I Cor 11.4). They were also called his 'co-workers'-- WS:WIC:84:

They assisted in composing letters (Rom 16:22; I Thess 1:1), carried apostolic messages to local churches (1 Cor 4.17; 16:10-11), sought to encourage the believers on Paul's behalf (1 Thess 3:2), reported to Paul the status of congregations under his care (1 Thess 3:6) and even occasionally hosted house churches (1 Cor 16:19)...In view of this wide range of ministry, it would be ludicrous to deny that Paul's coworkers possessed authority in the churches (1 Cor 16:17-18)...a role which included the task of admonition (1 Thess 5:12)...Paul spoke readily of women, as well as men, as his coworkers.]
He allowed women to follow Him in His travels and ministry. "Jesus, too, knowingly overthrew custom when he allowed women to follow him." (Jeremias, cited in WS:ATW:138)

[GLANCE AT PAUL: We don't know a lot about Paul's traveling companions, but we do know that Priscilla and Aquilla accompanied him on at least one journey, and that he recognized that he could have taken a wife along with him (I Cor 9.5). Obviously Phoebe was with Paul when he dispatched her to Rome (Rom 16.1-2).]



Jesus taught women freely, and sometimes in standard Rabbinical "style" (e.g. Luke 10.38-42). Brown summarizes this contrast well:
Jesus' attitude contrasts with the sentiments of the rabbis. In the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer declared, 'There is no wisdom in a woman except with the distaff.' One version adds, 'It is better that the words of the Law should be burned, than that they should be given to a women.' In the Mishnah the same rabbi made a similarly strong statement when he said 'If a man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law it is as though he taught her lechery.' Jesus broke with rabbinical tradition when he taught women and included them among his followers (WS:ATW:143)
[GLANCE AT PAUL: It is clear that teaching women was NOT a problem to Paul. The account in Acts 16 shows that he publicly taught women and baptized them.]


"He never used women as negative examples, as was so common in rabbinical teaching. He referred to women positively and used illustrations from their everyday lives to teach spiritual truths." (WS:ATW:150).

[GLANCE AT PAUL: The women Paul uses as examples are his co-workers; all highly favorable! E.g. Euodia & Syntche --"fought by his side" (Phil 4.3); Tryphena and Tryphosa (Rom 16.12). What negative examples he DOES have are exactly paired with men--Rom 1.]



Jesus accepted and valued women highly; the famous prayer of Rabbi Judah would not have been found on His lips: "Blessed be Thou for not having made me a Gentile, a woman, or an ignoramus." (Tosephta Berakoth 7, 18.)

[GLANCE AT PAUL: Paul shatters the Rabbinic distinction in Gal 3.28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.. "Paul's statement in Galatians 3.28 is extraordinary for an ex-rabbi; it is very radical. The sexes are equal in salvation. Women have the same spiritual status before God as men. They are one in Christ." (WS:ATW:161).]

This quick overview sets up an expectation that we will still see the positive values of Jesus toward women, reflected in the actions and attitudes of Paul.

(extract ends)

Now people now will say "Ah but Jesus directly contridicts Paul on homosexuality" at which point I will say, no he doesnt. Jesus never directly metnioned homosexuality and since Paul agrees with the Old Testement on this, and there is no postive support of homosexuality in the Bible, we can assume it is condemed because of the condeming passages. To those who say "The condeming passages dont talk about homosexuality" they have yet to provide a positve endorsement of homosexuality from the Bible.

Does it really matter? No.

Does it demonstrate clearly that the Bible is not infallible? Yes.

Is the Bible infalliable in terms of its message: No

Is the Bible simple to understand: Not always

Is the Bible the word of God: Yes

Do the parts that are contested (Homosexuality) matter particulaly to the message: No

You fail to grasp that these things (like homosexuality) are not the territory of human judgements. What is and isnt a sin may be outlined in the Bible, but it will be God on the last day who knows and who will be making the judgements. Christians have to go by what they see in the Bible as being a sin or not and lead their lives as best they can by following what it says. People often make the mistake that when Christians think something is a sin, that is akin to it being a crime and must be punished and attempted to be stamped out. While sin and crime have simmilarities the predominant diffrence is that it is not Humans place to judge sin. (If you are then curious as to why I am debating it, I am just putting across my point of view and the view of my church and I know many others)

Actually, I did. I clearly demonstrated that they leave out key verses that they can't explain away. An example was the verse stating that a woman is more unclean after a female baby is born. Another was the "proving" of virgninty.

Unreliable (in terms of data) = inacurate. You have not taken an extract from the site and proven that it is wrong. While they may have not explained certian things, they have explained the truth. So in order to prove it innacurate (rather like my spelling) you have to quote it and somehow prove it wrong.

Is the Bible infalliable in terms of its message: No

I never stated that it was. The message, however, is independent of details.

Is the Bible simple to understand: Not always

Or ever, if you want a true understanding.

Is the Bible the word of God: Yes

Only if you believe that God is fallible.

Do the parts that are contested (Homosexuality) matter particulaly to the message: No

Exactly the point I have made more than once.

You fail to grasp that these things (like homosexuality) are not the territory of human judgements.

I never said that they were, so no, I don't fail to grasp that.

Unreliable (in terms of data) = inacurate. You have not taken an extract from the site and proven that it is wrong. While they may have not explained certian things, they have explained the truth. So in order to prove it innacurate (rather like my spelling) you have to quote it and somehow prove it wrong.

Intentionally leaving out verses that would seem to contradict your point is inaccurate on its face. I have shown where that was done. Therefore, the site is inaccurate by ignoring relevant data.

Suppose I had 10 apples and 8 of them were red, but one was blue and one was orange. I could explain the red apple in terms of pigments normally in apples, but I didn't really have an explanation for the other two. In order to get around this, I simply state that all of my apples are red.

Is that not inaccurate?

Intentionally leaving out verses that would seem to contradict your point is inaccurate on its face. I have shown where that was done. Therefore, the site is inaccurate by ignoring relevant data.

Suppose I had 10 apples and 8 of them were red, but one was blue and one was orange. I could explain the red apple in terms of pigments normally in apples, but I didn't really have an explanation for the other two. In order to get around this, I simply state that all of my apples are red.

Is that not inaccurate?

1) You cannot prove that it INTENTIONALY left anything out

2) I am asking is what is DOES talk about accurate. It never says "This is the only truth" it just explains about what it was asked. So answer this question, is what is disccuesd on the page accurate?

1) You cannot prove that it INTENTIONALY left anything out

2) I am asking is what is DOES talk about accurate. It never says "This is the only truth" it just explains about what it was asked. So answer this question, is what is disccuesd on the page accurate?

No it is not. The page claims certain things, but leaves out pertinent verses that demonstrate otherwise. Therefore, intentional or not (although it has to be since, in the case I mentioned, the verses were back to back), it is inaccurate.

Only if you believe that God is fallible.


You miss the point. The Bible IS the word of God not because everything in it is as significent as everything else, but because it all is the lead up to Jesus and what he did on the Cross and how he want us to lead our lives. When I say "The Bible is the word of God" I do not mean all of it is equally significent, I mean it is the explination of all that is significent to the Christian faith. Parts of it (Specificly the Gospels) are more significent than others but if Christians want to know what a Christian should do about something then they turn to God through the Bible.

I'm not even going to bother discussing, if being gay in a sin.
If it doesn't hurt anybody and if it is concensual, who are we to say it is wrong?
Besides, the only real difference between "normal" and gay couples is in the action, that happens in the bedroom.
And that is no one's business in the slightest.

Err one question.

How can the bible be the word of god if its a fact it was altered by kings during history to meet their views?

If it doesn't hurt anybody and if it is concensual, who are we to say it is wrong?


"Wrong" and "Sin" are diffrent concepts

Err one question.

How can the bible be the word of god if its a fact it was altered by kings during history to meet their views?

Please cite sources. If youve been on the forum for more than five minutes you would know that before anything can be considered a fact sources have to be cited.

Neo Cannen, all you did with your massive post above was try to turn attention away from the point. You asked me to provide a moral contradiction that wasn't solved by the old/new covenant change. I did so. Paul says, specifically, that women ARE lesser in the Church. They may not speak, and if they have questions, they should ask their husbands before or after services. In what way does this make women "not inferior"? Separate but equal isn't equal.

If you reread your own "extract" you will see that what it says directly contradicts both the Timothy and the Corinthians post. And this is not the only place where Paul contradicts himself. He says women are to be silent in the Church to one people, and then says that women should "prophecy" (aka speak) in the Church to another people. He can't even get his own story right.

This proves the fallibility of the Bible, which in turns means that we can't trust it as the repository of Truth. If it doesn't have the Truth, then how can anyone justify using it say one thing is a sin and another isn't.

Some of the same passages that call homosexuality an abomination (if that is even what they are speaking of) also say that eating shellfish and wearing mixed-content clothing are abominations. So, by that logic, eating shrimp and wearing a linen/cotton blend t-shirt are also JUST AS SINFL!?!?!

Ridiculous, and you know it. At this point, you are just arguing to argue. It has been shown time and time again in this thread, by multiple people, that the Bible is unreliable as a source of Absolute Morality.

Does it contain good moral ideas? Yes, but so did Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler. That doesn't mean I should agree with everything Hitler every put down on paper.

Thus, is homosexuality a sin? Well, define sin. The best Christian definition I have seen is: "Transgression against God's Will." However, and here I'm assuming His existence, we can not know God's will. Therefore, no one can say definitively what is sin and what isn't.

What this all boils down can be summed up by something Lewis Black pointed out on the Daily Show the other day. Homosexuality makes mid-westerners feel "icky" and therefore it is wrong.

Read the Kinsey books. You will realize that homosexuality is a natural outgrowth of human nature. If there is a God, and he made us in His image, then he made people with the tendency towards homosexuality. Ultimately, no Christian will ever have a good argument that gets around this.

I'm tired of this argument. The ignorant cannot be enlightened against their will. To all of you out there that agree that homosexuality is not wrong, good for you! I'm proud to be in the company of other rational, intelligent people. To all of you out there that think homosexuality is wrong, well, contact me when you grow up.

I will not be posting anything else to this thread. Feel free to telegram me if you are interested in continuing this conversation.

While its difficult to find a source with the amount of religious sites this one explains that there are 50 different types of the bible.

http://www.bible.ca/b-many-versions.htm

With there being so many translations from the old languages how do you know which is the correct one? Different languages have different expressions and meanings so every time it was translated little bits here and there came across differently.

With the comment on the kings thats a fact i learned while in school, the bible has been updated to 'keep with the times' so much that comparing the old ones with the new ones is like comparing the same story told by different authors.

Then again im a atheist so your obviously not going to lisen to me ;)

Neo Cannen, all you did with your massive post above was try to turn attention away from the point. You asked me to provide a moral contradiction that wasn't solved by the old/new covenant change. I did so. Paul says, specifically, that women ARE lesser in the Church. They may not speak, and if they have questions, they should ask their husbands before or after services. In what way does this make women "not inferior"? Separate but equal isn't equal.


Why not? If neither side wish to be with the other but both are allowed to do the same thing then why not?


If you reread your own "extract" you will see that what it says directly contradicts both the Timothy and the Corinthians post. And this is not the only place where Paul contradicts himself. He says women are to be silent in the Church to one people, and then says that women should "prophecy" (aka speak) in the Church to another people. He can't even get his own story right.

This proves the fallibility of the Bible, which in turns means that we can't trust it as the repository of Truth. If it doesn't have the Truth, then how can anyone justify using it say one thing is a sin and another isn't.


Firstly, the extract I displayed was about JESUS so it is the ultimate part of the bible and secondly nowhere does Paul say that for women to be involved/uninvolved is a sin.


Some of the same passages that call homosexuality an abomination (if that is even what they are speaking of) also say that eating shellfish and wearing mixed-content clothing are abominations. So, by that logic, eating shrimp and wearing a linen/cotton blend t-shirt are also JUST AS SINFL!?!?!

Ridiculous, and you know it. At this point, you are just arguing to argue. It has been shown time and time again in this thread, by multiple people, that the Bible is unreliable as a source of Absolute Morality.


You miss the point, and since I have made it before, I will now quote myself


Is the Bible infalliable in terms of its message: No

Is the Bible simple to understand: Not always

Is the Bible the word of God: Yes

Do the parts that are contested (Homosexuality) matter particulaly to the message: No


You are fiddiling while heaven awaits. Insignificent arguements about the Bible contridicting itself on small points do not ammount to the Bible being unreliable. And as for your point about the shellfish cotten/polyestere, thats old/new covenant problem.


Thus, is homosexuality a sin? Well, define sin. The best Christian definition I have seen is: "Transgression against God's Will." However, and here I'm assuming His existence, we can not know God's will. Therefore, no one can say definitively what is sin and what isn't.


1) The Bible displays God's will not through what the humans are displayed as doing, but by what God tells them is the life they should lead

2) The Bible condems homosexuality whenever it is mentioned. There is no contridiction. There is no positive support for homosexuality ANYWHERE in the Bible.


What this all boils down can be summed up by something Lewis Black pointed out on the Daily Show the other day. Homosexuality makes mid-westerners feel "icky" and therefore it is wrong.


Chrsitian sterotyping I here, I'm British thank you very much.


To all of you out there that think homosexuality is wrong, well, contact me when you grow up.


A little arrogent dont you think, at least I am willing to debate.

A little arrogent dont you think, at least I am willing to debate.

No, you are willing to argue. To debate means you are open to having your mind changed. It has become obvious to me that you can not have your mind changed. To quote a friend of mine, "I know what I know. Never mind the facts."

That's why I said "when you grow up" because when you do, you'll listen to what an argument is saying, not ticking off points to challenge.

Oh look im going to steriotype.

Why dont chrisitans come right out and say it?

The only reason you dislike gays is because your god says you should.

No politics, no quoting of historical documents, its that plain and simple.

Ive seen some of the long replys in this thread from people trying to justify their opinions but in the end it boils down to that simple answere and it dosent take a genius to figure that out.

And when you consider that they cannot prove their god exists, its all based on blind faith. Its a pretty lame excuse to justify hating an entire group of people.

And when you consider that they cannot prove their god exists, its all based on blind faith. Its a pretty lame excuse to justify hating an entire group of people.

A couple of questions for you which may make you reconsider

1) Why do you think that the belief that there is a God is more unreasonable than the proof that there isnt one?

2) Why do you think Christians "Hate" homosexuals?

No, you are willing to argue.
That's why I said "when you grow up" because when you do, you'll listen to what an argument is saying, not ticking off points to challenge.

I see what an arguement is saying and I can see its flaws. That doesnt mean I am not debating. So far I havnt seen a good solid arguement that homosexuality is not a sin. People have yet to provide a biblical endorcement of homosexuality anywhere, they may have got one or two valid questions about the validity of those passages which do say homosexuality is a sin but they do not have anything to support their claim that it is not. Since there are no endorcements, but plenty of condemnations then it would seem that the Bible is opposed to it. However whether or not it is a sin is of little real concequence, as I have explained. It is not for humans to judge other humans on the grounds of sin. All are sinners, doesnt matter in what particular way, all are siners.

A couple of questions for you which may make you reconsider

1) Why do you think that the belief that there is a God is more unreasonable than the proof that there isnt one?

2) Why do you think Christians "Hate" homosexuals?


1) Uhh the fact you and others have gone on for 2 weeks in this thread trying desperately to prove the bible says gays are sinners and are going to hell.

2) This new age PC 'hate the sin love the sinner' crappola. I myself would prefer if you'd just cut the crap coz even "liberals" find it somewhat annoying that to rationalize this idiotic statement heavily relies on a false belief that homosexual orientation is a choice or that you are so self-important to dictate the currents of nature as told by a people who were not terribly enlightened academically nor socially. :rolleyes:

I would like to adress the original questions to this thread.

Why is homosexuality a sin?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it? Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

I believe I can answer all of these questions at once.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

If you need a new covenant quote:
Romans 1: 26-32
"26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And 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;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.
1 Thessalonians 4:7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

I think we can draw from that that all homosexuality is wrong, a sin, and detestable to God.


2) How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong? see above

3) If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

I haven't followed every scripture in the Bible. I have tried, but noone can. That was to show us that we need to be saved because of this dire situation that we are in (eternal damnation for sin). Which is where John 3:16 comes in. "For God so loved the World that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life."

I think that in the end, If God has not called you to, you will not believe this. I would just like to note that we are still told to love everyone (philia: brotherly love) and that it is Gods job to judge, not mine or yours. In this case, we can clearly see what his judgement is.


Lastly, Thank you Neo Cannen for the previous post.

I would like to adress the original questions to this thread.

Why is homosexuality a sin?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it? Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

I believe I can answer all of these questions at once.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

If you need a new covenant quote:
Romans 1: 26-32
"26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And 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;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.
1 Thessalonians 4:7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

I think we can draw from that that all homosexuality is wrong, a sin, and detestable to God.


2) How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong? see above

3) If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

I haven't followed every scripture in the Bible. I have tried, but noone can. That was to show us that we need to be saved because of this dire situation that we are in (eternal damnation for sin). Which is where John 3:16 comes in. "For God so loved the World that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life."

I think that in the end, If God has not called you to, you will not believe this. I would just like to note that we are still told to love everyone (philia: brotherly love) and that it is Gods job to judge, not mine or yours. In this case, we can clearly see what his judgement is.


Lastly, Thank you Neo Cannen for the previous post.


Very good now try reading the passages of Romans preceding the excerpt provided.

A couple of questions for you which may make you reconsider

1) Why do you think that the belief that there is a God is more unreasonable than the proof that there isnt one?

2) Why do you think Christians "Hate" homosexuals?

1) i think the guy before me coverd this best ;)

2) You tell me, your the ones who have been going on about it for generations now trying to convince everyone that it is wrong. Add on the death threats to gays on the news and the murders one tends to not have to wonder whether you hate them or not wouldn't you think?

1) Uhh the fact you and others have gone on for 2 weeks in this thread trying desperately to prove the bible says gays are sinners and are going to hell.


You miss the point of what I was saying. On this forum, many people have said "There is no God because there is nothing to prove he exists" . While I believe that is false I ask them, what proof do you have to say God doesnt exist? And thats proof, not absence of proof. Actual positve proof that God does not exist.


2) This new age PC 'hate the sin love the sinner' crappola. I myself would prefer if you'd just cut the crap coz even "liberals" find it somewhat annoying that to rationalize this idiotic statement heavily relies on a false belief that homosexual orientation is a choice or that you are so self-important to dictate the currents of nature as told by a people who were not terribly enlightened academically nor socially


Firstly, we have established that the sin is the homosexual sex, not the attraction and secondly though it says nowhere in the Bible the specific phrase "Love the sinner hate the sin" that is an effective description of what God does throught the Bible. Where does he say anything that would contridict that idea?

Lastly, Thank you Neo Cannen for the previous post.

Out of curiousity, which one? I post a lot on here

Because I say it is! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-The Mouth of God

Alas poor Matthew Shepard, murderd by a gay bashing mob October 12, 1998, at age 21. May he rest in peace...

And may the sick christian priest who made the plaque below get whats coming to him :mad: :sniper:

http://media.arbiteronline.com/vimages/shared/vnews/stories/s-3fd61ffee0c76-60-1.jpg

The plaque reads: Matthew Shepard
entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age
21 In Defiance of God's Warning:
"Thou shall not lie with mankind as
with womankind; it is abomination"
~Leviticus 18:22

You miss the point of what I was saying. On this forum, many people have said "There is no God because there is nothing to prove he exists" . While I believe that is false I ask them, what proof do you have to say God doesnt exist? And thats proof, not absence of proof. Actual positve proof that God does not exist.

Ahh so the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence only when you are referring to God?



Firstly, we have established that the sin is the homosexual sex, not the attraction and secondly though it says nowhere in the Bible the specific phrase "Love the sinner hate the sin" that is an effective description of what God does throught the Bible. Where does he say anything that would contridict that idea?

How do you define a homosexual? By sexual experiences or sexual orientation? Scientifically the definition is the latter and applies to virginal kids barely in high school equally as it does to a bathhouse slut. Lastly various relevant translations and passages of the bible do not say anywhere to love homosexuals, quite the oppposite in fact, and therefore if you take the contextual meaning of the whole book, 'hate the sin love the sinner' is as lame as some idiot spouting Levitican codes, Romans, Deuteronomy, etc. Why is that catch phrase only used towards homosexuals, not murderers rapists and thieves, to remind people to focus their hate on something else? *shrugs*

There is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence that God does not exist.

This is where we use our common sense to examine the nature of the claim, decide that the idea of a massive old guy with a beard playing The Sims with a few highly evolved primates on a big lump of rock is totally wacko, and conclude that it is sensible to assume God does not exist until further evidence comes to light.

You miss the point. The Bible IS the word of God not because everything in it is as significent as everything else, but because it all is the lead up to Jesus and what he did on the Cross and how he want us to lead our lives. When I say "The Bible is the word of God" I do not mean all of it is equally significent, I mean it is the explination of all that is significent to the Christian faith. Parts of it (Specificly the Gospels) are more significent than others but if Christians want to know what a Christian should do about something then they turn to God through the Bible.

There is a big difference between literally being the infallible word of God and being the message of God. I would argue that the latter, rather than the former, is true.

Ahh so the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence only when you are referring to God?


Proving that God does or does not exist is in the relms of philosphy and metaphysics. Only in normal science does the phrase "absence of proof is proof of absence" can be said to be true. And when the proof is found then it is proved to be there but untill such proof exists (or can be proven to exist, that debate could go on for a while) then in normal science it cannot be said to exist. However God is in the relms of metaphysics. And even there you cannot have certian proof that he does or does not exist. What I find strange is that so many people use the idea of there being "Proof" that God does not exist as a foundation for Athisim when in fact there is no such proof.


How do you define a homosexual? By sexual experiences or sexual orientation? Scientifically the definition is the latter and applies to virginal kids barely in high school equally as it does to a bathhouse slut. Lastly various relevant translations and passages of the bible do not say anywhere to love homosexuals, quite the oppposite in fact, and therefore if you take the contextual meaning of the whole book, 'hate the sin love the sinner' is as lame as some idiot spouting Levitican codes, Romans, Deuteronomy, etc. Why is that catch phrase only used towards homosexuals, not murderers rapists and thieves, to remind people to focus their hate on something else? *shrugs*

It IS used on rapeists, murderes etc (or certianly if people dont then they should do). I know on occations I hold what people have done against them but I shouldnt. I should do my best to forgive and move on. It is hard on occation but it is what we (Christians) should do.

Proving that God does or does not exist is in the relms of philosphy and metaphysics. Only in normal science does the phrase "absence of proof is proof of absence" can be said to be true. And when the proof is found then it is proved to be there but untill such proof exists (or can be proven to exist, that debate could go on for a while) then in normal science it cannot be said to exist. However God is in the relms of metaphysics. And even there you cannot have certian proof that he does or does not exist. What I find strange is that so many people use the idea of there being "Proof" that God does not exist as a foundation for Athisim when in fact there is no such proof.


Lets take the same philosophy shall we. What if there is a monster under the bed? I look under the bed and it is not there, i can run all sorts of tests and it still wont be there. But if we take what you just said into account then there is a very good chance there is a network of monsters around the world all linking under beds everywhere! Just because i cannot prove its existence dosent mean its not there right?

There is a big difference between literally being the infallible word of God and being the message of God. I would argue that the latter, rather than the former, is true.

There are parts of the Bible which make it clear that God is speeking to man. It is in these parts that the word is infalliable. The message too is infaliable. The Bible as a book is not. Not every part of it is equally significent but those that are are made clear. What it says is true, not always easy to understand but true.

Lets take the same philosophy shall we. What if there is a monster under the bed? I look under the bed and it is not there, i can run all sorts of tests and it still wont be there. But if we take what you just said into account then there is a very good chance there is a network of monsters around the world all linking under beds everywhere! Just because i cannot prove its existence dosent mean its not there right?

Your analogy doesnt hold water. The problem with it is that you are talking within this universe. God is outside this universe and beyond our understanding of it. We cannot do any kind of scientific test to prove wether he is there or not. There is a lack of positive proof that he does not exist is what I am saying. While many people may be able to come up with absence of proof ideas "If I ask God to stop this stone hitting the ground when I drop it and he doesnt then he doesnt exist" etc. There is a lack of positive proof of God's non existance, so why do people find it so much more academic to believe that there is no God when there is no positive proof. And anyway, the Bible specificly says that you shouldn't test your faith as thats not what faith is.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

Hebrews 11: 11

Now while I am not saying that faith is literal evidence (I have faith that X invisable object exists therefore it does), what I am saying is that if you had incontrevertable evidence that there was a God, you wouldnt need faith anymore.

There are parts of the Bible which make it clear that God is speeking to man. It is in these parts that the word is infalliable. The message too is infaliable. The Bible as a book is not. Not every part of it is equally significent but those that are are made clear. What it says is true, not always easy to understand but true.

This is where your logic falls flat. If you admit that parts of the Bible are flawed due to being written by flawed men, you can't say "but I like these parts and they specifically say that God said it so we're going to say they are infallible."

First of all, you must remember that the society that first passed these things down and finally wrote them down didn't distinguish between the actual author and the teacher from whence the knowledge came. The person writing something down, if they thought it came from God, would state that God said it - regardless of whether or not it actually happened.

Second of all, if you admit that the entire book is not absolutely literally God's word, it is illogical to say "it says here that it is God speaking, so that must be true!"

Now, the answer is not to dismiss anything out of hand, but to approach the Bible as something that must be read and reread. Difficult passages should be read and interpreted in light of the overall message. And *all* of it should be done prayerfully and with an open mind to listen to God's message in your heart, even if it contradicts the details that flawed men of the past wrote down.

Lets take the same philosophy shall we. What if there is a monster under the bed? I look under the bed and it is not there, i can run all sorts of tests and it still wont be there. But if we take what you just said into account then there is a very good chance there is a network of monsters around the world all linking under beds everywhere! Just because i cannot prove its existence dosent mean its not there right?

Non sequitur.

An omnipotent God, by definition, exists outside the measurable universe. A monster does not.

The belief or non-belief in God is an axiomatic statement and, as such, can be neither proven nor disproven.

Homosexuallity is a lifestyle, and a personal characteristic which is expressed and held dear to a homosexual's heart, I would not dare to ask a homosexual to stop being gay due to a lack of tolorance on my part. Their is no problem with homosexuallity except that people are afraid of them. Because they are told to by those they trust. it is no difference than durring the civial rights days when preachers rallied against interacial marriages quoting from bible passages, and battling court rulings which stated interacial schools, and equal rights between the races. Now it must exist between the sexes. its is time to break down the barriers of our daily lives. time to shake the house, to test the strength of our freedoms foundations. If we do not, we will never find the weakness which threathens to destroy the very existance of our society. freedom. The fight for freedom is an ever changing and continuing battle of humanities fight to know itself. We must endever to change and grow, else we grow stagnet and die from the lack of growth. These are the lessons of history which humanity has endored and shall forever have too endore. This is the foundation of humankind's existance in our world. We must excercise freedom, and allow all memebers of humanity to take part of its wonders. I oppose any argument which whould rob or steal the freedom we dare fight for and praise between each other on a daily bases. We can not call ourselves free if in echange we deny freedom to others for no reason but fear or hatred. Now is time to change the misfortune of war and petty hatred we must show compassion and understanding and open ourselves up to becoming better as people. It is the only way we can hold our heads up high and become a stronger nation of people. May we find the way, and become better along the journy of life.

Proving that God does or does not exist is in the relms of philosphy and metaphysics. Only in normal science does the phrase "absence of proof is proof of absence" can be said to be true. And when the proof is found then it is proved to be there but untill such proof exists (or can be proven to exist, that debate could go on for a while) then in normal science it cannot be said to exist. However God is in the relms of metaphysics. And even there you cannot have certian proof that he does or does not exist. What I find strange is that so many people use the idea of there being "Proof" that God does not exist as a foundation for Athisim when in fact there is no such proof.

I don't recall citing proof neither for nor against the existence of God but what I find strange is the belief atheists believe God does not exist by lack of tangible proof when it is not strange to believe he does exist by intangibles and a flawed and culturally varying document purported as theophany.


It IS used on rapeists, murderes etc (or certianly if people dont then they should do). I know on occations I hold what people have done against them but I shouldnt. I should do my best to forgive and move on. It is hard on occation but it is what we (Christians) should do.

No it isn't and if so, so rarely it's drowned in the drone of anti-gay rhetoric. Misplaced priorities I think...nah homophobia has nothing to do with this! No sirrreee! :rolleyes: Perhaps you should remind them to do so coz it's eating away at their intellectual and theological credibility. Maybe drop leaflets over the bible belts of various countries though I'd prefer JDAM's. :D

1) Show an example of God doing an evil thing, please.
2) I never realized that God made people do anything; I stupidly believed he gave man free will.
3) The only example of this that I know of is the book of Job, which many Christians believe is a fable, not fact.

1) There are a lot of examples of God doing very evil things. Killing children (in Egypt), killing nearby the whole humankind (the story with Noah). I

2) it is not free will if there are circumstances that make your life impossible. Imagine - perhaps a lot of Irakis would love to stay home and watch TV. A God led nation sent their troops to invade their country (i heard anything about crusade) and now these people think they have to fight in order to defend "THEIR way of life". And I believe that the free will of the biggest part of the american soldiers would make them go home to their familis to enjoy THEIR way of life. Now there are a lot of people killing or diying without the free will to do so.

And i think it is very important to realize that there were two things god didn´t want to share with the humans. Inmortality and the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Without the ability to distinguish there can be NO free will.
Under this circumstances humanity has to thank the serpent for the free will... ;)