NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

If this is the case then why does aithiests saying they dont believe in the existence of god then expressing their views bother you so much? Or... is it the other way round?

The usual chrisitan would just say "Well that is your view but this is my faith, the same way you feel there isint a god is the way i feel there is." Since this topic is so long i dont know whether it was a aithiest or a chrisitan that started the argument but in the end this is all our opinion.

For a chrisitan to say their faith is anything but faith offends a aithiest and the fact a aithiest can live a normal life without god offends some christians. To try and prove eachother wrong causes a enternal cycle of arguing ang bickering regardless of what facts or lack of facts are expressed.

I dont know if you are trying to prove the existence of god or trying to defend yourself against somone trying to change your faith but in the end neither side will yeild.

Im going to back off from this argument now since i know from past experience it will continue till the topic dies then another one will spawn up a few days later with the same argument. I advice the readers of this thread decide whether this is somthing worth continuing to argue over or consider the discussion pointless as it is and carry on with their lives because lets face it, where all wasting time in here trying to prove the impossible ;)

For people that believe in the bible homosexuality has to be a sin. No way to deny this.

Even heterosexual sex without marriage is a sin.

Even thinking about sexuality is a sin.


For me, this is not the important question. Why is it important to think about if it is a sin or not? Why have religious fanatics so much power in the USA?



I am not homosexual and if I were this would a "gift" from god like black hair or green eyes. Imagine the bible defines green eyes as a sin... Would it be really a sin to have green eyes?

Imagine the bible defines green eyes as a sin... Would it be really a sin to have green eyes?
But it does not. Therefore, take your straw man and slink away like the fool you are. There is no conclusive evidence of a genetic strain that causes homosexuality. Your analogy is pathetically transparent.

If this is the case then why does aithiests saying they dont believe in the existence of god then expressing their views bother you so much? Or... is it the other way round?

Considering that I am dating and planning on marrying an atheist, it doesn't. If you don't believe in god, I have no problem with it. Just don't repeat the fallacy that the non-existence of God can be proven, as it cannot.

The usual chrisitan would just say "Well that is your view but this is my faith, the same way you feel there isint a god is the way i feel there is." Since this topic is so long i dont know whether it was a aithiest or a chrisitan that started the argument but in the end this is all our opinion.

Which is basically what I have said all along. All I pointed out is that you cannot claim to have proof of an axiom.

For a chrisitan to say their faith is anything but faith offends a aithiest and the fact a aithiest can live a normal life without god offends some christians. To try and prove eachother wrong causes a enternal cycle of arguing ang bickering regardless of what facts or lack of facts are expressed.

Did I try and prove you wrong? How exactly does stating that there is no proof to be found either way prove anybody wrong? You have quite the martyr complex here. My boyfriend is one of the most moral people I know and I have never claimed that my faith is not faith.

I dont know if you are trying to prove the existence of god or trying to defend yourself against somone trying to change your faith but in the end neither side will yeild.

How about neither? You were the one attempting to "prove" the non-existence of God. I was simply pointing out that it cannot be done.

But it does not. Therefore, take your straw man and slink away like the fool you are. There is no conclusive evidence of a genetic strain that causes homosexuality. Your analogy is pathetically transparent.

Something doesn't have to be completely genetic to be inherent, so your argument is silly. And while no "gay gene" has been found, there is quite a bit of evidence that it is at least partially genetic. There is quite a bit of evidence that hormone balances withing the womb contribute. And there is *overwhelming* evidence that it is not a choice.

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... ;)

You dont understand what we mean by free will. We (Christians) mean the ability to chose. Adam and Eve did have the ability to eat the fruit forbiddent to them. God did not pre-program their minds in any way. He allowed us the option. It was a choice. God gave humans the capacity of choice.

I think a fool is a person that believes every thing written in a very, very old book that has been translated a lot of times.

And I think it is really prooved that there is a genetic part. Even a percentage of animals are homosexual...

There are more evidences to believe in a genetic part that there are evidences to believe in the god of the bible.

Perhaps in the original version green eyes where a sin...

And as much as I know even babys come to this world with the original sin. With or without green eyes. Doesn´t it sound quite stupid?

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

I really have no idea. This is like asking why murder is a sin or why not honoring your mother or father is a sin. That is, the statement "homosexuality is a sin" seems to appeal to some ineffable moral intuition, just as the statement "murder is a sin" does. I'm prone to agree with AJ Ayer and say that these types of statements are merely emotivist statements that are not empirically verifiable. That is, no one can prove that homosexuality or murder is a sin, they can just think that it is. And when that same person makes the statement "homosexuality is a sin" or "murder is a sin" they are merely making an emotivist claim similar to "homosexuality is icky" or "murder is icky". There is no logical foundation supporting the claim that homosexuality is sinful.

<b>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?</b>

In strict Kantian terms, I would say "yes". Going to a gay rally or a dance club or loving a person of the same gender presumably says something about intentions. And it is the intention of an individual that has moral repercussions, not just the actions. But, having already espoused an emotivist viewpoint, I would have to say "no, of course not. 'Sin' is a made-up word meant to disguise illogical, gut-level reactions".

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

Several passages in the old testament, particularly in Leviticus, condemn the act of a "man laying with another man" as an "abomination". This is particularly odd for several reasons. First, women can apparently lay with other women. Secondly, earlier in Leviticus, it talks about how eating lamb that hasn't been butchered properly is also an "abomination". And, later in Levitucs it talks about how to properly sacrifice goats so that one does not commit an "abomination" against our Lord God, who apparently thinks sacrificing goats is cool stuff.

Now, admittedly, there are also statements in the New Testament that talk about homosexuality being a sin. However, according to New Testament dogma, every sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord, and Jesus died for all of our sins because he loves us. So, any Christian with any sense of what his religion is actually teaching him or her should accept homosexuals as a fellow sinner. Remember, according to Christian faith, all Christians are sinners and were on the fast track to hell until Jesus was sacrificed for them.

<b>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?</b>

This statement seems to assume that people need to not be hypocrites. Nobody has ever passed this law, not even Jesus. Think of it this way. According to the New Testament, homosexuality is your sin and not loving their fellow men and women as they would like to be loved is their sin. And since their sin is actually one of the two commandments in the New Testament, it would seem they are doing something more morally reprehensible than you are.

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

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo[/QUOTE]</b>


Groovy, want a cookie?

Something doesn't have to be completely genetic to be inherent, so your argument is silly. And while no "gay gene" has been found, there is quite a bit of evidence that it is at least partially genetic. There is quite a bit of evidence that hormone balances withing the womb contribute. And there is *overwhelming* evidence that it is not a choice.

We have already gone over this. We know for a fact that people are not "born gay". It may or may not be a choice but even if wasnt, we are talking about the act of homosexual sex (IE sex between two men or two women) that is a sin. There may be genetic predisposition towards it but their is genetic predisposition for a great number of sins. However it is possible to not sin still, God ensures that we are never tempted by the devil beyond our means to resist.

You dont understand what we mean by free will. We (Christians) mean the ability to chose. Adam and Eve did have the ability to eat the fruit forbiddent to them. God did not pre-program their minds in any way. He allowed us the option. It was a choice. God gave humans the capacity of choice.

Only one explanation. I AM christian and i know the bible and it is quite clear to me:

Without the ability to distinguish between good and evil you don´t know that it is evil to disobey god.

God gave the capacity of choice - but NOT the capacity to know that the wrong choice was false or evil.

I think YOU don´t understand this. ;)

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.

You misunderstood. There are passages and verses where it says "God said" or "God spoke to..." etc. Those are the parts I meant.

Only one explanation. I AM christian and i know the bible and it is quite clear to me:

Without the ability to distinguish between good and evil you don´t know that it is evil to disobey god.

God gave the capacity of choice - but NOT the capacity to know that the wrong choice was false or evil.

I think YOU don´t understand this. ;)

It wasnt GOOD or EVIL to obey/disobey God. It was a simple command, and because it was so easy to keep, the punishment was so hard to bear. Adam and eve were aware of the concequences of what they were going to do if they disobeyed so it seems to me that they were fully aware that it was a bad idea to eat the fruit. And they were aware of who was telling them to do this, God. They knew who he was and what he was so they knew that if he said something then there was obviously a good reason. They were fully aware of the situation, you cant defend them by saying they were ignorent.

Is the will to have sex a choice or given by nature?

I mean "normal" sex. Man with woman...

oh for fucks sake, shut up!!! Y do u even CARE?! THERES NO SUCH THING AS A SIN...THERES NO SUCH THING AS GOD. It was created by people who couldn't explain the creation of life and the world. so all u christians, catholics, or whatever u want to be. GET OVER IT. homosexuality is not a sin. wow. and im gunna get lots of ppl arguing with me :) maybe even a threat. hehe

Is the will to have sex a choice or given by nature?

I mean "normal" sex. Man with woman...

The design of the human reproductive systems would seem to suggest so.

oh for fucks sake, shut up!!! Y do u even CARE?! THERES NO SUCH THING AS A SIN...THERES NO SUCH THING AS GOD. It was created by people who couldn't explain the creation of life and the world. so all u christians, catholics, or whatever u want to be. GET OVER IT. homosexuality is not a sin. wow. and im gunna get lots of ppl arguing with me :) maybe even a threat. hehe

If you believe that God doesnt exist and that there is no such thing as sin, then why did you post on a debate labeled "Why is homosexuality a sin?"

It wasnt GOOD or EVIL to obey/disobey God. It was a simple command, and because it was so easy to keep, the punishment was so hard to bear. Adam and eve were aware of the concequences of what they were going to do if they disobeyed so it seems to me that they were fully aware that it was a bad idea to eat the fruit. And they were aware of who was telling them to do this, God. They knew who he was and what he was so they knew that if he said something then there was obviously a good reason. They were fully aware of the situation, you cant defend them by saying they were ignorent.

But without the ability to distinguish you can´t know that a comand is a thing you have to follow...


But know I think you are saying it was not evil to disobey god????

I think you donßt have children. My daughter is 2 years old. If I want her to do something i just forbid her to do it. If I want her to drink water instead of juice i comand her to drink juice and forbid water. ;)

It is normal in this phase an it will change.

without the ability to distinguis between good and evil Adam and Eve where quite in the phase of little children. They even didn´t realize they where naked.

As a loving father I never would let my children Adam and Eve alone with the serpent. And god that knows everything had to know the failures of HIS creation. The weaknes of Adam and Eve was also created by god. And I think this can not be defended by saying all the time they had the free will.

Perhaps God wanted them to eat the fruit??

If this is the case then why does aithiests saying they dont believe in the existence of god then expressing their views bother you so much? Or... is it the other way round?


Because so many academics wittle on about the lack of proof of Gods existance without providing any positive proof for his non existance. It seems to me that neither side is more proveable so why should the interlecutal community frown on one and praise the other?

We have already gone over this. We know for a fact that people are not "born gay". It may or may not be a choice but even if wasnt, we are talking about the act of homosexual sex (IE sex between two men or two women) that is a sin. There may be genetic predisposition towards it but their is genetic predisposition for a great number of sins. However it is possible to not sin still, God ensures that we are never tempted by the devil beyond our means to resist.

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to someone stating that homosexuality itself was a sin. This is an idiotic statement because something that isn't a choice cannot possibly be a sin. It would be like saying that me menstruating or growing hair under my arms is a sin.

As for whether or not sex between two people who love each other and have made a lifetime comittment to one another is a sin, you know my stance on that.

The design of the human reproductive systems would seem to suggest so.

You mean it suggest it is given by nature?

And why is it a sin to have sex without marriage?

I think marriage was not given by nature - it is a cultural thing.

Is more sin to be homosexual than to have sex without being married?

But without the ability to distinguish you can´t know that a comand is a thing you have to follow...


What is a command if not something to obey. In any case Eve knew what she was allowed and not allowed to do, she said herself

"The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " "

Genesis 3: 2-3

Because so many academics wittle on about the lack of proof of Gods existance without providing any positive proof for his non existance. It seems to me that neither side is more proveable so why should the interlecutal community frown on one and praise the other?

There really aren't that many academics who go on about whether or not God exists. In fact, the number of religious people within academia is almost identical to that of the general population.

And no serious person in the intellectual community praises one who states "there is no God" more than someone who states "there is a God" unless we are talking about philosophy, which has never been a realm I cared to delve into.

We have already gone over this. We know for a fact that people are not "born gay". It may or may not be a choice but even if wasnt, we are talking about the act of homosexual sex (IE sex between two men or two women) that is a sin. There may be genetic predisposition towards it but their is genetic predisposition for a great number of sins. However it is possible to not sin still, God ensures that we are never tempted by the devil beyond our means to resist.


To be repetetive, biological determinism for any sexual orientation has not been proved nor disproved yet here you go again claiming you have proven something no one else has to date. Remember what I said about absence of evidence and such? As for the rest of your post, it's entriely subjective and relies on the validity of your beleifs so as you've proven hmoosexuality is neither genetic nor inate, prove God is real, the bible is His infallible word, and religoius orientation is never a mental illness.

You mean it suggest it is given by nature?

And why is it a sin to have sex without marriage?

I think marriage was not given by nature - it is a cultural thing.


Because God created marriage as an idea for a controled monogmous enviroment for sex. If you look at some of the damage that sex outside marriage can do (Im talking emotionaly and psycologicaly as well as physically) then I'm sure you will agree that there is a good reason for God to protect us from it. And as far as a Christians idea on marriage goes, it was created as a concept in Eden, see Genesis 2: 24


Is more sin to be homosexual than to have sex without being married?

One sin is not worse than another, sin is sin.

Because so many academics wittle on about the lack of proof of Gods existance without providing any positive proof for his non existance. It seems to me that neither side is more proveable so why should the interlecutal community frown on one and praise the other?

I think it is quite imposible to proof that something does not exist. You think that you are able to proof that there is no city called Washington in the planet Wideozea in the galaxy of the monkeys far far away from the farest point of the farest universe??? ;)

The existence of God can not be proofed. It is a question of believing or not. And religion is a PRIVATE thing. My religion is my religion and i should not think that other people should act following my religios rules.

If homosexuality is a sin for you - no problem - no one wants to make you homosexual. But every human should respect the other humans without showing to them with fingers and saying - he does not follow the rules of my religion - he is a sinner.

To be repetetive, biological determinism for any sexual orientation has not been proved nor disproved yet here you go again claiming you have proven something no one else has to date. Remember what I said about absence of evidence and such? As for the rest of your post, it's entriely subjective and relies on the validity of your beleifs so as you've proven hmoosexuality is neither genetic nor inate, prove God is real, the bible is His infallible word, and religoius orientation is never a mental illness.

We are debating "Why is homosexuality a sin" we are not debating "Does god exist?" or anything like that (though I am happy to do so). When I made that post, I was speeking from a Christian standpoint. That is what many christians (I will not say all) believe is the case. You can contest that but dont go saying "You cant post that on here" because I can as this is a debate for (primaryly but not exclusively) Christians.

If homosexuality is a sin for you - no problem - no one wants to make you homosexual. But every human should respect the other humans without showing to them with fingers and saying - he does not follow the rules of my religion - he is a sinner.

In Neo's defense, he hasn't been nearly as disrespectful as the majority of people who share his views. And he has only advocated forcing his religion on others in a few respects.

Because God created marriage as an idea for a controled monogmous enviroment for sex. If you look at some of the damage that sex outside marriage can do (Im talking emotionaly and psycologicaly as well as physically) then I'm sure you will agree that there is a good reason for God to protect us from it. And as far as a Christians idea on marriage goes, it was created as a concept in Eden, see Genesis 2: 24



One sin is not worse than another, sin is sin.


One question.

God created Adam and Eve. Only them in the beginning or more people. My bible says only the both.

They had children - i guess they had sex.

I think also god created no priest to marry them. And I can´t find the point in my bible telling me that they married (as catholics? jews?).

They where forced to have sex without being married...
;)

In Neo's defense, she hasn't been nearly as disrespectful as the majority of people who share her views. And she has only advocated forcing her religion on others in a few respects.

Just to clarify, Im a he. But theres no way for you to have known so no need to apologise

Just to clarify, Im a he. But theres no way for you to have known so no need to apologise

Really? I could've sworn there was a previous post where you said female. Ah well, I must've been thinking about someone else. I get called male all the time, so I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't get offended by it. =)

In Neo's defense, she hasn't been nearly as disrespectful as the majority of people who share her views. And she has only advocated forcing her religion on others in a few respects.

Sorry - I did not intend to say that she does not respect others. I wanted to use YOU in the meaning of "man or someone".

In fact I enjoy to discuss with her (i thought it was he ;-)

My english is bad and sometimes i am misunderstood. Sorry :fluffle:

Back to the question:

Did Adam and Eve have sex without being married???

One question.

God created Adam and Eve. Only them in the beginning or more people. My bible says only the both.

They had children - i guess they had sex.

I think also god created no priest to marry them. And I can´t find the point in my bible telling me that they married (as catholics? jews?).

They where forced to have sex without being married...
;)

The Bible doesnt say you need a priest to marry you. It does say you must do it in the sight of God but that is everywhere. However it is good to make it clearer you are doing it in the sight of God by being in a church and having a priest marry you but obviously in Eden there was no priest. The simplest thing to say is that God married them when he gave them his blessing to be fruitful. And as for your other question, where exactly does it say that? Im just asking because I am unaware

If you believe that God doesnt exist and that there is no such thing as sin, then why did you post on a debate labeled "Why is homosexuality a sin?"

Because it is the central point. No God - no sin.

Really? I could've sworn there was a previous post where you said female. Ah well, I must've been thinking about someone else. I get called male all the time, so I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't get offended by it. =)

I dont know where you got that from. However I would like to thank you for the respect you showed just then. I hope I dont come off as disrespectful to others too. I do my best not to be forceful when it comes to these discussions.

The Bible doesnt say you need a priest to marry you. It does say you must do it in the sight of God but that is everywhere. However it is good to make it clearer you are doing it in the sight of God by being in a church and having a priest marry you but obviously in Eden there was no priest. The simplest thing to say is that God married them when he gave them his blessing to be fruitful. And as for your other question, where exactly does it say that? Im just asking because I am unaware

God gave the blessing before the sin.

Another question:

Without breaking the comand from god I was told that Adam and Eve would no have been forced out of Eden. Is that right?

Because it is the central point. No God - no sin.

What I mean is that since the word "Sin" is used then it is a debate within the confines of Christianity, IE using a Chrisitan principal to disprove the idea of homosexuality as a sin, which so far no one has done. While I can see the validity of attacking it from outside, so far no one has succeded in attacking it from within.

I dont know where you got that from. However I would like to thank you for the respect you showed just then. I hope I dont come off as disrespectful to others too. I do my best not to be forceful when it comes to these discussions.

No prob. =)

You generally aren't disrespectful, and as with most cases, I think the things you say that might be considered offensive are not intentional. There are those who tend to be disrespectful on these boards, but I try not to be one of them and I try not to continue debates with them unless I'm just in the mood to argue. =)

What I mean is that since the word "Sin" is used then it is a debate within the confines of Christianity, IE using a Chrisitan principal to disprove the idea of homosexuality as a sin, which so far no one has done. While I can see the validity of attacking it from outside, so far no one has succeded in attacking it from within.


This is quite clear for me. From the christian standpoint homosexuality IS a sin.

There is no room for discussion about this. In the older testament it was punished by dead.

If a person professes to believe in a particular religion yet their political beliefs go against their "religion", are they not a hippocrite? After all, if you actually believe in your religion it shapes your attitudes towards just about everything.

Now, with that said...

Since it's readily apparent that supporters of same-sex marriage/unions have said you can't count the Bible as a legit source of beliefs on the matter (ridiculous, because of what I said above), I'll say it in scientific terms:

What comes out of a same-sex relationship?

Nothing but death. That is a fact.

Man and man cannot procreate. Same with two women. Sure, they can "adopt" a kid but then again, it's still not their kid biologically, is it? So how can you count them as the couple's "posterity"?

You can't.

Even if one of the partners provides the egg or sperm to make the kid, the other half is from someone else, NOT from the two members of the same-sex couple.

They cannot procreate so there is no reason to support it. Same-sex relations was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire because it caused corruption and left them completely blind to the invasion of competing nations. Don't tell me that was a fluke because the Roman Empire was one of the greatest civilizations to exist on the Earth...how could they be brought down by something so simple and "innocent" as homosexuality?

It DOES degrade the sanctity of marriage because right now only man and woman can get married together. You are giving homosexuals yet ANOTHER right, one that comes from political appeasement, that they didn't have before and quite frankly didn't need. No one needs to have that right, because no procreation comes from a same-sex relationship, society and humanity would die off if homosexuality just kept growing and growing.

The way our country works right now with civil rights is fine, there is no reason to be brown-nosers towards the homosexual community and enforce THEIR will onto everyone else in the country.

Proof of the lack of support for their cause- and the decision of the American people as a whole- is the recent passing of all 11 same-sex marriage bans in this past election. This country has survived and will continue to as long as the premise of MAJORITY RULE stays in place. If the majority doesn't want it, then too bad for the majority, they'll have to make do without. There is no reason to appease to special-interest groups that do not represent our nation as a whole.

What I mean is that since the word "Sin" is used then it is a debate within the confines of Christianity, IE using a Chrisitan principal to disprove the idea of homosexuality as a sin, which so far no one has done. While I can see the validity of attacking it from outside, so far no one has succeded in attacking it from within.

=( I have stated my reasoning in this. It isn't a direct verse or anything, just a general sense of the message. However, it apparently went ignored.

God gave the blessing before the sin.


Are you implying anything by that or is that just a statement


Another question:

Without breaking the comand from god I was told that Adam and Eve would no have been forced out of Eden. Is that right?

Yes, If they did not break the commandment then they would not have been forced out of Eden. They were only forced out because they had broken the commandment, otherwise they would have remained there.

=( I have stated my reasoning in this. It isn't a direct verse or anything, just a general sense of the message. However, it apparently went ignored.

Im sorry I dont understand, what reasoning do you mean? (Not insulting just I dont remember you posting to this)

:headbang: I can't believe this thread is still on here. Enough already. Each side has probably said the same basic things a hundred times by now.

If a person professes to believe in a particular religion yet their political beliefs go against their "religion", are they not a hippocrite? After all, if you actually believe in your religion it shapes your attitudes towards just about everything.

So not forcing your religion on other people makes you a hippocrite? That's news to me...

Since it's readily apparent that supporters of same-sex marriage/unions have said you can't count the Bible as a legit source of beliefs on the matter (ridiculous, because of what I said above), I'll say it in scientific terms:

No one has said you can't count the Bibles as a source of beliefs on the matter. However, one cannot base laws completely in the Bible, as we are not living in a theocracy. Thus, if you have no other reason to deny equal protection to all citizens, you can't do it.

What comes out of a same-sex relationship?

Nothing but death. That is a fact.

Somebody has no understanding whatsoever of behavioral biology and a little thing called altruism.

Man and man cannot procreate. Same with two women. Sure, they can "adopt" a kid but then again, it's still not their kid biologically, is it? So how can you count them as the couple's "posterity"?

You can't.


Again, someone has no understanding whatsoever of behavioral biology. Congratulations on demonstrating your ignorance of facts so spectacularly.

Even if one of the partners provides the egg or sperm to make the kid, the other half is from someone else, NOT from the two members of the same-sex couple.

And your point would be?

They cannot procreate so there is no reason to support it.

Yes, because the only reason for marriage is procreation. That's why we allow infertile people and old people to get married.

It DOES degrade the sanctity of marriage because right now only man and woman can get married together. You are giving homosexuals yet ANOTHER right, one that comes from political appeasement, that they didn't have before and quite frankly didn't need. No one needs to have that right, because no procreation comes from a same-sex relationship, society and humanity would die off if homosexuality just kept growing and growing.

(a) Homosexual couples need the legal protections for the exact same reason that heterosexual couples do.
(b) Most of the protections afforded to married couples have absolutely nothing to do with children.
(c) Sexuality is not contagious. It isn't going to "keep growing and growing."

The way our country works right now with civil rights is fine, there is no reason to be brown-nosers towards the homosexual community and enforce THEIR will onto everyone else in the country.

How does allowing two people that you don't even know gain legal protections so that they aren't screwed over enforce their will upon you? Oh, wait, it doesn't.

Proof of the lack of support for their cause- and the decision of the American people as a whole- is the recent passing of all 11 same-sex marriage bans in this past election.

Of course, at least one of them (the GA one) will soon fall in court because the legislators tricked many of those who voted for it.

Besides, since when has "lack of support" for a cause proved it wrong? There was lack of support for Christians when they first came to be. There was lack of support for Brown v. Board. There was lack of support to help Somolia. So what?

This country has survived and will continue to as long as the premise of MAJORITY RULE stays in place.

Wow, not only are you completely ignorant of biology, you know nothing about political science as well. If you are speaking of the US, this country has never operated on the policy of majority rule. In fact, the founding fathers spoke out quite often against the tyranny of the majority.

If the majority doesn't want it, then too bad for the majority, they'll have to make do without. There is no reason to appease to special-interest groups that do not represent our nation as a whole.

Yes, you're right. We should still be making blacks sit at the back of the bus as well. After all, the majority wanted them to stay there.

If a person professes to believe in a particular religion yet their political beliefs go against their "religion", are they not a hippocrite? After all, if you actually believe in your religion it shapes your attitudes towards just about everything.

Now, with that said...

Since it's readily apparent that supporters of same-sex marriage/unions have said you can't count the Bible as a legit source of beliefs on the matter (ridiculous, because of what I said above), I'll say it in scientific terms:

What comes out of a same-sex relationship?

Nothing but death. That is a fact.

Man and man cannot procreate. Same with two women. Sure, they can "adopt" a kid but then again, it's still not their kid biologically, is it? So how can you count them as the couple's "posterity"?

You can't.

Even if one of the partners provides the egg or sperm to make the kid, the other half is from someone else, NOT from the two members of the same-sex couple.

They cannot procreate so there is no reason to support it. Same-sex relations was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire because it caused corruption and left them completely blind to the invasion of competing nations. Don't tell me that was a fluke because the Roman Empire was one of the greatest civilizations to exist on the Earth...how could they be brought down by something so simple and "innocent" as homosexuality?

It DOES degrade the sanctity of marriage because right now only man and woman can get married together. You are giving homosexuals yet ANOTHER right, one that comes from political appeasement, that they didn't have before and quite frankly didn't need. No one needs to have that right, because no procreation comes from a same-sex relationship, society and humanity would die off if homosexuality just kept growing and growing.

The way our country works right now with civil rights is fine, there is no reason to be brown-nosers towards the homosexual community and enforce THEIR will onto everyone else in the country.

Proof of the lack of support for their cause- and the decision of the American people as a whole- is the recent passing of all 11 same-sex marriage bans in this past election. This country has survived and will continue to as long as the premise of MAJORITY RULE stays in place. If the majority doesn't want it, then too bad for the majority, they'll have to make do without. There is no reason to appease to special-interest groups that do not represent our nation as a whole.


In the USA it seems to be very important to "procreate". It seems in the USA you should only have sex to "procreate".

The problem is not that minorities "enforce THEIR will onto everyone else in the country". It is the other side. The majority enforces their will to others. Sex is a private thing - religion is a private thing.

why are americans so fearful? If two man or two women marry - it is their problem. If they want it and no other gets harmed? Why not?


And Rome brok after getting christian - Perhaps this was the reason and not homosexuality? The older greeks where bi-sexual. And this gays defeated Troy, the persian empire... They had important philosophes...

Even the best troops - the "marines" from "Theben" (sorry don´t know the english name) was built of homosexual partners...

In Europe we say that the people that attack homosexuals do it a lot of times because they fear they could be homosexual themself.

I am totally heterosexual. No little bit of dobt about it. And i do not fear homosexuals.

Live and let live.

Im sorry I dont understand, what reasoning do you mean? (Not insulting just I dont remember you posting to this)

God is a God of love. As such, God wants human beings to take part in love, of which there are many types. The highest forms of love a human being can take part in are love of God, love of spouse, and love of a child.

Now, the simple fact that sexuality is not a choice demonstrates that, while one could certainly never take part in a homosexual relationship, one cannot "choose" to have a different sexuality. Thus, if homosexual relationships were inherently a sin, this would mean that a subset of human beings was to be cut off from ever experiencing one of the highest forms of love. This is incompatible with the message of God, which is one of unconditional love (much like the three listed above are - although God's love is much more potent).

This is backed up by the fact that I know that every word of the Bible did not come directly from God - they were all written by flawed human beings with their own views. Much like today, it is likely that those who are heterosexual realized that they are (a) in the majority and (b) find the idea of sex with a member of the same gender repulsive. This would likely have been viewed as a message from God that it was wrong, when it was in fact only wrong for them.

There is also the issue of hermaphrodites, and those with a chromosomal basis that makes their gender ambiguous. How are we to classify them? How can they determine what type of relationship is wrong and sinful for them?

:headbang: I can't believe this thread is still on here. Enough already. Each side has probably said the same basic things a hundred times by now.


It helps me as an european to understand better the people that voted W :D

Are you implying anything by that or is that just a statement



Yes, If they did not break the commandment then they would not have been forced out of Eden. They were only forced out because they had broken the commandment, otherwise they would have remained there.

To the first point. I thought you asked me where he have his blessing. I tried to answer you.


I hope you are not angry because i ask so many things now. I think we have to define the things we talk about ;)

The part with Eden is the same in my religion and in yours. No breaking of comand - no "go out" of Eden.


Next question: Is even on earth? And where?

While I can see the validity of attacking it from outside, so far no one has succeded in attacking it from within.
Lets see if we can change that. As an intersesting aside- The bible has something like 6 rules that apply to homosexuals and about 26 (if not more)that apply to heterosexuals. :)
There are a number of different ways of interpreting the bible but the key thing that Christians should remember is that none of the bible was ever actually written by Jesus it was all written by men, al of which had the so called failings of men, they lied, cheated etc etc. This means that not everything in the bible is truly the will of God. This has become one of the main things that the church are arguing over.
Incidentally I am probably counted as an agnostic so I ain't saying god does or doesn't exist.

Same-sex relations was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire because it caused corruption and left them completely blind to the invasion of competing nations. Don't tell me that was a fluke because the Roman Empire was one of the greatest civilizations to exist on the Earth...how could they be brought down by something so simple and "innocent" as homosexuality?
Do you actually know anything about history, biology or altruism or anything in general?
The roman Empire fel apart because the leaders of the big families started to get annoyed with each other, they then decideed that they would do better in charge. When they tried battles broke out. This caused the roman army to end up leaderless. That is why Rome fell nothing else.

Do I really care for behavioral biology or altruism?

No, not really.

Instead I'm talking in layman's terms that everyone reading can actually think about instead of thinking "oh man, all these concepts are way too deep for me".

Behavioral biology cannot "magically" create a child, so quit playing it off as a part of this argument. The fact is that when a man and woman have sex, they have the ABILITY (not a guarantee) to have a child? What a guarantee does a same-sex couple getting it on have of creating a fetus? Absolutely none, because it's biologically impossible.

I'm not saying that forcing religion on others makes you religiously correct, instead I'm saying that people are hippocrites (aka John Kerry) if they say for example "I'm Catholic, and my church believes that abortions are wrong...but I'm all for it". You either follow the religion or you don't, there's no middle ground if you're professing to be a "true" believer.

And note how I did not state a single religious or scriptural reference for my argument. I kept it straightly scientific, so I don't know what your point on the Bible being proof or not is...

Altruism states that the detrimental behavior of an individual does in fact help the survival of the species. How does homosexuality promote that? They can't help the species survive, they can't even have kids to "carry society forward"? It doesn't.

Again, why support people that cannot have children on their own and instead have to use someone else's children to "carry the family line" forward (which is basically what they're doing)? Infertile or elderly people can get married all they want, it has been chance that they can't procreate (or old age, in which case is their fault for not getting married earlier). With homosexuals, they cannot procreate at ANY stage of their life because their physical biology deems it impossible.

Homosexuality will have a trend to keep growing because once they get more and more unnecessary rights (aka they don't have them now under equal protection laws, you're giving them 'extra' rights that no one else has) then it will encourage more people to adopt that lifestyle since they will know if they choose to follow it, the consequences associated with it will be diminished significantly.

Yes, the founding fathers made it so neither the populace or the government had ultimate power. Same reason we can only replace 1/3 of the government in each election. Even though they didn't trust the government and were wary of ANY measure of power over the populace, they didn't trust the public either. Hence why the electoral college system is in place and it doesn't go off straight popular votes and the same reason the Supreme Court can overturn local, state and federal decisions. Power is the doorway to corruption, and the Founders kept that in mind VERY clearly.

When it all boils down, homosexuality comes down to a matter of whether we allow those who cannot procreate to partake of the sacred institution which has been in place for thousands of years between man and wife. Yes, I am very religiousd, as you can probably tell, so it is most definitely a part of my political thinking process. But on the other hand, I'm not a bigot towards the homosexual population-

I have a number of homosexual friends, both male and female, and I love them to death. But do I agree with what they do? No, by no means, not at all. I do not bash them for it, because it is their decision and theirs alone to make. But when it begins degrading MY rights, begins to infringe upon the beliefs and ideals I hold about humanity, society and the way I think it should all function THAT is when I speak up and make my voice heard. I'm not so passive and lacking in conviction that I let society pave its course and I just sit there and adapt to it. I live my religion and I encourage others to do the same...but I do not force them. When a majority of people agree with me, however, the general concensus does take precedent over the small minority.

Look, are you saying that Gay people are sinners because they act on thier love? I seem to remember reading somthing in the Bible about "thou shalt not kill" yet Christians and muslims are slaughtering each other in these so-called "Holy wars." If being gay is against the bible then killing people is against the bible too right? You're all a bunch of hypocritical conservatives.

Isn't love a good thing? Who cares if you're straight, gay, lesbian, or bi? It's all love and it should be cherished, not treated as a sin.

I should know, I'm bi and I have the most wonderful Girlfriend in the world. I love her with all of my heart and I want to spend the rest of my life with her.

Also I've heard of adoption agencies that will turn down a perfectly good Homosexual couple for a straight couple.

I was talking to some friends of mine at lunch and a friend said, "But doesn't God want you to be happy?"
I said, "Yeah, that sounds nice in theory."
And another friend said, "Yeah, but so does communism."

So all of you conservatives out there can take it and shove it up your a**! I am perfectly happy as I am I am not going to comform to scociety because some conservative Chiristian with a stick up his or her A** tells me too.

Homosexuals and Bisexuals are people too. Don't let your biased opinion get in the way of seeing them for who they really are, and walk in thier shoes for a little while. I am keeping this secret from my school because I am terrified that one day I'll be walking somewhere and I'll get shot or beaten. Somebody shot my brother because he was gay... don't let that happen to anyone else. It's like Neo-Nazis shooting a black person, he was miding his own buisness holding hands with his boyfriend, and they shot him and his boyfriend. They got out of getting the death sentence because of a technicality.

Please, I want this world safe for everyone, not just straight people.

Thank you for reading this. :-( :fluffle:

I'm saying that people are hippocrites (aka John Kerry) if they say for example "I'm Catholic, and my church believes that abortions are wrong...but I'm all for it". You either follow the religion or you don't, there's no middle ground if you're professing to be a "true" believer.



I compart this point of view. But I think a president like W saying that he is a christian believer and lying and sending his troops to kill people is a bigger hippocrite than John Kerry.

Even the Pope was against this war, the representants of HIS religion were against this war. Where comes W´s christian legitimation to fight this war?

The true hippocrites are sitting on the White House fighting a war for their profits and making a world that is even more dangerous as before...

As a Catholic I have to tell you that it is quite impossible to follow every things thar our church believes in. Otherwise we would believe that the sun is moving around the earth...

Do I really care for behavioral biology or altruism?

No, not really.

Then you have no place in any discussion about whether or not the varying degrees of sexuality are "biologically correct.

Instead I'm talking in layman's terms that everyone reading can actually think about instead of thinking "oh man, all these concepts are way too deep for me".

I'm sorry if you can't understand biology. It really isn't that hard if you let go of your biases that are based in misconceptions.

Behavioral biology cannot "magically" create a child, so quit playing it off as a part of this argument. The fact is that when a man and woman have sex, they have the ABILITY (not a guarantee) to have a child? What a guarantee does a same-sex couple getting it on have of creating a fetus? Absolutely none, because it's biologically impossible.

And this has what to do with anything? In most social animals, there are non-breeding members that help the group to survive. There is no need for every single organism to reproduce. In fact, this could be incredibly detrimental to the species.

I'm not saying that forcing religion on others makes you religiously correct, instead I'm saying that people are hippocrites (aka John Kerry) if they say for example "I'm Catholic, and my church believes that abortions are wrong...but I'm all for it". You either follow the religion or you don't, there's no middle ground if you're professing to be a "true" believer.

Of course, that's not what he said at all. What he said is "I cannot legislate my religion." If you legislate your religion, you are forcing it on others.

Altruism states that the detrimental behavior of an individual does in fact help the survival of the species. How does homosexuality promote that? They can't help the species survive, they can't even have kids to "carry society forward"? It doesn't.

As in most social animals, homosexuals and other non-breeding members can help take care of the offspring of others. Since they are part of the group and share common DNA (especially within a family), they are still promoting the passing on of their genes. It is a fairly simple biological concept.

Again, why support people that cannot have children on their own and instead have to use someone else's children to "carry the family line" forward (which is basically what they're doing)? Infertile or elderly people can get married all they want, it has been chance that they can't procreate (or old age, in which case is their fault for not getting married earlier). With homosexuals, they cannot procreate at ANY stage of their life because their physical biology deems it impossible.

Why do you think that anyone who can't or chooses not to procreate is useless to society? Such a claim is entirely false.

Homosexuality will have a trend to keep growing because once they get more and more unnecessary rights (aka they don't have them now under equal protection laws, you're giving them 'extra' rights that no one else has) then it will encourage more people to adopt that lifestyle since they will know if they choose to follow it, the consequences associated with it will be diminished significantly.

Again, sexuality is not contagious. Nor is it a choice. No one is going to suddenly choose to "adopt a lifestyle" that involves them having relationships with people they have no attraction to. Have you become gay just because there are gay people in the world? Of course not. Homosexuals are inherently attracted to members of the same gender. Heterosexuals are not. The inherent attractions that one feels aren't going to be altered by whether or not the person next to you is open about who they are attracted to.

When it all boils down, homosexuality comes down to a matter of whether we allow those who cannot procreate to partake of the sacred institution which has been in place for thousands of years between man and wife. Yes, I am very religiousd, as you can probably tell, so it is most definitely a part of my political thinking process. But on the other hand, I'm not a bigot towards the homosexual population-

Actually, the institution they are trying to get equal protection with has not been around for thousands of years. In this country, it has been around for less than 200. Your religion has absolutely nothing to do with civil marriage. And the ability to procreate has so little to do with it as to be negligible.

I have a number of homosexual friends, both male and female, and I love them to death. But do I agree with what they do? No, by no means, not at all. I do not bash them for it, because it is their decision and theirs alone to make.

Their sexuality was not a decision.

But when it begins degrading MY rights, begins to infringe upon the beliefs and ideals I hold about humanity, society and the way I think it should all function THAT is when I speak up and make my voice heard.

Your rights are in no way degraded by allowing equal legal protection to all couples who wish to live as a single entity.

I'm not so passive and lacking in conviction that I let society pave its course and I just sit there and adapt to it. I live my religion and I encourage others to do the same...but I do not force them.

Legislating your religion is forcing them.

When a majority of people agree with me, however, the general concensus does take precedent over the small minority.

Again, I suppose we should still be forcing black people to sit at the back of the bus, since they were simply a minority and most people wanted them there.

I've always held true to this belief:

God DOES love his children unconditionally, and DOES want them to be happy.

But he doesn't have to like what they do.

Saying that homosexuality is ok before God is like saying that murdering a person is ok as long as it makes you happy. It's completely hippocritical.

Like I said before, I don't bash homosexuals, I could care less for the decisions they make in terms of their own lives. I have quite a few homosexual friends and I have no problem hanging out with them, bringing them along with my group of friends and such, it's not an issue and I have never perceived it to be. I just don't have to appease them in order to be friends with them...I can be myself and still hang out with them as if nothing is different.



*edit*

You're playing off y our argument as if you're born homosexual instead of living your life and choosing to indulge in that lifestyle. Making that assumption and using it as the basis of your agument is no better than saying the Bible is and always has been completely correct and is irrefutible.

Also, as a species we are already experiencing the burden of having over 6 billion people on our small little planet. Why would we need the non-procreating members of human society to help us care for our kids? Not like we need to encourage more growth...not only that, but what valuable ideals and values would homosexual couples provide to heterosexual couple's children?

You're talking about their role in society as if they're going to be the babysitters for the kids of the heterosexual couples because they apparently have no other role in society. As far as I know, I won't need anyone to take care of my kids for me simply because I fully intend to live up to the title of "parent" and not need someone to raise my children and socialize them in ways of thinking for me.

Keep that out of your argument and then try again.

I've always held true to this belief:

God DOES love his children unconditionally, and DOES want them to be happy.

And yet some of them are inherently attracted only to members of the same gender and, according to you, God doesn't want them to be happy.

Saying that homosexuality is ok before God is like saying that murdering a person is ok as long as it makes you happy. It's completely hippocritical.

Yes, because comparing a natural occurence which cannot be changed to harming another human being makes complete sense.

I've always held true to this belief:

God DOES love his children unconditionally, and DOES want them to be happy.



In the bible he loves his jewish children more than his egyptian children... He even killed the first born egyptians in a certain time...
And if he wants them to be happy and he is allmighty... why did he create the posibility to be homosexual if he does not want them to be homosexual.

why did he create the posibility to be homosexual if he does not want them to be homosexual.

God doesn't create everything. Otherwise, he is the author of pornography and anything else that Christian values say is "inappropriate" and "morally wrong".

He created it all in the beginning, but does he continue to creat everything? Nope.


Ever heard of a little someone called Satan? You might know him as Lucifer or the Devil. He's capable of influencing people's thoughts...that is, if they allow him to. Because in the end he wants the complete opposite of what God wants. It says very plainly in the Bible (since that is the debate here, at least where these influences come from) that he can lead men's hearts away and disguise it as happiness.

I'm done. I've said what I've wanted to say and I have nothing further to add. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who I know I can't influence to see things my way regardless of what proof I have to back things up. Like hanging out with girls.

Lates.

God doesn't create everything. Otherwise, he is the author of pornography and anything else that Christian values say is "inappropriate" and "morally wrong".

He created it all in the beginning, but does he continue to creat everything? Nope.


Ever heard of a little someone called Satan? You might know him as Lucifer or the Devil. He's capable of influencing people's thoughts...that is, if they allow him to. Because in the end he wants the complete opposite of what God wants. It says very plainly in the Bible (since that is the debate here, at least where these influences come from) that he can lead men's hearts away and disguise it as happiness.

I'm done. I've said what I've wanted to say and I have nothing further to add. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who I know I can't influence to see things my way regardless of what proof I have to back things up. Like hanging out with girls.

Lates.



GOD CREATED SATAN - and Satan is the opposite of what God wants... Why did he create Satan??? What FORCED God to create Satan???

I think the world would be a better place if god had created a big river full of coke in the middle of Texas instead of Satan...

God doesn't create everything. Otherwise, he is the author of pornography and anything else that Christian values say is "inappropriate" and "morally wrong".

Pornography is not an innate trait.

Ever heard of a little someone called Satan? You might know him as Lucifer or the Devil. He's capable of influencing people's thoughts...that is, if they allow him to. Because in the end he wants the complete opposite of what God wants. It says very plainly in the Bible (since that is the debate here, at least where these influences come from) that he can lead men's hearts away and disguise it as happiness.

I'm sure that Satan whispers to all of the many creatures that exhibit a range of sexuality as well. I'm sure Satan changes hormones in the womb to ensure that people find themselves drawn to members of the same gender rather than of the opposite.

I'm done. I've said what I've wanted to say and I have nothing further to add. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who I know I can't influence to see things my way regardless of what proof I have to back things up. Like hanging out with girls.

Hanging out with girls proves that sexuality is a choice? Interesting.

I´m sure hanging out with girls is also a sin. If you don´t procreate afterwards ;)

technically, the post that everyone uses to say that it IS a sin is not even about being gay. it's about prostitution. catholics like to make up things as they go along (and i can say that because i've been raised that way my whole life; i know the system, the teachings, and how it all works. nothing is consistant anymore)

I´m sure hanging out with girls is also a sin. If you don´t procreate afterwards ;)

Does that mean I'm never allowed to hang out with other girls?

That's sad. I love my female friends. =(

technically, the post that everyone uses to say that it IS a sin is not even about being gay. it's about prostitution. catholics like to make up things as they go along (and i can say that because i've been raised that way my whole life; i know the system, the teachings, and how it all works. nothing is consistant anymore)

Here you can find the position of the catholic church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

One part: "2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

You might be looking for trouble. I'm not a catholic, but i believe in no gay marriage. Why? Because that's in the scripture, who are followers to decide? People of the west always made a mochary of things, look at what they did to my roman culture...


No, i'm telling you that noone knows who wrote it. Si, the christian inferior from within, like some Emperors we've heard of.. It's what made Constantinople vulnerable to the muslims.. Christianity made us weak and our ancestry roman gods made us strong.


Roman gods? HAHAHA They are 100% Greek. Those are my gods. And if I am not mistaken some of those gods had gay/lesbian sex. It was also common for the ancient Greeks and Romans (the ones who believed in the Olympians) to have lovers of the same sex. Though not all of them were actually gay. Sometimes they screwed around just for fun. If you believe that the GREEK gods made your people strong then realize that they were bisexual. Accept it. If your gods and culture which you worship so much are so great then accept that they have nothing against gays. Accept it and let them marry. And for those of you who say "NO NO! BAD SINNER! DON'T PLAY WITH OTHER MENS BUTTS!" I have this to say. If we obey all you little foolish laws then we go to heaven. With you. Do you really want me, the anti-christ, to go to heaven with you? :p I don't think so. Anyways hell is much more fun. I get lesbians :fluffle: while you get fat bald child mollesting preachers.:upyours:

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

You made an insupportable claim, in the face of evidence to the contrary... so, really, you should have to provide the evidence to support your claim.

But, I guess you are as 'educated' on debate, as you apparently are on scripture...

So, maybe I'll give you an out... see if you can work it out:

Leviticus 25:45 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Italian: 2358 Un numero non trascurabile di uomini e di donne presenta tendenze omosessuali profondamente radicate. Questa inclinazione, oggettivamente disordinata, costituisce per la maggior parte di loro una prova.

German: 2358 Eine nicht geringe Anzahl von Männern und Frauen sind homosexuell veranlagt. Sie haben diese Veranlagung nicht selbst gewählt; für die meisten von ihnen stellt sie eine Prüfung dar. Ihnen ist mit Achtung, Mitleid und Takt zu begegnen.


Spanish: 2358 Un número apreciable de hombres y mujeres presentan tendencias homosexuales instintivas. No eligen su condición homosexual; ésta constituye para la mayoría de ellos una auténtica prueba.

Latin: 2358 Virorum et mulierum numerus non exiguus tendentias homosexuales praesentat profunde radicatas. Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, pro maiore eorum parte constituit probationem.


The red parts show DIFERENT points of view - even the vatican has diferent meanings in relation with the language.

In german and spanish ist told that "they (homosexuals) don´t elect their homosexual condition."

In English, Italian and Latin no word about this point of view.

Does that mean I'm never allowed to hang out with other girls?

That's sad. I love my female friends. =(

e-YUP. Jesus even stated that if you look at a girl and lust for her, you've already commited adultery, and you need to pluck out your eye and lop off your hand to keep from going to Hell (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=matthew+5+%3A+28+-+30).

If only Christians really listened to their God, and not some worthless man named Paul.

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).

Preaching to the perverted, here.

I'm an ex-christian - and never placed much faith in the KJV translation... but it does form the core of 'accepted' translation.... most of which, as you point out, is the simple rewording of the old KJV.

I think that to truly appreciate biblical scripture you MUST read it in the language it was written in... and that is why I read it in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

My point to some of these folk, has been that they are throwing bible verses around that DEFINITELY do not match the intent of the original scripture... and, perhaps even WORSE, do not follow the 'accepted' (i.e. largely KJV) translations EITHER!!!

e-YUP. Jesus even stated that if you look at a girl and lust for her, you've already commited adultery, and you need to pluck out your eye and lop off your hand to keep from going to Hell (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=matthew+5+%3A+28+-+30).

If only Christians really listened to their God, and not some worthless man named Paul.

Lust? ;)
From the catechism:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

I didnt read all the other comments but homosexuality is a sin... God didn't creat adam and steve! Also to reply to the guy that started this... i agree people don't live by every passage, but they strive to and want to. They dont sin and keep doing that sin for their whole life and not feel bad.

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.

Which is ironic, coming from someone who has yet to provide an uncontested source...

Lust? ;)
From the catechism:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.


OPEN YOUR EYES! There is only this moment. Stop trying to justify your pathetic existence with something as foolish as Catholicism. The damn Pope won't even consider women mens equals yet. I am a guy and I realize they have better judgement then we do(unless they're on their period). They don't have all that testosterone forcing them to prove themselves. You believe in a religion which condemns women and gays. Not to mention people who go to work on Sunday but that is another thing entirely...

Preaching to the perverted, here.

I'm an ex-christian - and never placed much faith in the KJV translation... but it does form the core of 'accepted' translation.... most of which, as you point out, is the simple rewording of the old KJV.

Ok, I misunderstood what you meant by accepted. I thought you meant accepted by theological scholars (which the KJV is definitely not), not accepted by Bible beaters.

I think that to truly appreciate biblical scripture you MUST read it in the language it was written in... and that is why I read it in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

I wish I could. But I settle for a translation that was translated directly to English from the oldest available known scriptures, with lots of footnotes where things are disputed.

OPEN YOUR EYES! There is only this moment. Stop trying to justify your pathetic existence with something as foolish as Catholicism. The damn Pope won't even consider women mens equals yet. I am a guy and I realize they have better judgement then we do(unless they're on their period). They don't have all that testosterone forcing them to prove themselves. You believe in a religion which condemns women and gays. Not to mention people who go to work on Sunday but that is another thing entirely...

I just wanted to say this is not a shot at you Garunia. You don't seem like a wackjob Jesus freak.

Lust? ;)
From the catechism:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

E-yup. And how does one fall in love, if not through lust? ;)

yes, that's right they are gay, even in the pejorative sense. find me a minority which is not largely thought of in the pejorative sense. to denounce it merely as a sin is to answer the question you feel that you have actually posed. you have exposed your inherent views of the aforementioned minority group. i couldn't care less if all gays were killed because they are just people like the kurds who have been murdered by the Americans. but,to ask if it is a 'sin' is to instantly envoke your own, uneducated, religiously guided perspective from the start.

OPEN YOUR EYES! There is only this moment. Stop trying to justify your pathetic existence with something as foolish as Catholicism. The damn Pope won't even consider women mens equals yet. I am a guy and I realize they have better judgement then we do(unless they're on their period). They don't have all that testosterone forcing them to prove themselves. You believe in a religion which condemns women and gays. Not to mention people who go to work on Sunday but that is another thing entirely...

Come on -read my posts - i do not believe in this stuff!!

I only try to show some folks there how the Catholic church really thinks about sex.

For me it was very interestant to realize that the Vatican writes in the german and in the spanish version of the catechism that "Homosexuallity" is not chosen. It is NOT in the free will of the person. In English, Italian and Latin they don´t say anything about "not chosen".

;)

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.

Sorry, this is a lie.

I'm ashamed of you, Neo Cannen.

Not only has EVERY condemnation been UTTERLY refuted, but verses have been given that would show homosexual marriage to be condoned rather than condemned.

You are choosing to ignore the facts.

E-yup. And how does one fall in love, if not through lust? ;)

Love and lust are two very different things my dear.

E-yup. And how does one fall in love, if not through lust? ;)

Good question.

I think for a believer this should be the way:

"I walk throgh the street thinking about procreation and see a woman with a good body to procreate. I just don´t feel lust, but i shall procreate. I go to her and tell her I would like to have sex with her in order to procreate. We shall not feel lust (how can a man procreate without feeling lust? - i don´t know)

We should marry as soon as posible because we might feel lust if we know eachother better. And we should only have sex in order to procreate. (I think I use "procreate" too often ;-) After getting married I can feel lust - but only with the purpose to procreate...

What a funny live...

God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.

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.

Interesting logic...

Why is a 'monster' NOT outside the measurable universe?

How is it you feel you can confidently state that god can exist outside the universe, but the same cannot be true for a monster?

Can you measure a monster? Can you disprove a monster - except by absence?

If you allow the one 'truth' for god, you have to allow the same 'truth' to cover monsters.

Good question.

I think for a believer this should be the way:

"I walk throgh the street thinking about procreation and see a woman with a good body to procreate. I just don´t feel lust, but i shall procreate. I go to her and tell her I would like to have sex with her in order to procreate. We shall not feel lust (how can a man procreate without feeling lust? - i don´t know)

We should marry as soon as posible because we might feel lust if we know eachother better. And we should only have sex in order to procreate. (I think I use "procreate" too often ;-) After getting married I can feel lust - but only with the purpose to procreate...

What a funny live...

Although it willobviously be unpopular in certain quarters, I think this is an EXCELLENT post.

Congratulations. :)

Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexual activity. They were destroyed because 3 angels went there and the citizens of the city were inhospitable. The angles came to visit Lot at God's behest and when they got there, they were so beautiful that the people of the city demanded that Lot share them for the orgy. That is why God destroyed the city. It all goes back to the anciet Greco-Roman idea that the only real sins were hubris and inhospitality.

That having been said, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is an allegory and there is no evidence that it ever even happened. It is not meant to be a condemnation homosexuality.

As to homosexuality being a sin, I have this to say: all the latest scientific research says the gay people are born gay, not that they choose it. If that is the case, than why would God create peope with desire to do something he felt was an abomination? Doesn't sound like benevolence to me.

I agree.... in school (I go to a Catholic School unfortinatly) my teacher tries to say rules to explain away any Biblical referance that doesn't strenthen Catholcism. It's disgusting. She (yes a female in a catholic school....shocking for bigots) told us that we should not take the creation stories literaly, but Sodom and Gamorrh should be taken word for word. It disgusts me how people can be so blind to flaws in the bible. Hell, it was written thousands of years ago when most people were illeterate but people take it as well, (exuse the horrid pun) gospel. For extremeist Christians: stop wasting time hunting gays and pray that I come out of Scriptures class without getting in a huge arguement with my jackass teach.

Interesting logic...

Why is a 'monster' NOT outside the measurable universe?

How is it you feel you can confidently state that god can exist outside the universe, but the same cannot be true for a monster?

Can you measure a monster? Can you disprove a monster - except by absence?

If you allow the one 'truth' for god, you have to allow the same 'truth' to cover monsters.

Monsters are not, by definition, omnipotent and are thus not, by definition, outside the measurable universe.

As an aside, if one were to posit the existence of an omnipotent monster (which would essentially be a god), it could be neither proven nor disproven. However, monster usually refers to a beast that is very powerful, but still hindered by the natural order of the universe.

We have already gone over this. We know for a fact that people are not "born gay". It may or may not be a choice but even if wasnt, we are talking about the act of homosexual sex (IE sex between two men or two women) that is a sin. There may be genetic predisposition towards it but their is genetic predisposition for a great number of sins. However it is possible to not sin still, God ensures that we are never tempted by the devil beyond our means to resist.

You are mixing scripture with mythology.

Tempted by the devil??? How important do you think you are?

According to scripture - the devil has nothing to do with us sinning... we do that all ourselves.

I am slightly biased in this debate, mainly because my boyfriend is gay. I find it wrong for anybody to legislate against how I live my life, if the way I live my life isn’t affecting anyone else. I would like to think, that in everything I do, I have concern and compassion for other citizens, that I am accepting of their beliefs, traditions, who they are in love with, what music they listen to or where they are positioned on the socioeconomic ladder. And I would like to think that other people are accepting of mine. We may not agree with each other, but we accept each other’s right to their opinions, morals and ethos. This is not where Australia is at in regards to Gay Rights. How dare anybody legislate against my loving relationship, or anybody else’s for that matter? What many people fail to want to understand in the Gay debate, is that I would never choose to be gay. Surely no one would choose to live a life where you are marginalised, hated for being who you are, debated over for what few rights you should receive, be a potential target for bashings or torment, not be allowed visiting rights in hospitals or decisions over your partner’s health, have restricted access to health insurance, be prohibited from donating blood, and to just generally live a more shameful life. I could go on, but I think I have detailed enough the difficulties of living as a gay person. I can look back on my childhood and see that I showed gay tendencies when I was as young as 6 or 7. Surely this is therefore not a lifestyle choice that I have made. Leaving what it is like to be gay and coming to discuss Gay Rights now, politicians and politics should not be able to decide what is right and what is wrong with regards to relationships. People are saying that I should not be allowed to marry my partner because we are both males, that I am living a life of sin, that it goes against religious doctrine, that marriage is only between a man and a woman and God hates gays. These arguments are fundamentally flawed. Loving couples, whatever their sexual orientation, should be allowed to have their relationships recognised and in Australia, as in most countries, that is in the form of marriage. The fact that Gays want to marry is not detrimental to the institution of marriage, it is instead a strong sign of what Gay people aspire to and see as a powerful and respectful societal institution. When one in three marriages in Australia ends in divorce and one in two in the United States, marriage is already an institution in crisis. Allowing Gays to marry would not further this decay but strengthen marriage. I further take exception to the belief that I am living a life of sin, of that God hates me for who I am. I have been taught throughout my life that God loves, not hates. That he is a forgiving God, that he is a God who we can all talk to, who will have a personal relationship with anyone who wants it, that knows who we are, and has already seen what decisions we will take and how we will live our lives. This to me is not a reason for anti-gay activists to induce hate, fear and intolerance towards the gay community. I also take offence to religious groups’ flawed interpretations of the Bible and in particular their quotations of Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable.” But is also says, “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.” and “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19) Leviticus 19:27 says, “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip of the edges of your beard.” There are numerous other laws laid forth in Leviticus, some common sense and what are common laws still today, but others which are entirely ridiculous, dangerous, against modern law and have been proven to be wrong during the course of time. Allowing Gay Marriage and other rights such as adoption are not a danger to society. Gay people are decent, ordinary and upstanding members of society and should not be discriminated against in any way.

Although it willobviously be unpopular in certain quarters, I think this is an EXCELLENT post.

Congratulations. :)

Oh thank you!

I still see very big differences between conservative spanish catholics (i grew up in Spain and went to a religious school), the german believers (i live now in Germany) and the US believers. This discussion helps me a lot to understand something about certain minds in USA.

The spanish say: I know that xy is a sin - but i can afterwards go to the priest and confess

The germans: I don´t want xy to be a sin. The Pope has to change the definitions!

USA: The bible is literally true and the word of god and ...

Monsters are not, by definition, omnipotent and are thus not, by definition, outside the measurable universe.

As an aside, if one were to posit the existence of an omnipotent monster (which would essentially be a god), it could be neither proven nor disproven. However, monster usually refers to a beast that is very powerful, but still hindered by the natural order of the universe.

Gods are not, by defintion, omnipotent, either.

The Judeo-christian god is often referred to as omnipotent... which doesn't necesasrily make it so.

If you cannot measure a monster, and you cannot prove the non-reality of a monster, and you cannot accept a monster on a normal universal scale, there is only one option remaining.... the monster must, in some way, exist outside of our regular organised universe model.

As an aside, to your aside... gods are also usually considered to be powerful, but not-omnipotent.

I don't recall any actual scriptural evidence to say that 'god' was omnipotent, anyway.

I don't care what people define to be a sin. I'm not a Christian, so technically I'm a sinner, as I don't worship God (worship that, in any case, I would find intensely annoying if I could in any way empathise with God - effuse praise for trivial things such as creating the world for an all-powerful God would piss me off if I was one).

If someone can tell me a logical, ethical reason why homosexuality is wrong, I'm prepared to listen, even if I don't agree. If someone tells me I'm a sinner, I don't care - a sin is a religious crime, not a general one. I can define eating apples to be a sin in my own religion - doesn't make it logically or ethically wrong to do.

"Originally Posted by Neo Cannen
We have already gone over this. We know for a fact that people are not "born gay". .... There may be genetic predisposition towards it but their is genetic predisposition for a great number of sins."



The Vatican says in the spanish and in the german catechism that people are born gay... You know the bible better than the Pope and his guys???


To BE homosexual is NOT a sin for the Catholic church. It is a sin to have sex as homosexual. And it is a sin to feel lust.

You never, never, never felt lust? ;)

I think it is no coensedence that the majority of people on this thread think that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Why? Because people who belive otherwise would feel it threatens their manlyness to be around gays or discuss homosexuality.

They only menition it: to make fun of someone when they are in a group of people who share the same view.

They only menition it: to harrass an individual when surronded by supporters who laugh at every stupid thing that comes out their mouthes.

They only mention it: to do their religous duty as a Christian to make "pagan lives" misrable and force the sucide rate of gays to four times as much as straights.

For those who did argue on the extreemist Christian (exuse the bias) veiw point: although I don't agree with you congrats for not being so homophobic as to not post a thread here.

Gods are not, by defintion, omnipotent, either.

The Judeo-christian god is often referred to as omnipotent... which doesn't necesasrily make it so.

If you cannot measure a monster, and you cannot prove the non-reality of a monster, and you cannot accept a monster on a normal universal scale, there is only one option remaining.... the monster must, in some way, exist outside of our regular organised universe model.

As an aside, to your aside... gods are also usually considered to be powerful, but not-omnipotent.

I don't recall any actual scriptural evidence to say that 'god' was omnipotent, anyway.


From the point of view of an egyptian family the power that killed every first born must have been a demon or a monster...

And the god of the bible seems to be everything but not omnipotent. It seems he does not have the power to change the meaning of his creation without destroying them. Why needs a omnipotent god to destroy Sodom and Gommorrah, why must he kill the first born egyptians and almost the whole human kind (Noah)?????

It wasnt GOOD or EVIL to obey/disobey God. It was a simple command, and because it was so easy to keep, the punishment was so hard to bear. Adam and eve were aware of the concequences of what they were going to do if they disobeyed so it seems to me that they were fully aware that it was a bad idea to eat the fruit. And they were aware of who was telling them to do this, God. They knew who he was and what he was so they knew that if he said something then there was obviously a good reason. They were fully aware of the situation, you cant defend them by saying they were ignorent.

How were they fully aware?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil... would have been redundant if they had been fully aware.

They had no concept of punishment, because they had no knowledge of sin.

They had no knowledge of lying, because they hadn't been told it could exist.

If the serpent told them they would not die, how would they know it wasn't true?

Given two conflicting stories, but no information on which to base a value judgement, how can eternal damnation be a fitting response for choosing one story over the other?

The only logical answer is that god would WANT people to have free-will, and they couldn't under the situation he had constructed... so he FIXED the test to ensure they would fail.

Either that, or he is just vindictive.

See, the Babylonian myth that the Hebrews ripped off for this story.... so much LESS confused....

Gods are not, by defintion, omnipotent, either.

The Judeo-christian god is often referred to as omnipotent... which doesn't necesasrily make it so.

All gods are not, by definition, omnipotent. However, many believe that there is an omnipotent God. It doesn't necessarily make it so. However, my point was that, if one believes in an omnipotent God, this is an axiomatic statement that can be neither proven nor disproven.

If you cannot measure a monster, and you cannot prove the non-reality of a monster, and you cannot accept a monster on a normal universal scale, there is only one option remaining.... the monster must, in some way, exist outside of our regular organised universe model.

If the monster is not omnipotent, it cannot exist outside of the universe, and thus does not exist. If it is omnipotent, all bets are off.

I don't recall any actual scriptural evidence to say that 'god' was omnipotent, anyway.

I'm pretty sure there is quite a bit stating that God is all-powerful. But I could be wrong.

no one would choose to live a life where you are marginalised, hated for being who you are, debated over for what few rights you should receive, be a potential target for bashings or torment, not be allowed visiting rights in hospitals or decisions over your partner’s health, have restricted access to health insurance, be prohibited from donating blood, and to just generally live a more shameful life. I could go on, but I think I have detailed enough the difficulties of living as a gay person. I can look back on my childhood and see that I showed gay tendencies when I was as young as 6 or 7. Surely this is therefore not a lifestyle choice that I have made.

Thank you, you're quote just shead light on what is wrong with society. It is a basic impluse to ostracize those who are different, but if we ever want to become truly civalized we will stop this. GREAT POST!!!!!!

All gods are not, by definition, omnipotent. However, many believe that there is an omnipotent God. It doesn't necessarily make it so. However, my point was that, if one believes in an omnipotent God, this is an axiomatic statement that can be neither proven nor disproven.

If the monster is not omnipotent, it cannot exist outside of the universe, and thus does not exist. If it is omnipotent, all bets are off.

I'm pretty sure there is quite a bit stating that God is all-powerful. But I could be wrong.

Well... why would a monster have to be omnipotent to exist outside of the universe???

Why not, just incompatible with our universe?

I don't see that there is any more evidence for god than for monster, or that the one can exist and the other not exist, or that one is held to rules of reality that do not apply to the other.

The KJV does have one mention of god as 'omnipotent', to my recollection... but it is, just for a change, bad translation:

Revelation 19:6 "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth".

A better translation would be "The ruler of all", or "he who holds sway over all things"... but KJV translates it as omnipotent..

Of course, Revelation is a bit shaky anyway...

Well... why would a monster have to be omnipotent to exist outside of the universe???

Unless you posit the existence of multiple universes, which I do not, anything that is not all-powerful is bound by the rules of the universe.

OK, I read the first dozen pages or so, can't be bothered to read more. I am not going to bash Christianity here but some interpretations of the bible and justifications and arguments made by SOME Christians baffles me:

1. To the people who bashed the guy quoting the rest of Leviticus for how stupid this sins are by saying "That was the Old Testament that was rendered obsolete by the New Testament.":

How can you quote a Leviticus to say homosexuality is a sin and then dismiss the rest of it when it is pointed out that it is full of sins that make no sense? How can you say the Old Testament is obsolete and doesn't need to be followed and than uphold the rest of it which is over 1000 years old? Isn't the rest of it obsolete by now too?

2. To the people who state that homosexuality is wrong because it does not create offspring as commanded by God:

OK, if committing an act that does not produce children is a sin, than are we to believe that if we work, hunt, eat or do anything but continually produce children we are sinning? Maybe it means that everyperson has to procreate and homosexuals never will and that is a sin. Well what about sterile people? Are they going to hell with homosexuals? OK, maybe it's because homosexuals are sinning cause they chose not to produce children? Well if they get one girl pregnant to fulfill there spiritual obligations are they then free to practise their chosen lifestyle?

3. To the people who say God made man to have sex with women and it's unnatural for any other sexual activity to take place:

Who the hell are you to say what God made man for? Did you take a peek at his design notes and schematics? And if we are not made to have anal sex or oral sex or anything other than penis in vagina sex, why wouldn't it be more difficult to practise these other methods? Anatomical creation views are flase, try another posiiton with your wife and tell me it isn't just as easy, pleasurable and effective.

4. To the people who say that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of it:

OK, this one baffles me completely. Does the fact that two men/women who choose to be life partners benefit from the same economical and legal benefits harm you and your wifes marraige? Or maybe your marraige is no longer special because it's not an elite institution now that anyone can join?

5. Gay rights are just a political cave-in to the far left and they don't deserve or need the right to marry

Saying that gays survived without that right before and that they are getting yet ANOTHER right as a political cave-in is like saying your wife shouldn't have the right to vote, or own property, or be allowed to make her own choices. After all THEY got along for the last few thousand years without those rights, why do they need them now? For that matter, commoners got along without any rights to own land (only nobles were allowed to own land), are you a noble? No? Then give up that house and new Accord in the driveway serf, you don't NEED them! Just work on my estate and pay me taxes for allowing you to live.

Now, as I said I am not bashing Christians for their belief that homosexuality is a sin, many other religions believe that too, and thats their right. The same as it's Neo-Nazi's rights to believe minorities are inferior and a plight on their race. Yes, it's their right. Civil rights are in place so that we are not oppressed on account of our beliefs. Like homosexuals belief that they should be treated like all others. The reason that same sex marriage did not pass is the majority of people voting were religious, thus this law is being dictated by religion, not the State, and that is a scary thing when your countries civil rights is being affected by the Church... it means that anyone who does not belong to the predominate religion (Christianity in the States) is less likely to have their rights upheld.

I think it's important that people in this world start making decisions about their future and fellow man based on compassion and reasoning and fairness rather than religious beliefs, the history of religious beliefs dictating laws, policy and national decisions has brought nothing but misery, war, death and discrimination against those not of the same religion in this world.

Look to where this world is headed and tell me that blind devotion to religion (ANY religion) is not going to destroy it. Tell me how. Believe what you want about YOUR god and the afterlife, but take a while every once in awhile and look around at the rest of life and the world and take stock of the situation here and now, or we'll all not live to regret it.

Unless you posit the existence of multiple universes, which I do not, anything that is not all-powerful is bound by the rules of the universe.

Why?

Even in one universe, why should everything that impinges on reality be governed by reality?

I don't see how 'all-powerful' is the one factor that makes you non-universe-compatible... surely just 'not bound by reality' would be sufficient?

Being 'all-powerful' would only exclude you from this universe in as much as you couldn't be all-powerful and STILL exist in this universe.

Isn't it more logical to simply assume that there is nothing that is all-powerful, rather than constructing a quasi-reality to accomodate an assumption of omnipotence?

And, if you DO conceive a quasi-reality to accomodate the omnipotent, why does that cul-de-sac ONLY accomodate the omnipotent? Why not all the other ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties that have haunted the consciousness for millennia?

How were they fully aware?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil... would have been redundant if they had been fully aware.

They had no concept of punishment, because they had no knowledge of sin.

They had no knowledge of lying, because they hadn't been told it could exist.

If the serpent told them they would not die, how would they know it wasn't true?

Given two conflicting stories, but no information on which to base a value judgement, how can eternal damnation be a fitting response for choosing one story over the other?

The only logical answer is that god would WANT people to have free-will, and they couldn't under the situation he had constructed... so he FIXED the test to ensure they would fail.


Firstly, wether or not to obey the command is not so much a question of Good and Evil. Is a child Evil if it does not obey its parents, its simpley a matter of a simple command. It was not hard or difficult in anyway, it was a simple command. Thus because it was so easy to keep, the punishment was so hard to bear . Adam and Eve knew who God was and knew what he had said and they knew there was a punishment (death, albeit not instant but eventual). They knew that the serpent was not God, so given the choice between God and the Serpent, who would they believe more? God obviously because God was who he was.

Firstly, wether or not to obey the command is not so much a question of Good and Evil. Is a child Evil if it does not obey its parents, its simpley a matter of a simple command. It was not hard or difficult in anyway, it was a simple command. Thus because it was so easy to keep, the punishment was so hard to bear . Adam and Eve knew who God was and knew what he had said and they knew there was a punishment (death, albeit not instant but eventual). They knew that the serpent was not God, so given the choice between God and the Serpent, who would they believe more? God obviously because God was who he was.

A whole butt-load of assumptions there, and no evidence for any of them.

They didn't know who god was.

They didn't know who the serpent was... (Hell, you don't know, now)

They had no experience of lying - so they couldn't understand the concept of 'untrue'.

They had no experience of punishment, so they would have no experience of HOW that might correspond to their actions.

They had no experiance of death, so they would have no understanding of what the punishment would MEAN, even if they had understood what a punishment was.

They didn't even know that the serpent wasn't god! How would they?


Bad example with the child. A child cannot understand that it should or shouldn't do something until it learns a frame of reference - even the simple "OBEY" reference requires an original hinge point, an algetic response. The bible doesn't show ANY reference points for Adam... so god set an unfair test.

OK, I read the first dozen pages or so, can't be bothered to read more. I am not going to bash Christianity here but some interpretations of the bible and justifications and arguments made by SOME Christians baffles me:

1. To the people who bashed the guy quoting the rest of Leviticus for how stupid this sins are by saying "That was the Old Testament that was rendered obsolete by the New Testament.":

How can you quote a Leviticus to say homosexuality is a sin and then dismiss the rest of it when it is pointed out that it is full of sins that make no sense? How can you say the Old Testament is obsolete and doesn't need to be followed and than uphold the rest of it which is over 1000 years old? Isn't the rest of it obsolete by now too?


We have gone over this. The main reason is that the homosexuality texts are a law which was not made obselete by the new testement. Parts of it go, parts dont. There is a passage in Hebrews which deals with the religious rites and why they are not relevent and a passage in Acts which deals with the cultural law (food and clothes). Much of the moral law however remains intact. If you want a more detailed explination, you need only ask.


2. To the people who state that homosexuality is wrong because it does not create offspring as commanded by God:

OK, if committing an act that does not produce children is a sin, than are we to believe that if we work, hunt, eat or do anything but continually produce children we are sinning? Maybe it means that everyperson has to procreate and homosexuals never will and that is a sin. Well what about sterile people? Are they going to hell with homosexuals? OK, maybe it's because homosexuals are sinning cause they chose not to produce children? Well if they get one girl pregnant to fulfill there spiritual obligations are they then free to practise their chosen lifestyle?


I personaly do not know where Christians or Jews get the idea that sex is purely for children and not pleasure.


3. To the people who say God made man to have sex with women and it's unnatural for any other sexual activity to take place:

Who the hell are you to say what God made man for? Did you take a peek at his design notes and schematics? And if we are not made to have anal sex or oral sex or anything other than penis in vagina sex, why wouldn't it be more difficult to practise these other methods? Anatomical creation views are flase, try another posiiton with your wife and tell me it isn't just as easy, pleasurable and effective.


The human reproductive system seems to only allow for male-female penis-vagina sex. There is no biological sugestion that the anus is in any way designed for penetration of any kind. The Christian belief is that it is a misuse of your body in the same way drug taking is.


4. To the people who say that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of it:

OK, this one baffles me completely. Does the fact that two men/women who choose to be life partners benefit from the same economical and legal benefits harm you and your wifes marraige? Or maybe your marraige is no longer special because it's not an elite institution now that anyone can join?


The economic and legal benefits aside for the moment, the Christian institution of marriage was invented (according to Christians) at the begining of the world in Eden (Genesis 2: 24, which is also a good explination as to why so many diffrent isoloated cultures have the same idea). The reason it is one man and one woman is that that is how it was in Eden.


5. Gay rights are just a political cave-in to the far left and they don't deserve or need the right to marry

Saying that gays survived without that right before and that they are getting yet ANOTHER right as a political cave-in is like saying your wife shouldn't have the right to vote, or own property, or be allowed to make her own choices. After all THEY got along for the last few thousand years without those rights, why do they need them now? For that matter, commoners got along without any rights to own land (only nobles were allowed to own land), are you a noble? No? Then give up that house and new Accord in the driveway serf, you don't NEED them! Just work on my estate and pay me taxes for allowing you to live.


I dont have the statiscis on me now (at colleage, have them at home) but only a small perecntage of homosexual reltationships in Britain are exclusive and monogomous. It is highly likely that if Gay marriage was allowed it wouldnt be used that much.


Now, as I said I am not bashing Christians for their belief that homosexuality is a sin, many other religions believe that too, and thats their right. The same as it's Neo-Nazi's rights to believe minorities are inferior and a plight on their race. Yes, it's their right. Civil rights are in place so that we are not oppressed on account of our beliefs. Like homosexuals belief that they should be treated like all others. The reason that same sex marriage did not pass is the majority of people voting were religious, thus this law is being dictated by religion, not the State, and that is a scary thing when your countries civil rights is being affected by the Church... it means that anyone who does not belong to the predominate religion (Christianity in the States) is less likely to have their rights upheld.


If you have a religoius majortiy of any kind, then why is it unfair that their beliefs be pushed forward, the way in Turkey that many are pushing to make adultery a criminal offence.


I think it's important that people in this world start making decisions about their future and fellow man based on compassion and reasoning and fairness rather than religious beliefs, the history of religious beliefs dictating laws, policy and national decisions has brought nothing but misery, war, death and discrimination against those not of the same religion in this world.


People often make this mistake. When talking about religious wars in the past, they say religons cause them. That is not true. Religious followers cause them. People often look at the black spots of religon (as they do with politcians, celebraties etc) and only the black spots. What has the church done to benefit. It is one of the largest charities in the world, it created the first education system in Europe, many benefitial things. Dont just condem religion because of its past.


Look to where this world is headed and tell me that blind devotion to religion (ANY religion) is not going to destroy it. Tell me how. Believe what you want about YOUR god and the afterlife, but take a while every once in awhile and look around at the rest of life and the world and take stock of the situation here and now, or we'll all not live to regret it.

Belief in a religion does not mean you shold attack/hate followers of another religion. There is nothing wrong with religous belief, in an increasingly materialistic world I think religion needs to assert itself further and make it clear that no matter how many toys you die with, you still die.

A whole butt-load of assumptions there, and no evidence for any of them.

They didn't know who god was.

They didn't know who the serpent was... (Hell, you don't know, now)

They had no experience of lying - so they couldn't understand the concept of 'untrue'.

They had no experience of punishment, so they would have no experience of HOW that might correspond to their actions.

They had no experiance of death, so they would have no understanding of what the punishment would MEAN, even if they had understood what a punishment was.

They didn't even know that the serpent wasn't god! How would they?

Bad example with the child. A child cannot understand that it should or shouldn't do something until it learns a frame of reference - even the simple "OBEY" reference requires an original hinge point, an algetic response. The bible doesn't show ANY reference points for Adam... so god set an unfair test.

Firstly, they did know who God was, they talked to him frequently when the relationship between them was not broken. If anything they would know God better than we do. They DID know the serpent wasnt God because they could see that A) they looked diffrent and B) they both said diffrent things. Nowhere is there any reference to them being un aware or anything like ignorent. They knew what the concequences were (Genesis 3: 2-3). God had set a refernce point because he had made it clear, he told them they were ALLOWED to eat from any tree EXCEPT the one in the middle. It was made very clear and obvious. There is no grounds for calling them ignorent. No where does it say that they did not understand. And if your going to say "The bible is inacurate etc we dont know what they said" then why are you bothering to argue? Since by that logic (as you have said before) the entire Bible is flawed and so you shouldnt care. I do but that is because I am a Christian.

A whole butt-load of assumptions there, and no evidence for any of them.


Your not providing evidence for your assumptions either. Please show a verse where they say anything like "I dont understand". Genesis 3: 2 - 3 clearly shows Eve had heard the command and understood it.

Because I find it amusing:

God didn't make Adam and Steve....

God made Adam and a bunch of friendly animals.

Eve was later.

:fluffle:

Eve was an after thought.

So it's really Adam and Curious George... and sheep... and Mr. Ed... and Crocodiles... and lions...

...Feeding Christians to lions... bet Adam would have blushed at that one.

Because I find it amusing:

God didn't make Adam and Steve....

God made Adam and a bunch of friendly animals.

Eve was later.

:fluffle:

Eve was an after thought.

Clearly, the Christian deity is a perv.

What, are you saying you don't like sheep?

Clearly, you were watching me edit.

"Bah, ram, ewe!"

"I just hope Bah isn't as rough as Adam!"

Clearly, you were watching me edit.

"Bah, ram, ewe!"

"I just hope Bah isn't as rough as Adam!"

:D We can only hope.

Your not providing evidence for your assumptions either. Please show a verse where they say anything like "I dont understand". Genesis 3: 2 - 3 clearly shows Eve had heard the command and understood it.

Learn to debate, or stop contributing.

YOUR argument is the bible account, taken as fact. You further claim that Adam and Eve had knowedge which they clearly can NOT have had... and you infer this information - it isn't in the bible.

You prove your claim... so, you PROVE that Adam and Eve had any reasonable possibility of understanding that the serpent could be lying... you PROVE that they could have understood the concepts of punishment or death.

And, (this is getting soooo repetetive)... you are wrong, yet again.

Genesis 3:2-3 "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

She doesn't SAY she understands, she doesn't say she has any opinion or belief... she points out to the serpent that the two stories do not correspond.

Look closer at the quote "God hath said", are her words... she states it as something she heard... not an article of faith, or something she believes, not something she even understands.

Learn to debate, or stop contributing.

YOUR argument is the bible account, taken as fact. You further claim that Adam and Eve had knowedge which they clearly can NOT have had... and you infer this information - it isn't in the bible.

You prove your claim... so, you PROVE that Adam and Eve had any reasonable possibility of understanding that the serpent could be lying... you PROVE that they could have understood the concepts of punishment or death.

And, (this is getting soooo repetetive)... you are wrong, yet again.

Genesis 3:2-3 "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

She doesn't SAY she understands, she doesn't say she has any opinion or belief... she points out to the serpent that the two stories do not correspond.

Look closer at the quote "God hath said", are her words... she states it as something she heard... not an article of faith, or something she believes, not something she even understands.

And she doesnt say that she doesnt understand. Firstly look at Genesis 2: 17

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

The command. Simple and easy to follow. You dont even need to understand why, just that you shouldnt eat it. She didnt need to eat it, there were many other fruits and plants around, there was no need. And you havent disproved the fact that they knew who God was. They knew him better than we did. And also, the Bible points out the serpent as one of the animals in Eden, so it is clear that Eve knew he was not God but just an animal, nothing more. And the defence "He told me to do it" doesnt hold any water then or now. Besides God punished all three so there is no injustice here. At least I have provided verses. You still havent shown anything like "They did not understand" or anything like that. You are basing your entire arguement on a lack of proof, not positive proof.

Why?

Even in one universe, why should everything that impinges on reality be governed by reality?

I don't see how 'all-powerful' is the one factor that makes you non-universe-compatible... surely just 'not bound by reality' would be sufficient?

If something is not all-powerful, it is bound by the laws of the universe. This is by definition. We may find something that is not bound by the laws as we now know them, but this would simply lead to expanding scientific theory and figuring out the physics/etc. of the new occurrence.

Being 'all-powerful' would only exclude you from this universe in as much as you couldn't be all-powerful and STILL exist in this universe.

You could exist in this universe and work within the rules you set up for it, or you could choose to be outside of it. That would be the definition of all-powerful.

Isn't it more logical to simply assume that there is nothing that is all-powerful, rather than constructing a quasi-reality to accomodate an assumption of omnipotence?

For you, it may be more logical. I, on the other hand, have had personal experience of God. To me, it would be illogical to assume that God does not exist. And I have not "constructed a quasi-reality." I have stated a simple fact, an all-powerful being would not be constrained by the laws of the universe, which is what science involves itself in.

And, if you DO conceive a quasi-reality to accomodate the omnipotent, why does that cul-de-sac ONLY accomodate the omnipotent? Why not all the other ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties that have haunted the consciousness for millennia?

All of the ghosts, etc. (which I cannot with certainty discount) would still be bound by the laws of the universe. This means that, if they exist, we can find a way to measure them, as long as we know the particular rules they follow.

The human reproductive system seems to only allow for male-female penis-vagina sex. There is no biological sugestion that the anus is in any way designed for penetration of any kind. The Christian belief is that it is a misuse of your body in the same way drug taking is.

Never mind the male G-spot, 1 inch up his anus.

Never mind the female clitoris, which is rarely stimulated during penis-vagina sex, but is the only organ on any creature with no purpose whatsoever but sexual pleasure.

These have been pointed out to you before. You can't consider yourself part of the debate if you keep repeating things we have already shown to be untrue. The very nature of debate is that you have to be willing to alter your stance if part of it is shown to be wrong.

The economic and legal benefits aside for the moment, the Christian institution of marriage was invented (according to Christians) at the begining of the world in Eden (Genesis 2: 24, which is also a good explination as to why so many diffrent isoloated cultures have the same idea). The reason it is one man and one woman is that that is how it was in Eden.

Which is very nice, but has nothing to do with civil marriage.

I dont have the statiscis on me now (at colleage, have them at home) but only a small perecntage of homosexual reltationships in Britain are exclusive and monogomous. It is highly likely that if Gay marriage was allowed it wouldnt be used that much.

I'd be willing to bet that, at a similar age group, only a small precentage of heterosexual relationships are exclusive and monogomous. People at a certain age have a tendency to be more promiscuous. As they get older, they tend to settle down with one person. This occurs in heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.

If you have a religoius majortiy of any kind, then why is it unfair that their beliefs be pushed forward, the way in Turkey that many are pushing to make adultery a criminal offence.

One should never force their religion on another. Period.

Now, adultery is another issue, as the idea that adultery is wrong doesn't have to be based in religion.

And she doesnt say that she doesnt understand. Firstly look at Genesis 2: 17

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

You are really missing the point Grave is trying to make here.

If you don't already have knowledge of good and evil, you cannot know that it is evil to disobey God. This is true by the very definitions of knowledge, good, and evil. Thus, command or not, you still would have know way of knowing that it was wrong to eat the fruit.

You are really missing the point Grave is trying to make here.

If you don't already have knowledge of good and evil, you cannot know that it is evil to disobey God. This is true by the very definitions of knowledge, good, and evil. Thus, command or not, you still would have know way of knowing that it was wrong to eat the fruit.
Lol never thought of it that way :) very true

You are really missing the point Grave is trying to make here.

If you don't already have knowledge of good and evil, you cannot know that it is evil to disobey God. This is true by the very definitions of knowledge, good, and evil. Thus, command or not, you still would have know way of knowing that it was wrong to eat the fruit.

I never said it was EVIL for Adam or Eve to disobey God. It was however a sin. Sin cannot be defined as good or evil in the way we would like to. It was a simple command from God that was easy to keep.

And she doesnt say that she doesnt understand. Firstly look at Genesis 2: 17

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

The command. Simple and easy to follow. You dont even need to understand why, just that you shouldnt eat it. She didnt need to eat it, there were many other fruits and plants around, there was no need. And you havent disproved the fact that they knew who God was. They knew him better than we did. And also, the Bible points out the serpent as one of the animals in Eden, so it is clear that Eve knew he was not God but just an animal, nothing more. And the defence "He told me to do it" doesnt hold any water then or now. Besides God punished all three so there is no injustice here. At least I have provided verses. You still havent shown anything like "They did not understand" or anything like that. You are basing your entire arguement on a lack of proof, not positive proof.

If it isn't in the text, it doesn't exist.

You pretty much use this argument yourself, when it suits you... "show me a verse that condones homosexuality", remember?

How did they know who god was? The early genesis stories describe him as a man, don't they? There are repeated references to his various 'bodily parts', and his human-like activities... how would they know he wasn't a 'man'? They didn't see him create the world, they didn't see him make man... we have no reason to suspect Adam saw him make Eve... so, all we have from the text is that Adam and Eve met this bossy guy.

So, now you are arguing that the serpent is just a snake, progenitor of all the modern snakes?

My argument still remains... with no concept of good and evil for themselves, HOW would they choose between the grumpy old man, and the mysteriously talkative reptile?

If something is not all-powerful, it is bound by the laws of the universe... This means that, if they exist, we can find a way to measure them, as long as we know the particular rules they follow.

Excuse me... trimmed just so we don't keep taking up the whole page... unlike certain posters (who I will not name) we both use answers to points, of sufficient coherence that it should be possible to work out the previous post from the replies.

I see no reason why other entities should be bound by the same constraints as we 'mundane' beasts are. Those creatures that people our nightmares are most likely imagination... but if not, and they DO exist, there is no reason to suspect that they are of the same stuff as we.

Most ghost rumours, for example, persist in the assertion that the ghost can pass, unscathed and coherent, through solid objects... which denies the laws of physics as we know them (certainly in the context of being visible, and demonstrating consciousness... this isn't just neutrino activity).

Existing outside the universe doesn't define all-powerful, and all-powerful doesn't 'define' existence outside of our known universe.

We can accept that an all-powerful entity MUST live outside the constraints of our time/space, but that doesn't mean it must be the ONLY entity that exists outside our time/space... or that it is all-powerful BECAUSE it exists outside our time/space.

You are really missing the point Grave is trying to make here.

If you don't already have knowledge of good and evil, you cannot know that it is evil to disobey God. This is true by the very definitions of knowledge, good, and evil. Thus, command or not, you still would have know way of knowing that it was wrong to eat the fruit.

Thank you... at least I can be sure that some people can pick my logic from my posts....

I see no reason why other entities should be bound by the same constraints as we 'mundane' beasts are. Those creatures that people our nightmares are most likely imagination... but if not, and they DO exist, there is no reason to suspect that they are of the same stuff as we.

Most ghost rumours, for example, persist in the assertion that the ghost can pass, unscathed and coherent, through solid objects... which denies the laws of physics as we know them (certainly in the context of being visible, and demonstrating consciousness... this isn't just neutrino activity).

You used a really telling phrase here "denies the laws of physics as we know them." My point is that, if something is not all-powerful, it is bound by some rules. Those rules would be the actual rules of the universe. I didn't say rules *as we know them,* because it would be silly to state that we know all the rules.

I never said it was EVIL for Adam or Eve to disobey God. It was however a sin. Sin cannot be defined as good or evil in the way we would like to. It was a simple command from God that was easy to keep.

And you still miss the point. Why would you keep the command? To us, the answer is simple, "it is wrong not to." However, if you have no knowledge of the existence of right and wrong, you cannot understand the concept "it is wrong not to" and thus have no reason to obey the command.

And you still miss the point. Why would you keep the command? To us, the answer is simple, "it is wrong not to." However, if you have no knowledge of the existence of right and wrong, you cannot understand the concept "it is wrong not to" and thus have no reason to obey the command.
Yup no moral framework to make the decision

and up till that point god had not made the penalties clear so no drive to follow it for personal wellbeing either

Yes okay, this used to be a good thread made some good points good debates, but it is old now, shut up, I dont want to hear about it, many people dont want to hear about it. Before people really start to hate this thread just stop with it!

Yes okay, this used to be a good thread made some good points good debates, but it is old now, shut up, I dont want to hear about it, many people dont want to hear about it. Before people really start to hate this thread just stop with it!
Um its not like we are in the same thread

its simple ... dont click on it
can you say that with me
"Dont click on it"

You think you can understand that or do I have to break it down farther?

Yes okay, this used to be a good thread made some good points good debates, but it is old now, shut up, I dont want to hear about it, many people dont want to hear about it. Before people really start to hate this thread just stop with it!

It's around 300 pages, you think people haven't said this before? They'll comment on what we said briefly then mow on over :p

Um its not like we are in the same thread

its simple ... dont click on it
can you say that with me
"Dont click on it"

You think you can understand that or do I have to break it down farther?

I think you need to type in all caps, use a lot of exclamation points and one's, and even throw in a few WTFs and OMGs.

i dont get the question...why shouldn't it be a sin? anything against the course of nature and evolution can be declared unnatural, therefore it must be removed from existence. am i right? like we try our best to be healthy...why not try our best to be straight??

i dont get the question...why shouldn't it be a sin? anything against the course of nature and evolution can be declared unnatural, therefore it must be removed from existence. am i right? like we try our best to be healthy...why not try our best to be straight??

If any type of sexuality were "against the course of nature and evolution", you might just have a point.

However, it is not, and you do not.

I think you need to type in all caps, use a lot of exclamation points and one's, and even throw in a few WTFs and OMGs.
I refuse to sink to his level :p

I refuse to sink to his level :p

lol good choice, man. Good choice.

i dont get the question...why shouldn't it be a sin? anything against the course of nature and evolution can be declared unnatural, therefore it must be removed from existence. am i right? like we try our best to be healthy...why not try our best to be straight??
religion is against evolution ... does that make it un natural?

(and the real arguement is it exists in nature ... therefore it is natural)

from the simplest forms of life reproduction occurs between opposite sexes.
trough an act called sex. we r more advanced than dinosaurs and reptiles, so why should we act like we r not? plus two same-sex partners will never procreate. so ??? how is this natural?

from the simplest forms of life reproduction occurs between opposite sexes.
trough an act called sex. we r more advanced than dinosaurs and reptiles, so why should we act like we r not? plus two same-sex partners will never procreate. so ??? how is this natural?

In all nearly all higher-order social forms of life, there is a thing called altruism. Essentially, there are non-breeding members (often homosexual) that help take care of the offspring and thus help pass on the genes of the group.

You really should actually study biology before you just make things up. Personal reproduction is not the end-all-be-all of life. This is especially true in humans, where you can quite clearly help the human species to survive (by advancing technology, etc.) without ever having sex at all.

good point
i dont exactly agree with it...but its good.

good point
i dont exactly agree with it...but its good.
but the problem goes like this: (no offense to any1) in this forum we say how we support gays. In front of other people we do the same...yet we think and try to act exactly the opposite, not consciently, but mechanically. isn't this ironic?

good point
i dont exactly agree with it...but its good.
but the problem goes like this: (no offense to any1) in this forum we say how we support gays. In front of other people we do the same...yet we think and try to act exactly the opposite, not consciently, but mechanically. isn't this ironic?

I support people who like the color brown. I don't especially like the color brown, in fact, I dislike it. I act exactly the opposite, trying not to buy brown things. Isn't this ironic?

sounds like u just made it up

It's only a sin if you are a religious zealot. Which there seems to be a lot of these days. :headbang:

I'm sick and tired of the Bible dictating people's lives. It was a good book, and a good idea, and let's leave it at that. I'm sure we all are familar with a man named Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. The time has come for the American people to evolve beyond misguided devotees to a religion that causes hate, violence, and retroactivism. Imagine all one could accomplish if they took their heads of the Bible and did something to improve their own or someone else's life. Drop your cultish ways, let people love.

I find it sad that most people seem to have completely missed the point of the bible...Civil Progression said that we should forget the bible and love people, when thats exactly what the bible is telling us to do. Anyways... I don't agree with homosexuality (I'm a Christian) but I have nothing against gays, and I think that they should have the same rights as married couples. It's just that, for me, marriage is a holy and religious union, and should keep to the standards that God set, which doesnt include gay marriage. I think that they should be able to be married by law, but not in the religious sense. I hope my post made some sense.... :confused:

good point
i dont exactly agree with it...but its good.

Nature doesn't care if you agree with it or not.

There is enough abuse and neglect today. Who are we to say who can and cannot marry? EVERYone has the right to be loved. Whether or not you (meaning no one in particular) are in that lifestyle or would make that choice, government has no place in our personal lives. They pay taxes, live and breathe just like anyone else. :headbang:

Well IF being gay is a sin its not ilegal right? heaps of other legal things are sins like cheating on you wife for example people still do besides if there are any gay people here let me ask them this do you feel bad for being gay? bet you dont so its all good. you may go to hell IF there is such a place but if your not a christian dont you go to hell anyway. perhaps the people who condem gays should keep their mouths shut cause who do they care if gays go to hell, they know what you said and they dont seem to care.

I'm sick and tired of the Bible dictating people's lives. It was a good book, and a good idea, and let's leave it at that. I'm sure we all are familar with a man named Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. The time has come for the American people to evolve beyond misguided devotees to a religion that causes hate, violence, and retroactivism. Imagine all one could accomplish if they took their heads of the Bible and did something to improve their own or someone else's life. Drop your cultish ways, let people love.

In this matter you are making a mistake. Wether or not we see homosexuality as a sin does not affect the lives of other Christians.

And you still miss the point. Why would you keep the command? To us, the answer is simple, "it is wrong not to." However, if you have no knowledge of the existence of right and wrong, you cannot understand the concept "it is wrong not to" and thus have no reason to obey the command.

Because they would die if they didnt (Again not instantly but eventually). And please dont say "They didnt understand the word die" because they used it themselves. They had no reason not to keep the command.

religion is against evolution ... does that make it un natural?

(and the real arguement is it exists in nature ... therefore it is natural)

Yes but there are plenty of things that exist in nature that may be nautral but are still sins. For instance two males in some species may kill one another over a mate. Some species when food sources run low began eating each other.

Yes but there are plenty of things that exist in nature that may be nautral but are still sins. For instance two males in some species may kill one another over a mate. Some species when food sources run low began eating each other.

How can a sin be applied to a creature that has absolutely no concept of religion?

How did they know who god was? The early genesis stories describe him as a man, don't they? There are repeated references to his various 'bodily parts', and his human-like activities... how would they know he wasn't a 'man'? They didn't see him create the world, they didn't see him make man... we have no reason to suspect Adam saw him make Eve... so, all we have from the text is that Adam and Eve met this bossy guy.


They walked and spoke to him in Eden. There was no reason for them to doubt who he was. It says God. If they can use the word "God" then they must understand it. Nowhere is there any sign of them saying "Who are you?" or anything like that so you can only assume they knew who they were talking to. Humans are by their nature intuitve so if they do not understand something they ask. If you hear a voice in the darkness talking to you, you talk back by asking "Who is that" or something to that effect.

How can a sin be applied to a creature that has absolutely no concept of religion?

You misunderstand, see who I quoted. What UpwardThurst was saying was "Homosexuality is found in nature (animals) and is therefore nautral and therefore not a sin" but I was saying that in nature (animal behaviour) there are things that if we did them, would be sins eg killing each other.

Never mind the male G-spot, 1 inch up his anus.

Never mind the female clitoris, which is rarely stimulated during penis-vagina sex, but is the only organ on any creature with no purpose whatsoever but sexual pleasure.


Check again. I said human REPRODUCTIVE system. I did not say human PLEASURE CREATING SYSTEM.

You misunderstand, see who I quoted. What UpwardThurst was saying was "Homosexuality is found in nature (animals) and is therefore nautral and therefore not a sin" but I was saying that in nature (animal behaviour) there are things that if we did them, would be sins eg killing each other.

Sorry Neo, but I did read the posts and you are still doing what you seem to do all through this thread, and that is say one thing in one post and then say in a later one that you meant, or said, something different.

Yes but there are plenty of things that exist in nature that may be nautral but are still sins.

Here you are quite clearly stating that you believe some naturally occurring things in nature are sins! Unless something has any conception of religion or morals nothing it does can be seen as a sin.

Sorry Neo, but I did read the posts and you are still doing what you seem to do all through this thread, and that is say one thing in one post and then say in a later one that you meant, or said, something different.

Here you are quite clearly stating that you believe some naturally occurring things in nature are sins! Unless something has any conception of religion or morals nothing it does can be seen as a sin.

Please read what I said


Yes but there are plenty of things that exist in nature that may be nautral but are still sins.


In the context of the word SINS at the end what I said means actions. In otherwords there are many actions of animals that exist in this world that when applyed to humans are sins. Animals kill each other over sexual partners and for food if resorces get to low. But if we (humans) did that then it would be a sin. And UpwardThrust was making the point that since homosexuality exists in nature it cannot be a sin since how can something that an animal does be a sin? And I said that there are many examples of animal like action that if were applied to human situations would be sins.

Please read what I said



In the context of the word SINS at the end what I said means actions. In otherwords there are many actions of animals that exist in this world that when applyed to humans are sins. Animals kill each other over sexual partners and for food if resorces get to low. But if we (humans) did that then it would be a sin. And UpwardThrust was making the point that since homosexuality exists in nature it cannot be a sin since how can something that an animal does be a sin? And I said that there are many examples of animal like action that if were applied to human situations would be sins.

You need to more clear, nuances don't come over in the written word Neo, what you have written, Yes but there are plenty of things that exist in nature that may be nautral but are still sins.
does not make clear the way you may think, it still reads to me, and anyone else who only maybe sees the posts from that point, that you think animals are capable of sin.

You need to more clear, nuances don't come over in the written word Neo, what you have written,
does not make clear the way you may think, it still reads to me, and anyone else who only maybe sees the posts from that point, that you think animals are capable of sin.

Do you understand what I meant though now? I have meant that all the way through. I do not believe that animals are capperbile of sin. However I also do not believe that the idea of getting our morals from animals is correct (as UpwardThurst seems to think). Animal actions are sins if the actions are applied to humans. Animal actions in the context of animals of course are not sins, but the idea that any behaviour that is found in nature is nautral and therefore good is rediculoius.

Anyway we are not debating the validty of my English. Do you agree with what I am saying as an arguement.

Do you understand what I meant though now? I have meant that all the way through. I do not believe that animals are capperbile of sin. However I also do not believe that the idea of getting our morals from animals is correct (as UpwardThurst seems to think). Animal actions are sins if the actions are applied to humans. Animal actions in the context of animals of course are not sins, but the idea that any behaviour that is found in nature is nautral and therefore good is rediculoius.

I undertand now how you meant your post to read. ;) (sorry for being a pedant)

I would argue on upward thrusts side though regarding natural behaviour in nature.
We are all a part of nature, every living thing on the planet eats, sleeps, excretes and pro-create, why then do we (homo-sapiens) set our behaviour (in it's basest sense) above all others?
Homosexuality is not a choice thing, whether your a Lion or a human being, being homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual, you are either one thing or another, no choice! it's just how things are.

I undertand now how you meant your post to read. ;) (sorry for being a pedant)

I would argue on upward thrusts side though regarding natural behaviour in nature.
We are all a part of nature, every living thing on the planet eats, sleeps, excretes and pro-create, why then do we (homo-sapiens) set our behaviour (in it's basest sense) above all others?
Homosexuality is not a choice thing, whether your a Lion or a human being, being homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual, you are either one thing or another, no choice! it's just how things are.

Homosexual attraction may or may not be a choice. I do not know. But homosexual sex is a sin no question. My point is just because it is found in nature does not make it good. Eg killing each other (same species) over food is found in nature when food resorces get low. So the idea that because homosexuality is found in nature therefore makes it ok for us doesnt hold water.

Unless something has any conception of religion or morals nothing it does can be seen as a sin.

So, to make somthing not a sin, do we need to remove all conception of religion and morals?

So, to make somthing not a sin, do we need to remove all conception of religion and morals?

Read the above posts.

My point is just because it is found in nature does not make it good. Eg killing each other (same species) over food is found in nature when food resorces get low. So the idea that because homosexuality is found in nature therefore makes it ok for us doesnt hold water.

...nor does your reasoning but hey, why stop now? :D

...nor does your reasoning but hey, why stop now? :D

Care to make a basis for that flame?

And i was here as IIRRAAQQII at one time. I don't know why i didn't pick this name instead.....

Because you're a damn sheep that follows everything our corrupt govt. says, and you actually believe there's something wrong with the Iraqis for not wanting us when instead there's something wrong with US for going over here! This is what I say to Bush and all his cronies: :upyours:

Care to make a basis for that flame?

To be simple, you are being a bit simplistic in saying that something which simply exists is inherently positive. Our, or your, perception of "good" in nature is entirely human therefore subjective and imperfect as what seems is your motivation for supporting an arguement by a faulty comparison of two irrelevant bits. :)

::ahem::

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

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)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

YES! YES! YES!!

HAAAW! WHATCHA GOT TO SAY TO THAT NOW, DAMN CHRISTIAN BIBLE THUMPING SHEEP?!?

To be simple, you are being a bit simplistic in saying that something which simply exists is inherently positive. Our, or your, perception of "good" in nature is entirely human therefore subjective and imperfect as what seems is your motivation for supporting an arguement by a faulty comparison of two irrelevant bits. :)

This is what the nature argument goes

Stage 1: Person one say "Homosexuality cannot be a sin because it is nautral. The reason it is nautral is that it is found in nature as in we find animals doing it. Therfore it is nautral and cannot be a sin"

Stage 2: Person two (me in this case) argues this "There are many examples of animal behaviour that when applied to humans would be a sin. Eg killing each over over a sexual partner or as food when supplies are low (note it is the killing which is the sin, regardless of the provocation). So therefore you cannot say that just because it is found in nature it is not a sin"

Please explain what is wrong with what I am saying?

YES! YES! YES!!

HAAAW! WHATCHA GOT TO SAY TO THAT NOW, DAMN CHRISTIAN BIBLE THUMPING SHEEP?!?

Arent we original! Ok I have two words for you "Old Covenent". If you dont know what that is go look it up because frankly I am fed up in spelling out the diffrences.

Homosexual attraction may or may not be a choice. I do not know.

People are born gay. Now you know.

But homosexual sex is a sin no question.

Only according to the bible, and monotheistic religions. Not everyone believes those things should not be questioned.
Also, according to the bible, these things are sins ( punishable by death ):

- wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles

- cross-breeding of livestock

- sowing a field with mixed seed

So the idea that because homosexuality is found in nature therefore makes it ok for us doesnt hold water.

True, because something is found in other species doesn't make it moral for humans. But you're just dodging the original point, which was: homosexuality IS natural.

What makes it okay is that it is a source of pleasure and often an expression of love that does no more harm to anyone than heterosexuality.

"And harm ye none, do what thou will"

People are born gay. Now you know.


Your a newb so I will let you off (this time) but the debate has already gone over this area and we have concluded that no one knows. Unlike you we have both cited sources and shown that we cannot be ceritan wehter or not people are born Gay


Only according to the bible, and monotheistic religions. Not everyone believes those things should not be questioned.
Also, according to the bible, these things are sins ( punishable by death ):

- wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles

- cross-breeding of livestock

- sowing a field with mixed seed


Again the words "Old Covenent" spring to mind. If you dont know what it is (in terms of the bible) then LOOK IT UP


True, because something is found in other species doesn't make it moral for humans. But you're just dodging the original point, which was: homosexuality IS natural.


The debate is not "Is homosexuality nautral" the debate is "why is homosexuality a sin" and I have shown that just because it is nautral does not exonerate it from being a sin. And in any case it is homosexual sex which is the sin, atraction is the temptation.


What makes it okay is that it is a source of pleasure and often an expression of love that does no more harm to anyone than heterosexuality.

"And harm ye none, do what thou will"


Whilst that may be true in the case of American law and Postmodern morality, it is not in Christianity, which is (for the most part although other religions do crop up from time to time) what we are debating here.

This is what the nature argument goes

Stage 1: Person one say "Homosexuality cannot be a sin because it is nautral. The reason it is nautral is that it is found in nature as in we find animals doing it. Therfore it is nautral and cannot be a sin"

Stage 2: Person two (me in this case) argues this "There are many examples of animal behaviour that when applied to humans would be a sin. Eg killing each over over a sexual partner or as food when supplies are low (note it is the killing which is the sin, regardless of the provocation). So therefore you cannot say that just because it is found in nature it is not a sin"

Please explain what is wrong with what I am saying?

Stage 1: Person one, me, wonders why those holding a Christian POV on nature look for corollaries within a scientific POV on nature and whose arguement logically therefore assumes to be natural what the former POV does not.

Stage 2: You meandering between a particular religion and various disciplines of natural and behavioral sciences and as I said before, a faulty if not biased comparison of two acts with very different outcomes and motivations.

Stage 1: Person one, me, wonders why those holding a Christian POV on nature look for corollaries within a scientific POV on nature and whose arguement logically therefore assumes to be natural what the former POV does not.

Stage 2: You meandering between a particular religion and various disciplines of natural and behavioral sciences and as I said before, a faulty if not biased comparison of two acts with very different outcomes and motivations.

You havent dealt with what I said. I dont dispute the fact that homosexuality is nautral (insofar as 'nautral' can be said to be influenced by enviroment and genetics) but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a sin. Please read what I was saying again which is "Just because animals do X, does not mean that if we did X it would not be a sin"

Well homsexuality is not a sin, sodomy is and thats why it[being gay] is wrong.

There is another problem I have with the christian viewpoint on God and his creation of man, the bible and everything in it.

If he says homosexuality is wrong, what is his viewpoint on incest, because if it's wrong to have sex with a brother or sister how the hell did we ever get here?
Did adam and eve's offspring pro-create with each other?
Did Adam have to resort to impregnating his own children to kick off the human race?
Was this the beginning of sexual freedom encompasing homosexuality, bi-sexuality,hetero sex etc?


Just curious ;)

There is another problem I have with the christian viewpoint on God and his creation of man, the bible and everything in it.

If he says homosexuality is wrong, what is his viewpoint on incest, because if it's wrong to have sex with a brother or sister how the hell did we ever get here?
Did adam and eve's offspring pro-create with each other?
Did Adam have to resort to impregnating his own children to kick off the human race?
Was this the beginning of sexual freedom encompasing homosexuality, bi-sexuality,hetero sex etc?


Just curious ;)

That's easy. Cain found a woman who was created by the other gods. Since God personally made Adam and Eve, and noone else, and Cain found his wife(even though everyone he met would have killed him), and got busy with her long before Seth was born, and that was some time before their sisters were born, someione else had to have made her and everyone who would have killed Cain.

The Bible tells that, so don't try and say that it was one of their sisters, as all their sisters were born after Cain met his wife.

That's easy. Cain found a woman who was created by the other gods. Since God personally made Adam and Eve, and noone else, and Cain found his wife(even though everyone he met would have killed him), and got busy with her long before Seth was born, and that was some time before their sisters were born, someione else had to have made her and everyone who would have killed Cain.

The Bible tells that, so don't try and say that it was one of their sisters, as all their sisters were born after Cain met his wife.

Eh??? I always thought that the bible said there was only one God and that he created Adam and from Adams rib he created Eve, whats all this about other gods?

I am glad I don't believe all this bible stuff, it's too fantastic to be true!

from the simplest forms of life reproduction occurs between opposite sexes.
trough an act called sex. we r more advanced than dinosaurs and reptiles, so why should we act like we r not? plus two same-sex partners will never procreate. so ??? how is this natural?

Wow, I really am trying to work out how you could be more wrong?

Let's see.... ignoring parthenogenesis, because that only needs one gender.... ah, how about fungi?

"While we seem to have trouble with relationships between two sexes, mushrooms regularly juggle far more. In fact, only the most primitive fungi are two-gendered. On the other hand, the wood-rotting variety,
Schizophyllum commune, has more than 28,000 sexes. And it's not even the
sexiest."

http://www.webwalker.to/articles/fungus.txt

Try doing just a little basic research before you leap to these conclusions...

Grave and Idle, I have already covered this. Just because it is found in nature does not make it not a sin.

Grave and Idle, I have already covered this. Just because it is found in nature does not make it not a sin.
That's not what's being addressed. They're just proving it's not unnatural. That doesn't mean it's not a sin, true, but it's one less argument.

They walked and spoke to him in Eden. There was no reason for them to doubt who he was. It says God. If they can use the word "God" then they must understand it. Nowhere is there any sign of them saying "Who are you?" or anything like that so you can only assume they knew who they were talking to. Humans are by their nature intuitve so if they do not understand something they ask. If you hear a voice in the darkness talking to you, you talk back by asking "Who is that" or something to that effect.

They didn't use the name "god"... but, perhaps you would know, if you'd actually bothered to read the bible.

The Serpent refers to him as god, and Eve responds using that name, only AFTER she has heard it from the serpent.

So - she just used the name he said... that implies nothing about understanding... she was repeating.

As far as they knew, he was just that old grumpy fellow.

Its also not unnautral to kill members of your own species over food/a sexual partner/territory etc because Animals do this all the time.

Your a newb so I will let you off (this time) but the debate has already gone over this area and we have concluded that no one knows. Unlike you we have both cited sources and shown that we cannot be ceritan wehter or not people are born Gay

Whether or not we're born it isn't important really. The issue is whether it's a choice or not. And it definitely is not.

Its also not unnautral to kill members of your own species over food/a sexual partner/territory etc because Animals do this all the time.

Didn't listen to me did you.

They didn't use the name "god"... but, perhaps you would know, if you'd actually bothered to read the bible.

The Serpent refers to him as god, and Eve responds using that name, only AFTER she has heard it from the serpent.

So - she just used the name he said... that implies nothing about understanding... she was repeating.

As far as they knew, he was just that old grumpy fellow.

Again, you miss something. There is no evidence to support your idea of lack of understanding. Nowhere does it say "We do not understand" or "Who is that speeking to us". You havnt provided any positive proof of your claim. I on the other hand have, Genesis 3: 2-3 and Genesis 2: 17. You are making claims based on no positive evidence. Can you or can you not provide any positve evidence for your claim that Adam and Eve did not know who God was?

Homosexual attraction may or may not be a choice. I do not know. But homosexual sex is a sin no question....

Wrong.

There IS a question... that's kind of the whole point here.

And, at the moment, since the better analysis of the scripture lies in the pro-equality camp, the 'question' is leaning towards homosexuality NOT BEING a sin.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

And, at the moment, since the better analysis of the scripture lies in the pro-equality camp, the 'question' is leaning towards homosexuality NOT BEING a sin.


No, wrong. The "Homosexuallity is not a sin" side have yet to produce a positive endorcement of homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. And I have provided plenty of "Homosexuallity is a sin" quotes which whilst you have attempted to undermine, you have failed to do so.

Grave and Idle, I have already covered this. Just because it is found in nature does not make it not a sin.

Eyes closed... let me guess... comment based on nothing, responding to no apparent comment of mine....

Neo Cannen, right?

Blobites take on Neo Cannen - Tenatious, sincere and dogged.

Blobites take on Grave_n_idle - Patient, very patient.

No, wrong. The "Homosexuallity is not a sin" side have yet to produce a positive endorcement of homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. And I have provided plenty of "Homosexuallity is a sin" quotes which whilst you have attempted to undermine, you have failed to do so.

This is pathetic.

I have disproved EVERY SINGLE CLAIM you have made.

You have chosen verses refering to menstruation, idol-worship, slave-keeping and temple-prostitution, and have yet to provide ONE SINGLE piece of CONCLUSIVE condemnation that can stand up to scrutiny.

Show me ONE SINGLE quote that HASN'T been thoroughly refuted.

Blobites take on Neo Cannen - Tenatious, sincere and dogged.

Blobites take on Grave_n_idle - Patient, very patient.

:)

I agree... I think Neo Cannen is very sincere, and certainly tenacious.

Eyes closed... let me guess... comment based on nothing, responding to no apparent comment of mine....

Neo Cannen, right?

We have already covered that part of the debate earlier. I have explained that dispite it being in nature (animal homosexuality) it is not exonerated from being a sin. Animals will kill members of their own speicies over food/territiory/sexual parterns etc. Those are sins, are they not?

We have already covered that part of the debate earlier. I have explained that dispite it being in nature (animal homosexuality) it is not exonerated from being a sin. Animals will kill members of their own speicies over food/territiory/sexual parterns etc. Those are sins, are they not?

Not in the animal kindom they're not.

Again, you miss something. There is no evidence to support your idea of lack of understanding. Nowhere does it say "We do not understand" or "Who is that speeking to us". You havnt provided any positive proof of your claim. I on the other hand have, Genesis 3: 2-3 and Genesis 2: 17. You are making claims based on no positive evidence. Can you or can you not provide any positve evidence for your claim that Adam and Eve did not know who God was?

Okay - I am totally willing to back down on this point.

All you have to do is show me where the bible illustrates Eve having knowledge of the "majesty of god", or even an awareness of who he was.

She didn't even know his 'name' till the snake told her.

This is pathetic.

I have disproved EVERY SINGLE CLAIM you have made.

You have chosen verses refering to menstruation, idol-worship, slave-keeping and temple-prostitution, and have yet to provide ONE SINGLE piece of CONCLUSIVE condemnation that can stand up to scrutiny.

Show me ONE SINGLE quote that HASN'T been thoroughly refuted.

Romans 1: 18 - 27

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

And unless you were on the translation commites for the creation of the NIV or the NSRV, you cannot cry poor translation. These people spend several years pooring over the hebrew versions and come up with these translations. I doubt you are more of an expert than them.

We have already covered that part of the debate earlier. I have explained that dispite it being in nature (animal homosexuality) it is not exonerated from being a sin. Animals will kill members of their own speicies over food/territiory/sexual parterns etc. Those are sins, are they not?

And I mentioned this, how?

And, no, they are not sins. Animals do not feel constrained by the same moralities as their human compatriots.

Of course, if you are arguing humans don't do those things... you clearly haven't read your bible... since Joshua CLEARLY kills members of his own species over food, territory and sexual partners.

So - Joshua was sinning in the conquest of Canaan.

I beleive that this point came up because you (or another of your compatriots) implied homosexuality was 'unnatural' - and were roundly slapped-down with the simple evidence that "If it is in nature, it is natural".

Why is homosexuality a sin?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

I think that homosexuality is a sin in Christian doctrine for the same reason it is in other religions, power and the creation of scapegoats. By declaring homosexuality a sin, deciding who can marry, and banning sex prior to marriage, the Church gained control over the sexuality of its subjects. Using the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah the Church was able to use gays and fornicators, along with other things, as scapegoats for events that could be classified as the wrath of god.

I'm just ganna put in my 2 cents. While you people go on bickering about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, why not stop and consider that God told us to love our fellow man. Therefore, why is this even a discussion? Why do you care about the life choices of other people? It isn't hurting you any if these people are "sinning". If they are, they go to hell, and you won't have to worry about them in your stay in eternal paradise. On the other hand, if it turns out that they aren't sinning, then you were wrong, and you get to spend eternity with them. But it won't be that bad, they just like everyone else (except for in the bed room). In conclusion, Why can't we all just...get along?

ok people, to all of you people quoting the bible and such i have a question, how do we know that it is accurate? today we have a standard version, but 2000 years ago, when people, i think they were monks or priests or something(?), were recopying this thing down their whole life dont you think they could have changed a few things? Say, changed a word here or there to make the passage more interesting or more to their liking. Like one of them saying to themselves, "hmmm i think this word should be replaced by this word." And if i am correct, many drank something close to beer, as the water then was rarely disease free. The beer was much safer to drink from a certain process in beer making, not sure which. so basically what we had were a bunch of drunk priest/monks changing bits and pieces of the Bible around as they see fit. Then the next generation started rewriting the already slightly changed Bible and may have changed several things themselves and the cycle starts again And then someone came up with a standard version, likely using something most religious people agreed upon. So how would we know that the Bible is truly correct on matters such as these...unless we had the original.

please if i am wrong about this tell me, its just what i learned in a religion class a few years back, although i am not greatly religious myself

Garrett The Wise

Romans 1: 18 - 27

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

And unless you were on the translation commites for the creation of the NIV or the NSRV, you cannot cry poor translation. These people spend several years pooring over the hebrew versions and come up with these translations. I doubt you are more of an expert than them.

1) This is a proclamation against lust. Not homsexuality. Sure, in the english translation there seems to be mention of homsexuality ALSO, but the main thrust of the scripture here is against lustful attitudes... both heterosexual AND homosexual.

2) I can damn well cry poor translation. 'These people' of which you speak, were paid by a church body to come up with translation, and were bound by the 'approved' version of the translation. So, they were doubly bound to certain translational biases.

1)

2) I can damn well cry poor translation. 'These people' of which you speak, were paid by a church body to come up with translation, and were bound by the 'approved' version of the translation. So, they were doubly bound to certain translational biases.


Just imagine what would have happend if they came up with something that the church did not "approve" of yikes we all know the wrath of the church

ok people, to all of you people quoting the bible and such i have a question, how do we know that it is accurate? today we have a standard version, but 2000 years ago, when people, i think they were monks or priests or something(?), were recopying this thing down their whole life dont you think they could have changed a few things? Say, changed a word here or there to make the passage more interesting or more to their liking. Like one of them saying to themselves, "hmmm i think this word should be replaced by this word." And if i am correct, many drank something close to beer, as the water then was rarely disease free. The beer was much safer to drink from a certain process in beer making, not sure which. so basically what we had were a bunch of drunk priest/monks changing bits and pieces of the Bible around as they see fit. Then the next generation started rewriting the already slightly changed Bible and may have changed several things themselves and the cycle starts again And then someone came up with a standard version, likely using something most religious people agreed upon. So how would we know that the Bible is truly correct on matters such as these...unless we had the original.

please if i am wrong about this tell me, its just what i learned in a religion class a few years back, although i am not greatly religious myself

Garrett The Wise

And here we see Garrett earning the title of "the Wise", since he openly admits that he may have failings, and petitions those with more knowledge of the material to aid him in his learning.

Although, it seems like he has (or she has, must not leap to the gender conclusion) a fairly reasonable understanding, already.

2) I can damn well cry poor translation. 'These people' of which you speak, were paid by a church body to come up with translation, and were bound by the 'approved' version of the translation. So, they were doubly bound to certain translational biases.

No you cant because aside from your assumption, you have no proof of their bias. Translation is simpley the act of derviving meaning from one language to another, bias very rarely comes into it. Unless you have a quote from someone on the team somehow confirming the idea that they were biased in their translation then you cant claim poor translation.
.

1) This is a proclamation against lust. Not homsexuality. Sure, in the english translation there seems to be mention of homsexuality ALSO, but the main thrust of the scripture here is against lustful attitudes... both heterosexual AND homosexual.


It says "Indecent acts" and since lust is a thought, then it is talking about both sex and lust.

No you cant because aside from your assumption, you have no proof of their bias. Translation is simpley the act of derviving meaning from one language to another, bias very rarely comes into it. Unless you have a quote from someone on the team somehow confirming the idea that they were biased in their translation then you cant claim poor translation.


how about something as simple as job
http://www.bible-truth.org/KJVJob21-24.html


There are like 15 different translations out there ... no two match

And to use your arguement
unless you were on all the translation boards how do you know which one is true?

It says "Indecent acts" and since lust is a thought, then it is talking about both sex and lust.


Even so who says indecent acts = homosexuality ... which is what the quote was using to condem

No you cant because aside from your assumption, you have no proof of their bias. Translation is simpley the act of derviving meaning from one language to another, bias very rarely comes into it. Unless you have a quote from someone on the team somehow confirming the idea that they were biased in their translation then you cant claim poor translation.

One must assume, that you have very little understanding of how translation works.

If translation were purely a matter of deriving meaning from one language into another, then YOU must admit that my translations of biblical verses are absolutely correct - since I have dropped back to the original language, discovered the possible meanings of the words, and directly translated the text, word for word, before you.

If, on the other hand, you argue that my literal translations are not correct, you are arguing that bias IS a factor, since you imply that there is MORE to translation than just the words.

Pick a route, Neo Cannen:

Translation: is it:
a) Free from bias - and, therefore a direct process, or
b) Biased - and, therefore, open to different interpretation.

Even so who says indecent acts = homosexuality ... which is what the quote was using to condem

"Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion"

is where I was getting the extract from

or you could learn hebrew and greek and rely on noone but the archaeologists

No you cant because aside from your assumption, you have no proof of their bias. Translation is simpley the act of derviving meaning from one language to another, bias very rarely comes into it. Unless you have a quote from someone on the team somehow confirming the idea that they were biased in their translation then you cant claim poor translation.
.


Just a quick example for you:

" Quite recently, too, a group of manuscripts, which (so far as they were known at all) had been regarded as belonging to the Wyclifite Bible, has been shown by Miss Anna C. Paues [A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version (Cambridge, 1902)] to contain an independent translation of the New Testament. It is not complete, the Gospels being represented only by Matthew 1:1 to 6:8, and the Apocalypse being altogether omitted. The original nucleus seems, indeed, to have consisted of the four larger Catholic Epistles and the Epistles of St. Paul, to which were subsequently added 2 and 3 John, Jude, Acts, and Matthew 1:1-6:8. Four manuscripts of this version are at present known, the oldest being one at Selwyn College, Cambridge, which was written about 1400. The prologue narrates that the translation was made at the request of a monk and a nun by their superior, who defers to their earnest desire, although, as he says, it is at the risk of his life. This phrase seems to show that the work was produced after the rise of the great party controversy which is associated with the name of Wyclif."

It quite clearly states, in this passage, that an 'independent' translation was at the 'risk of his life'... and this translation is one that largely followed the accepted translations of the time.

http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/wycle.htm

In fact, let's look at how Wycliffe translated Leviticus 18:22, shall we?

"Leviticus Cap. 18:22 Thou schalt not be medlid with a man bi letcherie of womman, for it is abhomynacioun".

Show me how Wycliffes version of this verse condemns homosexuality?

Grave_n_idle is correct about translations. A direct translation from Ancient Hebrew or Latin into english would be extremely difficult to understand. In certain cases it would be impossible to even translate, as there are no enlgish analouges to some words.

One must assume, that you have very little understanding of how translation works.

If translation were purely a matter of deriving meaning from one language into another, then YOU must admit that my translations of biblical verses are absolutely correct - since I have dropped back to the original language, discovered the possible meanings of the words, and directly translated the text, word for word, before you.


I do not listen to your interpretation for the following reason. You are not one of those who translated the Bible. You were not on that commitie. And more to the point do you know who was? Dr. Virginia Mollenkott an open homosexual. If she is on the commite and the version has been shown to be opposed to homosexuals then I think your arguement has just folded.

One must assume, that you have very little understanding of how translation works.

If translation were purely a matter of deriving meaning from one language into another, then YOU must admit that my translations of biblical verses are absolutely correct - since I have dropped back to the original language, discovered the possible meanings of the words, and directly translated the text, word for word, before you.

If, on the other hand, you argue that my literal translations are not correct, you are arguing that bias IS a factor, since you imply that there is MORE to translation than just the words.

Pick a route, Neo Cannen:

Translation: is it:
a) Free from bias - and, therefore a direct process, or
b) Biased - and, therefore, open to different interpretation.

No he doesn’t … because as with a lot of Christianity the bible to them is both the absolute truth … free from bias … free from interpretation errors … when they want it to be

When the claims are contradictory or unsavory they choose to THEN believe it was either an error … or a miss interpretation of what god meant

Lol and look at the Old Testament … not only is there direct translation errors … but the hundreds of years it spend as oral traditions (how anyone can believe creation … probably the oldest of these stories can be anything approximating reality by now)

Ya cant have both ways … it cant be correct only in instances that you want it (and even in the act of using a quote you are applying bias to it)

And here we see Garrett earning the title of "the Wise", since he openly admits that he may have failings, and petitions those with more knowledge of the material to aid him in his learning.

Although, it seems like he has (or she has, must not leap to the gender conclusion) a fairly reasonable understanding, already.

i have done nothing to earn this "title" of "Wise" as it is, in fact, not a title at all, but a name, the very one i inherited at birth, i just enjoy the sound of "the" going along with it, but, quite simply put im much smarter than most people my age, as im only in high school, and i've seen what true idiots are, and its not pretty. But me being for gay marriage and equality and being for the democrats in the last US election, i have to be smarter than most, because where i live (southern USA) im a minority.

but i believe that religion should not play a part in the question of the legalization of gay marriage, mainly for seperation of Church and State.

And on Gayness being a sin, i dont see why it is, becuase as i've heard applied to other subjects, "thats just the way god made me", and if thats true and God is condeming them for it i could see god as a maniacle entity, for other reasons like giving us one foot, arm, eye (yes its true that one eye is dominant), hand that works better than the other, making girls these days dress in tiny miniskirts and tight shirts even though the weather is 40 degrees F just to mess with men, making its so when we're on the john taking a #2 if we take a breath its go back in, giving us a fear of small 8 legged things that could be killed with a boot, or making some people incredibly stupid compared to others(pleaase dont try to compare this with me).

i have nothing against God myself and im not gay, now if anyone would like to yell at me for being some sort of liberal, satan worshiping, bible burner, now would be the time

garrett the wise

"Leviticus Cap. 18:22 Thou schalt not be medlid with a man bi letcherie of womman, for it is abhomynacioun".

Show me how Wycliffes version of this verse condemns homosexuality?

Since the laws of the Old testement were talking to men we can see that it basicly says "Thou shalt not be lied with a man as by lechery of a women for it is an abomination". Lecherey means lust or something of that order. So you can see how it comes to "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a women for it is an abomination"

I do not listen to your interpretation for the following reason. You are not one of those who translated the Bible. You were not on that commitie. And more to the point do you know who was? Dr. Virginia Mollenkott an open homosexual. If she is on the commite and the version has been shown to be opposed to homosexuals then I think your arguement has just folded.

By that same token you are not equipped to know if they are not bias

Grave_n_idle is correct about translations. A direct translation from Ancient Hebrew or Latin into english would be extremely difficult to understand. In certain cases it would be impossible to even translate, as there are no enlgish analouges to some words.

I have done direct translations for Neo Cannen... and have even translated them into 'acceptable' english for him/her - and Neo refuses to accept them (somehow), and yet STILL argues that translation is not about bias.

Absolutely true about the analogues, also - some words can be transalted hundreds of different ways, and other english translations either totally ignore words in the hebrew, or add meanings where no specific word is located.

Since the laws of the Old testement were talking to men we can see that it basicly says "Thou shalt not be lied with a man as by lechery of a women for it is an abomination". Lecherey means lust or something of that order. So you can see how it comes to "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a women for it is an abomination"

It doesn't say 'thou shalt not lie' though, does it...

It says a man shall not be meddled with as by the letchery of a woman.

If anything, Wycliffe translates it as, roughly, "Men should resist the seductive charms of women".

It seems that homosexual marriage and Christianity seemed to be inexplicably linked in the minds of many people here. You can get 'married' or officially blessed in lots of other religions, and not all of them have decided that homosexuality is an affront to their God/Gods. The World is a big place, not everyone is a Christian, and they certainly don't all share the same good and bad values that go with it.

You havent dealt with what I said. I dont dispute the fact that homosexuality is nautral (insofar as 'nautral' can be said to be influenced by enviroment and genetics) but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a sin. Please read what I was saying again which is "Just because animals do X, does not mean that if we did X it would not be a sin"

You don't understand that to apply Christian morals in such a grandiose fashion to nature is somewhat arrogant and may I ask why you compare it to homicidal behavior yet this behavior hasn't prompted you to a 2 week long spiel? Is it not a Christian belief that homosexuality is unnatural but your arguement relies on that at it is natural to draw a faulty and somewhat offensive comparison in a connotative sense to suit your own ends.


I never did say what exists in nature is inherently good nor bad. It's neither, and our human morals which vary from culture to culture, aka religion, determine that and the document you cite as proof homsexuality "is a sin" is clearly a cultrural construct both evident by the history of the bible and its various translations but also in the manner in which certain relevant terms were translated and are understood.

It doesn't say 'thou shalt not lie' though, does it...

It says a man shall not be meddled with as by the letchery of a woman.

If anything, Wycliffe translates it as, roughly, "Men should resist the seductive charms of women".

Lol its funny how he can argue a group of people do not have translation error but manage to error in himself (and even if it is your error STILL there was a mis-understanding ) and one can not be sure which is correct

Error while arguing against error

Irony

I have done direct translations for Neo Cannen... and have even translated them into 'acceptable' english for him/her - and Neo refuses to accept them (somehow), and yet STILL argues that translation is not about bias.

Absolutely true about the analogues, also - some words can be transalted hundreds of different ways, and other english translations either totally ignore words in the hebrew, or add meanings where no specific word is located.

Translation may or may not be about bias but so far, you have yet to prove that any bias existed. You have no quotes or anything from the team on the NIV translation, nor any way of proving they were/were not biased. Your direct translations I doubt had several years worth of study and several representive from various countries behind them. And you still have yet to say about Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, an open homosexual on the commitie. She was there and yet it is still stating that homosexuality is a sin in the Romans extract and everywhere else I have stated.

Translation may or may not be about bias but so far, you have yet to prove that any bias existed. You have no quotes or anything from the team on the NIV translation, nor any way of proving they were/were not biased. Your direct translations I doubt had several years worth of study and several representive from various countries behind them. And you still have yet to say about Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, an open homosexual on the commitie. She was there and yet it is still stating that homosexuality is a sin in the Romans extract and everywhere else I have stated.
What about not bias but simple error? Moving a word or as they have to do a lot of times guessing the meaning based in context?

A single word changed can mean all the difference in a meaning

Is it not a Christian belief that homosexuality is unnatural


I never said homosexuality was unautral. I did say that it was a sin and the fact that it is found in nature does not exonerate it from being a sin. Just because something is "nautral" doesnt mean it is not a sin.

I do not listen to your interpretation for the following reason. You are not one of those who translated the Bible. You were not on that commitie. And more to the point do you know who was? Dr. Virginia Mollenkott an open homosexual. If she is on the commite and the version has been shown to be opposed to homosexuals then I think your arguement has just folded.

You are only talking about one translation committee here... why are we not referring to the cause of most of these problems, the KJV translation - which set in place so many of the accepted translational errors?

Dr. Virginia Mollenkott may be an open homosexual, but I doubt she was one of King James' hired scholars.

Spikes Rat bar in Chicago has a theme; "No hairy arses on the bar". I have a theme to; "Only one hairy arse in bed." Sex between men and or animals was considered dirty. For those who study not just the bible but ancient texts can piece this puzzle together easily and clearly. From bathing to what we should eat is clearly there. We were meant to procreate, to expand our race and knowledge. Boy butter on buns is dirty and just dont cut it.....

I never said homosexuality was unautral. I did say that it was a sin and the fact that it is found in nature does not exonerate it from being a sin. Just because something is "nautral" doesnt mean it is not a sin.


Now that is true … based on your morality.

Though hard to believe god would create something that is a sin in nature (specially among its creations that do not have the intelligence to know it is a sin) for some reason get a Job impression in that view on life (everything a test) dunno

What about not bias but simple error? Moving a word or as they have to do a lot of times guessing the meaning based in context?

A single word changed can mean all the difference in a meaning

While error is possible, the fact that the translation took place over several years and under the eye of several representive from many other nations and had a large staff, the chance of error is minimised. However there is a chance, I will not dispute that, but I doubt that there would have been sevearl errors of the same type throught the various passages condeming homosexuality, espically with an open homosexual in the translation commitie.

You are only talking about one translation committee here... why are we not referring to the cause of most of these problems, the KJV translation - which set in place so many of the accepted translational errors?

Dr. Virginia Mollenkott may be an open homosexual, but I doubt she was one of King James' hired scholars.

Ohhh she could have been :P LOL

Though hard to believe god would create something that is a sin in nature (specially among its creations that do not have the intelligence to know it is a sin)

I am not saying the animals are sining by having homosexual sex. I am saying that just because it is nautral (nautral meaning in this case found in nature meaning animals do it) does not mean it is not a sin when transmitted to human scenerio.

While error is possible, the fact that the translation took place over several years and under the eye of several representive from many other nations and had a large staff, the chance of error is minimised. However there is a chance, I will not dispute that, but I doubt that there would have been sevearl errors of the same type throught the various passages condeming homosexuality, espically with an open homosexual in the translation commitie.

There might have been … once they decided it meant something in the context wouldn’t they carry through with that overall general feeling?
I mean they couldn’t decide it meant one thing and a sentence later decide it meant something else … in that case it wouldn’t make ANY overall sense

Uhhh, you are logically contradicting the belief it is a sin by deeming it a natural beahvior. Christian 'scientists' generally regard homosexuality in the animal kingdom as myth to avoid this logical trap.

Dr. Virginia Mollenkott may be an open homosexual, but I doubt she was one of King James' hired scholars.

She wasnt, she was one of the NIV translators.

I am not saying the animals are sining by having homosexual sex. I am saying that just because it is nautral (nautral meaning in this case found in nature meaning animals do it) does not mean it is not a sin when transmitted to human scenerio.
Lol again reminds me of Job … testing putting humanity in a situation where it is alright for everything else but not for them

Just doesn’t flow for me

But that’s me

Sometimes I think if there is a god he would be up there laughing his ass of at the shambles we have made at trying to understand him and all the horrible mistakes we keep reliving.

Humanity must be silly from the outside (hell even when I think about it ... it seems silly)

Translation may or may not be about bias but so far, you have yet to prove that any bias existed. You have no quotes or anything from the team on the NIV translation, nor any way of proving they were/were not biased. Your direct translations I doubt had several years worth of study and several representive from various countries behind them. And you still have yet to say about Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, an open homosexual on the commitie. She was there and yet it is still stating that homosexuality is a sin in the Romans extract and everywhere else I have stated.

Actually, my translations DO have years of study behind them, and HAVE been discussed with representatives of many nations (not least, on this forum), but also with relatives of Jewish extraction, an expert on Hebrew, several authorities on Ugarit and Mesopotamian language groups.

I have shown you a verse from Wycliffe, which is quite clearly different in the KJV translation (which set the 'accepted' standard) and all of the clones that have followed it.

Why doesn't the American christian 'church', or the Anglican church embrace the Expanded Bible, which has more translational information in it than any other commercially available bible? Simple reason - not all of the Expanded Bible text matches with 'accepted' translation - so, the organised churches refuse to accept it.

Your NIV translation commitee is nowhere near as important as you seem to think. It is a pamphlet - an attempt to make a text (which most people lack enough linguistic sophistication to comprehend) into a more consumer-friendly unit-shifter.

Uhhh, you are logically contradicting the belief it is a sin by deeming it a natural beahvior. Christian 'scientists' generally regard homosexuality in the animal kingdom as myth to avoid this logical trap.

They try … far to many male dogs humping other male dogs to ignore it for long lol

While error is possible, the fact that the translation took place over several years and under the eye of several representive from many other nations and had a large staff, the chance of error is minimised. However there is a chance, I will not dispute that, but I doubt that there would have been sevearl errors of the same type throught the various passages condeming homosexuality, espically with an open homosexual in the translation commitie.
How about a conspiracy theory, just to make things more confusing? Suppose that nobody on the staff liked Dr. Mollenkott. They know she's gay, so to mess with her brain they tell her that the they've translated the Bible as saying homosexuality is a sin. Of course, she knows this kind of stuff, too, so they have to be careful and point out words that in context make sense as condemning homosexuality. They only mean it as a joke, but then their supervisors come in wanting a status report, and they have to go with it. Thus, the translation lists homosexuality as being a sin.

Actually, my translations DO have years of study behind them, and HAVE been discussed with representatives of many nations (not least, on this forum), but also with relatives of Jewish extraction, an expert on Hebrew, several authorities on Ugarit and Mesopotamian language groups.

I have shown you a verse from Wycliffe, which is quite clearly different in the KJV translation (which set the 'accepted' standard) and all of the clones that have followed it.

Why doesn't the American christian 'church', or the Anglican church embrace the Expanded Bible, which has more translational information in it than any other commercially available bible? Simple reason - not all of the Expanded Bible text matches with 'accepted' translation - so, the organised churches refuse to accept it.

Your NIV translation commitee is nowhere near as important as you seem to think. It is a pamphlet - an attempt to make a text (which most people lack enough linguistic sophistication to comprehend) into a more consumer-friendly unit-shifter.

So the NIV is the McDonalds of bibles


got it :D

Uhhh, you are logically contradicting the belief it is a sin.

I am not saying "All nautral things are sins" or anything like that. I will just line out point by point what I am saying here

1) Homosexuality can be said to be nautral if you define nautral by being found in nature and you define nature by animal behavior. Animals are homosexuals therefore homosexuality is nautral.

2) However animals also kill each other (same species) over food/sexual partners/territory etc.

Now since the idea of killing is definitely a sin, we can see that some animal behavior when applied to human is a sin. Therefore you cannot say that just because it is nautral it is not a sin. I am not saying "All animal behavior when applied to humans is a sin" I am simply dispelling the idea that just because it is nautral it is therefore somehow exonerated as being a sin.

How about a conspiracy theory, just to make things more confusing? Suppose that nobody on the staff liked Dr. Mollenkott. They know she's gay, so to mess with her brain they tell her that the they've translated the Bible as saying homosexuality is a sin. Of course, she knows this kind of stuff, too, so they have to be careful and point out words that in context make sense as condemning homosexuality. They only mean it as a joke, but then their supervisors come in wanting a status report, and they have to go with it. Thus, the translation lists homosexuality as being a sin.
More likely then error free translation :P

I am not saying "All nautral things are sins" or anything like that. I will just line out point by point what I am saying here

1) Homosexuality can be said to be nautral if you define nautral by being found in nature and you define nature by animal behavior. Animals are homosexuals therefore homosexuality is nautral.

2) However animals also kill each other (same species) over food/sexual partners/territory etc.

Now since the idea of killing is definitely a sin, we can see that some animal behavior when applied to human is a sin. Therefore you cannot say that just because it is nautral it is not a sin. I am not saying "All animal behavior when applied to humans is a sin" I am simply dispelling the idea that just because it is nautral it is therefore somehow exonerated as being a sin.

Good point … don’t know why more religious people don’t use this argument (not being a smartass you actually are making some sense here) lol

How about a conspiracy theory, just to make things more confusing? Suppose that nobody on the staff liked Dr. Mollenkott. They know she's gay, so to mess with her brain they tell her that the they've translated the Bible as saying homosexuality is a sin. Of course, she knows this kind of stuff, too, so they have to be careful and point out words that in context make sense as condemning homosexuality. They only mean it as a joke, but then their supervisors come in wanting a status report, and they have to go with it. Thus, the translation lists homosexuality as being a sin.

Unlikely at best. And if you are serious you would have to somehow provide proof for that. In any case, I was being serious. Dr. Virginia Mollenkott was on the commite and she was a open homosexual. How do people reconsile that with the idea that the Bible is biased. If anything it would be biased in favour of the homosexuals.

Unlikely at best. And if you are serious you would have to somehow provide proof for that. In any case, I was being serious. Dr. Virginia Mollenkott was on the commite and she was a open homosexual. How do people reconsile that with the idea that the Bible is biased. If anything it would be biased in favour of the homosexuals.
One thing you should learn is that Conspiracy Theorists are always serious, but never have proof.
Point two: Dr. Mollenkott is a woman. The Bible never says anything about lesbians. Coincidence?

Good point … don’t know why more religious people don’t use this argument (not being a smartass you actually are making some sense here) lol

Thank you. I appreciate it when people see what I am saying to be sensable and dont just dismiss it off hand.

Now that is true … based on your morality.

Though hard to believe god would create something that is a sin in nature (specially among its creations that do not have the intelligence to know it is a sin) for some reason get a Job impression in that view on life (everything a test) dunno

this guy may have a point, maybe its not whether your gay or not but how you deal with being gay (Ex: discrimination against you). and maybe if a gay does live there life well, maybe they have something better in store for them somwhere along the line, later in life or afterlife.(though its controversial what is considered "well" but for the sake of this im going to say treating others fairly and tolerantly, not being quick to anger and physical violence, standing up for those being bullied and those less fortunate in some ways,(not like "they dont have religion in their life", more of a simple necessity way ex: shelter) and ect). And maybe they really wont go to heaven, but somwhere better. And as for choosing someone for something like this, maybe God takes puts a person that already lived there life well in one life, and gives them a second test...

ponder that one... :rolleyes:
garrett the wise

So the NIV is the McDonalds of bibles


got it :D


I was thinking more along the lines of the Britney Bible... :)

Unlikely at best. And if you are serious you would have to somehow provide proof for that. In any case, I was being serious. Dr. Virginia Mollenkott was on the commite and she was a open homosexual. How do people reconsile that with the idea that the Bible is biased. If anything it would be biased in favour of the homosexuals.

How can someone argue that conspiracy is unlikely, and then argue that men are made of dust?

This situation doesn't require conspiracy.

It requires a majority.

There are a couple of hundred years now of 'accepted' translation to argue against... even homosexuals who lack greater insight will accept the version they are told. Even if Mollenkott HAD suggested a different interpretation for a verse, the COMMITTEE decided what to accept. She would have been simply outvoted.

Like I say, though... the NIV...? Not even worth arguing about, surely?

Now since the idea of killing is definitely a sin...

Just a quick off-topic point.

People kill with every breath, every meal, regardless if their food is flora or fauna. There is a difference between killing and murder. I think "Thou shalt not kill," to be a mistranslation from an original "Thou shalt not murder."

I asked a question earlier in the thread that no one answered, it may or may not be related to this thread and the origonal question (is homosexuality a sin) but I would still like to hear anyones thoughts on it.

The question was (well the gist of it was);

If God created Adam, and from Adam (his rib) he created Eve, and they then "sinned" by having sex and eve gave birth, wouldn't, at some time in the future, their offspring be involved in incest?
Or would Adam have impregnated his own offspring to populate the earth?

(Being an Athiest, with scant knowledge of the bible, save what they taught me at bible class when I went to church as a youth, I ask you not to shout me down about being ignorant of the bible, I am just asking a question out of curiosity)

Just a quick off-topic point.

People kill with every breath, every meal, regardless if their food is flora or fauna. There is a difference between killing and murder. I think "Thou shalt not kill," to be a mistranslation from an original "Thou shalt not murder."

Quite true. The actual bible verse prohibiting 'killing' (Exodus 20:13), is only one word in Hebrew, that word being "Ratsach" - meaning a murder, premeditated killing or slaying... the chief implication being 'a murder'.

I asked a question earlier in the thread that no one answered, it may or may not be related to this thread and the origonal question (is homosexuality a sin) but I would still like to hear anyones thoughts on it.

The question was (well the gist of it was);

If God created Adam, and from Adam (his rib) he created Eve, and they then "sinned" by having sex and eve gave birth, wouldn't, at some time in the future, their offspring be involved in incest?
Or would Adam have impregnated his own offspring to populate the earth?

(Being an Athiest, with scant knowledge of the bible, save what they taught me at bible class when I went to church as a youth, I ask you not to shout me down about being ignorant of the bible, I am just asking a question out of curiosity)
First: Adam and Eve did not sin by having sex. Even the most fundamentalist Christians will agree with that.
Second: The Bible only tells of Eve giving birth to Cain and Abel (I just looked to make sure). As best I can explain it, God must have created other people when he kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden.

I asked a question earlier in the thread that no one answered, it may or may not be related to this thread and the origonal question (is homosexuality a sin) but I would still like to hear anyones thoughts on it.

The question was (well the gist of it was);

If God created Adam, and from Adam (his rib) he created Eve, and they then "sinned" by having sex and eve gave birth, wouldn't, at some time in the future, their offspring be involved in incest?
Or would Adam have impregnated his own offspring to populate the earth?

(Being an Athiest, with scant knowledge of the bible, save what they taught me at bible class when I went to church as a youth, I ask you not to shout me down about being ignorant of the bible, I am just asking a question out of curiosity)

This all becomes clearer in the Hebrew version of Genesis 1 - since the earth is clearly described as being created by several forces (Elohim). While YHWH created the Hebrews, it seems obvious that some of these other 'elohim' created other peoples. YHWH made Adam and Eve, who had three sons (one of whom died) who went forth and coupled with the offspring of the other 'elohim' creations.

It is only once translated to English (which lacks the overt gendering and plurality of Hebrew) that the matter of how many gods there were, or how many creation acts becomes confused.

First: Adam and Eve did not sin by having sex. Even the most fundamentalist Christians will agree with that.
Second: The Bible only tells of Eve giving birth to Cain and Abel (I just looked to make sure). As best I can explain it, God must have created other people when he kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden.

Thank you.

This all becomes clearer in the Hebrew version of Genesis 1 - since the earth is clearly described as being created by several forces (Elohim). While YHWH created the Hebrews, it seems obvious that some of these other 'elohim' created other peoples. YHWH made Adam and Eve, who had three sons (one of whom died) who went forth and coupled with the offspring of the other 'elohim' creations.

It is only once translated to English (which lacks the overt gendering and plurality of Hebrew) that the matter of how many gods there were, or how many creation acts becomes confused.
Whoops, I forgot about Seth. Of course, it says that Cain laid with his wife before Seth is mentioned, so I guess it still works... although your way works better, methinks.